HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application-Engineering Reportt
I
I
I tIIGIIVT *:*"RrPon
cr?y oF Ga
For r,'e
rrn. E^nvooD
sPRAPParcATrrr,, - -'t vYUoD
sPR
REroc,{l*"FoRs
apprrca-.o ffi#.
"Jni?rHffi.?,ffi#ppRoyo.
FoRcE laanvmanao?rye
p."pu."
:;,:l,,fi},{fu"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I WI February
2009
9
t2
24
24
28
29
31
52
57
ll
lr
lr
Ir
ll
t
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PART I - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SITE APPLICATION COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST
APPLICATION FOR SITE LOCATION APPROVAL
22.4(t)(B)(i) SERVTCE AREA DEFrNrrroN
SITE LOCATION
STAGING OR PHASING
WASTEWATER FLOW/LOADING PROJECTIONS
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
WASTEWATER ORGANIC LOADING PROJECTIONS
22.4(t)(B)(ii) srTE LOCATTON SELECTTON
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES
EVALUATION OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION OF DISINFECTION ALTERNATryES
EVALUATION OF BIOSOLID MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
22.4(t)(B)(rrr) PRELTMTNARY EFFLUENT LTMTTS
22. 4 (t)(B)(iv) ANALY S IS oF Exr S TrNG FACTLTTTE S
22.4 (l)(B)(v) ANALYSIS oF oppoRTtrNrrrEs FoR coNSoLrDATroN
22.4(r) (B)(vi) FLOODPLAIN/HAZARD ANALYSTS
PAGE
6
7
l5
16
l8
l9
t9
20
2l
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENTwoRKS 23
26
58
2
58
58
ll
lr
lr
lr
t
I
I
FLOODPLAIN
NATURAL HAZARDS
22.4(r) (B)(vii) soll-s REpoRT srATrNG srrE wrLL suppoRT THEFACILITY
22.4(t) (B)(viii) DETAILED DESCRIPTTON oF SELECTED ALTERNATTVE
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
DISINFECTION
AEROBIC DIGESTION
BIOSOLIDS DEWATERING
ODOR CONTROL
ADDITIONAL FACILITIES
22.4(1) (B) (ix) LEGAL coNTRoL oF THE srrE FoR THE PROJECT LrFE
22.4(L) (B) (x) INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
22.4(1) (B) (xi) MANAGEMENT CApABrLrrrES
22.4(1) (B) (xii) FINANCIAL SYSTEM
22.4(r) (B) (xiii) IMPLEMENTATTON PLANS AND SCHEDULE
22,4(I) (C) NOTICE OF INTENT TO CROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY
22.4(2) (A) REVIEW COMMENTS BY MANMAGEMENT AGENCY
22.4(2) (B) REVTEW COMMENTS By THE COrrNTy
22.4(2) (C) REVTEW COMMENTS By THE CrTy oR ToWN
22.4(2) (D) REVIEW COMMENTS BT THE LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
22,4(2) (E) REVIEW COMMENTS BY THE WATER QUALITY PLANNINGAGENCY
59
60
60
62
65
66
67
69
7l
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
94
95
96
98
99
lr
lr
lrI
I
22.4(3) STATE OR FEDERAL REVTEW COMMENTS
22.4(3) A PICTURE OF THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION SIGN
PART II - LIFT STATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPLICATION FOR SITE LOCATION APPROVAL
LIFT STATION CHECK LIST
LIFT STATION NARRATIVE
PART III _ FORCE MAIN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WASTEWATER FORCE MAIN PIPELINE SIZING
WASTEWATER FORCE MAIN TRENCH AND PIPELINE MATERIALCONSIDERATION
FORCE MAIN CLEANING AND AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VAULTS
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A _ WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1- I MileRadiusMap
EXHIBIT 2 - 5 Mile Radius Map
EXHIBIT 3 - Glenwood Service Area MapEXHIBIT4-SiteMap
EXHIBIT 5 - Wetland and Sensitive Species ReportE,HIBIT 6 -Letter from u.S. Fish & wildlife derviceE,HIBIT 7 -Letter from colorado Division orwitatreEXHIBIT 8 - Flood Insurance Rate Map
EXHIBIT 9 - Salinity Study
EXHIBIT 10 - Debris Flow & Rockfall Hazards SrudyEXHIBIT 11 - Lift Station Location MapEXHIBIT 12 -Force Main Routes
EXHIBIT 13 - Existing Facilities
EXHIBIT t4 - Geotechnical (Soils) Study
83
84
85
86
87
90
92
-
4
19
2I
60
61
61
62
63
63
64
65
65
66
68
69
ll
IT
!r
IT
lr
T
T
I
EXHIBIT 15 - Warranty Deed
EXHIBIT 16 - Temporary Access and construction Easements RFTA (2)
EXHIBIT 17 - BLM Rightof-Way Grants (3)
EXHIBIT 1g - Utility Easement
EXHIBIT 19 - City Staffing
EXHIBIT 20 - Financial Information
EXHIBIT 21 - Sign posting
EXHIBIT 22 - WWTF Site plan
APPENDIX B _ LIFT STATION EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 23 -Lift Station plan
EXHIBIT 24 - Flood lnsurance Rate plan
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - Summary of Estimated Ultimate population Equivalence
TABLE 2 - Influent flow and Loading Summary for Glenwood and
West Glenwood Springs
TABLE 3 - Influent Metering System preriminary Design criteria
TABLE 4 - Screening Equipment preriminary Design c.it..iu
TABLE 5 - Grit Removal preliminary Design Criteria
TABLE 6 - Oxidation Ditch preliminary Design Criteria
TABLE 7 - oxidation Ditch Blowers preliminary Design criteria
TABLE 8 - oxidation Ditch Aeration Diffuser preliminary Design
Criteria
TABLE 9 - secondary clarifier preliminary Design criteria
TABLE 10 - RAS/WAS pumps Design Criteria
TABLE 11 - ultraviolet Disinfection system Design criteria
TABLE 12 - Aerobic Digester Design b.it"riu
TABLE 13 - Centrifuge preliminary Design Criteria
TABLE 14 - Cake Conveyance Design Criteria
TABLE 15 - Head works Air Ionization odor control system
Preliminary Design Criteria 70TABLE 16 - Solids Processing Area Bio Filter preliminary DesignCriteria 70TABLE 17 - 100.5.2 Domestic wastewater Treatment Facility
Classification Table 74
5
PART I
CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRNGS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
II
lr
Ir
ltt
;l
I 6
lr
lr
Ir
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The city of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, (city) is submitting a Site Application forconstruction of the Glenwood springs Regional-wastewater TreatmeniFacility (wwTF).This report follows the outline and guidelines of the R"gulution 22 Guidance Document.
The City currently_ owns and operates a WWTF located on the east bank of the RoaringFork River, a few hundred feet above the confluence with the colorado River. This siteis located in close proximity to downtown businesses, retail and other commercialestablishments' This facility utilizes a Rotating Biological Contactor system constructedin 1978 and 1919' Most of the structures and equipmirt ut the facility are over 30 yearsold, and approaching the end of their expected tir". rn" current permitted capacity of thewwTF is 2'3 MGD and 4'320lbs. BoDs/day. Effluent is permitted to discharge into theRoaring Fork River.
The West Glenwood Sanitation District_(WGSD) operates a wastewater treatment plantlocated on the north bank of the Colorado River,'approximatety 0.4 mile west of theInterstate 70 Exit 114 interchange. The current p".mitt"d capacity of this facility is 0.375MGD and 625lbs' BoDs/day' Results of a zooi site visit indicated that "qrif*"rt at thisfacility is also more than 20 years old, and in need of replacement. In 2005,the WGSDbegan construction to upgrade and expand the wwTr to u treatment capacity of 0.6MGD' A condition of approval for this expansion was that no further expansion wouldbe allowed.
Stantec Consulting prepared the February 2o06 201 wastewater Facility plan. Theobjective of this effort was to begin the process of planning for a regionat *urt"*ut",treatment facility to serve the city of Glenwood springs regional area, including the westGlenwood Sanitation District. The Plan included un
"Ivi.o.rmental assessment, as wellas analyses of future population, hydraulic flow and organic loading projections for thenew planning area.
Projections for population, flow and organic loading included 2}-yearplanning horizonand build out conditions based on the current regional planning and zoning for theplanning area' The ultimate population within t[e City's current limit consisted of thencurrent permanent population and additional population growth in the vacant areas. Theultimate population also included the area within ttre wdsp. The ultimate pofulationwithin the 20l Planning Area but outside the city's ""o.ni limit were p.oj"it"i based oncurrent zoning, zoningdensity and acreage for each zone. The total city ptpulationequivalence was projected tobe 24,310, while that within the plannin g areabut outsidethe city limit was projected to be 8,148. The total population equivalence for theplanning area was projected tobe32,45g.I3r:a ; th" year 2}Iomaximum monthlyflows at the city wwTF and WGSD wwrF, the year 2000 population estimates forpeople outside the city limits and the year 2},}opopulation in ttre city limits, anestimated flow rate of 120 gpd/PE was establisnea.'Multiplying the total pE for theplanning area times the estimated flow rate per PE resulted in a total estimated ultimateflow of 3.9 MGD.
7
t
I
I
t
i
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
The 201 wastewater Facility Plan reviewed three basic alternatives:
No Action
Upgrade of the existing City WWTF and WGSD WWTF
Construction of one regional WWTF on City-owned property (Cardinell Site)
Preliminary effluent limits (PELs) have been obtained from the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment. tncluded is an incremental increase limitation on
salinity which may be difficult to meet.
Five WWTF alternatives were evaluated in the 201 Plan, with the recommended
alternative being a Regional facility using activated sludge and anaerobic digestion
("Alternative C"). Further evaluation by the SGM/RTW team resulted in a December
2007 report which indicated that the most cost effective means to achieve the treatment
goals for the plant would be an extended aeration activated sludge system utilizing
oxidation ditches with aerobic digestion of solids. Biosolids will continue to be land
applied on three certified disposal sites per the 503 regulations. A new Biosolids storage
facility will be designed and constructed on City owned property in the South Canyon
Area to provide non-season storage of Biosolids generated from the new WWTF.
The existing Glenwood Springs facility will close when the new WWTF at the Cardinell
site comes on line in 201LExpansion capacity is available (Phase III) when WGSD
chooses to close.
Multiple options were also reviewed for routing the interceptor sewer to the proposed
Regional WWTF. The proposed altemative would involve construction of a lift station at
the current WWTF site, and routing dual 16-inch PVC force mains from the lift station,
crossing the Roaring Fork River under the 8th Street Bridge, then following Midland
Avenue to the vicinity of the Municipal Operations Center (MOC). From there it would
cross City-owned property and a small piece of public land managed by the federal
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), to the Cardinell property. Access to the new
WWTF would follow the same route from the vicinity of the MOC to the new site.
Rights-of-way for the access road, interceptor, and additional infrastructure have been
acquired from the BLM. An easement from RFTA is currently pending, and the WWTF
site and access road will have to be annexed into the City by the time this report is
submitted to Garfield County and CDPHE.
A geotechnical study of the site was performed by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Their findings indicate that development in the study area where slopes are less than20
to 25o/o should be feasible. Separate studies performed by Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.,
indicate that there are no wetland or sensitive species issues related to development of the
proposed facilities at the Cardinell site. Flood insurance studies indicate that the site is
not within the 100 year floodplain of the Colorado River.
8
9
I
I
t
T
T
T
t
I
il
t
I
t
t
t
t
t
I
I
I
SITE APPLICATION COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST
Construction of New Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plants
Name of Project: Glenwood Springs Regional wastewater Treatment plant
Applicant Name and Address: City of Glenwood Springs
Consultant Name and Address: SGM
Type of Project: New Wastewater Treatment Plant
Section Elements Addressed on
Submittal Page
(Applicant)
Complete
@ivision)
22.4(1)Application submitted on proper form with
recommended action by all applicable local authorities
and planning agencies
Front Section
22.4(1)(b)Adequate engineering report describing the proposed
new domestic wastewater treatment plant and showing
the applicants capabilities to manage and operate the
facility over the life of the project. The engineering
report shall address at a minimum items i through xiii
below.
Pages 1-102
22.4(1)(b)(r)Service area definition including existing and projected
population, site location, staging or phasing,
flodloading projections, and relationship to other water
and wastewater treatment plants in the area
Pg 15
22.4(t)(b)(i1)Proposed site location, evaluation of altemative sites,
and evaluation of treatment alternatives
Pg 16,24,26
22.4(t)(b)(tii)Proposed effluent limitations as developed in
coordination with the Division
Pg 31
22.a(l)(b)(iv)Analysis of existing facilities within service area(s)Po 5?
22.a1)@)(v)Analysis of opportunities for consolidation of treatment
works in accordance with the provisions of 22.3(l)(c),
including those recommended in the water quality
management plan, unless the approved water quality
management plan recommends no consolidation.
Pg 51
22.a(1)(b)(vi)Evidence that the proposed site and facility operations
will not be adversely effected by floodplain or other
natural hazards. Where such hazards are identified at
the selected site, the report shall describe means of
mitigating thehazard.
Pg 58
22.aQ)@)(vii)Evidence shall be presented in the form ofa report,
containing soils testing results and design
recommendations and prepared by a Professional
Geologist and a Geotechnical Engineer, or by a
professional meeting the qualifications of both
Professional Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer, with
an appropriate level of experience investieatine
Pg 59
tl
il
t
t
n
il
il
it
fi
I
L
I
ll
I
T
it
:t
I
I
geologic hazards, stating that the rtFrtt srpp*t tt*
proposed facility.
22.4Q)@)(viii)Detailed description of selected altematives including
legal description of the site, treatment system
description, design capacities, and operational staffing
needs.
Pg60-71,74,16
22.4(1)(b)(tx)Legal arrangements showing control of the site for the
project life or showing the ability of the entity to
acquire the site and use it for the project life.
Pg72
22.aQ)S)g)Institutional arrangements such as contract and/or
covenant terms which will be finalized to pay for
acceptable waste treatment.
Pg73
22.4Q)@)(xi)Management capabilities for controlling the wastewater
loadings within the capacity limitations of the proposed
treatment works, i.e., user contracts, operating
agreements, pretreatment requirements and/or the
management capabilities to expand the facilities as
needed (subject to the appropriate, future review and
approval procedures).
Pg74
22.aQ)$)(xi|)Financial system which has been developed to provide
for necessary capital and continued operation,
maintenance, and replacement through the life of the
project. This would include, for example, anticipated
fee and rate structure.
Pg75
22.a(lXbXxiii)Implementation plan and schedule including estimated
construction time and estimated start-up date.
Pg76
22.40)@)Yhere the site application indicates that a discharge to a
ditch or other manmade conveyance structure is
contemplated for the proposed plant, or that an
easement, right-of-way or other access onto or across
private properfy ofanother person may be necessary to
construct the facility or to effectuate the discharge, the
applicant shall furnish to the Division evidence that a
notice of the intent to construct a new domestic
wastewater treatment plant has been provided to the
owner of such private properfy.
Pg77
22.aQ)@)Review comments on the site application and associated
engjneering reports by the management agency, if
different from other entities listed below
Pg78
22.4(2)(b)Review comments on the site application and associated
engineering reports by the county ifthe proposed
facility is located in the unincorporated irei of acounty.
The county, through its commissioners or its designee,
is requested to review and comment upon the
relationship of the treatment works to the local long_
range comprehensive plan for the area as it affects water
quality, proposed site location alternatives including the
location with respect to the flood plain, and capacity to
Pg79
10
I
rl
T
I
It
{I
iI
It
fi
,t
I
!I
II
It
it
t
it
I
I 11
serve the planned development.
22.aQ)@)Review comments on the site application and associated
engineering reports by the city or town if the proposed
facility is to be located within the boundaries of a city or
town or within three miles of those boundaries if the
facility is to be located in an unincorporated area ofthe
county. The city or town, through its mayor, council or
its designee, is requested to review and comment upon
the relationship of the treatment works to the local
comprehensive plan and/or utility plan for the
community as it affects water quality, proposed site
location altematives including the location with respect
to the flood plain, and capacity to serye the planned
development.
Pg 80
22.4(2)(d)Review comments on the site application and associated
engineering reports by the local health authority is
requested to review and comment on local issues,
policies and/or regulations related to public health
safety and welfare as affected by the proposal.
Pg 81
22.aQ)@)Review comments on the site application and associated
engineering reports by the water quality planning
agency, if designated or if such function has been
delegated by the State, with regard to the consistency of
the proposed treatment plant to the water quality
management plan
Pg 82
22.4(3)If the proposed facility will be on or adjacent to any
land owned or managed by a state or federal agency, a
copy ofthis application shall be sent to such agency.
Their review comments should be included with the site
application.
Pg 83
22.4(6)A picture of the public notification sign.See Appendix A
Exhibit 2l
lI
I
II
i
II
It
{t
i
(t
I
i
{I
i
t
t
Iil
rI
Iil
I
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
(303) 692-3s74
APPLICATION FOR SITE LOCATION APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
NEW DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORIG
(Section 22.4. Rezulation No. 22)
Applicant: Citvof GlenwoodSprinss Phone: 970-348-6413
Address: l0l West8d St
City, State, Zip: Glenwood Sprines CO 81601
Email Address msmcdill@ci. elenwood-sprines.co.us
Primary Contact (for project inquiries): Mike McDill Phone: 970-384-6413
Consulting Engineer: SGM Phone: 970-945-1004
Address: I 18 West 66 St Ste200
City, State, Zip: Glenwood Sprines CO 81601
Email Address chadp@sqm-inc.com
A. Summary of information regarding new site application:
1. Proposed Location (Legal Description): Lot9 %,
-
ll4, Section 6
Township 6 South Range: 89 West County: Garfield
Lat. 39 33'33. N Long. l0'7 22' ll.W for Wastewater Treatment Works
2. Type and capacity of treatment facility proposed: Major Processes Used Bioloeical Nutrient Removal utilizins Extended
Aeration Activated Sludee( Oxidation Ditch) Preliminarv treatment consisting of fme effluent screenins(l/4 inch bar
spacine). vortex erit chamber. sritpump and erit washer. Secondarv clarification with I-fV Disinfection follows the
biolosical process. BioSolids will be aerobically stabilized and dewatered by centrifuse.
Hydraulic 2.34 }lGD (maximum monthly average)PeakFlow 5.85 MGD
Organic 5464 lbs. BOD5/day Present PE: 12541 Design PE: 32458
o/o Domestic: 100 % Industrial click here and twe
3. Location of Facility:
Attach a map of the area, which includes the following:
(a) S-mile radius: all sewage treatment plants, lift stations, and domestic water supply intakes.
(b) l-mile radius: habitable buildings, location of public and private potable water wells, and an approximate
WQCD-3a (Revised 6/06) Page 1 of 4
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
t
I
I
t
t
I
4. Effluent disposal: Surface discharge to watercourse (name) Colorado fuver
Subsurface disposal: N/A Land Application: N/A Evaporation: N/A
Other (list): N/A
5. Preliminary Effluent Limitations received on: Jan 0l 2008 (PEL 200250) (date)
6. Will a State or Federal granVloan be sought to finance any portion of this project? Yes
7 . Present zoning of site area? Zoning pending annexation
Zoningwithin a l-mile radius of site? Cl & 3. HP. IVU7.5. R2. R3 and R/l/20. I/L. V2 and residential and commercial
PUD
8. What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water supply intake? 7
Name of Supply: Town ofNew Castle
Address of Supply: 450 W Main St New Castle CO 81647
What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest other point of diversion? 7 Miles
Name of User: Town of New Castle
Address of User: 450 W Main ST New Castle CO 81647
9. Estimated project cost: !8Iv[
Who is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility? Citv of Glenwood Sprines
10. Is the facility in a 100-year flood plain or other natural hazard area? Yes
If so, what precautions are being taken? Rockl[all & Debris flow hazards are beine mitisated in ascordance with the
Geotechnical Eneineers recommendations ( See Exhibit l0 )
Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources or
other agency? Yes, FEMA
(Agency Name)
If so, what is that designation? Zone D
l l. please identify any additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed decision on
your application for site location approval. See Executive Summary
(Attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary)
12. Public Notification procedures complied on Jan 2009 (date)
WQCD-3a (Revised 6/06) Page2 of 4
t
I
i
I
i
I
T
I
t
i
i
I
i
I
I
I
t
I
I
B.If the facilify will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a federal or state agency, send
the agency a copy of this application for the agency's review and recommendation.
Recommendation of governmental authorities :
The application shall be forwarded to the plaruring agency of the city, town, or county in whose jurisdiction(s) the
treatrnent facility is to be located. The applicant shall obtain, from the appropriate planning agency (agencies), a
statement(s) of consistency of the proposal with the local comprehensive plan(s) as they relate to water quality (subject to
the provisions of 22.3(6).
The application shall be forwarded to the water quality planning agency (agencies) for the area in which the facilities are
to be constructed and for the area to be served by those facilities. The applicant shall obtain, from the appropriate
planning agency (agencies), a statement(s) of consistency of the proposal with any adopted water quality management
plan(s).
If you have any further comments or questions, please call (303) 692-3574.
C.
I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the 66Site Location and Design Approval Regulations for Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Works", and have posted the site in accordance with the regulations. An engineering report, as
described by the regulations, has been prepared and is enclosed.
Date 2120109 Mike G. McDill City Eneineer
Typed Name
*The applicant must sign this form. The Consulting Engineer cannot sign this form.
Date
Recommend
Approval
Recommend
Disapproval Comment
Signature of
Representative Typed Name
Management Agency
2.
County
3.
City or Town (lf site is located within 3 miles of the boundaries of City or Town )
4.
Local Health Authority
5.
208 Planning Agency
6.
WQCD-3a (Revised 6/06)Page 3 of4
Other State or Federal Agencies
1.
(If facility would be located adjacent any land owned or managed by state or federal agency)
WQCD-3a (Revised 6/06)Page 4 of 4
I
I
i
i
tI
i
I
I
I
t
I
i
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
II
il
iT
I
ll
t
t
t
t
T
t
t
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
22.4(lXbXi) Service Area Definition
The Service Area for the proposed Glenwood Springs Regional Wastewater Treatment
Facility is identified on Exhibit 3. This is the same area as that identified as the Planning
Area in the 201 Plan. Exhibit 3 is attached to the discharge permit for the current City
WWTF. In general, the Area is bounded on the east byNo Name, on the west by
Mitchell Creek, and on the north by the City limit. The Area extends south along
Highway 82 to Spring Ridge development.
Delineation of this area was based on discussions with the City of Glenwood Springs,
Garfield County, and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, taking
into consideration local political and economic issues, feasibility, existing wastewater
treatment facilities in the vicinity, zoning, protection of water quality, public health, and
reflection of local and regional long term planning guidelines.
The City of Glenwood Springs and the West Glenwood Sanitation District service areas
are encompassed completely by the new Service Area. Other communities within the
Area include No Name, Black Diamond area, Four Mile Creek area Highway 82
Corridor, Spring Ridge area, lower part of Three Mile Creek, Carter Jackson property,
Jammaron property, Prehm Ranch, Bershenyi Ranch, El Rocko Mobile Home Park,
Sunlight View, Zilm property, and Chelyn Acres. The Sunlight View and El Rocko
Mobile Home Park are each currently served by a packaged wastewater treatment plant.
15
t
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
T
t
I
Site Location
The City of Glenwood Springs has chosen the "Cardinell Ranch" site as the most viable
site for the new Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (see Exhibit 4). This site is
located south of the Colorado River, on property purchased by the City in 1997, tnlot9
of section 6, Township 6 South, Range 89 West, Sixth Principal Meridian (approximate
latitude and longitude: 39o 33' 33'N; 107' 22' 17- w). This is a vacant parcel that
marks the westem edge of developable property in West Glenwood.
This is an upland site on a moderately sloping debris fan, approximately 30 feet above the
channel of the Colorado River. According to information available from the NRCS, there
are no prime farmlands on the project area, nor are there hydric soils (a wetlands
indicator) or areas with any frequency of flooding. The Wetland and Sensitive Species
Report prepared for the City by Cedar Creek Associates for the 201 Wastewater Facility
Plan (Appendix 2C to the 201 Plan) indicates that there are no wetlands on the project, no
suitable habitat for any listed threatened or endangered species of plant, and no known
critical habitat features supporting threatened or endangered species of animal. This
factor notwithstanding, the general vicinity is known to be a bald eagle wintering area,
and the Colorado River is known to support populations of four federally listed fish
species: the Colorado Pikeminnow, Razorback Sucker, Humpback Chub and Boneytail.
Surveys by Cedar Creek indicated that there are no nests or potential roosts in close
proximity to the project area (Exhibit 5). Critical habitat designation for the listed fish
species ends downstream of the project area, in Rifle, and these species are not known to
inhabit the river upstream from there. The Colorado Division of Witdlife and the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service have reviewed the proposed project and concurred that
these species would not be affected by it (see Exhibits 6 and,7).
The confluence of Mitchell Creek with the Colorado River is located immediately
upstream from the proposed site of the Regional WWTF. This confluence is the limit of
available flood insurance studies (see Exhibit 8). Approximation using the flood
insurance data indicates that the 100 year flood level of the River at the Cardinell Ranch
Site (elevation 5700 to 5720 feet) would be approximately 5694.4 feet. The 1975
Facilities Plan estimated a 100 year flood elevation of approxim ately 5687 feet at the
eastern end of the property. A 1996 survey of the property by High Country Engineering
indicates that while the portion of the property lying north of the Union Pacific Railroad
would lie within the 100 year floodplain, the land lying south of the railroad, which runs
atop a 10 to 15 foot high embankment, would not lie in the 100 year floodplain(ZoneD).
The Cardinell Homestead was patented to Herbert E. Cardnell in 1932. Adjacent private
lands were all patented in the 1890s. A "Historic and Cultural Resources" report was
prepared for the City by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants (see Appendix 2D to the
201 Facility Plan). The Cardinell Homestead is identified in that report as a known
historic site that is not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic places.
No previously unrecorded sites were identified. Three additional recorded sites that are
eligible for inclusion on the National Register are known to be within or adjacent to the
t6
it
ll
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
project area. However, those portions of the site located in the project area are
recommended as non-contributing to the sites' overall eligibility, and the project would
not affect them.
The Cardinell property is located on a moderately sloping debris fan at the base of steep
canyon sides that rise to the south. These canyon sides have unstable slopes which are
crossed by tributary channels that may contain accumulations of debris. A debris flow
and rockfallhazard study of the property was performed by Hepworth-Pawleck
Geotechnical (Exhibit 10). While the risk of debris flow and rockfall exist at the site, the
report provides recommendations for measures that can adequately mitigate this risk.
These generally include protecting structures with barriers/berms.
A new lift station will be constructed at the site of the current Glenwood Springs WWTF
(see Exhibit 11). Effluent would be "collected" at the existing site and delivered to the
new Regional WWTF via new force mains.
Dual 16-inch PVC Force Mains will run from the new lift station at the current WWTF to
the new Regional facility. They would cross the Roaring Fork River under the Sth Street
Bridge, then run along the south side of Midland Avenue to the vicinity of the MOC.
They would then run cross country to the Cardinell Site underneath the access road (see
Exhibit l2).
t7
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
!r
lrI
lrll
I
I
I
Staging or Phasing
construction of the Regional wwTF would be completed in three phases.
Phase I will involve building and commencing use of the new regional facility, which
would result in an average daily influent wastewater flow of t.litvtCOl Mai MonthlyFlow:2.34MGD). In this phase, the project will consist of a headwork s preliminary
treatment, including one mechanical bar screen with screenings washer/compactor, one
manual bar screen for use when the mechanical screen is being bypassed, onl vortex grit
basin and grit washer and dewatering equipment followea by extlnded aeration activated
sludge treatment through two oxidation ditches, two secondary clarifiers, and ultraviolet
disinfection facilities. The solids handling facilities will include four aerobic digester
cells for solids stabilization and two high-solids centrifuges (one new and one eiisting
unit that will be moved from the existing wwTF). Two high-solids centrifuges will be
relocated in a solids processing building to dewater aerobicilly digested biosilids. the
Class B dewatered cake will be hauled to a dewatered biosolids aii-drying/storage facility
located adjacent to the South Canyon Landfill and land-applied to ugri"riL.ul sites three
to four times ayeff during the growing season.
In Phase II new facilities will be added to increase the average daily influent wastewater
flow capacity to 2.90 MGD, and a maximum month flow of 3.48 MGD. planned phase II
facilities include one oxidation ditch & one secondary clarifier, with UV disinfection &
equipment added to an existing second channel constructed in phase 1.
WGSD has agreed to consolidate wastewater treatment with the City when their 0.6MGD facility reaches capacity, since their site approval from CDPHE will not allow
further expansion beyond that limit. They are projected to corurect to the new regional
facility in202l, at which time their plant would be expected to be at or near treatment
capacity' Phase III improvements will expand the WWTF to accommodate West
Glenwood's flow by the construction of the fourth Oxidation Ditch, the fourth Clarifier &
additional UV disinfection equipment. The Headwork's constructed for phase 1 will be
large enough for the ultimate build out flows.
The UV disinfection facilities will also be sized & constructed in phase I to
accommodate the ultimate flow. Equipment will be installed commensurate with each
phase requirements.
The proposal for Phase I calls for two identical treatment trains with a combined
treatment capacity of 1.95 MGD (0.975 MGD each). Phase II & m will consist of the
addition of two more identical treatment trains for a total combined average daily
capacity of 3.9 MGD, which represents the ultimate build-out flow for the-regional
planning area.
18
I
I
I
I
I
t
il
Wastewater Flow/Loading Proi ections
Projections for population, flow and organic loading include 2}-year planning horizon
and build-out conditions based on current regional planning and zoning for the planning
area (see Chapter 4 of the 201 Wastewater Facility plan).
Population Projections
The ultimate population within the City's current limit consists of current permanent
population and additional population growth in currently vacant areas. This ultimate
population includes the area within the WGSD. Ovemight tourists and traveler
population and day workers from outside the City's limit were not estimated since flow
contributions from these people will be accounted for by commercial, institutional and
industrial (CII) users. Population equivalence (PE) was used in the projection to account
for commercial tourists (hotels, etc.), and institutional and industrial users. The PE to
residential population ratio was 1.25, which was based on the year 2000 maximum
monthly wastewater flow to residential flow. Table i-1 shows a sunmary of estimated
ultimate population equivalence projections for the 201 Planning Area (this information
is taken from Table 4.1 in the 201Wastewater Facility Plan; see also Tables 4.2, 4.3 and
4.4).
Table 1 S f Esti ed UI
I
t
t
I
t
t
I
iT
I
I
il
I
e I Summary o tmated Ultrmate ion Equivalence
Area Description Estimated Area Size
(Acres)2000 Population EQ Ultimate Population
EQ
In City Limits
Existine N/A 703751 70,375
In-Fill and
Undeveloped N/A 0 B%52
SUB-TOTAL 10,37s 24,310
Unincorporated Areas
Black Diamond 160 0 1s8
Sprinpridee Devlp 811 45 450
Lazy A Diamond 100 10 20
Zilm Property 35 0 0
Chelyn Acres 250 i05 175
Sunlight View 11s tt2 280
Bershenyi Ranch 300 15 574
Red Feather 160 20 500
Prehm Ranch 120 0 30
Jammeron Propert.320 7 420
Carter Jackson 320 7 25
Red Canyon Area s0 20 270
El Rocko MHP 50 375 37s
North of El Rocko 15 0 102
No Name Area 120 105 i05
t9
il
il
ll
il
I
I
I
I
I
It
I
tt
I
I
I
il
Based on existing population estimated to be 8,300 at the time of the study, times 1.25;
see Table 4.1 of the 201 Plan.2Based on 3,981 total Equivalent residential Units (EQR) times 3.5 people per EQR; see
Table 4.3 of the 201 Plan.
As summarized in Table 1 above, the estimated PE projection within the City limit is
24,310, and for the unincorporated areas 8148. The total estimated ultimate projection
for the 201 Planning Areas is, then, 32,458.
Wastewater FIow Projections
Wastewater flow consists of the residential contribution and CII user contribution..
Using the estimated ultimate PE projection data in Table 1, the summary calculation for
developing the ultimate design flow projection is as follows:
Estimated Ultimate Population Equivalence Projections for the Glenwood Springs
201 Planning Area:
PE within the 201 Planning Area, Outside City Limit:
PE within City Limit :
Infill Growth within City Limit:
Total PE,201 Planning Area:
8,148
70,315
13,935
32,458
Year 2000 Maximum Monthly Flows, City WWTF and WGSD WWTF:
CityWWTF:
WGSD WWTF:
Total:
1.074 MGD (June 2000)
0.326 MGD (August 2000)
1.400 MGD
Estimated Ultimate Flow Projection:
Year 2000 Population (i.e. people) Within City Limit:
Estimated People Connected to WWTF Outside City Limit:
Total (people) :
8,300
1,050
T
I
I 20
Zanella Propertv 7t 30 249
North of WG Mall 75 1050 1700
Mitchell Cr Basin 65 25 455
W. of WGSD limit 160 40 1120
Area in Sec. 16 15 10 210
Area in Sec. 2l 1s0 20 35
Three Mile Basin 291 90 300
West Bank Area 400 20 595
SUBTOTAL 4153 2t66 8148
TOTAL 7313 72,541 32,458
9,350
t
,l
T
t
I
it
t
I
t
t
t
L
il
I
I
I
tl
rl
I
Population to PE Conversion: 1.25 X 9350 : 1 1,700 PE
Existing Flow per PE: 1.4 MGD / 11,700 PE: 120 gpdlPE
Estimated Ultimate Flow Projection: 120 gpdlPEX32,458PE: 3.89 MGD
TOTAL ESTIMATED ULTIMATE FLOW: 3.9 MGD
Recent, historic monthly average daily wastewater flows & (strengths) are shown in
Table 2 for years 2000, 2006 thru 2008.
Wastewater Organic Loading Projections
Recent trends regarding BOD5 concentrations indicate a gradual increase in strength due
to I&I repairs of the respective collection systems and the incorporation of low-flow
fixfures in new and existing construction. Table 2 illustrates the flow and loadings
reported on the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) from Glenwood Springs and West
Glenwood Sanitation District for the year 2000 and 2006 through 2008.
Influent BOD5 concentrations average 274.2 mglL for the 2006 to 2008 period. The
SGM/TetraTech-RTW design team has determined that based upon statistical analysis of
the historic DMR data that the design value for BODs should be 280 mdL. Therefore,
for Phase I the influent BODs loading is 5464 pounds. For the ultimate plant the
BODsloading becomes 1 0,930 pounds.
Table 2 Influent Flow and Loading Summary for Glenwood and West Glenwood Springs
DMR FLOW AND LOADINGS
2000
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AVE
0.8196
0.9078
0.9587
0.9107
1.011
1.0743
1.07 16
1.0648
0.9973
0.98
0.894
0.8981
0.97
255
22',7.5
239.5
232.5
241.1
220.6
236.9
2t4.4
220.1
230.6
238.2
223.9
231.7
2000
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AVE
0.243
0.231
0.233
0.273
0.242
0.269
0.276
0.326
0.275
0.25
0.224
0.24
0.26
437
295
437
512
401
543
403
435
442
440
437
444
435.5
GLENWOOD SPRINGS ONLY WEST GLENWOOD ONLY
DATE AVE FLOW
(MGD)
INFLUENT
BOD TSS
DATE AVE FLOW
(MGD)
INFLTIENT
BOD 7SS
2l
t
I
il
I
iI
il
rl
il
I
il
il
t
rl
II
il
I
I
t
I
2006
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AVE
2001
Jan
Feb
Mar
Ap.
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AVE
2008
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AVE
AVE
0.9523
0.9s64
0.9767
0.962
0.9958
1.0623
1.067
1.0987
1.0357
r.0403
0.9277
0.9635
1.00
0.9745
0.9968
1.0313
1.004
1.0565
l. l 903
1.249
1.2155
1.185
1.t329
1.0553
1.0852
1.10
1.087
1.038
1.125
1.079
1.103
1.233
1.t73
1.165
1.145
r.102
1.065
1.055
1.r I
1.07
266
266
252
290
273
236
246
249
248
291
276
325
268.2
219
282
288
311
263
263
2s0
278
244
262
271
350
218.4
323
282
266
272
274
229
298
273
265
279
291
260
276.0
274.2
271
213
344
317
365
429
331
291
344
339
290
310
325.3
331
308
321
299
312
318
359
306
286
26r
29s
328
3 10.3
280
294
258
279
335
347
320
255
269
294
288
341
296.7
310.8
2006
Jart
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AVE
2007
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AVE
2008
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AVE
0.307
0.281
0.252
0.292
0.3
0.358
0.33
0.335
0.303
0.288
0.215
0.299
0.30
0.301
0.299
0.299
0.303
0.308
0.329
0.362
0.347
0.308
0.249
0.3t4
0.263
0.31
0.270
0.277
0.287
0.231
0.2'78
0.292
0.357
0.332
0.305
0.264
0.229
0.229
0.27
0.27925
238 tt7
268 t71
209 208
236 189
230 139
177 I 10
172 158
188 146
217 tt7
139 153
226 162
219 155
209.9 152.1
240 150
230 161
114 16l
202 140
184 197
178 209
lsr 95
140 r79
189 148
204 152
231 177
225 157
19s.7 160.5
163 r29
210 146
233 205
256 22s
249 227
172 100
194 158
186 32
254 343
259 118
296 2r8
286 121
222.1 186.4
229.7 5 1s0.333
22
I
I
it
il
iI
il
II
I
I
Relationship to Other Water and Wastewater Treatment
Works
There are currently four wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF) within the Service Area
and20l Planning Area. These facilities are shown on Exhibit 13 and include: (1) the
current City of Glenwood Springs WWTF, (2) the current West Glenwood Sanitation
District WWTF, (3) the El Rocko Mobile Home Park WWTF located four miles south of
Glenwood Springs along the Roaring Fork River, off Highway 82, and (4) the Sunlight
View WWTF located in the Four Mile Basin. Effluent liom the City WWTF is
discharged to the Roaring Fork River, while effluent from the West Glenwood facility is
discharged to the Colorado River. The latter two facilities are packaged systems. The El
Rocko WWTF is a 10,000 gallons/day extended aeration system serving a mobile home
development. Effluent is discharged to the Roaring Fork River. The Sunlight View
WWTF is a 25,000 gallon per day extended aeration system serving the Sunlight View
development. Effluent is discharged to Four Mile Creek, a tributary of the Roaring Fork
River.
The Glenwood Hot Springs Lodge and Pool, Inc., owns and operates a three-pool facility
(main swimming pool, therapy pool, and children's pool) up river from the proposed site
for the Glenwood Springs Regional WWTF. Excess rarv spring water, treated water
discharge from the pool(s), and storm water drainage are permitted by the CDPHE for
discharge to the Colorado River.
All effluent from existing facilities, ultimately finds its'way to the Colorado River. This
would not change under the proposal to establish a new regional facility at the Cardinell
location. Analyses by the Colorado Department of Pub.tic Health and Environment
indicate that the assimilative capacities of the Colorado River are very large.
It has been reported that there are 135 OWTS (Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems)
within the City limits.
The City has relied on surface water supplies derived fr,cm No Name Creek and Gnzzly
Creek. These sources are upstream/drainage from the confluence of the Colorado and
Roaring Fork Rivers, the discharge point for the WGSDTWWTF, and the proposed
discharge point for the Regional WWTF. The nearest potable water supply downstream
from the proposed discharge point is located in New Castle, Colorado, approximately 7
miles downstream. Due to the dilution ratio of the Colorado River to the effluent flows,
adverse downstream impacts related to normal WWTF effluent flows have not been
reported and are not anticipated.
I
I
I
il
I
il
it
t
t
I 23
I
I
I
it
{t
I
I
I
{l
II
I
L
I
I
!l
il
rt
I
I
22.4fi)(b)(ii) Site Location Selection
A total of three sites were reviewed through the development of the 201 Wastewater
Facility Plan: the site of the existing Glenwood Springs WWTF, the site of the existing
West Glenwood Sanitation District WWTF, and the proposed Cardinell Site. These sites
are shown on Exhibit 4.
Bvaluation of Alternative Sites
Existing Sites
Glenwood Springs WWTF
The site for the existing Glenwood Springs WWTF is near the confluence of the Roaring
Fork River with the Colorado River. It is located adjacent to downtown businesses, retail
and other commercial establishments. The City master development plan envisions
relocation of the WWTF to make room for uses that are more compatible with growth of
the downtown area. The City facilities are 30 years old, and in need of improvements
and expansion to meet future needs. However, given the proximity of other adjacent
uses, potential for physical expansion of the existing WWTF site is severely limited.
West Glenwood Sanitation District (WGSD) WWTF
The site for the existing WGSD WWTF is located approximately 0.4 mile west of the
West Glenwood Exit from Interstate 70. It is on a thin strip of land between the Interstate
and the Colorado River. It, too, is 30 years old and in a location where potential for
physical expansion is extremely limited. The recent expansion will enable the WGSD to
meet their needs untrl202l.
Proposed Site
The Cardinell Site is located south of the Colorado River, and west of the intersection of
Midland Avenue and Devereux Road. It is the only site reviewed for a new regional
facility. The City acquired the land in 1997 for the future siting of such a facility. It is on
one of the few vacant, developable parcels of land remaining in the general Glenwood
Springs area. Development to the east is restricted by Glenwood Canyon. Development
to the west of the site is similarly restricted by the nalrow canyon of the Colorado River.
Residential and commercial developments to the south make the development of a
WWTF very unlikely.
The site is moderately sloping towards the north. It is bounded on the north by the
elevated Union Pacific Railroad grade.
There are currently no roads to the site. Access would require construction of a new
road. One potential route would leave Midland Avenue near the MOC, then run west,
across lands owned by the City, RFTA, and public lands managed by the Bureau of Land
24
t
I
il
il
iI
rl
{I
ti
tt
IT
il
il
II
I
it
it
I
'l
I
Management (BLM). The only altemative route would be from the north, and would
require construction of a new crossing over the Colorado River, as well as a crossing of
the elevated railroad grade. The former access route requires only an easement form
RFTA, and a riglrt-of-way from the BLM. Both have been acquired by the City.
Criteria for Site Selection
The following criteria were used in evaluation of the sites:
Environmental Impacts
Potential Nuisance Complaints
Compatibility with Existing Planning
Consolidation of Services
Reliability
Ability to Expand Capacity
Ability to Incorporate Future Advanced Systems
Ability to Provide Access to Equipment for Maintenance and Repair
Compatibility with Phased Construction
Access
Maintenance of Long Distance Sludge and Biosolids Pumping Facilities
Due to the remote nature of the proposed site, the impacts to surrounding land uses and
potential nuisance complaints would be minimized at the Cardinell property.
Compatibility with land use planning would be greater at the Cardinell site.
With all other criteria, size and the limited capability to expand at the existing sites,
versus capabilities to expand at the Cardinell site, led to the selection of the Cardinell
property. The City already owns the property, and it is the only altemative that would
allow for the development of a regional facility that can meet the long term needs of the
community.
25
,l
,l
il
,[
t
lu
ln
ln
ln
ln
h
ln
ln
ln
ln
ln
lr
t:
Evaluation of Treatment Alternatives
Section 5.2.1 of the February 2006 2Ol Wastewater Facility Plan contains an evaluation
of treatment process alternatives. This analysis was supplemented by the December 2007
report prepared by RTW, in association with SGM.
The following basic biological wastewater treatment technologies were initially analyzed
in the 201 Plan for potential use in the regional WWTF:
Conventional Activated Sludge
The conventional activated sludge process is the most commonly used secondary
wastewater treatment process in the United States, for medium to large sized installations.
The relatively short solids retention time (5 to 8 days) and hydraulic retention time (4 to 8
hours) allow for smaller aeration basins, which may reduce the overall footprint of the
plant. High quality effluent can be reliably achieved to meet secondary treatment
standards. The process can be designed to facilitate future expansion or modification for
nutrient removal. However, in colder climates, the shorter solids retention time may not
be conducive to reliable nitrification.
Extended Aeration Activated Sludge
The extended aeration activated sludge process is a low rate activated sludge system
which utilizes retention times in excess of 18 hours, rather than the shorter times found in
conventional activated sludge systems. Oxidation ditches are a variation of this process
and are widely used in small to medium sized communities. Unlike most conventional
activated sludge systems, extended aeration systems do not use primary clarification.
The process produces less bio solids, and is forgiving of loading variations. However,
the process may result in greater energy consumption and may have a larger foot print to
accommodate larger tank sizes.
Trickling Filters, Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC) and Biological Aerated
Filter (BAF) Systems
These are fixed growth systems which rely on the growth of biological slime on fixed
media (e.g. rocks or plastic discs). Many of these systems lack process flexibility, do not
denitriff, andlor may present aesthetic problems. They may, however, have smaller
footprints and greater energy efficiency.
The following criteria were used in the 201 Plan in analyzing each of the potential
technologies:
Capital cost
Annual O&M expense
Reliable treatment performance
Flexible process control
26
I
t
I
'il
il
t
iI
il
{l
{l
L
I
I
I
!I
it
il
.T
I
Sensitivity to low ambient temperature
Odor potential
Operator familiarity with the process
Operational complexity
Degree to which limitations may be imposed on bio solids management options
Proven technology with multiple installations
Maximization of existing facilities
Compatibility with small site
Based on this review, the recommendation in the Draft 201 plan was to utilize a
conventional activated sludge process. However, the recommendation in the December
2007 RTW report was to utilize an extended aeration activated sludge system, due to the
uncertainty of operating a conventional activated sludge system to reliably nitrifii,
especially during colder months.
Under the current permit for the City's WWTF, discharges to the Roaring Fork River do
not have an ammonia limit. While the new Regional WWTF would not be expected to
have such a limit, imposition of ammonia limit in the future would be anticipated. Based
on this, review of a system that can effectively meet such limitations is warranted. An
extended aeration system, with longer solids and hydraulic retention times, can meet
future needs for ammonia removal. RTW's analysis also indicates that extended aeration
is competitive from a capital cost and annual operating cost point of view.
The RTW analysis compared four extended aeration systems with conventional activated
sludge systems. The four technologies included oxidation ditch (with vertical drum
mixers), vertical loop reactor systems (Siemens), Aero-Mod extended air package system
(Aero-Mod), and membrane bioreactor (Veolia/Kruger). The results of the analysis are
illustrated on Table 3- Screening of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives, Pg 17, of the
RTW Report.
The Recommended Treatment Alternative is the oxidation ditch system described as
Alternative 1 in the RTW Report.
Altemative 1 : Oxidation Ditch ( with Vertical Drum Mixers) contains the LANDOX
mixing equipment and includes three Treatment Trains consisting of an oxidation ditch
with fine bubble diffirsers, vertical drum mixers and a secondary clarifier.
RTW used the same criteria as noted above, but included reliable ammonia removal as an
additional criterion. Based on their screening matrix, oxidation ditch technology had the
greatest number of positive scores, the lowest number of negative scores, and was second
in lowest number of "0" scores. The oxidation ditch system also had the lowest capital
and operating costs.
