20071384 Ver 1_Restoration Site Plans_20070416

CLEAR CREEKS CONSULT NC
1317 Knopp Road
Jarrettsville; Maryland 21084
410-692-2164
April 13, 2007
Mr. Ian McMillan
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Bath Branch at Piedmont Triad Research Park
Stream Valley Restoration Project
Dear Mr. McMillan:
I am forwarding a copy of the Feasibility Study prepared for the ab anCeeh dologic and
project. The report includes the results of the watershed reconna y
modeling; and geomorphologic studies conducted; as well as restoration . site. Since I am
recommendations and design criteria for the stream onthe subje t Eric K lz and Anette
sending only one copy of the report; I ask that you coordinate ?v
Lucas on their review of the document.
site It is my understanding that we will be meeting for a pre-application ation design to fa cltate
May 2; 2007: I will bring plan view sheets of the proposed _e I .r g
our be traveling to the
discussion of the project. I'm assuming that the three of you will
meeting together so I'm enclosing a map to assist you in finding the site.
need additional information prior to our meeting, please
.
If you have any questions or
contact at my office.
Sincerely,
6 ZUG(
f v,A:r RQ A 7 V
0,R A.NO
Rocky O. Powell
Principal
C Mr. Charles Anderson, Pilot View RC&D, Inc. (W/O Enclosures)
I
MEOW
_i
Bath Branch Stream Restoration
Volume 1 - Feasibility Study
CLEAR CREEKS CONSULTING
1317 Knopp Road, Jarrettsville, Maryland 21084
C
09lneers, surveyors i landscape architects
[phone]
?r? n,???; ; `vATeR
Bath Branch Stream Restoration
Volume 1 - Feasibility Study
Prepared for
Pilot View RC&D
And
Piedmont Triad Research Park
Prepared by
Clear Creeks Consulting LLC
In Collaboration with
CNA
May 2006

Table of Contents
Section 1 - Findings Report 1
Project Background 2
Technical Report
1. Study Area 3
II Scope of Studies 3
III Watershed Characterization 3
A. Basin Morphometry and Physiography 3
B. Climate 5
C. Geology and Soils 5
D. Land Use 7
E. Hydrology 9
1. Hydrologic Analysis - Existing Conditions 9
2. Bankfull Discharge Estimates 11
3. Baseflow Discharge 13
IV Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment 15
A. Rationale 15
B. Verifying Bankfull Channel Field Indicators 15
C. Field Reconnaissance of Current Watershed Conditions 15
D. Historic Watershed Conditions 16
E. Level I I - Morphological Description and Level I I I -Assessment
of Stream Condition 16
F. Findings of Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment 16
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
10
1. Evaluation of Watershed Conditions 16
a. Historic Conditions 16
b. Current Conditions 22
General 22
Project Reaches 25
Reach l 25
Reach 2 33
Reach 3 40
Salem Creek 44
V. Ecological Assessment 45
A. Waters of the U.S. / Wetlands 45
B. Stream Biota 47
C. Water Quality 48
C. Riparian Plant Communities 49
D. Summary 51
Section 2 - Feasibility Analysis and Alternative Design Strategies 53
1. Introduction 54
II. Feasibility Issues Evaluated 54
A. Physical Constraints Related to Existing and Proposed Conditions 54
B. Conclusions
1. Central District 54
2. Southern District 55
III. Design Alternatives Analysis and Recommendations 56
A. Central District 56
Artificial Stream 56
Regional Storm Water Wetland 56
B. South District 56
Stream Restoration 56
Storm Water Management 57
Slope Restoration and Enhancement 57
Utility Repair and Relocation 57
Riparian Plant Communities 58
IV. Design Alternative Conceptual Designs 59
A. Proposed Bath Branch Stream Restoration Strategies 59
Reach 1 59
Reach 2 60
Reach 3 61
B. Stream Restoration Cost Estimates 62
C. Restoration Concepts 62
D. Proposed Bath Branch Watershed Stormwater Facility Sites 63
E. SWM Facility Cost Estimates 63
F. Hydrologic Methods - Proposed Conditions 64
G. Pollutant Load and Percent Removal Calculations 65
H. SWM Facility Site Design 66
1. SWM Facility Sites 66
2. Proposed SWM Facilities 66

