FINAL Conceptual Drainage Report

Florida Department of Transportation District Four SR 5/US 1 Bridge Over Loxahatchee River/Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Bridge #930005) From CR-A1A to Beach Road Milepost 10.567 – 11.127 Palm Beach County, Florida Financial Management Number: 428400-2-22-02 Federal Aid Number: N/A ETDM Number: 14199

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by FDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 14, 2016, and executed by FHWA and FDOT.

JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

FINAL

Conceptual Drainage Report

for SR 5/US 1 Bridge Over Loxahatchee River/Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Bridge #930005) Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study From CR-A1A to Beach Road Milepost 10.567 – 11.127 Palm Beach County, Florida

Financial Management Number: 428400-2-22-02 Federal Aid Number: N/A ETDM Number: 14199

Prepared for:

Florida Department of Transportation DISTRICT FOUR 3400 West Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309

Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1920 Wekiva Way, Suite 200 West Palm Beach, FL 33411

MARCH 2018 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Executive Summary The purpose of this Conceptual Drainage Report is initially to identify if off-site ponds that would be required necessitating the purchase of right-of-way. This report demonstrates a preliminary conceptual drainage analysis and concludes that all required drainage to meet the environmental permit requirements can be attained in areas within the project corridor and within existing public right-of-way. Furthermore, the results and findings of this report is that no additional property will be needed for off-site ponds.

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study to evaluate replacing the existing Jupiter US-1 Bridge that extends over the Loxahatchee River and the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW). The purpose of the PD&E study is to address the structural and functional deficiencies of the existing bridge. The conceptual drainage investigation was completed to determine the appropriate stormwater management facilities associated with the recommended build alternative. The subsequent analysis was performed in accordance with the stipulations published by federal, state, and local agencies. The selection methods in this report represent the most suitable locations for proposed stormwater management facilities and are based on quantitative and qualitative engineering judgment.

The Loxahatchee River is an Aquatic Preserve, which is designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), and lies within the project limits. Due to Loxahatchee River being an OFW, it is subject to additional pollution abatement criteria. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) requires an additional fifty percent of water quality treatment for projects that discharge directly into an OFW. The alternatives evaluated in this Conceptual Drainage Report comply with the applicable pollution abatement and surface water attenuation criteria, including the special designation associated with the surrounding surface waters. The study segment is bound by surface waters and developed urban areas which limit the types of viable stormwater management facilities. The minimization of right-of-way (ROW) acquisition was significant priority in the design and selection of stormwater management facility alternatives. Additionally, the recommended stormwater management alternatives are in adherence of all requisite criteria. Other considerations in the selection of the recommended alternative included local coordination, construction costs, long-term maintenance costs/issues, utility conflicts, contamination risk, and environmental resources within the project area. Multiple alternatives were evaluated to determine the most viable stormwater management facility options for each drainage basin. This method is reflected in the Conceptual Drainage Matrix shown in Table 1.A. The recommended alternatives are illustrated below in the corresponding table below.

i JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Table 1.A – Recommended Conceptual Drainage Matrix

THE PREFERRED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY

DRY DRY SWALE WITH DRY SWALE WITH DRAINAGE DETENTION SEDIMENTATION/VORTEX EXFILTRATION BASIN SWALE STRUCTURES TRENCH

11 X 12 X 13 X

X Denotes Preferred Stormwater Management Alternative The project includes the replacement of the existing Jupiter US-1 Bridge with one that is wider and has a greater vertical clearance over the ICWW. As a result, the proposed bridge has 8-foot wide shoulders and a 4.96% grade. Consequently, all stormwater runoff from the bridge deck will be carried off the bridge for treatment without the need of deck inlets or piping. Spread will adhere to the district criteria and will be contained in the shoulder.

The proposed drainage design uses a network of storm sewer pipes to route stormwater runoff to profile low points. The storm sewer pipes will discharge collected runoff to designated stormwater management facilities for pollution abatement. Each of the proposed stormwater management facilities will meet the guidelines established by FDOT and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Existing information obtained for the design of the stormwater system is based on both NGVD 29 and NAVD 88 vertical datum. The proposed stormwater alternatives are based on the NAVD 88 vertical datum.

ii JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Table of Contents Section Page Table of Contents ...... iii List of Figures ...... iv List of Tables ...... iv List of Appendices ...... iv

Introduction ...... 1 History ...... 1 Project Description ...... 1 Vertical Datum ...... 3 Roadway Drainage ...... 3 Design Criteria ...... 3 i. FDOT Drainage Manual ...... 3 Water Quality Criteria ...... 4 Water Quantity Criteria ...... 4 Existing Permits ...... 4 Proposed Permits ...... 6 Stormwater Management System ...... 6 United States Coast Guard Bridge Permit ...... 6 FDEP Construction Permit ...... 6 Drainage Basins ...... 7 Existing Drainage System ...... 7 Proposed Drainage System...... 7 Soil and Groundwater Characteristics ...... 121 Floodplains ...... 121 Wellfields ...... 137 Wetlands and Surface Waters ...... 137 Aquatic Preserve, OFW ...... 137 Tailwater ...... 137 Utility Impacts ...... 21 Pond Volumes ...... 21 Pond Location Alternatives...... 23 Pond Design Alternatives ...... 23 Linear Dry Detention Ponds ...... 23 Linear Dry Detention Ponds with Sedimentation/Vortex Structures ...... 29 Linear Dry Detention Ponds with Exfiltration Trenches ...... 29 Matrix Results ...... 30 Recommendations and Conclusion ...... 31

iii JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

List of Figures

Figure 1 Project Location Map ...... 2 Figure 2 Rainfall Map ...... 5 Figure 3 Drainage Basins and Pond Layout ...... 8 Figure 4 Tidal Data ...... 12 Figure 5 Soils Map ...... 14 Figure 6 Wellfield Map ...... 18 Figure 7 Wetlands and Surface Waters Map ...... 19 Figure 8 Environmental Features Map ...... 20 Figure 9 Percolation Test Locations ...... 24 Figure 9A Percolation Test Results ...... 25 Figure 10 Soil Storage Method ...... 26

List of Tables

1.A Recommended Conceptual Drainage Matrix ...... ii 15.1 Utility Impacts ...... 21 16.1 SFWMD Treatment and Attenuation Volumes ...... 22 20.1 Conceptual Drainage Matrix ...... 32 20.2 Preliminary Alternative Costs ...... 33 2.A Calculation Summary ...... 41

List of Appendices

Appendix A – Typical Sections Appendix B – 100-Year Floodplain Appendix C – Existing Permits Appendix D – Drainage Calculations Appendix E – Pre-Development Model Appendix F – Post-Development Model

iv JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Introduction

The project is evaluating the replacement of the existing four-lane bridge over the Loxahatchee River and Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) as well as intersection improvements from CR A1A to Beach Road/Alternate A1A. The corridor is within an area of mixed development, which includes commercial, residential, recreational, historical, and undeveloped land (see Project Location Map, Figure 1).

The purpose of the Conceptual Drainage Report is to evaluate stormwater management facilities that will facilitate the design and construction of the recommended build alternative. The alternatives evaluated in this Conceptual Drainage Report comply with procedures and policies of the regulatory agencies outlined herein. In conjunction with those improvements, various stormwater management systems were considered that will meet established stormwater attenuation for pre versus post discharge and pollution abatement criteria. Various stormwater management systems alternatives were evaluated including dry detention facilities, exfiltration trenches, and sedimentation/vortex structures. Influencing factors considered in the selection of these alternatives were proposed roadway geometry, local topography, in-situ soil conditions, and right-of-way (ROW).

The project is within the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Portions of the project area are within the 100-year floodplain.

History

The existing Jupiter US-1 Bridge is a low-level bascule bridge that was constructed in 1958. The bridge currently has four travel lanes, two-foot shoulders on both sides and no pedestrian or bicycle facilities. The bascule span is an open grate and bridge deck scuppers are used on the concrete approach spans which allow untreated stormwater to discharge directly into the Loxahatchee River. In September 2014, the bridge underwent a structural inspection where it received ratings that deemed the bridge structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The purpose of this project is to address the deficiencies of the existing bridge. The replacement of the bridge will be evaluated through the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study process.

Project Description

Within the project limits, US-1 is classified as a divided Urban Principal Arterial (Functional Class 14). The existing bridge is approximately 850 feet in length with a bascule (moveable) bridge over the Loxahatchee River and ICWW. The project begins at the intersection of US-1 and CR A1A and extends to the intersection of US-1 and Beach Road/Alternate A1A. The bridge begins approximately 600 feet north of the intersection at CR A1A. The existing bridge is a four-lane roadway consisting of four 11-foot travel lanes, no shoulders, pedestrian facilities, or bicycle lanes on the bridge. The existing bridge typical section consists of two 11-foot lanes and two 12-lanes, one in each direction, 2-foot shoulders and no sidewalks or bicycle lanes (See Appendix A). North and south of the bridge, US-1 remains a four-lane divided roadway with two 12-foot travel lanes and two lanes that vary in width from 11-feet to 12-feet (one on each side), no paved shoulders, pedestrian facilities, or bicycle lanes (see Typical Sections, Appendix A). ROW along the bridge

1 Ü

Palm Beach County

End Project (Milepost 11.124)

Begin Project (Milepost 10.567)

SR 5/ US 1 Study Area

© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY- © SAOpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA K:\VRB_Roadway\RoadwayExhibits\Fort Pierce10th Street& Pinecrestestates\GIS\MXD Raster data courtesy of www.labins.org Figure 1: Project Location Map SR 5/US 1 Bridge over Loxahatchee River/Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Bridge #930005) Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study FPID: 428400-2-22-02 Town of Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida FIGURE 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 040006382 DATE: JANUARY 2017 SCALE: 1 inch = 660 feet JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

varies from 190 to 210 feet and ROW along US-1 north and south of the bridge tapers to 160 and 165 feet.

The existing bridge is a low-level bascule bridge with a vertical clearance of 25 feet over the Mean High Water (MHW) at the ICWW. The project includes evaluating alternatives for replacing the existing bridge. Based on projected traffic data, a four-lane bridge is sufficient to accommodate the current and future traffic needs (2040 future traffic year). The bridge corridor along US-1 is devoid of definable shoulders that can facilitate pedestrians and bicycles. Therefore, the proposed typical section will provide 8-foot shoulders that can accommodate 7-foot buffered bike lanes, and 8-foot sidewalks on both sides of the bridge. The sidewalks are separated from the roadway by a traffic railing (see Typical Sections, Appendix A). The vertical clearance of the new bridge will be increased to 35-feet at the ICWW.

Vertical Datum

The proposed drainage design is based on the North American Vertical Datum, 1988. The conversion to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929 is: 10.000 NGVD = 8.504 NAVD.

Roadway Drainage Design Criteria The following sections outline the federal, state and local stormwater quality and quantity criteria appropriate to the proposed improvements. The alternatives evaluated in this Conceptual Drainage Report comply with the applicable criteria including the associated special designation of the surrounding surface waters.

i. FDOT Drainage Manual 2016  Using storm event frequency three years in the appropriate zone and excluding minor losses, the storm sewer system shall provide a minimum clearance of one foot from the Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) to the gutter elevation.  The minimum pipe velocity shall be 2.5 feet per second (FPS).  The minimum pipe diameter shall be 18 inches.  Maximum distance between pipe access shall be 300 feet for pipe diameters of 18 inches, 400 feet for pipe diameters of 24 to 36 inches and 500 feet for pipe diameters of 42 inches or larger.  The calculated spread at each curb inlet shall be less than one half of the width of the outside travel lane.  Optional pipe material shall provide 100-year service life.  For ponds, the top of the treatment volume is constrained to the low point in the road minus the base clearance.  Coastal projects must include a sea level rise analysis to evaluate the impacts to design. The data is determined by the National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON) and managed by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

3 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Water Quality Criteria

SFWMD requires that all projects meet state water quality standards. To ensure that these criteria are met, the transportation improvements must meet the following volumetric retention/detention requirements, as described in the SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit Information Manual, Volume IV:

1. For wet detention systems, the first inch of runoff from the project or the total runoff from 2.5 inches’ times the percent impervious, whichever is greater, would be detained on-site. A wet detention system is a system that maintains the control elevation at the seasonal high ground water level and does not bleed-down more than ½ inch of detention volume in 24 hours;

2. Dry detention systems are required to provide only 75 percent of the required wet detention volume. Dry detention systems must maintain the control elevation at least one foot above the seasonal high ground water elevation; and

3. Retention systems provide only 50 percent of the wet detention volume.

Projects with more than 50 percent imperviousness, which discharge to the receiving water bodies, shall be conveyed through baffles, skimmers, or other devices which inhibit the discharge of oil and grease to and from retention/detention areas.

Water Quantity Criteria

SFWMD has instituted numerous guidelines for water quantity. It is anticipated that the proposed stormwater management systems for this project will adhere to the following thresholds:

 The off-site discharge rate is limited to rates not causing adverse impacts to the existing off-site properties  Historic discharge rates  Rates determined in previous District permit actions  Rates specified in District criteria (SFWMD Permit Information Manual – Application 2)

A storm event of 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency shall be used in computing off-site discharge rates. Figure C-8 from the SFWMD Permit Information Manual indicated that a 25-year, 3-day storm event would generate 13 inches of rainfall (see Figure 2).

Existing Permits

The SFWMD website contains a portal where copies of existing permits can be obtained. Existing permits within the study area were gathered from this site and examined to ascertain the relevant information that could be used in determining the general condition of the watershed within the project area. The initial construction of the Jupiter US-1 Bridge predates the regulatory

4 C-10 Figure 2 5

JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

requirements and the existing permit is valid for only ancillary transportation improvements to the existing bridge This is a modicum source of information and does not provide pertinent data that can be incorporated into this preliminary drainage approach. Nevertheless, the existing permit number 50-05535-P and is summarized below. See Appendix C for an excerpt pertaining to the existing permit.

SFWMD Permit No. 50-05535-P, Application No. 020621-18  Issued in 2003 to FDOT  This is a Noticed General Permit which is consist of repairing the bridge fender system, removing, and repairing damaged concrete piles, and replacing eight cushion blocks on the bascule pier.

Proposed Permits

Based on the recommended alternative as indicated in the PD&E Study, the anticipated permits will involve coordination with SFWMD Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will be submitted in conjunction with a Bridge Permit from the USCG due to the proposed bridge and roadway improvements. The anticipated permits for the study segment are indicated below.

Stormwater Management System

The SFWMD requires projects that do not provide full on-site retention with greater than 40 acres of project area or over one acre of wetland impact must be permitted as an individual ERP. The ERP is a joint permit application that addresses surface and storage of surface waters, dredge and fill, and wetland mitigation. This application is submitted to the SFWMD.

United States Coast Guard Bridge Permit

Any proposed entity or authority planning to construct or modify a bridge or causeway across a navigable waterway of the United States must apply for a Coast Guard bridge permit. This includes all temporary bridges used for construction access for maintenance of traffic. The Coast Guard’s is obligatory in administering bridge design protocols for the Bridge Program. The Coast Guard approves the location and plans of bridges and causeways and imposes any necessary conditions relating to the construction, maintenance, and operation of these bridges in the interest of public navigation.

FDEP Construction Permit

All projects that include construction activities that result in the disturbance of one acre or more will require a Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Large and Small Construction Activities - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. This permit constitutes authorization to discharge stormwater associated with large and small construction activities to surface waters of the State, including through a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). This permit is replacing the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) NPDES permit and requires that a

6 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be developed for each project that meets the requirements (one acre or more of construction activity). A SFWMD dewatering permit will be needed for any dewatering activities within the project limits.