27
it
il Evaluation of Disinfection Alternatives
II Two basic disinfection technologies were reviewed in the 201 Plan: chemical treatment
(l (chlorination) and physical treatment (ultraviolet ligh|.
iI Various methods of chlorination have long been used for disinfection of effluent.
I However, chlorination has potential operational and environmental hazards, including
toxic effects on aquatic life, and potential for health related impacts to employees.
tl Disinfection by ultraviolet radiation is a physical process. Its use has increased in order
to eliminate the potential chemical related hazards of chlorine. The main disadvantage of
ti UV disinfection is its sensitivity to water quality changes and power consumption.
:l
{l
II
I
I
it
I
L
'I
iI
'I
I
I
28
I
t
I
t
i
t
I
Evaluation of Biosolids Management Alternatives
Section 5.4.1 of the 201 Plan describes the biosolid management altematives considered
for the new regional WWTF. Some of the following such technologies were reviewed:
Aerobic digestion
Aerobic digestion utilizes long term aeration to biologically destroy volatile solids,
producing Class B Biosolids. It renders the digested Biosolids less likely to generate
odor and reduces bacteriologicalhazards. Aerobic digesters are typically used in systems
that do not utilize primary clarification. This process produces little or no odor, and is a
simpler process requiring lower levels of supervision and monitoring. However, it
requires a source of oxygen that results in energy consumption, and may have additional
pro ces s requirements for effective dewatering.
Anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion takes place in the absence of free oxygen, and produces Class B
Biosolids. There is no cost related to aeration requirements, and produces methane gas
that can be used for heating or energy recovery. However, it requires odor containment
and treatment, has complex operational/operator requirements, and high capital costs.
Auto thermal thermophilic aerobic digestion (ATAD)
ATAD is an aerobic process which utilizes the heat generated by oxidation of the sludge
to further the biological destruction of volatile solids, and kill pathogens. It requires short
retention times, has a high removal rate, and produces a Class A biosolid. However, it
has significant odor issues requiring containment and treatment, requires aeration and
resultant power consumption, and requires significant operator attendance.
Composting
Composting is an aerobic biological process which reduces organic matter, eliminates
pathogenic organisms, while reclaiming nutrients. Composting technologies are capable
of producing Class A material.
Alkaline stabilization
In general, this process involves the addition of lime to the sludge to raise the pH. It is
capable of producing Class B Biosolids.
Heat Drying
This process involves the application of heat to evaporate water and reduce the moisture
content to a point below that necessary to support microbial activity. It provides
economies of scale, and is typically utilized in very large wastewater treatment facilities.
Heat drying technologies are capable of producing Class A Biosolids.
I
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
t 29
I
t
I
I
I
The following criteria were used to evaluate these altemative technologies:
Capital cost
Annual O&M expense
Odor potential
Sensitivity to low ambient temperature
Operational complexitY
Operator familiarity with the process
Product quality
Maximization of use of existing structure(s)
Anaerobic digestion and composting received the greatest number of positive rankings,
and lowest number of negative rankings in the analysis presented in the 201 Plan (Table
5.2). However, the selected extended aeration activated sludge treatment option does not
utlizeprimary clarifiers. Due to this factor, waste activated sludge from the secondary
clarifiers will be aerobically digested. The resultant Biosolids would then be dewatered
and transferred to a Biosolids rtorug" facility adjacent to the City's landfill (South
Qanyon).
The proposed Aerobic Digester is a flexible system that uses as little air as possible,
returns little nitrate back to the process, increases vSS removal and provides a more
stable sludge. The digester is a
-four
tank arrangement where the first two tanks can be run
in purall"t 5. s".i", *itt tt " third and fourth tank used for final aeration and thickening'
Biosolids will continue to be land applied on three certified disposal sites (CDPHE BMP
069i, 0480, 0481 and General Permit COG 650013) as per the 503 regulations. A new
Biosolids storage facility will be designed and constructed on City-owned property in the
South Canyon Lea to piovide non-season storage of Biosolids generated from the new
WWTF.
Collection of Biosolids will be contained in a separate enclosed building complete with a
finished permanent surface and ventilation to mitigate odor control of potential corrosive
aerosols as the pile will not be aerated. Collection of the supernatant/storm waler will be
collected in a holdin g areathat will discharge to an evaporation pond or vault (and be
returned to the WWTF as necessary).
There will be a collection/storage area of approximately 1000 cubic yards in piles 3 feet
high. Removal of the materials from the site for certified land application will be
ac-complished by dump truck and sludge slinger as accumulation dictates.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 30
iI
I
il
il
tl
IIT
lll
lu
lrr
lu
h
I'l
ll:
lil
I'r
l:
l,
22.4(lXbXiii) Preliminarv Effluent Limitations (PELs)
Preliminary effluent limits were received from the Division (PEL-200250) Januaty 2,
2008 and are listed in Table A-9. Other pollutants included the requirement to report
monthly ammonia discharges and provide removal of salinity (1 Ton per Day). A letter
to Eric Oppelt, CDPHE has been submitted to the Division for consideration of removing
the salinity requirement based upon the results and conclusions of a previous salinity
study performed by CET Environmental ( see Exhibit 9, Appendix A).
31
STATE OF COLORADO
I
,l
rl
il
il
{l
{T
I
il
il
I
I
tl
t
T
T
I
I
I
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
James B. Martin, Executive Director
Dedicated to prolecting and improving lhe health and environment of the people of Colorado
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd.
Phone (303) 692-2000
TDD Line (303) 691-7700
Located in Glendale, Colorado
http://www.cdphe.state.co. us
January 2,2008
Denver, Colorado 80230-6928
(303) 692-3090 Colorado Departrnent
of PublicHealth
andEnvironment
Mike McDill
City Engineer
101 West Sth Street, P.O. Box 458
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: PEL-200250, Proposed City of Glenwood Springs WWTF
Dear Mr. McDill:
The Water Quality Control Division (Division) of the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment has prepared, per your request, the Preliminary Effluent Limits
(PELs) for the proposed City of Glenwood Springs wastewater treatment facility
(WWTF). These effluent limits were developed, as detailed in the attached document, for
use as one of the submittals in your application for Site Approval.
PELs developed for the WWTF (Table 1) are based on effluent limits for pollutants of
concern as established in the Regulations for Eftluent Limitations (Regulation No. 62),
and water quality-based effluent limits (see the analysis in the attached document)
necessary for protection of the water quality in the receiving water. With a proposed
initial hydraulic design capacity of 1.95 million gallons per day (MGD), and final design
capacity of 3.9 MGD and discharge to the Colorado River, which is identified as stream
segment COLCLC01, the proposed Glenwood WWTF may require an individual permit.
The total ammonia limits warrant clarification. As explained in the attached document,
the total ammonia water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) are based on
assumptions, given the absence of adequate effluent pH and temperature data. This is
32
iT
tl
done per Division standard procedure and utilizes statistically determined in-stream and
effluent pH and temperature conditions for various types of facilities as inputs to the
Ammonia Toxicity (AMMTOX) Model.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (303) 692-3608.
Sincerely,
Eric T. Oppelt, P.E.
CDPH&E, WQCD
Kent Kuster, WQCD - Engineering Section
Mark Kadnuck, WQCD - Engineering Section
PEL-200250 file
il
t
rl
tl
I
I
I
t
!
I
t
t
Table 1
Proposed City of Glenwood Springs WWTF
Preliminary Effluent Limits for discharge to the Colorado River
BOD5(mg/l)45 (7-day average),30 (30-day average)
BOD5 (% removal)85 (30-day average)
TSS, mechanical plant (mg/l)45 (7-day average),30 (30-day average)
TSS, mechanical plant (% removal)85 (30-day average)
Oil and Grease (mgll)10 (maximum)
pH (s.u.)6.5-9.0 (minimum-maximum)
Other Pollutants WQBEL@either 1.95 MGD or 3.9 MGD
4,000 (7-day geomean), 2,000 (30-day geomean)
Total Residual Chlorine (mg/l)0.5 (daily maximum), Report (30-day average)
Monthly Total Ammonia, Jan. - Dec. (mg/l)Report (daily maximum), Report (30-day average)
Salinity 1 torVday
Temperature ('C)Report (7-day Average)
Metals and Cyanide Limits or Monitoring will be decided by Permit Writer
aaJJ
I
il
ll
lit
lrl
ln
ln
ln
ln
ln
ll
t':
Pnnrnnnqanv Errr,uENT Lmtts, AppBNux A
rnp Cor,oRADo Rrvgn
Pnoposro Crrv or Gr,rNwooD Spnnvcs WWTF
I. Introduction
The preliminary effluent limits (PELs) evaluation for the proposed City of Glenwood
Springs Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF), hereafter referred to as the proposed
Glenwood WWTF, was developed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division (Division). The evaluation was
conducted to facilitate issuance of PELs for the proposed Glenwood WWTF for
pollutants found to be of concern.
Figure A-1 contains a map of the study area evaluated as part of PELs development.
The proposed Glenwood WWTF is located in Garfield County, on the south side of the
Colorado River, near the west end of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The proposed
Glenwood WWTF would discharge to the Colorado River. This PEL will assess a
discharge to potential receiving waters at the proposed hydraulic capacity of 1.95 MGD
(3.022 cfs), and 3.9 MGD (6.045 cfs).
For discharge to the Colorado River, the ratio of the low flow of the Colorado River to
the proposed Glenwood WWTF to the 3.9 MGD design flow is 133:1. The nearest
upstieam and downstream facilities had no impact on the assimilative capacities available
to the proposed Glenwood WWTF. Analyses thus indicate that assimilative capacities of
the Colorado River are very large.
Table A-1
Assessment Summary
Name of Facility City of Glenwood Springs WWTF
PEL Number PEL-200250
WBID - Stream
Segment
Lower Colorado Basin, Lower Colorado River Sub-basin, Stream Segment
01: Mainstem of the Colorado River from the confluence with the Roaring
Fork River to immediately below the confluence with Parachute Creek'
COLCLCOl
Classifications Cold Water Aquatic Life Class I
Class 1a Existing Primary Contact Recreation
Agriculture
Water Supply
Desisration Undesisrated
I:\20079007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc
1t
I
I
ll
iI
t
{l
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
tl
it
t
t
I
Glenwood Springs Area
Figure A-1
Information used in this assessment includes data gathered from the proposed Glenwood
WWTF, the Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), the U.S. Census Bureau and communications with the local water
commissioner. The data used in the assessment consist of the best information available
at the time of preparation of this PELs analysis.
il. Water Quality
The proposed Glenwood WWTF discharges to the Water Body Identification (WBID)
stream segment COLCLCOI, which means the Lower Colorado Basin, Lower Colorado
River Sub-basin, Stream Segment 01. This segment is composed of the "Mainstem of the
Colorado River from the confluence with the Roaring Fork River to immediately below
the confluence with Parachute Creek." Stream segment COLCLC01 is classified for
Cold Water Aquatic Life Class 1, Class 1a Existing Primary Contact Recreation, Water
Supply and Agriculture.
\--l^ /
os"a'olenwooy'
yinss VWWFI
I :\2007V007-46 I .002 Wwtp\S ite Application\Site App Narrative.doc 35
II
ll
I
rt
il
I
I
tl
I
ll
II
tl
I
il
;l
I
I
Statewide Basic Standards have been developed in Section 3 I .1 1(2) and (3) of The Basic
Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water to protect the waters of the state from
radionuclides and organic chemicals. In Section 31.11(1) of the regulations, narrative
standards are applied to any pollutant of concern, even where there is no numeric
standard for that pollutant. Waters of the state shall be "free from harmful substances in
harmful amounts." Total dissolved solids (TDS), and sediment are such pollutants of
concern being discussed by Agricultural and Water Quality Standards workgroups. In
order to protect the Basic Standards in waters of the state, effluent limitations with
monitoring, or "monitoring only''requirements for radionuclides, organics, TDS, or any
parameter of concern could be put in CDPS discharge permits.
Numeric standards are developed on a basin-specific basis and are adopted for particular
stream segments by the Water Quality Control Commission. To simplify the listing of
the segment-specific standards, many of the aquatic life standards are contained in a table
at the beginning of each chapter of the regulations. The standards in Table A-2 have
been assigned to stream segment COLCLCOl in accordance with the Classifications and
Numeric Standards for Lower Colorado River (Planning Region 11). Note that the terms
of and associated values that correspond to TVS and WS are further explained in the
regulations.
In-stream Standards
Table A-2
for Stream Segment COLCLCO1
P hy sic al and B i ol ogica I
Dissolved Oxygen (DO):7 mefl, minimum
pH:6.5-9su
Escherichia coliform: 126 colonies/l00 ml
fnorganic
Ammonia (aclch): TVS
Chlorine acute : 0.019 mg/l
Chlorine chronic: 0.011 me/l
Free Cyanide acute: 0.005 mgil
Sulfide chronic: 0.002 me/l
Boron chronic: 0.75 mgfl
Nitrite:0.5 me/l
Nitrate: l0 mell
Chloride chronic :250 mgfl
Sulfate chronic: WS meil
Metals
Total Recoverable Arsenic acute: 50 pgll
Dissolved Cadmium acute and chronic : TVS
Total Recoverable Trivalent Chromium acute : 50 pgll
Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium acute and chronic: TVS
Dissolved Copper acute and chronic : TVS
Dissolved Iron chron'ic : WS pgll
Total Recoverable Iron chronic: 1000 ueil
Dissolved Lead acute and chronic : TVS
Dissolved Manganese chronic: WS pgll
Total Mercury chronic:0.01 pell
I:\2007\2007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 36
il
il
I
{l
t
1t
It
I
il
T
L
,il
tl
I
il
tl
iI
,I
I
Standards for metals are generally shown in the regulations as Table Value
Standards (TVS), and these often must be derived fiom equations that depend on
the receiving stream hardness or species of fish present. The Classification and
Numeric Standards documents for each basin include a specif,rcation for appropriate
hardness values to be used.
The mean hardness was oomputed to be 177 mg/l as CaCOI based on sampling data from
the Colorado River in Segment COLCLC0l. This hardness value and the formulas
contained in the TVS were used to calculate the in-stream water quality standards for
metals, with the results shown in Table A-3.
Dissolved Nickel acute and chronic : TVS
Dissolved Selenium acute and chronic: TVS
Dissolved Silver acute and chronic : TVS
Dissolved Zirc acute and chronic: TVS
Tatrle A-3
TVS-Based Metals Water Quatity Standards the Colorado River
Based on the Table Value Standards Contained in the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment Water Quality Control Commission Regulation 37
Calculated Using the Following Value for
Hardness as CaCO3:117 mdl
Cd, (Diss)
Acute (tr)6.87 pg/l (1. I 366?-(LN(hardness)*0.041 84)*(EXP(1. 128*(LN(hardness)))-
3.828)
Chronic 3.41 ps/l (1. 101 67-(LN(hardness)*0.041 84))*(EXP(O.7852*(LN(hardness)))-
2.'t1s))
Cr III, (Diss)
Acute 910 pg/!g(u. u I v(rn(namnessJ)+/.) / J o.)
Chronic 118 ug/l a(u. 6 I v(m(naroness))+u.)Jr+u,
Ch VI, @iss)
Acute 16 uq/l Numeric standards provided, formula not appllcqbfe
Chronic 1',|.us/l Numeric standards provided, formula not applicable
Cu, (Diss)
Acute 23.0 pg/l ,(u.y4rz(rntnarqness.,.l- r .
Chronic 14.6 pg/l .u. 6)4)(ln(naroness ) )- t. t 4/.6
Pb, (Diss)
Acute 120 pg/l ll . 46203 -0.1 4571 2ln(hardness)l [e(
I 2 / J ( ln(hardness'))- t 40 )]
Chronic 4.7 pg/t 11.46203 -0.1 4571 21n(hardness)] [e(
r'r'l r( rntnaruness"{ / u) ]l
Mn, @iss)
Acute 3,611 ug/!n(0.33
3 I (ln(harclness.))+6.40 /o)
Ghronic 1,995 Hg/l n(U.333
I (ln(hardness))+). 6 /4J )
Ni, @iss)
Acute 759 ug/l 2(u.64O(rn(namness ) )+ t. /.) 5 )
Ghronic 84 pg/l ,(0.846(h(hardness))+U.U5)4)
Se, (Diss)Acute 18.4 us/l Numeric standards provided, formula not applicable
Chronic 4.6 ug/l Numeric standards provided, formula not applicable
Ag, @iss)
Acute 5.42 pg/l % e\t. t /\n\n rslessrr-o.rz,
Ghronic (tr)0.20 pg/l g( r. /z(m(narmessl.)- r
U, (Diss)Acute 4,507 pg/l g( L l u/ I (ln(haroness)J+1. /u66 )
l:'0,f,07.000'7 461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 37
il
il
il
{l
lir
lil
l,r
Il
ln
ln
lr
I'
Ambient Water Oualitv for the Colorado River
ffiientwaterqualitybasedonavarietyofstatistica1methodsas
prescribed in Section 31.8(2XaXi) and 31.8(2XbXiXB) of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 31.
Ambient water quality is evaluated in this WQA analysis for use in determining
assimilative capacities.
To conduct an assessment of the ambient water quality upstream of the proposed
Glenwood WWTF, data were gathered from Division Station 47 (Colorado River at
Newcastle), located approximately 10 miles downstream from the facility. Data were
available from 2000 - 2OO7 for most parameters. Note that although these data are based
on samples collected at downstream locations, they are comparable to data representative
of upstream water quality. A summary of these data is presented in Table A-4.
Chronic 2,815 ug/l
I UZ I (lr(naroness))+z.L56z)
Zn, @iss)
Acute 190 ug/l fU:84f[n(hardness))+U.
6b I u)
Chronic 190 pg/l ,(U3473
(ln(hardness))+u. 66Ye )
Table A-4
Ambient Water Quatity for the Colqq4q Rive.
Parameter
No. of
Samoles
1sth
Percentile
5oth
Percentile
85th
Percentile Mean
Chronic
Stream
Standard Notes
Iemp ('C)100 NA NA NA 19 20
E. coli. (#/100 ml)24 NA NA NA 9 126 1
[Iardness (ms/l CaC03)45 NA NA NA 177 NA
4,s. Dis (pell)36 NA NA 0 NA NA 2
{.s, Trec (pgll)50 NA 0 NA NA NA 4
d. Dis (ueA)45 NA NA 0 NA 4.20 2
Cr*r, Dis (pgll)50 NA NA 0 NA NA 4
Cr*'. Trec (pgll)50 NA NA 0 NA NA 4
Cr"o, Dis (pgll)50 NA NA 0 NA 1977 4
Cu. Dis (uell)45 NA NA 0 NA 164.00 2
CN. Free (peil)50 NA NA 0 NA NA 4
Fe. Dis (uell)45 NA NA 70 NA WS 2
Fe. Trec (psll)45 NA 180 NA NA 18 2
Pb. Dis (ueA)45 NA NA 0 NA 4.60 2
Wn. Dis (uell)45 NA NA 15 NA WS 2
FIe. Tot (rell)37 NA NA 0 NA 0.010 3
Yi, Dis (psfl)I NA NA 0 NA 41 2
Se. Dis (reA)45 NA NA 0 NA 0.00 2
4,s. Dis (u.efl)45 NA NA 0 NA 0 3
Zn. Dis (refl)45 NA NA 54 NA 0 2
\H. Tot (mefl)27 NA NA 0 NA TVS 2
I : The calculated mean is the geometric mean. Note that for summarization purposes, the value of one was used where there was no
table amount because the geometric mean of one is equal to zero.
I:U007V007461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative'doc 38
it
1l
it
{l
h
lu
ln
ln
lr
ll
III. Water Quantity
The Colorado Regulations specify the use of low flow conditions when establishing water
quality based effluent limitations, specifically the acute and chronic low flows. The acute
It* flo*, referred to as 1E3, represents the one-day low flow recurring in a three-year
interval. The chronic low flow, 30E3, represents the 30-day aYerage low flow recurring
in a three-year interval.
Low Flow Analvsis for Discharge to the Colorado River
ffiwsavai1abletotheproposedG1enwoodwwTF,USGSGage
Station 09085100 (Colorado River below Glenwood Springs, CO) located just upstream
from the proposed facility was used. This gage station provides a reasonable estimate of
the low flows available to the proposed Glenwood WWTF because of its close proximity
to the proposed WWTF. Thus, using the upstream gage without correction results is a
."urorribl" estimate of the low flows available to the proposed Glenwood WWTF'
Daily flows from the USGS Gage Station 09085100 were obtained and the annual 1E3
and:Op: low flows were calculated using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DFLOW software. The output from DFLOW also provides calculated acute and chronic
low flows for each month.
Flow data from 1997 through 2007 were available from the gage station. The gage
station and time frames were deemed the most accurate and representative of current
flows and were therefore used in this analysis. Based on the low flow analysis described
previously, the upstream low flows available to the proposed Glenwood WWTF were
calculated and are presented in Table A-5.
During the months of May, June, and August the acute low flow calculated by DFLOW
exceeJed the chronic low flow. [n accordance with Division standard procedures, the
acute low flow was thus set equal to the chronic low flow for these months.
When sample results were below detection levels, the value of zero was used in accordance with the CO WQCD's standard approach for
ere greater than the in-stream
r ,,-,,1L-_ fL^:-r lrrv uvrve ysrer
In accordance with WQCD's procedures, no determination of water quality is made when the detection levels are greater than the in-
4: Because of a lack of recent data, dutu f.qtr un old"t POR ( 1 979-
Table A-5
Low Flows for the colorado River at the proposed Glenwood YWT{
Low Flow
(cfl Annual Jan Feb Mar Ap,May Jun Jul Aug sep 0ct Nov Dec
1E3
Acute 804 828 804 854 968 1,462 1,597 1,41',1 1,250 1,081 '|-,14'l 867 805
30E3
Chronic 982 982 983 983 1,109 1,462 1,597 1,467 1,250 1,219 '11219 983 983
I:V00?V007-461.002 WwB\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 39
Qz
t
1l
I
{l
it
{l
rI
I
il
rt
il
I
!l
I
I
il
il
I
I
Mixing Zone Considerations
The mixing ratio is > 20 l dilution; however the proposed WWTF will be classified a
major facility because the design flow is > 1 MGD. Therefore other mixingzone
considerations will apply, and would be implemented through the permit. The other
allowed exemptions from mixingzorie constraints must be investigated according to the
Colorado Mixing Zone Implementation Guidance. Any dilution reductions will be
decided by the permittee and Division, after these investigations.
IV. Technical Analysis
In-stream background data and low flows evaluated in Sections II and III are ultimately
used to determine the assimilative capacity of the Colorado River near the proposed
Glenwood WWTF for pollutants of concern. For all parameters except ammonia, it is the
Division's approach to conduct a technical analysis of stream assimilation capacity using
the lowest of the monthly low flows (referred to as the annual low flow) as calculated in
the low flow analysis. For ammonia, it is the standard procedure of the Division to
determine assimilative capacities for each month using the monthly low flows calculated
in the low flow analysis, as the regulations allow the use of seasonal flows when
establishing assimilative capacities.
The Division's standard analysis consists of steady-state, mass-balance calculations for
most pollutants and modeling for pollutants such as ammonia. The mass-balance
equation is used by the Division to calculate the maximum allowable concentration of
pollutants in the effluent, and accounts for the upstream concentration of a pollutant at
the existing quality, critical low flow (minimal dilution), effluent flow and the water
quality standard. The mass-balance equation is expressed as:
Mz=MtQz-MrQr
Q1 :Upstream low flow (1E3 or 30E3)
Q2 : Average daily effluent flow (design capacity)
Q3 : Downstream flow (Qt + Qz)
Mt : In-stream background pollutant concentrations at the existing quality
Mz : Calculated maximum allowable effluent pollutant concentration
Mj : Maximum allowable in-stream pollutant concentration (water quality
standards)
For discharge to the Colorado River, the upstream background pollutant concentrations
used in the mass-balance equation will vary based on the regulatory definition of existing
40I:V007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc
I
il
il
II
,I
II
il
I
t
I
I
I
,11
il
IT
iT
T
ambient water quality. For most pollutants, existing quality is determined to be the 85ft
percentile. For -E coli, existing quality is determined to be the geometric mean.
For non-conservative parameters and ammonia, the mass-balance equation is not as
applicable and thus other approaches are considered where appropriate. A more detailed
discussion of the technical analysis for these parameters is provided in the pages that
follow.
Pollutants Evaluated
The following parameters were identified by the Division as pollutants to be evaluated
for this facility:
. BODs
. TSS
. Percent removal
. Oil and Grease
.pH
. E. coli
. Total Residual Chlorine
. Ammonia. Salinity
. Metals and Cyanide
It is WQCD's standard procedure to consider metals and cyanide as potential pollutants
of concern for all major POTWs.
There are no in-stream water quality standards for BOD5, TSS, percent removal, and oil
and grease for the Colorado River. Thus, assimilative capacities were not determined for
these parameters in this section and an antidegradation review for these parameters was
not conducted in Section V. The evaluation of applicable limitations for these pollutants
can be found in Section VI, Regulatory Analysis.
According to the Rationalefor Classifications, Standards and Designations of the
Colorado River, there are existing public water supply uses in this segment downstream
of the proposed Glenwood WWTF. These are the Town of Parachute (#123602), City of
Rifle (#123676) and Town of Silt (#123710). However, there is significant distance
between these water intakes and the proposed Glenwood WWTF, and large available
dilution in the Colorado River. Therefore, the analyses of parameters for Water Supply
classification were not necessary in this PEL.
During assessment of the facility, nearby facilities, and receiving stream water quality, no
additional parameters were identified as pollutants of concern.
Proposed Glenwood W"WTF: The proposed Glenwood WWTF would be located at 39o
33' 35" latitude North and 107 " 22' 25" West longitude in Garfield County. The initial
proposed design capacity of the facility is 1.95 MGD (3.022 cfs) and final build out
design capacity will be 3.9 (6.045 cfs). Wastewater treatment is proposed to be
I:V007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 4t
It
ll
il
il
accomplished using a mechanical wastewater treatment process. The technical analyses
that follow include assessments of the assimilative capacity based on this design capacity.
Nearby Sources
An assessment of nearby facilities based on EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS)
database was conducted. According to PCS, the nearest upstream and downstream
dischargers were:. The West Glenwood SD WWTF (COG-588008), which discharges to the
Colorado River, approximately 2 miles upstream, and on the other side of the
river from the proposed Glenwood WWTF. Due to the extremely high dilution
ratio afforded by the Colorado River, it was unnecessary to model this facility
with the proposed Glenwood WWTF.. The Glenwood Hot Springs Pool and Lodge (COG-600308), which discharges to
the Colorado River, approximately 5 miles upstream, and on the other side of the
river from the proposed Glenwood WWTF. Due to the extremely high dilution
ratio afforded by the Colorado River, it was unnecessary to model this facility
with the proposed Glenwood WWTF.
For the proposed discharge to the Colorado River, the ambient water quality background
concentrations used in the mass-balance equation account for pollutants of concern
contributed by upstream sources; thus, it was not necessary to model upstream
dischargers together with the proposed Glenwood WWTF when determining the
available assimilative capacities in the Colorado River. Due to the distance traveled, and
the significant dilution of the receiving stream, modeling downstream facilities in
conjunction with the proposed Glenwood WWTF was not necessary. Based on available
information, there is no indication that other sources were a significant source of
pollutants of concern. Thus, other sources were not considered in this assessment.
pH: For discharge to the Colorado River, an evaluation of pH data available for the
Colorado River near the proposed Glenwood WWTF found that the 15th percentile value
was well above the minimum in-stream water quality standard and the 85th percentile
value was well below the maximum in-stream water quality standard. Because only
limited data are available and because ambient water quality data indicate that no further
controls are needed to meet in-stream pH standards, a complex evaluation of the
assimilative capacity for pH is not warranted for this facility, and the in-stream water
quality standards of 6.5-9.0 su are applied.
Chlorine: The mass-balance equation was used to determine the assimilative capacity for
chlorine. There are no point sources discharging total residual chlorine within one mile
of the proposed Glenwood WWTF. Because chlorine is rapidly oxidized, in-stream
levels of residual chlorine are detected only for a short distance below a source. Ambient
chlorine was therefore assumed to be zero.
it
iI
{l
I
I
I
it
il
I
il
il
ll
T
T
I I:V007\2007-46 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 42
T
il
I
tl
h
lr
h
lr
lt
ll
Using the mass-balance equation provided in the beginning of Section IV, the acute and
chronic low flows set out in Section III, the chlorine background concentration of zero as
discussed above, and the in-stream standards for chlorine shown in Section II,
assimilative capacities for chlorine were calculated. The data used and the resulting
calculations of the allowable discharge concentrations at 1.95 MGD and 3'9 MGD, M2,
are set forth below.
Escherichia coli: Available studies indicate that E. coli,whichis a subset of fecal
toliform, is a better predictor of potential human health impacts from waterborne
pathogens. Because of this, the Water Quality Control Commission is currently adopting
itandards statewide for solely E. coli, and dropping the fecal coliform standard from
segrnents where it still exists.
Using the mass-balance equation provided in the beginning of Section IV, the chronic
low flow set out in Section III, the background concentrations contained in Section II and
discussed above, and the chronic in-stream standards for fecal coliform and E. coli shown
in Section II, the assimilative capacities for fecal coliform and E. coli wete calculated.
The data used and the resulting calculations of the allowable discharge concentrations at
1.95 MGD and 3.9 MGD, M2, aita set forth below.
WQBEL for Total Residual Chlorine @ 1.9! f4qq
Parqmeter Qr kfs)Qz kfs)8t kfs)M, fue/l)M, (ms/l)Mt fue/l)
Acute Chlorine 804 3.022 807.022 0 0.019 5.07
Chronic Chlorine 982 3.022 985.022 0 0.011 3.59
WQBEL for Total n"sia"ut Ct to.i"" @ S
Parameter Or kfs)Qz kfs)O, kfs)M, fus/l)Mt fus/l)M, fus/l)
Acute Chlorine 804 6.045 810.045 0 0.019 2.55
Chronic Chlorine 982 6.045 988.045 0 0.011 1.80
WQBEL for E. coli (d,1.95 MGD
Parameter Qt kfs)Qz kfs)b @f9
Ml(#/100
ml)
M3 (#/loo
ml)M2 ftt/100 ml)
Escherichia coli 982 3.022 985.022 9 126 38,145
WQBEL for E. coli @ 3.9 MGD
Parameter h kfs)Q, kfs)b Gfl Ml@/100
ml)
Mj (#/100
mt)M2 $i/100 ml)
Escherichia coli 982 6.045 988.045 I 126 19,132
I:V007V007-461.002 Wwp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 43
I
I
I
T
t
I
T
T
I
t
il
t
t
t
,lt
!t
,t
T
I
Temperature
The mass-balance equation was used to determine the assimilative capacity or Maximum
Weekly Effluent Temperature (MWET) for temperature. The upstream MWAT for the
Colorado River was determined from the limited data that was collected at USGS Gage
06752800. Data were spaced too widely apart to establish a standard MWAT so the
highest 3-month summertime average (23.6 degrees C) was used. The calculations, so
the annual 7E3 low flow (880 cfs) used the same flow information as the used in
calculating the 1E3 and 30E3 low flows.
Using the mass-balance equation provided in the beginning of Section IV, the chronic
low flows set out in Section III, the MWAT as discussed above, and the in-stream
standards for temperafure shown in Section II, assimilative capacity for temperature was
calculated. The data used and the resulting calculations of the allowable discharge
concentrations at 1.95 MGD and 3.9 MGD, MWET, are set forth below.
Metals and Cvanide
Metals and cyanide may be present at large domestic WWTFs that accept discharges
from industrial contributors. It is the standard approach of the WQCD to determine the
available assimilative capacities for cyanide and those metals for which ambient water
quality standards are available.
Using the mass-balance equations provided in the beginning of Section IV, the low flows
provided in Section III, the background concentrations contained in Section II, and the in-
stream standards for metals shown in Section II, assimilative capacities were calculated.
The data used and the resulting calculations of the allowable discharge concentrations,
M2, dre set forth in Table's A-6a and A-6b for chronic WQBEL, and Table's A-6c and A-
6d for acute WQBEL.
WQBEL for Temperature @egrees C)
In the Colorado River @,1.95 MGD
?arameter Qrkfs)Qzkfi Orkfs)MWAT Standard MIYET
femp. Co 880 3.022 883.022 19 20 311
WQBEL for Temperature @egrees C)
In the Colorado River @3.9 M@
Parameter O, kfs)Qzkfs)Qtkfs)MI,YAT Standard MWET
femp. C"880 6.045 886.045 19 20 166
I:V0079007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 44
I
il
il
Itl
l'
lir
l',II
ll
lr
l:
ln
Table A-6a
Acute WQBEL for Metals (pdl) and Cyanide (mg/l)
In the Colorado River @, 1.95 MGD
Q1(cfs)Q2 (cfs)03 (cfs)M1 M3 M2
{.e (dis)804 3.022 807.022 0 5.42 1,447
Cd (dis)804 3.022 807.022 0 4.5 1,203
CrIII (dis)804 3.022 807.022 0 910 242,874
CrVI (dis)804 3.022 807.022 0 16 4,273
Cu (dis)804 3.022 807.022 0 23 6,146
Mn (dis)804 3.022 807.022 15 3.611 960,357
Ni (dis)804 3.022 807.022 1 759 202,428
Pb (dis)804 3.022 807.022 0 120 31,923
ie (dis)804 3.022 807.022 0 18.4 4.914
Zn (dis)804 3.022 807.022 54 233 47,923
CN (free)804 3.022 807.022 0 0.005 1.335
Table A-6b
Acute WQBEL for Metals (pelt) and Cyanide (mglt)
In the Colorado River @1.9 f4qp--
Ol (cfs)02 (cfs)Q3 (cfs)M1 M3 M2
{,e (dis)804 6.045 810.045 0 5.42 726
d (dis)804 6.045 810.045 0 4.5 604
CrIII (dis)804 6.045 810.045 0 910 12,1872
CrYI (dis)804 6.045 810.045 0 16 2,144
u (dis)804 6.045 810.045 0 23 3,084
Wn (dis)804 6.045 810.045 15 3.611 481,905
Yi (dis)804 6.045 810.045 ,l 759 101,577
Pb (dis)804 6.045 810.045 0 '120 16,019
ie (dis)804 6.045 810.045 0 18.4 2,466
Zn (dis)804 6.045 8't 0.045 54 233 24,074
CN (free)804 6.045 810.045 0 0.005 0.670
Table A-6c
Chronic WQBEL for Metals (frdl)
In the Colorado Riv.r @ 1.9! 1\498
Ql (cfs)Q2 (cfs)Q3 (cfs)M1 M3 M2
A.s (dis)982 3.022 985.02 0 0.85 279
As (trec)982 3.022 985.02 0 100 32,595
Cd (dis)982 3.O22 985.02 0 0.65 213
I:V0079007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 45
I
I
I
lr
lr
Ir
ln
ln
lr
lr
lll
lr Salinitv: To protect against salinity levels becoming too high in the Colorado River, from
n.grtutio, Nb. 6t, Colorado, "Municipal discharges to any portion of the Colorado River
strJam system shall be allowed an incremental increase in salinity of 400 mg/l or less
above the flow weighted averaged salinity of the intake water supply. The maximum
incremental increase requirement, and the requisite demonstration that it is not
practicable to meet the incremental increase requirement, may be waived in those cases
where the salt load reaching the mainstem of the Colorado River is less than one ton per
day or 366 tons per year, whichever is more appropriate."
CrIII (dis)982 3.022 985.02 0 118 38,562
CrYI (dis)982 3.022 985.02 0 11 3,585
Cu (dis)982 3.022 985.02 0 14.6 4,755
Fe (trec)982 3.022 98s.02 180 1,000 267,459
He (tot)982 3.022 985.02 0 0.01 3.26
\{n (dis)982 3.022 985,02 15 1,995 645,446
\i (dis)982 3.022 985.02 1 84.3 27,154
Pb (dis)982 3.022 985.02 0 4.66 1,518
le (dis)982 3.022 985.02 0 4.6 1,499
Zn (dis)982 3.022 985.02 54 202 48,374
Table A-6d
Chronic WQBEL for Metals (Pglt)
In the Colorado River @ 3.9 MGD
Ql(cfs)Q2 (cf9 Q3 (cfs)M1 M3 M2
A.e (dis)982 6.045 988.05 0 0.85 140
As (trec)982 6.045 988.05 0 100 16,345
Cd (dis)982 6.045 988.05 0 0.65 107
rIII (dis)982 6.045 988.05 0 118 19,337
rVI (dis)982 6.045 988.05 0 11 1,798
3u (dis)982 6.045 988.05 0 14.6 2,384
Fe (trec)982 6.045 988.05 180 1,000 134,208
He (tot)982 6.045 988.05 0 0.01 1.63
Mn (dis)982 6.045 988.05 15 1,995 323,667
\i (dis)982 6.045 988.05 1 84.3 13,617
Pb (dis)982 6.045 988.05 0 4.66 761
Se (dis)982 6.045 988.05 0 4.6 752
Ln 982 6.045 988.05 54 202 24,284
I:V007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 46
I
I
rl
ln
lrr
ln
ln
lrl
ln
lf
lr
ll:
lr
ll
Ammonia: The Ammonia Toxicity (AMMTOX) Model is a software program designed
t" p-:*t tfre downstream effects of ammonia and the ammonia assimilative capacities
u,ruiluLl" to each discharger based on upstream water quality and effluent discharges. To
develop data for the AMMTOX model, an in-stream water quality study should be
conducted of the upstream receiving water conditions, particularly the pH and
corresponding temperafure, over a period of at least one year.
There were no data available for the Colorado River near the proposed Glenwood WWTF
that could be used as adequate input data for the AMMTOX model. Therefore, the
Division standard procedure is to rely on statistically-based, regionahzed data for pH and
temperatur" "o-pil"d from similar facilities and receiving waters. Upstream ammonia
data for each month were not available for discharges to the Colorado River. Thus, the
mean total ammonia concentration found in the Colorado River as summarized in Table
A-3 was used as an applicable upstream ammonia concentration reflective of each month.
The AMMTOX may be calibrated for a number of variables in addition to the data
discussed above. The values used for the other variables in the model are listed below:
. Stream velocity: 0.3Q0'ou
. Default ammonia loss rate : 6lday
. pH amplitude was assumed to be medium
. Default times for pH maximum, temperature maximum, and time of daY of
occulTence. pH rebound was set at the default value of 0.2 su per mile
. Temperature rebound was set at the default value of 0.7 degrees C per mile-
The results of the ammonia analyses for the proposed Glenwood WWTF at both potential
receiving waters are presented in Table A-7-
Tabte A-7
AMMTOX Model Results for Discharge to the colorado River
at the proposed Gleowood WWTF @ both 1.95 MGD a
Month Total Ammoniao chronic (mg/l)Total Ammonia, acute (mg/l)
January >45*>45*
February >45*>45*
March >45*>45*
Rpril >45*>45*
Mav >45*>45*
June >45*>45*
July >45*>45*
August >45*>45*
September >45*>45*
I:V007\2007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative'doc 47
t
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
iT
il
I
I
- - Tre"t"d m"ri"rpal sanitary sewage effluent is expected to have a total ammonia concentration less than
45 mgll.
V. Antidegradation Review
As set out in The Basic Standards and Methodologies of Surface Water, Section
31.8(2)(b), an antidegradation analysis is required except in cases where the receiving
water is designated as "lJse Protected." Note that "IJse Protected" waters are waters
"that the Commission has determined do not warrant the special protection provided by
the outstanding waters designation or the antidegradation review process" as set out in
Section 31.8(2Xb). The antidegradation section of the regulation became effective in
December 2000, and therefore antidegradation considerations are applicable to this PELs
analysis.
According to the Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin
and North Platte River (Planning Region 12), stream segment COLCLCO1 is
Undesignated. Thus, an antidegradation review may be conducted for this segment if
new or increased impacts are found to occur.
For discharge to the Colorado River, the ratio of the flow of the Colorado River to the
proposed Glenwood WWTF design flow is 133:1 at low flows. Section 31.8 (3Xc)
specifies that the discharge of pollutants should not be considered to result in significant
degradation of the reviewable waters if the flow rate is greater than 100:1 dilution at low
flow. Thus, Section 31.8(3)(c) of the regulations is met and no further antidegradation
evaluation is necessary for discharge to the Colorado River.
VI. Regulatory Analysis
Regulation No. 62, the Regulations for Effluent Limitations. includes effluent limitations
that apply to all discharges of wastewater to State waters, with the exception of storm
water and agricultural retum flows. These regulations are applicable to the discharge
from the proposed Glenwood WWTF. Table A-8 contains a summary of these
limitations.
I:\20079007461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narntive.docI
October >45*>45"
November >45*>45*
December >45*>45*
48
Table A-8
Specific Limitations for the Discharge of Wasfes
Parameter 7-Day Average 30-Day Average
fnstantaneous
Maximum
BOD5 45 mefl 30 mg/l NA
TSS, mechanical plant 45 mell 30 meil NA
TSS, aerated lagoon 110 me/l 75 msA NA
TSS, non-aerated lagoon 160 me/l 105 me/l NA
BOD5 Percent Removal NA 85%NA
TSS Percent Removal NA 8s%NA
Total Residual Chlorine NA NA 0.5 me/l
pH NA NA 6.0-9.0 su range
Oil and Grease NA NA 10 meil
t
I
I
ll
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
ll
lr
ln
Note that the TSS limitations shown above vary based on the type of wastewater
treatment processes used at the facility. The Regulations for Effluent Limitations waive
the 85 percent removal requirements for TSS where waste stabilization ponds, both
aerated ind non-aerated, are used as the principal process for treating domestic wastes.
Section 62.4(l) of the Regulations for Effluent Limitations also indicates that numeric
limitations for fecal coliform shall be determined. The State has developed the
procedure for Selection of Fecat Coliform Limitations Permit Conditions that specifies a
30-day geometric mean limit of 6,000 colonies per 100 ml and a 7-day geometric mean
Umit oflZ,000 colonies per 100 ml when the ratio of the receiving stream flow to design
flow is g;eater than ten to one. 'fhe Procedure for Selection of Fecal Colifurm
Limitations permit Conditions also specifies that the 7-day geometric mean limit must be
calculated as two times the 30-day geometric mean limit. Comparably, for E' coli, the
Division establishes the 7-day geometric mean limit as two times the 30-day geometric
mean limit and also includes maximum limits of 2,000 colonies per 100 ml (30-day
geometric mean) and 4,000 colonies per 100 ml(7-day geometric mean).
VII. Preliminary Effluent Limits
The potential PELs reflected in Table A-9 include the consideration of the following:
. Assimilative capacities as discussed in the technical analysis contained in Section
IV
. Effluent limits prescribed by the regulations based on the regulatory analysis
provided in Section VI.
Table A-9
Proposed City of Glenwood Springs WWTF
Effluent Limits for to the Colorado River
I:V007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 49
I
I
t
t
ln
lr
lr
lr
lr
l|
l:
lr
For discharges to the Colorado River, the more stringent total residual chlorine and E.
coli limits, as set forth in the Regulatory Analysis Section VI, are included as PELs as
they are more stringent than the effluent limits for these parameters prescribed in the
Section IV Technical Analysis. Also, limitations for ammonia were not necessary for
discharge to the Colorado River because the assimilative capacity of the receiving water,
as discussed in Section IV, is large enough to establish total ammonia effluent
concentrations for all months at 45 mg[. Because treated sanitary sewage effluent is not
expected to have a total ammonia concentration greater than 45 mg/1, no additional
all-ocations were determined as per Division procedure and monitoring, only, is specified.
VIII. References
Classifications and Numeric Standards for Lower Colorado River Basin (Planning
Region t 1), Regutation No. 37, CDPHE, WQCC, effective September 1,2007.
The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Sudace Water, Regulation 31, CDPHE,
WQCC, Effective September 7,2007.
Lower Colorado River Basin Regulation No. 37 Triennial Rulemaking Rational, CDPHE,
WQCD, effective May 6, 2003.
Colorado Mixing Zone Implementation Guidance, CDPHE, WQCD, Apnl2002.
Poticy Concerning Escherichia coli versus Fecal Coliform, CDPHE, WQCD, July 20,
2005.
Procedurefor Selection of Fecal Coliform Limitations Permit Conditions, CDPHE,
WQCD, April T, 1976.
BODs(mg/l)45 (7-day average),30 (30-day average)
BOD5 (% removal)85 (30-day average)
TSS, mechanical plant (mg/l)45 (1-day average), 30 (30-day average)
TSS, mechanical plant (oZ removal)85 (30-day average)
Oil and Grease (mgll)10 (maximum)
pH (s.u.)6. 5-9.0 (minimum-maximum)
Other Pollutants Max Cap or I/QBEL @ 100% Dilution
E. coli (#/100 ml)4,000 (7-day geomean), 2,000 (30-day geomean)
Total Residual Chlorine (mg/l)0.5 (daily maximum), Report (30-day average)
Monthly Total Ammonia, Jan. - Dec. (mg/l)Report (daily maximum), Report (30-day average)
Salinity I tor/day
Temperature ("C)Report (1-day Average)
Metals and Cyanide Limits or Monitoring will be decided by Permit Writer
I:V007\2007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 50
rl
I
l'lI
ln
ln
ln
ln
ln
lr
lr
lr
Procedures for Conducting Assessments for Implementation of Temperature Standards in
Discharge Permits, CDPHE, WQCD, Permits Section, 2007.
Regulations for EfJtuent Limitations, Regulation 62, CDPHE, WQCC, December 30,
1998.
Colorado River Satinitv Standards. Regulation 39, CDPHE, WQCC (last update
effective 8130197)
I:V007\2007-46 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 51
t
I
t
lI
lr
h
lr
ln
lr
lr
ll
22.4(lxbxiv) Analvsis of Existine Facilities
There are currently four wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF) in the Service Area (see
Exhibit 13). These facilities include: (1) the current City of Glenwood Springs WWTF,
(2) the current West Glenwood Sanitation District WWTF, 3) the El Rocko Mobile Home
park WWTF located four miles south of Glenwood Springs along the Roaring Fork
River, off Highway 82, and(a) the Sunlight View WWTF located in the Four Mile Basin.
The latter two of these facilities are packaged systems. The El Rocko WWTF is a 10,000
gallons/day extended aeration system serving a mobile home development. Effluent is
discharged to the Roaring Fork River. The Sunlight View WWTF is a 25,000 gallon per
day extinded aeration system serving the Sunlight View development. Effluent is
discharged to Four Mile Creek, a tributary of the Roaring Fork River.
Glenwood Springs Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF)
The City's existing WWTF is located in downtown Glenwood Springs, at 4Ol West 7rt
Street. This location is on the east side of the Roaring Fork River, just upstream from the
confluence with the Colorado River.
The City was issued discharge permit CO-0020516, effective October 1,2007, for the
existing facility. It will expire September 30,2012. The permitted capacity is 2-3 MGD
arrd 4,3201bs. BODs/day. Permitted discharge is to the Roaring Fork River
approximately 750 feet above the confluence with the Colorado River.
