FINAL

SITE SELECTION REPORT

POND OPTIMIZATION STUDY 2

FOR PARADOX VALLEY UNIT EVAPORATION PONDS

Submitted to:

Wastren Advantage, Inc.

1571 Shyville Road

Piketon, Ohio 45661

Submitted by:

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

San Diego, California

August 2016

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

©2016 Amec Foster Wheeler. All Rights Reserved.

August 11, 2016

Amec Foster Wheeler Project 1655500023

Dave Sablosky

Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Project Manager

1571 Shyville Road

Piketon, Ohio 45661

Re: Paradox Valley Unit Salinity Control Project: Final Pond Optimization Study

Paradox Valley, Colorado

Dear Mr. Sablosky:

This report fulfills the deliverable for the Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds Study 2: Pond 

Optimization Final Pond Selection Report. This is a final report, and has responded to all 

comments received from Reclamation.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this report, please contact Carla Scheidlinger at 

858-300-4311 or by email at carla.scheidlinger@amecfw.com.

Respectfully submitted,

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

Carla Scheidlinger

Project Manager

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

9210 Sky Park Court, Suite 200

San Diego, California

Tel: (858) 300-4300 

Fax: (858) 300-4301 www.amecfw.com
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Draft Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................v

1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background and Goals .....................................................................................1-1

1.2 Location ............................................................................................................1-1

2.0 SITE SELECTION PROCESS..................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Assumptions .....................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Pond sizes and configuration assumptions............................................2-1

2.1.2 Pond construction and operation assumptions: .....................................2-1

2.1.3 Pond Footprint and Operations Conclusions .........................................2-2

2.2 Pond Site Selection Criteria ..............................................................................2-2

2.3 Pond Selection Process....................................................................................2-4

2.3.1 Paper and Map Study............................................................................2-4

2.3.2 Field Trip...............................................................................................2-4

2.3.3 Selection Matrix.....................................................................................2-5

3.0 SITE SELECTION RESULTS...................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Paradox NW .....................................................................................................3-1

3.2 BLM Site ...........................................................................................................3-2

3.3 Landfill Site .......................................................................................................3-3

4.0 LAND OWNERSHIP CONSIDERATIONS................................................................... 4-1

5.0 ADDITIONAL DATA NEEDS FOR POND DESIGN ..................................................... 5-1

5.1 Topography.......................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Soils and Geotechnical Data.............................................................................5-1

6.0 INFORMATION NEEDS NOT ADDRESSED BY THIS STUDY ................................... 6-1

6.1 Land Ownership................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Right of Way .....................................................................................................6-1

6.3 Road Improvement Permitting...........................................................................6-1

7.0 SUMMARY AND USE OF THIS REPORT................................................................... 7-1

8.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 8-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Potential Pond Rankings, Paradox Valley ............................................................... 2-11

Page i
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

Page

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Overall Map ..................................................................................................... 1-3

Figure 2. Identified Sites Prior to Site Visit ...................................................................... 2-7

Figure 3. Sites Visited..................................................................................................... 2-9

Figure 4. Selected Site Figure Map................................................................................. 4-3

Figure 5. Northwest Paradox and Southwest Paradox Evaporation Pond Locations....... 4-5

Figure 6. BLM and Central Evaporation Pond Locations................................................. 4-7

Figure 7. Landfill and Hamilton Canyon Evaporation Pond Locations ............................. 4-9

Figure 8. Property Owners Located Near Northwest Paradox and Southwest Paradox 

Evaporation Ponds......................................................................................... 4-11

Figure 9. Property Owners Located Near BLM and Central Evaporation Ponds............ 4-13

Figure 10. Property Owners Located Near Landfill and Hamilton Evaporation Ponds ..... 4-15

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Site Selection Matrix (Details)

W:\2016\Projects\16-555-00023 Paradox Valley Unit Evap Ponds\R0516-070\R0516-070.R2 FINAL Paradox Valley Site Selection Report.doc

Page ii
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

af acre-feet

Amec Foster Wheeler Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

BLM Bureau of Land Management

cuft cubic feet

ERA Ecological Risk Analysis

gpm gallons per minute

H2S Hydrogen sulfide

in inch

lb pound

NaCl sodium chloride

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

PVU Paradox Valley Unit

Reclamation United States Bureau of Reclamation

USGS United States Geological Service

WAI Wastren Advantage, Inc.

yr year

Page iii
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page iv
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report describes the process that was used by the Amec Foster Wheeler team, in 

collaboration with staff from United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), to select the 

three sites to be considered for the development of evaporation ponds for disposal of brine 

produced by the Paradox Valley Unit (PVU). An initial paper study was conducted that resulted in 

the preliminary identification of eight sites for evaluation. When the Amec Foster Wheeler design 

team convened at the PVU site with staff from Reclamation and Wastren Advantage, Inc. seven 

of those proposed sites were eliminated, and seven more were proposed. The team visited the 

nine sites, and developed a ranking matrix for describing and selecting the most appropriate sites 

for further consideration. After collecting ranking information and opinions from all members of 

the site visit team, Amec Foster Wheeler selected three sites for further evaluation. These sites 

are NW Paradox, BLM, and Landfill. The ranking criteria for each of these three sites is described 

and discussed. The rationale for selecting these sites is presented, and additional data needs are 

described.

Page v
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page vi
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Goals

The Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) Paradox Valley Unit (PVU) is a component of the 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, a multi-works program to control the salinity of 

Colorado River water delivered to users in the United States and Mexico. The PVU currently 

intercepts 200 gallons per minute (gpm) of 260,000 Mg/l brine and diverts it to a 16,000’ deep 

injection well for disposal. The injection rate has been curtailed during the 20 year life of the well 

due mainly to induced seismic activity associated with the injection process. At the current rate, 

Reclamation prevents approximately 100,000 tons per year from entering the Colorado River 

system. The current collection well field is capable of producing 400 gpm. However salinity control 

benefits may decrease when pumping in excess of 300 gpm. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 

the goal is to control up to 170,000 tons per year, or 300 gpm. Due to current and future limitations 

of the injection well, and long term salinity control considerations at Paradox, Reclamation is 

currently evaluating alternative methods of brine disposal of this produced brine. One of the longterm strategies being considered for brine disposal is diverting the brine to an evaporation pond 

or series of ponds. The Pond Optimization Study investigates site location, sizing, layout and 

configuration strategies, and operational strategies, for an evaporation pond or ponds. This report 

presents the strategy for pond site selection.

Amec Foster Wheeler is conducting studies for three other aspects of the evaporation ponds. 