SWM Facility 1 68
Scenario 1 68
Scenario 2 71
Scenario 3 73
Multiple Pond Systems 75
SWM Facility 2 76
SWM Facility 3 79
Appendix
A. Channel Morphology Field Data Plots
B. Hydrologic Analysis Supporting Documentation
1. SCS TR-55 Model
2. SCS TR-20 Model
3. SWM Facilities Stage Storage Model
C. Plant Community Analysis
D. Conceptual Design Profile and Cross-Sections
SECTION 1
FINDINGS REPORT
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Piedmont Triad Research Park has developed a Master Plan for the
expansion of the existing research park. The goal of the expansion is to create a
life sciences and technology-led research park in a mixed-use environment
centered on Wake Forest University Health Science's new second campus. As
part of the expansion, approximately 200 acres of industrial land at the eastern
edge of downtown Winston-Salem will be redeveloped, reusing sites left by the
departure of the City's historic tobacco industry.
The Master Plan for the expansion delineates a comprehensive green space
network based on the natural drainage corridor that flows through the research
park area as a major organizing element of the plan. The Master Plan indicates
that this network will consist of the Bath Branch stream corridor, which will be
reclaimed as the spine of the greenway extending from 4th Street to Salem
Creek. A series of urban parks and natural green spaces will be linked to the
greenway and a continuous recreational trail system will be created that connects
with existing trails along Salem Creek. The Master Plan indicates that the
greenway will also serve as a natural, environmentally responsive means of
storm water conveyance through the research park.
The Piedmont Triad Research Park has approached Pilot View RC&D for
assistance in obtaining funding to implement the concepts for restoring Bath
Branch. Pilot View RC&D promotes a comprehensive two tiered approach to
stream restoration. This approach focuses on correcting problems in the
watershed that have contributed to stream channel instability, degraded habitat
and poor water quality. This involves implementing best management practices
that reduce peak runoff and improve water quality. It also utilizes a natural
channel design approach to stream stabilization and habitat improvements by
restoring the natural form, character, and function of unstable streams and/or
streams that have been channelized, piped, or otherwise altered.
Pilot View RC&D contracted Clear Creeks Consulting LLC and CNA Engineers to
evaluate the feasibility of utilizing a watershed-based, natural channel design
approach for implementing the Master Plan concepts for restoring Bath Branch.
2
TECHNICAL REPORT
h Study Area
The study area for the current project covers the entire Bath Branch watershed
including the portions of the watershed drained by the piped storm drain system
upstream of Business Route 40 Interchange, as well as the portions of the
watershed draining to the open sections of channel downstream of the
Interchange. Particular emphasis was placed on evaluating Bath Branch from
the point at which the piped system daylights upstream of the Interchange and
along the open sections of channel downstream of the Interchange
approximately 1200 feet to the confluence with Salem Creek (Fig. 1).
-li. -Scope-of Studies
The feasibility study involved 1) documenting existing channel morphology,
hydrology, water quality, in-stream biological communities, and wetland and
-terrestrial plant -communities along the-open -charnel sections of Bath Branch and
Salem Creek within the boundaries of the proposed research park; 2) evaluating
the feasibility of implementing quantity and quality storm water management
alternatives within the research park; 3) evaluating -the-feasibility of implementing
the rehabilitation of the piped and open sections of Bath Branch utilizing a natural
channel design approach; 4) summarizing the results of the field studies and
modeling and outlining alternative strategies for controlling storm water runoff
and rehabilitating Bath Branch and Salem Creek; and 5) preparing preliminary
designs for the recommended storm water management and channel
rehabilitation measures.
1H. Watershed Characterization
Existing information on watershed characteristics and land use was collected,
compiled and reviewed. The data collected included: historic aerial photographs
arrd maps, current aerial photographs, topographic maps, soils, larrd use wraps,
meteorological data, hydrologic and hydraulic data, and published technical