The WWTF utilizes a Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) system constructed in 1978
and1979. It consists of preliminary treatment, one primary clarifier, two trains of RBC
units, two final clarifiers, chlorination and dechlorination, effluent flume and three
anaerobic digesters.
The preliminary treatment facilities consist of a coarse bar screen, an aerated grit
chamber, a secondary bar screen and a Parshall flume with recorder for plant influent
measuring.
The primary clarifier is a concrete basin 65 feet in diameter, with an eight-foot side water
depth. It was constructed to house the trickling filter originally used at the WWTF, and
converted in 1980. The clarifier receives flow from six sources, with the largest
contribution being raw wastewater from the preliminary treatment facilities. Other
sources include plant recycle streams from final clarifier waste sludge, anaerobic digester
supernatant, chlorine contact basin sludge return, and periodic chlorine basin fresh water
retum. The clarifier basin has a volume of 198,549 gallons with a 2 hour design
detention time. BODs reduction is 25oh to 35o/o.
Effluent from the primary clarifier is discharged to the RBC units. The RBC process
consists of two paiallel trains, each with four stage RBCs. The two trains can be operated
in series, in one sequence oftrains only. Stage 1 through 3 each has 104,000 square feet
ofsurface area. Stage four has 156,000 square feet ofsurface area. A layer ofthin
I:\20079007-46 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 52
I
it
it
ln
ln
hr
lir
hr
lll
ln
ll
biomass grows on the individual plastic media discs. The biomass is exposed alternately
to wastewater and air as the discs rotate. Excess biomass growth continually sloughs off
and is replaced by new biomass.
Effluent from the RBC discharges to the two final clarifiers. Each of these basins is 45
feet in diameter with 11.S-foot side water depths, and provides 2.5 hour detention time at
a design flow of 2.3 MGD. Biomass that sloughs from the RBC is removed in the final
clarifiirs through sedimentation. The accumulated sludge is returned to the primary
clarifier where it is combined with the primary clarifier siudge before digestion.
The chlorination system consists of chlorine gas cylinders, chlorine gas and solution
delivery equiprnent and the chlorine contact tank. The contact tank is a basin with a
diameter of 30 feet and a volume of 58,600 gallons. It can provide a 30 minute contact
time for a flow of 2.8 MGD. The dechlorination system consists of a metering pump and
a 500 gallon solution tank. Anhydrous sodium metabisulfate is used to dechlorinate the
residual chlorine in the plant effluent.
plant effluent is measured with a Parshall flume and recorder.
The sludge digestion system consists of three anaerobic digester tanks. From the primary
clarifier,-co-r.ttl.d primary and secondary solids are pumped to the primary digester.
From there they are displaced to the intermediate digester and the secondary digester.
Supematant is drawn from the secondary digester and returned to the primary clarifier'
Oigester off-gas is collected and burned to fire the boiler that heats the digesters. Bio
,oild, are periodically pumped from the bottom of the intermediate or secondary
digesters, dewatered urd t*"k"d to agricultural lands for beneficial use. The digestion
system can treat 4,900 lbs. of total solids per day.
The last major improvement for the City's current WWTF was completed in 1980. Most
of the equipment and structures are over 20 years old and near the end of their expected
life. The performance of the facility is generally good and in compliance with discharge
limits. Ini".*, of loadings, the current plant is well within the permitted capacity. Plant
effluent quality is generally good. BODs removal efficiency generally exceeds 907o.
While fecal coli form in the effluent generally meets discharge permit requirements, there
have been a few instances where monthly counts exceeded them. All of this
notwithstanding, there has been several deficiencies identified, including having only one
primary clarifiei (lack of redundancy), undersized clarifiers (primary and final) and odor
issues.
The current facility is landlocked with limited room for future expansion to accommodate
either future increases in flow or installation of treatment processes to meet more
stringent effluent limits that may be imposed. In addition, the facility is near the City's
downtown core, and not compaiible with surrounding residential and commercial growth
plans.
I:V007V007-46 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative doc 53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
l
I
I
I
Given the limited capacity and limited capabilities for site expansion, there is virtually no
potential for eliminating other facilities and consolidation at this facility'
West Glenwood Sanitation District (WGSD) WWTF
The WGSD WWTF is located on a narow strip of land lying between lnterstate Highway
70 and the Colorado River, at 0051 Highway 6 &24'
The wwTF is an extended aeration-activated sludge plant. The facility number is coG-
588008, authorized under colorado Domestic General Permit number coc-588000'
Authorization expires May 3 1 , 201 0. The permitted capacity was 0 '31 5 MGD and 625
lbs. BODs/day. [r 2OO5,CDPHE upprou.d a Site Application for improvements and
expansion of itre WGSD WWTF for a capacity of 0.6 MGD. A condition of the Site
Approval was that the facility cannot be expanded beyond the 0.6 MGD capacity'
Effluent discharge is to the Colorado River'
This facility consists of headworks with bar screen and grit chamber, an aeration basin, a
;";;#il;la.ifier, gas chlorination and chlorine contact chamber, and a Parshall flume
with recorder. It alsi includes an aerobic digester, a thickener basin, and a diatomaceous
;*ii;;;;;- r,t,", and heat drier for dewateiing and stabilizing digested Biosolids'
56 feet in diameter, and 15 inches deep' The volume rs 276'000
diffusers are used for the puryoses of aeration'
The aeration basin is
gallons. Fine bubble
The secondary clarifier is 40 feet in diameter with a depth of 10 feet and volume of
94,000 gallons.
The aerobic digester is 35 feet by 345 feet by 15 feet deep with a working volume of
i36,000 gallons.
As noted above, the WGSD WWTF has recently been expanded and upgraded' The West
Glenwood Sanitation District had owned and operate d a0.315 MGD activated sludge
treatment facility that provides sanitary ,"*ug. services for its customers' In 1997 , plant
flows exceeded .300 MGD which is greater that the 8O'/o tnggering level to begin the
pturring process for a new o, "rp*J.d facility. In 1991 the District submitted a site
applicatlon to the CDPHE.. The proposed expansion called for a0'225 MGD expansion'
bringing the total facility size to b.ObO MGD. It should be noted that in conformance with
the site application, this expansion is being accomplished that when the capacity of the
fropor"a iacility is met, thl Oistrict will engage in discussions regarding consolidation
witir tfre City of Glenwood Springs, for incorporation into the
City's future WWTF which is currently under design'
I:V007V007-46 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative doc 54
I
I
t
It
Irll
lr
lr
lr
lr
ll
The expansion includes:
tl O.ZZS MGD extended aeration basins with two parallel process streams'
iy N.* aeration compressors for the entire process with building.
:jf*o new ClarAtoi clarifiers ( Aero Mod) sized at 0.375 MGD (with the capability to
Handle greater capacities for short durations)'
4) A Seleclor Tank and splitter box after the pretreatment process, capable of dispersing
Proportionate flows to the existing and new aeration basins.
5) IJV Disinfection SYstem
As noted above for the city's wwTF, there is no potential for consolidation at the
WGSD WWTF.
El Rocko Mobile Home Park WWTF
The El Rocko WWTF is located on the east side of the Roaring Fork River, fo_ur miles
south of Glenwood Springs, at23O1 154 Road. This Facility Number coc-588029
under col0rado pomisticGeneral Permit number is coG-588000. The authorization
expires May 31, 2010. Permitted capacity for the facility is 0.01 MGD and 20 lbs'
BOD5/day.
This facility is an extended aeration packaged plant. It consists of a comminutor and bar
screen, aeration basin, subsurface aeiation, adouble hopper bottom clarifier' a chlorine
contact tank, and tablet chlorination. When the sludge volume under aeration becomes
too great, a portion is pumped and hauled to the Garfield County Landfill' Effluent
discharge is to the Roaring Fork River.
The El Rocko facility is over 25 years old, near the end of the er^pected lifetime for the
equipment, and is in need of repair. While it appears that facility's permit capacity is
adequate, there have been fecaf cot form, nOp, TSS and flow violations by the facility
in the past.
Elimination of this system and consolidation with a Regional Facility would certainly be
possible.
Sunlight View WWTF
The Sunlight view wwTF is located in Four Mile Basin, and serves the Sunlight view
developmlnt. The system is a 25,000 GPD, 46 1bs. BOD5/day extended aeration
packaged plant.
The facility is approximately 30 years old, and near the end of the expected life of the
equipment. It a-ppears that the permit capacity is adequate, and there are no known
permit violations.
Elimination of this system and consolidation with a Regionai Facility would also be
possible.
I:\2007\2007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative doc 55
il
;l
I
lil
lir
lir
l't
l',
In
h
lt
ll:
lr
lr
ll
Elimination of this system and consolidation with a Regional Facility would also be
possible.
Other Systems
It has been reported that there are 135 OWTS (Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems) in
the City limits, as well as several others within the planningareabut outside the City
limits. No system failures have been reported for those OWTS within the City limits,
while there have been two reported failures for systems in the unincorporated areas.
Development of a Regional WWTF could allow for the elimination of these systems over
time.
l:,2007.0,00'7 -461 .002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 56
T
I
I
,[
I
h
lir
ln
ln
ln
ln
h
lr
lr
lr
l:r
t:
22.4(1)(bxv) Analvsis of opportunities for consolidation
The City of Glenwood Springs is proposing to construct a new, Regional Wastewater
Treatment Facility at the Cardinell site. This would consolidate services currently
provided by the City WWTF and ultimately the WGSD WWTF. The WGSD WWTF has
t"", .rp*ded and upgraded to a capacity of 0.6 MGD, which should be sufficient
capacity through approximately 2021. WGSD has agreed to consolidate wastewater
treatment with the City at the time their facility is at or near capacity.
Consolidation with the other systems in the planning area would be possible with the
development of a Regional facility, and could take place over time. Potential roadblocks
would generally be economic in nature, related to development of the necessary
infrastructure.
Consolidation with other systems outside the planning arca would not be feasible, largely
due to economics. Other facilities are at least 10 miles away, and development of the
necessary infrastructure would be cost prohibitive.
I:V007V007461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 5l
I
t
il
,l
il
\l
I
I
il
{l
I
il
il
il
I
iI
,l
I
t
22.4(1)(b)(vi) Floodplain/Hazard Analvsis
Floodplain
The confluence of Mitchell Creek with the Colorado River is located immediately
upstream from the proposed site of the Regional WWTF. This confluence is the limit of
available flood insurance studies (Exhibit 8). Approximation using the flood insurance
data indicates that the 100 year flood level of the Colorado River at the Cardinell Site
would be approximately 5694.4 feet. The 1975 Facilities Plan estimated a 100 year flood
elevation oi upproximaiely 5687 feet at the eastern end of the property. A 1996 survey of
the property by High Country Engineering indicates that while the portion of the property
lying nortlr-ofihe Union Pacific Railroad would lie within the 100 year floodplain, the
land"lying south of the railroad, which runs atop a 10 to 15 foot high embankment, would
not lie in the 100 year floodplain. Since the site of the proposed Regional WWTF is at an
elevation of 5700 to 5120 feet, and lies south of the railroad, it is not considered to be in
the 100 year floodplain of the Colorado River.
Natural Hazards
The Cardinell property is located on a moderately sloping debris fan at the base of steep
canyon sides that rise to the south. These canyon sides have unstable slopes which are
crossed by tributary channels which may contain accumulations of debris. A debris flow
and rock iallhazardstudy of the property was performed by Hepworth-Pawleck
Geotechnical (see Exhibit 10).
According to the report, historic debris flows have not been reported for the fans on the
property, but have been reported on similar fans in the Glenwood Springs area.
Ho*"r"r, steep canyon sides, where the debris flow hazard is high, are not planned for
developments related to the Regional WWTF. Planned developments would take place
on the io*., reaches of debris fans where the debris flow hazard is moderate. The report
suggests considering the use of deflection berms and direct building protection, on a case
by case basis, and such facilities are planned.
This report also notes that there is a rock fall hazard on the site of the proposed WWTF.
It indicates that the run out limit is located on the lower and middle parts of the debris
fans. Rock fallhazard, associated with these areas is considered to be low to moderate.
The report suggests the use of rock fall barriers, and direct building reinforcement, where
appropriate, to mitigate the rock fallhazard-
Wildfire is a potenti alhazardin the general vicinity of the Cardinell site. While
vegetation on the proposed location is not generally conducive to the spread of wild land
firIs, the brushy, steep slopes on lands adjacent to the site can increase the magnitude and
potential for rapid spread of a wildfire. Fires on these slopes can, in turn, exacerbate the
potential for subsequent debris flow.
I:9007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 58
iI
,l
il
22.4(lXbXvii) Soils Report
Hepworth-Pawleck Geotechnical, Inc., prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical Study of the
Caidinell site (referred to as the Chatfield Ranch Property in the report) in 1996 (Exhibit
14). Site specific soils information is also available from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS).
Soils at the proposed construction site are categorized as the Begay sandy loam. These
soils form in alluvium derived from sandstone and shale, and are found on alluvial fans
and valley sides. According to NRCS information, these soils do not support prime
farmlands, show no frequency of flooding, and are not hydric (a wetland indicator). They
are not well suited for sewage lagoons or septic fields.
According to the Hepworth-Pawleck report, ten exploratory borings were drilled to
evaluate subsurface conditions. Findings indicated approximately 1 to 3 feet of topsoil
and 5 to 9 feet of mainly silt and clay debris fan deposits overlying relatively dense,
slightly silty sandy gravel alluvium containing cobbles and boulders.
The report concluded that development in the study area where slopes are less than20Yo
to 25% should be feasible. Spread footings placed on natural subsoil's or compacted
structural fill, or a deep foundation placed on underlying dense gravel should be suitable
for buildings.
The Force main Conveyance & WWTF Access and Road Project will be starting
construction this spring. Plans include providing a Pilot Road from the MOC site to the
proposed WWTF, where additional soils information will be obtained. An update of the
Debris Flow & Rock fall HazardReport will be performed as part the WWTF design
effort.
II
il
il
il
il
rt
ll
iT
I
tl
il
ll
I
I
t
'l
I:.o00'1V007 -461.002 Wwp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 59
,T
I
il
t
il
I
il
it
I
I
rl
rl
il
iT
il
I
.l
t
I
22.4(lXbXviii) Detailed Description of Selected Alternative
The layout of the proposed Glenwood Springs Wastewater Treatment Facility is shown
on Exhibit 22.
Lift Station
A new lift station will be constructed at the site of the current Glenwood Springs WWTF.
Design and cost information specific to the lift station are in Part II of this narrative
document.
Force Main
Dual 16-inch C905/RJrM force mains will be installed from the new lift station to the new
Regional WWTF. The force mains will cross the Roaring Fork River underneath the 8th
Street Bridge, and then along Midland Avenue to the vicinity of the Municipal
Operations Center. They will then run within the new access road to the WWTF. Total
length of the dual force mains is approximately 13,600 feet. Further information about
the force mains can be found in Part III of this narrative document.
Preliminary Treatment
Influent will enter a headwork's building containing two channels. One mechanical bar
screen will be installed in the first channel followed by a vortex grit basin. A manual
screen will be installed in a second, blpass channel to be used during bypass conditions
where the mechanical screen is receiving maintenance.
One Parshall Flume will be installed following screening and grit removal to provide
continuous measurement of the plant influent wastewater flow. An ultrasonic-level
measuring device will be installed for the flume. Table viii-l provides preliminary
design criteria for the Parshall Flume.
Table 3 Influ M riteriaable 3 lnlluent Metering S Preliminary Design C
Parameter Desigr Criteria
Number of Flumes 1
Flume Throat Size 18 inches
Channel Width 4 feet
Peak Hour Free Flow Flume
Capacity, MGD
15.9 MGD
Meter Type Ultrasonic Over Parshall
Flume
One screw-type screenings washer/compactor will be installed for screenings washing
and compaction from the mechanical bar screen. A grlt washer will be installed for
handling grit. The compacted screenings and the dewatered grit will be transferred to a
dumpster for disposal at the South Canyon Landfill.
L\20079007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 60
it
il
il
I
il
rl
il
I
I
IT
il
tl
I
il
T
t
t
I
I
The mechanical bar screen and grit basin will be designed to have capacity to handle
peak hourly flow condition. The proposed screening preliminary design criteria are
shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Screenins Equipment P reliminary Design Criter
Parameter Desisr Criteria
Mechanical Bar Screen
Number 1
Desigr Flow Rate (Pk Hr)11.7MGD
Element Size, mm 6
Channel Width, inch 30
Channel Depth, inch 72
Tvpe Step-screen
Screenings Washer/Compactor
Number 1
Type Screw
Minimum Vol. Reduction 75%
Minimum Solids Conc.50-600h
Grit will be collected from the bottom of the vortex grit basin in sumps and pumped,
using recessed impeller grit pumps, to the grit washer . The proposed grit removal
preliminary design criteria are shown in Table 5.
Table 5 Grit Removal Prelimin Design Criteria
Parameter Desigl Criteria
Grit Basins
Number 1
Tvpe Circular in floor Vortex
Diameter, ft.13
Desisr Flow (Peak Hour)12 MGD
Grit Pump
Number I
Type Recessed Impeller
Total Discharge Head, ft.50
Capacity, gpm,250
Drive Constant-speed motor with
adiustable belt
Grit Washer
Number 1
Flow, gpm 300
Rated grit size removed, micron 10Yo of 150;50% of 100
I:V007V007-46 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 61
!l
I
I
I
iiI
Ir
l,r
ln
lr
lr
ll
lr
ll
Biological Treatment
Two 1.26 million gallon (MG) concrete oxidation ditches will be constructed in Phase 1,
with two additional oxidation ditches to be added in Phases 2 & 3. The oxidation ditches
will be 16 feet deep.
The oxidation ditch activated sludge configuration will provide anoxic and aerated
environments required to perform nitrification and denitrification. Nitrification and
denitrification will occur in the same tank by creating a high dissolved oxygen (DO) zone
and low DO zone. DO and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) probes will be installed
to allow for process optimization and to minimize aeration and power consumption.
Suspended solids meters will be installed in the Return Activated Sludge (RAS) return
pipirrg to monitor RAS concentration in the basins. Since the nitrification and
denitrification occur in the same basin, the oxidations ditches will be designed to allow a
solids retention time (SRT) long enough to provide full nitrification. The advantages of
this design are to maximize denitrification and minimize energy consumption.
Preliminary design criteria for the oxidation ditches are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Oxidation Ditch Prelimin Des Criteria
Parameter Desigr Criteria
Phase 1 2&3
Sludge Yield (winter cond.)0.80 pound WAS/pound BOD removed
Design MLSS, mgll 3,000
Maximum Wastewater
Temperature (summer)
20 degrees C.
Minimum Wastewater
Temperature (winter)
10 degrees C
Elevation 5.720
Oxidation Ditch Basins
Number 2 (Concrete Structure)4 (Concrete Structure)
Hydraulic Retention Time 27 Hours 27 Hours
BODs Loading Rate 15.2lbs/l000 cu.ft.15.2lbs/l000 cu.ft.
Total Length, ft.175 17s
Total Width, ft 70 70
Total Depth, ft.16 16
Volume (each), gallons 1.340.176 1,340,176
Vertical Propulsion Drum Assemblies
Number 4 (2 per oxidation ditch)8 (2 per oxidation d4gbl
Type Vertical Submerged Drum
Mixer
Vertical Submerged Drum
Mixer
Horse Power (each)15 15
Mixer Speed (with VFD)9 RPM 9 RPM
Manufacfurer Westech Landox Westech Landox
I:\200?\2007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Applicatioo\Site App Narrative.doc 62
il
il
1l
L
il
il
il
I
il
t
fl
il
il
il
I
il
:l
rl
I
A blower room,located on the ground floor of the RAS/WAS/Blower Building adjacent
to the secondary clarifiers (see below) will include single-stage or multi-stage centrifugal
blowers to provide air to the oxidation ditches and to the aerobic digesters. The blowers
will supply air via aeration piping to floor-mounted, fine bubble, membrane disc diffirsers
for the oxidation ditches and floor-mounted coarse bubble diffusers for the aerobic
digesters. Automatic motorized air throttling valves and air flow meters will be designed
for the oxidation ditch and aerobic digester air distribution systems. The blower control
system will be designed with the ability to flow pace the air supply to the influent plant
flow with adjustment based on dissolved oxygen concentration or ORP in the oxidation
ditches and aerobic digesters.
Three blowers will be installed in Phase 1. Two blowers will normally be operated at the
same time to provide air for two oxidation ditches and three aerobic digester cells. The
third will serve as standby. Two additional blowers will be added during Phases 2 &,3.
Regardless of the phasing of influent flows, the Glenwood Springs Regional WWTF will
always provide one extra blower to meet the CDPHE criteria of firm blower capacity
with the largest unit not in operation. The proposed blower design criteria are shown in
Table 7, and the proposed oxidation ditch diffuser design criteria are shown in Table 8.
Table 7 Oxidation Ditch Blowers
Table 8 Oxid Ditch Aeration Diffuse
'a Preli Desisn Criteria
Parameter Design Criteria
Phase 1 2 &3
Blowers
Type Single-stage centrifugal
with inlet control vanes or
multi-stage Centrifugal with
VFDs
Single-stage centrifugal
with inlet control vanes or
multi-stage Centrifugal with
VFDs
Number J 5
Desiprr flow rate each. scfm 3,480 3,480
Discharge Pressure, psis 8.6 8.6
Horse Power 2OO HP 200 HP
able 8 Oxidation r Preliminarv Desisn Criteria
Parameter Design Criteria
Phase 1 2 &3
AOR, lbs/tr 203 for each ditch 203 for each ditch
SOTR scf 30 30
Diffusers
Type Fine Bubble Diffuser,
membrane disc
Fine Bubble Diffuser,
membrane disc
Headers 2 per ditch 2 per ditch
Flow Control Flow meters on each header Flow meters on each header
Monitoring
DO probes 2 per ditch, 4 total 2 per ditch, 8 total
ORP and temp probes 3 per ditch, 6 total 3 per ditch, 12 total
I:V007V007 -461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 63
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
I
Two 55-foot diameter secondary clarifiers with side water depths of 15 feet will be
constructed to settle the Mixed Liquor. A hydraulic splitter box will be provided that
allow the flow from each oxidation ditch to flow to either secondary clarifier. A
cornbination hydraulic suction removal header and scraper arm will be provided. The
hydraulic suction removal header will collect return activated sludge (RAS). The scraper
arm will transfer waste activated sludge (WAS) to a center hopper. Wire brush
mechanisms mounted on the secondary clarifier arm will be provided to minimize growth
of algae. The proposed secondary clarifier preliminary design criteria are shown in Table
9.
Note 1: Normal RAS return ratio is assumed to be 0.75 of maximum month flow rate.
Maximum RAS return ratio is 1.5 X influent flow rate.
A RAS/WAS pump station will be constructed on the lower level of the RAS/WAS
Blower Building to house the dedicated RAS, WAS and secondary clarifier scum pumps
for each secondary clarifier. Variable frequency drives (VFDs) will be installed in the
RAS pumps, with flow meters and motorized control valves on the discharge piping.
A total of five RAS pumps and three WAS/Scum pumps would be installed in the pump
station during Phase IL Five additional RAS pumps and three additional WAS pumps
will be added in Phases 2 & 3 . The number and capacity of the pumps will be provided
able 9 Secondary Clarifier Prelimina Criteria
Parameter Desisn Criteria
Phase I u &III
Number of Clarifiers 2 (Concrete Structure)4 (Concrete Structure)
Clarifier Diameter, ft 55 55
Mechanism type Center-feed Center-feed
Sidewall depth, ft 15 15
Clarifier Bottom Slope. inlft 1 1
Clarifier Surface Area. each 2.375 sq ft 2.375 sq ft
Clarifier Volume, each 0,27 MG 0.21MG
Typical Return Ratio,
Onos/O
0.35 to 0.75 0.35 to 0.75
Mixed Liquor Flow to
Clarifierl, MGD
4.r0 8.19
MLSS, mg/l 3,000 3,000
Surface Loading Rate
including RASl, gpd/sq ft
863 863
Solids Loading Rate
including RASl, lb/d/sq ft
2t.3 2t.3
Hydraulic Detention Time
including RAS1, hr
3.r2 3.t2
Horse Power, each 0.5 0.5
Weir Loading Rate, ffidlft 7,306 7.306
1:\2007V007 -461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 64
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to meet the initial plant startup and the CDPHE criteria of 1.50 time's influent flow. The
proposed RAS/WAS pump design criteria are shown in Table 10.
Disinfection
Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection equipment will be installed in the concrete channels located
on the ground floor of the UV Disinfection Building. One disinfection system will be
provided to meet CDPHE design and redundancy criteria. Both horizontal and vertical
W disinfection systems will be evaluated for potential implementation. The initial UV
disinfection design criteria, which are shown for Phases II and III in Table X, are based
on horizontal UV disinfection affangement. Space will be provided in the UV
Disinfection Building for additionai UV disinfection modules to handle future flows.
The design criteria for the Phase II and Phase III UV disinfection system are shown in
Table 11.
Table 10 RAS/WAS Pum Criteria
Parameter Design Criteria
Phase I il&m
RAS Pumps
Number 5 (3 large, 2 small 10 (6 large,4 small)
Design Flow Rate, GPM High Capacity-8O0 ea ditch
Low Capacity-40O ea ditch
High Capacity-80O ea ditch
Low Capacity-400 ea ditch
Horse Power, HP High Capacity-25
Low Capacitv-10
High Capacity-25
Low Capacitv-l0
Type Centrifugal Non-Clog with
VFDs
Centrifugal Non-Clo g with
VFDs
WAS Pumps
Number 3 6
Design Flow Rate, gpm 30 30
Horse Power, HP 5 5
Type Progressive Cavity Progressive Cavity
Table 11 Ultraviolet Disinfection S
Desim Criteria
II&ilI
Type of UV bulb
ent, initial d
Number of Modules, peak-
hour flow
Number of Channels
Number of Banks
Number of Lamps per
Module
I:V007V007-46 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 65
Parameter
Phase I
Peak hr desisn flow (MGD)5.85 tL.7
Horizontal Horizontal
8 t6
1 2
1 2
Number of Modules per
Bank
5 5
8 8
il
1t
il
il
il
Lamp Model Amalgam, low pressure Amalgam, Low Pressure
Total Number of UV Lamps 40 80
Effective Lamp Life, hrs 13,000 13.000
Electrical Input, Watts 225 22s
UV Lamp Output @ 254
nm, Watts
100 100
UV Transmittance,Yo 65 65
UV Dose, Ws/cm2, peak
hour flow
30,000 30,000
Weir Length, ft 15 150
Maximum Power Draw, kW 10 20
Average Power Draw, kW 6 I2II
I Aerobic Digestion
rr Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) from the secondary clarifiers will be pumped to the
l! aerobic digesters where aeration and mixing occur. Maintaining the digester under
aerobic conditions allows for continuous volatile solids destruction by aerobic
rI microorganisms with minimal production of odor. Aerobic digestion is achieved when
I biological cells without adequate extemal food sources consume their own cellular
material. Aeration and mixing can be provided by a variety of mechanical systems.
{l ffflTrtlllrfdiftuser
aeration is a common svstem and will be used at the Glenwood
Four covered concrete digesters will be constructed for aerobic WAS digestion. The
aerobic digesters will be operated in an "On/Off' sequence operating mode (two in
operation and one in settling mode for supernatant decanting). The single-stage or multi-
stage centrifugal blowers for the oxidation ditches will also be used to provide air to the
aerobic digesters through coarse-bubble aeration diffusers. A motor-operated telescoping
valve will be installed in digester cell number 4 for supernatant decanting. The
supematant will be decanted to the supematant holding tank and then transferred to
oxidation ditches. Progressive cavity pumps will be provided to pump aerobically
digested biosolids from the digester tanks to the centrifuges. The design criteria for the
aerobic digesters are shown in Table 12.
rl
tl
I
I
il
il
it
rl
I
able 12 Aerobic Di ter Criteria
Parameter Design Criteria
Phase 1 l2&3
Feed Solids Concentration,
%
1.0-1.4 (average: 1.2)
Volatile Solids Reduction
(minimum), %
38
Total SRT, degree C-days 800
Minimum Oxidation Ditch 140 (T4 day SRT @ 10 dee C)
I:V007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 66
il
il
I
il
{t
I
I
rl
rt
I
ll
tI
:t
il
I
il
I
I
t
Biosolids Dewatering
A Biosolids Dewatering Building willbe constructed adjacent to the aerobic digester
tanks at the Glenwood Springs Regional WWTF. The existing high-solids centrifuge will
be relocated from the Solids Processing Building at the current WWTF to the new
Biosolids Dewatering Building. A new high-solids centrifuge will also be placed at the
new building for redundancy.
Two inclined shaft less screw conveyors will be installed to transfer dewatered cake from
the centrifuges to a dump truck or dumpster to be located adjacent to the Biosolids
Dewatering Building. Other equipment will include an emulsion polymer system, two
monorail cranes for centrifuge scroll removal, and cent rate piping. The high-solids
centrifuge will discharge cent rate via gravity to the cent ratelsloppy cake holding tank.
During startup and shutdown, the thin solids produced by the centrifuge will also be
discharged by gravity to the cent ratelsloppy cake holding tank. The cent rate and sloppy
cake will be transferred either to oxidation ditches or to cell number 4 of the aerobic
digester.
One liquid emulsion polymer system will inject polymer solution into each centrifuge
influent piping to assist flocculating the digested biosolids. The emulsion system will use
a self-contained polymer preparation unit for both activation and dilution. Three flow-
paced progressive-cavity metering pumps (two operating, one standby) will be provided.
The proposed centrifuge and shaft less screw preliminary design criteria are shown in
Tables 13 and 14, respectively.
SRT, degree C-days
Minimum Aerobic Digester
SRT, degpee C-days
660 (33 day SRT @20 degc)
Solids loading rate, lb/d
(WAS)
4,371 8,753
Hydraulic Loading Rate,
ealld (WAS)
43,132 87,465
Number of Cells 4 8
Cell Dimensions, length X
width, feet
37x25 (2);7sxzs (r);
51.3x34.5 (1)
37x25 @);75x2s (2);
5r.3x34.5 (2)
Side Water Depth, ft t6 t6
Total Volume, MG (ft')0.66 (87,934)1.32 (t75,868)
Mixine/Aeration Type Coarse Bubble Diffusers Coarse Bubble Diffrrsers
Aeration Desi gr Criteria Mixine @30 cfm/1000 ft Mixing @30 cfm/l000 ft'
Mixing Air, scfm 2.540 5,080
Centrifuee Feed Pumps
Type Progressive Cavity Prosressive Cavity
Number of Units 2 (one operation, one
standby)
2 (one operation, one
standbv)
Rated Capacity, each, gpm 120 t20
Total Discharge Head, ft 60 60
I:V0079007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 67
iI
il
it
rt
I
ll
II
I
rt
T
II
I
:l
il
I
tl
il
I
I
Table 13 Centrifuge Prelimin Desi Critn erla
Parameter Desigr Criteria
Phase 1 2 &3
Feed Solids, lbs/day 3,064 6,t27
Feed Solids Concentration,
percent
1.5 to 2.5 (average2.0)1.5 to 2.5 (average 2.0)
Centrifuge Feed Solids Aerobically digested WAS Aerobically dieested WAS
Minimum Solids Capture
efficiency, percent
98 98
Dewatered Cake Solids
concentration, percent
16-19 (average 17)16-19 (average l7)
Dewatered Cake Density, lb
per cu ft
52-56 52-56
Dewatered cake, total
dtlday
1.5 3.0
Dewatered Cake, total
wtlday
8.8 t7.7
Dewatered Cake, total cu
ftlday
13 25
Parameter Design Criteria
Centrifuge Existing New
Number of Units 1 I 3 (2 existing, I new)
Andritz Model D4L D5L D5L
NPW requirement, Bpm 60 60 r20
Actual rated throughput
per unit, gpm
70 153 153
Polyrner feed rate, lb per
ton, Avg/Max
20t30 20t30 20130
Design Condition No. 1 (High hydraulic loading )
Feed Solids concentration,
percent
i.5 1.5 1.5
Hydraulic loading (not
including polymer solution
and carrier water), gpm
82 136 272
Solids Loading,lbs/tr 613 1.021 2,042
Polymer solution and car-
rier water flow, gpm
8.8 8.8 17.5
Operating Schedule,
Hours/day; days/week
'7.\, )-7;3 7.7
Design Condition No. 2 (High Solids Loading)
Feed Solids concentration,
percent
2.5 2.s 2.5
Hydraulic loading (not
including polymer solution
49 82 r63
l:.o007.o007 461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 68
,I
rl
]l
il
il
rt
It
tl
I
I
I
il
:l
tt
:l
ll
rl
I
T ble 14 Cak Con
Odor Control
Air ionization type odor control equipment will be provided for odor control in the
Headwork's Building (including bar screen area, channels, grit basin and dumpster).
Individual fan and ductwork system will transport ionized air from ionization system to
the areas of odor generation. The proposed headwork's odor control design criteria are
shown in Table 15.
I
LV007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc
and carrier water), gpm
Solids Loading, lbsftr 613 1,027 2,042
Polyrner solution and car-
rier water flow, gpm
8.8 8.8 t7.5
Operating Schedule,
Hours/day; days/week
1;5 1;3 7;3
Design Condition No. 3(Normal Loading
Feed Solids concentration,
percent
2.0 2.0 2.0
Hydraulic loading (not
including polyrner solution
and carrier water), gpm
6t t02 204
Solids Loading,lbs/tr 613 1.02t 2,042
Polymer solution and car-
rier water flow, gpm
8.8 8.8 17.5
Operating Schedule,
Hours/day; days/week
7.5 /;5 7;3
Ernulsion Polyrner System
Number of Units 1 1
Active Polr,rmer content. o%40 40
Polymer Solution
Concentration, percent
0.2 0.2
Storage type Tote or drum Tote or drum
Feed Rate, gph diluted 100-3,000 100-3,000
a e Criteria
Parameter Desim Criteria
Phase 1 2&3
Transfer Method Inclined Shaft less Screw
conveyor
Inclined Shaft less Screw
conveyor
Number of Units 2 2
Length, ft 36142 36142
Screw Diameter, in 11 11
Capacity, cu ftlhr 160 160
Power, HP 3.0 3.0
Drain Size, in 6 6
NPW Demand 20 gpm @,50 psi each 20 epm @.50 psi each
69
il
I
Table L5 Headwork's Air Ionization Odor Control System Preliminary Design
Criteria
A bio filter odor control system willbe provided for odor treatment in the Solids
Processing Area (including the aerobic digester headspace, centrifuge vent pipes, and
truck loading bay). Predominant odor-causing compounds are: 1) ammonia, 2) reduced
sulfur compounds, and 3) amines.
Odorous off-gas will be collected from the headspace of the aerobic digester tanks,
centrifuge vent pipes, and truck loading bay, and will be transported to bio filters. The
preliminary design criteria for bio filters for the Solids Processing Area are shown in
Table 16.
Bio filter Preliminary Design Criteria
il
il
tl
it
I
il
I
I
IT
T
ll
iI
I
I
Parameters Values
Air Handling Unit or Centrifugal Fan
Number of Units 1
Capacity, cfm 574
Pressure, inch W.C.3
Horsepower, hp 2
Air Ionization System
Number of Modules 8
Model 50F5
Tubes per Module 5
Spare Module 1
Table 16 Solids Processing Area
Parameters Values
Inorganic and organic bio filter media
loading rate, acfrn"/cu ft
<4
Design detention time, seconds 33 (normal operations)
1 6.5 (during maintenance)
Media Type Inorsanic/Organic
Orientation Aboveground
Inorganic Media Life, years 10-1 5
Inorganic Media Life, years 4-5
Maximum head loss, inches W.C.9
Air flow to collect and treat, acfrn 7.395
Average influent hydrogen sulfide
concentration, ppm
30
Maximum influent hydrogen sulfide
concentration, ppm
200
Minimum hydrogen sulfide removal rate,
percent
99
Foul air inlet relative humidity, percent 35 to 75
Foul air inlet temperafure, degrees F 50 to 104
I:V0079007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 10
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
Additional Facilities
Two maintenance buildings, each with an approximate size of 55-foot by 65 -foot
(approximately 3,610 ,qrir" feet) will be constructed on the west side of the Regional
WWfp and al,ong the access road. Each of the maintenance buildings will include
vehicle service bays (each approximately 20 feet by 65 feet), spare parts storage area,
offices, locker.oo*r, bathrooms and showers, and general storage areas' An Equipment
Storage Building of approxim ately 1,7 50 square feet will also be constructed along the
access road.
Non-potable water (I.{PW), reclaimed water from the disinfection system prior to
discharge to the Colorado River, will be used for tank wash down, irrigation,
screening/dewatering equipment wash water, and additional uses.
The NpW system will be installed in the UV Disinfection Building to draw effluent from
the effluent wet well and pump it to the distribution network. Pump sizing will be
determined based on NPW rr.ug". The treated and disinfected NPW will be pumped
from the chamber by vertical turbine pumps through a continuously self-cleaning fine
mesh strainer. A hydro pneumatic tank system may also be used to maintain system
pressures.
A new potable water (Pw) system will serve all domestic and potable water uses' The
PW supply will be provided to ensure adequate volumes for polyrner prep-aration and
other uses. potable water is also from the distribution system but is backflow protected
from systems which may cause contamination if a vacuum condition occurs within the
Biofilters
Number of ComParlments 2
Biofilter surface area, sq. ft.1,066
Biofilter size, length X width, ft 49 X2l.l5
Biofilter depth, ft 17 total; total media depth 3.72
Organic Media DePth, ft 1.86
lnorganic Media DePth, ft 1.86
Retention Time, seconds JJ
NPW requirement for upper, middle, and
lower irrieation, gPd
3,300
NPW pressure, psig 55-60
Foul Air Fans
Number of Units 1
Fan Capacity, cfrn 7,210
Discharge pressure, inch W.C.l4
Horsepower, hp total 20
I :V007V007-46 1 .002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative doc 7l
il
il
ll
I
ll
rl
L
tr
tI
il
il
il
I
I
rl
il
t
I
occurs within the distribution system. A bypass connection will be provided to supply
the NPW system with PW from the potable water distribution network.
22.4(lxbXix) Leeal Control of the Site for the Proiect Life
The Cardinell Property is owned by the City of Glenwood Springs (see the attached
Deed, Exhibit 15). The Cardinell property is scheduled for annexation by ordinance at
the February 19,2009 City Council meeting. Access to the site is across land owned by
the City, as well as two small parcels of land owned by: 1) the Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority (RFTA), and 2) the United States (BlM-managed public lands).
RFTA has conveyed temporary access and construction easements to the City (Exhibit
16). The rights-of-way granted to the City by the BLM are also attached (see Exhibit 17).
l:,o007V007 461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 72
,l
't
tl
t
I
IT
rt
IT
I
L
I
L
it
rt
T
I
it
I
I
22.4(1XbXx) Institutional Arranqements
The Glenwood Springs "Water and Sewer System" falls under the City's Public Works
Department, and is supported by user fees, tap fees for new service connections, and
reserve fund interest. It is a separate and distinct function for the purposes of the City
budget. Copies of budget information for this function are available on request. In 2008,
total revenue received from sewer system users was $759,263, while total system
operating expenses came to $550,710.
In 2001 the tap fee for sewer service was $2110.65. User rates vary, depending upon
category of service and whether or not service is metered. For 2008, the average monthly
residential user rate was approximately $21.00, while the average monthly rate for
commercial users was $79.00.
I:\2007\2007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 73
,l
I
I
Ir
lr
ln
h
h
lr
I
22.4(lxb)(xi) Manaeement Capabilities
CDpHE Regulation No. 100, "Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification
Requiremerits" outlines the certification requirements as a function of plant size and
p.o""r, type. Table 17 shows these certification levels. Plant sizes in the 2.01 to 4.00
iufCO ,"ig"that utilize activated sludge processes and extended aeration used beyond
secondary treatment require certification level B. The oxidation ditches selected for this
project fall into this category.
The City currently has six full time employees on the wastewater treatment staff (see
Exhibit 19). This includes one Class A Operator, one Class C Operator, and one Class D
Operator. The existing staff is well trained and considered to be adequate for operations
at the new facility.
TABLE 17 Wastewater Classification
.IOO,5 2 DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT tsACILITY CI,'ASSIFICATION TABLE
(a) Waste stabilization Ponds
including oeraled and non-
(b) Trickling nlter or rotating
_9i9l9S lq4-1."_9_{t!"S!9.
(c) Extended aerdtion Process
seqrjeoaing batch reactffi
designed to opc€to irr,the
(d) All othe( activoted sludge
prGesss and extendcd ac€liot)
where used beyond sercndsry
trcatment (i-6-, nrtrifi€tion) and
chemi€l and/o, Physi€lpr@sses providing a high
degrco of treatment other than
. polishing.ponds.
..(9) Rqg.r..gulaling sand-f iltralio!
Wll be classified in alignrent wilh the last treatment pr@ess
prior to release of the efffuent into the wetland for turther(f) Wetlands used as a Parl ot the
wate. lrealment process
I:9007V007-46 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 74
df th Ficilitv
Rolow O 5 n c-l (){)1 .O1-2.OO ? o14 00 4(]0
D c B B
c a B
B B
BBBB
I
t
il
I
T
t
il
I
I
I
t
I
il
I
I
t
t
il
T
22.4(lXbXxii) Financial Svstem
The City will be using a variety of funding sources to cover the costs of developing the
Regional WWTF. In addition to general funds, potential funding sources include loans
andlor grants from Rural Development Services, Economic Development Administration,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Water Quality Control Division, the
State Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Program, and the Water Pollution Control
Revolving Fund. See Exhibit2} for further information.
I:V007V00746 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 75
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ill
22.4(1xb't(xiii) Imptementation Plans and schedule
Glenwood Springs has provided the resources to design and provide for the construction
of the Lift station force mains and access road to the proposed wwTF. This work will
commence in February,2OOg and will continue until July, 2009. At that time, the access
road to the proposed WWTF will be complete and construction may commence for the
WWTF and asiociated Lift Station once the necessary approvals are received from the
various agencies. Ali required utilities will be available to both sites. It is anticipated
that the construction of the WWTF and Lift Station will proceed together and will take
approximately two years to complete once approved.
The following schedule is offered:
Site Application Submittal to Garfield County...." February 26'2009
Site Application Submittal to the Division.'.'...'....... March 20'2009
Process-Design Report Submittal to the Division.... April 13' 2009
Construction Plans & Specifications to the Division...'."""""' June 1' 2009
Begin Construction .. ... .. ...... .. ... .. .. .. . .. . ' . July 27 , 2009
WWfftift Station Start-up August, 2011
I:\2007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative'doc 76
il
,il
il
I
l/n
ln
ln
ln
lr
lr
lll
l:r
lil
ll
22.4(1)(c) Notice of the Intent to Construct for Private
The proposed facility will discharge treated effluent into the Colorado River. The
conveyance system will only cross land owned by the City of Glenwood Springs.
However, a strip of this parcel, encumbered by a right-of-way held by Union Pacific
Railroad will also be crossed. Union Pacific has been involved in the discussions
regarding this project since 2002.
I:V007V007-46 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 77
I
il 22.4(2XA) Review Comments bv Manasement Agencv
I
t
,i
il
,[
il
il
I
I
I
T
il
:l
il
I
I
l:.200'lo007 -461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narmtive.docI 18
22.4(2XB) Review Comments bv the CounW
I
,,I
il
ln
l,r
ln
ln
lir
ln
lr
79I:9007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative doc
22.4(2XC) Review Comments bv the Citv or Town
I
t
t
lI
ln
lr
lr
ln
ln
h
lr
lr
h
lr
ll 80I:t2007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc
22.4(2XD) Review Comments bv the Local Health Authoritv
I
il
I
I
{l
I
t
L
L
I
U
,l
I
rt
ll
,I
I
I
I l:V007V007 -461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 8i
I
I 22.4(2XE) Review Comments bv the Water Qualitv Plannins
( AgencvI
t
i
t
t
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
i
l
I
t
I:90079007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 82
I
I
I
lt
Ir
lr
li
lr
lr
l:
ll
lr
22.4(2)(fl State or Federal Review Comments
See following page
I:V007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative'doc 83
l--$
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
l
I
I
I
I
:c-HTMUESEn I conooN I veren
ENGI*U=*s & SURVEYoRS
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
I I I w. 6TH, su[E 2OO
GLEII$,OOO 5FF{}1G5, CO I I 60 I
970-945- I OO4
rx: 97O-945-5944
February 17,2009
Steve Behnett
Acting Field Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Glenwood Springs Field Office
50629 Highway 6&24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: City of Glenwood Springs Regional Waste Water Treatment Facility (GWS-
RWWTF)
Steve:
On behalf of the City of Glenwood Springs RWWTF, Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer (SGM)
is in the process of preparing a site application for the GWS-RWWTF project in Garfield
County, Colorado. The project being proposed is for construction of a new 3.9 MGD
consolidated regional WWTF. The WWTF will use conventional activated sludge at the
Cardinell Site. Enclosed is an U.S. Geological Survey map that depicts the proposed
projects area of potential effect for all construction activities and a description of the
work involved.
The access road to the proposed site crosses approximately 400 ft of BLM land. SGM
has received easement approval from BLM.
SGM requests that your office review the proposed project and respond with any
recommendations, comments or questions you may have to ensure that any
environmental impacts be avoided or mitigated.
We would appreciate a response within 30 days. Please send your response to my
attention here at the office SGM 118 West 6* St Ste 200 Glenwood Springs If you need
any further information or wish to discuss the project, please feel free to contact me at
970-945-1004x.2135. .
Sincerely, -
/ i .'t 1!\
?-.\ [ flAl\
Brian Edwards ROWP
WaterAVastewater Technician
Enclosures: Project Summary, Planning Area Map
Cc: Project File
ASPEN
P.o.BoxZl55
ASPEN,coBl6l2
970-925-6727
Fxt 97C9?5-4157
CRESTED BUTTE
P-o. Box 3088
CRESTEO BLrrrE, CO I I 2e4
970-349-5355
rx: 97G349-5354
22.4(3Xa) Postine of Public Notice
See Exhibit}l for photographs of the posted signs.
llll
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
ll
lI
lr
84I:\2007\2007-46 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc
rl
t
T
lr
h
h
h
l:
lr
PART II
CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRNGS
LIFT STATION
85I:V007\2007461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
The proposed lift station for the Glenwood Springs Regional Wastewater Treatment
Facility will be located near the preliminary treatment facility of the existing WWTF.
This is the point which all of the wastewater collection facilities for the regional facility
planning area currently or will ultimately converge. The City proposes to relocate the
existing wastewater treatment facility to a new site (see Part 1) and redevelop the site as
part of the Confluence Park Development. This proposed lift station will be the first
building to be planned and will set the architectural style of the Confluence Park project.
