HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 02.21.2012MS ~ ~+-I"V-\~CAYIC&f1../LDUYL~ y-~lcle-V~+-~YOVG vy/PC(~S {-J3 Board of County Commissioners -Exhibits ~ ~'1.--February 21,2012 Glenwood Caverns ZtJ t'::> . ~~ 'f-1
Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park BOCC February 21, 2012 KE PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATIVE LOCATION PROPERTY INFORMATION ACCESS WATER & SANITATION
EXISTING ZONING I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Major Impact Amendment -Clarify permitted uses and areas for expansion within the existing facility POW, Inc. -Steve Beckley Ron Liston
-Land Design Partnership North of the City of Glenwood Springs 81. 76-acres on Iron Mountain Gondola or Transfer Trail (BLM road) City of Glenwood Springs Rural POW, Inc. seeks to amend
an approved Land Use Change Permit that allows for a Commercial Recreation Facility /Park to operate on the ±82-acre site. The applicable conditions regarding allowable uses, transportation
and site disturbance were originally approved in 1999 and amended in 2002,2004,2007 and 2010. The early amendments were due to the installation of the tramway, and the recent amendments
were related to both specific uses and location of those uses within the facility. The current amendment is requested to allow for bus/van transportation (not limited to medical necessity),
as well as flexibility regarding specific recreational uses and the location of those uses within the overall project area. This amendment would not impact the maximum capacity of the
facility nor would it result in increases in water and sanitation capacities or allowances. Over the past decade the Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park has evolved from a rustic cave tour
facility to an adventure park with many activities to amuse and educate all ages. Currently permitted uses include roller coasters, bungee jump, ropes course, giant swing, laser tag,
gem sluicing, cave tours, a 4-D 1
Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park BOCC February 21, 2012 KE movie theater, laser tag, restaurant and gift shop to name a few. The continuing advances in adventure rides and the need to
provide a variety of activities for all ages is the justification in requesting this flexibility. The overall impact of the facility was addressed through the prior approval processes
which attempted to limit the permitted uses on the site to those defined within the resolutions. The attempt to define all possible recreation uses on this site has proven difficult,
particularly when new technologies have become available, and has resulted in limiting the ability of the operator to expand and improve the Park. The inflexibility of the prior resolutions
has resulted in numerous time-consuming applications for amendments (2007 and 2010). The applicant proposes that uses consistent with the character of the existing facility be permitted
with no further County land use review. If a particular attraction or use would be proposed that appears to be inconsistent with the current concept of the recreational facility a determination
would be requested from the Director of Building and Planning. The Director's decision could be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners by the Applicant. This will allow the Applicant
the ability to incorporate new technologies or new rides in the facility without having to amend their existing permit. Background Other local, state and federal agencies regulate portions
of, or particular uses, existing within the facility. This amendment is not intended to impact any other regulatory requirements and the standard condition of complying with other regulations
has been incorporated into the staff recommendation. The addition of bus/van transport is also requested so that an additional mode of transport can be utilized during peak times. The
use of busses or vans would minimize the sometimes hour-long wait for the tram. This request would limit average bus/van traffic to 30 vehicle trip ends per day. The Park was open to
the public in 1999 and in the past thirteen years has experienced annual increases in park attendance -130,000 visitors in 2010 and anticipated attendance in 2011 at 147,000 visitors.
The facility provides a variety of activities including cave tours as well as concerts, adventure rides and other all-age activities that have resulted in the Park becoming a year-round
tourist and local destination. Both Garfield County and the City of Glenwood Springs regulate land use of the facility -the lower terminal, located at Devereaux Road and Highway 6 is
within City jurisdiction and consists of the parking lot, ticket office and the lower tramway terminal. The upper terminal 1,300 feet above the City on top of Iron Mountain, is located
within unincorporated Garfield County. The upper terminal is the current gateway to the area containing recreational uses subject to the Special Use Permit. 2
Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park Bacc February 21, 2012 KE Public access to the site occurs primarily via the tramway which can transport 273 guests per hour, subject to weather conditions.
Peak periods of park use result in sometimes lengthy waits to board the tramway and weather events (high winds or lightening) can extend this wait time. The tram has been shut down periodically
due to weather and in these instances the guests are shuttled in two busses and three vans down Transfer Trail (BLM road) to Travers Trail (City of Glenwood Springs) to SH 6 and the
lower tramway terminal. Approval of this request would allow for limited public transport via the vans and busses on an ongoing basis. In addition to the allowance for van and bus shuttles
Transfer Trail provides service vehicle access to the site based upon a right-of-way grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). A pre-annexation agreement with the City allows for
provision of water supply and wastewater treatment for this facility as described below: • Domestic water, irrigation and fire protection water is provided by the City of Glenwood Springs
with water pumped to the upper park area via pipelines suspended from the tramway towers. This water is then stored in four 16,800 gallon tanks located on the ridge above the facility
thereby providing gravity flow to the Visitor Center and the fire hydrant in the plaza. • Wastewater from the site is pre-treated on the mountain and then pumped to the City for discharge.
In the winter months all effluent is treated on-mountain via a septic tank and leachfield with periodic pumping of the tank which is then transported for proper disposal. Emergency plans
include a fire mitigation plan jointly created by the Applicant, the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District and the Colorado State Forest Service. Fire resistant construction, defensible
space and fire suppression sprinklers and alarms have all been utilized in the facility and an emergency evacuation plan calls for use of the caves to protect guests should a wildfire
threaten the site. Management personnel receive first aid and CPR training and the Visitor Center is stocked with medical supplies including oxygen tanks and two defibrillators, Permit
Historv Garfield County issued a Special Use Permit (SUP) in 1999 (Resolution 99-065) for a Commercial Recreation Facility/Park in which access to the site was limited to up to 30 van
trips per day, based upon an weekly average, and with a maximum capacity of 100 persons using on-site facilities at any given point during hours of operation. Amendment to that SUP was
approved in 2004 (Resolution 2004-56) which permitted specific uses such as a snack shop, amphitheatre, roller coaster, banquet facility, paragliding, a teepee, etc., along with expansion
of hours of operation and use of the tramway for transportation. Capacity was limited to 450 visitors at facility at anyone time. 3
Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park BOCC February 21, 2012 KE An SUP was issued in 2007 (Resolution 2007-67) for a 'Commercial/Recreational Facility /Park' which superseded and replaced
prior approvals. This Permit established operations (hours and capacity) as well as permitted activities on the site. Capacity was increased to allow a maximum of 1,551 guests at anyone
time. This permit was amended (administratively) in 2010 and 2011 to revise location of uses on the site. The first was to allow relocation of the zip line, the bungee jump and the maintenance
building. The most recent amendment was to locate the magic carpet and slide within the site as well as to create a new portal for exiting the cave. It was determined that the last amendment
was a non-substantial change, as defined in the ULUR, therefore no formal review was required. III. REFERRAL AGENCIES Comments have been requested from the following agencies and comments
received are integrated throughout this memorandum as applicable. 1. Sheriff: EXHIBIT J 2. Vegetation Management: EXHIBIT M 3. CDOT: EXHIBIT H 4. City of Glenwood Springs: No comment
received 5. Colorado Division of Wildlife: EXHIBIT K 6. Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District: EXHIBIT L 4 Located atop Iron Mountain the site is adjacent to Public Lands (BLM) as
well as the City of Glenwood Springs. Natural resources are prevalent in the area including several nearby limestone quarries, one of which is still in operation north of the Caverns
property. Public Lands
7. Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of the County): EXHIBIT I 8. Bureau of Land Management: No comment received IV. REVIEW CRITERIA & STANDARDS Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park BOCC
February 21, 2012 KE Major Impact Reviews are required to adequately address topics in Section 4-502(0) Land Suitability Analysis, Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis, and the general development
standards found in Article VII of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR). Prior applications and approvals granted for the Glenwood Caverns determined
that the project was in compliance with the general development standards as well as having adequately addressed the topics in Land Suitability Analysis and Impact Analysis. The request
to clarify the uses and expand the development area within the parcel does not result in identified adverse impacts that would not have been addressed in the original approvals. The
addition of van/bus transportation to the site is permitted by the BLM for the use ofTransfer Trail and the minimal trips do not adversely impact the state highway system. The clarification
of permitted uses and placement of facilities within the site do not necessary impact or require additional review of certain ULUR requirements. The Director of Building and Planning
has waived some submittal requirements that were not applicable to this review. The relevant code sections related to the request have been analyzed below: A. Section 4-502(E) Land Suitability
Analysis The issuance of permits and amendments for commercial/recreational activities on this site were based upon a demonstration that the land is suitable for the use. Allowing flexibility
in the location of specific attractions does not change, nor affect this suitability. B. Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis The Impact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts
that the proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfy. The Impact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the Applicant
will ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The approved development has adequately addressed the impacts of the land use as permitted in the past. The
current amendment does not request an increase in the maximum capacity of the 5
C. V. Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park BOCC February 21, 2012 KE facility therefore no increase in overall impact of the development is anticipated. Referral agencies have requested additional
information regarding the following items: • Drainage and stormwater management; • Wildlife concerns; • Emergency and evacuation plan updates; • Verification of ISDS capacity -if greater
than 2,000 gallons per day permitting will be required from Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CHPHE). The Applicant has responded to the issues (EXHIBIT N ) that
existing drainage patterns have been in place since the inception of the facility. In fact the health and humidity of the caverns is dependent upon groundwater sources from storm water.