reports.
The following characterization of the Bath Branch watershed was developed from
this information.
A. Basin Morphometry and Physiography
-Bath -Branch watershed -is -located in the amity of Wkiston-S-a+em in the -west-
central section of North Carolina. This region is situated along the eastern edge
of the Western Piedmont physiographic province and is characterized by gently
rolling to -Billy -topography.
i
Figure 1.0 - Bath Branch Watershed
The total watershed area at the downstream end of the project is 611.5 acres.
The western portion of the upper watershed, which includes the area draining to
the upstream end of the culvert under Business Route 40 is 355 acres. The
eastern portion of the upper watershed, which includes the area draining to the
downstream end of the culvert under Business Route 40 is 158.4 acres. The
lower watershed, which includes the area draining to the downstream end of the
project reach where it joins with Salem Creek, contributes an additional 98.1
acres.
The slope of a watershed influences the rate at which precipitation falling on the
land surface would be conveyed as runoff to the outlet point of the watershed. All
other parameters considered equal, as the slope of a watershed increases, the
faster the water travels to the outlet point resulting in higher peak discharges for
the drainage area. Current topographic contour data based on 1997 ortho-
rectified aerial photography information was obtained from the City-County
Planning Board in a Geographical Information System (GIS) format. Historic
topographic contour data was obtained from U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute
Series Topographic Maps (USGS, 1950).
4
Prior to the late 1950's the topography of the upper watershed was characterized
by gently rolling to moderately steep topography with slopes ranging from 6% to
20°/a. The -valley -bottom throughout the -upper watershed was -relatively -narrow,
confined by adjacent hill slopes. From its headwaters above Seventh Street to
the current location of the culvert under Business Route 40, the overall channel
gradient was approximately 0.015 feettfeet. As East-Winston=Salem developed
the upper reaches of Bath Branch were first relocated and then piped. Shortly
after the construction of Business Route 40 in the late 1950's the topography of
the western portion of upper watershed was radically modified by extensive
grading and filling and the. remaining open sections of Bath Branch were encased
in a piped system. Prior to the late 1950's the topography of the lower
watershed was characterized by gently rolling to moderately steep topography
with slopes ranging from 3% to 15%. Although Bath Branch cuts through the
floodplain of Salem Creek, the valley bottom of the lower reaches was still
relatively confined by adjacent hill slopes. The overall gradient of the lower
reaches is approximately 0.015 feet/feet. The topography of the lower watershed
-has -been modified by extensive grading- -and fitting -as well.
B. Climate
The climate of North Carolina is determined by its location in the warm temperate
zone, but is modified by three important factors: the proximity of the Atlantic
-Ocean to the -east, the -distance of the state from the prevailing course -of cyckm- is
storms, and the gradual rise in elevation of the land towards the west to the
summit of Mt. Mitchell. Unlike the Coastal Plain, in the Western Piedmont
extremes of temperature -become greater and rainfall is less. ForsythCounty
experiences moderate winters and warm summers. Mean annual temperature is
58° F. Mean monthly temperatures range from 32 to 50°F in January and 68 to
88 in July.
There are no distinct wet and dry seasons. Most of the rainfall during the
growing season comes from summer thunderstorms, but may vary widely from
place to place and from season to season. Winter rainfall results.mostly from
-low-pressure -storms -moving through the -area -and is less variable than summer
rainfall. Mean annual precipitation is 44.2 inches, with mean monthly
precipitation varying from a low of 2.8 inches in November to a high of 4.6 inches
in July.
Some snow falls every winter, with total amounts ranging from 1 inch to 2 feet.
Mean annual snowfall-is g-inches. Generally, only a few-inches accumulate at
one time, and such accumulations usually melt within a few days.
C. Geology and Soils
According to the North Carolina Geological Survey, Bath Branch watershed is
located within the Inner Piedmont Belt, which consists of a variety of