The facility will be a dual train pumping station with self cleaning wet wells, odor control
and full SCADA controls to provide the ultimate 100-Year facility. Design capacity for
Phase 1 is 4,800 gallons per minute with the ultimate capacity of the lift station being
8,000 gallons per minute. The pumps will have variable frequency drives to provide flow
pacing to the WWTF commensurate with influent flows fiom the existing collection
system and received by the lift station wet well(s). Appendix B contains a preliminary
floor plan of the proposed lift station (Exhibit 23). Exhibit 72 (located in Appendix A)
illustrates the locations of the WWTF, lift station and connecting force mains.
This report is pertinent to a portion of the approval process as it relates to the Site
Application requirements of Regul ation 22. Typically, a new lift station receives Site
Application, Plan and Specification approval concurrently by furnishing an engineering
report and Lift Station Checklist. However, due to the size and complexity of the
proposed facility, it is recommended to provide the amount of information necessary to
only receive Site Application approval at this time. As the design effort progresses, the
design team will provide detailed calculations, drawings and specifications in the form of
a Process Design Report and follow with Plan and Specification submittal and approval
concurrently with the proposed new wastewater treatment facility.
l:V007V007 -461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 86
tl
lrl
lilt
lll
ll
ti
lr
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PTIBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Water QualitY Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
(303) 692-3s74
STAT I RSE
CERTIFICATION
(Section 22.7, Regalation No. 22)
Applicant Citv of Glenwood Sprinss
Address: 101 West 8m St
City, State, zip: Glenwood Sprines CO 81601
Email Address mqmcdill@ci. slenwood-sprinss.co'us
Primary Contact (for project inquiries) Mike McDill
ConsultingEngineer: SGM
Address: 118 west 6ft St Ste 200
City, State, Zip: Glenwood Sprines CO 81601
Email Address chadp@ssm-inc.com
A.
1.
2.
Phone: 970-348-6413
Phone 910-348-6413
Phone: 9'70-945-1004
Summary of information regarding lift station:
Is this X New Lift Station fl Expansion of Existing Lift Station Interceptor Sewer I
Proposed Lift Station Location County: Garfield
Municipality (if applicable): City of Glenwood Sprinss
(LegalDescription N/E %, S^N y4, Section 9
Township: 6 South Range: 89W
Lat. 39 32'5i.97 N Long' 107 19'46.88W
Street Address applicable: 401 West 7ft Glenwood Sprines CO 81601
3. Capacity of facility proposed: Lift Station & Force Main X Interceptor Sewer fl
Maximum Monthly Average Hydraulic: gallday or MGD (refer to Regulation 22 for definition)
PeakHydraulic 5.85 galldaY orMGD
Present PE: 12541 Design PE: 32458
4. Mapping of FacilitY:
Attach a map of the area, which includes the following:
l-mile radius: location of proposed/existing Lift Station, habitable buildings, topography and neighboring land uses'
WQCD-3c (Revised 6/06)Page I of3
r?
lI
lt
irl
lrl
lrl
lrl
lrl
5.Is the facility in a 100-year flood plain or other natural hazard area? NO
What Agency designated the flood plarn? FEMA
(AgencY Name)
If the site is in the flood plain, what precautions are being taken? N/A
Present zoning of site? I-1 General Industrial6.
8.
Zoningwithina1-mileradiusofsite(fornewliftstations
C/4.V1. I/2. Residential PUD Zone Districts
7.who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed? cit-v of Glenwood
(If the applicant does not own the site, please attach copies of the legal documents allowing the applicant to construct the
proposed Lift Station at this site')
Estimated Project cost: 3.5- 4.0M
If the applicant is not directly responsible for constructing the new facilities, who is responsible for the construction of the
facility? Citv of Glenwood
9.
10.
11.
will a State or Federal grant or loan be sought to finance any portion of this project? Yes
what entity has the responsibility for owmng and operating the proposed facility? city of Glenwood
Please include any additional factors that might help the Water Qualit'.?::".i?:'::"::*""?i#:rmed decision on
your application for site approval'
please describe the period over which build-out of the service area will occur and the flows expected in the first 5 years
^-Aln,o,rcnfnnerationoftheLiftStation(expansion): Thebuildoutoftheplantisexpectedtobeinexcessof20
Will this Lift Station replace an existing Lift Station? Yes X No E
rf yES, please describe the currentflo*r-".y^r"uilre; ,r;-1,rr-i1*llt:l"t to the proposed new Lift Station: "LS 13000
14. Describe emergency back-up system in case of lift station and/or power failure' Back up to be served by an AuxillalY
Diesel Ensine Drive on each PumP'
15. Name and address of wastewater treatment plant providtng treatment:See NEW Wl\/r!-Sec J44-I
WQCD-3c (Revised 6/06)Page2 of3
t2.
13.
10 years ofoperation ofthe Lift Station^(expa
,Onu"n Oo"rr*"rr,urron of ,h. l"*ul ."rporrribili , of
'h"
pu'-u "on'*t'i'* th" Lift Stutio'(o' t*'ut'io') to to-'ltt" thu'
ilrkrTnd transfer the Lift Station to the Applicant')
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
Be sure to Provide confirmation statement required in section 22.7(1)(0(il(ii)(iii) of Regtlation22.
B. If the facility will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a federal or state agency, send
the agency a copy of this application for the agency's review and recommendation.
C. Recommendationofgovernmentalauthorities:
The application shall be forwarded to the planning agency of the city, town, or county in whose jurisdiction(s) the lift
station and force main is to be located. The applicant shall obtain, from the appropriate planning agency (agencies), a
statement(s) of consistency of the proposal with the local comprehensive plan(s) as they relate to water quality subject to
the provision s ot 22.3 (2)(b).
The application shall be forwarded to the water quality planning agency (agencies) for the area in which the facilities are
to be constructed and for the area to be served by those facilities. The applicant shall obtain, from the appropriate
planning agency (agencies), a statement(s) of consistency of the proposal with any adopted water quality management
plan(s).
If you have any further comments or questions, please call (303) 692-3574.
APPLICANT
I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Site Location and Design Approval Regulations for Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Works", and have posted the site in accordance with the regulations. An engineering report, as
described by the regulations, has been prepared aqd is
Date 2120/09 Michael G.McDill Citv Ensineer
Typed Name and Title
*The applicant must sign this form. The Consulting Engineer cannot sign this form.
TREATMENT AGENCY
The proposed lift station or interceptor sewer, when fully developed, will increase the loading of the treatment plant
to 84 o/o of hydraulic and 84 o/o of organic capacity and Citv of Glenwood
(Name of Treatment Agency)
agrees to treat this wastewater? fiVes ENo
2120109
(Date)
Date
Recommend
Approval
(Signature and Title)
Recommend
Disapproval
Michael G.McDill City Eneineer
(Typed)
Signature of
Representative
Local Planning Agency Typed
2.
208 Planning Agency Typed
WQCD-3o (Revised 6/06)Page 3 of3
g1
t.
t
Water Quality Site
Application Policies 1-7
Design Criteria PolicY 96-1
5114102 - 5t31107
l0l West *th St Glenwood Springs CO 81601
It8 Wcst 6TH. Sle 200 Glenwood Springs CO 81601
proofed? 1..{,2'd, 3.1.0
PH-1=1.95 PH-2=
ak Daily Flow (MGD\ = 1.4,2.tr
in) = ,.r-.,
lonfiguratior/Type ofstation (dry well, wet well, wet well
each pump ((@peak flow) 1.4'2.c
friction + static = TDH) I.4.2.d
fumished? (yes or no) 1.4.2.(l
> 3" sDhere): 3.2.2'r.3
meter DumD suction & discharge (>/+4") .l-2.2,
operates under positive suction head ? (Yes or No)
intake for each pump? (Yes or No) 3-2.2.r'6
zuoion/discharge lines ofeach pump? (yes or
eorical wning (NEMA typc 7i NEMA t}?e 6,
otor Over-temperature Control l.'l
lpe ofcontrols (mercury float switchs, bubbicr. sonic'
LIFT STATION CHECK LIST
)nsultdt Name
:c controls affected by influent flows? (Yes or No) 3': 2't'
/ETWELLS
etention time in wet well at av8
2.2.d.2
I
I
in wet well (1:l) .1.
min) ? Minutes
a^-li^anr N,m. :nd Addr.s('
)ments:
:ceivinp entity:
l0oo GPM Fntr
i85 gs
)J N'H PYISTNG
r?661 ??IR
DR V WEI I , WF,T WF,I ,t -
iee sire Annlication
S"nthca, fvPq 6r n6\:l-2.1.h.5
lfw6. hrrc.re.n oncning less than 2"?:rll
,"rrtions ir(l V"inrenJi,ce l\4anuals Pro\lded J..].r INO lD I I
pilMl,( M..|Tr)Rs- co\TRol,s
rmber ofPumDs (duolicate unils): 3.?.2.i.1
^" nfnrrmn limneller. eiector)i l.;1.2.c
75
)0 Feer
l" lN 6,,nI ]T
!o
'h..k vrlve on each discharec line? (Yes or No) 3.2.2.c
Li-
,i^1^- \/^i..-a Imh.l.n^F a^nh6l 1-J-2-c
II
-
/^1,'mc ofwet wells: {sallons)l1A1
,eratior/30 comPlete air cheges intemittent oPeration)
t.2.
Calculations Provided ? (Yes orNo): 3'2'l'b'(r
rntilation & dehumidifier in dry well (6 complete air
,ur continuous operatior/ 30 complete air chmges'ftour
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
THE GORMAN.RUPP COMPANY O MANSFIELD, OHIO
GORMAN.RUPP OF CANADA UMITED ' SI THOMAS, ONTARIO, CANADA
wwwgrpumps.comFUMP$
b
b
v
v
o
x
E.
=o
I
E,
Lrlo-
lOo
IF
IF
V'
UJE,F
lrJ
=L)
6f(J
o
x
crzoouto
E
UJ(L
zl
II
OI
'0
olrlEEJTEtrj(L
OZ
5I
8I
LI
9I
EI
VT
EI
zt
II
OI
5
I
L
9
E
b
s
Z
I
thz.oJJ
(9
o
J
o@(osNo
oootAN-{
oN
5
og
o
(\I
Fu-
o(9
lq,
o6ooNO
tra,v
os
-5
(o
o(o
-5
F
o
l.t.
o@
5co
ooNON(\t
(O
oHToF
Fu-
=a(L
=
ftl ftlNl rl*l ol.zl
(L o-
=(r-lrtol olxl -il@ll
Hiq6s
_lltlcalc0l rlrl<l<l tol(ol >l>l
Il
lrl J
4H5=
*l *lil ot(ol -tlr I ll
ill *l
u-l
E.
=(J
UJ
C)z.
E.
Cflr
E.
UJ
o_
ffisrffi
\1^"iq3:-\F
lstqirvt
aeJCftn
J
s2Elrl
4(La
x
ct
(\I
(o
oo
F1
,d>.Lc!IaJ0c
qg
I-!6b
=af,
-oLOO=ro
aB
pe
-zoC'OolILt-l-ofin2lrtz.ooo.LOg€
E{-
ori'e{ l
I
:o:l-lvt
IO_Iz
o
IJJ
J-
J
l-oF
cDsw
@ Copyright by the Gorman-Flupp Company 2007
I
I
I
lr
lr
lr
lr
l:
l:
I
I
l,[
ln
ln
Ir
ll
lr
Wastewater Lift Station:
The proposed lift station will include coarse screening facilities to protect the pumps
fromlarge objects and provide for the return of organic particles into the wastewater
stream. It i, unti"ipated that the screening will include f -inch clear openings. Provisions
to wash and compict the screenings to minimize odors and volumes will be addressed'
Provisions for bypassing and "*"ig.rr"y pumping and overflow considerations will be
incorporated within the final design.
The lift station's pumping system has been preliminarily designed for the proposed
alignment, resulting l" tt " following preliminary lift station pump selections:
. gth Street & Midland Avenue Alisnment: four 1,600 gpm pumpti 14800 gpm
nnrra capacity *ith 1 stand-by) for Phase 1 and two additional 1,600 gpm pumps
for Phase 2 (8,000 gpm FIRM capacity and 1 stand-by)'
The pumps will be equipped with variable frequency drives, with auxiliary diesel engines
for power outages. The facility will include dual self-cleaning wet wells, and the pumps
will be installed within a separate "dry" area, in a self-priming configuration to prohibit
flooding around the pumps. The proposed building will have an active odor control
systemlo facilitate a comfortable working environment for operational staff. Provisions
fo, u.""r. (Seventh Street) to remove accumulated screenings with minimal public
impacts wiit be included. Additional lift station facilities proposed are: office space,
shop area, parking and general architectural consideration.
, Gorman-Rupp Model V6A-B-1 pumps with 8-inch suction and 6-inch discharge piping.
pumps may be considered as the design progresses'
I:\2007\2007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative'doc
Other
92
It
iI
t
ln
ln
ln
ll
TABLE 4:
Summary of Model Runs for Pump Selection (C : 140) with
16"0 C905/RJ DR18 PVC Force Main and
The 8th Street & Midland Alignment
Flow
(GPM)
Total Dynamic
IIead
(Feet)
Horse Power
Velocity
(Ft./sec)
600 74.9 0.61 t.02
1000 79.4 2.4 t.7l
1,200 82.4 4.1 2.05
1,400 85.8 6.3 2.4
1,600 89.7 9.2 2.7
1,800 94.0 12.8 3.1
2,300 t06.7 25.9 3.9
3,200 236.0 66.3 5.5
4,100 t73.3 t34.s 7.0
5,000 2t8.3 236.9 8.5
93I:V007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative doc
PART III
CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS
FORCEMAN
ll
ln
lil
lir
l,I
t
I
I 94
l:V007V007 461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc
I
1l
,iI
iI
tl
il
il
t
il
il
it
,t
I
it
il
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
The City of Glenwood Springs (with Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.) has completed an
extensive force main configuration and alignment study (February 1g, 200g). ihe
resulting project alignment as stated throughout Part 1 of this report has been designed,
advertised and bids were solicited and opened totaling $4.5 million. This pipeline project
is scheduled to be completed at the same time as the lift station and wastewater treatment
facility with the WWTF access road portion of the contract to be completed by July,
2009.
The force main project consists of dual 16"A Cg\SlRJ DR18 PVC pipelines that will
convey screened influent to the headworks of the new wastewater treatment facility. A
single 16-inch force main will transport 600 to 4,550 gallons per minute2 which provides
the capacity for the Phase I average daily and peak-hour flows of 1,400 and 4,100
gallons per minute, respectively.
A single 16-inch force main will also convey the Phase 2 average daily flow (2,300
GPM) and a peak-hour flow equaling a peaking factor of 2.0 (4,550 GpM). Additional
pumping capability will be available and can increase the capacity through the force main
therefore exceeding the design criteria on a short term basis.
The second 16-inch force main will provide redundancy should damage or repairs be
necessary on the first force main.
The force mains will utilize "Pigging" for routine maintenance and cleaning operations.
This eliminates the need for "clean-out" fittings along the force mains and the-space to
access the line according to the reach length of a sewer jet truck. The cleaning operationwill be accomplished entirely within the lift station facility (and headworks building) and
will utilize the influent stream within the force main or city water pressure to propei the
pig through the line.
Three "cross-over" vaults along the force main alignment provide the opportunity to
bypass either force main between vaults. This provides additional isolaiion capabilities
to facilitate maintenance or emergencies.
2 See Table I Design Criteriafor Force Main Selection.
I:9007V00746 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 95
ll
lr
h
lr
lr
il
I
,t
I
Wastewater Force Main Pipetine Sizing
Initial pipe quantity and sizing for the wastewater force main conveyance facility has
been determined based on alignment length and elevation characte.irti"r, pumping
considerations, and current and future average daily and peak wastewaterhows for the
City of Glenwood's service area. Tables 1 and 2 lists the design criteria and flow
r6gimes, respectively, analyzedin the force main modeling efforts to determine the
wastewater force main sizes required. Preliminary information was obtained from the
201 Study and from discussions with City Staff. Flows do not include wastewater
contributions from West Glenwood.
TABLE 1:
Design Criteria used for Force Main Selection
The City has indicated that current minimum wastewater flows approach 0.8 MGD (550gpm). The average design flow (ADF) for Phase 1 of the new wastewater lift station is
1.95 MGD (1,400 gpm).
Item Value Comments
Minimum Velocity 2.0 fusec To maintain grit and other solids in suspension.
Maximum Velocity 8.0 fl/sec Higher velocities cause shearing and excess
turbulence with resulting higher pumping costs.
Hazen-Williams 'C'120 Value used for pipe capacity calculations
Hazen-Williams 'C'140 Additional value use! iql pump selection
Total Force Main Length 14,000 feet Alignment: 8'" Street & Midland Avenue
16" A C9O5/RJ-DRl8 PVC
Inside Pipe Dia.Ls.466"
Outside Dia. (17.400") Allows for use of DIp
fittings with restraining glands for repairs. Locking
joint system suitable for directional drilling
applications.
Fittings Premanufactured "Sweeps" in typical angles or
q{qm applications.
Fiber Wound Couplings 16" x 12"
Non-Metallic couplings with fl exible
thermoplastic splines. Meets "Zero Leakage,, test
requirements of ASTM D 3139.
Maximum Solids t"Pre-screening will be provided at Lift Station
l:V007\2007 461 .002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 96
il
il
il
t
iI
fI
ll
il
I
rt
rt
I
iT
il
It
I
I
I
rl
TABLE 2:
summary of wastewater Flows used for Force Main selection
Calculations for the force main Alignment of 8'h Street and Midland Avenue demonstrate
that, while keeping within acceptable velocity and total dynamic head (TDH) guidelines,
a single l6-inch force main will service 600 - 4,550 gallons per minute (0.85 --6.5MGD),which meets the Phase 2 average design and peak flow requirements.
TABLE 3:
Summary of Model Runs for Force Main selection (c = 120) for
16"g C9Os/RJ DR18 PVC
The 8th Street & Midland Alignment
Flows exceeding 4,550 gpm will require the second 16-inch force main, which when
combined with the first 16-inch force main, will convey the Phase 2 Peak-Hour flow of
9.90 MGD (7,000 gpm). The maximum capacity obtainable with both 16-inch force
Item Value Comments
MGD GPM
Existing, Low Flow 0.8 s50 (Used 600 gpm)
Average Daily Flow (ADF), Phase I 1.9s 1,400
Maximum Single Main Pump Flow 2.28 1,600
Average Daily Flow (ADF), Phase 2 3.30 2,300
Peak Hour Flow (PHF), Phase 1 5.85 4,100
Peak Hour Flow (PHF), Phase 2 9.90 7,000
Flow
(GPM)
Total Dynamic
Head
(Feet)
Horse Power Velocity
(Ft./sec)
600 76.0 0.84 t.02
1000 82.4 3.4 t.71
1,200 86.6 5.6 2.05
1,400 91.4 8.8 2.4
1,600 96.8 t2.7 2.7
1,800 94.0 12.8 3.1
2,300 120.7 35.9 3.9
3,200 161.8 92.0 5.5
4,100 214.0 186.5 7.0
4,550 244.3 251.0 7.8
5,000 277.2 328.s 8.5
I:V007V007461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrarive.doc 97
iI
I
t
tl
I
{f
il
iI
{t
t
t
tt
I
it
mains in service is 13.0 MGD (9,100 gpm). Table 3 shows the modeling results for
individual 16-inch diameter force mains with respect to the Table 2 flows.
wastewater Force Main Trench and Pipeline Material considerations:
The 16" force mains will be installed in a horizontal pipe trench configuration. The
trench shall be wide enough to allow 30-inches of clearance between the two pipelines,
whichwillrequire a7 to 8-footwidetrench. Theforcemainwillhaveaminimumof five
feet of cover.
The horizontal installation with the 3O-inches of separation between force mains, will
allow for repair actions to take place without disturbing the other force main.
Regarding the selection of pipeline material, the City has selected C900/RJ PVC over
ductile iron and high density polyethylene (HDPE). In terms of functionality, cost and
ease of installation, and durability, fusion-welded High Density Polyethylene Pipe
(HDPE) or C900/RJ PVC was the recommended pipe materials for the force main
system. There are many advantages to the selection of HDPE or C900/RJ PVC pipe
material:
o HDPE is fusion butt welded, eliminating nearly all pipe joints in force main
alignment, creating a monolithic pressure pipe.o C900/RJ PVC is joined with non-metallic couplings and flexible thermoplastic
splines inserted into mating, precision machined groves in the pipe and coupling
providing fulI restraint and evenly distributed loading.
HDPE can be made in 50-foot lengths; Hundreds of feet of HDpE can be fused
above ground prior to trench excavation and then pulled down into trench. This
is particularly useful for a trench that requires installation of multiple pipelines.
c900/RJ PVC is furnished in 20-foot lengths; and can also be assembled and
pulled unto the trench.
HDPE Pipe can be bent to a radius 25 times the pipe's diameter. Bend fittings
are not usually needed for deflections less than 90 degrees, which allows for less
joints and less potential for leaks.o HDPE and c900/RJ PVC are self-restraining and do not need external
restraining hardware or thrust blocks.o HDPE and c900/RJ PVC are made to DIP outside diameter sizing. DIp MJ
fittings and valves can be readily used.o HDPE and C900/RJ PVC have a smoother inside lining than DIP and higher
flow characteristics -HazenWilliams C Factor of 150.o Cost of materials is typically comparable to DIP material costs, but installation
costs for HDPE and C900/RJ PVC can be less, due to ease of handling and less
fittings and joints.
' HDPE and C900/RJ PVC do not corrode or tuberculate on the inside and do not
react with soils.
I
I I:\20079007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 98
I
I
t
il
HDPE DR 17 has a working pressure of 125 psi and can handle reoccurring
surge pressures 1.5 times the working pressure.
C900/RJ PVC DRl8 has a working pressure of 235 psi.
HDPE intemal pipe fusion bead can be removed during construction if desired,
but it is not necessary.
HDPE and C900/RJ PVC pipelines allow for use of DIP waterline fittings and
repair couplings; City would not be required to own a HDPE fusion welding
machine.
There are reservations concerning the use of HDPE pipe exist among municipalities who
typically use only DIP and PVC pipe materials. The C900/RJ PVC force mains alleviate
those concems.
Force Main Cleaning & AirA/acuum Relief Vaults:
The number of cleanout vaults installed along the force main alignment will depend on
the alignment selected and the maximum reachable distance by a City sewer jet truck. As
with the Midland Avenue force mains, each vault should be constructed to provide
cleanout of the pipelines in both directions, which will provide for construction of fewer
cleanouts vaults. It was the City's intention to purchase a new jet truck that will have the
ability to service longer pipeline distances than existing equipment. The cost savings of
constructing fewer cleanout vaults, due to longer distance between cleanouts, would
certainly provide value towards the cost of purchasing a new jet truck that has the ability
to service a maximum distance of sewer line.
As an alternative to constructing and maintaining the numerous force main cleanout
vaults this force main system will require, another method of pipeline maintenance that
has been evaluated involves the use of "Poly-Pigs" for routine cleaning of the force
mains. A Poly-Pig is a hydraulically propelled, small bullet-shaped plug designed to
purge built-up foreign matter and sediment within a pipeline. Introduced into the pipeline
by means of a launching station, the slightly oversized Poly Pig forms a sliding seal in the
pipe, which removes built-up foreign matter and loose sediment within the pipeline.
Constructed of flexible polyurethane foam, Poly Pigs have the ability to travel through
bends, valves, and other fittings along the pipeline. Each force main has been designed
with the fittings and valves required to facilitate pigglng operations. A supplemental
water supply connection (with proper cross-connection control), to provide purge water,
and a vault with a receiving station, to capture the Poly Pig, will be incorporated into the
final Lift Station, force main and WWTF system design.
Ptgging operations can effectively clean miles of force mains during a single cleaning.
The cleaning length is dependent upon the type of pipe, amount of scale or slime build-up
and capacity of the propulsion system. With infrastructure in place to allow the operators
to pig while a force main is in operation, the piggrng operation is generally performed
"on-stream," utilizing the pump station hydraulic capacity as the driving force behind the
Poly-Pig. Receiving the pigs can be accomplished using a manhole, vault or pig trap. It
o
o
it
rl
II
rI
{l
{l
rt
tt
iT
it
'l
I
I
1I
l:,o007,.o007 461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc 99
iI
tl
tT
il
{I
{l
it
I
L
is recommended to pig a pipeline every 5 years to ensure better flow conditions and to
keep pumping costs to a minimum. Commercial pigging operations3 are available, where
the contractor provides personnel, pigs, pig tracking equipment, launchers, and other
required equipment. These companies can also train the City's wastewater operators to
conduct the pigging operations in-house.
Combination air and vacuum release valves will be installed along the force mains to
facilitate filling, cleaning and release of entrapped air during operation. These valves
will be installed within vaults at the relative high points and in-between stretches of long
pipeline assents. In addition to the air/vac valves, three of the vaults are fitted with
additional valving to provide the opportunity to "cross-over" to the other force main.
This will divide the force mains into four lengths in order to have the ability to isolate a
break or plug without having to charge and place the entire second force main in service.
3 Pipeline Pigging Products, lnc., Flow more Services Division, Houston, Texas.
(www.pipepigs.com)
I :V007\200746 I . 002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc
L
II
I
il
il
rl
rl
il
I
t 100
I
t
t
t
lI
lil
lr
h
h
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
ll
APPENDIX A
101I:\2007V007-461.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc
'l',I
1
j.:
LEGEND
@ PRIVATE WELLS
E) WWTP
@ uFr srAfloNS
@ PUBLIC WELLS
iIIT IIIIDTTITEI.--rI
t:I
;
O@O f.
=s\
Hil"s E\A\ll
SP
$eoi
ofl
rd
lrr
ooa
t.o[{ooo
a-Jz
ll tl
tro)H'
O-]
O
a+
I II I I I III I I I I I
1" = 1000'
I ']..^I I
GI,ENTOOD SPRINGS AREA
NORTH RIVER STREET............................................. C 6
ItI
Y
I,
TOTAL AREA ENCLOSEO 8Y CORPORATE LIMITS . 141,830,862.04 S,F. OR 3,255.99 ACRES OR 5,09 SQUARE MILES
ENCLAVES:
ENCLAVE # 1 _ MIDUNO CRAOE SUBOIVISION_I78,81].72 S,F, OR 4,11 ACRES OR 0.006 SQUAR€ MILES,
ENCnvE # 2 - PflRE, ET AL - 585,J80.s7 s.F. oR 1J.44 ACRts 0R 0.02 SQUARE MlLEs,
ENCTAVE #3 - CLENWooD MEADOWS - 206,190.56 S.F. OR 4.73 ACRES OR 0.007 SOUARE MILES
€NCUVE #4 - 01SEN,964..179.77 S.F.0R 22.14 ACRES 0R 0.035 SQUARE MILES
#5 - CATOR-SMITH. J0,553.89 S,F. OR O,7O ACRES OR O.OO1 SOUARE MILES
NEI ARil oF THE CltY LIMITS = 1J9,865.5aJ.5J s-F OR 3.210.47 ACRES OR 5.02 SQUARE MILES
SCALE:
PEVISa0 ll-29-2001 RRB
........................ F 7-A
oA(HURSI SOUTH C0URT................ -.......... G 9, G l0
OAK WAY AVTNUE
cLEVEUND AVENUE............
COLORADO AVENUE,,....,,...,.
coLoRA00 couRT...............
'.'.'''..'.,,..,,,--,'''..'', H 7
..'......,,'.',,,...'G 6. G 7
.,..,',,..,',.'.,,,,','','...G 7
I t2
E4
........... 6 1l
.....__..._.H 12
G 6-6
....c 8
.... c 8
...........-....8 4, F 4
.......c 3, c 4, D 4
ovERLtN DRtVE..........
oxFoRo 1ANE............
PALMER AVENUI........
PARK 0RtVE...............
PARt( WEST COURr..........................
pARK WEST 0RrVt....,......................
PARK WOOD LANE..---........-....................-...-....-.....H 1 2
PINE STREET.............. .............G 6
prNroN DRrvE (co RD 1J3A)..................-----...--.---..C 4
OLO CARO f ERIOGE ROAD
oLo LoDGE ROAO.-............-
IRANSFER TRAIL.-..,,....,..-,,.,..,,
TRAVER TRAIL_........................
coL0Row RoaD.........
COLUMBIA COURT,,,.,,,
cowDrN DRlvE..-....
CRAWFORD WAY.,,..
poNDERosa crRcLE (co RD r30A)..........................8 4
PONDER0SA DRrVE (cO RD r48).....................8 3, C 5
pREHM RoaD (co RD 163)....-..................... I 15, I 14
t 6 PRINCETON CTRCLE
..............................a r2 PTARMIGAN DRIYE-'
CRESrWOoo oRrvE.................................................. c I
CULYER CIRC1t..,,,,,,..,,,...........................H 12
HARVARD DRIVT,,,,,,,,,
HTcHLAN0S ORrVE (PRV)...............
HtLL STREET....,..,......
N. HYLAND PARK 0RIVE.,....,......,,
s. HYLAND PARK DR|VE..........................................G 8
REo ELUFF 1ANE.,...,,................,..,.......,.,..,H ll, H 12
RED CAN0N R0AD (CO R0 r1s)............................J 13
RED MOUNTATN DRtVE......................................r 6, f 7
RE0 VALLEY 0RrVE........................................,.........C 4
S. RIVER STREET...,,.....,.........c 6
FAtnvtEw 0RrvE.,....... .....c 4, D 4
FANN|NG p1ACt.......,, ...........H 12
FouR MrLE RoAo (co RD rr7).......................H 12-14
GARF|ELD AVENUE...... -..-.........A 7
GTLSTRAP C0URT........ .,,,,......,.8 {
CLEN AVENUE (STATE HIGHWAY E2)...H 9-11, I l2-14
GLEN OAK UNE.,...... ....--...-.H 12
GRAND AVENUE (NORTH OF 2JRO STREET)....,.,..,G 6-9
HAGER uNE....,...,.... ..G lo, G 1l
RTvERSIDE 0RrVE (PRv)....... . .. .... ... ..
RIVERVITW AVENUE.,..
RtvERVtEW DRIVE.......
RrvERlNt ROAD..........
ROARTNG FORK OR|VE............................
ROCK LEDoE oR|VE (CO RD 169C).......
sact crRc1E.............
SALINA STRIET--...,,...
...G 7.6 8
,'.,,,.,,,'F 7
',,,,'.,,,4 4
..F8,Ga
,,,C J, D 3
,.',,,,.,,, c 6
.......... I 4. I 4
,,-,..,,''.'---.,--- l 4
..,,..,,,,,',,,,',.,o 6
''..,'....'',8 3
,,--,,,.'..'' F 7
...,,..,,.,.. G 6
.............-G 7
sKr RAICH SniiE ..',......'....',..,.'...'.., l 12
soccER FtEL0 RoAD................-.............................-c 4
soPRts AVENUE.,....... ...........C 10
souTH cRAND AVENUE.........,....................,.......G 9-11
b.-,!
t2
\
t\i
STORM KtNC ROAD (CO R0 181)..................-.........-B 4
..G 6
H 12
...c 4
D4
.F4,F5,C4
........._F 4. a 5
LINCOLNWOOD ORIVT
MAPLE STRIET,..
MEAOOW RUN..........................
MEL.RAY ROAD (Co RD 133)..
.......-...............G 8. H I sUNNY AcREs RoAD
LINDEN STRETT,,,,..,,.. ,.., F 6. G 6 sUNNY HrLLS LANE (PRV).......................................E 4
TANACER 0RrVE (C0 RD r69A)..............C 3, D 5, O 4
TETTERS LAN[-.......... ........... H 12
THREE MtLE RoAO (CO RD 127)....,...o 12. F 12, E l3
....................,.........G 6
MARXTT DRTVE (PRv).................................,............ D 4
UFAOOWI ARX LANt-....-...............,.......,,,... c 9
,...''...'.,,'.,,C 3, C 4
MTNTER AVtNUE...........,'.'..''....,,,..,'.G 6, G 7
MTTCHELL CREEK RD (co RD 132).a J, B 1, I 2, B 3
MORGAN STRE€T..,,......,..,...............H l2 ,-..,,-.,,,',,,'',,',,-'.''..,,,-.F 7, t 8
-H 12
vrsTA 0RtvE.......
WALZ AVENUI,,,.
WESTLOOK DRIVE
WILLIAVS STRTET
WINTERS LANE,,..
EGrE IYALE CIRCLE
r
Storage Tanks and Sewer Lilt Stations
EDc
a
{_'
*Pi
@e c*
FG irs'c'i
AIB c D
0
qolNTY EO DL__ ___
11s (RE0 cANoN RoAo)....,..,.............,.................J l3
I 1 i6 (ArRpoRr RoAD)..............-.....................H12, I l5
I 117 (rouR MrLE RoaD)...................................H 12-14
I r27 (THREE MrLE R0A0)...................E 13, F 12. G 12
, 13oA (poNotRosa crRcLE).....................................8 1
1J2 (MtrcHELL cREtK Roao).........A 3. B t. B 2, I 3
i ,a. (ut RAy)..-.......................................... c r, c 4
I 1J3A (PrNoN DRrvE)......................-,..,,,,...............,,c 2
I 148 (P0N0EROSA DRIVE)..............,.................8 5, C 3
] ;sl (surrlro vALLEy)............................... H i r, I t2
1 56 (OLO CARDTtE SRTDGE ROAD)..........................G I 1
160 (CARDTtF ROAD).......................................,....H 12
1Ei (pREHM RoAD),................................-,...r r3, I 14
rBr (sloRU KrNc RoAo).....-............,.....................8 4
t
1
'\' . sr
I €,,lrA 8i
18,/ i'
lr
\i,,\,,.
tr
l"\H 12 ?
-mo
,mzg
I
r9!
I
I
>c -
o5o
oo o
93"
;zo
oo=z;
a- a z
>6 = E
Cg :
BG
:9
>9
Io
m
I
i
t-
-,1 i
l
,&.o
x<50igqiir
! ",,
1"6 @!
I
"l
il: f
ol! !z'71
el l= o5t zts =5l 6r m3t 16 r'TA TNtr N,m D-'l
OTa>'-o
oi
63It6z
-i)
ri
I
i6]
I
I
I
I
T
t
t
I
il
fl
il
ll
il
il
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT 3
CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS
SERVICE AREAExhibit 3
t
I
I
I
I
l3-o
oo
luu
rtI;
d
tr}
lB
F_p=
leE
00 r\,
l?*
E
IH
CL6
l5r
EEIr
I
I
I
I
I
It
{l
(
II
I
rl
rl
{l
tl
rt
I
tl
ll
ll
tl
tl
tl
.I
I
I
WETLAND AND SENSITIVE SPECIES REPORT
FOB THE
CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRTNGS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT
Prepared
by
Cedar Creek Associates, !nc.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared
for
The Clty of Glenwood Sprlngs
Colorado
&
The Sear-Brown Group, lnc.
Fort Collins, Colorado
December 2001
Exhibit 5
I
t
(
it
I
rt
I
I
ll
I
I
IT
IT
I
rl
il
ll
:l
tI
I
WETLAND AND
CITY OF GLENWOOD SPHINGS
DRAFT
SENSITIVE SPECIES REPORT
FOR THE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT
INTBODUCTION AND LOCATION
This report provides an evaluation of habitat conditions and the potential presence of wetlands and
sensitive vegetation and wildlile species atong proposed pipeline corridors and the new Wastet';ater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) site for the City of Glenrvood Springs, Colorado. The project area is located
lrithin Sections 5, 6, and 9 in Tonrnship 6 South, Range 89 West. Pipeline construetion would occur
between the existing Glenvrood Springs Un|rlTP, near the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Colorado
Fliver, to a netv WWTP site approximately 2.6 miles to the vrest. The pipeline conidor would generally
parallel the south side of the existing railroad rightof-vray along the south side ol the Colorado River. The
location of the proposed pipeline corridors and WWTP site are shown on Figure t
METHODOLOGY
All potential project area disturbance sites indicated on Figure 1 were evaluated in the field on November
19, 2001 to determine if jurisdictional wetlands or potential habitat for threatened and endangered
species are present- The fidd reconnaissance recorded observations of maior vegetation communities /
wildlife habitats present wihin the project area and dominant flora associated with each community /
habitat, Trees of suitable e,onfiguration to support raptor stick nests r,rere also checked for evidence of
raptor nesting activity. Determination of wetand preserrce was based on the presence and dominance of
wetlard-associated vegehtion and existing Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly SCS) soils
mapping. Habitat evaluations for threatened, endangered, and olher sensitive species were based on
the distribution and habitat preferences ol species known to occur in the region- ln addition, the Colorado
Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) database was reviewed lor any known occurrences of sensitive species
near the project area The Colorado Division of Wildlife in Glenwood Springs also was contacted to obtain
the Division's input regarding any potential species of concern.
RESULTS
General Habltal Conditions
The majority of the proposed pipeline corridor passes through disturbed urban areas and road and railroad
rights-of-way that are either mostly barren or vegetated by primarily non-natiye grass and weedy species.
Dominant species recorded along these portions of the pipeline corridor were smooth brome (Bromus
t
t
(
I
t
fi
I
il
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
iT
(
tl
III
I
I
t
It
tl
tt
I
inermis), crested rvheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum), intermediate wheatgrass (Agropyron
intermedium), curly-cupgumweed {Grideliaquarrosal, pricklylettuce (Lactucaseniola), rubber
rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnusnauseosus), and many-flowered aster (Vrrgulus ericoides).
Habitat conditions differ at the exEeme wesi and east ends of the pipeline conidor- The north pipeline
conidor option at the east end passes through an urban wooded area used as horse pasture as wetl as
residential and comrnercial developments. The horse paslure area supports an overstory of narrowleaf
cottonwoods (Populus angustitolia), lanceleaf cottonrvoods (Populus acuminata), and Russian olives
(Elaeagnus angustifolia) with an understory dominated by smooth brome and Kentucky btuegrass (Poa
pratensis). This area appeared to have been recenUy grazed by horses, and the grass understory was
clos+cropped. Some of the cottonwood trees located along this portion of the pipeline corridor and
along Midland Avenue are relatively large, mature trees.
At the west end of the project area, west of the Midland Avenue crossing of the Colorado River, he
pipeline corridor passes through a sid+slope area dominated by oak brush habitat Gambel oak (Quercus
gambelii) is the dominantoverstory species in this area. Principal understory species noted were big
sagebrush (Aftemisiatridentate), srnooth brome, Kentuclry bluegrass. junegrass (Koeleria macrantha),
and holly-grape (Mahonia repens). Other common, but less dominant, species noted in oak brush habitat
were serviceberry (Amelanchter alnitolial, mountain mahogany (Cermcarpus nnntanus), Rocky lribuntain
juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), and rubber rabbitbrush.
The neur WWTP site at the e)dreme west end of the projecl area is relatively fiat ard app?ars to have been
disturbed in the past. This area is dominated by cheatgrass lBromus tectoruml,cre*e+ilAeatgress-
qlegryratr, musk ttistle (Carduus nutans), and common mullein (Verbascumthapsusl.
Wetlands
According lo lhe Soil Suruev of Larimer Corntv Area-fulorado (SCS 1980), predominant soils in the
project area are Ascalon -Pena complex, 6 to 25 percent slopes, Atencio-Azeltine complex, 1 to g
percent slopes, and Begay sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes. These are all deep, well-drained soils that
are not classified as hydric (wedand) soits.
No iurisdictional wedands v-,ere located witrin the project area during lhe field reconnaissance. The only
evidenQe af we$and vegetation noted during ffre field reoonnaissance were intermittent pockets of eattail
(Typha latifolia) along an approximate 2-foot wide by SGtoot lenglh of borrow ditch between Midland
Avenue and the railroad right-of-way to the north. Another strip (approximately 6 feet wide by O0 teet
wide) ol sandbar willow (Salix exigua) and young Russian olive and narrowleaf cottonwood trees is atso
In
ln
ln
hr
ll:
lr
t
,l
I
it
I
t
il
il
il
II
4
tI
ll
il
I
il
It
:T
(
I
I
supported along another segment of this ditch. These two patches of wetland vegetation are located
approximately mid-vray along the pipeline corridor. The remainder and majority of tre borrow ditch is
vegetated by upland vegetation such as smooth brome and crested wheatgrass, and there was no
evidence of a deiined waterway channel within the ditch. Since the ditch does not have a defined
channel or wetland connection to other Waters of tre United States, the two small wefland areas
supported within this ditch would not be classified as iurisdictional by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Sensltlve Species
The project area vras evaluated with regards to potential habitat for state or federal listed threatened and
endangered species as well as other sensitive species. Based on existing habitat conditions. there is no
suitable habitat within the project area for any listed threatened or endangered plant species. A review of
the CNHP database as well as Spackman, et al. (1997) also indicated no records of occurrerrce or suitable
habitat for any other sensitiva plant species.
A review of knorvn habitat preferences and ranges of threatened and endangered wildlife species as well
as the CNHP database indicated the bald eagle to be the only threatened or endangerecl species likely to
occur in the vicinity of the project area. The bald eagle is lederal and state listed as threatened. Four
threatened or endangered tish species (bonytail, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and Colorado
pikeminnovr) are known to be present in the Colorado Biver system, butthere would be no impact
concern for this species wilh project development unless the project could affect urater quality or quantity
in tre Colorado River.
Bald eagles are present in the vicinity of fte project area primarily as wintering birds. IMntering bald eagles
feed on fish as well as dead and crippled geese or ducks along the Colorado River. They will also wander
over upland habitats to feed on prairie dogs, winter-killed deer, and other suitable food sources. The
Colorado Biver, Roaring Fork River, and adjacent upland habltats in tre vicinity of Glenwood Springs are
classified as wintering foraging areas for bald eagle (CNHP database). Wnter foraging areas are
frequented by wintering bald eagles betuieen November 15 and March 15. Large trees along or near the
two rivers can also represent potentially suitable winter perch or roost sites for bald eagles. The CNHP
database indieates there is one known bald eagle roost site located approximately 2 miles south of the
east end of the project area. A roost site is defined as "groups of or individualtrees lhat provide diurnal
and/or nocturnal perches for less than 15 wintering bald eagles; including a buffer zone extending 114
mile around these sites. These trees are uanlly the tallest available trees in the wintering area and are
primarily locatd in riparian hahitaE" (CNHP database). No known rmst sites are tocated within a 1/4 mile
of lhe proiect area, and the only trees of suitable size for perching by bald eagles in the project araare
located at the east end near the conlluence of the Colorado and Boaring Fork rivers. These trees are in
close proximity to existing roadways, railroad tracks and reidences aM may not represent attrac{ive perch
sites for wintering bald eagles.
I
I REFEBEN.ES ctrED
\
- Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. KraE, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado
I rare plant filed guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, The U.S. Forest Service, andr the U.S- Fish and Wldlife SeMce by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program.
I
t
T
T
I
T
T
t
,(I
I
T
Febnrary 14,2007
[,
I
t
I
I
I
il(
I
I
rl
il
I
I
T (
I
I
United States Deparhent of the hrterior
FISH A}ID WILDLIFE SERYICE
Ecological Services
764 HorizonDrivq Building B
Grand Junctioq Colorado 81 506'3946
IN REPLY REFERTO:
ES/CO:EPA/CDPIIE
TArLS 6s41 3-2007-SL-0073
6s413-2007-FA-0009
Bernard E. Poppenga" Project Manager
h Stantec Consulting Inc.
tl 2000 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 2J00
Denver, Colorado 80?22
tl DearMr. Poppenga: ''' ' ' ;
We have reviewed your letter dated fi t ry S,2007, concerning the draft 201 Wastewater
Facility Plan for thi City of Glenwood Springs (PIan), Stantec Project Number 1873 10040. This
plan evaluates the construction of a new wastewater teatrnent facility for the City of Glenwood
"pri"g* and somo of tbe surrounding area. You requested we review the proposed docuoent for
information pertaining to threatened and endangered species.
In your Plan you provide informatioa that you evaluated the site for the impacts on federally
listed threatened and endangered specias. In Section 2.1.5 you attempt to describe the impacts of
the project on our trust resources, iederally listed endangered species. Yorr aie correct that there
*r io* species of fish that occupy the Colorado River, however, none of the species are fouud
in the general location of the proplsed wastewater facility. The u1ryer range, of the Colorado
pitemilnow and razorback suckir is near Rifle, Colorado. The bonytail and hlmnback chub are
irrely found in the Colorado River above the Grand Valley and should not be impacted by your
prolect. The primary concem with projects that occur in the Colorado River above critical
^habitat, which ends at Rifle, is depietions. Since the wastewater facility is expected to improve
water q"ulrty aad will oot cause further depletions of water from the system, wedo notbelieve
the project will affect the federaily listed endangered fish. There are no knowu federally listed
endangerd fish species in the Roaring Fork River.
The bald eagte is ffierally listed as *reatened and could be impacted by the project depending
on site location and construction timing. The bald eagle is primarily a winter migrant; however,
there maybe roost or nesting sites near the proposed treatment facility. You state; 'TrIo adverse
impacts me expected fur the bald eagle with this project implementation." It is your
responsibility io determine if the project may affect baid eaeles and provide sufficient
justification to support the claim.
Within this section of the Plan, you aiso discuss other species, whieh are not federally protected,-
that you state occur in this reach ofthe Colorado and Roaring Fork rivers. We fouud your list of
r- i-
Exhibit 6
T
I,
I
species, which you state are abundant in this reach, interesting. You state; o'Other species zuch
* nuioto*g BrownTrouf Wooily Boogers and Whitefishpopulation are abundant in the
ptanrring area,..." we are not familiar with the species Woolly Boogers aud were not aware that
-they
arJabundant in this reach of the Colorado River. This may be a new species not previolsly
iAentified and fi:rther investigation may be warranted to detenrnine overall abundance. In this
same section, you also make the statement; "Late March and emly April me particularly
prevalant in fish population in this area" We are not sure if we should be concemed about this
phenomenon orhow to respond to this unique condition
We appreciate the opporiunity to eomment on your proposed project. If you have any questions
concitning our coulments please feel free to glve me a eal1 ai (970) 243-2778. extension 29 or
Rick Krueger at extension 17.
I
I
L
t
I
I
Ir:
I
I
I
I
'll
ll
fupL
Western Colorado Supervisor
CDOW, Glenwood Springs
RKnregecEPAGlenwoodSpringsWastewaterFacilityPlunCommentLb'doc:021407
ll
(
tl
I
2
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
fl
il
il
il
IT
il
I
It
I
I
rl
(
ll
il
tl
I
iT
il
it
{l
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Thomas E. Remington, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone (303) 297-1 192
wildlife.sfate.co.us
January 2008
City of Glenwood Springs
En gineering Department
101 West 86 Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Reference: Draft 201 Glenwood Springs Wastewater Facility Plan by Stantec
Attention: Amy Johnson
As a referral agency for the City of Glenwood Springs, the Colorado Diyision of Wildlife (CDOW), appreciates
the opportunity to comment on the Draft 201 Wastewater Facility Plan for the RegionalWWTF prepared byStantec. ,, : I,
The CDOW recognizes that the current and expected growth of the City of Glenwood Springs and surrounding
areas of unincorporated Garfield County (WGSD) creates a potential need for a newand,larger,capacity , , l
wastewater teatrnent plant to service the growing community. Upon review of Stanteo's:Draft 201 Plara it is our
recommendation that there need to be assurances that ample environmental safeguards,are included in the actual
design and construction of the new Regional WWTF to ensure no adverse effects'to,river firnction, fisheries,
recreational fishing opportunities, wildlife and wildlife habitat occur.