Drainage Basins

The existing drainage basins and configuration are identical to that of the proposed drainage basins, therefore, the existing and proposed station limits will mimic beginning and end stationing. It is noted that the existing bridge profile grade line (PGL) consists of a plus 3 and minus 3 grade. The grade of the proposed bridge is plus 4.96% and minus 4.96%. There is a total of three basins designated as Basins 11 through 13. Basin 11 is bounded on the south by the beginning of the project and on the north by the intersection of US-1 and CR A1A. Basin 12 begins at the intersection of US-1 and CR A1A and ends at the crest of the proposed bridge. Basin 13 is US-1 from the crest of the proposed bridge to the terminus of the project (see Drainage Basins and Pond Layout, Figure 3).

Existing Drainage System

Stormwater run-off from the existing bridge deck of the Jupiter US-1 Bridge discharges directly through scuppers, into the Loxahatchee River and ICWW. This is a practice that is no longer permitted by SFWMD. The segment of the project south of CR A1A, which includes Basin 11, is attenuated through existing linear ponds that outfall directly into the creek behind Burt Reynolds Park. The creek ultimately discharges into the ICWW. The apex of the bridge deck begins the delineation of Basin 12 and Basin 13 and terminus point is located at the bridge approaches. The bridge approaches associated with Basins 12 and Basin 13, have a defined conveyance system which consist of curb and gutter, which convey stormwater run-off to inlets and pipes, which discharge into the adjacent linear ponds. The adjacent linear ponds ultimately discharge the untreated pollute volume into the Loxahatchee River via 36 inch concrete pipes.

The US-1 study area is segmented into three existing drainage basins; basin limits are provided below.

 Basin 11 extends from Sta. 522+80 to Sta. 526+20  Basin 12 extends from Sta. 526+20 to Sta. 538+95  Basin 13 extends from Sta. 538+95 to Sta. 555+80

Proposed Drainage System

Basin 11 is situated between stations 522+80 and 526+20 along US-1, which is the beginning of the project and coalesces at the intersection of US-1 and Ocean Boulevard.

Alternative 1

Due to the project alignment and basin delineation, the stormwater management facility associated with Alternative 1 consist of dry linear detention situated in Basin 12 (Ponds 11 and 12, see Figure 3). The dry detention swales are located on the east and west side of US-1. The adjacent linear ponds are in ROW owned by FDOT, which will negate ROW acquisition. The proposed linear

7 N

0 250

Feet

INTRACOASTAL

WATERWAY

BASIN 13 (B-13) BASIN 11 BASIN 12 POND 11 (2.960 AC) (B-11) (B-12) (0.675 AC) (1.740 AC) L-14 D-11A C-11 D-11 W-11 L-9

545 546 547 544 548 543 542 549 541 540 539 550 538 537 536 551 535 534 533 552 532 531 530 553 529 528 527 554 64 526

525 555 0 524

523 556

6 4

8 1

D-12A D-12 L-11 C-12 L-12 W-12 D-13A D-13 L-15 L-13 C-13 L-10 27 W-13

BASIN 12A BASIN 13A BASIN 11A (B-12A) (B-13A) (B-11A) (1.740 AC) (2.960 AC) (0.675 AC) POND 13

POND 12

LOXAHATCHEE

RIVER

Figure 3

DRAINAGE BASINS AND POND LAYOUT

REVISIONS STATE OF FLORIDA SHEET DATE DESCRIPTION DATE DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NO. ROAD NO. COUNTY FINANCIAL PROJECT ID US1 OVER ICWW

5 PALM BEACH 428400-2-22-02 8

$USER$ $DATE$ $TIME$ $FILE$ JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

ponds would will provide pollution abatement and attenuation from the intersection of US to the beginning of the project. Alternative 1 will serve as a dry detention stormwater management facility, which is designed to ensure the post-development discharge rate is less than or equal to the pre-development discharge rate and pollution abatement will be provided in Basin 12.

Alternative 2

The stormwater management facility associated with Alternative 2 is comprised of a dry linear detention ponds (Ponds 11 and 12, see Figure 3) in conjunction with sedimentation/vortex structures. The addition of a sedimentation/vortex structure would reduce the amount of polluted volume in the dry detention facility and decrease the size of the proposed linear ponds by approximately 50%. As in the case with Alternative 1, the dry linear ponds are situated adjacent to the bridge approaches and are within the envelope of FDOT ROW and would negate the necessity of ROW acquisition. Alternative 2 will serve as a dry detention stormwater management facility, which is designed to ensure the post-development discharge rate is less than or equal to the pre-development discharge rate, and provide the necessary water quality volumes, therefore, satisfying the regulatory treatment requisite.

Alternative 3

The stormwater management system associated with Alternative 3 will incorporate the use of an exfiltration trench situated at the bottom of the swale, which will function as a drawdown mechanism. This will allow the bottom of the proposed swale to recover during the 24-hour design storm event and remain 1 foot above the water table and thereby preventing any submerged conditions. In addition, this will augment conveyance, attenuation, and treatment. In conjunction with the exfiltration trench, the proposed inlets within the linear pond will be raised to facilitate the required pollution abatement criteria. The preliminary indication suggests that approximately 100 linear feet of exfiltration trench is required; the proposed exfiltration trench will function in conjunction with a weir situated within the outfall. The methodology and approach for the use exfiltration trenches are illustrated in Section 18.3 and in Appendix D. Alternative 3 will serve as a dry detention stormwater management facility, which is designed to ensure the post-development discharge rate is less than or equal to the pre-development discharge rate.

Basin 12 includes US-1 from station 526+80 to 538+95, beginning at the intersection at Ocean Boulevard and ends at the crest of proposed Jupiter US-1 Bridge.

Alternative 1

Similarly, as previously mentioned in Basin 11, the stormwater management facility associated with Alternative 1 consist of dry linear detention facility (see Figure 3). The dry detention swales are located east and west of the US-1 bridge approaches. The adjacent liner ponds are in ROW owned by FDOT, which will negate the necessity of ROW acquisition. The proposed linear ponds would operate as dry detention facilities providing attenuation and pollution abatement from the apex of the bridge to the terminus of the drainage basin. Alternative 1 will serve as a dry detention stormwater management facility, which is designed to ensure the post-development discharge rate is less than or equal to the pre-development discharge rate and provide 1.02 acre-ft of pollution abatement.

9 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Alternative 2

The stormwater management facility associated with Alternative 2 is comprised of a dry linear detention ponds (Ponds 11 and 12, see Figure 3) in conjunction with sedimentation/vortex structures. The addition of a sedimentation/vortex structure would reduce the amount of polluted volume in the dry detention facility and decrease the size of the proposed linear ponds by approximately 50%. As in the case with Alternative 1, the dry linear ponds are situated adjacent to the bridge approaches and are within the envelope of FDOT ROW and thereby negating the necessity for ROW acquisition. Alternative 2 will serve as a dry detention stormwater management facility, which is designed to ensure the post-development discharge rate is less than or equal to the pre-development discharge rate, while concurrently providing the necessary 1.02 acre-ft of water quality and subsequent regulatory treatment requisite.

Alternative 3

The stormwater management system associated with Alternative 3 will incorporate the use of an exfiltration trench situated at the bottom of the swale, which will function as a drawdown mechanism. This will allow the bottom of the proposed swale to recover within the 24 hours during the design storm event and remaining 1 foot above the water table, which would inhibit the possibility of submerged conditions. In addition, this will augment conveyance, attenuation, and treatment. In conjunction with the exfiltration trench, the proposed inlets situated in the linear pond will be raised to provide the required pollution abatement. The preliminary indication suggests that 200 linear feet of exfiltration trench is required; the proposed exfiltration trench will function in conjunction with a weir situated within the outfall. The methodology and approach for the use exfiltration trenches are illustrated in Section 18.3 and in Appendix D. Alternative 3 will serve as a dry detention stormwater management facility, which is designed to ensure the post-development discharge rate is less than or equal to the pre-development discharge rate and provide the necessary 1.02 acre-ft water quality.

Basin 13 includes US-1 from station 538+95 to 555+80 beginning at the crest of the proposed bridge to the terminus of the project.

Alternative 1

As in the case with Basin 11 and Basin 12, the stormwater management facility associated with Alternative 1 consist of dry linear detention situated (see Figure 3) adjacent to the bridge approaches on the on the east and west side of the US-1. The adjacent liner ponds are in ROW owned by FDOT, which will negate the necessity for ROW acquisition. The proposed linear ponds would operate as dry detention facilities providing attenuation and pollution abatement from the apex of the bridge to the terminus of the basin delineation. Alternative 1 will serve as a dry detention stormwater management facility, which is designed to ensure the post-development discharge rate is less than or equal to the pre-development discharge rate and will provide 0.88 acre-ft of pollution abatement.

10 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Alternative 2

The proposed stormwater management facility associated with Alternative 2 is comprised of a dry linear detention ponds (Pond 13, see Figure 3) in conjunction with sedimentation/vortex structures. The addition of a sedimentation/vortex structure would reduce the amount of polluted volume in the dry detention facility and decrease the size of the proposed linear ponds by approximately 50%. As in the case with the alternatives in the corresponding basins, the dry linear ponds are situated adjacent to the bridge approach and within FDOT ROW, which will negate the necessity for ROW acquisition. Alternative 2 will serve as a dry detention stormwater management facility, which is designed to ensure the post-development discharge rate is less than or equal to the pre-development discharge rate, while providing the necessary 0.88 acre-ft water quality treatment in satisfying treatment requisite.

Alternative 3

As previously mention in the previous basins, the stormwater management system associated with Alternative 3 will incorporate the use of an exfiltration trench situated at the bottom of the swale, which will function as a drawdown mechanism. This will allow the bottom of the proposed swale to recover within the 24 hours’ design storm event and remain 1 foot above the water table and thereby, preventing any potential submerged conditions. In addition, this will augment conveyance, attenuation, and treatment. In conjunction with the exfiltration trench, the proposed inlets situated in the linear ponds will be raised to provide the required pollution abatement. The preliminary indication suggests that 300 linear feet of exfiltration trench is required; the proposed exfiltration trench will operate in conjunction with a weir situated within the outfall. The methodology and approach for the use exfiltration trenches are illustrated in Section 18.3 and in Appendix D. Alternative 3 will serve as a dry detention stormwater management facility, which is designed to ensure the post-development discharge rate is less than or equal to the pre-development discharge rate and provide 0.88 acre-feet of water quality.

Soil and Groundwater Characteristics

Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) elevations are primarily controlled by the tidal fluctuations of the Loxahatchee River and the ICWW. See included (Figure 4) National Geodetic Survey showing Mean Higher-High Water (MHHW) elevation to be 0.03’ NAVD, Mean Lower-Low Water (MLLW) elevation to be -2.24’ NAVD and Mean Tide elevation to be -1.11’ NAVD. Assumed wet season water table for Ponds 11, 12 and 13 is 1.00’ NAVD. Tidal data from the National Geodetic Survey for Jupiter West is shown in Figure 4.

Soils along US-1 north and south of the Loxahatchee River consist of Arents, Quartzipsamments, St. Lucie Sand and Paola Sand. The soil on Ocean Boulevard consists of St. Lucie Sand, Paola Sand and Quartzipsamments. Soils on Beach Drive include St. Lucie Sand and Paola Sand. A Soil Map of the project area is shown in Figure 5.

Floodplains

The US-1 study area is located within FEMA flood zones A7 and B, where flood Zone A7 represents areas within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) where base flood elevations (BFEs)

11 Figure 4 - Tidal Data

12 National Geodetic Survey - Tidal Elevation Page 1 of 2

Tidal Elevation

• NGS Home • About NGS • Data & Imagery • Tools • Surveys • Science & Education

Search Go Back to Main Page

The NAVD 88 and the NGVD 29 elevations related to MLLW were computed from Bench Mark, 93 79 A 20 FLDT, at the station.

Displayed tidal datums are Mean Higher High Water(MHHW), Mean High Water (MHW), Mean Tide Level(MTL), Mean Sea Level (MSL), Mean Low Water(MLW), and Mean Lower Low Water(MLLW) referenced on 1983-2001 Epoch.

Figure 4 - Tidal Data 13 http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/Tidal_Elevation/area.jsp 7/12/2016 POND 13

POND 12 POND 11

Figure 5 - Soils Map

14 Figure 5 - Soils Map 15 Figure 5 - Soils Map

16 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

have been determined, and Zone B represents areas between the limits of the 100-year and 500- year floodplain or certain areas that are subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile. See attached FEMA Flood Zone Map, Appendix B.

A review of available hydrogeological maps and the Unites States Geological Survey (USGS) Ground Water Atlas of the United States indicated that the underlying hydrogeological units in this geomorphic zone of Palm Beach County include the surficial aquifer system and the Floridan aquifer system. Furthermore, a review of the USEPA Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program maps of sole source aquifers in the southeastern United States indicated that the US-1 study area is not located within any sole source aquifers or recharge zones.

Wellfields

No wellfields are located in the vicinity of the project limits. See Figure 6, Wellfield Map.

Wetlands and Surface Waters

The wetland and surface water impacts are negligible within the project limits. See Figure 7, Wetlands and Surface Waters Map.

Aquatic Preserve, OFW

The project limits are within the specified boundaries of the Loxahatchee River, which is designated as an Aquatic Preserve, and classified as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). This designation influences the water quality criteria applied to the project and the location of proposed outfalls. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) requires an additional fifty percent treatment for systems that discharge directly into an Outstanding Florida Water. The entire watershed discharges into OFW; this criterion is paramount when calculating pre versus post discharge rates and selecting the preferred stormwater management facility. See Figure 8, Environmental Conditions Map.

Tailwater

The National Geodetic Survey indicates that the Mean Higher-High Water (MHHW) elevation is 0.03’ NAVD, and the Mean Lower-Low Water (MLLW) elevation is -2.24’ NAVD; the Mean Tide elevation is -1.11’ NAVD. The MHHW elevation will be used as the tailwater elevation for the proposed outfalls discharging to the Loxahatchee River. Tidal data from the National Geodetic Survey for Jupiter West is shown in Figure 3. Typically, the Mean High Water (MHW) level is used as the design tailwater in coastal environments. However, with the introduction of sea level rise, the MHW level that is used in establishing tailwater has become speculative. Therefore, the use of the MHHW sea level is a more conservative approach in establishing design tailwater elevation along coastal communities. The MHHW elevations is which accounts for predicted sea level fluctuations associated with sea level rise.

