The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.00 Application Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 www.garfield-county.com LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM TYPE OF APPLICATION  Administrative Review  Development in 100-Year Floodplain  Limited Impact Review  Development in 100-Year Floodplain Variance  Major Impact Review  Code Text Amendment  Amendments to an Approved LUCP LIR MIR SUP  Rezoning Zone District PUD PUD Amendment  Minor Temporary Housing Facility  Administrative Interpretation  Vacation of a County Road/Public ROW  Appeal of Administrative Interpretation  Location and Extent Review  Areas and Activities of State Interest  Comprehensive Plan Amendment  Accommodation Pursuant to Fair Housing Act  Pipeline Development  Variance  Time Extension (also check type of original application) INVOLVED PARTIES Owner/Applicant Name: ________________________________________________ Phone: (______)_________________ Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________________ City: _______________________________________ State: _______ Zip Code: ____________________ E-mail:_______________________________________________________________________________ Representative (Authorization Required) Name: ________________________________________________ Phone: (______)_________________ Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________________ City: _______________________________________ State: _______ Zip Code: ____________________ E-mail:_______________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION Project Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Assessor’s Parcel Number: ___ ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ Physical/Street Address: ________________________________________________________________ Legal Description: ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: ___________________________________ Property Size (acres): __________________ PROJECT DESCRIPTION Existing Use: __________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (From Use Table 3-403): _____________________________________________________ Description of Project: __________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ REQUEST FOR WAIVERS Submission Requirements  The Applicant requesting a Waiver of Submission Requirements per Section 4-202. List: Section: ______________________________ Section: _________________________________ Section: ______________________________ Section: _________________________________ Waiver of Standards  The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Standards per Section 4-118. List: Section: ______________________________ Section: _________________________________ Section: ______________________________ Section: _________________________________ I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ______________________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Property Owner Date OFFICIAL USE ONLY File Number: __ __ __ __ - __ __ __ __ Fee Paid: $_____________________________ 1 Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 www.garfield-county.com PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 2183-113-00-020 DATE: 3/12/18 PROJECT: South Canyon Mountain Bike Trail Plan OWNERS/APPLICANT: City of Glenwood Springs REPRESENTATIVE: Brian Smith, Parks and Recreation Director PRACTICAL LOCATION: South Canyon, adjacent to County Road 134 ZONING: Rural TYPE OF APPLICATION: Location and Extent COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Future Land Use Designation - Residential Medium High and within the Glenwood Springs 3 Mile Area of Influence I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Glenwood Springs is initiating development of a series of mountain bike trails primarily on City owned property located in the South Canyon Area. One portion of a trail will cross BLM property. A park is a permitted use within the Rural Zone District and typically includes passive recreational activities such a bike riding. The trails will include road to trail conversions and new trail construction. Two parking areas serving 10 – 15 vehicles each will serve the trail system. One of the parking areas is already existing and will be shared with the City’s Archery Facility. Three trail segments are currently proposed and total of approximately 8.14 miles of trails. The trail design will be low impact varying in width from 1.5’ to 4’. Erosion protection and revegetation practices will be utilized. 2 The trail systems is being planned in coordination with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), and the Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA). II. REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS • Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 • Garfield County Land Use and Development Code as amended • Location and Extent Review, Section 4-111, including Review Process and Review Criteria • Review Criteria pursuant to Section 4-111(C), “The Planning Commission shall determine whether the project is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan” • Table 4-102, Common Review Procedures and Required Notice • Section 4-101 Common Review Procedures • Table 4-201, Application Submittal Requirements • Section 4-203 Description of Submittal Requirements III. LOCATION AND EXTENT REVIEW PROCESS 1. Pre-application Conference. 2. Application. 3. Determination of Completeness. 4. Schedule Planning Commission Public Hearing 5. Ten additional hard copies of the Application are provided for the Planning Commission 6. Public notice, posting, mailing, and publication (at least 7 days but not more than 30 days prior to the hearing). 7. Evaluation by Director/Staff Review – preparation of a Staff Report 8. Review by the Planning Commission at the Public Hearing 9. A denial may be appealed in accordance with Section 4-111(B)(2) and the Colorado Revised Statues 10. An approval will be documented by a Planning Commission resolution and may include conditions of approval. IV. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Table 4-201 lists application requirements to only include General Application Materials and a Site Plan, Section 4-203 (D). These application materials and other typical supporting information are generally summarized below. It is recommended that the list be utilized as a pre-submittal checklist. Application Form Ownership Documentation Authorized signature on the Application No Application Fee is required 3 Payment Agreement Form – for staff time and materials or outside consultants Copy of the Pre-Application Conference Summary Vicinity Map Names and addresses of all property owners within 200 feet of the property and mineral rights owners on the subject. A description of the research done to determine mineral rights owners should be provided. Site Plan showing the basic plan for the bike trail system. The site plan should include significant features including general topography, ditches, stream crossings, drainage features, easements, existing and proposed infrastructure. A narrative description of the bike trail plan. Statement addressing how the project meets the Review Criteria in Section 4- 111.C, general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan 2030. The Application should include references to relevant sections, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan (see attached) Supporting documents as available such as Historic or Cultural Inventories, Weed Management Plans or representations, information on stream crossings, BLM approvals/authorizations, Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative, Wildlife Compatibility Practices. The initial Application submittal needs to include 3 hard copies of the entire Application and 1 digital PDF Copy of the entire Application (on a CD or USB Stick). Both the paper and digital copies should be split into individual sections. Once determined to be complete additional hard copies for the Planning Commission members will be needed. The exact number needed will be provided by Staff but is typically 10 additional copies. V. APPLICATION REVIEW a. Review by: Staff for completeness and distribution to referral agencies. b. Public Hearing: _X_ Planning Commission ___ Board of County Commissioners ___ Board of Adjustment c. Referral Agencies: May include but is not limited to Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Garfield County Sheriff, Fire Protection District, CPW, and BLM. VI. APPLICATION REVIEW FEES a. Planning Review Fees: Staff time and materials b. Referral Agency Fees: $ TBD – consulting engineer review fees c. Total Deposit: Staff time and materials 4 VII. GENERAL APPLICATION PROCESSING The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the County. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. This summary does not create a legal or vested right. The summary is valid for a six month period, after which an update should be requested. The Applicant is advised that the Application submittal once accepted by the County becomes public information and will be available (including electronically) for review by the public. Proprietary information can be redacted from documents prior to submittal. Pre-application Summary Prepared by: ____________________________________________ _____________ Glenn Hartmann, Principal Planner Date 5 6 GARFIELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2030 EXCERPT FROM FUTURE LAND USE MAP General Location of the Applicant’s Proposal, along the west side of the County Road General Location of the Applicant’s Proposal, along the west side of the County Road 7 8 RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM THE GARFIELD COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Section 1 – Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination Goal #1: Increase coordination and communication between the municipalities and the County. Strategy #7: Work cooperatively within the region on issues that transcend political boundaries such as housing, transit and economic development. Section 4 – Economics, Employment and Tourism Policy #6: The County recognizes that the tourism industry is an important part of the regional economy and the County recognizes that the tourism industry is enhanced by (1) open space and scenic vistas (2) public trails and other recreational opportunities (3) public access to public lands (4) a healthy environment and habitats for hunting and fishing (5) green belts and open area between communities (6) clean air and water (7) local foods and local produce. Strategy #6: Ensure that tourism development is compatible with adjacent land uses and preserves the natural environment of the County. Section 5 – Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Vision: Open spaces, recreational trails and parks are available throughout the County and access to public lands and river corridors have been preserved and enhanced. Recreation and tourism industries are encouraged and supported in appropriate locations throughout the county. Issue *1: The County has traditionally supported (contributed to) the efforts of other organizations to create trails in the County. Issue *9: Recreational opportunities are an important part of tourism in Garfield County. Goal #3: Provide opportunities for the tourism industry to utilize recreational resources as well as to preserve recreation resources for local access. Goal #4: Support the development of a continuous trail system within Garfield County and along both major river corridors. Policy #1: The County supports the creation of an interconnected trail system in the Colorado River Valley. 9 Policy #2: Any actions regarding open space and trails must respect the property rights of land owners in the County and must be based on the concepts of just compensation or mutual benefits for landowners, residents and visitors. Strategy #1: Work with municipalities and other organization to collaboratively develop a Colorado River Trail and preservation plan. Section 6 – Agriculture Goal #2: Preserve a significant rural character in the County. Goal #3: Preserve scenic and visual corridors in the County. Policy #1: Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated impacts of higher-intensity land uses with buffer areas between the agricultural uses and the proposed project. Section 8 – Natural Resources Issue *2: Many of the natural resources in the County are also under the jurisdiction of other agencies and extend beyond County boundaries. Therefore, a cooperative approach is required. Goal #1: Ensure that natural, scenic, ecological and critical wildlife habitat resources are protected and/or impacts mitigated. FUNDED BY: City of Glenwood Springs, CO Garﬁeld County, CO PREPARED FOR: Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Assoc. Mike Pritchard, Exec. Director 970.948.3486 mike.pritchard@imba.com www.rfmba.org SOUTH CANYON TRAILS PLAN PREPARED BY: Scott Linnenburger Principal Kay-Linn Enterprises 303.241.3301 scott@kay-linn.com www.kay-linn.com ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM: Project Activities......................................................................................1 Opportunities...........................................................................................2 Constraints...............................................................................................4 Proposed Trail System.............................................................................8 Trail Speciﬁcations.................................................................................12 Construction Phasing............................................................................16 Cost Opinion..........................................................................................17 Appendix Maps Map 1: South Canyon Hillslope Analysis Map 2: Landﬁll Viewshed Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan PROJECT PRE-PLANNING Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA), following the development of the Glenwood Springs Area Concept Trails Plan (February, 2015), engaged Kay-Linn Enterprises’ team (with the assistance of Applied Trails Research and Singletrack Trails) to provide ﬁeld investigation, sustainable trail corridor design, and development recommendations for the South Canyon area. The consulting team was provided with the conceptual planning information from RFMBA, as well as more depth regarding ongoing activities in South Canyon from RFMBA Executive Director Mike Pritchard, including spatial overlays for historic elements, the landﬁll, and gun and archery ranges. With limited on-the-ground ﬁeld reconnaissance supporting the development of the Concept Trails Plan created by IMBA Trail Solutions, the Kay-Linn team scheduled a preliminary visit with RFMBA to examine the site and help to frame initial parameters and strategy for subsequent ﬁeld investigation. During this visit, RFMBA and Singletrack Trails owner, Greg Mazu, discussed the overall desire on the part of the mountain bike community to assist the City of Glenwood Springs in the cost-effective development of a diverse, shared-use trail system on City managed lands within South Canyon. With a proliﬁc resume of highly regarded trail system development in challenging environments, including many of the trails at rocky Curt Gowdy and Glendo State Parks in the State of Wyoming, the Free Lunch trail in Grand Junction, and the Bike Granby Ranch bike park in Grand County, Mazu quickly developed the opinion that South Canyon had signiﬁcant barriers to cost-effective trail construction due to the canyon’s numerous rock outcroppings and other constraints on the property. This initial investigation assisted RFMBA and the Kay-Linn team in developing a strategy to best allocate time and resources in the more detailed ﬁeld investigation and ground-truthed trail corridor design, which was scheduled for July. FIELD INVESTIGATION/TRAIL DESIGN Kay-Linn Principal, Scott Linnenburger, and Applied Trails Research Owner, Jeremy Wimpey, mobilized to Glenwood Springs in mid-July to provide ﬁeld investigation and sustainable trail corridor design for a diverse, sustainable, cost-effective trail system in South Canyon. The team spent six days on the ground in the canyon, spot checking trail development feasibility and designing sustainable trail corridors and an integrated trail system. During this time, the team was able to witness current use patterns in South Canyon, including use of the nearby BLM-managed river access, informal hot springs, archery range, gun range, hunting, landﬁll, residential trafﬁc, and grazing occurring in the area. Additional ﬁeld investigation was conducted by RFMBA Executive Director, Mike Pritchard, and RFMBA Board Members during September and October. RECOMMENDATION DEVELOPMENT Based on the ﬁeld investigation, current uses, and potential for sustainable trail development, the Kay-Linn team has developed the recommendations that follow in this report, including opinions on optimal trail system components such as trail types, trailhead locations, historic/land management interpretation, implementation strategy and phasing, and cost of construction. These recommendations have been developed to further the collaboration between RFMBA and the City of Glenwood Springs in developing improved recreation amenities. 1 PROJECT ACTIVITIES ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan PROXIMITY TO GLENWOOD SPRINGS The Interstate 70 exit for South Canyon, approximately two miles west of Glenwood Springs, provides convenient recreation access. Completing the paved LoVa Trail would greatly enhance the ability of residents to access these locally controlled lands and provide another nearby destination for visitors that does not require driving out of downtown Glenwood Springs. DIVERSE TRAIL SYSTEM South Canyon’s topography is quite steep, but the valley ﬂoor climbs to the south at a gradient that will allow for trail development that is accessible to a broad demographic. Being ﬂanked by rock outcrops throughout the valley, with dramatic views to the north and east from the top of the canyon, provides a sense of space that is sometimes a challenge in the steep valleys of the Colorado and Roaring Fork Rivers. This sense may be enhanced by utilizing terrain and higher elevations around Horse Mountain (west of South Canyon). The well- maintained condition of the CR 134/South Canyon Road provides easy access for multiple trailheads that will encourage visitors to stay off the road, enhancing safety for up-canyon residents and trafﬁc utilizing other municipal services in the canyon. A diverse trail system is possible in South Canyon, including family-friendly shared-use trails, narrow backcountry trails, and mountain bike-optimized trails. Providing these different trail types reduces congestion and potential conﬂicts, while offering trail users the opportunity to optimize their experience based on recreation time availability, group desires, and capabilities. In the southern portion of the canyon, mature stands of pine and oak contrast with the lower oak scrub of the northern portion of the canyon and Horse Mountain. These vegetation types naturally provide a different type of trail experience and the diversity also plays a temporal role in spreading recreation visitation, as the lower portions of the canyon will readily dry in late fall to late spring periods and the higher elevation pine/oak forest will provide a cooler setting during summer months. 2 OPPORTUNITIES ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan HISTORIC/SENSE OF PLACE INTERPRETATION South Canyon has regional historical signiﬁcance that can provide residents and visitors with a better sense of place. The history of the the South Canyon town and mine are broadly interpreted on a single, decaying interpretive panel at the northern portion of the canyon. This history, along with other area activities (i.e. ﬁre, waste management, ecological succession) could be better interpreted through a series of better developed vehicle pull-offs along the South Canyon Road or along the proposed trail routes. South Canyon’s historic remnants include rock and concrete building foundations, eroding stone wall fragments, rusting mining equipment, and vacated road and railroad beds. Overgrown vegetation currently obscures most of these archeological features. In 2003, after the Coal Seam Fire, a cultural resource inventory was prepared to determine how to best preserve these historic remnants. The assessment determined that the historic site at the mouth of the canyon, adjacent to the Colorado River, would not be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places on its own, but that it did provide interpretive value for the whole of Coal Camp. The Coal Camp mining area and townsite were located near the present day landﬁll entrance and along the road heading further to the south. Additional archeological surveys and historical assessments will need to be conducted for this area in order to develop a preservation and management plan for the City to implement. Proposed soft surface trails may brieﬂy coincide with historic foundations near the landﬁll entrance, and will be routed to both avoid damaging these cultural resources, yet remain close enough to highlight the direct connection to the area’s historic past. Implementation of proposed trail system signage will be an opportunity to simultaneously develop interpretive signage to highlight the area’s history. RFMBA anticipates working with the City and the Historic Preservation Commission to ensure South Canyon can be properly highlighted as one of the City’s existing heritage attractions. 3 OPPORTUNITIES ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan STEEP TOPOGRAPHY/ROCK OUTCROPS South Canyon’s steep ﬂanks and rock outcrops, while providing a sense of space and size, also severely limit the available terrain suitable for efﬁciently developing natural surface trails. Hillsides with slopes greater than 70% are quite challenging for full bench trail construction on solid soils with non-erosive qualities. A large proportion of the South Canyon’s hillsides above the valley ﬂoor and outside the gun range are greater than 70% in slope (See Slope Map, Appendix A) and much of the soil on these hillsides is loose and/or prone to minor landslides. Further complicating potential trail development are the ubiquitous rock outcrops throughout the canyon, many of which extend from ridgelines down to the South Canyon Road. While blasting through rock is possible, the number of times it would be required to develop trails through these areas is likely not economically feasible. To avoid the rock outcrops, it will be necessary to develop numerous switchbacks to gain/lose trail elevation between the valley and higher ridges. It is nearly impossible to construct trail switchbacks on hillsides with slopes greater than 70% without signiﬁcantly expensive, engineered retaining walls. Therefore, very detailed design will be necessary to site switchbacks on more moderate slopes. These trails would necessarily be narrow and likely graded as advanced routes to minimize construction impacts and cost. Phase 1 of this plan provides ground-truthed trail corridors where efﬁcient, cost-effective trail construction is possible. Further ﬁeld reconnaissance will be necessary to develop trail corridors to the west of South Canyon. Field location of optimized switchback locations, away from rock outcrops and on small segments of hillslopes with gradients less than 55%, will be vital to enhance the diversity and quality of the trail system. To be undertaken in 2016, these design of these narrow, backcountry style trails would comprise Phase 2 of the South Canyon Trails and prepared as an addendum to this plan. 4 CONSTRAINTS ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan NON-TRADITIONAL RECREATION SETTING The current activities on the City lands in South Canyon, including 1) the landﬁll and its expansion area, 2) the extensive acreage allocated for the gun range, and 3) the active mine reclamation and underground coal seam ﬁre management, provide impediments to the setting, orientation and extent of a quality recreational trail system. The consulting team fully comprehends the industrial ties to the past, present, and future in both South Canyon and Glenwood Springs in general, but traditionally in Colorado these types of viewsheds and soundscapes have not been highly sought after for the development of recreational amenities, nor have managers of these activities sought to bring additional public visitation to these types of facilities and management activities. As such, the team worked to minimize the impacts of these activities on the potential trail system and vice versa, understanding that functionality of all these facets must include consideration of recreational and industrial trafﬁc patterns, potential for trespass, and public safety issues. While interpretation of best practices in waste management is certainly an opportunity for public education in South Canyon, it is not likely that visitors to the property desire to be on a trail that has a main focal view on the actively managed cells, the sound of machinery and trucks, or regular odors associated with waste management. In order to remove these potential areas from prospective trail system development, the team developed a viewshed analysis product (see Landﬁll Viewshed Map, Appendix A) that demonstrates areas in South Canyon where the current and expanded landﬁll can be seen. In some areas, this viewshed map may overestimate landﬁll views that may be obscured by 8-foot or higher vegetation. An informal assessment of general odor patterns was also conducted during the initial ﬁeld assessment, and while it only reﬂects a single week of information, the week was dominated by light to moderate winds blowing from a generally westerly direction up the Colorado River valley, which is likely the most impactful direction for most of the trail use season. 5 ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan CONSTRAINTS The soundscape of the gun range is unavoidable throughout the majority of City-managed lands. With that area’s western aspect, both gun rapport and echo infuse the canyon upslope of the landﬁll entrance. The one exception may be the south and west aspects of Horse Mountain on the western portion of the property, which has different access limitations (see Municipal Property Limitations below). With regular use throughout the week and an extensive range utilized by the gun club and multiple law enforcement agencies, this land use will likely negatively impact the recreational experience of some visitors. Finally, the active mine reclamation and underground coal seam ﬁre management impact the development of a recreational trail system from a standpoint of land availability and public safety. While regional trail users are very familiar with the land alteration caused by mining activities in recreational settings, the regulatory obligations of active reclamation likely do not allow for trespass for public safety reasons. When the sum of these issues are addressed, the available land base for a quality recreational trail system is certainly reduced in South Canyon. However, the element of acceptance of recreational surroundings is tangible in many locations around the country, with parks and trails having been developed on top of closed landﬁll areas and next to gun ranges where other available land is limited. Brownﬁeld redevelopment following reclamation activities almost always includes a recreation component. These ongoing and forward-thinking management and land use changes are very real and in a strong way speak to the diligent, safe, and sustainable recycling of our land resources. 6 ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan CONSTRAINTS MUNICIPAL PROPERTY LIMITATIONS Private lands interface signiﬁcantly in South Canyon with a number of residences located along the valley ﬂoor to the south of Glenwood Springs-managed lands. Additionally, BLM- managed lands exist on the north side of the valley, south and upslope portion of the valley above adjacent private lands, and most prominently to the east of South Canyon with the designated Red Mountain Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Development of a backcountry style trail connection utilizing this BLM land between the South Canyon (near the archery range) and municipal property close to downtown Glenwood Springs (Red Mountain Jeanne Golay Trail) may be possible via mitigation of impacts to BLM ACEC land, but this will require a separate future planning effort. The Kay-Linn team attempted to provide sensitivity to the viewsheds to and from private lands with the recommended trail system and trailhead placement in order to preserve the remote agrarian character of the private property in the canyon and make trespass an unlikely issue. At the northern mouth of the canyon, there is little way to create a trailhead access at or near the current archery range without crossing over the creek to the west and onto BLM-managed land due to numerous rock outcrops east of South Canyon Road. To the south, a rough rectangle of BLM land exists that could provide a high quality, longer, backcountry loop trail with incredible, 360-degree views, accessed from City of Glenwood Springs lands. As this parcel is not speciﬁcally identiﬁed for recreation development in the BLM Resource Management Plan, RFMBA and the City would likely have to propose and facilitate trail development that would ultimately be managed by the City under a cooperative agreement. Highly desired access to Horse Mountain may be feasible, but due to topographic constraints will likely require dozens of switchbacks and traversing some very steeply sloped areas. This ﬁeld-based design will be undertaken to determine the preferred location of these routes at a later date. 7 ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan CONSTRAINTS While the landscape and land use constraints are considerable in South Canyon, a high quality, diverse, sustainable recreational trail system can still be developed. The Phase 1 trails will be congregated in relative proximity to the valley ﬂoor. Trails in these locations will provide: • Substantial opportunities for great views of the surrounding South Canyon ridges and early/late season riding due to the exposure and quick-drying soils. • Mountain bike-optimized trails that add diversity in trail experiences, reduce congestion on more traditional shared-use trails, a rare opportunity for shuttle-aided riding catered toward beginner and intermediate-level riders, and the potential reuse of the old alpine slide corridor as an intermediate to advanced slopestyle amenity. • Physical ﬁtness opportunities via nearly 1,000-foot ascents/descents In total, Phase 1 of the proposed trail system would provide four different, distinctive trail types to attract a diversity of visitors interested in varying types of recreation experiences, from casual hikers and dog walkers, trail runners and cross country mountain bikers, to highly, technically skilled mountain bikers. The mileage of Phase 1 of the proposed system is just over 8 miles, which combined with the trail types would provide an approximate recreation residence time of 1.5 hours for the majority of visitors. This type of diversity in experiences and recreation time is a good ﬁt with the South Canyon location and similar to many municipal open space trail systems. Phase 2 of the potential trail system, located higher off the valley ﬂoor and extending to Horse Mountain in the west could provide longer, steeper climbs and descents and improved viewsheds of the Flat Tops (north) and Thompson Divide (south). With the potential for an additional 8 or more miles of narrow, backcountry style trail, this phase of trail development would create the types of trail challenge and experience to become a destination trail system. 8 PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEM ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan PHASE 1 TRAIL SYSTEM COMPONENT PARTS The South Canyon trail system can consist of four separate trails, ground-truthed and corridor-ﬂagged in the ﬁeld. The trail system could include: •Tramway (3.34 miles, 771’ of elevation change, 4% average gradient) - A shared-use, beginner/ intermediate-friendly trail beginning at the lower trailhead, crossing South Canyon Creek to utilize the best possible trail alignment on BLM land (which will require NEPA clearance), then running up the canyon utilizing old road cuts (road-to-trail conversion) and some steep slopes, and terminating at the upper trailhead. •Lightning Bug (1.73 miles, 540’ of elevation change, 6% average gradient) - A descending-optimized, mountain bike-focused trail beginning at the upper trailhead and descending on mostly moderate slopes between Tramway and CR 134. Above a midway junction with Tramway provides the option to loop back to the upper trailhead. The trail would terminate at a junction with Tramway near the landﬁll entrance gate. •Coal Camp (3.07 miles, 900’ elevation change, 8% average gradient) - A shared-use, intermediate level trail beginning at the upper trailhead, climbing gently at ﬁrst through a side canyon meadow, then more steeply through mostly mature pine forest with great views of the Horse Mountain ridge to the highest elevation of the City land near the shared boundary with BLM land to the south. This trail loops back on itself near the highpoint, and may provide access for future trail system expansion on adjacent BLM. Such expansion will require land manager collaboration and agreement with Glenwood Springs, but could allow 7+ additional miles of backcountry style trails. •Alpine Slide (0.85 miles, 215’ elevation change, 9.5% average gradient) - An ascent to the beginning of the old alpine slide from the landﬁll gate, followed by a downhill-only, intermediate/advanced (potentially multiple riding lines in the same corridor), feature-ﬁlled mountain bike trail. POTENTIAL PHASE 2 TRAIL SYSTEM COMPONENT PARTS The South Canyon valley ﬂoor trail system can be greatly expanded to appeal to a larger regional set of trail enthusiasts accustomed to traveling to unique trail destinations if feasible construction locations can be developed. Trails that ascend and descend the higher ridges to the west, and to the broad southern slopes of Horse Mountain will afford the type of experience that could draw new visitors to Glenwood Springs. This part of the system could consist of three separate trails, broad corridors for which have been identiﬁed in the 9 PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEM ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan 10 PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEM ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan ﬁeld, but must be ground-truthed for feasible switchback locations and corridor-ﬂagged during a future phase of work. Phase 2 of the trail system could include: •Red Onion (3.5 miles total. North portion: 1.9 miles, 850’ of elevation change, 8% average gradient. South portion: 1.6 miles, 700’ of elevation change, 8% average gradient.) - A shared-use, intermediate / advanced trail beginning and ending at intersections with the Tramway trail, with a high point at a saddle to the west of the canyon ﬂoor. •Gem Trail (1.5 miles, 500’ of elevation change, 7% average gradient) - A shared-use, intermediate / advanced two-way trail beginning at Red Onion’s high point saddle, and reaching up to a high saddle with historic bench cut roads to the east of Horse Mountain. •Horse Mountain Loop (3.75 miles, 450’ of max. elevation change, 5% overall average gradient) - A shared-use, intermediate/advanced system of preferred-direction trails that link the Gem Trail to the south side of Horse Mountain. The stacked loop design allows for phased construction, while utilizing old road cuts (road-to-trail conversion) lowers construction costs. TRAILHEAD DEVELOPMENT To minimize conﬂicts with existing landﬁll and residential trafﬁc, a lower trailhead of 10-vehicle occupancy should be established through expansion of the existing archery range parking area or by formalizing and expanding the pull-off area at the nearby historic site interpretive panel. Similarly, to minimize conﬂicts with residential trafﬁc and impacts to the historic areas near the top of the canyon, the best location for a trailhead would be in the graded lot behind the gate to the mine reclamation area, moving the gate uphill/south of the graded lot. This upper trailhead would currently hold approximately 15 to 20 vehicles. Finally, a formalized vehicle turnaround just south of the landﬁll gate and parking for 3-5 vehicles would provide service for Lightning Bug and Alpine Slide trails and would be an ideal location to provide interpretive information on the past and present uses of South Canyon. J H H H Ph a s e 2 HorseMtnTrails C o lo rado R i v e r §¨¦I-70 South Canyon Trail Plan Trail Design: July 2015 I00.5 10.25 Miles Legend Trailhead 89:X Bridge J Hot Spring Flagged Trails Green - Beginner Trail Blue - Intermediate Trail Road Historic RoadContours 20-foot 100-foot 1000-foot Gun Club Landfill Bureau of Land Management Historic SiteH BLM - Conceptual Trail Phase 2- Proposed Trail TramwayLightningBugCoal Cam p A l pineSlide 12 TRAIL SPECIFICATIONS ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan Trail Type Name: Frontcountry Trail (Tramway) Difﬁculty Rating: Less Difﬁcult to Moderate Difﬁculty Symbol: Green Circle or Blue Square Typical Tread Width: 36”-50” Typical Corridor Width: 48”-60” Tread Rugosity: Relatively smooth, some roots or rocks, protrusions <3” above trail tread Average Gradient: <10% Maximum Sustained Grade: 15% Maximum Grade: 20% with surface treatment Typical Tread Materials: Natural surface with surfacing amendments where necessary Sideslope Steepness: Flat to 75% Turn Radius: Wide and open Trail/Structure Formality: Formal, 48” width Wet Area Crossing Formality: Formal bridges for minor/major crossings, 60” minimum width Duty of Care: Moderate TREAD WIDTH VARIES: MIN. 36”, MAX. 50” 36” - 50” TREES AS ANCHORS, NOT LESS THAN 50” CORRIDOR TRAIL TREAD SURFACE, MECH. COMPACTION W/DGA WHERE NECESSARY LEAF LITTER TO COVER ALL BACKSLOPE AND SPOILS FOLLOWING TREAD CONSTRUCTION STONE/UNDERSTORY TRAIL ANCHORS, NOT LESS THAN 36” 3-7% 2.1 PLAN DETAIL: FRONTCOUNTRY TRAIL- TYP. N.T.S 36” - 50” TRAIL TREAD SURFACE, MECH. COMPACTION W/DGA WHERE NECESSARY LEAF LITTER TO COVER ALL BACKSLOPE AND SPOILS FOLLOWING TREAD CONSTRUCTION 3-7% EXISTING GRADE 2.2 SECTION DETAIL: FRONTCOUNTRY TRAIL- TYP. N.T.S 13 TRAIL SPECIFICATIONS ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan Trail Type Name: Backcountry Trail (Coal Camp and Phase 2 Trails) Difﬁculty Rating: Moderate to Most Difﬁcult Difﬁculty Symbol: Blue Square or Black Diamond Typical Tread Width: 12”-36” Typical Corridor Width: 24”-60” Tread Rugosity: Relatively smooth, some roots or rocks, protrusions <12” above trail tread Average Gradient: <10% Maximum Sustained Grade: 15% Maximum Grade: 20% with surface treatment Typical Tread Materials: Natural surface with surfacing amendments where necessary Sideslope Steepness: Flat to 75% Turn Radius: Wide and open Trail/Structure Formality: Informal, 24” width Wet Area Crossing Formality: Informal bridges for minor/major crossings, 24” minimum width Duty of Care: Low TREAD WIDTH VARIES: MIN. 12”, MAX. 36” 12” - 36” TREES AS ANCHORS, NOT LESS THAN 36” CORRIDOR TRAIL TREAD SURFACE, COMPACTED LEAF LITTER TO COVER ALL BACKSLOPE AND SPOILS STONE/UNDERSTORY TRAIL ANCHORS, NOT LESS THAN 24” 3-7% 3.1 PLAN DETAIL: BACKCOUNTRY TRAIL- TYP. N.T.S PROTRUSIONS IN TRAIL TREAD LESS THAN 12” 3.2 SECTION DETAIL: BACKCOUNTRY TRAIL- TYP. N.T.S 12” - 36” TRAIL TREAD SURFACE OF NATIVE MINERAL SOIL AND ROCK,COMPACTED LEAF LITTER TO COVER ALL BACKSLOPE AND SPOILS FOLLOWING TREAD CONSTRUCTION 3-7% EXISTING GRADE TREES AS ANCHORS, NOT LESS THAN 36” CORRIDOR, 24” FOR ROCK/ UNDERSTORY BACKSLOPE BLENDS WITH EXISTING GRADE, NOT TO EXCEED 1:1 14 TRAIL SPECIFICATIONS ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan Trail Type Name: Beg./Int. Flow Trail (Lightning Bug) Difﬁculty Rating: Less Difﬁcult to Moderate Difﬁculty Symbol: Green Circle or Blue Square Tread Width: 48”-72” Corridor Width: 72”-96” Tread Rugosity: Relatively smooth and even, embedded rock protruding no more than 6” above adjacent trail tread. Trail features 48” in height or lower. All features rollable Average Gradient: 5% Maximum Sustained Grade: 10% Maximum Grade: 15% Typical Tread Materials: Natural surface, full bench cut. Maximum use of cut/spoil materials for use in trail features. Where adequate amounts or quality of soil are not present, borrow pits within 25’ of the trail center line employed. All constructed features compacted in 6” lifts Sideslope Steepness: Flat to 75% Turn Radius: Broad radius, super elevated Trail/Structure Formality: High formality, 36” minimum width, width minimum of 2X maximum height Wet Area Crossing Formality: Armored crossings at grade, opportunity for constructed feature Duty of Care: Moderate 15 TRAIL SPECIFICATIONS ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan Trail Type Name: Int./Adv. Directional Flow Trail (Alpine Slide) Difﬁculty Rating: Moderate to Most Difﬁcult Difﬁculty Symbol: Blue Square/Black Diamond Tread Width: 10’- 15’ Corridor Width: 15’ - 25’ Tread Rugosity: Smooth and even, no embedded rock protruding above trail tread. Engineered trail features 36” and greater. Mandatory air required by some features Average Gradient: 7% Maximum Sustained Grade: 15% Maximum Grade: steep transitions Typical Tread Materials: Natural surface with substantial excavated and high compaction imported material to cap all dirt features. All constructed features compacted in 6” lifts Sideslope Steepness: Flat to 15%, constructed drainage at low areas to maintain ﬁrm, consistent tread Turn Radius: Broad radius, super elevated Trail/Structure Formality: High formality, 60” minimum width, width minimum of equal to maximum height Wet Area Crossing Formality: Culverted underdrains to maintain consistent tread characteristics Duty of Care: High STAGE 1 Funding Development: late 2015, early 2016 Construction: Fall, 2016 The ﬁrst phase of trail development should focus on the core of the system, the Tramway and Lightning Bug trails and improvements to the upper trailhead at the south end of the canyon. Completion of this phase will provide high quality recreational trail experiences to the broadest diversity of visitors via the Tramway Trail as well as a unique-to-Glenwood Springs mountain bike offering in the Lightning Bug. With ongoing discussions and planning for additional downhill-optimized mountain bike trails in the area, the Lightning Bug is a vital component to provide foundational skills to riders new to this discipline of mountain biking. Following snowmelt in 2016, the continued feasibility planning of the Phase 2 trails can commence, with ground-truthing of sustainable trail corridors and switchback locations of the Red Onion, Gem, and Horse Mountain Loops. STAGE 2 Funding Development: 2016 Implementation: 2017/2018 The second portion of the Phase 1 trail construction can be initiated with the Coal Camp Trail. As an out-and- back experience, this trail has some value due to its aerobic conditioning potential, great views of the back of the Horse Mountain ridgeline, and setting. However, the true value of this trail would be realized with the extension through BLM lands to the south. If Red Onion Trail design proves to be feasible, this trail could be constructed at this time, as well, to provide an additional loop to the core trail system. STAGE 3 Funding Development: 2017/2018 Implementation: 2018/2019 Depending on feasibility, initiate the phased construction of both Gem and Horse Mountain Trails. Gem trail will provide further value to the overall trail system due to it’s aerobic conditioning potential as well as great views of the Flat Tops and Thompson Divide from it’s high point. The Horse Mountain Stacked Loop trails will provide for the culmination of a well rounded trail system at South Canyon, providing for a combination of challenging trail experiences and classic high mountain scenery. The trail system could be capped with the development of the Alpine Slide gravity-fed trails, depending on the status of other, similar mountain bike offerings that have been conceptualized at a greenway-adjacent bike park location near the high school and/or gravity-fed trails on private lands beneath the gondola. It is not likely necessary or manageable to have multiple similar facilities throughout the City, but the Alpine Slide could provide this experience. 16 IMPLEMENTATION PHASING ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan The following cost opinion is based on similar projects completed in the last three years in the Rocky Mountain region. Actual costs may be different, based on contractor availability, construction season, or implementation timeframe. TRAIL EST. LENGTH EST. UNIT PRICE SUBTOTAL Tramway- Stage 1 14,137 feet (1) 1 Bridge @ 20’ $4.75/foot Trail: $67,150 Bridge: $15,000 Lightning Bug- Stage 1 9,905’ feet (2)$6.00/foot $59,430 Coal Camp- Stage 2 Red Onion- Stage 2, if feasible 17,020 feet (1) 19,400 (1) ~25 switchbacks $5.35/foot $5.35/foot $1,000-1,500/switchback Trail: $91,050 Trail: $103,790 Switchbacks: $25,000-37,500 Horse Mountain & Gem Trails - Stage 3, if feasible 29,200 feet (1) ~25 switchbacks $5.35/foot $1,000 - $1,500/ switchback Trail: $156,220 Switchbacks: $25,000- 37,500 Alpine Slide- Stage 3 2,356 feet uphill (1) 2,424 feet downhill (3) $4.75/foot uphill $8.50/foot downhill Uphill trail:$11,200 Downhill trail: $20,600 Features/install: $75,000 1.An estimate of 5% extra total footage beyond corridor length to allow for rolling contour construction 2.An estimate of 8% extra total footage beyond corridor length to allow for rolling contour trail construction and additional sinuosity to optimize mountain bike experience 3.An estimate of 8% extra total footage beyond corridor length to allow for trail tread moving laterally throughout Alpine Slide route. Ultimate cost dependent upon feature number and type (See Appendix XX for feature types and price list) 17 COST OPINION ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan TOTALS STAGE 1: $141,580 STAGE 2: $232,340 STAGE 3: $300,520 GRAND TOTAL: $674,440 APPENDIX MAPS ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan MAP 1: Hillslope Analysis MAP 2: Landﬁll Viewshed Analysis J H H H Ph a s e 2 HorseMtnTrails C o lo rado R i v e r §¨¦I-70 South Canyon Trail Plan Trail Design: July 2015 I00.5 10.25 Miles Legend Trailhead 89:X Bridge J Hot Spring Flagged Trails Green - Beginner Trail Blue - Intermediate Trail Road Historic RoadContours 20-foot 100-foot 1000-foot Gun Club Landfill Bureau of Land Management Historic SiteH BLM - Conceptual Trail Phase 2- Proposed Trail TramwayLightningBugCoal Cam p A l pineSlide Hillslope Analysis Percent Slope 0 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 70 70+ J H H H Ph a s e 2 HorseMtnTrails C o lo rado R i v e r §¨¦I-70 South Canyon Trail Plan Trail Design: July 2015 I00.5 10.25 Miles Legend Trailhead 89:X Bridge J Hot Spring Flagged Trails Green - Beginner Trail Blue - Intermediate Trail Road Historic RoadContours 20-foot 100-foot 1000-foot Gun Club Landfill Bureau of Land Management Historic SiteH BLM - Conceptual Trail Phase 2- Proposed Trail TramwayLightningBugCoal Cam p A l pineSlide Landfill Viewshed Analysis Visible SECTION 12: PROJECT DETAILS Refer to Worksheet B for detailed estimates on unit quantities. 12.1 South Canyon Phase 1 -Trail Projects Scope of Work: New Trail Construction: Tramway Trail: 16, 150 linear feet. 65%+ historic bench cut road to trail conversion. (3.06 miles, 771' of elevation change, 4% average gradient.) Shared- use (foot, bike), beginner I intermediate-friendly trail beginning at the lower trailhead, crossing South Canyon Creek to utilize the best possible trail alignment on BLM land, then running up the canyon utilizing old road cuts and some steep slopes, and terminating at the upper trailhead. Lightning Bug Trail: 9, 100 linear feet 25%+ historic bench cut road to trail conversion. (1.72 miles, 540' of elevation change, 6% average gradient.) Descending-optimized, mountain bike-focused trail beginning at the upper trailhead and descending on mostly moderate slopes between Tramway and County Road 134. Above a midway junction with Tramway, the trail provides the option to loop back to the upper trailhead. The trail would terminate at a junction with Tramway near the landfill entrance gate. Coal Camp Trail: 17,600 linear feet. (3.33 miles, 900' elevation change, 8% average gradient) Shared-use, intermediate level trail beginning at the upper trailhead, climbing gently at first through a side canyon meadow, then more steeply through mostly mature pine forest with great views of the Horse Mountain ridge to the highest elevation of the City land near the shared boundary with BLM land to the south. This trail loops back on itself near the highpoint. RFMBA will evolve the mapped design for this trail to include directional up I down trail segments within the initial 114 mile of the side canyon meadow (estimated linear footage is included) 0 South Canyon Trail Plan Legend ti Tral!hud + Bridge H H!sloric Site 'Oo Hol Spring Flagged Trails ' ~Green-Beg!nnerTrall "'-.J Blue-lntermedlateTrail ,......,,,,__. BLM-conceptual Trei """" Phase 2· Proposed Trail ' ......... Historic Road Contours /-. ., 20-fool j ~ 100-foot ,,_--1000-foot -GunClub ~Landfill ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan },~ ~ z;:~-f?{''';?~t:,}"' ;;:.~~~;;:-~,~co"c-v1?;~ ~,;f,JJl''"';v"""~"°"~,="' ~" -,, ''"' :::~~ ~"' "'"'"" • , ";:~-~" J - '~ "",·m~R1 ~ .. r1r ~'.~"~,"11 fl I~~ m I~ II S. . . -" ~ -"" ~, ' ,_ " -" ):'-, ~<: ',, :: v ~" 1 t:c > ~'" ·,, ' ' " ' " -' ,~ ~;;:. 'frail Type Name: Backcountry Trail (Coal Camp and Phase 2 Trails) Difficulty Rating: Moderate to Most Difficult Difficulty Symbol: Blue Square or Black Diamond Typical '!read Width: 12"-36" Typical Corridor Width: 24"-60" Tread Rugosity: Relatively smooth, some roots or rocks, protrusions <12" above trail tread Average Gradient: <10% Maximum Sustained Grade: 15% Maximum Grade: 20% with surface treatment Typical Tread Materials: Natural surface with surfacing amendments where necessary Sideslope Steepness: Flat to 75% Turn Radius: Wide and open 'Irail/Sh·ucture Formality: Informal, 24" width Wet Area Crossing Formality: Informal bridges for minor/major crossings, 24" minimum width Duty of Care: Low TREAD WIDTII VARIES:MIN.12", MA.'C.36" TREF.SASANCHORS, NOT lESS 'IHAN 36" CORRIDOR 'IRAIL 'JREAD SURr-ACE, ,·~"·Ii·' ,-=~~TOCOVERALL lf!V-~if2f BACKSLOPBANDSPOILS . ~-'!f1 i<A 81'0.