DOCSLIB.ORG

Ken Mitchell Open Space Master Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ken Mitchell Open Space Master Plan Ken Mitchell Open Space Master Plan City of Brighton, Colorado Shalkey & Team, Inc. ERO Resources Corp Icon Engineering, Inc. October, 2006 Acknowledgements Ken Mitchell Open Space Master Plan This Master Plan was commissioned to the consulting landscape architecture and plan- ning firm of Shalkey & Team, Inc., by the City of Brighton on September 23, 2005, and submitted complete to the City on October 31, 2006. Sub-consultants ERO Resources Corporation and Icon Engineering, Inc., assisted Shalkey & Team with project planning. In addition to Brighton City Council and Park and Recreation Advisory Boards, the plan- ning team consisted of the following Brighton City Staff: John Bramble, City Manager Gary Wardle, Director of Parks and Recreation Mark Heidt, Assistant Director, Department of Parks and Recreation Terry Benton, Director of Public Works Dawn Hessheimer, Department of Public Works Water Specialist Respectfully Submitted: Edward J. Shalkey, President Shalkey & Team, Inc. 820 16th St., Denver, CO, 80202, (303) 820-3340 i Table of Contents Ken Mitchell Open Space Master Plan I. INTRODUCTION Overview of the Physical Resource. .1 Map No. 1 - Overview. .2 Overview of the Planning Program . .3 II. PLANNING PROGRAM . .5 Preliminary Program . .5 Final Program . .5 III. SITE INVENTORY. .6 Map No. 2 - Aerial Photograph . .7 Map No. 3 - Topographic Map . .8 Map No. 4 - Regional Context . .9 Map No. 5 - Land Ownership . .10 Map No. 6 - Natural Resources. .11 Natural Resources Site Review . .12 Map No. 7 - Existing Utilities . 19 Map No. 8 - Proposed Water Management Improvements. .20 Map No. 9 - Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Projects . .21 IV. MASTER SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN . .22 Graphic No. 1 - Master Site Development Plan . .23 Graphic No. 2 - Southeast Corner Enlargement . .24 Figure No. 1 - Band Shell Concept . .25 Figure No. 2 - Paintball Field Concept . .25 Graphic No. 3 - Beach and Grand Pier Enlargement . .26 Figure No. 3 - Grand Fishing Access Pier Concept . .27 Graphic No. 4 - Grand Fishing Access Pier Enlargement. .28 Figure No. 4 - Ken Mitchell Park Site Concept . .29 Figure No. 5 - Pump House Concept . .29 V. RECORD OF PUBLIC PROCESS . .30 Figure No. 6 - Overflow Culvert Concept. .33 VI. COST ESTIMATE. .33 Map No. 10 - Cost Estimating Areas. .34 ii I. INTRODUCTION Overview of the Physical Resource: The Ken Mitchell Open Space Planning Area consists generally of a combination of four future, currently active and recently depleted gravel mining quarry cells; a total of approximately 607 acres of publicly and privately owned land and water resource. Land currently under the City’s control, including Cells No. 1, 2 and 3, Ken Mitchell Park and the quarry operator’s yard, total approximately 434 acres, 170 acres of which will be water when all proposed water storage cells are full. The Ken Mitchell Open Space Planning Area is generally located east of the South Platte River (the Platte forms the western boundary of the project), south of Colorado Highway 7, north of 144th Ave, and west of Brighton Road. Practically the entire planning area, except for the gravel operation’s quarry yard lies within the 100 year floodplain. See Map No.1, Overview, next page. Configuration of Land and Water: Three of the gravel mining cells, and the operator’s quarry yard were acquired by the City of Brighton in 1988 for the dual purpose of augmentation of water storage and public access open space. The City has a First Right of Refusal agreement in place to purchase Erger’s Cell for the same purposes when it is depleted. Quarry Cells No. 1, and No. 2 are depleted of gravel and are in various stages of engineering preparation by the City of Brighton for water storage purposes. A land bridge separates a portion of the east side of Cell No 1. from the west side. This land bridge will remain in place to facilitate a conveyor belt until the quarry operator depletes Erger’s Cell (10 to 20 years), then it will be removed. Cell No. 3 is currently being mined and also expected to be in operation for another 10 to 20 years. Erger’s Cell is being pre- pared for mining activities at the time of this writing. Characterization of the Water Storage Cells: The existing and planned gravel quarry cells will be utilized by the City to store water for augmenta- tion purposes. This means significant draw-downs in stored water elevations whenever the City needs to release water to the South Platte River to satisfy water calls from water users with more senior rights than the City. Other similar City reservoirs have been known to almost completely empty or refill their stored volume in a matter of a few weeks. The combined practicality of most efficient mining operations and most efficient water storage mean the edges of the storage cells, when completed, will be configured of steep (mostly between 2:1 and 3:1) slopes. The south to north sloping gradient of the South Platte River means that the maximum water level in each cell will be about 3 ft. lower than the cell adjacent to it on the south. The water storage function of these four cells will require that each cell be connected to the adjacent cell with a spillway (for flood events), and culverts (for normal high water movement). Each cell will be con- nected to the South Platte River with a spillway so that water can be safely managed into and out of the cells during flood events. The four cells will be supplied via the proposed 144th Avenue Augmentation Pipeline Project and two pumping stations between the South Platte River and Cells No. 1 and No. 3. A pumping station and outlet tower at the northwest corner of Cell No. 1 will facilitate water flows from the storage cells back to the South Platte River. 