17 Figure 6 - Wellfield Map

18 Ü

30 Feet

WL 2 WL 1

SW 1

WL 3

WL 4

WL 5

Legend

SR 5/US 1 Study Area Wetland K:\VRB_Roadway\RoadwayExhibits\Fort Pierce10th Street& Pinecrestestates\GIS\MXD Source: Aerials courtesy of FDOT APlus; Habitat data courtesy of KHA Wetlands and Surface Waters Map SR5/US 1 Bridge over Loxahatchee River/Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Bridge #930005) Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study FPID: 428400-2-22-02 Town of Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida 19 FIGURE 7 PROJECT NUMBER: 040006382 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2016 SCALE: 1 inch = 100 feet Ü 240 Feet Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area

Beach Road LORSTA Housing Resource Group 8PB16191

Jupiter Lighthouse Park NR-listed lighthouse 8PB6186 Jensen Beach E Riverside Drive 8PB65 to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve

Alternate A1A 1 5/US SR 8PB15991

8PB14878 Loxahatchee River/ Atlantic Lake Worth Creek 8PB14572 Intracoastal Aquatic Preserve Waterway

Jupiter Inlet

Ocean Boulevard Legend

Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA Lighthouse Park SJRWMD Seagrass (2015) Johnson's Seagrass Critical Habitat SR 5/US 1 Seagrass Survey (April 2016) <5 to 35% Seagrass Cover <1 to 10% Seagrass Cover <1 to 30% Seagrass Cover FLUCFCS Code: Description 612: Mangrove Fringe Note: Project study area located within three wood stork colony Aquatic Preserves Core Foraging Areas (Ballen Isles, Sewal Point MC2 - Bird Island, JENSEN BEACH TO JUPITER INLET AQUATIC PRESERVE Solid Waste Authority), four USFWS Consultation Areas (West LOXAHATCHEE RIVER - LAKE WORTH CREEK AQUATIC PRESERVE Indian manatee, Atlantic coast plants, piping plover, and Florida Potential Contaminated Sites scrub-jay), USFWS-designated manatee critical habitat and Essential Fish Habitat (shrimp, snapper/grouper complex, spiny lobster, High coastal migratory species, and coral (Phragmatopoma (worm reefs)). Medium USFWS-designated critical habitat for Johnson's seagrass is Low

K:\VRB_LDEV\47544002\ENV\GIS\MXD not within the study area, however it is just east of the study area. Raster data courtesy of www.labins.org Environmental Constraints Map

SR 5/US 1 Bridge over Loxahatchee River/Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Bridge #930005) Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study Town of Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida

1 inch = 195 feet PROJECT NUMBER: 040006382 SEPTEMBER 2016 FIGURE 8 20 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Utility Impacts Table 15.1 – Utility Impacts BURIED OVERHEAD BURIED OVERHEAD BURIED FIBER BASIN WATER SEWER GAS TELEVISION TELEVISION ELECTRIC ELECTRIC OPTIC 11 X X X X X X 12 X X X 13 X X X X X X X

X Denotes an Existing Utility Line It is expected that the proposed transportation improvements will have impacts to the existing utilities situated within the project corridor, which will require adjustment during final design. However, based on the selected stormwater management facility alternative, the brunt of the utility impacts will occur in Basin 13. The utilities in Basin 11 and Basin 12, consist of buried television lines, a 4” forced sewer main comprised of ductile iron pipe (DIP), Tampa Electric Company (TECO) gas line, and an 8” water main with a 16” casing. The three proposed stormwater management facilities associated with Basin 13, will impact all utilities east of US-1 except for the 12” sewer reject main and the 8” water main. A 4” high-density polyethylene (HDPE) force sewer main, 12” reject sewer main, 10” water main, overhead electric and overhead television cross US-1 within this basin.

Pond Volumes

The proposed stormwater pond alternatives were configured to provide the required treatment volumes and attenuate the additional run-off generated by the proposed typical section. The proposed storage volumes provided are indicative of the preferred stormwater management facilities and reflect the criteria of SFWMD. The following table illustrates the required and provided treatment and attenuation volumes.

21 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT (ft)

Depth Attenuation

) ft ‐ (ac Volume Provided Attenuation

ft) ‐ (ac Volume Required Attenuation

(ft)

Depth Treatment

ft) ‐ (ac Volume Provided Treatment

Volumes

feet) ‐ Volume Required Treatment (acre

hr Attenuation ‐ 72

and

yr feet) ‐ Volume ‐

(acre Runoff FDOT Treatment

Development ‐ SFWMD

Area (acres) CN

‐ 72

Table 16.1 – SFWMD Treatment and Attenuation Volumes yr ‐ Volume ft)

25 ‐

(ac Runoff

SFWMD hr Development Post ‐ Pre

Area (acres) CN 1112 1.3513 3.48 5.92 98 98.0 97 1.38 3.55 1.35 5.99 3.48 5.92 98 99 98 1.38 3.59 6.05 0.21 0.73 0.93 0.00 1.02 0.96 1.50 2.50 4.00 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.79 0.04 0.88 1.00 1.83 2.75 Basin

22 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Pond Location Alternatives

General: All pond sites have been identified and are shown on the Drainage Basins and Pond Layout shown in Figure 3. All proposed ponds are linear dry detention ponds. Their bottom elevation is at least one foot above the SHWT. The advantage of dry ponds is that a 25% credit is given for water quality volume, thus reducing the required size of the ponds. It is noted that wet ponds provide more total volume, however, but not practical alternative based on the existing site conditions. The post-project discharge must not exceed pre-project discharge. The existing drainage area has no detention facilities in place and the entire project discharges to the Loxahatchee River/ICWW unimpeded. Most of the ponds are linear in nature, but the maximum length to width ratio of wet ponds is 2:1 per SFWMD, which has been achieved. Percolation tests were performed, however results showed poor percolation rates. Those were tests holes P1 through P4. See percolation test locations and results as shown in Figure 9 and 9A.

Basin 11: There are no proposed ponds in this basin, however, there is ample area for an alternative linear dry detention pond along the east side of US-1 south of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard. This area east of the road is within FDOT owned ROW and would not require any ROW acquisition (see Figure 3).

Basin 12: There are two proposed linear dry detention ponds along both the east and west side of US-1 that are within FDOT owned ROW (see Figure 3).

Basin 13: There is one proposed linear dry detention pond along the east side of US-1 that is within FDOT owned ROW (see Figure 3).

Pond Design Alternatives

Linear Dry Detention Ponds

One of the proposed stormwater management facility alternatives is a linear dry detention pond. The linear dry detention ponds were sized based on the total impervious area of the bridge deck and the additional impervious area for all other improvements made within the project area. Weir structures are used to adhere to the water quality and quantity standards established by the FDOT and the applicable regulatory agencies. In order to determine the methodology used in designing an efficient stormwater management facility, several key factors are used. These components include, weir overflow rates, time of concentration, and the elevated groundwater level.

Following the criteria set forth by the FDOT and other agencies, ponds are designed to meet the 25-year, 3-day storm. Using the depth to water table and the amount of storage under the pervious area, the average soil storage and curve numbers were calculated for each basin (see Soil Storage Method, Figure 10). These variables are then computed to determine the average pond area required. A 1:4 slope is used to calculate the top and bottom areas of the ponds.

Weir elevations are determined by the water quality standards set forth by the regulating agencies. Weir lengths are estimated in the modeling software Interconnected Pond

23 Figure 9 - Percolation Test Locations

24 ➤ N➤ © 2016 Google 1000 ft © 2016 Google Summary of Exfiltration Test Results SR5/US1 Federal Highway Bridge Repacement PD&E Jupiter, Palm Beach, Florida FPID No.: 428400-2-22-01 TSF Project No. 7111-15-401

Test Date Diameter Depth of Depth to Groundwater Level Hydraulic Saturated Hole Average Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity

Location Performed Hole Casing Hole Below Ground Surface (Feet) Head, H2 Depth, Ds Flow Rate, Q (K) (Inches) (Inches) (Feet) Prior to Test During Test (Feet) (Feet) (gpm) (ft3/sec/ft2-ft Head) (inch/hr) P-1 8/13/2016 6 4 10.0 8.5 0.0 8.5 1.5 10.00 4.29E-04 18.55 P-1 8/20/2016 6 4 15.0 8.5 0.0 8.5 6.5 10.70 2.47E-04 10.69 P-2 8/13/2016 6 4 10.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 1.50 8.42E-05 3.64 P-2 8/20/2016 6 4 15.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 2.10 7.11E-05 3.07 P-3 8/13/2016 6 4 10.0 7.5 0.0 7.5 2.5 12.30 5.51E-04 23.81 P-3 8/20/2016 6 4 15.0 7.5 0.0 7.5 7.5 13.00 3.26E-04 14.07 P-4 8/13/2016 6 4 10.0 8.3 0.0 8.3 1.7 12.80 5.53E-04 23.88 P-4 8/20/2016 6 4 15.0 8.3 0.0 8.3 6.7 13.20 3.09E-04 13.35

Note: (1) The above hydraulic conductivity values represent an ultimate value. The designer should decide on the required factor of safety (2) The hydraulic conductivity values were calculated based on the South Florida Water Management Districts's USUAL OPEN HOLE CONSTANT HEAD percolation test procedure. (3) Casing diameter was used for the calculation of hydraulic conductivity values.

Figure 9A - Percolation Test Results

Page 1 25 Water Storage

A. Ground Storage

1. One of the requirements for dry retention/detention flood protection areas is that each shall have a "mechanism" for returning the water level to control elevation. In such situations, the term "mechanism" is normally inter- preted to mean something designed, fabricated, and installed in or on the site. As a result, almost every such project will have something - a V-notch weir, exfiltration trench, key/mosquito ditch, sump, etc. - to provide the required drawdown.

Such devices may not always be necessary. If it can be shown that the soil itself allows the water table to subside in an acceptable length of time, then no "artificial" mechanism need be installed. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and District staff will not approve, or recommend for approval, a dry system which does not provide such mechanisms, be they natural or fabricated.

2. The moisture storage capability of the soil profile has been estimated by the Soil Conservation Service for the normal sandy soils found within the South Florida Water Management District boundaries. The total amount of water which can be stored in the soil profile expressed as a function of the depth to the water table* for these soils is:

Depth to Cumulative Compacted Water Table* Water Storage Water Storage (Feet) (Inches) (Inches) 1 0.60 0.45 2 2.50 1.88 3 6.60 4.95 4 10.90 8.18

The values in the third column represent the estimated amount of water which can be stored under pervious areas after development. These values represent the cumulative water storage values reduced by 25 percent to account for the reduction in void spaces due to the compaction which occurs incidental to earthwork operations. An example of the use of this information is:

Assume the following: Average Finished Grade = 17.0 feet NGVD Average Ground Water* Level = 14.0 feet NGVD Percent of Project in Lakes = 15% Percent of Project Impervious = 35%

*Typically, the Seasonal High Water Table. Consult with District staff regarding site-specific situations and questions.

E-1 26 FIGURE 10 The next step is to compute the project-specific S-value to use for determining the runoff volume which will be discharged from the site. The depth to the water table will be 3 feet (17.0 - 14.0 = 3.0), consequently the total amount of water which can be stored under pervious surfaces will be 4.95 inches. If 15% of the project will be in lakes and 35% will be covered by impervious surfaces, then the remainder, or 50% will be pervious areas and the appropriate weighted S-value will be:

4.95" x (1 - (.15+.35)) = 2.48" = S

Figure E-1 is a graphical representation of the cumulative water storage capabilities of the soil profile for the developed and undisturbed conditions versus the depth to the average wet season water table for the typical sandy soils found within the South Florida Water Management District boundaries.

In about April, 1993, the US SCS furnished the District test data for Immokalee and Riviera soils which show less soil storage than the typical soils described above. The following table shows the average values as compared to the typical values (Coastal). Although the lesser storage values result in higher SCS runoff curve numbers, the depressional and flatwoods soils typically are in flat and depressed areas with standing water, thus the areas have low runoff potential.

SOIL STORAGE

Depth Coastal (1) Flatwoods (2) Depressional (3) to W.T. Stor. (In.) CN Stor. (In.) CN Stor. (In.) CN 1' 0.6 94 0.6 94 0.6 94 2' 2.5 80 2.5 80 2.1 83 3' 6.6 60 5.4 65 4.4 69 4' 10.9 48 9.0 53 6.8 60

(1) Sandy soils 0 - 40" thick with water tables dropping below 40" - St. Lucie series is representative

(2) Water tables 15" - 40" - Immokalee series is representative

(3) Water tables above ground - 15" - Riviera and Pompano series are representative

Figure E-1 is also a graphical comparison of the cumulative water storage capabilities of the soil profile for flatwoods and depressional storage.

E-2 FIGURE 10 27 28 FIGURE 10

E-3 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Routing (ICPR) to meet the pre-development versus post-development discharge values. The weir structures ultimately outfall into the Loxahatchee River.

Linear Dry Detention Ponds with Sedimentation/Vortex Structures

This proposed stormwater management facility is the same as in Section 18.1, with the addition of sedimentation/vortex structures. These types of structures have the potential to reduce the size of the linear ponds by approximately 50%. Some of the key elements in determining the methodology used in designing this stormwater management facility are the size of the sedimentation/vortex structure and overflow volume into the weir. The structures will abide by the water quality and quantity standards set forth by the FDOT and the applicable regulatory agency.

The sedimentation/vortex structures will decrease the size of the pond due to sedimentation of the pollution particles in the storm water. A vortex created inside of the sedimentation/vortex structure will force the particles to flocculate and sink to the bottom of the casing. Once the particles have settled, the water is discharged into the Loxahatchee River.

Determining the exact amount of linear pond area reduction would require additional analysis and coordination with the manufacturer. The benefit of this alternative is the reduction of size of the linear ponds.

Linear Dry Detention Ponds with Exfiltration Trenches

The basis for any proposed stormwater management design is influenced by in-situ soil conditions. There are several key components in establishing an effective stormwater management system and the substrata conditions will have a significant role in determining the methodology used in designing an efficient hydrologic and hydraulic system. These factors include exfiltration and infiltration rates, soil permeability, and an elevated groundwater table. The culmination of these factors will limit the type of stormwater management facility necessary to provide adequate flood and pollution control.

Exfiltration trenches are designed to adhere to the water quality and water quantity standards established by FDOT and the applicable regulatory agency. The use of an exfiltration trench as a suitable means of achieving relative standards is predicated on the in-situ soil conditions promoting sufficient hydraulic capacity. The in-situ soil’s hydraulic capacity should be determined by FDOT approved procedures, which advocate the percolation test hole advance to a depth that will yield a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 6 gallons per minute (GPM). The percolation test results revealed that a depth of 10 feet yielded the minimum outlined hydraulic conductivity criteria. At depths of 10 feet, the average flow rate ranges from 1.50 to 12.80 GPM. The percolation rate used in the corresponding exfiltration trench is 10 GPM, which in general is indicative of the sediment coastal sub strata. The criteria used in determining the appropriate length of the exfiltration trench to treat the polluted volume is based on the water quality standards of SFWMD.

29 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

A safety factor of two was used in determining exfiltration trench length and this is more than adequate in complying with water quality requirements of the regulatory agencies. The proposed configuration of the exfiltration trench is 10 feet in depth, 5 feet in width, and a 24-inch pipe, with an invert elevation situated at elevation 0.03 NAVD, which is at the MHHW elevation. Elevations used in establishing the necessary head for exfiltration were obtained from topography data, which generally indicate an elevation of proposed elevation.

The proposed exfiltration alternative would require a hydraulic model simulation to determine the water surface elevation and discharge flows. However, based on similar projects with comparable conditions and linear constraints, exfiltration trenches provide a viable alternative if supported by the maintaining agency.

Matrix Results

The study segment is situated adjacent to the Loxahatchee River and the geometric alignment is linearly constrained and bound by surface waters. The types of stormwater management facilities proposed are indicative of the local topography. The initial stormwater management selection process was driven by the maintenance costs, minimization of ROW acquisition and environmental impacts. Other considered impacts included wetlands and floodplains, threatened and endangered species, contamination, historical and archaeological, social, utility, and construction and maintenance. An evaluation was completed to determine the most suitable stormwater management facility for each basin. This methodology yielded a Conceptual Drainage Matrix Analysis listed in Table 20.1.

The Conceptual Drainage Matrix Analysis documents the recommended stormwater management alternative selected for each basin. The analysis includes quantitative and qualitative analysis when assessing the location of the preferred alternative. The grading criteria ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 being most superior. In general, a grade of 1 typically indicates that there are no anticipated impacts. The premise of this evaluation process is to rank each alternative and tabulate the results, and provide an impartial evaluation of the preferred site location. Due to the location and site conditions, each basin has identical stormwater management alternatives. The preferred alternatives are listed in Table 20.1 and 20.2.