\ffilUNDERSTORY , . , TRAIL ANCHORS, Nor LESS TIIAN 24" PROIRUSIONS IN TRAIL TREAD IESS TIIAN 12" ~i--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-N-x-...s v PLAN DETAIL: BACKCOUNTRY TRAIL-TYP. N.T.S SECTION DETAIL: BACKCOUNTRY TRAIL~ TYP. 13 I i 1: I I [ I \ I ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Plan 'fi-ail Type Name: Beg./Int. Flow Trail (Lightning Bug) Difficulty Rating: Less Difficult to Moderate Difficulty Symbol: Green Circle or Blue Square Tread Width: 48" -72" Corridor Width: 72"-96" 'fi-ead Rugosity: Relatively smooth and even, embedded rock protruding no more than 6" above adjacent trail tread. Trail features 48" in height or lower. All features rollable Average Gradient: 5% Maximum Sustained Grade: 10% Maximum Grade: 15% Typical Tread Materials: Natural surface, full bench cut. Maximum use of cut/spoil materials for use in trail features. Where adequate amounts or quality of soil are not present, bon-ow pits within 25' of the trail center line employed. All constructed features compacted in 6" lifts Sideslope Steepness: Flat to 75% Turn Radius: Broad radius, super elevated 'fi-ail/Structm-e Formality: High formality, 36" minimum width, width minimum of 2X maximum height Wet Area Crossing Formality: Annored crossings at grade, opportunity for constructed feature Duty of Care: Moderate 14 • RQU(RTA!ll~ NOTTOSCAI\: Part B: PROJECT DETAIL SECTION 10: FINISHED TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 10.1 Trail Design Design of any reroutes must be guided by the sustainable trail principles promulgated by accepted resources such as the 2004 edition of the /MBA Trail Solutions Guide and the 2007 edition of the USDA Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook. 10.2 Corridor clearing Corridor clearing shall be confined to within three (3) feet of tread and backslope edges. Refer to section 11.2 for new construction clearing specifications. 10.3 Debris Debris shall be treated as follows: Cut and scatter all branches and brush to maximum height of 18 inches; no debris left within 10 feet of trail; butt-ends of any sawed limbs placed facing away from trail. 10.4 Tread All tread shall be constructed as three (3) feet wide (four feet wide maximum) full bench whenever possible. If fill is required, it should be supported by a stone retaining wall. 10.5 Rocks Maximum size rock material to be left in trail shall not protrude more than three (3) inches from the tread surface. Exceptions may be made in scree fields or where only a portion of the tread is obstructed. All rock embedded in the trail surface should be stable. When used in structures, care will be taken to match rock to the immediate surroundings; grain patterns, lichen growth, etc. Excess tool marks on rocks are not acceptable. Non-native rock may not be imported into a work area without approval of City. 10.6 Woody material Woody material such as stumps, logs, and brush shall be removed from the trail tread. 10.7 Backslope Backslope of trail should be graded to 3 to 1 slope or better, unless impractical at sections of trail located within extremely steep sideslopes. 10.8 Trail, Finished Condition Hand finish and grading of trail tread, backslope, down slope spoils, and drainage features shall leave a surface that matches the texture of the surrounding forest floor while enabling water to drain of the trail. 10.9 Turns All turns should have a minimum radius of twelve (12) feet and can be either a traditional rolling crown switchback or, on slopes with a maximum cross grade of 30%, an insloped turn with an entrance and exit rolling grade dip. BO 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 10.10 Grade reversals A designed grade reversal or constructed rolling grade dip should occur at least every 100 feet and preferably more frequently. Any grade reversal must be strongly anchored to discourage short cutting. 10.11 Water diversions All tread should be outsloped five (5) percent whenever possible, when not possible due to purpose-built insloping, resource concerns, or obstruction, water can be directed down the trail for up to 50 feet before a water diversion location. 10.12 Invasive species Invasive seed distribution prevention -All hand tools and mechanized equipment should be free of invasive seeds and clean of any dirt and mud when entering a project site. When transporting equipment from a site with invasive species to another site it should be cleaned. 10.13 Mechanized Equipment Best Practices All track marks will be raked smooth. Machine travel on trails should leave no mark or tracks. Impacted areas will be finished to have a natural shape -spoils piles rounded, smoothed and cleared of significant brush, blade edges blended. When applicable, machinery shall not travel over finished trail construction for removal from the project site. A spill kit will be onsite whenever mechanized equipment is operated. Scarring of trees is to be avoided. Significant and repeated scarring may result in a financial penalty of $100 per tree over 4" diameter at breast height ("DBH"). SECTION 11: UNIT DEFINITIONS AND DETAIL DRAWINGS Any accompanying figures are for illustrative purposes only and do not relieve Contractor of the need to satisfy written requirements. 11.1 Trail Flagging Trail corridor should be pin flagged at a minimum of 20' intervals. All trees requiring removal over 3" DBH shall be marked with flagging tape indicating they are to be removed. The trail should have a grade reversal a minimum of every 100'. Trail should follow a rolling contour alignment and abide by the half rule. The trail grade should average 8% maximum and not exceed 15% to avoid requiring rock armoring. City and RFMBA must approve the final alignment before construction can commence. 11.2 Trail Construction Type 1 (figures 1 -4) Tread variance of up to 3" in height will be allowed in trail surface due to embedded rocks or roots. Each linear foot unit shall be considered 3' wide (4' wide maximum). Trail width specification applies to active tread only, backslope is not included. Backslope dimensions are derived from surrounding area such that they satisfy the earlier stated 3 to 1 definition. The trail tread shall consist of packed earth or rock. Any stumps should be excavated and removed from the trail tread. The trail corridor shall be cleared of all woody plants smaller than 4" DBH. Any stumps resulting from the clearing should be excavated and removed. Any downslope spoils must be distributed such that no berm is present. Spoils must be stabilized with a covering of forest duff. Spoils may be distributed upslope on hillsides with a slope angle less than 30%. Excess soil shall not be distributed into drainages or adjacent to streams. Any woody debris not used in trail BD 2017-066 RFQ-South Canyon Trails Phase 1 closure should be removed from sight of the trail or arranged to blend into the landscape. The trail corridor shall extend horizontally 4' from the center line of the trail to both sides and will be vertically 9' high. 11.3 Rock Armor (figure 5) Armor trail tread surface with stone pitching at least 1 O" deep. Stones should be stable and aligned perpendicular to the direction of travel. Variance in the surface height of stones can be no more than 1". Each end of a pitched section shall be supported by larger "bookend" stones embedded in the ground. Additional guide stones may be required if the final surface of the trail appears more rugged than the adjacent landscape. 11.4 Rolling Grade Dip (figure 6) Minimum length of drain portion is 6'. The rise must be at least 10' long. Differential between bottom of dip and top of rise should fall in the range of 20" to 36". Grade of drain must be at least 15% to encourage self-cleaning. If drain grade exceeds 25%, drain must be armored to discourage headcutting. Rolling grade dips must be sited at least 30' uphill from significant turns in order to reduce the effects of unweighting on higher speed users. Exceptions on these dimensions may be made on a site by site basis to accommodate terrain constraints. In certain locations smaller structures reinforced with large rocks that fit the character of the trail may an acceptable substitute. 11.5 Rock Retaining Wall (figure 7) Rock retaining walls should be stable and battered (inclined back into the slope) a minimum of 15% from vertical. All walls should have rubble backing of at least 6" in depth behind the wall to allow for drainage and to prevent damage from frost heaves. The base of the wall should be placed on firm compacted mineral soil or rock outcroppings. Any small stones used to "chink" larger stones in place should be placed in the back of the wall. The top of the wall should not be counted in the width of the trail tread. The top layer of stones should be stable and large enough to avoid being dislodged by shared use traffic. Deadmen (stones that extend from the wall into the slope) should be used to ensure integrity. There should one deadman for every 5 square feet of wall. 11.6 Rock Armored Ford (figure 8) Grade reversals will be sited prior to the crossing on each bank. Maximum grade on each approach is 30%. Armored tread surface will extend through the stream plus up the banks until a grade of less than 10% can be achieved. Armored tread will be flush with stream bottom to discourage failures from cavitation issues. Armoring will extended downstream of trail tread to discourage headcutting. 11.7 Switchback (figure 9) The switchback unit includes any walls, armoring, and drainage features associated with the structure. All switchbacks will be constructed in the "rolling crown" style. Uphill leg of switchback will have a strong grade reversal to maximize lifespan of structure. Entry and exit legs will have a grade of less than 20% unless armored by stone. Interior of legs will be strongly anchored to discourage short cutting. Turn platform will have a radius range of between 8' and 12'. Any retaining structures will be constructed of stone and comply with all Rock Retaining Wall specifications. If multiple switchbacks are required, they will be sited to minimize "stacking." Wherever feasible, insloped turns should be substituted for switchbacks with the approval of a City's representative. BD 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 11.8 lnsloped Turn (figure 10) The insloped turn unit includes any walls, armoring, and drainage features associated with the structure. Each insloped turn includes a Grade Reversal or Rolling Grade Dip before and after. The dips for these drainage features should be a minimum of 6' long and can have a cross slope of up to 30%. Uphill dip should be sited to minimize unweighting effects for higher speed users. Turning radius should be consistent and greater than 1 O'. Cross slope on the trail tread in the turn should be no more than 30%. Turns with a running grade over 20% in the apex should have a rock armored drain 2' wide following the inside the turn. 11.9 Reconstruct Tread Restore trail tread to match the new trail construction specifications listed above. 11.10 Brushing Trail corridor should be cleared of all growth to meet new build specifications, removing all growth. Branches trimmed at junctions with no blunt ends. Any stumps should be excavated and removed from the trail tread. The trail corridor shall be cleared of all woody plants smaller than 4" DBH. Any stumps resulting from the clearing should be excavated and removed. After brushing, resulting sight lines of at least 150 feet are required. Downed trees crossing the trail corridor should be removed and distributed. 11.10 Trail Closure (figure 11) Compacted tread will be scarified to encourage regrowth of native seed stock. Exposed soils will be covered with local leaf litter. Trail tread will be disguised with woody debris. If trail is incised, check dams will be placed to capture sediment. If trail is actively eroding, grade reversals will be added to stem continued damage. Trail corridor will be erased via the placement of vertical debris. If closure is significant, vertical debris must extend sufficiently from its end points to successfully discourage continued use, a minimum of 50'. 11.11 Modifications Modifications to the specifications may be allowed, however they must be made by a representative of the City in writing. BD 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 11.12 Figures Rolling Contour Trail Grade Reversal Figure 1: Rolling Contour Trail Half Rule Figure 2: Illustration of The Half Rule BO 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Sid eh Ill Location Full Bench Trail Critical Point (Rounded) Figure 3: Full Bench Trail BD 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Backs lope (Gently Blended) Backslopc (Gently Blended) Trail Tread (Outs loped 5%) Critical Point (Rounded) Trail Tread (Outsloped 5%) CLEARING LIMITS Clearing Limi!t (mm) l.oel!ioo u,..n -lldal>I SOod<T-lltlmm 1200 .. -·· t•? <•? (II') mu0e1r ,.. .... ,.. .... 24tl-T-ll? P? {I') =:i:;:r.':ir""1 m wllJUo llioclelring """" (Dolb dol<o). ltea!<Moll1tml0Dmnt(4") ........ -ltthcy ... ..-1"'cl<orfog lloUI< (Uollulo!Co). Sh~Hcigbl ~Muiroments• (mm) Stur.pl'ollltion SllcSlope s--"" Sides'-lcudillAor-to 10% ~...idOlritlg Sld"'°""°"' 10% 5!=.I" Du!Jld<l>e Side 10% .-. ..... Sldolopo-10% "' 'I. NOTB: Ref« to Sections 981 lllld 982 lbt addiliciaal$pccs. For Bnlob cuttlng.scctfon 981: When sldcslop<S cxcccd 25%, increase upbiU •loorins lbnlt by 300mlll (12') ml dccn:ae d<n>;abill cl"111iqi limit by 300mm (12'). Figure 4: Clearing limits BD 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 I UplilU --~ .. NIA IJ<#;J>hffi -....... NIA NIA 911-lMM·- Figure 5: Stone Pitching Stone Pitching Pitched Stones ,,.. Below Ground Anchor Stone BO 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Ramp Outslope5% Figure 6: Rolling Grade Dip BD 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Rolling Grade Dip Ramp 10-20Feet Knick Outslope 15% max. Knick 6-10 feet \Vall should lean Imo slope. Use only rocks md mlnm1 soil forOOck fill. Don't use organic material. Figure 7: Rock Retaining Wall BD 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 IM!opc lhc wnll. Break tho joints between stones. SHA!J_OW STREAM FORD AND GULLY CROSSIN.Q ROCK STRUCTURE NOT TO SCALE ~7:/ _L,_d:-'#f'~'!?' \ '\ \ \ Hond .. ptocOO roeks, 60kg minimum Ctodo btC-014 o mfnimom ot PLAN VIEW PROFILE -ROCK DAM t~ot'id-Ptoced Ro(k Dom. -tnste!l Stt9f)ifl9 roeks 60 Kg mlnkntim, O<ta;n;itt~ _::;;;;-.-- --..,.-,..._ EmbM t /3 of roe!< op th. iw:~ Str~mbt'd .CBOSS SECTION •/96 912-7 Figure 8: Shallow stream ford and gully crossing rock structure BD 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Rolling Crown Switchback Water drains out the back of landing. Tread should be inslopcd approaching landing. Crowned landing sloped 5% in all directions. Drainage Figure 9: Rolling Crown Switchback BD 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Tread should be outslopcd followmg landing. Retaining Wall Crowned Landing Grade Reversal Insloped tread through tum. Sideslope grade of 25% or less is best. Large drain allows trapped water to escape. lnsloped Turn Backslope blended with insloped tread. Retaining Wall Figure 10: lnsloped Turn BD 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Natural or Placed Barrier Large drain allows trapped water to escape. ! I I I I I ,1 I Create a smooth transition onto new trail. Block sightline to old trail. Install check dams to retain soil. Break up old trail tread. Figure 11: Trail Closure and Reclamation BO 2017-066 RFQ -South Canyon Trails Phase 1 New contour trail reroute. Reclaim old trail with soil, rocks, debris and plants. Old fall· line trail eroded and gullied. South Canyon Trails System Glenwood Springs, Colorado Sustainable Natural Surface Trails - Erosion And Sediment Control Narrative Land Manager: City of Glenwood Springs - Brian Smith, Parks & Recreation Director, 970-384-6315 Project Manager for CoGS : Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA) - Mike Pritchard, RFMBA Executive Director, 970-948-3486 Trail Contractor: To Be Determined. 1. Project Description: Construct Phase 1 Of South Canyon Trails System on City of Glenwood Springs land, with a short segment of one trail on BLM land. •Tramway Trail: 16,150 linear feet. 65%+ historic bench cut road to trail conversion. (3.06 miles, 771’ of elevation change, 4% average gradient.) Shared-use (foot, bike), beginner / intermediate- friendly trail beginning at the lower trailhead, crossing South Canyon Creek to utilize the best possible trail alignment on BLM land, then running up the canyon utilizing old road cuts and some steep slopes, and terminating at the upper trailhead.   •Lightning Bug Trail: 9,100 linear feet. 25%+ historic bench cut road to trail conversion. (1.72 miles, 540’ of elevation change, 6% average gradient.) Descending-optimized, mountain bike- focused trail beginning at the upper trailhead and descending on mostly moderate slopes between Tramway and County Road 134. Above a midway junction with Tramway, the trail provides the option to loop back to the upper trailhead. The trail would terminate at a junction with Tramway near the landfill entrance gate. •Coal Camp Trail: 17,600 linear feet. (3.33 miles, 900’ elevation change, 8% average gradient) Shared-use, intermediate level trail beginning at the upper trailhead, climbing gently at first through a side canyon meadow, then more steeply through mostly mature pine forest with great views of the Horse Mountain ridge to the highest elevation of the City land near the shared boundary with BLM land to the south. This trail loops back on itself near the highpoint. RFMBA will evolve the mapped design for this trail to include directional up / down trail segments within the initial 1/4 mile of the side canyon meadow (estimated linear footage is included).  Sustainable natural surface trail systems are designed to be low impact and low maintenance. Since erosion is the main cause for trail maintenance work, trail design and construction techniques have been developed specifically for the prevention of erosion. The trail surface is compacted soil and the trail surface width varies from 1.5’ to 4’ but is typically 2.5’ to 3’. 2. The following Sustainable Trail design criteria have been specifically developed as a strategy to control erosion. (Not all conditions and recommendations are applicable to this particular project): South Canyon Trails System - Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative Page !1 a. Trails are located so that they are nearly parallel to the grade, following, rather than crossing, the contour lines (Figure 1.1). The cross section of disturbance measured along the fall line will be typically less than 10’. b. Grade reversals (Figure 1.2 ) are provided at least every 100’-150’ This rolling contour design breaks the trail into micro watersheds and ensures that existing flow and flow channels are uninterrupted by the trail making it hydrologically invisible on the hillside. It also prevents storm runoff from concentrating itself and flowing on the surface of the trail for any distance. c. The average grade of the trail is generally 6% and varies between 1% and 10%. The maximum grade generally does not exceed 20%, but may exceed 20% in circumstances such as grade reversals and switchback turn approaches. d. Trail tread (Figure 1.3) is generally designed with a 5% minimum out-slope to encourage sheet flow. In some instances, the trail is in-sloped for short distances (Figure 1.4) to reduce sheer forces and to prevent soil displacement. e. A minimum 25’ buffer of existing vegetation is maintained as a filter strip between the limits of trail construction disturbance and water features. f. Trail alignments are graded so that water will remain in drainage swales (Figure 1.5). 3. The following Sustainable Trail construction practices are used to control erosion: a. The trail construction process is completed by a team working in close proximity to each other. The distance from the crew clearing vegetation from the trail corridor, back to the finish workers, is rarely more 1,000’. The team prunes the woody vegetation by hand and may install wattles if high flow drainages exist; next, the team uses hand tools or small machines to construct the trail tread and back-slope; lastly, the team disperses the spoils, tracks loose soil, and compacts the tread and back-slope. b. Disturbance is phased so that only small sections are under construction at any time. Soil is typically only moved a few feet from its point of origin to the down-slope portion of the trail where it is integrated into the vegetative filter. South Canyon Trails System - Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative Page !2 c. Back-slope stabilization: The area of the hillside just above the trail is the backslope (Figures 1.6 & 1.7). The height of the backslope is a direct function of the local terrain. The backslope is typically 1’-2’ high although it can be higher in certain situations. It will be graded to a maximum 2:1 slope whenever the existing slope is 2:1 or less. A combination of compacting, tracking, and furrowing is used to prevent slumping and riling and create seed-friendly pockets to facilitate re-vegetation. Jute mesh may be used to stabilize back-slopes steeper than 2:1. d. Spoils stabilization: The organic and mineral spoils from the excavation are typically broadcast in a thin layer down-slope of the trail avoiding drainages or swales. By scattering the spoils the existing vegetation is not smothered and quickly grows back up through the spoils. By mixing the native topsoil over the existing vegetation, the native seed bank is preserved and provides the seed stock for stabilization by local vegetation. e. Trail tread: the finished trail tread is a compacted natural soil surface that, due to the minimal grades and distance between swales allowed with a rolling contour design, is extremely erosion resistant. The trail is typically bench cut where the soil is excavated from the hillside providing a fill compacted by the machinery used to construct the trail. The outer edge is rolled at the critical point to allow water to sheet flow off the trail (Figures 1.6, 1.7) f. Frequently soil adjacent to the trail will be harvested to provide mineral soil for the trail tread. The "borrow sites" are filled with mulch and when located below a low spot or drain on the trail act as sediment traps during construction. These detain sediment-laden runoff from disturbed areas long enough for the majority of the sediment to settle out. They may be used in conjunction with erosion control practices such as temporary seeding, mulching, diversion dikes, etc., to reduce the amount of sediment flowing into the basin. g. Dips and crossings: Where water is concentrated either by the trail or where concentrated flow crosses the trail, such as at a turn or natural swale, rock armored crossings (Fig. 2.7 & 2.8), grade reversals (Figure 1.2) and knicks (Figure 1.8) are built to disperse the water, slow its velocity and spread it out into the natural filter of the surrounding vegetation. h. In wooded areas, where seed is unlikely to germinate, leaf litter is used to mulch the disturbed areas. 4. Standard trail construction: Natural surface trail construction is accomplished with a combination of machine and hand labor. Typical machines used can include: South Canyon Trails System - Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative Page !3 a. Primary Construction: 3’ wide metal-tracked ride-in dozer (SWECO 300), and / or a 4’ wide rubber-track mini-excavator (Bobcat 323 or equivalent). b. Other Support Machines/Devices: Ride-on and/or walk-behind haulers/crawlers to transport materials around jobsite, (various Canycom models, S25A, SC75, BFP602); skid-steer loaders to transport materials around jobsite and/or load haulers/crawlers (Bobcat T190); specialized implements such as a vibrating compactor to finish aggregate surface. Note: none of these machines will be used on this project. 5. Existing conditions: 80% of trail is in vegetated areas predominated by oak brush, service berry, and other shrubbery, while 20% is in terrain with grassy meadows. Side slopes vary from 10%-60%, but most often are in the 20% - 40% range. 6. Typical erosion and sedimentation control practices: Erosion and sedimentation control practices are used strategically to minimize impacts on the existing landscape. A 25’ minimum buffer of existing vegetation shall be maintained down slope of all disturbed areas to filter any runoff. All newly disturbed areas are treated immediately. Trail tread is graded and compacted to encourage sheet flow of water and any other bare areas are covered with native ground material. Seeding may be done as directed by agency staff or regulation. 7. Critical erosion areas: Critical erosion areas include back-slopes that are steeper than 2:1 and those areas where the trail crosses an intermittent stream or there is no adequate vegetative buffer between the trail and the water body. In these cases, jute mesh straw bale barriers, wattles, or found objects (logs, rocks, or brush) may be used to control erosion during trail construction and restoration periods. When jute mesh or wattles are used they will be entirely made up of decomposable material and will be left in place to decompose naturally rather than cause additional post construction disturbance during removal. Wattles are 6" to12" diameter and 6' to 20' long. 8. Tree removal: No live trees greater than 4” DBH shall be removed unless authorized by the land manager. Occasionally a standing dead tree must be taken down. Removed material is incorporated into the construction as described above. Fallen trees are turned sideways to the slope when possible to help break flow of water and create habitat areas. 9. Minor modifications: The trail alignment may need minor modifications in the field to minimize impact on natural resources and adapt to changes in existing site conditions. South Canyon Trails System - Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative Page !4 EROSION, SEDIMENTATION, AND LAND CONSERVATION NOTES: 1. Land manager will notify pertinent authorities at least 48 hours prior to the start of construction in accordance with the applicable state ordinances and policies. 2. Land manager grants the right of entry onto this property to the appropriate personnel for the purpose of inspecting and monitoring for compliance with this plan. 3. A copy of the approved erosion and sediment control plan shall be kept on the site at all times. 4. The contractor shall coordinate the location of staging areas with the project manager. 5. If conditions necessitate, land manager may wish to provide a temporary stone construction entrance at the location of the contractor’s choosing. A temporary stone construction entrance is a stabilized stone pad with a filter fabric underliner that reduces the amount of mud transported onto paved public roads by construction vehicles. #1 course aggregate (2 to 3 inch stone) is placed at least 6 inches deep on top of the filter fabric. The construction entrance is a minimum of 12 feet wide and 70 feet long. 6. The contractor shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all erosion and sediment control practices at all times. 7. The contractor shall inspect all erosion and sediment control measures biweekly and after each rainfall event of 0.5’ or more, and immediately enact any necessary repairs or cleanup. 8. In the event, such as unforeseen site conditions, that non-biodegradable temporary erosion and sediment control measures must be used, they are to be removed within 30 days after adequate site stabilization and after the temporary measures are no longer needed, as authorized by the appropriate inspectors. 9. During construction of the project, soil stockpiles and borrow areas shall be stabilized or protected with appropriate sediment control measures. 10. All work shall be monitored by project manager or land manager on a weekly basis and evaluated for satisfactory stabilization and re-vegetation. If a satisfactory condition has not been achieved within 30 days, additional measures, such as seeding, mulch, jute mesh, rock armoring, or wattles, shall be applied as needed to achieve a stable condition. South Canyon Trails System - Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative Page !5 SPECIAL CONDITIONS Occasionally, trail construction techniques may need to deviate from the typical bench cut trail tread. This is often done in seasonally wet or flat areas. 1. RAISED TREAD CONSTRUCTION: The trail tread can be lifted above the surrounding elevation by excavating mineral soil adjacent to the trail and placing it on the trail tread, raising the surface. This can also be accomplished with a stone turnpike, where rock is used to elevate the tread above soft or wet terrain. (Figure 1.9) 2. CROSSING EPHEMERAL DRAINAGES, WET AREAS, AND BOULDER FIELDS: A Puncheon is a wooden walkway used to create a reliably dry crossing when the trail passes over bogs, boulder fields, small streams or ephemeral drainages. It can be used where uneven terrain or lack of tread material makes turnpike construction impractical. Final puncheon design may vary depending on site conditions/ requirements. Additionally, rock armored tread can also create a stabilized crossing of streams and ephemeral drainages. Rock armoring techniques include stone pitching (Figure 2.0), flagstone paving (Figure 2.1) and standard armoring, where rock is buried just below the trail tread with soil or gravel on the surface. At instances where the swale gradient exceeds 30 percent, check dams may be placed to prevent headcutting (fig. 2.7 & 2.8). These areas will be monitored during construction. These practices will be implemented as needed or on a case-by-case basis. 3. In situations where the soils lack adequate strength or cohesion, crushed stone may be mixed with the native soil before compaction takes place. 4. ROCK RETAINING WALLS: Rock retaining walls (Figures 2.2, 2.3, & 2.4) may be used in certain situations, such as when building trail near a mature tree, to protect its roots by elevating the trail above ground, or when undertaking switchback construction on steeper sideslopes (Figure 2.5). EQUIPMENT MOVEMENT In order to prevent the introduction of sediment onto existing roadways and parking lots, contractors shall: 1.Not drive vehicles off of improved road surfaces of the city’s land. South Canyon Trails System - Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative Page !6 2.Unload and reload equipment directly onto and off of the trailer from trail alignment. Equipment shall not be operated on the improved road surfaces unless they are free of sediment/dirt. 3.After completing construction steps 1-10, return equipment to the parking lot where any dirt or soil that has accumulated on the equipment will be brushed off and dispersed like typical spoils, then covered with native organic material. 4.Utilize trail building equipment that is small (36”-48” wide) and does not accumulate more than a few pounds of soil. 5.Not operate equipment in wet conditions, which prevents the accumulation of mud. 6.Upon reaching the end of the improved surface by vehicle, contractors will typically walk, ride bicycles, or ride fat tire motorcycles along the construction site’s new trail alignment.  MAINTENANCE NOTES 1.Trim Vegetation: Keeping the trail corridor maintained helps keep people on the trail. Some forested areas require two corridor-clearing projects per year, clearing downed trees in the spring and clearing overgrowth in the fall. 2.Deberming: Well-built trails with proper outslope can lose their tilt over time and begin trapping and funneling water. Scraping the mounded dirt off the tread’s downslope edge and reestablishing a 5 percent outslope is a common maintenance job on most trail systems (Figure 2.6). 3.Knicks: A knick (Figure 1.8) is a semi-circular, shaved down section of trail, about 10 feet in diameter, that is canted to the outside of the trail. The center of the knick is outsloped at about 15 percent, which draws water off the trail. Knicks are typically built on gentle sections of trail where water tends to puddle. 4.Grade Reversals: Grade reversals require routine seasonal maintenance to remove organic materials and silt that occasionally collect in them. If left unattended, they will clog over time and become ineffective. 5.Wooden structures/puncheons: These structures should be inspected annually (or current agency protocol) for safety. South Canyon Trails System - Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative Page !7 Sustainable Trail Construction Figures (1.1 - 1.7) South Canyon Trails System - Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative Page !8 Figur e 1.1 Figure 1.5 Figu re 1 .2 f'u ll ~nch Trail Figure 1.6 ..... ... Figu re 1 .3 Figure 1.4 Figu r e 1.7 Sustainable Trail Construction Figures (1.8 - 2.4) South Canyon Trails System - Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative Page !9 • • Kn te l Fig ure 1.8 Rnl <ed Trend Cons lrucll on Fig u re 1.9 ~lont l~l<hln~ Fig ure 2 .0 '---Figure 2.1 Roc:k Re ta ining \\a ll Figure 2.2 Figure 2 .3 l-<..i, .m.. .... -....... -fiU_ o.·t et~ -..en.al Figure 2.4 .. Sustainable Trail Construction Figures (2.5 - 2.6) South Canyon Trails System - Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative Page !10 Figu re 2 .5 Bcrn1 Figu re 2 .6 RMTIP erosion and sediment control plan response from CDPHE From: McGovern - CDPHE, Maura <maura.mcgovern@state.co.us> Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 9:03 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: RMTIP erosion and sediment control plan To: Greg Mazu <greg@singletracktrails.com> Cc: Mike Pritchard <mike.pritchard@rfmba.org> Good morning, The Water Quality Control Division did see an increase in permit requests / inquiries for these types of projects last year. During that time I had spoken with Mike about one of the Glenwood Springs area projects and he had given me a copy of the Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative. Some things Mike and I had talked about is the division's stance that a lot of these trail improvement project are within other types of state of federal lands and typically have oversight from regulating agencies and that the goal of these projects often include sustainable trail construction meaning they implement erosion and sediment controls. This type of work has never been an area that the division has sought permit coverage and has used oversight and enforcement discretion. However, some of this trail work activity does fit the definition of construction and if over and acre or more of disturbance does technically need a permit. I am in agreement that the division needs a low risk policy for this type of work. A low risk policy would provide guidance on how to carry out these projects and implement best management practises that would result in little to no water quality impact and therefore not require a permit when the guidance can be met. I am meeting with my supervisor this afternoon to re visit this need as we are getting into trail work season. As always our resources are always constrained and any help from other parties is appreciated. There is a large contingency of trail work happening in the front range (Golden Giddyup Trail Crew)and some resources we could tap into in this area as well. I will be in touch after I have a conversation here at the division. In the meantime feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Maura South Canyon Invasive Weed Management The City of Glenwood Springs has hired contractors yearly since the Coal Seam Fire of 2002 to spray and help manage invasive weed species growing on City property. The success rate of control has varied from year to year, depending somewhat on the varying seasonal growing conditions and the migration of seeds within the City’s property. With limited funds, contractors have been directed to sprayed locations identified by employees from the South Side Soil Conservation District as containing any of the numerous species of invasive weeds listed on the Garfield County Noxious Weed List. Since the fire, numerous consultations with the Garfield County Vegetation Manager have helped assess and strategize the control efforts for the property. The mountainous terrain of the canyon has caused a less than optimal containment scenario. In some locations, aerial herbicide application is needed, but contractors are unavailable. It is estimated that ongoing control efforts will be needed well into the future. Following the construction of the new single track trails this and possibly next year, observations will be made and control efforts will be made to manage any new invasive weed populations. Submitted with this general policy statement are typical site assessment weed location maps and copies of invoices with chemical quantity and rate of applications from the 2017 control efforts. Al Laurette City of Glenwood Springs Parks Dept. Superintendent Sotth Si<le Conec1'V<<llon Ol!11ld 0 0.012!:1l025 0.05 South Canyon 2012 Created by Rid< Brooks 2ll12 UTM Zone 1983 Zone13N Ground Tn.lhed Imagery 20·11 ProJ)etly Boundatles •re not exact Dlrltlct Veg;tatlonMonllcrlng <o<1•«'1na l\.1tUrUI rnv.iuf('<NJ DistJict l11vasive Vegetation Monito1i11g tloxious Wood (l C\1trn"1100 tond13X Ii> J%rit11h wormwood I!> Oxeye daisy ®' lbundstongue O Comrrcn Mullein O MJi;:kthlstle Ii> Plurmlmthlal• Ii> ~""'" lmnpwo•d Ii> Sootdi 1hlalo 0 J>intedgomgrass DistJict Invasive Vegetation Mo11ito1i11g lloxious Weed c Sootch thistle CM,.k1hl'11• C 1•1urm1 ... thl•tl• .birded goatgrass C lbundstongue Cl Riss.tan knapweed Pere.,• C.wei- -MOt '. " '" ,0 Sotlh Side ConsEf.,,,tlon Dlstnct Ui'CC'S South Canyon 2012 Dlstnd Ve~otionMonitefing 0 0.1 0.2 0.6 •--=::i--==----i:===::::i1Miles 0.4 Legend District Invasive Vegetation Monitoring Noxious Weed 0 Dalmatloll toadfirot @ Absinth \'VOFITTNOod @ Oxetye daisy @ Houndstongue 0 Common Mullein • Musk t11istle • Plumeless lhlslle • Russian knapweed • Scotch thistle 0 Jointed goatgrass Di strict Invasive Vegetation Monitoring Noxious Weed I:] Scotch thistle c:J Musk thistle c:J Plumeless thlslle Houndstongue c:J Russian knapweed Percent Cover -1-10% 10-25% 25-50% -50-100% D Property Boundaries Created by Rick Brooks JJ12 UTM Zone 1983Zone13N Ground TnU1ed Imagery 2011 Properly Boundaries are not exact Sotth Si<le Conec1'V<<llon Ol!11ld 0 0.012!:1l025 0.05 South Canyon 2012 Created by Rid< Brooks 2ll12 UTM Zone 1983 Zone13N Ground Tn.lhed Imagery 20·11 ProJ)etly Boundatles •re not exact Dlrltlct Veg;tatlonMonllcrlng <o<1•«'1na l\.1tUrUI rnv.iuf('<NJ DistJict l11vasive Vegetation Monito1i11g tloxious Wood (l C\1trn"1100 tond13X Ii> J%rit11h wormwood I!> Oxeye daisy ®' lbundstongue O Comrrcn Mullein O MJi;:kthlstle Ii> Plurmlmthlal• Ii> ~""'" lmnpwo•d Ii> Sootdi 1hlalo 0 J>intedgomgrass DistJict Invasive Vegetation Mo11ito1i11g lloxious Weed c Sootch thistle CM,.k1hl'11• C 1•1urm1 ... thl•tl• .birded goatgrass C lbundstongue Cl Riss.tan knapweed Pere.,• C.wei- -MOt '. " '" """'"'Inn SOllh Si<le Cons<llvatlon Dl<llid 1'1-l-Ull\1 fe}!lOUf-OM South Canyon 2012 .-., .... _,,, .. Legend District Invasive Vegetation Monitoring Noxious Weed o D~hnoolon toaci~ax <!> l'bsnlh wnm WlOd <!> Oxeye daisy '® Houndstongue O Common Mullein !II M11ll< thistle !II Plumeless thistle • Russon knapV16ecl G Soolch thistle O Jointed goatgrass District lnvi.lslve Vegetation Monitoring Noxious Weed c:JSootch thistle c:JMu.1< thistle c:JPlumeless thistle Joint ecl gooograss c:JHoundltongue CJRussan knapV\6ecl Percent Cover -1-10% 0 0.037ffl.075 0.15 Created by Rici< Broot.s :<!l12 UTM Zone 1983 Zone13N Ground Tn.lhed Imagery 201'! Propeoty Boundaries are not exact N \ W l{~z.\-E --r.:,\)(' • Sollh Side Conservation Dlu11ct South Canyon 2012 Legend Dist1ict Invasive Vegetation Montto1·ing lloxlo110 We<)ll o ~almi!ll;o toadllnx $ .AMinthwormM>od • Oi<eye dai;y • Houndstongue 0 Common Mullein • MJskU\ii.tle • Plum;I"'• th~tlo • Ruula•k••P""•d • Soot<h thistle 0 Jointed goatgras:s: District Invasive Vegetation Monttoring lloxiousW- 8 S••l<hthlotl• MJ•k lh~ll• c::JPtumele:s:s. thistle Jo-inted goatgras:s: c:JHoundstongue c::JRuss;ankhilpvi;aed Ponont Covei iMMol4 0 0.02 0.04 0.12 •--=:::11--=:::11----=====1Miles O.OB Created by Rid< Brooks 2012 UTM Zone 1983Zone13N Ground Tn.thed lmogery20H P1opetly Bounclotles ore not exact Dlrl~ct Ve~tollonMonl\Cflng '""mi"" 1\.'ltUM rlli:.oof<:Co,,<J ," .. ',' iv,. Invoice ght solutions Date Number TO: City of Glenwood Springs Parks and Rec. 230 I Wulfsohn Road Glenwood Springs CO 8160 I Date Property 5/31/17 South Canyon East side Time: l.5 hour Application Rate: I 00 gallons/acre Total gallons used: I 00 Herbicide used: Milestone @ 4oz./acre Herbicide used: Esc011 @ 1 oz./acre 06/12117 00113 Description Spot spray Noxious weeds Targeted Weeds: Plumless Thistle, Canada Thistle, Bull thistle, Scotch thistle, Musk thistle, Dalmatian toadflax, Houndstongue, 5/31117 Time: 4hrs Application Rate: 100 gallons/acre Total gallons used:225 South canyon West side Herbicide used: Milestone @ 4oz./acre Herbicide used: Escort@ I oz./acre Amount due $150.00 spot spray noxious weeds Targeted Weeds: Plumless Thistle, Canada Thistle, Bull thistle, Scotch thistle, Musk thistle, Poison hemlock, Houndstongue, Amount due $600.00 Total amount due: 750.00 Eco-Right Solutions applicators License# 00907 Thank you for your Business ecorightsolutions@yahoo.com right solutions City of Glenwood Springs Parks and Rec. 230 I Wulfsohn Road Glenwood Springs CO 8160 I Date Property 05/22117 S Canyon West side Time 4 hrs Application Rate: 100 gallons/acre Total gallons used: 160 Herbicide used: Milestone@ 4oz./acre Herbicide used: Escort@ 1 oz./acre Invoke Date I Number 6112/17 I 0011s TO: Description Spot spray Noxious weeds Targeted Weeds: Plumless Thistle, Canada Thistle, Bull thistle, Scotch thistle, Musk thistle, Absinth wonnwood, Houndstongue, Spotted knapweed 05/22/17 Time 3hr Application Rate: 100 gallons/acre Total gallons used: 80 Gun club Herbicide used: Milestone @ 4oz./acre Herbicide used: Escort@ 1 oz./acre amount due $900.00 Spot spray noxious weeds Targeted Weeds: Plumless Thistle, Canada Thistle, Bull thistle, Scotch thistle, Musk thistle, Absinth wormwood, Houndstongue, amount due $150.00 Total Amount due: $1050.00 Eco-Right Solutions applicators License# 00907 Thank you for your Business ecorightsolutions@yahoo.com right solutions TO: City of Glenwood Springs Parks and Rec. 230 I Wulfsohn Road Glenwood Springs CO 8160 I Date Property 05/24/17 South canyon (east) coal seam Time ?hrs Application Rate: 100 gallons/acre Total gallons used:250 Herbicide used: Milestone @ 4oz./acre Herbicide used: Escmi@ I oz./acre Invoice Date Number 05/24/17 00 I 18 Description Spot spray Noxious weeds Targeted Weeds: Plumless Thistle, Canada Thistle, Bull thistle, Scotch thistle, Musk thistle, Absinth wonnwood, Houndstongue, Spotted knapweed Total amount due $1,050.00 Eco-Right Solutions applicators License# 00907 Thank you for your Business ecorightsolutions@yahoo.com Planning and Public Input Narrative Planning Process and Public Comment/Notification The City of GWS, RFMBA & local partner Two Rivers Trails (TRT) created the Glenwood Springs Area Concept Trails Plan (GSACTP) in late 2014, with partial funding of $1,500 provided by Glenwood Spring’s Conservation Trust Fund, per Parks and Rec. Commission recommendation. The GSACTP, presented favorably to City Council on Feb 19, 2015, studied public lands surrounding Glenwood Springs to identify challenges and opportunities towards evolving the local recreation trail system to serve a broader range of trail user types and abilities. The GSACTP identified Glenwood Springs-owned lands on Red Mountain and South Canyon as the best opportunities to provide additional trail-based recreation in the Glenwood Springs area. On April 2, 2015, City Council voted in favor of endorsing the GSCACTP’s recommendations (following similar City Commission votes), and approved funding of $15,000 for RFMBA and TRT to engage a professional trail planning consultant to develop the South Canyon Trails Plan (SCTP). Following City Council’s funding support, RFMBA and TRT secured an additional $10,000 from Garfield County’s Conservation Trust Fund, and $1,000 from Garfield County’s LiveWell Mini Grant program. In April, 2016 three public meetings (two evening and one morning) were held following Commission meetings (Historic Preservation, Rivers, and Parks and Recreation, respectively) to discuss the South Canyon Trail Plan. The meetings were advertised on the homepage of the City’s website with the dates, time, and location of the Commission meetings. The meetings were lightly attended. A number of citizens attending the May 6, 2016 City Council meeting, where approval/support of the plan was an agenda item, publicly spoke favorably about the project. The final plan proposes a trail system that includes approximately 18 miles of natural surface trails, trail specifications, construction phasing plan, and cost opinion. The plan’s creation during 2015 was influenced through discussions and outreach with BLM, Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Glenwood Springs Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and Landfill and Gun Club representatives. The Parks and Recreation Commission & Rivers Commission have voted unanimously to support this project and RFMBA and TRT efforts to secure future funding for the project. Public Feedback and Use of the project Feedback from the public at council and commission meetings has been very favorable. Only one resident has provided formal, negative feedback. While RFMBA was initially concerned that the GSACTP may be viewed only as a mountain biking plan, members of the public were forthcoming that it was a very positive vision for the City as a whole for improving the quality and quantity of natural surface trails. Presentation of the concept plan was met with many comments regarding the desire for more family-friendly, accessible, or lower elevation trails, like those that have been designed in South Canyon. Council members appreciated the work on this overall trails planning effort given the many benefits that other communities have seen after developing high quality recreation trail systems. Beyond the health and wellness benefits afforded for those living in Glenwood Springs, the return for this type of community investment includes the economic impact associated with increased tourist visitation and the vitality of new residents and businesses being attracted to Glenwood Springs specifically for trail-dependent outdoor lifestyles. Similar responses have been received from Garfield County and the Town of New Castle. As partners in this project, they have been supportive financially, understanding the benefits derived for residents outside Glenwood Springs, as well as visitation by traveling trail enthusiasts. RFMBA is actively working with the Historic Preservation Commission to 1) assure that the trail system development will not harm or encourage vandalism on any of the canyon’s historic structures, while 2) developing a trail-based interpretive signage program that literally “walks” trail users through the mining community. We strongly believe that this project is aligned directly with the desires of the public and public administrators and cannot wait for the feedback following trail construction. Resident and Stake Holder Outreach On January 17, 2018, before award of contract for construction of trail, public notice was given and special invitation to residents extended to attend a public charrette to discuss the proposed Mountain Bike Trail System and receive additional public input before the Parks & Recreation Commission. Jess Hood who owns property in South Canyon supported the trail system but voiced concerns over increased traffic, pirate trails onto private property, and trash. He was generally in favor of the plan but wanted to make sure there was a plan in place to deal with issues and who would be policing the road and trail. Dan Cancho with the DOW stated that the DOW was kept in the loop with the project and supportive and that the DOW is on board with assisting in enforcement especially enforcing trail pirating and animals on the trail. Jeanie Goay gave a report on the LOVA trail and voiced support for the South Canyon Trail System. The Parks and Recreation Commission made the motion to move forward with awarding of the contract to construct phase one of the trail system in South Canyon with special consideration in regard to oversite and maintenance of the trial. Staff were assigned to meet with County Sheriff’s Office and discuss enforcement of code and protective policies for the Trail System. Parks and Recreation staff met with South Canyon resident Tye Richardson to discuss the Trail System and address concerns including monitoring of parking lots, and possible increase of fire hazard due to more use of the canyon, and desire to keep the area day use only. Adjacent Land Owners Parcel Owner Acct # Malling Address 218301400962 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT R080935 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT, CO 81652 218302200018 COLORADO ANIMAL RESCUE R080024 2801 COUNTY ROAD 114 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 218311100075 STEUBEN. BRUCE E R081036 751 LATIGO LOOP CARBONDALE. 218311100076 HUFFMAN, JOHN F & LISA R081036 PO BOX 116 GYPSUM, CO 81637 218312300022 JOLLEY, M CARTER JR R070056 PO BOX 284 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. 