The Applicant has stated that justification for the existing patterns and drainage improvements will be provided by their engineer prior to Board consideration of the application. Wildlife
concerns were addressed as conditions in the 2007 permit, however the comment from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) include the request that personnel be trained on how to reduce predator/human
conflict, information signs be used in expanded areas, transition to wildlife resistant trash containers, create and implement a wildlife habitat improvement plan, and restrict construction
from July 1" to October 1. Article VII -Standards With the exception of the drainage and stormwater details requested by the reviewing engineer, the applicant has demonstrated general
conformance with the minimum standards contained in Article VII. Additional drainage details will be provided for review and compliance prior to the Board hearing. STAFF DISCUSSION The
requested amendment is related to the need for a tourist attraction and local business to have the necessary flexibility to continue to improve and expand the facility without having
to submit an application and hold multiple public hearings each time they want to construct an improvement. The recreation facility concept was approved over 10 years ago and has operated
in compliance with that approval and the numerous amendments that have occurred since that time. 6
Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park BOCC February 21, 2012 KE The operator's ability to include new technologies to improve and expand this attraction is a positive action that should not
be penalized by requiring review each time a new ride or attraction is proposed. As long as the facility operates consistent with the intent of the original approvals there should be
little limitation on the particular rides or activities that can occur. Should a use be proposed that may not be consistent with the existing use the Director of Building and Planning
would be able to issue a determination. This determination could be appealed to the Board. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION SUGGESTED FINDINGS The Planning Commission considered this application
at a public hearing held on February 8, 2012 at which time a unanimous recommendation of approval, incorporating staff recommended findings and conditions, was issued. The recommended
findings have been updated as applicable for Board consideration: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That
the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested
parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the Amendment to the Land Use Change Permit for Glenwood Cavern Adventure Park is in the best interest
of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County if recommended conditions of approval are adopted. 4. That, upon compliance with
conditions of approval, the application is generally compliant with the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 5. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application
has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS The Planning Commission recommends approval
of the major impact amendment application for the Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park with the following conditions: 1. That all representation made by the Applicant in the application and
as testimony in the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners; 2. The
facility shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local regulations; 3. This Special Use Permit approves the following operations: a. Hours of operation will be from 6:30
AM to 11:30 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:30 AM to 12:30 AM Friday and Saturday; 7
b. The tramway towers and cabins will not be lighted; Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park BOCC February 21, 2012 KE c. Permitted uses shall include, but not be limited to, Gift Shop, Ropes
Course, Mini-Golf Course, Photography Studio/Shop, Candy Shop, Shade Structures/Pavilion (6), Maze (Fort Maze), Bungee Trampoline, Spider Zone, Children's Climbing Center, Simulator
Attraction (Wild West Adventure), Petting Zoo, Train Ride Attraction, Children Climbing Area (Foam Factory), Mechanical Bull, Canopy Tour, 4D Movie Theater, Horse Back Riding Tour, Banquet/Restaurant
Facility, Traveling Museum Exhibits (Within Banquet Facility), Employee Housing, Alpine Coaster, Zip Line, Bungee Jump, Giant Swing, Climbing Wall, Fossil Dig, Botanical Garden Butterfly
Exhibit, Indoor Children's Play area, Care Takers Quarters, Water Storage Tanks, Nature Trails, Picnic Areas, Geode cutting, Gemstone Sluice Mining, Astronomy Observatory Area, Visitor
Center, Souvenir Shop/Expansion, Indian Education Center (Teepee), Passenger Gondolas, Bus and/or Van Transportation, Employee Housing, Maintenance Facility, Foam Factory Children's
Climbing Area and Cave Tours. Uses consistent with the character of the existing facility shall be permitted, determination of consistency may be requested by the Director of Building
and Planning, whose decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. 4. The ultimate build out capacity for the gondola is 36 gondola cars in 12 groups of 3 with each gondola
car having a 6 passenger capacity; 5. The Applicant shall be responsible for snow removal on 50% of the travel way of Transfer Trail and remain in compliance with the terms of the BLM
maintenance agreement for Transfer Trail; 6. The applicant shall adhere to the following conditions regarding wildlife: a. There shall be no outside storage of any trash or garbage anywhere
within the property, with the exception of bear-proof trash containers; b. Refuse kept in non bear-proof containers should be kept within secure structures that are not likely to be
broken into by bears; c. There shall be no dumps or underground disposal of refuse on site; d. Except for bird feeders, the feeding, baiting, salting, or other means of attracting wildlife
to site is prohibited; e. Bird feeders should be strategically placed to avoid being an enticement for bears; f. Tourists and other users to the site should be made aware of the local
wildlife community by utilizing information provided by the Division of Wildlife. 7. The Park shall be limited to a maximum guest capacity of 1,551 persons at one time; 8. If the tramway
becomes obsolete or inoperable for any period exceeding twelve months, the applicant shall remove the tramway at their own expense; 9. Bus/van guest transport shall be limited an average
of 30 vehicle trip ends per day; 10. The Applicant shall maintain a total of 35,000 gallons of water on-site for fire protection; 11. Parking of personal vehicles belonging to employees
residing on-site during the months of May, June, July, August and September shall not be allowed on the subject property; "fA drainage plan, including analysis of stormwater, consistent
with Sections 7-206 and 7-207 of 8
Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park BOCC February 21, 2012 KE the ULUR shall be submitted for review by Mountain Cross Engineering and deemed sufficien~ prior to Board of County Commissioner
review and approval. /13. An emergency management plan shall be submitted to Building and Planning, prior to installation of additional Tram cabins or December 1, 2012 which.ever applies
first. This plan shall include evacuation information, safety issues and any existing or proposed mitigation measures, and medical emergency plans. 9
From: To: Subject: Date: ROussin Daniel Kathy A East1ey Glenwood caverns Adventure Park Wednesday, January 04, 20124: 27:12 PM Kathy -I have no comments on this project at the County
because it doesn't affect state highway system. Happy New Year Dan Roussin Colorado Department of Transportation Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction,
CO 81501 970-683-6284 Office 970-683-6290 Fax http'lIwww coloradodot jnfo/bIJsjness/permjts/accesspermjts H
January 20, 2012 Ms. Kathy Eastley Garfield County Planning lOS Sth Street, Suite 40 I Glenwood Springs, CO S160 I MOUNTl\IN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUlTING
AND DESIGN RE: Major 1I1,lpact Amendment for Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park: MPAA7070 Dear Kathy: This office has . performed a review of the documents provided for the Glenwood Caverns
Adventure Park Major Impact Amendment. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following questions, concerns, and comments: I I I. The applicatibn
materials estimate sewer flows at 75% of potable water usage. The Applicant should explaih this assumption ill greater detail; S5% is more typically used. 2. Depending on the above,
sewer flows to a septic system above 2,000 gpd may require approvals by the CDPHE. 3. The Applicalit should specifically address the requirements outlined in Sections 7-206 and 7-207
of the ULUR. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, ~"E"""" ,;" Inc. Chris Hale, PE 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5 544 •
FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountain cross-eng.com
EXHIBIT , .J From: To: Subject: Date: Kathy, ~ Kathy A Fastley FW: Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park Referral Monday, January 23, 2012 4:38:29 PM After review of the CD provided on the
Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park clarification of permitted uses and area of use based upon proposed future expansion (File Number MPAA7070), it has been determined that the Sheriffs
Office does not have any additional comments to this application. A hard copy of this email will be forwarded. Sincerely, Jim Sears Emergency Operations Sergeant Garfield County Sheriff's
Office 107 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-0453 (w) 970-987-2871 (c)
EXHIBIT _CO_L_O_R_A_D_O_ P_A_RK_S_ &_ W__IL_D_LI_F_E _____~ lI --k~ .. ' 50633 Hwy 6&24 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 80601 Phone (970)947·2920' FAX (970)947·2936 wildlife.state.co.us
• parks.state.co.us TO: Ron Liston, Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Building and Planning Depallment FROM: Perry Will, Area Wildlife Manager Glenwood Springs, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
RE: File Number MPAA 7070, Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park Major Impact Amendment Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Amendment
to Special Use Pennit -Major Impact Review for the Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park Master Plan. While this site has been previously impacted from activity at the already existing Adventure
Park, as well as surrounding impacts of prior mining and continuing mining activities and use from public land users, some of the anticipated expansion of the Adventure Park will have
further impacts to the sUlTounding wildlife resource. Comments are listed below to help minimize /mitigate for these impacts. The Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park is located in an area
that contains habitat for many big game species including mule deer, elk, black bear, mountain lion, and rocky mountain bighorn sheep. It is also located in habitat for many avian, small
game, and non-game species. Speaking specifically to big game, it is most importantly in an area used as winter range by deer, elk, and bighorn sheep, and can also be used year-round
by black bears. There has also been elk calving activity in the area in the spring. With so many species utilizing this area, it is important to try and minimize the effects of any further
expansion. CPW asks for construction to be timed during summer/early fall time periods, preferably July I -Oct I, to avoid both wintering big game as well as any calving/fawning activity.