Stormwater Alternative Basins 11, 12, and 13

Each of the three alternatives are viable options for stormwater management facilities and vary in approach in providing the required water quality and quantity treatment. None of the proposed stormwater management facilities require the acquisition of ROW. For Alternative 1, all of the dry dentition facilities associated with the basins are situated near a viable outfall. The benefit of linear dry detention ponds are reduced maintenance costs and low susceptibility for contamination. For these reasons, dry detention facilities are the recommended stormwater management alternative for all basins. Alternative 2 is an ideal solution for coastal laterally confined corridors with stringent water quality requirements. The addition of a sedimentation/vortex structure will reduce the size of the linear pond as well as increasing pollution abatement measures. However, this device will require perpetual maintenance for the maintaining agency. Likewise, Alternative 3 is a solution for laterally confined corridors. Exfiltration trenches are routinely used as

30 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

stormwater management facilities for transportation improvement projects and require neither ROW acquisition nor a drainage easement with property owners. Similar to Alternative 2, they are subject to long-term maintenance, which are not ideal for the maintaining agency. This is a less viable alternative.

Recommendations and Conclusion

A preliminary conceptual drainage investigation was completed and yielded several different types of stormwater management alternatives for each drainage basin. The analysis was performed in accordance with the stipulations published by federal, state, and local authorities. The linear stormwater ponds identified in this report represent the most suitable locations and are based on quantitative and qualitative engineering judgment. Based on the findings herein, the stormwater management facilities comply with water quality and quantity criteria as outlined by the appropriate agencies. The recommended pond alternatives size, configuration, and location may be revised during the design phases. The selected stormwater management facilities are illustrated in Tables 20.1 and 20.2

In conclusion, the total project permit area of 10.750 acres, has a polluted treatment volume of 1.87 acre-ft. The provided treatment volume is 1.90 acre-ft. The total project pre-development discharge for the 25 year – 3 day storm is 58.33 cfs and the post-development discharge is 34.18 cfs which satisfies the regulatory criteria.

31 Table 20.1 - Pond Site Matrix

Functionality (Design ***Forecasted ***Threatened ***Arch. & Social Impacts Criteria, Basin Number / Anticipated Wetland & ***Contamination Utility *Preliminary Final & Endangered Historical (Residential, Construction, Alternative R/W Area Floodplain Impacts Impacts Cost Ranking Species Potential Impacts Commercial) Maintenance Impacts Proximity to Outfall)

**11 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 11 / 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 17 11 / 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 14 **12/ 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 10 12 / 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 5 18 12 / 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 3 16 **13 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 13 / 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 17 13 / 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 16

* All pertinent cost associated with the selected site. ** Recommended alternative. *** Impacts assessed in the WER EFH ESBA, Section 4(f) Determination of Applicability, and CRAS Rated on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being zero to minimal impacts and 5 being maximum impacts Alternative 1 = Dry Detention Swale Alternative 2 = Dry Detention Swale with Sedimentation/Vortex Structure Alternative 3 = Dry Detention Swale with Exfiltration Trench

32 Table 20.2 - Preliminary Alternative Costs

Dry Detention Swale with Dry Detention Basin Dry Detention Swale Sedimentation/Vortex Swale with Structures Exfiltration Trench 11 $0* $55,000 $15,000 12 $0* $55,000 $30,000 13 $0* $55,000 $45,000 * Provided in LRE

33 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Appendix A – Typical Sections STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SR 5/US-1

JUPITER FEDERAL BRIDGE FROM CR A1A TO BEACH ROAD FINANCIAL PROJECT ID: 428400-2-22-02 PALM BEACH COUNTY (93040000) . C . A .

TO STUART F

R 42 E R 43 E , 004 S oun

T .

d 25TEQUESTA

40 Pop, 5,273 23

30 - 27 LOXAHATCHEE RIVER-

S 15 LAKE WORTH CREEK L G ox 707 AQUATIC PRESERVE ah at ch JUPITER

e 61 e RADAR 9 INLET COLONY TO FORT PIERCE Pop.368 LE 35 River 34 36 31 ork U est F thw Jupiter R Sou

Inlet

Exit 87 A R

S-46 E 3 811 N 706 UND T BEGIN PROJECT D FPID 428400-2-22-02 809 LE

L A MP.10 .567 W L A1A E

10 I

9 JUPITER A

R ¡ CONSTRUCTION SR 5 S Pop. 39,328

STA.520 +90 A

T END PROJECT

S AND

C FPID 428400-2-22-02 N D

16 MP.11 .127 E 15 1

S ¡ C ONSTRUCTION SR 5 GN A

E STA.555 +80 I T S

22 LL DA I

20 A Exit 83 R

O T Donald Ross L Road F I

T G

C I JUNO BEACH 41 Pop. 3,262 D 27

28 S

29 LE I F Hood Road

) 33 I ll 32 o

( 809 ON

31 R T C ELE

TO MIAMI E H T

S I

EET

PROJECT LOCATION MAP H S

S I H T

PREPARED BY: F O

D R O

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C E R

L A

1920 Wekiva Way, Suite 200 I C

West Palm Beach, Florida 33411 I FF O

34 E H brandon.kern 1/18/2017 2:13:29 PM K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\TypSecPkg\TYPSRD01.DGN T PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

FINANCIAL PROJECT ID 428400-2-22-02 COUNTY (SECTION) PALM BEACH (93040000)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION REPLACEMENT STUDY FOR JUPITER FEDERAL BRIDGE (#930005) US-1/SR 5 (FEDERAL HIGHWAY) OVER THE LOXAHATCHEE RIVER

SIGNATURE SHEET

APPROVED BY: THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DIGITALLY SIGNED AND SEALED BY:

SU M. MI PRINTED COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE SL S A NOT CONSIDERED SIGNED AND SEALED. E CENS S I E M L K THE SIGNATURE MUST BE VERIFIED A I J ON THE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS. No 38841

� � � KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

P 1920 WEKIVA WAY, SUITE 200

R R WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33411 STATE OF O E CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 696 F E F L A JAMES M. SUMISLASKI, P.E. NO. 38841 E O RID IN S G SI N ONAL E

THE ABOVE NAMED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING SHEETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 61G15-23.004, F.A.C.

TYPICAL SECTION PACKAGE

SHEET NO SHEET DESCRIPTION

1 KEY SHEET 2 SIGNATURE SHEET 3 PROJECT CONTROL SHEET 4 TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1 5 TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2 6 TYPICAL SECTION NO. 3 7 TYPICAL SECTION NO. 4

FDOT CONCURRENCE

Steve Braun, P.E. Date Scott Peterson, P.E. Date FDOT District Design Engineer District Project Development Manager

DESIGN SPEED APPROVALS:

Steve Braun, P.E. Date Mark Plass, P.E. Date FDOT DISTRICT DESIGN ENGINEER DISTRICT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ENGINEER

SHEET NO.

35 2

brandon.kern 1/18/2017 2:13:29 PM K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\TypSecPkg\TYPSRD01.DGN PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

FINANCIAL PROJECT ID 428400-2-22-02 COUNTY (SECTION) PALM BEACH (93040000)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION REPLACEMENT STUDY FOR JUPITER FEDERAL BRIDGE (#930005) US-1/SR 5 (FEDERAL HIGHWAY) OVER THE LOXAHATCHEE RIVER

PROJECT CONTROLS - SR A1A

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Yes No ( ) RURAL ( ) (X ) NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (X ) URBAN ( ) (X ) STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM ( ) FREEWAY/EXPWY. ( ) MAJOR COLL. (X ) ( ) STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM (X ) PRINCIPAL ART. ( ) MINOR COLL. ( ) (X ) OFF STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM ( ) MINOR ART. ( ) LOCAL

ACCESS CLASSIFICATION TRAFFIC

( ) 1 - FREEWAY YEAR AADT

( ) 2 - RESTRICTIVE w/Service Roads 2015 22,000 CURRENT

(X ) 3 - RESTRICTIVE w/660 ft. Connection Spacing 2020 23,000 OPENING . C

( ) 4 - NON-RESTRICTIVE w/2640 ft. Signal Spacing . 2040 25,000 A

DESIGN . F ( ) 5 - RESTRICTIVE w/440 ft. Connection Spacing , ,

( ) 6 - NON-RESTRICTIVE w/1320 ft. Signal Spacing DISTRIBUTION 004 . 45 MPH

( ) 7 - BOTH MEDIAN TYPES DESIGN SPEED K 9% 23 -

45 MPH 15 POSTED SPEED D 50.8% G 61 CRITERIA T 24 4.4% LE U R

(X ) NEW CONSTRUCTION / RECONSTRUCTION R E ( ) RRR INTERSTATE / FREEWAY UND

( ) RRR NON-INTERSTATE / FREEWAY D LE A

( ) TDLC / NEW CONSTRUCTION / RECONSTRUCTION E S

( ) TDLC / RRR AND

( ) MANUAL OF UNIFORM MINIMUM STANDARDS D E (FLORIDA GREENBOOK) (OFF-STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM ONLY) GN I S

LIST ANY POTENTIAL EXCEPTIONS AND VARIATIONS RELATED TO TYPICAL SECTION ELEMENTS: Y LL A T

N/A I G I D

LE I F

C I

LIST MAJOR STRUCTURES LOCATION/DESCRIPTION - REQUIRING INDEPENDENT STRUCTURE DESIGN: ON R T C 1) BRIDGE OVER THE LOXAHATCHEE RIVER (BRIDGE # 930005). ELE

E H T

S I

LIST MAJOR UTILITIES WITHIN PROJECT CORRIDOR: EET H S

AT&T DISTRIBUTION TECO PEOPLES GAS

CENTURY LINK TOWN OF JUPITER/JUPITER WATER SYSTEMS S I

COMCAST CABLE SPRINT NEXTEL H FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA T

LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS F O

PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS D R O

LIST OTHER INFORMATION PERTINENT TO DESIGN OF PROJECT: C E R

L A I

SHEET C

NO. I FF O

36 E H brandon.kern 1/18/2017 2:13:29 PM K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\TypSecPkg\TYPSRD01.DGN T PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

428400-2-22-02 N/A PALM BEACH FINANCIAL PROJECT ID FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. COUNTY NAME .

CR A1A (MP. 10.5670) TO C

93040000 SR 5 BEACH ROAD (MP. 11.127) .

SECTION NO. ROAD DESIGNATION LIMITS/MILEPOST A . F REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING BRIDGE OVER INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION , 004 . 23 - 15 G

PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION No. 1 61

LE U R

R E UND

D LE A

C CONST. E

L S 66' - 69' 96' - 99'

VARIES VARIES AND

33' - 44' 40' - 51' D E VARIES VARIES GN

26' I

EXISTING S

EXISTING MEDIAN

R/W LINE Y R/W LINE VARIES 8' 2' 7' 11' 11' 0 - 11' 4' 0 - 11' 11' 11' 7' 11' 2' 8' VARIES LL A

12' TO 15' CONC. BIKE VARIES VARIES BIKE CONC. 35' TO 38' T

TURF SWK LANE LANE SWK TURF I G I D

LE I F

PGP (LT) PGP (RT) 0.015 0.02 C 0.02 0.02 0.015 I 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

1:4 1:4 ON R T C ELE

CURB & NATURAL TRAFFIC GUTTER NATURAL E GROUND SEPARATOR CURB & GROUND H

TYPE F T GUTTER (TYPE IV)

TYPE F S I

EET H S

S I H T

F O

D R O

SR 5 (US-1) C E R

FROM BEGINNING OF PROJECT TO CR A1A L SHEET A I

STA. 522+80.00 TO STA. 527+00.00 NO. C DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH I FF

4 O

37 E

brandon.kern 1/18/2017 2:13:29 PM K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\TypSecPkg\TYPSRD01.DGN H T PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

428400-2-22-02 N/A PALM BEACH FINANCIAL PROJECT ID FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. COUNTY NAME .

CR A1A (MP. 10.5670) TO C

93040000 SR 5 BEACH ROAD (MP. 11.127) .

SECTION NO. ROAD DESIGNATION LIMITS/MILEPOST A . F REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING BRIDGE OVER INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION , 004 . 23 - 15 G

PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION No. 2 61

LE U R

C CONST. R

L E UND

73' - 91' 100' D

VARIES LE A

30' 19.50' 30' E S

EXISTING 1.33' MEDIAN 1.33' R/W LINE 8' 8' 11' 11' 2' 7.75' 7.75' 2' 11' 11' 8' 8' EXISTING AND

1' R/W LINE

CONC. SHLDR SHLDR CONC. 1' D VARIES SWK 7' TURF 7' SWK 49.92' E GN

22.92' TO 40.92' BIKE (SOD) BIKE TURF I S

LANE 4" 4" LANE 42" Y

PEDESTRIAN LL RAIL 42" A PGP (LT) T PGP (RT) PEDESTRIAN I RAIL G

TURF I 0.0 0.04 0.04 15 0.02 D 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.015 VARIES 1' 1' LE

7' TO 25' I

2' 8' 5' F 5' 34' 2' 9'

CURB & C 0.015 1: 2 1 I 1:4* 1: 2 SINGLE-SLOPED GUTTER SINGLE-SLOPED 2 1: :2 2 1: BARRIER WALL TYPE F BARRIER WALL ON R T C MSE WALL CURB & MSE WALL 2' 24' CONC. GUTTER ELE TYPE F

SIDEWALK E H T

NATURAL NATURAL S GROUND I

GROUND EET H S

S I H T

* OR TO SUIT PROPERTY OWNER F O

D R O

SR 5 (US-1) C E R

FROM CR A1A TO JUPITER SR 5/US-1 BRIDGE L SHEET A I

STA. 527+00.00 TO STA. 533+70.00 NO. C DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH I FF

38 5 O

brandon.kern 1/18/2017 2:13:29 PM K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\TypSecPkg\TYPSRD01.DGN H T PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

428400-2-22-02 N/A PALM BEACH FINANCIAL PROJECT ID FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. COUNTY NAME .

CR A1A (MP. 10.5670) TO C

93040000 SR 5 BEACH ROAD (MP. 11.127) .

SECTION NO. ROAD DESIGNATION LIMITS/MILEPOST A . F REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING BRIDGE OVER INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION , 004 . 23 - 15 G

PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION No. 3 61

LE U R

CL CONST. E

59' - 114' 77' - 100' UND

VARIES VARIES D

30' 19.50' 30' LE A

1' 1.33' E MEDIAN 1.33' 1' S VARIES 8' 8' 11' 11' 2' 7.75' 7.75' 2' 11' 11' 8' 8' VARIES EXISTING EXISTING 8.92' TO 63.92' CONC. SHLDR SHLDR CONC. 26.92' TO 49.92' AND R/W LINE

R/W LINE TURF SWK 7' TURF 7' SWK D E BIKE (SOD) BIKE GN

LANE LANE I 4" 4" S

42" Y

PEDESTRIAN LL RAIL A 42" T PGP (LT) PGP (RT) I PEDESTRIAN G TURF I RAIL D 0.015 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.015 0.02 0.02 VARIES

1' 1' LE 5' TO 28' I 5' VARIES 2' F

CURB & 14-34' C 0.015 I GUTTER 1 1 SINGLE-SLOPED SINGLE-SLOPED :2 :2 :2 1 ON

BARRIER WALL TYPE F BARRIER WALL R T CURB & C VARIES MSE WALL GUTTER MSE WALL ELE

TYPE F 2' TO 22'

CONC. E

NATURAL SIDEWALK H T

GROUND

NATURAL S I

GROUND EET H S

S I H T

F O

D R O

SR 5 (US-1) C E R

FROM JUPITER SR 5/US-1 BRIDGE TO JUPITER COVE DRIVE L SHEET A I

STA. 541+75.00 TO STA. 548+00.00 NO. C DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH I FF

39 6 O

brandon.kern 1/18/2017 2:13:30 PM K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\TypSecPkg\TYPSRD01.DGN H T PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

428400-2-22-02 N/A PALM BEACH FINANCIAL PROJECT ID FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. COUNTY NAME .

