HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.06 Boundaries unlimited eng report) November 16, 2011 Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park Attn: Steve Beckley 51000 Two Rivers Plaza Road Glenwood Springs, CO 18601 RE: 2011 Master Plan-Traffic BUI #11019,01 Mr, Beckley:
Surveying & tlJeyontf "\\'\darin r'~'s .\ '"" ' At your request, BUI has reviewed the proposed use of busses and vans for transporting customers from the Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park
(Park) parking facilities to the mountain amusement park, and back, in relation to the traffic analysis prepared by High Country Engineering, Inc, (2000) and revised by Tramway Engineering
(2002), According to the revised study, the estimated traffic trip generation for the Two Rivers Plaza subdivision was: Lot Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Entering Exiting Entering Exiting
1 Multi-use (Caverns) 72 70 90 85 2 Car Dealer 20 17 23 27 3 Full Service Restaurant (100 seat) 34 25 44 36 4 Quality Restaurant (100 seat) 10 5 18 12 5 Office Building (8000 sf) 12
1 2 10 Tota/148 118 177 170 Per our discussions, the Park anticipates that the number of average day bus/vans round trips would be 15 (30 vehicle trip ends per day), with peak day round
trips at 30 (60 vehicle trip ends per day) and peak hour round trips at 4 (8 vehicle trip ends per hour), The peak hour would likely occur after 7:00pm which is well after the typical
peak hour periods experienced on Highway 6 & 24, Devereux Road and Transfer Trail. Taking a conservative viewpoint whereby the peak hours do coincide, the addition of 8 vehicle trip
ends per hour would only result in a 4,6% (8 VTE/(90VTE + 85VTE)) increase in PM peak hour traffic for Lot 1 and 2,3% (8 VTE/(177VTE + 170VTE)) for the entire subdivision at full build-out.
These minor increases to do not appear to warranty any further studies for or improvements to the intersections, If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 945,5252
x 1, S[5Y' Deric Walter, PE Boundaries Unlimited Inc,
) November 16, 2011 Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park Attn: Steve Beckley 51000 Two Rivers Plaza Road Glenwood Springs, CO 18601 RE: 2011 Master Plan-Water & Sewer BUI #11019.01 M r. Beckley:
Civil Engineeri'Jg Surveying & llJeyontf At your request, BUI has reviewed the potable water use and sewage production for the Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park (Park) in relation to the
proposed Master Plan. The following tables represent summary of monthly potable water records vs. monthly visitors/staff with conversions into average daily and peak day use/demands
for water use and sewage production. Monthly figures are based on data records obtained from the Park for the years 2009 through September of 2011 : Year Month Monthy Monthly Daily 'Peak
Ave. Day Ave. Day Peak Day Est. Ave. Est. Ave. Per Use (gal) Visitors & Visitors Day Water Per Capita Water Daily Capita Staff & Staff Visitors Use (gpd) Water Use Use (gpd) Sewage Sewage
& Staff (gpdc) (75%, gpd) (75%, gpdc) 2009 Jan 14,000 756 24 39 452 18.5 722 339 13.9 Feb 26,000 0 0 0 929 --696 -Mar 31,000 7,579 244 391 1,000 4.1 1,604 750 3.1 Apr 44,000 5,835 195
311 1,467 7.5 2,334 1,100 5.6 May 53,000 10,966 354 566 1,710 4.8 2,717 1,282 3.6 June 84,000 17,509 584 934 2,800 4 .8 4,482 2,100 3.6 July 95,000 27,587 890 1,424 3,065 3.4 4,841 2,298
2.6 Aug 11 0,000 23,995 774 1,238 3,548 4 .6 5,697 2,661 3.5 Sept 84,000 10,162 339 542 2,800 8.3 4,498 2,100 6.2 Oct 34,000 7,083 228 366 1,097 4.8 1,755 823 3.6 Nov 30,000 2,329 78
124 1,000 12.9 1,602 750 9,7 Dec 7,000 2,198 71 113 226 3.2 363 169 2.4 Total 612,000 115,999 5.3 4.0 2010 Jan 20,000 1,640 53 85 645 12.2 1,033 484 9.2 Feb 26,000 1,742 62 100 929 14.9
1,483 696 11 .2 Mar 33,000 6,979 225 360 1,065 4.7 1,693 798 3.5 Apr 21,000 5,504 183 294 700 3.8 1,115 525 2.9 May 44,000 10,871 351 561 1,419 4.0 2,244 1,065 3.0 June 93,000 17,833