metamorphic and igneous bedrock formations. More specifically, the study area
is underlain by Cenozoic biotite gneiss and schist rock, which is described as
inequigranular, locally abundant potassic feldspar and garnet; interlayered and
gradational with calc-silicate, sillimanite-mica schist, mica schist, and amphibolite
(NCGS, 1998). It also contains small masses of granitic rock.
In this part of Forsyth County the dominant upland soils weathered from these
rocks are Pacolet and Cecil loamy soils. However, in the study area these soils
have been significantly affected by extensive cut and fill activities. The Forsyth
County Soil Survey (USDA-SCS, 1976) indicates the dominant soil units include
Pacolet-Urban Land Complex (PuC and PuE) and Cut and Fill Land (Cu).
Pacolet-Urban Land Complex soils have been altered by the construction of
buildings, streets, and parking lots to the extent that the resulting soils material
may not resemble the original soils. In areas where the disturbance has been
minimal these soils are moderately deep, well drained soils with a loamy surface
layer and clayey subsoil. Moderate permeability and moderate to severe erosion
hazard characterize these natural soils. Cut and Fill Land consists of areas that
have been so significantly altered that that the original soil profile and topography
are not recognizable. These areas generally are sandy clay loam to clay.
The types of soils present in a watershed have a significant impact on the
amount of runoff a given storm would produce. This impact is influenced primarily
by the infiltration characteristics of the soil. For hydrologic modeling purposes,
the different soil types were grouped by their hydraulic conductivity, or the rate at
which infiltration occurs. Information on the soil types and characteristics in the
watershed was obtained from the City-County Planning Board in a Geographical
Information System (GIS) format. Table 1.0 illustrates the soil type and
hydrologic conductivity characteristics for the different soil series found in the
watershed. The drainage basin consists of over 4 different soil types.
6
D. Land Use
-Land use is a -critical -element for watershed management and planning. it
impacts both the quantity and quality of runoff. Water quantity is affected by the
amount of impervious area for a particular land use category limiting the amount
of infiltration into the underlying soils. An increase in the amount of impervious
area within a drainage area also decreases the amount of time it takes for the
runoff to reach the outlet and results in a higher peak discharge. Highly
urbanized drainage areas like the Bath Branch watershed experience high peaks
and short peaking times when compared to a rural drainage area of the same
size.
The type of land use also dictates the type and amount of pollutants found within
runoff. For example, agricultural land use would have a higher concentration of
pesticides and phosphorous as opposed to industrial land use which would have
a higher concentration of heavy metals and volatile organic compounds.
The City-County Planning Board's Zoning Classification Summary and Winston-
Salem Zoning was used to correlate the existing land use to the SCS land use
classifications, summarized in Table 1.1 and illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Residential District 114
RS-9 - Single Family Residential acre M
W o s
p
p 8.48%
O
e e
ce
-and for
undeveloped zones
Residential District 1/8
RM-xx - Residential Multifamily acre, Mixture of Woods
and Open Space for
undeveloped zones 14
28%
Residential .District. US .
MH - Manufacture House Development acre, Mixture of Woods
and Open Space for
undeveloped zones
LO, NO and GO - Office Commercial
HB - Highway -Business Commercial 20.39%
GB - General Business Commercial
LI , Cl, and GI - Industrial Industrial 55.55%
IPT C - Campus,-Institutional and- Public DommercUt-and Open 1.30%
Space
7
10,
M
i
DRAIR144E DIVIVE
QRDPOSED STREAM
RESTORATION
CI) PPO? 5441
PAULITY' LaATION
®G(7Mf?.RIGRL
1 ESIMItMAL -
MllL'fIFAMILY TO
025fGI?F-
FHDI !?TRAL
??? IA5T1MIclYdWJ
,??itl? :' }vgLIG
RESIDEHTIfiG. -
2g TO 5 ACS
Figure 1.1 - Bath Branch Watershed Land Use
Although the stream corridor along much of Bath Branch is wooded, the
dominant land use in the western portion of the upper watershed is industrial
(light manufacturing), high density commercial uses (e.g., office buildings, small
businesses, restaurants, etc.), highway and streets, and a smaller percentage of
single family residential and moderate to high density multi-family residential
situated in the neighborhoods east of Route 52. The dominant land use in the
eastern portion of the upper watershed is highway and streets, institutional and
commercial land, and single family residential and moderate to high density
multi-family residential. The City's Maintenance Yard makes up the majority of
the land area in the lower watershed with commercial and industrial uses
occupying the remaining land area.
N

