Document Brighton_doc_29c52d93e1

BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO SOUTH PLATTE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING ~STUDY AREA BOUNDARY SCALE: 1 = 5000' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CITY OF BRIGHTON. ADAMS COUNTY. URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DECEMBER, 2006 \JJ~C ~NGIt't~~NG , INC. ~ 950 SOUTH CHERRY STREET. SUITE 404 DENVER, COLORADO 80246 (303)757-8513 ---PAGE BREAK--- BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO SOUTH PLATTE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT Prepared For: CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Prepared By: WRC ENGINEERING, INC. 950 SOUTH CHERRY STREET, SUITE 404 DENVER, COLORADO 80246 (303) 757-8513 (303) 758-3208 (FAX) DECEMBER 1998 UPDATED DECEMBER 2006 WRC File: 2154/6 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO SOUTH PLA TIE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT 2006 UPDATE This 2006 Update of the Preliminary Design Report for Brighton Watershed Tributary to South Platte River, Outfall Systems Planning is presented in the same general organizational layout as was the original 1998 report. This page describes which sections of the report were updated and the methods used to differentiate original from modified text and figures. The following sections were updated: • • • • • • • • • • Transmittal Letter Executive Summary - Text updated and replaced as required, update of figures, new Figure ES-3, update of table. r. Introduction - Addition of data sources used for 2006 Update, update of figure. n. Study Area Description - Addition of new text, update of figure. III. Hydrologic Analysis - Addition of text describing changes to storm water management model. V. AlternativesDevelopment and Selection - Addition of text from previously submitted "North Outfall System Alternatives Analysis" describing the alternatives presented to Brighton for the "north" and "core" watershed areas. These areas were added to the study area subsequently to the original 1998 OSP report. Vr. Preliminary Design of the Selected Outfall System - Addition of text to provide updated details on costs, regional detention and conveyance faci lities, and additional study areas. Table VI-I was updated to reflect 2006 dollars, and Table VI-2 was updated to reflect the costs of added, removed, and redesigned facilities in 2006 dollars. Appendix A: Hydrologic Analysis Figures and Tables - Dwg. Nos. A-5 - A-8 updated to reflect changed study area and adjusted future conditions imperviousness. Appendix H: Final Master Plan Hydrology - All tables and figures replaced/updated. Preliminary Design Drawings - Updated as required. Note that no changes were made to Section IV. Hydraulic Analysis or Appendices B through C. Updates to these sections were unnecessary due to sufficient data presented elsewhere in the report and in other documents previously submitted to the City of Brighton. In most cases, original text (and tables/figures in the appendices) was (were) not deleted to ensure completeness of the report. In Sections I. through VI. , added and changed text is printed in boldface type for easy recognition. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- December 28, 2006 Ms. Shonnie Cline City of Brighton 22 South 4111 Avenue Brighton, Colorado 8060 I Mr. Ben Urbonas. P.E. Urban Drainu§.c & Flood Control District 2480 Wes126 1 A venue, Suite 156-8 Denver, Colorado 802 1 J RE: 2006 Update Brighton Watershed Tributary to South Plane Ri ver Outfall Systems Planning Sponsors; WRC File: 2 15416 Enclosed herein is the 2006 Updatc of the Preliminary Design Report for Brighton Watershed Tributary to South Plaue Ri ver. Outfall Systems Planning. This report documents the Outfall Systems Planning Process from initiation of the study through preliminary design of the outfall systems for the Brighton Watershed, both fOf the original 1998 plan effort and the 2006 update planning effort. This report presents a synopsis of the pfoject history, description of the study area, summary of project hydrology and hydraulics. evaluation of existing facilities, identification of drainage problem areas, discussions On the selection. evaluation and conclusions of the alternatives evaluation process, preliminary design of the outfall sySlems including estimated costs of the outfall system, and phasinglimplemelllation recommendations for master planned dminage improvements in the Brighton Watershed. TIle Brighton watershed is slowly being developed both south of Bromley L·me and east of the Brighton Lateral. Drainage problems in the developed portion of the City (Core City area) were initially evaluated by McLaughlin Water Engineers in 1991. The City adopted a Core area olltfall system plan to alleviate those problems and has implenlented a portion of the recommended improvements. The analysis prepared by McLaughlin Water Engineers did not take into account runoff from the undeveloped areas south and east of the City. Runoff from the areas south and east of the City generally now towards the City. As development occurs in these areas. significant drainage problems could result in the City of Brighton if phmning of properly sized drainage facilities is nOI perfonned. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 950 SOUTH CHERRY STREET · SUITE 404 • DENVER. COLORADO 802"'6 • (303) 757·851 J • FAX (303) 758·3208 • wrce rcong com The proposed outfall systems presented herein From the 1998 report were developed from decision mal rices to obtain the most cost effective, feasible and publicly acceptable solutions. Direction from the City Council was solicited during Ihis ahematives process to obtain feedback and suggestions as to the desirability and acceptability of fhe proposed improvements. Modifications and updates to these systems were prepared as pan of the 2006 update process and urc included herein. TIle proposed outfall systems presented herein include approximately $43.624,225 in drainage conveyance facilities and detention ponds costs and $7,406,346 in land acquisition costs for a lotal estimated cost. including engineering and condngencies, of $70.661 ,472 in 2006 dollars. The proposed improvements provide a reasonable level of improvements to minimize furu re potcntial problems and costs and still allow for improvements which are the most cost effective to solve existing drainage problems. In conclusion, this document should continue to assist the City of Brighton and Adams County in planning and implementation of the master planned facilities for development of the Brighton Watershed area. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this preliminary design report and look forward to future implementation of the Master Planned Facilities. ajl/ell Enclosure Respectfully Submitted, WRC ENGINEERING. INC. Alan J. Leak, P.E. Project Manager ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- I. Il. BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO SOUTH PLATTE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents List of Tables II List of Figures III List of Appendices List of Drawings Executive Summary III HI ES-I Introduction . I- I A. B. Authorization . . . . I-I Purpose and Scope . I- I C. Mapping and Surveys . . . . . 1-2 D. E. F. G. H. Information Procurement . . 1-2 Analysis and Design Criteria . . . Project Advisory Committee . Project History and Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . 1-5 Study Area Description . . . . . . . . . . . ll-I A. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-I B. Topographic Features . . . . . . . II- I C. Sub-Watershed Delineation and Drainage Patterns . . . II-I D. E. F. G. Soil Characteristics . . . . ll-I Watershed Imperviousness • • . . 11-2 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . 11-2 ErosionlWater Quality . . . . . . . . . 11-2 Ill. Hydrologic Analysis . . . . Ill-I A. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill-I IV. V. VI. Vll. B C. D. E. Design Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 1Il- I Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure Parameters . . . . 1Il-1 Stormwater Management Model . 1Il- I Modeling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Il-2 Hydraulic Analysis . . . . . . fV-I A. General . . IV-I B. Evaluation Existing Facilities . . . . . . . . IV-I C. Drainage Problem Areas . . . . fV - I D. Drainage Problem Areas . fV-2 Alternatives Development and Selection V-I A. Alternatives Development . . . • . . V- I B. C. D. Final Alternative Development . . V-I Recommended Alternati ves V-6 Outfall System Selection . . . . . V-15 Preliminary Design of the Selected Outfall System I A. Description of the Outfall System . . . . . VI- I B. Design Criteria . . VI-4 C. Implementation Guidelines . . . . . • . . . . . VI-4 D. Improvement Cost . . VI-6 E. F. G. H. Outfall System Prioritization VI- I I Operations and Maintenance VI- I I Water Quality . . . . . V(-I I Conclusions . VI- I I References . . . . . . . . . . . . VIJ - I Appendices Drawings ---PAGE BREAK--- Table ill-I Table m-2 Table lV-I Table lV-2 Table V-I Table VI-I Table VI-2 Table A-I Table A-2 Table A-3 Table A-4 Table A-5 Table A-6 Table B-1 Table B-2 II LIST OF TABLES Peak Flow Rates at Selected Design Points Comparison ofMW and WRC Peak Flow Rates Existing Drainage Facilities - Estimated Capacities Comparison of Existing and Future Peak Flow Rates at Selected Design Points Without Master Plan Improvements Alternatives Cost Estimate Summary Preliminary Design Outfall Systems Improvements Cost Summary CUHP Sub-watershed Parameters (Existing Development) CUHP Sub-watershed Parameters (Future Development) SWMM Routing Element Parameters (Existing Development) SWMM Routing Element Parameters (Future Development) Peak Flow Summary (Existing and Future Development) Sub-watershed Flow Summary (Existing and Future Development) Sub-regional Detention Pond Cost Estimate-South Area Sub-Regional Detention Pond Cost Estimate- Alternatives I and 2 East Side Table B-3 Alternative NQ. IS Conveyance Element Cost Estimate South Area Table B-4 Alternative 2S Conveyance Element Cost Estimate, South Area Table 8-5 Alternative 3S Conveyance Element Cost Estimate, South Area Table 8-6 Alternative NO. I E Conveyance Element Cost Estimate, East Area Table 8-7 Alternative 2E Conveyance Element Cost Estimate, East Area Table 8-8 Street Crossings Cost Estimate, South Area Table 8-9 Street Crossings Cost Estimate, Alternative NQ. I and 2, East Area Table 8-10 Unit Cost Data Table H-I CUHP Sub-Watershed Parameters (Existing Development) Table H-2 CUHP Sub-Watershed Parameters (Future Development) Table H-3 SWMM Routing Element Parameters (Future Development) Table H-4 Peak Flow Summary (Future Development) ---PAGE BREAK--- LIST OF FIGURES Figure H-2, 3 Final Master Plan SWMM Routing Elements Figure H-4, 5 Final Master Plan Sub-Watershed Delineation Map Figure Vicinity Map Figure H-6 (A-D) Future Hydrographs at Selected Design Points Figure U-I Closed Basins LIST OF APPENDICES Figure 11l-1 (A-D) Hydrographs at Selected Design Points Figure V - 1,2 Sub-Regional Detention Basins Appendix A - Hydrologic Analysis, Figures and Tables Figure V-3,4,5,6,7,8 North I Core City Outfall System Alternatives Analysis Figures Appendix B - Alternatives Development and Selection, Figures and Tables Figure V[-I,2 Outfall Systems Maps Appendix C - Meeting Minutes Figure A- I,2 Hydrologic Soils Group Map Appendix D - City Council Work Session Figure A-3,4 Sub-Watershed Delineation Map Appendix E - Project Correspondence Figure A-5,6 Existing Watershed Imperviousness Map Appendix F - Preliminary Wetland Assessment Figure A-7,8 Future Watershed Imperviousness Map Appendix G - Legal Opinion Figure A-9,10 Existing Facilities Map Appendix H - Final Master Plan Hydrology Figure A-II,12 SWMM Routing Elements LIST OF DRAWINGS Figure A-13 (A-F) SWMM Routing Schematics Sheet T Title Sheet Figure B-1 , 2 Typical Street Cross-Sections Sheets I-56 Plan Sheets Figure F-I ,2 Preliminary Wetland Assessment Sheets I 00-122 Profile Sheets Figure H-I (A-F) Final Master Plan SWMM Routing Schematics Sheet 68 Outfall System Improvement Details III ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO SOUTH PLA TIE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The development, evaluation, and preliminary design of a drainage system master plan for the Brighton Watershed Tributary to South Platte River Outfall Systems Planning are presented in this report. This effort is a jointly-sponsored effort of the City of Brighton, Adams County, and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD). WRC Engineering, Inc. is the consultant for this project whom, in cooperation with the project sponsors, has prepared this preliminary design report. 2006 Update This planning effort and the Preliminary Design Report was initially completed in December 1998. In 2004 and 2005, the City of Brighton contracted for preparation of an update to certain portions of the 1998 plan to a) address minor storm nooding conditions in certain of the Core City areas such as southeast of the intersection of Longs Peak Street and Great Western RoadlHighway 85 and along Denver Street between 5th and 8th Avenues, b) address outfall systems needed north of the Core City area in future growth areas not included in the 1998 plan, and c) update the plan in the eastern and portions of the southern watershed areas based upon land usc changes, revised development plans, and recent construction of drainage facilities which have occurred subsequent to the 1998 plan. This report includes the original study documentation with updates and revisions to those portions of the plan affected by the update effort. Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this project is to prepare an outfall systems master plan for the Brighton Watershed. The Brighton Watershed encompasses an area of about 17.2 square miles of land in Adams County (See Figure ES-I). The watershed is generally undeveloped both south of BromJey Lane and east of the Brighton Lateral ditch. The major objectives include protection of the City of Brighton from adverse effects of increased storm runoff that will result as development occurs south and east of the City, and to reduce potential nood damages, enhance stormwater quality, and reduce loss of groundwater resources that are the water supply for the City of Brighton. J ~ ~ ~ ~ "i 2 " SCALE: 1 "-4000' @I~9 :i ~ > .c ~ :i ~ " .c - G> :i Brid e st. City of Brighton ,J Southern Sl. ) \ . I ~ ,f \ E. 144th Ave. E. 136th Ave E. 132nd Ave BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLA HE RIVER OUTF ALL SYSTEMS PLANNING / \ ( / ) Bromle Ln. \ } Barr Lake - r' WATERSHED STUDY LIMITS VICINITY MAP ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Process The planning effort began in July, 1996. Since that time, a series of progress meetings have taken place to exchange information and discuss ideas and findings of the study. Participants that regularly attended meetings included the project sponsor staff and representatives from the Brighton Lateral Ditch Company, Fulton Ditch Company, Colorado Department of Transportation, E-470 Authority, and the Ready Mix Concrete Company. Staff from the Brighton Planning Department and Adams County Long-Range Planning Department provided information on existing and future land use. Other agencies invited to attend and kept informed of this effort's progress include the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Water Quality Control Di vision, State Engineer's Office, South Adams County Water and Sanitation District, Union Pacific Railroad, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A hydrology report was published in December, 1996. The report serves as the foundation for estimating potential future problems and for the development of alternatives to deal with them. Following this, various alternati ve drainage solutions were developed, their costs estimated, and an Alternatives Evaluation Report was published in July, 1997. The sponsors reviewed the Alternati ves Evaluation Report and recommendations and subsequently selected an alternative to proceed through to preliminary design. The preliminary design shows the type, size and location of various improvements that are necessary to the outfall system. In the process, cost estimates were refined and the relative priorities and phasing of these facilities were identified. The preliminary design and outfall systems plan implementation of the selected alternative are described in detail in this report. The 2006 update process consisted of several meetings with City staff and the UD&FCD to obtain information on drainage activities which occurred subsequent to the 1998 study. The 2006 update process includes revisions to the Master Plan hydrology models as well as alternatives analysis for the northern portion of the Core City area and for the north outfall systems area. Background A drainage system plan for the developed portion of the City of Brighton (Core City area) was prepared by McLaughlin Water Engineers in 199 1. The City adopted the plan in that report and implemented portions of the recommended improvements for the developed portion of the City. However, the analysis did not account for runoff from the undeveloped areas south and east of the City that flow towards the City. ES 2 The findings of the 1998 study showed that the new storm sewers currently in place and those being built within the current City limits of Brighton have insufficient capacity to handle the additional runoff from new development for both minor and major storm events. Significant flooding problems will result in the City if adequate drainage facilities are not built during new development and a major new outfall is not built to convey this additional surface runoff to the South Platte River. Significant increases in runoff rates and volumes between existing and future conditions are due to urbanization of the undeveloped areas and elimination of numerous "closed basins" that exist in the areas south and east of the City. The closed basins are naturally-occurring depressions that pond runoff to depths of up to eight feet, potentially storing 134 acre-feet of water that does not reach the City at Ibis time. Storm runoff at present is retained in the undeveloped closed basins until it infiltrates or evaporates. Since the 1998 study, significant development has occurred both east and south of the Core City area. In numerous cases, subdivisions and retail/commercial developments have subsequently been platted, approved, or constructed in such a way as to require reconliguration of the proposed outfall systems. Some constructed or planned local detention/retention facilities have been integrated into the 2006 updated plan as sub-regional facilities under the assumption that maintenance responsibilities would be assumed by the City of Brighton or other public entities. Development has also begun to take place north of the City (north of Baseline Road). Alternatives were developed for the loo-year storm event outfall system for this area, capable of conveying detained flows from the east watershed area and parts of the Core City area. The selected alternative is indicated in this updated study. Even with no additional runoff entering the City from the south or east watershed areas, the Core area experiences relatively frequent flooding in certain areas. WRC developed alternatives to help alleviate flooding in these areas. Preliminary designs for the selected alternatives are now incorporated into this study. Alternatives Analysis Several initial concepts were developed and discussed with the Brighton City Council on February la, 1997. The general concepts included: Conveyance of the 5-year storm runoff without any detention; On-site detention for all future development in accordance with current City criteria; On-site extended detention for the 5-year event; Sub-regional detention with restricted release rates for the lOa-year storm runoff, and and ---PAGE BREAK--- minimizing directly connected impervious areas (MDCIA). After evaluating these options, the City Council directed the staff to focus further analysis on altematives that would: • Use MDCIA along or in new collector and arterial streets and also in rural residential areas with lot size of I.S acres or greater (Subsequently, this was adjusted to 1.0 acres per discussions with City Staff); • • • Continue to use traditional drainage practices of curb-and-gutter in urban residential areas; Use sub-regional detention with S-year extended detention in new developments; and Consider only alternatives that would not increase the loo-year runoff rate into the City. Alternatives were then developed further that followed this direction by the City Council. What resulted were alternatives that reduced or maintained the loo-year runoff rate into the City to levels that were no greater than existed prior to the preparation of the 1998 plan. In addition, alternatives were sought that reduced the size (and cost) of conveyance facilities by incorporating detention requirements into the plan. Whenever feasible, stormwater and irrigation water systems were separated from each other to reduce random flooding problems that were expected to occur if that were not done as the lands urbanized. For the 2006 update, alternatives for two City areas were evaluated. Minor storm outfall system alternatives were analyzed for the northern Core City area to primarily address historic flooding problems in the area around 7'h Avenue and Denver Street and the area around Longs Peak Street and Great Western Road. Major Storm (I oo-year) outfall system alternatives were analyzed for the north study area along Baseline Road and north to Weld County Road 2V,. This included analysis of facilities needed to convey runoff from the east study area to the South Platte River. Selected Plan The final plan selected for the master plan presented in this report is shown on Figures ES-2 and ES-3 and includes the following features: • A total of 2S-sub-regional detention basins in the watershed. These will provide extended detention for the S-year storm event, will enhance stormwater quality, and will reduce the size and cost of conveyance facilities (outfaJi channels) needed by detaining the 100- year event with restricted release rates. The locations of the detention basins can be adjusted to some degree as long as the hydrology and hydraulics of the attendant structures are not ad versel y affected. Results of the 2006 update show that some of the original 1998 • planned facilities have been replaced with additional but smaller sub-regional detention basins. For this plan to work, all facilities must be designed in accordance with the intent of the 1998 Master Plan. In addition, several of the sub-watersheds have been developed with local detention facilities. "Local detention" typically refers to a privately-owned facility designed to detain runoff from a smaller area such as an individual development. These facilities reduce the size and cost of drainage conveyances from the local detention facility to other local detention facilities or to the sub-regional detention basins. However, the use of these local detention facilities must not be construed as a replacement for the system of sub-regional detention basins. From a flood control standpoint, it is prudent to assume that only the publically owned and maintained (sub-regional) detention facilities can be relied upon to perform as designed. Therefore, all developed runoff, even if previously detained in a local facility, is routed to a sub-regional detention pond. These sub-regional ponds, which are designed to function according to UD&FCD "extended detention" parameters, discharge directly to regional conveyance facilities. If a sub-watershed area is adjusted or split into smaller areas, either a) one sub-regional detention pond is needed to serve the entire area, or b) multiple sub-regional detention ponds can be used, designed as extended detention basins in accordance with the criteria herein, but must not be routed through each other or another detention basin but rather discharged to the regional outfall system channels and pipes. The suggested minimum area for a single sub- regional detention pond service area is 130 acres, as the water quality, land requirement, and economic advantages of the sub-regional system diminish with smaller areas. Outfall and CoUector Channels. Collector channels are channels which collect the initial watershed runoff and deliver this runoff to the sub-regional detention basins. Outfall channels collect and combine runoff released from the sub-regional detention basins and convey this runoff ultimately to the South Platte River. In this manner, releases from the sub-regional detention basins are never routed through another sub-regional detention basin. Some of the open channels are proposed along and in arterial and collector streets. These channels will require right-of-way in addition to that needed for streets. The amount of required right-of-way will vary depending on the design flow rate at that location. It is estimated that a width of 2S-feet in upstream areas to ISO-feet in areas will be required for the new outfall channels. However, by combining street and channel right-of-ways, a net savings in the land E:S 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- I N2 TOWNSHIP~ RANGE~ I E5 @ I _ IE6 Refer To Figure ES-3 For Core Area Minor Storm Outfall Systems Maximum l00-year Detention Release Rate=O.lcfs/acre ADAMS COUNTY ) 2 840 BUCKLEY RD. G j BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER 821 827 _ ) / --eRiGHTON LATERAL ) LEGEND 0- - REACH LIMITS 81 SOUTH AREA REACH ID E1 EAST AREA REACH ID DETENTION BASIN NON-REGIONAL CONVEYANCE FACILITY SUBREGIONAL DETENTION BASIN ID & DRAINAGE AREA STUDY AREA BOUNDARY SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY OUTFALL SYSTEMS MAP FIGURE ES-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 500 250 0 ' 000 I ORIGINAl SCALE: '"-500' LEGEND: e SUB-WATERSHED DESIGNATION • - MAJOR OUlTAI...l.. SYS'TIMS SCHEMATIC SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY _ STUDY AREA BOUNDARY / \ I ( ) 36 LONGS PEAK WEST OUTfALL OVOT<"" I BRIOCE ST. / \ J I BRIDGE ST. WEST OUTfALL BFrOMLEY LN/ 152M AVE. , / / I \JJ~C Or.ONED ORA DEH\OEIt ca..ORAOO 80222 CHECKED PHONE NO: (3031 757-M13 REVISEO rM NO: ([PHONE REDACTED] AS-BUILT ST I SYSTEIlt / II / 1= 'if I r RE I n CITY OF BRIGHTON URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT r I \ J'~.ri) ( 00 ( . H STUDY fREA , . \ / . . , 1_ r ~UDY AREA -lit BRIGHTON WATERSHED OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING \ l L CORE CITY MINOR STORM OUTFALL AREAS RD . 168th f FIGURE ES-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- required for both is realized and can result in an attractive "green" boulevard look along these transportation routes. Culvert crossings at collector and arterial streets. These drainageway crossings must be sized to adequately convey the flow under the street without overtopping during the design storm. • Major outfall conduit crossings under U.S. Highway 85 and the railroad. The priority and implementation schedule of the master-planned improvements depends to a large degree on the timing and location of development in the watershed. Many of these facilities can be built at the time of development. However, it should be emphasized that the crossings of U.S. Highway 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad at the north and south outfalls are critical to the success of the overalJ plan as they provide the major outfalls from the watershed to the South Platte River. The proposed outfall systems plan provides for full conveyance of the IOO-year releases from the detention basins around the present extent of the downtown City of Brighton (Core City area). When the master plan facilities are constructed, the City will not experience additional flooding that is the result of development that occurs south of Bromley Lane and east of the Fulton Ditch. The total cost in 2006 dollars of the proposed outfall system is $70,661,472. This includes capital improvements ($43,624,225), land value for right-of-way ($7,406,346), and engiueering, legal, administration and contingencies ($19,630,901). A summary of the total outfall system improvement costs is presented in Table ES-l. This master plan identifies the type and location of facilities needed to serve both proposed developments as well as solve some of the drainage problems in the Core City area. The cost of improvements for new development will occur over time as land development takes place. Many of these facilities wilJ be built and funded by private interests at the time of development. Funding to construct improvements determined to be public could include drainage fees, bonds, and funding assistance by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. If this outfall system master plan is not adopted and systematically implemented, the City of Brighton will likely experience increased drainage and flooding problems during all major and minor storm events as development occurs in the watershed. ES 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table ES-l OUTFALL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT COSTS [See Note 1) Description Cost Detention Engineering, Reach I Detention Length Drainage Area Facility Land Administrative, Description Cost Facility (miles) (sq. mi.) Improvements Acquisition Contingencies Total Detention Engineering, [See Note 21 (45%) Reach I Detention Length Drainage Area Facility Land Administrative, Facility (miles) (sq. mi.) Improvements Acquisition Contingencies Total [See Note 21 (45%) 824 0.21 $168,313 $12,000 $75,741 $256,053 Detention Basin B NA 0.30 $468,750 $193,298 $210,938 $872,985 825 0.3 $131 ,600 $35,800 $59,220 $226,620 EOl 0.5 $462,000 $63,000 $207,900 $732,900 E02 0.4 $94,600 $42,600 $42,570 $179,770 E03 1.2 $273,500 $112,400 $123,075 $508,975 E04 0.5 $246,600 $0 $110,970 $357,570 E05 0.7 $405,100 $92,200 $182,295 $679,595 Detention Basin T NA 0.31 $515,625 $283,140 $232,031 $1 ,030,796 E06 0.69 $359,900 $0 $161 ,955 $521 ,855 E07 0.2 $140,500 $20,200 $63,225 $223,925 Detention Basin U NA 0.33 $590,625 $187,853 $265,781 $1,044,259 E08 0.3 $49,200 $12,400 $22,140 $83,740 Detention Basin PRE 0.23 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ell 0.3 $240,200 $0 $108,090 $348,290 S26 0.3 $91,400 $35,200 $41 ,130 $167,730 827 0.3 $133,300 $30,200 $59,985 $223,485 S28 0.2 $111 ,300 $0 $50,085 $161 ,385 S29 0.8 $1 ,080,200 $105,200 $486,090 $1,671 ,490 S30 0.5 $770,900 $38,600 $346,905 $1,156,405 S31 1.3 $931 ,900 $140,400 $419,355 $1 ,491 ,655 S32 0.7 $321,800 $118,100 $144,810 $584,710 Detention Basin D NA 0.57 $937,500 $288,585 $421,875 $1 ,647,960 833 0.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detention Basin E NA 0.29 $468,750 $0 $210,938 $679,688 834 0.2 $150,300 $17,900 $67,635 $235,835 S35 0.3 $31 ,250 $0 $14,063 $45,313 Detention Basin G NA 0.42 $656,250 $296,753 $295,313 $1 ,248,315 Detention Basin W NA 0.25 $0 $0 $0 $0 S36 0.5 $477,325 $29,400 $214,796 $721,521 E12 0.2 $115,900 $18,000 $52,155 $186,055 Detention Basin I NA 0.62 $937,500 $326,700 $421 ,875 $1 ,686,075 E13 0.9 $603,000 $73,400 $271 ,350 $947,750 S37 0.7 $25,000 $0 $11,250 $36,250 Detention Basin X NA 0.44 $750,000 $236,858 $337,500 $1 ,324,358 Detention Basin K NA 0.25 $0 $0 $0 $0 E15 0.4 $128,100 $30,900 $57,645 $216,645 S38 0.5 $225,500 $62,600 $101,475 $389,575 Detention Basin V NA 0.30 $0 $0 $0 $0 S39 1.4 $261,300 $88,000 $117,585 $466,885 Detention Basin F NA 0.22 $328,125 $210,449 $147,656 $686,231 Sub-total East: 6.24 1.85 $4,974,850 $1,172,950 $2,238,683 $8,386,483 Detention Basin Lutz NA 0.25 $0 $0 $0 $0 S40 0.9 $424,125 $37,400 $190,856 $652,381 SOl 1.6 $9,835,300 $342,000 $4,425,885 $14,603,185 Detention Basin L NA 0.34 $0 $0 $0 $0 S02 0.7 $1 ,276,300 $300,200 $574,335 $2,150,835 S41 1.0 $797,500 $97,800 $358,875 $1 ,254,175 Detention Basin Q NA 0.13 $281 ,250 $117,Q68 $126,563 $524,880 842 1.0 $970,200 $45,000 $436,590 $1 ,451 ,790 S03 0.7 $2,397,900 $166,000 $1 ,079,055 $3,642,955 S43 0.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 S04 0.5 $148,200 $62,000 $66,690 $276,890 S44 0.2 $99,025 $32,300 $44,561 $175,886 S05 0.7 $374,400 $0 $168,480 $542,880 Detention Basin P NA 0.33 $562,500 $272,250 $253,125 $1 ,087,875 Detention Basin Y NA 0.06 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detention Basin SC NA 0.13 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total South: 24.44 6.56 $31,798,675 55,167,696 514,309,404 551,275,774 S07 0.9 $46,300 $0 $20,835 $67,135 Detention Basin R NA 0.29 $0 $0 $0 $0 NOI 0.6 $1 ,841 ,900 $452,000 $828,855 $3,122,755 S10 0.5 $50,300 $0 $22,635 $72,935 N02 0.6 $836,300 $272,200 $376,335 $1 ,484,835 Detention Basin 0 NA 0.25 $0 $0 $0 $0 N03 0.5 $1 ,288,900 $327,400 $580,005 $2,196,305 SII 0.6 $123,800 $0 $55,710 $179,510 Detention Basin S NA 0.25 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total North: 1.8 0.00 53,967,100 $1,051,600 $1 ,785,195 $6,803,895 S13 0.2 $139,100 $20,300 $62,595 $221 ,995 S14 0.3 $318,100 $19,400 $143,145 $480,645 COl 1.3 $1,542,000 $14,100 $693,900 $2,250,000 Detention Basin J NA 0.37 $750,000 $255,915 $337,500 $1 ,343,415 CO2 0.2 $216,900 $0 $97,605 $314,505 S15 0.3 $38,400 $0 $17,280 $55,680 C03 0.2 $148,100 $0 $66,645 $214,745 Detention Basin M2 NA 0.09 $0 $0 $0 $0 S16 0.9 $138,500 $26,300 $62,325 $227,125 C04 0.8 $976,600 $0 $439,470 $1,416,070 Detention Basin M3 NA 0.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 S17 0.2 $147,400 $39,200 $66,330 $252,930 Sub-total Core: 2.5 0.00 52,883,600 514,100 51,297,620 S4,195,320 Detention Basin Z NA 0.30 $412,500 $189,214 $185,625 $787,339 S18 0.9 $534,200 $173,300 $240,390 $947,890 Grand Total 30.7 8.42 543,624,225 57,406,346 519,630,901 570,661,472 S19 1.0 $393,600 $137,100 $177,120 $707,820 S20 0.6 $543,000 $51 ,400 $244,350 $838,750 Notes: Detention Basin C NA 0.61 $843,750 $323,978 $379,688 $1 ,547,415 S21 1.4 $475,613 $132,500 $214,026 $822,138 S22 0.3 $75,000 $25,900 $33,750 $134,650 Detention Basin A NA 0.38 $468,750 $204,188 $210,938 $883,875 S23 0.61 $425,400 $67,800 $191,430 $684,630 1. All Outfall Systems are within the Brighton watershed, Direct Flow Area 0051-03, as described in "Drainage Basin Description Maps", UDFCD, December 1990. Drainage Areas do not include the City of Brighton as Master Planned in 1991 (See Figure ES-l) except the drainage Reaches identified by a ' C" prefix. 2. Areas in this column are the total drainaoe area tributarvto each Detention Basin. E~ ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- I. INTRODUCTION A. AUTHORIZATION B. This report is part of a study authorized by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UD&FCD) in the agreement regarding Outfall Systems Planning Brighton Watershed Tributary to South Platte River, dated July I, 1996 (Agreement 96-03.13). The study area, shown in Figure I-I, consists of the Brighton watershed tributary to the South Platte River which encompasses the City of Brighton and unincorporated parts of Adams County. The study is divided into two phases. The first phase (Phase A) covers the hydrological, hydraulic, and alternative evaluation aspects. The second phase (Phase which is documented in this report, covers the preliminary design of the selected alternative. The Hydrology Report (Reference summarized herein, was submitted for review on December 29, 1996. The Alternatives Evaluation Report (Reference summarized herein, was submitted on July 24,1997. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study is to prepare an outfall systems plan that identifies the drainage improvements needed to address drainage problems that exist in the developed portion of the City and those improvements that will need to be constructed as development occurs south and east of the City of Brighton. The general scope of the alternatives evaluation phase of this project is as follows: I. Gather and assemble available information on existing drainage facilities, comprehensive plans, land use plans, zoning and land ownership maps, and other applicable information. 2. Perform a field investigation to identify all major drainage structures and environmentally sensitive areas. ~ y ~ h ~ ~ , ~ SCALE: 1·~4000· @l~9 > « > « .c \ a; ~ £ .c Z ) 05 Z Z Brid e 51. City of Brighton Southern sy > « : .c c,~o? \ ' ' vi I r J E. (44th Ave. E. 136th Ave E. 132nd Ave BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING I \ ? ( J ) Bromle Ln. \ ) Barr Lake ~ . r' " WATERSHED STUDY LIMITS VICINITY MAP (IGUR~ 1-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Determine the hydrologic aspects of the drainage area including runoff rates and volumes under existing and full development scenarios for various return periods of storm events. Evaluate the hydraulic capacity of the existing drainage systems and the relative level of protection provided by these facilities. Identify existing and potential future drainage problems within the study area by comparison of anticipated future runoff rates with the hydraulic capacity of existing and current planned systems. Develop alternative plans for addressing the identified drainage problems. Evaluate alternatives using factors such as cost, public acceptance, cost effectiveness, applicability, storm water quality benefits, and public health and safety to result in a specific recommendation for further actions and/or improvements. 8. Document the first phase in an Alternative Evaluation Report. The scope of the preliminary design phase of this project includes: I. Prepare preliminary plan and profile drawings for the selected alternative. 2. Prepare preliminary cost estimates for the proposed facilities. 3. Prepare design guidelines for the proposed facilities. 4. Prepare an implementation plan for the proposed facilities. 5. Prepare a final report presenting the outfall systems planning process and preliminary design information. c. D. MAPPING AND SURVEYS The topographic maps for this project were prepared by Landmark Mapping under separate contract to UD&FCD. The maps were compiled and prepared at a scale of I" = 200' with 2-foot contour intervals. The maps were submitted in electronic format in an AutoCAD Version 12.0 drawing. The topography was compiled from aerial photographs taken on April 17, 1996. Base mapping for the hydrologic maps consist of U.S.G.S. 7'!z minute quadrangle maps at a scale of I" = 2000'. Soil surveys prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service were used to determine soil types and hydrologic soil groups (Reference INFORMATION PROCUREMENT WRC staff contacted several agencies, organizations and individuals to obtain data within the study area. The City of Brighton provided the following documents and construction drawings: Final Drainage Report for Bromley Creek Filing NQ. I Comprehensive Land Use Plan (December 1989) Land Use Map (January 1998) Drainage Outfall Systems Planning Drainage Report Mountain View Estates Zoning Maps North Outfall System Preliminary Plan Construction Drawings for City of Brighton Fishing Lake South Outfall System Phase IV Drainage Improvements North Outfall System Phase W Drainage Improvements North II th Avenue Reconstruction and Drainage Improvements North Outfall System Phase [I Drainage Improvements City of Brighton Storm Sewer Inventory North Outfall System Phase I Drainage Improvements Fulton Avenue and Bromley Lane Transportation and Storm Drainage Jessup Street Outfall Phase II Drainage Improvements South Outfall System Phase In Drainage Channel Improvements Brighton Park Construction Drawings ---PAGE BREAK--- Adams County provided: Adams County Transportation Plan Third Creek Estates Plat and Street Plans Bromley Lane Culvert Construction Plans Street and Drainage Improvement Plans Brighton East Horizons Subdivision Welch's Hilltop Acres Street Improvement Plan. Comprehensive Land Use Plan The Colorado Department of Transportation provided construction drawings for Interstate 76 and State Highway 85. Additional data sources utili7.ed for the 2006 Update: Adams County Future Land Use Map (2003) City of Brighton Zoning Map (2004) Adams County Sheriff's & Coroner's Bldg: Phase IlJ Final Drainage Report Almost Home Brighton Site: Final Drainage Report Amendment to Brighton Watershed OSP for Hishinuma Farms Bridge Crossing Subdivision Filing No.1: Final Drainage Report Brighton Business Center: Master Drainage Study Brighton Charter School: Preliminary Site Plans Brighton Pavilion: Preliminary Drainage Report Buckley Road, Bromley Lane to 136th Avenue: Final Drainage Report Case Farms: Preliminary Drainage Report Chapel Hill Subdivision Filing No.2: Final Drainage Report Corbin Kidder Subdivision: Preliminary Drainage Report Cottage Crossing: Final Drainage Report Cottonwood Drainage Report Crescent Village PUD Replat (Lot Drainage Report Hishinuma Farms: Preliminary Drainage Report Homestead Subdivision: Master Drainage Report Indigo Trails: Phase 2 Final Drainage Report Jacob's Run Subdivision: Master Drainage Study Meadows Townhomes at Brighton East Farms, The: Final Drainage Report Mountain View Subdivision Filing No. 1: Final Drainage Report Mountain View Subdivision Filing No.2: Final Drainage Report NE Quadrant of Bromley Ln. & South 27th Ave.: Conceptual Drainage Study Overland Park (Lots 1·4): Drainage Report Palizzi Marketplace: Final Drainage Report Park Place Subdivision: Preliminary Drainage Report Pheasant Ridge Subdivision: Final Drainage Plan Platte River Ranch Filing No.4: Final Drainage Report Platte River Ranch Filing No.5: Final Drainage Report Prairie Center Major Retail 3: Final Drainage Report Prairie Center Master: Drainage Report Prairie Center Parkway, Buckley Road to 144th Avenue: Final Drainage Report Prairie Center: Phase I Final Drainage Report Preserve, The: Preliminary Drainage Report Safcway Marketplace: Preliminary Drainage Report Spring Hollow: Final Drainage Report Springs Ranch: Phase I Drainage Report Sugar Creek Subdivision Filing No.1: Final Drainage Report Wal-Mart #1659: Final Drainage Report E. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CRITERIA F. The Outfall Systems Plan analysis was performed in accordance with the guidelines and criteria set forth in the Adams County Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria (Criteria, Reference The Criteria includes, by reference, the methodologies, parameters and design criteria set forth in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (US DCM, Reference Subsequent to the initial data gathering and field reconnaissance work to establish watershed boundaries and existing storm drainage features, the study area was divided into separate sub- watersheds within the major watershed. The physical parameters area, length, slope, and percent imperviousness of each sub-watershed for future development conditions) were then defined and the design storm hydrographs developed for the various recurrence intervals using the Colorado Urban Hydrogtaph Procedure (CUHP, Reference The combining of the hydrographs, channel routing, and routing of the flood hydrographs through the existing ponds were performed using the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM, Reference PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE This study is sponsored by UD&FCD, City of Brighton and Adams County. In addition to the sponsors, the project participants included the Colorado Department of Transportation, Brighton Lateral Ditch Company, Fulton Ditch Company, Ready Mi x Concrete and E-470 Authority. Various :l ---PAGE BREAK--- G. community groups and citizens also provided input to the project. The following agencies, companies and citizen groups were notified and invited to participate in the progress meetings: ORGANIZA TlON Adams County Planning Department Adams County Parks Department Adams County Department of Public Works Brighton Lateral Ditch Company City of Brighton Planning Department Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology Colorado Water Quality Control Division E-470 Authority EPA Region VW Fulton Ditch Company Office of the State Engineer South Adams County Water & Sanitation District Union Pacific Railroad U.S. Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT mSTORY AND CORRESPONDENCE A series of project meetings were held to discuss various aspects of the project, to obtain information and guidance from the project sponsors, and to present results at the various stages of the project's progress. In addition, draft copies of the hydrologic analysis and alternative analysis were submitted and reviewed. A list of the project meetings, submittals, and a brief summary of the meetings discussions follows. Copies of the meeting minutes are included in Appendix C. Correspondence received during the Phase-B portion of the Study are included in Appendix E. PHASE - A August 26, 1996 October 15, 1996 October 22, 1996 Entities/groups to be invited to participate III progress meetings were identified. The availability of information and reports was discussed. Separation of stormwater and irrigation water was discussed. Project participants identified items they thought to be critical to the project. Additional information needs were identified. Hydrologic maps were reviewed. Existing and most probable future land uses were reviewed. November 5, 1996 Development of alternatives was discussed including regional detention and roadside ditches. November 26, 1996 A preliminary review of the hydrologic modeling was presented. December 7, 1996 Results of the hydrologic modeling were presented. Modeling included diversions and the closed basins. It was agreed that the report would present existing and future conditions, with and without closed basins. Alternatives including full conveyance, regional detention and policy decisions were discussed. December 29, 1996 Hydrology report was submitted. January 7, 1997 The final hydrology report was reviewed. Conceptual alternatives that would reduce the future developed runoff into the City were reviewed. February 10, 1997 Alternatives were presented at a City Council work session. lnput from the Council regarding which alternatives merited further consideration was requested. February 19, 1997 Apri I 2, 1997 May7,1997 June 18, 1997 June 24, 1997 July 24, 1997 PHASE- B January 12, 1998 Alternatives based upon the direction received from the City Council were reviewed. Sub-regional detention pond locations and outfall alignments were reviewed. Detailed discussions of the alternatives, including cost estimates were held. Adding an alternative that provides for a more restrictive detention pond release east of the City was discussed. Draft Alternative Analysis and Evaluation Report was submitted for review. Discussion of draft Repon with the City of Brighton. Comments received by WRC on the Draft Alternatives Analysis and Evaluation Repon. Final Alternatives Analysis and Evaluation Report was submitted. Notice-to-Proceed with Phase-B of project ---PAGE BREAK--- H. January 26 1998 February 25, 1998 March 13, 1998 May I, 1998 May21,1998 June3, 1998 July 9, 1998 September 9, 1998 October 9, 1998 Start-up meeting for Phase Discussed South Outfall ROW design. Coordination of sanitary sewer along South Outfall alignment. Recreation access under U.S. 85 not required with this project. Discussed status of planning. Discussed possible Comprehensive Plan changes with City of Brighton Discussed South Outfall across U.S. 85 and railroad. Discussed layout/sizing of sub-regional detention basins U and T. Discussed South Outfall channel upstream of Fulton Street. Reviewed proposal to use Brighton Lateral as an outfall system. Include pond sizing recommendations versus percent imperviousness in final report. Discussed South Outfall channel design. Draft sub-regional detention basin designs were presented and discussed. Basin sizing chart was presented and discussed. Discussed reduction of the sub-regional detention overbanks area. Examined potential multi-use locations. Discussed current South Outfall channel design. Meeting with City of Brighton staff to discuss proposed implementation guidelines. Draft Preliminary Design Report was submitted for review. Comments received by WRC on the draft Report. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to acknowledge the participation of the following individuals in the project meetings and discussions (original project): ORGANIZATION Adams County City of Brighton Urban Drainage & Flood Control District INDIVIDUAL Besharah Najjar Nickole Stoner Terry Benton Scott Bernhart Tim McCandless Marve Falconburg Charlie Kiepe Blair Renfro Joe Gerdom Ben Urbonas John Doerfer Brighton Lateral Ditch Company Fulton Ditch Company Ready Mix Concrete E-470 Authority CDOT Hydraulics Section Ivan Grein John Case Margy Sadler John Akolt Cecil King Lyle Dirrim Bill Timmons Steve McQuilkin Garth Englund Their insights, information and guidance contributed to the accuracy and completeness of this study. Additionally, we would like to acknowledge the participation following individuals in the subsequent 2006 Update to the Brighton Watershed Outfall Systems Plan: ORGANIZATION City of Brighton Urban Drainage & Flood Control District INDIVIDUAL Joe Smith Shonnie Cline Laura Kroeger John Doerfer Ken MacKenzie 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- II. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION Note: Some portions of this Section ll: Study Area Description were affected by the 2006 Update of the Outfall Systems Plan. Additional text, outlining changes and presenting updated information, follows this section. A. GENERAL B. c. D. The Brighton Watershed study area is located in portions of Sections 3-10, 15-21,28-33, Township I South, Range 66 West, and Sections 12 and 13, Township I South, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Adams County, Colorado. The study area is generally bound by Baseline Road on the north, I 20th Avenue on the south, the Plane River on the west and Tower Road on the east. The watershed encompasses approximately 14.7 square miles. TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES There are no defined outfalls within the study area. The study area generally slopes to the north at 0.2 to 1.0 percent. There are numerous closed basins within the study area. The closed basins retain storm runoff from tributary areas and have ponding capacities of up to a depth of 8 feet. The runoff retained infiltrates into the ground or evaporates. Figure IT-I identifies the location of the closed basins in the study area. SUB·WATERSHED DELINEATION AND DRAINAGE PATIERNS Drainage sub-watershed boundaries were determined using topographic mapping, review of construction drawings for existing drainage structures and field observations. In addition, potential future development patterns were assessed in layout of the final sub-watershed boundaries. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS Soils in the study area were identified with the soil survey for Adams County, prepared by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS, Reference The soils identified represent all four hydrologic soil groups as defined by the SCS: Types A, B, C, and D. Type A soils have the highest infiltration rates, with Type Band C having decreasing infiltration rates. Type D soils have the slowest infiltration rate. Soils in the watershed are primarily Type B soils. A Hydrologic Soils Group Map is presented in Figures A-I and A-2. & ~ ~ ~ m z :Z Brid e Sl. City of Brighton , I Southern sy 'I \ , ~I ~ ( 7 \ / ( J ) '0 ~1 D I \ Bromle Ln. < ~ ~ • c~ ~ E. 144th Ave. I SCALE: 1 "=4000' ~ LEGEND , - ~ t E. 136th Ave ; CLOSED BASINS BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTAR Y TO S. PLATTE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNIN G o Co Barr Lake \ WATERSHED STUDY LIMITS CLOSCO BASINS FI GURE 11-1 II ---PAGE BREAK--- E. WATERSHED IMPERVIOUSNESS The percent watershed imperviousness assumptions used for the study area were based upon the existing and anticipated future land uses within the study area. The existing land use conditions were determined using aerial photographs taken on April 17, 1996, which were used to prepare mapping of the study area. The future developed condition of imperviousness was estimated based upon the Adams County Future Land Use Plan. The estimated percent imperviousness for each land use type was based upon computed imperviousness percentages of existing developments, proposed future developments and Table 3-1 of the Runoff Chapter of the USDCM (Reference F. VEGETATION Vegetation in the undeveloped portion of the study area in general consists of irrigated crops. The developed areas consist of mature deciduous and evergreen trees, small shrubs, turf lawns and landscaping. Aquatic and Wetland Company was retained to identify possible wetland and riparian areas in the watershed. A copy of their preliminary wetland assessment is included in Appendix F. Figures F- I and F-2 show the areas with wetland type vegetation, including irrigation ditches, ponds, lakes, major drainage ditches and constructed wetlands. Under a more detailed investigation, some of these areas may not be classified as "jurisdictional wetlands" or waters of the U.S. G. EROSIONIW ATER OUALITY II 2 There were no existing erosion or water quality problems reported by the project sponsors. However, concern was expressed as to potential surface water quality degradation from future developments if water quality enhancement features were not implemented with future development. Possible water quality enhancements were considered as part of the outfall systems planning process. CHANGES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR 2006 UPDATE The Brighton Watershed study area was expanded to encompass portions of Sections 31-34, Township 1 North, Range 66 West of the 61h Principal Meridian. This additional area lies north of Baseline Road, thus a part of Weld County, Colorado. The general northern boundary of the study area is now Weld County Road 2.5. The new area adds approximately 0.85 square mile to the study area. However, the additional north area is affected hydrologically by tributary area that is outside of the new study area limits. The majority of this 1.62 square mile tributary area is located to the northeast of the expanded study area. The expanded study area, then, encompasses approximately 15.6 square miles, with an approximate total catchment area of 17.2 square miles. The sub· watershed boundaries were updated for this revision to better reflect existing and planned development within the Brighton Watershed. Numerous drainage plans and construction drawings were reviewed in order to determine compatibility with the original (1998) Outfall Systems Plan. In many locations, sub· watershed boundaries were adjusted to coincide with development boundaries and the tributary areas of on-site (local) detention facilities. Land use conditions, and thus imperviousness values, were adjusted to more accurately reflect existing or planned development where applicable. ---PAGE BREAK--- III. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS Note: Some portions of this Section ill: Hydrologic Analysis were affected by the 2006 Update of the Outfall Systems Plan. Additional text, outlining changes and presenting updated information, follows this section. A, B. GENERAL The initial (baseline) hydrologic analysis for the study area was performed to define the storm runoff peak flows and volumes for the various sub-watersheds of the Brighton Watershed. The runoff information was subsequently used to evaluate the existing drainage facilities, potential drainage problems, and potential alternative drainage improvement plans. The hydrologic analysis was modified during the preliminary design phase to reflect the locations and routes of the proposed outfall systems and facilities. For the baseline hydrologic analysis, the study area was divided into a total of 125 sub-watersheds. Peak flows at each sub-watershed outlet point were calculated for the 10-, 50-, and 100-year recurrence interval storms for existing and future land use conditions. The study area and baseline sub- watershed areas are shown in Figures A-3 and A-4. DESIGN RAINFALL The one-hour design point rainfall depths obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas and contained in the Adams County Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria Reference 4) were used in the hydrologic analysis. The one-hour design point rainfall depths in inches are as follows: 2-year 1.00 5-year 1.42 la-year 1.68 50-year 2.35 100-year 2.71 The one-hour point rainfall depths for all storm events were adjusted to a 2-hour rainfall distribution. C. COLORADO URBAN HYDROGRAPH PROCEDURE PARAMETERS The CUHP computer program was used to compute storm runoff hydrographs for the various sub- watersheds. The version used for the study was The sub-watershed input parameters required for are: sub-watershed identification number, drainage area, length and centroidal length, drainageway slope, impervious percentage, detention and retention storage losses, and infiltration loss rates. The weighted channel slopes were adjusted using Figure 4-1 of the Runoff Chapter of the USDCM (Reference 4) for input into CUHP. The rational method option was used for sub-watersheds less than 90-acres in size. Therefore, times of concentration were input into CUHP for these basins. T, was computed using the equation The initial travel time was computed using Figure 3-1 from the USDCM. The C, (5-year rational method runoff coefficient) value used in Equation 3-3 to calculate T; was estimated based on a plot of C, values and corresponding percent impervious data from the USDCM Table 3- 1. For the urbanized areas, an overland flow length was estimated from the topographic mapping (typically 100' feet for developments already constructed in the study area). For undeveloped areas an overland flow length of 500' was used. The traveltime was computed using the velocity determined from Figure 3-2 of the USDCM. For the baseline analysis, the CUHP traditional drainage practices methods were used. Thus, the optional parameters for pervious/impervious area connections and water quality capture volume were not used for this baseline analysis but were considered in the development of conceptual alternatives. Sub-watershed geometries were measured directly from the mapping prepared for this study. The existing and projected imperviousness percentage for each sub-watershed was estimated as the composite value resulting from a weighted-area average computation for the imperviousness zones presented on Figures A-5, 6, 7 and 8. Several areas within the project area were evaluated in detail in order to more truly detennine the appropriate composite imperviousness values for the residential areas within this study area. Detention, retention and infiltration parameters were assigned to each hydrologic soil group as recommended in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 of the Runoff Chapter of the USDCM. Parameters were then determined for each sub-watershed using the predominate soil zones. A summary of the baseline CUHP parameters used for the analysis are presented in Tables A-I and A-2 for existing and future conditions, respectively. D. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL The personal computer version of the UD&FCD SWMM (Reference 4) was used to route the CUHP- generated runoff hydrographs. The version of the software used was The routing III 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- III 2 slope, and Manning's value. The type of SWMM routing elements used were based on the existing drainageway configurations and shapes. The SWMM routing element parameters used for the baseline analysis are presented in Tables A-3 and A-4 for existing and future development with closed basins conditions, respectively. Existing systems for the baseline flow routing model included aU structures that are currently in place. The existing Jessup Street Outfall (conveyance elements 142, 177, 178, 376 and 397) and the outfall storm sewer along Denver Street, Longs Peak Street and North 9th Avenue (conveyance elements 171, 174,344,362,398 and 399) are modeled to divert storm runoff, up to the pipe capacity, to the South Platte River. Flows in excess of the pipe capacity was modeled as overflow street sections, whose routing was dependant on the surface topography. The existing facilities are shown on Figures A-9 and A- IO. The SWMM Routing Elements for the baseline hydrology are shown on Figures A-II and A- 12. A schematic of the routing elements for the baseline hydrology is presented in Figures A-13A, B, C, D, E and F. Closed basins exist in the undeveloped portions of the watershed which currently retain various amounts of storm runoff. These closed basins are modeled with existing and future development conditions. Storage volumes of the closed basins were calculated using the 2-foot contour mapping provided by UD&FCD for this project. The closed basins were modeled to retain all runoff up to the available volume and to release all runoff after the basin was full. The baseline SWMM models for the future land use conditions were run both with and without the closed basins that exist in the watershed. Results for both conditions are included herein. Detention ponds which are publicly owned and maintained were included in the SWMM routing. These ponds include the City Park detention pond (Design Point 361), the HKS channel (Design Point 346) and the BromJey Creek pond (Design Point 333). Storage-discharge relationships were taken from as- built construction drawings, drainage studies approved by the City of Brighton and the 2-foot contour mapping provided for the project. Due to the small size of the City park detention pond (Design Point 361) and the high flow rate and volume of runoff entering the pond, the SWMM program was not able to achieve a proper mass-balance to model the detention pond inflow and outflow for the 100-year event. This pond was removed to model the 100-year event. Because the pond is small and fills quickly, the peak runoff from the pond and at the watershed study limit (design point 157) did not change when the pond was removed. E. MODELING RESULTS A summary of the baseline model peak runoff rates are presented in Table A-5. The 10-, and 100-year peak runoff rates for the existing development, future development with closed basins and future development without closed basins are presented. The future development condition was modeled with and without the closed basins so that the effect of eliminating the closed basins, when development occurs, could be determined. Due to the large number of conveyance elements required to route the flow, and the limited number of elements allowed in the SWMM program, an element was not assigned to the outflow point of each sub-watershed. However, an additional SWMM run was made with no routing to prepare a concise sub-watershed peak flow summary of the CUHP generated sub-watershed flows. This summary of sub-watershed peak flows for existing and future conditions is presented in Table A-6. Typical runoff hydrographs at primary design points are presented in Figure Ill-I A through ill-I D. The location of the design points and peak fl ow rates at these design points are presented in Table ill-I . The future peak flow rates reported in Table ill-I excl ude the impacts of existing closed basins. These flow rates are baseline flow rates and do not consider the effects of proposed master planned detention and outfall system improvements. Table ill-I Peak Flow Rates At Selected Design Points Peak Flow Rate WRC Location Design 100-Yr 2-Yr. 10-Yr 100-Yr. Point Existing Future Future Future (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) North 7th Avenue & Baseline Road 157 2927 1366 4054 11 850 City Park detention pond 361 2067 1163 3401 9857 South 9th Ave. & Bromley Lane [PHONE REDACTED] 2821 7705 August Lane and 19th A venue 124 545 [PHONE REDACTED] East 136th Avenue and dirt road Y2 mile East of 149 22 50 III 254 Chambers Road BromJey Lane and 15th Street 347 [PHONE REDACTED] 4262 East 144 th A venue and Chambers Road 175 100 213 61 1 1754 ---PAGE BREAK--- ~ 0 § FIGURE 111- 1A (Design Point 157) HYDROGRAPH AT NORTH 7TH AVE. AND BASELINE ROAD 00 10000 9000 '000 71lOO '000 .:000 ;000 :000 1000 '0 10 FIJIln' Funn Tune (bours) ]0 (Design Point 361) HYDROGRAPH AT CITY PARK DETENTION POND , . : Fua.n Q~eJ~': FI..'t1n OC'\ l' Time (hours ) ~ lOO-year. ~ ~ :!·var. FUIlR Dc:vdap:pcm .000 6000 5000 • J ~ - :i 30Xl :000 1000 o 1100 1600 400 1:00 ~ ·000 ~ ~ ::JO 0 00 00 FIGURE 111- 1B (Design Point 383) HYDROGRAPH AT SOUTH gTH AVE. & BROMLEY LANE , I X 1 I I 1 I I I I f \ 1 : : \ I I 1 i\ 1 1 I i I, IV I ! I~ I I 10 20 1OQ.var fuwn; DC'\~ !Q..yar FaI:Zft. i:Jc:vdqma& ]0 Tunc (houn) (Design POlO! 124) 40 I so HYDROGRAPH AT AUGUST LANE AND 19TH AVENUE 01 IOO-yar l>cvdopaxal lo.VQI' F~ .ce..dopmca1 '0 Tunc (hows) '0 '0 III : 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 300 7- 2- ~ 100 " 00 0' 4'00 "00 3000 1500 1000 o 00 III ~ FIGURE 111-1C (Design Point 149) HYDROGRAPH AT EAST 136TH AVENUE AND DIRT ROAD 112 MILE EAST OF CHAMBERS ROAD 10 " :0 JO " 40 Tlml!" I hours) ~loo.YQ£. ~Oc:vd~ Devdopmc::!l1 (Design Point 347) HYDROGRAPH AT BROMLEY LANE AND 15TH STREET - ~ I , \ I \ I I 1\ f \ 11 fJ - I~ 10 ~ 100-_. FtIIm1:: DcvciDpma# FlIQR ~ :u (bolmJl I I I 3.0 J.j 40 1100 1600 1400 1200 ~ 1000 c § '00 '00 0 " 00 FIGURE 111-1D (Design Point 175) HYDROGRAPH AT EAST 144TH AVE. AND CHAMBERS ROAD 1 IA ' I I I I ~ I 1 i tl 1\ f 1 \ j 1 j 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ 10 20 30 Tune (hows) ~ tOO-wz Fuwrc Dcvdopmms. !o.vea:-, Oevcl~ I I I ---PAGE BREAK--- The area north of Bromley Lane and west of the Fulton Ditch was modeled by McLaughlin Water Engineers (MWE) in 199 I (Reference Table ITI-2 presents a comparison of the MWE and WRC peak runoff rates at select points. For the purposes of the MWE modeling, no runoff was considered to enter the City from east of the Fulton Ditch nor from south of Bromley Lane. WRC's baseline analysis considers that, without improvements, runoff can and will enter the City from these two areas. The large difference in flow rates is due to the additional areas south of Bromley Lane and east of the Fulton Ditch being included in WRC' s model. Table 1TJ-2 Comparison of MWE and WRC Peak Flow Rates (Future Development Conditions Without Closed Basins) Peak Flow Rate WRC Design Point MWE Location 2-Yr 10-Yr lOO-Yr 2-Yr. (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Brighton Park 361 2S0 610 14S5 1163 Bridge Streetl27'h Avenue 307 120 250 520 2 12 Southern StreetlS'h Avenue 351 55 125 290 lOOS WRC JO-Yr. lOO-Yr (cfs) (cfs) 340 1 9S57 606 1630 2S 17 SOS5 CHANGES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMA nON FOR 2006 UPDATE GENERAL Subsequentto the 1998 Outfall Systems Plan, the study area was expanded to include additional area north of Baseline Road. This resulted in the addition of 12 new sub-watersheds. However, changes to the south, east, and core areas resulted in a net reduction of sub-watersheds in those areas, bringing the total number of sub-watersheds tributary to the study area to 132. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL With the addition of master plan improvements that limit the amount of flow entering the City Core area from the east, the City Park detention pond (Brighton Park Lake, Design Point 361) plays an important role in control of the more frequent storm events. The proposed 19"' Avenue storm sewer drains to this facility, thus making it an integral part of the overall core area system. Furthermore, Design Point 157 (just north of Brighton Park Lake) remains the outfall point for that facility, but now drains to the north outfall system via Reach N3. With the expanded study area limits, Design Point 157 is at the boundary of only the core area, not the overall study area. III , ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- A. IV. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS GENERAL The hydraulic analysis was performed toestimate the capacities of existing storm sewers. The estimated capacities were used as a basis for determining problem areas. The major existing facilities are presented on Figures A-9 and A-IO. B. EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES Storm sewer capacities were estimated using normal depth pipe flow computations. Information obtained from as-built construction drawings were used in the analysis. The estimated capacities are presented in Table rv C. IRRIGATION DITCHES The study area is traversed by a number of irrigation ditches. These irrigation conveyance systems include the Brighton Lateral, Fulton Ditch, Fulton Lateral, and McCann Ditch. The primary function of these ditches is to convey irrigation water to the irrigated areas. Prior to the beginning of irrigation practices in the study area, storm runoff was conveyed as sheet flow into natural drainageways, and ultimately was conveyed to the South Platte River. Since the construction ofthe subject ditches, they have intercepted and conveyed storm runoff to various degrees. Lrrigation ditches are designed with flat slopes and limited carrying capacity, which decreases in the direction. Because of these physical limitations, irrigation ditches typically cannot be used for major drainageway outfall systems. Furthermore, after urbanization and the end of irrigation practices, they are often abandoned. In certain instances, however, irrigation ditches have been successfully utilized as outfall points for the initial drainage system, but only after a thorough hydrological and hydraulic analysis. The approval of the ditches' owners must be secured if they are to be used to convey storm runoff. The owners' liability increases with the acceptance of storm runoff over and above its primary function of delivering irrigation water. In the past, communities have entered into specific agreements that allow the discharge of storm runoff into the irrigation conveyance and storage systems, subject to certain constraints. [t is our understanding that the Brighton Lateral flows have been decreasing in recent years. It is possible that at some future time, the primary function s of this ditch will cease. If the City of Brighton desires to utilize this ditch for drainage conveyance, it must: FEA TURE DESCRIPTION TABLE IV- I DRAINAGE ESTIMATED CAP ACITlES PIPE TYPE EST. EST. DIAMETER OF CAPAOTY SWPE ON) PIPE (cfs) DET POND (BASIN 33) > BROMlEY/H.K.S CHANNEL 0.90% 27 RCP 24 BROMlEY/H.K.S CHANNEL> BROM lEY/6TH 0. 13% 48 RCP 41 BROMlEY/6TH > BROMlEY/4TH 050% 42 RCP 58 BROMlEY/4TH> JESSUP/4TH 050% 42 RCP 58 JESSUP/8TH> JESSUP/4TH 0.12% 48 RCP 40 MATHER/4TH> JESSUP/4TH 0.08% 42 RCP 23 JESSUP/4TH > JESSUP/FULTON AVE 0.10% 66 RCP 86 FULTON/BROMlEY + 900'S > FULTON/JESSUP 0.22% 42 RCP 38 JESSUP/FULTON AVE> S OUTFAU.CHANNEL 0.31 % 72 RCP 192 MATHER/4TH> O,5()q( 24 RCP 13 > LONGSPEA K/4TH 050"1 24 RCP 13 K/4TH > WWTP OtITFALL 0.50% 36 RCP 38 BRIIXFJ 12TH > BRlIXFJ9TH 0. 14% 18 RCP 3 BRIIXFJ9TH> DENVEW9TH 0.40% 24 RCP 12 DENVER/9TH> WNG>PEA Kl4TH 0.23% 36 RCP 26 DENVER/11TH> DENVEW9TH 0.09% 30 RCP 10 WNG>PEAKlI6TH > DENVEWI6TH OlW 36 RCP 38 DENVEW 16TH > DENVER/ II TH 050% 42 RCP 58 DENVER/ 11TH > BRIGHTON PARK 0.46% 42 RCP 55 EXISTING FLOWS FUTURE FLOW S Q2 QIO QIOO Q2 QIO QIOO (cfs) (crs) (crs) (crs) (cfs) (crs) 16 48 121 27 63 142 5 100 534 509 2()61 142 29 89 223 155 277 496 0 0 13 19 72 197 46 219 1012 801 2826 6157 0 61 225 0 63 227 80 170 352 87 173 355 9 23 59 68 129 277 82 108 125 117 124 124 16 95 311 16 97 315 30 108 354 30 110 357 75 161 341 75 161 341 [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] NA NA NA NA NA NA [PHONE REDACTED] 877 3324 7585 NA NA NA NA NA NA 12 70 221 12 70 221 12 70 221 12 70 221 71 113 207 71 JJ3 207 IV 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV 2 I. 2. 3. 4. Conduct a detailed hydraulic analysis of the ditch to determine its carrying capacity and its suitability to con vey storm runoff. Improve the capacity of the reaches of the ditch, as necessary. Ensure that the City obtains an easement for the drainage and maintenance access purposes after the ditch ceases its primary functions of conveying irrigation water. Secure a tenninal outfall point for the ditch that may be located outside the current study area for this project. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the proposed drainage improvements will be implemented to allow a complete separation of storm water runoff from irrigation water. D. DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS Drainage problem areas were identified by comparing the capacities of the existing system to the developed condition 2-year, 5-year and IOO-year peak flows. ill general, future development east and south of the City wi ll significantly increase storm runoff into the City during all stonn events. The City's existing storm sewer is inadequate to convey IOO-year developed flows. The City has adopted and is implementing outfall system improvements that will provide for conveyance of the 2-year storm runoff from that portion of the City that is north of Bromley Lane and west of the Fulton Ditch. These improvements do not have capacity to convey storm runoff from larger storm events or from those areas south and east of the City. As development occurs to the south and east of the City, runoff rates wi ll increase for all stonn events. The increased runoff rates are due to the urbanization of undeveloped areas and the elimination of the closed basins that currently exist. The closed basins retain stom] runoff and keep it from flowing into the City. Because there is no defined outfall system, the increased storm runoff will flow into the City at various locations. Table TV-2 presents the storm runoff rates at major select locations from the baseline hydrologic analysis for existing and future development conditions. Table IV-2 Comparison of Existing and Future Peak Flow Rates at Select Design Points Without Master Plan 2-year 5-year IOO-year Location Design Point Existing Future Existing Future Existing Future (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) South 9th A venue and Bromley Lane 383 27 1049 115 2111 787 7705 Mather Street and Brighton Lateral 3 14 0 34 9 67 66 179 M urtle Street and Fulton Ditch 307 78 212 156 [PHONE REDACTED] Baseline Road and Fulton Ditch 339 8 109 58 217 339 685 ---PAGE BREAK--- V. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SELECTION Note: Some portions of this Section V: Alternatives Development and Selection were affected by the 2006 Update of the Outfall Systems Plan. Additional text, outlining changes and presenting updated information, follows this section. A. CONCEPTUAL AL TERNA TIVES DEVELOPMENT Review of the existing and potential drainage problems resulted in the development of several initial conceptual alternative outfall systems which were evaluated and reviewed with the project participants and sponsors. These conceptual alternatives included: • • • • • Full Conveyance for the 2- and 5-year developed storm runoff without any detention. Conveyance for the I OO-year developed storm runoff was not considered a feasible alternative. Future I OO-year runoff into the City would increase significantly. Require on-site I OO-yeardetention for all future developments, pursuant to the current criteria. The closed basins that presently exist retain storm runoff, reducing the runoff that flows into the City. It is anticipated that future development will eliminate the closed basins. With the elimination of the closed basins and the combined I OO-year release rate from all the future on-site detention ponds, runoff into the City would be significantly higher than existing conditions 100-year runoff and would require extremely large conveyance facil ities. Require on-site extended detention for the 5-year storm event for all future development. Require sub-regional detention with restricted release rates for the I OO-year storm event. Require minimizing directly connected impervious areas (MDCIA) for future developments. This drainage concept directs storm runoff for the minor storm events over grass strips and through grass-lined roadside ditches. This provides an opportunity to enhance storm water quality and allows for additional storm water infiltration. Combinations of open channels and storm sewers for various storm events were also considered. After review of the various conceptual alternatives by the project review committee and the City Counci l at a work session on B. February 10, 1997 (presentation materials are included in Appendix the analysis focused on alternatives that would: I. Use the minimizing directly connected impervious areas (MDClA) concept on new collector and arterial streets and also in rural residential areas with lot size of 1.5 acres or more. (Subsequently, this was adjusted to 1.0 acres per discussions with City Staff). 2. Continue to use curb and gutter in the urban residential areas. 3. Use sub-regional detention with 5-year extended detention as a standard for new development. A copy of the City's March 10, 1997, letter is included in Appendix E. In addition, direction was provided to consider only those alternatives that would not increase the I OO-year runoff into the City. A legal opinion that was used in the initial evaluation of the alternatives is included in Appendix G. FINAL ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT The criteria used to develop the final alternatives was to maintain or reduce future flow rates into the City to the same I OO-year runoff rate that presently occurs under existing conditions; reduce the size of conveyance facilities by incorporating sub-regional detention requirements into the plan; and separate stormwater and irrigation water. Because there are no defined outfalls in the study area, future conveyance systems are generally aligned with proposed collector and arterial streets and discharge away from the existing City's storm sewer system. This significantly alters the SWMM routing from the baseline presented in the Hydrology Report (Reference Therefore, the SWMM routing schematics and SWMM routing element maps used for the master plan outfall system hydrology are presented in Figures H-I (A-F) and H-2 and H-3, respectively. Figures H-4 and H-5 present the revised sub-watershed maps for use with the master plan outfall system hydrology. Figure H-6 presents typical future hydrographs at selected design points. Revised CUHP sub-watershed parameters, SWMM Routing Element parameters, and Peak Flow Summary for future development are presented in Tables H-I through H-4. It should be noted that the SWMM model does not allow for use of 25 detention elements and all the diversion elements in the baseline model. Therefore, for the Master Plan model, the diversion elements are not used. If needed in the future, the City portion of the model could be separated out and the diversion elements reinstated . ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 The study area was separated into two areas for describing the alternatives. The south area includes the watershed south of Bromley Lane. Storm runoff from the south area is conveyed to facilities south of Bromley Lane and then west to the South Platte River. The east area includes the watershed north of Bromley Lane and east of the Fulton Ditch. Storm runoff from the east area, except two sub-watersheds, is conveyed north to Baseline Road and then west to the South Platte River. The south and east areas are delineated on Figures H-4 and 5. Two sub-watersheds (17 and 29) are located in the east area but drain into the south area at Bromley Lane and BuckJey Road. For purposes and analysis (and preliminary design) these two sub-watersheds were considered to be in the east area. I. SUB-REGIONAL DETENTION BASIN ALTERNATIVES The City Council selected a sub-regional detention system as the primary basis upon which alternative conveyance systems and sub-regional detention basin sizes would be based. For the alternati ves analysis, the conceptual location of 24 sub-regional detention basins and tributary areas were identified (See Figures V -I and The size of the tributary areas varied from 107 acres to 413 acres. The sub-regional detention basins were analyzed to restrict outflow during the 5-year and I DO-year storm events. For all alternatives, as a result, three south area and two east area alternatives were developed for investigation. The basins were proposed to be designed to detain the storm runoff from a 5-year storm event and release it over a 40-hour period. The resulting 5-year basin release rates were from 5 cfs to 26 cfs. Two alternative detention basin sizings were used for the I DO-year event. For the south area and Alternative I E for the east area, the I DO-year storm event would be detained and released at a rate of 0.50 cfs/acre of tributary area. The resulting I DO-year basin releases were from 53 cfs to 206 cfs. The basin volumes range from 10.6 acre-feet to 54.6 acre-feet. In the south area, the large size and flat slope of the watershed spreads out the timing of the sub-watershed hydrographs such that the peaks of these hydrographs are distributed over time. Thus the peak flow from these watersheds is much less than the sum of the sub-watershed peak flows. In the east area, however, watershed conditions are just the opposite. The steepness of the east area results in hydrograph peaks that accumulate at approximately the same time. Thus, the peak flow from these east area watersheds is close to the summation of the sub-watershed peak flows. 2. As a result, the magnitude of increase of the future developed peak runoff rates for the east area is greater than that for the south area. To account for this, a more restrictive detention alternative for the east area was considered in order to balance the cost of detention facilities and the cost of conveyance facilities. In Alternative NQ. 2E the I DO-year storm event would be detained and released at a rate of 0.1 0 cfs per acre of tributary area. The resulting 100-year release rates were from 17 cfs to 184 cfs. The basin volumes range from 10.6 to 63.8 acre-feet. In the alternatives analysis, the estimated land requirement for the sub-regional detention basins was determined by assuming an average basin depth of 2 feet (This was refined in the preliminary design phase). An additional 30 feet was added to the basin perimeter to provide for maintenance access and 1- foot of freeboard. Tables B-1 and B-2 present a summary ofthe I DO-year sub-regional detention basin volumes, right-of-way requirements and estimated costs used in the alternatives evaluation. The estimated construction cost for the basins included the cost of excavation, native grass seeding and mulching. An additional $25,000 was included in the estimated cost for outlet structure construction. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES a. South Side Alternatives Alternative I S consisted of a conveyance system with capacity to carry the I ~O-year release from the sub-regional ponds. Along arterial and major collector streets, the conveyance would be an open channel with 4: I side slopes. The bottom width of the channel would vary depending on peak flow. Maximum depth of flow would be 5.0 feet. This alternative included an open channel along 150th Avenue (Reaches 112, 37, 38, and ---PAGE BREAK--- 1000 500 0 1000 2000 I LEGEND: NOTES: I SCAL£ IN FEET CONCEPTUAL DETENTION BASIN SIZE AND LOCATION WATERSHED BOUNDARY PROPOSED AREA CONTRIBUTING TO OmNTlON BASIN \ / I ( c f BRIDGE sr / E. 160th A ~ \ l) I ) I . Ii / I I' frO , M 0, ~ > • / t i; 2. CONTOUR INTERVAl IS 10 FEET ~ M ~ 1. BASE MAP IS THE U.S C.S. BRIGHTON QUADRANGLE iii c 2 COlliCTOR AND OUTfAll CHANNElS NOT SHOWN. ~ g~ SEE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT fOR / ~ ~ ~ CHANNEL LOCAnONS AND DETAILS I L t o o ~ I I I \ \ / is: ~ il: OJ ( BASELINE /iD./ E. 168th AVE. -s Q ~ 0 C 160th -'IV! / BROM% LN. / 15 nd A~ ,J!H ! n r) ~ CHECKED _ DATE ADAMS COUNTY TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER SUBREGIONAL FIGURE I VJ~C ffJW5ltirr. g~~:ED :toti~ CITY OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON WATERSHED ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Il:ll URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING DETENTION BASINS V-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- " ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ og 1000 SOD 0 1000 2000 I LEGEND: NOTES: SCALE IN fEET CONCEPTUAL DETENTION BASIN SIZE AND LOCATiON WATERSHED BOUNDARY PROPOSED AREA CONTRIBUTING TO DETENTION BASIN 1. BASE MAP IS THE U.S.G.S. BRIGHTON OUADRANGLE . 2. CONTOUR INTERVAl IS 10 FEET 2. COllECTOR AND OUTfALL CHANNELS NOT SHOWN, SEE ALTERNATIVES EVAlUATION REPORT FOR CHANNEL LOCATIONS AND DETAILS. / J ( 11 I ! i f/ \ \ . t~ E. 136th A~ ~ ! \ - / r' _ E. 132nd ~ o 'I F E. 124th AVE. 1 1 II C , I , r; 0 o ~ ~ ~ ( f?J M e/ ( ~ , ~ ~ ) ;c c ~ f SEE SHEET 2 ( 0 \ " E. 136th A~ ? l) 0 ~ ?7 ( I " - J If E. 128th I 3/J, ~ II " » ~ , E. 120th AV, ~ ~ I W~C ~ , g~~~EO g~ii ~tDti~ CITY OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON WATERSHED ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FIGURE CHECKEO OATE ADAMS COUNTY TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER SUBREGIONAL PHONE NO: {lOJI751-S513 RE'v1SED OA TE V 2 AS-BU"'~_ OATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING DETENTION BASINS - ---PAGE BREAK--- b. 47). A 6'H x 22'W storm sewer would need to be constructed to convey runoff under the railroad and U.S. Highway 85. West of the highway the storm sewer would discharge into an open channel that would convey the flow to the South Platte River. With this alternative, the developed storm runoff from the south area would be diverted around the City for all storm events. Alternative 2S consists of the conveyance system described in Alternative NO. I. However, along 150th Avenue (Reaches 112,37,38, and 47) the open channel would be replaced with a 6' H x 22' W storm sewer. With this alternative, the developed storm runoff from the south area would be diverted around the City for all storm events. Alternative 3S consists of the conveyance system described in Alternative NQ. I. Along 150th Avenue (Reaches 112,37,38, and 47) the open channel would be replaced with a 6' H x 12' W i storm sewer sized to convey 860 cfs. This flow rate is the difference between the 100-year historic flow rate and the IOO-year developed flow rate from the sub-regional detention basins. With this alternative the historic I OO-year runoff of approximately 800 cfs will continue to flow into the City at South Avenue and Bromley Lane from the south area. Approximately 1080 cfs will flow into the City from the east area. East Side Alternatives Alternative I E consisted of a conveyance system with capacity to carry the I OO-year release from the sub-regional basins. The conveyance system would consist of open channels with 4: I side slopes and varying bottom widths. Maximum depth of flow would be 5.0 feet. Stormwater would be collected in the channel east of the Fulton Ditch and conveyed north to Baseline Road. It would then be conveyed west along Baseline Road, in a combination of open channels and 6' high by 8'wide storm sewers. The conveyance system would cross under the railroad and U.S. Highway 85 and discharge into the South Platte River. The proposed outfall would be parallel to the existing 54-inch storm sewer in Baseline Road. The existing system was designed to convey the 2-year storm runoff from the existing developed portion of the City and does not have capacity to convey the I OO-year detention basin releases. Alternative 2E is a conveyance system alternative for the area east of the City that is based upon the more restrictive detention basin release rate described in Section V.B.I (0.1 cfs per acre of tributary area) for the east area sub-regional detention basins. The conveyance system alignment would be the same as that described for Alternative IE. A 54-inch storm sewer would convey flow under U.S. Highway 85 and the railroad. An example of the typical cross-sections of outfall channels is presented in Figures B-1 and B-2. Preliminary cost estimates were prepared for each alternative element. The preliminary costs include: land acquisition costs, improvement construction cost, and construction contingencies and engineering (25 percent for construction contingencies; 10 percent for engineering; 10 percent for legal and administration; and 5 percent for contractor mobilization). The unit-cost data used as the basis for the alternative analysis is presented in Table B-IO. Tables B-3 thru B-7 present cost estimates for the conveyance system alternatives. The conveyance alternatives could require culverts at street intersections for the roadside ditches. Estimated costs for the culvert crossings at principal arterial and commercial collector streets are presented in Table B-8 and B-9. It was assumed that the cost of cui vert crossing at the intermediate streets would be paid for by the property owners and/or developers. An alternatives cost estimate summary is presented in Table V - I. In this table the total estimated cost of the conveyance alternatives, street crossings and sub-regional detention basins are presented separately for the south side and the east side outfall systems. 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE V-I ALTERNA TlVES COST ESTIMA TE SUMMARY EAST AREA Sub-regional Detention Ponds Street Crossings Con veyance Costs TOTALS SOUTH AREA Sub-regional Detention Ponds Street Cross ings Con veyance Cos ts TOTALS \ 6 Alternative No. IE $6,810,798 $891,000 $14,797,751 $22,499,549 Alternative No. IS $24, 120,557 $3,899,250 $28,470,062 $56,489,869 Alternative No. 2E $8,236,789 $566,250 $8,704,704 $17,507,743 Alternative No. 2S $24, I 20,557 $3,899,250 $33,899,766 $6 1,9 I 9,573 Alternative No. 3S $24, I 20,557 $3,899,250 $3 I ,538,368 $59,558, I 75 C. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Review of the alternatives evaluated showed that Alternative NQ. I S for the south area and Alternative NQ. 2E for the east area were the most cost effective and beneficial outfall system for the study area. These alternatives provide full conveyance of the detained, I DO-year developed storm runoff from the undeveloped areas south of Bromley Lane and east of the Fulton Ditch, around the present extent of the core area of the City of Brighton. The recommended alternative included open channels and extended detention for the minor storm events which would provide opportunities to enhance the quality of storm water runoff and promote infiltration to the groundwater. The recommended alternative also provided for a detention criteria that is in balance with the recommended outfall systems capacities and protects the City of Brighton from increased flooding and resultant damages. It is more restrictive than current criteria but is necessary to reduce the size of the future conveyance facilities. The total estimated cost of the recommended outfall systems, including estimated right-of-way value, engineering, legal and administrative costs is $73,997,613 (This cost estimate was refined during the preliminary design phase and is included in Chapter VI). Approximately 25 percent of the total cost is for estimated land and right-of-way values with an additional 25 percent for construction contingencies, engineering, engineering, legal, administration and contractor mobilization. Without this system or a restrictive total 100-year on-site retention policy, the City of Brighton will experience ever increasing drainage and flooding problems as the Brighton watershed is developed. 2006 Update [n 2005, WRC Engineering, Inc. submitted to the City of Brighton a report titled "North and Core City Outfall System Alternatives Analysis" that presented IOO-year storm event outfall alternatives for the area north of the City Core area. Also presented were alternatives for two proposed minor storm outfall systems for certain areas within the City Core area. Text from the North Outfall System Alternatives Analysis is included here, with figures from the report following the text: ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF BRIGHTON NORTH AND CORE CITY OUTFALL SYSTEM AL TERNA TIVES ANALYSIS WRC Engineering, Inc. (WRC) has prepared an analysis of alternative 2-year and l00'year storm drainage outfall systems for the northern area ofthe City of Brighton. These alternatives were developed to address drainage problems identified upon review of the capacity of the existing drainage outfall systems as compared to the estimated existing and future peak stormwater flows in this area. The alternatives have been developed to address two specific areas of the City of Brighton. First, outfall system improvements are needed to solve existing drainage problems in the Core City study area (Figure V-3). Second, a future outfall system is needed to serve the area of the City north of Baseline Road (North study area) as well as the area south of Baseline Road but east of the Core City area (East study area). The Core City study area potentially served by a major northern outfall system extends to Baseline Road on the north, to the South Platte River on the west, and to Bromley Lane on the south. The Core City study area boundary on the east varies from the Fulton Ditch north of Bridge Street, to 33"' Avenue from Bridge Street to Southern Street, and to 27'" Avenue from Southern Street to Bromley Lane. The storm sewer system in this area was primarily constructed during the initial development of the City. Several upgrades to the system have been constructed over the past 15 years to relieve the severe deficit capacity of the original storm sewer system. These include outfall storm sewers on Jessup Street, Long's Peak, and Baseline Road, as well as internal storm sewer system upgrades on 11'" Avenue and Bridge Street. However, some of the Core City area still lacks an adequate outfall system and thus suffers from frequent flooding of streets and private property. For the area north of Baseline Road and east of the Fulton Ditch (the North and East study areas), alternatives are needed to serve future development of these areas as well as convey major storm flows from the Core City area to the South Platte River. The north outfall system alternatives were developed using a two step process. In the first step, alternatives to provide a 2-year outfall system capacity for the Core City area were developed and analyzed. The second step was to evaluate alternatives for conveyance of l00-year runoff from the Core City area at Baseline Road in conjunction with providing a future 100-year outfall for the North and East study areas. The existing outfall system's plan for the East study area provides for a new parallel outfall system in Baseline Road. This current study is evaluating alternatives to this parallel system. 2-Year Core City Alternatives WRC has reviewed the existing storm sewer outfalls for the Core City area to identify areas of deficient outfall system capacity. Presented on Figure V -4 is an overview map of the Core City area showing the various outfall systems as well as approximate service areas. The solid color service areas are areas of the City in which, with minor local storm sewer and inlet improvements, there exists an adequate 2-year storm sewer outfall system. The existing Jessup Street outfall system serves the solid red area approximately south of Jessup Street. The Long's Peak outfall system serves the solid green area mainly west of Avenue. The 11 'h A venue and Bridge Street outfall storm sewers serve the solid blue area, mainly the central portion of the Core area up to the City's recreation center and detention pond. The Denver Street and North Channel Systems serve the solid yellow area in the northeast portion of the Core study area. The solid orange area is served by several local storm sewer systems which drain directly to the South Platte River. These local systems may require some minor upgrades to achieve full 2-year capacity. Analysis of these local systems was not included as part of the scope of this project. The remaining cross-hatched areas are areas which are either not served by an existing major outfall system or where the existing system capacity is already used to serve the solid colored areas. In addition, the existing detention pond and outfall system from the recreation center to the South Platte River in Baseline Road is inadequate to convey the 2-year inflows from the upstream storm systems without additional diversions into the pond. Two alternative plans were developed for the 2-year outfall systems analysis. Alternative Plan 1 consists of two new Core City systems (See Figure V-5). The first system would extend from the Recreation Center detention pond south along A venue to Bridge Street. This system would serve the red cross- hatched area except that area north of about Midland Street. This system would require 66" and 78" RCPs to carry up to 160 cfs (2-year storm capacity). The second Core City system would consist of construction of about a 66" RCP system in 19'" Avenue from the North Channel to the Fulton Ditch to serve the green- hatched area east of the Fulton Ditch. This system would be designed for a 2-year flow of 170 cfs. For this plan, the Recreation Center detention pond would store about 36 A.F. of 2-year runoff at an elevation of about 4970.8 which is below the current recreation center parking lot. However, based upon original recreation center plans, this would inundate a proposed parking lot northwest of the current parking lot. V 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- In addition, this plan requires all new development within the Core City area to provide on-site detention with a release rate not to exceed 0.1 cfs/acre. Alternative Plan 2 consists of a new storm sewer outfall from the South Platte River to 8th and Bridge Street (See Figure V-6). Option A would construct this storm sewer along the Long's Peak alignment. Option B would construct this storm sewer along the Midland Street extended alignment. Either of these alignments would serve the red cross' hatched area as well as divert runoff from the solid blue area away from the recreation center detention pond. This diversion frees up some capacity in the recreation center detention pond for further recreation center parking expansion. This plan also includes the previously described 19th A venue system improvements. The existing Baseline Road outfall system would be at capacity to drain the recreation center detention pond and the remaining cross-hatched areas. This system has benefits in that a small portion of new development in the Core City area may not need on-site detention at a 0.1 cfs/acre release rate. Also, some of the recreation center detention pond storage capacity is available for storage of runoff from the 2-year to about the 5-year storm event. A 2-year outfall system alternative along Baseline Road was also considered but was eliminated due to problems with existing utilities and conflicts with the existing outfall system in Baseline Road. Consideration was also given to allowing runoff from the East study area to drain through new storm sewers into the Core study area. This option was eliminated since it would transfer flows into the Core City area which already is undersized to convey Core City runoff without addition of East study area runoff. 100-Year Outfall Systems Alternatives. Two Alternative plans were evaluated for a new 100-year outfall for the Core, North and East study areas. Alternative Plan 1 (See Figure V-7) consists of an open channel extending from the South Platte River at Weld County Road 2'h east to the Fulton Lateral (Segment thence in a southeastern direction to Baseline Road at about 10th Avenue extended (Segment then east along Baseline Road to the Fulton Ditch (Segment A second channel would extend from the Fulton Lateral along Weld County Road 2'/2 east to the Fulton Ditch (Segment Segment C would collect the lOO-year runoff from the Core City area as well as the detained runoff from the East study area per the current outfall system plan. All areas north of Baseline Road would be allowed to release fully developed 100-year runoff into this outfall system. Alternative Plan 2 (See Figure V would consist of the same outfall alignments and segments as Alternative Plan 1. In this alternative plan, sub-regional detention ponds would be constructed to reduce the 100-year outflow from the future development areas north of Baseline Road to a 0.5 cfs/acre release rate. This is the same release rate currently used in the Brighton South Outfall Study area but is more than the 0.1 cfs/acre used in the East Study V 8 area and the Core City area. Analysis of the 0.1 cfs/acre alternative showed little actual benefit in facility sizes with substantial additional storage and land area required for the modeled alternative ponds. For purposes of alternative evaluation, the proposed sub-regional detention was modeled as two detention ponds. One pond would be located near the Fulton Lateral at Weld County Road The second pond would be located of the Fulton Ditch and County Road 2112. ---PAGE BREAK--- I 250 0 1000 I ~ ORIGINAL SCALE: 1-·500' , 8 , II , / / / . I i / . . I I 9- ff~~~lf:/lJ... I G I =fini ll. I ~ I \ . I N TH STUDY,AREA @l ---ir / , I ' II ~ . @ . I 1 J _ : L@ND~UB_WAT£RSHED D£SKlNATION@}'/-T-@c\.:e G : ~ WATERSHED BOUNOARY II I _ -r 2D 168th ~ - 11 , o BRIDGE ST. ~ SUB-WAT£RSHED BOUNOARY I _ I - - - - - - Q r I I 30 1 ~ _ STUDY AREA BOUNOARY v , , ~I j I I ~I VJ~C !li1~ l~i . ~:ED ~ DArr CITY OF BRIGHTON NORTH OUTFALL SYSTEM FIGURE i: ~~~cw:IUD080222 OiECkED ~ DATE ~ NORTH AREA ~ _ URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY AREAS V-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- / - - - - - - - - . 1I. :500 250 0 500 1 000 I ORIGiNAl SCALE: 1 I , @ SUB-WATERSHED DESIGNATION _ _ WATERSHED BOUNDARY ~ - - - SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY ~ JESSUP STREET OUTFALL SYSTEM , ~ LONGS PEAK OUTFALL SYSTE~ : _ 11TH AVENUE/BRIDGE STREET OUTFALL SYSTEM DENVER STREET/NORTH CHANNEL OUTFALL SYSTEM LOCAL OUTFALlS TO THE SOUTH PLAnE RIVER 1.1 AREAS WITH AN INADEQUATE MAJOR OUTFALL SYSTEM r- . . T ( / / / / / / -'>lL om ~ NORTH AREA CORE CITY AREA SERVICE AREAS , / / , [ tJ I I I I o ~ I , ~ FIGURE V-4 VJ~C~ ' . g~~:ED ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON WATERSHED . "SCSUILT- - URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING ~ ~ -L ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- • • LEGEND: @ SUB-WATERSHED DESIGNATION WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB- WATERSHED BOUNDARY _ _ EXISTING OUTfALl S'r"STEM = PROPOSED CHANNEL OUTFALL SYSfEt,j _ PROPOSED PIPED OUTFAll SYSTEM c::J RECREATION CENTER Q£TENnON POND ~ ~ VJRC i!ll~ 'm!il"' lij~ /iil:iII~H~~!lti1lr1. =:Jt CITY OF BRIGHTON BRIG~Tg:r:~~:SHED ALTERNATIVE PLAN NO.1 FIGURE ~ U_R_B_A_N D_R_~_N_A_G_E & F_LOO D_C_O NTR O_L_D_I_S_TR IC_T ~ ~O~UT~F~A~L~L~S~Y~S~T~E~M~S~P~LA~N~N~I~N~G~ ~ 2_Y_E_A_R S_Y_S_T_E_M_C A_PA_C_I_TY -L V_-5 ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- LEGEND: @ SUB-WATERSHED DESIGNATION WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY • • EXISTING OUTFAll SYSTEM = PROPOSED CHANNEL OUTFALL SYSTEN _ PROPOSED PIPED OUTFALl SYSTEM c==:J RECREATION CENTER DETENT10N POND I 250 0 ORIGINAl... SCALE: 1--500' • CITY OF BRIGHTON URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BRIGHTON WATERSHED NORTH AREA OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING i ll' ~ (.qm ALTERNATIVE PLAN 2 2 YEAR SYSTEM CAPACITY b . ~ r, l . I FIGURE V-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- LEGEND: @ SUB-WATERSHED DESIGNATION WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY _ _ EXISTING OUTFALl SYSTEM = PROPOSED CHANNEL OUTFAll. SYSTEt,j _ PROPOSED PIPED OUTFALl SYSTEM c=:J RECREATION CENTER DETENTION POND 250 9 500 1000 ~ I: ! CITY OF BRIGHTON URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BRIGHTON WATERSHED NORTH AREA OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING ALTERNATIVE PLAN NO. 1 100 YEAR SYSTEM CAPACITY FIGURE V-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- LEGEND: @ SUB-WATERSHED DESIGNATION WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB-WATERSHEO BOUNDARY _ • EXISTING OUTfALl SYSTEM = PROPOSED CHANNEL OUTFALL 5YSTE),I _ PROPOSED PIPED OUTfAlL SYSTEM L=:J RECREATION CENTER DETENTION POND © PROPOSED REGIONAl DETENTlON POND I 250 0 1000 ! • CITY OF BRIGHTON URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BRIGHTON WATERSHED NORTH AREA OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING I . ~ , . .1 ALTERNATIVE PLAN NO. 2 100 YEAR SYSTEM CAPACITY FIGURE v-a ---PAGE BREAK--- D. OUTFALL SYSTEM SELECTION On January 5, 1998, WRC received from UD&FCD the project sponsor's selection of Alternatives I Sand 2E as recommended for preliminary design purposes. A general description of the selected plan and additional direction provided to WRC for preliminary design is preserved in the document titled Selected Plan for Brighton Watershed Outfall Systems Planning Study Preliminary Design Report (Appendix The General Description of the Selected Plan is as follows: I. The Selected Plan, unless specifically directed otherwise, is the recommended alternative as defined in the Alternatives Evaluation Report dated July 1997. This plan is based on a total of 24 sub-regional detention basins within the watershed (modified to 25 basins in the preliminary design phase). Each detention basin will be sized with a volume to detain the 5-year storm event for an extended period of time (40-hours) and provisions to enhance water quality will be included within detention basins. of each detention basin will be an open channel sized to convey the release from a IOO-year storm event. These channels will be located adjacent to arterial and major collector streets to the extent feasible, and two major outfalls (one south of Bromley Lane and the other north of Baseline Road) are required to prevent flooding of the downtown area. 2. Drainage systems in residential areas with lot size of 1.5 acres or greater will be designed to minimize directly connected imperviousness. Drainage systems in residentiaJ areas with lot size less than 1.5 acres, and in commercial and other dense areas, will utilize curb-and-gutter with storm sewers (the 1.5 acre size was subsequently adjusted to 1.0 acres per discussions with the City Staff). The City of Brighton will need to modify its present drainage criteria to incorporate these principles when approving new development within the watershed area. 3. The selected plan recommends the use of certain areas for detention purposes. As a first step, acquisition of right-of-way should be secured. One possible way to do this is through adequate assurances agreements between the City of Brighton and the District. Acquisition of properties can then be completed by obtaining a permanent runoff-storage easement from the landowners at the time of proposed development or through the purchase in fee simple by the City of Brighton, with District assistance whenever such acquisition becomes a problem for the city. 4. Incorporate the following note on each drawing: "This drawing is for master planning purposes and represents preliminary and conceptual engineering. Alternatives to this outfall system will be considered by local reviewing agencies and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District provided the alternative offers equal hydraulic capacity and stream stability. The alternative must comply with all requirements of the local jurisdiction and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. This drawing shall not be used for construction purposes." [n summary, the Additional Direction was as follows: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Include a statement that " [f a sub-regional detention basin and conveyance system are in place, all development upstream within that tributary watershed will be allowed to release undetained on-site flows into the drainage system". Minimize to the extent feasible the land area requirements of each sub-regional detention basin. Include a discussion on the extent of flexibility in final design of the sub-regional detention basin with regard to basin depth and longitudinal and lateral position along the outfall. The finaJ plan should clearly show the McLaughlin Water Engineers 1991 drainage plan for the City core area as differentiated from the existing street flow paths. The plan should also show the existing storm sewer system and use the existing and proposed storm sewer systems to the maximum extent practicable. Provide a note in the preliminary design report that the City of Brighton has committed to a right- of-way (ROW) width of I DO-feet from U.S. 85 to the existing South Outfall. Costs for maintenance of the sub-regional detention basins, channels, and storm sewer systems should be reported in the preliminary design. Jurisdictional boundary lines between the City of Brighton and Adams County need to be clearly drawn and labeled as: " in effect as of 1998" on all figures, plan and profile drawings, and sheets included in the Preliminary Design report. Recommend by a note on each sheet of the preliminary design that the City of Brighton and Adams County zone, manage, and regulate the development in this watershed to prevent future flood damages by following the recommendations of this plan. Prioritize the section of channel north of Bromley Lane that runs to the existing South Outfall east of Jessup Street in the preparation of the preliminary design. Schedule a meeting with project V ---PAGE BREAK--- \ 16 sponsors to discuss this section of channel and also the regional detention basin locations adjacent to the City of Brighton. The Additional Direction Items 1,2, and 4 through 8 are provided for in this report. For Item 3, the outfall systems proposed by McLaughlin Water Engineers for the core Brighton area (in general, Bromley Lane to Baseline Road, Fulton Ditch to South Platte River) are shown on the design drawings. These systems were designed for a 2·year event from the core Brighton area only. These minor storm systems would typically be inadequate to convey additional runoff from outside the core Brighton area. However, the sub-regional extended detention system delays the runoff peaks substantially longerthan standard detention facilities. This could potentially allow a single pipe to convey both undetained local runoff as well as the delayed peak runoff releases from the sub-regional system. This concept was applied to the existing north outfall system along Baseline Road. For this location, a second north outfall is proposed to convey runoff from areas to be developed east of the Fulton Ditch. The results of this analysis were two-fold. For the minor storm events, the existing north outfall system can function to convey runoff from both the core Brighton area and from the areas east of the Fulton Ditch. This is due to the 40-hour release from the sub-regional detention facilities. For the major storm event, the existing north outfall is overwhelmed by IOO-year runoff from the core Brighton area. Thus, no excess capacity exists for conveyance of runoff from east of the Fulton Ditch. Therefore, the proposed plan includes a parallel north outfall system for conveyance of all I OO-year runoff from the area east of the Fulton Ditch. Due to the difference in timing of the peak flows, the major benefit of the parallel system is to provide additional minor storm capacity as well as a reduction in I OO-year flooding from the core Brighton area. The 2006 update to the Outfall Systems Plan included the replacement of the 1991 McLaughlin Water Engineers drainage plan for the Core City area by the selected 2006 alternative for that area. Therefore, Additional Direction Note #3 as included in this section is void. The selected alternatives for the Core City and North areas are described below. The selected 2·year Core City alternative is Plan 2, Option B. This alternative includes a proposed storm sewer from the South Platte River approximately along the Midland Street alignment, with its upstream end at the intersection of 8th Avenue and Bridge Street. A proposed outfall to the Brighton Park Lake detention facility includes the addition of a storm sewer from the existing drainage channel at approximately 19th Avenue and Midland Place to the south along 19th Avenue to Bridge Street, and then east to the Fulton Ditch. For the North Study Area, all alternatives presented were designed with the capacity to convey 100- year flows from the North, East, and Core City areas. The flow contribution from the East Study Area is limited by the previously proposed 100-year detention facilities with a maximum discharge rate of 0.1 cfslacre. The selected North outfall alternative is Plan 1, which consists of open channels with the capacity to convey the previously indicated flows including the 100-year undetained runoff from the entire north tributary area. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF THE SELECTED OUTFALL SYSTEM Note: Some portions of this Section VI: Preliminary Design of the Selected Outfall System were affected by the 2006 Update of the Outfall Systems Plan. Additional text, outlining changes and presenting updated information, follows this section. A. DESCRIPTION OF THE OUTFALL SYSTEM This chapter presents detailed descriptions of the proposed improvements, implementation guidelines, improvement cost estimates, and a proposed prioritization of improvements. Plan and profile drawings and details of the proposed improvements are included in the project drawings located in the back of this report. Also included on the pages facing the plan drawings are descriptions and cost estimates of the improvements located on that drawing. The selected outfall system consists of four major components: sub-regional detention facilities, outfall channels and storm sewers, the existing master planned outfall systems for the core Brighton area, and on-site detention requirements for in-fill areas. A description of each of these components is as follows: I. SUB-REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITIES. The preliminary design of the selected outfall system resulted in a total of 25 sub-regional detention facilities draining 25 sub-regions (See Figure VI-I). Twenty of the sub-regional detention facilities (Sub-regions AA through SS and YY) drain to the proposed South Outfall System. All of these "south" sub-regional detention facilities (except Sub-region YY) are sized to store and subsequently release I OO-year developed basin runoff at a rate of 0.5 cfs/acre of tributary area. Sub- region YY was originally considered to be in the "east" area and thus was sized for a 0.1 cfs/acre of tributary area release rate. This release rate was used for Sub-region YY, despite being reclassified as tributary to the "south" area, due to the difficulties and large costs of providing a significantly larger outfall system to drain this area if the 0.5 cfs release rate was allowed. For the "east" area, five sub-regional detention facilities (Sub-regions TT through XX) are sized to store and subsequently release 100-year developed basin runoff at a rate of 0.1 cfs/acre of tributary area. All the sub-regional detention facilities are also sized to store and subsequently release the 5-year developed basin runoff over a 40-hour period (extended detention). 2. 3. 4. OUTFALL CHANNELS AND STORM SEWERS. Each of the 25 sub-regional detention facilities drains to either a I ~O-year outfall storm sewer or channel. Storm sewers are used when a detention facility outlet elevation is lower than can be economically or physically drained in an open channel. Most of the outfall channels follow the alignment of existing or proposed collector and arterial streets. Where this occurs, the outfall channels are proposed to be roadside channels in order to minimize right-of-way requirements. Ultimately, the "south" sub-regions drain to the main south outfall channel. This channel is proposed to extend from the South Platte River near W. Egbert Street south to about 1,200 feet south of Bromley Lane, thence east under U.S. 85 along the 150'" Avenue alignment to Chambers Road. The segment under U.S. 85 and adjacent areas is proposed to be 9' diameter RCP culverts. The culverts were used due to the depth of the outfall (up to 20'), to reduce right-of-way requirements, and to allow jacking of the outfall segments under U.S. 85 and the adjacent railroad tracks. The "east" sub-regions drain to a I OO-year outfall storm sewer and channel along the north side of Baseline Road. The stonn sewer segments along this north outfall are used where pipe jacking is required and where right-of-way can be minimized on developed properties along Baseline Road. EXISTING MASTER PLANNED OUTFALL SYSTEMS FOR THE CORE BRIGHTON AREA. [n 1991 , McLaughlin Water Engineers finished an outfall systems plan for the core city area. This plan consisted of several proposed 2-year stonn sewer systems in order to alleviate frequent flooding of several areas of the city. The current plan does not change this 1991 plan and thus the 1991 plan is shown herein for reference purposes only. The reader is referred to the 1991 document for further information on these proposed stonn sewers. The City has been implementing various phases of said plan over the last several years. ON-SITE DETENTION REQUIREMENTS. The City of Brighton area is characterized by the lack of adequate outfall systems and by the large costs needed to construct new outfall systems. Therefore, it is imperative that the City adopt a strict on-site detention policy for those areas which are not tributary to the sub-regional detention facilities included in this plan (except as noted below). These areas consist mostly of smaller in-fill areas which, due to their physical location, can not be readily drained to the sub-regional detention facilities. This plan proposes that the city adopt an on-site detention policy which limits releases of developed runoff to a rate of 0.1 cfs/acre VI 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- I N2 \U ~ TOWNSHIP RANGE~ I E5 @ I _ I E6 Refer To Figure VI-2 For Core Area Minor Storm Outfall Systems Maximum 100-year Detention Release Rate=O.1cfs/acre DRAWN CHECKED_ ~ REVISED -1afhL AS-BUIlT_ ~8 @ 829 - 81 81 1813 A c~~;j I ADAMS COUNTY > Z o 1000 2000 8 840 BUCKLEY RD. G J BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER 821 ) 827 _ ) (I LEGEND 0- - REACH LIMITS 81 SOUTH AREA REACH ID E1 EAST AREA REACH ID DETENTION BASIN NON-REGIONAL - - CONVEYANCE FACILITY Q SUBREGIONAL DETENTION V BASIN ID & DRAINAGE AREA STUDY AREA BOUNDARY SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY OUTFALL SYSTEMS MAP FIGURE VI-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 500 250 0 I ORIGiNAl SCALE: 1--500' 1000 ! \ { ( I I I J ( I I ) \ \ { I ! 36 ) \ 'j LONG~1EAK WEST . OUIT LL BRIDGE ST. / 160th \ 1 J BRIDGE ST, WEST OUTFALL sy<;TF ~ I ' JIi'OMLEY t l 152nd iAV£. ( I' ST I SYSTEi,l LEGEND: / I ~ @ SUB-WATERSHED DESIGNATION / I / I: ~ • - WJOR OUTFAlL SYSTEMS SCHEMATIC I I r I l SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY I: 1- 11TH AVE SYSTEM REA\ pOUTH DY ARFA , \ I J').rj) ( 00 ( . H STUDY fREA , . \ / . " " , L o~ ~fUDY AREA lit II 168th' ~J I 'J O ~ _ snuDY AREA BOUNDARY I \ COLORADO aD222 CHECKED ~ OA TE ~ R!'~SED _ _ DATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING OUTFALL AREAS VI-2 ~ ~ ~ , ~~AS~ ATE~~~L_ L_ ~ ~ ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- B. C. VI 4 of tributary area. The on-site policy should also include a requirement to provide for a 5-year extended detention storage volume to be released over a minimum 40-hour time period. The exception to this on- site requirement would be for areas draining to the South Outfall System which is designed to accommodate undetained runoff from areas of the sub-regional detention facilities. Overall, the proposed outfall system is designed to promote infiltration of runoff into the groundwater table in order to recharge the City's current groundwater water supply system. This system also minimizes the sizes of the outfall channels and storm sewers and provides for water quality enhancement from the sub-regional detention basins. DESIGN CRITERIA The "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual" (Reference 5) and the "Adams County Storm Design and Technical Criteria" (Reference 4) were used as the basis of the outfall systems design. Specifically, open channels were designed as grass-lined channels with concrete trickle channels except for the South Outfall Channel (See Improvement Details Sheet 68). The South Outfall channel was designed as a wetland bottom channel due to the likelihood that groundwater would be encountered during and after construction. All channels were designed with a maximum velocity of 7 fps and a minimum bottom width of 5 feet for the 100-year design event. ROW requirements assumed I foot of freeboard and a 15' wide maintenance bench area. Culverts were designed to allow a maximum headloss of I foot. The sub-regional detention facilities were designed with 4: I sideslopes and I foot of freeboard on the 100-year storage elevation (See Improvement Details Sheet 68). Two storage levels were included in the design (5-year and 100-year). The five-year extended detention area is typically 2' to 3' deep and has a flat bottom to promote infiltration and minimize ROW. The 100-year volume is typically contained in a 3' to 5' high benched area above the 5-year flood volume. Where an active recreation area was sought within the sub- regional detention facility, a I percent sloped area above the 5-year ponding level was provided to ensure positive drainage. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES The most important aspect of this plan is the technical and institutional implementation of the sub-regional detention facilities. The implementation guidelines presented in this section are provided to assist the City of Brighton and Adams County in the implementation of the outfall systems plan presented in this report. These guidelines detail the methods, procedures, and flexibility allowed in the sizing and siting of the sub-regional detention facilities. These guidelines also detail the institutional issues which must be addressed in order to proceed witb the implementation of this plan. I. TECHMCAL CONSIDERATIONS. The two main considerations regarding implementation of the sub- regional detention facilities concern sizing and siting of said facilities. The guidelines for sizing and siting of the sub-regional detention facilities are as follows: a) Sub-regional Detention Facility Sizing. The sizing of said facilities is accomplished through a five step process. First, the 5-year extended detention volume is set equal to tbe 5-year excess precipitation volume from the tributary area. The excess precipitation volume is provided in the CUHP output for each sub-watershed and must be totaled for the sub-watersheds tributary to the sub-regional detention facility. Second, the 5-year outlet is sized to release the 5-year stored runoff over a 40-hour time period. For tbe preliminary design included herein, the 5-year outlet was assumed to be pipe orifice structure as shown on Sheet 68. Third, the required I OO-year storage volume is set equal to 95 percent of the lOO-year excess precipitation volume for the "east" sub-regions (0.1 cfs/acre release rate) and 80 percent of the I OO-year excess precipitation for the "west" sub-regions (0.5 cfs/acre release rate). The 5-year storage volume is part of the total 100-year storage volume as computed above. Fourth, the 100-year release rate is computed based upon either 0.1 cfs/acre (east area) or 0.5 cfs/acre (south area) of tributary area. Tbe lOO-year basin outlet is assumed for the standard configuration to be a rectangular weir overflow structure as shown on Sheet 68. Finally, the outlet pipe must be sized and sloped to pass the full 100- year pond release under gravity flow conditions. For the design of the detention facility itself, adjustments in the size of the minor and major storm storage areas can be accommodated but, if adjusted, the overall facility size will change. For example, if a large, manicured, active use park is desired, the facility size may need to be increased in order to minimize the frequency of inundation of the active use area. In contrast, it may be desirable in another area to use the facility as open space (no active recreation). In this example, the facility and size may be reduced but will have a larger area that may be frequentl y inundated with runoff. Sub-regional Detention Facility Siting. Siting of the sub-regional detention facilities is constrained by the location of the outfall system and topographic constraints. The sub- regional detention facility locations shown on the enclosed preliminary design drawings were selected based upon an optimal balance between facility size and location. Where possible, basins were located away from major intersections but within the general existing drainage flow paths. ---PAGE BREAK--- The purpose of the Master Plan is to preliminarily locate and size the required sub-regional detention facilities and to size the collection facilities based upon these defined sub- regional detention facilities and locations. Minor adjustments in size and location of the sub-regional detention facilities can be accommodated as long as the master plan design criteria (i.e. 5-year extended detention, IOO-year restricted release rates) and the hydrologic/hydraulic function of the entire master planned drainage system are maintained. A sub-regional detention facility may be moved upstream or along the proposed outfall system if the following guidelines are addressed: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pond size must be adjusted for the increase/decrease in tributary area. The new location must not interfere with the outfall system draining from upstream sub- regional detention facilities. Outfalls from upstream sub-regional detention facilities should not drain through sub-regional detention facilities to preserve the storage capacity of the facilities. The Master Plan flow rates of the new location must be maintained or reduced. This should be checked using the master plan hydrologic model. The new location/plan should not result in a proliferation of additional sub-regional detention facilities. For purposes of this plan, the minimum drainage area to a sub- regional detention facility should be kept around 130 acres. A sub-regional detention facility may be moved from one side of a road to another as long as all hydraulic functions are maintained. This is a fairly simple change since the basins are "off-line" of the main outfall system. Tributary basin boundaries can be adjusted as long as the above guidelines are followed. However, a logical reason must exist for said change. Also, as facilities are implemented, some changes will not be possible in order to avoid retro-fitting of previously constructed facilities. The end result of any of these changes should be a functionally equivalent system that: 2. • • • Minimizes maintenance requirements (fewer facilities are better) Minimizes land required (fewer facilities are better) Maintains public ownership or control (i.e. permanent drainage easement) of sub- regional detention facilities. On-site Detention The implementation guidelines strongly recommend that sub-regional detention areas not be sub-divided into smaller areas in order to avoid a proliferation of additional sub-regional detention facilities. However, if factors currently unknown prevented the implementation of a single sub-regional facility, then use of on-site detention in that area can only be used if the following requirements are met: I. The total sub-regional watershed outflow rate must be maintained. Thus, i!ll watershed areas must be directed through an on-site detention facility. 2. 3. Runoff discharged through an on-site detention facility must not drain through another on-site detention facility. The on-site detention volume and release rate must be proportionately reduced based upon the proportionate impervious area drawing to the on- site facility. 4. The sizing equations that are used for the sub-regional detention facil ities must be applied to the on-site detention facilities. 5. 6. The on-site detention facilities must be publically owned and maintained. Approval of use of on-site detention for part of a sub-watershed must be obtained from the City of Brighton (or Adams County where applicable) with input solicited from the UD&FCD. In addition, since all property owners in the sub-regional watershed wi ll be affected by this change, the City (or County) may require input on the on-site detention plan from the affected property owners. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS. The key institutional consideration is that the City of Brighton and Adams County must both adopt and follow this plan within the implementation guidelines \r I 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- D. VI 6 provided herein. This wi ll require a change in the drainage criteria for all areas tributary to these outfall systems to implement the stricter storage volumes and release rates previously defined. Implementation of this plan can also be facilitated by implementation of a fee collection and reimbursement plan by which the sub-regional detention basin sites can be secured early on in the development process. [n this manner, the outfall system costs can be allocated equally to all developers in the watershed. Implementation is also facilitated by the fact that, once constructed, the outflow from a sub-regional detention facility will be less (and, in some cases, considerably less) than the existing conditions 5- and IOO-year flow rates. In this case, the only impact to properties will be an increase in or establishment of a continuous base flow out of the basin. Therefore, development can proceed forward as long as a facilities can accommodate this increased base flow with improvements, as needed, for erosion control. Both the City and County staff need to become familiar with this plan and the benefits/ramifications of plan implementation. IMPROVEMENT COSTS ESTIMATES The cost of the improvements shown herein have been divided into seven categories: drainage improvements, traffic, utility relocation, contingency, engineering and construction services, legal and administrative, and right- of-way acquisition. Drainage improvement costs are associated with improving the existing system to handle the design flows accordi ng to the established criteria. These include all storm sewers, inlets, manholes, channel grading, low-flow or trickle channels, drop structures, etc. These also include sub-regional detention pond embankment and excavation, landscape and re-vegetation, and outlet and spillway structures. Traffic costs include all drainage improvements directly related to crossing of existing roads, streets, and highways. These include headwalls and wingwalls, culvert pipe, outlet protection, traffic control, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and asphalt replacement, etc. Uti lity costs are for protecting andlorrelocating gas, electric, cable TV, telephone, water and sewer improvements as required to allow construction of the proposed outfall system improvements. Contingency costs are included si nce the level of detail at the preliminary design stage is not sufficient to accurately determine the actual final costs based on a final design. The engineering and construction services costs include basic services (i.e. planning, final design, construction documents, and construction observation) and special services (i.e. surveying, soi ls testing, construction inspection, and special investigations). Legal and administration costs are for contract administration (design, construction, and overall project tasks) and for legal counci l services as required for right-of-way acquisition and contract review. The right-of-way/easement acquisition costs include the costs to purchase right-of-way and/or easements fOrlhe proposed improvements where the same are not provided by new development. The cast to purchase right-of-way/easements is dependent on the existing and proposed land use, zoning, and general location of the property. Therefore, the costs included for this item are for budgeting purposes only. The actual cost of such right-of-way/easements wi ll be determined at the time they are slated for acquisition. Right-of-way costs are not included where the proposed improvement is to be located entirely within an existing drainage easement or right-of-way or on property owned by a public entity. Conti ngency costs were estimated to be 25 percent of the sum of the drainage improvement costs. Costs for engineeri ng services and legal and admi nistrative services were estimated to be 15 percent and 5 percent respectively, of the drainage improvements costs. The unit cost data used to develop the detailed cost estimates for this project are presented in Table VI - I. Presented on the facing page of each plan/profile sheet is a cost estimate for each improvement included on that sheet. Operation and maintenance costs are costs estimated to be incurred manually for the general maintenance and upkeep of the outfall systems and sub-regional detention facilities. A summary of the total improvement costs for each reach of outfall system improvements is presented in Table VI - 2. This table also includes an estimate of the annual operation and maintenance cost of the proposed drainageway improvements. The grand total improvement costs (in 1998 dollars) for the outfall systems studied herein is estimated to be about $64,920,000. The costs of improvements provided on the aforementioned tables were updated in 2006 and divided into five categories, not including operations and maintenance These are total drainage improvement costs, contingencies, engineering services, legal and administrative services, and right- ---PAGE BREAK--- of-way acquisition. Total drainage improvement costs retlect an estimate of the total costs associated with the construction of the facility including parts, labor, mobilization, traffic control, and utility relocation. Unit cost data presented in Table VI-I has been updated to retlect approximate costs in 2006 dollars. The grand total improvement costs (in 2006 dollars) for the outfall systems described in this 2006 Update of the Brighton Watershed OSP is estimated to be about $70,661,472. 1 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- VI 8 TABLE VI-l OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING PRELIMINARY DESIGN UNIT COST DATA (2006 USD) RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION Residential - Medium Density (without improl.ements - land value only) DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Excavation Channel Excavation Detention Basin Riprap Filter Bedding Material Seeding and Mulching Structural Concrete Cull.ert Outlet (without HeadwalVWingwalls) Cull.ert Outlet (with HeadwalllWingwalis wi Riprap less than 100 cfs) Cull.ert Outlet (with Headwali/Wingwalis wi Riprap 100 to SOO cis) Cull.ert Outlet (with HeadwalllWingwalis wi Riprap 500 to 1000 cis) Cull.ert Outlet (with Headwali/Wingwalis wi Riprap 1000 to 1500 cis) Cull.ert Outlet (with Headwali/Wingwalis wi Riprap 1500 to 2000 cfs) Channel Drop Structures (with Q = 0 to 200 cfs) Channel Drop Structures (with Q = 200 to 800 cfs) Channel Drop Structures (with Q > 800 cfs) Manholes BOX CULVERTS 4' x 7' RCBC 4' x 7' RCBC 4' x 8' RCBC 4' x 8' RCBC 4' x 9' RCBC 4' x 9' RCBC 4' x 10' RCBC 4' x 10' RCBC 4' x 10' RCBC 6' x 12' RCBC 6' x 12' RCBC 8' x 12' RCBC STORM SEWER 18-inches 21-inches 24-inches 27-inches 30-inches 33-inches 36-inches 42-inches 48-inches 54-inches 60-inches 66-inches 72-inches 78-inches 84-inches 90-inches $0.631SF $9.38/CY 38/CY $43.75/CY $43. 75/CY $3750/CY $562.5/CY PIPE COST $9375/EA $15000/EA $25000/EA $37500/EA $50000/EA $18750/EA $43750/EA $81250/EA $2500/EA $762.5/LF $1087.5/LF $4751LF $825/LF $1287.5/LF $1687.5/LF $550/LF $975/LF $1400/LF $1200/LF $17251LF $1300/LF $75/LF $81.25/LF $81 .251LF $91 .25/LF $100/LF $106.25/LF $106.251LF $125/LF $156.25/LF $187.5/LF $203. 75/LF $218.751LF $250/LF $281.25/LF $343.75/LF $437.5/LF 108-inches Pipe Jacking ADDITIONAL COSTS Contingencies Engineering Sen,;ces Legal/Administratil.e TABLE VI-l (cont.) OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING PRELIMINARY DESIGN UNIT COST DATA (2006 USD) ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Grass Channel Storm Sewer Detention Areas : Actil.e Recreation Area Open Space/Passil.e recreation Area BASIS FOR UNIT PRICE DATA: $625/LF 4 XPIPE COST 0.25 0.15 0.05 63/LF $1.25/LF $5000/AC $1250/AC Property Acquisition: The prices consider the al.erage conditions experienced during drainage construction. Excavation: The channel excavation price reflects the difficulties encountered when operating hea"Y equipment in an outfall channel and the problem of access to the outfall channels. Riprap: Reflects the cost of delil.ery and installat ion of rock ranging in size from 4" to 21". Seeding and Mulching: Reflects the cost of hydroseeding with ground preparation, including some manual labor. Storm Sewers: Reflects the costs for storm sewer construction including excavation, bidding, pipe, backfill, manholes, and mainline inlets. Additional local system laterals and mains are not included in this cost item. Sub-Regional Detention Ponds: Reflects the al.erage cost to construct a non-irrigated detention facility including appurtenances and outlets. Not all ponds included in the outfall analyses are sub-regional detention ponds, and do not include the cost of purchasing right-of-way. Right-of-Way Acquisition: These values reflect the cost to acquire raw land or portions of improl.ed land where the improl.ement will remain after construction. These values are representatil.e of current (2006) values for raw land for drainage acquisition purposes. Concrete Cull.erts: Includes cost of excavation, bedding, fuminshing, and installing pipe, compacted backfill, replacement of road surtace, and traffic control. Annual Operations and Maintenance: These costs are based on standard values used in the Denl.er Metro Area for storm drainage and master planning studies (adjusted from 1998 dollars). ---PAGE BREAK--- Detention Basin A S C D E F G I J K L LUTZ M2 M3 MV-2 0 P PCl PC1A PC1S PC2 PC2A PC3 PRESERVE a R S SAFEWAY SC T U V W X Z Total Detention Basins: Total Drainage Improvement Development Construction Name (As Costs Applicable) (TDIC) (Regional) $468,750 (Regional) $468.750 (Regional) $843,750 (Regional) $937,500 (Regional) $468,750 Brighton Lakes PUO $328,125 Brighton Lakes PUD $656,250 (Regional) $937,500 (Regional) $750,000 Inidgo Trails $0 Regional-Prairie Cnlr. $0 Prairie Cenler $0 Regional-Prairie Cntr. $0 Case Farms $0 Case Farms $0 (Regional) $0 Prairie Cenler $562,500 Prairie Cenler $0 Prairie Cenler $0 Prairie Center $0 Prairie Center $0 Prairie Center $0 The PreselVe $0 (Regional) $0 Regional·Prairie Cnlr. $281 ,250 Hishinuma Farms $0 Sugar Creek #1 $0 (Regional) $0 (Regional) $0 Bridge Crossing # 1 $515,625 Mountain View # 1 $590.625 (Regional) $0 Saleway S.C. $0 (Regional) $750,000 (Regional) $412,500 $8,971 ,875 TABLE VI·2 OUTFALL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS COST SUMMARY I. Detention Basins Engineering LegaU Annual Contingencies Services Admin R.O.W. Total O&M (25%TOIC) (15% TDIC) TDIC) Cost Cost Cost $117,188 $70.3t3 $23.438 $204.188 $883.875 $9,400 $117.188 $70.313 $23,438 $193,298 $872,985 $8,900 $210,938 $126.563 542,188 $323,978 $1 ,547,415 $14,900 $234,375 $140,625 546,875 $288,585 $1 ,647,980 $13,300 $117,188 $70,313 $23,438 $0 $679,688 N/A $82,031 $49,219 $t6,406 $210,449 $686,231 $9,700 $164,063 $98,438 $32,813 $296,753 $1 ,248,315 $13.600 $234,375 $140,625 546,875 $326,700 $1 ,686,075 $15,000 $187,500 $112,500 $37,500 $255,915 $1,343,415 $11 ,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N1A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N1A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N1A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N1A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $140,625 $84,375 $28, t25 $272,250 $1 ,087,875 $12,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N1A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N1A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $70,313 $42,188 $14,063 $117,068 $524,880 $5,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N1A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $128.906 $77,344 $25,781 $283,140 $1 ,030,796 $13.000 $147,656 $88,594 $29,531 $187,853 $1 ,044,259 $8,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $187,500 $112.500 $37,500 $236,858 $1 ,324,358 $10,900 $103,125 $61 .875 $20,625 $189,214 $787,339 $8,700 $2,242,969 $1,345,781 $448,594 $3,386,246 $16,395,464 $155,700 VI 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE V~2 (cant.) TABLE V~2 (cant.) OUTFALL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS OUTFALL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS COST SUMMARY COST SUMMARY II. Outfall Systems II. Outfall Systems Total Total Drainage Drainage Improvement Improvement Outfall Construction Engineering LegaV Annual Outfall Construction Engineering LegaV Annual System Costs Contingencies Services Admin R.O.W. Total O&M System Costs Contingencies Services Admin R.O.W. Total O&M Segment (TOIC) (25% TOIC) (15% TOIC) TOIC) Cosl Cost Cost Segment (TOIC) (25% TOIC) (15% TOIC) TOIC) Cost Cost Cost EOI $462.000 $115,500 $69,300 $23,100 $63,000 $732,900 $16,700 836 $477,325 $119,331 $71,599 $23,866 $29,400 $721,521 $6,700 E02 $94,600 $23,650 $14,190 $4,730 $42,600 $179,770 $12,000 837 $25,000 $6,250 $3,750 $1,250 $0 $36,250 $0 E03 $273,500 $68,375 $41,025 $13,675 $112,400 $508,975 $35,700 838 $225,500 $56,375 $33,825 $11,275 $62,600 $389,575 $14,500 E04 $246,600 $61,650 $36,990 $12,330 $0 $357,570 $2,400 839 $261,300 $65,325 $39,195 $13,065 $88,000 $466,885 $20,200 E05 $405,100 $101,275 $60,765 $20,255 $92,200 $679,595 $16,600 840 $424,125 $106,031 $63,619 $21,206 $37,400 $652,381 $7,300 E06 $359,900 $89,975 $53,985 $17,995 $0 $521,855 $2,600 841 $797,500 $199,375 $119,625 $39,875 $97,800 $1,254,175 $28,900 E07 $140,500 $35,125 $21,075 $7,025 $20,200 $223,925 $4,800 842 $970,200 $242,550 $145,530 $48,510 $45,000 $1,451,790 $6,400 E08 $49,200 $12,300 $7,380 $2,460 $12,400 $83,740 $5,100 843 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ell $240,200 $60,050 $36,030 $12,010 $0 $348,290 $1,100 844 $99,025 $24,756 $14,854 $4,951 $32,300 $175,886 $5,300 E12 $115,900 $28,975 $17,385 $5,795 $18,000 $186,055 $5,200 E13 $603,000 $150,750 $90,450 $30,150 $73,400 $947,750 $19,800 8ub·total E15 $128,100 $32,025 $19,215 $6,405 $30,900 $216,645 $9,300 South Outfalls: $24,683,050 56,170,763 53,702,458 51 ,234,153 $2,489,300 538,279,723 5489,200 Sub-total NOI $1,841,900 $460,475 $276,285 $92,095 $452,000 $3,122,755 $19,400 East Outfalls: 53,118,600 $779,650 $467,790 5155,930 $465,100 54,987,070 5131,300 N02 $836,300 $209,075 $125,445 $41,815 $272,200 $1,484,835 $17,500 N03 $1,288,900 $322,225 $193,335 $64,445 $327,400 $2,196,305 $16,000 801 $9,835,300 $2,458,825 $1,475,295 $491,765 $342,000 $14,603,185 $31,800 802 $1,276,300 $319,075 $191,445 $63,815 $300,200 $2,150,835 $20,500 Sub-total 803 $2,397,900 $599,475 $359,685 $119,895 $166,000 $3,642,955 $26,800 North Outfalls: $3,967,100 $991 ,775 5595,065 $198,355 $1,051,600 $6,803,895 $52,900 804 $148,200 $37,050 $22,230 $7,410 $62,000 $276,890 $15,100 805 $374,400 $93,600 $56,160 $18,720 $0 $542,880 $4,200 COl $1,542,000 $385,500 $231,300 $77,100 $14,100 $2,250,000 $10,800 807 $46,300 $11 ,575 $6,945 $2,315 $0 $67,135 $0 CO2 $216,900 $54,225 $32,535 $10,845 $0 $314,505 $1,400 810 $50,300 $12,575 $7,545 $2,515 $0 $72,935 $11,000 C03 $148,100 $37,025 $22,215 $7,405 $0 $214,745 $1,600 811 $123,800 $30,950 $18,570 $6,190 $0 $179,510 $10,600 C04 $976,600 $244,150 $146,490 $48,830 $0 $1,416,070 $5,400 813 $139.100 $34,775 $20,865 $6,955 $20,300 $221,995 $4,600 814 $318,100 $79,525 $47,715 $15,905 $19,400 $480,645 $3,400 Sub-total 815 $38,400 $9,600 $5,760 $1,920 $0 $55,680 $0 Core Outfalls: $2,883,600 5720,900 $432,540 $144,180 514,100 $4,195,320 $19,200 816 $138,500 $34,625 $20,775 $6,925 $26,300 $227,125 $8,400 817 $147,400 $36,850 $22,110 $7,370 $39,200 $252,930 $10,700 TotalOutfalls: $34,652,350 58,663,088 55,197,853 51 ,732,618 $4,020,100 $54,266.008 $692,600 818 $534,200 $133,550 $80,130 $26,710 $173,300 $947,890 $26,000 Total Detention 819 $393,600 $98,400 $59,040 $19,680 $137,100 $707,820 $30,800 Basins: 58,971,875 $2,242,969 51,345,781 5448,594 $3,386,246 516,395,464 $155,700 820 $543,000 $135,750 $81,450 $27,150 $51,400 $838,750 $12,300 821 $475,613 $118,903 $71,342 $23,781 $132,500 $822,138 $38,400 Grand Total: 543,624,225 $10,906,056 $6,543,634 52,181,211 57,406,346 570,661,472 5848,300 822 $75,000 $18,750 $11,250 $3,750 $25,900 $134,650 $6,300 823 $425,400 $106,350 $63,810 $21,270 $67,800 $684,630 $16,300 824 $168,313 $42,078 $25,247 $8,416 $12,000 $256,053 $2,000 825 $131,600 $32,900 $19,740 $6,580 $35,800 $226,620 $8,900 826 $91,400 $22,850 $13,710 $4,570 $35,200 $167,730 $9,900 827 $133,300 $33,325 $19,995 $6,665 $30,200 $223,485 $8,200 828 $111,300 $27,825 $16,695 $5,565 $0 $161,385 $1,100 829 $1,080,200 $270,050 $162,030 $54,010 $105,200 $1,671,490 $19,500 830 $770,900 $192,725 $115,635 $38,545 $38,600 $1,156,405 $9,000 831 $931,900 $232,975 $139,785 $46,595 $140,400 $1,491,655 $29,800 832 $321,800 $80,450 $48,270 $16,090 $118,100 $584,710 $17,700 S33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,500 834 $150,300 $37,575 $22,545 $7,515 $17,900 $235,835 $3,100 835 $31,250 $7,813 $4,688 $1,563 $0 $45,313 $0 VI 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- E. F. OUTFALL SYSTEM PRIORITIZATION The priority of the outfall system implementation and phasing is defined by both the need to provide an initial outfall system and by the locations and extent of future development. Since the locations and extent of future development is not known at this time, the outfall systems phasing based on development will be discussed in general terms. The first priority of the proposed outfall system should be the construction of the South Outfall System from the McCann Ditch to Chambers Road. This will provide the ability to drain runoff from the south area around the core City area, thus reducing existing runoff entering the City and providing the first segment for development south of the City. The second priority should include securing some of the sub-regional detention facility sites through permanent drainage easements andlor right-of-way purchase. If some of these properties become difficult to obtain, UD&FCD can provide assistance to the City or County as long as an adequate assurances agreement is in place between the City or County and the UD&FCD. The adequate assurance agreement provides assurances to UD&FCD that the City or County will follow through with implementation of the master plan. The third priority should be construction of initial outfall channels along the existing roadway system. This would allow development to occur in the interim until the ultimate outfall systems are fully constructed. The priority of the remaining outfall systems will be dictated by the location and extent of development. Critical to allowing development to occur will be the construction of the portion of the sub-regional detention basin necessary to serve the development under consideration. For example, if a project will develop 50 percent of the projected impervious area of a given sub-region, then at least 50 percent of the sub-regional detention basin serving that site shall be constructed prior to or with the project. Even in this case, the City or County should consider constructing the entire basin which will allow additional development in the sub-region to proceed further. Funds from the additional development could then be used to construct part of the ultimate outfall system. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE A major consideration in the design of improvements is the operation and maintenance aspects of the improvements. Maintenance of improvements is needed to assure that "design conditions" exist prior to flooding so that maximum flood reduction benefits can be derived. The operation and maintenance aspects of the major elements of outfall system improvements are as follows: Maintenance of the natural and grass-lined channels consists of periodic mowing of the channel sides and removal of debris and large deposits of sands and silts from the channel bottom. Maintenance also includes removal and replacement of damaged concrete trickle channels, repair of eroded banks, and repair of drop structures and erosion protection. Maintenance of culverts consists of debris removal, removal of sand and silt deposits from the culvert and stilling basins, and repair of damage caused by major storm events and vandalism. Decreases in culvert capacity due to sediment accumulations may cause streets to overtop or may increase the depth of street overtopping during the design storm event. The major benefit of any storm sewer system is that most drainageway maintenance problems are eliminated up to the design capacity of the system. The most critical maintenance item in the system are the storm inlets. If the inlets are either partially or completely clogged, the design flood peaks cannot be intercepted, and tlooding can result. To minimize the possibility of the inlets clogging, additional length of inlets are recommended by the inclusion of reduction factors applied to the computed capacity of the inlet. A regular debris removal program must be included to assure the system will operate properly. G. H. Other regular maintenance items include removal of the silt and sand deposits from manholes, inspection and repair of the sewer pipe, and cleaning of excessive deposits in the storm sewer pipe. Maintenance of the sub-regional detention facilities includes routine mowing; periodic removal of accumulated sand, silt, and debris; repair or replacement of erosion protection at drainage entrances to the basin; repair of bank sloughs; and brush and tree removal affecting embankment stability. In addition, the water quality outlets must be regularly maintained to avoid ponding of water for longer than the design release period. WATEROUALITY Water quality enhancement in the Brighton Watershed has been partially addressed by the proposed construction of extended detention within the sub-regional detention facilities. The amount of water quality capture volume provided by this plan in the sub-regional detention facilities is 395 A.F. This amount is based upon storage of runoff from a 5-year storm event and release of said runoff over a 40-hour period. This volume exceeds the requirements for water quality capture volume but also exceeds the required water quality release rates. The net effect results in a system that has water quality benefits equivalent to an approximate two-year water quality control volume release over 40 hours. The 25 sub-regional detention facilities are currently designed as "dry" detention basins (no permanent water pools). As such, the bottoms of the detention basins should be constructed above the existing groundwater table. The construction of permanent pools in these detention basins is an option during final design as long as the permanent pool does not encroach into the 5-year and I OO-year tlood control storage volumes presented herein. This amount exceeds the requirements for water quality capture volume since the plan provides for a 40-hour release of the 5-year storm event. Future development in the Brighton Watershed outside of the 25 sub-regions but draining to the South Outfall System should use best management practices for water quality enhancement. On-site detention for the remaining developing area should include 5-year extended detention within the on-site detention facility. In total, this outfall system plan will provide significant benefits to the quality of water entering the South Platte River. CONCLUSIONS The relatively flat topography and closed basins which make up the Brighton Watershed Area do not allow for a traditional "typical" outfall system design (i.e. few regional detention basins andlor a full conveyance system with no detention). [n addition, a "typical" outfall system would not provide significant groundwater recharge benefits on which the City of Brighton partially relies for its raw water supply. The proposed outfaU system of 25 sub-regional detention facilities and associated channels/storm sewers meets the requirements of an economic design which allows for gradual implementation as development occurs. The proposed plan also provides the desired groundwater recharge benefits while minimizing negative water quality impact on the South Platte River. The sub-regional detention facilities will also provide much needed open space and recreational opportunities for both existing and future Brighton residents. Implementation of this plan requires a commitment by the City of Brighton and Adams County to follow and promote the plan within the implementation guidelines provided in this report. The guidelines provide flexibility in the sizing and siting of the sub-regional detention facilities while maintaining the integrity of the entire outfall system. Finally, this plan provides a major benefit to Brighton in that future development will reduce the amount of both major and minor stormwater flows currently contributing to the flooding problems within the core City area. VI I I ---PAGE BREAK--- CHANGES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR OSP UPDATE DATED 2-2006 VI 12 SUB-REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITIES Since the 1998 version of the Brighton Watershed Outfall Systems Plan, numerous developments have been planned and/or built at locations containing planned sub-regional detention facilities. In some cases, a development's facility may coincide with the design parameters previously set forth for the sub-regional facility, and in others may not. For the former, minimal changes were made to the sub-regional detention basin at that location. In the latter and more common case, a planned or constructed development does not include the fuJI size or proper release rates for the sub-regional detention facility at that location. Using adjusted sub-watershed data, the development's facility was adapted to comply with storage and release requirements per the OSP. In some cases, multiple detention facilities within a development were treated as one for the purposes of master plan modeling. The "south" area now includes 21 sub-regional detention facilities, 9 of which are incorporated into developments as on-site facilities. The original OSP Detention Basin was deleted to adapt to constraints set forth by the Brighton Lakes PUD. Basins and were also altered for this development. Due to the undersized construction of Basin a new Basin was added at 144th Avenue and Chambers Road. The Prairie Center development, located primarily east of Buckley Road between Bromley Lane (152"d Avenue) and 136'" Avenue, utilizes a system of sequential detention facilities that outfall to four "primary" detention basins. All runoff from Prairie Center is designed to flow through one of these "primary" basins, which are designed to release at the rates set forth by the OSP for the corresponding sub-regional detention basins. These "on-site" sub-regional detention basins are "M2", and the Lutz Reservoir Detention Facility. A single detention basin for the Sugar Creek Subdivision and a collection of smaller detention basins in the vicinity of the Safeway Shopping Center work in conjunction to achieve a combined release rate consistent with the OSP Sub-region YY design. The "east" area includes 5 sub-regional detention facilities (no change from the 1998 OSP). Two of these are incorporated into developments as on-site facilities. Original Detention Basins and were altered to adapt to constraints set forth by the development plans for Bridge Crossing Filing #1 and Mountain View Estates Filing respectively. The Preserve and Mountain View Estates Subdivisions contain systems of detention facilities which, in combination, act per the OSP Sub-region WW and XX designs. Detention Basin was altered from the original plan to adapt to the Pheasant Ridge and Sugar Creek Subdivisions and to conform to the site plan for the Brighton Charter School. The Core City area contains one modeled detention facility located at Brighton Park. Improvements in this area as well as the service areas for the Brighton Park Lake detention facility and other "core" area outfalls are shown in Figure VI-2. In locations where multiple detention basins work in conjunction to achieve the design storage and release parameters for a particular sub-region, these basins are labeled as "Sub-regional Detention Systems" in the preliminary design drawings. All storage facilities in such a system must be publically owned and maintained to qualify as a complete sub-regional detention facility. OUTFALL CHANNELS AND STORM SEWERS The "east" subregions drain to a 100-year outfall channel (Reach El) along the north side of Baseline Road in a westerly direction until reaching the proposed north outfall channel (Reach N3). All flow from Reach El and all outflow from the Brighton Park Lake detention facility drain to Reach N3. The Core City area was initially master planned in 1991 by McLaughlin Water Engineers_ WRC Engineering, Inc_, was retained to investigate possible solutions to alleviate frequent flooding issues in specific areas within the City. However, even with the proposed systems in place, certain areas may still be exposed to flooding due to the 2-year or higher-frequency storm event. Three new systems are presented for the Core City area: 1. The Midland Street Outfall System consists of approximately 7900 feet of storm sewer ranging in size from 54-inch to 72-inch diameter and approximately 500 feet of outfall channel draining to the South Platte River. 2. The West Longs Peak Outfall System consists of approximately 1300 feet of 36-inch storm sewer, also draining to the South Platte River. 3. The 19th Avenue Storm Sewer consists of approximately 4350 feet of 66-inch storm sewer, draining to the existing north drainage channel and thereby to Brighton Park Lake. The areas serviced by these proposed systems, as well as by other outfalls from the Core City area, are presented in Figure VI-2. The "north" area contains l00-year outfall channels that drain all sub-watersheds (no sub-regions or detention basins are defined) in the that area to the South Platte River. The alignment of Reach Nt is along Weld County Road 2.5 from the outfall to a point approximately 3400 feet east, where the channel diverges to Reaches N2 and N3. Reach N2 generally serves the "north" area drainage basins to the east of the junction, and Reach N3 primarily conveys flows from the "east" area via Reach El and the Core City area via Brighton Park Lake. Certain storm water conveyance facilities, such as those connecting one detention basin to another in a sequential detention system, are considered to be "on-site" and are therefore not considered a part of this design. However, these conveyance facilities may be eligible for District maintenance provided that they are designed and constructed per UD&FCD standards. IMPROVEMENT COSTS ESTIMATES Right-of-way costs were not included for detention basins and outfall channels that are indicated to be contained within existing or planned developments. The grand total improvements cost (in 2006 dollars) for the outfall systems studied herein is estimated as approximately $70,661,472. ---PAGE BREAK--- vn. REFERENCES I. Hydrology Report Outfall Systems Planning. Brighton Watershed Tributary to South Platte River, WRC Engineering, Inc., December 29, 1996. 2. Alternative Evaluation Report. Outfall Systems Planning. Brighton. Watershed Tributary to South Platte River, WRC Engineering, Inc., July 24,1997. 3. Soil Survey of Adams County Colorado, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, October, 1974. 4. Adams County Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria, Adams County, Colorado, February 1989. 5. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, March 1969, Revised May 1975, Revised May 1984. 6. Colorado Urban Hydrography Procedure Computer Program- PC Version (CUHPF/PC2) User Manual , Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, January 1985. 7. UDSWM3-PC, A Personal Computer Digital Model for Rainfall/Runoff Prediction and Watershed Simulation, Users Manual , Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, January, 1989. 8. Drainage Outfall Systems Planning. City of Brighton, McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd., July 1991 . 9. Brighton Basin Master Drainage Plan, Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc., August 1973. 10. Southeast Brighton Drainage Improvement Project, ARD<, September, 1979. II . Final Drainage Report for Bromley Creek Filing NQ. I, P.R. Fletcher and Associates, Revi sed July, 1995. 12. Drainage Report Mountain View Estates, AckJam Associates, August 17, 1995. 13. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, City of Brighton, December, 1989. 14. Adams County Transportation Plan, Felsburg, Holt, UIevig, April 1996. \ II ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWINGS ---PAGE BREAK--- BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO SOUTH PLATTE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING , 36 ~_STUDY AREA BOUNDARY ) C· ) c' 17 SCALE: 1" = 5000' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CITY OF BRIGHTON. ADAMS COUNTY. URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DECEMBER, 2006 UJ~c ~NGI~~~NG.INC.~ ~ 950 SOUTH CHERRY STREET. SUITE 404 DENVER, COLORADO 80246 (303)757-8513 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 1 No improvements are proposed on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- N 790.000 499< I ·5002 II 71UlOO ~:110.l N laII,OOO SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 . ~f~~r-fsl~ TlSI"'f) ~ 4 t:ia H~t r~ tt ~ - H'J § . r ' 911' I AVE 496411 II II ~ ~ II 1\ 1\ I' ~ \ \ 491 • • '9~1I • " <9621 '9&0. 411601 \ \ LEGEND '9~2.6 '9!>1.1 '953,7 495< J <9601 49541 4'lSI O 1 ' 96(11 ' 9~9 7 495< • ' 95< , 9 I ' 956 J WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON OTY Ut.4ITS '9~2 2 '9~21 j 495' • DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA MASTER PlAN FAClunES • STORM SE\\£R ) ( CULVERT EAST 168th 495211 " '9~.1 , , <952 I 4953 I 4955.2 '9528 . 9528 '9530 ' 9~O 495211 495_ J I 495< • 49542 4957.i 4995 , 49!>" <95< \ 4954 a <9550 495< I ' • '9'\061 '956.1 . 956 • 49570 4955.11 MATCH SEE SHEET 2 NOTES: 1. THIS ORA'MNG IS FOR ~ASTER PLANNING PURPOsrS AND REPRESENTS PREU~INARY AND CONc[PTUAL ENGINEERING_ ALTERNATIvtS TO THIS OUTf'ALL S'fSID.I 'Mll. BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVlE'MNG AGENOES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND f'lOOO CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATlvt OFfERS EOUAL HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE ALTERNATlV[ MUST CQt.lPlY 'MTH ALl REQUIREMENTS ~ THE LOCAL JURISDICTION AND THE URBAN DRAlNAG{ AND FtOOO CONTROL DISTRICT. THIS DRA'MNG SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHO~ ON THIS DRAWiNG ARE IN EFFECT AS Of JANUARY, '9913. <952 I .9561 '9531 '952 • <952 , 0952.1 '9521 4952.1 . .\IIe WETlAND TYPE VEGETATION (TYP,) ~ <952,2 LA~~ '953.7 5 '931.1) 49<1.0 4956 2 '9~,1 49!>6.' PREU~INARY DESIGN INFORMATION fOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fACIUTlES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET S13 . N !II!I.~ ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION fAOUTY MUST CQt.lPLY 'MlH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fACIUTY IMPlEMENTATION GUIDEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFAll. PlANNING DOCUMENT If A OO....,...STREAM SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAOUTY AND CONvtYANCE SYSm.t(S) ARE IN PlACE, All. OCYElOf'~ENT UPSTREAM 'MTHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'Mll. BE All.O'llC) TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE fl.OWS INTO THE OUTFALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 2 No improvements are proposed on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- " 7&7.500 -jO. " 1811.000 - SHEET INDEX R67 i R66 T15 ~ . 4~1 , ' 9627 4~7.0 '9~79 4~1.0· 4:/41 a 41161.' 4~61 9 6 LEGEND MASTER PLAN FAClunES • ) ( MATCH SEE SHEET 1 4 . 959 • 4!IM6 4962_7 . ' '.l606 . 49(11.0 I r " 496164%0.1 MATCH § SEE SHEET 11 ~ WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UMITS DETENTlON BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM SE'ft£R CUL'vUH 49532 49!17.2 4957 4 <959 7 <959 < NOTES: 1 THIS DRA'MNG IS FOR MASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUt.lINARY AND CONCEPTU,t,l ENGINEERING. ,t,lTERNATlVES TO THIS OUTfALL WILL BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REV1E'NING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DR.tJNAG( AND flOOD CONTROl DISTRICT PROV1O£D THE ALTERNATlVE OFfERS EOUAL H'I't)RAUUC CAPACITY 4956 1 4957.5 AND STR(MA STABIUTY THE ,t,lTERNATI\ot: I.IUST COMPlY 'NITH ALL REOUIRBIENTS OF THE LOC,t,l AND THE URBAN ORAiNAGE AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. THIS DRA'MNG SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTlON PURPOSES. 49501 , . N 786.'!IOCI . ~ V> J:l V> S N 7 .000 PREUt.lINARY DESIGN INFORMATlON FOR SUBREGIONAL DE"TENTlON FACILITlES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANG[ IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATlON OF A SUBREGIONAL OETENTlON FAOUTY MUST COOPL Y WITH THE SUBREGlON,t,l OETENTlON FAOUTY IMPlEt.IENTATlON GUIOOJNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTfALl. SYSTEMS PLANNING DOOJI.IENT IF A OOVINSTREMA SUBREGlON,t,l OE"TENTlON FAOUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PlACE. AU. DEVELOPMENT UPSTREMA 'NITHIN 'THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WILL BE ALLO'NED TO RELEASE UNOElAINEO ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTfAll DRAINAGE SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 3 Presented on Sheet 3 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems E I, N3, and C I. The improvements were designed for nood peaks based on future development and a lOO·year recurrence period with the exception of Reach C I. Reach C I was designed to reduce flooding resulting from the minor storm event The lOtal costs of improvements for the outfall systems on this sheet are as follows: Outfall Sheet System Improvement Improvement Number Segment Description Cost 3 C01 Channel $71,000.00 3 C01 Storm Sewer $703,000.00 3 C01 Storm Sewer $631,000.00 3 E01 Channel $41,000.00 3 N03 Channel $163,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- N 7110,000 "78!1,~ I ' 9~2 5 ~ ~ WETlAND 'TYPE VEGETATI.QIlI. ('TYP.) 0955.0 496d.5 .9581 4910.1 j,T - 1 4ETATiON' 'iff I ' r,m. ~ !Q'frl ' IF 1\ e' , I I I ' I' I. -'D.I ' [ II ' , I " ~ f- - -I i - J~ 49~B '977~ _ '9772 ~ I H 74, 1 I Jt mH _ -=s:J5- 7 r- ·nn - MATCH SEE SHEET 4 I 9 7! n - . - - ID n i"nr ~ r 1/ \ ) I 1 lr ---ii'E~ioVE-EX 36" 1r LEGEND MASTER PLAN fACIUTIES • ) ( WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY Ut.lITS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORt.I SE~ CULVERT a-tANNEl W/R.O.W DETENTION BASiN NOTES: 1. THIS DRAWING IS FOR t.lASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUt.4INARY AND CONCEPT\JAL ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTFALl. S't'STEM WIll. BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND Fl.OOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATlVE OfITRS EQUAL HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREA1.4 STASIUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE t.4UST Cot.IPLY WITH ALl. REQUIR£t.lENTS Of' THE LOCAL ..uRtSOICTlON AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. THIS DRAWING SHALl. NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. ..uRtSOICTlONAL BOUNDARIES SHO\IIN ON THIS ORA'MNG ARE IN EFFECT AS OF JANUARY. 1998. J THIS PLAN REOU1RES THAT THE CITY Of' BRIGHTON AND AOAI.4S COUNTY ZONE. MANAG£. AND REGULAlt DEVELOPMENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOl.tt.lENDATIONS Of' THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT FlOOD DAt.lAGES RElATED TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT / 4. PREUt.lINARY OESIGN INFORt.lATION FOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION F ACiUTlES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION OF A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY t.lUST CONPLY WITH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY IMPLEMENTATION GlIIDEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFAll S't'STEMS PlANNING DOOJt.4ENT 5. IF A OO¥1NSTREAt.I SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACiUTY AND CONVEYANCE S'I"STEM(S) ARE IN PlACE. ALl. DEVELOPMENT UPSTREAW WITHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'MLl BE AlLOIII(D TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE FlOWS INTO THE OUTFALl. ORAiNAGE SYSTEM 6. PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 4 Presented on Sheet 3 arc the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems C I, C2, and C3. The improvements were to reduce nooding resulting from the minor storm event. The lotal costs of improvements for the outfall systems on this sheet are as follows: Outfall Sheet System Improvement Improvement Number Segment Description Cost 4 C01 Storm Sewer $489,000.00 4 C01 Storm Sewer $355,000.00 4 CO2 Storm Sewer $314,000.00 4 C03 Storm Sewer $215,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- MATCH SEE SHEET 3 \ \ \ ~ 8~76 5 I t H770 I U HI \ 2600 LF 5.5' DIA. RCP \ \ \ I '~711_6 I I I I r~ / J SHEET INDEX TlS '962.9 4'l'!1 • . 