The CDOW reviewed all alternatives and feels the recommendation of Alternative C, C-10, Il, and ACl does
seem to provide the most appropriate choice for the long run. The CDOW would hope that Cardinell site would
allow for additional expansion of the facility to accommodate additional projected growth past the anticipated
build-out ofthe new proposed regional facility beyond a2034 date, in essence not creating a need for an
additional site to be developed for the same purpose.
Section 2.1.5 Fish and Wildlife , and Appendix 2C The Wetland and Sensitive Species Report of Stantec's report
does address the four federally listed endangered fish species that are known to exist in the Colorado River (the
Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, hurnpback chub and bonytail chub). The current estimated range of
these federally protected species is considered west of Rifle, and does not fall within the Facility Planning area.
Therefore, these fish should not be affected unless the project were to detrimentally affect water qualiry o;
quantity. The fish that do provide abundant recreational opporfirnities within the plaruring area and adjacent to the
proposed site are Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, Whitefish and the occasional Brook Trout (not Woolly Boogers
as mentioned in the report). Therefore, not only for public safety but to ensure no harm to a valuable fishery, any
effluent being released into the Colorado River should meet or exceed water quality standards set forth Uy itre
colorado Departmept of Pullic Health and Environments in the city's permit.
The federally listed bald eagle is also present in the area. fney umize the stetch of the Colorado River that falls
within the Facility Planning Area, a* *"U as beyond in all directions. 'The CDOW would disagree with the report
that the only trees of suitable size for perching bald eagles exist near the confluence of the Colorado and Roaring
Fork Rivers. There are indeed trees closer to and even on and adjacent to the proposed site that often are utilized
DEPARTMENTOF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hanis D. Sherman, Executive Drector
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tom Burke, Chair. Claire O'Neal, Mce Chair . Robert Bray, Secretary
i/embers, Dennis Brcchler . Brad Goors . Jefrey Crawford . Tim Glenn . Roy McAnally. Rihard Ray
Ex Officio Members, Hanis Sherman and John Shrlp
Exhibit 7
ForWldlife-
For Peoph
[;
it
rl
{I
L
L
rt
I
I
il
il
by wintering bald eagles. However, no adverse impacts are expected for the bald eagle as a result of this project
unless such trees are removed as a result of the project.
Additionally, the CDOW would like to make note that Stantec's report failed to mention bears, while not a
threatened, endangered or species of concem, we believe note of their presence is important. As the City of
Glenwood Springs is more than adequately aware, there are bears present in and around town. There is an
abundance of oai brush on the proposed site, as well the presence of serviceberry; both a large part of the forage
base of a bears natural diet. Human bear conflicts in and around Glenwood Springs continues on an annual and
often increasing basis, despite educational efforts and the recent tash ordinance (May 2005). With that in mind,
the CDOW *orld recommend that the due to the location of the site (bear and oak brush habitat), the city take the
necessary steps to avoid conflict at the site. Construction on the site will urdoubtedly change the landscape and
remove large quantities of a historic forage base. In order to decrease bear-human conflict on site, measures
should include but not be limited to maintaining bear proof dumpsters at the site.
Unfortunately, the proposed Regional WWTF plan we reviewed lacks any actual construction detail at this time
(design slated for 2010), therefore any additional construction based concems that may affect wildlife cannot be
addressed at this time. Florvever, the CDOW can recommend that any piping from existing WWTF or WGSD to
the nerv Regional WW"I'F- be done with best management practices to ensure no leakage into the environment.
Additionally, the CDOW would recommend that should any large trees netd to be felled during construction it
should bc determine<l if they provide pcrch andlor roost sites for bald eagles, or homes to cavity nesting birds.
Thc CDOW hopes these comments will aid in ensuring the future Regional WWTF design is sensitive to
.environmental, wildlife, and recreational concems
Thank you for the opportrurity to comment. Please contact local District Wildlife Manager Sonia Marzec at (970)
947-2934 if yoq need additional information. ':
Sincerely,
fr/*#--
Perry Will
Area Wildlife Manager
I
il
I
il
il
tl
(
I
I
rr:r-r--,-=-=
rflx
Jd
.-|.
@
{;U
r"l
JT
N*-\\ 2*8
\ '4'ao--\ x --i (4-""x'€g
-{rfo*+ ni€<xa
\
N
a
LJ
N
"a
m
P
N
m
v
q\
tu
r)r)m-oax(,()*-uNaOtn> rrlcf q)
ca
i
\
/l. ,./':./i ..'
.),/'/"'
I
i
f)
tr
hsdw
ry
hiq
ffi
f*
iN{\J
ffi
A\6dr'
f'.{
w
3,'
PC)
a,<mr{U>
z1
ro<U
.:0-t
N
Z
m
C)
ttililiitiir\lli1 ltl
' \ i il\ \ i ll
l!illi\\\i i"\\\\1{
-il 1\letli I7l\ | I
: rl',1 i ;:.ll'.,r:l I I
N0
Z,
m
Lo
2
Ul
z
r4T
o
o
-\\ ;-.N:-i\ ;.';\
\n\ r
'\\
ls \ iirt:, \ ii*- -f- -i"- -"i- i-
\E i$-*
\r\i. iHI IF
I
I
I
l
C:F
$€>4.gti
t.
q!
%_
NO
m
i
I
,.!
'
'-i \_\\)\,
i ''.r\ .\.
I
(}t\\).N
J
I
l{$iIn:
lf;a[3lr?: i H E
l: ;;tgl[fi;iclxDq -{0:ts:tllExas)g
riioLifrlm:otil
*t3:31
srldal
i:flilrlSBiS;l
{$iIilIi3lil
i 1$ifil
gil;u'l
r"'t'./!'/i A"r, 1nn ryrtrt,:t*i#/ f;}> SXlr r*,lrr,. '; -= Z- e b I ffi., zd "i* E# i* 3P 4l-,= "tr liE l* 3+; ;;drs* = rfi cfiI1l 6
I3, =
-= Tf''* Ea E s; BEb- * iFs Eg ,= i"e fi i{EEE IE BE XJ,E I= 4o > ; a*5 #,F ; C A dH$38 i u 's sg.E
12, Itptl*<l
l{:}iIuli!|lil-ll+rl
lcrllr=ilerlt-tlzrllvzllell7,ol5Blxletlr+r
I.tlisr IA, Ierl
=rl:bl*/
as
fi
a,
{1
'('dt!
Gq
:P
r lrQ'o
o
0a
(}
l(
!', cllicl
li1
): '!
::l
il'l.rl :..:)iti i-
irl :]
i-. :il i"i. tli a
1: z
it,tt
rjs
:,
-{
m*{I
mo
dn
i
[1tiillt
L't
ill
ti
r
7.
^. l,--:
U;
ar
inv
.A
w
i
i
I
I
i
I
i
t
\
J
\\$
\\I
FN
.{tr.i
\arii$lE.
l/,{ tt///t
'l!i I tt l I t)'l tilfiltI tl liilliiil
n
li
TETRATECH RTW REL-;'i, ED
EEC 2 2 2008
SG}[
Eric T. Oppelt, P'E.
PEL Coordinator
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 CherrY Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246-1530
Reference: Glenwood springs Regional wastewater Treatment Plant
Salinity Study for NPDES Permit Compliance
December 18,2008
DY-9550-SD-C
sL# 36505
Exhibit 9
Dear Mr. OPPelt:
Tetra Tech RTW is submitting this letter, accompanying data Td "pP".'ded
report to the
Colorado Department of Public Health and EnvironmentlCOpHg) ontehalf of the City of
Glenwood Springs (citv). This study-ir-ir r.rponse to the preliminary Effluent Limits issued
January Z,2OO7 fppl--iOOZ50) and ifr" r"rpo".e letter from Michael G' McDil,, P'E' dated
January 28,2008. During this yeal, ,h. Cny has performed a salinity study throughout their
collection system to identify possible locations of irigh salinity' This letter-summarizes these
efforts. It is our understanding througlr-;-"rbrl comirunication with CDPHE that the salinity
permit requirement will be hft;d if tf,e discharger can provide the information requested in
Regulation No. 61.8(2)0) and prove that correctiie action to mitigate the high salinity would be
an undue burden to the rate-payers'
SALINITY STUDIES
As discussed in Mr. McDill's letter, the City has a report prepared by. CET Environmental
Services, Inc. entitled "Salinity Study for w^astewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit
Compliance", which concluded it ut tt ""rource
of salinity in the City WWTP is infiltration of
geothermally heated water. The content of this report specifically addresses the requirements in
Regulation No. 61.g(2)0). This reportl, upp"nd.d to tt ir letter. one conclusion from this report
is as follows:
,,The salinity Jtow to the wastewater treatment plant is from natural sources' If the sewer
systern was not present in Glenwood, the spring watei would be routed to the Colorado
River. Therefore, CET submits that addttional salinity control tneasures will not be of
benefit to the City of Glenwood Springs'"
The high salinity portions of the collection system have been identified as those portions north of
the colorado nir"r, *tich also exhibits the highest temperature water in the collection system'
This indicates that geothermally heateJ water iJinfiltrating into the system in those areas. Since
the CET report specifically responds to those requiremJnts in RegUlation No' 61'8(2)(1)' and
shows that a sarinity discharge in excess of the a06 mg/L increment is warranted, this letter will
concentrate on the recent steps the CitV tras taken to coifirm those results are still valid'
I
l(
I
I
I
t
I
T
t
in
L
il
t
t
I
I
t
ir
lr
In addition to the cET report, the city has also performed a separate evaruation of the collection
system to identify any significant changes sinceihe CET report' This evaluation tested dozens of
rocations throughout the collectio, ,y.t.* and identifi"d thr"" locations with total dissolved
solids (TDS) concentrations greater than 3,200 melL as shown in Table 1.
EvaluationTable 1 GitY Sta[
Location TDS (mg/L)
W. 1't Stree!-Ptftop&nhole-8180
Centen nial StreelM an!c!e 3280
H ot S pri ngs PPq[tft-Statiol-7212
A1l three of these rocations were north of the cororado River, similarly to the results of the cET
report. This indicates that the collection system remain; under the influence of infiltration from
nut*ahotspringswaterintheareanorthoftheColoradoRiver.
INCREASE IN SALINITY
The City obtains its raw water from several water sources' 3lf^ti::::1:::i::15l"l fl?fft
i,1i,i'?nl"J#-L'+4s i;;**i':1,".5:ly1*r*X:i'::*:l1?::g:ili',:fi"T*:ffld::il'f"tfi" ,. As requirea uv trr"ir current NPDES permit, the citv also reports the
{ 4(A mclT Theh'"#ilT".ilJtil,'J,iu"il#;;il;,;I;il;@r**1l1',":':?*tf ::'fglrJi::?ffil# ff;H"td;;;;#l"j *wrp ernuent averaged 482 mgtL. Additionallv, as
t 1- - -- :-l: ^^1^^ ^ .oliniirr innreaqe(:ffi'ff;aui"z alr months with the e*c"ption of,segtem-b,1]*y::: lj1,:Jl,t;:?::*H#it:X;'1;#'Ili*l?"i##it;;iff;;;*';"te'1r'*the400mg/Llimitestablishedin.r,mn ---^--l-r t^^ i- -,i^la+inn nf fhe
the PELs. These results indicate that the new
salinity limit on a regular basis'
relional WWTP would be in violation of the
Table 2 Goncentrations
Location
WTP lntake
(ms/L)
WWTP Effluent
(mg/L)
Difference
(mg/L)
January 2007 180 790 610
February 2007 212 671 459
March 2007 166 657 491
April2007 132 601 469
Mav 2007 111 661 550
June 2007 139 626 487
July 2007 142 568 426
Auoust 2007 146 632 486
Seotember 2007 189 565 376
October 2007 175 672 497
November 2007 230 634 404
December 2007 197 726 529
AVERAGE 168 650 482
TETRATECH RTW
2
1l
l(
i,l
Ir
ln
hr
l[
ll:
MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
In order to mitigate the increase in salinity between the raw water source and the wwTP effluent
there are two oPtions:
1. prevent infiltration into the sewer collection system. This would consist of replacing
sewerthroughoutthenorthernsectionofGlenwoodSprings.
2. Remove the salinity at the wwTP. This would require reverse osmosis membranes or
otherelectrolysistechnologytobeinstalledattheWWTP.
Both of these mitigation options would be extremely costly to the City and it is Tetra Tech
RTW,s opinion that either option would impose an undue financial burden on the city's rate-
payers. A preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) was prepared for both altematives to
demonstrate the financial burden'
Mitigation OPtion I
The first mitigation alternative is to attempt to prevent the infiltration from occurring in the first
place. This would r"q,ri.. replacing the existing collection system with-19w. sewer piping and
more modern reaktight connictions. Tetra tech Rtw estimates that 9,800 feet of sewer main
exists in the problematic northem section of Glenwood Springs with -likely an equal amount of
smaller-diameter service laterals connecting individual users to the collection system' Th9 OPC
for replacing this piping is $6,473,000, ot alproximately $1,600 per user' This cost would be in
addition to the cost of desigu and construciion of the new regional WWTP, which is currently
estimated to cost over $30,000,000'
The main issue with mitigation option 1 is that there is no guarantee that replacing the sewer
will prevent enough infiltration in the long term. Some infiitration will still occur, even with
new sewer pipe and become worse over tirie. It is impossible to determine how long it wili take
before infiltration into the new collection system wili cause a 400 mdL increase in TSS' It is
Tetra Tech RTW's opinion that since tt " tor,g-t"rm reliability of this option is questionable, it is
not a recommended oPtion.
Mitigation OPtion 2
The second mitigation alternative is to install a tertiary filtration system (sand filters or other
cloth filter) followed by reverse osmosis membrane treatment at the new regional WWTP'
Tertiary filtration is noi required to meet any of the permit limits. However, in order to use
reverse osmosis membranes^for salinity removal, the effluent suspended solids must be less than
5 mglL. Tertiary filters would be required to meet the low effluent suspended solids
concentration.
Following secondary and tertiary treatment systems, a reverse osmosis membrane system would
be insta[ed. Trrese membranes have a pore size smaller than the size of sodium and chloride
atoms, but rarger than a water molecule, which a[ows the membrane to reject the salinity and
allow pure water to pass through. Reverse osmosis membranes require high operating pressures'
TETRATECH RTW
I
I
h
h
l;
which corresponds to higtrer utility costs. Additionalry, the membrane systems only recover
approximately 80-85% of the water, with the balance being waste brine that has to be
evaporated. The evaporation process is arso extremely power iitensive, which also contributes
to higlrer ut,ity unJ'uaaitionai operati;.*". tt is uncrear at this time what the water rights
implication, *. of
"ruporating
di, ;4. The amount of power required for the filtration and
evaporation processes iequir"s u tu.g" "u.uon
footprint, wtrictr *uy pro,r. to be another economic
factor in the future.
ThepreliminaryoPCformitigationoption2isar^9r9ximately$37'973'000'ortheequivalentof
$9,341 per customer. Similarly ," ,liiig",ion iipt'on 1, thi' cost is abol9 and beyond the
estimated $30,000,000 for design *a "orrlt-ction
of the "ew 'egional
WWTP' This additional
cost is clearly overly burdensome to the rate payers'
CONCLUSION
DuetotheconclusionsfromcurrentandpastGlenwoodSpringsSalinity.Studies,itcanbe
concluded that the high salinity found i" tt"'wwrp effluent t a"" to the infiltration of naturally
occurring, geothermally heated, *ut"r. R, toncluded in the CET salinity study' this water would
be routed to the colorado River even if the wastewater colection system was not present'
Implementing treatment technologi", io "*oue
the salinity would be an un!'1e finical burden to
rate-payers. fn.r.t"r", the City -of Gl**ood Springs seeks to have the salinity limit removed
from the Preliminary Effluent Limits *it,,t,. onty,.q,i'ement limited to monitoring of salinity
"or""r,t
utions in the wastewater treatment plant effluent'
Thanks for your consideration in this matter. If you hav-e any questions or comments regarding
this letter or the cgf ,aitty study attached, please feel free to contact us'
Very trulY Yours?
Tetra Tech RTW,a) ,a)0/ -/(/z#.^*";// /Y/
Darwin G. DYck, P'E'
Senior Project Manager
DGD/JRT/clm
Enclosure: cET "salinity study for wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit
ComPliance"
cc: Mike McDill, City of Glenwood Springs
IPuis MeYer, SGM
4
TETRATECH RTW
(
I
rl
Ir
lr
lr
lr
l:
li
January 29,1997
Mr. Buddy Burns
City of Glenwood Springs
806 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Salinify Study forwastewater treatment plant NPDBS permit compliance
Dear Mr. Bums:
CET Environmental Services, Inc. (CET) is pleased to offer the following report regarding
salinity flows to the City of Glenwood Springs municipal sewer system. This report is intended
to addiess requirementsspecifically listed in Section A TERMS AND CONDITIONS of
Colorado National Pollutant Discharge Permit No. Co-0020516. For the purposes of this report,
the permit requirements will be presented in bolcl italics-
INTRODUCTION
The City of Glenwood Springs has been notified by the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment that sailnity levels in the wastewater treatment plant effluent exceed allowable
use increment increases of 4b0 mg/l Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The primary water source for
the City of Glenwood Springs is in the No Name Creek. The City has supplemental sources of
supply from Gizzly Cree!4and Oasis Creek. TheNo Name and Grizdy sources are the only
ro*"lr actively being or.d by the City at the present time. The Salinity level of the No Name
Creek sonrce and thebrizz)y Creeksource are approximately 150 mg/I. The discharge of the
City wastewater treatrnent plant has a TDS concentration exceeding 850 milligrams n91 titl'.
The incremental salinity level (TDS) is 700 mg/I, which exceeds the 400 mg/l that is allowed by
the state regulations.
In preparation ofthis report CET has reviewed TDS test data that has been provided to us by the
City, and conducted a field investigation that included sampling of the sewer system at
representative subbasin outfall points. Test data collected included estimated flow, TD\ and
temperature. The test results of the sampling program that was conducted November 19,1996 arc
presented in Table 1. The test data is presented on a map of the Glenwood Springs municipal
wastewater system.
Study Rationale
The purpose ofthe sampling program was to identiff areas of the wastewater system with
RECEIVED
Bothherg, Iarnturini & l{imor, lnc.
JAN 1 I 2008
w.a.*DY-?S:5o -fi
cr Nff M AJvv o@a u,o
no
DOCUI'J4El',lT #
CCP!ES FCR
CET Environmental
Services, Inc.
6900 E. 47th Avenue Drive, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 3 3 l -0062
Fax: (303) 331-9456
,(
1l'
il(
(
il
I
rI
il
{l
itl
I
tt
I
I
,ll
Iir
City of Gtenwood SPrings
Salinity StudY
Page2
elevated salinity levels and quantiff the salinity inflow to the sewer system using approximate
methods. A secondary purpose of the study was to identify sources of salinity flows for the
purpose of mitigation.
II Specific Study Requirements
A description of the municipal entity and treatmentfocilities
The city of Glenwood springs is located at the confluence of the colorado River and the
Roaring Fork River in Garfield county, The city's population including permanent residents
and tourist accomodations such as lodges is 720d popuiation equivalent The principal industry of
the Glenwood Springs area is tourism. There are no Federal regulated categorical industries as
described the Federal Clean Water act (CFR 40)'
Water Treatment Facilities
The Glenwood springs water treatment plant is located on-Red Mountain immediately west of
the City of Glenwood Springs. The *utir treatment plant has a capacity of 8'65 MGD' The
treatment process includes rapid mix, slow mix, tametta plate settling, mixed media filtration and
disinfection with chlorine. The treatm* pro."r, typicaily uses aluminum sulphate and polymer
*a "ilori.re. Sodium flouride is added * u *"*t of regulating flouride levels'
Typical chemical feed rates are as follows:
Aluminum sulfate - 5-10 milligrams per liter (me/D
Polymer - 0.5 to 1.0 mg/l
Sodium Flouride - 0.1 mgil
Chlorine - 1.5 mgl
The chemicars are discharged to the sewer by means of backwashing the treatment plant filters'
Filter backwash wastewater is directed to the sewer system.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The City of Glenwood Springs Wastewater treatment plant was expanded to its present capacity
of Z.3million gallons per day in 1980- The facility includes a headworks' primary clarifier'
rotating biological contactor process, two secondary clarifiers, and disinfection with chlorine'
I
I
t
lI (
h
h
lr
ll
City of Glenwood SPrings
SaliniU Study
Page 3
waste sludges are digested in an anaerobic digesters with digester deceint solution being directed
to the head of the Plant.
The only chemicals used for wastewater treatment are chlorine gas for disinfection' and sodium
metabisulfite for dechlorination.
Chlorine dosage - 3 mg/l average
Sodium Metabisulfite - I mg/l
CET estimates that the total TDS increase due to treatment facility operations is less than 20
mg/l.
b) A description of water rights, including diversions and consumptive use quantities'
A detailed presentation of Glenwood Springs water rights is included in Appendix B to this
report. A summary description of Glenwood Springs water rights follows:
r No Name Creek senior rights, priority #1359, appropriation date 5/5/1887
adjudicated l2lgloT for 12 cfs industrial and domestic use'
I Grizzlycreek senior rights, priority #1359, appropriation date 5ll4lo7, adjudicated
l2lg/07 for 8 cfs industrial and domestic use'
r GnzztyCreek Reservoir No. 391, reservoir priority #4S6,appropriation initiated 719160'
Conditional decree dated 9113167 for 3,979'8
r Mitchell Creeks Water Rights.
Reynolds and cain Ditch lo.3g%share in Ditch company, ie .52cfs senior irrigation
rights, per agreement and Q'C'D dated 2l25l8l
r Nott No.2 Ditch, undetermined portion of 4.2 c.f.s. junior inigation rights per West
Glenwood water tap agreements prior to February 2' 1987 '
I Water rights inherited from West Glenwood Water District, January l' 1989
a) Reynolds and Cain Ditch, and West Glenwood Municipal Diversion, 88cw262, '459
cfs municiPal use.
b) west Glenwood Purnp and Pipeline, 86CW179,2 cfsmunicipal use conditional for
t
t(
ln
lr
l[
(
City of Glenwood SPrings
Salinity Study
Page 4
municipal use, application to make absolute pending'
c) West Gienwood Sanitation District Collection System ,87CW22, -579 cfs
d) West Glenwood Springs Water District Well No. l, 87cw23,.16 cfs absolute, and -84
cfs conditional for municipal use.
e) West Glenwood Springs Water District Well No. 2,l.O cfs conditional for municipal
use.
.c) A description of the quantity of salinity of intake water sources.
The salinity of the raw water to the Glenwood Springs water system was measured at 158
mg/I.
d) A description of the wastewater discharge, covering location, receiving waters, salt lood,
and concentration of TDS.
The City of Glenwood Spring municipal wastewater treatment plant discharges to the Roaring
Fork River approximately 200 feet upstream of the confluence of the Roaring Fork River and
Colorado River. The curent discharge averages approximately 0'8 million gallons per day
(MGD). Characteristics of the treatment plant discharge are approximately as follows:
BODs :20 mg/l
Total Suspended Solids :20 mgfl
Ammonia Nitrogen: 11 mg/l
Nitrate Nitrogen : I I mg/l
Fecal Colliforms: 1000/ 100 ml
Total Phosphorus:8 mg/l
pH:6-9
Total Dissolved Solids (Salinity) 800 mgil
e) A description of signiJicant salt sources to the manicipal wastewater collection system
inctuding inJiltration to the collection system and the salinity load contributed by the addition
of chemicals during treotment.
Infiltration. A review of the sampling program presented in Table I and the attached drawing
shows substantially high TDS in sampLr tut"n i, *.u of the City that is North of the Colorado
fuver. The samples taken with elevated TDS exhibit significantly higher temperatures with the
highest temperatre and TDS being recorded at the pump station located North of the Hot
Springs Pool.
tr
I
[(
Irr
ln
lr
City of Glenwood SPrings
Saliniry StudY
Page 5
The North area of Grenwood Springs within approximately 1000 feet of the colorado River is
extensively underrain with geothermal springs-.- The hot spring water has a TDS of 20,000 mg/l
and a temPerature of 122 degrees F'
The total chemical contribution to the system is less than 25 mg/l' There is no industrial use in
the City so industrial salinity flows are not a possibility
t
1l(
t
I
I
lll
lr
Ir
t:
lt
City of Glenwood SPrings
Salinity StudY
Page 6
cET concludes that the major source of satinity into the Glenwood springs sev'er system is
infiln'afion of geothermolly heated water'
The salinity flow to the wastewater treatment plant is from natural sources' If the sewer system
was nor present in Glenwood, the spring watir would be routed to the Colorado River'
Therefore cET submits that additiinat salinity control measures will not be of benefit to the city
of Glenwood SPrings'
CET will be pleased to answer any questions the City may have regarding this report'
As always, cET Environmental Services is pleased to be of service to the City of Glenwood
r, ipringr, *d we look forward to working with the city in the futtfe.
(
Very trulY Yours:
CET ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
. Flood, P.E.
r Manager Water and Wastewater Treatment
r(
by
rard S. Iallman
APPENDIX A
City of Glenwood SPrings
Water Rights Portfolio
t
It i
h
h
ln
ll
ll
170
250
11,200
412
12,302
68
83
'tpg1geygg'tr'!
.r,000 Lift Station
rriot SpringsTodge
',I
it
lill[i
ln
lu
ln
lr
lr
lr
;*i,; tt ts u,z
City of Glenwood SPri
Salinity Sampling Program
@telleEeryeee1s
Red Mountain Raw
Red Mountain Finished
2ao 348zroo 7,730
s8o : 492
MH@Riverview&10 330 , 352
n,tannote tr4-tO-i 220 : 2O4
62
61
530
350
3i0 306
62
59
400
720
388
706
240 intermittant
-
158
130 158
C1TY OT CLENI|OOD S}RINGS
lIATtrR RIGIITS PORTFOLIO
JulY,1990
\\n'Qrc
q \{Y
Rei,,t\:
by
Davld tl. Broadvell
CitY ArtorneY
LTI"Y( I1:UU NO.UUz P.UIJHN,qJ-lJo,ur Ultturlrr,a u9ll'U I t L" 'I-:,I U-
I
I
I
.t
I
I
nee\
n\r./ r',*d
"k*I a
U'
t'\"$N\ tcpti\t
\n"ynur,
[:,
lil ,
lr
ln
ln
ll
Jnl! l9 Jl lr.vv llrr.v\,z- f 'vz'
u.L I Iul'Jl-l'lll'!'Jt L',JUUIt lu'J.7t w JqJ lJ9a
cr't'l oF CI.F-l$rooD STBINGS
}IATER RIGIITS PORTFOLIO
.fu1)r I990
by
Davld If. Broadvell
CttY AttorneY
(hrenrles.
-G
lheCtty.of.GlenwoodsPrl'rBgtrrrdlEsenv!rongltaveertJoyedadependablo
sater supply for Eany years. st-nce lnherltlng lts sysEem of uaten'rorks fron the
Glcnuood LtSht and Power cbupany around chc turn of the ceDtu[y' tho clty has
relledexcluslvery-onsurfacesuppllesdertvedfronNoNaueCreekendGrlzzly
g1gek. Tho clty has never devet.opcd any resen'otrs or otherwlse parrlclpated Ln
any Hater EEoraEe proJoets. Nor has Ehe clry acrlvely utllleed uella or dtrcct
rlver 1ri'thrlrarrats to supplcaetrt tts water strlrply' Rallrcr' the No Nama/Grlzzly
uatcrshedhassustalnedtheCtty(allrelEsomeshacrlervously)throughaventhe
uorsE drought conditlons'
Durlngthel98o'Brf,}.oelgniflcantdcvelopnentsaffectedtheCltylsoutlooh
ongaBersuPPly,astheCltyhae]ookerlgocheve6EAudthesouthl'nexpandlug
lEi sYEteE'
tn,cat Glenuoodl lrrcxorable arrrrexatlon led to the cltyrs takeovcr of the
.sunny Acrer rrater EyEteE. (forrnerly under prlvato ovnershlp)' a cooperatlve
arrangeEcnt $llh thg }{lcchell Cooper Dlrch and Plpellne Coupanyr lod an outrlght
dlaaolutlonofrhet|estGlcnroodSprlrrgstJaterDJstrlct,ltelatterresultedl'n
thc acquLsltlon of a full blown Eysten of vatefvorts lncludlng a uater EreatE'Dt
plant rnd aonc potentlally valuable vflter rlghts ln or trtbutary to xttchcll
g63ek. Notably' lrowevcr' thoce acqulslt''one tl!<t not really create a etrbatentl'al
.ad.dltlonatdenrndonthrcl$,'sDatererrppl.yfronNoNgueGrlzzly.Fot
vtrtuallythelrentlrelrlstory,SurrrrtAcresandl|cstG].cngoodhadpurchased
il:
tl
ln
lrr
ll
(
an"ar watcr froo the Clty rlnyruoy. flrcrefore, Eho trangfer of those Byttutlg to
fhe Clty me$nr the acqutsltlon of phyrtcat systun8r not o.Jdttlonal giltcr deuand.
Colverselyp lrr lnherltlng llest Cletvood racer rlghts atrd treatEent fucllltloar
thr Ctty hei nenaged to enhonce lts supply.
To the 3outh, thc Ctty hae takcn pret.tuloary steps to develoP a reII flsld
Ln tlro Roarlng Fork alluvluu. Atter eoua dcbato betueeo the'experto concernlrtg
thl neede or lack thereof, for a $ecoud uaJor source of rater eupply, Ctty
offictals forned a consensus ln favor 'ot the eell fteld. Th€ naJor arguncnts
for thta cffort ar. thar a second sourcc vould arldress lnadequaclee ln thc
Southerly end of the systeE, nould be an cmergenCy backup ln tho *,tot of "
carestrophtc fallure of tho exlstl.ng rau uater dellvery sys.teo' and could
anhaace t{ater .qualtty durlrrg tLures of htgh turbtdlty.
A f987 study by l{rlght }rat,er Euglneers focusud olr thc feaslbtltty of
conetructlng uells ln the Roarlng Fork aqutfer on Cartar Jacksourr ProPcrty
south of the cLEy. The repott concluded:
Tlre ultlnatr yleld of the vell fLelrl vlll not'be Lnoun untll all of tha
vells are drtiled3 houever, rr€ belleve that a serlec of rrells . . . eaa bc
developcd lo ytold at least 3 HGD aud ev.n more on a short tcrq batlg.
Conrlououa loug rera puoplng eould be less thaa 3 MGD dependlng oa thr
ultlnate rccharge characlertsllcs of the aq(lfet.
The report cctllEted thc coa.t. of the vellsr treatnentr storaga lnd GreDsEl$gr,on
faclllties to bc $2- t utllton'
To daEe, ttrc Clty hss not coEpleted thc forual lcgal procerlurea Eccc3sat,
to devalop such e rell fleld. The process of obtalnlng ncll parn!'ts, dcveloplng
en auggentatlon plan, snd reachlng souc sort of acconaotlatlon cith the laadorncr
arc pro-requlslter for golng fomard. Dr. Jaekeoo lrtnself hae erprceacd
latersst la coopcrattng rrlth the Ctfy and geelng the ProJect bullt'
Ttro Clty standg tt O crossroads ltr t€rrs of Iater supply devclopncnt'
Eeyond the espoused uerlga of developing a second solrcc of supplyl the Clty lc
/RCI-qt6-n/6*T: flT llmmeqlcflmN-]cllnllr-)
Tn' .l 900' oN Z\ z lT ) 6 ' 31 NHr
of AL€nEoo!-gP:southorn servl.ce !re_g t{ater $vsteq Hasr-eI- Plan, (t982)
il
il
it
il
il
B.
Cr
iI
il
I
:
actlvely pursulng varlous proposale for dcvel.)Ument of a rnurrLclpal golf course.
Any acenarl6 would havs maJor uraEor rtghts ftapllcatlons, and probably an
6ug,EeBtar,lon plan r.ould 5s sgqulrod to provtde lrrlgutlon f63 tho couEsGr 'Thlo
Eeport is lnter,rded to update and sullErrlzs the CItyrs exlstlng uater rlghts
portfollo as an eld fot further elpanslon of the CItyte sater systeo'
Grtzzlv/No Nane Creeks.
A. No Naaa Creek setrlor rlEhtal prlorltlt rl3SgA apProPrlatlon dato
5/5/lgg7. adJudtcated l2lgto? for l2 c.f.s. lndustrlal and douesttc
U8€ rGrlzzly Creek 3enlor rlghrsr prtorlty 41359, apptoprLatlon date
5llLtli, arlJudlcated, L2l9l07 for 8 c.f .s. lnduatrlal and dooe$tlc uae.
aiirrty' Cieek Rcsorvolr I'o. 391, reservoltr prtortty_.-{486,
"pp.oprl"tton lntii..oa 7lg160, corrdlslonal dccrec dated 9lL3l67 for
3r979.8 ecte-feet of storage'
Ttre origlnal No Narue/Crtzzly decree atltrrrs slthdraval's ln exceso of 12
e;f.S. on the foroor or g c.f.s, on the lsttar tn order to achleve a total
ulrhdraval of 20 c- f .s. (13 n.g.d.) as ncerted. Tha plryulcar supply avallabro
froq theee creaks has sustalrred the cLry (narrorrry) everr durlng droughc patl.ode.
the dlfferlng ochools of thoughr on rhe Iong ceru adequacy of thls supply arc
represented by tuo englneerlng reporEs: HontBornery Consultlng Engtneers' Gltv.
!,arsus wrlghc llater Englnearsr watcr Re-sourc.c optloqg.fgr thc ctrv of Glenroo-d-
!p@r (19s5). t{rl.ght hao conatsrcntly argued lhat thc Clty should devclop a
back-uP aource of suPPlY.
The cltyra aeBual vtthdraral and ugc of Ns Neuc/Gtlzzly eatcr rarety lf
ever tpproacheg 13 o.g.d. Furtherrnor!, on€ of tlrc naJor orlglnal uEcE of thle
1;ater, hydroelectrlc gcnerstlonr Vua euipcnded ln 1962, Thereforc' on oq6altonl
'tt ls cuggested that thc Glry D8y rlsk abandorrncnt of a Pottlon of thear
valuable rlghts. fhese concErns are refuterl by tho foct tltut thc Clty has ncvct
expraSScd any latentlon to abirndon end the Ctty has and utll contlnue to Plant
Congttuct and natntaln lts systeB tO uttlurately use the entlre dccrocd aEount'
I
1l
n
I
[(
il
,I
rt
I
I ZSST-SU5-026-I:0I-JInnsgds0tllNlgJ0AlIS
-
Z0'd 900'oN Zl:lT L6'lI NUf
.v
I
I
it
I
ll
l:.
On the speclflc lssue of hydroelcctrlclty, the C{ty enterorl .tnto an a8reeBDnt ln
1986 Ulrh tha Glerruood sprlngs Soner contparry for ttru construcE lon of I
hydro'alecrrlc l.aclltcy. uttllzlng Elrcse t,otcrlt. AIthou8lr tlrc Conpany dld not
ulGlnaCeIy recelvr necessary t'ERc approvsls, the effort furthor m:rnLfested lho
Cltyrs slncerc lntentlon to utlllze all vaters decreed frorn these croeks' ';
The Gtta,z6y Creek resenrolr rtas proposed to be con6tructcd on s-atlotral
porcst land near ths headuarers. lJhlte the crty haa hept thls conditlonal tlSht
atlve t6rough tha years (raost recBut quarlrenulal findtng of reasonable dlltgence
rraetnlgSs),EbeCltyuuotrea}lstlcallyrrssc.;suhethert'heprojactcouldever
ba built. EDGlErted coeF of the proJect, ls $A ntlllon, not lo oontlon t
predlctably arduous perrnttrlng and erlvlronnentsl asscssstGtLt Procesa. rtre ncrt
appllcatlon for n ftndlng of reasonabte dtllgence ls'duc ln Hayr L992'
frtrchell Cr""lc'
Tu-*,u,andCalaDltch,l0.39Ishlrg1nDltchConpsnyrl'e,..52
c.f.e.aenlorlrrlsrttoTrrtghtsrP€EagrecEentandQ.c.D.dated
212518r,' B. nott Uo. 2 Dltch, undeternl'ned portton uf 4,2 c.f's' Junlor lrrigatlon
rlghts par fcst Glenrood ,at.i taP sgr€enents prlot Eo Fcbruary 2,
r987.
C. Burton Dr-tch, uadeteat'ned porrloo of '64 c'f'8' Junlor lrrlgatlon
rtght; pcr t{Lst Glenwood ualer ta, aSree'Gnts prlor Eo Febnrery 2'
1987.
D. lrarcr rlghta lnherlred from tlost Glerrwood llaler DLstrlctr Jsouary I'
1989:(f) Reynolrla and Caln Dltch and tlest Glenrood lfunicJ,pal Dtverslon,
AgtVZOe, .t59 c. f.s. n,rrlclpal usc. (Changed fron scnlor
i.i"ir,li and Caln lrrlgatlon -r-lghts ln 1990' )
(rf) W""t Glamood fuup ani Ptpeltoe, 86Cu179, 2 G.f .e. condt'tlonal
ior runlctpal usa, appllcatlon to pake absolute pendtug.
(fft)Hi"t Glenrood Sanlraiion Dlstrlcr Collcction systeu; E7Cll22,
.57g c. f .s. condlEl,orral fot ounlclpal ue1, llext quadrenrrlal
appltcatton due JanuarYr 199f.
(lv) Ireot Glonsood Sprlnga ustcl Dtetrtcc ttell No. l. 8?CH23, '16
i.i.". ebaoluta aod .8[ c-f.a. condl'Eloaal for mrnlclpal uaa'
next quatlreanlal appltcatlon dl" Januatyl l99l'
(v) tfcct Glenrood spr'rnge llater Dlstrlct llcll llg. 2, l'0 G'f'!'
Condltlonal for'uunfcipal usot oext quarlretrrr.tal appllcatlon duc
Januatlr. 1992.
Yearsofacrlnonl'ousrelatlonsbotrreentheCtty.audthetleatGlensoodtlater
{
g0'd g00'oN !I: rr L6,V I NUf zSsI-s?6-016-I:0I lllqnsgds0trlN]gl0ArI3
-
I
{l
lir
ln
ln
lr
l[(
Dlgtrlct enrlad oo January lr l9B9 vhcn ttru Dlscrlct ue6 dlssolved' Betwecrr 195?
and lgg7, the Dtutrlct owrrerl tts (.ruo dt$trtbrrt torr syutt'tl buE actur.rlly obtalned
treated uater ftoo the Ctty' HotJuvert orl ['eLrtusry 2;- I987' che Dlstrlct
roallzed lts aEbltlous 'lroau of tndcpcnrlenee:rnrl 8oE 3 "rllvurcc" frotn che Clty'
Durlng thls perlodl the Dletrlct devrrt.ope,l tGs r)un sources of water eupply an
thO ltLtchall Craek bssln and trested tts o,rl ,,ster' By the followtng yeat'
Dlstrlet slactore petLtLouad for outrlghE dlssolutlon of the Dlstrlct'' ulth all
es80t3 eo be transferrerl to the city of Glen*'ood sptlrrgs' so tt crtme to Pa68
that fhc Ctty lnherl'terl a vartety of vatet r{ghts anrl penrtlng appllcatlons on
Httchcll Creek.
Ttre cltyr o err6,1.eexe have reportcrl thaE llltchell cree,k is heovlty
proecrLpred and thc acEual phystcal .supply ls qrrlre llsrlted' The llater Dlstrlct
dtdEanaSatooPerst'eaUatersupplysystcmservlngls.estGlenu.ooddurlng
I988-Sg,butnotytthoutsertousconfllctvtthotlrerHatcrultersonthccreek.
Ttrey dld SO vl,th surface rrlthr!rauuls dtrect ly frorn !'lte creek as r"eII aa the
Reyrrolda and caln Dltch, and frou a rrell tn rhe xttchctt creek alluvluor'
oftherlghtslnhtrlladbythectty'Ehe.45gc.f.s.derlvedfroothe
Reynolde and Caln dlcch 1g nosl valuable. Thesc,are sentor rlglrrs forucrly usad
to lrrlgata land nov occuplerl by the- Gleuvood sprlngs ltsll' The Glty hag
succasafully chsnged the use of thosc rlghtS from lrrlgatton to uuntctpal'
Stncr tho Dlstrlct aloo effectlvcly aPProPrlaterl tho 2'0 c'f'e' assocl'ated slth
rhe weot Glensood.I\lnp arrd Plpcllne rlurlng the{r brlef perlorl of tndependencc'
rhecll,yhasalsoapptlcdtouakethlscorrrtLt'lotlalrlghtabsolute'uouever'
rhle nacar rlght vtll bc qulta Junl'or'
Tha efflcaey of dovcloplng the other contlltlonal s3cer rlglrts renalrts to bt
!€6or Of prluary lntcreat are the vetls. The Ctty has reeclved contradlctory
Lnforaarlon abouG the qualtty and quantlty of uateE r'rhlch roay be derlved froE
5
/8ST -S?6-026-I : 0Ir0'd 100'oN lI: trI L6,V1 NUr JI III TIS 9 d S OIIINI9 JO AI I ]
t
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
Ehase gtrrtctufcS.
Beyond thos rtglrts lrrherttod frorn tlre lJirtur Distrtr:t1 ttrc Clty had a prlor
lnterest ln the Rbynolds artd Caln ditch biscd uport tlre dcd lcaclon o f eater
rlghts as the htest Glcnwood a(ea bccaa'e urb;urlzcd. Otd waccr tap agreenents
requlred the oppllcant to glve up his dlrch rlghts as s condltlon of recelvtag
uator servlca froo ths ctty. In l98l r tho Reynolds and caln Dttch coopany ?aE
Lncorpotated and, thtough a conproolse nlth other claluantsr ths Clty recelved a
share [n the conpany whtch amounts to .52 c.f,s. 'Tlre Clty has tradltlonally
pernLtted thLa eater to be usad on lho Glerrwood Sprlngs GoIf Courser Eoat
recenrly through I 2o-yeor lesse rtpproved ln. I987. Thls rlater ls ftraly
coullEtrrd to thr Bolf course Ehroughorrt Che term of tlte leaee.
Other otscrllaneous rl,6hca rrhleh nay be ovrted by thc Clty ln Hltchell CreeL
(e.g. the Burton Dltch arrd the Nott Dlcch 0X\ irre ulso dcrlve.l fror che o1d
yster tap agreeuentu. Thcsc dltches -- r)ov lnactlva also lrrlgaled areao
vhlch rrere subsequently served by clre lJcsc Glerruootl systen. llorrover, no sttttopc
haa ever been rade to detetntne uhat lf any clain the Clty msy now havo on thege
Junlor rLghta.
9slacr*!,.
A. Oaslg Dltch, eenlor rlghtu lnclurlLrtg prlorlty 03r- 026 and ll54r Gotal
decreed Bnount of 3.9 c.f.8. for lrrt6atlon.
(1) Traver Ranch rtght: ltrough nn annesatlon agxeenent ond Q.C.D.1
tha Clty obtaLned one-half of the Oasls Dltch rlghts (t.e. 1.95
G.f.B.) fn 1984. Per case No. 85qrrl02r thls rlght voo changed to
allor for dlverslons of l0rr acre-fceB per annuu for mrnlc!.pal
use3.(lt) Bcdstonr rlghc: The R€rlst.)rlc Corporatlou own6 2lZ of the
Qagla Dl,tch tLghts. Per cnnexatlon aBrcooent dated January 29.
1981, Xcdetona I-s supposed to dedlcate thcse rlghts to the ClEy.
B. Gllnorc Dl.tch, undeterulned portiou of 3.9 c.f.a. Junlor lrrlgatton
rlght per llcst Glenpood eater tap agreementi prlor to February 2,
I987.
tJhtle tha ssntor rtght orr Ossls Creek ls the OssLs Dttch whlch hlstortcslly
lrrtgated propertlee east of the creclt, norr the prtnclpal uater user ls tha
S0'd 900'oN ?I:II L6,VI NUf 28SI-S16-026-I:0I -I rfrl tfts 9 d s0tll Nl9 J0 AI I l
[,
[,
il
lr
lr
lu
ln
ll
lI
Mlfclrell Coopor Dttclr and Plpr:llnc Conprrny rrltl.;h t)rovldcs domestr.c supply to r
eroall portton of UesB Glenrood. A* vlih llttclrcll Crcek, dhe physl-cal supply
avatlable fron Oasls Creek ls llrultod. llcuever, rlre creek ond lEs Erlbutery
sprlngs tlave nnnaged to sustaln Ultchell-Cooper ln tts servlcc 3re6r as sell ag
cont{nulng to lrrlgats corac nearby propertles - ;
Hltchcll-Cooper ls the l.cst rcuirlrrlrrg prlvato water suppller ln Glenrood
Sprlngs. In 6gdcr to lnduce rhe propcrty oft'ners ln the llltchell-Coopar gervlcc
area to annex ln 1984, tlre Clty agreed not only to all.otJ them to keep thelr orn
u51tat systct!, but also to uBe tlre Cl.t,yrs Ossl.s Croak w$ter. rlglrta iu thst
ayateE. Ths agrecBenc Provldes:.
lhe Conpany nay uttllae any and all n;rter rlghts nov ovned or hereafter
acgutrsd by ttre Clty rrhlch haVe Ossts Greek as thc decrced sourcei ot
suiply to pernlt the Coaputy Eo dtvcrt up to 0.4 c.f.s. froq Oasls Crcck. .
. '.- iftto to water rlghts owned or heteaf,ter acqulred by tha CIty ahaU
reoaln rtth the Glty. lt betng tlre lntent of tho partles to Peralt tho usc
by the Coupany of tha Cltyrs Oirsls Creck eater rlghts ln exchango- for thc
Clrp"nyts. agrienont to convey lts wacer rtghts to the Ctty ln tho futurc.
Unfortunately, the terrD of thts e8reeotefit ls open ended, ulth ehe Coopany
reeenrlng sote dlscretlon to detemine rrhcn, if everr lt vt1l 8,o out of buelnesc
and coavaY lta sYatera to the CltY.
In furtherance of lts agreenent uith !!ttchell-Cooperr the Ctty converted
ttg Oasle nitch righta (fo6er Traver R:rnch irrlgatlon rater) td nunlcLpal usol
Lacludlng a decraed alrernate polrrt of dlverslon st tho Mltchcll-Cooper eprlng
bor. Io changlng thls water rtghrl houevcrl luportant llal,tatlont rere hpooed
by stlpulatlonr G.g. dl,verslons Eay.occur only durLng the lrrlgatlon se88on.