E. Hydrology
-One of the -critical steps -necessary for any watershed -restoration -or -geomorphic
stream design project is developing accurate estimates of the flow regime,
particularly the bankfull discharge.
1. Hydrologic Analysis - Existing Conditions
For the -purpose of calculating peak runoff -discharges, Bath Branch watershed
was divided into 3 subwatersheds based upon the previously discussed physical
characteristics. The sub-watersheds were then analyzed for existing conditions
hydrology using Technical Release 55 R-55), Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds computer model. The Soil Conservation Service methodology
establishes a runoff curve number (RCN), which is calculated from the percent
impervious area and hydraulic conductivity of the regional- soils. TR-55 is also
used to estimate a time of concentration (tc) or how quickly runoff would travel on
the land surface to the outlet point of the watershed or sub-watershed.
The resulting RCN and tc developed using the TR-55 computer model were
incorporated into Technical Release No. 20: Computer Program for Project
Formulation -Hydrology (TR 2-0) based -upon- Soil Conservation Service
Methodology. TR-20 is a physically based watershed scale runoff event model. It
computes direct runoff and develops hydrographs resulting from any synthetic or
natural rainstorm. Developed hydrographs can then -be routed through stream
and valley reaches as well as through reservoirs. Hydrographs are combined
from tributaries with those on the main stem stream to ultimately produce peak
discharges for the target storm events. Table 1.2 summarizes the Natural
Resource Conservation Services (NRCS) 24-hour total rainfall depths for Forsyth
County, North Carolina.
9•
Figure 1.2 is illustrates the watershed divided into 3 drainage areas for the
existing conditions hydrologic model.
Figure 1.2 - Bath Branch Watershed Existing Drainage Areas
10
Table 1.3 summarizes the hydrologic parameters of the divided drainage areas
for the existing conditions model.
Table 1.4 summarizes the existing peak discharges for the 1 2-, 10-, 50-, and
100-year storm events for Bath Branch.
2. Bankfull Discharge Estimates
Fourmethods were used to- -develop bankfull discharge estimates. These
included 1) regional regressions for rural and urban watersheds in North Carolina
developed by USGS, 2) regional curves for urban watersheds in North Carolina
developed by NCSU and USDA - NRCS, -3) SGS TR-55 and TR-20 Hydrologic
Models, and 4) Manning's equation and field data.
a. USGS Regional Regressions
The U. S. Geological Survey has developed regional regressions for estimating
flood magnitude and frequency for rural and urban areas in North Carolina
(USGS, 2002).
b. NC State Regional Regressions
North Carolina State University fNCSU) and the U.S. Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) cooperated to develop regional regressions for the
rural (NCSU and NRCS, 1999) Piedmont region of North Carolina. North
Carolina State University (NCSU) also developed regional regressions for use in
urban watersheds (NCSU, 2002).
c. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service TR-20 Hydrologic Model
As part of this current study a -range of flows varying -in frequency from the 1-year
to the 100-year discharge was developed using the SCS TR-55 and TR-20
Hydrologic Models. The 1 and 2-year recurrence interval peak discharges were
-utilized to validate the -discharge -estimates -developed -using the -other two
methods.
11
d. Manning's Equation
Bankfull discharge estimates were developed using Manning's equation and
cross-sectional data collected in the crossover (riffle) of relatively stable reaches
along the project area. The slope used was the bankfull slope of the overall
reach, and estimates of Manning's n were developed utilizing visual observations
of the channel bottom and banks throughout the reach. The bankfull discharge
estimates are summarized in Table 1.5.
TR - 20
(Existing) 676/804 ND 856/1022