218314300084 RICHARDSON, DARYL TYE RO4241B PO BOX 181 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 218315200024 PORTER, B F & M E LLLP R070059 2904 COUNTY ROAD 3I 4 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 218322100085 RICHARDSON, RUBY ANN RO42417 9177 HWY 82 CARBONDALE, CO 81 623 218323 00060 ROARING FORK PROPERTIES ROBOB99 75-5706 HANAMA PLACE STE I04 KAILUA KONA, HI 96740 218323300026 DELANEY & DUNN LLC R080517 649 PEONY DRIVE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 8I5O7 Mineral Rights There are no other mineral rights owners within the project area. Relevant Excerpts from the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Section 1 – Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination Goal #1: Increase coordination and communication between the municipalities and the County. Strategy #7: Work cooperatively within the region on issues that transcend political boundaries such as housing, transit and economic development. Section 4 – Economics, Employment and Tourism Policy #6: The County recognizes that the tourism industry is an important part of the regional economy and the County recognizes that the tourism industry is enhanced by (1) open space and scenic vistas (2) public trails and other recreational opportunities (3) public access to public lands (4) a healthy environment and habitats for hunting and fishing (5) green belts and open area between communities (6) clean air and water (7) local foods and local produce. Strategy #6: Ensure that tourism development is compatible with adjacent land uses and preserves the natural environment of the County. Section 5 – Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Vision: Open spaces, recreational trails and parks are available throughout the County and access to public lands and river corridors have been preserved and enhanced. Recreation and tourism industries are encouraged and supported in appropriate locations throughout the county. Issue *1: The County has traditionally supported (contributed to) the efforts of other organizations to create trails in the County. Issue *9: Recreational opportunities are an important part of tourism in Garfield County. Goal #3: Provide opportunities for the tourism industry to utilize recreational resources as well as to preserve recreation resources for local access. Goal #4: Support the development of a continuous trail system within Garfield County and along both major river corridors. Policy #1: The County supports the creation of an interconnected trail system in the Colorado River Valley. Policy #2: Any actions regarding open space and trails must respect the property rights of land owners in the County and must be based on the concepts of just compensation or mutual benefits for landowners, residents and visitors. Strategy #1: Work with municipalities and other organization to collaboratively develop a Colorado River Trail and preservation plan. Section 6 – Agriculture Goal #2: Preserve a significant rural character in the County. Goal #3: Preserve scenic and visual corridors in the County. Policy #1: Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated impacts of higher- intensity land uses with buffer areas between the agricultural uses and the proposed project. Section 8 – Natural Resources Issue *2: Many of the natural resources in the County are also under the jurisdiction of other agencies and extend beyond County boundaries. Therefore, a cooperative approach is required. Goal #1: Ensure that natural, scenic, ecological and critical wildlife habitat resources are protected and/or impacts mitigated. Our mission is to create and sustain the best possible mountain bike trail system and experience in the Roaring Fork Valley. October 24, 2016 Attention: City of Glenwood Springs staff: Debra Figuero, City Manager. Tom Barnes, Parks & Recreation Director. Gretchen Ricehill, Community Development Director. Terry Wilson, Chief of Police. Re: RFMBA & Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) recommendations for future management of recreation trail system in South Canyon. Dear City of Glenwood Springs staff, Please accept this letter on behalf of the Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association, a Chapter of the International Mountain Bicycling Association. RFMBA’s efforts to implement the South Canyon Trails Plan are taking a major step forward with the application to CPW’s State Trails Grant program for major funding of the first phase of work. We appreciate the City’s support of this project, especially through its commitment of local matching funds. This letter documents the need to establish a framework of regulations prior to the likely construction of this first phase of the trail system during late 2017 and throughout 2018. In particular, Perry Will, Area Wildlife Manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, has requested that rules regarding seasonal closures for wintering wildlife, and exclusion of dogs from the trail system be adopted. The dates and locations of these exclusions will be proposed by RFMBA and City staff, for review and input by CPW. Enforcement of these rules will be via review of tamper proof camera style trail counters and installation of seasonal closure gates. Pending rule compliance rates, enforcement strategies may evolve to best achieve desired management of the South Canyon parcels. If you ever have any questions or ideas about trails or our mission, please don’t hesitate to contact me at (970) 948-3486 or mike.pritchard@imba.com. Sincerely, Mike Pritchard RFMBA, Executive Director Imagine! The best trails on the planet – right outside your door! Executive Director Mike Pritchard Board of Directors Charlie Eckart Chairman Todd Fugate Vice-Chair Matt Layne Secretary Ian Philips Treasurer Art Burrows Nic Degross Jack Boyd Jim Pokrandt Adam Cornely RFMBA, a Chapter of the International Mountain Bicycling Association, is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.     Post Office Box 2635 Aspen, CO, 81612 www.RFMBA.org Glenwood Springs 2018 Trail Projects WBS TASK DAYS 249 1 Glenwood Springs Area 249 1.1 South Canyon Trail System 2018 248 1.1.1 Reflag Tramway alignment 20 1.1.2 Tramway Trail Const. by ST 43 1.1.3 Reflag LB alignment 20 1.1.4 Lightnight Bug Trail Const. by ST 33 1.1.5 Reflag Coal Camp alignment 33 1.1.6 Coal Camp Trail Const. by ST 44 1.1.7 Reflag Alpine Slide for Pricing 17 1.1.8 GS Community Dinner for Trails 0 1.1.9 Lower Bridge (design, fundraise, build)102 1.1.10 Signage design, order, install 94 1.1.11 Historic Interpretive Signage planning, order, install 197 1.1.12 CoGS: TH Gravel, grading, drainage 68 1.1.13 CoGS: Benches order, install 33 1.1.14 GarCo: crosswalk striping + road signage 43 1.1.15 Trail Camera Install & Monitoring 161 1.1.16 Flag Alignments for Red Onion, Gem, Horse Mt. Loop 113 1.1.17 Year End Review 0 1.2 Red Mt. Trail Improvement Project 2017 249 1.2.1 Trail Camera Monitoring 249 1.2.2 Trailhead & trail signage design, order, install.71 1.2.3 Seeding as needed.38 1.2.4 Volunteer Maintenance as needed.36 1.2.5 Year End Review 0 1.3 Wulfsohn Mt. Park Maintenance 80 1.4 Planning for future GS Area Trails 120 2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Glenwood Springs Area South Canyon Trail System Reflag Tramway alignment Tramway Trail Const. by ST Reflag LB alignment Lightnight Bug Trail Const. by ST Reflag Coal Camp alignment Coal Camp Trail Const. by ST Reflag Alpine Slide for Pricing GS Community Dinner for Trails Lower Bridge (design, fundraise, build) Signage design, order, install Historic Interpretive Signage planning, order, install CoGS: TH Gravel, grading, drainage CoGS: Benches order, install GarCo: crosswalk striping + road signage Trail Camera Install & Monitoring Flag Alignments for Red Onion, Gem, Horse Mt. Loop Year End Review Red Mt. Trail Improvement Project Trail Camera Monitoring Trailhead & trail signage design, order, install. Seeding as needed. Volunteer Maintenance as needed. Year End Review Wulfsohn Mt. Park Maintenance Planning for future GS Area Trails .Garfield County T6S R91W TSS R90W Garfield County Land Explorer Printed by Web User a Garfield County Land Explorer Garfield County, Colorado SS 1 inch = 6,019 feet 1inch=1.14 miles 0 .75 Ga rfie Id County 1.5 TSS R89W Garfield County Colorado www.garfleld-county.com Dlsclalmer 3 Miles Colorado This is ii compilation of records as they appear In the Garfield C.Ounty Offices affecting the area shown. This drawing rs to be used only for refert!nce purposes 11nd the C:Ounty i1 not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. © Copyright Garfield County, Colorado I All Rfghts Reserved Printed: 3/20/2018 at 8 :34 :21 PM Garfield County Land Explorer Page 1of1 Garfield County Land Explorer Parcel Physical Address Owner Account Malling Address Num 218301400962 Not available NEW CASTLE BUREAU OF LAND R080935 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT, MANAGEMENT co 81652 218302200018 Not available NEW CASTLE COLORADO ANIMAL R080024 2801 COUNTY ROAD 114 RESCUE INC GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 218303300088 Not available NEW CASTLE CITY OF GLENWOOD R083185 101 W 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS SPRINGS, CO 81601 218304300961 Not available NEW CASTLE BUREAU OF LAND R080934 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT, MANAGEMENT co 81652 218309100954 Not available NEW CASTLE BUREAU OF LAND Rl70320 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT, MANAGEMENT co 81652 218310200019 Not available NEW CASTLE GLENWOOD SPRINGS. R070068 101 W 8TH STREET GLENWOOD CITY OF SPRINGS, CO 81601 218311100075 2500 134 COUNTY RD NEW STEUBEN. BRUCE E 751 LATIGO LOOP CARBONDALE. CASTLE R081035 co 81623 218311100076 Not available NEW CASTLE HUFFMAN, JOHN F & R081036 PO BOX 116 GYPSUM, CO 81637 LISA 218311300020 Not available NEW CASTLE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, R080603 101 W 8TH STREET GLENWOOD CITY OF SPRINGS, CO 81601 218312100963 t..Jol available t..JEW CASTLE BUREAU OF LAND R070117 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT, MANAGEMENT co 81652 218312300022 Not available NEW CASTLE JOLLEY, M CARTER JR R070056 PO BOX 284 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. co 81602 218313300023 Not available NEW CASTLE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, R070069 101 W 8TH STREET GLENWOOD CITY OF SPRINGS, CO 81601 218314300084 3135 134 COUNTY RD RICHARDSON, DARYL PO BOX 181 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, GLENWOOD SPRINGS TYE R042418 co 81602 218315200024 Not available NEW CASTLE PORTER, B F & M E LLLP R070059 2904 COUNTY ROAD 314 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 218322100085 134 COUNTY RD RICHARDSON, RUBY 9177 HWY 82 CARBONDALE. CO GLENWOOD SPRINGS ANN R042417 81623 218322100966 Not available NEW CASTLE BUREAU OF LAND R080936 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT , MANAGEMENT co 81652 218322300965 Not available NEW CASTLE BUREAU OF LAND R070119 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT, MANAGEMENT co 81652 218323100060 Not available GLENWOOD ROARING FORK 75-5706 HANAMA PLACE STE l 04 SPRINGS PROPERTIES LLC R080899 KAILUA KONA, HI 96740 218323300026 Not available NEW CASTLE DELANEY & DUNN LLC R080517 649 PEONY DRIVE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81507 about: blank 3/20 /2018 &Garfield County TSS R91W T6S R91W T7S R91W Garfield County Land Explorer Printed by Web User [] Garfield County Land Explorer TSS R90W Garfield County, Colorado 5 RS . W R90W T7S R90W 1inch=12,037 feet 1 inch= 2.28 miles 1 .5 TSS R89W T7S R89W 6 M iles TS R88 .......... c:::::c:::::c:::::c:::::===i ·•· • Garfield County Garfield County Colorado www.garfleld-county.com Disclaimer Colorado This is 11 compilation of records 115 th•v •ppur in the Garfield c.ounty Offices affecting the area shown. This drawln1 Is to be used only for reference purposH and the County Is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. © Copyright Gar fie Id County, Colorado I All Rights Reserved Printed: 3/20/2018 at 8 :36 :11 PM City of Glenwood Springs 101 West 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Contact: Brian Smith Parks and Recreation Director 970-384-6315 NEWS RELEASE March 21, 2018 Construction to Begin on South Canyon Bike Trails GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO – The City of Glenwood Springs will begin construction of three new single- track mountain biking trails in South Canyon on this week in conjunction with the Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA). The City will improve and/or construct approximately 5.5 miles of trails for biking, hiking, and running, utilizing the historic road bed for portions of the trail. Three soft surface trails are expected to open for recreational use by June of this year. The three trails will include the following: a shared, beginner foot and bike path that crosses South Canyon Creek, a one direction mountain bike-focused trail intended for descending on moderate slopes, and a shared, intermediate trail with views of Horse Mountain ridge. Mayor Mike Gamba believes the new South Canyon bike trails “will be a welcomed addition to the City’s recreational trails as they provide residents and visitors even more options for enjoying their time outdoors in Glenwood Springs.” This property was originally used for coal mining from 1885 until the 1950s when the City bought the land. Interpretive signage will also be included in the bike trails project to incorporate the coal mining history around the South Canyon area. The City is actively partnering with neighboring municipalities and local bike-focused agencies on a number of initiatives designed to promote and enhance Outdoor Recreation offerings in and around Glenwood Springs. Colorado is #1 in the nation for recreation based visits. Statewide, outdoor recreation contributes over $34.5 billion in annual economic activity and creates 313,000 jobs, with the greatest amount of economic output from recreation in the Northwest Region, which the City of Glenwood Springs is a part of. ### www.cogs.us ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA Red Hill Special Recreation Management Area, The Crown Special Recreation Management Area and South Canyon Trail Projects Prepared by: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Valley Field Office 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, Colorado 81652 LOCATION. Locations include: Red Hill Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) (east of Carbondale, Colorado); The Crown SRMA (southeast of Carbondale); South Canyon (5 miles west of Glenwood Springs). See Figure 1. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS. Red Hill SRMA (east of Carbondale, Colorado): Range 7 South, 88 West, Section 28. The Crown SRMA (southeast of Carbondale): Range 8 South, 87 West, Sections 4 and 9. South Canyon Trail (5 miles west of Glenwood Springs): Range 6 South, 90 West, Section 2. DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA [ BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office APPLICANT. BLM initiated in consultation with the Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association and the Red Hill Council. BACKGROUND. There is a strong demand for beginner/intermediate mountain bike trails in the Roaring Fork Valley. Most existing trails are steep and technical, and suitable for advanced riders or intermediates willing to devote a lot of time to the sport. These proposed trail projects would provide opportunities for beginners and casual riders who are not interested in learning the technical skills needed to negotiate most other trails in the valley. Red Hill Special Recreation Management Area. Red Hill is designated as a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) with targeted activities of mountain biking and hiking. The desired physical RSC is back country, front country and urban, the desired social RSC is front country, and the desired operational RSC is front country, rural and urban in the project area. In addition, a best management practice to reroute trails that create resource damage and trespass on private property is included in the recreation appendix. The Red Hill SRMA is closed to motorized use and all mechanized travel is limited to designated routes. There is no seasonal use restriction in the project area. The Crown Special Recreation Management Area. The Crown is designated as an SRMA with targeted activities of mountain biking with off highway vehicle (OHV) use still occurring on certain designated routes. The desired physical Recreation Setting Characteristic (RSC) is rural and middle country, the desired social RSC is middle country, and the desired operational RSC is rural and middle country in the project area. In addition, a best management practice to reroute trails that create resource damage and trespass on private property is included in the recreation appendix. In the Crown area, motorized and mechanized travel will be limited to designated routes. A seasonal closure to motorized and mechanized modes of travel will be in place from December I through April 15 on the Crown. South Canyon. The South Canyon area is undesignated for recreation management. Undesignated areas are managed to ensure that visitors are not exposed to unhealthy or unsafe human-created conditions, and to minimize the exiting level of conflict between and with visitors to I) allow other resources/programs to achieve their RMP objectives and 2) curb illegal trespass and property damage; while maintaining a diversity of recreation activity opportunities. DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM · Colorado River Valley Field Office PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION. There is a need to reroute portions of the non-motorized route segments within the Crown and Red Hill SRMAs so they are sustainable. Designating the new section of trail in South Canyon will allow for safe public access away from County Road 134 to a future trail system that will be constructed further up the canyon on land owned by the City of Glenwood Springs. See maps 1-3. SCOPING. BLM national register for land use planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents lists NEPA documents that have been initiated. This register allows the public to review and comment on BLM CRVFO NEPA and planning projects. The public scoping period was open for 30 days ending on July 12, 2016. No public comments were received. PROPOSED ACTION. The Proposed Action consists of three separate trail projects in three different areas: 1. Red Hill SRMA -Upper Blue Ribbon Re-route. In the Red Hill SRMA the upper portion of the Blue Ribbon trail that has steep, eroding and unsustainable reaches. In collaboration with Red Hill Council, approximately 2,000 feet of new trail would be constructed and maintained. In addition, 800 feet of existing trail would be closed (see Map I below). The existing route would be partially reclaimed through the use of waterbars and check dams created with native materials. The remaining reclamation would occur naturally with the elimination of use. Construction is estimated to occur in the fall of 2016 or spring of 2017. 2. Crown SRMA -Buckhorn Traverse. In the Crown SRMA, Eagle County and Pitkin County have recently purchased the Glassier Property. Currently, the connection between the open space and BLM trail system consists of existing steep two track roads. In the summer of 2016 Pitkin County will be constructing a more sustainable non- motorized route which will connect to the existing BLM routes. In coordination with Pitkin County and Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA), approximately 2.8 miles of new trail would be constructed and maintained (see Map 2 below). In addition, 3/4 miles of existing trail would be closed to public mechanized and motorized travel, but still available for administrative use for grazing permittees if needed. Construction is estimated to occur in 2017. 3. South Canyon Trail Connection. In the South Canyon area, the City of Glenwood Springs has been working with RFMBA to construct a trail system on city owned land in DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office South Canyon. There is a very old road that lies to the west and parallels the County Road 134. It leads from the I-70 corridor to City property to the south. It crosses a small parcel of BLM land. To make the connection approximately 2,000 feet of trail would be constructed and maintained (see Map 3 below). Construction is estimated to occur in 2017. Design Features for all Trail Sections. • Trail Standards. The proposed routes would all be non-motorized with a tread width of 18"-36" and a clearance corridor of 5' wide by 8' high. Native materials in the trail corridor will be used for route construction and will incorporate switchbacks, berms, water bars, armoring, and other standard trail-design practices so that erosion and maintenance needs are minimized. • Grade. The average trail grade will be 10% or less. Grade reversals and appropriately spaced water bars will be used to minimize soil loss and erosion. • Slope. A 5% outslope will be used to prevent water from running down the trail. • Reclamation. Any existing routes at Red Hill or the Crown that might be reclaimed would be done through the use of waterbars and check dams created with native materials. The native materials used for check dams will consist of soil, rocks, debris and woody vegetation found on-site. The check dams would block the sightline to the old trail, preventing continued use of the route by the public. • Birds of Conservation Concern. If motorized trail building equipment such as a mini trail dozer is used to construct trail, surface-disturbing activities may not be initiated between May 15 and July 15 to protect active nests for birds of conservation concern . However the CRVFO wildlife biologist (or contracted biologist) may conduct bird surveys to clear trail sections so work can be performed between May 15 and July 15. • Noxious Weeds. The trail will be monitored for noxious weeds. If monitoring indicates weeds are present, then spraying and reseeding with a native seed mix will be used to treat weed infestations. • Cultural Resources. If subsurface cultural values are uncovered during operations, all work in the vicinity of the resource will cease and the authorized officer with the BLM notified immediately. The operator shall take any additional measures requested by the BLM to protect discoveries until they can be adequately evaluated by the permitted archaeologist. Within 48 hours of the discovery, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and consulting parties will be notified of the discovery and consultation will begin to determine an appropriate mitigation measure. BLM in cooperation with the operator will ensure that the discovery is protected from further disturbance until DOl-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office mitigation is completed. Operations may resume at the discovery site upon receipt of written instructions and authorization by the authorized officer. • Native American Human Remains. Pursuant to 43 CFR J0.4(g), the holder must notify the authorized officer, by telephone, with written confirmation, immediately upon the discovery of human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony on federal land. Further, pursuant to 43 CFR J0.4 (c) and (d), the holder must stop activities in the vicinity of the discovery that could adversely affect the discovery. The holder shall make a reasonable effort to protect the human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony for a period of thirty days after written notice is provided to the authorized officer, or until the authorized officer has issued a written notice to proceed, whichever occurs first. • Paleontological Resources. If any paleontological resources are discovered as a result of operations under this authorization, the applicant or any of his agents must stop work immediately at that site, immediately contact the BLM Paleontology Coordinator, and make every effort to protect the site from further impacts, including looting, erosion, or other human or natural damage. Work may not resume at that location until approved by the Authorized Officer. The BLM or designated paleontologist will evaluate the discovery and take action to protect or remove the resource within JO working days . Within JO days, the operator will be allowed to continue construction through the site, or will be given the choice of either (a) following the Paleontology Coordinator's instructions for stabilizing the fossil resource in place and avoiding further disturbance to the fossil resource, or (b) following the Paleontology Coordinator's instructions for mitigating impacts to the fossil resource prior to continuing construction through the project area. • Weeds. The trail will be monitored for noxious weeds. If monitoring indicates weeds are present, then spraying and reseeding with a native seed mix will be used to treat weed infestations. All tools and equipment used for trail construction would be cleaned to prevent the introduction of weeds. • Long-term Maintenance. Long-term maintenance will be performed with the help of partners (including RFOV and RFMBA). • Visitor Information. Trail users will be informed of the trail work through press releases and signage. The trail sections would be constructed by volunteers using hand tools such as pulaskis, shovels, rock bars, and loppers or a contractor using a mini excavator or similar motorized equipment. All construction would be supervised by BLM staff. DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office Map 1. Red Hill SRMA -Upper Blue Ribbon Re-route. Legend Mechanized -------======-------------·ffi 2!-0 MIO -Existing trail to be c 'osed and rehabilitaled -· -New trail 11hgnmanl N A DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM • Colorado River Valley Field Office Map 2. The Crown SRMA -Buckhorn Traverse . • -----=====::1111 ......... M~a 0 0 125 025 05 Legend --Full-Sized Vehicle • • • • FooUHorse Only ---· ATVAJTV (varying width&) • • • • Foot Only Motorcycle Mechanized Administrative Route Rohabilitllto N --New trail connection A DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office Map 3. South Canyon Trail. ---====i------Feet 0 3,000 Legend --lnslHwy --County --New tra ~ connocUon DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM • Colorado River Valley Field Office Midget fa ded Found in northwestern Colorado, including western Garfield County. rattlesna ke Sagebrush co mmunities with an abunda nce of south-facing roc k Ab sent/No (Crotallls viridis outcroppings a nd exposed canyon wa lls . Rocky outcrops are essential for con colo r) cover, variable thermal conditions and hib ernation. Due to the absence of critical habitat, occupied habitat, or known occurrences of any Federally listed, proposed, or candidate terrestrial wildlife species in the project area, the Proposed Action would have "No Effect" on listed terrestrial wildlife. ENVIRONMENT AL CONSEQUENCES. Proposed Action. The small amount of vegetation loss and intermittent, mostly diurnal human use of the trails would cause a slight increase in habitat fragmentation. A steep section of the Blue Ribbon trail would be closed and partially reclaimed, and a section of the Buckhorn Traverse would be closed to public mechanized and motorized travel. Trail rerouting, closures, and reclamation work should improve soil stability, and recreation use would be moved to more sustainable routes. Special Status Raptors. Any special status raptors in the area would be foraging over large expanses of upland vegetation and could avoid the project area during project implementation or when recreationists would be using the trail. Brewer's Sparrow. There are some sagebrush shrublands along the Buckhorn Traverse Trail. If Brewer's sparrows use sagebrush in the project area, birds could be temporarily displaced due to noise, human presence, and equipment during trail construction . The design features include a timing limitation to protect nesting birds of conservation concern. Vegetation removal would be unlikely to impact use of the area by this species. Human use of the trail would not be expected to impact Brewer's sparrow populations. No Action Alternative. Trails would not be constructed or rerouted. No new habitat fragmentation would occur. Steep, unsustainable trail reaches would remain open and not be reclaimed. Vegetation would not be removed, and disturbances from noise, human presence , and equipment ass ociated with trail work would not temporarily displace any special status species potentially using the project area. LAND HEAL TH STANDARD 4 FOR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES. Based on the Divide Creek Landscape and Roaring Fork Watershed Land Health Assess ments, Standard 4 was being met for special status species (BLM 2010 and 2011 ). The Proposed Action would result in a small increase in habitat fragmentation, but this would not affect the continued achievement of Standard 4. Soil stability should improve with the shift of recreational use to more sustainable trails. DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office Terrestrial Wildlife AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT. Diverse plant communities across the CRVFO support a variety of terrestrial wildlife that summer, winter, or migrate through the area. Wildlife need to move across the landscape for food, cover and in response to seasonal conditions. Human development and activities have fragmented habitat, and in some cases, created barriers to wildlife movement. Factors contributing to wildlife disturbance or degradation and fragmentation of habitat include power lines, pipelines, fences, public recreation use, residential and commercial development, vegetation treatments, livestock and wild ungulate grazing, oil and gas development, fire suppression, roads and trails. Big Game. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus e/aplms nelsonii) are recreationally important species that occur in the project area. BLM managed lands provide a large portion of the undeveloped habitat for big game in Colorado. Mule deer and elk typically occupy higher elevation, forested areas during summer and migrate to lower elevation sagebrush-dominated ridges and south-facing slopes during winter. CPW maintains maps of habitat for big game and other wildlife species. The three project areas overlap with elk summer and winter range, Red Hill is mapped as severe winter range, and the Crown is a winter concentration area. Mule deer summer range is mapped on Red Hill and the Crown, winter range and severe winter range are mapped at all three project areas, and winter concentration areas are mapped at the Crown and Red Hill. Winter range is often considered the most limiting habitat type for mule deer and elk, so effective management of these areas is particularly important to the health of populations. Other Mammals. Numerous small mammals could reside within the planning area, including mice (Peromyscus spp.), woodrats (Neotoma spp.), ground squirrels (Spennophilus spp.), chipmunks (Neotamias -spp.), rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.), skunks (Meplzitis meplzitis), raccoons (Procyon lotor) and porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum). Many of these mammals are prey for raptors and larger carnivores. Larger carnivores expected to occur include bobcats (lynx rufus) and coyotes (Canis /atrans). CPW has mapped the three trail areas as mountain lion (Fe/is concolor) and black bear (Ursus americamts) habitat as well as black bear fall concentration areas. Mountain lions are most likely to be in the vicinity when mule deer are present. Bats documented in Northwest Colorado that could occur in the CRVFO that are not on the BLM special status species list include pallid bats (Antrozaus pallidus), big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), spotted bats (Euderma maculatum), silver-haired bats (Lasionycteris 1wctivagans), hoary bats (lasiurus cinereus), California myotis (Myotis califomicus), Western small-footed myotis (M. ciliolabrum), long-eared myotis (M. evotis), little brown myotis (M. lucifugus), long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), Yuma myotis (M. yumanensis), big free-tailed bats (Nyctinomops macrotis), canyon bats (Parastrellus hesperus), and Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida bras iii ens is). DOl-BLM-C0-040·2016-0064 EA I BLM • Colorado River Valley Field Office Gallinaceous Birds. Game birds that may be found in the project area include dusky grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). The three project areas are mapped as turkey overall range, but not as production areas, roost sites, winter range or winter concentration areas. Waterfowl. The Colorado River and Roaring Fork River are used by a variety of waterfowl and shorebirds. Common species include great blue herons (Ardea lzerodias), Canada geese (Branta canadensis), mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), northern pintails (A acttta), gadwalls (A. strepera) and American wigeon (A. americana). Reptiles. Reptile species most likely to occur in the project area include sagebrush lizards (Sce/oporus graciosus), prairie and plateau lizards (S. undulaws), tree lizards (Urosaurus omatlls), gopher snakes or bullsnakes (Pituophis catenifer), and western terrestrial garter snakes (Thamnoplzis elegans). Gopher snakes can be found throughout Colorado in most plant communities, including riparian areas, semidesert and mountain shrublands, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and ponderosa pine and other montane woodlands. Western terrestrial garter snakes occur throughout most of western Colorado, usually below 11,000 feet. Smooth green snakes (Oplzeodrys vemalis) can be present in riparian areas, but in western Colorado, may also be common in mountain shrublands far from water (Hammerson 1999). ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. Proposed Action. Terrestrial wildlife could be temporarily displaced by the noise, human presence, and equipment associated with trail construction and reclamation, but these impacts would be minimal and short-term. Work would not be conducted during winter when mule deer and elk concentrate in the project area. Terrestrial wildlife can be displaced by and avoid recreational trails. The new trails would result in a slight increase in habitat fragmentation due to vegetation loss and human use of the trails. A steep section of the Blue Ribbon Trail would be closed and partially reclaimed, and a section of the Buckhorn Traverse would b e closed to public mechanized and motorized travel. Trail rerouting, closures, and reclamation work should improve soil stability, and recreation use would be moved to more sustainable routes. The Crown, including the Buckhorn Traverse Trail, is closed to mechanized travel from December 1 to April 15 to protect wintering big game. Due to the small amount of vegetation that would be lost, intermittent and primarily diurnal human use of the trails, and abundance of similar vegetation in the project vicinity, the Proposed Action is not expected to impact terrestrial wildlife populations. No Action Alternative. Trails would not be constructed or rerouted. No new habitat fragmentation would occur. Steep, unsustainable trail reaches would remain open and not be reclaimed. Vegetation would not be removed, and disturbances from noise, human presence, and equipment associated with trail work would not temporarily displace terrestrial wildlife. DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office LAND HEALTH STANDARD 3 FOR HEALTHY ANIMAL COMMUNITIES. Based on the Divide Creek Landscape and Roaring Fork Watershed Land Health Assessments, Standard 3 was being met for terrestrial wildlife (BLM 2010 and 2011 ). The Proposed Action would result in a small increase in habitat fragmentation, but this would not affect the continued achievement of Standard 3 for terrestrial wildlife. Soil stability should improve with the shift of recreational use to more sustainable trails. CONSULTATION. The CRVFO consulted with the following: • Red Hill Council • Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association LIST OF PREPARERS. Members of the CRVFO interdisciplinary team who participated in the impact analysis of the Proposed Action and alternatives, development of appropriate mitigation measures, and preparation of this EA are listed in Table 12, along with their areas of responsibility. T bl 12 BLM I t d. . I' a e . n er ISCIP mary T earn A th u ors an d R . evaewers. Name Title Areas of Participation Isaac Pittman Rangeland Range Management Specialist Carla De Young Ecologist Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Vegetation, T/E/S Plants, Wetlands & Riparian Zones, Land Heath Standards Greg Wolfgang Outdoor Recreation NEPA Lead, Recreation, VRM, Travel Planner Management Kimberly Outdoor Recreation Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Leitzinger Planner Erin Leifeld Archaeologist Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns Hilary Boyd Wildlife Biologist Aquatic Wildlife and T/E/S, Migratory Birds, Terrestrial Wildlife and T/E/S Jessica Lopez Geologist Geology, Minerals, and Paleontology Pearce DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office Name Title Areas of Participation Kristy Wallner Rangeland Invasive, Non-Native Species (Noxious Weeds) M(\nagement Specialist Brian Hopkins Assistant Field NEPA Compliance Manager REFERENCES. BLM. 2010. Divide Creek Land Health Assessment. Unpublished report. Colorado River Valley Field Office. Silt, CO. ___ . 2011. Roaring Fork Land Health Assessment. Unpublished report. Colorado River Valley Field Office. Silt, CO. 2014. H-8320-1 -Planning for Recreation and Visitor Services. Webpage: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction _Memos_and _Bulletins/blm_han dbooks.html. 2015a. Colorado River Valley Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Webpage: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs /land_use_planning /rmp/kfo-gsfo/colorado_river_ valleyO.html. ___ . 2015b. Information Bulletin No. C0-2015 -034. State Director's Sensitive Species List, June 22, 2015. Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE). 2012. Regulation No. 93, Colorado's 303 (d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List, (5 CCR 1002-93). Water Quality Control Commission. Available online: http://www.cdphe.state .co.us/regulations/wqccregs/ ___ . 2014. Regulation No. 33, Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River (5 CCR 1002 -33). Water Quality Control Commission. Available online: http://www.cdphe.state.eo.us/regulations/wqccregs/ Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. University Press of Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Ni wot, CO, USA. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 1992. Soil Survey of Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin Counties. Available on line: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/colorado/ DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Map Unit Descriptions for Aspen- Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties. Soil Data Viewer application. Available online: http://soils.usda.gov/sdv/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at <http://www.fws. gov/migratorybirds/ NewReportsPublications/ Specia1Topics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf]. ___ . 2016. Website: http://www.fws.gov/ endangered/. [Accessed on 2-8-16]. ___ . 2016. Western Ecological Resource, Inc. Special Status Plant & Noxious Weed Inventory, 2016 Mountain Bike Trail Projects. Prepared for Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association. DOl-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE SILT, COLORADO FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DOI-BLM-CO-N040-2015-0009-EA FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. I have reviewed the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action documented in the EA. The effects of the Proposed Action are disclosed in the environmental consequences sections of the EA. Implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1508.27) provide criteria for determining the significance of the effects. Significant, as used in NEPA, requires consideration of both context and intensity. Based upon the review of the test for significance and the environmental analyses conducted, I have determined that the actions analyzed in the EA will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, I have determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for this proposal. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL. /eriatl R. Hopkins Assistant Field Manager Colorado River Valley Field Office Date DOl-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office DECISION. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT COLORADO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE SILT, COLORADO DECISION RECORD DOI-BLM-CO-N040-2015-0009-EA It is my decision to authorize the Proposed Action as described in Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-CO-N040-2015-0009-EA. This decision will result in the construction and maintenance of a trail for non-motorized recreation activities. RATIONALE. The Proposed Action will contribute to achieving Approved Resource Management Plan recreation objectives for the Red Hill Special Recreation Management Area and The Crown Special Recreation Management Area. Improving the trail systems will enhance close to town recreation opportunities for non-motorized recreation activities. It will help meet growing local demands for mountain biking and other non-motorized activity opportunities. A planned and designed trail will reduce potential natural resource impacts. NAME OF PREPARER. Gregory Wolfgang. Outdoor Recreation Planner and Miles Gurtler, Outdoor Recreation Planner. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL. Date Assistant Field Manager Colorado River Valley Field Office DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office PROCESS FOR APPEALS. Any appeal of this decision must follow the procedures set forth in 43 CFR Part 4. Within 30 days of the decision, a Notice of Appeal must be filed in the office of the Authorized Officer at the Bureau of land Managemellf, Colorado River Valley Field Office, 2300 River Frontage Road, Silt, Colorado 81652 with copies sent to the: Regional Solicitor, Rocky Mountain Region, 755 Parfet St., Suite 151, Lakewood, Colorado 80215; Department of the Interior, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Board of Land Appeals, 801 North Quincy St., MS300-QC, Arlington, VA, 22203. See lnfonnation on Taking Appeals to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (Fann 1842-1) for further information. DOI-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA I BLM -Colorado River Valley Field Office DRAFT HISTORY AND SUMMARY OF SOUTH CANYON COAL MINE HISTORIC SITE GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO December 30, 2017 Prepared for: City of Glenwood Springs 101 West 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601 Prepared By Mountain States Historical Eric Twitty 1011 Glenwood Lafayette, CO, 80026 OAHP permit 2016-12 DRAFT CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW South Canyon was a turnkey mining operation that produced nearly one million tons of high-grade coal from 1902 until 1951. As can be imagined, the operation was a sprawling industrial complex extending along almost one-quarter of South Canyon’s length, a major drainage around three miles west of Glenwood Springs. The canyon began on the eastern side of the Colorado River, cut southerly through Grand Hogback for two miles, continued another four miles, and ended amid hills around 8,000’ elevation. Grand Hogback was named for its appearance and landform type: an elongated ridge with ragged crest, rising above surrounding terrain and extending tens of miles northwest. The ridge was originally part of a flat formation of sedimentary rock beds sandwiching at least twenty coal seams. Tectonic forces fractured the formation, broke Grand Hogback into a large block, tilted it to the southeast, and thrust the block upward. As South Canyon was eroded through the ridge, the coal seams became exposed in its walls. Coal experts found that four of the seams were extensive, thick, and easily developed for mining. An independent, private company bought the land and planned a major operation at the outset, investing a considerable sum in state-of-the-art facilities. A workforce of more than one- hundred extracted coal from the four seams and dressed it into commercial products, which were transferred onto the Colorado Midland Railroad for shipment to market. The workers lived in the company town of South Canyon, colloquially known as Coal Camp. The mining operation can be divided into four complexes. The first were mine workings around two miles upgradient from the canyon mouth. Miners developed the seams though at least twelve entries on both walls of the canyon, and also undercut each seam with lower tunnels known as haulageways. The workings were supported by a larger collection of facilities termed a surface plant, which included explosives and lamp dispensaries, stables for draft animals, and shops for blacksmithing, machining, and carpentry. A network of rail lines and chutes moved crude coal from the entries and haulageways into tipples on the valley floor. The tipples provided a first stage of screening and included bins for storage. The tipples were also a centralized collection point served by a rail tramway, the overall operation’s second industrial complex. The tramway was narrow-gauge electric railroad that brought supplies up to the workings and shuttled semi-processed coal down to South Canyon Station, the third complex. As its name suggests, South Canyon Station was an official stop on the Colorado Midland Railroad, whose tracks followed the Colorado River’s south side. The station fulfilled three basic functions. First was being an interface, or exchange point, between the mining operation and the outside world. The tramway delivered the semi-processed coal to a master tipple above the Colorado Midland, where screens and sprays sorted and washed the coal into final products. Massive bins held the products for loading into rail cars, and shipment to market. At the same time, the high volume of supplies needed at the mine were brought over from the Colorado Midland and stored in a freight facility. Another of South Canyon Station’s functions was generation of electricity, which ran the tramway, machinery at the mines, and lighting. The station thus included a small powerplant fueled by the operation’s very product, coal. The station’s third function was as the operation’s administrative center. Although satellite offices existed amid the mine workings, the station included the on-site company office, were, a manager, clerk, accountant, and administrator oversaw daily affairs and did business. DRAFT Figure 1.1: The aerial photo depicts the South Canyon Coal Mine’s four principal complexes: the mine workings including the surface plant area and Wheeler Incline, the tramway, Coal Camp, and South Canyon Station. Author. DRAFT Figure 1.2: The topographic map depicts the South Canyon Coal Mine’s four principal complexes. The map is the exact same location and scale as the aerial above. Source: author. DRAFT South Canyon shut down in 1951 after a half century of almost continuous output. The seams were eventually honeycombed with miles of passages and rooms where the coal was mined. The Wheeler Seam, the principal coal bed, began smoldering in 1907 and was never fully extinguished. The fire eventually spread and not only fouled the workings with noxious gases, but also destabilized surrounding ground. Despite plenty of coal still left underground, the mine had to close in 1951. As was standard practice for defunct coal mines, nearly everything of value was then salvaged for reuse elsewhere. What remained was a series of archaeological sites consisting of mostly building platforms, concrete foundations, and mine dumps. Sixty years of land use, heavy storm runoff, and natural deterioration heavily impacted the sites, with very little escaping major alteration. In 1994, the South Canyon Fire swept the area, adding to the difficulty of interpreting what had been one of western Colorado’s larger coal operations. DRAFT CHAPTER 2: COAL AND WHY IT WAS MINED Geological Formation of Coal Seams Coal is a carbonaceous mineral occurring in broad, flat layers known as seams, locked within larger formations of sedimentary stratigraphy. Coal’s creation began in low-energy environments such as humid forests, marshes, and shallow seas, where vegetation and algae thrived, died, and accumulated in anaerobic conditions. The resulting beds of peat and vegetal matter sank and became buried underneath sediment eroded off nearby landforms such as older mountains. Deposition occurred over the course of eons, with sea-level rising and falling, until the beds were underneath various sequences of mud and sand thousands of feet thick. Over millions of years, intense pressure imposed by deep burial compressed the peat into coal, and similarly sand into sandstone and mud into shale and mudstone. In the Rocky Mountain West, tectonic forces slowly heaved the sedimentary sequences upward as a vast, gentle arch-like skirt around still-eroding mountains. Erosion began incising drainages and canyons into the arch, while tectonic forces and associated volcanism began heaving the current Rocky Mountain chain upward. These factors altered the deeply buried coal beds through great heat and super- compression. The mountain chain then broke through the arch and caused considerable disruption, unevenly and chaotically in localized areas. Today’s Roaring Fork and Colorado River valleys in Garfield and Pitkin counties were among those uneven and chaotic areas. The once-flat sedimentary formations were fractured into massive blocks that rose and tilted. One particular series of broken, sedimentary blocks angled approximately 45 degrees and created a ridge known as the Grand Hogback. The ridge, with its elongated, ragged summit, began at Glenwood Springs and extended northwest for tens of miles, and then north beyond the town of Meeker. Around Glenwood Springs, the blocks tilted southeast, exposing their sedimentary layer sequence along their crenellated northeastern faces. With more time, a stream cut South Canyon through the ridge, exposing a neat cross-section of the angled beds, which included an impressive twenty seams of coal. Most seams were only several inches thick, but four were 5’ to 13’ wide and pure