Ilre Ctty has. also narle tentati.vo ef forts to obtaln ihe rcuatnder of Cho
Oaalt Dltch seter rlghte. Accorrtlng to a I98l pre-tnneratlon agreeucnt vlth
Rcdstonc CorPoratlon:
(Radstonc t ahall' transf er Eo ttre Cl ty at thc tl,rse of annexatLon ell
iorr-tharnal water rlghcs oppurtcnaDE Eo the real propert/i hoscvor'
lRedatonsl ray conrtnue to uio such saterr so long ae tt ls used for a
ierreflctsi p..ipose, uncll such tlne as Ehe Clty.needs such rater for acturl
90'd t00'oN ?I: II L6,VI NUf 28SI-Sr5-026-I:0I Jlrtrrs g ds 0tllNlg l0 A1 I l
[:
il(
lfll
ln
lir
ln
lr
usagc vltlrln the Ctty v{ter syste,ra or for actual auEntntotLon 8s parl of en
auSnencatlon plarr for the Cttyrs rrater aysteu.
Ttre Re.tstone proD€rty lras long slrrce bocn annexerl but, dceptle govcrsl deuonda
ftorn the Ctty (uost reeently tn 1986), Rudstono has not yet 8lven rr deed for Ghq
rater rights.
In t 988, tlre City also ma.te arr of f er for the balance
.
of che 0aal'a ,raat
rlghto onnerl by Fender (2IZ) arrd Negaord (SZ), the obJect bcing to assune total
concrol of the dltch, probably close tlre dtrcli, and coovert the rtater to
uunlctpel usa. Tlre orrners uere unulLl.Lng to se11, houever. and tha
Fendef-NeSqard properrles are nou o'nned by Mlsslon Energy Conpany.
Other potentlal clal"na ln the Gllnorc Dttch are' ss explalned above, baaed
upon the qulil prg.gg conEal.netl ln old l{est Glenvood uater tsP a8reeueols. fit1g
dltch forrrrerly extended ss far uest as tlre Surrny Acres/eolf courso area. Aay
clain uhlch the City may have tn the Gllmore rltrclt ls purely speculattvo.
Fotrr !111e Creek.
JunLor conrtitlonal rlghr In the r-orrr l,11I.e Plpellrre COIZ (Prtorlty 1863'
Prlorlty Data lll2l6D for 2-9I c.f's' nurrlclpal use'
fhe Four t{lle rtralnage ls probably the most notorlous over-approprlatad
under-supplled watershed ln thc ircsr Onc scurly shosed the adJurtlcated cletos
on Four lt1le Crecl totalltng oYcE 1,00 e.f.s., vtth the actual supply typlcrlly
dropplng baloy 2 c.f.s. by Juty l. Thercfore, Eeceut proposale for boleterlog
HaBer supply ln Four ltlle typtcally focus on traus-besln dtverslons
Neverthel€s3r. the Clty hae ualntalnerl a condltlonat vater rtght for. tho
Four lttle plpetlne slnce Lg67. wlth thc ilost recent flnrtlng of rcaaooabla
dtllgencc occurrtng in 1988. LLlts the Gtl'zzty Creek ReserTolrr tho Ctty grrst
eonElnuc ro aasesa the voluo of rhte uater rtght and the practlcallty of leeplng
lt. eI.tve,
I
28ST-Sr6-026-i:0ILO'd 100'oN SI: II L6,Vl NUf Jlntlls gdsqnNl9 J0 Al- I l
il
I
Il
l,t
In
lir
ll
,Tlrree. H11-e..Sreek
' A. ltughes Resorvoir No, 16, [30 rcrc-fooc stora8e rl6tt acqulred throu6h
thi Glerrpood Purk srrnexatlon agrec'en(, 9l15ll7 and Q.C.D.
B. tlughes Cerden Dtrch No. 86 rrltli prloxlty No. ll8 for :16 ".f-s. sant'or
lrilgurlon rlghts anrl prlorlty nutnber l90C for 2.24 c. f .s. J'untor
trrliatJon .igtrt" ac'lulred through ths Glcnvuod Park annexatlon
a8re€tlent , gltsllt and Q.C.D'
The dnn at t[e Hughes Rcservolr reas br,:cched ln 198,r duc to safety "o,,aoJn,
orrd the reservol.r lros been dralned sluce then. Tlte reservolr ls dccrecd for e
toBal s3orage rlght of 1500 rrcre-fcet, witfr varlous otl shalc companies holdln6
con4 lcdonal rlglrts Go expan.l rhe rescnotr by ari rddltlorral 5000 acre-fcet.
Ilouever, none of the ourlera hsvc marle cny tanglble cff-o.rts to repaif tha
reservolr ln recent yesrs. Wrlght l{aLer Engltreers lndlcatas that repaLr{ng
Ilughes Resenrolr uould not be nearly as cost effect{vq aa obtalning 6lora80
sat€r fron other proJects euch ae Reudl'
The Hughes Garden Dttch lrrlgaEer! f1e1ds vhlch r;ere reooved frou lrrlgatlon
. ln the l970ta snd are not, occuPted by Glcnsood Park. Thts .lttch conveyed the
uoec senlor decreed sater frour Tlrrce Hlle Creck'
Glcnuood Dltch t46CC, 52 of the t50O ahares tn the Glcnsood lrrlg-atlon
Coupanyr entltl!.rrg the Ctty to 3.47 of thc tocal adJudlcared sater right of
50 c.f .r. or 1.7 c.f .s. for trrl8attotl purPoselr.
Ilre Cltyts only clalo for dlrcct wLthdrawals fron thi area'e uaJor rlvcro
are Its Glerrtrood Dttch shares. Ttrc Clenvood Dltchr extendtng fron tha
&trbondale ares all thc ray to the heart of Gleunood Sprtngs' ra6 oae of the
or1glnal dlverslon structurcs ln the valley. As }orer rtctlons of the dltch ln
Glen11oOd Sprlngs iecaae urbaalzcd, properties rrcre reuoved frou lrrlgatloa and
eerved by tha Glty's runlclpal supply. llrc ouners vould then dcdlcaCc thqlr
eharea to the Clty. Ttre Ctty ouns approxtoately lll of thc shares ln thc
dlteh's northerly'dlvlslona (l.e- north of Bed Canyon)
ln t9g3, thls stretch of the dlrch ras closed.entlrcly due to nalrrtcoancc
I
80'd q00'oN SI: II L6,VI NUf ZSST-S?6-026-I:0I Jlnns9ds0fliNl3J0Ar Il
'-,frt t -t\
s.E
rt,,o f -'
)tg
r,\$t,eq
h
'|J-\81s) .'
'r,, ,,8{-,:=*-o"\
\ r/ qb'-
-
-
..'.\
i .n \"..--=-.d' \\-' 'ffiiro'\-
&t@',l'.-osnrudw
NUf 28ST-tr6-926-T:0I JItlfllSgdS0tIlNl9J0AIIl
I!:
rtrI f-
ill I '
lnlr'
lfln| --ll]*I ti \t,
\1lt|,
lE I i$
i
I I r --.-d
lf l r'" 't
llt- ?d
I I o'd eoo'oN eI:rI L',tt NUr 28sT-
;i{I^INIIT
tl4',*
) (STAIIDARD llETt{oDs, ITth EDtTroN, pp,Z-71 rhru 2-?5)
\'
l+ rl:mlsa
I
I
CAI4I'I.(I1CN EUR SALTNTTY
d
L6,Vl NUT 18SI-S?6-026-I: flI Jln ns gd s0tllNl9J0A1 I 3
,[
l,
!I E r,lr'oRTH- P.ervra t< C ao:-ecH it'' t c'c L, I u c'i0l'3 Rosd !i{
Gitnr++od SPrings' CO S1601
F,rx 9?0 915-&lll
Fhone 910 9{$7958
PRETT*IL\ARY DEBRIS FLOW ]L}iD ROCKFALL HAZARDS STUDY
C}Lq.TFIELD RAT{CH PRQPERTY
WEST OF }TBW }IIDLA}'ID AVENUE
GLENWOOD SPRII{GS, COLORADO
APRIL 8, 1996
JOB NO. 196 121
Exhibit 10
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF GLEIr_WOOD SPRLTqGS
ATTEIiTION: MR' LARRY THOfIPSOli
806 COOPER A1rE}{LIE
CLEN\YOOD SPRIT{GS, COLORADO 81601
'2,
T
[,
1l
FTEPWORTH . P"\\\T-AK GEOTECI.TNICAI, TNC.
April 8, i996
C itf' of Glenrvood SPrin*ss
80S Cooper Avenue
Glenrvood Springs, Colorado 81601
Anention: \tr. Larry TtromPsun
Job No. 196 i2'l
Sub.jecr: Repon Transminal, Preliminary Debris Florv nnd Rockfall Hazards
srudy ior the chartjelcl Ranch Propem-, west of Nerv }lidland
Avenue, Glent'ood Springs. Colorado
Dear N'fr. Thompson:
As req4esred., ne have conducted a preliminan evaluation of potential debris flori'
anri rockihti hazards at ihe Chatfield Ranch Properrl:. Assessments oithe debris
flon, anrt rockfall hazards ibr different pails of the property rvere made ancl
possibie hazard mitigarion methods revierved-
The debris florv and rockfall hazards present the srealest constraints in the area
sourh of rlre railroad tracks- Debris florv n:itigation rvhich should be apolicable
consisr of deflection bernrs in combination u'ith flood prooting and direct building
prgrecrion, Rockfall mirigaric''n rvhich should be applicable consist of energ;-
dissipation harriers. The barriers could be a diit':h and benn s!'stems' earth
embanksrenrs. mechanicell,v stabiiized gnnh rvalls cr cable fence s)'stems' Direct
buiidin=e reiniorcemenr ma] be ibasible in the IorT'er part of the runotlt area.
The repon uliich tbllorvs summarizes oui findings end presens oLlr conclusions
arici recirmrnenrlaiitrns. Iithere are questions- please call-
Respeciful!3' submined.
HEP1TORTH - PA\I,'LAK GEOTECI{N'1CAL. ,IC
Ralph G. *-Iock
Engineering Geologist
Rev. b1': SLP
ROI'['ro
|[
ln
lr
lr
ll:
K"i?j d #*e
I
I
J
.1
,1
5
6
t
i
I
III
10
l2
I
l,
t
ln
lr
ln
ln
lr
lr
tl
TASLE OF CONIE.\TS
FURPOSE AIID SCOPE OF STUDY
PREVIOL1S STUDIES
PROPOSED DEVELOP},1E}{T
SITE CO'\-DITIONS
GEOLOGiCSETTINC.,.
DEBRIS FLO1V HAZARD AS5E5S}'{EI\IT . . .
RECURRE}ICE FREQUENCY
EHTE:\-T OF HAZ.{RD
ROCKFALL HAZARD ASSESS}TENT .
N:O HAZARD ZO}{E
LOW TO }iO HAZ,q.RD ZONE
iUODERA.TE i{AZARD ZOFIE
HIGH HAZARD ZOTE
HAZARD IvIITIGT\TION
DEBzuS FLOW
ROCKFALL . . .
LITIITATIONS . . .
REFERENCES .
FiGLiRE i - LARGER. DEBRIS FANS AND DR{I}IAGE BASNS
FIGURE : . E}iISTi}iG DEBRIS FLOW I-IAZ.{RDS
FiGT RE 3 - DEBzus FLO\I I{AZARDS WITH DEFLECTION BER\IS
FIGURE + - LOCATION OF CRSP PROFILES
FiGURE 5 . EXISTITG ROCKFALL HAZ,qRDS
TABLE i - SL:MI.IARY OF DRAIIi'AGE BASiI\s Al-iD DEBRIS Ftu\s
TABLE tr - SU},I}TARY OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AREAS
T
[,
il
I
PURPOSE AND SCOFE OF STUDY
This report preseffs the findings of a preliminary debris tlo'* and rocklall hazards
srridl.' thr rhe Chatfiel<i Ra*rch FropeEl-).*: rvesl of ne'* litidland Aveaue. Glen*ocd Springs'
colorado. The projecr area is shotrn on Fig. 1. Assessn:Ents of the debris florv and
rockfall hazards for diffeieu peirs oi'the propeiq' tr+re made and possible merhods of
hazards miiigaiion revierved- The rvork was done according to our February' 18, 1996
Proitssionai Sen'ices.{,gieernent ivirh the Ciry of Glenrucod Springs'
A field reconfltsisscrice oi-rhe ,oroperrv rvas rnade on Februaq'' 14, i 996 as pert of a
prer.iors site revierv (H-P Ceotecl'.nical, 1996). The citl' supplied us r:"ith aerial
photographs of the area and the cui'rentll' aveilable topographic maps' Preliminary
suri-ace u:arer hl,drologl'caia l^or *le lar*ge uibuiary drainage basin and a Upical srnall
cjrainaqe basin to rhe souih n'ere atailable for our rer"iert' (High Countrv Enqineering,
l 996). Ass+ssrnenrs of ihe reiarive debris flo*' and rockfall hazards uere made based on
our ijeld obseruations. ropographic map anal-vsis, aerial photograph interpretaiions. the
hl,droiogic data. and numericnl modeling. This report has b,een prepareC to summarize rire
dara obtained. during the sruCl' ar:d ro present our conclusions and recornrnendarions based
ofl our cu;rent understanding of tlle proposed developn:ent'
PREVIOUS STUDIES
A6 engineering anail,sis of road access ts lhe propeil)-. \,-r'as macle b1' Schmueser
and Associares f 1985). The Froi=cr site is includeC in thr geologic hazard sludl' for tlre
trlignrrood Springs merrcpoiiren aree flincoln DeVore. l9?g], A geoiogic reconnaissance
oirhe FroFeri:.' has recentlr' been compieted (H-P Ceotectrlical. 1995i-
PROPOSED DEVELOP}IEI\ T
Ii is eui undersiand.ins rhsl the citf is consiiering purchase oi rhe pioBelTv rvhich
rvoul,J be rhe site of funrre eiry iaciiiries and possibll- count)'- and siate facilities- Faciliries
nhich ffia1: 6. considered are a ne\i, count.v jail, ciq- maintenance faciliiies. sute highrval'
ltI
In
ln
ln
ln
lr
lll
lr
lr
(
il
il ,
,)
L
Or Cgunt), rnaintenance iaeilities. a:td a waste lvatel l6atrnent plant' The rvaSte lva'ter
plant tnuld be locared near the iiv*r on the nonli side of the railroad tracks. The other
faciliries would be locoted on the more gently sloping *sround either to the norrh or south
of the railroad. The steep canyoil sides in the southern pan oi'the propenl- rviil rrCIt be
de'eloFed. Access ro rhe prBperi]' rviil require a 3,100-io6t long roaqi itom \{idland
Avenue er a bridge over the Colorado River'
sITE COI{DITTONS
Tiit Charfield Ranch Propeny is loeared to ilie ssuth of rhe Colorado piver and
rvesi of the nerv Nlidland Avenue. see Fig' 1, The propeny covers about 90 acres in pans
oi'Seciion I, T. 6 S., R. 90 \U. and parts of Section 6' T- 6 S. R' Sq W' The Ccioracio
Riler forn:s the r:onhern piopenl' boundary''. On the south. the propeq' extends onlg the
sre3p canl'Gn side in pleces. About 4 i acres of the 90 acre parcel are on moderaiel1''
sloping debris fans and river leraces rvhere slopes are less than about 35%' About l2'7
acres of moderately sloping ground is locared to the nonh of the raiiroed and 38'0 acres to
rlre sourh. sreen can)-on si,les rneke up rhe remaining 49 ocres. slopes along the cafl-von
si,Jes aie q.picaiii stgeper than 50% and nran;r areas are 70 to 100%, Tire river channel is
locrted abour l0 ro 30 ft-=er belorv rhe rerraee and debris tans in the nonhern part of the
prirpen!'. ir: rhis area a sreep. 509u. escarpmenr is usualll'presE-I1t along the soutli side oi
tlie river.
-A.llof rhe drainages tirich enter the propeq'&orn the south are epherneral- The;-
her,e suri-ace flow onil' dr:nng periods of intense :hunder stonil precipltaticn and
uu.r:uall1- raeid sno*pack meltin3. -Ihe drainage basins t'or rhe epirerne;ei sffeanis are
sieep and usualll,.smali. I.losi are usualll- bel*ten a'oout l0 and ?5 acies- A large basin
*i:i';h co','ers about j60 acies is rdbrnary to the la;ger 'jeo;is thn in ihe ess;eril pari of rhe
propeii)'. see Fig, l.
The Denr.er and Rio Grande l,r*:esterfl Railroad crosses through rhe propenl" in
lhe cenira! pan. rhe track !s on a i 0 io 15 foot high embaalireenr Iill' In the \\'estem part'
rhe rrrck is near the exisring gradr oirhe clebris fsns. In the eastern part. the track is in a
30 t'oot high cui rvhere the iailroc.rl ciosses the lar-ser Cebris t'a:r. T*o r*rch lrouses are
il
ll
Irl
I'l
lll
t
located to the north oithe railroad uacks'
u'irh sorne junipers and comonu'ood irees'
canyon side-
1
Vegetadon is primarily oa-k and sage brush
Rock ouiuops are conunoil along the steep
GEOLOGIC SETTTTG
The piopen-r, is lu-catec r-rn rhe limb of rhe Giartd Hogback monocline rvhich
borders the \Vhite River':piin trn the sourhrvest' Borh of these prinrary regional
srruc',r-res rveie lormeC d'-r:ing th* Laramide Orogeny about 4rJ to ?0 miilioil years ago'
\lajor fbuirs have not been nrarFeC on t}e pronerq'{Kirli-ham' Sireuf*n and Cappa'
1ggsi. BeCding in the sediin*irtEry rock along ihe liiilb oith.e monocline i:r this area has
an a1'erage strike of about I j Ll' \\' and an al'er&qe Cip of aborrr '10
o rO tl"ie southr'l'est'
The contact benveea ihe P*nnsylvanian end Pennian age \laroon Formaiion and
pennsyrvanian-age. Eagle Vaiiel-Formation is rocared in rhe wesrern pan aithe properr-a"
The tr'{aroon Fom'ration is nrainl,v reddish'bro*n sandsrone' corglornerate' rnudstone'
siirsrone. and clal,,stone r';irh r:ilor. thin beds oigral-iiriiestone" The Eagte velle1'
F-ormadon is interbedded. reii.,liSh-broun' bro*n' gia1" reddish-gra1- and tau siitstone'
shc1e. san,Csrone, gypsurn and carbonate roek. The it{o formations inienoague near their
coRract. orircrops of rhe }laraon 3re commcn on the canl'oil side in rhe souihern part of
the ProPerq;,
. In the northern p3fl crf the propeil;-, Ihe sediaienrary fomlaiions aIi covered by
relaiivei-r- rhick debris fans enci rir.er ailuvium. The cebris fans are geologicall]" y"ouflg
dep,osits and coalesce along ihe 1.L-\\1'er canl'ofl sides io lbrn a crinlinurrus aFion deposit'
Tire debris fan deposits consis; of poorll.soriei. n:riix-supportetl *leposirs olgiavel to
bouidel-size rock fragprents in e sanci;* sifu rnri c[i' nrariis' H-P Geoiechriieai hrs
recenrly, drillec ren exoloraior.r' L,oring on the lL*r'ei pen of the dtbris frns to th'e south of
the raiiioaii. These borings sho'*'that the debris liou'cier',osits on the lo*'er pan of the
tens are iiorn _i., ro j 1.0 tter thick and overiie ii,.'er ieiiece alluvium, The iiver telrace
alluviur:: is mostil' a ciasi-supponed ieposit oi si:liiiitc' ;or:i:ded' gr*'el' co'cbles and
bouidsts in a siirY sand n:aiiir'
I
l(
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
.t.?
DEBRIS FLOW HAZARD ASSESShIE,T{T
Th* debris fans on i[:e lroperry an,S many of rhe other similar ians in the
Gl*n*ood Springs area ale considered active geologic t'earures' Hisi'rric debris ilorv have
nor been reponed for rhe farrs on the properry'. bui historic'debris florvs have occurred on
simiiar <Iebris fans in rhe Glen*,ood Springs area ilincoln DeVore- i97S). The best
ccrurnenied aad mosr nide sprred. hisreric debris t'iorv eFisode occurred as a result of an
inrense thunderstorm on Jull'l-t. 19??. Betbre the 1977 event' sixteen debris tloru
episodes oucuired in rhe Glen,+ood springs arer since i903 {ESA Geot;chnical
consuirants. 1982). sii:ce i9?7, ciebris 110,.r eeisod,es have occurred in 1981. 198'1, and
igg4 gnd igg5. The 1g9,1 and I995 ,lehris floB's source &iea rt"ere in the Lruraed area on
Si,r.-m Kir:g \loumain. A inajurr iurest fire in ihe sun:Jner of 1994 Cestrol"ed the
vegclliior: in ihe Stornr King }iountain area. The aeriol photogrrphs shots el'idence of
relari.;eir. recenr debns [io..r's in ulosr of the riburary basins to tlle Cirattield Ranch
Propertl.'- it is likely thai m.:11, of these flou'S Octur:eC since 1903'
RE C'JRRE}, CE FREQUEN C 1'
There are esmblished rnerhods for estirnarint rscurrence proba'oiliries for rvater
tloods. bur slr,riiar me:hods are nol generalll'agreei on for esrirnating debris fiorr
reJrnencc pro'nalriiities. il appears ihat debris flou'episodes in the Glenrvood springs
area ere frequeet el'enis, The h.isionc recoril shot|s thai nvent-v'one del'ris ilor'; episodes
hai.eoccurecintheGlenu,oocispringsareainiheninery.threel'earssincetgOj.Thisis
[ln 3i,eruge of Cne evel]i aboui rf iry t'oirr,vears. The recurrence fiequenev f'or an
indir.lclrral iasin and is:l ,sl-rultr be n:uch grsciel rhei iour )'eals- it serrns reasonable ro
asiufilf :!1]i e significa-irt de*hris llorv evenr on an incividuai ian wouid have recurtence
ireq.u;ncies tenr.een j0 and 5001'ears- \lhen rhere is insulficient inlbimarion to estimale
dtcris i1c1\.iiequencies the hazsrd is somerin:es eveiuared ior engineering designs by
hulki:r-e ih: 100-;*ear srori]:l lvaier iiood iischalge ai ihe fa.l head. This B-oul'l accotult for
inrrersei sedinient }oais associarec u-irh the cebris iro'*,. our preliniir:e-q'' e'aluaiions for
this srud..-lses this rneihoi a1d, a o:re-din',ensional :Jtlrr rnodel base'J on the reiationships
I
I
l(
I
t
t
liese:1te[ bt itrlnger arrd Oth*rs q1984)
I
\l 5
EXTE}T OF HAZARD
liine debris fafls uith drainage basins on the sttrip caBlon side ale Present on the
propsriy. see Fig. l. A sunrmaty or fair snd basin shaEcteristics are given on Table ['
DebrisflgrvhazardszonesoniheproFert}-o1g5llgrunonFig.2.ThreehaeasdeoflesarE
derineatec and discussed berorv. Trre acreage oi porenria,y developabre ground in the
hazardcategoriesaresummarizecionTablell.Potentiall'"-developablegroundis
considered io be artas rvhere tlle slopes are less tl:arll-i?6-
Lorv to No Flazrrd Zone: The debris ilotl l'razard is cstegorized as lorr'to iro (L) for the
river terrace ro ihe nonh of rhe debris fans and parts oirhe debris fans ruiricir are proteciec
by the esisring raiiroad embank*eni. Lincler eriisl:ng conditions the ior+ to na hazard zone
rrrr.ers ahour -i6% of the porer:tiaill' Ceveiopu'nie g;ound aonh of rhe railroad end about
t4% ro rhe sorrrri of the rairroaci- Tnese arecs ere iioi expecrrd ro be su'oject to debris florv
depr:sirion. bur illev coutd experience sorne tlooding ancl sediment deposition' Debris
t1o*. rnlrigr.iioa in the /o*. rcr no ]razard zone rvculd be sirniiar ro rhar used ro rsuriilg rhe
100-1'ear stoirll uater runoffthiough the area'
iloderate to Higrr Hazard Zonc: Tiie iieLrns fl,rrv hazaril [s caresorized as rnode rate to
irr'pr orr rhe rlebris far.s (F- I rhrough F'9)' The lri.qll hszard areas are on the upPer parts of
the fan ani lhe nrzarEl decreases to tttarierate in the lgrver parts' Because of the relativell'
large irainrge ba*sin of Fan F. i. the ce-bris t]o.,v h3'z,Id on this fan is arore Se\,lere rhan the
Iiazaril un the orher t'ans \l'hicn hr:ve snaller drainage basins' Near the fan iread on Fan F-
1. rlorv velurcities cor.rl,J be in the r',inqe ot'20 to a0 tps rvitir flor'-'depths in ihe range of l0
ro I -i ieer. In the midtlie and lori'er parts of Fan F-1 ilorv qelocitirs couid be in the range
oi i tt to l5 ps r'*'irh tlorv depths be:*'een 'l io 6 ttet'
fenr tire ian heads on ihe srr:ailer tbns fiori"r'eloci:ies could be in the raflge of I to
i4 tps rvirii rlowdepths beRveen 3 io 5 feet. In the middle anc lo*er pans ot ilie smaller
i-ans fiorv r.eiocities courd be in the renge of *i ro 1[ tps r'irh flrlrv depths benveen 2 to 3
r*ei.
l.niereristingcondiricrnsihtfitr.rriel.ntet+ille.Ilhazerdzoneco\.ersabourj4glooi
potentiaill-deveiopablegroundnortlroftherallrcadandaborrts6%rothesourhofthe
: t fi --^?-^'1
\l 6
railroad racks. Developrnent in the moderate to high hazard areas on the debris fans
srrourd incrude hazard inidgadon. passibie mirigarion merhods appricable to the project
arediscussedintlreHa7ardsl'{iilgafionsectionofihisrePort.
High Hazard Zone: .the dehris llow hazerd is categorizerl as lrfglr in all areas on the
sieep Ean)*on sides (c1= slopes in tiiese areas aie usually glefltel than 5096 and commonl;*
iir rhe range oi 70?'i to 10096. Tiie c;in;-ot't sides ale generall-u not suitabte for nrost
devriopment, Arso. ir *iil prclrabr;* noi be ieasibre to mitigate the debris tlo*'' haeards in
thes+ arecs for most t;-pes oide'elopment' It is our uqderspnding that the Citf is not
plazuiing detelopment on the can]'on siues'
ROCHF.{LL I{AZARD ASSESS}IEI{T
There are ilumeror.ls iock ouicroPs on the canl'on sides upslope to the south of the
potenriall)- developable grour:d. These outcrops are possible sourEes tor rockthll' Many
of the boulders on rhe ground surtlce in rhe ares are probabll'the result of rockthll'
Rockfalls hare occ$rred historicaliy in the Glen*ood spring area at 5i1E5 r'vith simiiar
geologicsettings.Thelikeliiroodr!r3'iarockiallrvilloccurduringiheserviceliieofthe
developnrenrisprobebll'lotr..builgrockftil\l..ere[ojritabuildingtheconseQuences
couldbese,.'e:e-Betluseofihis.iiisrecorumeni;dthatoccupieclfaciiitiesinpotential
rockihilareasbeprerecreri,L'fi:azar'Jmirigaiion'Possiblemitigationnrethodsappiicable
to rhe proje;t are ciiscussed in the Fftt--rrftir ,l/Jtrg4tlon sectiorr oirhis repon' our
preiimina-,r' evaluatior.l oi ihe rockthil hazard i5 }a.te<'i on rnorjeiing rrsing the Colorado
Rock Fail Simulariorr p11r$ienx (CRiSP' \rersion 3'Oai' Rochlall simulations rvere made
aloirg the ih;ee slope prol'rles sho"in an Fig"i' Baseri on this' tluee rockfall hrzard zones
ri.ere delineared for :he propeq" see Fig. 5' The hazard zones are discussed beloru' The
arees of poi*ntiai);.' tievelopabie sround in the th-ree haeard zones are suInn:alized on
Tableli.Poiential'll.der.eiopablegrotrndisconsid'eiedtobeereasrvherethes[opesare
less ihan li? i.
I
'l(
I
I
NO HAZARD ZONE
The CRSF rnodeling shows thar the nrnoul limit of rockfall is located on the lorver
and rniddle parts of the debris fans. Rockfall should not be a poiential hazard do*n slope
of tliis limit, Under e3istinq conditions about 889d of ihe porenlially detelopable ground
ro fie noflh of rhe railroad racks is not erposed to a rockfall hazud. About L4% of the
potenrielly developable g*rornd to rhe south of the railroad tracks is noi exposed to a
rockfall hazard.
LOW TO 1.{O HAZARD ZONE
The rockfall haeard is categorized as lor*- ro no (RF-Lll) in rhe lorver and middle
parts of tire ,lebris fans, This zone is near the run oul limit indlcateC'o1' the CRSP
rnodeling. In thls area mqximunr rockfall velocities shouid be less than 5 fps and
maxinrum bounce heighis should be less thal 2 fee:. UnCer esisting cond,itions ttre /ou'to
r:o hazard eorie covers about 6 -o.6 of the potentiallv Cevelopable ground to the nonh of the
railroad tr*.cks and about l7?/o to the south oi the railroad racks.
tvlODER{TE FIAZARD ZONE
The rocktall hazard is caregorize d as rnoCer*re (RF-\.I) il the rniddle pans of the
debris fans. In rhese areas rnaximum rockfall velc'cities could be iir the rarge 5 to 65 fps
and rr:arimu.m bounce heiehu couid be betr'r-een I and l0 feet, Linder eristing conditions
ihe ruoa{ercie tlazerd zone covers about 5% of the poientiall}'developable ground to the
norrh of rhe rciiroad tracks and about 339/o to the south of rhe railroad iracks.
HIGH }{qZARD ZOI'{E
The rcckiall haeard is caregorized as ilrgh iR-F'Li) oil the caii)'tlil sides and upper
pans of ihe debris i'an-c, [n these aieas ma.<imum rockfal] velociiies ccruld be i,r the reutge
of 55 ro i ,10 tps and rnaximum bounce heights could br beil\:een l0 and 50 feer above the
erisling gound surface. Unier existing condiiions thr'/:l,gr hazard zoile co1€rs about l9'o
oi'the porenrialiy cieuelopab'le ground io the nonh oirhe isilroad tracks and about 4770 to
the sou&.
lil
lir
lil
lir
ln
ll
ll:
ll
C
(
I
il .
II
lt
il
il
il
I
I
[(
t
iI
I
I
I
I
t (
t
I
s
FIAZ.IRD h{ITIGATION
Hazard rnitigation is iecomrnencl t'or deve loprnent in potential debris tlorv and
rockihil hazard zsnes. Debds florv hazard zones for existing conditions are shoun on Fig.
I an'i irrr rockr'all on Fig. 5. The n pe of hazard miiigarion ruill depend on ihe rypes and
locations oithe facilities and the risk acceptable to rhe cirl,or other o\\rrers. ltitigation
csncepts discussed in this seciion ere appropriare i'or prelirninery planning and nrojecr
la;.'out, Additionai srudies shouid be rnade to develop speciiic recofilmendarions as pa.fi
of the riesign Frocess rvhen the rypes end locaricns of ihe faciiities l':ave been der.ermined.
DEBzuS FLO\\T
Debris ilo'"v haearils can he miligated b;,'(1J avoiding the hazard area. (?) ciebris
ret*ntiLln hasins. (3) defl;ction su'rrctuies. 14) ch,nnne!ization. {5) energ!' dissiparion
struciures- (6) direct building rrorecrion ,-virh i1ood proofrng, and (7) a combinatlon of the
above, \ot ail of the nreihods *-e applicable l-or a speciiic sire and projecl. Based on our
current undeisrarding of the Cii1.'5 d,er,elopmeni plans ior rhe Chatfield Ranch Properrl- ir
apprars ihat debris basins. channelization. and en€r*ql, dissipariotr sirucrures rvill not be
applicahle.
Foi the Chatfield Rarch Propem,'. r.r'hen ir is cot possible to avoid rhe debris florv
l:eesrd z-ones. ihen is should be possible ro mirigare rhe liazard in sorne sreas rvirh
deilecrions heims in combinarion rvirh direci buildi;rg prorecrion and t-loocl prooting. One
possible concept is sho*-n cn F!g. -1. \,lirigarion'.+'ouid consist of det"leciion bernrs on
Debris Fans F'I and F--1, Ti:is rvould provide compieie pro;ecrioil in some areas but not
a!l- In srers rriiere compleie pioieclion is :rot po;sibh. direct building proiection and
tlood ircr-riing s}:ould be fiasiale, Tiris n:iiigario:: ccncepr rvould increase rhe iors to no
heurrd srea ro the norrh oiihe ruilroad rracks korn rhe existing -i.g acres ro abtrut 10.?
flcres, Tcl tlie south of the railload rracks it rrould increase the lotr,to no hazard area i"rom
rhe eris:ins -1,8 acies to abour Ii. i acres.
Bemr heights on Debiis Fan F- l ,.,'ouid probabll. need ro be in rlre range of 6 ro
I0, Bera heights on Debris Fen F-J uould iikeli'h,e in the ia'lge of i ro i ieer. Direcr
pioieciioti u'rs ilood proofing. *'tren needed. couid consisr oireinforcing building vialls or
ll
l(
I
lil
ln
lr
lr
ll
lr
I
independenr rvulls to rvirhsiand potential debris flow irnpact and de positional pressures'
Reinforcsrnent heighr rvoutd Iikely be from J to.! feet above frnished grade ciepending on
the buiitling lu:carion- Flood proofing could consist of keeping doors. rvindor"s and other
huilding openings above potenrial flood levels, grading to direet fioivs arvav tiom the
building" and building lay--ours that unuld not obsmrci thi free florv oI flood *aters and
debris *round the buitiings. Direct building prorecrion will not elinrinate the potential for
sr-rme de.rnase es rhe resuit of erosion and the d:position of rnud and ,jebris. It sirould.
horr.evu-r, be possible ro piovlde a reasonable letei of sateq'for the buiiciings and their
occuparlrs rvith direct orotection.
ROCKT'ALL
Rocktali hazards are rvpically rnitigated bl' (1) avoiding the li;rz;,ro erca. {2)
souiie zone srabilization i3) rocktall barriers. (-1) ener*e1' dissipation slrur:Rlres- i5) direct
buiiding reinibrcement. and (6) a combination oI rhe abo'.'e. lrior all oirhe rnerht:ds are
applicable to a suecii'ic site and project. Based on our curent '-rnrlersitniiing tri ihe cit1"s
developmenr plans ior ihe Charfield Ranch Propery'' it apcears that rockfall source zone
siabiiizatlon- anci eners)'dissipation strucrures uill not be appiica'ole'
For rire Chartield Ranch Propertv. rvl'ie:r ii is not possible lo avtrid rhe rocktall
irazard zones. rhen ir shouid be ieasible ro miiigare rhe hazard in some areas $ith rockfall
barriers l}]1rl clirect building reinforcenrent. Direcr building reinibrcenreni ruiil onll' be
teasible nesr tire runoui limit in tli; lort/ to no haznid zone (R-F-LN)' Becedse of potential
high rocltiall r'elocirirs anci bo,.rnce heights it tuili probabl1'not be feasib]e to ct]nstrucl ail
etfeciive h,arrier in rhe ,+jg* hazard zone (M-H) exce.c.t near its lou'er liinit' \tr'ith
r.ririgarion ii shrruicl be possihle to increase the ior'to ro hazard zofie io the t:onh of the
railru.sd r;lcks iiom 0.7 to 1.3 erres, To the souih oithe railroad traclts ir sirould'oe
possible io increase ihe lOrv tO no hazard zone liom'1.8 to 1l'0 acrrs'
T1e barriers musl be higher thran the maximun p,otential bounce heiSlrr. The1"
riouid be Cesigne,J to dissicaie the rocktall's kineric energ]- without iri:accepm-ole damage'
Barriers can consist urf I I ) <liich anri berrn sl sfer,ls. ll) e;^",h embrni*iie::is' t 3 i
nrechsnicalll' sri-lbilizecl eunh {IISE) *alls and {*i ceLrle fence s1'sten:s. \tSE rvalls and
cable tence s,..srenis can t1'picall1-be desigired ro dissipate sbolrt Ii0 ro 70t1 rt'ions of
(
il
il ,
IO
kinetic energl'rvith acceptable darnage. lvlSE rvalls arrd cable fences s!'stems can be
consrrrlcted on steep slopes rvith minimal site disrurbance' Ditch and be rm s-vstems and
embankrrrenrs carl be designed f'or fiigh kinetic energies- but they are difiicult to build on
steep slOpes because oIexrensive Sile diSturbar,ce' \!hen csnsidering a ba't-rier system the
exrinr of the barier can be reduced b1, clusrering ihe facilities requiririg protection'
LI}TITATIONS
This report has been prepared acrording to generally accepted seotechnical
engine+ri1g principles anrl pracrices in this area, at rhis limg' We make no other
lvarranry either expressed or impli-'tl. The conclusiens and reCommencJations submined
in rhis reporr are based upon rhe dam obraineti from a tleld reconnaissance' aerial
phorograph inrerprelaiions. numerical modeling. and oul experience in lhe atea' This
reForr has been prepareri tbr rhe erclusive use by' our client for initial project planning'
We are BoE responsible for technical interpreHtions b1' others of our inibrmation' The
data anc rnirlgarion conceprs discussed in ihe repon are appiopriate f-or preiirninary
planning and project er.aluation. Additiona! studies shouid be rnade to deveiop speciire
recilmmendatinns as pait of the clesign process t'iren ihe t1'pes and locat:ons of the
i'aci!iries htve been determined.
Resnectfu li;"' Submined-
HEPI\'ORTH . PA\\:LAK GEOTECH.\ICAL. TTC.
/'/ ,, t
F, ,-r,{l+fr..FrFt
Ralph G. I'lcck
d f,****
Engineering G*oiogist
Relietled Bv:
,--/I --+--U,
-)tr--al-
Sieven L.
RGII. io
il
:l
I
,l
il
[(
,l
I
I
I
il
il
:t
il
I
(
t
I
.+ir'iqd:i;
#i i -a222
it'r,"_ ylarta :i,
tr,i:;-^,,-,., C.':';",
ih,.',"., r _^ r. +. t^p,-',
\t\'{- :Jc :it-'';F
il
il ,
lll
ln
ln
lu
lr
lr
lr
lr
II
REFERENCES
ESA Georeci:nicai consultants. 1982. Final Report - Drainage and Dehris conrrol Plan
for tlu Cir.v oJ'Gtenrr.'ood Sprrngs, Colorado: Prepared for the Ciry- of Glenrvood
Springs (Project No' G208. December' 1982)'
H-p Geotechnical, 1996, GeoI ogic Fielci.Retfew' of rhe Chatfietd Properr:i, iile1r
Glenwood Sprrngs, Cotiracto: Prepared fsr the Ciry of Glenu'ood Springs
(February I+, 1996. JobNo. 196 Ii4)'
High Country Engineering. 1996, Pre{pninaty Hydrotogtfor ChatfieV A-ff' *(fte Basin'r;*
Frepare4 i'or rhe Citl' of Glenrvood Springs (1,tarch i9- 1996' Prcrject No'
96024.01).
Hunger. o, and others. 198.1, Srmnrirarive cna|1isrs af Debris Torrent Ha:artis Jbr
Design af Remediai -uecstirirs: canadian Geotectr-aical Joumal' v' f I
Kfukham, R.\{.. Sueuiert. R,K. aI1d Ceppa. J.4., 1995, Geologr" trfap of rhe Glentvoocl
Springs Qrt*drangle, Garfield tourrq"', Colorado: Coiorado Geological S'"tn'e;-
Open File Iv{aP 95'3'
Lincoln DeVore. i978, Geol ogic ffla:ards af the Glenv'aod springs *letroPoliran ilrea'
Gar-field counry,. colorac[o: colorado Geological sun'ey open File Repon 78-
i0.
Sclunueser a-,rri Assoclates. 198-i- Relort on ilte }n'esligarions snd Analr'sls o/'{ccessing
the Cho$ietd Ranch Properry: October. 198 j'
LJ D tacn?aFr
. i- , - .i'i{iirr;" "u i '1
'..;'f.,-, .,=...,1
i,ffi{t,';'t,'f.,*[
friiri;',r1',1.r1;it;;,iLiii ;,,;,, ,i "j I t; ;{ ,
fip-':'l i'i:rl Ii,l, t+,;Iit, :r,ii'',
tl $fila*'il*dii
*mfil
li
riillii-l,lil;' ;.':,,it,,,fl;,,i' ., il,n",
,,''""i' ''l,:;-i '
$fifi-||}$ffi-i;i'-'rffiffiffi r
ffi- .::i
t*: i1t:- *i, =,'l:,ii* ir,., ",,\-lufl'W'.;1,. , i, ?'\
il[iln,,l.};t$i.-.._::l.t.'l
ffi:ffii*.,,,1 ].ti{'
mffifir{ffi
'ffiit+iffi
,l'1ffi
t;t., a'
,r'+i
I
..1
t.
I
p;*l:--'
Er: E
EfiH,q] ;rB ;i -o$t{FEL .E XsEt5ll n, -1rrE;szE H ffi;.;rgfiEgH "', Ei
eH6htE HE 6l,rgtj';H ai *=
mEfEEE, gEE E;
EI EHeEng f,$* EE
El EgEEH,E HHE EE
5l
o-lill I u r
(J
*.j" .,
tlct
I
-t:.\
*l
Sq
rr,z
:1
t-Itlrl
TLo0(tL
I
.cDE, $ !.1.vteu
=rE!iCEl():i
o(Ju:{u' t) c\lEhqEe=
F5o(trrLrJ .. ul ur: .-J- =a q€ su.(J
=t'l
-{"dr 4u uJo)FH +b qid
Utr -cgi uItr{i Y}o uriFij 4*re oo:<6B sEF 9*Eu .{ r!.4- -ri (/).{ 5l
..irl,,t \
:l
:t
:t
i1
:l
;I
T
I
(
It
I
TL
il
\ rr
9 t- --1'tr. -t'
&_, ..,
[(
I
'. -r-
- ^-,'.\r\(J
'.\
il
il
I
il
il
I
I
.\-- - I- -- r I-'.'fiq-i.o- 'tr I_
.' -
-n-t7.{ .,
\-\
\
U\
't\
,rL -" -..--+... '- . . . --____
--.._._.i.+
.E'o qr
.0r(rfico'=l=aLC3 r1 ;-art-(J,{}(o 0) c'lEhq,
'li d 5.
t6l}roE{:.E 'i P E.i Es i,ji) +A 4(]
.. rll * qn tlJ q1t-io +ii qidqE irf :r rnt:
Fi IFo UIii:!1 So{ o.atjg5* silF 9E-rU .1. rL .t ii fi'f ii
U
-f -.___._
O
E;E.(uo;, EPH bi,i' d.;
'oi9EPq s ;i.- ({I ''- r.r () fll . - tt-l-t E C4 r !- U)t'rpr +.:!4 _lj P { c**ter *.H Hf
H*Erg HE Pg
EBgEE EEI EE
gEEHEHgEEE
(J
az{tL
U)
d.uluto
E6l u:-l (ts
=l
5
5l
o-lxl TUll lr
-/'
,/---r' t,
-\
rat
u-
c.l
TL
- -k *-*
,/'ttE.t \_
at
u
d
l-luttu
\t*
-\ - -,._
ooI
lL
o--1
- ,\..--*-/ G...--- -\cr
,--J--.,.
\\
-
lr, ,
.tl
il
il
I
[17"'
d
I
ri
6.\u
7-,.{}il
iT
['
I
il
it
I
It
it
lir
I
I
I
Y ,I-- li t'
-- Lt.('.\..\
:
:
rf
tL
(
I
Ifl.III
i/.ii,:,i I
.t'r'.ii
t;
{.'
:i.i"
,,Ji.- -., ''' ../.\i '1.. . '/' .'
::,rlll'. .,1 I 1|. l,
11"
t
'.j \t11 i,\,,
ij', it
ilil
'. 1'l'!.,.... |\,
L+--.-."',:1il..*. f t\'lll -,cl
[-!il:
':t:
-1f:Ll'r.i:,'i tj . .=r..;
'.li;{"'-" ' ;"'-'='['
i*li,tr,i,',
*'{,lij" ',1},
,-r -:a!.r..- ::.:-'\:--t+ii
ffit
J'.ti_ t..,{J tr'
IIa--!.
i,l, '
, ';:. - ..._-a
-ii -..'.:.
'*rtli
,U.b
, ''{i
'Ll.. I
i ' t 'i:l'::-';'u'II
li i II .,'l; ! II .',; i I i, 1...-ll l,,'t.\ .i'
l' ', t'., .' \.". -. -... '
Ir,f,t' '' '. ' ' lJ If'.'' t
lulillttii'--i. i l
i'- ' ;'[,\1-
' 1--. ! \.-' ! r'f.
.i1\'- lr.I.: -- i ,r
, ,I-'\..t
\. r', ,1 , /" \' '.:.- ' €El , ti'i''-1,, \":.:-irCO t ',/t\l
''1;i ---:-..- ,r |'
,;Ii$:,rrffi-,.
li.il\=+,-:i";:;L'"ijiffiJ-i;;",
[-,H:i,tflffiri; $ui:#*fiilt}i[ii$
,-'- ;E r lill,:'il hil*,
li=i iq
ii;;x=;::;:: i,ittiir,. ;1,: Jr
ffitruiiixf*'Ii;l+,
fiFH*]F##
Iil!ffi;i:r:{i',''.'
ffii#$['ffi
ffiffijin:H, -i
##;rl- "f.;i-" 'l- t
l__-.;.:.')_;i, f t\*, il, , ,
,iiliij,,',{'l{i,,*1
ffiW
rfi1ffi
lffii
*'' *;i'f", "]
-t+ r#iffiffirguiffiffi
j,,'
,t;',,,arffipffi
ffi#-$ffi,l,jii
fiiliiiulffii*fr#iiilri,ffi
ffiiffi
=+wffiHffi}
ffi
,f:j.L[J'
\'-irll'l$il
#,tlt
I
+j/lL[; " 'j,il
n -'\\. -
+t-H+uic,rm
rf;i i
llli,f i,lii r ii
fiti,i
l(\iilffi
.:-J-'
'\'-.,- --\_-.' . : - .-..