Black bears and mountain lions also utilize the area. Dense thickets of oak brush, service berry and choke cherry grow in the area which bears favor throughout the summer and fall, and
mountain lions frequent the area as part of a home range. There is concem that with park expansion there will be increased possibility for predator /human interaction and conflict. CPW
acknowledges that the adventure park has put up informational signs for guests in regard to the wildlife inhabiting that area in and around the park as it exists today. CPW asks that
ifthere is future expansion in the park, these signs be utilized in the expanded areas. CPW also asks that park staff be trained on how to reduce wildlife human conflicts and be instructed
to pass this infonnation on to guests as is appropriate. STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper. Governor . Mike King, Executive Director. Department of Natural Resources Rick D. Cables.
Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Commission: David R. Brougham. Gary ButteMOrth, \lice-Chair . Chris Castilian Dorothea Farris. Tim Glenn, Chair. Allan Jones.
Bill Kane. Gaspar Perrioone • Jim Pribyl. John Singletary Mark Smith. Secretary . Robert Streeter . lenna Watson . Dean Wingfield Ex Officio Members: Mke King and John Salazar
CPW understands that the adventure park empties all trash containers at the end of each day and hauls trash to the base of the mountain where it is stored in a dumpster for pickup. This
effort is greatly appreciated and helps to reduce conflicts with bears. The containers currently used throughout the park are not wildlife /bear resistant containers. CPW asks that the
park transitions to bear resistant containers as they will help to further reduce conflicts with wildlife. With further expansion of the park, there will understandably be increased
disturbance of wildlife habitat. CPW asks that the adventure park work together with them and surrounding land management agencies and owners to develop and initiate a mitigation plan
to improve the remaining wildlife habitat. Details of this mitigation should be worked out with CPW District Wildlife Manager Dan Cacho. CPW acknowledges the value of the adventure park
to the people of Garfield County, as well as the effort the adventure park has put forth into coexisting with wildlife on and around its footprint. In review, the CPW is recommending
with these comments the following: • Construction restricted to July 1 -October 1 • Use training of employees and infOimational signs to reduce human-wildlife conflict • Transition to
wildlife resistant trash containers • Create and implement a wildlife habitat improvement plan CPW believes that these measures can help to insure that the adventure park will continue
to coexist with wildlife into the future. Any questions or comments may be directed to CPW District Wildlife Manager Dan Cacho -Glenwood Springs, (970)456-7003. Sincerely, Perry Will
STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Govemor. Mike King. Executive Director, Department of Natural Resources Rick D. Cables, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wlldnfe
Commission: David R. Brougham. Gary Butterworth. Vice-Chair. Chris Castilian Dorothea Farris. Tim Glenn, Chair. Allan Jones. Bill Kane. Gaspar Perricone • Jim Pribyl. John Singletary
Mark Smith, Secretary. Robert Streeter. Lenna Watson. Dean Wingfield Ex OOdo Members: Mike King and John Salazar
EXHIBIT I L January 1/24/12 To: Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Planner From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department Re: Applicant POW, Inc., contact person,
Ron Liston, Land Design Partnership, location north of the City of Glenwood Springs off Transfer Trail-SW1/4 Sec 3, T6S, R89W Comments: The Glenwood Fire Department staff is in support
of the new planned developments at the Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park that are laid out in this application. However with these expansion plans come more risks to the visitors and a
potential greater demand for emergency response from our staff. The location and access to the park presents some unique challenges to emergency responders. The information in Tab two
of the application reviews the history of the adventure park to date. Through its development and expansion up to this point we have worked with the owners in developing emergency response
and risk management plan. With the proposed Park improvements that include more rides, adding buildings, modifications to the existing main building, more gondola cars, increase park
capacity, increased emergency response, increased risk to visitors etc. We are requiring the following: In the site master plan in tab four I did not see the creation of a site preparedness
and evacuation plan addressed. So the applicant shall put together a team of qualified professionals to create a formal emergency preparedness and evacuation plan for the adventure park.
We are willing to be part of this team of professionals and work with the applicant to select of other team members. Some other possible team members shall be a fire protection engineer,
shelter in place specialist, specialist in outdoor evacuation plans, outdoor mass evacuation system designer, amusement park risk analysis' Sherriff etc. The emergency preparedness plan
shall be created and approved by Glenwood Springs Fire Department staff prior to the final approval of this application.
.' EXHIBIT< ItA arfield Coun y Vegetlltioll M(lIIl1J!emellt January 26, 2012 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building & Planning Department RE: Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park, Major Impact
Amendment, MPAA 7070 Dear l<atllY, Thanks for the opportunity to comment, I offer two suggestions: • The Reclamation Plan is acceptable, may we request that the applicant quantify the
surface area to be disturbed for areas where reseeding and erosion control are proposed, so that we may determine If a revegetation security is necessary? • A weecl inventory is also
suggested, Over the last few years the noxiollS weed, Myrtle spurge, has escaped landscape situations In Glenwood Springs and has started to spread up the slopes north of town, This
has occurred in a few spots from a location just east of the Vapor Caves all the way to areas above West Glenwood, Myrtle spurge is a State of Colorado List A noxious weed, List A noxious
weeds are mandated for eradication when found, There may be Musk thistle issues in the area as well, Staff suggests that the applicant conduct a noxious weed Inventory In the spring
of 2012 and provide a weed management plan based on the weed survey, Please let me know if you have any qllestions, Sincerely, --~7 //If /.~-: ) '~~1.-'L'· C:/r-\...--G4u..::,/Steve
Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0298 County Road 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Phono: 970-625-8601 Fax: 970-625-0627
February 1, 2012 Kathy Eastley Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 keastley@garfield-county.com Re. Glenwood Caverns Adventure
Park Major Development Review Dear Kathy: EXHIBIT IN Thanks for forwarding the review comments as they came in. As you are aware we have met with Chris Hale, Mountain Engineering regarding
sewer and drainage questions. We have also met with Wildlife Manager Dan Cacho from the CPW and with Ron Biggers, Fire Marshall. Following is a summary of the results of those meetings
and responses to the questions raised by the review comments received to date. Letter from Mountain Engineering. Chris Hale: Deric Walter, our project civil engineer, is currently out
of town and unable to provide any written response to the questions raised by Chris Hale until sometime after the 6th of February. We have discussed the questions with Deric and based
on the discussion at our meeting with you and Chris would offer the following . 1. Regarding sewer, we anticipate that Deric Walter will be able to provide satisfactory justification
for his calculation related to the percentage of potable water converted to sewage. Even if that justification is not accepted, the percentage favored by Chris would reduce from 350
to 307 the average number of people that can be served by the existing on-site sewer system. Keep in mind that the on-site sewer is used only in the winter months (November to mid March)
51000 TWO RIVERS PLAZA ROAD GLENWOOD SPR INGS COLORADO 81601 I TEL 970 945-4CAV (4228) I 8005301635 I FAX 970945205 I GLENWOODCAVERNS.COM
when visitor numbers at the Adventure Park are very low. The rest of the year all effluent is pumped down the mountain and discharged into the City wastewater system. It is not anticipated
that the growth of winter time visitors will challenge the capacity of the existing system anytime in the near future. There is also the potential to add another onsite treatment system
which could double the average daily number of visitors that could be accommodated. 2. Relative to storm water management and drainage, I am in agreement that a more detailed description
and additional flow calculations would be appropriate. It is to the best interest of the Caverns themselves to accommodate as much infiltration into the soil and eventually into the
Caverns as possible. Future pedestrian paving surfaces will be of a pervious design, although this alone will not avoid larger volumes of runoff during a high intensity rainstorm. The
general approach to drainage will be to disperse storm water discharge as frequently as possible to avoid high concentrations of water being released onto the native landscape. In some
locations, detention of the storm water may be desirable to allow for controlled flow releases. Energy dissipaters would likely also be used at the numerous discharge points. 3. Due
to the absence of Deric Walter, I would request that a condition of the Planning Commission approval would be to call for, prior to the BOCC hearing, a written response from Boundaries
Unlimited to the Mountain Engineering's questions, including appropriate schematic plans regarding drainage facilities and preliminary storm water runoff calculations. Comments from
the Glenwood Springs Fire Department. Ron Bigger: Although the Adventure Park has an emergency response plan in place that has been developed over the year with good guidance and input
from the Fire Department, I agree that it is an appropriate time to expand the scope of plans and procedures for responding to fire and medical emergencies. We met with Ron Biggers,
and he has again provided good insight on how to proceed with the development of these expanded response and prevention plans. I am in the process of contacting specialists with the
expertise to help prepare a new and expanded emergency response plan. Ideally the selected specialists will have experience with amusement park settings. This plan would include mitigation
tools, guidance for equipment, and shelter in place preparation, as well as protocols for responding to potential emergencies. A few months will be required to complete the expanded
plan. On mountain visitors numbers are not expected to increase significantly during that time and the existing response plan procedures, including annual emergency medical training
of key on-site employees will continue to be observed. I would request that the conditions of final approval include a requirement that the new emergency response report be completed
before additional cabins are added to the Tram or December 1, 2012, whichever comes first. 51000 TWO RIVERS PLAZA ROAD GLENWOOD SPRINGS COLORADO 81601 I TEL 970 945-4CAV(4228) I 8005301635
I FAX 9709452051 GLENWOODCA VERNS.COM
Colorado Parks and Wildlife letter, Perry Will: I met with Wildlife Manager, Dan Cacho and discussed the points raised in Perry Will's letter, much of which involve continuation of previously
identified and implemented practices, After reviewing the limited extent of our development plans and timing implications related to construction, Dan better understood the situation
at the Adventure Park. He agreed that the construction period specified does have to be an absolute parameter but requested that construction activities avoid those time periods whenever
possible. I agree with the recommendations to provide training to help minimize human-wildlife conflict, and the transition to wildlife resistant trash containers. Suggestions from Garfield
County Vegetation Management, Steve Anthony: We have, for a number of years, worked closely with Steve Anthony to monitor and control noxious weeds on the site and off-site area along
the entire length of Transfer Trail up to the Adventure Park site. A weed control specialist is hired every year to treat noxious weed infestations that have been identified with the
assistance of Mr. Anthony. We will continue that program. Quantitative calculations of potential site disturbance is very difficult in that the locations of possible site disturbance
of potential new attractions or buildings is not known at this time. The 2012 additions are in locations within our current plaza/esplanade and at a location of previous disturbance.