594 951 3,100 5 .2 4,946 2,325 3.9 July 137,000 31,682 1,022 1,635 4,419 4 .3 7,031 3,315 3.2 Aug 127,000 27,620 891 1,426 4,097 4.6 6,558 3,073 3.5 Sept 73,000 12,927 431 689 2,433
5.6 3,861 1,825 4.2 Oct 49,000 8,609 278 444 1,581 5.7 2,533 1,185 4.3 Nov 44,000 2,339 78 125 1,467 18.8 2,345 1,100 14.1 Dec 31,000 2,321 75 120 1,000 13.4 1,605 750 10.1 Total 698,000
130,067 5.4 4.1
Year Month Monthy Monthly Daily *Peak Ave. Day Ave. Day Peak Day Est. Ave. Est. Ave. Per Use (gal) Visitors & Visitors Day Water Per Capita Water Daily Capita Staff & Staff Visitors
Use (gpd) Water Use Use (gpd) Sewage Sewage & Staff (gpdc) (75%, gpd) (75%, gpdc) 2011 Jan 14,000 1,852 60 96 452 7.6 726 339 5.7 Feb 9,000 2,029 72 116 321 4.4 510 241 3.3 Mar 39,000
7,856 253 405 1,258 5.0 2,027 944 3.8 Apr 36,000 5,821 194 310 1,200 6.2 1,925 900 4.7 May 65,000 11,261 363 581 2,097 5.8 3,371 1,573 4.4 June 91,000 23,116 771 1,233 3,033 3.9 4,808
2,275 2.9 July 161,000 37,937 1,224 1,958 5,194 4.2 8,224 3,895 3.2 Aug 109,000 29,790 961 1,538 3,516 3.7 5,689 2,637 2.8 Sept 66,000 14,232 474 759 2,200 4.6 3,492 1,650 3.5 .. Oct
53,900 9,470 305 489 1,739 5.7 2,786 1,304 4.3 .. Nov 48,400 2,573 86 137 1,613 18.8 2,580 1,210 14.1 * Dec 34,100 2,553 82 132 1,100 13.4 1,766 825 10.1 Total 726,400 148,490 4.9 3.7
"estimated values based on 2010-2011 growth. It is our understanding that the ultimate goals of the Master Plan are to: 1) expand the average daily capacity of the Park to 2,000 visitors/staff
per day with the peak day capacity at 3,200 visitors/staff per day (60% greater); and 2) expand the on-mountain capacity of the Park to 2000 visitors/staff at any given time. The following
is a projection of potable water use and sewage production associated with the first goal: Year Month Monfhy Monthly Daily *Peak Ave. Day Ave. Day Peak Day Est. Ave. Est. Ave. Per Use
(gal) Visitors & Visitors Day Water Per Capita Water Daily Capita Staff & Staff Visitors Use (gpd) Water Use Use (gpd) Sewage Sewage & Staff (gpdc) (75%, gpd) (75%, gpdc) ** Jan 22,876
3,026 98 156 738 7.6 1,187 553 5.7 ** Feb 14,706 3,315 118 189 525 4.4 834 394 3.3 Mar 63,726 12,837 414 663 2,056 5.0 3,313 1,542 3.8 Apr 58,824 9,512 317 507 1,961 6.2 3,145 1,471
4.7 May 106,210 18,400 594. 950 3,426 5.8 -5,508 2,570 4.4 -June 148,694 37,772 1,259 2,014 4,956 3.9 7,856 3,717 2.9 July 263,074 61,989 2,000 3,199 8,486 4.2 13,438 6,365 3.2 Aug 178,106
48,677 1,570 2,512 5,745 3.7 9,296 4,309 2.8 Sept 107,844 23,255 775 1,240 3,595 4.6 5,705 2,696 3.5 Oct 88,073 15,474 499 799 2,841 5.7 4,552 2,131 4.3 ** Nov 79,086 4,204 140 224 2,636
18.8 4,215 1,977 14.1 "'* Dec 55,719 4,172 135 215 1,797 13.4 2,885 1,348 10.1 Total 1,186,938 242,632 4.9 3.7 "Winter months which would utilize the eXisting 2000-gpd septic system.
The Park currently possesses approximately 67,000 gallons of potable water storage in tanks near the peak of the mountain and is capable of filling those tanks at a rate of 30 gpm, provided
that ambient air temperatures are above 34'F. Therefore, on the estimated peak day (sometime in July), it will take approximately 7 hours-30 minutes to refill the tanks. In the winter,
it will take approximately 2 hours-20 minutes. The Park maintains a spare pump in inventory as a backup. In the event that the pumping system were down for an extended period of time
during the peak summer period, the storage system should be capable of supplying water for approximately 2.4 days [(67,000 storage-34,000 fire
protection)/13,450 peak day) at full build-out. This could be extended further through design and ) implementation of an Emergency Management Plan to reduce water consumption. Sewage
is typically stored temporarily in a series of septic/holding tanks and then pumped to a 1-1/2"0 pipeline suspended from the tramway which leads to the tram base and City sanitary sewage
collection system. During the winter months, (Nov.-Feb.), the pipeline is shutdown to avoid freezing and sewage is redirected to an on-mountain Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS).