1 WALNUT ST ~D lYPE VEGETATlON' (lYP.) , , '1130 LF I 4.5 DI:4~' RCP , I 4~1e • REACH C2 ~ SEE ~ROfllE 915' SHEEr 103 , " z "~1IO.3 , I } I / ' I I I I I \ \ \ \ Vl 6 '9a' • LEGEND ~R PLAN FACILITlES • < ) ( - - WATERSHEO BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY U~ITS DElENTlON BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM SEWER OJLVERT CHANNEL WIRO W. NOTES: THIS DRAWING IS FOR MASTER PLANNING PURPOS£S AND REPRESENTS PREUh4INARY AND CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING AL TERNA llV'ES TO THIS (lUff AU SYSTEN WIll. BE BY LOCAL RE""'EWING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONTROL DISTRICT PRO""OEO THE ALTERNATIVE OFF£RS EOUAL HYDRAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STA8IUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE t.lUST CC»JPLY 'MTH ALL REOUIREI.IENTS OF THE LOCAL .AJRISOICTlON AND THE URBAN [)R.tJNAGE AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT THIS DRAWING SHAll NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2 ,JJRISOICTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHO'IIN ON TI-iIS DRA'MNG ARE IN EmCT AS OF JANUARY. 1998 " I PREUh4INARY DESIGN INfORMATION fOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FAClUTlES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANG( IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl. DETENTION rAOUlY ~UST COMPLY 'MTli THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY I~PlEMENTATlON GUloruNES PRESENlro IN THIS OUTFAll SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUMENT 5 If A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION fACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PLACE. All DEVElOP~ENT UPSTREAM 'MTl-IIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'MLL BE AllO'NED TO RElEASE UNDETAlNEO ON-SITE flO'NS INTO TliE OUTfAll DRAINAGE SYSTEM 3 THIS PLAN REQUIRES THAT THE CITY OF BRIGHTON AND 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE AOAMS COUNTY ZONE. MANAGE. AND REGULATE aTY OF BRIGHTON (OR AO.4.MS COUNTY) AND THE UO&fCD. DEVELOPt.lENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WTH ANY POTENTIAL USER SHOULD CONTACT TliE LOCAL ~ : : ~ TliE RECOMt.lENDA TlONS Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO REVlE'MNG AGENCY fOR ANY REVISIONS OF THE PlAN • • T ' DETENTlON BASIN PREVENT flOOD D.4.MAGES RElATED TO fUruRE IN TliE NEARBY VlONITY 200 100 0 200 400 D£VELOPt.lENT \ \ II J 7 OAruM: VERTlCAL - NA'vU 1968 - 0 ORIGINAl SCALE; ,"-200' DETENTION BASIN OUTlET HORIZONTAL - NAD 1963- 1992 ~ ~ ~ TOWNSHIP_LS.._ VJ~C g~~~ED ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING " RANGE.§"'~" _ - CHECKED OATE ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED lAkE'MXlO. COlORADO 80m SEcnoN_~!L2~_ 7~-~1J REVlSED.....!aL DATE I..U2QQfi ~ c AS-BUtLT OAIT URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 5 Presented on Sheet 5 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems C4, E I, E2, E3, E 13 and E 14. The improvements were designed for flood peaks based on future development and a J OO-year recurrence period with the exception of Reach C4. Reach C4 was designed lO reduce flooding resulting from the minor storm event. Detention Basin X is also presented on this sheet. The Detention basin was designed to have a 40 hour release rate for 5-year storm events and a 0.1 cfs /acrc release rate for 100- year storms The improvements for Outfall System E 1 includes a 1600 foot grass lined channel with a concrete lrickle channel. A proposed 66" RCP culvert and a 42" RCP storm sewer are also presented on this sheet. The improvements for Outfall System E2 includes a 2130 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System E3 includes a 400 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System E 13 includes a ll 00 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel and drop structures. Also presented on this sheet for this Outfall System are a proposed double 72" reinforced concrete box culvert, a proposed double 60" reinforced concrete box culvert, a 24" Rep Detention Basin Outlet. Outfall system E 14 consists of a trickle channel within Detention basin X The total costs of improvements for the outfall systems on this sheet are as follows: Sheet Number 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Outfall System Segment C04 E01 E01 E01 E01 E01 E02 E03 E13 E1 3 E13 E13 E13 Improvement Improvement Description Cost Storm Sewer $293,000.00 Channel $221,000.00 Culvert $85,200.00 Jacking $126,900.00 Jacking $126,900.00 Storm Sewer $132,000.00 Channel $180,000.00 Channel $35,000.00 Channel $114,000.00 Culvert $311,900.00 Culvert $154,700.00 Pond Outlet/Culvert $54,900.00 Detention Basin X $1,324,357.50 ---PAGE BREAK--- I ' '1722 I I <9726 I I 491\ 0 60" I I I I I SHEET 116 4972 2 I If I II PROTEcn ON . )7 t " REACH 2083+60.77 - 1 1 '1 • " " REACH El~ STA. 2500+00 = LOCAL INFILTRATION BASIN I' 1-1 V 100 6.03 AC. II. I '1'1 Q100 = 0 ACu Ff. till 8 Ii .1 4 :1 . 0 "17;'6 n~n' 49'61 I L I ~ I 116 \ i',I:1 .J i:ji 6 I IL - - - _lfs-t:~ - - _ (2)8'xS' RC8C ' 9762 RCBC <976 2 I ! 491. . r- - - - I - I '9H~ - - L 2 , 4970 6 I 4916 ~ '1180' ' 9&.1 on I EXIST, t9H8 EX. J6~ 4a-x.6S- ·1~·6 I I <9792 I 0 h l I,l l 09,j I I 4977.!! I 1_ m u ~ 00: ~ .llb ...J.971. X ' ~ ~ 4,,70.J CHANNEL " w l I ~ ~~19 I. I • 4glt l I II . I g'xS' o . _ _ _ _ o - - -I : SHEET INDEX R67 l R66 TIS 200 100 0 200 400 1 1 ORIGINAL SCAlE: 1"-200' :;()t,jAN;1( ~ PllOOUCEO BY TOWNSHIP 7~ wrST SUUl 2\ RANGE I EX. 24'" - - - LEGEND MASTER PLAN FAClunES • ) ( - 8 : : 8 0 WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UMITS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY ,\REA STORt.I SEWER OJLVERT CHANNEL W/R.O.W DE'fENTlON BASIN DETENTION BASIN OUlUT CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY STA. 2503+84.57 STA. 2560+00. . V, = 15.7 AC. FT. V 100 = 44.3 AC. FT 0'00' (OUT) = 27 CFS 0,00 (IN) = 547 CFS R.O.W. = 8.7 ACRES (SEE SHEET 200) ~ 169,!>OO ~ 0 IJ) I , 1. 520' NOTES: THIS OR"Vt1NC IS fOR MASlER PLANNING PURPOSES AND R[PRf$£NTS PREUIo4INARY AND CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING AI.. TERNA l1'JES TO THIS OUTF AU. SYSTEM WILL BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REIJIE'MNG AGENC1ES AND niE o URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROl DISTRICT PROIJIOED THE ALTERNATIve: OffERS EQUAL H'l'URAUUC CAPACITY 2 AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE ALTERNATIve: MUST CQt.lPLY WITH ALL REOUIREIoI[NTS OF fli[ lOCAL JURISDICTION AND TliE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOD CONTROL DISTRICT THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES ..AJRISOICllONAL BOUNDARIES SHO~ ON THIS DRAWING ARE IN (ffECT AS Of JANUARY. 1996 3 TllIS PlAN REQUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND ADAMS COUNTY ZONE. MANAGE. AND REGULA'fE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS WA 'fERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOUt.lENDA TIONS Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT flOOD DAAlAGES RElA'fED TO FUTURE DEVELOPt.lENT WETLAND TYPE , \ \ 1119,000 VEGETAnON (TYP.) , PREUt.llNARY DESIGN INF"ORt.lAllON FOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAOUllES IS PRESENTEO ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl DE'fENTION fAaUTY MUST COOPLY WITH THE SUBREGIONAL DE'fENTION fACIUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDEUNES PRESENTED IN nilS OUTfALL SYS'fEMS PlANNING DOCUt.lENT IF A OO'M'lSTREM( SUBREGIONAL OETENTION FAC1UTY AND CONV'EYANC[ SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PLACE. ALL OE'vUOPI.4[NT UPSTREAM 'M n-tIN rn T TRIBUTARY WATERSHEC WlLL BE ALLOWED TO RELEASE UNDETAlNEO ON-SITE FLOWS INTO THE OUTFALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANCES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE aTY Of BRIGHTON (OR ADAMS COUNTY) AND THE UD&fCD ANY POTENTIAl USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL RE'v1EWlNG AGENCY fOR ANY REV1S1ONS Of THE PLAN IN THE NEARBY V1aNITY. 7. DATUt.I: VERTlCAl.. NA'vO 1988 HORIZONTAL - NAn 1963-1992 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN LAArWOOO, COlORADO 80m SE c nON _ti·-1Lz..~_ PHON[ 30) 92.2-2*\1 FAX (Jru) 922- 2866 DESIGNED --.llL DRAWN CHECKED REVISED ~ AS-BUILT 0An: 0An: 0An: 0An: 0An: URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER SHEET 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 6 Presented on Sheet 6 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems C4, E3, and E IS. The improvements were designed for flood peaks based on future development and a I OO-year recurrence period with the exception of Reach C4. Reach C4 was designed to reduce flooding resulting from the minor storm event. Detention Basin V is also presented on this sheet. Detention Basin V was designed to have a 40 hour release rate for 5-year storm and a 0.1 efs lacre release rate for I DO-year storms The improvements for Outfall System E3 includes a 3300 root grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System E IS includes a 1000 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. A 24" Rep is also presented on this sheet. The 10lal costs of improvements on this sheet is as fo llows: Outfall Sheet System Improvement Improvement Number Segment Description Cost 6 C04 Storm Sewer $764,000.00 6 E03 Channel $95,000.00 6 E03 Channel $202,000.00 6 E15 Channel $185,000.00 6 E15 Pond Outlet/Culvert $31,300.00 6 E15 Detention Basin V $0.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I I I I _ _ - I <9789 SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 TlS / / I I ) I I I ~ I I \ 13 ~ \ :0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ PROOUa:O BY TOWNSHIP 7~ WEST SUIT( 2, RANGE...§~,- l.AKEWOOO, COLOIU.oo 80m SECnON_~._!.I..J_~_ PHONE. (lOJ) U2-2'11 F.u, 922-2866 , r, 200 100 0 200 I ORIGINAL SCALE: 1"_200' MANOR W~ y 49l&.$. - ! DESIGNED ---1IL DRAWN ~ CHECKED REVISEO ~ AS-BUILT ' 9!'lOl " , LEGEND MASTER PlAN FAClunES • < ) ( \ , 9907 '98l' I ~ ,q~2 1 SEE SHEET 5 I PROTECTION SHEET 117 1 (1YP.) '9 ~11 @ . 99,.9 <99' 1 MATCH SEE SHEET 15 WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY W ,TS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM S(II!(R CULVERT CHANNEL VI/ROW DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN OUTlET CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY 520' ~~ln- DETENTION BAIlIN Y V, v,oo WETlAND 1YPE VEGETATIoN (1YP.) 0'00 19.2 CFS R.O.W. = 5.8, ACRES (SEE SHEET 200) I: NOTES: THIS DRAWING IS fOR MASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREU~INARY mD CONCEPTUAl ENGINEERING. AlTERNATlvt:S TO THIS OUTfALl SYSTEt.I WIll BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATlvt: OffERS EOUAL HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREA~ STABIUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE ~UST COMPLY WITH AlL RECMJIRELIENTS Of THE LOCAL JURISDICTION AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. THIS DRAWING SHAll NOT BE USED fCJ!: CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES 2. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS ORA'MNG ARE IN EFFECT AS Of JANUARY, 1998 3 THIS PlAN REOUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND ADALIS COUNTY ZONE, LlANAGE. AND REGUlATE DEvt:LOPMENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS Of THIS PLAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT flOOD DAMAGES RElATED TO FUTURE DEVELOPLIENT II :loQI , N 787 II II ~ II ~ II f;l II ~ , 1'1 IF. I I~ I~ II~ II II II Jl~ , : = - - = PREUMINARY DESIGN INfORMATION FOR SUSREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAOUTY MUST CQt.lPL'I" 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FAaUTY IMPlEMENTATION GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN nilS OUTFAll SYSTEMS PL,I,NNING DOCULIENT. 5 If A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION fAOUTY AND CONVEYANC{ SYST04(S) ARE IN PLACE. All DEVELOPMENT UPSTREA/r,j 'MTHIN lHAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'MLL SE AllOWED TO RELEASE UNDETAINEO ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFALl DRAINAGE SYSTEt.I 6 !mY PROPOSED CHANGES LlUST BE APPROVED BY lliE OTY Of BRIGHTON (OR AD",",S COUNTY) AND THE UD&fCO ANY POTENTIAl. USER SHOUtD CONTACT THE LOCAL R[VlE'MNG AGENCY fOR ANY REVISIONS Of THE PlAN IN THE NEARBY VlONITY 7 DATU"': VERTICAL - NA'-1l 1988 HORIZONTAL - NAD 1963-1992 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN DATE DATE DATE DATE ""TE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER SHEET 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 7 Presented on Sheet 7 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems EI2 and E13. The improvements were designed for naod peaks based on future development and a I OO-year recurrence period The improvements for Outfall System E12 includes a 930 fool grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. Also presented on this sheet for this Outfall System is a proposed triple 60" reinforced concrete pipe culvert. The improvements for Outfall System E 13 includes a 2425 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel and drop structures. A lso presented on this sheet for this Outfall System is a proposed triple 60" reinforced concrete pipe culvert. The total costs of improvements for Outfall Systems E 12 and E 13 on this sheet is as follows: Outfall Sheet System Improvement Improvement Number Segment Description Cost 7 E12 Channel $76,000.00 7 E12 Culvert $110,300.00 7 E12 $0.00 7 E13 Channel $76,000.00 7 E13 Channel $126,000.00 7 E13 Culvert $110,300.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- N ,~.OOO 24" RCP ili t:l FUTURE 30" RCP - ~ . I I I ~ I C~ 1 SHEET 120 ~Ia '-PJill!ffiQ~~~'.2 NORTH \ V 100 1.00 AC. FT. ,00 ~ 11.1 CFS DETENTION BASIN MV·2 SOUTH (2 PONDS) 100 5.62 AC. FT. 0 ,00 ~ 53.1 CFS , ~'ROOUC£D gy ~ TOWNSHIP_LS.._ VJ~C f,\Iw~m~ g~~~ED~ = CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING i. "00 rr'' RANG,-6JLl'L I. CHECKED DATE ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED L.Al(E'fIOOO. COl.OII-'D(l 80m SECTION_~_!L2_1_ ~'NO~l :fl:-~Il REVlSED.....t.e.!L. DATE ~ > 19600>0' "'-BUILT OATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 9 No improvements are proposed on this sheet ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET INDEX R67 : R66 T1S _ i / w / . I )l ~ 516&6 5166,1 5156 I LEGEND MASTER PlAN FAClunES • ) ( ~IJ7 5 5150_3 WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY W.tITS 5077 5148.8 DETENTION BASiN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM S(v.(R CULVERT ~l 40 .J 51<1 I sin.? ~UO.9 5140.& 5148.3 51218 NOTES: 1. THIS DRA'MNG IS FOR t.AASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRES£NTS PREUMINARY AND CONC£PTUAL ENGINEERING. AL TERNATlVES TO THIS OUTFAlL SYSTEM 'MLL BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVlEWlNG AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATIve: OfFERS EOUAl HYDRAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STA8IUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE MUST COMPlY WITH AlL REOUIREI.4ENTS OF" THE LOCAL .lJRISOICliON AND TliE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. THIS DRAWING SHAll NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2, JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES StiOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE IN EFFECT AS Of JANUARY, 1996. , 5101-\ ! ~ . 510lP !>O990 \ N 799,000 5100 J I I N 71;1lj.~ 4. PRELIMINARY OESIGN INFORMA nON FOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTlON FACIUTIES IS PRESENT([) ON SHEET 66 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION OF A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FAOUTY MUST COMPLY 'NlTH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFAll SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUMENT. 5. IF A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION F ACIUTY AND CONytYANCE SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PLACE. All DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAM 'MTHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSliED 'N1LL BE AllOWED TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFALl ORAINACE SYSTEM. PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 10 No improvements are proposed on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- > • N 1B8.000 I ~1111.1 ,I , ! ;1 ~'Z~6 N ?1j7.~ 1"V co < ~1:re.6 8 I 11111 ~ \ J: Ul ~ I ~ , N 7117.000 ~ , J I , I J. I II \ I: I I ~Ul J II I i . 3 I r I' 1 - · - 1 1. If) I - - 1- I I /11 ~llHCAL DETENTION PONd ! I V",o 1.55 AC. FT." t, 0"'0 = 9.8 FT, I I ~ ~11~ ~ _ ~'19" ~ I' ~ ! r-f - l I • ! 1' 1 I ~1126 " I . 'I " I ! , , I MATCH SEE SHEET 9 ~109.l i\ I ~1 q"j III 5'll 9 ~ l l27 If t il - - ~ . - . - . - . - -460~ . • - . - . - . J ~ L _ I ~ ~ SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 A~:~DG PIIODUa:D BY TOWNSHIP 7!1O(1 'IllEST "'SS/S~ AvtNUE. SUIT[ 21 RANGE_6..§~,- l.AI(E"foOOO. COLORADO 80212 SECnON_~._!L2_L PI+ONE- (JOll 92.2-2.11 rAX:. (.30l) 922-2866 _k o 200 ORIGINAl SCALE: 1"-200' ' 00 I OESIGNED~ ORAWN ~ CHECKED REVISED ~ AS-BUILT LEGEND MASTER PlAN FACIUTIES • ) ( - MATCH SEE SHEET .19 ~ WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UI-.lITS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM SEYI£R CULVERT CHANNEL W/RO.W. DETENTION BASiN DETENTION BASIN OUTLET CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY NOTES: 1. Tl-US DRA'NING IS FOR MASTER PLANNING PURPOSES ANO REPRESENTS PREUMINARY AND CONCEPTUAl ENGINEERING AlTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTFAll 'NILL BE CONSIOERED BY LOCAL REVlE'MNG AC£NCIES AND THE URBAN ORAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATIVE OffERS EOUAL H'YORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STASIUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE MUST COMPLY 'NITH All REOUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL JURISOtCTION ANO Tl-iE URBAN ORAlNAC£ AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. THIS DRA'MNG SHALL NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2 "uRISOICTlONAL BOUNOARIES SHOI'fN ON THIS DRA'MNG ARE IN EFfECT AS Of JANUARY. 1998 J Tl-iIS PLAN REQUIRES THAT niE OTY Of BRIGHTON AND AOAMS COUNTY ZONE, MAN AGE, AND REGULATE OEVELOPI.4ENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCOfiDANCE 'MTH 'fliE RECOMt.lENOA TIONS Of 'fliIS Pl.AN IN ORDER TO PRE¥'£NT flOOD D.AJ.4AGES RElATED TO FUTURE OEVELOPMENT OATE OATE OATE OATE OATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S, PLAnE RIVER N 7l1li,000 N 11I7.~OO I . I I N 7117.000 I I " '1I6,~OO ~'OO J ~Iot~ ~ ~ N l!11$.OOO ~ 5 5'06! • ~111 3 A 51011.6 j T6'Q1to AVEJ1U£ BRIGI/TON ~ - - - • ~ I ADAMS COUNTY " " " I , PREUt.lINARY OESIGN INFORt.lATlON fOR SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FACIUTIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/Ofi LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL OETENTION FAOUN MUST COMPLY 'NITH THE SUBREGIONAL OETENTION fACIUTY IMPlEMENTATION CUIDEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUMENT S IF A OO'M4STRE.AJ.4 SUBREGIONAL OETENTION FAOUN AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PLACE. ALL OEVElOPMENT UPSTREAI.4 'M THIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSl-IED 'NILL BE ALLOWEO TO RELEASE UNDETAINEO ON-SITE FLOWS INTO THE OUTFAll ORAINAGE SYSTEI.4 6. ANY PROPOSEO CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ON Of BRIGHTON (OR ADAMS COUNTY) ANO THE UD&FCD ANY POTENTIAL USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL REVlE'MNG AGENCY FOfi ANY REVISIONS Of THE PLAN IN THE NEARBY VlONITY 7. DATUI.4: VERTICAl - NAVO 1988 HORIZONTAL - NAO 19a1-1992 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 11 Presented on Sheet II are the proposed improvements for Outfall System S I. The improvements were designed for flood peaks based on future development and a I OO-year recurrence period. The improvements for Outfall System S I includes a 2100 foot wetlands bottom channel. The total costs of improvements for the Outfall System on this are as follows: Sheet Number 11 Outfall System Segment S01 Improvement Description Channel Improvement Cost $679,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- 711~,ooo N 711<,!loOO N 7114,000 SHEET INDEX TIS , 4970.2 - I , 4 Hil 49711 491110 OM1} 49111 J 497U 200 100 0 200 I . 4\16.1 491)4 9 4966.J 49702 0 9~9 0 09~0 496j.1 49111 < LEGEND MASTER PlAN FACIUTlES • < ) ( • 4963.0 496!>.J ~ ~ ! MATCH SEE SHEET 2 ! { 4911211 <'1'82.7 WETLAND TYPE VEGETATION TYP. 49111.6 49111.0 4I1fil.11 " 9111 1 196J.0 - = = ~ , I' I ~ 711~.000 I '-11 DITJ W WETlAND 4116C:i l' . N 7114, !loOO WETLANDS BOTTOM 496~ 1 411fi,4 4 90!5~.1 MATCH SEE SHEET 12 WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY WAITS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STOOI.I SE\Io£R CULVERT CHANNEL W/R.O W. DETENTION BASIN CHANNEL W 100 R.OJ/l;" .962.; 41t6J 4 -!lS~EE~PlAI.IS COUNTY) AND THE UD&FCO ANY POTENTIAL USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCY FOR ANY REVISIONS OF THE PLAN IN THE NEARBY VICINITY DATUt.I: VERTICAL - NAW 1958 ORIGINAL SCALE: 1"-200' DETENTION BASiN OUTlET HORIZONTAL - NAD 1983-1992 i l TOWNSHIP_ L.S _ w~c g~~~ED* ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING PRELIMINARY SHEET " rr,, RANGE-R1J'~ CHECKED OATE = ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED DESIGN PLAN " " SECTION2L1L2_ 1~ 1""1 OATE ~ TRIBUTARY TO S PLAnE RIVER 11 ; PHON( (lOJ i 2.2- 2417 r ~ · (.103) Q22- 1866 rAJ( JOJ 7~-J2OI!I AS-BUILT DATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT . ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 12 Presented on Sheet 12 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems S I and S43. The improvements were designed for flood peaks based on future development and a IOO-year recurrence period. The improvements for Outfall System S I includes a 2300 foot wetlands bottom channel and a 2200 wetland channel. Outfall system S 1 also includes two triple 6' x 12' Reinforce concrel.e box culverts. A proposed 54" storm sewer in Outfall System S43 is presented on this sheet. The total costs of improvements for the Outfall System on this sheet are as follows: Outfall Sheet System Improvement Improvement Number Segment Description Cost 12 S01 Channel $884,000.00 12 S01 Culvert $420,500.00 12 S01 Culvert $297,700.00 12 S43 Storm Sewer ---PAGE BREAK--- N 1a2.5OO N 782.000 N 7SI.SIlO N 18',000 N 180,SOO 4910.2 '97011 097';11 49XU 49110.6 <9n~ <966.; 4965,8 0972.2 .9796 49738 096<.2 0974.1 ' 97"1 '965 , 49721 . ~ ~ 09179 <992 < '9E2 J 09Je! 4972 • <9687 ' 9461 09753 09741 SHEET INDEX Tl S '97~O '9710 4969_f 49698 <9713 4"0i <9637 '910 • 496< I 490636 " 0965 0 '\le61 09061 '9~1 497< 1 '!/til.7 '967.1 49617 <967.J .97U <971 S <971.8 49461 67 J 49ro.t 497l.1 097J6 !lATCH SEE SHEET 21 I i WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY DETENTlON BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORI.I SE'Io£R OJLVERT CHANNEl W/ROW DETENTION BASIN , 4980.0 49711 . SHEET 100 0971 J 097'91 4~e r NOTES: 1. It-IIS DRA'NING IS FOR tJASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRES£NTS PREUtJlNARY AND CONCEPlUAL ENGINEERING. ALTERNATIVES TO It-IIS OUTfAU. 'NILL BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL RE\o1E'NINC AGENCIES AND It-IE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONTROl DISTRICT PRD\o1orn It-IE ALTERNATlVf: OFfERS EOUAL H'YORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY. It-IE ALTERNATIVE I.IUST COMPLY 'NIn-t ALL REOUIREI.IENTS Of THE LOCAL JURISDICTlON AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONTROl DISTRICT. n-tIS DRA'NING SHAll NOT BE US£D FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. .lJRISOiCTlONAL BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWINC ARE IN EFFECT AS Of JANUARY. 1998. J . THIS PlAN REOUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND ADAMS COUNTY ZONE. tJANAGE. AND REGULATE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS WA.TERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT FlOOO DAMAGES RELATEO TO FUlURE DEVELOPI.IENT N 1112500 41ilN.7 • EX. N7(!2.~ ~ EX . 72" <979.4 <980.7 N 11'.0( 'n ! II ~J I 496< 6 I I N 780 SIlO 4'17.5 1 4. PREUI.IINARY OESIGN INFORI.IATlON FOR SUBREGIONAL F ACiUTlES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION OF A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY I.IUST COMPLY 'NIn-t THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTlON FACIUTY ItJPL.EUENTATlON GUIOEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFALL SYSTEI.IS PLANNING DoaJl.IENT 5. IF A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE ARE IN PlACE. AU. DEVElOPI.IENT UPSTREAI.I Wln-tIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'NILL BE ALLD'IIfi) TO REl£AS£ UNDETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTf'AU DRAINAGE S'I'STEI.I , ANY PROPOSEO CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY lliE OTY Of BRIGHTON (OR ADAMS COUNTY) AND THE UD&fCO ANY POTENTIAl USER SHOULD CONTACT lHE LOCAl REVI( NG AGENCY fOR ANY REVISIONS Of lliE PLAN IN THE NEARBY \'IaNITY I ~ II OAruM: V(RTlCAl - NAVO 1988 ~ O_R_'"G='NAL ~~SoCo"' o=0 ' O~[~TEN ~B~A~NOOU~TL~E~T:-~=c~~~:ccc -r H_OR 'Z_ON TA_L N_A_O ~ , TOWNSH'"-1_L !lI!'M,f'&llllidl;i;, g~~~EO* = CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING ~ 1500 'lllES1 "VENUE. sun 21 sREAcNnGoE-N6 7"._W";IJ' VJRC ~4C4COlOlUOO 80246 CHECKED ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED COlOR-'OO 80232 ~ . \ PHONE NO: 1~'17~7-a:)IJ REVISED ~ R BUTARY i AS-BUILT DATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT T I TO S. PLATTE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 13 No improvements are proposed on lhis sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- , \ \ \ J I / r< 7SJ '500 SHEET INDEX TIS LEGEND MASTER PLAN FAClunES • ) ( WATERSHED BOUNDAR'!' SUB WATERSHED BOUNDAR'!' BRIGHTON CITY UMITS DETENTION BASiN TRIBUTAR'!' AREA STORM SE'II£R OJlVERT CHANNEL W/R.O W NOTES: 1. mlS ORA'MNG IS FOR I.IASlER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUMINARY AND CONCEPTUAl ENGINEERING AlTERNATlIJ'ES TO THIS OUTFALl SYSTEM 'MLl BE CONSIDERED LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAlNAG[ AND FlOOO CONTRa. DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATIVE OFfERS EOUAl HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE AlTERNATlIJ'E MUST COMPL'!' 'Mm ALl REOUIROoiENTS OF THE LOCAL ..uRI$OICTlON AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONTRa. DISTRICT. mlS DRAWING SHAll NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCllON PURPOSES. 2. .,l.IRISOICTlONAl BOUNDARIES SHO'ftN ON TliIS DRAWING ARE IN Ef'fECT AS Of JANUARY. 1998 4. PREUMINARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FACIUTIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SiZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl OETENllON FACIUTY MUST COMPLY WITH mE SUBREGIONAL FACIUTY GUIDEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFAll SYSTEMS PlANNING DOCUMENT 5 IF A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FACIUTY AND CONVEYANCf SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PLACf, ALl DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAM WITHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WIll BE AllOWED TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFAll ORAiNAGE SYSTEM 3. THIS PLAN REQUIRES lHA T THE CITY OF BRIGHTON AND 6 ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ADAMS COUNTY ZONE. t.lANAGE, AND REGULATE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OR "DANS COUNTY) AND THE UD&FCO DEVElOPtJENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY POTENTIAl USER SHOUtD CONTACT THE LOCAL 8 THE RECOMt.lENOATlONS Of THIS PlAN IN OROER TO REV1EWlNG AGENCY fOR ANY RE\o1S1ONS Of nit PlAN . . : J DETENTION BASIN PREVENT FlOOO OAMAGES RELATED TO F\JTURE IN THE NEARBY V10NITY ~ 2j 100 0 200 ! _ ~ DEYUOPt.iENT. 7. O"T1Jt.4: \lERTlC,t,l _ NA'vO 1988 ~ ORIGINAL SCALE: 200' DETENTION BASIN OUTtET HORIZONTAL - NAO 1983-1992 i ~ TOWNSHIP_ LS _ \JJ~C !Wit,. g~~~ED* = CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING " 7SOO WEST AveNUE, SUITE 21 RANGE_6JLYi,-- 80246 CHECKED OATE ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED L..AI(EIIoOOO, CCl.OF!AOO 1I02J2 SECTlON_t!·_UZ-..?_ PHONE~; (3OJl7~7-85IJ REVlSED......lE.M..... OATE ~ TRIBUTARY TO S ~ « w _ AS-BUILT DATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT . PLATTE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 14 No improvements are proposed on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- 'f~l.500 EX. l~ . I I I , I lEX. 24- I A ' ~ ' N 7fIO.!oOO SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 LEGEND MASTER Pl...AN FAClunES • ) ( WII T£RSHED BOUNOARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY W.tITS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM SEI'I£R CULVERT NOTES: 1 THIS ORA'NING 15 FOR MASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREU~INAAY ANO CONCEPlUAl ENGINEERING. ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTfAlL SYSTEM 'NILl BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REV1EWlNG AGENCIES AND THE URB.4.N DR.4JN"G£ AND FlOOD CONTROl DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATIVE OFfERS (OUAL H'YORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE ",UST COMPlY WITH AU REQUIREMENTS Of THE lOCAL JURISDICTION .t.NO THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOD CONTROl DISTRICT. THIS DRAWING SHAll NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. ..uR1SOICTIONAl BOUNDARIES SHOIloN ON THIS ORA'MNG ARE IN EFFECT AS Of JANUARY. 1998. 4. PREUt.lINARY DESIGN INfORMATION fOR SUBREGIONAL f ACIUTlES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 N 180.!>OO ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL OETENTION fAOUTY MUST CC*.IPlY 'NITli THE SUBREGIONAL OElENTlON fAClUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUI()(lJNES PRESENlED IN THIS OUTFAll SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUIoIEN T. 5 IF A DO'MiSTREAU SUBREGIONAl DETENTION F AOUTY AND CONIlEYANC( SYSTUA(S) ARE IN PlAc(. AU DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAM WITHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATIRSHEO WIll BE AUOYo(O TO RELEASE UNOETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE QUTFAU ORAiNAGE S'f"STEM ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 15 Presented on Sheet 15 are the proposed improvements for Outfall System C4. Reach C I was designed to reduce nooding resulting from the minor storm event The lotal costs of improvements for the Outfall Systems on this sheet are as follows: Sheet Number 15 Outfall System Segment C04 Improvement Description Storm Sewer Improvement Cost $360,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET INDEX TIS lil&Jt ·EGs[~r.{! I' I II ~ n I I -§.;tEL STREET I I I J I I NORTI1ERN AIIE -'If <>Me . \ .9~7 l 7 '~.lI1a t l 1 g.gh a " 'I ~ LEGEND E ; I l ~ / ; MASTER PL..AN FACIUTIES • < ) ( ~ '2,7 MATCfj SEE SHEET 16 Wit TERSHEO BOUNDARY SUB Wit TERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY W~ITS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM SEWER CULVERT NOTES: THIS ORA'MNC IS FOR t.lAST[R PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUMINARY AND CONCEPTUAl ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTfALL SYSTEM WIll BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVlE'NING AG[NOES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOO CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED niE AlTERNATIVE OffERS EOUAL HYDRAUUC CI.PACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE AlTERNATIVE I.4UST Cot.IPlY ,nH ALL REOUIREIoIENTS Of" THE LOCAL ..IJRISO!CllON AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOO CONTROL DISTRICT. THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTlON PURPOSES. 2 .A.lRISOICTION BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS DRA'NING ARE IN EmCT AS Of JANUARY, 1998 I I I I I N 78l . .\oo R.O.W. PREUtJlNARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR SUBREGIONAl OETENTION FAOUTlES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION OF A SUBREGION DETENTION F"AOUTY MUST COMPlY 'II1Tl-1 THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION F"ACIUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES PRES£NTED IN THIS OUTFAll SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUMENT IF" A SUBREGION DETENTION F"ACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PLACE, AU DEVELOPMENT UPSTREAM 'MTl-IIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WILL BE AllOWED TO RELEASE UNDEIAINED ON-SITE F1.D'NS INTO THE OUTF AU. DRAINAGE SYSTEM CHANNEL W/R.O.W. J THIS PLAN REOUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON ANa 6 ANY PROPOSED CHANCES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ADAMS COUNTY ZONE, MANAGE:, AND REGULATE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OR AOAMS COUNTY) AND THE UDMCD DEVELOPMENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE 'MTH ANY POTENTI USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL ~ : : ~ THE RECOMMENDATIONS Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO REY1EWlNG AGENCY F"OR ANY REY1S1ONS Of THE PLAN ~ • • • DETENTION BASiN PREVENT F1.000 DAMAGES RELATrO TO FUTURE IN THE NEARBY \/IONITY 200 100 0 200 400 DEVELOPMENT ;1 I 7. DATUM: VERTICAL _ NAvtl 1988 ~ 1 . H_OR IZ_ON_T_'_L_-__ NA_D ~ Z tloj.o.P II.NO AUTOCAD fIL[ PRODUCED BY ~ TOWNSHIP_LS.._ VJ~C g~~~ED ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING RANGEJi.IL'iL CHECKED DAIT ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED Co SECnoN_~·_1L<'jL ~ "Hm .""SED ""IT iillQOj; TRIBUTARY TO S PLAnE RIVER > ~ "'-BUILT ""IT URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT . PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 16 No improvements are proposed on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET INDEX R67 : R66 T1S • • LEGEND MASTER PLAN FAClunES • ) ( WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY W,jITS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM S£'A(R CULVERT NOTES: 1. THIS DR WlNG IS fOR MASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRES£NTS PREUIo4IN,f,RY AND CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING ALTERNAlllJES TO THIS OUTfALl SYSTEM Will BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAl.. REV1EWlNG AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROl DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATIVE OFfERS EQUAL HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE MUST COMPLY WIlli AlL REQUIR[I.IENTS OF THE LOCAL ..IJRISOICTlON AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE: AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT THIS DRA'MNG SHAlL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES 2. .AJRISOICTlONAL BOUNDARIES SHOYIN ON THIS DRA'NING ARE IN EfrECT AS Of JANUARY, 1996 5 PREUtJINAR'I' DESIGN INFORtJA nON FOR SUBREGIONAL D£lDHlON FAOUTle:5 IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCAnON Of A SUBREGlON,t,t. DETENTION FAOUTY MUST COMPLY 'MTH Tl-IE SUBREGIONAL DET[NllON FACIUTY II.4Pl[hlENTAllQN GUIOEUN[S PRES£NTEO IN THIS oorr"LL SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUMENT IF A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FAOUTY AND CON'v'EYANC( ARE IN PLACE, ALL DEYROPM[NT UPSTREAM WITHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED ¥/ILL BE ALLOWED TO RELEASE UNDETAINEO ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFAll ORAINAGE SYST£ ~ . PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 17 Presented on Sheet 17 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems 64, E5, and E7. The improvements were designed for flood peaks based on future development and a IOO-year recurrence period. Detention Basins T and U are also presented on this sheet. The Detention Basins T and U were designed to have a 40 hour release rate for 5-year storm events and a 0.1 efs I acre release rate for I OO-year storms. The improvements for Outfall SysLem E4 include a 1950 foot 36" RCP. Outfall System E4 also has 175 feet of 30" Rep. The improvements for Outfall System E5 includes a 2900 fOOL grass lined channel wi th a concrete trickle channel and drop strucLures and a 200 fOOL double 4' x 7' reinforced concreLe box culvert. A 150 foot 72" Rep in also presented for Lhis oULfall system. Proposed 78" storm sewer in Outfall System E6 is presented on Lhis sheel. The improvements for Outfall System E7 includes a 740 fOOL grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. Outfall System E7 also includes Lwo double 60" Rep culverts. The tOLal costs of improvements for the Outfall Systems on this sheet and for Detention Basin T and U are as follows: Outfall Sheet System Number Segment 17 E04 17 E04 17 E05 17 E05 17 E05 17 E05 17 E05 17 E06 17 E07 17 E07 17 E07 17 E07 Improvement Improvement Description Cost Culvert $38,900.00 Storm Sewer $319,000.00 Channel $208,000.00 Channel $153,000.00 Culvert $242,900.00 Culvert $76,100.00 Detention Basin T $1,030,796.25 Storm Sewer $69,000.00 Channel $92,000.00 Culvert $65,900.00 Culvert $65,900.00 Detention Basin U $1,044,258.75 ---PAGE BREAK--- " , . , 8 EX, U"!i" 24..- _ 117 EX I , " EX. 30 M I REACH I \ \ \ \ N '&J,OOO \ ~ \ SHEET INDEX 200 "0 0 200 0RlG1NAL. SCALE: '"-200' em TOWNSHIP VJ~C RANGE_6.&-1'L.. sE c noN2L.lL~]_ fAA NO: JOJ ~-J2OII +00 DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED REVISED ~ AS-BUILT ~1 1~4-- ~ . ' ··OI!l1.0 LEGEND MASTER PlAN FACIUTIES • ) ( 8 : : 8 0 OATE OATE WA TERSHEO BOUNDARY sua WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UMITS D£TENllON BASiN TRIBUTARY ARE" STORM SE'II(R CULVERT CHANNEL w/R.o. w. DETENTION BASIN ()(T[NTION BASIN OU11.ET \ ~ v,oo 0'00 (OUT) ~ 20 CFS 0100 (IN) - 700 CFS R.O.W. ~ 6.9 ACRES (SEE SHEET 200) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 5106 J I 5\09 6 510112 - - - 'r ' ;tl lOO v. ~ 7.1 AC. FT. 65 5107 J 1&5.'5000 5123,7 N 1115.000 N ?SHIOO 51166 V'OO ~ 27.4 AC. FT. 0'00 (OUT) ~ 19.0 CFS 0'00 (IN) ~ 505 CFS R.o:w.' ~ 10.4 ACRES \ -.,iSEE SHEET 200)''' \ \ \ , 3' G.S.B. DROP 5 1 0~ 2 \ \ \ \ N 78.lSOO 512< 9 \ Q 51071 \ \ 8 SHEET 118 ~ ~ • 8 t.4ATCH SEE NOTES: '0-115 ORA'MNG IS fOR MASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRES£NT'S PREUNINARY ANO CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING AlTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTf"ALL SYSTEW WIll BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REIIIE'MNG AGENCIES AND THE UReAN OR"INAGE AND FtOOO CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATIVE OFfERS EOOAl HYDRAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STA81UTY. THE AlTERNATIVE MUST n-I All REOUIR[IoIENTS CK THE LOCAL ..uRISOICTION AND n-IE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROl DISTRICT THIS DRAWING SHAll NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOS£S. 2 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON n-IIS DRAWING ARE IN EffECT AS Of JANUARY. 1998 J. THIS PLAN REOUIRES THAT Tl-IE OTY Of BRIGHTON AND ADAMS COUNTY ZONE. MANAGE:. AND REGULATE DEVELOPIoIENT IN THIS WAlERSHED IN ACCOROANCE WITH THE RECOMIoIENOATIONS Of THIS PlAN IN OROER TO PREVENT FlOOO DAMAGES REl..ATrD TO fUTURE ()(VELOPIoIENT OllTLET 5116 • PREUMINARY DESIGN INfORMATION fOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAClUTIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAOUTY MUST COMPLY WITH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fACIUTY IMPlEMOHATION Gi.J1D£LINES PRESENTED IN THIS OUlFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUMENT 5. If A SUBREGIONAL ()(TENTION fAClUTY AND CONVEYANC£ SYSID.I(S) ARE IN PLACE. ALL DEVELOPMENT UPSTREAM 'Mn·uN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WILL BE ALL.O\\£D TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUlFALL. DRAINAGE SYSTEM 6 .ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE OTY Of BRIGHTON (OR ADAMS COUNTY) AND Tl-IE UO&fCO ANY POTENTIAL USER SHOUlD CONTACT Tl-IE LOCAL REVlE'NING AGENCY fOR ANY REVISIONS Of THE PlAN IN THE NEARBY 'v10NITY. 7 DATUM: VERTICAL - NAW 1988 HORIZONTAL - NAD 1983-1992 OATE ADAMS COUNTY OATE ~ OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 17 OATE ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 18 Presented on Sheet 18 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems S5, S6 and E6. The improvements were designed for flood peaks based on future development and a l00-year recurrence period. Proposed 36", 48", and 78" storm sewers in Outfall System E6 are presented on this sheet. The improvements for Outfall System S5 consist of a 30" storm sewer and a 48" basin outlet structure. The improvements for Outfall System S6 include a 380 fOOl grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. Also presented on this sheet for this Outfall System is a proposed single 72" reinforced concrete pipe culvert. The total costs of improvements for the Outfall System on this sheet and for Detention Basins Y and SC are as follows: Outfall Sheet System Improvement Improvement Number Segment Description Cost 18 E06 Storm Sewer $146,000.00 18 E06 Storm Sewer $142,000.00 18 E06 Storm Sewer $165,000.00 18 S05 Pond Outlet/Culvert $34,000.00 18 S05 Storm Sewer $167,000.00 18 S05 Detention Basin SC $0.00 18 S06 Detention Basin SAFEWAY $0.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I, L \ J ' y ( 8 Ul I: t:l Ul L I' ~ i1i - I I I Ii I \ Q I' DETENTIO~WA 0'00 1 CFS LOCAL DETENTION NO DATA G 1100 24 RCP DITCH WITH WETLANDS TYPE VEGETATION (TYP.) DETENTION BASIN SC: Cloo ~ 8.8 CFS V,oo ~ 14.1 CFS , " 1 ~7.1 , '5ror~ I \ \ \ ~ v,oo F'1\ / ~ r SHEET 101, 102 MANHOLE (TYP.) DETENTION (SAFEWA 0'00 ~ 3 CFS v ,oo 6.5 AC. N -'IIO.~ SHEET INDEX I I I ISUBREGIONA.~ DETENTION SYSTEM Y I DETENTION (SAFEWAY 3t. 0'00 1 CFS V,oo ~ 1.3 AC. FT. LEGEND MASTER Pl.AH FAClunES • < ) ( SEE SHEET 17- j" \ \ r - - 6 RCP • .p . II I I I I I 50 LF 0.5' RCP I i \1 I I I I II I I \ 1\ I \ 'I ,I I I REACH E6 I seE P Fl " S E 116 " f:-l5HH:~ . , '1 \ \ \ \ \ - I MANHOLE (TYP.) 510'0 / / / / 51137 ~115 0 \ \ 8~0 LF 3 RCf> \ 2280+00 2280+50.39 \ \ " 5101 • 5 I I / I ~TO!d / ~117.0 . 51119 / / ~1I87 !I / I / '1 N 7lI2.'SOO / 5"!UI I / , ~II'J,I I I / j / ~11' 9 d' ~ , / I / / I / I / / I / ~)20 9 ~t11! \ / \ 5118 / \ / \ / ) / ~!10 ~ WA TERSHEO BOUNDARY SUB WA TERSHEO BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UI.4ITS 51c~a ~lal.g MATCH SEE SHEET 27 DETENTION BASIN lRlBUTARY AREA STORM SE'M:R CULVERT CHANNEL W/R.O.W. DETENTION BASIN \ " , ~1)~8 ~I - ! 6,21 I I' I I, Ii § • NOTES: ~IJ2 9 I I nilS DRA'NING IS FOR MASl[R PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUMINARY AND CONCEPtuAl ENGINEERING All[RNATI'JES TO nilS OUTFAll SY"STDoI WILL BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVlE'MNG AGENCIES AND mE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL PROVIDED THE ALl[RNAllVE OFTERS EQUAL H'l'ORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STASIUTY. THE ALl[RNAll'JE MUST C0t.4PlY 'NITH AU. REQUIROIENTS OF niE LOCAl .I.IRISOICllON AND niE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT THIS DRA'MNG SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES 2 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHO""'" ON 11"115 ORA'MNG ARE IN EFfECT AS Of' JANUARY. 1998. J n-lIS PlAN REQUIRES THAT niE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND AQAt.lS COUNTY ZONE. MANAGE. AND REGULATE DEVELOPt.lENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDA nONS Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT FLOOD DAt.lACES RElATED TO FUtuRE DEVElOPt.lENT \ \ ! § • \ I I 1 "\.51 514 • \ PREUt.lINARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR SUBREGIONAl O£TENTION FACIUTIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FAOUTY MUST C0t.4PLY m THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY IMPlEMENTATION GUIDEUNES PRESENTED IN ll-iIS OUTFALL SYSTEMS PlANNING DOCUMENT. 5 IF A DO'M4STREAM SUBREGIONAl DETENTION F AOUTY ANO CONVEYANCE SYSrO.(S) ARE IN PLACE. All. DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAt.4 'MTHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'MLl BE ALLOWED TO RELE"SE UNDETAiNEO ON-SITE FLOWS INTO THE OUTFAll DRAINAGE SY"STEIoj 6 ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE OTY Of BRIGHTON (OR ADMtS COUNTY) AND n-lE UD&FCD ANY POTENTIAL USER SHOULD CONTACT lliE LOCAL REVlE NG AGENCY FOR ANY REVISIONS Of niE PLAN IN THE NEARBY VlONITY DETENTION BASIN OUTlET 7 DANt.! : "v£RTICAL - NAVO 1968 HORIZONTAL. NAD 19SJ- 1992 A~:::OC ~ PROOUCEO BY TOWNSHIP _ LS.._ 7500 K SI AYENIJE. SUU'[ 21 RANGE_6.§-..W,- CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY lAI(EYIOOO. COlOflAOO &0212 SEcnON_~_!L2_..§!_ PHON( (lOJ) 922-2.17 rAX (JOJ) 922-28615 DESIGNED DRAWN ~ CHECKED REVISED ~ AS-BUILT DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 19 No improvements are proposed on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- : \ ,J ! 7",000 ~ I I I I I I \ I \ N '81.!IOO • I I I N 783,000 SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 it ~ Irtl I , t-lLJ ~h ·j-'Ic \ ~ I' P ,rI ,p , I ~I~b ~fJ' 34-1 I ~1Lii' ~ L 2 S ~2lS 2:i1f~:B 27 ~J c ·1 3·~".J'Ji ~3/1 , ) '00 I ~17! e - J - 100 0 200 !>!7Z.1 5\710 '00 I 51 H .6 $176 I , " LEGEND ~ASTER PlAN FACIUTIES • < ) ( : 8 I MATCH SEE SHEET $16' 9 \ \ 51161 MATCH SEE SHEET 20>1271 WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATER9iED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UMITS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM SE\toER CULVERT CHANNEl w/R.O.W DETENTION BASIN AlJAJlS COUNTY ~lUI $11"$111 I $1202 \ $ll~7 511\ 2 $111. 51'3.8 Ll , , ~ ~ r ! I N 16'.000 5129.1 l ) 5121 7 ~ 1 2J 1 SllOal I 511J.8.l 5131 J 51232 51106 ~1219 5122.2 I " , 51117 511\1.9 51227 ~ln, l Ii, !l1I12 , ~11! ~ l - NOTES: THIS DRAWING IS FOR MASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUMINARY AND CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING. ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTFALl SYSlEM 'MLl BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVlE'MNG AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONlROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATIVE OFfERS EOUAL HYDRAULIC OPACITY AND STREAI.I STABILITY. THE ALTERNATIVE MUST COOPLY 'MTH All REQUIREMENTS ~ THE LOCAL JURISDICTION AND THE URB,6,N DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ~IS DRA'MNG 9iALl NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES ON THIS DRA'MNG ARE IN EFFECT AS Of JANUARY, 1998 THIS PLAN REOUIRES THAT THE aTY ~ BRIGH TON AND ADAMS COUNTY ZONE, MANAGE, AND REGULATE DEVElOPt.lENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS Of THIS PLAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT flOOD DAMAGES R£l.ATED TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 4. PREUMINARY DESIGN INFORt.lATlON fOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION f ACIUTIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREQONAL DETENTION fACILITY t.lUST COMPLY WITH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDEUNES PRESENTEO IN ~IS OUTfALl SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUMENT 5. If" A OO'MIISTREAN SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fACILITY AND CONVEYAN~ ARE IN PLACE. AlL DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAM WI~IN ~AT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WILl BE ALlO¥l(D TO RELEASE UNDETAINEO ON-SllE flOWS INTO THE OUTfALl DRAINAGE SYSTEM 6 ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OR ADAMS COUNT'() AND ~E UDMCD ANY POTENTIAL USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL RE'v1EWlNG AGENCY FOR ANY REVISIONS Of THE PLAN IN THE NEARBY VlaNIT'(. 7. DAruM: VERTICAL _ NA\{I 1986 HORIZONTAL - NAD 1983-1992 o ' [ C U' ORIGINAl. SCALE: ,"-200' DETENTION BASIN OUTlET ~ mo " . TOWNSH'P_LS.._ VJ~C !liliit DESIGNED---'1L DATE ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON ~ :=;~~roA~OC. SUITE 21 RANGE-2jU~,- st::4 1e r. g~~~EO --1ML__ ~ ADAMS COUNTY ~ , sEcnoN _'L.JLL1~ DATE ~ URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT !'tlOHC: (.303) i22 11 rA)(: (.303) 922-2866 rAJ( NO: (JOJ 7:18-32011 AS-BUILT DATE OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 20 No improvements arc proposed on lhis sheer. ---PAGE BREAK--- ~ . , N 1!2,OOO SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 TlS ~1)Ot 5129 7 50l6.J " " • "N \i ) 51~1 7 510(1,1 5141.0 5140.11 r MATCH SEE SHEET 19 51J~ J I 5131 1 , 51304 .e12',~ : '1 , , " . J L _ MATCH SE\.=HEET_ 29 ~ % LEGEND MASTER PlAN FACIUTIES • ) ( WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WA TERSHEQ BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY LIMITS DETENTION B"SlN TRIBUTARY ARE" 51001.1 SE~ CULVERT 512111 51212 5117 1 5112.6 51214 II Jl ll~ BRICHTON r NOTES: 1. THIS DRAWING IS fOR MASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUt.llNARY AND CONCEPTU.4.L ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUlTAU. SYSTEM WILL BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL RE""'EWING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND F1...000 CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATl'J[ OFTERS EQUAL H'1tlRAUUC CAPAOTY AND STREAt.4 STABILITY. THE ALTERNATIVE MUST COOPlY WITH ~ REQUIREMENTS OF THE lOC"l JURISDICTION ANO THE URBI.N DRAlN"CE AND ROOD CCI-ITROL DISTRICT. THIS QR"'MNG SHAll NOT BE usro fOR CONStRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. JURISDICTIONAl BOUNDARIES SHO'ftN ON THIS ORA'MNG ARE IN EFFECT AS Of JANUARY, 1998 r I 7 ~113 J ~10S1,2 !)109.9 ~H / I / ~J.I >om' 1 1 ~10' j 4. PREUMINARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACtUTlES IS PRES£NTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION OF A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FAaUTY MUST COIoIPLY WITH THE SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FAClUTY IMPl£MENTATION GUID£UNES PRES£NTED IN THIS OUTFAll SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUMENT. 5. IF A DOWNSmEAM SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PLACE, All DE'vtlOPIoIENT UPSmEAM 'MTHIN THAT TRlBUTARY WATERSHED WIll BE ALtO'II£D TO RELEASE UNQ£TAINEO ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFALl DRAINAGE SYSTEt.I. / PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 20 I ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 21 Presented on Sheet 21 are the proposed improvements for Outfall System S I. The improvements were designed for nood peaks based on future development and a 1 DO-year recurrence period. The improvements for Outfall System S I includes a 1260 foot wetlands bottom channel. A triple 108" inch diameter RCP is also presented for Outfall System S I Cost information for Outfall System S 13 can be seen on Sheet 23. The total costs of improvements for the Outfall System on th is sheet are as follows: Outfall Sheet System Improvement Improvement Number Segment Description Cost 21 S01 Channel $613,000.00 21 S01 Culvert $2,655,400.00 21 S01 Culvert $4,703,600.00 21 S01 Jacking $2,175,000.00 21 S01 Jacking $2,175,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- - - ~ ~ I . - . . - ~ ~ - ~ - - - - ~I I ; N 7110,000 i ~ ~ I II MATCH SEE SHEET 12 I N780,~ 24- f i I, II [I II 'j II II 4971' 49761 '9176 N 1/9.000 II II m \ / l f N 711,!IOO / SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 ns <911 4 4975,0 497~.' ' 9776 <9H.E <97<,/1 • <97< 7 <97~ < 4975,} 4916.2 <971\"'97< 1 ' 976} ' 97~ 3 WA TER SURF ACE 4~ 76, <91~ I <912 ] <971.5 O>l REVISED ""IT ~ TRIBUTARY TO S PLAnE RIVER 22 , , AS-BUILT ""IT URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT . ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 23 Presented on Sheet 23 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems S I, S2, S3, S 13, S 14, SIS, S29 and S44. The improvements were designed for nood peaks based on future development and a lOO-year recurrence period. Detention Basins P, Q, and J are also presented on this sheet. A triple 108" inch diameter RCP is presented for Outfall System S I. The Detention basins were designed (Q have a 40 hour release rate for 5-year storm events and a 0.5 ers / acre release rate for 100- year storms The improvements for Outfall System S2 includes a 3650 foot wetlands bottom channel. Also presented on this sheet for this Outfall System is a proposed double 8' x 12' reinforced concrete box culvert. The improvements for Outfall System S3 includes a 1360 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System S 13 includes a 710 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. Two proposed 4S" RCP are also presented on this sheet. The improvements for Outfall System S 14 includes a 610 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. A proposed 48" Rep is also presented on this sheet The improvements for Outfall System SIS includes a 1000 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. A proposed double 54" RCP is also presented on this sheet. The improvements for Outfall System S29 includes a 1250 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System S44 includes a 985 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. Outfall System S44 also includes a single 48" RCP. The lotal costs of improvements for the Outfall Systems on this sheet and for Detention Basin P, J and Q are as follows: Outfall Sheet System Number Segment 23 S02 23 S02 23 502 23 502 23 502 23 S03 23 513 23 513 23 513 23 514 23 514 23 514 23 516 23 S16 23 529 23 544 23 544 23 544 Improvement Improvement Description Cost Channel $723,000.00 Channel $749,000.00 Channel $475,000.00 Culvert $204,600.00 Detention Basin Q $524,660.00 Channel $251,000.00 Channel $95,000.00 Culvert $67,100.00 Channel Outfall $60,300.00 Channel $119,000.00 Pond Outlet/Culvert $45,400.00 Detention Basin J $1,343.4 15.00 Channel $176,000.00 Channel Outfall $76,125.00 Channel $217,000.00 Channel $153,000.00 Pond Outlet/Culvert $22,656.25 Detention Basin P $1,067,675.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- N 750.000 I If) U ~ N 779,000 1 SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 TIS 200 100 0 200 000 I I LEGEND I I BOTTOM, CHANl'itL w/ 200' R.O.W. SHEETS 109 1ll' I~ . 41.1 0'00 (otJ1')' = 116 0'00 (IN) = 677 CFS R.O.W. = 9.4 ACRES (SEE SHEEr 200) WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY W,jIT$ BOTTOM CHANNEL W/ 170' R.O.W. 51 R.O.W. REACH S44 00 28 .BAC. FT. 0'00 (OUT) = 95 CFS 0'00 (IN) = 460 CFS R.O.W. = 10.0 ACRES '~EE SHEEr 200) I I I ,MATCH SEE SHEEr 24 ''l14 itt:::, . !IOOO: NOTES: . SEE PROFILE SHEET 115 I DETENTION BASlN TRIBUTARY AREA 1, THIS DRA'MNG IS FOR t.lASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUM1NARY AND CONCEPTUAl ENGINEERING ALTERNATI'.'('S TO THIS OUTfAll SYSTE!.I 'Mll BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAl RE'v1E'MNG ACENOES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONTROl DISTRICT PRO'v1DED Tl-lE ALTERNATI'v( OffERS EQUAL HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE AlTERNATIVE MUST COOPLY 'MTH All REQUIREt.lENTS Of THE LOCAL .lJRISDICTION AND MASTER PlAN FACILmES • STORt.I SEWER ) ( CULVERT CHANNEL WjR OW THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONTROl DISTRICT THIS ORA'MNG SHAll NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. JURISDICTIONAl BOUNDARIES SHO~ ON THIS ORA.WlNG ARE IN EFFECT AS Of JA.NUARY, 1996. J THIS PLAN REQUIRES THAT THE OTY Of BRIGHTON AND ADAMS COUNTY ZONE, !.IANACE, AND REGULATE OEVELOP!.IENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECQMt.lENDA TlONS OF THIS PLAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT FlOOO OA!.IAGES RELATED TO FUTURE OEVELOPIoIENT. I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I I _dlJ 1 G.S.S. b'ROP "1 STRUCTURE (TYP.) SEE PROFILE SHEET 101 I PROTEcnON 4. PREUt.llNARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FAOUTIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 66. ANY OiANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY MUST COt.IPLY 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FAOUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTfAll SYSTEt.lS PlANNING DOCUMENT 5. IF A OO~STREAM SUBREGIONAl Q(TENTION FAOUTY AND CON'v(YANCE SYSTEt.I(S) ARE IN PlACE. AlL DE\e..OPt.I[NT UPSTREAt.I WITHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED Will BE AllOWED TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTfAll DRAINA.GE SYSTEM . ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 24 Presented on Sheet 24 are the proposed improvemenlS for Outfall SYSlems S 14 and S29. The improvemenls were designed for naod peaks based on future development and a I DO-year recurrence period. Presented on this sheet for Outfall System S 14 is a proposed triple 4' x 9' reinforced concrete box culvert The improvcmenls for Outfall SYSlem 29 includes a 2100 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. A proposed triple 4' x 7' storm sewer in Outfall System S29 is presenled on this sheet. The total costs of improvements for the Outfall Systems on this sheet are as follows: Outfall Sheet System Improvement Improvement Number Segment Description Cost 24 S14 Culvert $316,200.00 24 S29 Channel $366,000.00 24 S29 Storm Sewer $1,088,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- I 71',000 n~.5C / / / / / / III J: U ~ " " / / / / / I I I I . = 22 SEE PROFILE SHEET 106 003.7 @ ~OO . 8 • ~r~8 GRASS U: O CHANNEL~ II W/ 52' R.O.W. I I Ii 5({)I ' I l I I 1420+00,-.;JI1:---~ , U SEE PROFILE ~ SHEETS 109, 110 q ~ 9 5~ f'OOlO , ~l.7 I I I I 1 1000 OUTLET. EROSION PROTECTION I I I I I If"" I I I I I d' SOm J I o· 10 5002_3 ~3.6 , .}OI2 34 .e7 ~ 4998' I n, c .REACH S44 I ',Ol~ t SEE PLAN ' ~99 2 SHEET 23 SEE PROFILE .~~I"'EET 115 !>o.lOl.t I' I ~3~9 I I /1 I I I· I W27.o l : J 1'1" I I I I I I !lOJ10 N "~QOO ~ : : MATCH SEE/SHEET 33 ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ i I ~ SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 TIS ; ~ AP AUTOC.o.o ru: PROOUCED BY ~ TOWNSHIP LAN~"'RK lfO RANGE_6JL~,- J. 7SOO W(ST WISS.SSIPPI A'-OIIJE. SUITE 21 LAl(EYIOOO. CQ.OII-">O 80232 SEcnON_§"_ it PMONE. (303) 922-2.11 FAll (lOJ) 1122-2866 200 100 0 200 I ORICINAL SCALE: 1"-200' '00 I OESIGNED ---.ilL DRAWN ~ CHECKED REVls[O ~ ~-BUILT LEGEND MASTER PlAN FAClunES • ) ( I WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WA TERSHEO BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY W ITS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STOOI.I SE'II£R OJLVERT CHANNEl W(R.D W. DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN OUllET CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY NOTES: THIS DRA'MNG IS Foo t.4ASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUI.IINARY AND CONCEPruAL ENGiNEERING ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTFALl SYSTEM 'MLl BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVlE'NING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DIVJNAGe: AND FlOOO CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATIVE OffERS EDUAl HYDRAUUC CAPACITY .loND STREAI.I STABILITY. THE ALTERNATIVE I.IUST COMPLY 'NITH ALl REOUIREI.IENTS OF THE LOCAL JURISOICTION .loND THE URBAN DRAINAGE .loND FlOOO CONTROl DISTRICT THIS DRA'NING SHAll NOT BE USED Foo CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE IN EmCT AS Of JANUARY. 1998 J THIS PLAN REQUIRES THAT TliE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND AOAI.IS COUNTY ZONE. I.I ANAGE • .loND REGULATE OEVELOPt.4ENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE \ll!TH THE RECOM t.4ENDATIONS Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT FlOOO DAl.lAGES RElATED TO FUruRE DEV{lOPt.4 ENT DAIT DAIT DAIT DAIT DAIT URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S, PLATTE RIVER 1 , , 7 PREUt.4INARY DESIGN INFOR t.4 ATION FOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION F ACIUTIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 58 ANY CH.loNGE IN SIZE AND/oo LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY I.IUST COMPLY 'NITH THE SUBREGIONAL DElENTION FACIUTY 1t.4f>LEt.4ENTATION GUIOEllNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFAll SYSTEI.IS PLANNING DOCUI.IENT IF A SUBREGIONAl. OETENTION FACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PlACE. ALl DEVELOPI.IENT UPSTRUJ.i WI THIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WIll BE AllOWED TO RELfASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE FlOWS INTO THE OUTfALl ORAINAGe: SYSTEM ANY PROPOSED CH.loNGES I.IUST BE BY THE CITY OF BRIGHTON (OR ADAWS COUNTY) AND THE UD&:fCD ANY POTENTIAL USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL REVlE'MNG AGENCY FOR .loNY REVISIONS Of THE PLAN IN THE NEARBY VICINITY. DAl\Il.I: VERTICAl. - NAW 19813 HORIZONTAL - NAD 1983-1992 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 25 Presented on Sheet 25 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems S5, S9, S I 0, S II , and S 12. The improvemenls were designed for nood peaks based on future development and a 1 OO-year recurrence period. Detention Basins 0 and S arc also presented on this sheet The Detention basins were designed to have a 40 hour release rate for 5-year storm events and a 0.5 cfs I acre release rale for 100- year storms A proposed 30" slorm sewer in OUlfal1 Syslem S5 is presenled on Ihis sheel. The improvemenls for OUlfall System S I 0 includes a 1960 fOOl grass lined channel wilh a concrele trickle channel. Also presented on this sheet for this Outfall System is a proposed double 4' x 7' reinforced concrete box cul vert The improvemenls for OUlfall Syslem S I I includes a 1890 fOOl grass lined channel with a concrele Irickle channel. Two proposed 48" Rep are also presented on Ihis sheel. The total costs of improvements for the Outfall Systems on this sheet and for Detention Basin Sand 0 arc as follows: Outfall Sheet System Improvement Improvement Number Segment Description Cost 25 S05 Storm Sewer $342,000.00 25 S1 0 Channel $39,000.00 25 S10 Channel $34,000.00 25 S1 0 Detention Basin 0 $0.00 25 S11 Channel $53,000.00 25 S11 Channel $16,000.00 25 S11 Culvert $65,700.00 25 S11 Pond Outlet/Culvert $45,400.00 25 S12 Detention Basin S $0.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- • SHEET INDEX Ai'lD AUTOCAD FlU: PRODUCED BY' 7500 ' '00 0 ORIGINAL SCAI..E 501' 9 !.O17.' 5018.: / / / / I / I 200 <00 ! 1'-200' I \ 5016 ) I , , L I81 , , I 5018.< , , 50167 5<116 b 50186 5017.0 - - - - I I I @ !oQI6l1 !.O167 LEGEND MASTER Pl.AN FAC1UTlES • ) ( 8 : : 8 0 502111 I t I I ~ ( WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY Ut.lITS DETENTION BASIN lRlBUTARY AREA STORt.I SEVt£R CULVERT CHANNEl W/RO W DETENnON BASiN DETENTION BASIN OUTlET CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY ! • ~ g: s: ' - - - - / , '>12(1,11 50212 ~_tl 5011~ _.50'iJ9 " BRICHTON " ~ , - ~~A(S COUNTY 'iOlI!7 '>(WJJ SO,., 50211 !-a~.lI ~JO~ C,M1.0 'i - - _ - - - - - -J ~ 79.'100 • ~ ~JO.~ I I I I I ~~11 I I ~OH 7 I I I I %.l:;le VICIO=22.3 Q'oO(OU1)=74 Ql00(IH)=413 CFS R.O.W.=7.2 AC. NOTES: 5029 I I I I I I I " 'AI,12 1. THIS DRA'MNG IS FOR t.lASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND RE~ESENTS ~EUIolINARY AND CQNCEPlVAl ENGlNE£RING AltERNATIvt:S TO THIS OUTfALL SYSTEM 'NILl BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVlE'NING AGENCIES AND TliE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONTROL PROVIDED THE ALTERNATIvt: OffERS EOUAL HYDRAUUC CAPACITY 5<132.9 '>0330 AND STREAM STABILITY. TrlE ALTERNATlvt: MUST COMPLY 'NITli AlL REQU1REIoIENTS Of THE LOCAL .AJRISOICTION AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONlROL DISTRICT TrlIS ORA'NING SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSlRUCTION PURPOSES 2. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE IN EmCT AS Of JANUARY, 1998 3 THIS PLAN REOUIRES TrlAT THE OTY Of BRIGHTON AND AOM.lS COUNTY ZONE, t.lANAGE. AND REGULATE DEVELOPIoIENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE 'ftITH THE RECOMt.lENDA TIONS Of THIS PLAN IN ORO£R TO PREvt:NT FlOOO DAMAGES RElATED TO FUlVRE DEV'ELOPt.lENT 50~' ~ !On~ 21D+OO-rt--1 5Ol52 . , 50" l PREUIoIINARY DESIGN INFORI.tA TION FOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAClUTIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION f AOUTY t.lUST COMPLY 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAClUTY IIoIPLEt.lENTATlON GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTfAll SYSTEIAS PLANNING DOCUt.lENT. 5 If A DOYINSTREAM SUBREGIONAl DETENTION fACIUTY AND CONvt:YANC{ SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PlACE, ALl DE'vtLOPt.lENT UPSlREM.I 'NITHIN TliAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WILl BE ALlOWED TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE FlOWS INTO TliE OUTfALl DRAINAGE SYSTEt.4 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES t.lUST BE APPRO'vtD BY tHE OTY Of BRIGHTON (OR ADAMS COUNTY) AND tHE UO&fCO ANV POTENTIAl USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCY fOR ANY REVISIONS Of THE PlAN IN TliE NEARBY 'olONITY, 7. OA1\)t.4: VERTICAl - NA'JU 1988 HORIZONTAL - NAD 1983-1992 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN TOWNSHIP RANGE.MUY,- SECTION DESIGNED -I!L DRAWN ~ CHECKED REVISED AS-BUILT DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER SHEET 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 26 Presented on Sheet 26 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems S3, S4, S IS, S 16, and S38 The improvements were designed for nood peaks based on future development and a 1 OO-year recurrence period. Detention Basins K, M2, and M3 are also presented on this sheet. The Detention basins were designed to have a 40 hour release rare for 5-year storm events and a 0.5 ers / acre release rate for 100- year storms The improvements for Outfall System S3 include a 2670 foot 12'x7' RCBC. Also presented on this sheet for this Outfall System is a proposed quadruple 4 ' x 9' reinforced concrete box cul vert. The improve ments for Outfall System S4 includes a 2680 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System S 15 includes a 130 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. A proposed 48" Rep is also presented on this sheel. The improvements for Outfall System S 16 includes a 1500 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System S38 includes a 2570 loot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. Also presented on this sheet for this Outfall System is a proposed single 4' x 10' reinforced concrete box culvert. Cost information for Detention Basin N can be found in Sheet 28. The LOLal costs or improvemenLs for the Outfall SysLems on this sheeL are as rollows Outfall Sheet System Number Segment 26 S03 26 S03 26 S03 26 S04 26 S15 26 S15 26 S16 26 S16 26 S16 26 S37 26 S37 26 S38 26 S38 Improvement Improvement Description Cost Channel $738,000.00 Culvert $525,600.00 Storm Sewer $2,129,000.00 Channel $277,000.00 Pond OutleVCulvert $55,700.00 Detention Basin M3 $0.00 Channel $178,000.00 Pond OutleVCulvert $49,100.00 Detention Basin M2 $0.00 Pond OutleVCulvert $36,250.00 Detention Basin K $0.00 Channel $288,000.00 Culvert $101 ,500.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- , t ) N ns,!>OO @ !>Ill' 2 H n~ooo L _ SHEET INDEX TlS 50118 I \ - '10.53 ~272 \ I ~329 I I I I 50:' 9 19.32 AC.diT. 0100 = 62 CFS (SEE SHEET 200) r' j "<1lll ~.s.l1 tL=" I t==j) - I • . 1 / r II j/ ~ I . ~l _I ~ - r LEGEND ~27 3 MASTER PlAN FAClunES • < ) ( - - WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON OTY Ul041TS 460' S02~' DElENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM SE\io£R CULVERT CHANNEL W/R.O.W. 0) 5/H2' !>(Ill? NOTES: THIS DRA'MNG IS fOR IAASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUIAINARY AND CONCEPTUAl ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTFALl. SYSTEM WILL BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAl REV1E'MNG AGENaES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROV1O£D THE ALTERNATIVE OFfERS EOVAl HYORAUUC CAPAOTY AND STREAM STASIUTY THE AlTERNATIVE IAUST COUPlY 'MTH ALL REQUIREMENTS CF THE LOCAl AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT THIS DRA'NING SliAlL NOT BE US(() FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. ..uRISOICTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHO"""" ON THIS DRA'NING ARE IN EFfECT AS CF JANUARY. '99a SEE PLAN SHEET 28 9.9 AC. FT. 10.5 AC. FT. (OUT) = 84 CFS SHEET 200) PREUIAINARY OESIGN INFORMA.TION FOR SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FAOUTIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION CF A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAaUTY MUST COMPLY 'MTH THE SUBREQONAL DE"lENTION FACIUTY IMPlEIAENTATION CUIDEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFALL SYSTEMS PlANNING DOCUIAENT 5 IF A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FAClUT't' AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PLACE. ALL DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAM 'NITHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSliEO 'NILL BE ALlOWED TO RELEASE UNDHAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 3. THIS PL"'" REOUIRES THAT THE CITY or BRIGHTON AND 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ADAMS COUNTY ZONE, M,.t.NAGE, AND REGULATE CITY Of BRIQ-tTON (00 .ADAMS COUNTY) AND n-tE UQ&FCO DEVELOPMENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCOfIDANC£ WITH ANY POTENTIAl USER SHOUtD CONTACT ll-IE LOCAL b : : ~ THE RECOMMEND" nONS OF THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO REVIEWING AGENCY HlR ANY RE\1S1ONS Of ll-IE PlAN ~ . • • DETENTION BASiN PREVENT FlOOO DAMAGES REt" TEO TO FUruRE IN THE NEARBY \1C1NITY 200 100 0 200 400 DEVElOPMENT ;1 I ! 7. DATUM; VERnCAl - NAV1) 1988 ~OE~rrN~_TI~ON~8~A;.~N~OU~",, H_OR_'_Z_ON_T_A_L_-__ N_AO ~ TOWNSHIP_~..s.._ VJ~C !I1,~ 1. m CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING ~ " IT" RANGE.§JUL CHECKED DATE ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED ~ lAIO61' 200 LF 4 RCP I V '00 ~ 31.9 AC. FT. I DIOO ~ 270 CFS R (SEE SHEET 200) I " r REACH S7 $lA. 262+45.01 = REACH S8 $lA. 340+00 -.o~9.i / / / / / / / / / I \ \ I I I . / \ ~1 ADA.VS COUNTY ~ , - SHEET INDEX T' S 200 100 0 200 '00 \ : PROOUC£O BV· TOWNSHIP 7!>OO \\£5T \/£Nut. SUlT( 21 RANGE LEGEND MASTER PLAN FAClunES • < ) ( : 8 WATERSHED BOUNOAA'I' SUB WA T[RSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY Ut.tITS DETENnON BA~N TRIBUTARY AREA STORIA SEVoE:R CUL~RT CHANNEL wjR.O W. DETENTION BASIN OCTENTION BASIN OU1UT CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY ~1'll ~1 ' 9 0 DETENTION BASIN f>C..1 I ~ I .8 ~ I ~ I ~ ii: I' • I I . I I II~ ' . N '80,000 N 77i,00 (A PART OF DETENTION SYSTEM R) V,oo ~ 16.9 AC. FT. \ I 0,00 = 54.5 CFS NOTES: , . THIS DRAWING IS fOR ~ASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREU"'INARY AND CONCEPTUAl ENGINEERING All'ERNATI\£S TO THIS OUTfALL SYSTEM WILL BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOD CONTROl DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALT(RNATIIt£ OffERS EOUAL HYDRAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABILITY. THE MUST COMPLY 'MTH AlL R£OUIREIo4ENTS Of THE LOCAl ..uRISOICTION AND THE URBAN OR.4JNAGE AND FlOOO CONTROL 04STRICT. THIS DRA'MNG SHAll. NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOS£S. 2. ..uRISDICl1ONAl BOUNDARIES SHO'NN ON THIS ORA'MNG ARE IN EmCT AS Of JANUAR 1998 J THIS PLAN REOUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND AOA!.IS COUNTY ZONE, !.IANACE. AND REGULATE D£VElOPNENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMNENDA TIONS Of THIS PLAN IN ORDER TO PRE~NT fLOOO DAMAGES RElATED TO fUTURE D£VElOPMENT. ~IOII' ADAMS COUNTY I I , I I \ II II J " ~ 111.000 PREUt.lINARY DESIGN INfOR!.IATION fOR SUBREGIONAl DETENTION fACIUTIES IS PRESENTtD ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION fAauTY MUST COMPL'" 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAL DETtNTION fACIUTY IMf>l.E).IENTATION GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTfAll. SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUMENT 5. If A DO'MIISTREAM SUBREGIONAl OETENTION fAClUTY AND CONVE ANCE ARE IN PLAC£. All. DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAM 'MTHIN THAT TRIBUTAR WATERSHED 'MLL BE ALl.OWED TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTfAll. DRAINAGE SYSTEM 6 AN PROPOSED CHANGES !.lUST BE APPRO~D B THE OTY Of BRIGHTON (OR AOANS COUNTY) AND THE UOMCD AN POTENTIAl USER SHOULD CONTACT THE lOCAl REVlE'MNG AGENC'" fOR AN REVISIONS Of THE PlAN IN THE NEARB VICINITY. 7. DAl1JIA: VERTICAL - NAVO 1988 HORIZONTAL - NAD 1963-1992 LMOIOOO. CCUlIIlIOO 80212 SECTlON_'1-.lLz...li PHON£. (.xu) 022-2411 r.u (3M) 022-2866 DESIGNED ----IlL DRAWN ~ CHECKED REVISED ~ AS-BUILT DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 28 Presented on Sheet 28 arc the proposed improvemems for Outfall Systems within north Prairie Center development. The improvements were designed for naod peaks based on future development and a lOG-year recurrence period. On-site Detention Basins PC-3, PC-I A, PC-2A, and PC-3A arc also presented on this sheel. The south half of Detention Basin R (PC-4) is presented as well. The lotal costs of improvements for the Outfall Systems on this sheet and arc as follows: Outfall Sheet System Improvement Improvement Number Segment Description Cost 28 0 Detention Basin PC3 $0.00 28 0 Detention Basin PC 1 A $0.00 28 0 Detention Basin PC2A $0.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- I , I " 777.MXl + I I +5O"J08 r- _ BRIGHTON + I MATCH SEE SHEET 27 I I F 9 I , J I I ~ I I ,I I b 4ib,dJ - I \ DETENTION BASIN PC-3 (A PART OF DETENTION SYSTEM Rl + + I , -Jc , VJOO = 121.4 AC. FT. + 0,00=08 CFS SOUTH 112 DETENTION BASIN A (PC-4ll SEE NORTH HALF FOR TOTALS . (SEE SHEET 27) ( - - - 3' G.S.B. DROP STRUCTURE TYP. + I DETENTION BASIN PC,lA (A PART OF DETENTIOfl'~YSTE +!>OIl' +!>01J. , + DETENTION BASIN PC-2A (A PART OF DETENTION SYSTEM M2l'- V100 = 4.6 AC. FT. 0,00= 50.3 CFS OUTLET + + + + DITCH WITH WETLAND TYFE VEGET A liON (TYP.) RCBC + + +~21 + + + \ \ + + , \ \ \ +~lCl ' + \ " + " , _ _ • _ \ +~1"1I9 ~P lL.. . _ . \ - . n , "11 6 ~~'11l.6 1 + , +'509 7 / I , , , ~ , , , , OJ 777.500 N 111.000 ~ r Ul Ul N 776,000 r 0 + + + EROSION + ~ROTEC~ + + ' I / 1 + _ _ • SHEET INDEX - - - - - - - - - - - LEGEND MASTER PlAN FACIUTIES • < ) ( MATCH SEE SHEET 37 WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY W~ITS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM SE'ft£R CULVERT CH.6.NNEL W/R.O.W. r ! \ NOTES: 1. THIS ORA'MNG IS FOR WASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUi.lINARY ANO CONCEPTUAl ENGINEERING At. ~NAllVES TO THIS OUTfALL SYSTEM WIll. BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND ROOO CONTROl OISTRICT PRO'llOEO THE ALTERNATIVE OFFERS [QUAL HYDRAUUC C,&.PACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE MUST COOPLY 'M'TH ALl REQUIREMENTS IX THE LOCAl ..IJRISOICTION AND 'THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROl DISTRICT. THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOS£S. 2 ..IJRISOICTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON DRA'MNG ARE IN EFFECT AS OF JANUARY, 1998 PRElIMINARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR SUBREGIONAl DETENTION F AaUTIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FACIUTY MUST COMPLY WlTrI THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDElINES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUMENT 5 IF A DO"""STRE SUBREGIONAl.. DETENTION FACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PLACE. ALL DEVELOPMENT UPSTREAM 'MTHIN THAl TRIBUTARY WATERSHEO WILL BE ALLO¥l£O TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFALl DRAINAGE SYSTEM o3. THIS PLAN REOUIRES TrlAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND 6 ANY PROPOS£D CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ADAI.4S COUNTY ZONE, MANAGE, AND REGULATE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OR ADAMS COUNTY) AND THE UD&fCD DEVELOPMENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE 'MTH ANY POTENTIAl USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAl t THE RECOMMENDATIONS Of THIS PLAN IN OROER TO RE\1EWlNG AGENCY FOR ANY REIJISIONS Of 'THE PLAN ~o U : : J DETENTION BASIN PREVENT flOOD DAMAGES RElATED TO FUTURE IN 'THE NEARBY VICINITY 200 100 0 200 -400 ~ _ : ~ DEVELOPMENT "l I I I DATUM: 'v£RTICAl NAYO 1988 / ~ ORIGiNAl SCAlE· 1--200· DETENTION B SlN OUllEr HORIZONlAL - N D 19803-1992 5- 1oI.o.P A,NO AU10CAD flU PROOUCED !iY· ~ ern TOWNSHIP_L.5.._ VJ~C . g~~~ED* = CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING PRELIMINARY SHEET ~ rr" RANGElHL1L CHECKED DATE ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED SECTiON_L!/J_!~ l"'l R"'SED DATE ~ TRIBUTARY TO S PLAnE RIVER DESIGN PLAN 28 ~ AS-BUILT DATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ' ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 29 No improvements arc proposed on Lhis sheet ---PAGE BREAK--- ~ s SHEET INDEX 1- ~ -4--a -1 ~ 51310 I ~1471 512911 ( rL.· 51174 51.l!! 7 5137.! I \ _ J ~ ~1Jl6 5UJ.a 51095 5137.7 51J~ 4 ; 51.150 5137.8 1 51356 51.)49 I 513J 1 5u. a I 51075 , § E L -N h ; r\ ~ )1 , ~l yo 5!21B ~JlS E2.PNTY_ 8RICHTON 5107.' MATCH SEE SHEET 30 5107.0 LEGEND MASTER PlAN FACIUTIES • ) ( WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WA TERSHEO BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY Ut.llTS DETENTION e,6,SlN TRIBUTARY AREA STORt.I SEIII£R CULVERT CHANNn. W/R.O W. NOTES: I. THIS ORA'MNG IS F~ "'ASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREU~rNARY AND CONCEPTUAl ENGINEERING AlTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTFALL SYSTEW 'Mll BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAl RE""E'MNG AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROl DISTRICT PRO...,DED THE ALTERNATIVE OFFERS EOUAL H'I'ORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE I.4UST CONP1,.Y 'Mn-r ALL REOUIROlENTS Of THE LOCAl ..uRISDICTION AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. THIS ORA'NING SHAll NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. ..k.JRISOICllONAL BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE IN EFfECT AS Of JAAUARY. 1998. ~ 100 0 200 400 28j DETENTION BASIN ~ 2j! l 3. THIS PLAN REQUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND ADAMS COUNTY ZONE. I.4ANAGE. AND REGULATE DEVELOPt.lENT IN THIS WA TERSHEO IN ACCORDANCE 'MTH THE RECOI.41.4ENDA TIONS Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT flOOD DAMAGES RELA. TED TO FUTURE DEVELOPt.lENT. I II ! ~ ~ H 77~.OOO N 176.500 771.000 4. PRElJUINARY DESIGN INFQRUATION fOR SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FACIUTIES IS PRESENTm ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL D£TENTION FACIUTY MUST COt.IPLY WITH THE SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FACIUTY It.lPL£MENTATIQN GUIDElINES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFAll. SYSTEt.lS PLANNING DOCUI.4ENT. / If A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION fACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEW(S) ARE IN PlACE. All. D£VELOPt.lENT UPSTREAM 'Mn-rIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'Mll BE AllOWED TO RELEASE UNDETAlNED ON-SITE FlO'NS INTO THE OUTFALl DRAINAGE SYSTEI.4 . 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OR .'.DAMS COUNTY) AND THE UD&f"CD. ANY POT£NTIAL USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL RE\1EWlNG AGENCY FOR ANY REVISIONS OF THE PLAN IN THE NEARBY \1C1NITY. 7. DAruM: VERTICAL - NAVO 1968 HORIZONTAL - NAO 1963-1992 / ORIGINAL SCALE: ,"·200' OElENllON BASIN OUTLET ~I fliI_~~ DESIGNED--=- DATE ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING VJ~C ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED PRELIMINARY SHEET " SEcnON_Ii·_!.L:U:;' " REVlSED...HJL DATE ~ TRIBUTARY TO S PLAnE RIVER DESIGN PLAN 29 "-BUILT DATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT . ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 30 No improvements are proposed on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- / , ADAMS COUNTY ~ BRICH TON 711.~ / ' / ! / r OI ~ / I / / / ~ 717.000 / / / N 716.000 o I I I i I I I I I I I 0-0_0 SHEET INDEX TIS v\ \ \ \ \ ~lln7 J 51()IU r ~ C ~I()CP 51H 4 " , 5106 7 / / 5107 • MATCH SEE SHEET 29 51M2 51(l4 7 51045-) 5103.3 5101 4 510.1.1 510.1 ~ CIIO.1 4 117 LEGEND MA.STER PLAN FACIUTIES • ) ( 51094 WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSH£O BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY W.lITS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM SE~ Cl.JlVERT CHANNEl WJR.O W. 51 1& 2 NOTES: 1. THIS ORA'MNG IS F"OR j"jASlER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUWINARY AND CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING. ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTFALL SY$l[M 'MLL BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL RE'I1E'MNG AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAlNAG£ AND FlOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PRO'l1DED THE ALTERNATIVE OffERS EOOAl HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STA8IUTY. ll-IE AlTERNATIVE MUST CONPLY 'MTH AlL REQUIREMENTS OF" THE lOCAL ..lJRISOICTION AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND nOOD CONTROl DISTRICT. THIS DRA'MNG SHALL NOT B£ USED F"OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES 2. .lJRISOICllONAL BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON ll-IIS DRA'MNG ARE IN EFFECT AS OF" JANUARY. 199B. J. 507ll.t i' ;11 II' I! d ~7"1 :7 . , / : " " I 4- I • N 7n.~ N 777.000 N 77S.XlO N 11~.000 • . PREU~INARY DESIGN INF"ORWAnON F"OR SUBREGIONAL DElENnON F" AClunES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCAnON Of" A SUBREGIONAl DETENnON F"ACIUTY MUST CONPLY 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAl DETENTION fAC1UTY IMPt..D.IENTATION GUIDruNES PRESENlEO IN ll-IIS OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUMENT. 5 IF" A OO'MiSTREAM SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE ARE IN PlACE. All DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAt.I 'Mll-IIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'MLL BE ALLO¥l(D TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE FlOWS INTO THE OUTFALL DRAINAGE SYSTEt.I PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 31 No improvements are proposed on thi s sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- ~ : ~JlS ~NTYJ - BRIGHTON ~991 • 099J.l Ii lH,DOO N 773,000 SHEET INDEX LEGEND MASTER Pl...'Ji FAClunES • < ) ( - ~ 200 100 0 200 I ~ ~TCH ~ SEE SHm 22 ! SIlO7J WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UtollTS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA S TORI,j SEVIER CULVERT CHANNEL WjR.O.W. DfT£NTlON BASIN !lOll.' !lOll 0 !(Ill < / / / }Il,I.7 }olIO SOll 5 , !lOll I !lOll 0 / !I011~ !>OIl \ !I012.' 5011 I !!OIO 1 !lOll, !lOll 7 !IOI21 / !iOIJ I / SOil.' S013.~ !i01l.l / / NOTES: 1. THIS DRA'MNG IS rOR toIASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUI,UNARY AND CONC(PTUAl ENGINEERING. AlTERNATlVES TO THIS OUTfAll.. WIll. BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAl REVIEWING AC£NClES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATlVE OF"F"tRS EOUAL HYDRAUUC CAPACITY ANO STREAM THE ALTERNATlVE MUST COMPLY WITH All.. REQUIREMENTS Of THE LOCAL AND THE URBAN DRAlNAC£ AND FlOOO CONTROL DISTRICT. llilS DRAWING SHAll NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE IN EITECT AS Of JANUARY. 1998. J. THIS PLAN REOUIRES lliAT THE CITY Of BRlGI-ITON AND AOAI,jS COUNTY ZONE, I,jANAGE, AND REGULATE O£VELOPMENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOt.IMENDATlONS Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT FlOOO DAMAC£S RE\..A TEO TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ~113 72.r.t'10.04 !IOIJ.O !lOll e !I(13) SOle.1 DITCH WITH veGElAnON !J016.1 !lOt,. :IoOI6.l !IOllill 5Cl17.l ~ !IOIIO II SOU\.J 4. PREUMINARY DESIGN INfORMATION fOR SUBREQONAL DETENTION FA.ClUTl[S IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL. DETENTION fACIUTY MUST COMPlY Willi THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fACIUTY IM~ENTATION GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN llilS OUTfAll. SYST"EI,jS PLANNING DOCUMENT. 5. If A SUBREGIONAL O£TENTION fACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE ARE IN PLACE, All DEVELOPI,jEN T UPSTREAt.I WITHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WIll. BE ALl.OWED TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFAll DRAINAGE SYSTEI,j. 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES I,jUST BE APPROVED BY lliE CITY Of BRlGI-ITON (OR ADAWS COUNTY) AND THE UDMCD. ANY POT£NTlAL. USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAl REVIEWING AGENCY fOR ANY REVISIONS OF" THE PLAN IN THE NEARBY VICINITY. 7. DAl\Il,j: V£RTlCAL. - NAI,-{) 1988 HORIZONTAl _ NAO 1983-1992 ~ ORIGINAL SCALE: 1--200' DETUlTION BASIN OUTlET · ~ RA:EH~7-W~ - VJ~C ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED PRELIMINARY SHEET ~ sEcnON-'!.JLL1~ REVDIE.9 ~15,J \ :1010.7 ~11_1 ~1J6 ~17' LEGEND MASTER Pl..AN FACIUTIES • ) ( ! / " / WATERSHED BOUNDARY 5020' SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY Ut.llTS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STOR!.I SE'II£R CULVERT CHANNEl. WjRO.W DETENllON BASIN / / / ~20e ~IJ.l / / ~6.J / :IOle.2 / :10161 / :1017.0 / :10\6 6 I 1. 2 SOI7. ' 501/1' !I017.9 NOTES; THIS DRA'MNG IS FOR !.lASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PR£U!.I1NARY AND CONCEPTUAl ENGlN£ERlNC. AlTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTfAll SYSTEN 'Mll. BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL RE""'EWlNG AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONmOl OIS1R1CT PRO..,.,DED THE ALTERNATIVE OFfERS EOUAL H'I1lRAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABtUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE !.lUST CDt.4PlY 'MTH All REQUIREt.lENTS Of THE LOCAl .JJRISOlCllON AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROl DISTRICT. THIS DRA'MNG SHAll NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. JURISOICTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHO\IIN ON THIS DRA'MNG ARE IN EFFECT AS OF JANUARY, 1998. J . THIS PlAN REOUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND ADAt.lS COUNTY ZONE, t.l ANAGE, AND REGULATE DEVELOPt.lENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE 'MTli THE RECOMt.lENDA TIONS Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT flOOD DAMAGES RELATED TO FUTURE DEVELOPt.lENT. SOtQ 7 S02VJ SEe PROFILe 12 ~ SHEETS 106, 107 u < ~ a • 772.000 :102' 0 5022..' !I022.1 :IOn.? WETLAND TYPE VEGETATION (TYP.) S0171 EROSION 50269 PROTECTION 7m.500 4. PREUt.lINARY DESIGN INFORt.lA nON fOR SUBREGIONAL D£T(NllON F "aunES IS PR£SENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION or A SUBREGIONAL D£TENTlON FACIUTY MUST C~PlY 'II1ni THE SUBREGIONAL O£TENTlON rACIUTY It.4Pl£MENTATlON GUIOEUNES PRESENT£D IN THIS OUTFAll PlANNING DOCUIoiOn. 5 IF A SUBREGIONAL. DETENTION FACIUTY AND CON'JEYANCE SYSTOoI{S) ARE IN PLACE. AlL DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAM THIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WILL BE ALLO¥lfil TO RELfASE UNDETAINEO ON-SilE flOWS INTO THE OUTFAll DRAINAGE: SYSTEt.A 6 ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OR AO.AUS COONTY) AND THE UOMCO. ANY POTENTIAL. USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL RE\1E'MNG AGENCY FOR ANY REVISIONS OF THE PLAN IN THE NEARS'!' VICINITY. 7. OArut.l: VERTICAl _ NAVO 1986 HORIZONTAl - NAD 1983- 1992 " D£TENTION BASIN OUTlET ~ I TOWNSHIU..5.._ al"I'it,. g~~ED~ = CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING SHEET 5 . RANGE~Jt~ VJ~C ~ CHECKED OATE ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED PRELIMINARY ~ • m, sEc n olcL!I • .Ll! REVISED OATE imiiii§ TRIBUTARY TO S PLAnE RIVER DESIGN PLAN 32 ~ = AS-BUILT OATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT . ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 33 Presented on Sheet 33 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems S 19, S30, S31, and S36. The improvements were designed for flood peaks based on future development and a IOO-year recurrence period. Detention Basins Hand 1 are also presented on this sheet. The Detention basins were designed to have a 40 hour release rate for 5-year storm events and a 0.5 ers / acre release rate for 100- year storms The improvements for Outfall System S 19 includes a 1980 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System S30 includes a 1310 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. A proposed 4' x 8' storm sewer in Outfall System S30 is presented on this sheet. The improvements for Outfall System S31 includes a 2380 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System S36 includes a 850 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. A proposed 60" storm sewer and a single 48" Rep detention basin outlet in Outfall System S36 are also presented on thi s sheet. A proposed 4' x 8' storm sewer in Outfall System S36 is presented on this sheet. The total costs of improvements for the Outfall Systems on this sheet and for Detention Basins H and I are as follows: Outfall Sheet System Number Segment 33 S19 33 S30 33 S30 33 S30 33 S31 33 S36 33 S36 33 S36 33 S36 33 S36 Improvement Improvement Description Cost Channel $286,000.00 Channel $192,000.00 Channel $69,000.00 Storm Sewer $895,000.00 Channel $238,000.00 Channel $164,000.00 Pond Outlet/Culvert $22,656.25 Storm Sewer $455,000.00 Culvert $80,000.00 Detention Basin I $1,686,075.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- ~ ~ " . ~ S18 PLAN I SHEET 22 SEE PROFILE I SHEET 106 I ~ 77 <.000 J: J: N 773.500 U ~ . N 772.500 I SHEET INDEX TlS , ~ ~ ~1 1' [PHONE REDACTED].0 S0148 5017< § ~ ~ ~ E. lHn-t AVE ~ . ~1O_' 8 ~111 SOl21 / / / 5011 < / / / / / SEE SHEET "'SEE PLAN SHEET 24 / SEE PROFILE SHEETS 109. , / / / / / / :!OlI.O 5011.1 / / , - - 5OU2 I I I I I I I I r l70 I I I I \ \ ~ , ~ISl 50151 5017.< 5017.& SHEET n2 S0118 S013.1 PROTEcmON MATCH SEE SHEET 34 ) \ LEGEND MASTER PlAN FACIUTlES • ) ( WA l£RSHED BOUNDARY SUB WA l£RSHED BOUNOARY BRIGHTON CITY ut.4ITS DETENTIOO BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORI,j SE~ CULVERT CI-IANNEL W(R.O.W. DETENTION BASIN . , 870' DETENllON BASIN I .'>009.5 50328 .5032 < NOTES: 55.3 AC. FT. 0100 (OUT) ~ 189 CFS 0100 (IN) ~ 494 CFS R.O.W. ~ 12 AGR~? (SEE SHEET 200)' VEGETAn ON (TYP.) 5OJ5.' 1. THIS DRA'NING IS fOR t.lASTrR PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUWINARY AND CONCEPTUAl ENGINEERING. TO THIS OUTfALL SYSTEW WIll BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVlE'NING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOC() CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATIVE OfFERS EOUAl H'I'ORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAI.I STABIUTY. THE AlTERNATIVE MUST COWPLY 'MTH All REOUIREWENTS ~ THE lOCAl AND THE URBAN ORAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROl DISTRICT. THIS ORA'MNG SHALL NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. JURISOICTlONAL BOUNDARIES SHO,"", ON THIS DRAWING A.R£ IN EffECT AS Of' JANUARY. 1998. J . THIS PlAN REOUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND ADAMS COUNTY ZONE. IroIANAG(. AND REGULATE DE'JELOPIroIENT IN THIS WA l£RSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMIroIENDAn ONS OF THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT FlOOO D AGES RELATED TO fUTURE DEVELOF'IroIENT. SOJI.2 502' 2 ~Jll \ " ~ 0 J: \ J: ~ (JO 4. PREUt.4INARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR SUBR£GlONAl DETENTION FAClUTlES IS PRESENml ON SHEET 68 ANY CH,l.NGE IN SlZ£ AND/OR lOC"TlON Of' A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FAOUTY I.IUST CQt.iPLY 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAL f'ACIUTY IMPl£I,IENTATlON GUIOEUNES PR£SENTED IN THIS OUrr Ll SYSTEMS PLANNING OOCUMOH. 5. If A DOIIINSTRE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY AND CON'JEYANCE ARE IN PlACE. AU. O£VElOPt.lENT UPSTREAM WlTl-IIN THAT TRIBUTARY WAl£RSHED WILL BE AU.O'h£{) TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OU TfAll. DRAINAGE SYSTEt.I. 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES IroIUST BE Af'PRO'JED BY THE CITY Of (OR ADAMS COUNTY) AND THE UDMCO. ANY POTENnAL USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCY FOR ANY REVISIONS Of THE PLAN IN THE NEARBY VICINITY. 7. DArulrol: V£RTICAI.. NAVIJ 1985 HORIZONTAl. - NAD 1983-1992 OJ 774,000 " In.!ioOO N 77J.CXlO DETENTION BASIN OUllET ~ I !\i;L g~~~ED~ ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING SHEET 5> RANGEJiLl\'... VJ~C CHECKED _ _ "'TE ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED PRELIMINARY ~ LM£'/IJOOO. CCl.ORAOO 802» SEcnON_ti,-.!fl...l§!. DOMR. COI..ORIrDO 802... REVISED DATE ~ DESIGN PLAN 33 AS-BUO20.2 !>O20,] !>O'II,J S02'-4 SOl'!> !>o2J.' § ' SOZ211 N 771.000 !!Oz' 1 SO]' 2 S02H i 'lo02!1,O = !!OZ" 'lo02' e N 770.~ !I02~J 'lo02~6 N 770.000 I SHEET INDEX LEGEND R67 ! R66 T1S MASTER Pl.J\JII FACIUTlES • ) ( i • WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UMITS DE'ITNTION B SlN TRIBUTARY ARE STORM SEINER CULVERT CHANNEl W/R.O.W. SOJ1,] \ \ SC' 30 \ \ \ ~l..f04.e I I , I !I0410 I I I I I I: ~ n II ! !0034.& MATCH SEE SHEET ~9 ~ NOTES: THIS DRAWING IS FOR MASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUMINARY AND CONCEPTUAJ.. ENGINEERING. AJ..TERNATlIlES TO THIS OUTfALL Wlu.. BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAJ.. REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONTROl DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATI'JE OFfERS EOUAl H'Y1)RAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE AlTERNATI'JE MUST COMPlY WITH All REOUIREWENT'S ~ THE LOCAl AND THE URBAN DRAlIIIAGE AND FlOOD CONTROl DISTRICT. THIS DRAWING SHALL IIIOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. .lJRISOICTlONAl BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS DRA'MNG ARE IN EfFECT AS OF' JANUARY, 1998. 4. PR£UMINARY DESIGN INFORMATION fOR SUBREGIONAl. OElENTlON fAC'lUTlES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION ~ A SUBREGlON.t.L DETEIIITION fAC'lUTY MUST CQt,jPLY WITH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fACIUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTfALL PLANIIIIIIIG OOClIMENT. 5. If A SUBREGlON.t.L DETENTION fAClUTY ANO CONVEYANCE SYSTEM(S) ARE IN PLAc(. Au.. DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAW WITHIN TH T TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WILL BE AllOWED TO R£l..EASE UNOETAINED ON-SITE FlOWS INTO THE OUTfALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. J . THIS PlAN REQUIRES 11-tAl THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY "'!HE ADAMS COONTY ZONE. t.lANAG[, ANO REGULATE OTY Of BRIGHTON (OR "-OAMS COUNTY) AND TliE UD&FCO. O£VELOPWENT IN THIS IN ACCOftOANCE lH ANY POTENTIAl... USER SHOULD CONTACT THE lOCAL ~ : : M THE Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO REVlE'MNG AG£NCY F"OR ANY REIJISIONS Of THE PlAN ~ • • T. DETENTION BASIN PREVENT Fl.OOO DAMAGES RELATED TO FUruRE IN lHE NEARBY VICINITY. 172.000 N 771.~ N 111.000 N 710.!.OO N 170.000 200~~' DEVELOPMENT. , 1= ' 7. OAl\JW: VERTICAL - NAVO 1968 ()ifTF'A1J=-~~rr~~s:j;Li~~~~~ ~::H~om~Z=ON~TA~L~-~N~AO~~'9="'=--~'=99=2~lr ~ TOWNSHIP-.LS.. VJ~C ~ OESIGHEO-=- OAT[ m CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING ~ n" RANGUL-!L - g:~EO ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED PRELIMINARY SHEET ~ COlOllAOO 10232 SECnOtcL!..LLll. ~~1J RE\1S£D ~ DATE ~ DESIGN PLAN 34 , AS-OULT OAT[ URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 35 Presented on Sheet 35 are the proposed improvements for Outfali Systems S 17, S35, S39, and S40. The improvements were designed for flood peaks based on future development and a IOO-year recurrence period. Detention Basins G, L, and Z are also presented on this sheet The Detention basins were designed to have a 40 hour release rate for 5-ycar storm events and a 0.5 ers/acre release rale for 100- year storms. The improvements for Outfall System S 17 include a 1900 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Out fa Ii System S39 includes a 1870 foot grass lined channel with a concrete Irickle channel. The total costs of improvements for the Outfall System on this sheet and for the Detention Basins are as follows: Outfall Sheet System Improvement Improvement Number Segment Description Cost 35 517 Channel $168,000.00 35 517 Culvert $51,400.00 35 517 Pond Outlet/Culvert $33,600.00 35 517 Detention Basin Z $787,338.75 35 535 Detention Basin G $1,248,315.00 35 539 Channel $229,000.00 35 540 Channel $184,000.00 35 540 Pond Outlet/Culvert $22,656.25 35 540 Culvert $222,937.50 35 540 Detention Basin L $0.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- , , DETENTION BASIN Z 800' SHEET 33 SEE PROFILE SHEETS t1O, J I ~7.8 Vl00=23.2 AC. FT. 0,~(OVT)-96 CFS 0,~(IN)-426 CFS R.O.W.- 6.95 ACRES (SEE SHEET 200) DETENTION BASIN Q SHEET INDEX R67 R66 .7 " TT S • " , OS " 25 7 • 17 27 , '0 " '0 " 1 § § :I ! t.4ATCH SEE SHEET 26 AC. FT. 34.4 CFS I \ I , 1!bt2 a I r _00 , ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ 50., • I CFS I I I 10.9 ACRES SHEET 200) r.o4\.~ I I I !tOOl el I I t.4ATCH SEE SHEET 36 LEGEND W TERSHED BOUNOAAY SUB WATERSHEO BOUNDARY BRIG-HON CITY W.lITS DETENTION BASiN TRIBUTARY AREA MASTER PLAN FACllmES • < STORI.4 SEYlER ) ( CULVERT CHANNEl W/R.O w. _1.0 !tOt, ~ :SOTUAl ENGINEERING Al~An\'ES TO THIS OUTfAll SYSl'EW WIll. BE CONSIDERED BY lOCAL REIIIE'NING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOD CONTROl DISTRICT PROVIDED THE AlTERNATIVE OF'fERS EQUAl HYDRAUUC CAP ClTY AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE AlTERNATlIJE MUST COMPlY 'MTH AU. R£QUIRO.IENTS Of THE LOCAl ..uRlSOlCTlON NIIO THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOD CONTROl DISTRICT. THIS ORAWING SHAll. NOT Sf USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. JURISOlCTIONAL BOUNOAAIES SHO'IIN ON THIS DRA'MNG AAE IN [ff£CT AS Of JANUAAY. 1998. V'S = 39.5 AC. FT. 0'00 = 125 CFS (SEE SHEET 200) SG-<7.6 '1060.7 5O~1 8 4. PREUt.iINAAY DESIGN INfORt.iA nON fOR SUBREGIONAl. [)E"l[NnON fAClUnES IS PRESENl[() ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/ OR LOCAnON Of A SUBREGIONAl. DElENnON fAClUTY I.4UST COt.iPLY 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fACIUTY II.4PlEMENTATION GUIOEUNES PRESENTED IN mls OUTFAll. PLANNINC OOCUI.4ENT. 5. If A OO'M-ISTREA/rol SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAClUTY AND CONVEYANCE ARE IN PLACE. All. D£VEl...OPI.IENT UPSTREA1.4 'MTHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'MLL BE Al1.0Ylfil TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFAll DR.4JNAGE SYSTEI.4. J. THIS PlAN REOUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND 6. ANY PROPOSED Cl-tANGES I.4UST BE APPROYnl BY THE AOA/roIS COUNTY ZONE. I.4ANAGE. AND REGUlATE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OR AOA/roIS COUNTY) AND THE UD&fCO. OEVELOPt.JENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE 'MTH ANY POTENTIAl. USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL ~ : : ~ THE RECOMt.iENDATIONS Of THIS PLAN IN OROER TO REVlE'MNG AGENCY fOR ANY REVISIONS Of THE PlAN • ~ 44 . T . ' DETENTION BASIN PREVENT flOOD D-'MAGES RElATED TO fUTURE IN mE NEARBY VICINITY. " no.coo N 113,001) N 171.$00 'OO~~'~OO~~O~~~~'~OO~iiOiiii~lSlRE.4J.4 SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTU.I(S) ARE IN PLACE. All DEVELOPMENT UPSlREAI.t 'MTliIN THAT lRlBUTARY WATERSHED 'Mll BE AllOWED TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OR AD.4J.4S COUNTY) AND THE UD&FCD ANY POTENTIAL USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCY fOR ANY RE'v1S1ONS or THE PLAN IN THE NEARBY VICINITY 7. DATUM; VERTICAL - NAVO 1988 HORIZONTAL. NAD 19603-1992 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 38 No improvements arc proposed on thi s sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- II I II 770.~ + N 170.000 SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 7 r- 9, T1S !007~ • . !00792 DiTCH WITH WETlAN()ooWPE ~ IITATION (TYP.) BRIGHTON - ADAJ;S" COUNTY LEGEND MATCH SEE SHEET 37 WI. BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY Ut.iITS BASIN TRIBUTARY ARtA MASTER PLAN FACIliTIES NOTES: 1. THIS OOA\ll\NC IS fOR WASTER PlANNING PURPOS[S AND REPRESENTS PREUWINARY AND C~CEPTVAl ENGINEERING. Al TERNA lllJES TO THIS OUTF AU. SYSTEN WIll. BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REV1EWlNC AGENCIES AND THE URBAN ORAJNAG£ AND FlOOD CONTROl PROVIDED THE AlTERNAll'w'E ~S EWA!. H'\'ORAUUC CAPACITY )j 772.000 )j 171,000 N no.~ N 770.000 4. PREUt.lINARY DESIGN INFORt.lA nON fOR SUBREGIONAL DElENTlON rAcunES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68_ ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL OETENTlON fAClUTY MUST CQt.lPD' WITH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FAClUTY It.4PtD1ENTAllON CUIO£l.JNES PRESENTED IN nilS OOTFAU. SYSTEMS PlANNING DOCUMENT. 1- & -4 ~tt~ -t • ) ( STORM SOER CULVERT ANO STREAM STASIUTY. THE AlTERNATl'-'t: WUST COMPlY WITH AU. REOUIREWENTS or THE LOCAl .4.NO THE URBAN ORAiNAGE AND FlOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. THIS DRAWING SHAlL NOT BE US£I) fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. .AJRISOICllONAL BOUNDARIES SHOIIIN ON THIS DRAWING ARt IN EFFECT AS OF JANUARY, 1998. 5. If A DO'MIISTRfAAl SU8REGIONAl DETENllON fACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEN(S) ARE IN PLACE. AlL. DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAAI WITHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WIll BE ALlO'ftfi) TO RElEASE UNDETAlNED ON-SITE FlOWS INTO THE OUTFAlL. DRAINAGE SYSTEM, 3. THIS PLAN REQUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIQ-ITON AND 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES ,",UST BE APPROVED 8'1' THE • CHANNEl w/R.O.W. ADAMS COUNTY ZONE, MANAGE. -'NO REGULATE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OR AD S COUNTY) AND THE UO&f"CO DEVELOPMENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE 'IoI TH ANY POTENllAl USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL ~ : : ~ THE RECOtoIMENDAllONS Of THIS PLAN IN ORO£R TO REVIEWING AGENCY fOR ANY REVISIONS Of THE PLAN O ~ • • DElENTiON BASIN PREVENT FlOOD D AGES REl.ATED TO FUnJRE IN THE NEARBY VICINITY. 200 '00 0 200 400 DEVELOPMENT ~ I I 7. DAM • VERTICAL. - NA\1) 1988 ORIGiNAl SCAlE! '"-200' DETENllON BASIN OUTlET HOOIZONTAL - NAD 1983-1992 ~ I ,,!yAP MID .wrDCIrO ru: PRDOUCED 8Y' ~ TOWNSHIP_LS.._ w~c !lil~~ OESIGilEO-llL [)ATE ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING " • , RANGEj;j;J/~ g:~~ED ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED ~ IN<£WOal. COLORAOO 1I02J2 SECTION2,-1L2 21 =-~IJ RE'v1SEO ~ 04TE ~ ~ , [)ATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 39 Presented on Sheet 39 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems S20, S21 , S27, S28, and S41. The improvements were designed for flood peaks based on future development and a lOO-year recurrence period. Detention Basin C is also presented on this sheet. The Detention Basins C was designed to have a 40 hour release rate for 5-year storm events and a 0.5 ers I acre release rate for lOO-year storms The improvements for Outfall System S20 includes a 1300 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel, a proposed double 4 ' x 8' reinforced concrete box cul vert, a 66" inch Rep storm sewer, and a 54" inch Rep cul vert . The improvements for Outfall System S21 includes a 1220 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System S27 includes a 1450 fOOL grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. A proposed double 42" RCP culvert is also presented on this sheet. Presented on this sheet for this Outfall System S28 is a proposed 42" inch RCP storm sewer. The improvements for Outfall System S41 includes a 2900 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel and a 54" storm sewer. Cost informati on for Detention Basin 8 can be found in the commentary following Plan Shecl41. The total costs of improvements for the Outfall on this shect and for Detention Basin C are as follows: Outfall Sheet System Number Segment 39 S20 39 S20 39 S20 39 S20 39 S21 39 S27 39 S27 39 S27 39 S26 39 S41 39 S41 Improvement Improvement Description Cost Culvert $201 ,167.50 Pond Outlet $43,500.00 Storm Sewer $236,000.00 Detention Basin C $1,547,415.00 Channel $141 ,000.00 Channel $60,000.00 Channel $67,000.00 Culvert $76,125.00 Storm Sewer $161 ,000.00 Channel $139,000.00 Storm Sewer $436,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- BEND EROSION PROTECnON N 7n,OOO N 7U H 76&.000 N 7e7.500 SHEET INDEX R67 i R66 ~ 7 ~JI.1 TYPE VEGETAnON (rIP.) SQ'Je " 50<70 TIS 1- ~ 4 -4--10 ~ ti ~ - H~ SQUI & S-1 20.8 AC. v,oo = 49.6 AC. FT. "0',00 (OUT)~"'1'1' 1 CFS 0,00 425 CFS ( =~Jl.9 ACRES • SHEET 200) \ \ ~(U7,11 5Q' ~ J ~ w 5Q' J9 !oOoI:a II \ \ . \ 5004 1 " LEGEND MASTER Pl..'JIj FAC1UTlES • ) ( !>O7.! SHEET INDEX TIS 100 0 200 ORIGINAL SCAlE: 1".20C)' TOWN SHIP \ V I~C l»IOWAAK 1oI-.c; LTD 1sao WEST A\'OIU£, SlJTE 21 CCllORAOO 1!I02;\2 RAN W SEeTIO/eLI / 2 30 50'" ~2_7 , SEE SHEET 39 \ \ IlItCH WITH \ \ \ WETLAND TYPE VEGETAnON (TYP.) \ \ " 505J.J .1 . LEGEND W TER9-iED BOUNDARY SUB w TERSHEO BOUND RY BRIGHTON CITY UMITS OfTENnON B SlN TRIBUTARY ARE "'ASTER PLAN FAClunES • STORIoI SE~ ) ( CULVERT J CHANNEL w/R.O.W. DETEN nON B SlN DETENnON BASIN OUTlET ADAMS COUNTY . ( E I J2ND - e. EROSION PROTECn ON N m,!IOO 1060+00 I i ! • 0 I ~LAN SHEET 42 910+00 ~ I U1 • ! 8 I ~ NOTES: 1. THIS ORAWING IS FOR I.tASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPR£SENTS PREUl.tlNARY AND CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING. ALTERN TlVES TO THIS OUTFAll. SYSTEW WILL BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REV1EWlNG AGENCIES AND THE URBAN ORAiNAGE AND FlOOO CONTRa.. DISTRICT PROV1DED THE ALTERNATI~ OfFERS EOUAL H'I'ORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAIro4 STAaIUTY. THE ALTERN TlVE MUST COMPLY WITH AU. REOUIREI.tENTS OF" THE LOCAL JURISDICTION AND THE URB-'N DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONTRa.. DISTRICT. THIS DR WlNG 9-iA.l.L NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. JURISOICTlON.a.L BOUNDARIES SHOWi'l ON THIS DR WlNG ARE IN EFFECT 5 Of JANUARY. 1998, J. THIS f>l.AN REQUIRES TH T THE CITY Of" BRIGHTON AND ADAIro4S COUNTY ZONE, I.tAN GE, AND REGULATE DEVELOPI.tENT IN THIS W TERSHED IN CCORDANCE ¥14TH THE RECOWI.tEND TlONS Of" THIS PLAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT FlOOO D AG(S RElATED TO FUTURE D£VELOPI.tENT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER I I I I I I N 7S~,0!XI 4. PREl.JI.tINARY D£SiGN INFORI.t TlON FOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION F ClUllES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of" SUBREGIONAL DETENTION F ClUTY IoIUST COt.IPLY Wln-t THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION r aUTY IIoIPlEJ,IENT TlON GUlOEUNES PRESENTED IN n-tIS OUTFALl SYSTEIoIS PLANNING OOCUIolENT. ~ . IF OOWl'lSTRE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION r aUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEloI(S) ARE IN PLACE. AU. DE'vUOPI.tENT UPSTREAI.t WITHIN TH T TRIBUTARY W TERSHED WlU BE A.UOVlfil TO RELE SE UNOETA.lNED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTF AU. QRA.lN G[ SYSTEIoI. 7. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES IoIUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY Of BRiCHTaol (OR ADAIro4S COUNTY) AND n-tE UD&fCO. NY POTENTIAL USER SHOULD CONT CT THE LOC L REV1EWlNG GENCY FOR -'NY REV1S1ONS Of THE PLAN IN THE NEARBY V1C1NITY. DATUIA: VERTICAL - N VO 1968 HORIZONTAL· N D 198J- 1992 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 41 Presented on Sheet 41 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems S24, S31, S32, S33, S34, and S42. The improvemems were designed for tlood peaks based on future development and a IOO-year recurrence period. Detention Basins B, D, and E are also presented on this sheet. The Detention basins were designed to have a 40 hour release rate for 5-year storm events and a 0.5 cFs I acre release rate for 100- year storms The improvements for Outfall System S24 includes a 350 foot grass lined channel wi th a concrete trickle channel. Also presented on this sheet for this Outfall System is a proposed double 4' x 7' reinforced concrete box culvert. Presented on this sheet for Outfall System S3l is a proposed 4 ' x 8' reinforced concrete box storm sewer The improvements for Outfall System S32 includes a 3030 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. A double 48" Rep cu lverts are also presented on this sheet. The improvements for Outfall System S34 includes a 680 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. Also presented on this sheet for this Outfall System is a proposed double 4' x 8' rein forced concrete box culverl. Proposed 54" Rep and 36" RCP storm sewers are also presented on this sheet for Outfall system S42. See commentary for sheet 43 for cost information about Outfall System S33. The tOLal costs of improvements for the Outfall System on this sheet and For Detention Basin S, D, and E are as follows Outfall Sheet System Number Segment 41 S31 41 S32 41 S32 41 S32 41 S33 41 S33 41 S34 41 S34 41 S42 41 S42 Improvement Improvement Description Cost Storm Sewer $782,000.00 Channel $509,000.00 Culvert $76,125.00 Detention Basin D $1,647,960.00 Channel $0.00 Detention Basin E $679,687.50 Channel $94,000.00 Culvert $141,375.00 Storm Sewer $1,225,000.00 Storm Sewer $227,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- N 7~9.000 SHEET INDEX 5 V"'O = ,\i,1,3 AC. fT. 0"'0 (OUT)= 166 CFS ~87 !I04&.Q,oo (IN)= 374 CFS R.O.W. = 10.6 ACRES (SEE SHEET 200) V,oo = 25.9 AC. fT. 0 ' 00 (OUT)= 83 CFS , 0'00 (IN)= 368 CFS , R.O.W. = 7.1 ACRES , ~(Sh SHEET" ,wO) , , \ . I I I l~~6 I ~ , , , \ \ \ \ - I - !I05l~ ~ \ !IO!le1 , , \ \ , :101587 I \ I " \ \ , , , !IOl' ft \ I I ~ , MATCH SEE SHEET +2 LEGEND MASTER PlAN FACIUTlES • < ) ( VIA TERSHED BOONDAAY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY Ut.llTS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM 5(Yt£R CULVERT CH.t.NNEl W/R.O.W. WIO'rfAND TYPE VEG~flnON (TYP.) ~ 0 III ~22 f:l III t; " . "110 5 = l&wo= 22.6 AC. fT. RO.W. M71.[XISTING (SEE SHEET 200) , , W. , NOTES: 1. THIS DRAWING IS FOR t.lASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUMiNARV AND COHC£PTUAl ENGINEERING. ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTFALL WIll BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAl RE\IIE'NING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN ORAiNAGE AND FlOOO CONTROL DISTRICT PRO\llDED THE ~S EOUAl HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAt.I STAeIUTY. THE AlTERNATlIJE MUST CQl,jPLY WITH AlL REQUIREt.lENTS or THE LOCAL JURlSOICTlON AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONTROL THIS DRAWING SHAU NOT BE USED rOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. JURISDICTIONAl BOUNDARIES SHO,"" ON nilS DRA'NINC ARE IN EmCT AS Of JANUARY. 1998, J. THIS PlAN REQUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND AOAMS COUNTY ZONE, NANAC£. AND REGULATE DEIJELDPNENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMt.lENDATIONS Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO PREVENT FlOOO DAMAGES RElATED TO FUTURE DEIJELOf't,IENT 4. PREl..JUINARY oe:SlGH INFQRIoIATlON FOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION rAClUTlES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FAaUlY t.lUST CooPLY 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAl OElENTlON fAe lUTY It.lPlDIENTATlON GUIOEUNES PRtSENTEO IN THIS OUTFAll PlANNING OOCUt.lENT. Ir A DO'lltolSTREA),j SUBREGIONAl OETENTlON rACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE SY'Sm.I(S) ARE IN PLACE. AU OEIJElOPt.lENT UPSTREA),j WITHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'NIU BE AUO'IIED TO RELEASE UNOETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFAll DRAINAGE SY'STEt.I. 7119,!IQO N 7IIi.OOO , / ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 42 Presented on Sheet 42 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, and S26. The improvements were designed for flood peaks based on future development and a l00-year recurrence period. Detention Basin A is also presented on this sheet. The Detention basins were designed to have a 40 hour release rate for 5-year storm events and a 0.5 ers I acre release rate for 100- year storms The improvements for Outfall System S21 includes a 2950 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. Two proposed 48" Rep culverts are also presented on this sheet. The improvements for Outfall System S23 includes a 1935 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. Two proposed 48" Rep culverts and eight 30" Rep culverts are also presented on this sheet. The improvements for Outfall System S24 includes a 1935 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. Two proposed 48" Rep culverts and eight 30" Rep culverts are also presented on this sheet. The improvements for Outfall System S25 includes a 1600 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System S26 includes a 1760 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The tOlal costs of improvements for the Outfall System on this sheet and for Detention Basin A are as follows: Sheet Number 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 Outfall System Segment 821 821 821 822 823 823 823 823 823 824 824 825 826 Improvement Improvement Description Cost Channel $227,000.00 Culvert $36,250.00 Culvert $138,203.13 Detention Basin A $883,875.00 Channel $266,000.00 Channel $38,000.00 Culvert $47,578.13 Culvert $43,046.88 Culvert $290,000.00 Channel $85,000.00 Culvert $132,312.50 Channel $227,000.00 Channel $168,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- . l SHEET INDEX R67 T'S SHEETS 107.10lfl6J .I SEE PLAN SHEET 40 !I0609 ADAMS COUNTY BRiCiiTON - , ~70l $0132 'lo07J 2 507.1.0 LEGEND MASTER PLAN FACIUTIES • ) ( - - f $0115 $0711 $0107 \ I I $On. I \ ~70~ \ '00 - ln~.5 AC. 0' 00 (OUT)= 205 0' 00 (IN)= 90 CFS R.O.W. = 7.5 ACRES (SEE SWEtr 200) / " REACH S32 ~2 SEE PROFILE SHEET 111 PLAN SHEET 41 I I / \ , j.,o, I I f , REACH S23 STA. 1000+00 / MATCH SEE SHEET 45 WATERSHED BOUtIDARY SUB WA TERSHEO BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY Ut.iITS OElENllON BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM SE'II£R CULVERT CHANNEL W/R.O.W. / NOTES: THIS ORA'MNG IS fOR ~ASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUIoIINARY AND CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING. ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTfAll SYSTEM WIll BE CONSlDER£O BY LOCAL REVIEWING AGENOES AND THE URBAN ORAINAGE AND flOOD COIl. 2 5101.,. " 51032 • - - \ . , \ ~ \ ~7,7 N le ~ \ 51013 / ~ , § ~ , / . ' - - ~ ~ " ' T w w " , w SHEET INDEX LEGEND TlS 200 100 0 200 I 400 ! MASTER PL.AN FACIUTlES • ) ( MATCH SEE SHm 43 51036 - 5100 2 <:rr .StfID 46, ' - ' - WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UI.IITS OE'TENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORI.I SEYI£R CULVERT CHANNEL W(R.O.W. 51073 51 00 1 NOTES: 1. THIS DRA'MNG IS FOR I.IASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUI.IINARY AND CONC£PTUAl ENGINEERING. AlTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTfAL..L 'MLl BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAl REVlE'MNG AGENOES AND THE URBAN ORAiNAGE AND FlOOO CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE AlTERNATIVE OfFERS EOUAL HYDRAULIC CAPACITY AND S1R£Al,j STASIUTY. THE I.IUST CC»oIPlY 'M Tl-i AL..L REOUIROIENTS Of THE LOCAL AND THE URaAN ORAiNACE AND FlOOO CONTROL DISTRICT. THIS DRA'MNG SHAll. NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. .JJRISOICTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHO'Mol ON THIS DRA'MNG ARE IN EFFECT AS Of JANUARY. 1998. J . THIS PlAN REOUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND ADAMS COUNTY ZONE. MANAGE. AND REGULATE DEVELOPMEN T IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE 'M TH THE RE<:a,jMENDATIONS Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO PRE'JENT flOOD DAMAGES RnA TEO TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ~IOI 0 51009 5100, 1 !IOIIO 4 N 7e7,000 N 766, !ioOO N 766.000 N 165.SOO N 7e~.000 7G4.!ioOO 4. PREUI.IINARY DESIGN INFORI.IATION FOR SUBREGIONAl OCl!NTION FAOUTIES IS ~TEO ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/ OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FACIUTY MUST COMPlY 'MTH THE SU8R£GlONAL DETENTION FACIUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUIOEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFAll. SYSTEIojS PlANNING OOCUIojENT. 5. IF A OO'MolSTREAM SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY AND CONVEYANC( ARE IN PlACE. AU. DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAt.I 'MTHIN TliAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'MU BE ALlOv.m TO RELEASE UNOETAINED ON-SITE FlOWS INTO THE OUTfAL..L DRAlNAGf SYSTEI.4. ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 45 Presented on Sheet 45 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems S22. The improvements were designed for flood peaks based on future development and a I OO-year recurrence period. The improvements for Outfall System S22 includes a 1120 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The 10lal costs of improvements for Outfall System on this sheet are as follows: Sheet Number 45 Outfall System Segment S22 Improvement Description Channel Improvement Cost $135,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- 50691 /I 7U.OOO ' S0711 50114 J N ~3.000 ~75.' N 762.500 N 762.000 ( 50972 l ~ " SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 T,S \00 o 200 SEE SHEET 42 S07l0 ~7111 ~716 S071 II S07J 4 5071 J , ~ LEGEND MASTER PlAN FACIUTIES • ) ( ;!.QII06 ~1'1I 5032:2 $077.7 ~6 50796-' ~760 , " so76e,50~' I0Il1 s WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UIoIITS OElENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STOR... SEYlER CULIJERT CHANNEl W/R.O.W. ~77.7 son 4 son. son8 , " 5082.1 1000+00 100 = Q,OO (OUT)= 0100 '(fI\0= 90 R?6\W. = 7.5 (SEE S~ EET !Io0711B !Io071111 , 503JJ " !Io06JJ 50&< 1 " 5079.J 501!I2.J I " NOTES: 1. THIS ORA'MNG IS fOR STER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUIo4INARY AND CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING. ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTFALl SY'STEI.I 'Mll. BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVlE'MNG "'GENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT THE ALTERNA1lVE OffERS EQUAL HYORAUUC CAPAOTY AND STREAM STABtUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE "'UST COJ.IPLY 'Mll1 ALl REQUIREIo4ENTS Of THE LOCAL .lJR.SOICTlON AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. THIS ORA'MNG SHALl NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUC1lON PURPOSES. 2. .lJRISOICTlON"'L BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS ORA'MNG ARE IN EfFECT AS OF JANUARY, 1998. 3. THIS PlAN REQUIRES THAT THE OTY Of BRlQiTON AND ADAMS COUNTY ZONE, t.lAN"'GE. AND REGUlATE DEVELOP"'ENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOIo4"'END TIONS OF THIS PlAN IN OROER TO PREVENT FlOOO OAWAGES RElATED TO FUTURE OEVElOf'I.IENT § ~ 501!14.8 ~7.7 - " S091.Q ,I · 5Q'le.' l~ r N 1BJ.SilO I i \ " 76VlOO ~12 5Q1161 . " C , 4. PREUIoiINARY OESiGN INfORIoiATION fOR SUBREGIONAl DETENTION fACILITIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/ OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAOUTY IoIUST COOPLY 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAClUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDEliNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFALl SYSTEMS PL"'NNING DOCUMENT. \ N 762.000 5. IF A SUBREGIONAL D£TEN1lON FAaUTY AND CONVEYANCE SY'STEI.I(S) ARE IN PLACE. ALl DEVElOPMENT UPSTR(AJ.I Wl1l11N THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'Mll. BE "'ll.DV\C} TO RELEASE UNDETAINED ON-SITE FlOWS INTO THE OUTFALl DRAINAGE SYSTEM. ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 46 There are no improvements on this sheeL. ---PAGE BREAK--- N 764,000 N 762.000 l SHEET INDEX ns \ SO'28 \ \ :1097.0 !009' .7 • • , " - l 510.1.7 ~l ~a 510J9 200 I 100 0 200 ! DRAWN CHECKED Rf\IISEI> -R>L AS-BUILT 51006 5101.3 5101 a 51010 5104 a 51027 5107.' 51055 5 ' 011 • 51006 5102.7 51010 5102 7 I LEGEND MASTER PlAN FACIUTlES • ) ( : 8 510(19 51" J 510111 WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY W.lITS DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORt.I SO£R CULVERT CHANNEl W/R.O.W. DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN OUTl!T 5u0.8 ADAMS COUNTY • 511'1 5101< 51 121 5'0111 51!)99 51131 51116 [PHONE REDACTED] , 5112.1 SI1o.3 \1\1 " f 5'081 51067 ~10< 1 510111 511~a 5111.0 5111.6 51072 51019 5111.7 5110.1 110) 5110,) 51103 51107 5119 l !llo.1.0 5101$ 51070 51107 " " , . N 764.500 ~IO' 2 N n o,COlO 5107 I 5117.6 5111. 511$1 5116.' SHiro 511" ·~lj61 \ 511 NOTES: 1. THIS ORA'MNG IS F~ MASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PRElIMINARY AND CONCEPTUAl ENGINEERING. AlTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTfAll.. SYSTEt.I 'Mll. BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAl RE""'EWING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND fLOOO CON"ffiOl PRO""'DED THE AlTERNATIVE OFf"ERS EOUAl HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND S"ffiEAt.l STABUTY. THE AlTERNATIVE Io4UST CC».IPlY 'MTH All.. REOUIREWENTS ~ THE LOCAl AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CON"ffiOl OISlRICT. THIS DRAWING SHAll. NOT BE US£D FOO CONSTRUCTION PURPOS£S. 2. JURISDICTIONAl BOUNDARIES SHO'IIIN ON THIS DRAWING ARE IN EFFECT AS ~ JANUARY, 1998. nilS PLAN REOUIRES Tl-iAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND AD S COUNTY ZONE. Io4ANAGE, AND REGULATE DEvt:LOPt.lENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE 'MTH THE RECOt.It.lENOATIONS ~ THIS PLAN IN ORDER TO PREvt:NT flOOO DAMAGES REl..A TEO TO f\JTURE DE'v{LOPt.lENT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER 4. PRru~INARY [)(SlGN INfORt.lA TlON fOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAClUllES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION fAClUTY MUST CQt.lPLY 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION rACIUTY IhotPl.D.4ENTATION GUIOEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTF"AU. S'I"STEI.4S PlANNING OOCUt.4ENT. 5 If A DO¥lNs"ffiE SU8R(GlONAI.. DETENTION fAClUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEt.I(S) ARE IN PLACE. ALL DEVElOPt.lENT UPSTRE 'MTHIN niAT "ffiIBUTARY WATERSHED 'Mll. BE AlLOIII£[) TO RElEAS£ UNDETAINEO ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTfAlL DRAINAGE SYSTEt.I. 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES Io4UST BE APPROvtO BY Tl-iE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OA ADAMS COUNTY) AND THE UD&rCO. ANY POTENTIAl USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAl RE'YlEWlNG AGENCY fOR ANY RE....,SlONS Of THE PLAN IN THE NEARBY VICINITY 7. OAlUt.I: vt:RTlCAl - NAVU 1988 HORIZONTAl _ NAD 1983-1992 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 47 There arc no improvemenLs on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- / SHEET INDEX / / / / / / / I I \ / I I \ \ \ / \ I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ I / / / / / I I I \ \ I- I I I I I I \ \ \ / \ ) I I - / I / I L~ \ " \ \ \ \ IAATCH SEE SHEET 48 LEGEND WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY CITY UWITS BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA "ASTER PLAN FACIUTIES • STORloI SE\I\ER CULVERT CH-'HNEl W/R.O.W. NOTES: THIS DRAIWoIG IS FOR MASTER PlANNING PURPOSES ANO REPRESENTS PREUMINARY AND CONC£PruAL ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTFALL SYSTEM 'MLl BE CCHSIDERED BY LOCAL REVlE'MNG AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DR NAGE ANO ROOD CONTROl DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATIve: QfF[RS EOUAL HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE AlTERNATIVE Io4UST Cot.IPlY Wln-t ALL REOUIROIENTS c:F THE LOCAL AND THE URaAN DR NAGE AND ROOD CONTROl DISTRICT. n-tIS DRAWING SHALl NOT BE USED FOR PURPOSES. 2. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHO'fttol ON THIS DRAWING ARE IN EfFECT AS Of JANUARY, 199B. \ 4. PREUt.I!NARY DESIGN INFOR"''' TlON fOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fACILlnES IS PRESENTED ON 68. ANY CH.4.NGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATlON or A SUBREGIONAL FAOUTY MUST COOPLY 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAClUTY II.4PlEt.lENTATlON ClJIOEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTHJJ PlANNING DOCUMENT. 5. If A DO'M'lSTR[At.4 SUBREGIONAL DETENllON FAOUl'( -'NO CONVEYANC( SYSTEN(S) AAE IN PlACE. All DEVElOPMENT UPSlREAIot \'IITHI", THAT TRIBUTARY WAl[RSHEO 'MU BE ALlOWED TO REl..EASE UNDETAlNEO ON-SIT[ FtO'NS INTO THE OUTF AU. DRAINAGE SYSTEM. J. THIS PLAN REQUIRES lliAT THE CITY Of AND 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ADAMS COUNTY ZONE. AND REGULATE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OR ADAMS COUNTY) AND THE UD&fCO. ;1 DEVELOPt.lENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY POTENTIAL USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL " THE RECOt.It.lENDATlQH5 Of THIS PlAN IN ORO(R TO RE\1EWlNG AGENCY fOR ANY REVISIONS Of THE PLAN r . : J O£TENTICH BASIN PR£I,o£HT ROOD DAMAGES RElATED TO FUruRt IN THE NEARBY VlONlTY. ~ 2j 100 0 200 ! ~ ~ D£VELOPtoIENT 7. DAruM: VERTICAL _ NAVO 1988 "l (j~TF~Li~~~TE~~IP1:~IiN~Ki----"lI"------~:H~OR~I~zON~T~A~L TOWNSHIP_LS.._ \ V HlI~ ~ DEgGNED-llL OAT! ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING ~ RANGE..2L.W... W ~~~ED ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED PRELIMINARY SHEET SEC nON N. 1/2 REVIS[I) -"flL OAT! ~ 0 S n DESIGN PLAN 47 AS-BUILT OAT! URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TRIBUTARY T . PLA E RIVER ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 48 There are no improvements on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- \ \ \ \ \ I \ I I I \ \ LEGEND MASTER PlAN FAClunES • ) ( - - - \ I l \ l ~ \ "I ( , MATCH SEE SHEET 1 WA TERSHEO BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY Ut.4ITS Q£TENnON BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORI.4 S(YI£R CULVERT / / / ( l I \ NOTES: 1. THIS DRAWING IS fOR "'''SlER PlANNING PURPOSES AHO REPRESENTS PRWt.lINAAY AND CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING. ALTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTFAlL III1LL BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REV1E'MNG AGENCIES AND niE URB.4.N ORAlNAG( AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PR0'v10ED THE AlTERNATIVE OffERS EOUAl H'l'DRAUUC CAPACITY AND SlR£At04 STABIUTY. niE AlTERNATIVE MUST ~PlY Wlni AU REQUIREMENTS Of THE LOCAl AND n-tE URBAN OfVJNAG[ AND FLOOD CONTROl DISTRICT. THIS DRAWING SHAll NOT BE USEO FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. BOUNDARIES SHO""'" ON THIS ORA'MNG ARE IN EFfECT AS Of JANUARY, 1998. -l I II 4. PREUt.lINAAY DESIGN INfOR"'''l1ON FOR SUBREGIONAL FAClt.JnES 15 PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl OETENTJON F"QUTY MUST COWPLY WITH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUIOOJNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFALL SYSTEIoI5 PlANNING OOCUt.lENT. 5 If A OO.,.,.STREAM SUBREGlOtV.l DETENTION FACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYS~(S) ARE IN PLACE. ALL DEVElOPMENT UPSTREAM 'MTHIN THAT TRIBUTARY W"TERSHED WIll BE Al..LOYlC) TO RELEAS£ UNDElAlNEO ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFALL DRAINAGE S'I"STEM. Ct1ANNEl W/R.O.W. 3. THIS PlAN REOUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND 6. ANY PROPOSED Ct1ANGES t.4UST BE APPROVED BY TllE ,fJ)AMS COUNTY ZONE. t.4ANAGE. AND REGLILATE OTY Of BRIGHTON (OR AD,tJ,AS COUNTY) AND THE UO&:FCO. ~ - - DEV[L()F>NENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE 'MTH ANY POTENnAJ. USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL " ~ : : ~ THE R(COt.IIoIENDA nONS OF THIS PlAN IN OROCR TO R£VIE'MNG AGENCY fOR ANY RE\1S1ONS OF THE PlAN 'i . T T ' OElENnON BASIN PREVENT flOOD D AGES RUATEO TO fUTURE IN THE NEARBY \1C1NITY. 5 200~~'~OO~~O~~~~200 ~;;;;;!iiiioiii 400 DEVELOPIoIENT. 8 I = ! 7. DAl\JI.4; ~ncAJ. - NAIJO 1988 ' " (j~TF~Li~~~TE~~IF1:~IiN~Ki ~:H~OR~l~ZON~T:A~L 5 TOWNSH1P-1..5.._ ill ( DESlCNED...l!L DAIT UlliQ} CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING l RANGE.§.LlY~ ~ i. g:~~ED UlliQ} ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED PRELIMINARY SHEET N IN<£WOOD, ca.oRAOO lIOl.l2 RE\'TSED ~ OATE ~ DESIGN PLAN 48 AS-BUILT DAIT URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 49 There are no improvements on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 TlS I ~ 3 YIJ' AHO .o.uTOCAll F"U PRooua:o BY' ! lAHOIoVJ!\( YAPPING lID 7500 WEST A'oOIU[. SUIT[ '1 TOWN SHIP RANGE_2Z . ~ ~E\IIOOO. CCl.ORAOO 1102.12 SECTlON_ti·~ PHOHE.. (30J) 922-241' 'AX; (JOJ) 922-28M 200 100 0 200 I ORIClNAl SCAl..E; ,"-200' 400 ! DESICNED DRAWN ~ CHECKEO RE'Y1SEO ~ AS-BUILT LEGEND I ( \ \ I / ( L , / f MASTER PLAN FACIUTIES • < ) ( • I \ \ \ \ ) l / J / / WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WAl(RSHEO BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY Ut.4ITS SEE SHEET 50 OETENTION BASiN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM SE\Io£R CULVERT CHANNEl W/R.O.W. DETENTION BASIN DETENTION BASIN OUTtET CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY J NOTES: 1. THIS ORA'MNG IS FOR ~ASTER PlANNING PURPOS£S AND REPRESENTS PREUt.lINARY ANO CONc(PTUAl ENGINEERING AlTERNATlIlES TO THIS OUTFAlL SYSlEW Will. BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROL OISTRICT PROIAOED THE AlTERN T1YE OfFERS EOUAl HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STA8IUTY. THE AlTERNAnV( Io4UST COWPlv WITH AU. REOUIRE ENT'S a: THE LOCAl ..AJRlSOtCllON AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROl DISTRICT. THIS ORA'NINC SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. JURISDICTIONAl BOUNDARIES SHO'MoI ON THIS DRAWING ARE IN EFFECT AS Of JANUARY, 1998. J . THIS PLAN REOUIRES THAT THE OTY Of BRiGHTON AND ADAMS COUNTY ZONE. t.AANAGE. AND REGULATE DE'o'tLOPWENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE 'tilTH THE R(C()t,jMENDA TlONS Of THIS Pl.AN IN ORDER TO PRE'v{NT flOOD DAWAGES RELATED TO FUTUR( DE'o'tLOf'MENT. URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER 4. PRElIMINARY DESIGN INF"QR nON FOR SUBREGIONAl DETENTION rAaUTiES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 158. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/ OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FAOUTY MUST COUPlY ¥11TH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY I Pl.EMENTATlON GUIDElINES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFAll. SYSTEMS PlANNING OOCUWENT. 5. IF A OO'M'lSTR[AW SUBR(GlONAl DETENTlON FACIUTY AND CON'JEYANCE S'f'STEM(S) AR£ iN PlACE. All. DEvnOf'MENT UPSTREAM 'MTHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WAITRSHED 'MLL BE AlloVttO TO REl..EASE UNOETAINED ON-SITE FlO'NS INTO THE OUTFAll DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPRO'v{O BY THE aTY Of BRIGHTON (OR ADAt.tS COUNTY) AND THE UD&FCD. ANY POTENTlAl USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL RE'Y1EIII1NC AGENCY FOO N4Y REVISIONS Of THE PI...AN IN THE NEARBY VlONITY. 7. DATUM: NAW 1968 HORIZONTAL NAD 1953-1992 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 50 Presented on Sheet 50 are the proposed improvements for Outfall Systems N I, N2, and N3. The improvements were designed for flood peaks based on future development and a I DO-year recurrence period. The improvements for Outfall System N I includes a 3444 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System N2 includes a 1200 fOOl grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The improvements for Outfall System N3 includes a 2647 1'001 grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The total costs of improvements for the Outfall System on this sheet are as 1"lIows: Outfall Sheet System Improvement Improvement Number Segment Description Cost 50 N01 Channel $3,105,000.00 50 N02 Channel $573,000.00 50 N03 Channel $2,033,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- II / SHEET INDEX R67 i R66 TlS ( / r' " I I \ I / I I \ I I I ) / / / / I I \ SEE SHEE1I!9~_ T- 1 r / / / LEGEND MASTER PLAN FAClunES • < ) ( / i I / I / i . _ . ~ BRICHTON WA BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY W ITS BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORt.! s[1IIER CUL\"{RT / r ADAMS COUNTY l NOTES: / j I. 'OilS ORA'MNC IS FOR MASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PR£UWINARY AND CONCEPTUAl ENGINEERING. AlTERNATlII£S TO THIS OUTFAll 'Mll BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAl RE\'IE'MNG AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE: ,\NO FlOOO CONTROl DISTRICT PROVIDED THE AlTERNATlII£ OFFERS EQUAL HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREA.W STABIUTY. THE AlTERNATl\i£ IoIUST C~PlY ¥11TH All REOUIREIoIENTS OF THE LOCAl ANO THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FlOOO CONTROl OISlR1CT. nilS OR"'WlNG 9-IAll NOT BE US£D FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. ..uRISOICTlONAl BOUNDARIES SHO'ftN ON THIS DRA'MNG ARE IN EFFECT AS Of JANUARY. 1998. - - I I 1! 4. PREUt.iINARY DESIGN INf ORMATION FOR SUBREGIONAL OETENllON f AClUTl[S IS PRESENTm ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION .AClUTY WUST 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAL O£lENTlON rACIUTY II.IPLEMENTATlON GUIDElINES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFALL SYSTEI.IS PlANNING DOOJI.I£NT. 5. IF A SUBREGIONAl. DETENTION FACIUTY AND CON\"{YANCE SYS"fD,j(S) ARE IN PlACE. AlL. DE\lD.OPI.I£NT UPSTREAN 'MTHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'MLl BE AlL.0'llfi) TO REl.£As[ UNOETAINEO ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFALl DRAINAGE S'I'S"fD,j. J. THIS PlAN REQUIRES THAT THE CITY OF BRIGHTON AND 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES t.!UST BE APPROVED BY THE ~ CHANNEl W/R.O.W. .'.DANS COONTY ZONE, t.;ANAGE, AND REGULATE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OR ADAI.IS COONTY) AND THE UD&FCO. ~I DE'VELCAtlENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE 'MTH ANY POTENTIAl. USER SHOOLD CONTACT THE LOCAl , THE REca.tt.;ENDATlONS Of THIS PLAN IN OROCR TO REV1['MNG AGENCY FOR ANY RE!JtSlONS OF THE PlAN ~ . . : J DETENTION BASIN PREVENT flOOD DAWAGES RElATED TO fUTURE IN THE NEARBY VICINITY. 200 100 a 200 400 _ ~ DE'VELOPt.IENT. ~ J ! 7. OAllJl.I: \t:RTlCAl. - NAIJO 1988 ~ ·_ON~.~ArgfN~OU~nL5FT~3F~lIHnrc5t~ 5r mo~'oc"' TOWNSHIP_LS- w~c 1Ii! ~ DEgGNEO--=- ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING SHEET f RANGE.JiL:A\.. ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED PRELIMINARY • "'IT i2Z2Qiij; TRIBUTARY TO S PLATTE RIVER DESIGN PLAN 50 • " ' AS-BUU "'IT URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT . ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 51 There are no improvements on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- SHEET INDEX TlS / I I I , / I I \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I \ / / / I I I I ! / / I / / / / / \ I \ \ \ LEGEND MASTER PlAN FACIUTlES • ) ( / / / / I ) ( \ \ \ \ \ / / ' /'~TCH SEE SHEET 52 WATERSHED BOUNOARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UMITS OElENTlON BASIN lRIBUTARY AR£A STOR'" SE\IoER CULVERT otANNEI.. W/R.O.W. I I I I I I I I I I / I / I / / I / I / I I \ \ \ \ / \ / / / / / I I I \ \ \ / V , / ~ . I I I I I , / ~ ~ \ \ \ / / I I \ I I \ \ " 7 \ I I / / / / / / \ \ \ I \ \ \ I / NOTES: I. THIS ORAWING IS tOR "'ASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUIroIINARY AND CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING. AlTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTfAll. Will. BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAl RE\1EWlNG "CENCIES .4.NO THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND F'LOOO CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNAT1\o£ OfFERS EOUAl H'rOOAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY. THE AlTERNATlV( !,jUST CONPlY WITH AU REOUIREMENT'S Of THE lOCAl AND THE URBAN DRAlN"G£ AND flOOD CONTROl DISTRICT. 11-115 ORAWING SHAll NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. .,IJRIStlICTlONAl BOUNDARIES SHO'IItI ON THIS ORA'MNG ARE IN EFF[CT AS Of JANUARY, 1998. ( \ \ I \ 4. PRWNINARY DESIGN INfORWATlON fOR SUBREGIONAl DETENTION f AOUTIES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION .AaUTY Io4UST CONP\.Y ¥11TH THE SUBREGIONAL OCTENTION .ACIUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDElINES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFAll SYSTEMS PLANNING DOOJI.IENT. ~ If A DO'IItISTRE SUBREGIONAl DETENTION • AOUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTO.I(S) ARE IN PLACE, ALL DEVUOf'Io4ENT UPSTREAM 'MTHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED 'MU BE ALLO'ftfi) TO RElEASE UNOETAINED ON-SITE FtO'NS INTO THE OUTFAU.. DRAINAGE SYSTEM J. THIS PLAN REOUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES I.IU51 BE APPROVED BY THE ADAMS COUNTY ZONE. t.lANAGE, AND RfGULATE CITY Of BRIGHTON (OR "0 5 COUNTY) AND THE UD&fCO. OEVELOPWENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCOftOANCE WITH ANY POTENTIAl USER SHOOLO CONTACT THE LOCA.L ~ : : ~ THE RECOMNENDA TlONS Of THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO REVlE'MNG AGOICY fOR ANY RE\o1S1ONS Of THE PlAN " T T ' DETENTION BASIN PREVENT FtOOD O AGES RElATED TO FUTURE IN THE NEARBY -.,ONITY. i 200 100 0 400 OEVELOPNENT. 200 8 I ! 7. DAl\!I,j: VERTICAl - NAytI 1988 ~ · ' T -r 1Z_~_T_AL -_'9_92~-r ~ ~ TOWN S" \JJ~C Rll~!IIYt DESIGNED....IIL DAIT ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING ~ :.~~roA'o{HU[.SL"( 21 RANGE_6.1NW~'/2 1 g~~~ED-2ML ~ii ~ ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED I..MEWOCXI. ca..ORAOO 80212 SEcnON . PHONE NO: (lOJl751-aslJ REvtSEO ~ DATE ~ " ON< " " ' , , AS-BUILT DAIT URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TRIBUTARY TO S, PLAnE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 51 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 52 Presented on Sheet 52 are the proposed improvements for Outfall System N2. The improvements were designed for nood peaks based on future development and a IOO-year recurrence period. The improvements for Outfall System N2 includes a 1900 foot grass lined channel with a concrete trickle channel. The total costs of improvements for the Outfall System on this sheet are as follows: Sheet Number 52 Outfall System Segment N02 Improvement Description Channel Improvement Cost $912,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- ADAMS COUNTY I -r -1 I SHEET INDEX T1S w " MAPPING LTD t.IISSISSIPPI A'-OiU£. SlJl'E 21 I COlORIoDO 1!I02J.2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o 200 OESIGNED ORAWN CHECkED REVISED AS-BUILT \ \ / \ / I / / MATCH SEE SHEET 51 I / / / LEGEND f I / I / I / 1 / I \ I \ I \ ·1 ~ \ ~ ~ I \ ~ I ~ \ I ~ 1 f I f I I I \ 1 \ I \ I 1 il I , t.IASTER PLAN FACIUTIES • < ) ( , 8 / / I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ I I f \ I f f f I / ) / / / / MATCH SEE stiEET 5 WA TERSH(O BOUNDARY sue WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON errr UNITS OETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORt.I SE'A£R CULVERT CHANNEl W/R.O.W. DETENTION BASIN OElENTlON BASIN ClUTtET ADAMS COUNTY / / I I I I I I I I / . / I / I f I r / \ \ , ' / / / / I ' / ' / / / NOTES: f I I I \ \ \ / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ) / I 1. THIS ORAWING IS FOR ~ASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUloItNAAY AND CONC£PruAL ENGINEERING AlTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTfAll Yl!ll. BE CONSIDEREO BY LOCAL RE'¥1EWlNG "GENCIES AND THE / / I I \ \ \ URBAN DRAINAGE AND F\.OOO CONTROL DISTRICT PR0V10ED THE ALTERNATIVE OFFERS EOUAL H'l"[)fiAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAW STABIUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE MUST CONPLY WITH ALL REClUIREMENTS Of THE lOCAL JURISDICTION AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROl DISTRICT. THIS DRAWING SHAll. NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. ..uRISO!CTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHO'MII ON THIS ORA'MNG ARE IN (f'f'ECT AS a: JANUARY. 1998. 3. THIS PlAN REOUIRES THAT THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND ADAMS COUNTY 2ONE, t.lANAGE. AND REGULATE D£VELOPIo4ENT IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCOROANCE 'MTH THE RECOMMENDA nONS Of THIS P\..AN IN ORO€R TO PREVENT flOOD OAWAGES RElATED TO FUTURE DEVELOPIo4ENT. OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S_ PLAnE RIVER \ \ ~ I / \ \ \ \ , \ , , , 4. PREUNINARY DESIGN INFORMATION FOR SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FAClUTlES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/ OR LOCATION OF A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY MUST COMPlY ¥11TH THE SUBREGIONAL DElENTION FACIUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFAll SYSTEMS P\..AHNING OOCUIo4ENT. 5. IF A SUBREGIONAL D£TENTION FACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE SYSTU.I(S) ARE IN PLACE. AU D£V'ElOPMENT UPSTREAIo4 'MTHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED ¥I1U BE AllOI'IED TO R£lEASE UNOETAlNED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFAll ORAiNAGE SYSTUoI. 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST BE APPROVEO BY THE CITY OF BRIGHTON (OR ADAWS COUNTY) AND THE UD&cfCD. ANY POTENllAL USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL RE'o1['MNG AGENCY FOR ANY REVISIONS OF THE PlAN IN THE NEARaY VICINITY. 7. OAruM: VERTICAL - NA'ytl 1988 HOftlZONTAL _ NAO 1983- 1992 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 52 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 53 There are no improvements on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- / / I I I \ I \ I \ / . 7 ~ - \ \ I \ / / / / " " \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ ~ \ \ I \ ) \ \ " " " " " " " " " \ \ I / / / / / / ' - ' ' - ' - ' - ' ~ " " " " \ \ \ \ \ \ MATCH \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I ) I I 54 - . \ \ \ - \ \ \ \ I I l / \ \ / / / \ ) / ( I I / - BRIGHTON / ( / \ ( / I \ \ I I \ \ \ I ) I I \ \ \ I. \ \ I I / / / / 7 / / I } I / I I \ I \ / ( ) SHEET INDEX TlS R67 r R66 .r 7c- .r 9, .r ~ - 17 4 4 -;10 ~ tt ~ -I LEGEND MASTER PlAN FAClunES • < ) ( WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UNITS OETENllON BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA CULVERT NOTES: 1. THIS ORA'MNC IS tOR ~ASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND ~SENTS PR£UIoIINAAY AND CONCEPTUAl. ENGINEERING. AlTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTFAll WIll. BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVIEWING "CENClES AND THE URBAN AND ROOO CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE AlTERNAT1\of: OffERS EOUAl H'l'MAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STABIUTY, THE AlTERNAllv( U51 CCloIPlv WITH ALL REQUIREWENTS Cf' THE LOCAl AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONmOl DISTRICT. THIS ORA'MNG SHAlL NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. ..uRlSOICTlONAL BOUNDARIES SHO ON THIS DRAWING AR£ IN EFFECT AS Cf' JANUARY, 1998. 4. PRElIMINARY DESIGN INfORt.lAllON FOR SUBREGIONAL OCTENTION FAOU11[S IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 88 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION OF A SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FAOUTY MUST COMPlY WITH THE SUBREGIONAL D£T[NTION FAaUTY IMPLENENTATION GUIOEUNES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFAll. SYST'EMS PlANNING DOCUMENT. 5. IF A DO'IINSTREAW SUBREGIONAL DETENTION FACIUTY AND CONIJ'EYANCE SYSID.I(S) ARE IN PLACE, All. DEVElOPMENT UPSTREA WITHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WIll BE AllOIIIED TO RElEASE UNOETAINED ON-SITE flOWS INTO THE OUTFAll DRAINAGE SYST'EM. • CHANNEL w/RO.w. 3. THIS PLAN REQUIRES lli T THE CITY Of BRIGHTON AND 6. ANY PROPOSED CHANGES MUST 8( APPROVED BY THE AO S COUNTY ZONE. "'ANAG[, AND REGULATE aTY Of BRIGHTON (OR AOAN5 COUNTY) ANO THE UO&fCO. IN THIS WATERSHED IN ACCOROANC[ ¥14TH ANY POTENTIAl. USER SHOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL H : : ~ THE REC()MNENOAllONS OF THIS PlAN IN ORDER TO R801EWlNG AGENCY FOR ANY RE\1S1ONS OF THE PLAN • . OElENllON BASIN PREVENT FlOOO OAWAGES REl..ATEO TO ruTURE IN THE NEAReY \10NITY. g 200 100 0 200 400 DEVELOPMENT. S I ! 7. OAruM: VERTICAL - NA'y{) 1988 ~ l -r TOWNSHIP_L.S.._ \ V I~C 1!lI"!Iit DESICNED...lIL DATE m CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING ~ M ~~TD SUIT[ 21 RANGE...§LYf.... W ~:ED ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED ~ I..N(£WOOO. CWlRAOO 110232 SEcnON-1!.-.!LZ,..l_ ~-151J REVISED ~ DATE ~ ~ AS-BUU ""TE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 53 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 54 There are no improvements on this sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- ~ \ \ \ \ SHEET INDEX R67 ! R66 \ 'fJ.( / / ) 1- / / I I I \ I I I / , " r ' r / ~ I 'II . / L ~ . , u " I' , MATCH sr:~i 53 I I / / ( \ I \ I / / / r I I / / / ~ LEGEND / / MASTER PlAN FACIUTIES • ) ( / / / / / / / MAWH SEE SHEET 7 / WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOllNDARY BRIGHTON CITY Ut.4ITS OElENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA STORM SEWER CUl'v'ERT / / / / / / I - .L / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ) " / ~ I - I I / / / / / NOTES: 1. THIS DRAWING IS FOR t.4ASTER PLANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUIJINARY AND CONCEPTUAl EHClNE£RINC. AlTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTf'AU. SYSl[U WILL BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROVlorn THE AllERNAl1'J[ OfFERS EOUAl HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAM STA8IUTY. niE WUST C(),IPlY \IIITH ALL REQUIR(W(NTS ~ THE LOCAL .AJRlSOICTlON AND THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONTROL THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 2. BOUNDARIES SHOIfIH ON THIS OAAWlNG ARE IN EFFECT AS Of JANUARY, 199ft I - I I \ \ I \ \ " \ , \ \ ) / \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ - \ \ / I / / / 4. PREUNINARY DESIGN INFORt.lA TlON fOR SUBREGIONAl D£l£NllON FAClUTlES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68. / ANY CHANGE IN SIZE ANO/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREClONAl DETENTION FAOUTY I.4UST CQt.lPLY 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAL OETENTION FACIUn II.4PLEMENTATION GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THIS OUTFAll. S'fSTEI.4S PlANNING OOOJI.4ENT. / 5. IF A OO'IINSTREAW SUBREClONAl DETENTION FAOUT'f AND CONVEYANCE S'fSTDoI(S) ARE IN PLAC£. All. DEYnOPI.4ENT UPSTREAtr.I 'MTHIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WILL BE All.01II£D TO REl.[ASE UNOCTAlNED ON - SITE flOWS INTO lHE OUTFAll. DRAINAGE / ~ ~ " " / / / PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET 55 There are no improvements on th is sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- \ I J " / / " / . l ~ - - - " " " , , SHEET INDEX R67 l R66 ) I \ I I I 1 I \ \ \ \ I I I 1 \ \ \ / / \ \ \ 1 I ) - AlhU'S eBb;. f) BRiGHTON I / / / ! / / / ! ,2 ) / J / / 1 / ! / / / / " / 1 " / / I ( I I \ \ \ \ ) \ / I ! / - \ \ ) ! ! ! ! 1 \ \ \ \ " \ \ I / I / / / .tDHIS COUNTy BRICHTON 11--1 ( " 1 " " I 1\ r I / 1 \ . \ b ~ I ~ I - ~ ~ \ ti Q ~ I ~ 1 \ ~ \ 1 \ \ \ \ / / / - \ \ - \ " I I I I / - - I LEGEND MASTER PlAN FACIUTIES • < ) ( / / / / " / " MATCH ; 6: SHEET 56 " WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON OTY Ut.llTS DETENTION BASIN lRIBUTARY AREA STORI.4 $[YoER CULVERT NOTES: 1. THIS DRA'NING IS FOR !.lASTER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUIoI'NARY ANO CONCEPTUAl ENQNEERlNG. AllERNATIIJES TO THIS OUTfALl SYSTEW WIll BE CONSIOERED BY LOCAL REVIEWING AGENOES ANO THE URBAN DRAINAGE AND flOOD CONmOL DISTRICT PROVIOED THE OfFERS EOUAl Hl'tlRAUUC CAPAOTY AND STREAM STAflIUTY. THE AlTERNATIVE I.4UST COI.4PlY WITH AU. REOUIREI.4ENTS CF THE LOCAl AND THE URBAN ORAINAGE AND flOOD CONmOL DISTRICT. THIS ORA'MNG SHALL NOT BE USEO FOR CONSmUCTION PURPOSES. 2. BOUNDARIES SHO~ ON THIS DRA'MNG ARE IN EFfECT AS Of JANUARY. 1998. \ \ \ I 1 I " " \ PREUt.lINARY DESIGN INf"QR Anoo tOR SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FAOUTI£S IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 66. ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/ OR LOCATION Of " SUBREGIONAl DETENTION FAOUTY IAUST Y ¥11TH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION rAelUTY IMPLEMENTATION GUIO£UNES PR£SENTED IN THIS OUTFAll SYSTEt.lS PlANNING DOCUMENT. 5. IF It SUBREGIONAl.. DETENTION F ACIUTY AND CONVEYANCE: SYSID.I(S) ARt: IN PLACE, AU DEVELOPt.lENT UPSTR[At.I THIN THAT TRIBUTARY WATERSHED WIll BE AllO\llEO TO RElEASE UNQ£TAlNEO ON-SITE FlOWS INTO THE OUTFALl DRAINAGE SYST[I.I. PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN SHEET 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMENTARY ON SHEET S6 There are no improvements on lhis sheet. ---PAGE BREAK--- ~ - ~ I . 1 \ , - ~ ~ \ \ r, Vl Vl \ U i ~ / / I / I SHEET INDEX R67 i R66 TIS • / - ~ , / / / , - " I I I I I I I I I I I - .1 _ ~ ~ - , , , . , , , , , , , , I I \ \ I I I I I I I I I ~ \ \ LEGEND \ \ \ \ / { \ \ \ I / / ~TCH SEE SHEET 55 \ 1 MATCH pEE SHEET 9 WATERSHED BOUNDARY - - - - - - SUB WATERSHED BOUNDARY BRIGHTON CITY UNITS OE1'ENTlON BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA ~ASTER PlAN FACIUTIES • STORIA SE'llER ) ( OJLVERT 2 -1 I " I / / I } I 1/ 1 , I I I I I I I I I I I - I ~ / NOTES: - - I LOCAL DETENTION P N V100 6.B AC. FT. V100 ~ 259 AC. FT. I I THIS ORA WING IS fOR M STER PlANNING PURPOSES AND REPRESENTS PREUt.lINARY AND ENGiNEERING AlTERNATIVES TO THIS OUTfAll S'I'SlOI WIll BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAl RE....,EWlNC AGENCIES ANO THE URBAN OR.4JNAce: AND flOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROVIDED THE ALTERNATl\IE OfTERS EOUAL HYORAUUC CAPACITY AND STREAt.I STABIUTY. THE ALTERNATIVE MUST COt.lPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS Of THE LOCAL JURISOICllON AND THE URBAN DR,6JNAGE AND flOOD CONTROl DISTRICT THIS DRAWING SHAll. NOT BE USED fOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES ..oRISOtCTIONAL BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE IN EfFECT AS Of JANUARY, 1998 ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ Cl g ~ I ~ I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I , / / j , I I ) ADA,VS c n lfAJ'rY / / 4 PREUMIHARY DESIGN INfORMATION FOR SUBREGlON"-L DE1'ENTlON FACIUTlES IS PRESENTED ON SHEET 68 ANY CHANGE IN SIZE AND/OR LOCATION Of A SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fAOUTY MUST C()JPLY 'MTH THE SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fACIUTY IMPl..EMENTATION GUIDEUNES PRESENTEO IN THIS OUTFAll. SYSTEMS PLANNING DOCUMENT. 5. If A DO"""STREAM SUBREGIONAL DETENTION fACIUTY AND CON'vt:YANCE SYSTEI AS-BUILT om 86+00 90+00 94+00 96+00 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY 4900 4880 4900 4880 96+00 URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ~ ~lOW FLOW CHANNEL it INII£RT (SEE SHEET 68) OUTLET / EROSION PROTEcnON STA 97+07 TO 108+84 1177 LF 'tIIt:TLANDS Bono~ CHANNEL ' _ 00'" I OW fl o w Rom", IMOn<_RO' LOW FLOW DEPTH",, 4.0' ~ AIN CHANNEL 80nOM 'MDlliz:120' TOTAL NOR~Al DEPTH=7.2' 0000=1645 cfs 100+00 104+00 OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER 108+00 ~lOW FLOW CHANNEL INVERT (SEE SHEET 68) STA 109+54 TO 134+33 2479 IF WETLANDS BonOM CHANNEL 5-0.05X lQW FLOW 80nOM 'MDTH=-SO' I lOW FLOW DEPTH",,4.0' MAIN CHANNEL BonOM WlOTH-90' I TOTAL NORMAL DEPTH=7.0' Q,00=1099 cfs 112+00 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE 116+00 SHEET 100 4980 4960 4940 4920 4900 4880 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5080 S060 5040 5020 5000 980 4960 4940 4920 5080 S060 S040 S020 5000 4980 4960 , • 4940 " - 4920 , ~ ; ~ I ~ I I 11:1 I ~ I I . £i I ~ I I ~ I ~ TOP OF CHANNEL PROFILE S2 SEE PLAN SHEET 23 0 + :2 SOBO g N S060 I ~ z 5040 w 5020 I I ~ BANK<: ~ EXISTING ~ ~ 5000 I r I I I I I I I I , 118+00 122+00 I ~ 1\'1 PROFILES3 SEE PLAN SHEETS 23 &26 11:1 I ~ I I g 1:1 I I i - r r I I I I I : I I I I 168+00 172+00 lOW FLOW CHANNEL INVERT (SEE SHEET 65) STA 109+54 TO 134+33 2479 LF WETLANDS BOTTOM CHANNEL 5=0.05" LOW FLOW SODOM IfflD1H 50· LOW FLOW DEPTH=4.0' MAIN CHANNEL BOTTOM 'MOTH-SO' TOTAL NORMAL DEPTH=7.Q' Q,(IOC'1099 cfs 126+00 1.30+00 + - 5080 5080 g S060 5060 I ~ ~ S040 S040 4980 4960 4940 4920 134+00 TOP of CHANNEL BANK " (TYP.) ~ S020 5000 4980 4960 4940 4920 S020 5000 4980 4960 4940 4920 17·HOO ENGINEERING, INC. do SCiJfA 6£RIiy smtET. " CJ[N\£R, COlOIV.OO 1!I0122 PHONE MO: (3031751-8.513 FAX MO: (303 7~32011 178+00 DESIGNED TTC ORA'IItN CHEC1 w Iz 4940 Ii 4920 214+00 218+00 = PROFILES5 SEE PLAN SHEETS 18 & 25 - MANHOLE (T'YP. 3311 Lf 2.5' Rep: 00.36" - " 222+00 226+00 - 230+00 - 234+00 5Q8Q 5Q6q ~ 0 + ; 5040 g on V> 5O ~ O ~ , 0 i5 5000 4980 4960 1110 LF 2' RGP 0 1.97~ 4940 - " 4920 238+00 W DATE llL2O!!> ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE ORIGINAL SCALE: '"-200' HORIZ. VERT SHEET 102 \ V I~C ruGJ,'I;'f.ER~, \'l£rf ~ ~m)g; CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING !l:.ll~l'~ URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 4900 4660 5060 5040 5020 5000 ~980 4960 1 4940 , 4660 PRQFILEC3 ' SEE PLAN SHEET 4 ' EX. 36- ~CP C STA 0+00 TO 5+70 570 LF J Rep Q J ,Q~)I Q,:50 cfs AR WAtER SURFACE. 220 LF ~ ,'RCP \ _ r- ' , ~ OUNO . (TYP.) - MANHOLE ·(fYP.) STA 5+ 70. TO 10+80 - 510 LF 3 Rep T o Q , 6.2~ O!""50 cfs STA 12+90 TO 14+30 DElENllON BASIN INV=4956 TDP.Aqf\ 5060 596Q 504() 50 5920 5000 4960 4960 4940 4909 4900 4860 4660 8 TOP OF STA 0+00 TO 450 459 LF W£TLI\NDS 6QnO~ CHANNEL 5:000.45" BonOM 'MDlli- 10' NORMAL DEPTH-3.2' 0_250 cis PROFILE C1 SEE PLAN SHEeT 3 & 4 " Rep OlJTLET EXISTING GROUNO \ EXISTING SAN. SEv.£R (TYP.) . 24 PVC PIPE I 1 1 ~ I 1 in l II ~ I 1 I 1 1 i JNY_4~~B.Q2 - - - ~ T j " ~ ===Jtn:=:i n ,EROSlON' PROTECTION STA 4+50 TO 10+30 580 Lf 6 Rep o 0,22.% 0"",250 cfs ~ANHOI...£ 5TA 12+20 TO 23+2Q I 1100 LF6 Rep I I / STA 10+.30 TO 12+20 q 0.2.2%. STA 2'3+2/YT0 2"+"20: / 190 LF" 6' Rep 0,=250 cfs 100 LF' xS' HERCP' o 0.22% . 0 0.30% 0:1""250 cfs (~h::250 cfs STA 25+90 TO 34+60 \ Sf A 24+20 TO" 15+90 170 LF 5.5 Rep ' 01 .36% . Qp2S0 cfs 87Q LF 5.5 ReP II Q , 50~ Oz:::250 cfs 1 I ! 1 I ~6Q 5040 5000 4980 4960 4940 4900 4860 0+00 4+00 8+00 12+00 0+00 4+00 8+00 12+00 16+00 20+00 24+00 28+00 32+00 36+00 I I I I ~ 1< lin II " I I I i ~ 1 1 I ! i I 36+00 STA 34+60 TO 45+80 1120 LF 5.5 Rep o O, 50~ 0"",230 cfs 40+00 44+00 PROFILE C1 SEE PLAN SIjEET 3 & 4 ~ 5TA 45+80 TO 51+90 STA 51+90 TO 58+60 610 LF 5.S Rep 00.50% 0,:210 cfs- 46+00 52+00 670 LF 5.5 Rep o M711 01=140 cfs 56+00 : : : : : : \ "ANHOLt (TYP.) 60+00 STA 58+60 TO 71 +40 1280' LF 4.5 Rep o O,2Q% 0"",,100 cfs 6·Hoo JUNCTION wI EX. 42- R~P \ 68+00 :ll + c 15 5060 5080 5040 5060 5020 5040 5000 5020 4960 5000 4960 4980 4940 4960 4900 4940 4860 4900 8 0+00 PROFILEC2 . SEE pLAN SHEET 4 ExiSTING . .AJNCTiON wI GROUND L ; (TYP.) ; ' - , EX. 7' Rcec \ \ "ANl«lOF (TYP,) STA O..fOO TO 11+30 1130 LF" 4.5 Rep 00.'9% OF70 cfs 4+00 8+00 ORIGINAL SCALf: '".200' HORIZ. VERT 5060 5040 5020 5000 . 4980 : 4960 : 494Q 4900 12+00 ~ W~C ~rjER~ , ~ ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING PRELIMINARY SHEET _ CHRE~~'DD ~ DAlE ~ ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED DESIGN PROFILE ~ l ' ° L-~U~R~B~A~N~D~R~A~I~N~A~G~E~&~F~L~O~O~D~C~O~N~T~R~O~L~D~I~S~T~R~IC~T~~ T~R~I~B~U~T~A~R~Y~T~O~S~ , ~P~LA~TT~E~R~I~V~E~R~~ -L 10_3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5080 5060 5040 50~O 5000 4980 i960 4940 4920 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 ; 4920 b < 4900 ~ j ~ 4880 e PROFILE S10 SEE PLAN SHEET 25 EXISTING 6~N~L BANK" ~ (TYP.) ~ _ ~ ~ ArN CHANNEL INVERT (TRICKLE CHANNEL NOT SHOVIN. SEE' SHEE'T 6B~ STA .(68+ .34 TO 478+04 970 IF GRASS U~~D CHANN~L 5- 0.507'; eanOM WlD TH-10' NORMAL OEPTH" 2.4' " 0!.198 Cfs 468+00 472+00 476+00 ' Z : t3 250+00 PRO,FILE S13 SEE PLAN SHEET 21 (TYP,) TA =7+10 710 LF GRASS LINED CHANNEL S-O . 20~ BOTIOM NORMAL OEPTH- 3.S' Ooot-l a 8 cfs 2504+00 5040 5020 5000 498:0 " " " + 4960 on " g in 4940 or ~ 0: " 4920 ~ 4900 4880 258+00 5Oao 5060 4960 4940 4920 5040 4~60 4940 4920 4900 OESIGNED -1!L ORA... ~ CHECKED RE\o1SEO ~ A5-BUl.T DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE " + <0 ~ Iii ~ 0: z iii o. 350 LF / 4' RCP o. , 49~O 4940, 488+00 o. o. o. o. o. PROF'ILE S11 SEE' PLAN SHEETS 25 & 16 o. l00...,.Y£AR , 5:-YEAR / WATER SURfACE ~ o. , , DETENTION BASIN 0 INV'5".'8 WSs.::5020 WS.oo=z:5022 TOP::z::"502'3; 492+00 496+00 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1O! 15 1O!15 ~ g ~ ~ @ ~oo U' al3 o. . L 4' RCP ~ . TOP AIN OF CHANNEL BANK CHANNEL IWJ£RT (TYPi) (TRICKI.E CHANNE. NOT , o. SHOWN. SEE -SHEET 68) , i , i o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. , i , , , , o. o. , , , , , , , o. STA 499+06 TO 513+ 26 14-20 LI' GRASS UNEO CHANNEL 5 - 0.10" s onOM 'MOTH_ 10' NORMAL DEPTH-.2.4' 0.-86 ct, o. 500+00 504+00 508+00 512+00 on " + , g ~ ' or ~ 0: " ~ URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER 5060 5O~0 4960 4920 ~900 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE SHEET 104 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 4920 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 < , 4920 " " 4900 ~ c 4880 c ~ PROFILE S10 0 SEE PLAN SHEET 25 • 0 z + 0 " ~ o • < 0 . 0; 00 ~ EXISTING' z (TYP.) BANK~ ~rU t.lAIN CHANNEL INI/ERT (TRICKLE CH-ANNEL NOT SHOV~. stE SHEET 6B~ STA ~6B+34 TO 478+04 970 LF GRASS lINECO CHANNEL S-0.50,* BonOM .wmTH- 1Q' NORMAL DEPTHs2.4' QloP198 cfs . 468+00 250+00 472+00 PROFILE S1~ SEE PLAN SHEET 21 (TYP.) I S-O.20:r. BonOM WlOTH=4' NORMAL DEPTH-3.s' 0 188 cfs 254+00 476+00 N " 0 + on N ~ 0; ~ 0 z 258+00 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 4920 4900 5O§O 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 . 4960 49~O SQ~O 5040 . 5029 5qoQ, 4960 4949 4929 4900 DESIGNED~ ORAWN ~ Qi( CKED REV1SEO --AE!L AS-BUILT DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE 0 + , • ~ 4980 " • ~ , 0 ill 4940 D£~NTlON BASIN 0 STA 499+05 TO 513+26 WS~5~2~s~~5022 1420 LF GRASS UNED CHANNEL S-0.10% BonOM WlOTH_IO' NpRt.4AL DEPTH""\2.4' TOP"::5023 0.-86 cfs 488+00 492+00 496+00 500+00 504+00 508+00 512+00 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER :sot<> 5O~0 5000 49~0 , 4960 • 4940 4920 4900 r , PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE SHEET 104 ---PAGE BREAK--- 50+0 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 4920 4900 4880 5100 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 ~ i +940 ~ , z 8 m PROFILE.S14 SEE PLAN SHEET 23 100- WATER SURFAee 5-YEAR WATER SURFACE TOP OF CANNEL BANK (TYP.) EROSION PROTEC1l0N 200 LF 4' RCP MAIN CHANNEL INVERT (TRJC~,E .CjjA~NE' 'NOT SHOWN. SEE SHEET 68) I STA 557+ 5 -TO 5 3+34 610 LF GRASS lJNED CHANNEL S-O.34~ BonOM NORMAL DEPTH-4.S' 0_67'7 cfs OETENllON BASIN J INV:4 WS,.,..49!:i6 WS_4~97.5 . TOP- 499a.S 150 LF 4'x9' RC~C GROUND (TYP.) 550+00 554+00 558+00 562+00 8 + 0 0> ~ <0 v; I ~ 0: z a w m ; ! 590+00 - PROFILE S16 SEE PLAN SHEETS 26· & 28 . , ~ (TYP.) ~ 1500 Lf GRASS UNED CHANNEL 5-0.32% BOTIQM NORMAL DEPTH_2.3' . 0_84 cfs 594+00 598+00 602+00 ENGINEERING. INC. ISO SOiJ'ik aMI' ;naIl. ont 50+0 5049 5020 :;a29 '5000 5QOO 4980 4~~O +940 4940 4920 4~ZO 4900 4900 4880 4889 570+00 5100 5OBO 5060 5040 g 5020 , , v; . I . ~ 5000 ; 0: 0 , ~ 4980 DETENTION BASIN 1>.4 2 \ . TOP-5035 100 l.F. +960 3.5' Rep +940 606+00 610+00 574+00 614+00 PROFILE S15 SEE PLAN SHEET 26 5100· 5OBO 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 +940 I SHO'IIN. SEE SHEET 68) 5-0.31% BOTTOM NORMAL OEPTH- 4.8' 0.-798 cfs 578+00 582+00 100 YEAR / WATER SURFACE 180 L.F. ~RCP V . DETENTION BASIN Z IN V;;-s()27 652+00 656+00 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY 49~ +900 ~o 660+00 PROFILE S17 SEE PLAN SHEET 35 STA. 658+80 TO 677+68 1888 LF G,RASS LlN~O CHANNEL S=O.15% BOTTOM \\IDTH~4' NORMAl OEPTH~3.3' 0100= 145 CFS 664+00 668+00 672+00 DEN'oO. COLORADO I022l I'HOM[ NO; (lOll n1-"" fAll NO: (J0,3 158-3208 DESIGNED ORAYItl ~ OiECKEO REVISED A5-SUILT OA11' OAll' OAll' OAll' OA11' URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE ~ :li + 5100 ~ <0 ~ r- . 5OBO in I ~ : 5060 0: 0 ~ 1 DO L.F. s: RCP ~ 6040 '11 50~O OUn..ET EROSION ~ROTECnO~ 5000 4980 +960 +940 676+00 SHEET 105 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5100 5080 5060 50<10 5020 5000 4980 960 49<10 675+00 679+00 683+00 8 5100 + g ~ 5089 Vi :r ~ 5060 z i:l 50<10 5020 5000 , , 4980 ~ 4960 49<10 ; 731+00 735+00 739+00 " j i! 687+00 PROFILE S18 SEE PLAN SHEETS 22 & 23 BOnOM NORMAL DEPTH-4.0· 0_253 cfs 691+00 695+00 PROFILE S19 SEE PLAN SHEETS 33 & 34 EXISTING (TVP.) 699+00 703+00 TOP Of CHANNEL BANK (TVP.) ~ (TYP~ _ ~ ~ r 743+00 IN AN EL INVERT ORICKLE CHANNEL NOT stlOYtN. SEE SHEET 68.) TA 730+ T 765+ 3500 LF GRASS UNED CHANNEL 5",,0,24% ~On:OM NORMAL DEPTH';3.9' 01~266 cfs: 7-47+00 751+00 DESIGNEO TIC DATE 755+00 759+00 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY 707+00 ~ I 81 ~ ~ I +1 ~ I ~ I 5 1 1j1 ~ I 763+00 DRAWN ~ CHEQ<;[O RE\1SEO ~ AS-BUIlT DATE DATE DATE DATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROTECllON 71 1+00 715+00 5100' 5060. 5060 50<10 5020 5DOq 4980" 496q 49.0: 5T A 71 j+OD TO 723+ 70 00 Lf GRASS LINED :CHANN L 'eOTIQM WlD,l1:i=4.' NORMAL DEPTH-4.0· 0 253 cfs' 719+00 723+00 r , OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER 50«): 5000 4980 4960 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE , ORIGINAL SCALE; 1"-200' HORIZ. , 1"-20' VERT SHEET 106 ---PAGE BREAK--- I~ PROFILE S19 . 18 SEE PLAN SHEET 34 5100 . V> I~ 0 5080 1+ . 5060 Ig Ig 15 5040 I~ EXISnNG TOP Cif CH ANNEl ~ BANK TYP. (TYP.) ~ 5020 5000 MAIN CHMiNEL iNVERT OUTLET (TRICKLE CHANNEL NOT CHANNEL BEND EROSION EROSION SHO'NN. SEE SHEET 68) RO PROTECTIqN 4980 STA 765+00. TO 784+18 1980 LF GRASS UNEO CHANNEL 4960 5=0.24% sonOM 'MDTH=4' NORMAL DEPTH-J.g' 0.-266 cfs 4940 765+00 769+00 773+00 777+00 781+00 I~ PROFILES20 SEE PLAN SHEET 39 " + 5100 i: 5100 g ~ . 0 5080 I" 5OBO i~ ~ Vl I w ~ , ~ « 0: 5060 V> 5060 " I 150 LF C'i I RCBC ~ 5040 l ~ 5020 OUTLET / 5020 EROSION PROTECTION 5000 5000 l 498Q I 4~80 I ST. 833+00 TO 840+29 ! 730 Lf GRASS LINED CHANNEL 4960 5-0;47% BonOM 'MOTH""'"" 4960 NORMAL DEPTH- 4.2' ~ 0 ,_425 cfs ~ ~ 4940 4940 ; 833+00 837+00 841+00 VJ~C ENGINEERING, INC, DESIGNED om ISO swiH o;o&(y !lmf, DATE • OiECKED DATE 001'0. IXlL.ORAOO 10222 REVISEO ~ DATE iillOQj; 5 PHON[ NO: fJOJ~ 757-8513 , fAJ( NO: JOJ 75&-J2OI!I AS-BUILT om + g m in ~ 0: " C'i 785+00 5190 :;oao 5060 50~ 5020 5000 i980 4960 4940 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY 5190 = 501?0 5Q4O 5020 5000 4980 496Q 4940 811+00 5100 5080 5060 5040 8 + 0 5020 g N Vl ~ 5000 0: z fii 4980 CD 4960 940 881+00 URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PR6~iLE 520 ; . ~I SEE PLAN SHEET- 39 ill 1 1:11 SlOQ . ~I gl ~I ~ I ~060. EXISTING. ~ 5040 ·fryp,) . . - 5020 5000 NORt.4AL OEPTH-04.2' 0100= 425 cfs 4980 49~ 4940 815+00 819+00 823+00 827+00 831+00 ORIGINAl,. SOJ...E: '-"200' HORIZ. PROFILE Si1 SEE PLAN SHEETS 39 & 40 . ~ 100 LF , « -4 , RCP 0: TOP or CHANNEl BANK (TYP.) /y OUTLET / MAIN CHANNEL / EROSION (TRICKLE" CHANNEL 'NOT PROTECllON SHOWN. SEE SHEEt 68) STA 880+00 TO 892+20 1220 LF ' GRASS UNED CHANNEL S,.0.2f)X BOTTOM ~DTIi""-4 ' NORt.4AL DEPTH-3.6' : 0_153 cfs 885+00 889+00 OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER ~ « 0 z W f~)D \ - t.4AtN CHAN~El INV{:RT 893+00 ( TRICKLE CHANNEL NOT SHOWN, SEE SHEET 68) STA 893+20 TO 903+00 880 LF GRASS UNED CHANNEL S=0.26X BOnOt.4 MOTH= 4' NORt.4AL OEPTH_2.S' 0,_96 cfs 897+00 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE 901+00 20' VERT I I I 1 I I L-I ~i ~I 1:11 il ~I "I :1 51 ~ . :iiI -I ! I I SHEET 107 5100 5080 5060 5040 5020 4980 4960 4940 ---PAGE BREAK--- I 5100 5080 I I 5060 ! ~ 5040 I~ :r I li:l 5020 I ~ Ig 5000 I; 49ao 1<3 I ~ I 4960 ! 4940 903+00 5100 5080 8 + 5060 0 0> g 5040 :r ~ 5020 ~ 5000 > 498<;1 ~ 4960 ~ , ~ 4940 ; 970+00 . . 'XISTING GROUNO (TYP.) . ~ TOP OF" CHANNEL BANK \ TYP.) 907+00 911+00 915+00 919+00 PROFILE 522 SEE PLAN SHEET 45 TOP Of CHANNEL EXISTING GROUND SA K (TYP. (TYP.) ~ ~ EROSION MAIN CHANNE INVERT (TRICKLE PROJECTION CHANNEL NOT 100-YEAR WATER SHO't'IN. ·SEE SHEET 68) 5- 'fEAR; WATER ETENnON ; BASIN A iNV=5076 WSF5078 WS,_.50Bl lOP: 5082 STA 972+00 T 983+ 11 20 LF GRASS UNED CHANNEL 5-0.30% Bono,,", 'MDTH- 4' ~ORM Al DEPTH=2.4' . O_2OS cfs 974+00 978+00 982+00 ~ + 0> g :r u 0 15 5100 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 DESIGNED TTC ORA'IIN ~ ~ECKED _ _ RE\1SEO ~ AS-SUll T DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE "5100 5080 5060 5040 "5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 PROFILE 521 SEE PLAN SHEETS 40 & 42 STA 903+00 TO 948+00 4500 If GRASS UNEO CHANNEL 5=0.38% BonOM 'MDTH;4' NORMAl- DEPTH:::~.3' 0,_96 cfs 923+00 927+00 100-YEAR WATER MAIN ~HANNEL INVERT (TRICI PROT(CTION + ~ g :r ~ 0 z w 150 Lf 4' RC'P o 0.67" . Q,_91 cfs 1028+00 1032+00 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE 5100 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 ORIGINAL Sc.:ALE: 1".200' HORIZ. 1".20' ~T 5100 5080 5060 . 5040 SHEET 108 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 + S-o 5100 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 1040+00 PROFILE S24 SEE PLAN SHEETS 41 &·42 .'x7 Resc MAIN CHANNEL INVERT (TRICKLE CHANNEL. NOT . SHOWN,: SEE- SHEET 68) GROUND (TYP.) TOP OF CHANNEL BANK TYP. loa-YEAR WATER 5-YEAR WATER 170 LF 4' Rep STA 1046+80 TO 1050+16 350 LF GRASS liNED CHANNEL 9-O , 52~ BOTTOM 'MDTH=4' NORMAL DEPTH- J 0'CIfP'368 cfs £TENT1ON BASIN 8 INY-5048 WS"..S051 .5 WS,_5:055 TOP';'S056 1044+00 1004.8+00 ~ < o ;z N o g 5109 5089 50<;9 5060 504Q 5040 50Z9 sozo 5000 4980 4960 4960 4940 4940 PROFILE S25 SEE PLAN SHEET 42 TOP OF CHANNEL EXISTING ~ ~ BANK (TYP.) ~EROSION + PROTECTION ~ 1070+00 1074+00 MAIN CHANNEL "INVERT I . (TRIC} 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 PROFILE S26 SEE PLAN SHEET 42 . : EXIS~NG ' TOP Of CHANNEL " ~BANK (TYP.) ~TYPl- ~ ~'ROSION ~ PROTECTION 1090+00 1094+00 MAIN CHANNEL IN'v£RT (TRICKLE· CHANNEL N{)T SHOWN. SEE SHEET 68) STA 1090+00 TO 11 07+52 1760 LF GRASS LINED CHANNEL S-0.50" eOTIOM NORMAL OEPTH 2..5' 0_137 cfs 1098+00 1102+00 5100 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 1106+00 ORIGiNAl SCALE: , 200· HORIZ. 5100 5080 5060 5020 5000 4980 4960 ~ , g N PROFILES27 SEE PLAN SHEETS 39 & 40 iii + 5100 Vi 5OBO 150 IF B cr:: 5060 3.5' RCP \ ~ GROUN[) " ~ · / 5040 MAIN CHANNEL IN'v£RT (TRICKL~ CHANNEL NOT TOP Of _CHANNEL BANK (TYP.) SHO'NN.. SEE SHEET 68) STA 1120+00 TO 1127+60 800 LF GRASS lINEO CHANNEL S- 0 .63% BOTTOM WlOTH 4' NORMAL otPTH 0,_208 cfg OOTLET EROSION PROTEc nON STA 1127+80 TO 1134+31 650 LF GRASS LINED CHANNEL S"'0.63% BonOM WlOTH.., 4' . NORMAL OEPTH=*2 0-143 cfs 5020 5000 .980 .960 PROFILES28 SEE PLAN SHEET 39 o 5100 ~ 5080 I;i N V> I 5060 ~ z &1 EXISTING 5040 aJ (TYP,,- ~ -r 5020f\: I ""-EROSION PROTEC110N 5000 4980 MANHOLE / (TYP.) 8~0 Lf 3.5' RCP 0 1.06" 4960 ~ 4-940 4940 4940 8 + 5100 5060 ~ r 5080 5040 5060 5020 5040 5000 5020 4980 5000 4960 4980 4960 4920 4940 4900 PROFILES29 SEE PLAN SHEETS 23, 24 &33 TOP OF CHANNEL BANK TYP. (TYP.) EROSION PROTECTION MAIN ·HANNEL IN'v£RT (TRICKLE CHANNEL NOT SHOWN. SEE SHEET 68) TA 1401+ T 1434+ 3:350 LF GRASS LINED -CHANNEL S- 0.38% BOTIOM 4' NORMAL OEPTH='4-.9' Q_584 cfs 20· VERT 5060 5040 5020 ' 5000 4980 4960 4940 4920 4900 ~ 1120+00 1124+00 1128+00 1132+00 1136+00 1150+00 1154+00 1158+00 1400+00 1404+00 1472 TO 1540+50 2~O l.f GRASS UNEDCHANNEL S-0.68" sonOM WlOTH=4' NORMAL DEPTH=-3.0· O,,~-236 cfs 1514+00 1518+00 1522+00 1526+00 1530+00 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY 1534+00 URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S, PLATTE RIVER $=0.20% BOTTOM WlD,lH,.4' NORMAL DEP"TH"", 5.0' Q_ 425 cfs 1466+00 1470+00 1474+00 5060 5040 !?02.Q 4960 4960 4940 492,0 4900 ORIGINAL SCALE: 1"·200' HORIZ. , , , , 1".20' VERT , I , , , I I 5100 , , I I 5080 , I I 5060 I --IT- I I 5040 5020 5000 ~ ! /1 , MANHOLE I OUTLET EROSION (TYP.) :!II PROTECTION 81 Oi l ~ I 4980 + 1 ~ I 1120 IF 4'XB' Resc ~ 4960 4940 C a.JOy. ~ I 01OF239 tfs 1 ~ I o · ~ I 1538+00 1542+00 1546+00 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE SHEET 110 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5100 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 5140 5120 5100 5080 5060 5040 - 5020 > • 5000 ~ , 4980 PROFILE S31 SEE PLAN SHEETS 33. 