All of these new attraction sites will be pedestrian surfaced or maintained as a controlled landscape. Those disturbed areas will be covered by the attraction itself, pedestrian surfaces
or landscaped areas. The inherent nature of the Adventure Park operation dictates that site disturbance be managed carefully to assure the presentation of an attractive environment for
the Park visitors! I trust these responses appropriately answer questions raised by the reviewers and provide assurance to the Planning Commission that the associated recommendations
will be addressed and/or implemented. Respectfully Steve Beckley Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park 51000 TWO RIVERS PLAZA ROAD GLENWOOD SPRINGS COLORADO 81601 I TEL 970 945·4CAV (4228)
I 800530 1635 I FAX 9709452051 GLENWOODCAVERNS.COM
Glenwood ; I'lVA/11.Q Civil Engineering Smveying & (jJeyontf 51000 Two Rivers PIMA Glenwood Springs, co 81601 Stormwater Management Plan Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park Project No. 11019.01
February 17. 2012
Contents A. Introduction ........................................................................... 1 1. Existing Conditions ............ ........ .. ......................................
1 2. Proposed Conditions .. ........... ....... .. .. ... .... .................. .. ....... 1 B. Hydrologic Criteria .. .................................. .............................
2 C. Disturbance Area Ranges .................................................. 2 D. Recommendation and Best Management Practices ........... 3 E. Works Cited ........................................
................................... 5 Appendix Drainage Calculation Spreadsheets Hydraflow Hydrographs Sheets Hydraflow Express Data Sheets 923 Cooper Avenue, Ste. 201 I Glenwood Springs,
CO 81601 I 970.945.5252 I www.bu-inc.com
A. Introduction The purpose of this Stormwater Management Plan is to provide an outline and basis of design for the stormwater improvements and Best Management Practices to be implemented
with the anticipated improvements at the Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park (Park) in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. At the time of preparing this Plan, the Park did not have a specified set
of designed improvements. but rather an overall Master Plan. Therefore, this Plan has been prepared with a series recommendations associated with a broad range of site disturbances and
runoff rates. This Plan should accompany the Park Master Plan and be referred to with each individual site improvement. Where disturbances exceed 1/2 acre, Boundaries Unlimited Inc.
should be consulted for a more specific design or set of recommendations. The intent of the project is to replace the existing building with a new structure, reconstruct the driveway
and mitigate the drainage impacts resulting from redevelopment. 1. Existing Conditions The Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park has steady been growing and adding amusements, amenities and
attractions over the past decade. 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 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey indicates that the site soils are primarily Jerry Loam (12 to 50% slopes, hydrologic soil
group Type-C, slow rate of water transmission) west of the ridgeline and Torriorthentis-Camborthids-Rock Outcrop Complex (hydrologic soil group Type-D, very slow rate of water transmission)
on top and east of the ridgeline. A copy of the soil survey has been included in the Appendix. Vegetation typically consists of gam bel oak, serviceberry, and fairly dense grasses along
the west/north facing slopes and pinon, juniper and grasses on the south and east facing slopes. The majority of the improvements are anticipated to be on or east of the ridgeline. Stormwater
runoff is primarily sheet flow as the Park is located near the top of the mountain and along the ridgeline. The Park has historically managed stormwater through the use of curbed walkways,
storm pipes, riprap, concrete spillways, erosion fabric and careful construction so as to not disturb more vegetation than absolutely necessary. Historic trees and shrubs can be observed
to have been maintained immediately adjacent to the existing walkways, buildings and other improvements throughout the site. The site soils generally consist of a thin 1 "-6" layer of
topsoil mixed with or overlying angular rock and bedrock with a significant number of rock outcropping . During a site visit on February 17. 2012, no soil or vegetative erosion or debris
washes were observed further than 15-feet below the lower limits of the existing improvements. This is presumed to be in part to the Parks practices to limit runoff concentrations and
the soils natural riprap-like nature. The Park also captures the runoff from roof and decks of the primary building (restaurant/offices/gift shop) and retains it in a shallow 600± CF
retention pond for irrigating trees and shrubs. This pond is located below the building on the south side. 2. Proposed Conditions As mentioned, Park anticipates a number of non-specific
site improvements over next several years. These include building expansions/remodels, amusements, guest services, paved/gravel trails, native footpaths, and maintenance facilities.
Most improvements are constructed into or above the topography rather than across it. This is typically accomplished through design-build and field engineering practices as it would
not be feasible to surveyor map every tree and rock outcropping atop the mountain. Page 1 923 Cooper Avenue, Ste, 201 I Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 I 970.945.5252 I www.bu-inc.com
B. Hydrologic Criteria To accommodate the non-specific character of the Master Plan and field engineering construction practices at work, this Plan considers the estimated hydrologic
conditions based on a broad range of disturbed areas. These areas range from 1,000 SF to 60,000 SF of disturbance and provide the Park with a base point from which to begin implementing
stormwater management structures and erosion controls. Peak runoff rates and volumes have been estimated for the regional 1 ~O-year storm event using the Modified Rational Method and
the computer program Hydraflow Hydrographs. The calculations consider a watershed imperviousness of 90%. This percentage assumes a fair amount of impervious surface surrounded by improved
landscaping with trees, shrubs and native grasses. A copy of the design spreadsheet and Hydraflow report, with hydrographs, has been included in the Appendix. Minimum culverts and pipes
sizes have been estimated for each range as well using Hydraflow Express stormwater modeling software. Data sheets for these models have also been included in the Appendix. C. Disturbance
Area Ranges Based on the criteria described, the following represents a broad range of disturbance areas, peak flow rates, minimum culvert/pipe sizes and estimated runoff volumes: Disturbance
Area, A PeakFlow,g 1.5F.S. Min. Pil!e II! Runoff Volume, V 1,000 SF= 0.023 Ac. 0.107 CFS 0.16 CFS 4 ' 32 CF 2,000 SF= 0.046 Ac. 0.214 CFS 0.32 CFS 6 ' 64 CF 3,000 SF= 0.069 Ac. 0.321
CFS 0.48 CFS 6 ' 96 CF 4,000 SF= 0.092 Ac. 0.427 CFS 0.64 CFS 6 ' 128 CF 5,000 SF= 0.115 Ac. 0.534 CFS 0.80 CFS 8 ' 160 CF 7,500 SF= 0.172 Ac. 0.799 CFS 1.20 CFS 8 • 240 CF 10,000 SF=
0.230 Ac. 1.069 CFS 1.60 CFS 10 ' 321 CF 12,500 SF= 0.287 Ac. 1.333 CFS 2.00 CFS 10 ' 400 CF 15,000 SF= 0.344 Ac. 1.598 CFS 2.40 CFS 12 ' 479 CF 20,000 SF= 0.459 Ac. 2.132 CFS 3.20 CFS
12 ' 640 CF 25,000 SF= 0.574 Ac. 2.667 CFS 4.00 CFS 12 ' 800 CF 30,000 SF= 0.689 Ac. 3.201 CFS 4.80 CFS --15 ' --960CF 35,000 SF= 0.803 Ac. 3.731 CFS 5.60 CFS 18 • 1119 CF 40,000 SF=
0.918 Ac. 4.265 CFS 6.40 CFS 18 ' 1279 CF 45,000 SF= 1.033 Ac. 4.799 CFS 7.20 CFS 18 ' 1440 CF 50,000 SF= 1.148Ac. 5.333 CFS 8.00 CFS 18 ' 1600 CF 55,000 SF= 1.263 Ac. 5.868 CFS 8.80
CFS 18 ' 1760 CF 60,000 SF= 1.377 Ac. 6.397 CFS 9.60 CFS 18 • 1919 CF For example, if the disturbance area for an improvement is estimated to be 21 ,500 SF, then the resultant peak runoff
after development should be considered at 2.667 CFS which would require a stormwater conveyance pipe with a minimum diameter of 12". The anticipated resultant runoff volume should be
considered at 800 cf. Page 2 923 Cooper Avenue, Ste. 201 I Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 I 970.945.5252 I www.bu-inc.com
E. Recommendation and Best Management Practices In the State of Colorado, Stormwater Construction Permit coverage is required for stormwater discharged from any construction activities