enough to be worth mining. Figure 2.1: The profile depicts the typical geological environment in which coal seams formed. The overall structure is a layer-cake of sedimentary rock strata predating and post-dating the peat beds that compressed into coal. Source: author. DRAFT Types of Coal The term coal refers to an umbrella category of mineral based on high-carbon content. Variables such as original parent material, age, burial depth, and geological events ensured that the coal in each seam differed from region to region. Despite this, most coal could be classified into discrete types based on specific characteristics. The types and their characteristics are, softest to hardest: Lignite was a product of low-pressure, low-heat geological conditions, such as shallow burial and long-term stability. The softest marketable coal, lignite was friable, crumbly, dark brown, and featured lenses of impurities such as shale and slate. As a result, lignite burned with a meager, highly soot y fire that heavily polluted air. Consumers considered lignite to be the most inferior and undesirable grade, but settled for the stuff when nothing else was available. It was also the least expensive. Bituminous coal developed under fairly high pressure but little heat. When mined, the type readily broke into somewhat lustrous lumps easily parted from shale and slate lenses. Bituminous coal was a favorite for general use because it was inexpensive and burned with greater heat and fewer byproducts than lignite. Bituminous coal was also the most common type, occurring nationwide, including along the eastern and western skirts of the Rocky Mountains. Hard bituminous coal developed under great pressure and heat associated with mountain- building. Few regions in the United States outside of the West experienced the necessary conditions, and so hard bituminous was fairly rare. The seams were easily mined and offered few major impurities, and the type shattered into lustrous, ragged lumps that burned with intense heat and few byproducts. Hard bituminous was thus highly sought for a variety of uses, domestic and industrial, and yet was not immensely more expensive than ordinary bituminous. Colorado’s important hard bituminous sources were mostly Trinidad (Huerfano County), Crested Butte and North Fork Valley (Gunnison County), the Grand Hogback (Garfield County), and South Canyon. Figure 2.2: The profile depicts the geological environment of South Canyon, in which mountain- building events tilted the sedimentary beds southeasterly. Source: author. DRAFT Anthracite was the hardest and cleanest coal, both in composition and in its seams. Anthracite began as low-sulfur bituminous coal, and metamorphosed under severe pressure and heat imposed by volcanism and high-energy mountain-building. The type became very hard, dense, shiny, and had few impurities. Anthracite could be somewhat difficult to ignite, but burned with intense heat while releasing very few byproducts. Given its superior performance, anthracite was prized for specialized industrial uses such as smelting, assaying, and blacksmithing, where contaminants from lesser grades were a problem. Favorable geological conditions were even more limited than with hard bituminous, anthracite being found primarily in Pennsylvania, and secondarily in Gunnison County. Rarity made anthracite too expensive for common use. Coke was a manufactured substitute for anthracite coal in metallurgical uses such as smelting, assaying, and blacksmithing. Hard bituminous coal was roasted and partially burned in masonry coking furnaces. Deftly controlling the admission of oxygen into the furnaces prevented the coal from fully igniting, but allowed impurities to burn off or evolve into stable compounds. Low-oxygen smoldering converted the coal into porous, rough lumps with high carbon content and plenty of air spaces. With anthracite rare, difficult to obtain, and costly, coke became a principal fuel for Colorado’s smelting and assaying industries. Coke was made in most hard bituminous areas, including Cardiff near Glenwood Springs, and Redstone south of Carbondale. South Canyon coal was shipped to these and other coking centers. Coal Consumers in Colorado Coal literally powered Colorado between the 1870s and 1940s. During the 1860s, the first wave of settlers derived energy from cordwood hacked out of forests around mining districts and growing towns. But the easily logged forests became cut over as the ax followed frontier expansion, and towns and industry, which went together, turned to coal. The transition began during the 1870s in larger towns and especially plains cities, where cordwood was evermore expensive, and coal seams often nearby. The change progressed more slowly in remote mining districts because coal had to be hauled in at great cost. Regardless, coal was universally preferred because it burned with greater and more consistent heat, and was even necessary for some industrial uses. In Colorado, the demand for coal 1870s-1940s can be described according to five broad categories. Each had its own preferred types. Domestic heat and cooking were among the greatest demands. Residents burned coal in stoves to cook food and heat houses, businesses, workplaces. Bituminous coal was preferred for its low cost and fairly clean flame, and the plentitude often satisfied the demand. But bituminous was not always available, and some people were unable to pay the price. They substituted cheap lignite, which often smoldered, created sooty smoke, emitted a strong odor, and left mounds of ash. Steam power was the motive source for nearly all industry in Colorado into the 1910s, when electricity began providing an alternative in major towns, cities, and some mining DRAFT districts. As its name suggests, a boiler was a steel vessel in which heat converted water into steam, in turn plumbed to a stationary steam engine. In factories, mines, printers, and most other businesses that used machinery, steam engines provided motive power via systems of drive-belts. Forests of smokestacks marked the industrial centers in all towns and cities. Bituminous coal was the most common fuel because of its availability, but hard bituminous was preferred for its greater heat, clean flame, and fairly low ash content. The type thus was alternately known as steam coal. To save costs, some high- volume consumers such as heavy industry and large mines substituted lignite, but only after completing required boiler modifications. Railroad engines were the only means of moving people and freight in volume in the West, until automobiles became common during the 1920s. Well-known today, railroad engines were no more than steam engines on wheels, and burned the same grades of coal as industry. Blacksmithing and assaying had stringent fuel requirements. Blacksmiths found that most coal produced byproducts that interfered with iron composition, tempering, and hardening. Similarly, most coal contaminated mineral assays and skewed readings of ore samples. Blacksmiths and assayers thus turned to coke, anthracite coal, and sometimes charcoal. All burned with intense heat and remarkably clean flame. Because blacksmiths and assayers worked throughout Colorado, their net consumption cannot be overstated. Smelting had fuel requirements similar to assaying. Notoriously finnicky, smelting was an exacting process of melting ore in balanced, superheated chemical equations. Once melted, the mineral constituents separated out and the desired gold and silver could be recovered. If contaminants from dirty fuel unbalanced the chemistry within a furnace, the desired metals would not separate, and the process would be a costly failure. In addition, the fuel had to burn hot enough to melt hard rock, and only coke or anthracite would do. It should also be noted that charcoal was used as well. Smelting was of supreme significance in Colorado because it underwrote the mining industry, which was the state’s economic foundation. The demand for coal among the five categories grew in Colorado from the 1870s through the 1910s and then shifted. The mining industry contracted sharply around 1920, and with it, the consumption among assayers and smelters. Similarly, blacksmithing declined after 1920 as inexpensive hardware and machine parts came available, and automobiles began replacing horses. But three new factors offset the decrease in smelting, assaying, and blacksmithing. First, Colorado’s population grew, and bought more coal. Second, engineers had developed several broad electrical grids in the state, and built a number of new powerplants fired by coal. Last, coal companies increasingly exported their products to other states for domestic use, industry, power, and smelting. Coal mining thus remained strong into the late 1940s. DRAFT CHAPTER 3: HOW COAL WAS MINED Coal mines were, in a sense, fuel production factories. Their goal was to extract as much coal as possible with minimal deadwork and at low cost. In simple terms, the steps involved developing a seam, cleaning it out of all marketable material, sorting the crude coal into different lump sizes for consumer groups, and moving the finished products to a shipping point. Wagons or railroads then hauled the products to distributors or directly to high-volume consumers. In size and sophistication, coal mines tended to be at the poles of a spectrum, with relatively few in the middle. Whereas gold and silver mines ranged widely, coal mines were either remarkable small and primitive, or massive and complicated operations. A consistently low price for coal was the reason, bituminous coal fetching only around $1.10 per ton until 1917, when the price peaked around $4.15 with manufacturing for World War I. The price then hovered around $2.00 per ton through the 1920s and 1930s.1 Local operators dominated the small and primitive end of the spectrum. Partnerships and tiny companies based in communities near seams mined to satisfy an immediate customer base. They responded to coal’s low price by simplifying as much as possible to minimize costs. The mines were basic, labor-intensive, and had only the barest surface facilities, limited to coal cars and track, a blacksmith shop, and storage bin. Crude coal was sorted into two or three grades, hauled to market in wagons or, by the 1920s, trucks. These operations thus came be known colloquially as wagon mines. The workforce was limited to a handful of miners who conducted all tasks, and produced 5 to 20 tons per day. In contrast to the above, well-organized, heavily financed companies dominated the massive and complicated end of the spectrum. The mines were professionally designed and mechanized for a continuous output in economies-of-scale. As proven in other industries, the strategy hinged on producing very high-volumes of a low-value commodity at fixed, low costs per ton. The higher the volume, the greater the profit returned to the company. Medium-sized coal mines had difficulty because their output was limited while their costs were proportionally high. Coal companies achieved economies-of-scale by investing in large workforces, mechanization, and designed infrastructure to facilitate a constant flow of coal. Output of 100- 300 tons per day was common, and funds came from loans payable over decades. Contracts with high-volume consumers such as smelters, railroads, and powerplants encouraged companies to go big. So it was with South Canyon. Coal Mine Development Most coal mines followed a common, established template in how they were developed. In Colorado, seams tended to be flat or gently sloped, and so the template was straightforward. South Canyon was a little different, however, as discussed farther below. In their simplicity, wagon mines often featured one or two tunnels driven into a seam, with lateral drifts extending at right angles. Tunnels and drifts could be in the thousands of feet in length, and neatly divided the seams into blocks for orderly extraction. Short passages further subdivided the blocks for room-and-pillar mining, which was a ubiquitous method used into the 1950s. 1 Fred.stlouisfed.org. DRAFT Figure 3.1: The 1940 plan view of South Canyon workings encapsulates coal mine development. Long, linear tunnels extend from left to right through the Wheeler Seam. Lateral passages subdivide the seam into blocks, in turn, mined with room-and-pillar methods, reflected by the grid. The Wheeler Incline and its surface plant are at lower left. The Wheeler Incline angles slightly downward and right into the seam’s deeper reaches. Not shown are bulkheads and doorways at strategic points, which created ventilation circuits that flushed methane and other gases from the workings. Source: Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety. DRAFT Figure 3.2: A neatly tidied room within an unusually thick vein of lustrous hard bituminous at the Mt. Harris Coal Mine, Colorado, circa 1917. At right is an electric coal cutter, based on the same mechanics as a chainsaw. The South Canyon workings were similar. Source: DPL MCC-2669. Figure 3.3: A room shortly after blasting brought down the face, Mt. Harris Coal Mine, circa 1917. Note the boulders of coal. Source: DPL MCC-2668. DRAFT As the term room-and-pillar suggests, the coal was removed in rooms, with pillars of coal left in place to hold up the ceiling, which was usually an overlying stratum of sandstone. The character of the coal and sandstone governed how big the rooms and pillars could be. Hard coal and sandstone were structurally competent and held up well, and so rooms could be large, perhaps 30’x50’ in plan, while pillars were small. Timber posts known as stulls or props provided additional support for questionable ceiling areas. Flimsy coal such as lignite, or soft sandstone, required smaller rooms and fatter, closely spaced pillars. Coal seams were notoriously gassy. When freshly broken, they constantly emitted low levels of methane, carbon dioxide, and other gases that not only displaced oxygen, but worse, could be explosive. Deeper mines thus required ventilation, accomplished at wagon mines with a secondary tunnel known as an air-course. Driven into the seam several hundred feet away from the main tunnel, the air-course extended to the back of the expected development blocks, and had connecting drifts sealed with wooden or canvas doors to control air flow. As the underground workings expanded and grew more complex, the air-course alone became insufficient, and a ventilation fan forced air inward. Because fans and their drive engines cost money, mine operators postponed installation as long as possible, and sometimes never at all. As broken in the rooms, the coal was a mix of dust, gravel, and large and small lumps. Miners shoveled the crude material into one or two-ton cars and pushed them along a network of tracks. Spur lines exited the rooms and joined branches in the drifts, which fed onto a main track extending down the tunnel. In the rooms, the spur lines were in preassembled sections for easy removal to the next work area. When miners reached the surface, they dumped the cars into a bin outside the tunnel portal. Fixed screens that were integrated into the bin sorted the crude coal into several sizes known as lump, nut, and pea for different consumer groups. The coal first landed on the top screen, which caught lumps while allowing finer material to pass through. The next screen then caught nut sized material, and so forth. Each size slid into separate cells for discrete storage in between shipment. At wagon mines, a blacksmith shop, storage shed, and cabin for changing clothes and sometimes as living quarters stood nearby. Over time, the underground workings expanded as seam blocks were mined out. Rail lines were dismantled and moved to develop new blocks, which were rarely fully square or rectangular. Irregularities in the seam created dead areas that were left alone. Once a designated seam section had been mined out, the pillars were robbed, meaning they were removed to fully and finally exhaust the area. The task was one of the most dangerous a miner could face. Stulls were hammered into place to hold up the ceiling, sometimes augmented with stacked sandstone slabs, and the pillar taken down. Usually, the supports held, but were expected to be temporary. The ceiling eventually collapsed and rendered the area too unsafe to reenter. Wagon mines eventually ended their lives when a seam had little left to offer, or when the costs of working ever farther underground exceeded profit. If the seam still featured coal, later operators often reopened the mine when prices rose. The operators had to rehabilitate critical stations underground, and then extracted whatever coal had been leftover from before. High-volume coal companies followed the same general template as wagon mines, only on a grossly enlarged scale. The companies usually hired professional mining engineers who formally planned mines for efficient coal extraction and processing in economies-of-scale. Engineers used calculations to estimate the volume or tonnage of coal in a given seam, and then designed an infrastructure for heavy production, but not for more money than the seam would return over time. DRAFT One or two tunnels known as haulageways were driven into the depths of a seam. The tunnels were designed for continuous use, and so were broad enough to accommodate cars, foot- traffic, and utilities such as electrical, compressed air, and telephone lines. Air-courses were similarly routed through seams and equipped with powerful ventilation fans driven by electric motors or steam engines, depending on the reliability of the powerplant. The tunnels and air- courses were equipped with air-control doors and heavily timbered to fend off cave-in. The seam was then divided into a vast grid for room-and-pillar extraction by dozens of miners, often in day and night shifts. Professionally designed facilities collectively termed a surface plant were clustered around the tunnel portals. A surface plant’s size, complexity, and quality were a function of the company’s attitude and funding. On one hand, companies that were stingy, short-sighted, and conservative provided only enough money for small, poorly built facilities that restricted output. On the other hand, progressive companies with a view toward long-term efficiency spent freely on good machinery and structures. The South Canyon mine was among the latter camp. The system for moving coal from the mine workings, through processing, and to a shipping point was among the surface plant’s most important considerations. In a simplified overview, trains of coal cars were brought out of the main tunnels and sent into a tipple, which was a massive, multi-level structure assembled with heavy timbers. In the tipple, mesh screens separated crude coal into as many as six grades, which ended up in individual high-tonnage bins. Some tipples featured sorting stations where workers picked out slate, and they also might include washing plants that sprayed off dust for a more refined product. The tipple usually stood over railroad tracks so trains could haul the finished grades to market. If a seam was truly flat, then draft animals or electric locomotives pulled trains of cars into the tipple. If the seam was slightly angled, then a hoist run by steam or an electric motor had to winch the cars. In these cases, the tipple also featured a large-diameter pulley known as a sheave that guided the hoist cable down into the tunnel. Surface plants at large mines also included blacksmith, machining, and carpentry shops featuring appliances run by motors or steam engines. A stable housed draft animals, while supplies were kept in storehouses. When going on-shift, miners stopped by the lamp house, which kept track of who was underground. They gave their names to a keeper, who provided a numbered tag and safety lamp used to monitor oxygen levels. When coming off-shift, the miners changed clothes and showered in a change house, also known as a dry. The surface plant might have also included an air compressor that powered drills and coal cutters underground. Those mines with steam machinery had boilers and bins for their fuel coal, as well as plumbing for steam and water. Altogether, a good surface plant was designed for continuous use over the course of decades, and with minimal repair and maintenance. South Canyon had many of these facilities, which remained in service for nearly fifty years. Underground seam development and sorting in the tipple generated high volumes of waste requiring orderly disposal. A network of tracks amid the surface plant allowed workers to shuttle shale, slate, and inferior coal dust and gravel out to ever expanding dumps. Known as gob, culm, and waste rock, the material was spread in flat pads and lobes around the facilities. The greater the dump, the more extensive were the underground workings. DRAFT Workforce and Mining Coal The workforce of a mine such as South Canyon was stratified into specialty positions and run much like a ship or military unit. As can be guessed, an army of daily wage labor made up the workforce’s bulk, presided over by a hierarchy of blue- and white-collar management. Foremen were the on-site, in-the-field supervisors, wandering the drifts and making sure that tasks were completed well and the men were laboring as hard as they could. A good foreman had worked his way up through the ranks, and knew his workforce’s limit and chided them close to it. But the coal industry was notoriously rough, and foremen commonly transgressed into threats, insults, and even physical harassment. The foremen answered to the superintendent or engineer, who was busy resolving problems, overseeing projects above and below ground, and ensuring that all was well. Close to the top was the manager, who was well-paid and comfortably ensconced in a remote office. His job may not have been physically dangerous, but was among the most stressful. He was responsible for the mine as a long-term, profitable enterprise, in a constantly changing environment. If the mine went under, so did he, for he not only ruined his own immediate job, but also his longer-term reputation. To be successful, the manager had to be intimate with the mine’s operation, its problems, needs, output, customer base, cash-flow, and future. And just when a manager thought he had a grasp on these issues, new variables such as labor strikes or changes in a seam altered the equation. The manager’s job was stressful in part because he was liaison with company officials. At a minimum, the company consisted of a president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer. For capital intensive operations such as South Canyon, additional investors were included as well, with some members making up a board-of-directors. Typically, a few officers lived in Denver and understood mining. Everyone else was scattered far and wide in the Midwest and East’s financial centers and knew little of mining, but expected profits nonetheless. The manager faced an uphill battle of educating the officers and board, so they had context to understand his regular reports to them. They praised the manager when all went well, but blamed him when operations became unprofitable, even if caused by uncontrollable variables. Worse, the officials and board could be tightfisted, not giving the manager the resources he needed to mitigate problems and restore a beleaguered mine to profitability. Sometimes, he was faulted for not making the best of an unwinnable situation. Far down the ladder, labor faced their own challenges, often directly and physically. Prior to the 1940s, the work of an actual coal miner was dirty, dangerous, labor-intensive, and backbreaking, sometimes literally. Hazards depended on the individual’s position within the hierarchy. Some companies retained miners as employees while others worked with them as independent contractors, thereby shifting over the costs of supplies and tools. Being an officially recognized miner was among the most respected positions among labor. Miners often worked in teams and occasionally conducted all-around tasks, but mostly were instructed to just break coal. The miner’s workplace was the room, and the subject of his attention was the breast or face. In most mines, the method of undercutting was used to bring down the face because its minimal use of explosives lessened the risk of causing a mine disaster. As the name suggests, the goal was to undercut the face with a horizontal incision, which became a weakness that made blasting easier. The miner lay on his side for hours, swinging a light, pointed drift-pick and hacking out a slot around 6’ wide and 6” high. When one arm tired, he switched to the other side and finished the slot to a depth of around 6’. All the while, his partner DRAFT kept the floor as clean of coal chunks as possible and readied the implements for the next task, which was boring blast-holes. Wooden wedges known as sprags held the slot up, but falling coal crushed a few arms anyway. The adoption of electric and compressed air coal cutters during the 1920s greatly increased safety and production. The miners used steel augers around 1½” in diameter and 7’-8’ long to bore several holes in the face. The type of auger depended on the mining company, or on a contract miner’s finances. Cheap companies provided breast augers, which were much like old-fashioned carpenters’ drills. The breast auger featured a chest strap that the miner leaned into as he struggled to crank the auger around. Drilling by hand took its toll physically, contributing heavily to repetitive motion injuries and arthritis over the years. Companies interested in expediting production provided post-mounted augers screwed tight into the ceiling and floor. Some were cranked by hand, while others ran via compressed air or electric motors. The auger advanced into the face and its bit cut a neat, round hole. When finished, the miners took down the auger and prepared nominal explosive charges. The purpose of blasting was to break the face and bring it down into a mass of loose, crude coal on the room floor. In general, blasting powder had been the only explosive available for mining until dynamite was introduced on a commercial scale during the early 1870s. Dynamite performed well in hard rock because its explosion was a quick, shattering jolt, but was unsuited for coal. The explosion tended to reduce the coal into useless gravel and dust termed slack coal. Whereas dynamite became the standard in hardrock mining by 1880, blasting powder was used overwhelmingly into the 1910s. The miners made up paper cartridges of the stuff, tamped them into the drill-holes, lit the fuses, and calmly retreated for the muffled, soft blast that followed. During the 1910s, explosives manufacturers began introducing dynamite formulated for coal, and although the product became widespread by the 1920s, seasoned miners continued with blasting powder for another two decades. Muckers, celebrated in Tennessee Ernie Ford’s 1955 hit song Sixteen Tons, shoveled the miners’ coal into cars, which were two- to five-ton capacity. The muckers used D-handle scoop- like snow-shovels for their high-volume. The job was a young man’s because one’s back could only withstand so many years of hefting coal in a stooped position, as required by low ceilings. Trammers pushed full cars to staging stations, where the cars were linked together as short trains and sent to the surface. In the tipple, sorters provided an initial inspection of the crude coal and picked out slate and shale. They next broke up oversized lumps and made sure that the coal was passing through Figure 3.4: The profile illustrates the method of undercutting a seam. A miner lay on his side and used a pick to undercut the seam, creating an area of weakness. Explosives charges inserted into a drill-hole above next brought the face down. Undercutting was physically challenging but minimized the use of explosives, which was wise in gaseous mines. Source: author. DRAFT the screens properly. If the seam was dry underground, tipples could become choked with dust with each new load. Overall, sorters and general surface labor were the lowest and least-paid of the mine’s workforce. Skilled tradesmen were somewhat separate from the workers who produced and moved coal. Pipefitters, electricians, blacksmiths, machinists, and carpenters all manufactured what was needed, maintained the mine’s infrastructure, and contributed when new facilities were installed. Timbermen were responsible for checking supports underground, replacing rotten woodwork, and installing new stulls and props. They had to be part carpenter and part miner, and had a good eye for assessing unsafe ceilings. Apart from foremen, skilled tradesmen were the best-paid among daily wage labor. DRAFT CHAPTER 4: HISTORY OF SOUTH CANYON COAL MINE South Canyon’s Early Years, 1885-1901 The South Canyon Coal Mine was a somewhat late addition to an already thriving coal industry around Glenwood Springs. The town began as the fairly wild frontier outpost of Defiance in 1883, and transitioned into a resort community after a few years. In following the typical pattern, cordwood was initially used for heating and cooking, but local interests quickly began supplying coal from seams south of town. The mines were tiny and worked as-needed. Meanwhile, rich silver had been discovered in the upper Roaring Fork River valley, and the town of Aspen became center to a rapidly growing mining industry. Demand for coal grew with the town, and mushroomed as mines mechanized with steam-powered hoists and compressors. The Aspen Mining District became a sensation by the mid-1880s, as mining companies revealed geological systems of seemingly bottomless veins. Several visionary industrial entrepreneurs laid claim to coal lands around Carbondale and began production to profit from Aspen’s demand. Although Carbondale became Aspen’s principal source, the few operators in Glenwood Springs saw opportunity and contributed when they could make deals. But Carbondale’s proximity to Aspen, and Glenwood Springs’ greater distance, prevented much output. Aspen’s silver veins were so rich that they drew the interest of Colorado’s most powerful and profit-hungry capitalists, who formed partnerships vying for control in a game of Monopoly. On one side was mining magnate David Moffat and William Jackson Palmer, president of the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad. On the other was Jerome B. Wheeler, Walter Devereaux, and, and James J. Hagerman, who owned many of Aspen’s principal mines. Hagerman had also been competing with Moffat for the better mines in Leadville. Gaining control over Aspen’s mines was not enough for the above capitalists. They understood that Aspen needed a railroad to reach full potential, and each partnership wanted to be the first into the district. Whoever was first would not only secure the most freight contracts, but more important, would win control through primary rights-of-way. The partnerships also realized that a line to Aspen could be a foundation for a larger system into western Colorado. Mountain topography ensured that grading a railroad to Aspen would be no easy project. Moffat and Palmer had an advantage in that the Denver & Rio Grande already served Leadville, and the carrier’s surveyors had earlier charted a route down the Colorado River to its confluence with the Roaring Fork. With the easiest route taken, the Wheeler group identified an ambitious and direct path from Colorado Springs to Leadville, and west over the range to Aspen. The two partnerships began what became a heated and riveting race in 1886. The Denver & Rio Grande hastily began laying rails down the Eagle River to the Colorado. Wheeler and Hagerman organized the Colorado Midland Railroad and started grading multiple segments at the same time. The Denver & Rio Grande quickly reached the Colorado River, passed through Glenwood Springs in 1887, continued south up the Roaring Fork, and arrived in Aspen months ahead of the Colorado Midland. Although the Colorado Midland’s route was more direct, its extreme conditions slowed progress. While Aspen was the main attraction for the Palmer and Hagerman parties, coal was a close second, and an important aspect of their Monopoly game. Further, the parties were aware that Roaring Fork and Glenwood Springs coal was of exceptional quality. Palmer and Hagerman not only wanted the coal for their railroads, but more so as the primary industrial fuel that it was. DRAFT They planned to mine the stuff in high volumes and ship by rail to mines and mills throughout the central mountains. Some of the coal would also be coked for smelters and assayers. Whoever controlled the coal seams would have enormous influence not only in Aspen, but also mining districts throughout the region. Arrival of the railroads in the Roaring Fork Valley thus ushered in what has been mentioned as a coal rush. Although the Denver & Rio Grande reached Aspen before the Colorado Midland, the Hagerman party was ahead in terms of coal. No sooner had the ink dried establishing the Colorado Midland in 1886, when Hagerman et al. organized Grand River Coal & Coke Company. They began acquiring coal lands around Glenwood Springs and west down the Colorado River in the next several years. The Denver & Rio Grande was a close second, with its subsidiary Colorado Coal & Iron Company buying more seams in the Glenwood Springs area. The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad controlled the Colorado Fuel Company, which entered the coal rush, as did the Union Pacific Railroad’s Union Coal & Coke Company.2 The Grand River Coal & Coke Company began developing its new seams as soon as the Colorado Midland reached Aspen. The company established mines and coke furnaces at Cardiff immediately southwest of Glenwood Springs in 1887. Cardiff coal was immediately sent by wagon to fuel the Hagerman and Wheeler mines, and the coke to their smelter at Aspen. In 1888, the Colorado Midland pushed a line from Aspen to Cardiff and west along the Colorado River to the instant company coal town of New Castle. The Denver & Rio Grande had to compete farther afield and graded its own new track west to Rifle in 1889. The Colorado Midland was on the river’s southern side and the Denver & Rio Grande on the northern.3 Figure 4.1: View southwest at the Cardiff coke furnaces, circa 1900. Coal was roasted in an anaerobic environment and became carbon-rich coke, Colorado’s principal fuel for smelters. Source: DPL X-63191. 2 Johnson and Yajko, 1983:21. 3 Hall, V.4, 1895:131. DRAFT As an illustration of how investment groups treated industrial sectors as game pieces, the Hagerman party was not only interested in Glenwood Springs coal for their railroad and influence in Aspen, but also as an inexpensive fuel for their own silver mines and mills. Indeed, the Hagerman group was highly successful in assembling an empire of mines, mills, coal seams, and a railroad serving all. Although Grand River and Colorado Coal & Iron were competitors, their rivalry was not as bitter as it might have been. The market had plenty of room for both producers, who barely kept up with a constantly growing demand. The 1880s had seen the hardrock mining frontier expand throughout Colorado’s Rocky Mountains, with major industrialization in some areas. Accompanying the trend was an increase in subsidiary business, railroad traffic, and population. Glenwood Springs in particular was close not only to Aspen, but also to Red Cliff on the Eagle River, and to Leadville, Colorado’s second most important smelting center. Despite Grand River’s strong presence around Glenwood Springs, the company was actually small compared to Colorado Coal & Iron. The latter operated high-volume mines and coke furnaces around Walsenburg, Trinidad, and Crested Butte. Aggressive John C. Osgood ran Colorado Coal & Iron and played Monopoly in his own world of coal. As competition tightened and profits shrank during the early 1890s, Osgood, officials with Grand River, and Colorado Fuel and proposed a merger. The new organization would be large enough in finances and geography to control Colorado’s coal and coke market. The three firms came to an agreement in 1892 as Colorado Fuel & Iron Company (CF&I). Newcastle, Cardiff, and mines near Carbondale all became CF&I operations, with company towns and hundreds of workers.4 In the middle of Big Coal was South Canyon, and although it opened directly onto the Colorado Midland, south side of the Colorado River, the Hagerman group was unable to secure title to the place. The canyon sliced southward through Grand Hogback ridge and exposed an impressive twenty coal seams in its walls. Four of these were thick enough the be worth mining. Some sources claim that Glenwood Springs pioneer E.E. Pray first identified the seams in 1884 or 1885. Pray came to Colorado from New Jersey around 1873 and gravitated to Glenwood Springs as the town transitioned from wild outpost to a resort community with monied guests. He started some sort of business and invested in Aspen, through which he connected with Wheeler and the Devereaux family. Wheeler was seeking fuel for his Aspen smelter, and Pray immediately saw opportunity. He secured New York City investors and began mining on a limited scale as early as 1885, keeping his operation simple. The economic collapse and loss of Aspen as a market following the 1893 Silver Crash probably forced him to ease. By then, Pray was moving on in his life anyway. Curiously, he never sold South Canyon to Grand River, even though he was associated with Hagerman, Wheeler, and the Devereauxs.5 4 Hall, V.4, 1895:132; Johnson and Yajko, 1983:27. 5 “People Talked About” Leslie’s Weekly 1/13/1900, p28; Portrait & Biographical Record, 1899:767. DRAFT Pray went on to fame after his direct involvement with South Canyon, and yet still played a key role in the canyon’s industrial mining phase. He had been splitting his time between Colorado and New York during the 1880s and affixed himself in the latter place around 1891 as he rose to prominence. He lived in Denver prior to Glenwood Springs and made money investing in mines as well as the Overland Cotton Mill. When visiting Germany during the 1890s, he was impressed with community street fairs, which had evolved from church festivals. Pray exported the idea to the United States, enlarged it, and put on well-organized, multi-week events that made money in major cities. The fairs, participation in planning New York’s Central Park Gardens, and other commercial amusement projects took all his time and made Colorado coal seem less important than before.6 Boston-Colorado Coal Company, 1902-1905 While living full-time in New York, E.E. Pray became the connection needed between South Canyon’s coal seams and the money to develop them on an industrial scale. Somehow, Pray met investors looking for Colorado coal opportunities, and interested them in his South Canyon property, which had only just been scratched. Without sufficient time to manage South 6 “People Talked About” Leslie’s Weekly 1/13/1900, p28. Figure 4.2: Pray’s Coal Bank was South Canyon’s first mining operation, owned and run by E.E. Pray circa 1885-1895. A frame cabin and wall tents are in the foreground, while tunnel portals are in the slope base beyond. Source: DPL: X-17529. DRAFT Canyon development as the project it would be, he sold to New York and Boston capitalists in 1902. Presiding were Frank E. Holden, Charles H. Eglee, and Edward H. Rathbun, who organized the Boston-Colorado Coal Company. They realized that South Canyon offered a rare opportunity for would-be coal operators. Whereas other regional mines were already fifteen years old, South Canyon had not yet even been fully quantified. Examiners reported that the canyon had more than four mineable seams offering a seemingly limitless 30 million tons of premium coal. And, as the seams tilted south, they could be worked from the bottom up at minimal cost. With South Canyon almost too good to be to true, Holden and partners had an easy time rounding up funding for a major operation. They secured money outright and loans to be repaid in twenty years. Coal lenders understood that mines had long lives, which 30 million tons guaranteed. It could be that Pray had an interest in the company, for mining claim owners commonly sold their land in part for a share in whatever company was organized.7 The new company moved to start work at once. The directors were not experienced in mine development, and so hired experts who were. In the cold of November, 1902, an engineering crew of five or six went to South Canyon, evaluated the seams and topography, and began planning. The engineers calculated that if the mine could produce 300 tons of coal per day, which was admittedly on the high end, then the company could pay off all debt in around twenty years. In a highly irregular move in the world of mining, the company spared little expense and gave the engineers broad latitude in designing a state-of-the-art operation to achieve that goal.8 The geography of South Canyon forced the engineers to make difficult choices in the mine’s design. The seams were around two miles up South Canyon from the Colorado Midland Railroad line, which followed the Colorado River. Ordinarily, the most efficient and least costly plan for any large mine was to site everything, including the surface plant, shipping facilities, and workers’ housing, at the entrances underground. But the two miles from the seams to the railroad, and the canyon’s extremely narrow nature, discouraged this. Rather than cajole the Colorado Midland into grading a dedicated line to the mine, at the risk of protracted delays, the engineers thought it was better to bring the coal to the railroad. They thus sited the shipping terminal at the railroad. To connect the mine and terminal, the engineers planned their own rail line known as a tramway (not to be confused with the aerial tramways among metal mines in the mountains). Support facilities were divided between the terminal and the mine. The facilities directly involved with the work of producing coal unavoidably had to be situated in the canyon, and they were many, but a few ancillary facilities as well as administrative offices were integrated into the shipping terminal. When it came to workers’ housing, the company again deviated from the rest of the mining industry. Out of economics, convenience, and a corporate need for control, most coal companies usually built cheap housing right on a mine’s edge. Such an industrialized environment was noisy, gritty, oppressive, and under the watch of company bosses. The Boston- Colorado engineers, in contrast, purposefully chose a park-like area midway between the terminal and mine. The area was at a confluence with a minor drainage opening from the west, and was spacious and quiet. Miners could either walk to work or ride the tram.9 7 Frontier Times Fall, 2015; "Great Growth of South Canon Coal Camp"; Treasurer’s Report, 1904. 8 Treasurer’s Report, 1904. 9 Treasurer’s Report, 1904. DRAFT Figure 4.3: The South Canyon Coal Mine’s facilities were divided into four complexes. Coal was produced in the mine workings marked by the Wheeler Incline and surface plant. The tramway shuttled the material to South Canyon Station for shipment, while workers lived in Coal Camp. Source: author. DRAFT Figure 4.4: The topographic map depicts South Canyon mine’s complexes. The map is the same location and scale as the aerial above. Source: author. DRAFT Although the engineers had been thoughtful regarding the design, their timing was poor. Construction was scheduled to begin in January, 1903, when outdoor work was miserable and the ground frozen. They somehow managed to hire one-hundred men, who must have been desperate, and sent them to South Canyon. The winter of 1903 proved to be severely cold, which caused major delays. Disorganized suppliers further slowed progress by shipping materials late, while the Colorado Midland contributed to the problems by stalling on its responsibility of grading a siding for the terminal. By May, however, most of the new operation was ready, and the mine finally began limited production.10 In sophistication and content, the South Canyon Coal Mine was similar to the largest operations run by CF&I and the rest of Big Coal. But most of those operations were based on the traditional mine model generalized in Chapter 3. The model applied to seams that were flat or slightly inclined, as found up and down the Rocky Mountains. The seams of the Grand Hogback area, however, were sharply angled 30 to 60 degrees, with South Canyon around 45 degrees. The topography required the South Canyon engineers to think a little differently when developing the underground workings and designing the mine’s surface plant. Similarly, miners had to break coal with methods other than undercutting. Figure 4.5: The profile illustrates how coal seams were worked from the bottom up at South Canyon. A haulage tunnel cut horizontally through the seams, which were angled southeast. As the seam was worked upward, the coal accumulated in wooden bins installed in the tunnel’s ceiling. Trammers tapped the bins through chutes and into coal cars parked underneath. Source: author. The engineers had labeled the canyon’s many seams A through U, and the fattest as the Wheeler. As noted above, most seams were either too thin or cluttered with shale to justify mining, but the D, E, U, and especially the Wheeler, were commercial. Those on the canyon’s 10 Treasurer’s Report, 1904. DRAFT east wall were the East Seams, and the ones on the west wall were the West Seams. To develop the seams, the engineers simply adapted practices from hardrock mining. A tunnel known as a haulageway was driven from the canyon floor along the bottom reaches of each seam for hundreds of feet (later in the thousands, as the workings expanded). Higher on the canyon wall, an upper tunnel was bored an equal distance, and connected with the haulageway via raises (internal shafts). The connections provided ventilation and blocked out the seam for room-and- pillar mining. Rooms were started at the haulage level and the coal mined upward. Plank bulkheads with chutes immediately above the haulageway caught the coal as broken from the seam, and the chutes directed the material into waiting trains of cars. Gravity essentially moved the coal. But as the seam was mined upward and vertical distance increased, the coal’s rumble down to the haulage level had to be arrested to prevent desired lumps from smashing apart into dust and gravel. In South Canyon, it currently remains unknown how this was done. Regarding breaking coal, flat coal seams were usually mined with undercutting, as noted in Chapter 3. At South Canyon, however, undercutting was both difficult and dangerous. Not only did the ceiling have to be supported, but also when worked upward, an undercut face was much more prone to spaul boulders capable of crushing the miners. Given this, it seems likely that South Canyon miners broke coal by shooting-from-the-solid. In the practice, they bored four drill-holes in the face’s corners and one at the center, and blasted with soft, weak explosive charges. Drilling holes upward with a breast auger was out of the question, so the miners probably used post-mounted screw, electric, or compressed air units. In terms of the mine’s surface plant, the engineers again borrowed from hardrock mining. They arranged facilities required for coal mining more according to plants for large copper and silver mines. The South Canyon facilities were clustered on the canyon floor where entries extended into the Wheeler and D seams. Extensive earthwork and foundations were necessary to create enough flat space for everything. The following description is approximate, and interpreted from generalized archival materials and trends regarding how mines were designed. An efficient system for moving crude coal out of the workings and to the tramway was paramount. With respect to the flow of coal, material produced in the lower tunnels went into elevated bins immediately outside, on the canyon floor. The bins were equipped with sloped, steel-mesh screens that completed an initial stage of sorting. Trammers pushed loaded cars out the tunnels and dumped them onto the screens, which caught the lumps while allowing worthless fines to sift through. Lumps thus rolled into the bins, and the fines simply accumulated on the ground. At the upper tunnels, miners dumped coal into chutes with their own screens, which directed marketable material down to additional bins on the canyon floor. It may be that inclined Figure 4.6: The profile depicts a seam mined with methods known as shooting- from-the-solid. The face was drilled and blasted, with no undercutting. The practice was likely at South Canyon because the seams tilted and were difficult and dangerous to undercut. South Canyon coal was also damp, reducing the risk of mine explosions. Source: author. DRAFT rail tramways could have lowered the coal down to the main bins, for a more controlled and less damaging descent. In any case, the system included at least six structures for sorting and storing crude-coal. The main tramway served each structure, withdrawing coal out through small chutes and into hopper cars. Tram tracks thus wound and curved across the floor.11 Although archival sources make no mention, each seam almost certainly had a forced-air ventilation system. Motor-turned fans probably located at the haulageways pushed fresh air into the workings through iron tubing. Wooden and canvas doors at strategic points then directed the currents to points of work. Other facilities were scattered amid the tunnels, bins, and tram tracks, and sited according to suitable building space. Blacksmith, machine, and carpentry shops were critical and had to be as close to the workings as possible, and yet also on the tram tracks to facilitate movement of heavy materials. In the shops, blacksmiths manufactured hardware, sharpened drilling augers, and shoed draft animals. Machinists and carpenters assembled coal cars, repaired equipment, fabricated custom wooden items, and did other custom work. Electric motors ran power appliances via canvas drive-belts.12 Figure 4.7: Machine shops were critical facilities in which equipment was repaired and parts fabricated. The South Canyon mine’s shop was much like the Mt. Harris Coal Mine’s shop, circa 1917. Source: DPL MCC-2666. The surface plant included a lamp house as mentioned in Chapter 3, but with the addition of fuel for miners’ cap lamps. The technology of carbide and electric lighting was not yet 11 Treasurer’s Report, 1904. 