These studies include the management of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), the nature and quantity of 

byproducts that the ponds will produce, and the ecological risk associated with the development 

and operation of the ponds. The results of these studies are integrated with the pond optimization 

study. This report is to detail the process and results of site selection for such ponds. The pond 

sites selected will be evaluated for site-specific details that will determine their ultimate suitability 

for construction of the proposed evaporation ponds. Future reports will detail pond design based 

on salt modeling and on site characteristics for the three locations selected in this report, and will 

detail operational strategies to produce the desired by-products.

The end goal for all of these studies is to provide Reclamation with the information needed to 

determine if implementing evaporation ponds will provide an economically viable and 

environmentally suitable solution for the disposal of the brine recovered by the PVU.

1.2 Location

The PVU is located near Bedrock, Colorado in the Paradox Valley of Montrose County, about 10 

miles east of the Colorado-Utah state line. (Figure 1). The well sites are located adjacent to the 

Dolores River, which flows from south to north through the valley. The elevation of the well sites 

is about 5000 feet.

Page 1-1
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 1-2
Wastren Advantage, Inc. 

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2 

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds 

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023 

August 2016 

Page 1 3 

Figure 1. Overall Map 

-
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 1-4
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

2.0 SITE SELECTION PROCESS

The site selection process required the consideration of a number of assumptions regarding site 

characteristics that would contribute to a suitable site for an evaporation pond complex. These 

assumptions produced a set of criteria that were used to select and then to evaluate each 

proposed site. These assumptions included the need for brine characterization calculations that 

in turn allow for calculation of the size and relative configuration of proposed evaporation ponds.

2.1 Assumptions

The assumptions about the ponds were developed by the salt chemistry team and by the 

engineering team. They are grouped into two categories: pond sizes and configuration, and pond 

construction and operation. 

2.1.1 Pond sizes and configuration assumptions

Determination of pond size and configuration is based on the flow rate of the brine into the ponds, 

the climate data of the site taking into account evaporation rates of brine at different 

concentrations, rainfall patterns, and the way that salt is precipitated as the brine evaporates. 

Models are under development to use all of this information to produce a refined description of an 

optimal pond design, and these models will be finalized and described in a future report (Design 

Strategy Report). Operational considerations will also be refined and described in a future report 

(Operational Strategy Report). Based upon preliminary sizing requirements, the total size of the 

evaporation pond complex will be about 400 acres. The evaporation pond complex will be 

composed of a surge pond, a concentrator pond, an array of crystallizer ponds, and a bittern pond

(if needed).

2.1.2 Pond construction and operation assumptions:

There are some assumptions regarding how the ponds will be built and operated that affected 

site selection:

1. Site slopes greater than 4% are excessive, and would cause the construction costs to be 

excessive.

2. The ponds will be lined. The soils of the region are not suitable for retaining brine and 

having minimal seepage, so lining will be required. Seepage of the concentrated brines 

into the soils that support natural vegetation or into agricultural lands would be an 

unacceptable environmental impact of the project, so a liner is assumed.

3. A source of fresh water must be available to construct a mitigation pond for waterfowl of 

about 6 acres. A freshwater pond was the preferred strategy articulated in the Ecological 

Risk Analysis (ERA) report for mitigating impacts to waterfowl. Freshwater is required as 

well as to provide a feed to prevent clogging of pipes during brine transfer between ponds.

4. The site must be accessible 12 months of the year to allow for operation, maintenance, 

and removal of solid salt.

Page 2-1
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

5. Freezing of the ponds will not be an issue, as none of the brines in the pan tests froze 

during the winter at the PVU facility.

6. Solid salt will be removed at intervals of 3-4 years from each of the crystallizer ponds. A 

deposition rate of about 2.8 inches per year was used for this determination. Pond depth 

in the crystallizers will accommodate up to 4 years (about 11.2 inches) of solid salt before 

removal. With 4 ponds operated in parallel, there would be one pond with enough salt to 

harvest each year. Each individual pond would be harvested every 4 years. In order to 

minimize storage needs, removal will be to a storage facility, or directly to a customer.

2.1.3 Pond Footprint and Operations Conclusions

This data allowed our salt team to develop size and configuration criteria based on the nature of 

the brine and of its interaction with the local climate and environment. The team was thereby able 

to arrive at a total footprint for the evaporation ponds, which in turn allowed for the evaluation of 

sites that could be suitable for the development of a pond complex of the necessary size. The 

required surface area is estimated at 325 - 335 acres. With berms and other associated nonevaporation infrastructure, including mitigation ponds suggested by the ERA, the pond site area 

should not be less than 350 acres.

The operational criteria also figured into the pond selection process. Specifically, slope, lining, 

and access considerations made a lot of difference in assumptions about where the ponds could 

be located based on how they could be built and operated. Availability of fresh water for operations 

and the requirement to harvest salt on a winter calendar could affect site selection.

2.2 Pond Site Selection Criteria

The size, configuration, construction, and operation assumptions led to the development of site 

selection criteria. These criteria included the following:

1. Slope. The ponds will ideally be large; so to minimize the amount of berm construction,

the site needs to have a shallow slope. Sites proposed generally had slopes less than 4%.

Over the areas considered for a single site, some portion of the area could have a slope 

of greater than 4%. 

2. Proximity to well facility. Brine from the wells will have to be piped to the pond site, at a 

calculable cost. No sites were selected that were farther away than 30 miles from the 

production well site.

3. Topography. Sites to the north and south from the production well site were not considered 

due to the steep canyons in both of these directions. In addition, the presence of distinct 

drainages upslope of, or on, a proposed pond site presents pond protection and 

construction issues. Therefore, sites with significant drainage issues were not considered.

4. Elevation. Brine will need to be piped to the sites from the production well location. Sites 

substantially higher than the production well location would incur higher pumping costs.

5. Distance to storage. Solid salt will need to be removed from the pond site. Even if a market 

is identified, markets are not predictable from year to year, so long-term storage disposal 

Page 2-2
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

opportunity is a requirement. Preliminary discussions with the owner and operator of the 

Broad Canyon Landfill indicate that this landfill, with its permitted expansion area, has 

sufficient capacity to accept the amount of solid salt expected to be produced over a 50 

year period by the project. 

6. Potential for development of an adjacent storage facility owned by Reclamation and 

operated by a professional landfill operator. Such an arrangement minimizes hauling 

costs. Sites with a potential storage site availability of at least 80 acres were scored higher.

7. Land ownership. Reclamation would acquire private land only from willing sellers. There 

is no guarantee that public (Bureau of Land Management, BLM) land will be available for 

use, although BLM sites were considered. No evaluation was made in the selection criteria 

to assess the ultimate availability of the land for the project. Land ownership was 

presented in the matrix as an informational item, but was not considered when sites were 

ranked.