(clearing, grading, excavation, demolitions, access roads, staging areas, stockpiling 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 Discharge Permit System (COPS) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities and associated Stormwater Management
Plan (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 energy dissipation, limiting
runoff concentration, reintroducing sheet flow, erosion control, and chemical/fuel containment, but not necessarily stormwater detention. The SWMP should also be applied for just prior
to construction. Applying for that application too early could require significant permit extensions and 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) Institute 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 effects of erosion, debris and pollution on rivers and streams. 2) Incorporate Structural BMPs, such as: a. Install angular rock riprap beds
(energy dissipaters) 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. b. Install water level spreaders below culverts to reintroduce
sheet flow. Level spreaders are structures that are designed to uniformly distribute concentrated flow over a large area via a long linear shallow trench or behind a low berm containing
a level top edge along the entire length (Stormwater BMP Academy, 2001). The following table provides a range of trench/berm lengths for various peak flow rates: Page 3 923 Cooper Avenue,
Ste. 201 I Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 I 970.945.5252 I www.bu-inc.com
Flow Rate, Q Length, L 1.5F.S. 0.5 CFS 7 LF 11 LF 1.0 CFS 13 LF 20 LF 1.5 CFS 20 LF 30 LF 2.0 CFS 26 LF 39 LF 2.5 CFS 33 LF 50 LF 3.0 CFS 39 LF 59 LF 3.5 CFS 46 LF 69 LF 4.0 CFS 52LF
78 LF 4.5 CFS 59 LF 89 LF 5.0 CFS 65 LF 98 LF 5.5 CFS 72 LF 108 LF 6.0 CFS 78 LF 117 LF 6.5 CFS 85 LF 128 LF 7.0 CFS 91LF 137 LF c. Install curb openings with spill aprons every 20-feet
or less in curbed walkways to minimize water concentrations. Spill aprons should flare out and contain imbedded rocks to dissipate energy and encourage dispersion. d. Where waters are
diverted above a walkway by a swale or deflection wall. install culverts/drainage pipes under the walkway every 20-feet or less to minimize water concentrations. Spill aprons and/or
water level spreaders should be considered to dissipate energy and further encourage dispersion. e. Where areas are leveled and graveled to create a platform for an amusement or other
stilted/elevated structure, the platform should be graded at a shallow and level 2%-4% slope and the water receiving edges lined with a short 8"-12" high by 24" wide berm of onsite clean
angular aggregate and rock to screen debris and reduce runoff flow velocities. f. During construction activities, stockpile excavated soils outside of and away from any natural or man-made
drainage courses. g. Install temporary erosion structures such as sediment control fencing, erosion logs and silt dikes below disturbed areas in accordance with the Colorado Department
of Transportation M-Standards (Colorado Department of Transportation, 2010). Sediment should be removed from temporary controls after each storm event and culverts/pipes should be monitored
and cleaned regularly. h. Install temporary hay bales or erosion logs in front of culvert/pipe inlets to minimize the entrance of silt and debris. i. Designate 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. Page 4 923 Cooper Avenue,
Ste. 201 I Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 I 970.945.5252 I www.bu-inc.com
j. Install temporary rock socks or similar around potential pollutant areas such as portaletles and refuge receptacles. Refuge receptacles shall be regularly emptied and equipped with
lids. k. Maintain roads, drives and disturbed surfaces in good condition and spraying with water to control fugitive dust. I. Refuge receptacles should be regularly emptied and equipped
with lids. m. Keep machinery in good operating condition to prevent leakage. n. Apply appropriate (not excessive) amounts of fertilizer to the landscaping .. o. Grade so as to ensure
that drainage is directed away from all structures in all directions. p. Stabilize soils after the construction of each staged improvement. This shall include proper soil compaction,
construction of aggregate/rock berms, routing 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. q. Maintain a clean site and properly train 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. F. Works Cited CDPHE-WQCD. (2011 , April). Storm
water Management Plan Preparation Guidance. Retrieved November 2011 , from CDPHE-WQCD: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUniUpermits/construction/SWCONSTINSTR_SWMPG UIDE.pdf Colorado
Department of Transportation. (2010, May 24). M&S Standard Plans. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from Colorado Department of Transportation: http://www.coloradodot.info/business/designsupporUstandard-p
lans Stormwater BMP Academy. (2001 , June). Designing Level Spreaders to Treat Storm water Runoff. Retrieved February 2012, from http://www.aces.edu/waterquality/streams/Bill's%20Handouts/LSworksheet
.pdf Web Soil Survey. (n.d.). Retrieved August 3, 2011, from United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/applWebSoiISurvey.aspx
Page 5 923 Cooper Avenue, Ste. 201 I Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 I 970.945.5252 I www.bu-inc.com
Appendix • Drainage Calculation Spreadsheets • Hydraf/ow Hydrographs Sheets • Hydraf/ow Express Data Sheets Page 6 923 Cooper Avenue, Ste. 201 I Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 I 970.945.5252
I www.bu-inc.com
Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS February 16, 2012 BUI Project: 11019 Developed Conditions Nole: The purpose of this spreadsheet is to provide a broad range of stormwater
basins sizes and estimates of the rate of peak runoff flows and volumes for the 1 OO-yr storm event. Runoff Coefficient, C: Hydrologic Soil Group: D Watershed Percent Imp.: 90% AsSlJm9Ci
Runoff Coefficient, C: C'OO = 0.83 Urban Drainage and Flood Con/rol District Time of Concentration ITc} and Travel Time ITt}: Tc=T,+T, Conservatively estimated at 5.0 minutes, minimum.
Disturbance Area, A Peak Flow, Q' 1.5F.S. Min. Pi~el1! Runoff Volume, V 1,000 SF-0.023 Ac. 0.107 CFS 0.16 CFS 4 " 32 CF 2,000 SF = 0.046 Ac. 0.214 CFS 0.32 CFS 6 ' 64 CF 3,000 SF = 0.069
Ac. 0.321 CFS 0.48 CFS 6 ' 96 CF 4,000 SF = 0.092 Ac. 0.427 CFS 0.64 CFS 6 ' 128 CF 5,000 SF = 0.115 Ac. 0.534 CFS 0.80 CFS 8 ' 160 CF 7,500 SF = 0.172 Ac. 0.799 CFS 1.20 CFS 8 ' 240
CF 10,000 SF = 0.230 Ac. 1.069 CFS 1.60 CFS 10 ' 321 CF 12,500 SF = 0.287 Ac. 1.333 CFS 2.00 CFS 10 ' 400 CF 15,000 SF = 0.344 Ac. 1.598 CFS 2.40 CFS 12 ' 479 CF 20,000 SF = 0.459 Ac.
2.132 CFS 3.20 CFS 12 ' 640 CF 25,000 SF = 0.574 Ac. 2.667 CFS 4.00 CFS 12 " 800 CF 30,000 SF = 0.689 Ac. 3.201 CFS 4.80 CFS 15 ' 960 CF 35,000 SF = 0.803 Ac. 3.731 CFS 5.60 CFS 18 '
1119 CF 40,000 SF = 0.918 Ac. 4.265 CFS 6.40 CFS 18 ' 1279 CF 45,000 SF = 1.033 Ac. 4.799 CFS 7.20 CFS 18 ' 1440 CF 50,000 SF = 1.148Ac. 5.333 CFS _ 8.00 CFS 18 ' 1600 CF 55,000 SF =
1.263 Ac. 5.868 CFS 8.80 CFS 18 ' 1760 CF 60,000 SF = 1.377 Ac. 6.397 CFS 9.60 CFS 18 ' 1919 CF 'Hydraflow Hydr(1Jraphs results
Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS February 16, 2012 SUI Project: 11019 Developed Conditions Water Level Sgreader Length, L L=QJ(X'V) X="Equivalenl" Waler Heighl =
0.058' for Shrubs and Grass V=Maximum Velocity of Flow = 1.33 fps for Shrubs and Grass Flow Rate, Q Length, L I .SF.S. 0.5 CFS 7LF 11 LF 1.0 CFS 13 LF 20 LF 1.5 CFS 20 LF 30 LF 2.0 CFS
26 LF 39 LF 2.5 CFS 33LF 50 LF 3.0 CFS 39 LF 59 LF 3.5 CFS 46 LF 69 LF 4.0 CFS 52LF 78 LF 4.5 CFS 59 LF 89 LF 5.0 CFS 65 LF 98 LF 5.5 CFS 72 LF 108 LF 6.0 CFS 78 LF 117 LF 6.5 CFS 85LF
128 LF 7.0 CFS 91 LF 137 LF
1 Hydrograph Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No.
type flow Interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (It) (cult) 1 Mod. Rational 0.107 1 5 32 ------------------1000 sf 2 Mod. Rational
0.214 1 5 64 ------------------2000 sf 3 Mod. Rational 0.321 1 5 96 ------------------3000 sf 4 Mod. Rational 0.427 1 5 128 --------------._--4000 sf 5 MOd. Rational 0.534 1 5 160 ____
A. ------------5000 sf 6 Mod. Rational 0.799 1 5 240 ------------------7500 sf 7 Mod. Rational 1.069 1 5 321 ------------------10000 sf 8 Mod. Rational 1.333 1 5 400 -._---------------12500
sf 9 Mod. Rational 1.598 1 5 479 ------------------15000 sf 10 Mod. Rational 2.132 1 5 640 ------------------20000 sf 11 Mod. Rational 2.667 1 5 800 ------------------25000 sf 12 Mod.