CR A1A (MP. 10.5670) TO C

93040000 SR 5 BEACH ROAD (MP. 11.127) .

SECTION NO. ROAD DESIGNATION LIMITS/MILEPOST A . F REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING BRIDGE OVER INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION , 004 . 23 - 15 G

PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION No. 4 61

LE U R

R E CL CONST. UND

60' - 71' 97' - 100' D VARIES VARIES LE A

29' 15.5' - 19.5' 29' E S MEDIAN (VARIES) AND

VARIES 8' 2' 7' 11' 11' 2'VARIES VARIES 2' 11' 11' 7' 2' 8' VARIES E GN

11.25' - 24.25' CONC. BIKE 5.75' - 5.75' - BIKE CONC. 48.25' - 53.25' I

SWK LANE 7.75' 7.75' LANE SWK S EXISTING EXISTING Y TURF R/W LINE

R/W LINE LL

(SOD) A T

TURF TURF I 4" 4" G I D

1' 1'

5' VAR. VAR. 5' LE I F

PGP (LT)

PGP (RT) C I 0.015 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.015 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 1 ON :3*

3* R 1: T C ELE

NATURAL CURB & CURB & CURB &

NATURAL E

GROUND GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER GROUND H TYPE F T

TYPE F TYPE F CURB & S I

GUTTER TYPE F EET H S

S I H T

* OR TO SUIT PROPERTY OWNER, NOT FLATTER THAN 1:6 F O

D R O

SR 5 (US-1) C E R

FROM JUPITER COVE DRIVE TO BEACH ROAD L SHEET A I

STA. 548+00.00 TO 555+80.00 NO. C DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH I FF

40 7 O

brandon.kern 1/18/2017 2:13:30 PM K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\TypSecPkg\TYPSRD01.DGN H T PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

FINANCIAL PROJECT ID 428400-2-22-02 COUNTY (SECTION) PALM BEACH (93040000)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION REPLACEMENT STUDY FOR JUPITER FEDERAL BRIDGE (#930005) US-1/SR 5 (FEDERAL HIGHWAY) OVER THE LOXAHATCHEE RIVER

SIGNATURE SHEET

APPROVED BY: THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DIGITALLY SIGNED AND SEALED BY:

N KLE PRINTED COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE LA VE A N . NOT CONSIDERED SIGNED AND SEALED. CENS S G I E L THE SIGNATURE MUST BE VERIFIED ON THE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS. No 47187

� � � TRANSYSTEMS

P 2400 E. COMMERCIAL BLVD., SUITE 1000

R R FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33308 STATE OF O E CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 7503 F E F L A G. ALAN KLEVENS, P.E. NO. 47187 E O RID IN S G SI N ONAL E

THE ABOVE NAMED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING SHEETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 61G15-23.004, F.A.C.

TYPICAL SECTION PACKAGE

SHEET NO SHEET DESCRIPTION

8 SIGNATURE SHEET 9 TYPICAL SECTION NO. 5 10 TYPICAL SECTION NO. 6

FDOT CONCURRENCE

Steve Braun, P.E. Date Scott Peterson, P.E. Date FDOT District Design Engineer District Project Development Manager

Ramon Otero, P.E. Date SHEET FDOT District Structures Engineer NO. 41 8

brandon.kern 1/18/2017 2:13:30 PM K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\TypSecPkg\TYPSRD01.DGN PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

428400-2-22-02 N/A PALM BEACH FINANCIAL PROJECT ID FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. COUNTY NAME .

CR A1A (MP. 10.5670) TO C

93040000 SR 5 BEACH ROAD (MP. 11.127) .

SECTION NO. ROAD DESIGNATION LIMITS/MILEPOST A . F REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING BRIDGE OVER INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION , 004 . 23 - 15 G

PROPOSED STRUCTURE TYPICAL SECTION No. 5 61

LE U R

¡ CONST. E UND

D LE A

50'-1" 50'-1" E S

10'-4" 30'-0" 19'-6" 30'-0" 10'-4" AND

MEDIAN E 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4" 1'-4" GN

1'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 16'-10" 11'-0" 11'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 1'-0" I S

SWK SHLDR SHLDR SWK Y

7'-0" 7'-0" LL A

BIKE BIKE T I

LANE LANE G I D

42" PEDESTRIAN PGP (LT) PGP (RT) 42" PEDESTRIAN LE I

RAILING (TYP.) RAILING (TYP.) F 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 C I ON R T C ELE

TRAFFIC E SINGLE-SLOPED H BARRIER WALL SEPARATOR SINGLE-SLOPED T

(TYPE IV) BARRIER WALL S I

EET H S

S I H T

F O

D R O

SR 5 (US-1) C E R

JUPITER SR 5/US-1 BRIDGE L

SHEET A STA. 533+70.00 TO STA. 538+00.00 I NO. C I DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH STA. 540+00.00 TO STA. 541+75.00 FF

42 9 O

brandon.kern 1/18/2017 2:13:30 PM K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\TypSecPkg\TYPSRD01.DGN H T PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

428400-2-22-02 N/A PALM BEACH FINANCIAL PROJECT ID FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. COUNTY NAME .

CR A1A (MP. 10.5670) TO C

93040000 SR 5 BEACH ROAD (MP. 11.127) .

SECTION NO. ROAD DESIGNATION LIMITS/MILEPOST A . F REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING BRIDGE OVER INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION , 004 . 23 - 15 G

PROPOSED STRUCTURE TYPICAL SECTION No. 6 61

LE U R

R E UND

¡ CONST. D LE A E S

50'-1" 50'-1" AND

3'-10" 3'-10"

7'-0" 33'-4" 11'-6" 33'-4" 7'-0" D E GN I

1'-4" 1'-4" S 1'-0" 1'-4" 2'-6" 2'-6" 1'-4" 1'-0"

8'-0" 8'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 5'-11" 5'-11" 11'-0" 11'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" Y LL

SWK SHLDR SHLDR SWK A T I

7'-0" 7'-0" G I

BIKE BIKE D

42" PEDESTRIAN 42" PEDESTRIAN RAILING (TYP.) LANE LANE RAILING (TYP.) LE I F

C I 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 ON R T C

SINGLE-SLOPED ELE

SINGLE-SLOPED BARRIER WALL E H

BARRIER WALL T

S I

EET H S

S I H T

F O

D R O

SR 5 (US-1) C E R

JUPITER SR 5/US-1 BRIDGE L SHEET A I

STA. 538+00.00 TO STA. 540+00.00 NO. C DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH I FF

43 10 O

brandon.kern 1/18/2017 2:13:30 PM K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\TypSecPkg\TYPSRD01.DGN H T JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Appendix B – 100-Year Floodplain 44 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Appendix C – Existing Permits Detailed Permit Information Page 1 of 1

Application #: 020621-18 Permit#: 50-05535-P Final Action Date: 19-Jul-2002 Issuing Office: WPB/SFWMD Permit Status: ACTIVE Application Status: Complete Permit Type: Environmental Resource (New General Permit) Expiration Date: 19-Jul-2007

Project Name: Jupiter Federal Over Loxahatchee River-Bridge 930005 Project Acres: 1 Landuse(s): Highway Location: Palm Beach S31/T40/R43 Receiving Body: Taylor Creek

Applicant: Florida Department Of Transportation Fernando Ascanio District Iv 3400 W Commercial Blvd Fort Lauderdale FL 33309

Project Description:

Contact Email Id: [email protected]

Documents List by date Seal Document Type Date Posted Size Verified? Permit File History(1)

Close Me

Server : 01p

SFWMD Headquarters: 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 561-686-8800 | 1-800-432-2045 (Florida Only)

45 http://www.sfwmd.gov/ePermitting/DetailedReport.do?recordId=6&showMenu=false 8/2/2016 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Appendix D – Drainage Calculations WATER QUALITY TREATMENT TABLE

TREATMENT TREATMENT BASIN REQUIRED PROVIDED ac-ft ac-ft

11 0.21 0.00 12 0.73 1.02 13 0.93 0.96 Total 1.87 1.98

WATER QUANTITY ATTENUATION

PRE- POST- RECEIVING BODY DISCHARGE DISCHARGE cfs cfs LOXAHATCHEE RIVER 58.33 48.38

AREA SUMMARY

EXISTING PROPOSED ADDED PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TOTAL PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TOTAL IMP. ac ac ac ac ac ac ac ROADWAY 4.644 6.106 10.750 2.767 7.983 10.750 1.877 PONDS 0.911 0.067 0.978 0.978 0.000 0.978

46 RUNOFF VOLUME COMPUTATIONS

PROJECT NAME: Reconstruction of US1 Bridge - Jupiter PROJECT NUMBER: 42840022202 DATE BASIN NAME:US1 Basin 11 COMPUTED BY: BK 11/4/2016 BASIN ANALYSIS (PRE/POST): PRE CHECKED BY: DL

SUB-BASIN ANALYSIS

COMPUTED BASIN AREA (ac) 1.35

DETERMINE BASIN AREAS

AREA LAND-USE DESCRIPTION Impervious Roadway + sidewalks 0.87 Bridges 0.00 Sub-total for Impervious Land Uses 0.87 Pervious Open Spaces, Fair Condition 0.48 Residential, 1/4 acre 0.00 Pond, Existing Dry 0.00 Sub-total for Pervious Land Uses 0.48 TOTAL 1.35

ESTIMATE OF RUNOFF VOLUME

AREA SUMMARY TABLE

DESIGN AGENCY P S R V® STORM (in) (in) (in) (ac-ft) 25 yr, 72 hr SFWMD 13.00 0.21 12.75 1.43 FDOT Critical Duration

SAMPLE CALCULATION:

1) DETERMINE SOIL STORAGE - S AND CURVE NUMBER - CN

CN = 1000 / (S + 10)

a. Depth to average wet season water table elevation = 1 ft. b. From Basis of Review: Inches of moisture stored= 0.6 inches c. Ground storage under pervious areas = Inches of moisture stored / (1 ft / 12") * (Perv Area) = 0.02 acre-ft. d. Equivalent Soil Storage "S" = Ground storage under pervious * ((12" / 1 ft) / (Total Area)) = 0.21 inches

SOIL STORAGE (inches) S 0.21

CURVE NUMBER CN 98

2) DETERMINE RUNOFF - R

a. Using Figures C-1 thru C-9, determine 25 year 24 hour storm rainfall = 13 inches b. From the Basis of Review Modify the 25 year 24 hour rainfall by 135.9% to obtain 25 year 72 hour depth = 13.0 inches

Precip.(25yr 72hr)-inches P 13.0

2 R = ( P - 0.2*S) / ( P + 0.8*S) RUNOFF (inches) R 12.75

3) DETERMINE RUNOFF VOLUME - V®

V® = R / 12 * AREA RUNOFF (ac-ft) V® 1.43

47 RUNOFF VOLUME COMPUTATIONS

PROJECT NAME: Reconstruction of US1 Bridge - Jupiter PROJECT NUMBER: 42840022202 DATE BASIN NAME:US1 Basin 11 COMPUTED BY: BK 11/4/2016 BASIN ANALYSIS (PRE/POST): POST CHECKED BY: DL

SUB-BASIN ANALYSIS

COMPUTED BASIN AREA (ac) 1.35

DETERMINE BASIN AREAS

AREA LAND-USE DESCRIPTION Impervious Roadway + sidewalks 0.91 Bridges 0.00 Sub-total for Impervious Land Uses 0.91 Pervious Open Spaces, Fair Condition 0.44 Residential, 1/4 acre 0.00 Pond, Existing Dry 0.00 Sub-total for Pervious Land Uses 0.44 TOTAL 1.35

ESTIMATE OF RUNOFF VOLUME

AREA SUMMARY TABLE

DESIGN AGENCY P S R V® STORM (in) (in) (in) (ac-ft) 25 yr, 72 hr SFWMD 13.00 0.20 12.77 1.44 FDOT Critical Duration

SAMPLE CALCULATION:

1) DETERMINE SOIL STORAGE - S AND CURVE NUMBER - CN

CN = 1000 / (S + 10)

SOIL STORAGE (inches) S 0.20

CURVE NUMBER CN 98

2) DETERMINE RUNOFF - R

Precip.(25yr 72hr)-inches P 13.0

2 R = ( P - 0.2*S) / ( P + 0.8*S) RUNOFF (inches) R 12.77

3) DETERMINE RUNOFF VOLUME - V®

V® = R / 12 * AREA RUNOFF (ac-ft) V® 1.44

48 RUNOFF VOLUME COMPUTATIONS PROJECT NAME: Reconstruction of US1 Bridge - Jupiter PROJECT NUMBER: 42840022202 DATE BASIN NAME: US1 Basin 11 COMPUTED BY: BK 11/4/2016 BASIN ANALYSIS (PRE/POST): PRE VS. POST CHECKED BY: DL

DETERMINE MAXIMUM ATTENUATON VOLUME

PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION POST DEVELOPED CONDITION AREA (ac): 1.35 AREA (ac): 1.35 CN: 98 CN: 98

SUMMARY OF WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND LOCAL ATTENUATION ESTIMATES

DESIGN AGENCY RUNOFF VOLUME V® STORM PRE POST INCREASE (ac-ft) (ac-ft) (ac-ft) 25 yr, 72 hr SFWMD 1.43 1.44 0.00 FDOT Critical Duration

MAXIMUM ATTENUATION VOLUME 0.00 (ac-ft)

49 WATER QUALITY COMPUTATIONS PROJECT NAME: Reconstruction of US1 Bridge - Jupiter PROJECT NUMBER: 42840022202 DATE BASIN NAME: US1 Basin 11 COMPUTED BY: BK 11/4/2016 CHECKED BY: DL

Pre-Dev. Impervious (ac) 0.87 Post-Dev. Impervious Area (ac) 0.91 Post-Dev. Pervious Area (ac) 0.44 Post Dev. Total Area (ac) 1.35

DETERMINE POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME

If Used: Enter "Y" below to show calculations

WET DETENTION (acre-ft) 1) 1 inch of Runoff Over Total Area 1" / (1 ft / 12") * (Total Area) = 0.11 2) 2.5 inches Over Percentage Impervious Area 2.5" / (1 ft / 12") * (Imp. Area %) = 0.19 0.19 WET DETENTION POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME (REQUIRED) 0.19

Y DRY DETENTION (acre-ft) 75% of that computed for Wet Detention 75% * Wet Detention Volume 0.14 DRY DETENTION POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME (REQUIRED) 0.14 Y Projects with greater than 40% impervious and outfall to Sensitive Water Body (additional 50%) DRY DETENTION 50% ADDITIONAL PAV (OFW) VOLUME (REQUIRED) 0.07

50 RUNOFF VOLUME COMPUTATIONS

PROJECT NAME: Reconstruction of US1 Bridge - Jupiter PROJECT NUMBER: 42840022202 DATE BASIN NAME:US1 Basin 12 COMPUTED BY: BK 11/4/2016 BASIN ANALYSIS (PRE/POST): PRE CHECKED BY: DL