Urban
(USGS ND ND 695.5/798.7
Regression)

Rural
(USGS ND ND 218.8/249.6
Regression)

Urban
(NCSU ND 473.2/532.5 ND
Regression)

Rural
(NCSU/NRCS ND 147.11168.5 ND
Regression)

Manning's
Equation ND 476.6 - 483.8 ND
(480.2)
514.9 - 552.4
532.7)
The bankfull discharge estimates developed using the NCSU urban regressions
compare favorably with the Manning's equation estimates. The 1-Year and
2-Year recurrence interval flood flows developed with the TR-20 model and the
2-Year recurrence interval flood flow estimates developed using the USGS urban
regression are greater. than the NCSU urban regression and. Manning's equation
bankfull discharge estimates. Interestingly, the 1-Year TR-20 flows compare
favorably with the 2-Year USGS urban regression flows.
12
Based on this analysis it was determined that utilizing the NCSU urban
regressions provides a reliable method for estimating existing bankfull discharge.
it -is -not -unreasonable to -expect that a -small watershed with a -high -percent
imperviousness would produce bankfull discharge events on a very frequent
basis (i.e., 1-YR RI or less).
The NCSU and USGS rural regressions were utilized as a method for developing
target bankfull discharges in designing the proposed stormwater management
facilities. The -results of the Proposed Condition hydrologic analysis is
presented in the Appendix of this report.
3. Baseflow -Discharge
One of the objectives of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing
the rehabilitation of the piped sections of Bath Branch as an open channel
through the Central District of the Research Park. A major issue associated with
this concept concerns whether there is sufficient stream base flow available to
provide for habitat and aesthetics.
-Stream flow measurements were conducted within the existing storm drain} and
open channel system at key points throughout the watershed to determine
whether baseflow volumes are sufficient to provide year round flow along the
proposed open channel. In addition, City and State files, as well as flow
monitoring data developed by Hydrostructures, PA were reviewed and analyzed
to determine current baseflow volumes and ascertain what percentage of the
current flow volume is comprised of permitted discharges (e.g., non-contact
cooling water, chiller condensation, boiler blow-down, etc.) which may be
eliminated when some of the existing facilities shutdown.
Stream flow measurements were conducted as part of the current study. During
the period May 27 - 28, 2005 flow was measured at the open channel section
upstream of the Business 4-0 Interchange. -Flows -ranged 1.2 - 2.2 cfs over that
two day period. City DPW staff conducted flow monitoring along Bath Branch in
the City Maintenance Yard downstream of Stadium Drive during the period
August - October 2003. Their records indicate stream flow ranged 0.63 - 2.03
cfs with an average 1.12 cfs. Hydrostructures, PA conducted monitoring of
stream flow during the period March - April, 2004. Figure 1.3 shows the location
of their monitoring stations and Table 1.6 summarizes the results of the
monitoring.
State NPDES records indicate that three facilities currently have permitted
discharges (e.g., non-contact cooling water, chiller condensate, boiler blow-
down, etc.} routed to the storm drain system. All of these facilities are located
outside of the research park and are likely to continue discharging for the
foreseeable future.
13
101,

ro
?n
z
FOURTa STREET
TIC STREET
/ 40
Figure 1.3 - Stream Flow Monitoring Sites (Hydrostructures, PA, 2004)