Rational 3.201 1 5 960 ------------------30000 sf 13 MOd. Rational 3.731 1 5 1.119 ------------------35000 sf 14 Mod. Rational 4.265 1 5 1,279 ------------------40000 sf 15 Mod. Rational
4.799 1 5 1.440 ------------------45000 sf 16 MOd. Rational 5.333 1 5 1,600 ------------------50000 sf 17 Mod. Rational 5.868 1 5 1,760 ---------_.-------55000 sf 18 MOd. Rational 6.397
1 5 1.919 ------------------60000 sf N:IPROJECTSI2011111019-Cavernsldocum rlf!iltlaro:j\lhdi6!ll9~-1 OO-y .gpliwrsday. 00 16, 2012
2 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Thursday, 00 16, 2012 Hyd. No.1 1000 sf Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge
= 0.107 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 5 min Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 32 cuft Drainage area = 0.023 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.83 Intensity = 5.597 in/hr Tc by User
= 5.00 min IDF Curve = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x Tc Target Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a Q (cfs) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 ~ ,... ..---o
1 2 --HydNo. 1 1000 sf Hyd. No. 1 --100 Year --v-----..... ----""'"-3 4 5 6 7 .... Q (cfs) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 -------0.00 8 9 10 Time (min)
3 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AuloCAD® Civil 30® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Thursday, 00 16, 2012 Hyd.No.2 2000 sf Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge
= 0.214 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 5min Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 64 cuff Drainage area = 0,046 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.83 Intensity = 5.597 in/hr Tc by User
= 5.00 min IDF Curve = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF Storm duration = 1.0xTc Target Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a Q (cfs) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 /,;' /o 1
2 --Hyd No. 2 //' 3 2000 sf Hyd. No. 2 --100 Year /' i'.. ./'/'" I'-..... 4 5 6 .......... ~ ....... ~ 7 8 --Q (cfs) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 ~ 0.00 9 10 Time
(min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd.No.3 3000 sf Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge Storm frequency = 100
yrs Time to peak Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume Drainage area = 0.069 ac Runoff coeff. Intensity = 5.597 in/hr Tc by User IDF Curve = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF Storm duration Target
Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 3000 sf Q (cfs) 0.50 Hyd. NO.3 --100 Year 0.45 0.40 0.35 /~ /'" 0.30 V " /'" 0.25 0.20 /" //-'" "'-/0.15 0.10 ./V 0.05 0.00 o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 --Hyd NO.3 4 Thursday.
00 16. 2012 = 0.321 cfs = 5min = 96 cuff = 0.83 = 5.00 min = 1.0 x Tc =n/a ~ " 9 Q (cfs) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 ·0.10 0.05 '" 0.00 10 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd.No.4 4000 sf Hydrograph type Storm frequency Time interval Drainage area Intensity
IDF Curve Target Q Q (cIs) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 = Mod, Rational Peak discharge = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1 min Hyd, volume = 0.092 ac Runoff coeff. = 5.597 in/hr Tc by User
= GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF Storm duration =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 4000 sf Hyd. No. 4 --100 Year //"'" /'\. V-" /'" /" 5 Thursday, 00 16, 2012 = 0.427 cfs = 5min = 128 cuft = 0.83 = 5.00
min = 1.0 x Tc =n/a Q (ets) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 /"" 0.15 0.10 ///0.05 0.00 o 1 2 3 4 5 --Hyd NO. 4 '" '\. 6 7 8 9 0.10 0.05 '" 0.00 10 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd.No.5 5000 sf Hydrograph type Storm frequency Time interval Drainage area Intensity
IDF Curve Target Q Q (cfs) 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 DAD 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 /' o /' 1 --Hyd NO. 5 = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1 min Hyd. volume = 0.115
ac Runoff coeff. = 5.597 in/hr Tc by User = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF Storm duration =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 5000 sf Hyd. NO. 5 --100 Year --./"'-./V ~ "-./V V "'" ~ -2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 Thursday,
00 16. 2012 = 0.534 cfs = 5min = 160 cuft = 0.83 = 5.00 min = 1.0 x Tc =n/a ~ 9 Q (cfs) 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 DAD 0.30 0.20 0.10 ~ 0.00 10 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd. No. 6 7500 sf Hydrograph type Storm frequency Time interval Drainage area Intensity
IDF Curve Target Q Q (cIs) 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 /V 0.10 /0.00 V o 1 --HydNo. 6 = Mod, Rational Peak discharge = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1 min Hyd. volume = 0,172
ac Runoff coeff. = 5.597 in/hr Tc by User = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF Storm duration =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 7500 sf Hyd. NO. 6 --100 Year /~ /V '\ '\. ~ ~ //"' \ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 Thursday,
00 16, 2012 = 0,799 cfs = 5min = 240 cuft = 0.83 = 5.00 min = 1.0 x Tc =n/a ~ "\ "-Q (cIs) 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 "'" 0.00 9 10 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report HydraOow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 300 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd.No.7 10000 sf Hydrograph type Storm frequency Time interval Drainage area Intensity
IDF Curve Target Q Q (cIs) 2.00 1.00 = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1 min Hyd. volume = 0.230 ac Runoff coeff. = 5.597 in/hr Tc by User = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF
Storm duration =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 10000 sf Hyd. NO.7 --100 Year ./" V /"-~ ~ 8 Thursday, 00 16, 2012 = 1.069 cfs = 5 min = 321 cuft = 0.83 = 5.00 min = 1.0 x Tc =n/a Q (cIs) 2.00
1.00 V V ~ 0.00 /o 1 2 3 4 --Hyd NO. 7 5 6 7 8 ~ 0.00 9 10 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAO® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd. No.8 12500 sf Hydrograph type Storm frequency Time interval Drainage area Intensity
IDF Curve Target Q Q (cIs) 2.00 1.00 0.00 //= Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1 min Hyd. volume = 0.287 ac Runoff coeff. = 5.597 in/hr Tc by User = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF
Storm duration =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 12500 sf Hyd. NO.8 --100 Year //~ "-/V "" ~ 9 Thursday. 00 16. 2012 = 1.333 cfs = 5 min = 400 cut! = 0.83 = 5.00 min = 1.0xTc =n/a ~ ~ Q (cIs)
2.00 1.00 o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.00 10 --Hyd NO. 8 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd. No.9 15000 sf Hydrograph type Storm frequency Time interval Drainage area Intensity
IDF Curve Target Q = Mod. Rational = 100 yrs = 1 min = 0.344 ac = 5.597 in/hr = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF =n/a 15000 sf Peak discharge Time to peak Hyd. volume Runoff coeff. Tc by User
Storm duration Est. Req'd Storage Q (cfs) Hyd. NO.9 --100 Year 2.00 1.00 v ~ /~ 10 Thursday. 00 16. 2012 = 1.598 cfs = 5min = 479 cuft = 0.83 = 5.00 min = 1.0 x Tc =n/a Q (cfs) 2.00
1.00 V ~ /~ ~ 0.00 /o 2 3 4 --Hyd No. 9 5 6 7 8 9 0.00 10 T ime (min)
11 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Thursday. 00 16. 2012 Hyd. No. 10 20000 sf Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge
= 2. 132 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 5 min Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 640 cuft Drainage area = 0.459 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.83 Intensity = 5.597 in/hr Tc by User
= 5.00 min IDF Curve = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x Tc Target Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a Q (cIs) 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 /V /a 2 --Hyd No. 10 20000 sf Hyd. No. 1 0--100