SUB-BASIN ANALYSIS

COMPUTED BASIN AREA (ac) 3.48

DETERMINE BASIN AREAS

AREA LAND-USE DESCRIPTION Impervious Roadway + sidewalks 0.89 Bridges 1.23 Sub-total for Impervious Land Uses 2.12 Pervious Open Spaces, Fair Condition 1.35 Residential, 1/4 acre 0.00 Pond, Existing Dry 0.00 Sub-total for Pervious Land Uses 1.35 TOTAL 3.48

ESTIMATE OF RUNOFF VOLUME

AREA SUMMARY TABLE

DESIGN AGENCY P S R V® STORM (in) (in) (in) (ac-ft) 25 yr, 72 hr SFWMD 13.00 0.23 12.72 3.68 FDOT Critical Duration

SAMPLE CALCULATION:

1) DETERMINE SOIL STORAGE - S AND CURVE NUMBER - CN

CN = 1000 / (S + 10)

a. Depth to average wet season water table elevation = 1 ft. b. From Basis of Review: Inches of moisture stored= 0.6 inches c. Ground storage under pervious areas = Inches of moisture stored / (1 ft / 12") * (Perv Area) = 0.07 acre-ft. d. Equivalent Soil Storage "S" = Ground storage under pervious * ((12" / 1 ft) / (Total Area)) = 0.23 inches

SOIL STORAGE (inches) S 0.23

CURVE NUMBER CN 98

2) DETERMINE RUNOFF - R

Precip.(25yr 72hr)-inches P 13.0

2 R = ( P - 0.2*S) / ( P + 0.8*S) RUNOFF (inches) R 12.72

3) DETERMINE RUNOFF VOLUME - V®

V® = R / 12 * AREA RUNOFF (ac-ft) V® 3.68

51 RUNOFF VOLUME COMPUTATIONS

PROJECT NAME: Reconstruction of US1 Bridge - Jupiter PROJECT NUMBER: 42840022202 DATE BASIN NAME:US1 Basin 12 COMPUTED BY: BK 11/4/2016 BASIN ANALYSIS (PRE/POST): POST CHECKED BY: DL

SUB-BASIN ANALYSIS

COMPUTED BASIN AREA (ac) 3.48

DETERMINE BASIN AREAS

AREA LAND-USE DESCRIPTION Impervious Roadway + sidewalks 2.11 Bridges 1.01 Sub-total for Impervious Land Uses 3.12 Pervious Open Spaces, Fair Condition 0.36 Residential, 1/4 acre 0.00 Pond, Existing Dry 0.00 Sub-total for Pervious Land Uses 0.36 TOTAL 3.48

ESTIMATE OF RUNOFF VOLUME

AREA SUMMARY TABLE

DESIGN AGENCY P S R V® STORM (in) (in) (in) (ac-ft) 25 yr, 72 hr SFWMD 13.00 0.06 12.93 3.74 FDOT Critical Duration

SAMPLE CALCULATION:

1) DETERMINE SOIL STORAGE - S AND CURVE NUMBER - CN

CN = 1000 / (S + 10)

SOIL STORAGE (inches) S 0.06

CURVE NUMBER CN 99

2) DETERMINE RUNOFF - R

Precip.(25yr 72hr)-inches P 13.0

2 R = ( P - 0.2*S) / ( P + 0.8*S) RUNOFF (inches) R 12.93

3) DETERMINE RUNOFF VOLUME - V®

V® = R / 12 * AREA RUNOFF (ac-ft) V® 3.74

52 RUNOFF VOLUME COMPUTATIONS PROJECT NAME: Reconstruction of US1 Bridge - Jupiter PROJECT NUMBER: 42840022202 DATE BASIN NAME: US1 Basin 12 COMPUTED BY: BK 11/4/2016 BASIN ANALYSIS (PRE/POST): PRE VS. POST CHECKED BY: DL

DETERMINE MAXIMUM ATTENUATON VOLUME

PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION POST DEVELOPED CONDITION AREA (ac): 3.48 AREA (ac): 3.48 CN: 98 CN: 99

SUMMARY OF WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND LOCAL ATTENUATION ESTIMATES

DESIGN AGENCY RUNOFF VOLUME V® STORM PRE POST INCREASE (ac-ft) (ac-ft) (ac-ft) 25 yr, 72 hr SFWMD 3.68 3.74 0.06 FDOT Critical Duration

MAXIMUM ATTENUATION VOLUME 0.06 (ac-ft)

53 WATER QUALITY COMPUTATIONS PROJECT NAME: Reconstruction of US1 Bridge - Jupiter PROJECT NUMBER: 42840022202 DATE BASIN NAME: US1 Basin 12 COMPUTED BY: BK 11/4/2016 CHECKED BY: DL

Pre-Dev. Impervious (ac) 0.89 Post-Dev. Impervious Area (ac) 3.12 Post-Dev. Pervious Area (ac) 0.36 Post Dev. Total Area (ac) 3.48

DETERMINE POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME

If Used: Enter "Y" below to show calculations

WET DETENTION (acre-ft) 1) 1 inch of Runoff Over Total Area 1" / (1 ft / 12") * (Total Area) = 0.29 2) 2.5 inches Over Percentage Impervious Area 2.5" / (1 ft / 12") * (Imp. Area %) = 0.65 0.65 WET DETENTION POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME (REQUIRED) 0.65

Y DRY DETENTION (acre-ft) 75% of that computed for Wet Detention 75% * Wet Detention Volume 0.49 DRY DETENTION POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME (REQUIRED) 0.49 Y Projects with greater than 40% impervious and outfall to Sensitive Water Body (additional 50%) DRY DETENTION 50% ADDITIONAL PAV (OFW) VOLUME (REQUIRED) 0.24

54 RUNOFF VOLUME COMPUTATIONS

PROJECT NAME: Reconstruction of US1 Bridge - Jupiter PROJECT NUMBER: 42840022202 DATE BASIN NAME:US1 Basin 13 COMPUTED BY: BK 11/4/2016 BASIN ANALYSIS (PRE/POST): PRE CHECKED BY: DL

SUB-BASIN ANALYSIS

COMPUTED BASIN AREA (ac) 5.92

DETERMINE BASIN AREAS

AREA LAND-USE DESCRIPTION Impervious Roadway + sidewalks 2.40 Bridges 0.71 Sub-total for Impervious Land Uses 3.11 Pervious Open Spaces, Fair Condition 2.81 Residential, 1/4 acre 0.00 Pond, Existing Dry 0.00 Sub-total for Pervious Land Uses 2.81 TOTAL 5.92

ESTIMATE OF RUNOFF VOLUME

AREA SUMMARY TABLE

DESIGN AGENCY P S R V® STORM (in) (in) (in) (ac-ft) 25 yr, 72 hr SFWMD 13.00 0.28 12.66 6.25 FDOT Critical Duration

SAMPLE CALCULATION:

1) DETERMINE SOIL STORAGE - S AND CURVE NUMBER - CN

CN = 1000 / (S + 10)

a. Depth to average wet season water table elevation = 1 ft. b. From Basis of Review: Inches of moisture stored= 0.6 inches c. Ground storage under pervious areas = Inches of moisture stored / (1 ft / 12") * (Perv Area) = 0.14 acre-ft. d. Equivalent Soil Storage "S" = Ground storage under pervious * ((12" / 1 ft) / (Total Area)) = 0.28 inches

SOIL STORAGE (inches) S 0.28

CURVE NUMBER CN 97

2) DETERMINE RUNOFF - R

Precip.(25yr 72hr)-inches P 13.0

2 R = ( P - 0.2*S) / ( P + 0.8*S) RUNOFF (inches) R 12.66

3) DETERMINE RUNOFF VOLUME - V®

V® = R / 12 * AREA RUNOFF (ac-ft) V® 6.25

55 RUNOFF VOLUME COMPUTATIONS

PROJECT NAME: Reconstruction of US1 Bridge - Jupiter PROJECT NUMBER: 42840022202 DATE BASIN NAME:US1 Basin 13 COMPUTED BY: BK 11/4/2016 BASIN ANALYSIS (PRE/POST): POST CHECKED BY: DL

SUB-BASIN ANALYSIS

COMPUTED BASIN AREA (ac) 5.92

DETERMINE BASIN AREAS

AREA LAND-USE DESCRIPTION Impervious Roadway + sidewalks 3.42 Bridges 0.54 Sub-total for Impervious Land Uses 3.95 Pervious Open Spaces, Fair Condition 1.96 Residential, 1/4 acre 0.00 Pond, Existing Dry 0.00 Sub-total for Pervious Land Uses 1.96 TOTAL 5.92

ESTIMATE OF RUNOFF VOLUME

AREA SUMMARY TABLE

DESIGN AGENCY P S R V® STORM (in) (in) (in) (ac-ft) 25 yr, 72 hr SFWMD 13.00 0.20 12.76 6.30 FDOT Critical Duration

SAMPLE CALCULATION:

1) DETERMINE SOIL STORAGE - S AND CURVE NUMBER - CN

CN = 1000 / (S + 10)

a. Depth to average wet season water table elevation = 1 ft. b. From Basis of Review: Inches of moisture stored= 0.6 inches c. Ground storage under pervious areas = Inches of moisture stored / (1 ft / 12") * (Perv Area) = 0.10 acre-ft. d. Equivalent Soil Storage "S" = Ground storage under pervious * ((12" / 1 ft) / (Total Area)) = 0.20 inches

SOIL STORAGE (inches) S 0.20

CURVE NUMBER CN 98

2) DETERMINE RUNOFF - R

Precip.(25yr 72hr)-inches P 13.0

2 R = ( P - 0.2*S) / ( P + 0.8*S) RUNOFF (inches) R 12.76

3) DETERMINE RUNOFF VOLUME - V®

V® = R / 12 * AREA RUNOFF (ac-ft) V® 6.30

56 RUNOFF VOLUME COMPUTATIONS PROJECT NAME: Reconstruction of US1 Bridge - Jupiter PROJECT NUMBER: 42840022202 DATE BASIN NAME: US1 Basin 13 COMPUTED BY: BK 11/4/2016 BASIN ANALYSIS (PRE/POST): PRE VS. POST CHECKED BY: DL

DETERMINE MAXIMUM ATTENUATON VOLUME

PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION POST DEVELOPED CONDITION AREA (ac): 5.92 AREA (ac): 5.92 CN: 97 CN: 98

SUMMARY OF WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND LOCAL ATTENUATION ESTIMATES

DESIGN AGENCY RUNOFF VOLUME V® STORM PRE POST INCREASE (ac-ft) (ac-ft) (ac-ft) 25 yr, 72 hr SFWMD 6.25 6.30 0.05 FDOT Critical Duration

MAXIMUM ATTENUATION VOLUME 0.05 (ac-ft)

57 WATER QUALITY COMPUTATIONS PROJECT NAME: Reconstruction of US1 Bridge - Jupiter PROJECT NUMBER: 42840022202 DATE BASIN NAME: US1 Basin 13 COMPUTED BY: BK 11/4/2016 CHECKED BY: DL

Pre-Dev. Impervious (ac) 2.40 Post-Dev. Impervious Area (ac) 3.95 Post-Dev. Pervious Area (ac) 1.96 Post Dev. Total Area (ac) 5.92

DETERMINE POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME

If Used: Enter "Y" below to show calculations

WET DETENTION (acre-ft) 1) 1 inch of Runoff Over Total Area 1" / (1 ft / 12") * (Total Area) = 0.49 2) 2.5 inches Over Percentage Impervious Area 2.5" / (1 ft / 12") * (Imp. Area %) = 0.82 0.82 WET DETENTION POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME (REQUIRED) 0.82

Y DRY DETENTION (acre-ft) 75% of that computed for Wet Detention 75% * Wet Detention Volume 0.62 DRY DETENTION POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME (REQUIRED) 0.62 Y Projects with greater than 40% impervious and outfall to Sensitive Water Body (additional 50%) DRY DETENTION 50% ADDITIONAL PAV (OFW) VOLUME (REQUIRED) 0.31

58 SWALE CALCULATION

AVAILABLE AVAILABLE MAX WEIR MAX ACTUAL WEIR TOTAL LENGTH WIDTH SWALE AREA AREA HEIGHT VOLUME HEIGHT TREATMENT FT FT ACRES SF FT CF FT CF 11 245 8 0.0450 1,960 1.5 2,940 1'-3" 2,450 12 550 34 0.4293 18,700 2.5 46,750 2'-3" 42,075 13 700 20 0.3214 14,000 3 42,000 3'-0" 38,500 TOTAL 83,025

TREATMENT TREATMENT VOLUME VOLUME BASIN REQUIRED REQUIRED ACRE-FT CF 11 0.21 9,148 12 0.73 31,799 13 0.93 40,511 TOTAL 81,457

59 SPREAD CALCULATION (NO SCUPPERS) ‐ SOUTH END OF PROPOSED BRIDGE

STA 533+70 ‐ 535+00 STA 535+50 ‐ 538+50 Width of 32.5 32.5 Pavement (FT) S (Long Grade) 5 0.3 Incremental Area 0.014921947 0.014921947 (ACRES) Incremental Deck 0.056703398 0.056703398 Flow (CFS)

Sx (Cross Slope) 0.01 High Point 538+92.50 n 0.016 Begin Bridge 533+70.00 C 0.95 Distance 510 i4

GRADE Q Q (DECK) QT (SPREAD) DISTANCE STATION % CFS CFS CFS FT FT 0.3 538+80.00 0.028 0.000 0.028 1.552 10 0.3 538+60.00 0.028 0.057 0.085 2.342 30 0.3 538+40.00 0.085 0.057 0.142 2.836 50 0.3 538+20.00 0.142 0.057 0.198 3.217 70 0.3 538+00.00 0.198 0.057 0.255 3.535 90 0.3 537+80.00 0.255 0.057 0.312 3.810 110 0.3 537+60.00 0.312 0.057 0.369 4.056 130 0.3 537+40.00 0.369 0.057 0.425 4.280 150 0.3 537+20.00 0.425 0.057 0.482 4.485 170 0.3 537+00.00 0.482 0.057 0.539 4.676 190 0.3 536+80.00 0.539 0.057 0.595 4.855 210 0.3 536+60.00 0.595 0.057 0.652 5.023 230 0.3 536+40.00 0.652 0.057 0.709 5.182 250 0.3 536+20.00 0.709 0.057 0.765 5.334 270 0.3 536+00.00 0.765 0.057 0.822 5.478 290 0.3 535+80.00 0.822 0.057 0.879 5.617 310 0.3 535+60.00 0.879 0.057 0.936 5.750 330 5 535+40.00 0.936 0.057 0.992 3.471 350 5 535+20.00 0.992 0.057 1.049 3.544 370 5 535+00.00 1.049 0.057 1.106 3.614 390 5 534+80.00 1.106 0.057 1.162 3.683 410 5 534+60.00 1.162 0.057 1.219 3.749 430 5 534+40.00 1.219 0.057 1.276 3.813 450 5 534+20.00 1.276 0.057 1.333 3.876 470 5 534+00.00 1.333 0.057 1.389 3.937 490 5 533+80.00 1.389 0.057 1.446 3.996 510

Sample calculations included on the following pages.