12 Treasurer’s Report, 1904. DRAFT perfected by 1903, and miners used oil-wick lamps similar to miniature coffee pots. The lamps required a dense oily fuel similar to Vaseline, which softened as it heated. Usually, coal companies mandated that miners buy their own from the company store, but the Boston- Colorado outfit graciously provided the stuff. Other supplies were stocked in several storehouses, and draft animals kept in a corral and stable. It was probably the superintendent, engineer, and foremen who lived in three cabins that were on-site.13 Around 1907, an inclined shaft was sunk to mine the bottom reaches of the Wheeler Seam. The surface plant then came to include the shaft’s hoisting system, which is discussed below. The tramway connecting the mine and terminal had been thoughtfully designed. Often, inter-mine railways tended to be miniature-gauge with light-duty rails spaced around 24” apart. Although weight capacity was limited, such railways were very inexpensive. At South Canyon, however, the engineers used 60-pound rails (weight per yard of rail) spaced 3’ apart, and charted a very gentle 3.5 percent climb. The tram line met the criteria of standard narrow-gauge railroads in every respect. If the Boston-Colorado company wanted to, they could have run regular narrow-gauge trains on the line, but opted for an electric locomotive because it fit neatly within the mine’s broader vision of electrification. Tram trains consisted of twenty 5-ton hopper cars for a total of 100 tons per trip. If South Canyon produced 300 tons per day then the tram would have made three trips, but production was really closer to 200 tons. The locomotive drew power from overheat trolley lines like any street railway. When the locomotive’s mast transitioned between circuits and wires, it released bright sparks inspiring miners to name the tramway Lightning Bug.14 Figure 4.8: The tramway in the photo is for a coal mine probably in Las Animas County. Regardless, the electric trolley lines and train of cars were much like South Canyon’s tramway. Source: DPL, CHS.X4847. 13 Treasurer’s Report, 1904. 14 Frontier Times Fall, 2015; "Great Growth of South Canon Coal Camp". DRAFT The terminal on the Colorado Midland was the mine’s public figurehead, and a critical node in the overall operation. Officially designated South Canyon Station, the terminal covered an extensive tract of mostly flat ground on the southern floor of the Colorado River canyon. The Colorado Midland Railroad extended down the same side and had completed a switchyard just for the terminal. South Canyon Station fulfilled four primary functions. First was receiving, processing, and storing coal for railroad shipment. Second was an exchange point between the outside world, where trains arrived with people and freight and left with finished coal. Third was generating the mine’s electricity, and fourth was the mine’s administrative center. A massive professionally engineered structure known as a tipple received coal from the mine, processed it, and stored the finished product. The structure was elongated and descended the slope immediately south of the station so gravity could draw semi-processed coal through finishing stages, much like the ore bins at the mine. At the tipple’s head, tram trains dumped semi-sorted coal, probably directly into chutes leading to angled screens. The coal might have been unloaded first at sorting stations where workers picked out slate, but this is unlikely given the high volume of production. The coal dropped through a series of four nested screens, each taking out a specific lump size according to market specifications. The material could have been sprayed to wash off dust, and certainly ended in holding bins standing along the railroad siding. Then as now, trains pulled underneath the bins to load cars. South Canyon’s tipple stored around 500 tons of each grade. DRAFT Figure 4.9: View east up the Colorado River valley at South Canyon Station. From right to left are the tipple where coal was sorted and stored, a railroad switchyard, the mine’s powerhouse, and an office, storehouse and other buildings. A railroad station is far left. Timeframe is circa 1905. Source: DPL, CHS.X5708. DRAFT Figure 4.10: The profile generalizes how tipples sorted crude-coal into multiple grades for different customer groups. Crude-coal was dumped onto a main screen, which skimmed off large lumps. The remainder dropped through onto another screen that captured a finer grade, and so forth. Each grade was stored in its own bin, eventually tapped into rail cars. South Canyon’s tipple differed in exact design, but used the principal. Source: author. Figure 4.11: Interior of the Mt. Harris mine’s powerplant. Two steam engines turn dynamos fixed to their flywheel axles. Belts drive additional, smaller dynamos mounted independently. South Canyon’s powerhouse was similar. Source: DPL, MCC-2670. DRAFT A powerplant was South Canyon Station’s highlight and an icon of the company’s pride. In general, mining engineers and companies expressed their wealth, success, and ingenuity through buildings and machinery. Circa 1900, only the most progressive, heavily financed, and well-run operations were able to boast of powerplants, in part because the cost was difficult to rationalize for anyone except a giant, state-of-the-art operation. Powerplants were somewhat risky and daring to build because industry was only just learning how to harness electricity, and anyone attempting to work with it had to be professionally trained and aware of what equipment was available, and how it went together. Anything approaching the modern grid had yet to be strung together, and only several localized service systems existed in Colorado. Glenwood Springs itself had a powerplant, but it was too unreliable for the constant needs imposed by a huge coal mine, and so Boston-Colorado opted for its own. The 250-horsepower plant included at least one dynamo belted to a Corliss steam engine, in turn powered by several boilers fired with South Canyon coal. The electricity ran the mine’s ventilation fans, appliances in the shops, other machinery, and the tramway. Secondarily, the electricity energized lighting throughout the operation.15 At South Canyon Station, the mine’s administrative office was separate from the tipple and powerplant. In the office, the manager oversaw the entire operation from a bird’s eye perspective, grappling with problems and keeping track of myriad variables. He made sure that the mine ran well, the facilities were in working order, the workforce productive, the Colorado Midland shipping product, and above all, that the investors were mollified. The latter occurred only when the entire, complex equation generated profits and paid its debts. A clerk, secretary, and possibly other assistants kept the books, executed orders, and coordinated communications, conducted via telephone and mail. South Canyon Station included additional facilities needed by the overall mining operation. Trains stopped at an actual station, and dropped off supplies at a yard and storehouse. Some of the supplies were ice, stored in an ice house, for domestic use at Coal Camp. Refrigerators had not yet been commercialized. Coal Camp, formally known as South Canyon, was on the tram between the railroad and mine. As hinted at above, Coal Camp was sited and planned with more thought regarding quality of life than contemporary company towns. Most of Coal Camp was clustered on South Canyon’s western floor, where a confluence with a minor drainage created a broad, natural, open terrace approximately 350’ wide and 1,200’ long. Engineers established a park and baseball field planted with young trees as the camp’s core, and arranged community buildings around it. A company store, dining hall, library, and church were first, later followed by a bath house. Unmarried miners lived in a boardinghouse large enough for 150, while families occupied forty frame cabins, all arranged around the camp center. The company provided a physician, a school, and running water in some buildings, but many residents had to fetch water from a well. A blacksmith and carpenter set up shops somewhere in the settlement, and the South Canyon post office opened in the store in 1905.16 Somehow, the workers and their families found enough energy after their shifts for community activities. When the weather permitted, baseball games were frequent. Otherwise, residents formed music bands, a literary society, and discussion salons. Coal Camp was dry 15 Frontier Times Fall, 2015; "Great Growth of South Canon Coal Camp"; Treasurer’s Report, 1904. 16 Bauer, et al., 1990:133; Frontier Times Fall, 2015; "Great Growth of South Canon Coal Camp". DRAFT according to company policy, and so the men had no saloon in which to squander savings. Bootlegging of liquor was minimal and crime almost non-existent. But life was far from idyllic. The Boston-Colorado company’s housing was superior to other coal towns, but still cold and drafty in winter. Although the company was humane in many respects, it demanded a full day’s work for a day’s pay, and granted the workforce no financial breaks. Working shifts were ten hours of hard physical labor, and Sunday was the only day off. It remains unknown whether Boston-Colorado inflated prices in the store as did other companies, but goods were more expensive than in public towns such as Glenwood Springs to cover shipping and handling costs. Room and board were not free either, and workers had to pay for both, while the company quietly made a small profit.17 And yet, the company did mitigate the costs somewhat with the progressive policy of providing wages that were a full 20 percent above the going rate. The company specifically provided good living conditions and high wages to achieve three goals. One was general humanitarianism. Another was an understanding that a happy workforce was vastly more productive, careful, and conscientious, and hence able to fulfill the company’s high tonnage expectations. Last was an attempt to avoid labor unrest, after all, a content workforce would have little reason to strike. Here, however, the company miscalculated.18 No sooner did the South Canyon mine finally began full production in 1903, than a series of labor strikes swept Colorado. For the last several years, workers in all sectors of the mining industry agitated against domination by large mining and milling corporations, and their ruthless practices to cut costs and increase profits. In hardrock mining, capitalists such as David Moffat merged the largest gold and silver producers with mills and smelters to form giant consolidations. These organizations in turn forced competitors out of business. In coal mining, Andrew Carnegie, CF&I, and the Denver & Rio Grande cooperated and at times created artificial coal famines to control the market. The Guggenheim family bought and merged smelters, a cornerstone of hardrock mining, and increased rates. The workforce became polarized between white-collar employees and wage labor, which increasingly was subject to pay cuts. Despite Big Coal’s best attempts at prevention, the United Mine Workers (UMW) handily unionized Colorado’s coal industry. Some of South Canyon’s miners arrived as UMW members, and more probably joined while employed by the company. The manager and directors thought that their beneficent policies were insurance against unrest, but they did not consider industrywide sympathy strikes. The UMW in fact called a general strike throughout Colorado and Utah in November, 1903, and most of South Canyon’s workforce regretfully joined. They had no grievances against the company, but rather acted mostly out of union allegiance.19 Production slowed to a trickle and affected the company’s income, while the debt schedule still required payments on loans. Management sadly declared its progressive policies toward the workforce a failure and took action. The company declared South Canyon a non- union mine, forced union representatives off the property, hired scab labor, reduced wages to going rates, and posted armed guards.20 South Canyon resumed regular production in 1904. Archival sources do not specify the volume, but it may have approached the company’s 300 tons-per-day goal. Operations continued for two more years, when another firm took over. 17 Treasurer’s Report, 1904. 18 Treasurer’s Report, 1904. 19 Treasurer’s Report, 1904. 20 Treasurer’s Report, 1904. DRAFT South Canyon Coal Company, 1906-1929 Around 1906, the South Canyon Coal Company assumed operations at the South Canyon mine. Unfortunately, archival information is thin, and so charting a detailed history is impossible without extensive research. The following chronology is therefore broad and interpretive. The South Canyon Coal Company might have been a leasing outfit, a reorganization of the original firm, or a buyer of the entire operation. The Boston-Colorado company may very well have restructured or gone bankrupt, since its loans were based on difficult-to-achieve production targets. Like its predecessor, South Canyon Coal was based in New York, but had different officers. Howard Willets was president, Amos F. Adams acted as vice-president, and Addison S. Pratt served as secretary. By any measure, South Canyon Coal had to be as large as its predecessor in order to run the complex operation, with W.B. Lewis as manager and R.C. Jones superintendent. No sooner had the company taken over the mine than serious problems materialized. Somehow, inside the underground workings on both sides of the canyon, the Wheeler Seam began smoldering. The low-intensity fire could have been ignited by blasting or if a miner lodged his oil-wick lamp against coal. Seam fires even began with spontaneous combustion. A smoldering seam presented enormous danger and had forced some companies in Colorado to abandon and seal off entire sections of their mines. Noxious gases filling workings were a given, with outright conflagrations a real possibility. Today, experts concede that there is no easy way to suppress seam fires, and many still burn in Colorado. South Canyon Coal employed best-practices and bulkheaded the burning sections in hopes of starving the two fires of oxygen. The effort was ultimately successful in the western seam but not the eastern. The next step for the eastern was to pump in water and flood the bulkheaded section. Regardless of suffocation or flooding, much of the seam had to be taken out of production for months if not several years, translating into lost income and a layoff of half the workforce. South Canyon Coal sought coal in other seams, and possibly in the farther reaches of the Wheeler. It seems likely that the need to maintain output was behind sinking of the Wheeler Incline around this time. Until 1907, nearly all mining had been above the canyon floor level. The main reason was that there was plenty of coal, and deeper workings would have flooded with groundwater and required costly pumping. But with higher portions of the Wheeler Seam now out of production, the deeper coal became attractive if not a necessity. Historic maps depicting South Canyon workings confirm that the Wheeler Incline existed by 1911. The incline was an angled shaft following the geological bedding into the canyon floor. Drifts extended in both directions along the seam’s lateral strike, and passages were bored upward to make connections with the previous workings. As before, the drifts and passages blocked the seam for orderly extraction and created ventilation currents. To make way for the necessary hoisting system, the incline was sited on the floor’s eastern side where flat space was available. To be functional, all production shafts including inclines had hoisting systems that winched coal to the surface. One type of system had a mechanical hoist set well back from the incline collar, an A-frame headframe in between, and a bucket or skip (steel box) on guide-rails. The hoist raised the skip into the headframe, where brackets upturned it. The skip then dumped its contents into a bin, which a trammer tapped into a waiting coal car. Alternately, the system may have simply winched entire coal cars up the incline to a landing, where topmen uncoupled DRAFT them from the hoist cable and pushed the cars to a desired destination. Regardless which type, the hoisting system was in constant action to keep pace with production. At South Canyon, the Wheeler Incline’s hoisting system was probably one of the above two types. South Canyon Coal added other facilities to what became a compact surface plant specific to the incline, set within the old Boston-Colorado’s earlier and more sprawling complex. South Canyon Coal’s additional facilities included a large ventilation blower, air compressor, steam boiler, change house, and scale for weighing coal cars. Motors ran most if not all machinery, except for the hoist, which was steam-driven. The boilers ran the hoist, and heated the change house, bath water, and other buildings. The plant came at great cost, indicating that South Canyon Coal planned to use the incline for some time.21 The mine yielded heavily from 1910 into 1917, and the overall template that cost Boston- Colorado so dearly served South Canyon Coal well. The company increased the workforce from around sixty to more than one-hundred, and they lived in Coal Camp as before. The South Canyon Mercantile Company ran the store under the watchful eye of W.O. Miles. During the early 1910s, Joseph Mick was the town blacksmith, Bert Rosenburg the carpenter, and Nellie Bledsoe teacher. Down in the South Canyon Station office, Lewis remained manager while Daniel M. Wogamon was his clerk and also the postmaster. Operations intensified as the 1910s progressed, in response to a strong coal demand. Colorado experienced major growth in population and industrialization, and much of this was now occurring on the Western Slope. In addition, Utah’s Wasatch Front became a smelting and steel center, and companies were reaching out to western Colorado for hard bituminous coal. It seems likely that South Canyon’s market included Leadville, the San Juan Mountains, Grand Junction, and Utah. The principal changes at South Canyon during the decade involved people. John Rees became as superintendent 1913-1914, followed by Evan Thomas. C.F. Hadden consolidated authority and held the positions of clerk, postmaster, and manager of the store.22 World War I, which began in 1914, was a very mixed and unstable time for South Canyon Coal. The United States staunchly opposed an official declaration of war against the European Axis, but increasingly provided direct aid to the Allies. In the beginning, much of that aid was durable goods and steel, to be remade into weapons oversees in Ally factories. As the war progressed and devastated the Allies by 1917, however, the United States began outright shipments of weapons and ammunition. Preparing for an inevitable entry into the war itself, the federal government launched a mobilization campaign that seized control of necessary industrial and transportation sectors in the name of national interest. Although coal was not one of the sectors, the industry was deeply affected by wartime mobilization nonetheless. At first, aid to the Allies and increased manufacturing fostered an unprecedented demand for hard bituminous and anthracite coal. Prices tripled as a result, soaring from around $1.15 to $4.15 per ton. Many coal mines had based their finances on the lower figure, and so reveled in enormous profitability. But then, the federal government took control over railroads to prioritize service for essential industries and the movement of goods to harbors. Inexperienced in railroad management, the government’s efforts had a reverse effect in the Western states, ruining some carriers, starving lines of materials needed for maintenance, and interfering with regular traffic. 21 Description based on field examination. 22 Colorado State Business Directory, 1910:1169; Colorado State Business Directory, 1913:1044; Colorado State Business Directory, 1916:994. DRAFT Thus, whereas coal fetched record prices, Colorado’s independent mining companies had difficulty shipping enough product to take full advantage. South Canyon’s situation was among the worst in the state. Already financially stressed, the Colorado Midland suspended traffic on its line down the Colorado to Newcastle in 1917, stranding South Canyon Station in the process. At the same time, CF&I stopped mining coal throughout the Glenwood Springs area. With no way to haul products to market, South Canyon Coal stopped mining, wound down the powerplant, laid off most workers, and closed the post office. The canyon experienced its first prolonged dark and quiet period since 1903, and remained that way for four years.23 Continued high coal prices encouraged South Canyon Coal to reopen the mine in 1922. It remains unknown whether the surface plant and tram had been dismantled, which seams were being mined, or how coal was shipped to market. The operation must have remained small with a very limited crew, because archival sources no longer mention the camp of South Canyon as a viable community. And yet, the few workers employed in the mine had nowhere else to live. Under manager Richard Prendergast, the mine produced until the fateful year of 1929. Toward the year’s end, an investment bubble had burst and initiated a financial chain reaction causing the nation’s economy to collapse. Banks locked their doors, and credit and loans for business were wholly unavailable. Industry suffered as well, quickly slowing to one-half of its previous output. Coal customers stopped buying or greatly reduced consumption, while struggling coal companies could not find loans to keep going. South Canyon Coal was among the casualties and stopped production in 1929 or 1930. But a local market still existed as people and businesses in and around Glenwood Springs had to cook and heat their homes. In 1931, James E. Ford made a go of reopening South Canyon to fulfill the local demand. He organized the South Canyon Mine Leasing Company and produced on a limited basis, using trucks to haul products. The operation remained small through the decade, and may have resumed shipping to the smelters in Leadville and Utah as industry sluggishly recovered. The nation’s entry into World War II had a similar effect on coal prices as did the previous world war. As industry scrambled to manufacture durable goods and weapons, and rail traffic increased to move the stuff, coal climbed from $8.50 per ton in 1941 to $10.40 in 1944. It seems likely that South Canyon increased output to profit from the higher prices, if not for doing its part for the war effort.24 Production could have continued for decades afterward, were it not for unresolved seam fires. In 1951, workers received notice that their main shaft, probably the Wheeler Incline, was actually in flames. Somehow, a seam fire, and possibly the one that started in 1907, had advanced to the shaft and ignited coal dust and timbering. Unable to suppress the conflagration, the workers had no alternative but to close the mine, ending almost fifty years of production. 23 Bauer, et al., 1990:133; Collins, 1975:139. 24 Fred.stlouisfed.org. DRAFT CHAPTER 5: SOUTH CANYON COAL MINE SITE SUMMARY Considering the South Canyon mine’s scale, complexity, and fifty-year history, surprisingly little currently remains. All buildings, structures, equipment, and even large objects were removed long ago, and currently a series of archaeological sites represents the once- significant operation. Deterioration, flashflooding, bulldozing, and fairly recent attempts to suppress seam fires have taken their toll on the sites, rendering some difficult to discern. Below is a simplified summary of each of the mine’s complexes, accompanied by recommendations for further consideration and interpretation. The only portions of the operation examined in detail were the Wheeler Incline and the Zemlock Mine because they are among the better-preserved sites. The operation’s other complexes were briefly reviewed through reconnaissance survey to quickly assess condition, interpretive potential, and viability as archaeological sites. It must be emphasized that if the City of Glenwood Springs moves forward with interpretation, individuals with direct knowledge of the mine should be consulted, and information presented in this report verified. Wheeler Incline The South Canyon Coal Company apparently sank the Wheeler Incline around 1908 or 1909 to develop the deeper reaches of the Wheeler Seam. The seam’s higher western and eastern sections began smoldering in 1907 and had to be bulkheaded in an attempt to starve the fires of oxygen. With the most productive coal sources now out of production, South Canyon Coal almost certainly sank the Wheeler Incline as an alternative. Regarding South Canyon’s four complexes in the chapters defined above, the incline is amid the Mine Workings. The incline is discussed in detail here because of its good integrity and interpretability. The rest of the Mine Workings are summarized separately below. The incline was sited on the canyon’s eastern floor where flat ground far above the stream channel was available. The incline was oriented southeast and dipped around 45 degrees downward in sympathy with geological bedding. South Canyon Coal built surface facilities around the incline mostly to support work underground, but also for activity in nearby tunnels. The facilities complimented the first-generation plant erected in the immediate area by the Boston-Colorado Coal Company in 1903. The Wheeler Incline has since been sealed and is now flooded, while the surface plant was completely dismantled, including nearly all structural materials. Currently, a cryptic assemblage of concrete foundations represents most of the plant’s components. In overview, the surface plant included a hoisting system for the incline, a ventilation fan, air compressor, scale to weigh coal cars, and change house where miners showered. The hoisting system was oriented southeast so that the hoisting cable could make a perfectly straight descent down the shaft. In professionally engineered surface plants, the hoisting system’s orientation became a master datum line for planning the rest of the components. That way, all the facilities conformed to the same direction for order and better integration. The Wheeler Incline was no different, and although the surface plant included the various facilities noted above, all were oriented the same, as today’s foundations reflect. Following is a brief description of the foundations, and a best interpretation of what was on them (see site plan view). DRAFT Figure 5.1: Aerial photo of South Canyon mine workings complex. Large polygons outline the Wheeler Incline and Boston-Colorado surface plant area. The Ys represent tunnels, while the heavy grid is underground workings. Long lines are tunnels, while the grid itself is room-and-pillar workings. Source: author. DRAFT Figure 5.2: Detailed aerial photo of South Canyon mine’s surface plant area, Wheeler Incline, and associated underground workings as of 1940. The angled Ys are Boston-Colorado openings developed sometime 1903-1906. The Wheeler Incline was driven ca. 1909 to undercut the Wheeler Seam at depth. The Zemlock Mine at bottom wasan independent operation. Source: author. DRAFT Figure 5.3: Plan view of the Wheeler Incline site as it exists today. See text descriptions and the appendix for feature descriptions (F#). Source: author. DRAFT Figure 5.4: The profile illustrates a typical hoisting system for inclined shafts, and was probably a template for the Wheeler Incline. The template includes a hoist at left, the inclined shaft at right, and a timber headframe in between. A riveted iron box on wheels known as a skip ran on a track in the shaft. When the skip was loaded with coal at the shaft bottom, the hoist winched the skip into the headframe, where brackets upended it. The skip dumped its contents into a bin integrated into the headframe, later hauled to a processing tipple. As late as the 1910s, hoists were usually steam-powered because electric units were not yet powerful, quick, or reliable enough. Source: author. Hoisting System The incline descended southeast roughly at a 45 degree angle. A hoisting system was required to winch a vehicle up a track on the incline floor and to the surface. There, coal was transferred into a bin so the tramway could haul it to South Canyon Station. The system thus featured a steam-powered hoist set back from the incline, a headframe between the hoist and incline, and a landing at the incline collar. The hoisting cable left the hoist, passed over a sheave (wheel) atop the headframe, and extended down the shaft. The headframe had to be a perfect height so the cable achieved the exact same angle as the shaft and continued straight without rubbing on the floor, ceiling, or timbering. At the Wheeler Incline, the hoisting system’s design and details of operation remain unknown because the remnants are insufficient. Currently, only the shaft (F1) and hoist foundation (F2) are left to represent the system. Nothing remains of the headframe. DRAFT The system probably conformed to one of two general templates. One is that coal cars were winched up the incline to a landing and stopped. Workers detached the cars from the hoist cable, pushed them along a track to a central bin, and dumped them. Screens completed a cursory sorting by lump size, and the tramway hauled the material to South Canyon Station. Alternately and more likely, coal was brought to the surface in a skip vehicle and dumped into a receiving bin in the headframe. A skip was basically a riveted iron box on wheels, designed to be emptied by being upended. The receiving bin completed sorting, and the tramway hauled the material off. It should be noted that the hoist foundation appears to have been for a single-drum, direct-drive steam unit, rather than an electric model. In general, electric hoists were still in development as of 1910, and versions with enough speed and lifting power for coal mining had not yet been proven. At the Wheeler Incline, the foundation features two concrete pylons at the front (southeast) for the cable drum, and a 2’x6’ concrete block behind for the steam cylinder. The type of hoist was costly. Change House The change house (F3) stood in front of the hoist, and might have supported the distal end of the headframe. The facility is now a distinct ruin with four rock masonry walls 19'x29' in plan and 7' high. Mortar is based on portand cement, and the rocks are sandstone blocks, some having been gathered locally while others were split from larger boulders. The interior was at one time equipped with running water for bathing, reflected by a 2" drain-pipe in the west corner. Change houses were often of frame construction, and the fact that the Wheeler Incline’s was stout masonry suggests that it was intended to bear weight, such as a portion of the headframe. Ventilation System Coal mines were notoriously gaseous, the seams themselves emitting methane, and blasting contributing its own noxious compounds. Powerful ventilation systems forced fresh air underground to render the atmosphere breathable and prevent catastrophic mine explosions. The Wheeler Incline had a motor-driven blower, represented by three foundations (F4, F5). The blower was a centrifugal unit with paddle-wheel fan in a sheet metal housing 6’ in diameter. The remaining foundation (F5) is complex with three parts. One is a concrete pylon 2'x6' in plan and 2" high, with two anchor bolts. Behind is a concrete pad 2'x4' in plan featuring four anchor bolts. Outside and 4' away are three steel channel posts 3' apart. The foundation anchored the blower body, and bearings for the axle and drive-pulley. Behind are two pads (F4) 4'x6' in plan for the motors, which ran the blower via a canvas belt. Steam Engine A utility steam engine was at ground-level near the headframe, and it powered unknown machinery via a canvas belt. The engine was a straight-line single-cylinder unit with a large flywheel. The foundation remaining today features a block 2½’ wide and 7' long for the engine, and a pylon 18"x30" in plan for the flywheel's outboard bearing. A tangle of brush hides the foundation. DRAFT Steam Boilers Although the South Canyon mine was celebrated for its powerhouse and use of electricity, steam still ran critical machinery such as the hoist and probably pumps underground. The steam also heated the change house, and as important, coal brought up from the workings. The coal was wet and prone to freezing in winter, which would have fouled sorting and storage. Heating pipes probably passed through the bin and kept the coal thawed. At Wheeler Incline, a pair of return-tube boilers generated the steam in front of the change house. The location was strategic, heat from the boilers radiating over to the change house and upward into the headframe. The boilers were encased in a brick setting (F7) approximately 22'x22' in plan. The setting was demolished when the hardware was removed, and now takes form as a rectangular mound of bricks 22'x30' in area. The lower courses of the setting's western corner are still visible amid rubble and thick overgrowth. Scale House A distinct foundation (F8) remains from a scale used to weight coal cars, trucks, and wagons that loaded coal directly at the headframe. The scale was a large balance-beam type with a plank deck on one side, and a register with weights on the other. The deck was suspended over a concrete vault 8'x22' in plan and 3' deep. The balance-beam extended at 90 degrees through a slot 2' wide and 6' long in a concrete pad. A frame building on the pad enclosed the register and weights. Waste Rock Dump Developing the seam, blasting coal, and sorting the product in the bins generated waste known as slack coal, gob, culm, and partings. At the Wheeler Incline, the material was spread out as a large dump (F11) around the surface plant and in a peninsula extending northward. The peninsula may have also doubled as a bed for the tramway. Additional Features Archaeological features represent two additional facilities. One is a stump (F9), which is the base of a utility pole that carried either electricity or a telephone line to the incline. The other is a concrete pad (F10) for a motor, which powered an unknown piece of machinery probably bolted to the headframe. The pad is 5’x6’ in plan. Wheeler Incline Recommendations The Wheeler Incline has good potential for public involvement. Consider the following points. • Interpret the site with signage, explaining how inclined shaft coal mines operated. • Conduct further research to confirm the site description in this report. • Include the site on a walking or cycling trail, which begins south of the Zemlock Mine (below), passes through the Zemlock, and follows an old road down the canyon’s eastern side to the Wheeler. DRAFT • Clear vegetation from the site. • Conduct an archaeological investigation in search of foundation footers and other elements refining what is known about the hoisting system. Include the public for educational opportunity. DRAFT Figure 5.5: Plan view of the Zemlock Mine site as it exists today. See text descriptions and the appendix for feature descriptions (F#). Source: author. DRAFT Figure 5.6: The profile illustrates the Zemlock coal chute and how material was transferred from coal cars. Miners parked the cars on a pivoting platform assembled with salvaged hardware. Rails featuring bent ends caught the car’s front wheels, and a catch-level allowed the platform to pivot forward and dump the car’s coal into the chute. Source: author. Zemlock Mine The Zemlock Mine, on the Keystone Seam, was a tunnel operation south and above the main South Canyon workings. The seam is fairly thin, tilted steeply south, and exposed amid sandstone layers in South Canyon's eastern wall. The mine is around 6,400' elevation a short distance above the canyon floor, which is narrow and choked with riparian vegetation. A stream meanders in a constricted channel. See Figures 5.1 and 5.2 for locations. DRAFT No information is available for the Zemlock Mine, and it appears to have been independent of the greater South Canyon group. Regional mine maps and archival sources make no mention of the operation. But dateable evidence such as selenium glass and use of salvaged materials including hardware and a 1920s dump truck bed strongly suggest the 1940s. When operating, the Zemlock was like many small and simple coal producers worked by hand. Miners bored a main tunnel (F3) horizontally east along the seam so they could work it from the bottom up. To the south was a second tunnel known as an air course (F1) that ventilated the workings and served as an emergency escape. The tunnel and air course were intentionally closed with heavy equipment long ago, and now take form as semicircular scars overwhelmed and hidden by vegetation. When driving the tunnel and air course, the miners dumped waste rock downslope, building up two pads. Both were bulldozed when the entries were sealed, and are now revegetated. The pad (F2) derived from the air course is a grassy flat 33'x52' in area and 5' thick. The main tunnel’s pad (F4) is 84' across, 60' long, and 7' thick. The mine had very few surface facilities, limited to a track for coal cars, and a chute (F5) for storing coal between truck shipments. The track featured steel rails curving north out the tunnel and ending at the chute, on the dump’s shoulder. The track was destroyed when the tunnel was bulldozed. The chute's head rested on the waste rock dump’s northern shoulder, while the tail extended 70' down to a parking area on the stream's eastern side. Now collapsed and broken, the chute was a vernacular structure featuring three basic components. The head had a pivoting deck on which miners parked full coal cars. The deck had two rails for the cars, with ends bent upward to catch the front wheels. A lever tilted the deck downward and north, emptying the cars into a hopper. The lever and heavy axle on which the deck pivoted were salvaged machine parts from elsewhere. The hopper, the chute's second component, was a salvaged dump truck bed 6'x6' in plan and 3' deep. The bed appears to be circa 1920s and was assembled with heavy sheet iron and planks. The ends were open and the floor tapered to facilitate a flow of coal into the chute's main and third portion, a trough for storage. The trough was around 6' wide and 3' deep, assembled from planks, timbers, and sheet iron. A series of timber piers supported the entire structure, which has collapsed and fallen apart. To move coal to market, trucks backed down a road on the canyon floor's western side, crossed a concrete bridge, and stopped on a platform at the chute’s base. Once loaded, they were weighted on a large scale along the road. A platform (F6) on the stream’s eastern side provided space for trucks to park while loading coal. It remains unknown whether workers used a bulldozer or hand-tools, but the platform became 15' wide and 30' long, now overgrown and blanketed with slumped earth and slack coal from the chute. The chute's last support pier is embedded in the cut-bank, while decayed lumber and sheet iron from the chute's body are scattered around. A concrete bridge (F7) spanned the stream, providing truck access to the chute. The bridge was a simple structure with a poured concrete slab deck spanning the stream channel, and twin lengths of salvaged boiler smokestack as culverts underneath. The deck was approximately 20' long and 15' wide, and now lies broken in large pieces on the channel's southeastern side. One smokestack length is still in place, while other shifted downstream and was crushed. Located on the mine's approach road, the scale's purpose was to tare empty in-coming trucks, and weight the coal that the out-going trucks hauled to market. The scale (F8) was a balance-beam type with a plank deck on one side of the balance, and weights and a register on DRAFT the other. The deck consisted of timbers on a heavy linkage, attached to the balance, within a pit recessed in the ground. The pit was 8' wide, 22' long, and 3' deep with concrete walls retaining all sides except for the western, held back by salvaged railroad ties. The balance-beam and weights were in a slot 2' wide and 4' long extending east. Today, the pit is becoming overgrown with trees and filled with duff, but the balance-beam and linkage is still visible within. The balance slot has slumped in. Zemlock Mine Recommendations The Zemlock Mine is an archaeological example of a small circa 1940s or 1950s tunnel operation worked by hand. Signage could interpret features reflecting the flow of coal from the mine to market, including the chute ruin, loading platform, bridge, and scale. The scale hardware could be exposed for viewing, or salvaged and rebuilt. The site can also be a stop along a trail, which would approach from the south on an existing road, switch back down to the chute base and loading area, and continue along the stream’s eastern side to the Wheeler Incline. Mine Workings As discussed here, the term Mine Workings refers to the portion of South Canyon where the underground entries and the 1903 Boston-Colorado surface plant had been located. The Wheeler Incline is within the area, but has been singled out above for detailed discussion because of its good integrity. In general location, the Mine Workings are on the canyon’s eastern and western walls, around two miles up-gradient from South Canyon Station. As one of the mine’s industrial complexes, the workings at one time included around ten tunnels on the canyon’s eastern wall, several more on the western wall, and the surface plant on the canyon floor. Chutes directed coal down to centralized receiving bins amid the surface plant, accessible by the tramway. See Figures 5.1 and 5.2. Presently, the complex is no longer clearly interpretable. Flashflooding, the 1994 South Canyon Fire, extensive bulldozing before that, and recent efforts to extinguish seam fires have erased most of the complex’s historical elements. On initial examination, the Mine Workings area appears as several large burn-scars and a group of bulldozed cuts, roads, and push-piles. South Canyon Road manifests as a broad swath through the surface plant area, which is choked with vegetation. Only a handful of tunnels are currently identifiable, marked by disturbed waste rock dumps. Almost nothing remains of the system for moving coal from the tunnels down to the centralized bins. The surface plant area is no longer discernable for what it had been. Several concrete and masonry foundations are still visible on the canyon floor, but their function is not clear because important associated features are gone. Of the surface plant components itemized in the chapters above, none are identifiable. Mine Workings Recommendations Even though the Mine Workings offer few interpretable historical features, the workings could be acknowledged with an interpretive sign. The area is obviously not a natural landscape, DRAFT and a sign can explain what had been present in the past. A sign can also highlight the 1907 Wheeler Seam fire, on-going underground seam fires, and recent suppression efforts. Tramway Bed The tramway was an electric railroad that hauled semi-sorted coal from the mine workings down to South Canyon Station, for final processing into finished products. The tramway was built in 1903 according to narrow-gauge specifications including a gentle descent and 3’ width between rails. The route began in the mine’s surface plant with the coalescence of short spurs serving shops and receiving bins. The main line descended northeast along South Canyon’s western wall, curved east through Coal Camp, and crossed over to the canyon’s eastern side. The line continued down to the tipple standing over South Canyon Station and either dead- ended, or looped back upon itself. See Figures 4.3 and 4.4 for an illustration. Currently, the main line’s southern half, and the northern 400’ by the tipple area, remain intact and identifiable. South Canyon Road has erased the northern half, while flashflooding and bulldozing have erased the spurs at one time in the surface plant. The intact sections are somewhat overgrown but retain their distinct characteristics as railroad beds. The characteristics include gentle grades, consistent width, broad curves, and cut-and-fill construction. Tramway Bed Recommendations The tramway bed is ideal as a multiuse interpretive recreational trail. The bed becomes the trail, with interpretive signs posted along its numerous vantage points. Signs can explain the tramway, the mine workings, surface plant area, and current seam fires. Developing the bed as a trail saves costs because a good route and surface already exist. Prior to trail development, the tramway bed should be inventoried for small-scale elements such as ties, utility poles, electrical trolley lines, and construction features. The elements can then be highlighted for additional interpretation. South Canyon Station South Canyon Station was the mine’s coal processing, exchange, and administrative point. The station sprawled over a broad, flat tract on the south side of the Colorado River valley, on both sides of the existing railroad line. Until around 1918, the line belonged to the Colorado Midland Railroad, which delivered supplies and hauled finished South Canyon products to market. At one time, a massive tipple stood on the hillside south and above the station. The tramway input semi-sorted coal from the mine, and screens and chutes within the structure separated the material into six grades, in turn stored in holding-bins for shipment. On the flat area below were a small switchyard and a steam-driven powerplant, as well as administrative offices, a depot, and other buildings. Nearly everything of substance was removed decades ago. Not only were all structural elements dismantled, but surprisingly, the tipple’s and powerplant’s stout concrete foundations were gouged out, as well. When intact, the tipple almost certainly stood on a series of concrete footers and piers ascending the hillside. Only several currently remain. The existing parking area was bulldozed where the powerplant had been located. The parking area was incised into the ground, cutting away most of the powerplant’s footprint, except for a cluster of bricks above and DRAFT south, marking the boilers. A building footprint and heavy foundations for the steam engine and dynamos are apparently gone. Outlines, footprints, or foundations for other buildings are not clearly traceable. South Canyon Station’s intact elements include beds for the switchyard tracks, and a scale for weighing railroad cars. The switchyard beds are south of the parking area, at the toe of where the tipple had been. The archery range overlies a portion. The beds slope gently east, suggesting that the Colorado Midland left empty cars at the high end, and workers rolled them through the tipple for loading as needed. The Colorado Midland then retrieved the cars once full. The scale is a concrete vault embedded in the switchyard bed, east of the archery range. South Canyon Station might offer additional intact elements, but further survey is needed for discovery. Thick brush conceals small-scale features that might be present. South Canyon Station Recommendations Despite major disturbance, South Canyon Station has interpretive potential based on current knowledge. The following points will support better education and public awareness. • Conduct further survey to identify additional features and better define locations of buildings and structures. Discoveries and more qualitative information support better interpretation. • Conduct further research, including examination of records at Colorado Railroad Museum in Golden and Bessemer Museum in Pueblo. • Post interpretive signs at entrance, in parking area, and on tramway grade overlooking South Canyon Station. • Use site for public archaeology event or program. The program can begin with a ground- penetrating radar survey in search of buried foundations. The results can guide limited excavation, with participation by the public. Advanced planning would be required for good execution. Coal Camp Colloquially known as Coal Camp, South Canyon was an officially recognized hamlet of workers’ housing between the Colorado Midland Railroad and mine workings. The hamlet was sited at the mouth of a minor drainage, where South Canyon’s floor offered enough flat space. Designed by Boston-Colorado engineers, Coal Camp featured a central park and baseball field surrounded by a mercantile, community hall, library, dining hall, boardinghouse, and cabins. As with most mining hamlets, Coal Camp’s buildings were frame construction on impermanent foundations, and so left minimal evidence when dismantled. Flashflooding and heavy land use completely disrupted whatever assemblage of footprints had remained at one time. CHAPTER 6: PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE WORK DRAFT BIBLIOGRAPHY Bauer, William H., Ozment, James L., Willard, John H. Colorado Post Offices: 1859-1989 Golden, CO: The Colorado Railroad Museum, 1990. The Book Cliffs Coal Field, Garfield and Mesa Counties, Carbonera to Cameo Denver, CO: Colorado State Planning Commission, 1939 [map]. Collins, Bruce A. Geology of the Coal Deposits of the Carbondale, Grand Hogback, and Southern Danforth Hills Coal Fields, Southern Piceance Basin, Colorado Golden, CO: Colorado School of Mines, Master’s Thesis, 1975. Colorado Coal Mine Records (Division of Mining, Reclamation, and Safety, Denver, CO). Colorado Mine Inspection Reports: New South Canyon Denver, CO: Colorado State Archives. Del Rio, S.M. Mineral Resources of Colorado: First Sequel. Denver, CO: State of Colorado Mineral Resources Board, 1960. Eglee, Charles H. Treasurer’s Report, Boston Colorado Coal Company, January 1st, 1904. Erdman, Charles E. Bulletin 851: The Book Cliffs Coal Field in Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado Washington, D.C: U.S.G.S. 1934. Frontier Times Fall, 2015, Glenwood Springs. Hall, Frank History of Colorado, V.1. Chicago, IL: Blakely Printing Co., 1889. Hall, Frank History of Colorado V.4. Chicago, IL: Blakely Printing Co., 1895. Grand Hogback Coal Field, New Castle to Marble, Garfield, Pitkin, and Gunnison Counties Denver, CO: Colorado State Planning Commission, 1939 [map]. "Great Growth of South Canon Coal Camp" Denver Times 8/12/1903 p10 c4 Johnson, Anna and Yajko, Kathleen The Elusive Dream: A Relentless Quest for Coal in Western Colorado Glenwood Springs, CO: Gran Farnum Printing and Publishing, 1983. Mineral Resources of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey, Government Printing Office, 1906-1931. In 1932, the series continued as Minerals Yearbook. Minerals Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932- 1980. Prior to 1932, the series was issued under the title of Mineral Resources of the United States. “Obituary” Daily Sentinel Grand Junction, CO: 10/25/2005. Portrait & Biographical “People Talked About” Leslie’s Weekly 1/13/1900, p28. Portrait and Biographical Record of the State of Colorado Chicago, IL: Chapman Publishing Co., 1899. Stone, Wilbur Fisk. History of Colorado, Vol. 1-4 Chicago, IL: S.J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1918. Vanderwilt, John W. Mineral Resources of Colorado. Denver, CO: State of Colorado Mineral Resources Board, 1947. Proposal to State Trails Grant Program Submitted by: Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association Mike Pritchard, Exec. Director 970.948.3486 mike.pritchard@imba.com www.rfmba.org SOUTH CANYON TRAILS PHASE 1 October 21, 2016 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division Trails Program 13787 S. Hwy 85 Littleton, CO 80125 Re: South Canyon Trails Plan -State Trails Grant Opportunity Dear Colorado Recreational Trails Committee: Attached you will find an application for the 2015-2016 Trail grant program. The Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA) is applying for funding for a phased implementation of the South Canyon Trails Plan. The City of Glenwood Springs owns and manages the land that this trail system will be built on, has supported RFMBA's efforts to create the South Canyon Trails Plan, and now supports RFMBA's efforts to fund and manage the initial phase of construction for the trail system. The City of Glenwood Springs City Council has supported the planning efforts of RFMBA and local- partner-organization Two Rivers Trails over the past two years, beginning with the Glenwood Springs Area Concept Trails Plan, which was funded in part by the City's Conservation Trust Fund. Through this planning process, it became clear that public lands surrounding Glenwood Springs provide both challenges and opportunities when considering trail system improvements and expansions that will accommodate a broad cross section of trail users. Based on information determined from this initial trail planning process, the City Council voted unanimously to help fund the detailed planning process required to create the South Canyon Trail Plan. This Plan has been reviewed multiple times by our Parks and Recreation Commission, Rivers Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, and has been discussed at public input meetings and through direct outreach to many stakeholders. We are confident that having identified and studied various opportunities and constraints associated with creating trails in this location, the proposed trails system has been wisely and professionally designed. This trail system will benefit of our community's overall health and wellness. This investment will also result in increased visitation and tourism for Glenwood Springs. Both are key reasons for our support of this project. While the focus of this grant is in the construction of the trail system, a key benefit for locals, visitors, and our local economy, will be the new interpretive signage proposed to highlight the significant history of South Canyon itself. The City of Glenwood Springs is proud to be the lead local funding partner on this project, in concert with RFMBA, Garfield County, and the Town of New Castle. We are committing $30,000 of matching funds toward this grant, and will further provide in-kind assistance of staff, equipment, and materials to ensure a successful initial project implementation. We hope that you will look favorably upon our request. We feel that with leveraged funding our community will be able to provide high-quality trail experience and amenities for our residents, and the residents of the surrounding area, for years to come. Thank you for your consideration. 