34&41 GROUN (TYP.) MANHOLE (TYP.) 1120 LF 4 'xa' Resc 0 O~ 0 ,00=239 cfs 1546+00 1550+00 5100 5100 5080 5080 5060 5060 5040 5Q49 w w + on 5020 5020 g 5000 5000 U 0: 4980 " 4980 z 4960 4960 '940 4940 0 0: ~ u m IOO-YEAR WATER : / 5-YEAR WATER 8 / + EROSION 0 on PROTECnON g ~ 0: Z CD DETENTION BASIN 0 I NV-~0 4 5 WS_5048 Ws_50S1 TOP-SOS2 1570+00 1574+00 1578+00 PROFILES33 SEE PLAN SHEET 27 , 1582+00 PROFILE S32 SEE PLAN SHEETS 41 & 42 EXISTING' TOP OF · CHANNEL BANK ~ ~ (TYP.) - 1586+00 ~AtN CHANNEL INVERT 'CH'ANNEL NOT SHOIII<. SEE SHEET 68) STA 1577+70 TO 1607+99 .3030 LF GRASS LINED CHANEL S-O.5 1 ~ BonOM NQRMAL DEPTH-J.9.' Q.00= 374 cfs 1590+00 159·Hoo 1598+00 lOa-YEAR WATER I \ \ SURFACE 5- YEAR WATER / . ~~S~UR~FAC~E~JL) : OUTLET EROSION PROTECTION o NTl N BASIN E INV=5071 WS,...507;3 WS_5075 TOP=5076 1620+00 1624+00 1628+00 TA I' 29+ T 1641+8 EXISTING 1380 LF GRASS UNED CHANNEL 1632+00 1636+00 1640+00 EXI TIN 291 LF 38")(60" RCEP 1644+00 EXISTING 245 LF" 38")(60" RCEP TA 1644+ TO 165 +0 ·EXISnNG 1"020 LF GRASS UNED CHANNEL 1648+00 1652+00 1656+00 120 LF 4 KC" 1602+00 1606+00 ~ < " 5100 z ~ W ~ 5080 I 5060 5040 0 g 502Q g SOOQ. ~ 0: " ~ 498Q 4960, 4940 ORICINAL SCALE: ,"·200' HORIZ. VERT 5140 5120 5100 50a0 50~ 5040 5O~0 5000 4980 VJ~C g~~:ED g::i = CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING PRELIMINARY SHEET llL2OO< ADAMS COUNTY BRIGHTON WATERSHED DESIGN PROFILE 111 ~ T ==~~D~Arr~==~L_~U~R~B~A~N~D~R~A~I~N~A~G~E~&~F=LO~O~D~C~O~N~T~R~O~L~D~I~S~T~R~IC~T~~ T~R~IB=U~T~A~R~Y~T~O~S~ . ~P~LA~TT~E~R~IV~E=R~_J _L ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 5100 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 1680+00 PROfiLE S34 SEE PLAN SHEET 41 N loa-YEAR WATER / SURFACE 5-YEAR WATER I SURFACE OUTlET EROSION PROTECTION 100 LF 4',8' ReBC 0 O.20~ 0 44·4 cfs DETENTION BASIN 0 INV=5(l45 WS,..5048 WS,_5051 TOP=5052 1684+00 \ 1\ + N ill g TOP OF CHANNEL ,.ANK \ ~ EXISTING / GROUND ~ (TYP.) z t.iAIN CHANNEL INVERT (TRICKLE CHANNEl NOT SHOWN. SEE SHEET srA 1686+70 TO 1692+53 680 IF GRASS LINED CHANNEL 5-0.20% BonOM 'MQTH=5' NORMAL DEPTH"'4.9' Q,...-444 cfs ~ 1688+00 1692+00 ENGINEERING. INC. ,50 SOOfk MiSty !5ml. .n OEN'o(R. CQ..ORAO(I 80222 ~100 5060 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 DESICNED TIC DRA'NN ~ CHECKED HCk REVISED AS-SUk.T om OAI( om om CAl( 5100 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY 0 0 + 0 ~ g ih :r ~ cr ~ " 100 LF Rep "I ~O-YEAR WATER "SURFACE 5~ YEAR WAIER SURFACE EROSION pROTEcnON DETENTION BASIN I NV- 5001 WSFS004 WSlOll""5007 lOP-.SDQ8 PROFILE S36 SEE PLAN SHEET1I33 & 34 TOP Of CHANNEL BANK (TYP.) EXI llNG GRQUND (TYP) MAIN CHANNEL INVERT (TRICKLE CI-{ANNEl NOT SH SEE SHEET 68) STA 171 +50 TO 1727+00 50 LF GRASS LINED ·CHANNEl 5-0. 43% BonOM 'MOTH _ 4' NORMAL D[PTM:i l2L2ll!lO 1800+00 <0 <0 0 + 5100 2 g ~ 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 4~60 4940 1804+00 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY 8 + 0 5100 ;0 g 5080 ~ 5060 z El 5049 r- 5020 5000 4980 j 4960 4940 1810+00 , PROFILE S39 ~ I SEE PLAN SHEETS 34 8. 36 ill 1 1:11 5100 ~ I g l ~ I 5Q80 I 5060. TOP Of" CHANNEL 1 EXlSTING BANK (TYP.) 1 ~ f' (TrP.) - ! 5040 t.4AIN C~ANNEl INVERT 5020 ( lRtCI=82 cfs 4880 2086+00 2090+00 2094+00 2098+00 210 2+00 504{) 5020 5000 4980 4g6() 494{) 4920 4900 DESIGNED TIC ORAi'm ~ CHECKED _ RE\'1SED ~ AS-BUILT OAT[ OAT[ OAT[ OAT[ DATE CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE ORIGINAL SCALE: '"·200' HORIZ. VERT SHEET NO. 116 ---PAGE BREAK--- ~ I 0 PROFILE E3 SEE PLAN SHEETS 5, 6 & 8 til l 5100 I 51QO 0 N ~ I g S080 lil SOIjO . • ~I :r , · . ~ I u ~ . · , S060 S060 z ~ I - TOP Of CHANNEL , BAN~ (TYP.~ ~ - ~ 5040 • S040 - , , - . ~ · S020 MAIN CHANNEl INVERT S020 (TR1CKl:.( CHANNEL NOr - . ~ . SHOWN. SEE SHEET 68) CHANNEL SEND , CKV,"VN 5000 5000 , , · , , , ! , , 4980 , , , , , 49SO , , , , ; , , , STA 2104+93 TO 2132+00 ; STA 2132+00 TO 2161 +3:4 4960 2710 LF GRASS LINED CHANNEl , 2935 IF GRASS LINED CHANNEL 4960 5=0.207. BOTTOM 5-1,-327. BOTTOM 'MOTH,..4-' NORMAL DEPTH=1.9' , NORM L DEPTH:zl.S' Q,00=65 cfs O>OF65 cfs 4940 4940 2106+00 2110+00 2114-+00 2118+00 2122+00 2126+00 2130+00 213-4+00 2138+00 2142+00 214-6+00 2150+00 2154+00 2158+00 ORIGINAL SCALE: '"-200' HORIZ. V£RT I ~ PROFILE E3 , , PROFILEE4 SEE PLAN SHEETS 5, 6 & 8 , SEE PLAN SHEET 17 I , , 5100 II:! 5100 51DC , 5100 I ~ EXISTING , , ~ 175 Lf , 200 LF (TYP.) . 2.5' Rep , S080 lli 3 Rep SOSO soac , soao I~ r- - 1- ' S060 ~ S060 S060 S060 I 8 0 I " + N OUTLEr ill + EROSION 0 N " S040 PROTECTION N S040 S040 g ~ S040 I g g I 1 :r S020 :r 5020 S020 ~ :r 5020 ~ ~ z I 0 0 5000 I ili 5000 500( ili 5000 1 S1A 2161+34- TO 2166+50 \ STA 2168+50 TO 217Q+08 675 LF GRASS LINED CH~NNEL , , 4980 I 5-2.02:% BOTTOM 'MDTH,.4' 4980 49& 49SO • i NORMAL DEPTH-LO' , 0_37 cfs " I § STA 2180+00 TO 2199+50 , 4960 ; I 4960 496 1950 IF 3· RCP 4960 - 5::::tO.10% " I 0000:.20 cfs , I ~ 4940 4940 4940 4940 ~ 2160+00 2164+00 2168+00 2180+00 2184+00 2188+00 2192+00 2196+00 2200+00 2204+00 £ VJ~C WG~~ER~b~t. DESIGNED OAll: ;3/28/05 CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING SHEET j DRAYoN DAT< lL2aLO> PRELIMINARY OiEO 117 ~ ~NCr. RE~SEO OAll: TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER AS-BUILT DAT< URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT • ---PAGE BREAK--- 5160 5140 5J ~0 5100 5080 S060 S040 S020 5000 5160 5140 5120 5100 S080 5060 v S040 , i; < S020 ~ ~ 5000 ; I. a a + 0 ii g on w I ~ z ffi I L- 2264+00 PROFILE E5 SEE PLAN SHEET 17 d ~ a ~ 150 IF 6 RCP X EXISTING GROUND ~ TOP OF CHANNEL BANK ~ PROFILE E6 ~ I SEE PLAN gl 5160 5160 SHEETS 17 & 18 wi 5160 8 ~ I + 0 I 5140 5140 ~ I 5140 ~ ~I 0 I w ~ 0 5120 5120 I 51 20 ~ 0 bj ~ / 100-ytAR WA TE~ 200 IF Jr - 4 RCBC - Jr ~ .J 0 / MAIN CHANNEl INVERT OUTLET on 0 z i5 6 w 5100 5100 0. 5100 OUllET EROSION PROTECTION DETENTION BASIN T STA 2220+00 TO 2230+20 INV=5074 10200 LF GRASS UNED CHANNEL WSF5075 WSICWFS07B S20.S3" BOnOM 'NIDtH=4' TOP=-5079 NORMAL DEPTH-3.B' 01110= 358 cfs 2212+00 2216+00 2220+ 00 2224+00 2228+00 PROFILE E6 SEE PLAN SHEET 18 - EXISTING GROUND - MANHOL " ~ + iil ~ w I ~ 0 ~ 780 LF 4' RCP 850 LF . RCP 00.51:; 01OF90 t;fs 350 LF 6 . • RCP C 0.22:; 0'00=222 cf!! 2268+00 2272+00 2276+00 ENGINEERING. INC. , SO 5&lfH ami sTREff. ~ otNl,£Il (XllOllAOO 80222 PHONE NO: (303l1~1- ~13 FAA: NO: (303 1"'-3208 2280+00 DESIGNEO TIC DRA'MoI ~ CHECI ~ ~ (;1100=14,9 efg 2352+00 2356+00 PROFILE E12 SEE PLAN SHEET 7 EXISTING 5000 4980 N + ~ N g N I ~ Q Ci TOP CH NNE BANK (TYP,) ~ ~ 100 I F 5' Rep OUTLET EROSION PROTECTlON MAIN CHANNEL INVERT (tRICKLE CHANNEL NOT SHOWN. SEE SHEET TA . + + 5000 4980 5140 5120 5100 5OBO 5060 5040 5020 5000 ST}' 2.391+50 TO 2400+29 930 LF GRASS UNEO CHANNEL S=OA9!P; BonOM :IMDTH- 4' NO~MAL DEPrH=3.9' 0000=377 Qfs 2392+00 2396+00 4980 2400+00 0 0 + 0 g or ~ z i:i PROFILE Ell SEE PLAN SHEET 7 & 8 " 100:-YEAR WA 'fER j 5URFAe:_ YEAR WATER ~RFA~E _ / OUTLET EROSION PROTECTlON DETENTION BASIN W INV",S069 WS"..5071 WS 5075 TOP",,5Q76 2372+00 2376+00 D£SlGNED TTC + ill N g W I u " z (TW. ) ~ - /1 MANHOlE (TYP,) 1408 LF 6.5' Rep 0 1.07% 2380+00 0-=152 cfs 2384+00 2388+00 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY 5140 ~120 ~lOO 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 DRA~ ~ CHECKED REVISED ~ AS-BUILT DArE DArE DArE DArE DATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT i , OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S, PLATTE RIVER " PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE , ORIGINAL SCALE: 1 "-200' HOR1Z. 20' VERT SHEET 119 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5100 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 498Q 4960 4940 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 ~ , 4960 " ! 4940 4920 " ~ z i3 2500+00 8 + ~ :r o WS,oo=5015 TOP-S016 2504+00 2508+00 PROFILE E14 SEE PLAN SHEET 5 ~ ~ 5060 W 2512+00 ~ 100-YEAR WATER ~ 5040 i.l m 5- YEAR WA TER EXISTING ~ SURFAC' j:R:' _ G,,(JUND ~ 5020 . 1 2560+00 DETENTION BASIN X INV 5007 WSp5010 WSn_S015 TOP=5016' 2564+00 2568+00 \JJ~C 5000 4980 4960 4940 4920 f~G~~ERA ~ DDI"EA. c:a..oR.ADO 110222 l303) "1-~1.l FAX NO: 303) 158-3208 I PROTECTION STA 2510+00 TO 2515+75 & 5-0.45% BonOM Wl0Tl1- 4' NORMAL DEPTH",,4.3' Q,_456 cfs 2516+00 0 0 + 508 o~ ~ W 5060 :r 2520+00 PROFILE E13 SEE PLAN SHEETS 7 STA 2522+00 TO 2525+50 & S-0.45% BonOM WlOTH- 4' NORMAL DEPTH-4.3' 0_456 cfs 2524+00 2528+00 , EXIsnNG , , , EXISTING ~ ROUND : (l'l'P .J . . . - . SHOWN. SEE SHEET 68) STA 2531+00 TO 2547+24 2532+00 2536+00 PROFILE E15 SEE PLAN SHEET 6 , , NORt.4AL DEPTH-2.3' Q,_'50 cfs 2540+00 , 2544+00 l' ~ 100-YEAR: WATER ~ z 300 LF (l'l'P) / TOP OF CHANNEL (3 2 RCP BAN~ (l'l'P.J ~ ill ~ 5-YEAR WATER 5040 502 15URFACE / OUTlET 5000 , EROSION , PROTECTION 4980 , 4960 DETENTiON BASIN V INY-5012 WSp5015 WS,_SOI9 4940 TOP-5020 4920 2580+00 2584+00 2588+00 DESIGNEO TTC \ 1\ 150 LF 2 RCP I; 2592+00 - .J'r t.4AIN CHANNEL INVERT (TRICKLE CHANNEL NOT SHOWN. SEE SHEET 68) , 3' G.s.e. DROP , STRUClURE' (TYP.) , . , , STA 2591+30 TO 2601+91 STA 2601+91 TO 2617+32.13 1061 LF GRASS LINED CHANNEL , 1545 Lf GRASS LINED CHANNEL S-O.29~ eonOM S'"'1.23~ BonQt,4 NORMAL DEPTH=4.1' NORMAL DEPTH=3.2' O~268 cfs O>OF268 cfs , 2596+00 2600+00 2604+00 2608+00 2612+00 , , - N + , ~ W :r ~ 0 z 2616+00 ORAYIN MAS CHECI(EO RE'v1SEO ~ AS-BUllT Dm DATE DATE DATE DATE CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 5)00 , 5060 5020 5000 .,.980 4960 4940 ORIGINAL SCAL£: 1"-200' HORIZ. 1".20' VERT 2620+00 SHEET 120 5080 5060 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 4920 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 4920 4900 4880 5040 5020 5000 4980 4960 4940 ~ 4920 > , f " 4900 - ~ , ~ 4880 - ~ > 8 + 0 g Z ~ z " w m , , , , 0+00 HOO z ~ OUTLET EROSION PROTECTION 36+00 8+00 TOP Of CHANNEL BANK (TYP,) 40+00 4HOO PROFILE N1 SEE PLAN SHEET 50 , 1- TOP OF ' CHANNEL B~TYP~ ~ " ! EXI5T1NG ~ , , , ! , , , , , \ , i· i" J' G.S.B. DROP STRUCTURE l TYP,) PROTECTION \ MAIN CHANNEL INVERT' 12+00 STA 0+00 TO 34+44,4Huv.N PRO.TECnON SIT SHT 68) · - . ~CHANNEl aEND EROSION P.ROTEC'TlON' 36+00 40+00 5TA 34+ 44.4 TO 62+91.06 2847 LF GRASS UNED CHANNEL 5=0.11% BonOM WlOTH-IO' NORMAL DEPTH=8.S' 0-=3103 cfs 44+00 48+00 52+00 56+00 PROFILE C4 60+00 ~ + N SEE PLAN SHEET 5, 6, & 15 M HOLE T OF HANN l BANK (TYP.) (TYP.) - - HOO 8+00 12+00 ST A 0+00 TO 3 4+ 71. 39 ~471 Lf 5.5' Rep 5 0-=170 cfs EXISTING ~ (TYP~ ~ 16+00 20+00 24+00 28+00 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY 32+00 OESIGNED ---TIL. OR ~ O1EO RECREATION AREA S-YR, ORIFICE ' , y 5 YR, WATER (WHERE SHOWN , O.OX (TYP,) SURFACE ~ ON PlANS) I MAINTENANCE/ NATIVE GRASS ACCESS PATH 2.5 VEGETATION BASIN OUTLET PROFILE ~ ,,~q!l"(TYP) N,T S. MIXTURE OF TYPE L VARIES • 3:1 FOR OUTFALL 51 RIPRAP & SOIL J '(MIN ) WETLAND " (TYP,) (1 SLAYER)' VEGETATION lOW FLOW CHANNEL INVERT , . , , WETLANDS BOnOM CHANNEL TYPICAL SECTION 5-YR. N 1.5. CONTINUOUS 100 YR. WEIR 1/ ORIFICE GRATE \VARIES OUTLET PIPE < > NOT SHOWN " TO IS') Ii- VARIES R.OW ROW " , " Fi. SHOULDER VARIES SHOULDER Fi. BASIN OUTLET PLAN VARIES 4'-60' VARIES 4" 20' TRAVEL LANES - - 3' ~ N.T.S. TRAVEL lANES 0 0 MAIN CHANNEL I' EXAMPLE BASIN OUTLET INVERT- FREEBOARD SIDEWALK DETENTION a' al00 ROW VOL5 VOL 100 INVERT ws, WS100 TOP ~ILEV ESTIMATED BIKEWAY ~ SIDEWALK BASIN (cis (cis) lacre) (ac·lt) ac·lt) ELEV 111 ELEV. (It I ELEV -(It) " EXCAVATION (cv) LANDSCAPING BIKEWAY A • 90 75 96 26.5 5076 5078 5081 5082 50000 UTILITY DEPTH VARIES LANDSCAPING , , B3 " 121 25.9 5048 5051.5 5055 5056 50000 GRASSED AND LANDSCAPED 5' MAXIMUM UTILITY C 9 17. 119 208 49.6 5025 5027.5 5031 5032 90000 0 11 10.6 '13 5045 5048 5051 5052 100000 GKI:.I:.N -tiEL T/ CHANNEl TRICKLE CHANNEL E • 7B E xiSMg " 22.6 5071 5073 5075 5076 50000 F 69. 44 773 7.71 18.752 5047 5050 5053 5054 35000 G 7 134 4 10.9 15.85 37.06 4 5024 5027 5030 5031 70000 EXAMPLE STREET WITH CENTER GRASSLINED OUTFALL CHANNEL • " 189 " 26 553 5001 500 4 5007 5008 100000 N.T.S. J 11 . " " " 4992 4996 4997.5 4998.5 80000 K 28' 62 exiSMg 7.26 19 32 5015 50175 5021 5022 L 20 E 22.6 39.5 5032 503 4 5 5039 5040 LUTZ " 16.5 27.1 .2 10 Existing 7 99 .3 72 Existmg 323 25.7 MV·2 9 Existmg 4 344 66' R.OW VARIES a " 72 Existing 1038 '76 5014 5016 5018 5019 RO.W P , 95 10 13.4 28.8 4989 4992 4994 4995 60000 PC' 14.2 54.5 existing 10.1 16.9 ~ ~ PC2 27.2 104 6 existing " 12.3 " VARIES VARIES VARIES 8.5' 56' PC3 17.7 68 existing 11 7 21.4 4' 60' PC1A " 28' existing " 81 I 65' 8' I I lS' I I " 65' I PC2A 13.1 50.3 existing 23 I,IAAIN CHANNEL PC 1S 23.8 91.5 e xlsling 21.1 33.2 INVERT 1 I~ 1 PRESERve • 14 912 Existing 9.05 25.061 DEPTH VARI[S~ r l' FREEBOARD a 3 40 72 13. t 4989 4991.5 4994 4995 30000 5' IolAXIMUM I A 37 270 EXisting [PHONE REDACTED] 5041 50 44 5045 ~1iJ t • s • 77 E.ls tlng 12.6 25.8 4990 4992.5 4995 4996 ~ SAFeWAY 19 , EXls llng 4.26 10.1 50 49 5052 5057 5058 ~C;FnANO SC 23 Existing 5.22 14.1 ,NI"l~(,..lPED T 3 19.7 10.4 " 27.4 5074 5075 5078 5079 55000 GREEN 8ELT I CHANNEL " U 6 21 69 127 5072 5075 5079 5080 63000 V 19 19.2 [PHONE REDACTED] 5015 5019 5020 TRICKLE CHANNEL W .0 15 68 E.1611ng 4. 16 23.427 5069 5071 5075 5076 X 7 27 15.7 44.3 5007 50 10 5015 5016 80000 EXAMPLE STREET WITH ADJACENT GRASSLINED OUTFALL CHANNEL z 96 6.95 78. 23.208 5027 5028.7 5031.9 5032.9 44000 TOTALS: 124.4 404.1 905.8 957000 N.T.S. • NOTES: • • OETENTION BASINS 'PCI', 'PC2',AND 'PC3'ARE A PART OF SUBREGIONAL DETENTION SYSTEM , DETENTION BASINS 'PCIA' AND 'PC2A' ARE A PART OF SUBREGION AL DETENTION SYSTEM 'M2' ~ OUTFALL CHANNELS 3 DETENTION BASIN 'PC1S'IS A PART OF SUBREGIONAL DETENTION SYSTEM • D ETENTION SASINSSC' (1 POND) AND 'SAFEWAY' (3 PONDS) ARE A PART OF SUBREGIONAL DETENTION SYSTEM Y' , DETENTION BASIN 'PRESERVE' (2 PONDS) IS A PART O F SUBREGIONAL DETENTION SYSTEM W , 6 DETE NTION BASIN 'MV·2' (3 PONDS) IS A PART OF SUBREGIONAL DETENTION SYS T EM § BASIN DESIGN INFORMATION , ~ SUB-REGIONAL DETENTION BASINS il ~ ~ \JJ~C DEStGNED ---IlL DATE U2;'14~0f- 118 181 [PHONE REDACTED] 2067 11 9 1636 48 97 121 120 12 17 42 194 285 123 3 26 42 106 137 124 37 94 142 389 545 125 0 7 13 37 50 126 140 [PHONE REDACTED] 1894 127 253 [PHONE REDACTED] 2184 128 0 24 39 105 138 129 5 15 21 48 61 131 2 33 53 143 188 132 5 28 45 119 157 133 0 8 17 88 133 134 0 7 13 41 58 135 0 9 15 47 83 136 0 8 17 65 96 137 1 17 32 128 196 138 0 10 17 49 67 139 17 29 37 69 89 140 58 115 148 278 346 141 4 4 4 4 5 142 15 21 43 59 60 143 15 21 44 59 60 144 0 4 8 26 37 145 0 8 18 66 97 146 0 12 24 83 120 147 0 14 28 97 143 149 0 4 6 17 22 150 0 0 0 0 0 151 4 33 55 165 236 154 39 39 39 39 39 156 82 102 108 124 125 157 72 [PHONE REDACTED] 2927 158 32 63 81 j60 201 159 0 22 44 154 223 160 0 23 48 177 260 161 0 0 0 0 0 162 4 35 54 133 175 163 0 9 15 43 57 164 2 40 66 173 228 165 5 47 74 193 269 166 0 23 39 108 144 167 2 25 42 114 152 168 0 16 33 118 173 169 0 21 43 148 214 171 38 38 38 31 § 172 70 126 160 284 348 173 0 29 58 197 287 Q2 (cfs) 84 892 27 15 14 234 35 860 877 86 31 121 7 24 34 40 90 182 36 46 121 4 18 18 3 37 40 85 27 o 164 39 117 1037 32 78 225 o 112 23 53 173 181 62 99 106 38 70 221 wrrn CLOSED BASINS Q5 Ql0 Q50 Q100 (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 178 241 [PHONE REDACTED] 2612 5808 7727 50 63 115 142 30 83 377 589 51 73 166 212 [PHONE REDACTED] 1717 65 83 [PHONE REDACTED] 2515 5644 7506 1854 2543 5688 7585 149 193 340 406 58 74 135 166 207 267 459 549 39 61 156 205 49 72 248 329 70 92 183 230 76 100 300 430 162 206 371 457 [PHONE REDACTED] 1498 68 87 167 208 73 90 153 186 208 257 442 541 4 4 5 5 32 59 60 60 32 59 60 60 17 27 69 90 85 117 255 327 91 124 264 337 180 242 511 656 40 48 76 91 o 0 o 0 311 [PHONE REDACTED] 39 39 39 39 124 124 [PHONE REDACTED] 3594 7479 9722 63 81 160 201 179 245 519 661 [PHONE REDACTED] 1306 o 0 4 59 208 264 530 700 43 55 104 129 129 177 378 478 337 [PHONE REDACTED] 275 329 512 608 128 168 329 410 200 266 540 686 231 311 653 831 38 38 38 38 126 160 284 348 [PHONE REDACTED] 1604 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT wrrnOUT CLOSED BASINS Q2 Q5 Ql0 Q50 Q100 (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 84 178 241 [PHONE REDACTED] 2472 3401 7460 9857 27 50 63 liS 142 IS 30 83 377 589 14 51 73 166 212 239 [PHONE REDACTED] 1800 35 65 83 [PHONE REDACTED] 2404 3304 7296 9655 1152 2429 3324 7317 9693 86 149 193 340 406 31 58 74 135 166 121 207 267 459 549 37 121 177 424 549 35 92 129 283 358 34 70 92 183 230 105 198 255 477 593 90 162 206 371 457 200 [PHONE REDACTED] 1628 36 68 87 167 208 46 73 90 153 186 121 208 257 442 541 4 4 4 5 5 18 32 59 60 60 18 32 59 60 60 3 17 27 69 90 37 85 117 255 327 40 91 124 264 337 85 180 242 511 656 50 87 111 205 254 31 59 76 146 182 185 354 [PHONE REDACTED] 39 39 39 39 39 117 124 124 [PHONE REDACTED] 2949 4054 8893 11850 32 63 81 160 201 78 179 245 519 661 270 [PHONE REDACTED] 1609 200 [PHONE REDACTED] 1628 121 269 [PHONE REDACTED] 23 43 55 104 129 53 129 177 378 478 173 339 [PHONE REDACTED] 209 338 417 723 889 62 128 168 329 410 99 200 266 540 686 106 231 311 653 831 38 38 38 38 38 70 126 160 284 348 238 [PHONE REDACTED] 1752 TABLEA-5 (CONTINUED) BRIGHTON PEAK FLOW SUMMARY EXlSIDIG DEVELOPMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SWMM Conv. Q2 Q5 Ql0 Q50 Q100 Elnt 174 39 39 39 39 39 175 0 16 27 75 100 176 0 11 23 85 125 177 78 86 86 86 86 178 (1 ) 80 101 108 124 124 179 9 17 23 46 59 180 0 13 27 102 149 181 0 0 0 0 0 182 0 6 13 48 72 183 0 2 5 15 22 184 0 2 4 16 24 186 0 12 24 75 109 187 2 16 23 55 71 188 0 5 12 47 71 189 0 8 16 57 84 190 0 I 4 15 24 191 0 5 12 47 71 192 0 12 23 79 113 193 0 15 32114167 194 0 16 33 122 180 195 0 19 41 156 232 196 0 14 32 128 193 197 0 2 6 22 33 198 0 12 27 108 162 199 0 14 31 124 187 200 14 24 74 103 201 I 23 48 186 278 202 0 0 0 0 0 203 3 16 25 66 87 204 3 40 66 182 242 205 2 21 40 135 188 206 0 2 10 55 86 207 1 6 11 30 42 208 0 11 19 55 74 209 1 IS 33 131 198 210 69 142 192 399 511 211 0 6 11 61 105 212 0 0 0 44 77 213 0 3 6 21 31 214 0 9 15 47 66 215 0 0 0 0 0 216 2 11 17 42 55 217 0 8 16 54 77 218 2 9 15 40 53 219 0 13 23 64 86 m 0 4 7 M 38 221 0 12 28 115 190 222 0 0 0 35 66 223 0 25 57 231 346 Q2 (cfs) 39 37 55 82 114 68 44 o 42 38 16 91 40 84 140 17 43 65 98 97 211 169 19 125 153 26 138 o 7 62 31 o 29 26 99 128 19 14 20 31 o 2 25 2 11 29 129 o 310 wrrn CLOSED BASINS Q5 (cfs) 39 75 119 86 124 106 114 o 98 62 31 182 77 145 216 35 93 126 201 214 395 351 43 255 314 55 306 o 28 133 103 12 51 49 231 250 68 55 40 57 o 15 62 12 35 54 255 24 585 Ql0 (cfs) 39 99 162 86 124 129 161 o 138 76 41 243 98 182 260 46 127 163 267 294 511 478 59 344 424 75 421 o 42 177 ISO 34 65 64 318 330 112 95 54 72 o 22 88 19 50 69 337 42 766 Q50 Q100 (cfs) (cfs) 39 39 190 234 346 441 86 86 124 124 225 277 359 460 4 59 315 421 133 167 83 107 520 688 172 211 315 387 430 519 98 125 276 355 309 384 543 689 [PHONE REDACTED] 1275 1039 1372 129 168 736 [PHONE REDACTED] 159 [PHONE REDACTED] o 0 lOS 136 355 448 336 429 140 191 121 ISO 122 lSI 697 896 725 967 318 429 282 376 107 134 134 172 o 0 54 70 188 237 49 65 113 145 133 [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] 1935 Q2 (cfs) 39 213 55 82 114 68 44 200 104 38 16 120 40 84 177 17 43 65 98 97 255 187 197 149 174 50 149 26 7 62 31 11 29 26 114 206 97 92 42 32 35 2 25 33 11 29 211 82 351 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT wrrnOUT CLOSED BASINS Q5 (cfs) 39 446 119 86 124 106 114 416 232 62 31 265 77 145 295 35 93 126 201 214 485 388 417 302 358 153 328 50 28 133 103 45 51 49 257 435 178 164 84 63 93 15 62 98 35 54 415 147 672 Ql0 (cfs) 39 611 162 86 124 129 161 568 325 76 41 375 98 182 368 46 127 163 267 294 631 529 574 406 480 226 448 65 42 177 ISO 67 65 64 355 590 227 213 110 82 130 22 88 141 50 69 548 188 875 Q50 Ql00 (cfs) (cfs) 39 39 1324 1754 346 441 86 86 124 124 225 277 [PHONE REDACTED] 1630 713 950 133 167 83 [PHONE REDACTED] 172 211 315 387 665 821 98 125 276 355 309 384 543 689 [PHONE REDACTED] 1583 1146 1512 1247 1655 866 1117 1035 1340 540 [PHONE REDACTED] 124 154 105 136 355 448 336 429 159 205 121 ISO 122 lSI [PHONE REDACTED] 1609 430 535 387 474 219 275 156 172 281 357 54 70 188 237 318 408 145 [PHONE REDACTED] 1391 [PHONE REDACTED] 2235 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLEA-5 (CONTINUED) BRIGIITON PEAK FLOW SUMMARY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WIlli CLOSED BASlNS SWMM Conv. Q2 Q5 QI0 Q50 QlOO Q2 Q5 QI0 Q50 Em! ) ) 224 0 2 4 32 70 (cfs) (cf,) (cfs) (cfs) 21 38 73 306 225 0 3 7 27 40 25 48 63 125 226 0 0 0 30 67 4 25 65 276 227 0 7 IS 58 86 59 116 152 304 228 0 2 5 35 66 22 43 55 239 229 4 38 65 194 265 75 172 235 488 230 0 10 21 81 121 87 171 224 446 231 0 7 IS 57 84 54 108 142 280 232 5 9 12 25 33 14 28 36 70 233 I 8 13 31 42 2 13 20 49 234 7 18 27 65 88 37 73 97 189 235 15 30 39 79 100 15 30 39 79 236 135 242 312 600 759 181 324 418 857 237 0 10 19 62 87 48 92 ll8 213 238 0 6 12 40 56 28 54 70 127 239 I 25 43 121 161 59 ll3 147 274 240 7 53 88 247 331 95 192 255 508 241 5 33 81 308 461 145 [PHONE REDACTED] 242 34 82 121 327 461 205 [PHONE REDACTED] 243 5 45 77 225 310 88 195 264 546 244 26 52 69 142 180 26 52 69 142 245 18 34 45 85 105 18 34 45 85 246 22 50 69 152 199 68 132 172 334 247 0 26 67 287 452 [PHONE REDACTED] 2196 248 II 22 69 100 36 91 129 297 249 15 21 44 59 60 18 32 59 60 250 5 48 82 300 470 [PHONE REDACTED] 2583 251 18 ll3 198 661 [PHONE REDACTED] 2034 4534 252 12 51 85 234 318 12 54 86 239 253 5 98 178 640 [PHONE REDACTED] 2082 4648 254 78 152 199 381 479 114 219 286 619 255 21 108 180 630 [PHONE REDACTED] 2081 4591 256 203 [PHONE REDACTED] 1285 260 486 634 l3l0 257 253 [PHONE REDACTED] 2184 877 1854 2543 5688 258 36 78 105 217 275 36 78 105 217 259 70 90 105 168 200 70 90 105 168 260 10 77 132 453 679 187 [PHONE REDACTED] 261 9 [PHONE REDACTED] 2068 890 2139 2847 5827 262 12 46 70 168 221 12 46 70 168 263 0 0 0 3 24 000 3 264 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 7 265 32 56 72 131 161 48 79 98 169 267 0 3 6 16 22 25 38 46 74 268 53 106 138 267 334 113 194 242 425 269 51 llO 146 294 370 165 269 335 575 270 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 271 65 III 140 229 267 253 337 386 600 272 102 158 191 333 407 274 383 443 670 273 3 20 36 94 124 97 138 166 284 QI00 (cfs) 458 156 401 383 352 616 561 351 87 63 236 100 II 17 263 157 [PHONE REDACTED] 1549 690 180 [PHONE REDACTED] 388 60 34 II 6028 322 6134 838 6046 1694 7585 [PHONE REDACTED] 7714 221 28 45 205 88 522 696 2 710 784 357 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WIlliom CLOSED BASINS Q2 Q5 QIO Q50 QlOO (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 106 208 271 536 660 25 48 63 125 156 96 185 240 452 563 59 1I6 152 304 383 87 165 213 397 493 75 172 235 488 616 87 171 224 446 561 54 108 142 280 351 14 28 36 70 87 38 128 194 468 606 37 73 97 189 236 15 30 39 79 100 234 [PHONE REDACTED] 1735 48 92 1I8 213 263 28 54 70 127 157 59 113 147 274 340 95 192 255 508 640 162 [PHONE REDACTED] 1984 210 [PHONE REDACTED] 1632 88 195 264 546 690 26 52 69 142 180 18 34 45 85 105 68 132 172 334 [PHONE REDACTED] 1326 2734 3496 106 237 332 729 974 18 32 59 60 60 593 II 82 1576 3303 4247 970 2012 2739 5971 7850 12 54 86 239 [PHONE REDACTED] 2786 6092 7998 186 399 545 1I66 1485 1025 2075 2788 6063 7938 311 [PHONE REDACTED] 2244 1I52 2429 3324 7317 9693 36 78 105 217 275 70 90 105 168 200 203 [PHONE REDACTED] 2563 1I64 2473 3399 7457 9863 12 46 70 168 221 37 120 178 421 544 28 60 80 168 213 48 79 98 169 205 49 86 1I0 204 252 1I3 194 242 425 522 165 269 335 575 696 36 67 87 166 208 262 370 436 720 869 282 408 486 788 944 107 170 21I 383 476 SWMM Conv. Em! 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 3ll 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 Q2 (cfs) II o o o 5 o 26 o 1 5 o o o o 4 26 o o o 3 o o o o o I o o 3 I 3 o 78 o I 82 o o o o o 2 2 2 o o o o o TABLEA-5 (CONTINUED) BRIGIITON PEAK FLOW SUMMARY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Q5 (cfs) 42 34 o 11 2 60 o 29 56 9 30 5 4 42 65 o 8 7 16 13 7 4 7 7 17 36 o 40 30 58 o 156 13 24 154 8 o 9 9 5 II 20 9 15 25 o II o QIO (cfs) 69 61 o 3 16 5 83 o 57 98 20 70 9 9 71 90 o 16 12 28 28 16 8 14 18 27 84 o 67 49 101 o 209 22 48 204 13 4 14 15 16 17 32 13 25 41 o 18 o Q50 (cfs) 193 169 3 9 39 18 172 176 341 77 297 30 35 190 211 o 53 34 85 96 20 51 74 78 345 o 184 128 308 o 416 58 1~7 383 n ~9 47 ~2 1:\3 32 66 109 Il 47 4~ QI00 (cfs) 259 225 13 13 54 26 217 3 256 534 ll5 468 42 52 266 310 8 76 46 120 140 93 28 75 113 107 536 o 244 166 422 o 526 76 280 469 107 152 52 66 133 55 109 42 87 144 12 93 103 Q2 (cfs) II o 19 15 55 19 140 o 222 505 llO 398 21 39 155 309 o 34 24 38 84 46 23 17 53 34 440 o 64 70 141 o 135 31 145 116 25 15 26 33 o 3 31 2 13 73 o 33 o WITH CLOSED BASINS Q5 (cfs) 44 37 51 24 93 39 21I o 428 1016 191 773 46 81 310 576 o 72 45 90 178 103 46 46 130 70 836 o 135 132 314 o 261 58 322 224 74 69 51 59 13 15 74 13 38 141 o 60 25 Q10 (cfs) 71 63 72 29 116 51 254 o 557 1356 243 1020 61 1I0 405 742 o 97 58 123 241 142 59 65 183 92 1I03 o 183 172 422 o 343 74 439 288 123 1I8 65 75 40 22 101 20 53 179 o 78 43 Q50 (cfs) 197 172 150 50 216 108 399 39 III 0 2917 449 2133 124 [PHONE REDACTED] 172 195 1I0 260 506 31I 1I2 148 [PHONE REDACTED] o 367 307 865 o 735 134 940 626 362 344 120 140 152 54 202 49 117 334 48 275 223 QlOO (cfs) 263 227 197 62 270 139 476 86 1429 3845 557 281I [PHONE REDACTED] 1878 302 313 138 335 651 404 140 191 [PHONE REDACTED] o [PHONE REDACTED] o [PHONE REDACTED] 848 478 436 149 179 204 70 253 63 148 415 104 408 320 Q2 (cfs) II o 19 15 55 19 140 57 223 754 1I0 515 21 206 156 309 71 102 24 104 84 46 23 17 53 54 561 31 64 70 148 35 212 31 154 186 1I5 121 48 34 14 37 31 39 13 73 90 III 86 I I FUTURE DEVELOPMENT I WITHom CLOSED BASINS Q5 (cfs) 44 37 51 24 93 39 21I [PHONE REDACTED] 191 1004 46 436 314 578 153 219 45 229 178 103 46 46 [PHONE REDACTED] 58 135 132 336 92 447 58 339 399 21I 207 93 67 51 107 74 130 38 141 162 201 149 QI0 Q50 (cfs) (cfs) 71 197 63 172 72 150 29 50 116 216 51 108 254 399 139 [PHONE REDACTED] 2047 4363 [PHONE REDACTED] 2708 61 [PHONE REDACTED] 441 [PHONE REDACTED] 208 447 300 645 58 110 316 690 241 506 142 311 59 112 65 148 183 423 [PHONE REDACTED] 2877 74 135 183 367 172 307 450 927 129 [PHONE REDACTED] 74 [PHONE REDACTED] 543 1I60 272 494 267 459 120 232 87 160 73 166 151 333 101 202 194 463 53 117 179 334 206 371 254 450 193 340 Ql 263 221 19 62 270 1489 5681 55 3441 1~3· 12;' 1918 581 85 138 ;j 140 ~J 3626 161 46 377 1I61 35 163 165 128. 14. 607 549 281 17 212 ~J 148 411 45 553 40) I ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SWMM Cony. Eint 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 (1 ) (1 ) Q2 (cfs) o o o o o 4 o o o 4 7 18 161 o o 8 11 25 35 6 12 o 12 5 24 19 5 27 30 46 75 2 244 273 o 71 33 9 39 7 o o o 45 53 51 54 102 65 TABLEA-5 (CONIDlUED) BRIGIITON PEAK FLOW SUMMARY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FU11JRE DEVELOPMENT Q5 (cfs) 14 14 6 14 o 40 17 12 o 4 18 36 271 17 12 58 82 77 82 47 12 45 17 49 52 37 57 124 72 138 128 28 446 552 o 97 58 108 39 15 o II o 92 114 110 84 158 111 QI0 (cfs) 23 24 10 27 67 31 24 o 4 27 47 346 28 20 95 139 137 122 80 12 106 42 83 72 47 100 211 108 219 161 47 572 748 o 113 73 473 39 20 o 18 o 121 lSI 146 101 191 140 Q50 (cfs) 61 75 38 97 44 196 i23 ~7 4 4 66 ~9 641 75 53 256 456 5(,2 328 229 12 384 194 300 155 RS 342 690 268 6R3 282 '37 lOX7 1 1 n [PHONE REDACTED] 39 41 " 50 n 2,1 300 2Y4 1(}3 2.29 QI00 (cf5) 80 108 82 142 83 266 196 127 28 5 89 \09 804 99 69 339 683 792 462 312 12 542 285 470 202 [PHONE REDACTED] 354 1012 [PHONE REDACTED] 2196 o [PHONE REDACTED] 39 53 o 67 o 285 377 370 197 407 267 Q2 (cfs) 34 59 27 93 5 81 135 117 o 4 42 18 198 50 30 109 195 180 205 97 12 153 15 456 68 19 509 770 30 801 75 159 295 886 o 71 50 848 39 66 o 11 o 140 170 165 59 274 253 WITH CLOSED BASINS Q5 (cf5) 64 116 49 180 25 183 266 199 o 4 83 36 349 93 55 217 569 515 429 210 12 427 30 910 133 37 1018 1576 74 1596 128 [PHONE REDACTED] o 97 82 2112 39 102 o 33 o 210 278 269 92 383 337 QIO (cfs) 81 153 76 235 67 249 349 251 o 4 108 47 447 122 72 283 825 739 579 283 12 605 83 1214 174 47 \367 2116 110 2122 161 [PHONE REDACTED] o [PHONE REDACTED] 39 123 o 46 o 258 339 335 112 443 386 Q50 (cfs) 147 294 330 460 301 506 761 457 3 5 203 89 877 221 \31 546 1958 1639 1220 573 12 1350 377 2597 337 88 2914 4714 272 4679 [PHONE REDACTED] 5710 JO [PHONE REDACTED] 39 200 o 100 o 404 576 575 179 670 600 Q100 (cf5) 182 366 488 574 [PHONE REDACTED] 566 28 5 252 109 1\36 269 [PHONE REDACTED] 2137 1554 72J 12 1806 589 3416 [PHONE REDACTED] 6221 357 6157 341 1200 1749 7625 48 [PHONE REDACTED] 39 238 o J26 o 470 700 696 213 784 710 Q2 (cf5) 34 59 117 93 105 81 219 117 37 4 42 J8 242 50 30 109 212 198 210 97 12 172 15 592 68 19 757 1008 30 1039 75 [PHONE REDACTED] 34 71 50 Jl63 39 66 35 JI o 140 170 165 59 282 262 FIITUR.E DEVELOPMENT WITHom CLOSED BASINS Q5 (cfs) 64 Jl6 224 180 J98 183 429 J99 J21 4 83 36 491 93 55 217 591 540 443 210 12 452 30 1185 J33 37 1530 2082 74 2103 128 [PHONE REDACTED] 70 97 82 2472 39 102 65 33 o 210 278 269 92 408 370 QIO (cf5) 81 153 289 235 255 249 562 251 177 4 108 47 663 122 72 283 857 765 598 283 12 632 83 1583 174 47 2061 2817 110 2826 161 [PHONE REDACTED] 92 [PHONE REDACTED] 39 123 83 46 o 258 339 335 112 486 436 Q50 (cfs) 147 294 562 460 [PHONE REDACTED] 457 424 5 203 89 1402 221 \31 546 2012 1693 1268 573 12 1404 377 3322 337 88 4389 6158 272 6146 282 1049 1820 7384 183 175 - 174 7460 39 200 154 100 o 404 576 575 179 788 720 QIOO (cfs) 182 366 688 574 [PHONE REDACTED] 566 549 5 [PHONE REDACTED] 269 [PHONE REDACTED] 2175 1624 721 12 1843 589 4262 [PHONE REDACTED] 8085 357 8049 341 \352 2322 9749 230 [PHONE REDACTED] 39 238 190 126 o 470 700 696 2\3 944 869 SWMM Cony. Eint 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 396 397 398 399 Q2 (cfs) 139 16 80 8 5 5 3 29 o 9 27 2 o o o o 26 3 5 1 4 o 80 40 26 13 TABLE A-5 (CONTINUED) BRIGIITON PEAK FLOW SUMMARY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FU11JRE DEVELOPMENT Q5 (cf5) 233 61 \35 17 II 30 29 66 9 92 115 25 32 7 7 o 65 22 19 14 23 o 86 40 26 13 Q10 (cfs) 284 95 170 22 16 49 47 89 14 147 187 59 74 12 13 o 90 35 32 26 40 o 86 40 26 13 Q50 (efs) 462 239 292 38 39 134 123 179 34 384 526 234 314 35 45 o 21 J R9 94 86 116 II 86 40 26 13 QI00 (cf5) 559 311 352 38 54 J79 162 223 46 523 787 350 493 48 65 o 310 Jl6 133 125 162 87 86 40 26 J3 Q2 (cf5) 275 16 87 38 55 232 75 155 65 300 808 310 421 22 44 o 309 42 40 58 50 o 86 40 26 13 WITH CLOSED BASINS Q5 (cfs) 393 65 142 38 93 336 144 228 [PHONE REDACTED] 591 818 47 90 o 577 86 93 132 121 o 86 40 26 13 QIO (cf5) 457 97 173 38 Jl6 399 182 277 [PHONE REDACTED] 773 1079 62 120 o 742 112 127 182 166 o 86 40 26 13 Q50 (cfs) 684 243 295 38 215 593 33J [PHONE REDACTED] 4431 1530 2249 125 251 o 1464 214 265 404 354 214 86 40 26 13 Flows restricted by pipe capacity with overflow diverted to other conveyance elements QlOO (cfs) 805 315 355 38 270 688 4J1 [PHONE REDACTED] 5814 1931 2962 156 320 2 1878 317 336 523 451 387 86 40 26 13 FU11JRE DEVELOPMENT WITHOm CLOSED BASINS Q2 (cfs) 285 16 87 38 55 232 75 155 65 300 1049 353 538 22 210 36 309 103 105 Jl5 JJI 84 86 40 26 13 Q5 (cf5) 410 65 142 38 93 336 144 228 101 541 21 JI 670 1049 47 443 68 577 221 229 256 247 178 86 40 26 13 QIO (cfs) 491 97 173 38 Jl6 399 182 277 [PHONE REDACTED] 883 1388 62 6J1 87 745 302 317 359 343 241 86 40 26 13 Q50 (cf5) 789 243 295 38 215 593 331 [PHONE REDACTED] 5911 1769 2837 125 1320 167 1476 650 690 784 757 506 86 40 26 13 QIOO (cfs) 944 315 355 38 270 688 411 496 233 J612 7705 2238 3606 156 1761 208 1918 [PHONE REDACTED] 1008 651 86 40 26 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Sub- Watershed Designation I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Q2 (cfs) 12 5 4 I 2 o 4 o o 82 o 2 o o 3 2 2 4 o o o o o o o o o o 4 o o 9 16 5 18 125 o o 5 3 14 35 2 100 4 33 o 18 19 o TABLEA-6 SUB-WATERSHED FLOW SUMMARY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Q5 (cfs) 84 II 19 30 46 8 15 13 21 153 8 33 9 9 27 I I 20 22 15 25 9 II 24 14 13 6 10 9 27 16 12 17 38 15 38 199 17 12 22 39 32 65 II 181 9 67 3 37 39 II QIO (cfs) 130 17 29 49 74 14 22 22 35 201 13 53 14 15 42 17 32 34 25 40 15 18 39 23 22 10 18 14 42 27 19 22 51 21 49 244 28 20 33 61 43 82 16 239 12 86 6 48 51 19 Q50 (cfs) 305 48 69 128 193 38 52 58 95 366 36 143 39 47 106 42 83 82 66 108 44 46 105 61 60 29 50 38 103 74 53 41 97 49 89 387 75 53 78 155 86 139 38 432 24 151 16 93 88 53 QIOO (cfs) 395 61 89 166 251 51 67 76 126 443 47 188 52 66 137 55 109 105 87 142 60 61 138 80 79 42 67 50 133 98 70 51 121 62 109 470 99 69 100 202 109 170 50 520 30 185 22 118 108 71 Q2 (cfs) 43 31 9 70 104 24 35 31 63 89 25 121 26 33 14 3 31 6 13 68 35 33 86 34 41 27 37 20 47 48 84 17 27 30 18 138 50 30 49 III 32 50 24 100 10 30 15 31 19 40 F1JI1JRE DEVELOPMENT Q5 (cfs) 134 58 35 132 199 49 61 58 119 162 47 207 51 59 51 15 74 32 38 125 62 60 149 64 79 49 68 37 90 92 124 33 50 57 36 213 93 55 87 194 55 90 42 181 20 60 29 60 37 75 QIO (cfs) 183 74 51 In 254 65 76 74 151 212 59 267 65 75 73 22 101 48 53 166 78 78 193 81 101 61 87 48 116 116 151 43 63 73 47 257 122 n III 240 68 113 53 239 26 78 37 78 47 97 Q50 (efs) 373 135 117 307 447 124 135 134 274 378 108 459 120 140 166 54 202 117 117 304 144 137 340 147 186 109 162 87 212 210 234 79 115 134 89 397 221 131 198 412 120 199 92 432 48 147 68 148 88 178 QlOO (efs) 478 166 150 377 554 153 165 165 339 458 133 549 149 179 212 70 253 150 148 367 177 167 406 182 230 138 200 107 262 261 271 97 142 166 109 482 269 159 241 491 147 245 112 520 59 181 85 184 108 218 Sub- Watershed Designation 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 66 67 68 69 70 n 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 Q2 (cfs) 24 20 38 2 o 24 61 64 33 33 7 70 7 o 44 45 55 o 54 o III 16 61 9 5 o o 29 o o o 2 o o o 7 o 3 5 o 2 o o I o o 4 3 2 o TABLE A-6 (CONTINUED) SUB-WATERSHED FLOW SUMMARY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Q5 (cfs) 44 37 73 9 3 44 109 116 61 60 20 126 15 II 75 92 110 9 94 3 185 32 113 17 10 26 12 66 9 18 7 21 8 7 6 46 5 22 17 7 10 7 6 10 7 5 26 29 27 5 QIO (cfs) 56 48 94 13 5 55 137 150 77 76 28 160 21 18 91 121 141 14 114 6 228 41 144 23 14 44 19 89 13 30 II 34 14 12 10 67 9 35 25 12 15 13 II 15 13 9 42 47 45 8 Q50 (cfs) 99 85 166 32 14 101 247 271 137 133 62 284 41 50 144 231 261 36 163 17 385 n 258 44 29 118 51 179 31 85 25 91 40 35 31 150 27 89 57 35 37 37 30 36 35 27 109 123 121 21 QIOO (cfs) 123 105 205 42 20 125 306 329 169 164 80 348 53 67 173 285 325 47 197 22 460 90 318 57 38 155 68 223 41 112 34 120 55 48 42 194 37 116 74 47 49 50 41 47 47 37 143 162 160 28 Q2 (cfs) 24 20 39 2 14 29 60 64 33 50 11 70 66 II 50 140 96 57 59 27 165 16 61 54 43 217 34 155 61 149 25 16 36 22 29 87 41 42 6 26 13 35 21 30 24 23 99 75 61 5 F1JI1JRE DEVELOPMENT Q5 (cfs) 42 36 n 13 27 52 108 116 59 82 29 126 102 33 79 210 162 83 92 40 247 30 113 80 65 311 63 228 93 222 47 43 66 47 55 171 67 86 22 48 32 65 39 56 46 43 171 144 124 17 QIO (cfs) 54 45 91 20 35 67 136 150 74 102 40 160 123 46 97 258 209 98 112 48 302 38 144 95 78 367 81 276 III 266 60 60 84 62 71 219 83 112 32 61 45 83 51 71 60 55 212 182 161 25 Q50 (cfs) 99 85 167 49 64 124 247 271 137 174 85 284 200 100 158 404 358 150 179 76 471 n 258 148 127 531 153 421 173 414 107 132 157 125 135 383 144 214 n 115 96 154 97 128 112 104 362 331 305 56 QIOO (cfs) 123 105 207 63 79 154 305 329 169 212 107 348 238 126 188 470 425 178 213 91 549 90 318 175 152 616 188 489 206 492 132 169 193 156 168 460 176 266 91 143 121 190 120 157 137 129 444 411 378 71 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---PAGE BREAK--- I I TABLE A-6 (CONTINUED) SUB-WATERSHED FLOW SUMMARY I EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FUTl.lRE DEVELOPMENT Sui>- Watershed Q2 Q5 Q10 Q50 Q100 Q2 Q5 Q10 Q50 Q100 I Designation (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 103 2 25 42 111 146 55 111 144 273 340 104 0 15 24 64 85 34 65 83 151 186 I 105 2 35 56 147 191 133 213 259 423 501 106 0 8 14 40 54 84 122 144 214 249 107 0 15 25 68 91 97 153 185 297 359 108 0 9 IS 43 57 23 43 55 104 129 I 109 2 40 65 172 223 52 117 160 317 395 110 0 6 10 30 41 3 18 28 70 91 111 0 22 36 98 130 22 55 76 161 205 112 0 16 26 70 92 40 78 100 185 228 I 113 0 3 6 16 22 14 26 33 61 75 114 0 9 15 41 55 9 33 49 112 143 115 0 5 8 24 32 17 33 43 81 100 I 116 0 16 27 75 100 37 75 99 190 234 117 1 16 27 73 96 41 81 105 199 245 118 0 9 16 45 61 29 58 76 149 185 119 0 10 17 46 62 45 77 95 167 203 I 120 1 12 19 48 63 17 36 48 93 116 121 0 9 16 45 59 46 77 97 166 200 122 3 20 30 69 90 48 94 118 206 251 I 123 4 25 37 86 112 58 113 143 249 303 124 2 16 23 54 71 41 77 96 171 210 ·125 0 9 13 29 37 25 37 44 71 85 126 0 9 15 44 59 43 75 95 170 207 I 127 0 8 14 39 52 28 53 69 128 159 I I I I I I I I ---PAGE BREAK--- 1000 500 0 1000 I SCALE IN fUT LEGEND: ~ HYDROLOGIC CROUP" SOILS D HYDROlOGIC GROUP B SOILS D HYDROlOGIC CROUP C SOILS ~ HYDROlOGIC GROUP 0 SOILS NOTES: WATERSHED BOUNDARY HYDROLOGIC SOil GROUP BOUHDAAY 1. BASE MAP IS lltE u.s.G.S. BRIGHTON Ql.Io\DRANGl£. 2. CONTOUR INTUNAL 5 10 FEET. / / / !I / 'I / I, / / r ) \ " I \ \ : l II I \ LFo - ~ : . ~ \ ai· r .r · I I I I ---PAGE BREAK--- ; i ~f 7~ ~I II ic " 500 0 10DD LEGEND: ~ HY'DROlOGIC GR'OUP A ~ILS o HYDROlOGiC GROUP B SOILS HYDROLOGIC GROUP C sotLS _ HYOROlOGIC GROUP 0 SOILS NOTES: WAlERSHED 9OUN~ HYDROlOGiC SOIL GROUP BOUNDAA'Y Bot.SE YAP 'IS 'tHE U.S.G.s. BRt;h-roN ~ CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 10 FECr. 7 ~ J .1 1 i " ii I, · ~O~N~W~Acrl~E~R~S~H~EDD~--~r_~H~YD~RUOJiL~OG~ICC~sSio~l[l~S---r--~F~I~G~U:R:E~-1 - DAlE ADAMS COUNTY TRIBUTAf\Y TO S. PLATTE RIVER GROUP MAP URBAN DRAINAGE F.LOOO CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING SHEET 2 OF 2 A-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1000 500 0 I 1000 SCAL£: IN FEET LEGEND: 95% I COMMERCIAL. OFFICE 80% INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 60% SCHOOLS & PUBLIC lAND 43%-15% 8%-5% SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Ndfes- PARKS & OPEN SPACES - - J')C 00 CITY OF BRIGHTON URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT / - . " - - - / BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER SYSTEMS PLANNING " BAkuN£. R4, / 168th A I-f: o BROMLEY LN. / . 152M AI-f: EXISTING WATERSHED IMPERVIOUSNESS MAP 2 OF 2 DWG. NO. A-5 I I I I ---PAGE BREAK--- 1000 500 0 1 1000 2000 ! SCALE IN FU:T / - - . - - - - - - - - - i- . 1- ' / I 26 RD. / £ T68th AI-f: - ~ c " 45% II ~ 8% I I JL 'I I 'i / 1- 3 I I I I 8A1£L'NE RL / £ T68th AI-f: o 1 I I i I \ ---PAGE BREAK--- ~ , ~ J j 1000 500 0 I SCALE IN FEET NOTES: 1. BASE MAP IS THE US.C.S. BRIGHTON OUADkANGLL 2. CONTOUR INTERVAl. IS 10 FEET. Ii I I I' 1 c \ II ~I o 'I o :j , ) ;j 'J 7 ~ . , Vi 2% ?9 2~ . 2~ I L - l 2% \ 'LC _ ) J _ tff(UM r LN. / 15~ nd VE, MATCHLINE SEE SHEET A-7! /--;::M::':'AT~CHLiNESEE SHEET A- II i - r I D 2~ \ \ I \ 7 L I . / U-j' ! 1j------------l\\XJYl2~"c~m~~iij~~iiiy~W~~;,. ~g~~~:~ED~~~I:g:~~~;~7;~:)i:;y-------:C~IT~Y~O~;:FB:R:IG:H~T~O:N~-----r--EB~RWIG3!H~T~O»Nr~WA~TEElR~S~H~E~D~--r-.E~XrulS~TmIN~G~W~A~T~E~R~SH~E~D~,-~~~-~ _ - ill'i.Z[6 URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER IMPERVIOUSNESS MAP DWG. NO. -L_~O~U~T~F~AL~L~SY~S~T~E~M~S~P~LA~N~N~IN~G~-1 ~S~H~E~ET!12~O~F~2 JL_~A:-6~_J II I CL = i \ 124th A Vf: I:.JI ---PAGE BREAK--- / 1 000 500 0 1000 I 2000 SCALE IN F"EET NOTES: 1. BASE MAP IS n-tE U.S C.S BRIGHTON OUAORmGLE 2 CONTOUR INTERVAL 15 10 FEET . , :1 I . . II I \ DESIGNED ---.ilL DATE ~ DATE - , 45. 45~ ( ' \ \ Ir r) o 45% 5' 45. 95. 95% 50' J 15. o 45% _ 0- ' 45% CITY OF BRIGHTON "pu ~ URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AS- BUllT om 'j 7 o . 5' 7 • BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING b'f(UM~ LN,. / E. 15 nd AI-£ FUTURE WATERSHED IMPERVIOUSNESS MAP SHEET 2 OF 2 2? E. 136th AVE. DWG. NO. A-a / II ---PAGE BREAK--- z~ f ~ LEGEND: STORIII SEWER PIPE SIZE C~CE INDICATOR PIPE 0tiTfAU. _ DET£NT1ON POND = CHANNEl 2T PIPE SIZE INDICATOR (AB) ABANDONED WAiERSHED BOUNDARY NOTES: 1. BASE trW' IS 1H£ u.s.G..S. ERIGHTON QUo\DRANGt.£.. 2. CONTOlIft INTIRVAL IS 10 F"EET. / / ID r 'j i i--,S L J B 5010 \ " ( ) r 'I 'v ' . ' I - 7 ~ i , ; \ ~ : . ill. ( II 'W , " , \ 'LF ) U_ " BASELINE ! ,l ! \ ! J GL: . ! 2 ~i ~g ~i ~ " "f----------r\YiOf'~~~~~r_-CiTYOF"'BRiiGHTON---r-~*iTONWATER:SHeD~--exiS~4CilriiE~-=~ 3. PIPES LfSS 'Tl*.N 18" Nf.f NOT SHOWN FOR l I I \JjRI( ~ u~ ~ll: CITY OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON WATERSHED FACILmES FIGURE _ _ OA,. ADAMS COUNTY TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER MAP ~ g~ll: URBAN DRAINAGE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING SHEET 1 OF 2 A-9 ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I I I I I I I I I LEGEND: 0 STORM SEWER • I ~ I l. .l z. I n g~ I ~I ~ PIPE SIZE C~CE INDICATOR PIPE OUTfAll • OETENllON POND = CHANNEL 27 PIPE SIZE INDICATOR (AS) - WATERSHED BOUNDARY NOTES: I. BASE NAP IS THE U.S.C.s. ERGHT'CJN QlW)IWIGlL 2. CONTOUR IS 10 FEET. 3. PIPES I.fSS T}WoI 18" ME NOT 5HCM'H FOR ClARfTY. , , i , " i I -II jj " I~ \ . /J6/h AI£ / \ D£SICNED ~ ORA.. 0IEa

FBRiGi~-~----si~i"WATEFiSHEi)_r_::=_==__r_~___j I VJ~C ~o ~ . nl:!! C~A~ TRIB~~J~~ ~A:&~~E~VER SWMM ROUTING FIGURE - - DATE SCHEMATICS A 13C AS-oo.,== DATE URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING - - ---PAGE BREAK--- I I I I I I I I I I ~I I I 0: urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UD&FCD). Anending the meeting were: Ben Urbonas Tim McCandless John Deerfer Alan Leak UD&FCD City of Brighton UD&FCD WRC Engineering, Inc. A ou;c.:nary of the items discussed is as follows: I. 2. 3. 4. No changes will be made now for possible furure comprehensive plan changes. If density in future is higher, more on-site storage is needed. Include sizing method in Master Plan. Possibly use retention ponds in east area initially to facilitate implementation. Concerns raised as to method of sizing; if they become permanent? Cost of maintenance? Next project meeting scheduled for May 21, 1998. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 950 SOUTH CHERRY STREET · SUITE 404 • DENVER, COLORADO 80246 • (303) 757-8513 • FAX (303) 758-3208 • [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- MEETING MINUTES OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING FOR BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO SOUTH PLATTE RIVER PHASE-B PRELIMINARY DESIGN INITIAL MEETING JANUARY 26, 1998 The initial progress meeting for Phase-B of the above referenced project was held on January 26, 1998 at the offices of Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UD&FCD). Attending the meeting were: Ben Urbonas Blair Renfro Charlie IGepe Besharah Naiiar John Doerfer Alan Leak A summary of the items discussed is as follows: UD&FCD City of Brighton City of Brighton Adams County UD&FCD WRC Engineering, Inc. I. Brighton is planning to purchase 100' R.O.W. up to Sable. They also plan to purchase remaining R.O.W. up to by end of year. 2. Brighton let the contract for HKS 24" pipe to Street. 3. RCBC addition proposed at McCann Ditch. 4. Redi-Mix is purchasing 75 acres near South Outfall at McCann Ditch. City has plans to purchase old gravel pit. 5. McCann Ditch will be piped around existing gravel pit north of Bromley. 6. WRC proposes that the South Outfall elevation at Bromley be lowered to accommodate RCBC. Bromley proposed to be 95' wide. 7. Sanitary sewer proposed on north side of R.O.W. under railroad (28' deep). 8. Sanitary sewer R.O.W. cost $175,000 for 1.23 acres (D/S ofU.S.85) Kestler property (50'xl 10') for $20,000 U/S property estimated at $1.08/Sq. Ft. Through industrial property $1.25/Sq. Ft. 9. R.O.W. map for South Outfall to be provided by Brighton. 10. Brighton to provide current City Boundary Map. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 950 SOUTH CHERRY STREET . SUITE 404 • DENVER. COLORADO 80246 • (303) 757·8513 • FAX (303) 758·3208 • [EMAIL REDACTED] Initial Meeting Minutes WRC File: 1960/43 Page 2 II. Brighton needs to put MDCLA citation in Drainage Criteria and Sub- o <0 0> Commercial Development in Long'Tnont - Parking Lot Drains Di1-ectly into Gutter and Storm Sewer C~_E_X_A_M_P_L_E_S_O_F_T_R_A_D_IT_I_O_N_AL_P_R_AC_T_I_C_E_) City of Brighton ONSITE VS. SUB-REGIONAL DETENTION SUBREGlONAL J Potentially 200 or more detention ponds Approximately 24 detention ponds fewer facilities to maintain Ponds constructed as development occurs Better reliability/publicly maintained Implementation/timing of drainage Cash flow required to implement facilities Publicly or privately maintained ponds? Timing of ponds and drainage facilities Monitoring to ensure proper maintenance of Easement cost privately maintained ponds Pond construction is a site development cost paid Constructed with public funds by the developer ---PAGE BREAK--- Vl CL I o 'I 0 1500 3000 ~ ~I i':i SCALE: 1" =3000' 6 City of Brighton OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING FUTURE ::;TORM SEWER OUTFALL SYSTEM STUDy AREA LIMITS fRlBUT a,RY Sl B -AREA FLO W PATH ALTERNATIVE NO. 1: ON-SITE lOO-YEAR DETENTION Future developments would provide on-site detention for 10- and 100-year storms in accordance with the current criteria. Allowable release rates from the ponds would be 0.23 and 0.85 cubic feet per second (cfs)/acre of tributary land area for the IO-and 100-year storms, respectively. Storm sewer sizes would range from 18-inch to 72 -inch diameter. Open channels would have up to a 100-foot bottom width. o Estimated Community Cost - Conveyance Facilities o Estimated Developer Cost NOTES: Detention Facilities Assigned Land Value Total Estimated Cost $38,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 7 300,000 $51 ,300,000 1. Pond construction costs are assumed to be a site development cost paid by the developer. 2. Outfall systems are assumed to be located in dedicated street right-of-way. ---PAGE BREAK--- ALTERNATIVE NO. 2: 5-YEAR EXTENDED ON-SITE DETENTION Future development would provide on-site detention for the 5-year storm event to be released over a 40- hour period. Storm sewer sizes would range from IS-inch to 72-inch cliameter. Open channels would have up to a lOO-foot bottom width. NOTES: o Estimated Community Costs o - Conveyance Facilities Estimated Developer Cost _ Detention Facilities _ Assigned Land Value Total Estimated Cost $37,600,000 $ 5,200,000 $ 6300 QQQ $49,100,000 1. Pond construction costs are assumed to be a site development cost paid by the developer. 2. Outfall systems are assumed to be located in dedicated street right-of-way. ALTERNATIVE N°.3: SUBREGfONAL lOO-YEAR WITH EXTENDED 5-YEAR DETENTION Sub-regional ponds would be consoucted to provide detention for 200-500 acre areas. The l00-year release from the pond would be restricted to 0.10 cfs/acre of tributary land area. The 5-year storm would be detained and released over a 40-hour period. Storm sewer sizes would range from IS- inch to 72- inch diameter. Open channels would have a bottom width up to lO-feet. o Estimated Community Cost NOTES: Drainage Facilities Detention Facilities Assigned R.O.W. Value Total Estimated Cost $14,400,000 $12,200,000 $14900 QQQ $41,500,000 1. Pond construction costs are assumed to be a site development cost paid by the developer. 2. Outfall systems are assumed to be located in dedicated street right-of-way. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2110/97 ALTERNATIVES COST SUMMARY Costs Alternative Detel1.tion Conveyance Detention Detention Total Volume (ac-ft) Facilities Facilities Land Value Estimated Cost 1 499 $38,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,300,000 $51,300,000 2 431 $37,600,000 $5,200,000 $6,300,000 $49,100,000 3 1011 $14,400,000 $12,200,000 $14,900,000 $41 ,500,000 1. The assigned land value is assumed to be $0.50 per square foot. 2. Estimated costs for conveyance and detention facilities include: 25% for contingencies, 10% for engineering, 5% for contractor mobilization, 10% for legal and administration. 3. Estimated costs for assigned land value includes 25% for contingencies, 10% for legal and administration. WRC Engineering Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED PEAK FLOW SUMMARY - 0.4 INCH STORM' point A point B Existmg Development 5 0 Future Development 234 14 Alternative 1 - On-site 100-year detention 26 0 Alternative 2 - 5-year extended on-site detention 13 0 Alternative 3 - Subregional 1 OO-year wi extended 5-yr detention 16 0 point C point D 0 0 52 27 0 0 0 0 • 0.4 - inch storm is the average storm in the Denver area experienced by the typical resident 2/10/97 WRC Engineering, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2110197 OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED PEAK FLOW COMPARISON - 0.4 INCH STORM 25+-- ~ 't 20 ~ o 15 i:.L. ~ W 10 5 o point A point B point C point D mm Existing Development • Alternative 1 - On-site 100-year detention o Alternative 2 - 5-year extended on-site detention IlliI Alternative 3 - Subregional 100-year wi extended 5-yr detention WRC Engineering, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED PEAK. FLOW SUMMARY - 2 YEAR STORM' point A point B Existing Development 27 2 Future Development 1049 73 Alternative 1 - On-site 100-year detention 652 26 Alternative 2 - 5-year extended on-site detention 92 12 Alternative 3 - Subregional 100-year wi extended 5-yr detention 56 1 , One hour design rainfall of 1.0 - inches 2/10/97 point C point D 1 8 234 109 35 33 7 6 3 2 WRC Engineering, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2110/97 OUTP ALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED PEAK PLOW COMP ARlSON - 2 YEAR STORM 600 500 ~ u ~ 400 0 ~ 300 u..l 200 100 o point A point B point C point D mil Existing Development • Alternative 1 - On-site lOa-year detention o Alternative 2 - 5-year extended on-site detention mil Alternative 3 - Subregional lOa-year wi extended 5-yr detention WRC Engineering, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED PEAK FLOW SUMMARY - 5 YEAR STORM* point A point B Existing Development I 15 18 Future Development 2111 197 Alternative I - On-site 100-year detention 761 76 Alternative 2 - 5-year extended on-site detention 173 60 Alternative 3 - Subregional I OO-year w/ extended 5-yr detention 104 4 * One hour design rainfall of 1.42 - inches 2/10/97 point C point D 53 58 487 217 44 48 16 19 6 4 WRC Engineering, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2/10/97 ~ u OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED PEAK FLOW COMP ARlSON - 5 YEAR STORM 700 600 500 ~ o 400-f--- ~ ~ 300-f--- U-l ~ 200 100 o point A point B point C point D 1.1 Existing Development • Alternative 1 - On-site 100-year detention o Alternative 2 - 5-year extended on-site detention II Alternative 3 - Subregional 100-year wi extended 5-yr detention WRC Engineering, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED PEAK FLOW SUMMARY - 100 YEAR STORM* point A point B Existing Development 787 108 Future Development 7705 779 Alternative 1 - On-site 100-year detention 5446 523 Alternative 2 - 5-year extended on-site detention 5091 538 Alternative 3 - Subregional 100-year wi extended 5-yr detention 494 33 * One hour design rainfall of 2. 71 - inches 2/10/97 point C point D [PHONE REDACTED] 685 348 377 389 434 27 24 WRC Engineering, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2110/97 OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING BRIGHTON WATERSHED PEAK FLOW COMP ARlSON - 100 YEAR STORM 5000 ~ 't 4000 ~ o 3000 ~ ~ 2000 1000 o point A point B point C point D mI Existing Development • Alternative 1 - On-site 100-year detention o Alternative 2 - 5-year extended on-site detention [ill Alternative 3 - Subregional IOO-year wi extended 5-yr detention WRC Engineering, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2110197 ALTERNATIVES COST SUMMARY Costs Alternative Detention Conveyance Detention Detention Total Volume Cac-ft) Facilities Facilities Land Value Estimated Cost 1 499 $38,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,300,000 $51,300,000 2 431 $37,600,000 $5,200,000 $6,300,000 $49,100,000 3 1011 $14,400,000 $12,200,000 $14,900,000 $41,500,000 1. The assigned land value is assumed to be $0.50 per square foot. 2. Estimated costs for conveyance and detention facilities include: 25% for contingencies, 10% for engineering, 5% for contractor mobilization, 10% for legal and administration. 3. Estimated costs for assigned land value includes 25% for contingencies, 10% for legal and administration. WRC Engineering Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- o o EFFECTS OF MDCIA ON WATER RESOURCES Enhanced water quality Increase stormwater infiltration o Minimizes impacts to groundwater tables EFFECTS OF MDCIA ON STORMW ATER RUNOFF AND VOLUME. o Enhanced water quality for minor storm events. o Reduced peak runoff rates. o Reduce runoff volume by approximately 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX E PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF BRIGHTON ~22 SOUTH 4TH AVENUE March 10, 1996 Ben Urbonas TT T'\rO)'n n "nd FJ~o" CO., l DI·s ,1 ~ ".Vl. u " 2480 W. 26th Ave. Suite 156B Denver, Co. 80211 Dear Ben, As I discussed with you on the phone, City Council recently discussed the options on direction to proceed with the Drainage Master Plan for the City of Brighton. Their request is as follows: I. Use the Minimum Directly Connected Impervious Area (MDCIA) concept on new Collector and Arterial streets and also in rural residential areas with lot sizes of I \12 acres or more. 2. Continue to use curb and gutter in the urban residential areas. 3. Use Sub-Regional Detention with 5-year extended detention as a standard for new development. If you have any questions about Council's desires please contact me or Tim McCandless at 654-1637. Sincerely, es F. Holladay Director of Operations Board of Oirectors Executive Committee: cathy Reynolds N Chairman Ii! City of Denver ~ Uncia Morton Chainnan Pro-Tem 6 City of Lakewood " of Robert A. Christensen w ~ Secretary w Douglas County Q John Stone Treasurer ~ Jefferson County z ~ Oennis Reynolds Member ~ Ie City of Uttleton ~ Ii Members: • N Carolyn BUChholz " City at Lafayette ~ Margaret carpenter w " City of Thomton OS PauIOanish Boulder County Ii! Bill Himmelmann City of Oenver ~ 8. H. Hoffmaster ~ Engineer ~ Fidei Montoya City of Denver ~ Edna Mosley N City of Aurora ~ Deborah Ortega ~ City of Denver ~ Art Panon 5 Engineer 6: w Mary Poe ~ w Town 01 Morrison ~ Elaine Valente Adams County Debra VICkrey Arapahoe County L. Scott Tucker, Execulive Director August 29, 1997 Beshanah Najjar Adams County 4955 East 74th Avenue Commerce City, CO 80022 Subject: Brighton Watershed Tributary to South Platte River Outfull Systems Planning Alternatives Evaluation Report D7 NajJar: Accompanying this letter are five copies of the alternatives evaluation report for the above-referenced project. It is now time to select the alternative for the preliminary design report. According to the funding agreement, this needs to be completed within sixty days of your receiving these reports. As a result, I am requesting that you provide me with your preferences for the selected plan by October 31, 1997. We may want to schedule a 'meeting with interested parties to discuss the report. If you think another meeting would be beneficial, please call me to set one up. Otherwise,.I look forward to receiving your selected alternative. BRU/ITD/gb Enclosures (5 copies) cc: Alan J. Leak, WRC Engineering, Inc. Sincerely, Ben Urbonas, P. E. Chief; Master Planning and South Platte River Programs Hydrologist Master Planning Program ---PAGE BREAK--- Board of DiredOrs tcUtive Committee: Cathy Reynolds Chairman City of Qenver Linda Morton Chairman Pro-Tem City 6f Lakewood bert A. Christensen Secretary Douglas County John Slone Treasurer Jefferson County Dennis Reynolds Member City 01 Littleton Members: Carolyn Buchholz City of Lafayette Margaret Carpenter City of Thornton Paul Danish Boulder County Sill Himmelmann City of Denver B. H. Hoffmaster Engineer Fidei Montoya City of Oenver Edna Mosley City of Aurora Deborah Ortega City of Denver Art Panon Engineer Mary Poe Town 01 Morrison Elaine Valente Adams County Debra Vidcrey Arapahoe County ~ 0 0 < 0 <5 " z w 0 w z w il ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ . 5 g ~ ~ \I g x ~ L. Scott Tucker, Executive Director August 29, 1997 Blair Renfro City of Brighton Department'ofPublic Works 22 South Fourth Avenue Brighton, CO 80601 Subject: Brighton Watershed Tributary to South Platte River Outfall Systems Planning Alte~ves Evaluation Report Dear~o: AccompanyiJ:Jg this letter are five copies of the alternatives evaluation report for the above-referenced project. It is now time to select the alternative for the preliminary design report. According to the funding agreement, this needs to be completed within ~ days of your receiving these reports. As a result, 1 am requesting that you provide me with your preferences for the selected plan by October 31, 1997. We may want to sc~¢ule a meeting -with interested parties to discuss the report. If you think another meetiDg would be beneficial, please call me to set one up. Otherwise, I look forward to receiving your selected alternative. BRU/JTD/gb Enclosures (5 copies) cc: Alan J. Leak, WRC Engineering, Inc. Sincerely, Ben Urbonas, P. E. Chiet; Master Planning and South Platte River . 