8. Availability of fresh water. As noted above in Section 2.1.2, fresh water may be required 

for waterfowl mitigation habitat as well as for operational needs. Fresh water can be 

acquired from a well, or by pumping from a surface water source. For example, if a 6-acre 

mitigation pond is required, approximately 25 gpm would be required to balance the 

evaporation rate from the pond. Additional fresh water would be required to transfer 

saturated brine from one pond to another. Water rights could be required to obtain a 

suitable amount of fresh water. Reclamation has water rights in the Dolores River that 

could be used to provide this water.

9. Road improvement needs. The requirement to upgrade roads in order to access the site 

for operation and/or solid salt transfer would add cost to the project.

10. Availability of electricity. Electricity for lighting, and potentially for pump operation, will be 

required for operation and maintenance. Electricity needs will be evaluated in the Pond 

Design Strategy and Operational Strategy reports.

11. Proximity to homes. The ponds are not generally seen as being desirable neighbors. Being 

“too close” to homes was a subjective evaluation, but most members of the scoring team 

agreed on what was “too close”.

12. Site configuration. A landscape configuration that could require that the ponds be divided 

from each other, as across a drainage, a road, or any other feature would add cost.

13. Soils data. Data for the soils was ultimately not used as a selection criterion, as it had 

been determined, based on vegetation, that none of the soils in the area was suitable for 

pond operation without lining. If the ponds are lined, the soil type matters less. When 

potential site selections have been narrowed down to the sites that will be examined in 

detail, soil evaluations will be conducted for engineering purposes.

These criteria were considered in general terms as potential sites were examined. The criteria 

were further evaluated during the selection process, and were applied in the selection matrix as 

described in Section 2.3.3.

Page 2-3
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

2.3 Pond Selection Process

2.3.1 Paper and Map Study

The pond optimization team (Scheidlinger, Meduna, Pyles, and Chesnut) examined maps, 

including those on Google Earth, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) online soils maps, and the land ownership 

maps provided online by Montrose County. Each of these maps allowed for a preliminary list of 

sites to be identified for a potential field visit. Information compiled from these sources allowed for 

the evaluation of location, elevation, road distance from Reclamation’s PVU office to the site, road 

distance from the proposed site to the Broad Canyon Landfill, direct distance from the brine 

production well site to the proposed site that could be used for a pipeline, topography, a rough 

evaluation of slope, and land ownership. As noted above, soils were evaluated generally, and 

were not considered in detail after preliminary evaluation resulted in the decision to line the ponds.

When sites are selected for further design consideration, soils at the selected sites will be

evaluated for construction and geotechnical considerations.

In addition, this team produced evaluations based on evaporation and salt chemistry that allowed 

for the calculation of the required footprint for the ponds and for an associated storage facility. 

This allowed us to reject any sites that did not have sufficient area for at least the pond system.

Prior to a site visit, a total of eight potential sites were identified and mapped, and the maps were 

circulated to the members of the site review group.

2.3.2 Field Trip

On March 22-23, 2016 the pond site review team visited the Paradox Valley for the purpose of 

meeting with WAI and Reclamation staff to conduct site visits to potential pond sites. The 

participants in this meeting and the field visits were:

• Reclamation: Lesley McWhirter, Brent Uilenberg, Frederick Busch and Andy Nicholas

• WAI: John Adams

• Amec Foster Wheeler: Carla Scheidlinger, John Chesnut, Andrea Meduna, Tim Fischer, 

Emmet Curtis, and John Pyles (consultant)

Originally, eight sites were identified (as indicated in Section 2.3.1) for consideration. The general 

location of these sites are shown on the map in Figure 2. Prior to the field trip, six of the sites were 

eliminated from further consideration. These sites, and the reason for their exclusion, were:

• Paradox Farms, west of the Dolores River, north of the bridge. This site was too small, 

and it is in the flood plain of the Dolores River.

• Dry Creek Basin, high elevation bench to the east of the Reclamation office and south of 

Highway 90. This site is in protected sage grouse habitat, and is too remote to make it 

logistically feasible.

Page 2-4
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

• Davis Mesa high elevation bench to east of Reclamation office. This site is too difficult to 

access via dirt roads, and is logistically infeasible. 

• Airport, west of Naturita airport. This site was subjectively judged to be too close to homes.

• Paradox Townsite, northwest Paradox Valley. This site was subjectively judged to be too 

close to homes.

• Second Park, east of 141 north of Naturita. This site is too far away, and was subjectively 

judged to be too close to homes.

The two sites remaining were the Central and Hamilton Creek sites. During the field visit, seven

new sites were identified by the team. These nine sites were visited during the field visit, and are 

shown in blue in Figure 3.

2.3.3 Selection Matrix

Following the field trip, a matrix of all the sites still under consideration was prepared so that all 

participants could rank the sites. The matrix is shown as Table 1. Additional information collected 

in the matrix is shown in Appendix A.

The Project Manager from Amec Foster Wheeler made the first effort at selecting two sites from 

this matrix that merit further and more detailed analysis for the purpose of inclusion into the 

Reclamation EIS. Reclamation also provided input to the selection process. Final selections and 

ranking are described in the following section.

Page 2-5
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 2-6
Wastren Advantage, Inc. 

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2 

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds 

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023 

August 2016 

Page 2 7 

Figure 2. Identified Sites Prior to Site Visit 

-
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 2-8
Wastren Advantage, Inc. 

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2 

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds 

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023 

August 2016 

Page 2 9 

Figure 3. Sites Visited 

-
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 2-10
Table 1.

Potential Pond Rankings, Paradox Valley

POND MAP 

NAME LOCATION

LAT.

LONG.

(COORDS)

APPROX.

SITE

ELEV.

(feet)

ELEV. 

CHANGE

FROM INJECT. 

WELL TO SITE 

(4,970)

(vertical feet)

ROAD

DISTANCE

FROM INJECT. 

WELL TO SITE

(miles)

PIPELINE DISTANCE

FROM INJECT. WELL 

TO SITE ALONG HWY 

90 

& CR GG25

(miles)

ROAD 

DISTANCE TO 

BROAD 

CANYON 

LANDFILL

(miles)

LANDOWNER(S)

PIPELINE 

COST 

(Today's $)

NUMBER OF TRIPS 

PER TRUCK PER 

DAY

TRUCKS NEEDED

NUMBER OF 

TRUCKS

(rounded to 

whole truck)

FUEL COST TO 

HAUL TO LANDFILL 

COST PER TRUCK

(Over 50 years)

TOTAL COST

OF FUEL

(Over 50 Years)

ONSITE SALT 

STORAGE 

FACILITY 

POSSIBLE?