"~ Ili 6-

Street
1 -Blum
0.2-1.6
0.25-1.2
0.6) (0.75
2-Business 40 0.0-0.25 0.0-0.1
0.0) 0.0)
3-Dillon Supply 0.0-0.15 0.0
(0.1)
4-Third Street 0.0-0.1 0.0-1.5
0.05) 0.05
5-4th & Linden 0.1-0.35 0.1-0.65
(0.15) (0.1
6-4th & Patterson 0.0-0.55 0.0-0.7
0.35) (0.3)
14
IV. Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment
A. Rationale
Stream stability is morphologically defined as the ability of the stream to
maintain, over time, its dimension, pattern and profile in such a manner that it is
neither aggrading or degrading and is able to effectively transport the flows and
sediment delivered to it by its watershed. Morphologic stability permits the full
expression of natural stream characteristics.
Stream potential is defined as the best condition, based on quantifiable
morphological characteristics, for a given stream type. Streams functioning at full
potential exhibit a desired or preferred set of stability -or condi=tion -characteristics
that may be quantitatively described in terms of channel size and shape, bed
stability/vertical control, and bank stability/lateral control - low bank erosion
potential and gradual lateral migration rates.
Stream classification as a morphologic stream assessment technique permits a
quantitative analysis of the degree to which existing conditions differ from an
accepted range of morphological values documented for different stable stream
types. The degree of departure for an existing stream condition from its full
stable operating potential can be determined in a number of ways including
comparisons to: 1) geomorphologic databases; 2) historical photography or
surveys of the same reach; and 3) stable reference reaches of the same stream
type at different points in the watershed or adjacent watersheds.
B. Verifying Bankfull Channel Field Indicators.
Existing regional regressions developed in the urban Piedmont Region of North
Carolina (NCSU, 2002) for bankfull channel field indicators were utilized to verify
field indicators associated with the bankfull channel in conducting the
geomorphic stream assessments along the project reaches.
C. Field Reconnaissance of Current Watershed Conditions
A field reconnaissance survey including photographic documentation- was
conducted to assess and document existing conditions throughout the Bath
Branch watershed from the headwaters upstream of 4th Street to'the confluence
with Salem Creek. The Cry's GIS topographic maps were utilized as a base for
the field reconnaissance maps used in the field.
The reconnaissance survey focused on verifying existing land use activities and
land cover including type and condition, identifying and documenting unstable
conditions in upland and riparian areas,- characterizing stream channel
morphology and condition, identifying unstable stream reaches, and identifying
point and non-point pollution sources.
15
D. Historic Watershed Conditions
Historic land use and channel alterations were evaluated utilizing information
gathered from historic maps and aerial photographs available from the Forsyth
County Public Library and Forsyth County Planning Department and historic
maps available from Old Salem, Inc.
E. Level II - Morphological Description and Level III - Assessment of Stream
Condition
Following the assessment procedures of Rosgen (1996) the current channel
morphology and condition was characterized and historic factors effecting
channel stability were researched for the project reaches.
The stream reaches within the study area were classified into specific categories
of stream types (i.e., 134c, E4, G4, etc.) utilizing the field procedures developed
by Rosgen (1996) modified for use in preliminary field assessments. The cross-
section and profile data plots are included in the Appendix to this report.
The stream reaches within the study area were preliminarily assessed for stream
channel condition and influencing factors including riparian vegetation, meander
pattern, depositional pattern, debris and channel blockages, sediment supply,
vertical stability, and stream bank erosion potential.
F. Findings of Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment
This section summarizes the results of the field reconnaissance conducted in the
Bath Branch watershed and the preliminary stream assessment conducted along
the Bath Branch project reaches.
1. Evaluation of Watershed Conditions
a. Historic Conditions
An historic map of Salem and Winston compiled from original surveys by E. A.
Vogler (1876) and revised and extended by J. A. Lineback (1884) shows the
western portion of the upper watershed was subdivided into numerous small lots.
The eastern portion of the watershed was still relatively rural with large parcels.
The map shows the Norfolk and Western R.R. Depot and tracks, as well as the
Salem Female Academy and Salem Cemetery. The Salem Water Company
Water Works was located at the confluence of Bath Branch and Salem Creek.
Bath Branch is shown extending as far as 7th Street.
A panoramic aerial dated 1891 (See Figure 1.4) shows that the western portion
of the upper watershed was densely developed and the eastern portion of the
watershed was still relatively rural with scattered residences, fields and forest.
16

Figure 1.4 - Bath Branch Watershed (Circa 1891)
A series of Sanborn Insurance maps (1912 - 1928) clearly show a densely
developed East Winston with Bath Branch flowing as an open channel across
vacant lots in the area. Bath Branch is still shown as far as 7th Street (See Figure
1.5).
Figure 1.5 - Bath Branch (Circa 1912)
17