60 SPREAD CALCULATION (NO SCUPPERS) ‐ NORTH END OF PROPOSED BRIDGE

STA 539+00 ‐ 542+00 Width of 32.5 Pavement (FT) S (Long Grade) 0.30 Incremental Area 0.014921947 (ACRES) Incremental Deck 0.056703398 Flow (CFS)

Sx (Cross Slope) 0.01 High Point 538+92.50 n 0.016 End Bridge 542+00.00 C 0.95 Distance 300 i4

GRADE QQ (DECK) Q T (SPREAD) DISTANCE STATION % CFS CFS CFS FT FT 0.30 539+00.00 0.028 0.000 0.028 1.552 10 0.30 539+20.00 0.028 0.057 0.085 2.342 30 0.30 539+40.00 0.085 0.057 0.142 2.836 50 0.30 539+60.00 0.142 0.057 0.198 3.217 70 0.30 539+80.00 0.198 0.057 0.255 3.535 90 0.30 540+00.00 0.255 0.057 0.312 3.810 110 0.30 540+20.00 0.312 0.057 0.369 4.056 130 0.30 540+40.00 0.369 0.057 0.425 4.280 150 0.30 540+60.00 0.425 0.057 0.482 4.485 170 0.30 540+80.00 0.482 0.057 0.539 4.676 190 0.30 541+00.00 0.539 0.057 0.595 4.855 210 0.30 541+20.00 0.595 0.057 0.652 5.023 230 0.30 541+40.00 0.652 0.057 0.709 5.182 250 0.30 541+60.00 0.709 0.057 0.765 5.334 270 0.30 541+80.00 0.765 0.057 0.822 5.478 290 0.30 542+00.00 0.822 0.057 0.879 5.617 310 0.30 535+60.00 0.879 0.057 0.936 5.750 330

Sample calculations included on the following pages.

61 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

∗ 32.5 ∗ 20 43,560 .

∗ ∗ 0.95∗4 ∗ 0.01492 .

, 0.08506 0.05670 .

∗ , 0.56 ∗ ∗

0.016 ∗ 0.14176 0.56 ∗ 0.01 ∗ 0.3

62 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

∗ 550 ∗ 34 43,560 .

∗

18,700 ∗2.5 ,

∗

18,700 ∗ 1.8333 ,

∗ 43,560 0.20 ∗ 43,560

63 Florida Department of Transportation District 4 Jupiter Bridge US1, Basin 11 Wet Detention Retention Structure Contributing Pervious Impervious 1" Treatment Existing 2.5" over new Required Required Number Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) over Contributing Impervious Impervious Treatment Treatment Area (Ac-Ft) Area (Ac) Area (Ac-Ft) (Ac-Ft) (Ac-In) South 1.350 0.440 0.910 0.113 0.870 0.008 0.113 1.350 Total 1.350 0.440 0.910 0.113 0.870 0.008 0.113 1.350 Contributing area represents area that drains to the french drain Pervious area represents the pervious area draining to the french drain Impervious area represents the impervious area draining to the french drain Required treatment is the treatment required by this project, which represents the greater of the 2.5" or the 1" treatment Proposed treatment is the treatment proposed by this project

Structure Structure K Value Pipe Pipe Ground SHW Pipe Bottom of Min Top Weir Trench Trench Trench SHW Number Station (cfs/ft^2-ft) Size O.D. Elevation Invert Trench of Trench Width Depth Length Clear. (In) (In) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) South N.A. 2.08E-04 24 27 6 0.150 3.250 -10.500 4.500 4.500 4.25 15.000 100 -10.65

64 Florida Department of Transportation District 4 Jupiter Bridge US1, Basin 11 Exf. Trench Design SFWMD EXFILTRATION DESIGN PARAMETERS: GIVENS: Water Table Elevation 0.15 Ground Elevation 6.00 Top of Trench Elevation 4.50 Bottom of Trench -10.50 Top of Weir, if used 4.50 Trench Depth, Ft 15.00 Length of Trench provided, Ft L 100 Treatment Volume, Ac-In V 1.35 Trench Width, Ft W 4.25 Hydraulic Conductivity, cfs/ft2-ft. K 2.08E-04 Unsaturated Depth, Ft Du 4.35 Saturated Depth, Ft Ds 10.65

Depth to Water Table, Ft H2 4.35

EXFILTRATION TRENCH LENGTH 2 Du>Ds L=V/[K(H2W+2H2Du-Du +2H2Ds) + (1.39E-4)WDu] L= 45.61 Ft

2 Ds>Du L=V/[K(2H2Du-Du +2H2Ds) + (1.39E-4)WDu] L= 52.41 Ft

Required Length = 52.4 Ft Treatment Provided = 2.58 Ac-In Percentage = 191%

65 Florida Department of Transportation District 4 Jupiter Bridge US1, Basin 12 Wet Detention Retention Structure Contributing Pervious Impervious 1" Treatment Existing 2.5" over new Required Required Number Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) over Contributing Impervious Impervious Treatment Treatment Area (Ac-Ft) Area (Ac) Area (Ac-Ft) (Ac-Ft) (Ac-In) Middle 3.480 0.360 3.120 0.290 2.120 0.208 0.290 3.480 Total 3.480 0.360 3.120 0.290 2.120 0.208 0.290 3.480 Contributing area represents area that drains to the french drain Pervious area represents the pervious area draining to the french drain Impervious area represents the impervious area draining to the french drain Required treatment is the treatment required by this project, which represents the greater of the 2.5" or the 1" treatment Proposed treatment is the treatment proposed by this project

Structure Structure K Value Pipe Pipe Ground SHW Pipe Bottom of Min Top Weir Trench Trench Trench SHW Number Station (cfs/ft^2-ft) Size O.D. Elevation Invert Trench of Trench Width Depth Length Clear. (In) (In) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) Middle N.A. 2.08E-04 24 27 6 0.150 3.250 -10.500 4.500 4.500 4.25 15.000 200 -10.65

66 Florida Department of Transportation District 4 Jupiter Bridge US1, Basin 12 Exf. Trench Design SFWMD EXFILTRATION DESIGN PARAMETERS: GIVENS: Water Table Elevation 0.15 Ground Elevation 6.00 Top of Trench Elevation 4.50 Bottom of Trench -10.50 Top of Weir, if used 4.50 Trench Depth, Ft 15.00 Length of Trench provided, Ft L 200 Treatment Volume, Ac-In V 3.48 Trench Width, Ft W 4.25 Hydraulic Conductivity, cfs/ft2-ft. K 2.08E-04 Unsaturated Depth, Ft Du 4.35 Saturated Depth, Ft Ds 10.65

Depth to Water Table, Ft H2 4.35

EXFILTRATION TRENCH LENGTH 2 Du>Ds L=V/[K(H2W+2H2Du-Du +2H2Ds) + (1.39E-4)WDu] L= 117.57 Ft

2 Ds>Du L=V/[K(2H2Du-Du +2H2Ds) + (1.39E-4)WDu] L= 135.10 Ft

Required Length = 135.1 Ft Treatment Provided = 5.15 Ac-In Percentage = 148%

67 Florida Department of Transportation District 4 Jupiter Bridge US1, Basin 13 Wet Detention Retention Structure Contributing Pervious Impervious 1" Treatment Existing 2.5" over new Required Required Number Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) over Contributing Impervious Impervious Treatment Treatment Area (Ac-Ft) Area (Ac) Area (Ac-Ft) (Ac-Ft) (Ac-In) North 5.919 1.965 3.954 0.493 3.111 0.176 0.493 5.919 Total 5.919 1.965 3.954 0.493 3.111 0.176 0.493 5.919 Contributing area represents area that drains to the french drain Pervious area represents the pervious area draining to the french drain Impervious area represents the impervious area draining to the french drain Required treatment is the treatment required by this project, which represents the greater of the 2.5" or the 1" treatment Proposed treatment is the treatment proposed by this project

Structure Structure K Value Pipe Pipe Ground SHW Pipe Bottom of Min Top Weir Trench Trench Trench SHW Number Station (cfs/ft^2-ft) Size O.D. Elevation Invert Trench of Trench Width Depth Length Clear. (In) (In) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) North N.A. 4.35E-04 24 27 3.5 0.150 0.750 -13.000 2.000 2.000 4.25 15.000 300 -13.15

68 Florida Department of Transportation District 4 Jupiter Bridge US1, Basin 13 Exf. Trench Design SFWMD EXFILTRATION DESIGN PARAMETERS: GIVENS: Water Table Elevation 0.15 Ground Elevation 3.50 Top of Trench Elevation 2.00 Bottom of Trench -13.00 Top of Weir, if used 2.00 Trench Depth, Ft 15.00 Length of Trench provided, Ft L 300 Treatment Volume, Ac-In V 5.92 Trench Width, Ft W 4.25 Hydraulic Conductivity, cfs/ft2-ft. K 4.35E-04 Unsaturated Depth, Ft Du 1.85 Saturated Depth, Ft Ds 13.15

Depth to Water Table, Ft H2 1.85

EXFILTRATION TRENCH LENGTH 2 Du>Ds L=V/[K(H2W+2H2Du-Du +2H2Ds) + (1.39E-4)WDu] L= 218.00 Ft

2 Ds>Du L=V/[K(2H2Du-Du +2H2Ds) + (1.39E-4)WDu] L= 249.39 Ft

Required Length = 249.4 Ft Treatment Provided = 7.12 Ac-In Percentage = 120%

69 JUPITER US-1 BRIDGE PD&E STUDY FINAL CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT

Appendix E – Pre-Development Model Pre-Project Node Diagram

Nodes A Stage/Area V Stage/Volume T Time/Stage M Manhole

Basins O Overland Flow U SCS Unit CN S SBUH CN Y SCS Unit GA Z SBUH GA

Links P Pipe T:ICWW W Weir A:S-11 A:S-12B A:S-13B T:Creek C Channel U:B-12A U:B-11 U:B-12B U:B-13B D Drop Structure U:B-13A B Bridge R Rating Curve H Breach E Percolation F Filter P:L-11 C:D-12B C:D-13B X Exfil Trench

======Basins ======

Name: B-11 Node: S-11 Status: Onsite Group: Creek Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN

Unit Hydrograph: Uh256 Peaking Factor: 256.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 10.00 Area(ac): 1.350 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 98.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00

------Name: B-12A Node: ICWW Status: Onsite Group: ICWW Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN

Unit Hydrograph: Uh256 Peaking Factor: 256.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 10.00 Area(ac): 1.740 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 98.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00

------Name: B-12B Node: S-12B Status: Onsite Group: ICWW Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN

------Name: B-13A Node: ICWW Status: Onsite Group: ICWW Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN

Unit Hydrograph: Uh256 Peaking Factor: 256.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 10.00 Area(ac): 2.960 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 98.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00

------Name: B-13B Node: S-13B Status: Onsite Group: ICWW Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN

======Nodes ======

Name: Creek Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.030 Group: Creek Warn Stage(ft): 0.030 Type: Time/Stage

Time(hrs) Stage(ft) ------0.00 0.030 100.00 0.030

------Name: ICWW Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.030 Group: ICWW Warn Stage(ft): 0.030 Type: Time/Stage

Time(hrs) Stage(ft) ------0.00 0.030 100.00 0.030

------Name: S-11 Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 4.000 Group: Creek Warn Stage(ft): 8.760 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------4.000 0.0350 8.760 0.0350 9.260 0.3500

------Name: S-12B Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 2.000 Group: ICWW Warn Stage(ft): 5.000 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------

------Name: S-13B Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 2.000 Group: ICWW Warn Stage(ft): 8.000 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------

======Pipes ======

Name: L-11 From Node: S-11 Length(ft): 600.00 Group: Creek To Node: Creek Count: 1 Friction Equation: Automatic UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive Geometry: Circular Circular Flow: Both Span(in): 36.00 36.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.50 Rise(in): 36.00 36.00 Exit Loss Coef: 1.00 Invert(ft): 4.000 0.035 Bend Loss Coef: 0.00 Manning's N: 0.012000 0.012000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Bot Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Stabilizer Option: None

Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

======Channels ======

Name: D-12B From Node: S-12B Length(ft): 450.00 Group: ICWW To Node: ICWW Count: 1

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Friction Equation: Automatic Geometry: Trapezoidal Trapezoidal Solution Algorithm: Automatic Invert(ft): 2.000 0.030 Flow: Both TClpInitZ(ft): 4.000 4.000 Contraction Coef: 0.100 Manning's N: 0.035000 0.035000 Expansion Coef: 0.300 Top Clip(ft): 0.000 0.000 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.000 Bot Clip(ft): 0.000 0.000 Exit Loss Coef: 0.000 Main XSec: Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw AuxElev1(ft): Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Aux XSec1: Stabilizer Option: None AuxElev2(ft): Aux XSec2: Top Width(ft): Depth(ft): Bot Width(ft): 0.000 0.000 LtSdSlp(h/v): 4.00 4.00 RtSdSlp(h/v): 2.00 2.00

------Name: D-13B From Node: S-13B Length(ft): 450.00 Group: ICWW To Node: ICWW Count: 1

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Friction Equation: Automatic Geometry: Trapezoidal Trapezoidal Solution Algorithm: Automatic Invert(ft): 2.000 0.030 Flow: Both TClpInitZ(ft): 8.000 8.000 Contraction Coef: 0.100 Manning's N: 0.035000 0.035000 Expansion Coef: 0.300 Top Clip(ft): 0.000 0.000 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.000 Bot Clip(ft): 0.000 0.000 Exit Loss Coef: 0.000 Main XSec: Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw AuxElev1(ft): Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Aux XSec1: Stabilizer Option: None AuxElev2(ft): Aux XSec2: Top Width(ft): Depth(ft): Bot Width(ft): 10.000 10.000 LtSdSlp(h/v): 4.00 4.00 RtSdSlp(h/v): 4.00 4.00

======Hydrology Simulations ======

Name: 25YR-72HR Filename: K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\Drainage\ICPR\PRE.R32

Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration(hrs): 72.00 Rainfall File: Sfwmd72 Rainfall Amount(in): 13.00

------72.000 5.00

======Routing Simulations ======

Name: 25YR-72HR Hydrology Sim: 25YR-72HR Filename: K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\Drainage\ICPR\25YR-72HR.

Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No Alternative: No

Max Delta Z(ft): 0.10 Delta Z Factor: 0.01000 Time Step Optimizer: 10.000 Start Time(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 96.00 Min Calc Time(sec): 0.0500 Max Calc Time(sec): 300.0000 Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows:

Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) ------96.000 5.000

Group Run ------BASE Yes Creek Yes ICWW Yes

Name: B-11 B-12 B-13 Group: BASE BASE BASE Simulation: 25YR-72HR 25YR-72HR 25YR-72HR Node: S-11 S-12B S-13B Type: SCS SCS SCS Unit Hydrograph: Uh256 Uh256 Uh256 Peaking Factor: 256.0 256.0 256.0 Spec Time Inc(min): 1.33 1.33 1.33 Comp Time Inc(min): 1.33 1.33 1.33 Rain File: Sfwmd72 Sfwmd72 Sfwmd72 Rain Amount(in): 13.000 13.000 13.000 Duration(hrs): 72.00 72.00 72.00 Status: Onsite Onsite Onsite TC(min): 10.00 10.00 10.00 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area(ac): 1.350 3.480 5.920 Vol of Unit Hyd(in): 1.000 1.000 1.000 Curve Num: 98.000 98.000 98.000 DCIA(%): 0.000 0.000 0.000 Time Max(hrs): 60.02 60.02 60.02 Flow Max(cfs): 7.79 20.08 34.16 Runoff Volume(in): 12.754 12.754 12.754 Runoff Volume(ft3): 62500 161112 274075

Max Time Max Warning Max Delta Max Surf Max Time Max Max Time Max Name Group Simulation Stage Stage Stage Stage Area Inflow Inflow Outflow Outflow hrs ft ft ft ft2 hrs cfs hrs cfs

ICWW BASE 25YR-72HR 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.0000 15 60.06 58.33 0.00 0.00 S-11 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.05 6.36 8.96 -0.0016 123 60.00 7.77 0.00 9.21 S-12B BASE 25YR-72HR 60.06 6.05 7.00 0.0015 123 60.00 27.65 60.00 27.52 S-13B BASE 25YR-72HR 60.04 7.45 7.00 ********* 113 60.00 34.08 60.00 33.93

Max Time Max Max Max Time Max Max Time Max Name Group Simulation Flow Flow Delta Q US Stage US Stage DS Stage DS Stage hrs cfs cfs hrs ft hrs ft

L-11 BASE 25YR-72HR 0.00 9.21 9.210 60.05 6.36 60.06 6.05

Appendix F – Post-Development Model Post-Project Node Diagram

Nodes A Stage/Area V Stage/Volume T Time/Stage M Manhole

A: D-11 Basins A: D-11A C: C-11

O Overland Flow U: B-12 U SCS Unit CN S SBUH CN Y SCS Unit GA W: 11D P: L-11 A: N-13A Z SBUH GA P: L-15 U: B-13A Links P Pipe W Weir P: L-14 C Channel A: D-13 A: D-12 D Drop Structure C: C-12 A: D-12A U: B-12A B Bridge A: N-13

R Rating Curve C: C-13 U: B-13 H Breach E Percolation P: L-10

F Filter P: L-12 P: L-13 T: ICWW A: D-13A X Exfil Trench W: 12D W: 13D

A: N-11A

U: B-11A

A: N-11 P: L-09

U: B-11

======Basins ======

Name: B-11 Node: N-11 Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN

Unit Hydrograph: Uh256 Peaking Factor: 256.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 10.00 Area(ac): 0.675 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 98.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00

------Name: B-11A Node: N-11A Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN

------Name: B-12 Node: D-11 Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN

------Name: B-12A Node: D-12 Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN

------Name: B-13 Node: N-13 Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN

------Name: B-13A Node: N-13A Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN

======Nodes ======

Name: D-11 Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 5.500 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 8.960 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------

------Name: D-11A Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 5.500 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 8.960 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------

------Name: D-12 Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 3.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 5.000 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------

------Name: D-12A Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 3.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 5.000 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------

------Name: D-13 Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 3.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 7.000 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------

------Name: D-13 Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 3.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 7.000 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------

Name: D-13A Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 3.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 7.000 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------

------Name: ICWW Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.030 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 0.030 Type: Time/Stage

Time(hrs) Stage(ft) ------0.00 0.030 100.00 0.030

------Name: N-11 Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.030 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 10.000 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------0.000 0.0003 10.000 0.0003 10.500 0.0030

------Name: N-11A Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.300 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 10.000 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------0.000 0.0003 10.000 0.0003 10.500 0.0030

------Name: N-13 Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.300 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 10.000 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------0.000 0.0003 10.000 0.0003 10.500 0.0030

------Name: N-13A Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.300 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 10.000 Type: Stage/Area

Stage(ft) Area(ac) ------0.000 0.0003 10.000 0.0003 10.500 0.0030 81

======Cross Sections ======

Name: Group: BASE Encroachment: No

Station(ft) Elevation(ft) Manning's N ------

======Pipes ======

Name: L-09 From Node: N-11 Length(ft): 200.00 Group: BASE To Node: N-11A Count: 1 Friction Equation: Automatic UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive Geometry: Circular Circular Flow: Both Span(in): 24.00 24.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.50 Rise(in): 24.00 24.00 Exit Loss Coef: 0.10 Invert(ft): 2.400 1.500 Bend Loss Coef: 0.00 Manning's N: 0.012000 0.012000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Bot Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Stabilizer Option: None

Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

------Name: L-10 From Node: N-11A Length(ft): 450.00 Group: BASE To Node: D-12 Count: 1 Friction Equation: Automatic UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive Geometry: Circular Circular Flow: Both Span(in): 24.00 24.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.50 Rise(in): 24.00 24.00 Exit Loss Coef: 0.10 Invert(ft): 2.400 1.500 Bend Loss Coef: 0.00 Manning's N: 0.012000 0.012000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Bot Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Stabilizer Option: None

Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

------Name: L-11 From Node: D-11A Length(ft): 200.00 Group: BASE To Node: D-12 Count: 1 Friction Equation: Automatic UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive Geometry: Circular Circular Flow: Both Span(in): 24.00 24.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.50 Rise(in): 24.00 24.00 Exit Loss Coef: 0.10 Invert(ft): 2.400 1.500 Bend Loss Coef: 0.00 Manning's N: 0.012000 0.012000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Bot Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Stabilizer Option: None 82

Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

------Name: L-12 From Node: D-12A Length(ft): 10.00 Group: BASE To Node: ICWW Count: 1 Friction Equation: Automatic UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive Geometry: Circular Circular Flow: Both Span(in): 24.00 24.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.50 Rise(in): 24.00 24.00 Exit Loss Coef: 0.10 Invert(ft): 1.500 -1.000 Bend Loss Coef: 0.00 Manning's N: 0.012000 0.012000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Bot Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Stabilizer Option: None

Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

------Name: L-13 From Node: D-13A Length(ft): 10.00 Group: BASE To Node: ICWW Count: 1 Friction Equation: Automatic UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive Geometry: Circular Circular Flow: Both Span(in): 24.00 24.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.50 Rise(in): 24.00 24.00 Exit Loss Coef: 0.10 Invert(ft): 2.000 -1.000 Bend Loss Coef: 0.00 Manning's N: 0.012000 0.012000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Bot Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Stabilizer Option: None

Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

------Name: L-14 From Node: N-13 Length(ft): 10.00 Group: BASE To Node: N-13A Count: 1 Friction Equation: Automatic UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive Geometry: Circular Circular Flow: Both Span(in): 24.00 24.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.50 Rise(in): 24.00 24.00 Exit Loss Coef: 0.10 Invert(ft): 2.000 -1.000 Bend Loss Coef: 0.00 Manning's N: 0.012000 0.012000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Bot Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Stabilizer Option: None

Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: 83

Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

------Name: L-15 From Node: N-13A Length(ft): 100.00 Group: BASE To Node: D-13 Count: 1 Friction Equation: Automatic UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive Geometry: Circular Circular Flow: Both Span(in): 24.00 24.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.50 Rise(in): 24.00 24.00 Exit Loss Coef: 0.10 Invert(ft): 2.000 -1.000 Bend Loss Coef: 0.00 Manning's N: 0.012000 0.012000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Bot Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Stabilizer Option: None

Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall

======Channels ======

Name: C-11 From Node: D-11 Length(ft): 240.00 Group: BASE To Node: D-11A Count: 1

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Friction Equation: Automatic Geometry: Trapezoidal Trapezoidal Solution Algorithm: Automatic Invert(ft): 5.500 5.500 Flow: Both TClpInitZ(ft): 8.000 8.000 Contraction Coef: 0.100 Manning's N: 0.060000 0.060000 Expansion Coef: 0.300 Top Clip(ft): 0.000 0.000 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.000 Bot Clip(ft): 0.000 0.000 Exit Loss Coef: 0.000 Main XSec: Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw AuxElev1(ft): Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Aux XSec1: Stabilizer Option: None AuxElev2(ft): Aux XSec2: Top Width(ft): Depth(ft): Bot Width(ft): 8.000 8.000 LtSdSlp(h/v): 2.00 2.00 RtSdSlp(h/v): 2.00 2.00

------Name: C-12 From Node: D-12 Length(ft): 450.00 Group: BASE To Node: D-12A Count: 1

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Friction Equation: Automatic Geometry: Trapezoidal Trapezoidal Solution Algorithm: Automatic Invert(ft): 3.000 3.000 Flow: Both TClpInitZ(ft): 5.000 5.000 Contraction Coef: 0.100 Manning's N: 0.060000 0.060000 Expansion Coef: 0.300 Top Clip(ft): 0.000 0.000 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.000 Bot Clip(ft): 0.000 0.000 Exit Loss Coef: 0.000 Main XSec: Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw AuxElev1(ft): Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Aux XSec1: Stabilizer Option: None AuxElev2(ft): Aux XSec2: 84

Top Width(ft): Depth(ft): Bot Width(ft): 32.000 32.000 LtSdSlp(h/v): 2.00 2.00 RtSdSlp(h/v): 2.00 2.00

------Name: C-13 From Node: D-13 Length(ft): 450.00 Group: BASE To Node: D-13A Count: 1

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Friction Equation: Automatic Geometry: Trapezoidal Trapezoidal Solution Algorithm: Automatic Invert(ft): 3.000 3.000 Flow: Both TClpInitZ(ft): 7.000 7.000 Contraction Coef: 0.100 Manning's N: 0.060000 0.060000 Expansion Coef: 0.300 Top Clip(ft): 0.000 0.000 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.000 Bot Clip(ft): 0.000 0.000 Exit Loss Coef: 0.000 Main XSec: Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw AuxElev1(ft): Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Aux XSec1: Stabilizer Option: None AuxElev2(ft): Aux XSec2: Top Width(ft): Depth(ft): Bot Width(ft): 32.000 32.000 LtSdSlp(h/v): 2.00 2.00 RtSdSlp(h/v): 2.00 2.00

======Weirs ======

Name: 11D From Node: D-11A Group: BASE To Node: D-12 Flow: Both Count: 1 Type: Horizontal Geometry: Rectangular

Span(in): 48.00 Rise(in): 48.00 Invert(ft): 7.000 Control Elevation(ft): 7.000 TABLE Bottom Clip(in): 0.000 Top Clip(in): 0.000 Weir Discharge Coef: 3.200 Orifice Discharge Coef: 0.600

------Name: 12D From Node: D-12A Group: BASE To Node: ICWW Flow: Both Count: 1 Type: Horizontal Geometry: Rectangular

Span(in): 48.00 Rise(in): 48.00 Invert(ft): 4.000 Control Elevation(ft): 4.000 TABLE Bottom Clip(in): 0.000 Top Clip(in): 0.000 Weir Discharge Coef: 3.200 Orifice Discharge Coef: 0.600

Group: BASE To Node: ICWW Flow: Both Count: 1 Type: Horizontal Geometry: Rectangular

Span(in): 48.00 Rise(in): 48.00 Invert(ft): 7.000 Control Elevation(ft): 7.000 TABLE Bottom Clip(in): 0.000 Top Clip(in): 0.000 Weir Discharge Coef: 3.200 Orifice Discharge Coef: 0.600

======Hydrology Simulations ======

Name: 25YR-72HR Filename: K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\Drainage\ICPR\PRE.R32

Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration(hrs): 72.00 Rainfall File: Sfwmd72 Rainfall Amount(in): 13.00

Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) ------72.000 5.00

======Routing Simulations ======

Name: 25YR-72HR Hydrology Sim: 25YR-72HR Filename: K:\WPB_Design\02 - DESIGN PD&E\040006382_US 1 Bridge Jupiter\KHA_Files\Drainage\ICPR\25YR-72HR.

Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No Alternative: No

Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) ------96.000 5.000

Group Run ------BASE Yes

Name: B-11 B-11A B-12 B-12A B-13 Group: BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE Simulation: 25YR-72HR 25YR-72HR 25YR-72HR 25YR-72HR 25YR-72HR Node: N-11 N-11A D-11 D-12 N-13 Type: SCS SCS SCS SCS SCS Unit Hydrograph: Uh256 Uh256 Uh256 Uh256 Uh256 Peaking Factor: 256.0 256.0 256.0 256.0 256.0 Spec Time Inc(min): 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 Comp Time Inc(min): 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 Rain File: Sfwmd72 Sfwmd72 Sfwmd72 Sfwmd72 Sfwmd72 Rain Amount(in): 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 Duration(hrs): 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 Status: Onsite Onsite Onsite Onsite Onsite TC(min): 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area(ac): 0.675 0.675 1.740 1.740 2.960 Vol of Unit Hyd(in): 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Curve Num: 98.000 98.000 98.000 98.000 98.000 DCIA(%): 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Time Max(hrs): 60.02 60.02 60.02 60.02 60.02 Flow Max(cfs): 3.89 3.89 10.04 10.04 17.08 Runoff Volume(in): 12.754 12.754 12.754 12.754 12.754 Runoff Volume(ft3): 31250 31250 80556 80556 137037

Name: B-13A Group: BASE Simulation: 25YR-72HR Node: N-13A Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph: Uh256 Peaking Factor: 256.0 Spec Time Inc(min): 1.33 Comp Time Inc(min): 1.33 Rain File: Sfwmd72 Rain Amount(in): 13.000 Duration(hrs): 72.00 Status: Onsite TC(min): 10.00 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Area(ac): 0.675 Vol of Unit Hyd(in): 1.000 Curve Num: 98.000 DCIA(%): 0.000 Time Max(hrs): 60.02 Flow Max(cfs): 3.89 Runoff Volume(in): 12.754 Runoff Volume(ft3): 31250

Max Time Max Warning Max Delta Max Surf Max Time Max Max Time Max Name Group Simulation Stage Stage Stage Stage Area Inflow Inflow Outflow Outflow hrs ft ft ft ft2 hrs cfs hrs cfs

D-11 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.01 6.64 8.96 0.0007 1527 60.00 10.02 60.01 9.90 D-11A BASE 25YR-72HR 0.00 5.50 8.96 -0.0061 171 60.01 9.90 0.00 20.92 D-12 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.16 4.22 5.00 -0.0004 8400 60.01 26.55 60.04 24.06 D-12A BASE 25YR-72HR 60.22 4.04 5.00 -0.0008 8290 60.04 24.06 60.22 19.37 D-13 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.14 4.10 7.00 -0.0004 8264 60.01 20.72 60.03 18.43 D-13A BASE 25YR-72HR 60.20 3.94 7.00 -0.0007 8194 60.03 18.43 60.20 14.82 ICWW BASE 25YR-72HR 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.0000 16 60.22 34.18 0.00 0.00 N-11 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.03 4.78 10.00 -0.0010 123 60.00 3.89 60.01 3.82 N-11A BASE 25YR-72HR 60.03 4.70 10.00 -0.0010 146 60.00 7.70 60.01 7.64 N-13 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.01 6.47 10.00 -0.0032 114 60.00 17.04 60.00 16.91 N-13A BASE 25YR-72HR 60.01 5.75 10.00 0.0020 119 60.00 20.79 60.01 20.72

Max Time Max Max Max Time Max Max Time Max Name Group Simulation Flow Flow Delta Q US Stage US Stage DS Stage DS Stage hrs cfs cfs hrs ft hrs ft

11D BASE 25YR-72HR 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 5.50 60.16 4.22 12D BASE 25YR-72HR 60.22 0.41 -0.001 60.22 4.04 0.00 0.03 13D BASE 25YR-72HR 0.00 0.00 0.000 60.20 3.94 0.00 0.03 C-11 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.01 9.90 0.006 60.01 6.64 60.01 5.85 C-12 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.04 24.06 0.008 60.16 4.22 60.22 4.04 C-13 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.03 18.43 0.007 60.14 4.10 60.20 3.94 L-09 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.01 3.82 -0.451 60.03 4.78 60.03 4.70 L-10 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.01 7.64 -1.405 60.03 4.70 60.16 4.22 L-11 BASE 25YR-72HR 0.00 20.92 20.918 0.00 5.50 60.16 4.22 L-12 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.22 18.96 10.505 60.22 4.04 0.21 0.03 L-13 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.20 14.82 6.573 60.20 3.94 0.07 0.03 L-14 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.00 16.91 -9.041 60.01 6.47 60.01 5.75 L-15 BASE 25YR-72HR 60.01 20.72 -3.854 60.01 5.75 60.14 4.10