Central

South 

of 

Hwy 90, middle of 

valley

 38.15'42"N

108°47'06"W 5,428 458 8 8 25 Private $5,913,600 (11 trips/truck/day)5 trucks needed 5 $4,242,450 $21,212,250 Yes

Hamilton 

Canyon

Off Hwy 141, near 

existing Broad 

Canyon

Landfill

 38°10'31"N

108°29'20"W 6,000 1,030 30 27 2 Private $19,958,400 (22 trips/truck/day)2.5 trucks needed 3 $424,250 $1,272,750

Yes

Use Broad 

Canyon 

or construct one 

BLM North of Highway 90, 

middle of valley

 38°16'16"N

108°45'52"W 5,392 422 8 8 25 BLM $5,913,600 (12 trips/truck/day)4.6 trucks needed 5 $4,242,450 $21,212,250 Yes

Landfill

Adjacent to and east 

of Broad Canyon 

Landfill property

 38°09'32"N

108°31'31"W 6,256 1,286 32 25 0.5 Private and BLM $18,480,000 (24 trips/truck/day)

2.3 trucks needed 3

$141,450.00

or

Conveyor System ?

$424,350 Not needed

Southwest 

Paradox

West Paradox: V Rd. 

and 900

 38°20'49"N

108°52'32"W 5,017 47 5 4 35 Private $2,956,800 (11 trips/truck/day)

5.5 trucks needed 6 $5,939,400 $35,636,400 Yes

Northwest 

Paradox

W. Paradox 

(northeast of 

Southwest Paradox) 

 38°21'40"N

108°53'58"W 5172 202 6 4 36 Private and BLM $2,956,800 (11 trips/truck/day)

5.5 trucks needed 6 $6,151,500 $36,909,000 Yes

Paradox 

East

East of river, 

South of BOR facility

 38°19'05"N

108°51'01"W 5,021 51 3.2 4 20.8 Private and BLM $2,956,800 (11 trips/truck/day)

3.4 trucks needed 4 $4,819,500 $19,278,000 No

Divide Divide (head of 

Paradox East)

 38°13'16"N

108°39'42"W 5,802 832 13.5 13.3 10.5 BLM $9,831,360 (17 trips/truck/day)

2.2 trucks needed 3 $1,606,500 $4,819,500 Yes

Thunderbolt North of Thunderbolt 

Mine

 38°14'11"N

108°42'29"W 5,617 647 11 11 13 Private $8,131,200 (16 trips/truck/day)2.3 trucks needed 3 $2,008,500 $6,025,500 Yes 

Paradox 

Farm

Immediately N of Hwy 

90 W of bridge 4,955 -15 3.2 3,2 22 Private

Dry Creek 

Basin

S of Hwy 90, W of 

mine 6,950 1,980 17.5 12.2 NA BLM

Davis 

Mesa W of injection site 6,200 1,230 17 1 NA BLM

Airport W of Naturita airport 5,800 830 27 16 NA BLM and 

Montrose County

Paradox 

Townsite

NE of pumping 

station 5,400 430 11 11 NA Private

Second Park E of 141 N of Naturita 5,750 780 33 33 NA Private

Notes:

Did not visit; considered Flood Plain Definition: A flat area where flood waters would collect and remain. Not a water channel.

Wastren Advantage, Inc. 

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2 

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds 

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023 

August 2016

Page 2-11
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 2-12
Table 1.

Potential Pond Rankings, Paradox Valley (continued)

NEED NEW Fischer Pyles Nicholas Chesnut Meduna Scheidlinger Busch/Norman FRESH LOCATED IN DRAINAGE ROADS LOGISTICS PREVAILING OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL POND MAP FRESH WATER WATER CONSTRUCTION POWER NEAR RELOCATE CONTIGOUS THE PROTECTION OR (ROAD WIND SITE SITE SITE SITE SITE SITE SITE NAME AVAILABLE? POND COSTS ACCESS? HOMES? UTILITIES? SITE? FLOODPLAIN ISSUES IMPROVE EXITING DISTANCE) ISSUE? RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK POTENTIAL? ROADS

No High; drainages, No. Medium to Central Piped in yes? High Minimum Nearby No Moderate Yes Moderate Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium slope High

Hamilton Low to medium Low Minimum Piped in yes No ??? No No Difficult Yes Low Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium Canyon

Medium to high Moderate to Medium- Medium to BLM Piped in yes No Medium Major ?? No No Yes Low Low Low Low Medium Difficult High High

Piped in, long Low to medium None Medium to Landfill yes No Low to medium Minimum No No Difficult Yes Low Medium Medium Medium Low Low Medium distance High

Southwest Easy Medium to Piped in, close yes No Low Low Minimum Nearby No No No Moderate High High High High High High Paradox High

Northwest Piped in, very Low Easy yes No Low Minimum Nearby No No Yes Moderate High High High High High High High Paradox close

Possible Paradox Piped in, very Medium; site Low to no? Some areas Medium Minimum Nearby Yes power & Easy Yes High Low High Low High Low Low East close complexity Medium water

Possible No Medium to high Moderate to Low to Divide Piped in yes Medium Medium to major Yes No natural Yes Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Low Difficult Medium

gas

Medium to Thunderbolt Piped in yes Yes Low to medium Medium Minimium Yes Yes No Moderate Yes Moderate Low Medium Low Medium Medium Low High

Paradox Not 

Farm Considered

Dry Creek Not 

Basin Considered

Davis Not 

Mesa Considered

Not Airport Considered

Paradox Not 

Townsite Considered

Not Second Park Considered

Notes:

Did not visit; considered off table Flood Plain Definition: A flat area where flood waters would collect and remain. Not a water channel.

Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

Page 2-13
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 2-14
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

3.0 SITE SELECTION RESULTS

The sites recommended by Amec Foster Wheeler and selected by Reclamation for detailed 

consideration were "Paradox NW" site as the highest ranked site, the BLM site as second ranked, 

and the “Landfill” site as the third site ranked. These three sites will receive a more detailed 

evaluation required for the EIS. These sites are shown together in Figure 4, and separately in 

Figures 5, 6, and 7. Design elements such as netting will be addressed in the future Design 

Strategy Report.

3.1 Paradox NW

Paradox Northwest received the highest rank from virtually all individuals involved in the scoring.