4 : John T. Doerfer Hydrologist Master Planning Program 2480 W. 26th Avenue • Su~e 2008 ~ Denver. Colorodo 80211-5580 (303) 455-1000 • FAX (303) 480-6790 Accessible on RTD Route 28 E Denver Regional Counc il of Governments A partnershIp of local governments serving the region since 1955 September 17, 1997 Ben Urbonas, P.E. Chief, Master Planning and South Platte River Programs Urban Drainage & Flood Control District 2480 West 26th Avenue, Suite 156B Denver, Colorado 80211 Dear Mr. Urbonas: Re: Brighton Watershed, DRCOG File No. 25-97 RECE~\7EI:r-\ I SEP 19 1997 I I U.D. & F.eD. The Denver Regional Council of Governments reviews and comments on a wide variety of proposals which affect the growth and development of the region. The process of project review is utilized to assist in the implementation of adopted regional plans and policies and to coordinate intergovernmental planning, programming and development. Implementation is achieved through action by local, state, and federal governments on proposals which are consistent with adopted plans and policies. The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District is encouraged to consider the following comments. The alternative evaluation report on the Brighton Watershed outfall systems planning was reviewed from a water quality perspective. The recommended plan provides water quality benefits and is consistent with the regional Clean Water Plan. If you have any questions, please contact Larry Mugler, Development Services Director at DRCOG. David A. Pampu Deputy Executive Director jh c: Martin J. Flaum, Adams County Commissioner, DRCOG Board Representative Ken Mitchell, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Brighton, DRCOG Board Representative Boord Officers Margaret W. Carpenter, Chairman Polly Page. VICe Chairman Jan Schenck, Secretory-Treasurer Roland E. Cole, Immediate Post Chairmon Robert D. Farley, Executive Director Executive Committee Polly Page. Chairman Jan Schenck. Vice Chairman Margaret W. Carpenter Roland E. Cole M. Michael Cooke Paul D. Danish Condy C. Figa Martin J. Flaum Michelle lowrence Dennis S. Reynolds Ken Siler Wellington E. Webb li l f ~ f" I r l l ---PAGE BREAK--- UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY Mr. Ben Urbonas, P.E. Chief, Master Planning and South Platte River Programs Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 2480 West 26th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80211 Phone: (303) 455-6277 Fax: (303) 455-7880 September 25. 1997 File: Drainage & Waterways (Culv. 17.64 & 19.66 Greeley Subdivision) CO: Brighton Brighton Watershed MP 17.64 & 19.66 Greeley Subdivision Dear Mr. Urbonas: '4'6 DODGE STREET OMAHA. NEBRASKA 68179-0323 The Union Pacific Railroad Company has reviewed your proposal and has no structural objections. The following items must be addressed: I. The proposal wiU require two crossing agreements between the Railroad Company and the City of Brighton andlor the drainage distric!. The contact person at the railroad is: Mr. Jon Devish Contracts Representative Real Estate Department 1416 Dodge Street- WPOOI Omaha. Nebraska 681 79 Ph: (402) 997-3546 2. The reinforced concrete pipe located on the railroad right of way is to be Class V. wID-Load = 3000 (Ultimate = 3750). 3. The reinforced concrete box culven is to be designed according to Chapter 8 of the American Railway Engineering Association (AREA). The box design and any shoring. required on the railroad right of way are to be sent to the railroad for approval. 4. A copy ofthe construction specifications and.timetable must be approved by the railroad. This is one of the railroad's main tracks. The Operating Department wiU need to be notified if track time is required. The location plan indicates two tracks at located at both Ideations. \ If you have any questions concerning this project,'call me on (402) 271-5797. t2JrsM~ D. E. Hoden Sr. Structural Designer brighton. doc ~ REPt..VTO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT TRI-LAKES PROJECT OFFICE, 9307 STATE HWY 121 LITTLETON, COLORADO 80123-6901 October 6, 1997 Mr. Ben Urbonas, P.E. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 2480 West 26th Avenue, Suite 156 B Denver, Colorado 80211 RECEIVED OCT 08 1997" U.D. & F.C D. RE: Brighton Watershed, Alternatives Evaluation Report, Corps File No. 199780804 Dear Mr. Urbonas: Reference is made to the Brighton Watershed, alternatives evaluation report project. The project is located in Various Sections, Township 1 South, Range 66 West, Adams County, Colorado. If any work associated with this project requires the placement of dredged or fill material, and any excavation associated with a dredged or fill project, either temporary or permanent, in streams or wetlands at this location, this office should be contacted by a proponent of the project for proper Department of the Army permits or changes in permit requirements pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If there are any questions concerning this matter, contact Mr. Terry McKee of this office at [PHONE REDACTED] and reference Corps File No. 199780804. Sincerely, ---PAGE BREAK--- STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources , 31 3 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866·3581 FAX (303) 866·3589 Mr. Ben Urbonas, P.E. October 6, 1997 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Suite 156B 2480 26th Avenue Denver, CO 80211 Dear Mr. Urbonas: . \ Gel 08 "\991 0.D. 8< f .C.D. Re: Brighton Watershed Roy Romer James S. Lochhead Executive Director Hal O. Simpson State Engin~r In regard to your subject alternatives evaluation report submitted September 3, 1997, our main comment pertains to the construction of the detention basins. You are reminded that a Notice of Intent to Construct an Impoundment Structure (CRS 37-87-125) is required in accordance with our Regulations for Dam Safety and Dam Construction, Rule 11A. c:\hal\briton2.doc . ( \ . Sincerely, Alan Pearson, Principal Engineer Dam Safety Branch DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ STATE OF COLORADO~ 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222 Hydraulics Unit, Region 6 - Room 415 (303) 757·9705 Mr. Ben Urbonas, P.E. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 2480 W. 26'" Avenue, Ste. 156B Denver, Colorado 80211 Dear Mr. Urbonas, RECEIVED OCT 09 1997 U.D. & F.e.D. )ctober 7, 1997 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on Brighton Outfall System Planning Study. I have the following comments: • The planning study is acceptable. • CDOT has no projects planned within this area on US 85, SH 7, and SH 51 . • I concur with the alternative analysis recommendations. The Region may be concerned about any future traffic impacts from installing the proposed 6'H X 22'W storm sewer under US 85 for alternative No. I S. This crossing will more than likely have to be open cut rather than jacked because roadway embankment is not very high in this area. Please don't hesitate to call ifyoil need any additional information. Sincerely, Mark S. Andrew, P.E. CDOT Region 6 Hydraulic Engineer MSAlmsa cc: Larry Glasser, Region 6 Central Program Engineer File [ f ~ t~ If [ r t [ I l f l ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF BRIGHTON V 22 SOUTH 4TH AVENUE • BRIGHTON, COLORADO B0601 • (303) 659-4050 Monday, November 03, 1997 Mr. JOhn T. Doerfer UDFCD Diamond Hill Office Complex 2480 W. 26th Ave. Denver, CO 80211 j l NOV 1997 " _ U.D. & F.C.D. RE: Comments on the Alternatives Evaluation Report for the Brighton Outfall Systems cc: file Dear Mr. John Doerfer: The City of Brighton agrees with the recommended plan as proposed by WRC in the Alternatives Report. We recommend that WRC to continue with the preliminary design, contingent upon addressing the following issues: 1. Assuming that a sub-regional pond and conveyance system are in place, it's our understanding that all development within that subregion will be allowed to free release into the channel to the subregional pond, please clarify this in the report. 2. WRC staff will work with City of Brighton staff to analyze a couple of subregional pond sites that are of concem to inquiring developers. This will assist the planning staff in how to implement the draipage plan. 3. Please label the proposed subrJgional detention ponds on Figures 2-A and 2-B, (the RECOMMENDED PLAN), S0 they correlate the pond designations, (letters A through on Table 1-8. 4. Identify in the report the sub-regional d!3tention ponds flexibility in terms of; pond depth (can we deepen the ponds to reduce the area), and horizontal pond location. FILE: Please minimize the regional pond areas at the time of preliminary design, this should be done without increasing the width of the R.O.w.'s as shown on the Final Draft of the Alternatives Report. S. Please quantify UDFCD assistance available in the preliminary design report in regards to the maintenance of the subregional detention ponds. 6. The Recommended Plan, (Figure 2A & 2B), appears to present a new plan for Brighton proper. This plan does not follow the drainage plan prepared by McLaughlin Water Engineers in 1991. The Final Alternatives Report shows a conveyance facility running up S. 4th Avenue, (from Bromley Lane to Bridge Street), that eventually releases into the Recreation Center. However the City has installed a new trunk line running west from the intersection of S. 4th Avenue & Jessup Street, to the existing South Outfall Channel west of the intersection of Miller Avenue and Jessup Street The Recommended Plan also shows a proposed line starting at the intersection of Bromley Lane and S. 10th Avenue and running north up N. 8th Avenue to the existing Brighton Recreation Center. However the recommended proposal from McLaughlin was a line that collected flows along Bridge Street and then conveying the flows up N. 11 th Avenue to the existing forebay at the Recreation Center. Is there any reason why we can't incorporate McLaughlin's plan and add to the relatively new improvements as they now exist? 7. The City has already committed to a ROW width of 100' from US HWY 85 to the existing South Outfall. During the preliminary design take this width into account. Sincerely, ~ 6. p'j;, Blair B. Renfro, P.E. FILE: ---PAGE BREAK--- A DAM S C 0 U N T Y. COLORADO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT LEE ASAY. DIRECTOR October 27. 1997 4955 EAST 74TH AVENUE (303) 287-5249 Mr. Ben Urbonas. P .E Chief. Master Planning Program Urban Drainage and Flood Contr,?l District 2480 W. 26th Avenue. Suite 156 B Denver. CO 80211 RE: Brighton Watershed Tributary to South Platte River OutlaJI Systems Planning Alternatives Evaluation Report Dear Ben, COMMERCE CITY. COLORADO 80022-1551 FAX: (303) 287-3648 OCT 30 1997 U.D. & F.C.D. We bave received the repon titled "BrighJon Watershed Tributary to South PIatte River. Outfall Systems Planning. Alternatives Evaluation Report," prepared for the City of Brighton. Adams County. and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District by WRC Engineering. Inc. and dated July 1997. along with your letter dated August 29, 1997. In your letter you have requested that the County provide you with preferences for the selected plan. Most of the Brighton Watershed lies within the jurisdiction of the City of Brighton or designated as Municipal Growth AIea that will be annexed to the City. This fact is supponed by the County's draft Comprehensive Plan that was developed with cooperation with the City. Adams County will not approve any developmen't that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. in other words. Adams County will not approve any development that lies with the Municipal Growth AIea of Brighton. Since we are expecting that the majority of the watershed will fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Brighton. and since the future land use that was used to develop the watershed hydrologic model indicate that a dramatic increase in the future runoff will occur, we believe that the Recommended Alternatives Selections on page V-6 in the Alternatives Evaluation Repon will be adequate to control the peak flows from the developed basin, therefore Adams County is in suppon of the Recommended Alternatives. Sincerely. ,,J4jJ~ Besharah Najjar, P Senior Engineer CC: Lee Asay. Director of Public Works , Daren Duncan. P Engineering Manager Jobn T. Doerfer. Project Hydrologist BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: Alan Leak, WRC Engineering. Inc. ELAINE T. VALENTE DISTRICT 1 TED STRICKLAND DISTRICT 2 MARnN J. FlAUM DISTRICT 3 CITY OF BRIGHTON V 22 SOUTH 4TH AVENUE • BRIGHTON. COLORADO B0601 • [303) 659-4050 Tuesday. December 23. 1997 Mr. John Doerfer UDFCD 2480 W. 26th Ave Suite 156B Denver. CO 80211 RE: Brighton Watershed Selected Plan (Draft) Dear Mr. Doerfer: DEC 2 fl. 1997 U.D. & Fe.D, In addition to our original comments to the above mentioned plan please add; 1) Prioritize the section of channel north of Bromley Lane that runs to the existing South Outfall east of Jessup Street. This large parcel of land has been approved for development. The developer is waiting for WRC's preliminary design so they can bUild the proposed channel, (100' ROW is what we have in this section). and the box culvert under Bromley Lane, (west of Kuner Road). The developer hopes to have housing units ready to sell in three months and hopes to be moving dirt as soon as possible. 2) Need a meeting with WRC to fine tune the design of almost all ponds adjacent to town. It would be best for us to have a field meeting to show them where these concerns are and to use WRC's expertise in fine tuning the locations for the regional detention ponds. If you have any questions, please calf me at 654-1637, extension 300. Sincerely, ~t&-ja Blair Renfro . E. Staff Engineer ee: files FILE:MASTER3.00c f • r 1: r r~ L l [ ---PAGE BREAK--- :klard 01 Directors ::utlve Committee: cathy Reynolds Si Chairman CiS City of Denver 8 Linda Morton 25 ;hairman Pro--Tern 8 City of Lakewood ci John Stone ~ Treasurer w Jefferson County 0 Dennis Reynolds w Member City of littleton z w l1 :r Members: ~ Ie ~ Carolyn Buchholz ~ City of Lafayette N AaJ'garet carpenter City 01 Thornton ~ M. Michael Cooke Douglas County w 5 Paul Danish Boulder County Sill Himmelmann g City 01 Denver ~ B. H. Hoffmaster ~ Engineer ~ Fidel Montoya ~ City 01 Denver I,l; Edna Mosley City 01 Aurora . ~ ~ Deborah Ortega ~ Gity 01 Denwr ~ Art Patton ~ Engineer ~ Mary Poe w~ Town of Morrison : Elaine Valente Adams County Debra Vickrey Arapahoe County L. Scott Tucker, Executive Director AlanJ. Leak WRC Engineering, Inc. 950 South Cheny Street, Suite 404 Denver, CO 80246 Subject: Brighton Watershed Selected Plan Dear Mr. Leak: The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, the City of Brighton, and Adams County have evaluated the recommendations contained in the A\1ernatives Evaluation Report for the Brighton Watershed Outfiill Systems Planning Study. The project sponsors have selected an alternative ~o be developed further and to be shown in the final preliminaIy design report. The selected plan IS described in the accompanying document titled Selected Plan for Brighton Watershed Outfall Systems Planning Study Preliminary Design Report dated January 5, 1998. This letter will constitute your notice to proceed effective January 12, 1998 with the Phase B portion outfall systems planning study. In accordance with Paragraph 6, Time of . Performance of our agreement, your firm has ninety (90) calendar days from that date to deliver to the District four copies of the draft Outfall Systems Planning Report. This establishes ~e delivery date for the draft report at April 13, 1998. Please schedule the first progress meeting within the next two weeks to give us a chance to discuss the selected plan and how you propose to finalize this project within the above-stated time of performance. Should you have any questions, please call me. BRU/ITD/dc Enclosure cc: Blair Renfro, City of Brighton Besharrah Najjar, Adams County Sincerely, ~ 2" . - ·zP~ :J , Ben trroOnas, P.E. Chief, Master Planning and South Platte River Programs Selected Plan for Brighton Watershed Outfall Systems Planning Study Preliminary Design Report January 5, 1998 The plan selected by the City of Brighton, Adams County and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (District) to be shown in the final Preliminary Design Report consists of two parts. The first part sets forth genera! co=ents and direction. The second part provides additional direction on specific aspects to be addressed in the final report: The consultarit, WRC Engineering Inc., is hereby requested to complete the final Preliminary Design Report in accordance with the following selected plan: GENERAL I. 2. 3. The Selected Plan, unless specificaJIy directed otherwise, is the recommended alternative as defined in the Altematives Evaluation Report dated July 1997. This plan is based on a total of 24 sub-regional detention basins within the watershed, each detention basin will be sized with a volume to detain the 5-year storm event for an extended period of time (40 hours), and provisions to enhance water quality will be included within detention basins. of each detention basin will be an open channel sized to convey the release from a 100-year storm event, these channels will be located adjacent to arterial and major collector streets to the extent feasible, and two major outfalls (one south of Bromley Lane and the other north of Baseline Road) are required to prevent flooding of the downtown area. Drainage systems in residential areas with lot size of 1.5 acres or greater will be designed to minimize directly connected imperviousness. Drainage systems in residential areas with lot size less than 1.5 acres, and in commecial and other dense areas, will utilize curb-and-gutter with storm sewers. The City of Brighton will need to modify its present drainage criteria to incorporate these principles when approving new-development within the watershed area. The selected plan recommends the use of certain areas for detention purposes. As a first step, acquisition of right-of-way should be secured. One possible way to do this is through adequate assurances agreements between the City of Brighton and the District. Acquisition of properties can then be completed by obtaining a permanent runoff-storage easement from the landowners at the time of proposed development or through the purchase in fee simple by the City of Brighton, with District assistance whenever such acquisition becomes a problem for the city. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Incorporate the following note on each drawing: "This drawing is for master planning purposes and represents preliminary and conceptual engineering. Alternatives to this outfall system will be considered by local reviewing agencies and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District provided the alternative offers equal hydraulic capacity and stream stability. The alternative must comply with all requirements of the local jurisdiction and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. This drawing shall not be used for construction purposes." ADDmONAL DIRECfION I. 2. 3. A statement should be included in the PreJiminary Design Report for clarification that: "If a subregional detention basin and conveyance system are in place, all development upstream within that tributary watershed will be allowed to release undetained on-site flows into the drainage system." Land-area requirements and surface area of each subregional detention basin should be minimized to the extent feasible in the preliminary design. Basin depth should be maximized given the limitations imposed by outlet design and grades. In addition, include a general description in the Preliminary Design Report that discusses the extent of flexibility in final design of a sub- regional detention basin as to its depth, longitudinal position along the outfall relative to the subwatershed tributary area, and lateral position of a detention basin relative to outfall location. The recommended plan appears to present a new plan for Brighton proper. The plan shown does not follow the drainage plan prepared by McLaughlin Water Engineers in 1991. The alternatives evaluation report shows a conveyance facility running up S. 4th Avenue (from Bromley Lane to Bridge Street) that eventually releases into the Recreation Center. However, the City has installed a new trunk line running west from the intersection of S. 4th Avenue and Jc:ssup Street to the existing South Outfall channel west of the intersection of Miller Avenue and Jessup Street. The recommended plan also shows a proposed line starting at the the intersection of Bromley Lane and S. 10th Avenue and running north up N. 8th Avenue to the existing Brighton Recreation Center. However, the recommended proposal from McLaughlin w,as a line that collected flows along Bridge Street and then conveying the flows up f. 11 th Avenue to the existing forebay at the Recreation Center. The plan\and profile sheets prepared in the preliminary design should show the existing sto1n sewers noted above. Also, the master planned systems upstream of the existing sewers should take full advantage of the existing system outfalls to the South Platte River. Examine and use the proposed sewers in the McLaughlin plan to the m~urn extent practicable. Selected Plan 2 January 5,1998 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The City of Brighton has committed to a right-of-way (ROW) width of 100-feet from US 85 to the existing South Outfall. Note this in the preliminary design and address its adequacy. Costs for maintenance of the subregional detention basins, channels, and storm sewer systems should be reported in the preliminary design. Jurisdictional boundary lines between the City of Brighton and Adams County need to be clearly drawn and labeled as: " . in effect as of 1998" on all figures, plan and profIle drawings, and sheets included in the Preliminary Design report. Recommend by a note on each sheet of the preliminary design that the City of Brighton and Adams County zone, manage, and regulate the development in this watershed to prevent future flood damages by following the recommendation of this plan." Prioritize the section of channel north of Bromley Lane that runs to the existing South Outfall east of Jessup Street in the preparation of the preliminary design. Schedule a meeting with project sponsors to discuss this section of channel and also the regional detention basin locations adjacent to the City of Brighton. Selected Plan 3 January 5, 1998 r r [ m' . , ~ \ r b pc • L , L ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF BRIGHTON OUTFALL SYS1EMS PLANNING SUB-REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES The purpose of the Master Plan is to preIirninarily locate and size the required sub-regional detention facilities and to size the collection facilities based upon these preliminaty sub-regional detention facilities and locations. Minor adjustments in size and location of the sub-regional detention facilities can be accommodated as long as the master plan design criteria (i.e. 5-year extended detention, IOO-year restricted release rates) and the function of the entire master planned drainage system are maintained. For example, a sub-regional detention facility may be moved upstream or if the following guidelines are addressed: I. Pond size must be adjusted for the increase/decrease in tributary area. 2. The new location must not interfere with the outfall system from upstream sub-regional detention facilities. 3. The Master Plan flow rates of the new location must be maintained or reduced. This should be checked using the master plan hydrologic model. 4. The new location/plan should not result in a proliferation of additional sub-regional detention facilities. ( Tributary basin boundaries can be adjusted as long as the above guidelines are followed. However, a logical reason must exist for said change. Also, as facilities are implemented, some changes will not be possible in order to avoid retro-fitting of previously constructed facilities. 1960-41.AJL July 8. 1998 WRC ENGINEERING. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 950 SOUTH CHERRY STREET . SUITE 404 • DENVER, COLORADO 80222 . (303) 757·85 13 . FAX (303) 758-3208 · [EMAIL REDACTED] Since most of the sub-regional detention facilities are "off-line" of the collector system, their location may be adjusted from one side of the road to another as long as all hydraulic functions are maintained. For the design of the detention facility itself, adjustments in the size of the minor and major storm storage areas can be accommodated but the overall facility size will change. For example, if a large manicured, active use park is desired, the facility and size may need to be increased in order to minimize the frequency of inundation of the active use area. In contract, it may be desirable in another area to use the facility as open space (no active recreation). In this example, the facility and size may be reduced but will have a larger area that may be frequently inudated with runoff. The end result of any of these changes should be functionally equivalent system that: • • • 1960-41.AJL Minimizes maintenance requirements (less facilities is better) Minimizes land required (less facilities is better) Maintains public ownership or control (i.e. pertinent drainage easement) of sub-regional detention facilities. July 8. 1998 WRC ENGINEERING. INC. ---PAGE BREAK--- TO Scott B~ban, City Pltm7lD" D:ate: JUDe 25, 199. Prcpa-ecl by: Dirk llidlwine, Direaor Subject: Paris Dep~t Respo_ to MIUtn p1II7J r am. CJJd~ the comments from die Pub md!ec:ration Department reprdiDg w proposed. Urban Draim&e Plan fer the Plane lU~ RasiA of the City of BriJhton. St:aif bas reviewed me plan aad ach of the Nb-basim -.rithia. the overall cIrainacc Based on the information thar _ .ea:i,cci aDA the comments from mff. I would like to S\J~ the follo i.ac COmmentS be incotporucd imo me plan. • Open CbanncI~ and Pon& The opeD channels and the dctentiool retention pouds can be crediad as open spar;e wilhiA the Bnp.on parks It is not aa:cptable tb:ar these am. be credited as neipborhood puks. However, the ~ Iaad drdicatiOD ~ be credited tvwad.! open space dedinrion. • DniD-apPoadI. Dniaqc poads be fully improved co iududc irrip;icm, Nt£. and landsapiDg. While these willilot be dcsipz'decl as parks within ow parks system. the open spaa! DCeCis to be improved to a dcvdopcd mAdani. When the drainqe !=ins are ~rztecl into private plopeny md m.jgn;ned by prinre property users or hameowuc:n anocini?llS or on-sile m';DI"O?nce, the KaDdards can nty but they = be developed to a fully improYed mndanl. • Standards Dcve:lopmmt ds ileed to be devdope landsc:apill&o slopin{. the manmum dnin. depth, ?lid the time by which me wUer·can be climi""'l:li from the fxili&:y. • Connectimy of the Open ~ While' ~ of me sv!..ftasjDS is conneaed t.hroueh open or cncloRd cb?,.n~Js for the #Orm dnlnage to Bow co the end of the out&ll. these systems probably j..m not be able to connca to oW' cxining md proposed. tnil symm, it is m=ore DOt esscutiaI thar die parks have a trail system from ea:h retaWOI1 pond thnIu;h the sy=- I hope this informacion will be of use to you. Pleur co= me if I can provide you any further- '2ssisnn".~ . TOTI'IL. P. ill [ [ r L t [ I L ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX F PRELIMINARY WETLAND ASSESSMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- AQUATIC AND WETLAND COMPANY Consulting. Construction. Nurseries· Treatment Systems 24 February 1997 Mr. David P. Krickbaum, P.E.- Project Engineer WRC Engineering, Inc. 950 South Cherry Street, Suite 404 Denver, CO 80222 RE: City of Brighton Outfall Master Plan Dear Mr. Krickbaum: Aquatic and Wetland Company (A WC) is submitting a sketch map of wetlands and riparian areas identified within the Brighton project area associated with the Brighton Outfall Master Plan. 600' scale black and white aerial photos (dated 4-17-96) were reviewed for possible weth1lld and riparian areas as indicated by the presence of surface water and hydrophytic vegetation. <11 cas were marked on a 1 "=500' scale map (provided by WRC) and then field verified. WetlanJs were assessed in the field using the methodology enumerated in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The enclosed map depicts the limits of all potential wetlands and waters which could be regulated under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The outer edge of the black marker line and green highlighted areas depicted the limit of wetlands and waters of the U.S. This map is a preliminary wetland assessment and does not represent an actual ACOE jurisd: _c:onal boundary determination. All potential jurisdictional wetland areas were identified on the e!l~~:Jsed map including irrigation ditches, ponds, lakes, major drainage ditches and constructed d ~ ' ''!l!ior.. wetlands. Under further and more de;ailed investigation some of these areas identified may !'ut be classified as "jurisdictional wetlandf' or waters of the U.S. , Wetland habitats encountered withiA the project area include, palustrine emergent, lacustrine, and riverine. Several small palustrine em'ergent habitats identified are the result of human disturbance such as road construction, sto=water pipe discharge or drainage/irrigation ditches. These areas are typically vegetated with sandbar willows, cattail, and rushes. The area surrounding Barr Lake (the eastern limits of the project area) is the fringe of a lacustrine wetland habitat. The fringe consists of a variety of habitats, vegetated by large cottonwoods, willows, cattails, and rushes. The South Platte River located at the western limits of the project area provides a diverse riverine wdand DESIGN BUILD GROW 1655 Walnut. Suite 205 • Boulder, Colorado 80302 • (303) 442-5770/442-8133 FAX habitat. Large cottonwoods and willows are very common along the corridor. If you have any questions regarding the wetland map or results of the study please feel free to calL Thank you and we look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Aquatic and Wetland Company P~J3~/ David Blauch Wetland Ecologist G:\A WC\PROJEcrsIl424IMEMO. WPD ---PAGE BREAK--- 1000 500 0 1000 I LEGEND: WE1l.AND T'l'PE 'lECETAT1ON WAm:&;ED BOlINO'RY NOTES: L s.r.5E MAP IS tHE u.s.es. BRIGHTON 0IJADRANGLt. CONTOOR IHTERVAL IS 10 flET. . .-5010---- ·1 , . = , I r. r L [ [ r [ ---PAGE BREAK--- i~ u 1000 500 0 1000 2000 I I LEGEND: I IRftl(;ATlON OfTCH NOTES: L BASE WJ> IS THE u.s.G.5. BRIGHTOH 0\J0l.0RANCIL 2. CONTOUR INTERVAl IS 10 FtF:I'. / " \ ) I ~ / , , r) o 27 , .I ( \ • . ~ , a "!I------l\viist=1ij~~~~~r_----crrY'OF'EiRiGHT~-__"T-BRiGtfTON""VVATERi*iED__"lPREiLiMiNAiRY"We:iUND__r_;~;;__j I w~c ~:mE n:Jti: CITY OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON WATERSHED PRELIMINARY WETLAND DWG. NO. II ,I " Q 0.00> 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.00> 0.001 0.016 0.016 0.001 0.008 0.008 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.017 0.017 0.001 0.015 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.01 0.01 0001 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.008 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.001 12 12 20 20 o 0 o 0 20 20 o 0 o 0 o 0 20 20 o 0 o 0 20 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 4 4 o 0 12 12 20 20 o 0 12 12 20 20 o 0 4 4 o 0 12 12 20 20 o 0 1.2 1.2 50 50 o 0 4 4 o 0 4 4 o 0 4 4 o 0 4 4 o 0 4 4 o 0 o 0 20 20 o 0 o 0 o 0 4 4 o 0 12 12 20 20 o 0 12 12 20 20 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0.016 0.02 0.001 0-016 0.02 0.001 0.016 O.ot6 0.02 0.001 0.016 0.02 0.001 0.001 0.016 0.02 0.001 0.016 0.02 0.001 0-016 0.02 0.001 0.035 0.001 0-016 0.02 0.001 0.2 0.035 0.001 0.035 0.001 0.035 0.016 0.02 0.001 0.035 0.001 0.035 0.001 0.016 0.02 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.035 0.001 0.016 0.02 0.001 0.016 0.02 0.001 0.016 0.001 0.016 0.016 0.001 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o OVERBANK! SURCHARGE OEPTH (Fl] 20 10 2 10 10 0.5 20 10 4.5 10 10 2 5.5 10 10 3.5 20 10 10 2 10 10 0.5 20 10 0.5 20 10 10 10 0.5 20 10 4.5 10 10 30 10 10 3.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 20 10 10 10 10 10 0.5 20 10 0.5 20 10 5 10 3.5 4 10 GUTTER NUMBER m 156 178 398 399 154 174 398 24 45 29 25 301 46 43 166 22 44 38 328 332 122 17 40 37 299 38 350 550 551 26 161 369 30 372 47 51 311 28 337 84 309 87 TABLE H-3 Final Master Plan - Revised 2006 SWMM ROUTING elEMENT PARAMETEAS (FlAlKe Development) WIDTH OR GUTTER DIAMETER LENGTH SLOPE CONNECTION NDP NP TYPE (FT) (FT) (FTIFT) DIVERSION TO GUTTER NUMBER 396 • TOTAL a VS DIVERTED 0 IN CFS .0 .0 86.2 86.2 86.3 86.2 500.0 86.2 156 0 5 PIPE o 0 0 178 0 3 373 0 5 o 0 0 154 0 2 154 174 999 o m o o o o o 2 3 5 o 3 PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE OVERflOW OVEAFlOW OVERflOW 5.5 1 o 8 1 3 2 o 4 1 o 98 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE·FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW o 0 1 0.9 1.9 1.3 5.6 4.2 6.5 7.8 8.2 17.6 97 0 CHANNEL 10 376 0 CHANNEL 10 97 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW o 0 2.1 2.1 4.2 2.9 11 .3 7.9 12.2 13.6 14 29.1 46 0 3 0 200 0 1 CHANNEL 12 166 0 2 PIPE 3.5 22 0 3 0 44 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW a 0 4.5 9 9 12.6 24.7 25. 1 26.8 34 31 58.1 169 0 CHANNEL 10 99 0 1 CHANNEL 10 332 0 3 0 122 17 o o 1 3 CHANNEL 10 o 113 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACAE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW o 0 2.7 2.7 5.4 3.7 15.5 10.8 17.6 19.2 21.7 42.1 372 0 CHANNEL 10 299 0 1 CHANNEL 10 38 0 3 0 111 0 1 CHANNEL 10 26 0 3 0 551 0 3 0 350 0 CHANNEL 10 372 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPillWAY OUTFLOW o 0 2.5 1.B 5 2.5 14.3 7.6 15.9 13.7 19.2 30.5 369 0 3 a 30 0 CHANNEL 10 350 0 1 CHANNEL 10 47 0 3 0 113 0 CHANNEL 10 209 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE·FEET VS SPillWAY OUTFLOW o 0 0.8 4.5 1.7 6.3 6.6 28 10.3 o 9 3 10.8 13.8 12.1 o 114 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPillWAY OUTFLOW o 0 2.5 2.5 5.1 3.5 15.5 6.7 18.3 8.2 23.9 11.8 64 0 3 0 75 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW o 0 0.9 0.9 1.7 1.2 7.9 2.8 11.6 4.2 18.9 8.2 67 0 3 0 337 o CHANNEL 10 1350 1350 1 2600 2600 2410 2000 1 2200 2200 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.00> 0.005 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.001 2.9 1.6 10 30.1 2800 0.007 1750 0.001 0.001 6.2 3.5 15.8 48.8 0.001 1040 0.0041 3100 0.014 0.001 0.001 13.6 15.4 35.3 88.9 1350 0.005 2450 0.003 1 0.001 1300 0.002 0.001 0.001 8.1 4.5 25.9 71.3 1450 0.017 1300 0.002 1 0.001 1175 0.001 0.001 0.001 1421 0.014 1 0.001 7.6 3.1 22.5 51.9 0.001 1500 0.015 1400 0.001 1 0.001 1350 0.001 0.001 2.5 7.7 18.6 7.6 29.5 2.6 26.1 1650 13.7 0.001 0.001 4.3 16.1 0.001 0.001 1.5 13.3 0.001 0.001 SIDE SLOPES MANNING L R n o 0 20 20 o 0 o 0 20 20 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 20 20 o 0 o 0 3.8 1.9 11.7 44.8 4 4 4 4 o 0 8.3 4.1 17.6 72 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 18.1 17.8 39.5 125 4 4 4 4 o 0 4 4 o 0 o 0 10.8 5.3 30 105.6 4 4 4 4 o 0 4 4 o 0 o 0 4 4 o 0 10.1 3.6 25.8 n o 0 4 4 4 4 o 0 4 4 o 0 3.3 8.9 23.4 15.7 o 0 o 0 10.1 5 35.1 21 o 0 o 0 3.5 1.7 33.4 19.2 o 0 4 4 0.016 0.02 0.001 0.016 0.02 0.016 0.016 0.001 0.Q16 0.02 0.001 0.001 4.8 23.4 0.035 0.035 0.001 10.4 1017.6 0.001 0.Q16 0.016 0.001 0.001 22.6 1039.5 0.035 0.035 0.001 0.035 0.001 0.001 13.4 66 0.035 0.035 0.001 0.035 0.001 0.001 0.035 0.001 12.6 1025.8 0.001 0.035 0.035 0.001 0.035 0.001 4.2 1023.4 0.001 0.001 12.7 1035.1 0.001 0.001 4.3 1033.4 0.001 0.035 o o o o o o o o o 2. 1 44.9 o o o 4.6 72 o o o o o 20 125 o o o o o o 5.9 105.7 o o o o o o o o 4 n o o o o o o 10 15.7 o o 5.6 21 o o 1.9 19.2 o o OVERBANK! SURCHARGE DEPTH (FT) 5.5 10 10 6 10 3 2 10 4 10 10 0.1 2.1 44.' 10 10 0.1 4.6 72 10 7 3.5 10 0.1 20 125 10 10 10 10 10 0.1 5.9 105.7 10 20 10 20 10 10 10 0.1 4 n 10 10 10 10 10 0.1 10 15.7 10 0.1 5.6 21 10 0.1 1.9 19.2 10 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- GUnER NUMBER 59 60 338 62 75 63 65 66 69 70 71 306 72 73 49 76 524 481 431 482 523 623 483 622 521 517 478 578 466 566 413 513 569 TABLE H-3 FInal Master Plan· Revised 2006 SWMM ROUTING ELEMENT PARAMETERS (Future Developmeft) GUnER WIDTH OR DIAMETER LENGTH CONNECTION NDP NP TYPE (FT) (FT) 114 0 2 PIPE 3 1950 338 0 CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL 4 3000 62 0 10 1300 75 0 4 2700 63 0 10 2350 49 0 4 21SO 145 0 10 1500 339 0 10 2040 313 0 10 915 305 0 10 1120 306 0 1 CHANNEL 10 14SO 72 0 3 o 1 132 0 1 CHANNEL 10 1500 622 0 3 o 76 0 3 o 1 157 0 CHANNEL 4 4500 481 0 3 o 225 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE·FEET VS SPillWAY OUTFLOW o 5.3 482 o 8.4 o 3.3 1.9 5.8 10.2 8 3 4.7 15.1 o 331 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE·FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW o a 1.4 4.5 2.8 6.3 7.4 13.6 7.7 19.8 8.4 36.9 220 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW 0026.4 48.9 10.9 16.2 11.8 19.6 13.5 28.8 227 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE·FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW a a 1.3 12.2 2.6 17.1 7.3 31 8 37.5 9.4 55.3 231 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW o 0 0.5 5.9 0.9 8.3 2.6 14.9 2.9 18 3.5 26 43 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW o 0 4.2 10.7 8.4 15 22.6 27.1 24.1 32.8 27.1 48,4 168 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPillWAY OUTFLOW a a 3.3 5.4 6.6 7.6 17.8 17 19.1 25.6 21.8 49 217 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW o 0 1 2.1 1.5 6.3 2.6 7.4 3.2 9.7 4.7 578 0 3 0 378 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW o o 0.2 0.9 0.4 1.2 1.2 2.1 1.2 2.5 1.3 3.6 566 13 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE·FEET VS SPillWAY OUTflOW o 0 0.2 2.3 0.4 3.3 6 1.1 7.3 1.2 10.9 999 5 1 CHANNEl 10 DIVERSION TO GUTIEA NUMBER 154· TOTAl a VS DIVERTED a IN CFS .0 .0 1.0 1.0 71.0 71.0 72.0 71.0 1000.0 71.0 513 0 3 0 313 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE·FEET VS SPillWAY OUTFLOW o 0 1.8 1.8 3.6 2.5 11.1 4.5 13.1 5.4 17.1 8 69 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPillWAY OUTflOW o 0 0.9 0.9 1.8 1.2 4.7 1.9 4.9 2 5.5 2.2 2.9 7.7 4.2 9.2 6.1 15.2 4 10.9 1.4 4 1 12.7 30.2 9.9 24.5 3.1 11 .9 0.7 1.5 0 1.4 10 5.4 21.1 1 2.7 6 SLOPE (FTIFT) 0.001 0.013 0.009 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.023 0.051 0.011 0.012 0.001 0.017 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 5.7 21.2 0.001 0.001 7.7 58.5 0.001 10.9 40.6 0.001 20.9 78 0.001 10.1 37.5 0.001 18.3 66.2 0.001 9.2 18.9 0.001 1.6 6 0.001 0.001 1.5 5 0.001 4 15.5 0.01 0.001 0.001 3. 1 11 .2 0.001 1.5 2.4 SIDE SLOPES MANNING L R n a a 0-016 4 4 0.035 4 4 0.035 4 4 0.035 4 4 0.035 4 4 0.035 4 4 0.035 4 4 0.035 4 4 0.035 4 4 0.035 4 4 0.035 o 0 0.001 4 4 0.035 a a 0.001 o 0 0.001 4 4 0.035 o 0 0.001 o 0 0.001 3.8 6.6 8.7 28.5 o 0 o 0 5.6 8.9 9.9 84 o 0 8.1 12.6 16.9 54.5 o 0 5.3 24.2 12.3 104.6 o 0 1.8 11 .7 4.6 SO.3 o 0 16.9 21.2 33.2 91.5 o 0 13.2 10.7 27.1 114 o 0 4.2 2 14.1 8.8 o 0 o 0 0.9 1.6 o 0.6 1.5 4 o o 7.2 25.1 o 3.5 5 1.7 o 4.7 20.9 4 o o 3 14.9 o 1.7 2 4.8 1008.7 0.001 0.001 7 1009.9 0.001 10.1 1016.9 0.001 1012.3 0.001 2.3 1004.6 0.001 21.1 1033.2 0.001 16.5 1027.1 0.001 5.2 1014.1 0.001 0.001 1.1 1001.6 0.001 1.5 0.02 0.001 0.001 9. 1 1025.1 0.001 4.4 1006.5 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 7.4 26.5 o o 10 84 o 14.2 54.5 o 27.2 104.6 o 13.1 50.3 o 23.8 91.5 o 12 114 o 2.3 8.8 o o 1.9 6 o 5.2 1000 o o o 4 14.9 o 1.9 2 OVERBANKI SURCHARGE DEPTH (FT) 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0.1 7.4 28.5 10 0.1 10 84 0.1 14.2 54.5 0.1 27.2 104.6 0.1 13.1 50.3 0.1 23.8 91.5 0.1 12 114 0.1 2.3 8.8 10 0.1 1.9 6 0.1 5.2 1000 30 10 0.1 4 14.9 0.1 1.9 2 GUnER NUMBER 504 559 526 590 435 634 434 533 432 532 631 531 437 429 436 426 439 430 433 438 583 557 47. 537 536 538 539 528 529 530 636 TABLE H-3 Ftnal Master Plan· Revised 2006 SWMM ROUTING ElEMENT PARAMETERS (Future Development) GunER WIDTH OR DlAMETER LENGTH CONNECTION NDP NP TYPE (FT) (FT) 65 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW a a 0.9 4.1 1.7 5.7 4.6 11 .7 4.9 16.3 5.5 29 127 a 5 PIPE 4.5 o a a OVERFLOW 999 o 2 PIPE 7 36 12 2 PIPE 0.1 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE·FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW a a 1.6 1.5 3.1 2.1 9.7 7.9 11.7 15.7 15.5 37 534 a 3 0 434 533 433 638 432 531 430 529 536 528 999 539 537 539 530 429 430 532 437 436 438 432 428 429 430 342 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 o CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL PIPE OVERflOW 1 o 10 o 10 o 10 o o o o o o o o 10 10 o 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 2 6.1 11 30 1130 2000 4.7 19.4 1 10 1439 1 2600 1 2023 1 o o o o 2600 2600 1 [PHONE REDACTED] 1200 1600 [PHONE REDACTED] 1990 SLOPE (FTIFT) 0.001 6.9 45.2 0.0019 0.0019 0.0022 0.001 2.6 64.2 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.024 0.001 0.0015 0.001 0.0015 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.015 0.0015 0.001 0-015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.01 0.01 SIDE SLOPES MANNING L R n o 0 0.001 3.5 8 6.6 64.2 o 0 20 20 o 0 o 0 6.3 3 23.2 96 o 0 26 10 o 0 10 10 o 0 10 10 o 0 10 10 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 10 10 10 10 o 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 o 0 20 20 4.3 1006.6 0.016 0.02 0.016 0.001 7.8 1023.2 0.001 10 0.001 0.04 0.001 0.04 0.001 0.035 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.035 0.035 0.001 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.016 0.02 o 9 64.2 o o o 3.4 96 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o OVERBANKI SURCHARGE DEPTH (FT) 0.1 9 64.2 4.5 10 7 0.1 3.4 96 10 0.04 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 75 TABLE H-4 Final Master Plan - Revised 2006 PEAK FLOW SUMMARY PEAK (CFS) 96 173 40 79 168 125 o 106 190 117 62 65 120 270 o 72 66 19 20 91 88 77 267 237 76 349 [PHONE REDACTED] 786 o o 92 120 270 786 845 23 109 431 15 24 o 272 360 o 18 67 5 67 84 19 64 725 268 183 o 152 113 234 972 85 STAGE (FT) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 o 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 o 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.5 2.4 1.9 3 2.3 1.3 3.6 4 6.3 8.8 3.5 o o 2.7 1.9 2.6 5.5 6.8 0.1 (DIRECT 3.2 0. 1 0.1 o 3 3.4 o 3 1.5 0.1 1.9 2.5 0.1 1.6 5.1 4.1 1.6 o 1.8 1.5 2 (DIRECT 2.4 STORAGE ~~TI~M~E~~ (AC-FT) HR MIN 26.5 2 0 49.8 55 13.2 50 22.8 45 51.5 45 35.9 1 45 31.4 56 41.1 24.2 18.2 38.9 33.4 23.9 24.3 27.4 34.2 13 FLOW) 22.2 41.2 o 10.5 33.3 FLOW) o 0 1 40 45 45 30 40 2 5 1 25 o 0 30 35 2 0 2 10 o 50 o 55 2 50 2 50 2 10 2 0 2 10 2 15 2 5 2 20 2 0 o 0 o 0 1 35 2 10 55 1 55 2 0 1 35 3 30 o 50 2 20 3 35 o 0 55 1 55 o 0 2 40 2 30 2 10 2 50 3 25 2 15 2 25 1 55 o 50 o 55 o 0 o 45 o 45 o 45 o 35 3 10 CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 117 118 119 120 121 122 124 125 126 127 130 132 133 135 137 138 139 140 142 143 145 146 TABLE H-4 Final Master Plan· Revised 2006 PEAK FLOW SUMMARY PEAK (CFS) 107 152 448 153 182 260 STAGE (FT) 2.8 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT STORAGE (AC-FT) HR MIN 70 118 437 o 577 o o 145 426 217 163 148 106 707 607 725 270 602 239 242 o 127 152 144 284 91 76 1813 1825 1654 1653 990 39 67 383 1588 147 707 [PHONE REDACTED] 200 1593 1639 226 505 39 o 430 218 217 600 55 55 187 398 5.9 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT 3.9 (DIRECT o 2.9 (DIRECT 2.2 (DIRECT (DIRECT 2.3 8.2 (DIRECT (DI RECT 9.1 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT 8.6 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT 1.1 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT 2.5 (DIRECT 2.7 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) 4 5 o 40 o 35 o 45 o 40 o 40 o 40 o 40 o 35 o 0 o 30 o 0 o 0 o 40 o 45 o 40 o 50 o 45 o 35 o 40 o 50 55 15 2 10 2 0 1 50 o 0 o 55 2 25 2 50 2 25 o 45 1 10 2 25 2 25 2 15 2 20 2 0 2 10 2 20 o 55 o 55 o 45 o 45 o 45 o 45 o 45 o 45 10 1 5 o 45 o 40 2 15 o 0 o 45 o 50 o 45 o 40 2 10 2 10 o 50 o 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 176 177 178 184 185 186 187 192 193 194 195 197 199 200 202 203 209 210 212 213 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 225 226 227 228 229 231 232 TABLEH-4 Final Master Plan · Revised 2006 PEAK FLOW SUMMARY PEAK (CFS) 385 51 991 195 444 174 155 84 50 179 3000 210 249 o 122 511 [PHONE REDACTED] 736 o 162 273 197 38 348 220 83 147 179 177 118 o 471 219 64 161 141 o 393 o 786 264 146 29 400 406 13 69 9 71 o 52 247 o 25 o 105 67 61 49 99 STAGE (FT) (OIRECT (OIRECT (OIRECT 3 (DIRECT (DIRECT 2.3 (DIRECT 0.8 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT o (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT 2.1 (DIRECT (DIRECT 3.3 (DIRECT 7 4.6 1.6 (DIRECT 3.2 1.7 1.4 1.9 2.6 (DIRECT (DIRECT o (DIRECT 4.7 1.1 1.1 1.5 2.8 0.4 1.8 0.3 2.5 o 3 2.7 o 2 o 2.9 2.5 1.1 2.3 1.4 STORAGE (AC-FT) HR MIN FLOW) 0 55 FLOW) 0 35 FLOW) 0 45 FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) 0.2 0.2 o 50 o 40 o 35 o 40 1 25 o 35 20 5 o 45 o 35 o 0 o 35 o 40 o 50 o 35 o 45 o 40 o 0 30 50 o 45 o 55 o 40 o 45 o 55 o 40 20 20 o o 0 o 50 o 45 50 1 40 o 50 o 0 o 45 o 0 1 55 o 40 o 45 2 25 o 40 o 40 2 15 o 40 2 10 o 40 o 0 2 5 o 40 o 0 2 5 o 0 40 1 25 o 45 1 25 o 40 CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 234 235 236 241 242 244 245 246 248 249 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 277 278 279 283 284 288 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 313 316 317 319 320 325 TABLE H-4 Final Master Plan· Revised 2006 PEAK FLOW SUMMARY PEAK (CFS) 341 104 o STAGE (FT) 1.5 STORAGE (AC-FT) HR MIN 1357 1277 177 112 533 253 55 716 288 707 439 [PHONE REDACTED] 1497 [PHONE REDACTED] 276 222 355 443 572 [PHONE REDACTED] 1932 1830 224 189 253 [PHONE REDACTED] 84 582 142 93 383 112 153 [PHONE REDACTED] 361 787 363 243 439 150 339 458 700 13 69 329 307 53 115 1 o 7.2 7.5 1.9 0.9 3.4 2.9 3.5 3.2 2.3 2.6 1.9 2.6 4.4 8.1 3.5 4.5 2.3 6.2 2.2 1.8 (DIRECT 3.6 2.4 2.4 1.3 6.9 7.7 6.5 3.8 2 3.4 1.1 3 4.6 2 2.6 1.5 1.5 3.1 1.9 2.7 2.2 2.3 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) o 50 o 50 o 0 o 55 o 45 1 0 o 45 o 50 3 20 2 10 10 1 5 o 55 o 40 o 55 o 50 5 1 15 o 55 o 40 o 55 o 45 o 45 2 0 o 40 o 45 o 45 o 50 2 35 2 30 2 30 o 55 o 45 3 15 o 50 o 50 2 25 2 0 2 25 o 55 o 45 o 55 o 55 o 55 o 50 o 50 2 15 50 1 55 o 40 o 40 o 40 o 40 o 40 o 35 o 40 2 10 o 40 o 35 o 40 5 o 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 359 360 361 362 363 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 381 382 384 387 390 391 393 394 395 396 397 TABLE H-4 Final Master Plan - Revised 2006 PEAK FLOW SUMMARY PEAK (CFS) 67 945 545 250 263 84 490 147 353 116 820 588 67 547 [PHONE REDACTED] 128 12 o 707 533 115 513 828 [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] 39 261 129 213 470 761 [PHONE REDACTED] 847 1932 282 318 [PHONE REDACTED] o 253 765 296 590 439 93 831 84 1814 181 40 STAGE (FT) (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT 4.6 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT 1.2 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT 1.7 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT 2.5 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT 1.4 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT 0.1 (DIRECT (DIRECT 4 STORAGE on~n~M~E~",, (AG-FT) HR MIN FLOW) 1 25 FLOW) 0 35 FLOW) 0 35 FLOW) 0 35 FLOW) 0 35 FLOW) 1 25 FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) flOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) 26 FLOW) FLOW) 0.1 o 45 o 45 o 40 o 40 o 40 o 35 2 35 o 45 o 35 o 50 o 45 o 40 o 30 o 0 o 45 o 45 o 40 o 40 o 55 o 55 o 55 10 o 40 o 40 o o 50 o 45 o 55 o 30 o 45 o 40 o 40 o 35 o 45 o 40 o 40 2 30 1 55 2 30 o 45 o 40 o 40 o 50 2 25 o 0 3 15 o 45 o 40 o 40 o 45 o 40 o 45 2 10 2 25 15 2 15 CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 398 399 413 422 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 435 436 437 438 439 466 476 478 481 482 483 504 513 517 521 522 523 524 526 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 534 536 537 538 539 550 551 557 559 563 566 569 578 590 622 623 631 836 TABLE H-4 Final Master Plan - Revised 2006 PEAK FLOW SUMMARY PEAK (CFS) o STAGE (FT) STORAGE (AG-FT) HR MIN 13 [PHONE REDACTED] 4163 4105 193 1122 652 389 [PHONE REDACTED] 4110 1233 779 324 o 20 29 84 49 64 13 9 110 67 55 [PHONE REDACTED] 4110 1232 52 o 377 [PHONE REDACTED] 4098 1119 1 [PHONE REDACTED] 71 o 323 o 3 96 92 105 98 782 o 1.6 (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT (DIRECT 0.1 (DIRECT (DIRECT 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 (DIRECT 5.9 9 9 5.5 1.4 o 2 (DIRECT (DIRECT 9 5.6 5.3 5.1 (DIRECT 1.8 7.7 3.8 o 2 o 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 (DIRECT 6.9 FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) 1.5 FLOW) FLOW) 8.8 10.5 4.5 13.9 23.4 13.9 26.8 21.3 18.1 FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) FLOW) 1.3 23.8 33.5 12.7 FLOW) o 0 2 10 o 40 o 40 20 10 1 10 o 45 1 5 o 35 o 35 o 40 o 40 15 10 o 55 1 15 o 40 o 0 o 40 25 40 20 15 2 10 2 5 20 25 1 15 o 40 45 20 1 15 o 55 o 50 o 0 o 40 o 40 o 40 15 10 5 10 o 35 o 40 15 30 o 0 o 40 o 0 45 45 25 1 25 o 35 o 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- / ~ , , I ~ MATCH SEE BELOW / MATCH SEE FIGURE H·1C 56 / 361 52 74 I I Iw ln 51 I W I en I w uD::: I I- I c( 41 MATCH SEE FIGURE H·1B 45 MATCH SEE FIGURE H·1B 42 LEGEND 8 SUB- WA TERSHED 10001 ROUTING ELEMENT ~ , DETENTION POND DIVERSION ELEMENT CHECKED _ DATE ADAMS COUNTY TRIBUTARY TO s. PLAnE RIVER SWMM ROUTING · ~ ~~~U~R~B~A~N~D~RA~IN~A~G~E~&~F~LO~O~D~C~O~N~T~RO~L~D~IS~T~R~IC~T ~ ~O~U~T~FA~L=L~S~Y~S~T~E~M=S~P~LA~N~N~IN=G~~L_ ~S~C=H~E=M=A~T~IC~ _L H_-1_A ~ ~ OUTFALL SYSTEM I :iE DESIGN POINT ( XX ) SUB -REGI ON , / ---PAGE BREAK--- ~ , / 64 / ~4~6~6~-___t566 / MATCH SEE FIGURE H-1A / 53 / 63 / 368 140 69 68 46 70 48 w «I w 1 rn r,1 x wi 00:: ~ ::ll C!)I ii: I 34 36 / / 10 -I3o7"c--- / / / LEGEND 8 SUB-WATERSHED ~ DETENTION POND 1000 1 ROUTING ELEMENT DIVERSION ELEMEN T ---PAGE BREAK--- / / / XX \ " 39 0'9. \ 1 " 52 / \ \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , \ 50 4 / , / , / MATCH SEE / , / \ , 5 \ , 1 , \ I \ I , / , / , / , WW I ' , \ 1 51 ) \ 79 I \ I , / 513 , I' , I \ I \ / \ / ' FIGURE H-1A , , I I , w \ \ \ \ \ , " , \ \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 37 9 1 \ , \ I \ / , / OESIGNEO DRAWN CHECKED R""SEll AS-BU1LT / / I \ I \ 28 1 1 ' 1 I I / /1 1 / 1 / 1 I 13 1 I \ UU 2 ( \ I \ I / , / \ I \ 27 \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 , \ I \ I , I \ TT / _ \ I \ 6 / § ~OOO \ / 000 SUB-WATERSHED ~ ,II' DETENTION POND 1000 1 ROUTING ELEMENT DIVERSION ELEMENT ADAMS COUNTY URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ~ DESIGN POINT BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING / , ( XX ) , / OUTF ALL SYSTEM SUB-REGION FINAL MASTER PLAN SWMM ROUTING SCHEMATIC FIGURE H·1C ---PAGE BREAK--- ~ , I I ~ , I , I , I 83 \ I \ I \ I \ tQQ \ I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ I / I I I I t 89 \ \ PP ~ , , \ \ I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ , / / / 37 - - I ' I \ I \ \ \ , - " \ SS \ \ \ I \ \ \ , 26 50 /1 MATCH SEE FIGURE H-1E 76 MATCH SEE FIGURE H-1B / \ I \ I I I I I / I I \ \ , ~ , 85 00 , \ 30 \ I / / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 25 \ I \ I , , MATCH SEE FIGURE H-1E MATCH SEE FIGURE H-1E / oy , / \ r yy \ I I I I 51 7 I 17 29 61 \ I \ I , I ~ I I I I I I I I I I 19 RR (PC-4) I 23 , \ \ \ I I I \ ) \ ~ I \ I ,I LEGEND 8 SUB-WATERSHED ~ DETENTION POND 1000 1 ROUTING ELEMENT DIVERSION ELEMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- I , I , I 25 \ I \ I \ I \ 48 MATCH SEE FIGURE H-1D " , I \ r--~3~311 483 i r~----t52 24 ) MATCH SEE FIGURE H-1D 1 I ! M2 (PC-3A) / " , ~ , 20 \ 1 \ 1 1 1 1 : KK: 1 1 1 1 \ I \ I , I / / MATCH SEE FIGURE H-1F I ' / 126 I \ / , I \ I \ I 1 1 116 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 , 1 " 1 ZZ 590 \ , " \ 114 , \ \ \ I \ I I I I 15 >-+-72'66 \ I " ~ I \ I \ 31 / , I , I \ / 107 \ 1 \ J LL ~ PC - 2 B) I \ I \ 22 622 1 \ / " / , , I , I \ 21 I \ I , I , / , I \ I I I \ I , I , ~ / / , , / ' / , / , / " O~ , " / \ I 1 / ~S : I , : 521 100 \ \ I ' FF I 1 / DD 112 : I 1 LUTZ (PC-1 C) \ \ \ , 14 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I / 1/ , LEGEND I I \ I I \ I 13 164 108 : 1 \ I 1 \ EE / 1 \ GG , \ I I 1: \ / \ " SUB- WA TERSHED ROUTING ELEMENT DETENTION POND DIVERSION ELEMENT - \ I \ OUTFALL SYSTEM ~ / \ 109 I ~ ~ " / 000 DESIGN POINT I, XX / SUB-REGION VJ~C ifil~ :tlti: CITY OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON WATERSHED FINAL MASTER PLAN FIGURE i ~ _ CHECI([!)...Qf.!L ADAMS COUNTY TRIBUTARY TO S, PLATTE RIVER SWMM ROUTING PHOIC NO< (lGJ) m-~13 RE\I1SEO...£!L. ~TE ~ H-1E ~ -OO=.~T===~""=l£~===~~U~R~B~A~N~D~RA~IN~A~G~E~&~F~L~O~O~D~C~O~N~T~R~O~L~D~I~S~T~R~IC~T~_L _=O~U~T~F~A=L=L~S~Y~S~T=E~M~S~P~LA~N~N~I~N~G~ ~ ~S~C~H=E~M~A~T~IC=_ ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- I , \ / I \ , , MATCH SEE FIGURE H-1D - , " I \ I \ 81 / I JJ , , , \ I \ 82 80 / " /1 MATCH SEE FIGURE H-1D I I wi w , ~ I n ~I ~ :::ll < :E I 288 , I , I \ I \ I 124 , I I I I I I I / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : II : I I \ I , I , I " /1 DATE DATE 1~6 DATE 1~6 "'IT _ / I " / ~ 1/ . I , I 394 \ I \ \ \ " , - / I , / I , , \ BB : , 97 I I \ \ \ , , , " , " " , \ \ \ \ I , I " II 106 381 125 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT I I Iw c I W I en In ~ I ~ I:E I ' I ' I ' I \ I \ I \ , ~ , , , 111 \ I I I I I I \ 127 107 ) " / LEGEND SUB- WA TERSHED ROUTING ELEMENT , ( xx ) , / ' DESIGN POINT DETENTION POND DIVERSION ELEMENT OUTFALL SYSTEM SUB-REGION BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING FINAL MASTER PLAN SWMM ROUTING SCHEMATIC FIGURE H-1F ---PAGE BREAK--- 128 136 \JJ~C iil~!litf. g~:'ED~ ~ ~OI.ORAOO 110m: CHECKED PHONE NO: (303) 757-11513 REV!S[() r.x NO: (1Ol) 7S&-32Ot1 AS-BUILT 129 DATE D.4.TE 1~6 DATE 1~6 flATE flATE _ 130 137 131 CITY OF BRIGHTON ADAMS COUNTY URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 138 MATCH SEE FIGURE H-1A 132 133 139 534 LEGEND SUB-WATERSHED @V DETENTION POND ROUTING ELEMENT DIVERSION ELEMENT A DESIGN POINT BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING (XX OUTFALL SYSTEM , / SUB-REGION FINAL MASTER PLAN SWMM ROUTING SCHEMATIC FIGURE H-1G ---PAGE BREAK--- 1000 500 0 1000 I SCAlE IN FID LEGEND: @ SUB-WATERSHED DESIGNATION • MODELLED OUTFLOW LOCATION & DESIGN POINT [IJ CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 2000 ! § EXISTING DETENTION POND/CLOSED BASIN DIVERSION ELEMENT WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY 36 II II / / 'J 't II~ ID . / / I @ / " _ . BRIDGE ST. o I I ~ I I I ~ / MATCHLINE SEE SHE7 I NOTES: . l 1. BASE MAP IS THE U.S.C.S. BRIGHTON 0\.JA0R..f.NGU:. ~ I . ~ JI 2. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 10 FEET. • ~ ROUTING PATH SUB-WATERSHED ORAINAGEWAYS ~ DIVERSION PATH I 5~ JML=== = ADAMS COUNTY TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER ~'t'JAM'1:~fsUU~~ FIGURE ~)'~_~'=_~AS~-=.U=ILT~_=-=-=-~D~AIT~==~~U~R~B~A~N~D~R~A~IN~A~G~E~&~F~L~O~O~D~C~O~N~T~R~O~L~D~IS~T~R~I~C~T ~O~U~T~F~A=L=L~S~Y~S=T~E~M=S~P=LA~N~N~IN~G=-__ ~ ~S~H~E~ET~1~O~F~2~ -L H_-_2 ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- WOO 500 0 1 000 I LEGEND: @ SUS-WATERSHED DESIGNATION • MODELLED OUTFLOW LOCATION DESIGN POINT [TI CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 2000 ! § DETENTION POND/CLOSED BASIN aID DIVERSION ELEMENT NOTES: WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY ROUTING PATH SUB-WATERSHED DRAINAGEWAYS DIVERSION PATH 1. BAS( NAP IS THE: U.S.G.S. BRIGHTON 0UA0fW+Gl.£.. 2. CONTOUR ItfTERVAl IS 10 fEET. IJ6th Ai-£ DESiGNEO ORA~ I \ CHECKEO ""'SED A5-SUILT / I \ / _ L 124th A ADAMS COUNTY URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING MATCHLINE 136th A 27 FIGURE H-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1000 500 0 1000 I SCALE IN Ft£T LEGEND: 2000 I SUB-WATERSHED DESIGNATION ~ WATERSHED AREA (ACRES) WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY NOTES: 1. BAS£ WI' IS THE U.S.G.S. BRIGHTON 0t..lADRANGl.£ .AND FT. LUPTON OUADRANGLES 2. COtfrOUR INTERVAL IS 10 FEET - - II I 36 \ I E. T68th ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT . " ~ ~ 00 If'· ~ _ 351 · , . 1 I 55. " I • BRIGHTON WATERSHED TRIBUTARY TO S. PLATTE RIVER OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANNING ~ ~ BAiEUN£ RD. / E. T68th A~ ~ C I-I 1: ) I ) ( I) I V o \ ( ( ~ ~I FINAL MASTER PLAN SUB-WATERSHED DELINEATION MAP SHEET 1 OF 2 FIGURE H-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1000 SOO 0 1000 2000 I SCAL£ IN FEET LEGEND: SUB-WATERSHED DESIGNATION 50 88.2 WATERSHED AREA (ACRES) - • - WATERSHED BOUNDARY - - - SUB-WATERSHED BOUNDARY NOTES: 1. BASE: MAP IS THE U,S.G.S. BRIGHTON OUADRANGLE ANO FT LUPTON OUADRANGlES ~ 2. CONTOUR INTERVAl IS 10 fEET E. 136th A II = ( ) / I " , Llli:J ~ I I / , um , '57 I _ L \ Lill"I \ , , \ r " I J ~ ~ Lill\ ~ J \ I E. 136th AVE. 27 f ~ \ ) 1- ~ 2 S ! l' \ / ~il ~/lr3r~~~~~~~~~~f1~flE._':J_4ffi Ai~ . "r VJ~C DArE ~ CITY OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON WATERSHED sUB-~f~iR~~~6E~Er~~~ATION FIGURE ~o ED g::i TRIBUTARY TO S. PLAnE RIYER H-5 ~L -1 D_IS_T_R_IC_T ~O~U~T~F~A~L=L~S~Y~S~T~E~M~S~P~LA~N~N~IN~G=-__ ~ M_A_P_S_H_E_E_T_l_0_F 2 ~ ~ rr.x NO: (JOJ 7~J208 AS-BUILT DArE