101 WEST 8n1 STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970-384-6406 970-945-5023 FAX WWW.COGS.US &216758&7,210$,17(1$1&(APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant or Organization Name: Mailing Address: Applicant Lead Contact Name: Title: Telephone: Email: Is this the primary contact for this grant: YES NO OFFICIAL USE ONLY – DUNS # (IF REQUIRED): PROJECT MANAGER (this person will have daytoday responsibility for the project) Name: Title: Mailing Address: Telephone: Email: PRIMARY PARTNER INFORMATION (IF APPLICABLE) Name: Mailing Address: Partner Contact Name: Title: Telephone: Email: Is this the primary contact for this grant: YES NO ABOUT THE PROJECT Project Title: Grant Request: $ Required Match: $ Total Project Cost: $ Is this project part of the Colorado Front Range Trail: YES NO Does this trail connect to a regional trail system? YES NO If yes which system: Project Description: (Please write 2-3 sentences that describe your project and the expected accomplishments. Be sure to include Who, What, When, and W here.) This section is not the place to talk about the project background, the benefits, the funding, or anything other than the actual work to be accomplished. Please save the WHY for Question 2 of the Selection Criteria. 1BHFPG Exhibit A Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA) PO Box 2635, Aspen, CO 81612 Mike Pritchard!! ! !Executive Director 970.948.3486! mike.pritchard@imba.com x Mike Pritchard!! ! ! ! ! !Executive Director PO Box 2635, Aspen, CO 81612 970.948.3486! !! ! ! ! mike.pritchard@imba.com City of Glenwood Springs Administration 101 West 8th St., Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Debra Figueroa !! ! ! !City Manager 970.384.6401 debra.ﬁgueroa@cogs.us x South Canyon Trail System Construction: Phase 1 188,725.00!! ! ! ! !56,617.50 288,632.69 x x LoVa Trail (to be constructed) Phase 1 of the South Canyon trail system will consist of 8.15 miles of sustainably designed natural surface trails (hike & bike use), improvements to 2 trailhead areas, and interpretive signage. With close access via I-70 and the future LoVa Trail, the system will eventually provide more than 18 miles of trails for Glenwood Springs and New Castle. LAND OWNERSHIP 1. Pro vide the name/s of the property own ers : City o f Glenwood Springs , CO BLM Co l orado Rive r Valley F 2 . The trail corridor is controlled by :0=ee Simple 0LeaseQ asementQicense D Right-of-Way Oother USER INFORMATION (Please check all t hat apply) 0 Hiking D Motorcycling D Equestrian 0 W al king D Four-Wheeling D Motor Boating 0 Running D All -Terrain Ve hicle D Pad dl ing D Skateboarding D Snowmobiling D Accessible Acce ss D In-Li ne Skatin g D Snowshoeing D Other GJ Biking D X -Country Skiing D Other TRAIL SURFACE D Asphalt D Concrete D Other 0 Natural D Crusher Fines PROJECT LOCATION (For multiple project sites attach a separate list. Nearest T own or City: G lenwood Springs County(ies): Garfield Townshi p/Range/Section : Township 6 South, Ran g e 90W of 6th Pri n cipal Meridian , Section 10 State Senate District#: 8 State Represen tative District #: 57 Acreage of new trailhead 1 Miles of trail grooming Miles of new trail construction 8 .15 Miles of trail being planned Miles of trail maintena nce Mi les of trail re rou te Miles of trail reconstruction Miles of inter-connecting trail Miles of trail to be signed 8.15 Other Miles of trail rest oration Other Authorized Signature: ~§ ~ (From applicant organization) Page 2 of 2 ) The Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA) mission is to create and sustain the best possible mountain bike trail system and experience in the Roaring Fork Valley. We believe that world class trails and amenities in the Roaring Fork Valley beneﬁt locals and visitors. To accomplish our mission, RFMBA has identiﬁed the following strategies: 1. Collaborative planning on multiple trails master plans throughout the valley in partnership with our land agency partners, taking the lead in locations where the process has not yet started. The proposed South Canyon Trail project is a result of a collaborative master planning process. 2. Focus on beginner trails with the goal to open the sport of mountain biking up to a larger portion of the community, and most importantly to the next generation of riders. 3.Trail Stewardship Projects working with key partner, Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers. Together, we intend to increase the participation of volunteer mountain bikers on trail construction and improvement projects. We want to empower our region’s riders to take ownership of our trails. 4. Direct Funding and Labor for Trails using project speciﬁc fundraising campaigns towards professional trail building and design services. In 2013, RFMBA became a chapter of the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA). With IMBA's support, RFMBA hired an executive director in 2014. This transition from a volunteer-run organization to a professionally staffed organization with a paid executive director has created a huge opportunity for RFMBA to increase our regional impact. Our increased capacity has already led to the implementation of a number of trail projects throughout the region that had previously been shelved. Partnerships with the City of Glenwood Springs have formalized and improved the Wulfsohn trail system and we are currently working to improve the sustainability and quality of trails on Red Mountain in Glenwood Springs. With our volunteer numbers and capacity building, local businesses and other organizations have begun to very actively support the direction that RFMBA has introduced to trail development and quality of life improvements around Glenwood. The City of Glenwood Springs is the county seat of Garﬁeld County with a population of just under 10,000. Glenwood Springs winds throughout the narrow mountain valleys that host the conﬂuence of the Colorado River and the Roaring Fork River. As with most of the Roaring Fork Valley, Glenwood Springs has a tourism- based economy, primary focused on the hot springs and activity on the Colorado River and the Roaring Fork River. The City of Glenwood Springs has very little municipal open space and areas to develop community trail systems, and concurrently, the city does not yet have an open space program. The terrain around Glenwood Springs is very steep and in many places unstable. While the surrounding terrain of South Canyon is quite steep, the valley ﬂoor climbs to the south at a gradient that will allow for trail development that is accessible to a broad demographic. South Canyon provides a unique opportunity in Glenwood Springs- to improve recreation assets while telling a compelling story about the history of the region. A coal mining community in the mid and late 1800’s, South Canyon had a signiﬁcant impact on the regional economy. Interpretation of this community is aging and, without recreation, there is little draw to the canyon to learn about its history. Currently the canyon is the site of the City’s landﬁll and a large regional shooting range. Adding safely located recreational trails will allow the City to frame a unique story of the industrial past, the current land uses, and the ability to manage a multi-use landscape for the future. Selection Criteria Questions All applicants must respond to the following selection criteria questions. You are allowed the space below each question to fill in your answer. If you have an answer that does not fill the entire page, do not feel obligated to fill the space. This application will be scored on a 100 point basis. The maximum number of points that can be awarded for each question is shown in parentheses. Each project will be reviewed by outside reviewers and State Trails staff, and projects will be ranked according to reviewer and staff scores. Failure to provide a response to any question (unless otherwise noted) will reduce your project’s score. Please reference all attachments. )RU WKHHDVHRIWKHUHYLHZHUVUHDGLQJWKHDSSOLFDWLRQVSOHDVHNHHSIRQWVL]HQRVPDOOHUWKDQSW 1.Provide a brief description of your community or organization, highlighting its mission and purpose. Include information regarding the interests you serve, demographics, population, economy, tourism, etc. (5 points) Selection Criteria Questions All applicants must respond to the following selection criteria questions. You are allowed the space below each question to fill in your answer. If you have an answer that does not fill the entire page, do not feel obligated to fill the space. This application will be scored on a 100 point basis. The maximum number of points that can be awarded for each question is shown in parentheses. Each project will be reviewed by outside reviewers and State Trails staff, and projects will be ranked according to reviewer and staff scores. Failure to provide a response to any question (unless otherwise noted) will reduce your project’s score. Please reference all attachments. )RU WKHHDVHRIWKHUHYLHZHUVUHDGLQJWKHDSSOLFDWLRQVSOHDVHNHHSIRQWVL]HQRVPDOOHUWKDQSW 1.Provide a brief description of your community or organization, highlighting its mission and purpose. Include information regarding the interests you serve, demographics, population, economy, tourism, etc. (5 points) ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 2. Describe the scope of the project – what exactly will be built. Address each project component separately, specifically mentioning its characteristics (i.e., trail specifications, surface, clearances, grades, passing lanes, materials used, trailhead amenities, etc). Describe the work required to implement each component. Has the trail route been established? Describe the fieldwork that has been completed to date. Describe the scenic, historic and unique features of this trail project that will provide a quality experience for trail users. (10 points) In 2015, Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA), with funding support from the City of Glenwood Springs and Garﬁeld County, secured the services of professional trail development ﬁrm Kay-Linn Enterprises to master plan a diverse trail system within the Glenwood Springs lands in the historic mining area of South Canyon. Along with the historical signiﬁcance of the area, higher locations in the canyon provide 360 degree views of the high country above the Colorado River valley. The natural surface trail system and historic interpretation area will connect directly to the paved LoVa Trail, which has been prioritized as one of the Governor's 16 Trails in 2016, along the Colorado River in the future, providing car-free connectivity to South Canyon from the Roaring Fork Valley. This project represents the ﬁrst professionally planned natural surface trail system on Glenwood Springs-owned lands. The South Canyon Trails Plan provides detailed trail construction speciﬁcations, phasing, and cost estimation for an approximately 18-mile natural surface trail system, as well as recommendations on trailhead improvements and interpretation of the past and present activities within South Canyon. Detailed ﬁeld-level trail design of phase one of the project includes approximately 8 miles of sustainable trail corridors (100’ wide ) that avoid mining restoration areas, historic sites, and sensitive natural resources, while minimizing impacts from and to existing municipal infrastructure. These corridors have been reviewed by CPW (minimal chance of wildlife or corridor impacts), BLM (NEPA analysis complete in Fall 2016 for the trail segment crossing BLM land near the Colorado River bridge), and the local Historic Preservation Commission (analysis pending). This project will result in the ﬁrst phase of trail, trailhead, and interpretive development in accordance with the South Canyon Trails Plan. As a “learning landscape,” phase one of the project will provide trail and educational experiences that are accessible to the broadest demographic possible, with development of the shorter, lower elevation trail segments targeting newer and potentially non-traditional trail users. The trail construction portion of phase one will provide three distinct trail experiences that harken back to the mining community and best serve diverse recreational interests in the region including: 1) Tramway, a 2.67- mile, 4% average grade, 48”-wide, frontcountry style, shared-use trail that runs the length of South Canyon connecting the South Canyon and Coal Camp trailheads; 2) Lightning Bug, 1.75-mile, 6% average grade, mountain bike-optimized descending trail running from the upper canyon trailhead to a junction with Tramway at a mid-canyon location; and 3) Coal Camp, a 3.5-mile, 8% average grade, backcountry style singletrack loop originating from the upper canyon trailhead and traversing up to the South Canyon ridgeline. To better orient visitors to South Canyon’s historic and newly developed recreational resources, trailhead improvements have been planned to increase parking capacity and reduce conﬂicts with road trafﬁc accessing the county landﬁll, shooting range, and upper canyon residential trafﬁc. Planned improvements include: 1) South Canyon Trailhead, near the Colorado River bridge and currently utilized for an archery range, will receive curbs to deﬁne parking patterns and a new trailhead kiosk, mapping and interpreting historic and recreation resources; and 2) Coal Camp Trailhead, a previously graded, approximately 50’ wide by 100’ long mining access area near the southern terminus of Glenwood Springs-owned land, will receive minor grading of the 0.10-mile dirt entrance road to facilitate drainage, minor grading and gravel cover of the former access area to facilitate a ﬁrm travel/parking surface and drainage, curbs to deﬁne parking, and a trailhead kiosk with mapping and interpretive information. Finally, the project seeks to refresh the 30+ year old, faded roadside interpretive signage with trailhead kiosk and trailside signage that orients visitors to the signiﬁcance of mining history and infrastructure, current land uses (county landﬁll, regional gun and archery ranges, and private land ownership/cattle grazing), and active mining restoration projects in South Canyon. As a direct extension of the region’s history of shared values in industry, conservation, and land re-use, the South Canyon trails will serve to link visitors, school children, and even long-time residents with a landscape that has a rich, varied, and long history in Garﬁeld County. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 3. Describe how the project will be developed, maintained, and managed for long-term sustainability. What planning and design practices were used to ensure that the trail is sustainable? Regarding maintenance, list the responsibility entity, available resources and describe the typical maintenance schedule. (5 points) The trail corridors of phase one of the South Canyon Trails Plan have all been designed as rolling contour, natural surface trails sited on stable sidehill locations with mostly low to moderately steep slopes (20-60%). Supplemented by detailed construction speciﬁcations with parameters for average and maximum sustained grades, ﬁnal tread and corridor width, cross slope gradients, trail tread rugosity, obstructions, and compaction, construction spoils management, turn radius/sightline development, structure and wet area crossing formality, and intended duty of care, the designed trails will be built in a manner that provides a high quality experience for the intended uses and skill levels. Shallow corridor gradients, sighted at approximately 25-50’ intervals by clinometer, allow for the site-speciﬁc development of grade reversals that prohibit water/runoff drainage down segments of trail longer than approximately 100 feet. Trail junctions have been located in landscape positions where potential speeds at intersections are mitigated. Road crossings have been located at low trail speed locations with long sightlines of oncoming vehicular trafﬁc. Construction will be implemented by an experienced trail contractor, utilizing small machines and hand labor to meet the narrow, natural surface trail speciﬁcations. The contractor will construct the trail with numerous reversals in grade within the ﬂagged 100’-wide corridor, allowing for efﬁciencies in dealing with subsurface conditions and providing a “personality” for the trail that meets its intended experience. RFMBA volunteers will construct two bridges, each approximately 20’ in length. Construction management by a professional experienced in owner’s representative responsibilities and trail construction best practices, working closely with the contractor and RFMBA, will assure that the detailed speciﬁcations are met with minimal short-term impacts to the trail corridor area and nearby natural resources. Trail maintenance will be conducted by RFMBA in partnership with the City of Glenwood Springs. RFMBA will also facilitate the engagement of other community groups in Glenwood Springs, New Castle, and Garﬁeld County in the maintenance, utilizing South Canyon as a centrally located, readily accessible site for developing increased trail stewardship capacity in the region. RFMBA partners with Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers, Two Rivers Trails (of Glenwood Springs), and the New Castle Trails Committee to provide an active, trained, and equipped volunteer force that already stewards dozens of miles of natural surface trails within the Roaring Fork and Colorado River Valleys. Increasing the group’s presence, assistance, and stewardship engagement further west through Garﬁeld County is strategic for RFMBA and will help engage more residents in conservation stewardship, developing more sustainable trails, and improving quality of life in the rapidly developing communities of New Castle, Silt, Riﬂe, and Parachute. While the trails have been designed and speciﬁed for maximum durability, annual maintenance is always required. Tramway and Lightning Bug are located predominantly in oak shrub land cover, which will require annual corridor trimming to maintain desired travel widths and sight lines. Coal Camp, located mostly in mature pine forest, will require post-winter blow down removal. At the time of the spring trail corridor maintenance, assessment of the trails’ drainage management will be conducted, along with physical structure inspection of bridge/wet area crossings and signage. Maintenance activities, based on these inspections, will be scheduled by RFMBA to take place as soon as practicable. RFMBA is currently planning on the allocation of 20 labor hours/mile of trail/year for the South Canyon Trail System. Additional assistance with trailhead area maintenance (i.e. minor grading, drainage improvements, gravel surface replenishment) will be provided by the City of Glenwood Springs. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 4. Will a youth organization be used to plan, implement, and/or maintain the project? If so, name the organization and describe the collaboration you’ve had with them. Describe the work they will be doing. Submit a letter of support from the organization that you will be collaborating with. If there will not be youth involvement in this project, provide an explanation of why. (5 points) This project will not be utilizing a youth organization to plan, implement or maintain the project. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 5. Describe how the proposed trail will accommodate multiple uses within the region. Estimate the number of existing and/or expected users of the proposed trail. List each use and the estimated number of users for each use. How did you arrive at those estimates? (5 points) South Canyon will provide a diversity of trail experiences including family-friendly shared-use trails, narrow backcountry trails, and mountain bike-optimized trails. Providing these different trail types reduces congestion and potential conﬂicts, while offering trail users the opportunity to optimize their experience based on recreation time availability, group desires, and capabilities. In the southern portion of the canyon, mature stands of pine and oak contrast with the lower oak scrub of the northern portion of the canyon and Horse Mountain. These vegetation types naturally provide a different type of trail experience and the diversity also plays a temporal role in spreading recreation visitation, as the lower portions of the canyon will readily dry in late fall to late spring periods and the higher elevation pine/oak forest will provide a cooler setting during summer months. The Phase 1 trails will be congregated in relative proximity to the valley ﬂoor. Trails in these locations will provide: •Substantial opportunities for great views of the surrounding South Canyon ridges and early/late season riding due to the exposure and quick-drying soils. •Mountain bike-optimized trails that add diversity in trail experiences, reduce congestion on more traditional shared-use trails, a rare opportunity for shuttle-aided riding catered toward beginner and intermediate-level riders, and the potential reuse of the old alpine slide corridor as an intermediate to advanced slopestyle amenity. •Physical ﬁtness opportunities via nearly 1,000-foot ascents/descents In total, Phase 1 of the proposed trail system would provide four different, distinctive trail types to attract a diversity of visitors interested in varying types of recreation experiences, from casual hikers and dog walkers, trail runners and cross country mountain bikers, to highly, technically skilled mountain bikers. The mileage of Phase 1 of the proposed system is just over 8 miles, which combined with the trail types would provide an approximate recreation residence time of 1.5 hours for the majority of visitors. This type of diversity in experiences and recreation time is a good ﬁt with the South Canyon location and similar to many municipal open space trail systems. In the future (and not proposed in this grant) Phase 2, located higher off the valley ﬂoor and extending to Horse Mountain in the west could provide longer, steeper climbs and descents and improved viewsheds of the Flat Tops (north) and Thompson Divide (south). With the potential for an additional 10 or more miles of narrow, backcountry style trail, this phase of trail development would create the types of trail challenge and experience to become a destination trail system. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 6. Clearly address unmet recreational trail needs and specifically explain how this project will meet those needs (i.e., trail demands, deteriorating conditions, etc). Discuss the ways in which the community currently is or is not compensating for the lack of the proposed project components. Do participants visit neighboring trails? Is there a proliferation of social trails? Are there safety issues? Are there resulting health, quality of life, and physical activity issues? (10 points) The demand for natural surface trails in Glenwood Springs far exceeds supply. The supply that is present in the Boy Scout Trail and the Red Mountain/Jeanne Golay Trail are both very steep and strenuous. This situation leaves less active or able residents without accessible options. RFMBA is working to improve trail conditions on these previously mentioned trails, but understands that a missing piece in the Glenwood trails is the presence of a more accessible trail system from the standpoints of trail grades, elevation gained, and durable trail conditions. This opportunity is available in South Canyon. Glenwood Springs lacks large, natural, municipal open space lands. While surrounded by BLM and USFS lands, much of that land is either restricted for recreational development by designation, landscape instability, or federal process hurdles. Providing new/additional recreation opportunities for Glenwood Springs residents in incumbent upon utilizing municipal lands. South Canyon is one of the only practicable locations to develop new natural surface trails. Existing trails accessible from Glenwood Springs are not only too few, but they don’t provide high quality mountain biking experiences. This has led to the social development of the Wulfsohn Trails near the recreation center. The community has embraced these trails, but the City of Glenwood Springs would prefer a more ordered and transparent trail development process to be assured that they are not adopting a maintenance or risk liability. Taking the lead for the City, which does not have existing staff or expertise to implement this type of project, RFMBA is creating a clear path of progress for proposed trail projects and greatly reducing the need and desire for individuals to work outside an established process. South Canyon will be our ﬁrst project with the City that demonstrates both the quality and efﬁciency of the trail development process when it is undertaken in this transparent manner. Finally, the steep river valleys and high surrounding elevations in Glenwood Springs result in early snow cover and late thaw of the existing trails. As residents and visitors want to stretch the Fall and start the Spring trail seasons, they are forced onto trails that are much more susceptible to user-caused impacts as well as less-than-ideal trail conditions. The broader valley and sun exposure present in South Canyon will provide drier, more durable shoulder season trail conditions and alleviate the pressure on the higher altitude trails. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 7. Discuss how this project expands trail loops or links, or improves access to other trails, scenic corridors, greenways, forests, sports complexes, nature centers, local and regional gathering places (i.e., recreation centers, community centers, schools, etc.), and/or park areas and the connectivity that the trail will provide to those locations. If the project is connected to a larger trail system, describe the size, extent, and predominate uses of that system. (10 points) Easy Access: The Interstate 70 exit for South Canyon, approximately two miles west of Glenwood Springs, provides convenient recreation access for residents of Glenwood Springs and New Castle. Future Trail Connection to Glenwood Springs: The completion of the paved LoVa Trail will greatly enhance the ability of residents to access these locally controlled lands and provide another nearby destination for visitors that does not require driving out of downtown Glenwood Springs. Scenic Viewsheds: Being ﬂanked by rock outcrops throughout the valley, the dramatic views to the north and east from the top of the canyon provides a sense of space that is sometimes a challenge in the steep valleys of the Colorado and Roaring Fork Rivers. New Trail System: This is a new trail system that will provide the following loop opportunities: Tramway-Lightning Bug - 5.07 mile loop, 771’ of elevation change, 4% average gradient on Tramway, 6% average gradient on Lightning Bug. Easy climb with interpretation stops/benches on Tramway can be followed by a descending-optimized, mountain bike-focused trail (Lightning Bug). Coal Camp Loop (3.07 miles, 900’ elevation change, 8% average gradient) - A shared-use, intermediate level trail beginning at the upper trailhead, climbing gently at ﬁrst through a side canyon meadow, then more steeply through mostly mature coniferous forest with dramatic views of the south aspect of Horse Mountain. Together, this ﬁrst phase of the South Canyon Trails will provide high quality, sustainable experiences for all manner of pedestrian and mountain bike visitors, from an easy stroll up Tramway, a rollicking mountain bike descent down Lightning Bug, to a shaded loop through mature forest on Coal Camp. The trails have been located to be minimally impacted by activities at the landﬁll and shooting range, while traversing the valley in a manner that interpretation of the historic South Canyon community will give a historical sense of place. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 8. Describe how your project will meet at least 3 (or more) of the following State Trails Program’s goals and objectives as stated in On Nature’s Trail: A Guide to the future of Colorado’s Statewide Trails System, and Colorado’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). (5 points) x Contributes to an integrated, statewide trail system. x Helps balance development priorities among urban, rural, and backcountry, while providing a variety of trail activities and types so a diverse, integrated trail system develops. x Promotes an environmentally appropriate trail design, construction and management. x Increases the availability of, and improves, trails information and education. x Encourages trail stewardship in the State of Colorado through partnerships, volunteerism and youth programs. x Invests in outdoor infrastructure through well-planned, on-going commitments to meeting a growing population’s expectations for a wide range of safe, maintained trails to enjoy the outdoors. x Continues and expands efforts to embrace new funding opportunities available through resourceful and creative leveraging of private and public funds. x Manages trails within the constraints of sustainable landscapes, acknowledging the dependence of recreational opportunities and economic factors on healthy ecological system, and cultural and community integrity. Promotes an environmentally appropriate trail design, construction and management The South Canyon Trails have been designed by a nationally respected trail planning/design professional (Scott Linnenburger, Kay-Linn Enterprises). We will be hiring a highly skilled professional trail contractor who is a member of the Professional Trailbuilders Association to lead construction of the trails. The purpose of this professional involvement is to minimize maintenance needs beyond annual clearing, avoid and minimize natural and cultural resource impacts, and provide a top-of-the-line trail experience. Invests in outdoor infrastructure through well-planned, on-going commitments to meeting a growing populations’ expectations for a wide range of safe, maintained trails to enjoy the outdoors As populations increase in Glenwood Springs and western Garﬁeld County, residents desire additional, accessible outdoor recreation opportunities. The South Canyon Trails will provide a diverse trail system to appeal to many different types and skill levels of visitors, including heritage travelers seeking to understand the history of this region. RFMBA and the City of Glenwood Springs have worked diligently from regional concept planning to ﬁeld level trail design to ensure that we have targeted the right location for trail development that will meet the needs of the regional population. Manages trails within the constraints of sustainable landscapes, acknowledging the dependence of recreational opportunities and economic factors on healthy ecological system, and cultural and community integrity Perhaps as much as any trail system in the State, the South Canyon Trails are deﬁned by their history and current multi-use landscape. With the constraints of this area, the trail system has been designed to interpret the land uses of past and present, while minimizing any impacts to a high quality experience (see landﬁll viewshed analysis map) on a sustainably designed and cost-effectively constructed trail (see hillslope analysis map). Interpreting the history of South Canyon through recreation will integrate the past with the present and give a better sense of place for residents and visitors in the Glenwood Springs area. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 9. Public Comment: Public notification is mandatory for all projects. Projects without public involvement are not eligible for rating. Describe the methodology used (public meetings, survey, petitions, etc.), to determine the need for the proposed project reflective of the general public, adjacent landowners, and other interested parties. Describe the public planning process that identified this specific project as a priority. Is the project listed as a priority in an adopted planning document or other agency documents? If so, describe that plan including when it was adopted, the opportunities the public had to comment on it, and the priority this project is listed as within it. If this project is not the top priority in that plan; discuss why it is being pursued at this time. OR Was this project identified through an independent planning process? If so, describe the specific opportunities the public had to comment on this project. If public meetings were held, include the number of meetings, when they were held, how they were advertised and the number of people that attended. If a survey was distributed, how many people and what groups were surveyed? How many people responded? Provide one copy of a blank survey. (10 points) RFMBA & local partner Two Rivers Trails (TRT) created the Glenwood Springs Area Concept Trails Plan (GSACTP) in late 2014, with partial funding of $1,500 provided by Glenwood Spring’s Conservation Trust Fund, per Parks and Rec. Commission recommendation. The GSACTP, presented favorably to City Council on Feb 19, 2015, studied public lands surrounding Glenwood Springs to identify challenges and opportunities towards evolving the local recreation trail system to serve a broader range of trail user types and abilities. The GSACTP identiﬁed Glenwood Springs-owned lands on Red Mountain and South Canyon as the best opportunities to provide additional trail-based recreation in the Glenwood Springs area. On April 2, 2015, City Council voted in favor of endorsing the GSCACTP’s recommendations (following similar City Commission votes), and approved funding of $15,000 for RFMBA and TRT to engage a professional trail planning consultant to develop the South Canyon Trails Plan (SCTP). Following City Council’s funding support, RFMBA and TRT secured an additional $10,000 from Garﬁeld County’s Conservation Trust Fund, and $1,000 from Garﬁeld County’s LiveWell Mini Grant program. In April, 2016 three public meetings (two evening and one morning) were held following Commission meetings (Historic Preservation, Rivers, and Parks and Recreation, respectively) to discuss the South Canyon Trail Plan. The meetings were advertised on the homepage of the City’s website with the dates, time, and location of the Commission meetings. The meetings were lightly attended. A number of citizens attending the May 6, 2016 City Council meeting, where approval/support of the plan was an agenda item, publicly spoke favorably about the project. The ﬁnal plan proposes a trail system that includes approximately 18 miles of natural surface trails, trail speciﬁcations, construction phasing plan, and cost opinion. The plan’s creation during 2015 was inﬂuenced through discussions and outreach with BLM, Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Glenwood Springs Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and Landﬁll and Gun Club representatives. The Parks and Recreation Commission & Rivers Commission have voted unanimously to support this project and RFMBA and TRT efforts to secure future funding for the project. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 10. Summarize the feedback received from the public and how it was determined that your constituents want and will use the project? What did you learn from the processes discussed above? (5 points) Feedback from the public at council and commission meetings has been very favorable. Only one resident has provided formal, negative feedback. While RFMBA was initially concerned that the GSACTP may be viewed only as a mountain biking plan, members of the public were forthcoming that it was a very positive vision for the City as a whole for improving the quality and quantity of natural surface trails. Presentation of the concept plan was met with many comments regarding the desire for more family-friendly, accessible, or lower elevation trails, like those that have been designed in South Canyon. Council members appreciated the work on this overall trails planning effort given the many beneﬁts that other communities have seen after developing high quality recreation trail systems. Beyond the health and wellness beneﬁts afforded for those living in Glenwood Springs, the return for this type of community investment includes the economic impact associated with increased tourist visitation and the vitality of new residents and businesses being attracted to Glenwood Springs speciﬁcally for trail-dependent outdoor lifestyles. Similar responses have been received from Garﬁeld County and the Town of New Castle. As partners in this project, they have been supportive ﬁnancially, understanding the beneﬁts derived for residents outside Glenwood Springs, as well as visitation by traveling trail enthusiasts. RFMBA is actively working with the Historic Preservation Commission to 1) assure that the trail system development will not harm or encourage vandalism on any of the canyon’s historic structures, while 2) developing a trail-based interpretive signage program that literally “walks” trail users through the mining community. We strongly believe that this project is aligned directly with the desires of the public and public administrators and cannot wait for the feedback following trail construction. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 11. Who is opposed to the project? Have neighbors, user groups, or other parties objected to the project? Include any letters, petitions, news articles, or other documents evidencing opposition. What has been done to address the concerns of those opposing and how has the opposition responded? (5 points) There has been nearly unanimous support for the South Canyon project. One resident expressed concern that trails would cause undo harm to wildlife in the canyon. However CPW has stated that the agency does not have signiﬁcant concerns, citing the presence of the City’s landﬁll and shooting range in the near vicinity. The Historic Preservation Commission initially expressed concerns about potential damage to historic resources. However, through multiple conversations and a better understanding regarding the narrow trail impact footprint and our ability, at this stage, to make deviations in the trail alignment to avoid historic resource impacts, those concerns have been allayed. The HPC is awaiting a detailed site investigation (scheduled for Summer, 2016 but has not yet occurred) to determine whether any historic structures fall within the trail corridor (note- the trail corridors were designed to avoid the structures as they had been described in previous HPC resources). BLM ofﬁcials were initially concerned about a segment of the trail adjacent to the trailhead and existing archery range being located on their lands at the mouth of South Canyon, as this area was not called out speciﬁcally as a Special Recreation Management Area in their adopted Resource Management Plan. Upon visual inspection of the area and the safety and cost concerns of keeping the approximately half-mile of trail on City lands, BLM agreed that this trail segment should be located on BLM land and have undertaken natural and cultural resource clearances to assure impacts are minimized. While CPW did have concerns regarding trail development in other areas described in the GSACTP, the agency formally expressed in a letter dated 7/15/2015 that they do not have signiﬁcant concerns regarding trail development on City-owned lands in South Canyon. While winter range habitat for mule deer and elk is present at the mouth of South Canyon, it is not likely that the trail system will be open during winter months. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 12. Is the project “shovel ready?” Provide evidence that it will be completed in approximately two years of the award date. Will construction begin upon receipt of a State Trails Grant Award? If not, explain why. Is the design and engineering complete or is there work yet to be done to get this project ready for construction? (5 points) This project is fully prepared for implementation. The trail master plan provided ﬂagged trail corridor design design, trail tread and feature speciﬁcations, trailhead and signage needs. These facets have all been approved and we are only awaiting concurrence from the Historic Preservation Commission, which estimated to occur in the next two months. Pending receipt of a State Trails Grant Award, construction is planned to begin in August 2017. As this project will be constructed in large part by a professional trail contractor, we plan to solicit bids based on the trail design and speciﬁcations (sample below from trail plan) upon receipt of grant award notiﬁcation. Contractor schedule availability will likely push the project initiation out approximately three months. We intend to complete the Tramway and Lightning Bug trails (5.07 miles) in Fall, 2017 and Coal Camp trail (3.1 miles) in June, 2018. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Trail Type/Name: Frontcountry Trail/ Tramway Difﬁculty Rating: Less Difﬁcult to Moderate Difﬁculty Symbol: Green Circle or Blue Square Typical Tread Width: 36”-50” Typical Corridor Width: 48”-60” Tread Rugosity: Relatively smooth, some roots or rocks, protrusions <3” above trail tread Average Gradient: <10% Maximum Sustained Grade: 15% Maximum Grade: 20% with surface treatment Typical Tread Materials: Natural surface with surfacing amendments where necessary TREAD WIDTH VARIES: MIN. 36”, MAX. 50” 36” - 50” TREES AS ANCHORS, NOT LESS THAN 50” CORRIDOR TRAIL TREAD SURFACE, MECH. COMPACTION W/DGA WHERE NECESSARY LEAF LITTER TO COVER ALL BACKSLOPE AND SPOILS FOLLOWING TREAD CONSTRUCTION STONE/UNDERSTORY TRAIL ANCHORS, NOT LESS THAN 36” 3-7% 2.1 PLAN DETAIL: FRONTCOUNTRY TRAIL- TYP. N.T.S 36” - 50” TRAIL TREAD SURFACE, MECH. COMPACTION W/DGA WHERE NECESSARY LEAF LITTER TO COVER ALL BACKSLOPE AND SPOILS FOLLOWING TREAD CONSTRUCTION 3-7% EXISTING GRADE 2.2 SECTION DETAIL: FRONTCOUNTRY TRAIL- TYP. N.T.S Trail Type Name: Backcountry Trail (Coal Camp and Phase 2 Trails) Difﬁculty Rating: Moderate to Most Difﬁcult Difﬁculty Symbol: Blue Square or Black Diamond Typical Tread Width: 12”-36” Typical Corridor Width: 24”-60” Tread Rugosity: Relatively smooth, some roots or rocks, protrusions <12” above trail tread Average Gradient: <10% Maximum Sustained Grade: 15% Maximum Grade: 20% with surface treatment TREAD WIDTH VARIES: MIN. 12”, MAX. 36” 12” - 36” TREES AS ANCHORS, NOT LESS THAN 36” CORRIDOR TRAIL TREAD SURFACE, COMPACTED LEAF LITTER TO COVER ALL BACKSLOPE AND SPOILS STONE/UNDERSTORY TRAIL ANCHORS, NOT LESS THAN 24” 3-7% 3.1 PLAN DETAIL: BACKCOUNTRY TRAIL- TYP. N.T.S PROTRUSIONS IN TRAIL TREAD LESS THAN 12” 3.2 SECTION DETAIL: BACKCOUNTRY TRAIL- TYP. N.T.S 12” - 36” TRAIL TREAD SURFACE OF NATIVE MINERAL SOIL AND ROCK,COMPACTED LEAF LITTER TO COVER ALL BACKSLOPE AND SPOILS FOLLOWING TREAD CONSTRUCTION 3-7% EXISTING GRADE TREES AS ANCHORS, NOT LESS THAN 36” CORRIDOR, 24” FOR ROCK/ UNDERSTORY BACKSLOPE BLENDS WITH EXISTING GRADE, NOT TO EXCEED 1:1 SAMPLE: TRAIL SPECIFICATIONS Selection Criteria Questions 13. Describe your ability to complete the specific transaction(s) that will be necessary to accomplish this project. How have you demonstrated your ability with similar transactions? Describe your staff expertise and financial resources that will be used to complete this project, and similar information about partners who will assist you in completing the project. Please provide a list of projects from the last three years; including the project title, award, and year the project was funded (5 points) RFMBA will spearhead this project. Executive Director, Mike Pritchard, has a professional architectural background and oversaw the contracting, implementation, and administration of many projects in the private sector prior to taking on his current role. In 2015, RFMBA has implemented similar, if smaller, projects on City of Glenwood Springs and Town of New Castle lands, working as de facto project managers in lieu of municipal staff. These projects both required municipal matching funds (to match RFMBA volunteer donations) for implementation, via professional trail contracting assistance in Glenwood Springs and for on-site project management in New Castle. Understanding the probable compressed construction schedule (Tramway and Lightning Bug, August through October) for the initiation of the South Canyon project, RFMBA has secured signiﬁcantly more than the 30% cash match ($70,000 committed vs. $56,000 required) from both municipal and private sources. With this cash to begin the project, we can allow the contractor to front load the work as much as possible to assure completion, and with efﬁcient project administration, RFMBA will be able to utilize State funds to continue to cash ﬂow the construction. The ﬁnal reimbursement in 2017 will allow us to initiate the 2018 construction (Coal Camp, June), and ﬁnal reimbursement will be utilized for project close-out with the contractor after the trails have been approved for public use. As a relatively new organization, RFMBA has not applied for or received similar large grants. The City of Glenwood Springs has not applied for or received State funding for any natural surface trail projects in the past. As collaborative partners, RFMBA is providing professional capacity and services to assist the City in realizing this opportunity. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 14. How much of your planned cash match is secured? How much of it is yet to be raised and what are your plans for raising those additional funds? What is your “Plan B” if you are unable to raise those funds? Describe fundraising efforts and the cash or in kind partnerships established for this project. This does not include cash or in kind partners who have contributed to previous phases or will contribute to future phases. If cash or in-kind partnerships for this project were not possible, explain why. List, quantify and describe the volunteer contributions to be provided to the project. Include volunteer work with state agencies, municipalities, environmental organizations, schools, businesses, individuals and/or non-governmental groups. The current rate is $23.07/hour, found on: (www.independentsector.org/programs/research/volunteer_time.html. This link also has valuable information from the Financial Accounting Standards Board regarding quantifying volunteer time). (10 points) RFMBA has planned to secure $70,000 in cash match for this project. This is 25% more cash match than is required. We have secured a $10,000 commitment from a local bank branch, and are working with the bank to turn that funding into a local business challenge grant to double the amount to $20,000. The City of Glenwood Springs has committed $30,000 at its 10/6/2016 City Council meeting. RFMBA will be petitioning cash match support from Garﬁeld County on XX and the Town of New Castle on YY. Volunteer and in-kind contributions will also form a signiﬁcant portion of this project. RFMBA will contribute $15,000 in volunteer construction and in-kind services to develop two bridges. The City of Glenwood Springs will provide $15,000 in materials, staff, and equipment time to grade and gravel parking areas and erect trailhead kiosks and trailside signage. The Historic Preservation Commission will provide interpretive signage design, estimated at $5,000, related to the historic Coal Camp community in South Canyon. Glenwood Springs Parks and Recreation will be providing benches, estimated at $2,000, for trailhead and trailside interpretive signage locations. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Selection Criteria Questions 15. What is compelling about your community’s need for State Trail’s funds? Will the project (or components of it) get done if State Trail’s funds are not available? Will applicant and/or partner funds dedicated to this project be lost of State Trails doesn’t award a grant now? (5 points) The City of Glenwood Springs has never submitted a grant request in the Trails Program for natural surface trails. The last grant awarded through the GOCO program for trails in Glenwood Springs was a $50,000 award in 1996 to support the paved Rivertrail system. The only natural surface trail project in Garﬁeld County to receive funding in the last ten years was awarded for the Hanging Lake Trail (CO State Parks). Without a dedicated open space department and lack of capacity for natural surface trail development within the Glenwood Springs Parks and Recreation Department, there is no possibility of this project being completed without State Trail funds. Even with funding, this project would not be possible without the collaborative leadership from RFMBA. All committed matching funds for this project will be diverted elsewhere if the South Canyon Phase 1 project does not receive funding in this grant cycle, a situation that would hamper RFMBA’s credibility in attempting to restart this project at a later date. RFMBA does not have the volunteer capacity to develop this project without State support. We are utilizing this project to develop a broader stewardship base in Glenwood Springs, New Castle, and western Garﬁeld County. While we have had much success in developing volunteer stewards in the Carbondale-Aspen area, it has been due in large part to the presence of multiple natural surface trail systems where local volunteers can be deployed. Those volunteers have been extending themselves to work collaboratively with the City of Glenwood Springs and Town of New Castle, but we are stretching their capacity quite thin. With the development of the South Canyon trail system, RFMBA is conﬁdent that local volunteer stewards can be developed to bolster our ranks (along with those of our partner, Two Rivers Trails), and set a best practices example of responsible community trail development. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Federal Environmental Form and Land Manager Approval Only to be completed if all or part of the project is located on federal land The applicant is responsible for securing all necessary permits, licenses, clearances, SHPO, and environmental analysis documentation necessary to comply with local, state , and/or federal laws. Project Name South Canyon-Phase 1 Project Sponsor Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association As the official responsible for management of the land on which the project will be accomplished, I agree to the following: 1. The project as described in this application has my approval. 2. The project is located on federal public lands and is in conformance with the appropriate Forest Management Plan, BLM Resource Area Management Plan or other decision document. Title of document: Colorado River Valley Field Office Record Of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Date of document: June, 2015 3. A decision has been issued as part of the NEPA environmental review process. Title of document: EA DOl-BLM-C0-040-2016-0064 EA Date of document: FONSI and ROD on 9/28/2016 If a decision has not been issued as part of the NEPA environmental review process, please state the reason why. No funds will be distributed until any required NEPA documentation is completed . For more information about the NEPA environmental review process, contact: Name: Brian R. Hopkins Phone number: 970-876-9003 Email: bhopkins@blm,gov 4. The next planning process that may affect this project is planned for _N_A __ _ Print or type Land Manager's Brian Hopkins Name: Print or type Land Manger's Assistant Field Manager, CO River Field Office Title: Land Manager's Signature : ~ ~ Li~ ~ __...,,,,_ / ~ 1ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Non-Federal Environmental Form and Land Manager Approval Only to be completed if all or part of the project is located on non-federal land The Applicant is responsible for filling out this TOP portion of this page, following below and ending at "Applicant Environmental Checklist" The applicant is also responsible for securing all necessary permits, licenses, clearances, SHPO, and environmental analysis documentation necessary to comply with local, state, and/or federal laws. Project Na me South Canyon-Phase 1 Proje ct Spon sor Roa rin g Fork Mo unta in Bik e Assoc iation LAND OWNER AUTHORIZATION The proje ct described in thi s appli ca tion has my approv al. n's Signature and Title Debra Figu e ro a, City Manager, City of Gl e nwood Spring s APPLICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECK LIST Des crib e th e process (e s ) o r effo rt s yo u have made to rev iew pot enti a l wildlife and environm e nt a l imp act s of yo ur proj ect as co ncise ly a nd s pecifi ca ll y as po ss ibl e. Includ e a ny releva nt in fo rm ation in eac h of th e cate gory qu estion s li ste d be low a nd indi ca t e whi ch ques ti on yo u a re a nswe rin g . Exa m ples are given of th e types of information th at may be va lu abl e . If a q ue stion i s not appli ca bl e to thi s proje ct , pl ease writ e "N/A" and stat e your reaso nin g . 1. Species of Concern: Is it lik ely that plan t and /o r wildlife speci es of co nce rn are prese nt on t he propose d project site? • Fede rall y li sted , thre atened , a nd /o r end ange red spec ies • S pecies th at a re rare or have limited range in Col orado Perry Will , CPW Regional Wildli fe M anager states , i n a letter to Roaring Fork Mountain Bi ke Association dated 7/1 5/201 5, "CPW does not h ave any major conerns with th e proposed trails on c ity-owned lands within South Can yon. Existing d isturbances in the area incl ude th e land fi ll and shooting range. T he lower portions of the South Canyon drainage co ntain winter range habitat for mule deer and e lk and maintain hi gh concentratio ns of black bear." CO Natu ra l Heritage Program indicates th at there in no Potential Conser vati on Area (PCA) for South Canyo n or for the adj acent porti o n of the Colorado River at the co nfl uence wi th So ut h Canyo n Creek. ROAR ING FORK MOUNTAIN BI KE ASSOC IATI ON Sout h C anyon Tra il s Proposal 1ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal 4.Mitigation: How will these impacts be addressed? x Alternative design or trail route selection x Timing of project activities x Screening or users from wildlife area, protection of critical habitat, channeling use through less sensitive areas x Improvement (i.e., restoration) to habitat areas upon project completion Trailhead locations were chosen that had previously been impacted by grading activities. The trails were planned outside the South Canyon riparian area except at the one previously impacted location. The trail design process was guided by best practices for the design of physically durable trails with gentle trail corridor gradients (less than 10%) and continuous grade reversals. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal 3.Potential Impacts: List, in bulleted form, the proposed project activities. Then, describe how the project activities will, or potentially may, impact vegetation and/or wildlife. Include both short-term (during project activities) and long-term (impacts to habitats) effects. x Disturbance of sensitive species x Impacts to species during rest, feeding, or reproductive cycles x Encroachment, loss or reduction of habitat(s) x Intrusion into areas with little existing human impacts * Clearing and grubbing the trail corridor, approximately 8-feet in width,and spreading cut vegetation downslope * Mechanized construction of the trail tread, 3-5-feet in width * Sidecasting of spoils materials in a roughly uniform manner and so as not to bury vegetation existing downslope fo the trail * Compaction and hand tool-based shaping and compaction of the trail tread and backslope. * Regrading and surfacing of trailhead parking areas, one existing at the archery range and one previously used as the staging area for the coal mine reclamation project. * Regrading the unpaved entrance road to the coal mine reclamation trailhead area * Installation of trailhead and interpretive signage Short-term impacts to wildlife during the construction process may include minor disturbance of natural movement patterns for wildlife disturbed by the sounds of chainsaws and mechanized trailbuilding equipment. However, as the canyon road is heavily traveled, heavy machinery soundscapes from the active landfill is pervasive during daylight hours on most days throughout the canyon, and there is consistent gunfire from the shooting range, local wildlife are likely already dealing with these impacting conditions. Vegetation will be removed as part of the trail construction process. In the two canyon-based trails, the vegetation is primary successional in nature after the coal seam fire. In the upper canyon trail loop, the vegetation is mature coniferous forest with large gaps between trees that will require little tree removal as part of the trail construction process. The designed trail crosses the South Canyon Creek riparian area in one location with a bridge. That crossing location is also near a historic road corridor and power line on the west side of the creek, and the existing unpaved canyon road on the east side of the creek. The crossing will require no fill in the creek. 4.Mitigation: How will these impacts be addressed? x Alternative design or trail route selection x Timing of project activities x Screening or users from wildlife area, protection of critical habitat, channeling use through less sensitive areas x Improvement (i.e., restoration) to habitat areas upon project completion Trailhead locations were chosen that had previously been impacted by grading activities. The trails were planned outside the South Canyon riparian area except at the one previously impacted location. The trail design process was guided by best practices for the design of physically durable trails with gentle trail corridor gradients (less than 10%) and continuous grade reversals. 1ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal 5. Benefits: List habitat improvements such as restoration of wetlands, river corridors, and trail areas; restriction of recreationists from sensitive areas; environmental or recreation education efforts. x Education of users through environmental education programs, opportunities for “watchable wildlife,” and monitoring of wildlife impacts x Reroute trails away from sensitive habitats The trails have been planned to avoid the sensitive riparian resources, as well as rock outcrops that may be utilized by wildlife. The improved durable trail access to the existing hot springs will allow the City to dissuade access to this area through the multiple eroding social access routes off the roadside. A major focus of the project environmental education through interpretation of the mining and fire history of the area, as well as the current land uses (residential, landfill, shooting range, hot springs) within South Canyon. The overriding messaging will frame the area as having an important regional history where newer industrial land uses mix with conservation and recreation to provide multiple public values and ecological functions. 6.Environmental Compliance: Describe regulatory compliance, applicable permits and/or agency concurrence procedures that are, or are not required, and why. x Migratory Bird Treaty Act (i.e., nesting habitats will not be impacted by the project due to the project’s timing or, surveys for nesting birds will be conducted prior to activities and, activities that may impact active nests will be postponed x Concurrence from USFWS for effects determinations (or rationale for why no such concurrence is required) x US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permits x Compliance with raptor guidelines recommended by the Colorado Division of Wildlife The small construction footprint and daily site stabilization as part of the standard natural surface trail construction process creates a situation that allows for minimal amount and footprint for sediment transport. CPW has expressed no concerns related to wildlife/birds regarding construction timing in this environment that is dominated by 3-10' tall oak scrub. For this reason, it is assumed that USFWS concurrence is not required. No fill matieral will be placed within South Canyon Creek for the construction of a bridge near the lower trailhead. As such, no 404 permit is required from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The trail alignments on City lands are currently being reviewed by the local Historic Preservation Commission. The review will facilitate mitigative trail alignments and help determine interpretive signage locations and content. The trails have been planned to avoid sensitive riparian resources, as well as rock outcrops that may be utilized by wildlife. The improved durable trail access to the existing hot springs will allow the City to dissuade access to this area through multiple eroding social access routes off the nearby road. A major focus of the project is environmental education through interpretation of the mining and ﬁre history of the area, as well as the current land uses (residential, landﬁll, shooting range, hot springs) within South Canyon. The overriding messaging will frame the area as having an important regional history where newer industrial land uses mix with conservation and recreation to provide multiple public values and ecological functions. Principle source of information: (e .g., Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, local agency, staff biologist, consultant): CPW, local Historic Preservation Commission , Consultant (Kay-Linn Enterprises, trail designer) Printed name, title and telephone number of person consulted: Perry Will, Area Wildlife Manager, Glenwood Springs Area Office, (970) 947-2920 ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKf ASSOCIATION South ( anyon Trails Proposal SOURCE OF FUNDS Date Secured CPW Trails Grant Request Total Project Match Total Funding CASH Colorado Parks and Wildlife City of Glenwood Springs Garﬁeld County/Town of New Castle Alpine Bank Challenge Grant IN KIND Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association City of Glenwood Springs Glenwood Historical Society Glenwood Parks & Recreation TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS CASH Tramway Trail Construction Lightning Bug Trail Construction Coal Camp Trail Construction Construction/Project Administration 3-Panel Trailhead Kiosk (36x48” & base) Interpretive Trail Signage (24x36” & base) SOURCE OF FUNDS- CASH SUBTOTAL IN KIND RFMBA- Bridge Construction City of Glenwood Springs- TH gravel, grading, drainage mgt., and sign install Glenwood Historical Society- Signage design and artwork Glenwood Parks and Recreation- Benches SOURCE OF FUNDS- IN KIND SUBTOTAL TOTAL PROJECT COST 30% REQUIRED MATCH $188,725.00 $188,725.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $188,725.00 $107,000.00 $295,725.00 Qty.Cost Total CPW Funds Total Project Match Total Funding 14,137 $4.75 $67,150.75 $50,363.06 $16,787.69 $67,150.75 9,905 $6.00 $59,430.00 $44,572.50 $14,857.50 $59,430.00 19,000 $5.35 $101,650.00 $76,237.50 $25,412.50 $101,650.00 120 $95.00 $11,400.00 $8,550 $2,850.00 $11,400.00 2 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,500 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 6 $1,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,500 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $188,723.06 $62,907.69 $251,630.75 Qty.Cost Total CPW Funds Total Project Match Total Funding 2 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 $500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $37,000.00 $188,725.00 $99,907.69 $288,632.69 $56,617.50 SOUTH CANYON TRAILS - BUDGET ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal 6. Statewide Vicinity Map Statewide location map (Google Earth) View of South Canyon from North (Google Earth) ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal 6. Local Vicinity Map South Canyon- Glenwood Springs property, depicting connectivity to LoVa Trail GSATCP Overview Map depicting South Canyon Area (A) J H H H Phase2 H orse MtnTrails C o l o ra d o R i v e r §¨¦I-70 South Canyon Trail Plan Trail Design: July 2015 I00.5 10.25 Miles Legend Trailhead 89:X Bridge J Hot Spring Flagged Trails Green - Beginner Trail Blue - Intermediate Trail Road Historic Road Contours 20-foot 100-foot 1000-foot Gun Club Landfill Bureau of Land Management Historic SiteH BLM - Conceptual Trail Phase 2- Proposed Trail 16. Project Site MapGreen Trail - Tramway (3.34 miles, 771’ of elevation change, 4% average gradient) Blue - Lightning Bug (1.73 miles, 540’ of elevation change, 6% average gradient) Blue Loop on Hill - Coal Camp (3.07 miles, 900’ elevation change, 8% average gradient) ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal Hillslope analysis- Phase 1 trail system was purpose-designed to minimize challenging and expensive construction on steep (orange and red) slopes J H H H Phas e2 H orseMtnTrails C o l o ra d o R i v e r §¨¦I-70 South Canyon Trail Plan Trail Design: July 2015 I00.5 10.25 Miles Legend Trailhead 89:X Bridge J Hot Spring Flagged Trails Green - Beginner Trail Blue - Intermediate Trail Road Historic Road Contours 20-foot 100-foot 1000-foot Gun Club Landfill Bureau of Land Management Historic SiteH BLM - Conceptual Trail Phase 2- Proposed Trail TramwayLightningBugCoal Camp A l pine Slide Landfill Viewshed Analysis Visible Landfill viewshed analysis- purple indicate where the landfill can be seen within South Canyon. The trail system was purpose- designed to minimize this visual impact. J H H H Phas e2 H orse MtnTrails C o l o ra d o R i v e r §¨¦I-70 South Canyon Trail Plan Trail Design: July 2015 I00.5 10.25 Miles Legend Trailhead 89:X Bridge J Hot Spring Flagged Trails Green - Beginner Trail Blue - Intermediate Trail Road Historic Road Contours 20-foot 100-foot 1000-foot Gun Club Landfill Bureau of Land Management Historic SiteH BLM - Conceptual Trail Phase 2- Proposed Trail TramwayLightningBugCoal Camp A l pineSlide Hillslope Analysis Percent Slope 0 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 70 70+ ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal SCHEDULE Upon notiﬁcation of receiving the grant, RFMBA will prepare the project to be put out to bid to several professional trail contractors. Based on a similar process that we have completed in 2016, we expect that the bidding, review, and project award process will take four to six weeks. With a projected award date in late May, RFMBA will work with the selected contractor to develop an implementation schedule for 2017. Our experience this year in professionally contracting a trail project, along with corroboration from our project planner, we anticipate a start date of mid-August to mid-September. This will allow the ﬁrst portion (Lightning Bug and Tramway) of the project to be completed in Fall, 2017. The Coal Camp portion of the trail construction, the trailhead improvements to be undertaken by the City of Glenwood, the bridges constructed by RFMBA, and the installation of interpretive signage will be completed in early Summer, 2018 with a grand opening tentatively scheduled for early July. 1ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal 7. Photographs South aspect of Horse Mt. from Coal Camp Active Mine Reclamation County Landﬁll South Canyon- Ph 1 trails right of road South Canyon- Ph 1 trails left of road South Canyon road Mature forest- Coal Camp Trail Shooting range ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal 7. Photographs South Canyon’s historic remnants include rock and concrete building foundations, eroding stone wall fragments, rusting mining equipment, and vacated road and railroad beds. Overgrown vegetation currently obscures most of these archeological features. INTERPRETATION OPPORTUNITIES Historic homesite lacking sufﬁcient interpretation. Trails were located to avoid crossing these areas, and instead provide views from above where interpretive signs will be erected along the Tramway Trail. Coal Seam Fire viewed from the proposed trail’s side of the South Canyon valley. A mine reclamation project on the trail’s side of the canyon was avoided, except for the staging area being proposed as the Coal Camp Trailhead. The northern ﬂank of Horse Mt. on the left, where Phase 2 trails would access, high above the County landﬁll. As seen the relatively gentle topography lower in the South Canyon valley can be utilized to develop more accessible trails than the terrain available near Glenwood Springs. ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN BIKE ASSOCIATION South Canyon Trails Proposal LETTERS OF SUPPORT •City of Glenwood Springs •BLM Colorado River Field Ofﬁce •Garﬁeld County •Town of New Castle • Lower Valley Trails (LoVa) Organization •Two Rivers Trails October 21, 2016 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division Trails Program 13787 S. Hwy 85 Littleton, CO 80125 Re: South Canyon Trails Plan -State Trails Grant Opportunity Dear Colorado Recreational Trails Committee: Attached you will find an application for the 2015-2016 Trail grant program. The Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA) is applying for funding for a phased implementation of the South Canyon Trails Plan. The City of Glenwood Springs owns and manages the land that this trail system will be built on, has supported RFMBA's efforts to create the South Canyon Trails Plan, and now supports RFMBA's efforts to fund and manage the initial phase of construction for the trail system. The City of Glenwood Springs City Council has supported the planning efforts of RFMBA and local- partner-organization Two Rivers Trails over the past two years, beginning with the Glenwood Springs Area Concept Trails Plan, which was funded in part by the City's Conservation Trust Fund. Through this planning process, it became clear that public lands surrounding Glenwood Springs provide both challenges and opportunities when considering trail system improvements and expansions that will accommodate a broad cross section of trail users. Based on information determined from this initial trail planning process, the City Council voted unanimously to help fund the detailed planning process required to create the South Canyon Trail Plan. This Plan has been reviewed multiple times by our Parks and Recreation Commission, Rivers Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, and has been discussed at public input meetings and through direct outreach to many stakeholders. We are confident that having identified and studied various opportunities and constraints associated with creating trails in this location, the proposed trails system has been wisely and professionally designed. This trail system will benefit of our community's overall health and wellness. This investment will also result in increased visitation and tourism for Glenwood Springs. Both are key reasons for our support of this project. While the focus of this grant is in the construction of the trail system, a key benefit for locals, visitors, and our local economy, will be the new interpretive signage proposed to highlight the significant history of South Canyon itself. The City of Glenwood Springs is proud to be the lead local funding partner on this project, in concert with RFMBA, Garfield County, and the Town of New Castle. We are committing $30,000 of matching funds toward this grant, and will further provide in-kind assistance of staff, equipment, and materials to ensure a successful initial project implementation. We hope that you will look favorably upon our request. We feel that with leveraged funding our community will be able to provide high-quality trail experience and amenities for our residents, and the residents of the surrounding area, for years to come. Thank you for your consideration. 101 WEST 8n1 STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970-384-6406 970-945-5023 FAX WWW.COGS.US IN REPLY REFER TO: (9114)CON040 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Colorado River Valley F ield Office 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, CO 81652 October 13, 2016 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division Trails Program 13787 S. Hwy 85 Littleton, CO 80125 Re: South Canyon Trails Plan -SLM Support and Cooperation To Whom It May Concern: The Bureau of Land Management's Colorado River Valley Field Office (CRVFO) was consulted throughout the development of the South Canyon Trails Plan by The Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA). We are writing today in support of the developed plan, in the hope that RFMBA will be successful in it's application for funding towards initial implementation of the South Canyon Trail System. RFMBA has become an important partner for the BLM CRVFO through their efforts to plan, construct, and maintain high quality trails on BLM lands. BLM's national recreation strategy, Connecting with Communities, is most successful when partnerships with non-profits like RFMBA flourish and community organizations are encouraged to do their best work. Earlier this year, RFMBA was successful in securing funding and managing a professional trail contractor to undertake a major reroute of a BLM trail that provides access to the Crown Special Recreation Management Area. Without RFMBA's leadership and coordination, this BLM approved project may have been delayed by several years given current federal funding priorities. While the City of Glenwood Springs owns and manages the majority of land that this trail system will be built upon, the BLM manages several parcels of federal lands that are adjacent to City property in South Canyon. The BLM was provided with the opportunity to review an earlier draft version of the South Canyon Trails Plan. With the CRVFO's input, RFMBA undertook planning revisions to preclude future trail system expansion onto BLM lands. With this cooperation, BLM proceeded with RFMBA's request to study the potential for a key trail system route segment to be approved on BLM land. During spring and summer 2016, an environmental analysis was conducted that included 0.40 miles of historic bench cut road on BLM land {to be known as the Tramway Trail, a nod to the Canyon's historic mining activity). This portion of route, which will essentially be a road to trail conversion project, serves to connect South Canyon's lower trailhead (which is on City land) to all other trails within the proposed system. An alternate route option, staying on City land, would have been prohibitively expensive given steep slopes and vertical rock bands. The outcome of the BLM's analysis toward opening this route to non-motorized use resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact, and a Record of Decision signed on Sept. 28, 2016. Having been consulted as a key stakeholder during this plan's development phase, the BLM is fully aware of the value of the trail system's future value to surrounding communities. While the BLM trail segment is short compared to the remainder of trails proposed on City land, we are pleased that RFMBA has partnered with both local governments and the BLM to provide designs, and now most recently, secure local matching funding towards a future trail system. Thank you for considering this request for funding of the approved South Canyon Trails Plan. Brian R. Hopkins, Assistant Field Manager BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office Tom Jankovsky Di strict 1 John Martin, Chair District 2 Mike Samson, Chair Pro Tem Distri ct 3 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division Tra ils Program 13787 S. Hwy 85 Littleton , CO 80125 Garfield County BOARD OF GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: South Canyon Trails Plan -2016-2017 CPW State Trails Program Grant Application To Whom It May Concern : Garfield County's Board of County Commissioners is pleased to support the Roa ring Fork Mountain Bike Association 's application for construction funding of the South Canyon Trai ls Plan . While the land for this trail system is owned by Glenwood Springs, it is centrally located within Garfield County and is expected to be a major benefit to many loca l and regional citizens as well as visitors to the area. Garfield County supported RFMBA 's efforts to create the South Canyon Trails Plan , and now supports RFMBA's efforts to imp leme nt the initial phase of construction for the trail system. Garfield County supported RFMBA's efforts to create the South Canyon Trai ls Plan , and now supports RFMBA's efforts to implement the initial phase of construction for the trail system. Garfield County has been supportive of RFMBA and local partner organization Two Rivers Trails ' plann ing efforts . Fund ing for the professional planning of this trail system was provided both through the County's Conservation Trust Fund and the County's LiveWell Mini Grant Program. Support for this detailed planning was provided based on compelling work accomplished through the Glenwood Springs Area Concept Trails Plan . This area concept plan provided a strong indication that public lands surround Glenwood Springs provide both challenges and opportunities when considering trail system improvements and expansions that wi ll cater to a broad cross section of tra il users. Based on information determined from this initial trail planning process , the Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to help fund the detailed planning process required to create the South Canyon Trail Plan . The proposed trails system has been carefully designed to account for existing conditions and to provide a well-rounded trail user experience that is not currently provided in this area of the County. In Garfield County's Needs Assessment, issued May 2016, the South Canyon Trails Plan was cited as establish ing framework for the development of cost-effective , diverse, shared-use tra ils on City of Gle nwood Springs managed lands . The plan's recommendations include trail types , trailhead locations , historic resource interpretation, implementation strategy, and phasing and cost estimates. Given the value of turn ing this plan into reality, especially the benefits to community health and wellness, as well as increased tourist visitation to the region, the Needs Assessment prioritized implementation of this project. In fact , soft surface trails as recreation destinations were identified as priorities throughout the County. 108 8th Street, Suite 101 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Office: 970-945-5004 • Fax: 970-945-7785 Garfield County continues to see tremendous value in supporting this project, and is committing $15,000 of matching funds to help secure this State Trails Grant funding opportunity . In concert with matching funds from our local communities , we look forward to see ing this valuable project break ground as soon as possible . Sincerely , October 18 , 2016 Town ofNew Castle 450 W . Main Street PO Box 90 New Castle, CO 81647 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division Trails Program 13787 S. Hwy 85 Littleton, CO 80125 Re: South Canyon Trails Plan -Support for State Trails Grant To Whom It May Concern: Administration Phone: (970) 984-2311 Fax: (970) 984-2716 www .newcastlecolorado.org Over the past years , the Town of New Castle has benefited from the knowledge sharing and volunteer coordination efforts of The Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA). RFMBA has coordinated a Better Living Through Trails presentation and Trail Building School for our community and has been an instrumental partner in addressing the future of high quality trails on public lands in and adjacent to New Castle. Given our ongoing support for planning of the Lower Valley (Lo Va) regional trail system, we are now pleased to support RFMBA's efforts to develop the South Canyon Trails Plan. The paved Lo Va Trail will one day connect New Castle directly to the planned soft surface trails in South Canyon. In the meantime, New Castle residents will be able to access South Canyon by just a short drive on I-70. In recognition of the value that this trail system will provide to our immediate region, New Castle supports RFMBA' s efforts to fund and manage the initial phase of construction for the trail system. The future value of this trails system will be to the benefit of our community's overall health and wellness via increased high quality recreation opportunities. The proposed South Canyon Trail System will be seen as a positive development, and even a deciding factor, for those future residents and businesses that decide to move to New Castle. The Town of New Castle is pleased to support this project in concert with RFMBA, Glenwood Springs, and Garfield County. We are committing $5,000 of matching funds towards this grant, and will also look forward to assisting with future phase development of the South Canyon Trails Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Bruce Leland Town of New Castle, Town Council, Mayor Pro Tern ~ Lo Va Lower Va ll ey T r a ilway ' October 15, 2016 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division Trails Program 13787 S. Hwy 85 Littleton , CO 80125 Re: Roaring fork Mountain Biking Association's prant Application I ' On behalf of the Lower Valley Trails Group (Lo Va), I am writing this letter in support of the Roaring Fork Mountain Biking Association's (RFMBA) request for funding for a phased implementation of the South Canyon Trails Plan. Lo Va was established in 1999, with the mission of facilitating the planning and constructing of a regional, non-motorized trail from Glenwood SpriJ!gs, west through the Colorado River valley, 47 miles to the Mesa County line. The trail would connect the communities of Glenwood Springs, New Castle, Silt, Rifle, and Parachute. This vision includes promoting both spur trails that connect population centers to the arterial Lo Va Trail, as well as spur recreational trails into the surrounding mountains, like the-trails proposed in RFMBA's grant application. Glenwood Springs and New Castle have made great strides toward connecting these two communities via the Lo Va Trail through South Canyon (the most critical connection of the Lo Va Trail). The City of Glenwood owns much of the surrounding land in South Canyon and plans to further develop these lands for recreational purposes for citizens and visitors to the area. This effort will begin to make the mountains around South Canyon a destination for mountain bikers. Developing the mountain biking trails connecting Glenwood Springs to South Canyon as envisioned by RFMBA, along with the future construction of the Lo Va Trail through South Canyon, will allow for a wonderful loop trail for cyclists. Lo Va wholeheartedly supports this effort, and asks tl'!e State Trails Program to give thoughtful consideration to RFMBA • s grant application on behalf of the citizens of Glenwood Springs, New Castle and all of Garfield County. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, rj(: (fr, . L I E ~' D' arry n{agon, xecut1ve uector PO Box 41 New Castle, Colorado 81647 970-379-9889 ldragon@lovatrails.org P.O. Box 1135 Silt, CO 81652 • 970-876-LOVA (5682) • lovainfo@lovatrails.org TWO RIVERS TRAILS, INC. rT.f 11B()tlT ml11L.f/ October 13, 2016 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division Trails Program 13787 S. Hwy 85 Littleton, CO 80125 Re: State Trails Program Grant for South Canyon Trails Plan To Whom It May Concern: Two Rivers Trails, Inc. ("TRT") is a volunteer organization based in Glenwood Springs dedicated to planning, building and maintaining unpaved trails for bicycling and hiking to improve the already excellent outdoor experience in Glenwood Springs for residents and visitors. TRT was started in 2010 and was officially incorporated as a Colorado non-profit corporation in 2011. TRT dove-tailed off efforts of Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers to plan and construct approximately 5 miles of soft surface trails at City of Glenwood Springs owned property known as Wulfsohn Mountain Park. With the Wulfsohn Mountain Park Plan implemented, volunteers and residents desired additional soft trails and many mentioned the trail opportunities in South Canyon. As a small unstaffed volunteer organization, TRT was fortunate enough to partner with Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association ("RFMBA") in the development of a Trails Concept Plan for the Glenwood Springs Area. RFMBA's expertise and professionalism was indispensable in guiding and creating the Trails Concept Plan that identified opportunities for soft surface trails in and around Glenwood Springs, including the South Canyon Area. TRT and RFMBA approached Garfield County and Glenwood Springs to fund the creation of the South Canyon Trails Plan ("SCTP"). With the funding approved, RFMBA skillfully managed the consultant and added the necessary local input that resulted in the SCTP, which has been adopted by both Garfield County and Glenwood Springs. During that process, TRT partnered with RFMBA and held open houses and public meetings on the SCTP that were well-attended by area residents and provided ample evidence of the demand for this trail system. To see the SCTP come to fruition, TRT is wholeheartedly supporting RFMBA's application for construction funding from the State Trails Program. South Canyon trails will be a major benefit to local and regional residents as well as tourists to this area. The scope of the SCTP to accommodate a broad spectrum of trail users, and the challenges of constructing this trail network, make it impractical to build with only volunteer help; although once constructed, TRT will help manage and maintain the trail system. We identified very early in the process that a professional trail contractor is needed to implement the SCTP and TRT has collaborated with RFMBA to obtain private funding, LiveWell Garfield County grants and funding from Glenwood Springs and Garfield County. This indicates broad support in our community for this project and funding participation at the state level will make this plan a reality. We thank you for your consideration. P.O. Drawer 2030;Glcnwood S1Jrings, Colorado 81602 Pagel BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Request for Qualifications South Canyon Trails Phase 1 #BD 2017-066 for the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado November 17, 2017 Proposal Deadline: December 18, 2017, 4:00 p.m. Local Time For additional information contact: Ricky Smith, Procurement Manager City of Glenwood Springs (970-384-6445) BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION SECTION 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE 1.0 General Project Description 1.1 Project Scope SECTION 2: CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS, REQUIREMENTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 Expertise 2.2 Shared Use Experience 2.3 Portfolio 2.4 Insurance 2.5 Worker ’s compensation 2.6 Tools 2.7 Mechanized equipment 2.8 Backcountry protocol 2.9 Meetings and progress reviews 2.10 What contractor provides 2.11 Timetable 2.12 Food and Water 2.13 Public safety 2.14 Fees for licenses, permits and insurance 2.15 Employee conduct 2.16 Employee competence 2.17 Compliance with modern practices 2.18 Condition of materials and equipment 2.19 Trail work specifications 2.20 Trail rehabilitation 2.21 Indemnity SECTION 3: REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS 3.1 Jurisdictional regulations 3.2 City of Glenwood Springs’ Contractor License 3.3 Applicable laws and courts 3.4 Ethics in public contracting SECTION 4: FINAL INSPECTION AND PAYMENT 4.1 Final inspection and payment SECTION 5: TIMELINE AND SCHEDULE 5.1 Pre-Bid conference and site visit (November 28, 2017) 5.2 Deadline for requests for clarifications/questions (December 11, 2017) 5.3 Responses to requests for clarification distributed (December 12, 2017) 5.4 Bid submission deadline (December 18, 2017) 5.5 Anticipated award announcement (January 19, 2018) BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 5.6 Contract and Insurance Certificate (February 7, 2018) 5.7 Work Complete, Phase 1 (Sept. 15, 2018) SECTION 6: BID SUBMISSION PACKAGE SECTION 7: BASIS FOR AWARD AND RIGHT OF REJECTION 7.1 Basis for award 7.2 Right of rejection 7.3 Qualifications and experience 7.3 Additional information 7.4 Estimated Quantities 7.5 Partial Award SECTION 8: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATIONS 8.1 Request for Clarification 8.2 Point of contact 8.3 Project contact 8.4 Written communication SECTION 9: BID WORKSHEETS 9.1 Bid Worksheet A 9.2 Bid Worksheet B PART B: PROJECT DETAIL SECTION 10: FINISHED TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 10.1 Trail Design 10.2 Corridor clearing 10.3 Debris 10.4 Tread 10.5 Rocks 10.6 Woody material 10.7 Backslope 10.8 Trail, Finished Condition 10.9 Turns 10.10 Grade reversals 10.11 Water diversions 10.12 Invasive species 10.13 Mechanized Equipment Best Practices SECTION 11: UNIT DEFINITIONS AND DETAIL DRAWINGS 11.1 Trail Flagging 11.2 Trail Construction Type 1 (figures 1- 4) BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 11.3 Rock Armor (figure 5) 11.4 Rolling Grade Dip (figure 6) 11.5 Rock Retaining Wall (figure 7) 11.6 Rock Armored Ford (figure 8) 11.7 Switchback (figure 9) 11.8 Insloped Turn (figure 10) 11.9 Reconstruct Tread 11.10 Trail Closure (figure 11) 11.11 Modifications 11.12 Figures SECTION 12: PROJECT DETAILS 12.1 South Canyon Phase 1 - Trail Projects ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A, Addendum to Professional Services Exhibit B, Local Preference Exhibit C, Sample Agreement Exhibit D, Contractor’s Application for Payment Exhibit E, Standard General Conditions for Construction Exhibit F, Bonding Requirements BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 PART A GENERAL INFORMATION SECTION 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE 1.0 General Project Description The City of Glenwood Springs is seeking a contractor to provide an experienced trail crew to perform specified soft surface trail construction of shared-use and bike-optimized trails on City owned property. The work site is known as “South Canyon”, and is accessed via I-70, Exit 111, approximately 4 miles west of downtown Glenwood Springs. South Canyon is home to the City’s Landfill, and a leased Gun Club facility. A short portion of new trail has been approved on adjacent BLM managed land. The project area includes historic bench cut roads, grassy meadows, and rugged terrain with steep and thickly vegetated side slopes ranging from 20 to 70 percent. The elevation ranges from 5,700 to 7,300 feet. While the project is in a relatively remote and natural area, the area does have at least limited mobile phone coverage, and is relatively close to emergency medical service. Trails within the scope of work are intended for biking, hiking, and running use. The majority of the trail work and development is accessible by an improved County road open to public use that is roughly parallel to the work areas. 1.1 Project Scope The work outlined in this document shall be completed by Sept., 15, 2018. Overall, the project’s scope of work includes at least 42,850 feet of new construction. Completed work must meet the specifications outlined in “Part B Project Details.” SECTION 2: CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS, REQUIREMENTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 Expertise The Contractor shall have sufficient expertise and ability to complete the work in a professional manner. 2.2 Shared Use & Bike Optimized Trail Construction Experience The Contractor shall have demonstrable experience in building sustainable shared use (for hikers and cyclists) singletrack trail in a front-country environment. For the Lightening Bug Trail scope of work, Contractor shall have demonstrable experience in building sustainable bike optimized descent trail with features appropriate to a broad range of rider skill levels. (Also, revise 9.1 Bid Worksheet A to match this additional experience requirement.) 2.3 Portfolio The Contractor shall provide a portfolio showing work accomplished and references from past comparable or relevant projects. 2.4 Insurance The Contractor shall purchase and maintain at its own expense, insurance which is at least as broad, and with limits at least as great as outlined below: General Liability Policy form: Occurrence Policy Aggregate $ 1,000,000 Products/completed operations aggregate $ 1,000,000 BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Each occurrence limit .......................................... $ 500,000 Personal & advertising injury limit $ 500,000 Products/completed operations Defense in excess of limits Per location / per job aggregate limit Blanket contractual Independent contractors Primary & non-contributory Show Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City All locations / operations (if not, show city job/location specifically) Name the City as “Additional Insured” Automobile Liability: Combined single limit:................................................ $ 1,000,000 Any auto (or Hired & Non-owned, if you own no vehicles) Show Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City Primary & non-contributory Auto pollution liability (IF you carry any hazardous cargo) ( If the Vendor is providing repairs to City vehicles on the Vendor's property, the Vendor shall possess Garage Liability Insurance, covering premises, auto and completed operations) Name the City as “Additional Insured” 2.5 Workman’s compensation Workers’ Compensation: Workers Compensation benefits: per Colorado Statute Employers liability – limit per accident $ 100,000 Employers liability – limit per disease $ 100,000 Employers liability – disease aggregate $ 500,000 All owners/officers who will be on City property or job site must be covered Show Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City Coverage must apply to workers in Colorado Insurance companies providing the coverages specified above must be authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Colorado and must be rated no less than “A-“by A.M. Best Company. Issuance of a contract is contingent upon verification of all required coverage, as required. 2.6 Tools The Contractor shall perform the required work using hand tools and/or small mechanized equipment that is a maximum of 50” in width. Equipment with adjustable width tracks should be able to reduce track width to less than 50”. Some sites may not be suitable for equipment this large and other sites may not be suitable for any mechanized equipment regardless of size due to terrain constraints. Permanent modification of trail outside the scope of work to accommodate equipment access is not desirable and must be approved by the City. BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 2.7 Mechanized equipment All mechanized equipment shall be in good mechanical condition, free of any fluid leaks, be equipped with spark arrestors if applicable, and have fire extinguishers mounted. All equipment will be clean and free of debris before being introduced to work site. Equipment is subject to inspection at the start and during the project. Any equipment that appears to not meet these criteria shall be removed from the project site at the request of the City’s representative at no additional cost to the City. 2.8 Backcountry protocol Although this project is in a semi-front-country environment, the Contractor’s crew shall be familiar with backcountry operation and safety protocols as well as be familiar and adept at “leave no trace” practices. 2.9 Meetings and progress reviews The Contractor shall meet with a City’s representative at the beginning of each work week or as otherwise agreed upon by both parties to review progress and project expectations for the week. 2.10 What contractor provides The Contractor shall provide the necessary supervision, equipment and tools to perform specified trail construction on identified trails and sites, including fuel for any mechanized equipment or tools and any and all personal protection and safety equipment required. 2.11 Timetable The Contractor shall provide an approximate timetable and schedule detailing how all project work will be met. 2.12 Food and Water The Contractor shall be responsible for providing food and water for self and staff. 2.13 Public safety The Contractor shall ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to protect the public at all times where work is being performed. 2.14 Fees for licenses, permits and insurance All costs for required licenses, permits, and insurance shall be borne by the Contractor. 