Year L '\. /V "" ~ , /3 4 5 6 7 "'-~ Q (cIs) 3.00 2.00 1.00 ~ 0.00 8 9 10 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd. No. 11 25000 sf Hydrograph type Storm frequen cy Time interval Drainage area Intensity
IDF Curve Target Q Q (cfs) 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 /o /1 --Hyd No. 11 = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1 min Hyd. volume = 0,574 ac Runoff coeff. = 5,597 in/hr Tc
by User = GlenwoodSprings-1 OF. I OF Storm duration =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 25000 sf Hyd. No. 11 --100 Year /\ /\. V \ /\ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 Thursday, 00 16, 2012 -2.667 cfs = 5min = 800
cuft = 0.83 = 5.00 min = 1.0 xTc =n/a \ Q (cfs) 3.00 2.00 1.00 \ 0.00 9 10 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 300 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd. No. 12 30000 sf Hydrograph type Storm frequency Time interval Drainage area Intensity
IDF Curve Target Q Q (cis) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 //V = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1 min Hyd . volume = 0.689 ac Runoff coeff. = 5.597 in/hr Tc by User =
GlenwoodSprings-1 OF. I OF Storm duration =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 30000 sf Hyd. No. 12 --100 Year V /'"" " /~ /"" 13 Thursday. 00 16. 2012 = 3.201 cfs = 5min = 960 cuft = 0.83 = 5.00
min = 1.0 x Tc =n/a '\.. "\ ~ Q (cfs) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.00 10 --Hyd No. 12 T ime (min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 30® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd. No. 13 35000 sf Hydrograph type Storm frequency Time interval Drainage area Intensity
IDF Curve Target Q Q (cIs) 4.00 3.00 2.00 /1.00 /0.00 /= Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1 min Hyd. volume = 0.803 ac Runoff coeff. = 5.597 in/hr Tc by User = GlenwoodSprings-ID
F.IDF Storm duration =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 35000 sf Hyd. No. 13 --100 Year I \ /\ I '\ /\ 14 Thursday. 00 16. 2012 = 3.731 cfs = 5 min = 1,119 cuft = 0.83 = 5.00 min = 1.0 x Tc =n/a
\ \ 1\ Q (cIs) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.00 10 --HydNo. 13 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd. No. 14 40000 sf Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak discharge Storm frequency
= 100 yrs Time to peak Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume Drainage area = 0.918 ac Runoff coeff. Intensity = 5.597 in/hr Tc by User IDF Curve = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF Storm duration
Target Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 40000 sf Q (cIs) 5.00 Hyd. No. 14 --100 Year 4.00 /~ V '\ /[7 '" '\ 3.00 /"" V '\ 2.00 15 Thursday. 00 16. 2012 = 4.265 cfs = 5min = 1,279 cuft = 0.83
= 5.00 min = 1.0 x Tc =n/a Q (cIs) 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 /1'\ V 1.00 0.00 1/o 1 2 3 4 --Hyd No. 14 5 6 7 8 "\ ~ 0.00 9 10 Time (min)
16 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Thursday. 00 16. 2012 Hyd. No. 15 45000 sf Hydrograph type = Mod. Rational Peak
discharge = 4.799 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 5min Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,440 cuff Drainage area = 1.033 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.83 Intensity = 5.597 inlhr
Tc by User = 5.00 min IDF Curve = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF Storm duration = 1.0 x Tc Target Q =n/a Est. Req'd Storage =n/a 45000 sf Q (cIs) 5.00 Hyd. No. 15--100Year Q (cIs) 5.00 4.00
II 3.00 /2.00 I I Y 1.00 0.00 o 1 2 3 4 --Hyd No. 15 /1\ 1\ 1\ 5 6 7 4.00 3.00 2.00 1\ 1.00 1\ 0.00 8 9 10 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd. No. 16 50000 sf Hydrograph type Storm frequency Time interval Drainage area Intensity
IDF Curve Target Q Q (cIs) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 [7 o [7 1 --Hyd No. 16 = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1 min Hyd, volume = 1,148 ac Runoff coeff.
= 5.597 in/hr Tc by User = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF Storm duration =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 50000 sf Hyd. No. 16 --100 Year J f\. V \ /I\. 1/\ ) 1\ V \ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 17 Thursday, 00 16,
2012 = 5,333 cfs = 5min = 1,600 cuff = 0.83 = 5.00 min = 1.0 x Tc =n/a \ 9 Q (cIs) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 '\ 0.00 10 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 300 2012 by Aulodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd. No. 17 55000 sf Hydrograph type Storm frequency Time interval Drainage area Intensity
IDF Curve Target Q Q (cIs) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 /2.00 /0.00 1.00 V = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1.263 ac Runoff coeff. = 5.597 inlhr Tc
by User = GlenwoodSprings-IDF.IDF Storm duration =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 55000 sf Hyd. No. 17 --1 00 Year /1\ V \ /\ /\ /'\ /\ 18 Thursday, 00 16, 2012 = 5.868 cfs = 5 min = 1,760 cuft
= 0.83 = 5.00 min = 1.0 x Tc =n/a \. \ \ Q (cIs) 6 .00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.00 10 --Hyd No. 17 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 300 201 2 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Hyd. No. 18 60000 sf Hydrograph type Storm frequency Time interval Drainage area Intensity
IDF Curve Target Q Q (cfs) 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 /2.00 V J /1.00 0.00 = Mod. Rational Peak discharge = 100 yrs Time to peak = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,377 ac Runoff coeff. = 5.597 in/hr
Tc by User = GlenwoodSprings-1 DF .IDF Storm duration =n/a Est. Req'd Storage 60000 sf Hyd. No. 18 --100 Year I \. /\ /'\ /\ V \ 19 Thursday, 00 16, 2012 = 6.397 cfs = 5 min = 1,919
cuft = 0.83 = 5.00 min = 1.0 x Tc =n/a --'\ \ I\. \ Q (cfs) 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.00 10 --Hyd No. 18 Time (min)
Culvert Report Hyd raflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 300 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. Cir Culvert Invert Elev On (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape
Span (in) No. Barrels n-Value Inlet Edge Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) ... '" 10) 00 101!10 -10200 lDUO 10100 r-.. • " £. = 100.00 =
100.00 = 1.00 = 101.00 = 4.0 = Cir = 4.0 = 1 = 0.012 = Projecting Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (ft) = 0.0045, 2, 0.0317, 0.69, 0.5 Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) Qpipe
(cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc On (fils) Veloc Up (fils) HGL On (ft) HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/O (ft) = 102.00 = 8.00 = 20.00 V /-~~ ~ /' ------.-Flow Regime ....... , ---------~ --,--.=
-• ,~ ," ,N -Thursday, Feb 16 2012 = 0.00 = 2.00 = (dc+O)/2 = 0.25 = 0.25 = 0.00 = 2.98 = 2.86 = 100.31 = 101.69 =101 .76 = 2.27 = Outlet Control IMo.pu.(lI) ,~ ~-. ... ~ .. , . , ~
,. .,. '" R .. "'(h)
Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civi l 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. Cir Culvert Invert Elev On (tt) Pipe Length (tt) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (tt) Rise (in) Shape
Span (in) No. Barrels n-Value Inlet Edge = 100,00 = 100.00 = 1.00 = 101.00 = 6,0 = Cir = 6.0 = 1 = 0,012 = Projecting Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (tt) Coeff, K,M,c,Y,k
= 0,0045,2, 0,0317,0,69,0,5 Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) Qpipe (cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc On (ft/s) Veloc Up (ft/s) HGL On (tt) HGL Up (tt) Hw Elev (tt) Hw/O (ft) Embankment Top Elevation
(tt) Top Width (tt) Crest Width (tt) 10Z 50 -IOl lO 101 00 -100.50 1(11UoJ ft .• • " --CirCul>. ~ = 102.00 = 8.00 = 20.00 -----_/V //___ r== -" • < ..... --------/' ~ -~ • --",,---,-Flow
Regime ----------::> ---..-=::::---" ,~ '" ,. Thursday, Feb 16 2012 = 0,00 = 2,00 = (dc+O)/2 = 0,70 = 0.70 = 0.00 = 3.70 = 3,57 = 100.46 =101.72 =101 ,81 = 1.63 = Outlet Control , ..