1 Map No. 1 - Overview 2 The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) have plans to construct several streambank stabilization projects and a drop structure project on the reach of the South Platte River adjacent to the project study area. The land bridge between Cells No. 2 and No. 3 contains a gas line easement, and has been proposed by UDFCD as a conveyance corridor for the base flow of Third Creek (flood flows would be routed into Cells No. 2 and/or No. 3) between the east side of the project study area and the South Platte River. Existing Gas Well: An existing gas well, with a storage tank surrounded by chain link fence, exists on the west side of Cell 1, between the west edge of the cell and the South Platte River. Maintenance access by the well owner (or their representative) needs to be maintained to this well. Other Lands in the Study Area: The gravel mine operator maintains approximately 20 acres of yard space, including material stockpiles, screens, scales and similar mining equipment and installations. Existing City Recreational Improvements: The City of Brighton maintains two existing improvements and a trail along the northeast border of the project study area. The South Platte River Trailhead is a modest parking facility with an informational kiosk, which accesses a section of concrete hiking trail leading out of the project study area to the north. This trail segment, when joined to a future trail leading to the south through the Adams County Regional Park, will complete an important missing link in the Colorado Front Range Trail. Just south of the South Platte River Trailhead facility and adjacent to Cell 1 is the existing Ken Mitchell Park. This is approxi- mately a 8 acre, linear neighborhood park with a small asphalt parking area, a modest playground, a multi-purpose irrigated turf field, an asphalt basketball court and a few picnic tables and grills located in a sparse bosque of juvenile shade trees. More detailed inventory and analysis of the planning area’s physical resources is included in Section III. Overview of the Planning Program: A strong programming philosophy emerged during the public consensus building process associated with project planning. This philosophy was a result of a series of insightful comments from the public (mostly neighborhood), City Parks and Public Works staff, City Council and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. The general consensus which lead to the program for development discussed in Section II con- sisted of the following governing elements: Water Storage: The augmentation water management requirements of the project are relatively rigid, and so will be the function and placement of the necessary public works improvements needed to facilitate management (spillways, culverts, pump houses, etc.), but there may be considerably more flexibility in managing the appearance of these structures. The storage cell lakes will resemble cereal bowls more than natural bodies of water, and the lake levels are anticipated to fluctuate considerably on a seasonal basis. The planning team was properly advised to resist the urge to turn the storage cells into amusement sites, in favor of preserving them passively as they are; large scale natural resource deposits, imperfections and all. 3 Because of the dangerous configuration of the edges of the storage cells (3:1 or steeper), and the fluctu- ating water levels, human contact with the water resource should be limited to fishing from the shore or from piers, and non-motorized boating. Much Water, Little Land: The location and configuration of the storage cell lakes, with little land separating one cell from another and each cell from the site’s property line in most locations, will result in much water surface and com- paratively little land to support access to the water. And, the land resource remaining available around the margins of the storage cell lakes will be unusually thin and linear in configuration.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Screening Of
    Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, Avenue 54 to Thermal Drop Structure Draft Environmental Impact Report / State Clearinghouse No. 2015111067 Appendices APPENDIX C Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, Phase I Biological Resources Assessment & Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Compliance Report City of Coachella and Unincorporated Community of Thermal Submitted to: Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Submitted by: Amec Foster Wheeler, Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507 3 February 2016 Coachella Valley Water District C-1 Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, Phase I Biological Resources Assessment & Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Compliance Report City of Coachella and Unincorporated Community of Thermal Riverside County, California Submitted to: Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Contact: John Criste (760) 341-4800 [email protected] Submitted by: Amec Foster Wheeler, Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507 Contact: John F. Green Senior Biologist (951) 369-8060 [email protected] 3 February 2016 Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, Phase I Biological Resources Assessment & MSHCP Compliance Report February 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For the purposes of this assessment, analysis of the proposed Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC) Improvement Project, Phase I (project) could include the following: Extension of existing and construction of new concrete-lined channel/levee banks, a fully concrete-lined channel from Airport Boulevard to the Thermal Drop Structure near Avenue 58, and construction of a bypass channel or combinations thereto.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10 Open Channels
    Chapter 10 Open Channels Chapter 10 Open Channels Table of Contents 10-1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 10-1-1 Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................. 1 10-1-2 Design Flows .................................................................................................................... 1 10-1-3 Channel Types .................................................................................................................. 2 10-1-4 Sediment Loads ................................................................................................................ 5 10-1-5 Permitting and Regulations ............................................................................................... 6 10-2 Natural Stream Corridors ............................................................................................................... 7 10-2-1 Functions and Benefits of Natural Streams ...................................................................... 8 10-2-2 Effects of Urbanization ..................................................................................................... 9 10-2-3 Preserving Natural Stream Corridors .............................................................................. 11 10-3 Stream Restoration Principles .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage and Erosion Control Design Manual
    City of West Lake Hills Drainage and Erosion Control Design Manual May 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Applicability .................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Waivers ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Amending the Manual .................................................................................................. 1 1.5 References and Definition of Terms ............................................................................ 1 Chapter 2 Drainage Criteria .............................................................................................. 3 2.1 Permit Submittal Components ..................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Preliminary Drainage Plan ......................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Type I Development Submittal ................................................................................. 4 2.1.3 Type II Development Submittal ................................................................................ 4 2.1.4 Type III Development Submittal ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER-6 Cross-Drainage and Drop Structures 6.1 Aqueducts and Canal Inlets and Outlets 6.1.1 Introduction
    Cross-Drainage and Drop Structures CHAPTER-6 Cross-Drainage and Drop Structures 6.1 Aqueducts and canal inlets and outlets 6.1.1 Introduction The alignment of a canal invariably meets a number of natural streams (drains) and other structures such as roads and railways, and may sometimes have to cross valleys. Cross drainage works are the structures which make such crossings possible. They are generally very costly, and should be avoided if possible by changing the canal alignment and/or by diverting the drains. 6.1.2 Aqueducts An aqueduct is a cross-drainage structure constructed where the drainage flood level is below the bed of the canal. Small drains may be taken under the canal and banks by a concrete or masonry barrel (culvert), whereas in the case of stream crossings it may be economical to flume the canal over the stream (e.g. using a concrete trough, Fig. 6.1(a)). When both canal and drain meet more or less at the same level the drain may be passed through an inverted siphon aqueduct (Fig. 6.1(d)) underneath the canal; the flow through the aqueduct here is always under pressure. If the drainage discharge is heavily silt laden a silt ejector should be provided at the upstream end of the siphon aqueduct; a trash rack is also essential if the stream carries floating debris which may otherwise choke the entrance to the aqueduct. 6.1.3 Superpassage In this type of cross-drainage work, the natural drain runs above the canal, the canal under the drain always having a free surface flow.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Long Tom River Haibtat Improvement Project