The site is shown in Figure 5 on a United States Geological Survey (USGS) map. Included on 

this map is an alternative site nearby, Paradox SW which could be substituted if there are 

circumstances discovered in the future that suggest that it would be preferable. A summary of the 

selection criteria for this site follows:

• Slope. The slope at this site is approximately 1.6%, lower than the conceptual threshold 

of 4%.

• Proximity to brine well facility. This site is approximately 3.3 miles from the collection wells 

in a direct line; about 7 miles by existing roads and bridge. 

• Topography. There are no obvious topographic obstacles, either on-site (such as deep 

gullies) or offsite (such as washes or drainages feeding onto the site) that would 

complicate construction.

• Elevation. The difference in elevation from the brine production facility to the highest point 

of the proposed parcel is approximately 230 feet.

• Distance to storage. It is proposed for this site to develop a dedicated storage facility

adjacent to the pond complex. If this is not feasible from a permitting standpoint, the 

distance to the Broad Canyon Landfill is about 32 miles.

• Potential for development of an adjacent storage facility owned by Reclamation and 

operated by a professional landfill operator. This potential is being evaluated by the 

Byproducts Disposal study. It is assumed that such a facility would have to be lined.

• Land ownership and land use. The land is privately owned by an individual and/or entity.

The land is undeveloped scrubland with native vegetation, and is used for dryland grazing.

• Availability of fresh water. This site is approximately 3 miles from the Dolores River, from 

which Reclamation has water rights.

• Road improvement needs. This site is accessed by well-maintained dirt roads. Some 

improvement might be necessary for heavy equipment operation.

• Availability of electricity. Reclamation staff indicated that electricity is nearby.

• Proximity to homes. There is one home across the county road from the southwest corner.

Page 3-1
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

• Site configuration. There would be no need to break up a pond configuration at this site; 

all ponds could be constructed in a continuous fashion.

• Soils data. Detailed soils data has not been acquired for this site. On the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) map, it is shown as Paradox fine sandy loam 

with 1-4% slope.

3.2 BLM Site

BLM site received a preliminary high rank from virtually all individuals involved in the scoring. The 

site is shown in Figure 6 on a USGS map. Included on this map is an alternative site nearby, 

Central, which could be substituted if there are circumstances discovered in the future that 

suggest that it would be preferable. A summary of the selection criteria for this site follows:

• Slope. The slope at this site is approximately 3.0%, lower than the conceptual threshold 

of 4%.

• Proximity to brine well facility. This site is approximately 8 miles from the well collection 

wells along Highway 90.

• Topography. There are no obvious topographic obstacles, either on-site (such as deep 

gullies) or offsite (such as drainages feeding onto the site) that would complicate 

construction.

• Elevation. The difference in elevation from the brine production facility to the highest point 

of the proposed parcel is approximately 420 feet.

• Distance to storage. It is proposed for this site to develop a dedicated storage facility

adjacent to the pond complex. If this is not feasible from a permitting standpoint, the 

distance to the Broad Canyon Landfill is about 25 miles.

• Potential for development of an adjacent storage facility owned by Reclamation and 

operated by a professional landfill operator. There is potential for development of such a 

facility at this site. This potential is being evaluated in the Byproducts Disposal study. It is 

assumed that the storage site would have to be lined.

• Land ownership and land use. The land is entirely on BLM land. The land is undeveloped 

scrubland with native vegetation, and is used for dryland grazing.

• Availability of fresh water. This site is approximately 8 miles from the Dolores River, from 

which Reclamation has water rights.

• Road improvement needs. This site is accessed by Highway 90, which is paved. It is 

assumed that access to this site could also be developed with dirt roads to avoid hauling 

salt on pavement. Some improvement might be necessary for heavy equipment operation.

• Availability of electricity. Reclamation staff indicated that electricity is nearby.

• Proximity to homes. This site is not near to any homes, although it would be visible from 

Highway 90.

Page 3-2
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

• Site configuration. The site could be orientated to avoid drainages to the north, and would 

not present any obstacles for pond development.

• Soils data. Detailed soils data has not been acquired for this site. On the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) map, it is shown as several types of fine sandy 

loams.

3.3 Landfill Site

Landfill site received mixed rankings from the individuals involved in the scoring. The site is shown 

in Figure 7 on a USGS map. Included on this map is an alternative site nearby, Hamilton Canyon, 

which could be substituted if there are circumstances discovered in the future that suggest that it

would be preferable. Its advantages were its proximity to the Broad Canyon Landfill, such that 

removal of salt could be accomplished by a conveyor system instead of by trucking; and its 

remoteness from any homes or communities. Disadvantages are distance from the brine well site 

and potential issues with slope and soils. A summary of the selection criteria for this site follows:

• Slope. The slope at this site is approximately 2.6%, lower than the conceptual threshold 

of 4%.

• Proximity to brine well facility. This site is approximately 22 miles from the well collection 

wells along Highway 90. 

• Topography. There are several obvious topographic obstacles, some on-site (such as a 

deep drainage) or offsite (such as drainages feeding into the site) that would complicate 

construction.

• Elevation. The difference in elevation from the brine production facility to the highest point 

of the proposed parcel is approximately 1289 feet.

• Distance to storage. This site is immediately adjacent to the Broad Canyon Landfill, with 

the longest distance from the edge of the property being about 0.5 mile. Removal of salt 

from the ponds to the landfill would be accomplished by conveyor belt.

• Potential for development of an adjacent storage facility owned by Reclamation and 

operated by a professional landfill operator. Due to the proximity to the existing Broad 

Canyon Landfill, this would not be necessary.

• Land ownership and land use. The land is privately owned by various individuals and/or 

entities. The land is undeveloped scrubland with native vegetation, and is used for dryland 

grazing.

• Availability of fresh water. This site is approximately 22 miles from the Dolores River, from 

which Reclamation has water rights. Water would be piped to the site along the same 

ROW needed for the brine line, and the pipe would lie in the same trench. An alternative 

source may be to drill a well nearer to the site.

• Road improvement needs. This site is accessed by Highway 90 and Highway 141, through 

the town of Naturita. These roads are paved. The last several miles is along a graded dirt 

road, the same road used to access the Broad Canyon Landfill. The potential for accessing 

the site from existing dirt roads including HH26 Rd. are being explored. Significant

Page 3-3
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

improvement in these roads might be necessary for heavy equipment operation or regular 

vehicle access.

• Availability of electricity. Electricity is not present at the existing landfill.

• Proximity to homes. This site is not near to any homes. 

• Site configuration. It would be necessary to break up a pond configuration at this site; not 

all ponds could be constructed in a continuous fashion unless the intervening drainage is 

filled or re-routed.