CMJot .......... .. •• -1.00 ,. w
Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 300 201 2 by Autodesk. Inc. Cir Culvert Invert Elev On (tt) = 100.00 Calculations Pipe Length (tt) = 100.00 Qmin (cfs) Slope
(%) = 1.00 Qmax (cfs) Invert Elev Up (tt) = 101.00 Tailwater Elev (tt) Rise (in) = 8.0 Shape = Cir Highlighted Span (in) = 8.0 Qlotal (cfs) No. Barrels = 1 Qpipe (cfs) n-Value = 0.012
Qovertop (cfs) Inlet Edge = Projecting Veloc On (fils) Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.0045,2, 0 .0317, 0.69, 0.5 Veloc Up (fils) HGL On (tt) Embankment HGL Up (tt) Top Elevation (tt) = 102.00
Hw Elev (tt) Top Width (tt) = 8.00 Hw/O (tt) Crest Width (tt) = 20.00 Flow Regime 'NoM' 10HO ~ ~ -10UO VV /7' 10150 101 00 ~ ---l00 !10 --...-== ~ "." • " • ~ ,~ '" ,. -~ <>-. -~ ""
-~,--,. Thursday, Feb 16 2012 = 0.00 = 2.00 = (dc+O)/2 = 1.40 = 1.40 = 0.00 = 4.1 7 = 4.02 = 100.61 = 101 .66 = 101.97 = 1.45 = Inlet Control -.... Dopth (1\) " . .... , . ~ .. " .00
-1.00 .," '"
Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Aulodesk, Inc. Cir Culvert Invert Elev On (tt) Pipe Length (tt) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (tt) Rise (in) Shape
Span (in) No. Barrels n-Value Inlet Edge Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (tt) Top Width (tt) Crest Width (tt) ! 1n (1I) toUO 101.$0 10210 101 $0 10100 100.$0 lOO.t:I M.' ,
.. -~Circ..tv.n .-= 100.00 = 100.00 = 1.00 =101.00 = 10.0 = Cir = 10.0 = 1 = 0.012 = Projecting Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (tt) = 0.0045,2, 0.0317,0.69,0.5 Highlighted
OIotal (cfs) Qpipe (cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc On (fils) Veloc Up (fils) HGL On (tt) HGL Up (tt) Hw Elev (tt) HwlD (tt) = 102.00 = 8.00 = 20.00 --/v -,.-=--~ --"" /v ----Flow Regime -~
_----r-==-""" • ~ ,~ '" 'N ~ -, . Thursday. Feb 162012 = 0.00 =6.40 = (dc+O)/2 = 2.00 = 2.00 = 0.00 = 3.93 = 4.48 = 100.73 = 101.64 = 102.01 = 1.21 = Inlet Control , . ~ .. ~ -,~ .,
" '"
Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Aulodesk, Inc. Thursday, Feb 162012 Cir Culvert Invert Elev Dn (tt) = 100.00 Calculations Pipe Length (tt) =
100.00 Qmin (cfs) = 0,00 Slope (%) = 1.00 Qmax (cfs) = 6.40 Invert Elev Up (tt) = 101.00 Tailwater Elev (tt) = (dc+D)/2 Rise (in) = 12.0 Shape = Cir Highlighted Span (in) = 12.0 Qtotal
(cfs) =4.00 No. Barrels = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 4.00 n-Value = 0.012 Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00 Inlet Edge = Projecting Veloc Dn (fils) = 5.27 Coeff, K.M.c.Y.k = 0.0045.2.0.0317.0.69. 0.5 Veloc
Up (fils) = 5.61 HGL Dn (tt) = 100.92 Embankment HGL Up (tt) = 101 .85 Top Elevation (tt) = 102.50 Hw Elev (tt) = 102.51 Top Width (tt) = 8.00 HMO (tt) = 1.51 Crest Width (tt) = 20.00
Flow Regime = Inlet Control [ltvtll} 10) 00 ----~-~ -IOHO ~ -V ~/~ /"v ~::...-/LV --.~. •• 10U4 ... 101 GO •• -,----------= l OO.SO -,-----.....==-~ ~ ••• '-'" .... M .• • " ~ • • 00
... • N •• ... --Oro.tv.~ --.... --,-Rucll(n)
Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. Cir Culvert Invert Elev On (tt) Pipe Length (tt) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (tt) Rise (in) Shape
Span (in) No. Barrels n-Value Inlet Edge Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (tt) Top Width (tt) Crest Width (tt) [ I .. (Ill 10) 10 101 so -~ lQ2 00 101 so 101 111 l 00.SO M .•
, " --Or Oh. ~ = 100.00 = 100.00 = 1.00 =101.00 = 15.0 = Cir = 15.0 = 1 = 0.012 = Projecting = 0.0045, 2, 0.0317, 0.69, 0.5 = 102.50 = 8.00 = 20.00 -7 /VV Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax
(cfs) Tailwater Elev (tt) Highlighted Qtota I (cfs) Qpipe (cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc On (fils) Veloc Up (fils) HGL Dn (tt) HGL Up (tt) Hw Elev (tt) Hw/O (tt) Flow Regime /,...-~ ~ _,--r-<=r--.
-_-r'= ----• 'M .. , , . --~ --EII'Ib .. t -Thursday. Feb 16 2012 = 0.00 =6.40 = (dc+D)/2 =5.40 =5.40 = 0.00 = 4.73 = 5.42 = 101.10 = 101 .95 = 102.49 = 1.19 = Inlet Control -'" ' M
--'" 'M ,. -... Ruc.h(ft)
Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. Thursday. Feb 162012 Cir Culvert Invert Elev On (tt) = 100.00 Calculations Pipe Length (tt) =
100.00 Qmin (cfs) = 0.00 Slope (%) = 1.00 Qmax (cfs) = 10.00 Invert Elev Up (tt) = 101.00 Tailwater Elev (tt) = (dc+O)/2 Rise (in) = 18.0 Shape = Cir Highlighted Span (in) = 18.0 Qtotal
(cfs) = 9.70 No. Barrels = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 9.70 n-Value = 0.012 Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00 Inlet Edge = Projecting Veloc On (ft/s) = 5.78 Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.0045,2,0.0317,0.69, 0.5 Veloc
Up (ft/s) = 6.37 HGL On (tt) = 101 .35 Embankment HGL Up (tt) = 102.21 Top Elevation (tt) = 103.00 Hw Elev (tt) = 102.98 Top Width (tt) = 8.00 Hw/O (tt) = 1.32 Crest Width (tt) = 20.00
Flow Regime = Inlet Control 10lt.) VV ~V /10200 .----v '.00 10100 .... .," -----H." • " • • ~ M ' 00 ,. ,. ,. --"'.,... --.... --,-'" R" "' IIIJ
'//, ,//r ///~,r//o/$I, /;:, '<//" i.,'J1//.1 //./1 /'. //' ,J: I',I' .' ,/", '//0,1-0"°"" " //.• //'////' ",' ,-" /1///'/,/, ',,' /101" I' /' ' , '/' /' /o<~ " , 10~ " ~ . //i I I "
/, /' I 'I' ' /' I I "/II j,' -'" "/' /'I , ' I" '/'/' , /','I/; /,',' ///>'>/>; /'/, ':11\1 1;.,,1,', '/' , //0 r/\ 'l,-iS " /1 ' /'<2 ~-o-' ::~~~-'~:,:f~r-i\jJOIQ ,;y;:o ,./_.~,---------+.
~ -~~ ~ -',---/-:z:..=-::.."':.:""_ _-= --rUT7'usu. ." "rm.s. ...w CKS ...~ ~ Site Flan 727 BI""~ ~""')".~ CoIQrwa 8160' .. ~~ !,:,.:i:~~=:.. rq;'%~8-9;!e~ ',TAX 947-9007) * Site Flan
Clenwood Caverns Adventure Park Sections S &-4 To 6S-,.!? 8.91r., 6th p.K. Carfield County, Colorado GlW'lUC SCALE To Loy , ..... ":) ... ~~ -~.,. __ "87'W-U·W ____ _ 1ho_"""of~.,_J"""""
... _ -"". __ ".t_~ __ by ___ "'*"'"""'" " ........... "''''--_._--.,--""'~I#""'I«f"' ___ ....... ____ "" ---"'-omIIof_'_"" .... _y.,""'US._F"'" Clenwood Caverns Adventure Park ~ /w
10/211/11 1
From: To: Ce: Subject: Date: Attachments: Kathy: Chris Hale Kathy A East1ey Perk Walter; roo@!anddesjqopartoershjp com FW: Glenwood Caverns-Stormwater Management Plan Sunday, February
19, 2012 3:30:56 PM 11019 -StonDwater Management plan pdf The attached satisfies comment #3 from my review letter concerning the Caverns. It generated no further comments. Call with
any questions or comments. Thanks. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 -----Original
Message-----From: Deric Walter [majlto·perjc@bu-jnc com ] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 4:43 PM To: 'Chris Hale' Ce: 'Ron Liston' Subject: RE: Glenwood Caverns-Stormwater Management
Plan Oops, I forgot to include the spreadsheets in the Appendix. Here is the full Plan. Sorry about that. Deric J. Walter, PE Boundaries Unlimited Inc. Civil Engineers, Surveyors & Beyond
923 Cooper Ave. I Ste. 201 I Glenwood Springs I CO I 81601 T: (970) 945-5252 Ext 1 I F: (970) 384-2833 I C: (970) 618-7035 deric@bu-inc.com< majlto: bruce@bu-jnc.com> From: Deric Walter
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 4:33 PM To: 'Chris Hale' Ce: Ron Liston Subject: Glenwood Caverns-Stormwater Management Plan Chris, I've attached a Stormwater Management Plan for the
Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park. As discussed, I've created a range of probable runoff rates and necessary culvert/pipe sizes based off the varying disturbance areas which might be encountered.
I also provided a table of minimum trench/berm length for water level spreaders which can be used to reintroduce sheet fiow. The Caverns and their contractor will be able to use this
Plan as a base point of where to begin and then we can help them fine-tune things in the field during construction of each significant amusement/improvement. Call my cell phone if you
have questions and thanks for your willingness to review this on short notice! -Deric EXHIBIT I P
Deric J. Walter, PE Boundaries Unlimited Inc. Civil Engineers, Surveyors & Beyond 923 Cooper Ave. I Ste. 201 I Glenwood Springs I CO I 81601 T: (970) 945-5252 Ext 1 IF: (970) 384-2833
I C: (970) 618-7035 deric@bu-inc.com< mailto: bruce@bu-jnc.com>