    Lower Long Tom River Habitat Improvement Plan 2018 Developed by: Confluence Consulting, LLC and Long Tom Watershed Council Lower Long Tom River Habitat Improvement Plan January 2018 1 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Study Goals and Opportunities ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Stakeholders and Contributors ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Background on the Lower Long Tom River .................................................................................................................................... 9 Long Tom Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Fishery Background (excerpted from the US Army Corps of Engineers report “Long Term on the Long Tom,” February 2014) ...............................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Isaac River Condition, Condition Trajectory and Management
    Memo Subject Response to information request from DEHP From Rohan Lucas Distribution BMA Date 12 February 2016 Project Broadmeadow EA amendment – Watercourse Subsidence 1 Isaac River condition, condition trajectory and management 1.1 Request The administering authority requires more information relating to the proactive management strategies that BMA will adopt to ensure the condition trajectory of the diversion is not negatively impacted by subsidence. 1.2 Response Understanding the incremental risk posed by subsidence The Isaac River diversion, constructed in the mid 1980’s was undertaken to a different standard to that which would be adopted today. The diversion underwent major erosional adjustment in the 1980’s and 1990’s (see Figure 2). Following some management intervention in the mid-late 1990’s (including timber pile fields) and a period without any major flow events from 1991 to 2007 (refer to Figure 1), the diversion underwent substantial recovery. This recovery included the deposition of benches against toe of bank and colonisation of those benches with riparian vegetation, providing a near continuous coverage along the diversion. These vegetated benches protect the near vertical, erodible upper banks from erosion in the majority of flow events (refer Figure 3). The diversion, which reduced river length by several kilometres, was constructed with two drop structures to compensate for the increase in gradient. One of these structures is now largely redundant and the other has been subject to damage from flow events and repair on numerous occasions. The remaining functional structure performs its design intent during smaller flows but is ineffective in larger flows in reducing energy conditions sufficiently.
    [Show full text]
  • SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report
    UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report Replacement of the Spiral Drain at the North End of UBC Campus Mona Dahir, Jas Gill, Danny Hsieh, Rachel Jackson, Michael Louws, Chris Vibe University of British Columbia CIVL 446 April 7th, 2017 Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”. UBC NORTH CAMPUS SPIRAL DRAIN REPLACEMENT Final Design Report PREPARED FOR: Client Representative: Mr. Doug Doyle, P.Eng Associate Director, Infrastructure and Planning Client: UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Project Team 24: Rachel Jackson Danny Hsieh Mona Dahir Michael Louws Jasninder Gill Chris Vibe April 7th, 2017 Executive Summary Vortex Consulting has prepared a detailed design report, as requested by UBC Social, Ecological, Economic Development Studies (SEEDS), for the replacement of UBC's current North Campus Stormwater Management facility, the spiral drain. This report intends to provide UBC SEEDS with an understanding of the design components, technical analysis and design, and project costs and construction sequencing, that are required to mitigate a 1 in 200 year storm event.
    [Show full text]
  • Drop Structures
    DROP STRUCTURES 1 DESCRIPTION OF TECHNIQUE Drop structures (also known as grade controls, sills, or weirs) are low-elevation structures that span the entire width of the channel, creating an abrupt drop in channel bed and water surface elevation in a downstream direction. Drop structures have been used extensively in Washington State to stabilize channel grades, improve fish passage, and to reduce erosion. Generally speaking, in fish bearing waters, vertical drops must not exceed 1 foot [WAC 220-110-070]; lesser drops are often required to accommodate certain species and age classes of fish. Drop Structures are designed to spill and direct flow such that there is a distinct drop in water surface elevation at normal low flows. The purpose of drop structures may include but is not limited to: • redistribute or dissipate energy; • stabilize the channel bed; • restore a step pool morphology to an altered channel • limit channel incision; • limit bank erosion by directing flow away from an eroding bank; • modify the channel bed profile and form by promoting collection, sorting and deposition of sediment; • create structural and hydraulic diversity in uniform channels; • improve fish passage over natural and artificial barriers by backwatering the upstream reach; • scour the channel bed, creating holding pools for fish and other aquatic life; • provide backwater (depth) in groundwater fed side channels; or • raise the bed of an incised stream to reconnect it with its floodplain. Drop structures may resemble porous weirs in appearance. But while drop structures direct water over the structure and are applied primarily to modify the profile of a channel, porous weirs allow water to flow through the structure and are applied primarily to redirect or concentrate flow.