2.15 Employee conduct All of the Contractor’s employees shall conduct themselves in a proper manner at all times. Intoxication or any unsafe behavior by the Contractor’s employees while performing duties related to this contract is strictly prohibited. The Contractor will be required to remove from the site any individual whose continued employment is deemed to be contrary to the public interest or inconsistent with the best interests of this trail construction project, and will not use such individual to perform services under this contract. 2.16 Employee competence The Contractor may be required to immediately remove from the worksite any employee of the Contractor who is incompetent or who endangers persons or property or whose physical or mental condition is such that it would impair the employee’s ability to BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 satisfactorily perform the work. Notification to the City shall be made in person or by telephone and confirmed in writing as soon as possible. No such removal shall reduce the Contractor’s obligation to perform all work required under this contract. 2.17 Compliance with modern practices All work shall be performed and completed in a thoroughly skillful, efficient and professional manner in accordance with best modern practices, regardless of any omissions from the attached specifications and/or drawings. Contractor is responsible for conducting utility locates prior to commencement of work in any particular project area. 2.18 Condition of materials and equipment All materials and equipment shall be new or otherwise in good working order and shall comply with the applicable standard in every case where such a standard has been established for the particular type of material in question. 2.19 Trail work specifications All trail work shall be done according to the specifications contained in the 2004 edition of the IMBA Trail Solutions Guide and the 2007 edition of the USDA Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook. Refer to these publications for details and descriptions of trail maintenance and construction. (Practice of 2.17, Compliance with modern practices may over-rule this directive.) South Canyon Trail System - Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative will be addended to any contract for work and serves to remind contractor of industry best practices. 2.20 Trail rehabilitation The Contractor shall rehabilitate sections of trail that will be closed as a result of trail realignment. 2.21 Indemnity The successful Contractor shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all claims, liabilities, losses and causes of action which may arise out of the fulfillment of the Vendor’s contractual obligations as outlined in this Solicitation. The Contractor or its insurer(s) shall pay all claims and losses of any nature whatever in connection therewith, and shall defend all suits, in the name of the City when applicable, and shall pay all costs and judgments which may issue thereon. SECTION 3: REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS 3.1 Jurisdictional regulations The work shall comply with all laws, ordinances and regulations of all legally constituted authorities having jurisdiction over any part of this work. These requirements supplement the specifications and shall take precedence in case of conflict. 3.2 City of Glenwood Springs’ Contractors License Contractor’s must hold a current City of Glenwood Springs’ Contractors License by March 1, 2018. If a current license is not held, bidder must acquire a license to execute a contract for work. BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 3.3 Applicable laws and courts This solicitation and any resulting contract shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the Colorado and any litigation with respect thereto shall be brought in the courts of Colorado. 3.4 Ethics in public contracting By submitting their bids, bidders certify that their bids are made without collusion or fraud and that they have not offered or received any kickbacks or inducements from any other bidder, supplier, manufacturer or subcontractor in connection with their bid, and that they have not conferred on any person having official responsibility for this procurement transaction any payment, loan, subscription, advance, deposit of money, services or anything of more than nominal value, present or promised, unless consideration of substantially equal or greater value was exchanged. SECTION 4: FINAL INSPECTION AND PAYMENT 4.1 Final inspection and payment Upon the completion of the contract work, a City’s representative shall accompany the Contractor on an inspection of the work. All defects found in the work will be corrected before final payment will be authorized. Final payment will be made upon 100 percent completion and approval of work. Partial payments will be made when the Contractor’s payment application is submitted and approved by the project manager. SECTION 5: TIMELINE AND SCHEDULE The project schedule is as follows: November 28, 2017 Pre-bid conference and site visit December 11, 2017 Last day for questions December 12, 2017 Responses to requests for clarification distributed December 18, 2017 Bid submission deadline January 19, 2018 Anticipated award announcement February 7, 2018 Contract signed, certificate(s) provided September 15, 2018 Phase 1 Work complete 5.1 Pre-Bid conference and site visit (November 28, 2017) Due to the importance of all potential Contractors having a clear understanding of the specifications and requirements of this solicitation, a mandatory pre-bid conference/site visit will be held November 28, 2017. All bidders shall bring a copy of this solicitation and any subsequent amendments. Any changes resulting from this conference will be noted in a written amendment to the solicitation. Attendance at this meeting (or a self - guided site visit) is mandatory for the successful bidder and deemed necessary for the Contractor to properly estimate the difficulty and cost of successfully performing the work. The City assumes no responsibility for any conclusions or interpretations made by the Contractor based on information made available at the conference. Nor does the City assume responsibility for any understanding reached or representation made by any of its representatives or agents before the execution of this contract, unless that understanding is expressly stated in this contract. Bidders are cautioned that in no event shall failure to familiarize themselves with requirements of this solicitation, or to resolve ambiguous or inconsistent terms or conditions of this solicitation or proposed contract, BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 constitute grounds for a claim of any kind after contract award. As the work sites are spread over a large, remote area it will not be possible to visit all the work sites during the pre-bid conference. That does not relieve the bidder of their responsibility to be aware of the conditions at each site. It is expected that a worthwhile review of these sites may require at least three days. The use of motorized vehicles or off-highway vehicles on trails or roads not open to their use will not be allowed for the purposes of site evaluation outside of the pre-bid conference. The mandatory pre-bid conference/site visit will be held on: Date: November 28, 2017 Time: 8:30 AM Location: South Canyon Archery Range Parking Lot Address: I-70, Exit 111, South Canyon, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 The mandatory pre-bid conference will begin at the South Canyon Archery Range parking lot with a conference and review of the RFQ. A subsequent drive with multiple stops will be made to various points along the project site. Please wear clothing suitable for hiking and walking in mountains. The pre-bid tour should be concluded by 11:30am. Bidders are encouraged to RSVP for the pre-bid conference and site visit by November 28, 2017 to Ricky Smith, ricky.smith@cogs.us 5.2 Deadline for requests questions (December 11, 2017) All requests for clarification must be submitted in writing to Ricky Smith at ricky.smith@cogs.us . 5.3 Responses to requests for questions (December 12, 2017) Response(s) to written requests for questions will be distributed to recipients of the bid package via email. 5.4 Bid submission and Certificate of Insurance deadline (December 18, 2017) All bid submissions are due on December 18, 2017 at 4:00 PM Mountain Standard Time. (See section 6 for bid package details) 5.5 Anticipated award announcement (January 19, 2018) The contract award announcement is anticipated to occur on this date. 5.6 Contract issued and executed, Certificates of Insurance, bonding (February 7, 2018) The successful bidder will be required to execute a written contract with COGS within seven (7) days after notice of acceptance of his proposal. In the event the successful bidder fails or refuses to execute a formal contract as required within seven (7) days after notice of acceptance of his bid, the Letter of Acceptance of the bidder’s proposal may be revoked, and all obligations of the COGS in connection herewith will be canceled. 5.7 Work Complete, Phase 1 (September 15, 2018) All Phase 1 work shall be completed and approved by a City representative before September 15, 2018. Contractors who commit in writing to an accelerated completion BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 and approval date of July 15, 2018, by fielding multiple crews or through other methods, may be given additional preference during bid review process. SECTION 6: BID SUBMISSION PACKAGE Sealed bids will be received at the City of Glenwood Springs, in the Procurement Department, Third Floor, City Hall, 101 West 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601, until 4:00 p.m., (local time) December 18, 2017, at which time bids will be publicly read for the furnishing of the South Canyon Trail Phase 1 work for the City of Glenwood Springs. Responses may also be submitted electronically to bidresponse@cogs.us no later than the required time and date. Include the Bid title and #BD2017-066 in the subject line of the email. The bid package must contain each of the following. Incomplete bid packages may not be considered. • Completed bid worksheets A and B (see section 9.1, 9.2, Worksheets A and B) • A recommended project schedule and timetable. • Three (3) references from previous shared use trail construction projects. • One (1) letter of recommendation from a previous successful trail project. • Portfolio containing descriptions and pictures of at least three (3) past projects similar to this project. Project descriptions shall include short explanation of work performed and list contract amount for this work. SECTION 7: BASIS FOR AWARD AND RIGHT OF REJECTION 7.1 Basis for award This solicitation may be canceled by the City of Glenwood Springs, and any bid or proposal may be rejected in whole or in part for good cause when in the best interests of the City of Glenwood Springs. 7.2 Right of rejection The City of Glenwood Springs reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or accept what is, in its judgment, the best bid. If a contract is awarded, it will be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, in accordance with Article 010.050 of the Municipal Code, whose bid is deemed by the City of Glenwood Springs to be in the best interests of the project. 7.3 Qualifications and experience The qualifications and experience of the Contractor in completing similar work will be given equal weight to price of the bids in determining value of qualified bids. 7.3 Additional information The City reserves the right to request that the bidder supply additional information prior to the award of the contract should such action be deemed in the City’s best interest. 7.4 Estimated Quantities It shall be understood and agreed that any quantities included by City in the Project Details and Worksheet B are estimated only and may be increased or decreased in accordance with the actual normal requirements of the City and that the City in accepting any bid or portion thereof, contracts only and agrees to purchase only the services in BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 such quantities as represent the actual requirements of the City. The City reserves the right to change the quantities at its discretion and it is understood that this will have no effect on the price per unit quoted by the bidder. 7.5 Partial Award The City reserves the right to award a partial award of only one trail project contained within the solicitation or to award separate trail projects to separate bidders. For this reason a one-time mobilization rate is requested as a separate line item. It is recommended to bid on all trail projects, but is not required. SECTION 8: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATIONS/QUESTIONS 8.1 Requests for Clarification/Questions All requests for clarification shall be submitted via email to the project contact by deadline listed above. Responses to all questions will be distributed via email to all participants of the mandatory pre-bid meeting. 8.2 Point of contact Bidders SHALL NOT make any contact or communications with any member of the Evaluation Committee, or any other agent, officer, or representative of the City or associated partners in regards to this solicitation. 8.3 Project contact If you have questions concerning this project, please contact Ricky Smith at ricky.smith@cogs.us. 8.4 Written communication All questions must be submitted in writing to the email address listed above. Questions not received 10 prior to bid deadline will not be considered. BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 SECTION 9: BID WORKSHEETS 9.1 Bid Worksheet A RED MT. TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - WORKSHEET A Company name ___________________________________________________________ Contact person ___________________________________________________________ Contact person’s phone number ___________________________________________________________ Contact person’s email ___________________________________________________________ Company address ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ PTBA Member? Yes______ (member since _________) No ______ If bidder is not a member of the Professional Trailbuilders Association please provide a separate document that describes why and details equivalent experience and expertise. Is the bidder a Disadvantageous Business Enterprise (DMBE)? ______ Yes If yes, provide DMBE #:_________ Experienced in constructing sustainable, shared-use trails (hike & bike)? ______Yes ______ No Experienced in building sustainable bike optimized descent trail with features appropriate to a broad range of rider skill levels? ______ Yes ______ No Please list similar past projects: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Please provide three (3) references from previous shared use trail construction projects with contact information (phone numbers and email addresses). 1. 2. 3. Please attach one (1) letter of recommendation from a previous like project. Provide a detailed list of likely project team members, including skill sets and relevant experience. Provide a list of the equipment and tools intended to be used in completing the scope of work. Provide a recommended schedule/timetable that allows for work completion per the specified schedule. Provide bid total and information about the intended team, equipment, workflow description, and schedule. Bid totals must be consistent with estimates submitted on Bid Worksheet B. South Canyon Phase 1: 2018 Bid Total*: Start Date: End Date: *(Must match total from worksheet B) Trail Project 1 Bid Subtotal: Trail Project 1 Bid Subtotal: Trail Project 1 Bid Subtotal: By signing this, I certify that I have am fully aware of the site locations, their conditions, access restrictions and other constraints. I accept the terms and conditions expressed and contained in the specifications included in and attached to this RFQ. _____________________________________________________________________ BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 (sign here and date) 9.2 Bid Worksheet B SOUTH CANYON PHASE 1 TRAIL PROJECTS - WORKSHEET B • For each Trail Project bid, fill in unit price for all items. • Failure to provide a unit price for any item may invalidate the bid for that site. • Unit prices should be made on a per-trail basis. • Quantities for each Phase are estimated. Final quantities may change, but the unit price will be fixed. • Provide cost for mobilization per trail. Tramway Trail Type of Work: Unit of Measure: Est. Quantity: Price/Unit: Trail Construction linear feet 5,425 __________ Major Turn const. each 10 __________ Existing Route Conv.* linear feet 10,725 __________ Mobilization 1 per Project 1 __________ Subtotal: __________ Lightning Bug Type of Work: Unit of Measure: Est. Quantity: Price/Unit: Trail Construction linear feet 6,825 __________ Major Turn const. each 21 __________ Existing Route Conv.* linear feet 2,275 __________ Mobilization 1 per Project 1 __________ Subtotal: __________ Coal Camp BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Type of Work: Unit of Measure: Est. Quantity: Price/Unit: Trail Construction linear feet 17,600 ________ Major Turn const. each 20 _______ Existing Route Conv.* linear feet 0 _______ Mobilization 1 per Project 1 _______ Subtotal: ________ Grand Total, all trail projects: ________ * Existing Route Conversion assumes a lower unit cost for new trail to be constructed on historic bench cut roads and other routes. BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Part B: PROJECT DETAIL SECTION 10: FINISHED TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 10.1 Trail Design Design of any reroutes must be guided by the sustainable trail principles promulgated by accepted resources such as the 2004 edition of the IMBA Trail Solutions Guide and the 2007 edition of the USDA Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook. 10.2 Corridor clearing Corridor clearing shall be confined to within three (3) feet of tread and backslope edges. Refer to section 11.2 for new construction clearing specifications. 10.3 Debris Debris shall be treated as follows: Cut and scatter all branches and brush to maximum height of 18 inches; no debris left within 10 feet of trail; butt-ends of any sawed limbs placed facing away from trail. 10.4 Tread All tread shall be constructed as three (3) feet wide (four feet wide maximum) full bench whenever possible. If fill is required, it should be supported by a stone retaining wall. 10.5 Rocks Maximum size rock material to be left in trail shall not protrude more than three (3) inches from the tread surface. Exceptions may be made in scree fields or where only a portion of the tread is obstructed. All rock embedded in the trail surface should be stable. When used in structures, care will be taken to match rock to the immediate surroundings; grain patterns, lichen growth, etc. Excess tool marks on rocks are not acceptable. Non-native rock may not be imported into a work area without approval of City. 10.6 Woody material Woody material such as stumps, logs, and brush shall be removed from the trail tread. 10.7 Backslope Backslope of trail should be graded to 3 to 1 slope or better, unless impractical at sections of trail located within extremely steep sideslopes. 10.8 Trail, Finished Condition Hand finish and grading of trail tread, backslope, down slope spoils, and drainage features shall leave a surface that matches the texture of the surrounding forest floor while enabling water to drain of the trail. 10.9 Turns All turns should have a minimum radius of twelve (12) feet and can be either a traditional rolling crown switchback or, on slopes with a maximum cross grade of 30%, an insloped turn with an entrance and exit rolling grade dip. BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 10.10 Grade reversals A designed grade reversal or constructed rolling grade dip should occur at least every 100 feet and preferably more frequently. Any grade reversal must be strongly anchored to discourage short cutting. 10.11 Water diversions All tread should be outsloped five (5) percent whenever possible, when not possible due to purpose-built insloping, resource concerns, or obstruction, water can be directed down the trail for up to 50 feet before a water diversion location. 10.12 Invasive species Invasive seed distribution prevention – All hand tools and mechanized equipment should be free of invasive seeds and clean of any dirt and mud when entering a project site. When transporting equipment from a site with invasive species to another site it should be cleaned. 10.13 Mechanized Equipment Best Practices All track marks will be raked smooth. Machine travel on trails should leave no mark or tracks. Impacted areas will be finished to have a natural shape – spoils piles rounded, smoothed and cleared of significant brush, blade edges blended. When applicable, machinery shall not travel over finished trail construction for removal from the project site. A spill kit will be onsite whenever mechanized equipment is operated. Scarring of trees is to be avoided. Significant and repeated scarring may result in a financial penalty of $100 per tree over 4” diameter at breast height (“DBH”). SECTION 11: UNIT DEFINITIONS AND DETAIL DRAWINGS Any accompanying figures are for illustrative purposes only and do not relieve Contractor of the need to satisfy written requirements. 11.1 Trail Flagging Trail corridor should be pin flagged at a minimum of 20’ intervals. All trees requiring removal over 3” DBH shall be marked with flagging tape indicating they are to be removed. The trail should have a grade reversal a minimum of every 100’. Trail should follow a rolling contour alignment and abide by the half rule. The trail grade should average 8% maximum and not exceed 15% to avoid requiring rock armoring. City and RFMBA must approve the final alignment before construction can commence. 11.2 Trail Construction Type 1 (figures 1 - 4) Tread variance of up to 3” in height will be allowed in trail surface due to embedded rocks or roots. Each linear foot unit shall be considered 3’ wide (4’ wide maximum). Trail width specification applies to active tread only, backslope is not included. Backslope dimensions are derived from surrounding area such that they satisfy the earlier stated 3 to 1 definition. The trail tread shall consist of packed earth or rock. Any stumps should be excavated and removed from the trail tread. The trail corridor shall be cleared of all woody plants smaller than 4” DBH. Any stumps resulting from the clearing should be excavated and removed. Any downslope spoils must be distributed such that no berm is present. Spoils must be stabilized with a covering of forest duff. Spoils may be distributed upslope on hillsides with a slope angle less than 30%. Excess soil shall not be distributed into drainages or adjacent to streams. Any woody debris not used in trail BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 closure should be removed from sight of the trail or arranged to blend into the landscape. The trail corridor shall extend horizontally 4’ from the center line of the trail to both sides and will be vertically 9’ high. 11.3 Rock Armor (figure 5) Armor trail tread surface with stone pitching at least 10” deep. Stones should be stable and aligned perpendicular to the direction of travel. Variance in the surface height of stones can be no more than 1”. Each end of a pitched section shall be supported by larger “bookend” stones embedded in the ground. Additional guide stones may be required if the final surface of the trail appears more rugged than the adjacent landscape. 11.4 Rolling Grade Dip (figure 6) Minimum length of drain portion is 6’. The rise must be at least 10’ long. Differential between bottom of dip and top of rise should fall in the range of 20” to 36”. Grade of drain must be at least 15% to encourage self-cleaning. If drain grade exceeds 25%, drain must be armored to discourage headcutting. Rolling grade dips must be sited at least 30’ uphill from significant turns in order to reduce the effects of unweighting on higher speed users. Exceptions on these dimensions may be made on a site by site basis to accommodate terrain constraints. In certain locations smaller structures reinforced with large rocks that fit the character of the trail may an acceptable substitute. 11.5 Rock Retaining Wall (figure 7) Rock retaining walls should be stable and battered (inclined back into the slope) a minimum of 15% from vertical. All walls should have rubble backing of at least 6” in depth behind the wall to allow for drainage and to prevent damage from frost heaves. The base of the wall should be placed on firm compacted mineral soil or rock outcroppings. Any small stones used to “chink” larger stones in place should be placed in the back of the wall. The top of the wall should not be counted in the width of the trail tread. The top layer of stones should be stable and large enough to avoid being dislodged by shared use traffic. Deadmen (stones that extend from the wall into the slope) should be used to ensure integrity. There should one deadman for every 5 square feet of wall. 11.6 Rock Armored Ford (figure 8) Grade reversals will be sited prior to the crossing on each bank. Maximum grade on each approach is 30%. Armored tread surface will extend through the stream plus up the banks until a grade of less than 10% can be achieved. Armored tread will be flush with stream bottom to discourage failures from cavitation issues. Armoring will extended downstream of trail tread to discourage headcutting. 11.7 Switchback (figure 9) The switchback unit includes any walls, armoring, and drainage features associated with the structure. All switchbacks will be constructed in the “rolling crown” style. Uphill leg of switchback will have a strong grade reversal to maximize lifespan of structure. Entry and exit legs will have a grade of less than 20% unless armored by stone. Interior of legs will be strongly anchored to discourage short cutting. Turn platform will have a radius range of between 8’ and 12’. Any retaining structures will be constructed of stone and comply with all Rock Retaining Wall specifications. If multiple switchbacks are required, they will be sited to minimize “stacking.” Wherever feasible, insloped turns should be substituted for switchbacks with the approval of a City’s representative. BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 11.8 Insloped Turn (figure 10) The insloped turn unit includes any walls, armoring, and drainage features associated with the structure. Each insloped turn includes a Grade Reversal or Rolling Grade Dip before and after. The dips for these drainage features should be a minimum of 6’ long and can have a cross slope of up to 30%. Uphill dip should be sited to minimize unweighting effects for higher speed users. Turning radius should be consistent and greater than 10’. Cross slope on the trail tread in the turn should be no more than 30%. Turns with a running grade over 20% in the apex should have a rock armored drain 2’ wide following the inside the turn. 11.9 Reconstruct Tread Restore trail tread to match the new trail construction specifications listed above. 11.10 Brushing Trail corridor should be cleared of all growth to meet new build specifications, removing all growth. Branches trimmed at junctions with no blunt ends. Any stumps should be excavated and removed from the trail tread. The trail corridor shall be cleared of all woody plants smaller than 4” DBH. Any stumps resulting from the clearing should be excavated and removed. After brushing, resulting sight lines of at least 150 feet are required. Downed trees crossing the trail corridor should be removed and distributed. 11.10 Trail Closure (figure 11) Compacted tread will be scarified to encourage regrowth of native seed stock. Exposed soils will be covered with local leaf litter. Trail tread will be disguised with woody debris. If trail is incised, check dams will be placed to capture sediment. If trail is actively eroding, grade reversals will be added to stem continued damage. Trail corridor will be erased via the placement of vertical debris. If closure is significant, vertical debris must extend sufficiently from its end points to successfully discourage continued use, a minimum of 50’. 11.11 Modifications Modifications to the specifications may be allowed, however they must be made by a representative of the City in writing. BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 11.12 Figures Figure 1: Rolling Contour Trail Figure 2: Illustration of The Half Rule BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Figure 3: Full Bench Trail BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Figure 4: Clearing limits BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Figure 5: Stone Pitching BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Figure 6: Rolling Grade Dip BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Figure 7: Rock Retaining Wall BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Figure 8: Shallow stream ford and gully crossing rock structure BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Figure 9: Rolling Crown Switchback BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Figure 10: Insloped Turn BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Figure 11: Trail Closure and Reclamation SECTION 12: PROJECT DETAILS Refer to Worksheet B for detailed estimates on unit quantities. 12.1 South Canyon Phase 1 - Trail Projects BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Scope of Work: New Trail Construction: BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Tramway Trail: 16,150 linear feet. 65%+ historic bench cut road to trail conversion. (3.06 miles, 771’ of elevation change, 4% average gradient.) Shared- use (foot, bike), beginner / intermediate-friendly trail beginning at the lower trailhead, crossing South Canyon Creek to utilize the best possible trail alignment on BLM land, then running up the canyon utilizing old road cuts and some steep slopes, and terminating at the upper trailhead. Lightning Bug Trail: 9,100 linear feet. 25%+ historic bench cut road to trail conversion. (1.72 miles, 540’ of elevation change, 6% average gradient.) Descending-optimized, mountain bike-focused trail beginning at the upper trailhead and descending on mostly moderate slopes between Tramway and County Road 134. Above a midway junction with Tramway, the trail provides the option to loop back to the upper trailhead. The trail would terminate at a junction with Tramway near the landfill entrance gate. Coal Camp Trail: 17,600 linear feet. (3.33 miles, 900’ elevation change, 8% average gradient) Shared-use, intermediate level trail beginning at the upper trailhead, climbing gently at first through a side canyon meadow, then more steeply through mostly mature pine forest with great views of the Horse Mountain ridge to the highest elevation of the City land near the shared boundary with BLM land to the south. This trail loops back on itself near the highpoint. RFMBA will evolve the mapped design for this trail to include directional up / down trail segments within the initial 1/4 mile of the side canyon meadow (estimated linear footage is included) BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 Exhibit A City of Glenwood Springs Addendum to Professional Services Agreement Work By Illegal Aliens Prohibited. Pursuant to Section 8-17.5-101, C.R.S., et. seq., as amended, Contractor warrants, represents, acknowledges, agrees and certifies that: 1. Contractor does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under this agreement. Contractor shall not knowingly enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to Contractor that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under this Agreement. 2. Contractor will participate in the electronic employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, and jointly administered by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration, or its successor program (hereinafter, “E-Verify Program”) or will participate in the “Department Program” as established in §8-17.5-102(5)(c), C.R.S., as amended, in order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this Agreement. 3. Contractor has confirmed the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this agreement through participation in the E- Verify Program or the Department Program. 4. Contractor shall not use either the E-Verify Program or the Department Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while this Agreement is being performed. 5. If Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, Contractor shall be required to: (a) notify the subcontractor and the City within three (3) days that Contractor has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (b) terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three (3) days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Contractor shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three (3) days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. 6. If Contractor participates in the Department Program, Contractor shall provide a notarized written affirmation to City that Contractor has, as required by the Department Program, examined the legal work status of employees hired to perform work under this Agreement and shall comply with all other requirements of the Department Program. (A sample contract affirmation may be obtained at: http://www.coworkforce.com/lab/pcs/default.asp) 7. Contractor shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (“Department”) made in the course of an investigation that the Department is undertaking pursuant to its legal authority. 8. Nothing in this Addendum shall be construed as requiring Contractor to violate any terms of participation in the E-Verify Program. BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 9. If Contractor violates this Addendum, the City may terminate this Agreement for breach of contract. If this Agreement is so terminated, Independent Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City arising out of said violation. DATE: ________________, 2017 ______________________________ Contractor BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 EXHIBIT B Local Preference: (a) Legislative intent. It is the intention of the City Council whenever possible to use, without significant additional cost to the taxpayers or ratepayers, local businesses and/or subcontractors for construction services or procurement of goods and supplies (excluding sole source procurement [010.050.110], emergency procurements [010.050.120], small purchase procurement [010.050.130], used supplies procurement [010.050.140] or professional service procurement [010.050.150] and any procurement made with external funding source requirements that preclude application of local preference) in those instances when awarding contracts in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) or more, pursuant to competitive procurement (010.050.090), with City funds. The City Council intends to give local businesses an advantage in the bidding process so that monies received from such contracts will be spent by the employees of local businesses in the local economy. Local business preference may be used as one (1) factor in determining the award of a bid over twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). This local preference will only be available to responsible and responsive bidders and/or subcontractors that meet all applicable bid evaluation criteria. (b) Definition of local business. (1) When applied to construction contracts, Local Business shall mean a business and/or a subcontractor individually applying for Local Business designation which meets the criteria in either Subsections a. and c. or Subsections b. and c. as listed below: a. The business headquarters must be located and primarily doing business within a forty-five (45) mile radius of the intersection of 8th Street and Grand Avenue in Glenwood Springs. In the event the business is incorporated or otherwise registered, it must be incorporated or otherwise registered in Colorado. b. At least seventy-five percent (75%) of the business work force, at the time of the application, must reside within a forty-five (45) mile radius of the intersection of 8th Street and Grand Avenue in Glenwood Springs. c. The business shall have at least seventy-five percent (75%) of business vehicles registered at the time of the application, with the government agency having jurisdiction over areas within a forty-five (45) mile radius of the intersection of 8th Street and Grand Avenue in Glenwood Springs. (2) When applied to procurement of goods, supplies, construction equipment and other vehicles, Local Business shall mean a business that is located and primarily doing business in the corporate limits of the City. In the event the business is incorporated or otherwise registered, it must be incorporated or otherwise registered in Colorado. (c) Local Business Designation. Prior to submitting a bid, any business and/or subcontractor wishing to obtain the Local Business Designation shall apply for such designation by submitting sufficient written documentation to the City Manager which supports a request for such designation. The owner of the business and/or subcontractor seeking Local Business Designation shall submit a signed, sworn affidavit affirming the truthfulness of all information supplied to the City with the application for Local Business Designation. To receive Local Business Designation of any subcontractor amounts included in its bid, a business must certify the accuracy of the BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 contents of the subcontractor’s Local Business Designation application submitted pursuant to this Section. The City Manager may grant a Local Business Designation to a business and/or subcontractor if such business and/or subcontractor has satisfied the criteria set forth in Subsection (b). In the event the City Manager does not grant a Local Business Designation upon request, such business and/or subcontractor may appeal the decision by providing a written explanation of the basis of the appeal to the City Council within five (5) business days of receiving the City Manager’s decision. A decision by a majority of the City Council present shall be made at the time of the award of the contract for which the appeal is made. (d) Local Business preference. In the event that a determination is made that a submitted bid is from a responsible and responsive bidder and that the business submitting the bid and/or a subcontractor included in the bid has a Local Business Designation, the bid comparison and award shall be made after taking any applicable local preference into consideration. All portions of the submitted bid attributable to a Local Business shall be aggregated for application of the local preference as follows: if the aggregate Local Business portion of the submitted bid contract amount is equal to or less than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), the Local Business preference will be five percent (5%); if the aggregate Local Business portion of the submitted bid contract amount is more than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), the Local Business preference will be Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) plus two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the aggregate Local Business portion in excess of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00); no Local Business preference, in any event, shall exceed One Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($135,000.00). Determination of the lowest responsible and responsive bidder shall be made after any appropriate Local Business preference amount is applied to the submitted full bid contract amount. (e) Notice. Every invitation for bid shall contain notification of this Section setting forth this Local Business preference and shall require a bidder to submit, at a time to be specified, the manner in which, if at all, such business and/or subcontractor may qualify for Local Business Designation under this Local Business preference policy. (f) Timing. No Local Business Designation shall be allowed unless such designation has been given in writing prior to the award of bid. (g) Challenge. In the event any person wishes to challenge the Local Business Designation of a business and/or subcontractor which has received such designation, such challenge shall be submitted in writing to the City Manager. The written documentation supporting such challenge must set forth, with specificity, the reasons supporting the allegation that the business and/or subcontractor should not continue to receive the Local Business Designation. The City Manager, at his/her discretion, shall investigate such allegations and may seek the imposition of the remedies set forth in this Section. (h) Civil penalty. In the event a business and/or subcontractor has been given the Local Business Designation and the City Manager determines that such designation is erroneous, such business shall be penalized in the same monetary amount as the Local Business preference advantage which was applied to the bid from such business when it was awarded the contract. In addition, such business and subcontractor shall be subject to debarment for a period of three (3) years in accordance with the provisions of Section 010.050.040. (i) False affidavit. It shall be unlawful for any person to make a false statement in the affidavit or to provide false information supporting application for the Local Business Designation. BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 (j) Violations. In addition to the other remedies provided in Subsection (h) (Civil Penalty), any person violating Subsection (i) (False Affidavit) shall be deemed guilty, per occurrence, of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction of the same, shall be punished, per occurrence, in accordance with the provisions of Section 010.020.080 in the Municipal Court. Violations of any provision of Section 010.050.080 shall be deemed to be a strict liability offense as defined in Subsection 120.010.010. Culpable mental state is not required with respect to any material element of a violation of this Subsection. Any Contractor, Subcontractor or supplier wishing to obtain local business designation shall apply for such designation by submitting sufficient written documentation supporting such request to the City Manager no later than 5:00 p.m. (local time), December __, 2017. Copies of the Local Business Preference Ordinance may be obtained by contacting the Procurement Department, City Hall, 101 West 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 81601 (970-384-6445). Or view the Municipal Code online at www.cogs.us BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 EXHIBIT C (SAMPLE AGREEMENT) AGREEMENT FOR________________ This AGREEMENT FOR __________ is made this _____ day of ___________, 2017 between the CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS, a home rule municipality under the laws of the State of Colorado ("City"), and ____________________, a __________ corporation (“Contractor”). WITNESSETH: In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Scope of Agreement. Contractor agrees to ___________________ as set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Consideration. The City agrees to pay Contractor _____________ Dollars ($_____). Contractor shall submit a bill for approval and payment upon completion of the services. 3. Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of __________, 2017 and shall remain in effect until _______________, 2017, or unless earlier terminated pursuant to Section 11 of this Agreement. 4. Agreement Subject to Appropriations. It is expressly understood and agreed that the City’s performance of this Agreement is subject to appropriations being made by the City Council of the City of Glenwood Springs. In the event City Council fails to make or maintain sufficient appropriations to pay any costs incurred under this Agreement, the Agreement shall be terminated immediately. 5. Status. Contractor is an independent contractor and shall not be considered an employee or agent of the City for any purpose. 6. Standard of Care. The standard of care applicable to Contractor’s services will be the same degree of care, skill, and diligence normally employed by professionals performing the same or similar services. 7. Indemnification. Contractor hereby covenants and agrees to indemnify, save, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, and agents from any and all liability, loss, costs, charges, obligations, expenses, attorneys’ fees, litigation, judgments, damages, claims, and demands of any kind whatsoever arising from or out of any negligent act or omission or other tortuous conduct of Contractor, its officers, employees or agents in the performance or nonperformance of its obligations under this Agreement. BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 8. Insurance. Contractor agrees to provide proof of general liability insurance, which names the City as an additional insured thereunder, with appropriate endorsements with single limit liability coverage of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). Contractor shall maintain this insurance for the term of this Agreement. Contractor shall also maintain automotive and workers compensation insurance for any employees hired to perform work under this Agreement. 9. Governmental Immunity. Nothing herein shall be interpreted as a waiver of governmental immunity, to which the City would otherwise be entitled under §24-10- 101, et seq., C.R.S., as amended. 10. Employees, Subcontractors and Assignees. The providing of services required under Section 1 of this Agreement shall be the responsibility of Contractor. Contractor may employ or subcontract with additional persons to assist in the performance of this Agreement. Supervision and payment of any such persons shall be the sole and exclusive responsibility of Contractor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, this Agreement shall not be assigned by Contractor to a third party without the prior express written consent of the City. 11. Termination. If at any time the City is dissatisfied with the services of Contractor for any reason whatsoever, the City may terminate this Agreement effective immediately upon the delivery of written notice to Contractor. In the event of any such termination, the City shall pay Contractor for services rendered to the date of termination. 12. Agreement Administration and Notice. For purposes of administering this Agreement, the _________________ will represent the City in carrying out the purposes and intent of this Agreement. Any notices required to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be delivered as follows: To the City: City Manager City of Glenwood Springs 101 West 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Copy to: City Attorney City of Glenwood Springs 101 West 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 1601 To the Contractor: ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ 13. Responsibilities. Contractor shall be responsible for all damages to persons or property caused by the Contractor, its agents, employees or sub-Contractors, to the BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 extent caused by its negligent acts, errors and omissions hereunder, and shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any claims or actions brought against by reason thereof. 14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. The provisions of this Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of both parties. The parties shall not be bound by any other agreements, either written or oral, except as set forth in this Agreement. 15. Governing Law. The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the validity, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue for any action instituted pursuant to this agreement shall lie in Garfield County, Colorado. 16. Authority. Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that said person is fully authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement and to bind the party it represents to the terms and conditions hereof. 17. Attorneys’ Fees. Should this Agreement become the subject of litigation between the City and Contractor, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of all actual costs in connection therewith, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees. All rights concerning remedies and/or attorneys’ fees shall survive any termination of this Agreement. 18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, including any facsimile copies, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands this ______ day of ______________, 2017. CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS ATTEST: By: _________________________________ Michael Gamba, Mayor ________________________________ Catherine Mythen-Fletcher, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE: By: ________________________________ Debra Figueroa, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ___________________________ Karl Hanlon, City Attorney BD 2017-066 RFQ – South Canyon Trails Phase 1 CONTRACTOR: ______________________ By: ___________________________________ Name: ____________________ Title: ____________________ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _________, 2017 by ____________________ as _________________ of ________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ________________________ Notary Public South Canyon Trail Plan . . Updated Trail Design: July 2015 Fall 2017 o 0.25 o.5 1 a ---====::::::11-----• Miles VI Legend Trailhead Bridge H Historic Site Hot Spring Flagged Trails 'V Green -Beginner Trail 'V Blue -Intermediate Trail , .. -, .. ,,., BLM -Conceptual Trail ~ Phase 2-Proposed Trail ~ Road ~='\\,~# Historic Road Contours Updates Fall 2011: ~ 20-foot ~ 100-foot ,,,.----1000-foot Gun Club B Landfill 1. Indicate Lower Tramway with green linework since BLM approval. 2. Indicate directional loop for northern Coal Camp Trail. Bureau of Land Management RE SEARCH KAY-LINN Untitl ed M a p Legend South Canyo n Trail s • Chacra • Feature 1 .... Iii! Feature 2 !I Feature 3 ~ Feature 4 /:::; Hors e Mountain :,. Tramway