• Soils data. Detailed soils data has not been acquired for this site. On the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) map, it is shown as a complex of several soil 

types, including fine sandy loams (Barx), rock outcrop complexes (Pinon-Bowditch-Rock 

Outcrop Complex) with shallow soils that may include bedrock at the surface or at 16-20 

inches, and complexes that include shallow soils with un-weathered bedrock at a depth of 

20-40 inches (Barx-Progresso Complex). Such soils would require blasting to construct 

ponds.

Page 3-4
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

4.0 LAND OWNERSHIP CONSIDERATIONS

Land ownership, although not initially used as a selection criterion, emerged as an important 

consideration as review of the preferred parcels progressed. Land ownership maps for the 

preferred pond areas, taking into account the area required for the ponds themselves as well as 

for any salt storage area adjacent to the ponds, are shown in Figures 8, 9, and 10. 

Paradox NW, with its associated salt storage site, is situated almost exclusively on the land of a 

single landowner, with a small portion on BLM land. The land of the adjacent site, Paradox SW, 

belongs the same landowner, with a small portion on a second private property. These 2 sites, 

then, are almost exclusively privately owned.

The BLM site is completely on BLM land, offering an opportunity to site a project exclusively on 

land currently in the public domain. The adjacent site, Central, is located almost exclusively on a 

single owner’s land, with a small portion on BLM land. 

Landfill, as shown, would require land from 3 private owners, in addition to a small portion of BLM 

land. The associated site, Hamilton Canyon, occupies the land of only two private owners.

As the site evaluation progresses in more detail, the landowner considerations may indicate that 

one of the alternate sites be considered instead of the primary site. Other selection criteria 

considerations are basically the same for each of the paired sites.

Page 4-1
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 4-2
Wastren Advantage, Inc. 

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2 

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds 

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023 

August 2016 

Page 4 3 

Figure 4. Selected Site Figure Map 

-
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 4-4
Wastren Advantage, Inc. 

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2 

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds 

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023 

August 2016 

Page 4 5 

Figure 5. Northwest Paradox and Southwest Paradox Evaporation Pond Locations 

-
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 4-6
Wastren Advantage, Inc. 

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2 

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds 

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023 

August 2016 

Page 4 7 

Figure 6. BLM and Central Evaporation Pond Locations 

-
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 4-8
Wastren Advantage, Inc. 

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2 

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds 

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023 

August 2016 

Page 4 9 

Figure 7. Landfill and Hamilton Canyon Evaporation Pond Locations 

-
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 4-10
Wastren Advantage, Inc. 

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2 

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds 

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023 

August 2016 

Page 4 11

Figure 8. Property Owners Located Near Northwest Paradox and Southwest Paradox Evaporation Ponds 

-
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 4-12
Wastren Advantage, Inc. 

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2 

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds 

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023 

August 2016 

Page 4 13

Figure 9. Property Owners Located Near BLM and Central Evaporation Ponds 

-
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 4-14
Wastren Advantage, Inc. 

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2 

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds 

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023 

August 2016 

Page 4 15

Figure 10. Property Owners Located Near Landfill and Hamilton Evaporation Ponds 

-
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 4-16
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

5.0 ADDITIONAL DATA NEEDS FOR POND DESIGN

There are several additional data needs that are being pursued as necessary for developing 

conceptual designs and costs for implementation of the evaporation pond project at these sites. 

5.1 Topography

Details of the topography of the sites, ideally to 1 foot contours, is necessary in order to determine 

how ponds can be constructed at a minimum cost. Contour information is proposed to be 

developed using LiDAR data acquired from an aerial drone. This information will identify potential 

construction issues associated with minor drainages both on and off-site, outcroppings of rock, 

and small elevation changes such as rises or dips in the landscape. In addition, the topographic 

data will allow for the identification of any issues associated with the development of alternate 

road or pipeline routes from the river and the brine production wells, or to the Broad Canyon 

Landfill. 

5.2 Soils and Geotechnical Data

Preliminary soils evaluation has already been determined that the ponds will need to be lined, as 

brine losses to the loamy or rocky soils that provide rooting for native vegetation would be

phytotoxic, and therefore environmentally unacceptable. The nature of the soils is of primary 

interest for the construction of the berms and roads associated with pond development. It is 

expected that the project engineer will develop a sampling and data collection plan at each of the 

three sites to generate the geotechnical information necessary for a preliminary analysis and for 

identifying costs of pond construction.

Page 5-1
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 5-2
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

6.0 INFORMATION NEEDS NOT ADDRESSED BY THIS STUDY

We acknowledge that there are data needs that this study will not address, as they are not 

technical in nature. This information will need to be gathered at some point during the evaluation 

of these three sites as alternative locations for evaporation pond development, and in the 

selection of one of these sites as a preferred alternative if evaporation ponds are selected as the 

preferred method of brine disposal. 

6.1 Land Ownership 

The willingness of land owners to sell their land for this project has not been assessed. Neither 

have we addressed the issues associated with the transfer of lands from one public entity (BLM) 

to another (Reclamation), or those associated with transfer of lands from private to public 

(Reclamation) ownership.

6.2 Right of Way

All of the sites required the installation of two pipelines, in the same trench, for the transfer of 

pumped brine and of fresh water for operational and environmental mitigation purposes. Right of 

way for that trench will need to be negotiated. Rights of way may also be required for extensions 

of other utilities such as electric service, natural gas, and water. This project has not concerned 

itself with such negotiations.

6.3 Road Improvement Permitting

The use of existing roads for construction, operation, and potentially transport of solid salts either 

to the Broad Canyon Landfill or to a market will need to be addressed. This analysis has called 

out which sites have such needs, but the issue of permits for road use, development, or 

improvement has not been addressed.

Page 6-1
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 6-2
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

7.0 SUMMARY AND USE OF THIS REPORT

The purpose of this report is to identify the methods by which the potential sites considered for 

the location of brine evaporation ponds were narrowed down to three preferred sites. A variety of 

selection criteria were arrived at in consultation with Reclamation staff and with evaluation of the 

most critical selection parameters. A total of 15 sites were initially identified. Six of those were 

removed from consideration prior to site visits. The remaining nine sites were visited in the field, 

and the selection criteria identified during consultation were quantified and described for each of 

those sites. All individuals involved in criteria selection and site visits scored each of the nine sites 

for pond construction suitability. The Amec Foster Wheeler team selected their top-ranked three 

sites and provided their recommendation to Reclamation. Reclamation staff confirmed and refined 

those selections. Three alternative sites, one adjacent or very close to each of the primary three 

sites but differing in land ownership, were mapped as well. Data needs for continuing the pond 

design and operational parameters were discussed, and plans are in process for acquiring the 

needed data.