'1.---j
E--.',
i.ti
.-:-t
tl-;
))l
t],n
F-
:.q
dk
=(.,EEil^
F {-t.i&Eid {-}3(J
EEo -c.n'=
8..cbF
t,'a
!Eo>.
cE(,=
EH3E
H
(u
E
E
cE',-
EH E TJE'il e EE, gU d-ii FE EsFT {* EE;E EE BA d;i IE eE E
EE gEE g;5 r
gEE EEg HiE E5E; *EE
HEI f,E= lE: E H
$EE Fg{ EEE FH E
gl gE+ EEEP E$g EF E
5i.E3*ro.l ' -r
illb E H \,
CNSP PROFII E NO ?
t
u-Ili
. "i$,i;r-;;__a___
t,
il
il
I'j{;
r..' t
t
1
E1*t*\
.'I,.l t' ',* \ 1.,
I I :'t lrlI h',/ tt'
It
.r 5l
I
f&6i
Ti iEl i
I
I
l
=t;
tE I
i---i:t
:l/'
-
tr.E
t:
a,
I
\
{l:l
t'
I
*E
utz
J
Edulo
t.}
o:o-
q ad-
r4
I
II
tE
i
/
J/t
**\
-_l I*t
h*^1
o
d.
tr-
fi
rl
I
il
(t
il
I
il
:l
il
t
I
l
t
l,
ln
ln
ln
ln
BAslNAt{oEASIIIAVERAGEI60.YRI00.YEARMAXIMUMAVERAGE
FAH lD AREA BASII'I FLOOD DEBRIS FLQVJ FAN SLOPE EF
,{UINBER. ASOVE SLCPE OISCXISAA DISCI{ARGE AT LENGTH FAN
FAN -
'qi FrN FAH IIEAD .u SuRFAcE
*'Y;#ilfi
Hepworth - Pavrlak Geotechnical, llra
TABLE I
$UMI'JIARY OF DRAINAGE BASINS AN-D OEBRIS FANS
HFAD IN
iA 141 Ec 35%
(Lcv,er Sasin)
'i B ?22 ac l7o't
(Uoper Basin)
353 ac 31r.+1-10 crs 5,200 cis 1 1i0 tt tTolo
1A al$ 1B
a
J
3
D
?
1C ac
8ac
25 ac
23 ac
14 ac
i2 atr
79s,6
?4%
80%
ES1'/c
8ic.6
10 cfs
e6,l ch
225 cfs
515 cIB
475 siB
345 cirs
,ici cis
3i 0 cfs
a35 cfs
500 fr
r<n f+
i,c50 i
850 ft
ril fr
508 q
"i!' &
30%
27rh
29%
?1\ta
27%
30%
36%
I 20 ac 7316 350.. 3E%
= ' l!; = lr
l,'io:es:
(1] High Couniry Engineelng (1E€6)
i?) B€$ed on bu:ktng cf lco.year ilood paak cistri:arg8 of besin 3ra3 afid ceb-is disshatge daia (ESA
GcolBchn;cel Consuitanls, 1 982!
il
il ,
Irr
ln
l,n
ln
ll
lr
t" Y;.t"T:fi
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TA.BLE II
suMnjIARYoFPoTENTIAL.GEoL0GIG"HAZARDSAREAS
NQTES:'i ih+ poten:ral dgvelglrnen: area it vJngre stepes are leSs t:ran abpui 25"['
GECLOGIC HAZARD AND
POTENTIAL
DF/ E'*O P.''E}iT ARTA t:I
HAZ"ARD
CATEGORY
EXISTING
CONBITIONS
SURFACE PERCENT
ARE.A TOTA!.
SURFAC=
AREA
WITH MITiGATION
SURFACE PERCEHT AREA- INC.A SURFACE IMPROVED
Debris Flows Noitn ti
Rerlicad {1?.7 ac}
Lora !$ N}SBac 45%10.2 ac
2.5 ae
B0 t/r 4,4 ac
2l t't
i.4ed, to High Et cL
Cebris Flowt South cf
Rarli'aad (2'3 0 ac1
LcTr tO N.l 3..5 ac 14 %14.1 ec. 5C6,rr 1C'3 aC
,-
13,9 dc 506/ohled. lo HiElr ?42ac 86 %
Rockiail Ncr:n of Rairrcad
(12,i ecl
1i .? as Hq r/^1'1.2 ac Eg 9$
1?" 11 % 0-6ac
La'.v tc lio s.7 as 6 q'o
36ac 51'o o.o ac o q[
#
0-2 ac i 1LHigrtaes i 96
Rockfall Scuth of Rarlioed
(28-t ec)
I\U 3.8 ac i416 3-8 ac 14 ?ro
Lo'#ioNo I cBae 17 9's 1 1.0 ac 39 ts''o 4'8 ec
6.2 ec Z?eA 0.0 ac C cji
13-2 ac 47 c.:13.2 ec 4i'|a
t.- -
-.1''' :lil
.+.
t_
-o
e
-x' lll.-: '
(a
q)
so
\qI
!E
0I
\ou)o
st
\LI\
FS
$$
ts$
Nq
ilH<
ilB
s.s(r)
\
\
*
I
'il
I
il
ri
Itl
I
I
il
il
It
ll
il
\
\\r\lI
I
t
rnAs [-!\-/i L__l5o$o
U7A IU YAOJ 9I/ t AVOA ;*rm;,M
ffiffiH (\
+.
Ee
xtu
rl
rl
lr
l[
l:
\2.r""". /1q d-', K--.IrKru *,lbt$ r.\,- -
T
t
(
t
t
il
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
t
t
,[
I
iI
I
t-)-
subsurface condirions. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous
flighr augers porvered by a track-rnounted CME45 drill rig- The borings rvere logged
by a representadve of Heprvonh-Parvlak Geotechnical. Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were nken rvith a 2-inch LD. spoon sampler. The
sampler rvas driven into the subsoiis at various depths rvith blorvs from a 140-pound
hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar ro the sandard peneration test described
by' ASTI1 }.lerhod D-i586. The penetration resisance values are an indication of the
relarive densiry or consisrency of rhe subsoils. Depths at which the samples rvere taken
and rhe penetrarion resisrance values are shorvn on the Logs of Exploratory Borings,
Figs. 3 and 4. The samples were rerurned io our laboratory for revierv by the project
engineer and testing.
SUBSLRFACE C ONDITIO}iS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conriitions encounrcred at the site are shorv'n on fs*.,*o*.
Figs. 3 and 4. The subsoils consist of about I to 3 feet of topsoil and_3rbor, , -l1.2:_tr, fL- 1fr,'"7,},
of mainll' silt and cia1, debris fan deposiu overll,ing relatively dense, siightly siity
sandv oravcl river alluvium containins cobbles and boulders. The subsurface
...conciirions encountered in the area of the possible jail site (Borings 3 to 6 located in the
open field) consist of 2 to 3 feet of topsoii ap.dZ t/zto I7 h feet of debris fan deposits
overii'ing the dense gravel alluvium ai depths oi 5 Vz to 20 '6 feet. Drilling in the
dense sravel ailuvium rvirh auger equipment was difircuit due to the cobbles and
boulders and drilling refusal rvas encountereci in the deposit. Local variations in the
strarilication inciuded gravel layers in the debris tan deposits and sand layers in the
underll.'ing alluvium.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained tiom the borings included
narural moisrure conrent and den-siT''. gradadon anall'ses and liquid and plastic limirs,
Resuits of consolidation testi iormecl on relatively undisrurbed drive samples of
the silt and clay subsoils, presented on Figs. 6 to 10. indicate relativeiy lorv )
:.{"{
c o mp re s s i b i l iry u nde r naura l mo i s tu rc co n d i ti o ns alg_l ig h! !.oa^O.pg g:tAg_t^o_:t$"t'/t,i'Int loaorng ano a low ic
moderate_cgll?p...s:.ement under consuot. Ioad) rvhen rvened. Results of anoderare coilapse potential (senlement under consuot. Ioad) when rvened.
gradation anall''sis performed on a small diameter drive sample (minus i f:-inch
H.P G=OTECI.i
tu1coSiibi,\ta /
t
I
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
tT
t
(I
I
-4-
fraction) of a sand layer from Boring 8 are shorvn on Fig. 4. The laboratory testing is
summarized in Table I.
No tiee water was encounrered in the borings at the time of drilling and the
subsoils lvere generally moist.
PRELDID{'ARY DESIGN RECO},f,\'IE\DATIONS
Development of the Chatfield Ranch Propertv in the snrdy area rvhere siopes are
less than about 20 to 25 9/c should be feasible based on geotechnical considerations. The
conciusions and reconlmendarions presemed belorv are based on the general
development plans, subsurface conditions encounrered in the exploratory borings, and
our experience in the area. The recommendadons are suitable for planning and
preliminary design but sire specific srudies should be conducted once the proposed
building i1,'pes and locations have been der,elopeti.
FOUNDATIONS
Bearing conditions will vary depending on the specific location of the building
on the property. Based on the possible types of the proposed construction. spread
footings piaced on the narural subsoils or on compacred structural fill should be suitable
for lightl_".- ioaded buildings. We expect the tbotings can be sized for an allorvable
beariirg pressure in ihe range of i,000 psf to 2.000 psf for the narural soils and 2,000
psf to 4.000 psf for compacted smrctural fill depending on the tbundation depth, size
and settlement risk. Footings that bear on rhe upper nanrral debris ian deposits will
tend ro have post construction settlemem potential due to the h,vdrocompressive narure
of the soils. Deep foundaiions such as drilled piers or piles rvhich transfers loading to
the underlying dense gravel alluvium are recommended for support of buildings that are
rnore heavily loaded andior settlement sensitive. The dense gravels are at relatively
shallorv deprh in the open field jusr south of the railroad racks. A buiiding with a full
depth basement in this area eould probably bear direcrly on the dense gravel or on
srrucrural fill rvirh footings designed for 4,000 psf to 6.000 psf soil bearing pressure
rvirh a low, settlement risk, Foundation rvalls should be designed io span local
anornalies and to resist l:reral earth loading rvhen acting as retaining strucrures. We
H-P Geci:ct-r
T
I
(
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
t
t
T
t
T
T
I
{t
I
-5-
expecr rhar lateral eanh Ioading rviil be in the range of 35 to 55 pcf equivalenr fluid unir
weighr <iepending on the wail types and backfril conditions. Belorv grade building areas
and retaining rvalls shouki be protected fiorn wefiing and hydrostatic ioading by use of
an under<lrain sysrcm. The footings should have a minimum depth of 36 inches for
frost protection.
FLOOR SLABS
Lighrly loaded slab-on-grade construction should be feasible for bearing on ihe
narural soils. There couid be some post construction slab setilement ar sites rvith
hydrocompressive debris thn soils. Strucrural fill could be used to mitigate settlement
risk beneath heavier siabs. such as at the jail site. To reduce the effects of some
differenriai movemenr, non srucrural floor slabs should be separated iiom ail bearing
walls and columns with expansion joints. Floor siab control joints should be used to
reduce damage due ro shrinicage cracking. A minimum 4-inch thick la1''er of free-
d.raining gravel should underlle below grade slabs to facilitarc drainage.
UNDERDR{IN SYSTtr},I
Afthough free rvarer rvas not encountered in the exploratory borings, it has been
our experience in rhe area rhar local perched groundrvater can develop during times of
heavl' precipirarion or seasonal runoff. An underdrain s.vstem shouid be provided to
prorecr belorv grade consrruction. such as retaining walls and depressed building areas
from u,ening ancl h,'-drosutic Dressure buildup. The drains should consist of drainpipe
surrounded above the invert level rvith free-draining -eranular material. The drain
should be piaced at each level of excavation and at least 1 foor belorv lorvest adjacent
finish grade and sloped at a minimum l% to a suiuble graviry oudet. In areas rvhere
foorings bear on the upper debris ian deposits. an imper..,ious membrane. such as 20
mil PVC liner. shoulcl underlie rhe drain to protecl the subsoils againsi rvening.
SITE GRADING
The risk of consrrucrion induced slope instabiliry at the site appears low
provided the buildings are located in the less srcep, lorver pan of fte property as
planneri anri cur and fill depths are limited. We assume rhar cur and fill depths for the
H-P GEOT:Cir
il
il
(
It
I
{t
I
I
il
il
I
IT
I
L
I
il
;l
tI
I
-6-
rviil nor exceed abour l0 to 15 feer. iVlore exiensive grading should be evaluated on a
site specific basis. Strucrural fills shoulct be compacted to at least 95Vo of the maximum
standard Proctor densit-v near optimum moisture content. Prior to irll placement, the
subgrade should be carerully preparecl by removing all vegenrion and topsoil. The fill
should be benchecl inro the portions of the site exceeding2}% grade. The on-site soils
excluding oversizeci rock and topsoil should be suitable for use in embankment fills.
The debris fan soils conain gravel to boulder size rock but can probably be readii"v..
excavated rvith conventional equipment typically used in the area.
Permanent unretained cut and till slopes shoutd be graded at I tE horizontal to
I venicai or flarter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means-
Overslzed^ rock from on-site excavations coulcl be incorporated into grade change walls.
This orhce should review sire grading plans for the project prior to f,rnal design.
SLRFACE DRAINAGE
The grading plan for the development should consider runotf from steep uphill
slopes rhrough the project and at individual building sites. Water should not be allorved
to ponrl ivhich could impact slope smbiliry and foundations. To iimit inf,iitration into
rhe bearing soils next to buildings, exterior backfill should be well compacted and have
a posidve slope arvay irom rhe building for a <iistance of t0 feet. Roof dorvnspouts and
drains sirouki iiischarge well beyond the lirnits of all backfill and landscape irrigation
should be restricted.
LIi\IITATIONS
This snrdy has been conducred according to generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other
warranry eirher expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon rhe data obtained from the field reconnaissance, the
exploratory borin_qs located as shorvn on Fig. 2, the assumed t-vpe of construction and
our experience in rhe area. Our findings include interpolation and exrrapolation of the
subsuriace conditions idendfred at the exploratory borings and variations in the
subsurface conditions may nor becorne evident until excavation is performed. if
H'P GEOiECH
I
"l{I
(
IT
ln
ln
lir
ln
lr
lr
lr
1_-l
condirions encounrered during construction appear different from those described in this
repo6, rve should be notified so thar re-evaluation of &e recommendations may be
made.
This repon has been prepared flor rhe exclusive use by our client for planning
anci preliminarl. <iesign pur-Doses. We are not responsible for technical interpretations
by others of our information. As the project evglves, we should provide continued
corrsularion. conduct addirional evalualions and revierv and moniror rhe implementation
of our recommendarions. Signiiicanr design changes may require addirional analysis or
mOdificarions tO the recommendations preSented herein. We recOmmend on-site
observarion oi excavations and ioundation bearing strau and tesring oi srrucnrral fill by
a representative of ihe geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submined,
HEPWORTH.PA CAL. INC.
Steven L. Pawlak.
Daniei E. Hardin, P.E.
SLPiro
'g;+;;[.fi
Revierved By:
H.P GEOTECH
I
t -B-
(
[ ?I
REtrERENCES
Hepivorth - Parvlak Geotechnical, 1996, Pretiminary Debris Flav and Rockfatt Hazards
/I Study, Chmfield Ranch Propery,, Gleny,v.ood Spings, Colorado: prepared for
I Ciry of Glenrvood Springs, April 8, 1996, Job No. 196 124.
I
t
t
t
I
I
il
iI
I
il
iI
;l
I
t
I
H-P G:oracr
z,
3-
g
l!
(J
=j
(.)
(J
ul
o
uJo
iI
il
(
I
{l
{I
il
fi
iI
I
I
tT
I
tt
I
iI
it
il
I
I
L1
o
o
x
C,
o
F
<J
U
U
uF
(,
\I
I
ii
tI
\
\l
.l
:l
I
I
I
I
0a
II
I
laol2
o
(2
-=ac
5
3r
l
\
I
t\
-\u!,
;'!
\
o\sq
J<t(>
II
i
\l
It
).\
t.
.\
i
\
i
)
I
l
\
i
Irl
i|tl
1tri
'il.
\i .\It
't\
\
i r'.ri \\ii
,t\
Ii'tl
,|\ llI t/
i
Ilrtl
\.', 'i
.' \\'., \.
\r,lil-i
ffiI
flJ" E
zr \|=,oio,
at /
c!
o
E
ln
ll
|:
h
lir
h
lr
lr
lr
I
it
I
i\\
/\/,N\,$- \ll s- Ill -
!-l
t-1
Iol.:3 I-\\. I/\ /.-
:\\\\.\\\\\_\\
t\It:\
i_
I\1\. -lr
./j
9'!r
o
\\
t\
€.T
.c'a
I
II
I
I
I
t
i
\
It\
f.Lt\tt
I
I
DEPTH. F=ET
3c
a il Ii3a-
cct
Fr$ r')(, Iz
4 .rto:ca !!
a
cr,or\<if tt
z
f rlto:icc '-u
I
t
(
il
il
t
il
l
il
I
t
',t
rt
il
I
.I
I
t
I
tJ.jt
uJ g)
u-ul .?J IJ-
-roo
<L2.3
o
So
-a
rn
E
o
o
o
o
(i
c.xtu
!-(a
e.1 'J
= 35+=
€c
=ETN Ir'l
E se$
q=
N lxl, (JaE 3E
*Es rr:r-1 d;3F IE
?=!2c9€r.c i ?(-,a l', tI:r, \\ r].'l
- ..' C U J - .. - 3 6t* iaE:A E =88 P
{ ^?J r €i9q) I r.l\S
=a
il
N
o(?
;r.oo$(, ,l
Z=>r !:lo:cll u
-6r.
f-(\ lr,
(, ;l
.z-=>55as uJ
6r;
t\
-lO(9.tz=>o=OJJ
zf
U)E
IJo
La
r.tt
)",3P&R
Irr rrlr rr rllrr lrrrrlr rrtl
DEPTH - FEE:i'
LOGS OF EXPLOMTORY BORINGS
HEPWORTH - PAWI3K
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
3srr 113
r= :e
J
\<rrt-
Gsl
I
I
i
I
)
J
?
t
!'
aE
.*B
N !i1Eie
t\r
f
t--
I
I
I
I
I
.!ooOFFLc(, ilz.=>63o rll
es6l
c) ro(9ilz=>o:ic! lrJ
l'o
t\cc lJ)(9;l2=>L lrIo=ca t'l
o?
tr,ot\Fu)(, llz.
o:6uJ
)<tLUit"i<.o
t -.ttLut-I rJ-t t!)Jco
=
ol
Fo,(c(o r.r)
c?;tz=>o=c0 Lll
@3s* sE*.'l"j *.1'rs;8S s;8
I
L-ts
6d)-9-o- ." i j
N E8:E
$I
--d ii9ee =9N lf ;r tis ;?
-..'ollrNi E3f== s Ea
LNz
u-
U)
(D
rJ-lrlz
t!Fallt3
tri
.d,t.!-
o
L
7o
o
.9Io
E
o
oco
(ocl9ILx
u,l
6
oz
lsa-
: .. 3 No
=
ssRlt
orrrg
lrlrlrrrl
ER
ttltlrrrrl
R8
rlrrlrrrrlrrr
HEPWOFTH - PAWI-AK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
I
t
(
I
I
I
l*+
t
I
t
I:
I
I
Depth - Feet
I
(
T-
I
sq,
Fsrd
\
e -d -u?- -tN (if c{ fs./-s , g *"-E
$ =..1 -..f I .-TH
(Y'
rH ;EXrd{iS*--)rurrFEF t
.$
rl
\
q
ias(\rii E ! s*AFlrs*A r\tlr
E"I
il ?*?*j ?:
;i;:TrB $*., tl \. *SdJ -}\l . * ,$
\. *S
r_$qEF6
u?E
{F
N !l:< <,:i e(D- 51
s1
=.9{,tnl
n)
EcU3
[,
rl
(
Itt
rl
rl
rl
rl
rl
rl
[,
,rl
rtl
rl
rl
i
irl
l'
i
I1
I
I Moisture Content = 6.6 percent
, Dry Unit Weight = 108 pci
Sample oi: Sandy Silt and Clay
From: Boring 2at14Fee1
\o1o\
C
'6
Ez.
o()3
101.0
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
I
Moisture Content = d.7 percent i
Dry Unit Weight = 97 pcf i
Sample of : Sandy Silt and Clay
iFrom: Boring 1 at 4 Feet
:tfr Irxrt I
I
I
I
1
Ii
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
l<-
\
*_ Compression
upon
'wettinoiiiI
I
I
I
i
t,
I I
!
i
i
I
I
i i
;rll:lit I
I
I
\
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
>i-+og--lP'lrfr---t-
;,1ti!1nlt
I'i;i:l
'lIi
,t:lit
I
t:
j\
f- Compressioni upon
I wcrtina
1,g$"/,
;:t:I
i
I:l
I
I
i
I
I
I N L.*lr-1-
I
I
I
ltttII
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
i
i,liI
I I
I
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
I
l(
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
T
t
I
I
(
I
T
Moisture Content = 8.2 percenti Dry UnitWeight: 104 pci
Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay i
, From: Boring 3 at 9 feet
so1o\
-
'6u) z.c)
Eo(j3
APPLIED PRESSURE. Ksf
i
Ia.? I
I Moisture content = 4.S percent
i ory unit weight = d-gs) psf
: Sample cf: Sandy Siit*"*
' From: Boring Ax{FeetIn=-.-
i
I
I
I \r I
I
I
ii!i
I
ii
\
T corpresrlo;
upon
i weftino
I
!
I
?.2%li
:
:
i \
I
:
:
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
5.1\
\I
\I
I
I
I
till
I
I
\li
;1,'l i
2
-o3
c
.984
E
E6s
b
7
101.0
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksi
S1A/ELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTSHEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
0.1 100
s3
co'44
c)a
E8s
il
il
(
il
il
IT
II
{t
tI
rl
L
il
il
I
it
il
it
I
I
ll
i Moisture Content : 12.8 percent
Dry UnitWeighl: 102 pci
Sampie of : Sanciy Siity Ciay
From: Boring 9 at 19 Feet
I
il
Compression
UDON
-o1o\
c
'6azc)
E83
' i i]iliii t-_l-iitlillr;II
I
I
I
\
Moisture Content = 1O,2 percent
Dry Unit Weight - 99 pct
Sample of : Sandy Siit and Clay
Frorn: Boring 8 at 9 Feet
,li
llli
iilil,I
I
l;illl I
I
i
i
i
I
I I'
I
I
\ comoression
upon
vrettino
I
I
I
I
iliii
I
\
rl,l
:l li
ililri
tiiltll:!
I \
I
t
i
lriiii tiiil \
lililrit I
,tltiii i
I
:
iiltI
)
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNIC.AL. INC.SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS196 124
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
Moisture Content: 14.9 percent
Dry UnitWeight = 108 pcf
Sarnple of: Sanciy Siit and Clay
Frorn: Boring 10 at 14 Feet
I
I
:
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I li
ti
F,,I I
lUt
!l!l
I
I
I
I
i
tit,t:
-Compression
i
upon i
wettino
I
I
I
I
I
iili 11
a.ftd i
\
\
l
i
,
I
i
!
I
I
I ti
It.ih'i\v.:
tli:
I
I
I
lliii,l
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ti
il
I
I
!
liitrl
:l
I
I
Ii
i
I
:
i
t
I
:
l
rl
I
I
I
I
Ii_-
Iir't
ltlr
!
I
:
I
I
I 'Iiiiit:ii I
101.00.1
sl
c
'6
O.Ez-a-
Eoo3
t,
TI
(
rl
rl
rl
rl
rl
II
rl
t
rl
II
rl
ll
rl
ll
rt
i
l1
I
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
HEPWOBTH - PAWISK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.SWELL. CONSOLIDATION TEST HESULTS196 124
uJ. s.A,{f,AAJ S:ii:s
45!AnL rsMtI. €Ctr!*ErrrN. {Mll, 1V;[ ,& rrD a60 ,_a, ,16 ,8tlo.-
J06 .CCg rre B? .n6 .150 .3rJ .So r t8 728 (7! rro tg-o ,.!
DIAMMR OF PARTICLES IN MILUMffiRS '-
(9
a
<n
:cFz
UJ(J
UJ
a0
I'
rl
(
II
rl
rl
rl
ill
rl
rl
lr
rl
rl
rl
rl
d
d
J
i
Ir
I
J 1S
;82 rA
HEPWORTH - PAWIAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.GRADATION TEST BESULTS
GEAVEI- 4 ah SAND
LIOUID LIMIT alo
SAMFL: cF: Slightly Silty Sand
STLTAND ctAY 9 ge
PLASICfiIND=X t6
FBoM: Boring 8 at 19 Feet
87%
196 124
s
b
m
0c
af,li scrrtrcE oPt].iNGs
a{ gltt g t12 3i tA g.
q1 5 (^)N)
e
o i4
o
.S 5 5 (c 5 (o 5 21
P(,
J:N
5
'<9 P cc
i.>
i
G)
N
<o
n{
otroo>
-=h-<E<5a-!s;
c)<5 o (0(o (c
cc
(,
(,'r
Jo occ 5
(c o5
(o
!
z
s*n:n=
5<
t-4-=
s N riaE-3E=
N IS<il
e.-*z=
E
a14:o
o,&:Pi!i8g=fi='33i
u,o,
o.
o=
e-
o
c)
ao
o
at
9.
U,
=
oo
U,o,
o
=:
o
o-
6
o
o
o
?.
o
v)
th
o
o
(D
(D
n,
o
a=
(t,
oo
q,
=:
q)
o
lo
lttt)
a=
c)
c)
=';o=*c
iI
I
(
{l
I
/l
ll
il
ll
aJ-(- tTl
=U>4
>o
.fJa)
rroT'.TI T,
t1
Li,e; b{cp x
iirr OY- miq-tJmniC)q.=--r ZP-
c!-r
2AF
Jb(cc@z
q-
N3
J
N5
ll
il
I
it
it
:l
,l
I
I
I
(n-CI11
rr
?-\JI'TI1]
t\v,-
-\t
(o FYeiin c:LJ- mta-t-tmrnOa,=-1 z
)J \,
r_r-cn3
gYc
(=. F(D_ztoo
rc$
N5
C)@
=(?
3
(9 (5 J
(o (c o-;
oc
f,
a
(c Io
N J
O)
P
t\)
9)
oEroo>*iEE-3s3
lGi
f\)c r9(9 o
c==-5=i-a5=s<P
o
9>:<
EE
o
i:J3
g)(')N)
--!eF*=t--ExE9==JC<
l9
(^)N(^)3=P
i
o
=alrN)5 =I-*>cFc}J o
GYZ^={a!=:9E!E=Jo.e=
a
o
o,
c
o
@
o,
J
o
U,
J
o
o
q,
(D
a
u,
E)
o
ea-'
o
th
ah
tD
9-
o
q,
ah
o,
9-
c =loOoFxo1U
!
t
I
I
{i
{l
I
I
il
tT
il
tt
rl
iT
rl
L
,l
I
I
I
I
Roeprio No.
8c.od.d iI
l,
I
I
t
l
I
il
n
L(
rl
tT
I
I
T
(
il
ll
:l
it t{- !
&7.
ffi kr{HSF+Lr Pffn lTt!@0h.ll.r'r*pri{ -'RETURN
A06 COOPER AVENUE
G,,EN!{OOD SPRINGS, CO A1601
/6 -
4rl:
WARRANTYDT'IrI)
TEs@ff.dc[i. r,rtt d.yot it nurrl
CIIOL I. CIIITIIGD IIBI XIIIIIIT I. OLIIIISDOE
s,fo*kl.d.L!-i aO6 COOPII ft/AlE!q.tiltux, sPtrInE, @ a15o!,
of 6c ra C.rt, of (nEIEf,.D ..d $rsof COII,iIIm
oftlo rid Csayof f|lltE rd$roof lfcEoltrr ,!ffi,.rdlEa crrr o! drsftroD spllm8, OOEafru,
1997 ,6atq
,8'r&:
u/fNESStlu Tt atr!grer6(o.tbqd'dadEofG.Eof !G doll6a ud oth.! giooaf eat
vrlurDla cdf idrntio DOI,LfRS, tlc rcccbt rad nficiasy of clbic[ ir Hy.doei.dt d" h. td.d, b.rS.i..{. Dld.!d qvcr.4 ..d lo, t!..0 pr* d6 S.E, brg.in, .dl, owq t d o!f@, u& rlc
3rc' Lb f.iil Ed sis[ frrm, dt tho ul prrpat' bsdarff fopov*L, ifray, rlr6c, lyingEdb.ngillLoBidCorttof oqtm-h -d$eofcdmdodryi.dEfolln:
AS SEA IORTE ON EXHTBIT A AIAACHED IIERETS AND !'}DE A PAXA I{EP.EOF.
r ffi|il lllll illll lllll llll lllll lllllll lll lltll llll lll
slmdip_ettnAsg? e{'1r Bloo? P{o8 r:Pi-ir i n 1s.00 D c.6o I 0.m G*FTELD corHTY clln
ib hok by ra.d.d !..dq u
TOGAIE*, xlb .!l rrd iflr ric tcrllrurr rad agwrae tnao bcta3iag, c h aywiF rpparhiug rad rro mbrt'dffid.ilr |eildaodq|id6,6ri.s.rdtom.6rEf, Eddll!a@,ditLtilo,iuatr,driuuddandc,id-
uofltcane,ofia ir hcqrly,of, irrdbrla$qeUrqrerodproLt,*it|6ch6cdil6-d1?@.
m EA\lEAlDl\O XILD th-ilD.lis &Ebrlrio.a.!ddry5.d, rif riaqmccr, re tcsnder hi. h.ir. rd*in'6o.ffi. AdrfalraGrftcLL.df,.UrIEaE,edpffidr.?.dk,-do-ffd,td,iragrh,.rod{rtou.trlt
ttc !r@, fi, hit d tldSE, l* .a li. lioc of rlo oalt Ed d.l'r$!q of tb Fffi, ho ir rdt drrf of tto pEitr ilnG
ovcyod, l- 3md, rre, FA.r, $rlIG &d Ldftfiaa da d i.frb*.t i k, L fe riopto, ral ir Sod riihr, fdt pc ud
lE frI rffiJt b Sr.*. b.r!.i!, dt d ur, tlc re ir ru Ed fm a.6ei! ud rla th. r e ftr od cI{ ftoE illf@t Ed dni !d, b-!rhr, rl.r, tia, uE+ .Ent., -.-&.'q cd Ea.i.&r of t t rffi ki.d 6 iIr! d{, wptul IrEFrtt t.er for t!. Iur 1997, Et t.at am oE If,t bl.., {..d n.trlctr-E.!d othc lt.. r. rt fortL oE i;r{hit .g. rttrct d Ls.to ud ud. . IrrtL.ret.
Tt s!!t{.n ll&dwiuw f,nANTYANDrcnEvEtDEFENDrho.borc+qrbod pEis iEtneqcid &dpqsblopoEsimoftb.Srie'Li.tinaddfr+rf&rdl6dffirFEaFBLwtUy -r-bbt flcriolod.dylrtttEof. Th.rinsutaudcr a.ll idldc ll plErl, lh! pllml lb 6!olE, ryl rtc E of uy ladd tf.[ b T?li.drlc 6 tll !8d6.ll. !t.rer,do.d o tho d.lo d fctl 5oc
r,ra--LL.',
ITDTIrIDIIII,LT TD rA lot cttcl. r.
st&of tEcEIGlr
CMEof rtlIIE
))*
)
T[rfqESobS Le@wrhudcdgcdbc{cr6ir
bt lftr.Itn I. ^r-QcsDOEr, IIDfyImIIf
CET:IIIIID.
My@EiEi.r
/rt*, &rof JANUARY
lE la l:tBorEr-Il-ttst ,L997
F'T. C.BRCL I.
lIoE, h*lic
Exhibit 15
cnIrItl.D
I
ll ,
I
L
n
{l
I
t
I
rt
L
L
I
L
I
il
EXEIBITA-
Ordcr liltnfu: 96o24a7o
IE&ILDF,SCRIFNON
,.Er ?aosr PoRrrof,s oF Iofs 3, 1. 6. 9, to NtD rEE ttl/2s81/t oF ssc?rol, 6.3orf,sar" 6 a.R. S9 rasir or IEE 6rE P.rt.. Lrrxa soltrlr oF rEE @tj,NADo RrvER.
.oacEPlIxC rAOSE .POnlrOllS .D8SCII]'8D Z{ rEE potlfrIlto DocorE?.s.I. TAOST TTRCTES @XYETED IO ?EE <;Olp.lrAao NZDL;aID I.errgII CtrI'PA'Ir BZ DSED
RB@RDED
^S ,otA,rEAt XO. 33t5 rf, aoox r rr pec8 767 rND ,pconHxr r0. 3533 ril.Boor I xr Pr6E I8a.2- rue DEpil4XExr 08 EI@.ttUrg. SxtlrB oF corhR.tDo, RacoIDaD rs.Docarcilr? rro.
232716 il D@,x. 371 Xt PIrIE 573.3. poRl't -IIX CtllrcRerS. RBC1CRDED AS DffOX8r? XO. 238O3t rrl a@X 381 Ar paeE
541.
clsu?t ot dlRFrEfD
aa ?R or coton.llDo
I lilillilil lllll illlt illl illlllllm il il[ lil llll
5oE,841, Oll27/1997 8f :l0P 8106, P40g 432
2 of 3 R 16.& D 0.00 I A.eO G0RFIELD CO(|ITY CLER
(
T
(
I
I
t
'+11l''?l|$l'Jl|'1!l''t#!I[r#,[#Hll'f
rL.
oJa "t a". it"*r.;; . ur.Lr oa Iodt to ctt'at ead rooro hlt ott
tfrltaftat, tlfltd t-ba taD Da land to F"tr'tt or l'ttfltcC tit prttlttr
l.r.!t !rra!t..r 2 tt r,,tefled la ualtad strttr ?'tut rordld !t follorar
4,t77 lr. 7923
taT,, 20. 7t9a
laDrt.tt 26.,rga
,'trr.tt lrr- 1923
lalt 20. ,ega
,ebzu.rryr 26. ltga
Jraur; ,1. ,95!t
,31155 82at7
12132' 77503
,2l2tE t6933
&.SCEPrrOr ro.
aEcEPrrol, ro.
l,
I
nE(XTRDAD lmxlDre
Rtgta of L!, toa ditcD.a ar craelr oo,lttrlcttd ]y tit ruttrorltl' of tbt 'rtt'dsit r, ar :ltcrorvrd ln ,,tl,tad gttte, Prtast rtcordtd " cot'ot'"t
il
t
t
I
I
rt
I
rt
I
rt
I
I
t
TBooRDED lEr,vPiIEB
[(
?tlrss 82ltl
,21j28 lYsoj
,2n9a 169j3
2Sllss6 ,88366
tr.r.lvrtloa urto ti. vul:xrd atax.r.ltt P.r4{tt" ot 7lcea,,oo' t'l' rlg'rt to
antar qpoln. occtlty tttd t* u, tE t or tll ol tald lud" tos tbt pa4aect
provtdi u ao aoc ot Jarlr lir- tczo (1, St,Ll,' 1063, ,.'i/, rdD,tct to t't'
c.oodrdo", ud LJ!lixtt,d,t'- af g.ct.lot 2l ol ttl,d ^ct'
&rct af rtgllrt of &.ta .'
",,tc'J.,,,d'
la Docranatr r'cord'd i'l.fr/'
"
t966
la root 3rl ax P.g. $z;;;ii;^io' z33t!5 "d rtcord'd 'Prtl
lt'
'e67
f" a""t 3$ * I|ryo a3l rt atctt'''{o' ro' 237652'
E ro.!! .r., rlrgbc of n, a, ilotct:Lbcil-l' t'r' int'ru"lt rrcolded scPte'h.t 26 '
,96, ln foot 38t et f.9.- 155 t' t"c,,pc'an lto' 2390'3'
Ear.r.trG .nd :rIg&t of r.!',t ""crLD'd
fo-y .y,/c*"e r'cosdtd lprtl 7' '97'
L a""t lre et ilgr 2a3 u Atc'pxlu ro' 2l9i8s'
laa.mrt atd 8l9LLt of vry at
""crLbtd -lt t'r' J'atruraat rtcord'd E'bnEy
'3 '
1967 ln Dook 382.t P.9. It6 'r ntctPtJoD tro' 237tlo'
n grrt of arlt toa oIIstT P Pu4, rrrd
'llotlnot
No' t ,.,lit r,o' 2' r',cord.d t'
Doqrtcrtr 2t0a28 .d 2toa29.
T,ICLOtratgbtotactjattfrlGDol.adtornttolenPulllcro'd'lttettor
htqbi.t.
xo|Ils lhit Gc.Ptlor lt aoootttryr D'G'Ett lt dr' rcc tPlntr
froa tt t ltc,toitr of record ti xL octlot of ti' cltr't
.rd n cortd.t of cb cq,ix, I'a uileh ,,ttb,.,ft Ptopett'
la ,Ituat. ttat .rlt r,.g!t ol 166"r txlttt to 'a oP'D
PuD.lIc roadt ar.
t ryt gq..cro,{ ar74$t- or tdrst' clllt tt zo uy )'o" or gt''n ?f f:r1 !' a
r.'""it "r -; ct-t f.a-tai rlvtr N loc'c.lou D,' oatc-t"a A'tuil' cts"t' ot
..lt.r.t o, tlrougib a"""atf"". E l!6.tt.E,. cror'loa or awlglorz ol xh' ccntet
ttrrt,*, !cr*' Gllua.+ ; flr; of, micr ln t'rt eoror'do nlvc lytng tithin
aoblc:- Laadl rad uy gurrtjo .t to t,lt IocatJoa oC ',eci'
ctnt''r t"rttd; !u*'
D,ral or .'rrfrE I il e ligaf darcrl;l,t!@ roar'eat or ttrt3r lot ln4rgn,,ez ot
f&Dt of x., tor tf,. sa&t ra'Pt'd tld ot t'rt color'do nlvrr'
A 50 fod wfb !fib of tld $alt !s useil for the Errposcs of pteerviDg
*l&d ed ripilitatabiu tdjac.ot to ttc Colorado Riwr. Tbc strip of lad shall
bc dcEncd as fut 50 foot rrilc arca of thc property south of and paratlcling tlr
aomal high weEr Erark of thc colorado River. Tbe strip of trrxl strall rcmain
uodismbcdand in is mqral satc exccpt for appropriatcrcclamation, twegctatioo
d hbiratcohaorermm$rcsfur rEsid!trtptatr and rinirrat specles as wElI as
rail constrrrtioa rrd rivcr acccss. No cxt*ing EgEtatiotr shall be rcmoved mlcss
deErEired to bc a tkcat by tb. CIty Forcstcr ard &c ColoEdo Division of
wihliE.
I
,
I
(
I
t
i
I
t
I
I
sCHMUESER I conoox i vrvrn
ENGINEERsisuRVEyoRS
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
l I I w. 6TH, SUITE 200
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO I I 60 I
970-945- I OO4
FX: 970.945-5948
ASPEN
P.O. BOX 2155
CRESTED BUTTE
P.O. BOX 3088
ASPEN, cO 81612 cREsrEDBUrE, co 81224
970-925-6727 970-349-535s
Fxi 970-925-4157 ry: 970-349-5358
il
t
t
t
t
Temporary Access Easement
Lot B
Glenwood Springs Municipal Operation Center
Minor Subdivision
A Temporary Access Easement being a strip of land situated in Lot B, Glenwood Springs
Municipal Operation Center Minor Subdivision according to the plat recorded under
Reception No. 614253 in the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders Office, also being in
Section 5, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M., City of Glenwood Springs,
Garfield County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Said strip of land being thirty (30') feet in width, extending fifteen (15') feet on each side
of the following described centerline, in such a manner that the exterior boundary of said
strip shall be lengthened or shortened as necessary to form a continuous strip within said
Lot B exactly thirty (30') feet in width.
Beginning at a point on the northwesterly line of said Lot B, also being a point on
Midland Avenue Right of Way, whence the second most northerly angle point for said
Lot B, a No.5 Rebar and Cap, marked LS 15710 found in place, also being a point on
Midland Avenue fught of Way, bears N02o3 1 '09"E a distance of 3l .7 4 feet along said
cofltmon line between Lot B and Midland Avenue Right of Way, thence N83'35'35"E a
distance of 37.60 feet to the end of said centerline, a point on the common line between
Lot B and Lot C, also being a point on Wulfson Road Right of Way, said strip containing
1,154 square feet or 0.026 acres more or less.
The expiration date for Temporary Construction Easement is January 1, 2
t
I
(
il
t
Q :V007\46 1 . 00 1 GWS WWTF\TemporaryAccessEase. doc
Exhibit 16
{.t}fll*-*
lI
ln
ln
lu
lr
J
I
-i oonooN i MEvER
slsuRVEyoRs
Temporary Construction Easement
Lot B
Glenwood Springs Municipal Operation Center
Minor Subdivision
CLENWOOD SPRINGS ASPEN
I 18 w. 6TH, SUTTE 2OO F.O. BOX 2 t55
GLENWOOo SPR|NGS, CO 8t60t A5pEN, CO At6te
97c)-945-too4 g7o_gas-67?7
FX: 97O-94S-594A Fx: gTo!g?:--4157
CRESTED BUNE
P.O. BOX 3088
cREsrED BmE, co g l ??4
970-349-s355
fl: 97G349-S35e
A Temporary Construction Easement being a parcel of land situated in Lot B, GlenwoodSprings Municipal operation Center Minoi srboiririon according to the plat recordedunder Reception No. 614253 in the Gariield County Clerk and Recorders Office, alsobeing in Section 5, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th p.M., City of GlenwoodSprings, Garfield county, colorado, more farticularly described as follows:
Beginning at the second_ most northerly angle point of said Lot B, a No.5 Rebar and Capmarked LS 15710 found in place, also being a point on Midland Avenue Right of Way,thence along said right of way N62"28'35"E a histan ce of 13.21feet to u polnt on thecommon line of Lot B and Lot C; thence along said line SZg,23'02"E a distance of 11.11fe-et; thence along said line 52.37 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radiusof 102.00 feet, a central angle of 29'25'04';, the chord of which bears S44o1 7,rr,,E adistance of 51.80 feet; thence s05'39'53"w a distan ce of 62.63 feet; thenceN87'28'05"W a distance of 5 i.63 feet to a point on the westerly line of Lot B; thencealong said westerly line N02"31'09"E a disiance of 100.80 feet to the point oflbeginning,said parcel containing 4,603 square feet or 0.l06acres more or less.
The expiration date for Temporary construction Easement is Janu ary L, z0l2.
Q :V007\46 I . 00 1 GWS WWTF\TemporaryConstEase. doc
I
I
I
il
il
I
{l ,
I
rl
[(
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
(
1.
Issuing Office
Glenwood SPrings Field Office
coc67l24
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF TIIE INTENOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
RIGHT.OF.WAY GRAI{T
A right-of-way is hereby granted purzuant to Title V of the Federal land Policy and
vr*&"-"nt Act oro"tou# il,:9i6 (90 Stat' 2776;43 U'S'C' L76l)'
Nature of Interest:
a. BY this instrument, the holder:
CitY of Gtenwood SPrings
101West th Street
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
receives a right to operate and maintain an @@ as shown on public lands
described as follows:
Garfield County, Colorado, 6th Principal Meridian
T.6 S., R 89 W.,
SWSE Section 6.
The right-of.way area granted here is 60 feet wide, 481 feet long and contains
0.66 acres, more or less.
This instrument shall terminate on December 31,2037, approximately 30 years
fromitseffectiveout",ot"'',priorthereto,itisrelinquished,abandoned,
t".*iout"4 or modified p***tto the terms and conditions of this instrument or
of any applicable Federal law or regulation'
This insEument may be re,newed. If renewed, the right-of-way or permit shall be
subject to tne ,"gurutioos existing at the time of renewat and any other terms and
conditions that the u"tnorir"a ofr""t deems necessary to protect the public
interest.
2.
T
I
Exhibit 17
pagel ,r{o,{
Form2800-14
(August 1985)
{l
[(
ll
I
I
I
I
L
I
[(
I
rl
ll
LT
rl
3.
e. Notwithstandingthe expiration of this instrument or any renewal thereof' early
relinquishmen! abandonmen! or termination, the provisions of this instrument' to
the extent "ppri""ir",
,n"ll continue in gtrgcj and snuu.u" binding on the holder,
it, *oo"rrorJ, oi urrig*, until they have firlly satisfied the obligations and/or
liabilities ".r*i"g U#in before oi on account of the expiration, or prior
termination, of the grant'
Rental: For and in consideration of the rights g'*t{, the holder agrees to pay-th?
Bureau of Land lVtan-agp;ent fair marketiahJrentat as determined by the authorized
officer unless *p""id"iify exempted from such payment by regulatiol' Provided'
however, that the ,"ot"t -"y ue aapsted by the authorized.ofEcer, whenever necessary'
to reflect changes in tle fair martit rental'rot " ut determined by the application of
sound business management principles, and so far as practicable and feasible' in
accordance with comparable commercial practices'
Terms and Conditions:
a. This grant or permit is issued zulject19 th.1 !r{efs^1omnli11ce with.all
applicable ."i"r"rl""r contained L riu" 43 Code of Federal Regulations part
2800 and 2880.
b. upon grant termination by the authorized officer, all improvements shall be
removed A"* tU" p"Ulic iands within 90 days, or otherwise disposed of as
provided i" parasripn (4Xd) or as directed by the authorized officer.
c. Each grant issued for a term of 20 years or Tgre shall, at a minimum' be reviewed
by the autnorized of6cer at the e,j of the 2gth year and at regular intervals
thereafter not to exceed 10 years. Provided, however, that a right-of-way or
permit granied herein m"y b" reviewed at any time deemed necessary by the
authorized officer'
d. The stipulations, plans, maps, or designs set forth in Exhibits A, B and c, dated
septemberi-g;aoc oim"n"a hereto,-me incorporated into and made a part of this
gpnt inst ument as fully and effectively as if they were set forth herein in their
entiretY.
e. Failure of the holder to comply with applicable l-aw or any provision of this right-
of-way g*io, permit shallconstitute geounds for suspension or termination
thereof.
f. The holder shall perform all operations in a good and workmanlike manner so as
to e,nsure pr"t""ti"" of the env'ronment and the health and safety of the public'
4.
I
I
(
t
I
Page? of20
I
llr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[(
:l
I
il
I
I
t
t
(.
I
City of Glenwood Springs Access Road
Garfield Cormty, Colorado, 6th Principal Meridian
T. 6 S., R. 89 W., SWSE Section 6'
I
Page 3 of20
Ir
EXHIBIT B, DESIGNS:t
il
L
I
I
il
il
il(
I
I
I
L
rt
I
I
(
I
I
Page 4 of20
t
Ir
t
I
t
I
I
il
il
[(
I
t
I
I
L
I
rI
(
I
I
Page 5 of20
{l
{lr
I
t
n
I
L
I
n
[(
I
tt
I
rt
II
IT
,t
(
I
I
.*o---^20
I
Ir
'T
t
L
L
IT
I
{t
[(
tI
I
I
I
I
II
:1,
I
t
I
Es6F
BHq:d3z'
E
Page7 of20
ll
lr,,
lil
Iir
l't
l,l
EXHIBIT C: SPECIAL STIPULATIONS, COC67L24
City of Glenwood Springs Access Road
1. As defined by 43 CFR $ 1810, the Authorized Officer is the Glenwood Springs Field Office
Manager or his/her designee.
2. All activities shall be confined to the COC67L24 right-of-way corridor.
3. It is the holder's responsibility to coordinate with all other rights-of-way holders and adjacent
landowners to make sure any conflicts are resolved both with road improvement and future
maintenance.
4. The Glenwood Springs Field Manager will be notified at least 30 days prior to
relinquishment or expiration of the ROW grant. The holder shall contact the authorized
officer to arrange a joint inspection of the ROW. This inspection shall be held to determine
if the ROW is in an acceptable condition. If it is not, then the holder shall be responsible for
returning the ROW to a condition acceptable to the authorized officer. This must be
accomplished before relinquishment or expiration of the ROW.