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Design Manual
    THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO Transportation & Storm Water Design Manuals Drainage Design Manual January 2017 Edition The City of San Diego | Drainage Design Manual | January 2017 Edition DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FOR DOUBLE-SIDED PRINTING The City of San Diego | Drainage Design Manual | January 2017 Edition CONTENT Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................................... i Figures ............................................................................................................................................................... vii Tables .................................................................................................................................................................. ix Equations ............................................................................................................................................................. x 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Policies ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Basic Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 1-2 Exceptions to Design Standards .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Whitewater Park Toolkit
    WHITEWATER PARK TOOLKIT A Paddler’s Guide to Championing a Local Project Every Project Needs a Local Champion Nationally, there are more than 1,000 rivers suitable for whitewater paddling, most of which are located off the beaten path and away from municipalities. Countless more, however, flow right through the heart of communities large and small. While many of these are not currently prone to paddling, with a little help they can be converted into destination whitewater play parks, becoming gathering places for their communities, enhancing the riparian zones, and even generating revenues for their towns. But it takes a champion and a little elbow grease. Most of today’s in-stream whitewater parks were the result of a paddler or group of paddlers that had a vision for a local park and the passion to get the ball rolling. Championing the development of a whitewater park for your community is not a simple process, nor is it the same from one community to the next. It takes tenacity, flexibility, and patience. Yet, armed with the right information and inspiration, you can be the spark that leads to a successful whitewater park in your community. The purpose of this Whitewater Park Toolkit is to serve as a guide for whitewater enthusiasts, anglers, and other community stakeholders to advocate for the development of a local in-stream whitewater park in their community. It provides a general understanding of the process, player, and costs involved in building a fun, safe, and environmentally S2O Design Whitewater Park Toolkit 01 CONTENTS 03
    [Show full text]
  • Site Visit and Conceptual Design Study Asheville Whitewater Park Asheville , N.C
    Site Visit and Conceptual Design Study Asheville Whitewater Park Asheville , N.C. February 19, 2015 Prepared for: Ben Van Camp Asheville Parks and Greenway Foundation P.O. Box 2362 Asheville, NC, 28802 Prepared by: Scott Shipley, P.E. S2o Design and Engineering 318 McConnell Drive Lyons, CO, 80540 1 318 McConnell Drive | Lyons, CO | 80540 Contents Introduction: ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Section 1: Whitewater Parks ......................................................................................................................... 5 Whitewater Parks Defined ........................................................................................................................ 5 The Whitewater Design Process ............................................................................................................... 7 Design Factors for Whitewater Facilities: ................................................................................................. 8 Stability ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Costs .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Typical Economic Impacts of Whitewater Parks ..................................................................................... 10 Section 2: Site
    [Show full text]
  • Floodplain Development in an Engineered Setting
    EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 34, 291–304 (2009) Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published online 9 December 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/esp.1725 FloodplainJohnChichester,ESPEarthEARTHThe0197-93371096-9837Copyright20069999ESP1725Research Journal Wiley Surf.ScienceSurface SURFACE ArticleArticles ©Process. &UK of2006 Sons, Processes the PROCESSES JohnBritish Ltd.Landforms Wiley and Geomorphological Landforms AND & Sons, LANDFORMS Ltd. Research Group development in an engineered setting Floodplain development in an engineered setting Michael Bliss Singer1,2* and Rolf Aalto3,4 1 School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, UK 2 Institute for Computational Earth System Science, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA 3 Department of Geography, Archaeology, and Earth Resources, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK 4 Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Received 25 February 2008; Revised 20 May 2008; Accepted 2 June 2008 * Correspondence to: Michael Bliss Singer, Institute for Computational Earth System Science, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Engineered flood bypasses, or simplified conveyance floodplains, are natural laboratories in which to observe floodplain development and therefore present an opportunity to assess delivery to and sedimentation within a specific class of floodplain. The effects of floods in the Sacramento River basin were investigated by analyzing hydrograph characteristics, estimating event-based sediment discharges and reach erosion/deposition through its bypass system and observing sedimentation patterns with field data. Sediment routing for a large, iconic flood suggests high rates of sedimentation in major bypasses, which is corroborated by data for one bypass area from sedimentation pads, floodplain cores and sediment removal reporting from a government agency.
    [Show full text]