This report serves as a preliminary basis for discussion among Reclamation’s partners and 

stakeholders in the salinity control program to identify and evaluate the issues associated with 

the development of evaporation ponds for the disposal of brine as required to meet the goals of 

that program. The report will be used in conjunction with reports from the three other study 

projects for this program, which are the hydrogen sulfide management study, the ecological risk 

analysis, and the byproducts disposal study. Together, the reports of the results of these studies 

will allow Reclamation and its partners to pursue a rational and informed decision-making process 

for determining the optimal method of brine disposal.

Page 7-1
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 7-2
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

8.0 REFERENCES

Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

app/HomePage.htm

Montrose County, Colorado. Montrose County Parcel Map. http://montrosecoparcel.mygisonline

.com/

Page 8-1
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Page 8-2
Wastren Advantage, Inc.

Final Site Selection Report Pond Optimization Study 2

for Paradox Valley Unit Evaporation Ponds

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 1655500023

August 2016

APPENDIX A

SITE SELECTION MATRIX (DETAILS)
Paradox Valley Unit

Evaporation Ponds Site Selection 

Evaluation Matrix

POND MAP 

NAME LOCATION 

LAT. 

LONG. 

(COORDS) 

APPROX. 

SITE 

ELEV. 

(feet) 

ELEV. 

CHANGE 

FROM INJECT. 

WELL TO SITE 

(4,970) 

(vertical feet) 

ROAD 

DISTANCE 

FROM INJECT. 

WELL TO SITE 

(miles) 

PIPELINE DISTANCE 

FROM INJECT. WELL TO 

SITE ALONG HWY 90 

& CR GG25 

(miles) 

ROAD 

DISTANCE TO 

BROAD 

CANYON 

LANDFILL 

(miles) 

LANDOWNER(S) 

PIPELINE 

COST 

(Today's $) 

NUMBER OF TRIPS PER 

TRUCK PER DAY 

TRUCKS NEEDED 

NUMBER OF 

TRUCKS 

(rounded to 

whole truck) 

FUEL COST TO HAUL 

TO LANDFILL COST 

PER TRUCK 

(Over 50 years) 

TOTAL COST 

OF FUEL 

(Over 50 Years) 

ONSITE SALT STORAGE 

FACILITY POSSIBLE? 

Central 

South 

of 

Hwy 90

 38.15'42"N 

108°47'06"W 5,428 458 8 8 25 Private $5,913,600.00 (11 trips/truck/day) 5 trucks needed 5 $4,242,450.00 $21,212,250.00 

Probably no (Pyles) 

Medium (Nicholas) 

High (BOR) 

Medium (Meduna) 

Hamilton 

Canyon 

Off Hwy 141, near 

existing Broad 

Canyon 

Landfill

 38°10'31"N 

108°29'20"W 6,000 1,030 30 27 2 Private $19,958,400.00 (22 trips/truck/day) 2.5 trucks needed 3 $424,250.00 $1,272,750.00 

Possible (Pyles) 

High (Nicholas) 

High (BOR) 

Use Broad Canyon 

or construct one (Meduna 

BLM North of Hwy 90 38°16'16"N 108°45'52"W 5,392 422 8 8 25 BLM $5,913,600.00 (12 trips/truck/day) 4.6 trucks needed 5 $4,242,450.00 $21,212,250.00 High (Nicholas) Medium (BOR) High-on BLM Land (Meduna) 

Landfill 

Adjacent to and east 

of Broad Canyon 

Landfill property

 38°09'32"N 

108°31'31"W 6,256 1,286 32 25 0.5 Private and BLM $18,480,000.00 (24 trips/truck/day) 2.3 trucks needed 3 $141,450.00 or Conveyor System ? $424,350.00 Next to existing (Pyles & Meduna) High (Nicholas) High (BOR) 

E

Southwest 

Paradox 

West Paradox: V Rd. 

and 900

 38°20'49"N 

108°52'32"W 5,017 47 5 4 35 Private $2,956,800.00 (11 trips/truck/day) 5.5 trucks needed 6 $5,939,400.00 $35,636,400.00 

Yes (Pyles) 

High (Nicholas) 

Low (BOR) 

High (Meduna) 

Northwest 

Paradox 

W. Paradox 

(northeast of 

Southwest Paradox 

proposed pond 

location)

 38°21'40"N 

108°53'58"W 5172 202 6 4 36 Private and BLM $2,956,800.00 (11 trips/truck/day) 5.5 trucks needed 6 $6,151,500.00 $36,909,000.00 

Yes (Pyles) 

High (Nicholas) 

Low (BOR) 

High (Meduna) 

Paradox 

East 

East of river, 

South of BOR facility

 38°19'05"N 

108°51'01"W 5,021 51 3.2 4 20.8 Private and BLM $2,956,800.00 (11 trips/truck/day) 3.4 trucks needed 4 $4,819,500.00 $19,278,000.00 Maybe (Pyles) Low (Nicholas) Low (BOR) 

E

Divide Divide (head of Paradox East) 38°13'16"N 108°39'42"W 5,802 832 13.5 13.3 10.5 BLM $9,831,360.00 (17 trips/truck/day) 2.2 trucks needed 3 $1,606,500.00 $4,819,500.00 

High (Pyles) 

High (Nicholas) 

Medium (BOR) 

High (Meduna) 

Thunderbolt North of Thunderbolt Mine 38°14'11"N 108°42'29"W 5,617 647 11 11 13 Private $8,131,200.00 (16 trips/truck/day) 2.3 trucks needed 3 $2,008,500.00 $6,025,500.00 

Yes (Pyles) 

High (Nicholas) 

Medium (BOR) 

High (Meduna) 

Red Rock 

Ranch 

Immediately N of 

Hwy 90 W of bridge 4,955 -15 3.2 3,2 22 Private 

Dry Creek 

Basin 

S of Hwy 90, W of 

mine 6,950 1,980 17.5 12.2 NA BLM 

Davis 

Mesa W of injection site 6,200 1,230 17 1 NA BLM 

Airport W of Naturita airport 5,800 830 27 16 NA BLM and Montrose County 

Paradox 

Townsite 

NE of pumping 

station 5,400 430 11 11 NA Private 

Second Park E of 141 N of Naturita 5,750 780 33 33 NA Private 

Notes: 

Did not visit; considered off table Flood Plain Definition: A flat area where flood waters would collect and remain. Not a water channel. 