5. This grant shall not be assignable without written permission of the authorized officer. This
Grant may be renewed. If renewed the Grant shall be subject to the regulation existing at the
time of renewal and any other terms and conditions that the authorized officer deems
necessary to protect the public interest.
6. The applicant will be required to reseed the disturbed area with a certified native weed-free
seed mixture identified in the vegetation mitigation section below. The applicant will
monitor their right-of-way for the life of the easement for the presence of any noxious
weeds and will be responsible for promptly controlling any noxious weeds on the Colorado
State List A or B (except redstem filaree). If the applicant chooses to use herbicides as the
contol method on public lands, a Pesticide Use Proposal shall be submitted to the BLM
and approved prior to initiating any herbicide spraying
To aid in restoring a native plant community to the site and to minimize the potential for
noxious weeds to invade and become established, atl
disturbed areas beyond the edge of the roadway will be seeded with native perennial grasses
adapted to the site- The seed mix and application rate are grven berow:
$+ecrespfSsgd Varietv Apptication Rate (pLS tbs/ac)
Bluebunch wheatgrass P-7, Anatone, l0
or Goldar
Indian ricegrass
or Rimrock
Prairie junegrass
American origtn)
TOTAL
Paloma
VNS (North
8
0_5I
I
(
T
I
18.5
Page 8 of20
I
[(
t
t
t
.L
{l
I
n
[(
AII seed to be applied will be certified weed-seed Seed may contain up to 2.0 percent of"other crop" seed by weigh! including the seed of
however, a lower percent of other crop seed is recc
agronomic crops and nativo plants;
Seed tags or other official
documentation shall be supplied to the Glenwood Field Office Authorized Officer at
least 7 days before the date ofproposed seeding acceptance. Seed that does not meet the
above criteria shall not be applied to public lands.
The seed may be applied by broadcast-seeding, fo
0.25 to 0.5 inch of soil cover. If the seed is to be <
owed by raking or harrowing to provide
illed, use one-half the application rate
above and drill the seed %to%inch deep. Mulch be applied within 24 hours followiug
;certified weed-free shaw or weed-completion of seeding. Mulch shall consist of cri
free native grass hay into the soil.
7. Construction of the proposed ROW would have I impacts to migratory bird species.
Nesting attempts may be disrupted or nests may be
constructed during the breeding season (May - Jul5
if the road and pipelines are
However, construction would impact
less than one acre of nesting habitat on BLM lands would be in marginal habitat. It is
unlikely the proposed action would reduce the or quality of habitat available for
migratory bird breeding functions on a landscape
8. Fuels and lubricants would be stored in appropriate
designated areasi. While no spills are anticipated, tl
and refueling would occur in
is potential for hazardous materials to
be hansported to the nearby Colorado River in the of a spill. However, the existing
railroad right-of-way and vegetative cover between project area and the river may be
the river.sufficient to prevent hazardous materials from
9. The proponent install, inspect, and maintain
basis.
controls and BMPs on a regular
along I-70 and to residents in
I
I
I
I
I
it
I
I
t
@MPlr) should be incorporated in
r disturbance with the-natural laodscape
a. Efforts should be made to minimize and balance cut
should be re-contoured to match the existing slope c
adj acent undisturbed contour.
c. In order to mitigate negative short term visual i
within the landscape, rduce erosion, and to enl
b. Side casting excess material and rocks offthe road
contrasls. Large rocks/boulders may be placed on ,
will be avoided in order to reduce
coloq form, andtexfure. However,iocki should be
so as not to create additional linear features.
following to reduce impacts to this sensitive vi
Cut and fill slopes may be as
mitigation should include the
fill slopes. Cut and fill slopes
ur prior to disturbance or to the
fill slopes to break up contasts of
stributed in random s-cattered patterns
s, reduce the dominance of the project
long term reclamation success,
inhoduced in line and color.
that the road disturbance does not
Page 9 of20
10. In order to minimize visual impacts to the sensitive
West Glenwood Springs, Best Management practic
constucting the road. The overall god is to blend tg mqch as possible.and to reduce t[e sharp cc
forytru.ctign operatlo$ should be designeh to
I
Ir
.L
t
L
L
I
tI
n
t(
reclamation efforts would be required and in
hnmediate reclamation efforts on all cut and
immediately upon completion.
should include the use of a erosion
be left within the filI slopes and/or
and visibility.
lands, these mitigation measures
and conformance with their
include buffering, berming, and/or
contool fabric, colored matting (shale green of gayrsh green color), colored hydro
mulch, colored coconutmatting or another reclamation/re-ve getation technique.
d. As much vegetation as possible (oak brush, sage)
along the northern edge of the road to reduce its c
e. No lighting will be perrritted along the roadway.
While the above mitigation meiurures apply only to f
shoirld compliment Garfield County planning consid
comprehensive plan. Additional mitigation measurelighting at the facility and related infrar
11. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)that if newly discovered cultural
resources are identified during project i ion, work in that area must stop and the
agency Authorized OfEcer notified immediately CFR 800.13). The Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NA ), requires that ifinadvertent discovery of
Native American Remains or Objects occurs,ity must cease in the area of discovery, a
reasonable effort made to protect the item(s) di and immediate notice made to the
BLM Authorized Officer, as well as the appropri Native American group(s) (IV. C.2).
Notice may be followed by a 30-day delay (NA RA Section 3(d). Further actions also
and the Archaeological Resourcerequire compliance under the provisions of NIIP.
Protecfion Act.
12.The proponent is responsible for coordination with authorized ri ght-of-way holders
within the same location of this authorized grant BLM Managed Lands.
IN WTINESS WHEREOF, The undersigned agrees to the terms and conditions of this right-of-
way grant.
It
it
II
rI
T
I
T
I
f,'fi 4**Tiu"Associate Field Manaeer
/0/n. P
@ffective date of Grant)
n^r"{,r{ror,{
it
tt,
U
t
I
I
Form 2800-14
(August 1985)
Issning Office
Glenwood Springs Field Offrce
coc6712407128700r
1.
2.
UNTTED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF TI# INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
RIGIIT.OF.WAY GRANT
A right-of-way is hereby granted pursuant to Title V of the Federal land Policy and
Management Act of October 21, 1976 (90 Stat.2776;43 U.S.C. 176l).
Nature of lnterest:
a. By this instrument, the holder:
City of Glenwood Springs
101 West 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
receives a right to operate and maintain three pipelines (two 16 inch wastewater, and
one 12 inch potable water lines) as shown on public lands described as follows:
Garfield County, Colorado, 6th Princhal Meridian
T.6 S., R. 89 W.,
SWSE Section 6.
b. The right-of-way area granted here is 60 feet wide, 481 feet long and contains
0.66 acres, more or less.
c. This instrument shall terminate on Decernber 31, 2037, approximately 30 years
from its effective date unless, prior thereto, it is relinquished, abandoned,
terminated, or modified pursuant to the terms and conditions of this instrument or
of any applicable Federal law or regulation.
d. This instrument may be renewed. If renewed, the right-of-way or permit shall be
subject to the regulations existing at the time of renewal and any other terms and
conditions that the authorized officer dee,rns necessary to protect the public
interest.
I
iI
tI
[(
,t
IT
iI
it
.I
I
t
(.
I
I EXHIBIT ix-3
Page 1 of 10
I
t
tl
IT
iT
I
iT
[,
I
[(
tI
II
I
it
(
I
t
3.
e. Notwithstanding the expiration of this instrument or any renewal thereof, early
relinquishment, abandonment, or termination, the provisions of this instrument, to
the extent applicable, shall continue in eflect and shall be binding on the holder,
its successors, or assigns, until they have firlly satisfied the obligations and'/or
liabilities accruing herein before or on account of the expiration, or prior
termination, of the Sant.
Rental: For and in consideration of the rights granted, the holder agtees to pay the
Bureau of Land Management fair market value rental as determined by the authorized
officer unless specifically exempted from such payment by regulation. Provided,
however, that the rental may be adjusted by the authorized officer, whenever necessary,
to reflect changes in the fair market rental value as determined by the application of
sound business management principles, and so far as practicable and feasible, in
accordance with comparable commercial practices.
Terms and Conditions:
a. This grant or permit is iszued subject to the holder's compliance with all
applicable regulations contained in Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations part
2800 and 2880.
Upon grant termination by the authorized officer, all improvements shall be
removed from the public lands within 90 days, or otherwise disposed of as
provided in paragraph (4Xd) or as directed by the authorized offtcer.
Each grant issued for a term of 20 years or more shall, at a minimum, be reviewed
by the authorized ofEcer at the end of the 20th year and at regular intervals
thereafter not to exceed 10 years. Provided, however, that a riglrt-of-way or
permit granted herein may be reviewed at any time deemed necessary by the
authorized officer.
The stipulations, plans, maps> or designs set forth in Exhibits A, B and C, dated
September 19, 2008 attached hereto, are incorporated into and made a part of this
grant instrument as fulIy and effectively as if they were set forth herein in their
entirety.
Failure of the holder to complywith applicable law or anyprovision of this right-
of-way grant or permit shall constitute grounds for suspension or termination
thereof.
The holder shall perform all operations in a good and workmanlike manner so as
to ensure protection of the environment and the health and safety of the public.
4.
b.
f.
I
I
rl
Page 2 of 10
I
I
(
I
I
citvof_c.r.e1w::1-gHf,'"f"":;ff Hiffif iH#,}*
Garfield CountY,
T' 6 S'' n' aq W'' SWSE Section 6'
ll
lr
lr
lr
h
ll,
Page 3 of 10
EXHIBIT B, DESIGNS:
I
I
I
lr
lr
lr
lr
l:
l:
Page 4 of 10
ll
| '1,
I
I Page 7 of10
9s6E
e$q:dr
E
8
0.5
lll
ln
l,r
l.t
l,l
(
I
I
EXHTBIT c: SPECIAL srrPuLATIoNS, coclTtzfilt
City of Glenwood Springs Wastewater and potable Water lines
I' As defined by 43 CFR $ 1810, the Authorized officer is the Glenwood Springs Field officeManager or his/trer designee.
2' All activities shall be cnnfined to the C}C67L24 (associated casefile - access road) right-of-way corridor.
3' It is the holder's responsibility to coordinate with all other rigtrts-of-way holders and adjacentlandowners to make sure any conflicts are resolved both with-road impiovement and future
maintenance.
4- The Glenwood Springs Field Manager will be notified at least 30 days prior torelinquishment or expiration of the ROW gant. The holder shall contact the authorizedo$cer to arrange a joint inspection of the RoW. This inspection shall be held to determineif the RoW is in an acceptable condition. If it is not, therthe holder shall be responsible forreturning the ROW to a condition acceptable to the authorized officer. This must beaccomplished before relinquishment or expiration of the Row.
5' This grant shall not be assignable without written permission of the authorized of;ficer. ThisGrant may be renewed. If renewed, the Grant shalt be subject to the regulation existing at thetime of renewal and any other terms and conditions that the authorized-officer deems
necessary to protect the public interest.
6' The applicant will be required to reseed the disturbed area with a certified native weed-free
seed mixture identified in the vegetation mitigation section below. The applicant willmonitor their right-of-way for the life of the easement for the presence of *v noxious
weeds and will be responsible forprompfly controlling any noxious weeds on the ColoradoState List A or B (except redstem filaree). If the applicant chooses to use herbicides as thecontrol method on public lands, a Pesticide Use Proposal shall be submitted to the BLMand approved prior to initiating any herbicide spraying.
To aid in restoring a native plant community to the site and to minimizs the potential fornoxious weeds to invade and become established, all
disturbed areas beyond the edge of the roadway will be seeded with native perennial grasses
adapted to the site. The seed mix and application rate are given below:
Species of SeeA VarigE lppUcaUon nate fpf,S fUBluebunch wheatgrass p-7, Anatone, l0
or Goldar
Indian ricegrass
or Rimrock
Prairie junegrass
American origrn)
TOTAL
Paloma
Mt{S (North
18.5
Page 8 of10
{l
il ,
it
I
{t
All seed to be applied will be certified weed-seed free. Seed may contain up to 2.0 percent of
"other crop" seed by weight, including the seed of other agronomic crops and native plants;
however, a lower percent of other crop seed is recommended. Seed tags or other official
documentation shall be supplied to the Glenwood Springs Field Office Authorized Officer at
least 7 days before the date of proposed seeding for acceptance. Seed that does not meet the
above criteria shall not be applied to public lands.
The seed may be applied by broadcast-seeding, followed by raking or harowing to provide
0.25 to 0.5 inch of soil cover. If the seed is to be drilled, use one-half the application rate
above and drill the seed Yc to % inch deep. Mulch shall be applied within 24 hours following
completion of seeding. Mulch shall consist of crimping certified weed-free straw or weed-
free native grass hay into the soil.
7. Construction of the proposed ROW would have minimal impacts to migratory bird species.
Nesting attempts may be disrupted or nests may be abandoned if the road and pipelines are
constructed during the breeding season (May- July). However, construction would impact
less than one acre of nesting habitat on BLM lands and would be in marginal habitat. It is
unlikely the proposed action would reduce the extent or quality of habitat available for
migratory bird breeding functions on a landscape level.
8. Fuels and lubricants would be stored in appropriate containers and refueling would occur in
designated areas. While no spills are anticipated, there is potential for hazardous materials to
be transported to the nearby Colorado River in the event of a spill. However, the existing
railroad right-of-way and vegetative cov€r between the project area and the river may be
sufficient to prevent hazardous materials from reaching the river.
g. The proponent install, inspect, and maintain stormwater controls and BMPs on a regular
basis.
10. In order to minimize vizual impacts to the sensitive viewshed along I-70 and to residents in
West Glenwood Springs, Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be incorporated in
constructing the road. The overall goal is to blend the dishrbance with the natural landscape
as much as possible and to reduce the sharp contrasts intoduced in line and color.
Conshuction operations should be designed to ensure that the road disturbance does not
dominate the natural character within the existing landscape. Cut and fill slopes may be as
much as 30-35' feet. At a minimum a COA or the following mitigation should include the
following to reduce impacts to this sensitive viewshed:
a. Eflorts should be made to minimize and balance cut and fill slopes. Cut and filI slopes
should be re-contoured to match the existing slope contour prioi to disturtance or to the
adj acent undisturbed contour.
b. Side casting excess material and rocks offthe road bed will be avoided in order to reduce
contrasts. targg rocks/boulders may be placed on the filI slopes to break up contrasts of
colot, form, and texture. However, rocks should be distributed in random scattered pattems
so as not to create additional linear features.
c. kt gr.dqto-mtfgate negative short term visual impacts, reduce the dominance of the project
within the landscape, reduce erosion, arrd to enhance long term reclamation success,
I
{l
tI
rl
[(
rt
tl
il
tl
rl
tl
rl ,(
I
I
Page 9 of10
I
il ,
I
I
L
I
{l
I
It
[(
reclamation ef[orts would be required and implemented immediatelyuqon completion..
Immediate reclamation efforts on all cut and iill slopes should include the use of a erosion
Co"troi-aUric, colored matting (shale green of darligray.F S""r 991or), colored hydro
111"i"t , *tor6a coconut mattiig, or aiother enhanced ieclamation/re-vegetation technique.
d. As much vegetation as possible (oak brush, sage) should be left within the fill slopes and/or
along the noithern edge of the road to reduce its contrast and visibility.
e. No lighting willbe permitted along the roadway.
While the above mitigation measures apply only to federal lands_, thes^e mitigation measures
rnoUa compliment durnetA County plinning considerati_ons and conformance with their
"ompret ""Jive
plan. Additional miti-gation measure could include buffering, berming and/or
lighring requirements at the facility and related infrastructure.
l l. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that if newly discovered cultural
resources are identified during project implementation, work in that area must stop and the
agency Authorized Officer notified immediately (36 CFR 300.13). The Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), requires that if inadvertent discovery of
Native American Remains or Objects occurs, activity must cease in the area of discovery, a
reasonable effort made to protect the item(s) discovered, and immediate notice made to the
BLM AuthoizdOfficer, as well as the appropriate Native American group(s) (fV.C.2)-
Notice may be followed by a 30-day delay (NAGPRA Section 3(d)). Further actions also
require compliance under the provisions of NIIPA and the Archaeological Resource
Protection Act.
12.Theproponent is responsible for coordination with other authorized right-of-way holders
within the same location of this authorized grant on BLM Managed Lands.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The undersigned agrees to the terms and conditions of this right-of-
way grant.
n-// y'4*noqq
fril"
Associate Field Manaeer
ro/rz/og
rl
I
il
il
rt
rI
il
(
T
T
Page 10 of10
./ror
I
il .
I
Form 2800-14
(August 1985)
Issuing Office
Glenwood SPrings Field OfEce
coc67124021285003
1.
LT
I
In
Ir
Ir
l,l
lr,
l,r
lr
lr
l:r
lr
ll
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF TTIE INTERIOR
BIIREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
RIGHT.OF.WAY GRANT
A rigtrt-of-way is hereby granted pursuant to Title v of the Federal land Policy and
fuf*ig"**, e"t of OctoU J, Zt, tqiO (qO *.*t.2776;43 U.S.C. 1761).
Nature of Interest:
a. BY this instrument, the holder:
CitY of Glenrvood SPrings
toi west 8th street
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
receives a right to operate and maintain four 6 inch conduit (as shown on public lands
described as follows:
Garlield County, Colorado, 6th Principal Meridian
T. 6 S., R. 89 W-,
SWSE Section 6.
b. The rigtrt-of-way area granted here is 60 feet wide,48L feet long and contains
0.66 acres, more or less'
c. This instrument shall terrrinate on Dece,mber 31, 2037, approxima$y 30 years
from its effective date unless, prior thereto, it is relinquished, abandoned'
terminated, or modified pursuant to the terms and conditions of this instrume'lrt or
of any applicable Federal law or regulation'
d. This instrument may be renewed. If renewed, the rigtrt-of-way or permit shall be
subject to the regulations existing at the time of renewal and any other terms and
conditions that the authorized offi"." dee'ms necessary to protect the public
interest.
Page 1 of10
{l
3.
[(
ll
I
{l
e. Notwithstanding the expiration of this instrument or any renew-altlrereof, early
relinquishment, abandonmen! or termination, the provisions of this instrument' to
the extent "ppfi*Lf", "fral1
continue in effect and tt'ult U" binding on the holder'
its zuccesso{;;;.igtt, until they have fully satisfied the obligations and/or
liabilities u"oriog d"i" before oi on account of the expiration' or prior
termination, of the gpnt'
Rental: For and in consideration of the rights grante!, the holder agrees to pay the
Bureau of Land fuf*ug"**t iair marketiraluJrentat as determined by the authorized
officer unless specifically exempted from such payment by regulation' Provided'
however, that the rental may beldSusted by the authorized.officer, whenever necessary'
to reflect changes in the fair market rental ,utrr* as deterrnined by the application of
sound business manalement principles, and so far as practicable and feasible' in
accordance with comparable commercial practices'
Terms and Conditions:
a. This grant or permit is issued subject to the h:l{e/s, compliance with all
applicable r"frlutioo. contained in Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations part
2800 and 2880.
b. Upon grant t€rmination by the authorized officer, all improvements shall be
re,nroved *; th" public iands within 90 days, or otherwise disposed of as
provided irrp*ugipr, (4)(d) or as directed by the authorized officer.
c. Each grant issued for aterrn of 20 years orTgre shall, at aminimum, be reviewed
by the authorized officer at the end of the 20th year and at regular intervals
thereafter not to exceed 10 years. Provided, however, that a right-of-way or
perrrit granted herein *uy b" reviewed at any time deerned necessary by the
authorized officer.
d.Thestipulations,plans,maps,ordesignssetforthinExhibitsArBandc'dated
September 19, 2008 attached hereto,-are incorporated into and made apffit of this
grant instrument as fully and effectively as if they were set forth herein in their
entiretY.
e. Failure of the holder to comply with applicable law or any provision of this right-
of-way gr; o, perrnit shall constitute grounds for suspension or termination
thereof.
f. Theholder shall perforrr all operations in a good and workmanlike manner so as
to ensure protection of the e,lrvironment and the health and safety of the public'
II
l',I
l't
Irt
ll:
ll:
lir
4.
Page 2 of10
T
[(
It
t
t
{;
{l
It
It
[(
ll
I
il
I
I
II
[,
(,'
T
I
City of Glenwood Springs Access Road/Electrical Conduits
Garfield County, Colorado, 6th Principal Meridian
T. 6 S., R. 89 W., SWSE Section 6-
Page 3 of10
EXHIBIT B, DESIGNS:
it
ilr
I
lil
Ir
lir
ln
lrr
ll:
l:
l:
I'r
lr
ll
Page 4 of 10
lr
ll.
lr
| 't,I
I Page 5 of10
t
[6
I
il
n
I
I
I
I
[(
I
I
I
rI
I
I
tl
,
I
I
^*o---^lo
it
il,
II
il
L
II
{l
I
;l
il(
:t
I
il
I
I
I
ll
(
t
I
Page 7 of10
Er6tr
EHq=9;d3z'
:
il
il
fl
{l
{1..
tI
it
il
tl
tt(
ll (
I
I
EXHIBIT C: SPECIAL STIPULATIONS, COC6712402
City of Glenwood Springs Electrical Conduits
l. As defined by 43 CFR $ 1810, the Authorized Offrcer is the Glenwood Springs Field Office
Manager or his/her designee.
z. All activities shall be confined to the CoC67124 (access road associated with this grant)
ri ght-of-waY corridor.
3, It is the holder,s responsibility to coordinate with all other rights-of-way holders and adjacent
landowners to makJsure any conflicts are resolved both with road improvement and future
maintenance.
4. The Glenwood Springs Field Manager will be notified at least 30 days prior to
relinquishment oi "*firutio, of the ROW gant. The holder shall contact the authorized
officer to arrange aioint inspection of the ROW. This inspection shall be_held to determine
if the ROW is in an-acceptable condition. If it is not, then the holder shall be responsible for
returning the ROW to a condition acceptable to the authorized ofEcer. This must be
accomplished before relinquishment or expiration of the Row.
5. This grant shall not be assignable without written permission of the authorized officer. This
Granimay be renewed. If ienewed, the Grant shall be subject to the regulation existing at the
time of renewal and any other terrns and conditions that the authorized officer deems
necessary to protect the public interest.
6- The applicant will be required to reseed the disturbed area with a certified native weed-free
seed ririxture identified in the vegetation mitigation section below. The applicant will
monitor their right-of-way for the life of the easeme,nt for the presence of any noxious
weeds and will6" r"rponrible for promptly controlling any noxious weeds on the Colorado
State List A or B (except redstem filaree). If the applicant chooses to use herbicides as the
control method on pubiic lands, a Pesticide Use Proposal shall be submitted to the BLM
and approved prior to initiating any herbicide spraying'
To aid in restoring a native plant community to the site and to minimize the potential for
noxious weeds to invade andbecome established, all
disturbed areas beyond the edge of the roadway will be seeded with native perennial grasses
adapted to the site. The seed mix and application rate are given below:
Species of Seed Varietv Application Rate (PLS lbs/ac)
Biuebunch wheatgrass P-7, Anatone, 10
or Goldar
Indian ricegrass
orRimrock
Prairie junegrass
American orign)
TOTAL
Paloma
VNS (North
I
I
I
rl
iI
I 8
0.5
18.5
Page 8 of 10
I
ilr
II
All seed to be applied will be certified weed-seed free. Seed may contain up to 2'0 percent of
..other crop,' seed by weiglrt, including the seed of other agronomic crops and native plants;
however, a lower percent of other cro[ seed is reco-mmended. Seed tags or other official
documentatioo *t itt be supplied to thl Glenwood Springs Field Office Authorized Officer at
least 7 days before the date of proposed seeding foiacceptance' Seed that does not meet the
above criieria shall not be applied to public lands'
The seed may be applied by broadcast-seeding, followed by raking or harrowing to provide
0.25 to 0.5 inch of soil cover. If the seed is to be drilled, use one-half the application rate
.
above and drill tle seed vq to yzinch deep. Mulch shail be applied within 24 hours foll0wing
completion of seeding. Mulch shall consist of crimping certified weed-free straw or weed-
free native grass haY into the soil'
7. construction of the proposed Row would have minimal impacts to migr-atory bird species.
Nesting attempts mu:y U" ait*pted or nests may be abandoned if the road and pipelines are
constructed during the breeding season (May --Ju19. However, construction would impact
less than orr" u".Jof nesting naUitat o" gfM lands and would be in marginal habitat' It is
unlikely tfr" prop"rJ actioi would reduce the extsnt or quality of habitat available for
*igrutoty Uiid breeding functions on a landscape level'
8. Fuels and lubricants would be stored in appropriate containers and refueling would occur in
designated areas. While no spills *" *ti"iputed, there is potential fo: hazardous materials to
be transported to the nearby Colorado Rivei in the event of a spill' However, the existing
railroad right-of-way and vegetative cover between the project area and the river may be
suffrcient to preventhazardous materials from reaching the river-
g. The proponent install, inspect, and maintain stormwater controls and BMPs on a regular
basis.
10. In order to minimize visual rmpacts to the sensitive viervshed dg,g !7.0 qpd to residents in
West Glenwo"e spri"gr, B"rt i,r*uJ"*""ipiu"ti"es (BMPls) snoulg.te incorporated in
constructing trr" io'uo- Tire ove"all 6Jl; t" bt""a tp.'ai.t*uince with the natural landscape
as much * por*iUt" *Aio i"do"" t!" 9t "tq gontrasts introduced in line and color'
Construction "p.i"}.". should u" a"rign.fu to.ensure that the road disturbance does not
dominate tr," ,ln ii""t*"Jti-*iiti""tf;";;ti"g landscape. cut and fill slopes may be as
much as 30-35' feet. At a minimuri a coA;tffi ro[owihg mitigation should include the
61o*irg to reduce impacts to this sensitive viewshed:
a. Efforts should be made to minimize and balance cut and filI slopes' .9"t pd fill slopes
should be re-contoured to match flr;;i.ti"g slope contour prioi to disturbance or to the
adj ace,lrt undisturbed contour'
b. Side casting excess material and rocks offthe road bed will be avoided in order to reduce
contrasts. f*g! r""trlto"iao* "r;y [; pd;.d oo the fil1-slopes to break up contrasts of
color, form, uJa i"*trr". However]i*ki ril"ld be distribut6d in random scattered pattems
so as not to create additional linear features'
c. In order to mitigate negative short term visual rypu"E, reduce the dominance of the project
within the hnjsffipiit""" erosion, and to enhaice longterrr reclamation success,
(
I
ln
Ir
lr
lr
lr
ln
ln
lI
lr
ti
lr
lr
Page 9 of10
il
ll,
{l
reclamation efforts would be required and implemrcnted immediately up-on completion'.
Immediate reclanation efforts on aU cJ*raEll .lop"t should include the use of a erosion
control fabric, ;;il;;e;"td;ga.hrl;g;""" of a*t qayr+ segn rylor), c91o1ed t'v9t9
mulch, colored ooconut matting, o.-uffiih"r enhancfr ieclairation/re-vegetation technique'
d. As much vegetalion as possible (oak brush, sage) should be left within the fill slopes and/or
J""E tfr- ""?tt"* "agJof
the.oud to reduce iis contrast and visibility'
e. No ligfoting will be permitted along the roadway'
While the above mitigation measures apply only to.federal lands, thes^e mitigation measures
should compliment
-c"*nlra co*tv plffing c"onsiderations and conformance with their
;"rd"il;ff;plr". ;editi""a #tig;ti"ffi;*" could include buffering, berming, and/or
fighfing requireirents at the facility and related infrastructure.
11. The National H.istoric Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that if newly discovered cultural
resources are iclentified during project implementutiorr, work in that area must stop and the
agency Authonized Officer.rotifi"d immediately (36 CFR 800'13)' The Native American
Graves protectiion and Repatriation Act CNAGPRA), requires that.if inadvertent discovery of
Native American Remaini or Objects occurs, activity must cease in the area of discovery, a
reasonable effcrrt made to protecithe item(s) discovered, and funmediate notice made to the
BLM Authorized Officer, as well as the appropriate Native American group(s) (fV'C'2)'
Notice may uefo[owed by a 30-day aeuy 6NecPRA_ Section 3(d)). Furt]rer actions also
require compliance under ttre provislons of NHPA and the Archaeological Resource
Protection Act.
12. The proponent i.s responsible for coordination with other authorized right-of-way holders
within the same, location of this authorized grant on BLM Managed Lands'
it
ft
I
rI
I
I
[(
rI
il
I
tl
I
tl
ll
(.
I
I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The undersigned agrees to the terms and conditions of this right-of-
way grant.
Associate Field Manaeer
/o/ tx/og
(Effective date of Grant)
Page 10 of10
..1,,,
,
;
:-,-i-"-.-
: SCHMUESER I GORDON I MEYER
ieNa tlN e ens I s u RVEYo R s
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
I 18 w. 6TH, SUrrE 200
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8 I 60I
970-945- r OO4
FX:970-945-5944
ASPEN
P.O- BOX 2155
ASPEN,CO8I6I2
97o,-925-67?7
CRESTED BUilE
P.O. BOX 3088
CRESTED BME, CO 81224
970-349-5355
Fx'. 970-9?5'4157 ry: 970-349-5358
I
ln
ln
ln
ln
ln
k
ti
ln
lr
ln
lr
ll
Utility F.asement
Lot B
Glenwood Springs Municipal Operation Center
Minor Subdivision
A Utility Easement being a strip of land situated in Lot B, Glenwood Springs Municipal
Operation Center Minor Subdivision according to the plat recorded under Reception No.
AIqZSI in the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders Office, also being in Section 5,
Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M., City of Glenwood Springs, Garfield
County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Said strip of land being thirty (30') feet in width, extending fifteen (15') feet on each side
of the foilowing descrilbed clrierli.r", in such a manner that the exterior boundary of said
strip shall be lengthened or shortened as necessary to form a continuous strip within said
Lot B exactly thirty (30') feet in width.
Beginning at a point on the northwesterly line of said Lot B, also being a point on
Midland Avenue Right of Way, whence the second most northerly angle point for said
Lot B, a No.5 Rebaiand Cap, marked LS 15710 found in place, also being a point on
Midland Avenue Right of fay, bears N02o3 1 '09"E a distance of 31.7 4 feet along said
corlmon line berween Lot B and Midland Avenue fught of way, thence N83o35',35"E a
distance of 37.60 feet to the end of said centerline, a point on the common line between
Lot B and Lot C, also being a point on Wulfson Road Right of Way, said strip containing
1,154 square feet or 0.026 acres more or less.
Q:V007\46 1.001 GWS WwTF\UtilityEase.doc
Exhibit 18
sqcq-6?c (c)26) O l-nE o3l-s3lr3
LZLg-gz6 (o/6) L- .do-loc 'N3dsv
8169-S?6 (0Z6) XVI 700 l-9?6 (0Z6)
lC)9 I g oovuo-loc 'scNluds oooMN3-lc
ooz srlns 'J.33U1S Hrg) 'M E| I I.CNI ,Uf f N NOCUOC UfSSNNHSS
Us fN I
fgzttg'oN uofidecea
r€JueC suolJDrado pdtolunfi s1ultdg poon4uePg ]o7
qr
Na
JueuesD, ttttun ,0,
)_ _
a
09'/f -ee,6e .es N
t
Er-rr*II
delry ?rulqxg
?ueweseg I?ltltl1
r rlrrrr:I^T I
'14'o'a
enue^v PUDIP1|4|
21/1 , I
0/z9t s7 pe4roly
doo e roqey. puno!
,OZ:, I :eloos
h$
18.$
ili'E
e e Zh t g'atr1 uo4dacay
)a1uoC suoqondg lodlclunyy sbultdg pootuluaf)
3 ]o7
OI,19I S1 PEYDfl
doC q .tDgeA puno1
{,^ p'}rr'os
enrie^v
'
oPero[oJ 'ITuno3 pPlJ"ree
sflur-rdg pootauelg Jro .,QfC
'.Vl['d tt?9 "/tl6?'A ",gg'J
I uo!?ces
?ueulaseT ,qffnn
ra?ue7 suot?eJado
yedrurunly s?uudg Poo/auetog ?o7
deru ?ryrqxg
- -.,uNryLd:qA
?uaurasefruo!?cn4suoc r(tetodwal
3.ZA,eZ.6ZS I t't I z'7
19e,82.29N tz'f I t7
'N/AVfg
H19N31 3Nt7
378V1 JN|T
fgztlg'oN uogdecay
relueC suollondg pdlclunyy sdul.tdg pootuuep
t4
e9'/ I
lsdeT.ZeV
,/,,\/,,R
"f0,92.62 3" I 1,1 t.rrs 0s'l I 81'92 /.r'29 00'z0l IJ
v1730 9NHW8 oaoH9 lNf9NVJ H19N31 SilOVA 3AAn3
378V-t flAnC
]ueuasDS
'/yl'O'A
enue v PUDIPIn
ctl ,to/z9l s7 paryD//t/
doC e )DgaA punoJ
,02:, I :elD?S
l\.
lqrNs\r
..J
e gZ, / g'oy uo4dacay
)eyua7 suoqond1 lodrc.runyy sbupdg poailu€/g
3 ]o7
}l\r 'g'o'd
0//9t s] Pa4Joll
doC T rDqeA punoJ
19!"'o''n
anue^v
'
operolo7't(Tuno3 pplge7
sfurtdg pooluuele Jo ,QfC'I['d tng "lL6g'a "sg'J9 uo!?cas
?ueureseg uor?cnrJsuoc t{tetodwel
ra?ueJ suor?eJado
JeCrcrunyy s8uytdg poo/aueleg ?o7del{ lryrutxg
\
SSCg-6tC (OZ6l '3rlne o31s3uC
LZLg-gZO (O26, Jovuo-loC 'N=dsV
8?6S-916 (0l.6) XVJ VOO t -9v6 (OLO)
I 09 I g oovuo-lOC 'soNlUdS oOO/vlN3rC
ooz 31rns 'r33Er-s Hr€) 'M g I I'cNt 'u3^f N NOCUOC UsSrnNHSS
FB'f'ffitlo ss Loz nr.z
'--?,rkrffitW
I
-u//:tg uaaq
delry ?ryfttxg
?ueuresefl sseccv i-re,rodrtta;
9SC9-6?€: (c)Z6) C LrnE o3r-s3uc
LZL9-9ZO (OZ6) usvtoro3 ,N3dsV
er6g-9r6 (c)z6) xvJ uoo t -9v6 (oL6)lc)9 I g oovaoroc 'scNtuds oooMN3-]gooz 31tns '-L33uJ_s Hagl M g I I'3NI ,U3A3A NOCUOC UfSfNNHSS
fgzft9'o1y uo7decey
reJuaC suogorcdg pd,launyy s5ultdg pooluueleg ]o7
\lqi
Ns-. 1
JuauesDJsseoov ,(totodute1,O,
)_ _
09'/e.
17e,7*?e N
t
'/U'O'A
enue^v PuolPll4l
3h1,t
o/19/ 57 peYo/,y
doC e )DqaA punoJ
,02:, I :e/ocs
h$
lB"$
"id'{Lp@%>
:g'o'd
fgzt/g'o1y uo.rsdacay
reJua7 suotlotadg pdyqunyy sbupdg pCIo/uuap
c lo7
qr
N
0//91 s'7 pillrol!
doC q JoqaA punoJ
opeJo[oJ't{Tuno3 plerJreg
s8ur-rdg poo/uaalg Jo ,QlC'n'd q?9 "11169'A ",99'Jg uot?cas
?uaweseg sseccv .d.tetodwatr
ra?ua? suor?eJedo
ledrurunfry sflur-rdg pooluuale
g ?oT
delry ?rqru{xg
rr r^.r
U)EEFA FiAHE=$t
tota
!" -'
kl '-r
HH(
.' 'q
tril{qqe
c(
U\
ki\F-Edtr
I.l S
THo
$s-
|t.rqkst{ hr
E\EF(r tl]
El+It\
HF
BE
ilH
Ht{qa
Es(o
9.1 h'4\eF(H t\l.r f,.GO
-j<
EH
sE
Olt{
o)
F
.=s
Fx
IJJ
*,
EEHH
E*=HHHi,.l=l
$3HHdU
lrtLJirr
P-- r
!r1 S!' i-
S r.l
Eq
HH:oH(Jlr
FI
t5
at\
E
'$,I
E
H
*
Hta.(r
El
l*J
l$
EsU
c..'{
E
ilx
?.f \a\ EC,FS
PEr:l *t
-1 t
;J
-_tr]*!jHS*
Hrs
s(i..s
(,r !r ,-:
ai F$E(E{O
11 f,St\*IU
;i !.
tqq
ar
Bxso(
tu*fi. fi
$fiEEFdHH
EHHE
H${fi
E' \J* t-l
F-q
-q(
Itr..'
'-Li(J
{
-\-< E-ra>-
HH.dF
EQ F\:}n(4qSa"t5 f{iJERiC)r
t
11'
it
I
I
l
I
I
t
$H<q\H
HH
F#
P+
EHl.;tJ :,r*l u-(5-
[(
I q_k:th(
$E+,t
HI\
nE !"
il
I
L
L
I
rl
I
I
E\a
>-
E\
(J
EE FsIkt si5(E\oqL
EL;
lh
;:J
F4.Ir:
Ai.
FI
f.
!i5 AJ,a- o.,f,rjdtaEq;* AJQriA:q';) riE lrl
u)
E
I.(l
Iil
q
I\AP
SH
LJ !a
EE>p*i*
HU
06*j
F
h]tr
T
T
(
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
l
l
t
t
(
t
t
Gity of Glenwood Springs
Engineerin g Department
101 West 8th Street, P.O. Box 458
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 384-6435 Fax 970-945-8582
February 4,2009
Mr. Brian Edwards
Schmueser Gordon Meyer
118 W. 6'h Street, STE 200
Glenwood springs, CO 81601
RE: Proposed Funding Plan for New Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility
Dear Brian;
The City of Glenwood Springs has been planning for this new facility for many years. Part of that planning
has been to implement a schedule of sewer service fees increases over the past three years. This schedule is
planned to continue for the next two years. The following table illustrates how our sewer service rates have
increased and are planned to continue to increase until they reach a level to comfortably fund the repayment
of loans for this work. The rates in this table are based on a single family residence which uses a minimum
of 10,500 gallons of water per month for the months of October through April. The Proposed Rate Increases,
Annual Revenues, and Operating Expenses for each year are taken from Table ES-2 on page ES-5 of the
City's 2006 Report on the Cost of Service Analysis and Rate Study performed by Burns & McDonnell (copy
attached).
DATE Proposed
o//o
Increase
Proposed
Minimum
Rate per
Month
Expected
Annual
Revenue
Expected
Annual
Operating
Expenses
Expected
Available
for Loan
Repayment
2000 - 2005 $17.7s $909,600 $ 929,700 -0-
April.2006 20%$21.30 s 1.06s.900 $ 974,800 $ 91,100
Apil,2007 20%$2s.s6 $ 1,31s, r 00 $ 1,022,100 $ 292,900
Auril.2008 20%s30.67 $ 1.s83.700 $ 1.071.s00 $ s 12,200
Apri 2009 20%$36.81 $ 1,910,900 $ 1. r 23.400 $ 787.s00
Apri 2010 20%$44.17 $2,3 r 1,600 s 1,177,700 $ l ,133,900
Apri 20tt ts%s50.79 $2.679.s00 $ 1,234,000 $ 1,44s,500
Apri 2012 15%$s8.41 $3,109,600 $r,294,700 s 1.814.900
It is currently anticipated that the City will apply to the Colorado Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
for a2}-year loan of no more than $30,000,000 at whatever the then current interest rate might be. The
actual amount of this loan could be affected by any grants we might receive from other sources or by the
actual bid prices we get for the work to be done.
Exhibit 20
I
(
The City is already investing local funds in the amount of about $1 million for the preliminary design of the
whole project, including final design and bid documents for the 3,500 foot long access road into the proposed
WWTP site and a 13,600 dual 16-inch force main pipe system to deliver wastewater from the current
treatment site, where it all accumulates, to the new treatment site at the upper mouth of South Canyon. The
City is plaruring to fund the construction of this force main system and the access road, which were bid at
$4.5 million, from our local resources.
The City presently has $ 15 million budgeted in the Sewer Fund for 2009 with another $ 1 5 million
programmed for 2010 and, if needed, another $15 million in 2011. These funds will easily complete all of
the design; construct the force main; and start construction of the treatment facility and lift station in 2009.
The 2010 & 2011 amounts will cover the balance of the construction of the treatment facility and lift station.
This funding plan should provide the City and surrounding areas with a state of the art wastewater treatment
plant in a location where it will not impact the environment or any neighbors, present or future. If there are
any other questions regarding this plan, we will make every effort to answer them as quickly and completely
as possible.
Sincerely,
tuWWr/)'/
ll
I
tT
ll
I
I
rl
I
II
II
il
L
tl
ll
II
(
ll
I
Michael G. McDill, P:E.
City Engineer
\WWTP\Funding\09-02-04 Financial Plan for Site Application
.t
l-
C\
.E.st
.F4x
IJJ
l'',i.,.'..
L
"ri 'i
-?
\\
l> ::E i!e !
i! ie3ir:E
rli;g
ei4r I!;if:
: r^ci E5 E trO?
iE iis!€t ?=a:Qo,!!rt:ri !!
f'1 r:! ?tatt
I
,
.t
t
:
!
2
*"ff8
EHHF
EESE
II
I''3
?4"
',e t
*
.:' 4-*s+
b'1,1 ':Y''
$-*
li
f*
i,
b' .11\
\i&
t.rr
l':I.
L
I
I
I
?,' ,:.
*lr" . i
t.
I
I
I
T
t
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
l
.
I
&
?
{
III
I
l
I
I
I
I
'i
l
l
,.1
i;i
'4:/::
:i:
r
l" ,.
.1{I,ef'f, '
''i-tt
:
I
il
,l
T
I
I
T
I
I
T
t
t
I
I
I
I
T
+*,tt._<'-ii
l:,...#_\{,::*.,-.-
EI
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITff
Crorop
gox,
p
\
rlq.to\tr\ l__\
lr,=
\ts
\l
\\.,'. \
,\,. \
','"tt\.' \.,. ,.',\., \
't,"\ ',
i i:tii:i.\i II tt:ili:l.i i, il,l,i,:l: ,
, .,
'
r,1,\, l. ::;: i,\,
r l:rr'lll\. 1,1' 111'
, "t"'1 11 ' \' i 1',i,1
I IIll'litlI 11',1','.',
i lrrt":, ii:,i:
, ';.
,. !:
i
i
.,j
1i::
1.:
li:,,
: i" ..' ..li ..
: t..
gI
6E
l$q=
dDz\
o
S
d:
ifr
i\ : i\:
+--
I
I
I
I
ll
I
I
I
I
I+--
fl{gfl=8o F nZ w -1Z-tlLts^roQ33oUlUocc E Y'tn? fl'l
iHp*Hff
3sx'fls
[[ffiE
H*[q B6n
e
h'
h
tl.t
q)'
S
N>
t,-,,
\\Ftr
\
APPENDIX B
ll
{l
I
II
lr
lir
lr
lrr
lr
l'il
l,l
lir
lll
I'l
lr
lr
t02I:V007V007-46 1.002 Wwtp\Site Application\Site App Narrative.doc
--
l:\tu7\tu07-t61.@1 lnsb\Dry\Or-JOrS.l\U4Slo-LSZdaq tund: td. 1t F.b 20@ s t6pb RoLA hq 12 F6 2M t@n @tuEto'
h1a\\g\6-d
N.: N -.
ruSq
sBt$
: $ *e
t$;$
16l
"ri
t8
SE>.2^
ES
d\'
}l
x
t-
G
*
fiIi
i
NN
sE
-T
I.
a.
a
. i,i
6>
Szi(-F
3$Etr i:Hr toh:u S$E
14 BH;O 8rR:tr ff65tr r:>trl xsz
zo
aa
l-t5
e'
Ia\
snH\i
F\
$
$s
R
I?IId
IHitli
*
t
b
hh
l! lil
Ir 18++
3
*s>xi
YSs$
\on
F
s
I
I
atIel
R.
tbud
5t-dR:
6A
F
s
$
;
Sn
"tsFi
B;
x\)
isie
x
il
SI
s
$
f
rnx
d
Flr
N(.)
8r>46E
IHE=dez\
t:n
!
QE()
Fr
k
\J
:Eb\z
r0
a
l-Lr-z-JJi
:U
Fr
HElE
F-
Sfrfr
f0
-u
t{
r5
EJ
f-
(A
tr1oH
oz
atrl
=
U)o
A,
o
eo
!
tt
*"
d
,BBq_ilx
\o--\Bs
IGtt
;g
I
I
(a
Fr\]s
l-o?
15
=
loo
!D
o
:
:
II
."
6TOE-r'sb
9BCIP:Qm T \m-(,l, tr ozu -1ZJ5/+g^oQ3<
-XaEoC
:l3s;fi;ERatri
9 o,i.r o9Xliiood;eq;3
E$dBx9
fi 3 sru;6.1!'a mtr lIU {{r- rn&rl
s
\
as(\
b,.,,
t.d
h
A)
a
N
o's\
os
oa
N\\"
\s'
o
tr$oobosQ.
\$
Nfi
I
N
B\
$
F
5!Hb
F*.
ilg
dB
\
p
s
i
fi
a-
E
r
B
-q
\
ri
E
*Ifi
\
\
N
F
e
d
s$R
^h ttC-
F*B!aat'
iP-
t,//aTnp
////-------------:::-//
//
\
SRQ\
.ti ci\*:!},$
dn
i---j
\-/
tt
sd
G
R
s
saisso'6si
!E8s
on=.Fn \Aao
E9J
=PHz==
xHs
={tl2-l n\rn-76
(,
-x-xTruru7oco-x-!looc(, (, (,rn rn rnUUU
=fN-x;qRU).-.U
-t \)nh(,qu4'(ra
-t4o
-t
rnx:I(I
=-T1
-x------fr----rrrrr
l+
ru_ll>ll-rll<=ll-, Il>ll=llolloll:ll-. 1Itzrlleli:oll>ll-. Ilc:llmll-ll:oll6llc:ll:.rll>lL---/
rl.IrrrfrE
-le,oE
z,C''
-t
=orrt
7
-{FT
->€
oc)oQEOr<-tC-l=t<#bZe
!8"= "
() t-t /A
^ \r' L.,EOU3oJFU-F
zov
AT'H>32,>mIrfr.-;^Fx t^,
3 r\,rcJ
; ,TI
za
Ftourf=zao+
.0
2z-{
mg
G:'o
--rH== _+U-G' - =
j
ii = 5Ei-iqrr fi .uZ
B f E=
en Y ?tf,
opo
o)
lrJ
o
00o
?
C!mo
o
0ao
o
6
p
=oiq.
SI
es xoodg3 o
6?4xq0
rP oo iq1ac
=19.
rax
Jd.+
N5
- ---l \I2 L^sm r :i3o I EI| <o
[]
[]
ooa