The ISDS has an average daily design capacity of 2,000 gpd. It should be noted that the Park water usage records indicate an excess amount of water usage during November/December which
skews the estimated average daily sewage demand. This skew is presumed to include water used for park maintenances and cavern humidity control which is not wasted to the ISDS. The estimates
for January/February are more representative of the actual waste delivered to the ISDS. Therefore, assuming that the actually average daily per capita sewage demand is best represented
by January (5.7 gpdc), the existing ISDS has an available capacity to serve up to 350 visitors/staff per day. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 945.5252 x
1. Sincerely, /.~~J: ' b.\:J~ ••••••• .(" .1. J) ~ .. ' JON '-" <L> ' I~ _' ~-0--~'~ ~::;~<::.:..J~i. .~·~ ' ~v~: z.e.-vI\. .~..• •-?c:::: ' . 0 tn* . ~ 37110.": Deric Walter, PE ~ ~
: ~ Boundaries Unlimited Inc . . ~;-"" .... ~t: '.<"j':' -•••••• ~ '.,sIGNAL ~"
) Best Management Practices For Erosion Control & Chemical/Fuel Containment at Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park Prepared for: Glenwood Springs, Colorado November, 2011 Glenwood Caverns
Adventure Park 51000 Two Rivers Plaza Rd. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
I. GENERAL LOCATION & DESCRIPTION The purpose of this Best Management Practices (BMP) plan is to provide general guidance for the implementation of controls and practices to mitigate
the impacts of development as the Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park (Park) expands its facilities. The Park is located north of the City of Glenwood Springs near the peak of Iron Mountain
in Sections 3, 4 and 9 of Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. The proposed improvements will likely include additional amusements, buildings, paved/gravel
trails, native footpaths, and support facilities. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey indicates that the site soils are primarily Jerry Loam (12 to 50%
slopes, hydrologic so il group Type-C, slow rate of water transmission) west of the ridge line and Torriorthentis-Camborthids-Rock Outcrop Complex (hydrologic soil group Type-D, very
slow rate of water transmission) east of the ridgeline. A copy of the so il survey has been included in the Appendix. Vegetation typically consists of gambel oak, serviceberry, and fai
rly dense grasses along the west/north faCing slopes and pinon, juniper and grasses on the south and east faCing slopes. II. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES In the State of Colorado, Stormwater
Construction Permit coverage is required for stormwater discharged from any construction activities (clearing, grad ing, excavation, demolitions, access roads, staging areas, stockpi
ling of fill material, borrow areas, etc.) that disturbs at least one (1) acre of land, or is part of a larger common plan of development that will disturb at least one (1) acre (CDPHE-WQCD,
2011) . According to the project Master Plan, the anticipated total project disturbance is approximately 2.1 acres. Therefore, the project will require a Colorado Dischorge Permit System
(COPS) for Stormwoter Dischorges Associoted with Construction Activities and associated Stormwoter Management Pion (SWMP). The project site is located a significant distance (approximately
y, mile) away from any water courses or structures with a healthy vegetative buffer to the south and west. The proposed improvements are anticipated to be constructed primarily in the
vegetatively sparser rock outcrop complex (slow to very slow rate of water transmission) which will help minimize the probable increases in stormwater runoff. Given these conditions.
the SWMP should focus on implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control and chemical/fuel containment, but not necessarily storm water detention. The SWMP should also
be applied for just prior to constru ction. Applying for that application too early could require significant permit extensions which unnecessarily tax the resources of the CDPHE and
the Park. The following describes the site management procedures that should be implemented in accordance with typical Best Management Practices for erosion control and chemical/fuel
containment: 1) Instituting Nonstructural BMPs, such as preserving natural vegetation to the greatest extent possible, keeping machinery in good operating condition to prevent leakage,
developing chemical/fuel spill response procedures, and educating employees on the affects of erosion, debris and pollution on rivers and streams. 2) Incorporating Structural BMPs, such
as: ..