Page 1 of 2 
Paradox Valley Unit

Evaporation Ponds Site Selection 

Evaluation Matrix

POND MAP 

NAME 

NEED NEW ROADS 

OR 

IMPROVE EXITING ROADS 

ELECTRICAL 

ACCESS? NEAR HOMES? RELOCATE UTILITIES? LOGISTICS (ROAD DISTANCE) CONTIGOUS SITE? PREVAILING WIND ISSUE? 

OVERALL 

SITE 

RANK 

(Low-least desirable, High-most desirable) 

OVERALL 

SITE 

RANK 

(Low-least desirable, High-most desirable) 

OVERALL 

SITE 

RANK 

(Low-least desirable, High-most desirable) 

OVERALL 

SITE 

RANK 

(Low-least 

desirable, Highmost desirable) 

OVERALL 

SITE 

RANK 

(Low-least desirable, Highmost desirable) 

OVERALL 

SITE 

RANK 

(Low-least desirable, Highmost desirable) 

OVERALL 

SITE 

RANK 

(Low-least desiraHigh-most desira

Central 

New roads will be necessary 

(Nicholas) 

Minor (BOR) 

Crossing drainage for access 

(Meduna) 

Nearby 

No. 

Some visibility 

from Hwy 90. 

No Med Yes No (Meduna) Med Medium low, maybe small, high slope, drainage medium, if landfill and fresh water pond area is available and H2S odor is not an issue. Medium high medium Medium. A little too steep, far distance. Ownership auspicious. Medium 

Hamilton 

Canyon 

Minor (Nicholas) 

Minor (BOR) 

Divert 1 CR HH31 around 

site (Meduna) 

??? No No 

Close to existing 

landfill (Pyles) 

Difficult (Nicholas) 

Far from BOR (Meduna) 

No (Pyles) 

No? (Nicholas) 

Yes (Meduna) 

low Medium medium; good pond site Low; shallow soils and too far Lowest Low. Too far distant; if we go that far, we should be adjacent to the landfill as below. Medium 

BLM 

New roads will be necessary 

(Nicholas) 

Major (BOR) 

Improvement of CRGG25 (if 

salt is trucked to landfill, 

moderate if not. (Meduna) 

No Yes (BOR) No No Difficult (Nicholas) Medium (BOR) Yes low Medium- High low: probably high construction cost Low: too far High medium Low. Nothing that is here that we can't do better elsewhere. Medium 

Landfill 

Minor (Nicholas) 

Minor (BOR) 

Virtually none (Meduna) 

No No No Difficult (Nicholas) Far from BOR (Meduna) 

Possibly, or reroute 

existing drainage. 

Yes (BOR) 

Rerout drainage (Meduna) 

low Medium medium: good pond site 

medium - distant from 

populated areas, distant from 

well field, close to permitted 

disposal site. 

Low: shallow soils and 

too far Low 

Medium-high. Pipeline a BIG 

but one-time cost. Advantage 

of proximity is for a conveyor to 

be used for disposal. Willing 

seller. Fresh water may be an 

issue. 

Medium 

Southwest 

Paradox 

Minor (Nicholas) 

Minor (BOR) 

Improvement of CRGG25 (if 

salt is trucked to landfill, minor 

if not. (Meduna) 

Nearby 

Yes, but somewhat

 hidden (Pyles). 

No (Nicholas) 

No 

Easy 

Close to BOR, far from 

landfill (Meduna) 

No (Pyles) Yes? 

(Nicholas) 

No (BOR) 

No or reroute drainage 

(Meduna) 

Med High med to high: good facotrs all around 

high* - close to well field, area 

available for fresh water pond 

and disposal site, easy 

access, utilities nearby, minor 

drainage issues, realtively flat 

High (deep soils) 

High. The cost of constructing 

an onsite landfill will be cheaper 

than trucking salt to existing 

landfill, this will reduce the 

overall cost and virtually remove 

fuel costs. That cash would 

construct an onsite landfill . 

High. The topography can't be 

beat. High 

Northwest 

Paradox 

Minor (Nicholas) 

Minor (BOR) 

Improvement of CRGG25 (if 

salt is trucked to landfill, minor 

if not. (Meduna) 

Nearby 

Yes, but somewhat 

hidden (Pyles).

 No (Nicholas) 

No 

Easy 

Close to BOR, far from 

landfill (Meduna) 

No (Pyles) 

Yes? (Nicholas) 

No (BOR) 

No or reroute drainage 

(Meduna) 

Med High high; good factors all around 

high* - close to well field, area 

available for fresh water pond 

and disposal site, easy 

access, utilities nearby, minor 

drainage issues, realtively flat 

High (deep soils) 

High. The cost of constructing 

an onsite landfill will be cheaper 

than trucking salt to existing 

landfill, this will reduce the 

overall cost and virtually remove 

fuel costs. That cash would 

construct an onsite landfill . 

High. The best in my opinion. 

Closest, flattest, hidden from 

view, plenty of space. 

High 

Paradox 

East 

Minor (Nicholas) 

Minor (BOR) Nearby 

Yurt in the middle. 

Other homes less than 

2 miles across river. 

Lots of visibility. 

Possible 

power & water 

Adjacent to existing

 facilities, easy. 

Yes (Pyles) 

No (Nicholas) High Low low to medium; flood plain issues 

high*, if there is enough area 

for evap ponds, landfill, and 

fresh water pond, and 

proximity to populated areas 

and H2S are not issues. 

Low 

High. The cost of constructing 

an onsite landfill will be cheaper 

than trucking salt to existing 

landfill, this will reduce the 

overall cost and virtually remove 

fuel costs. That cash would 

construct an onsite landfill . 

Low. Topography too variable, 

would have to be cut up too 

much. 

Low 

Divide New roads will be necessary (Nicholas) Minor (BOR) Yes No Possible natural gas Difficult (Nicholas) Medium (BOR) Yes, moderate Med Low low to medium: construction costs high low, since other sites closer to the well field with landfill and fresh water pond options are available Low: too far Low Low. Nothing that is here that we can't do better elsewhere. Low 

Thunderbolt Minor (Nicholas) Minor (BOR) Yes May have to buy out 1 or 2 homes. No Medium (BOR) No Yes (BOR) Med Low medium: nice big site, medium sloped 

low, since other sites closer to 

the well field with landfill and 

fresh water pond options are 

available 

Medium-high Medium Medium. Plenty of room. Reasonably flat. Low 

Red Rock 

Ranch 

Not 

Considered 

Dry Creek 

Basin 

Not 

Considered 

Davis 

Mesa 

Not 

Considered 

Airport Not Considered 

Paradox 

Townsite 

Not 

Considered 

Second Park Not Considered 

Page 2 of 2