a. During construction activities, stockpiling excavated soils outside of and away from any natural or man-made drainage courses. b. Excavation will often result in the complete removal
of the thin soil layer and fully expose the underlying rock formation. In those instances, the removal of loose soil may negate the need for temporary erosion structures such as sediment
control fencing, erosion logs and silt dikes. Temporary erosion structures should be installed though when excavations result in disturbed soils. When needed, temporary erosion controls
should be installed in accordance with the Colorado Department of Transportation M-Standards. c. Installing a short 12"-16" berm of onsite clean angular aggregate and rock around the
lower limits of disturbed areas to screen debris and reduce runoff flow velocities. d. Installing temporary hay bales or erosion logs in front of culvert inlets to minimize the entrance
of silt and debris. Sediment should be removed from temporary controls after each storm event and culverts should be monitored and cleaned regularly. e. Installing angular rock riprap
beds at culvert and drainage pipe outlets to reduce runoff flow velocities. Riprap beds should have a minimum width which is three (3) times the diameter of the culvert, a minimum length
which is 6 times the diameter of the culvert and angular rocks which have a minimum diameter of nine (9) inches. f. Designating equipment storage/construction staging and fueling areas
outside of drainage courses. Fueling areas shall be protected from stormwater runoff, shall be a minimum of 50 feet away from drainage courses and shall be protected with berms and dikes.
Secondary containment, such as a drop cloth or drain pan, shall be used to catch spills if chemicals/fuels are to be stored . If a spill does occur, the operator shall use absorbent
materials to remove as much of the spill as possible. The spent absorbent material shall be disposed of properly and promptly. g. Installing temporary rock socks or similar around potential
pollutant areas such as portalettes and refuge receptacles. Refuge receptacles shall be regularly emptied and equipped with lids. h. Maintaining roads, drives and disturbed surfaces
in good condition and spraying with water to control fugitive dust. i. Appling appropriate (not excessive) amounts of fertilizer to the landscaping. j. Grading so as to ensure that drainage
is directed away from all structures in all directions. k. Stabilizing soils after the construction of each staged improvement. This shall include proper soil compaction, construction
of aggregate/rock berms, rerouting of stormwater runoff around disturbed areas, sloping soil (not rock) catch grades at slopes shallower than 4:1, and revegetating with a Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) approved native seed mix. If 4:1 slopes cannot be obtained, then temporary erosion fabric may be necessary to secure soils and seed until the root mat has been established.
I. General site cleanliness and proper training of employees. Within one growing season of the project completion, uniform vegetative site coverage should be equal to or greater than
70% of the pre-disturbance levels, or equivalent permanent, physical erosion reduction methods should be employed. Temporary irrigation may be required during dry periods. When the site
is determined to have reached the final stabilization stage, temporary erosion control structures and irrigation can be removed.
Appendix 1) Web Soil Survey 2) Master Plan Map
39· 33' 46" 39· 33' 30" N A Hydrologic Soil Group-Rifle Area, L. ... ,vrado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties (Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park) Map Scale: 1:3,510 if printed on A
size (8.5" x 11") sheet ~ ___ ~===~ _______ ~:=======7.Meters ;a '_ __4~ 5 ===~90 ~ ______~ 18~0 ======~Fe270e t a 150 300 600 900 VSDA Natural Resources -,.~ Conservation Service Web
Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 11/15/2011 Page 1 of 3 39" 33' 47" 39" 33' 3'"
USD" "'-affi -Hydrologic Soil Grou~Rifie Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties (Glenwood Cavems Adventure Park) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (ACt)
Soils D Soil Map Units Soil Ratings l1li A ~ AiD • B D BID D C • CID IiII 0 Not rated or not available Potitical Features o Cities Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation -"-'."-/V
Natu ral Resources Conservation Service Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1 :3,520 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil
surveys that comprise your AO] were mapped at 1 :24,000. Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey Waming: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond
the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils thai could have
been shown at a more detailed scale . Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey
URL: hUp:llwebsoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 13N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil
Survey Area: Rine Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data; Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed; 7/19/2005; 8/612005 The orthophoto
or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit
boundaries may be evident. 11 /15/2011 Page 2 of3
) ) Hydrologic Soil Group-Rifle Area , Colorado , Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park LJSDA '"'·e Hydrologic Soil Group HyCtrologlc Soli Group-Summary
by Map Unit -R~fle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfleld'and Mesa Counties (C06S3) Map 'urllt symbol •! • Map unit name 'I' Rating Acres In AOI Percent of AOI , 39 Jerry loam, 12 to 50 percent
slopes C 15.9 --. --66 Torriorthents·Camborthids·Rock outcrop D 11.2 complex, steep -67 Torriorthents·Rock outcrop complex, steep D 1.2 ._-. Totals for Area of Interest 28.2 .----Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected
by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes
(AID, BID, and C/O). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well
drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate
rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water
or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group O. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface,
and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (NO, BID, or C/O),
the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group 0 are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 56.2% ---39.7% 42%] 10~.~~~ 11/1 5/2011 Page 3 of 3