A map from 1935 shows that East Winston and the Bath Branch watershed was
almost completely developed. Many of the present day streets are shown and
the Norfolk and Western R.R. facility had expanded to a large rail yard. The map
shows Salem College and Salem Cemetery. The City Shops and Garage were
located at the confluence of Bath Branch and Salem Creek. Bath Branch still
appears as far as 7th Street (See Figure 1.6). However, after the construction of
Business Route 40 in the late 1950's alteration of the Bath Branch stream valley
accelerated with the piping of upper Bath Branch and relocation and filling of the
stream valley along lower Bath Branch completed by the late 1960's and early
1970's.
it
C2
Figure 1.6 - Bath Branch Watershed (Circa 1935)
18

_r

v -n
CD cQ
v ?
:3 CD
O cn
3 y
O_
Cn
w Q.
J
3
W
CD
W 3
7 Co
Q ?
c
o
C n
S ?
O CD
Z
v O
Q CCDD
v
v
7--l
Q
-. o
w O
Q
O?
v z
1C o
Q- ?CD• ??
W
G ?TT
CD W
C.0
r-F
n 3
O CD
W
CD
O CD
O
r•p
CS zr
"S
O
c
O
"1
CD
N
I-#-
CD
Q

;tI
?t ?

T iF-n $ rl ire'
i Ay
-- WIP-9191t,
;i
awl
,. t• ' a ?,
l
1 I. I
folks-
.It .f Y
•1 .lam' ,_? r??
low

Q o
?4-
., _,. cm Z3
C N

` t C
L) ca

m

.. AL` mil"

1
t L
w ?t

Q V/

C 00
a._ C
E a)
` :3

v LL
c6
O

O
a)
_c
r rq
L ` (U (n >
E
cu
a)
'io
t
L CO
=3
cn
4-
m
00 -0
O C
(0 C: cc
a) a)
U M co
C U
7
;*" ? L
O

rd 4 y
^'
W?
/?
W W ^''
am./? ^
`
W

,
y co
O

jC)
^
W
0
W
V `
^
m W
?` ?? m (U O
00

0 - , V) ^`
i11 CW
r+ ?
U- cu CO
0
N

20
AK _ 409
c
{ V'S
P t? y`Y ?
Alk
?Y sk tee}'i4 ?•~ y ,r I
, t
,. Pr' -
f. y e
Figure 1.9 - Lower Bath Branch 1972. Note unstable channel conditions
are evident in photograph.
21
As East Winston-Salem developed the upper reaches of Bath Branch were first
relocated and then piped. Shortly after the construction of Business Route 40 in
the late 1950's the topography of the upper watershed was radically modified by
extensive grading and filling and the remaining open sections of Bath Branch
were encased in a piped system.
It is very likely that Lower Bath Branch became increasingly unstable as East
Winston developed and the hydrology of the upper watershed was altered. As
noted previously, the floodplain of Lower Bath Branch and Salem Creek was
historically altered to accommodate City facilities (i.e., Salem Water Co. Water
Works, City Shops and Garage, etc). However, prior to the late 1950's the
topography of the lower watershed was still relatively natural, characterized by
gently rolling to moderately steep topography with a floodplain that carried floods.
By the late 1960's and early 1970's the topography of the lower watershed was
modified by extensive grading and filling as well.
b. Current Conditions
General
With the exception of a short section of open channel immediately upstream of
the Business Route 40 Interchange Upper Bath Branch is completely contained
in a piped storm drain system. This piped system is as much as thirty feet below
the existing ground level.
Figure 1.10 - Section of open channel immediately upstream of the
Business Route 40 Interchange
22
A large percentage of the upper watershed is impervious surfaces (e.g., building
rooftops, sidewalks, streets, parking lots, storage yards, etc.). Because the
development of the Bath Branch watershed preceded current stormwater
management regulations, the changes in land use that occurred as East Winston
developed significantly increased runoff which was conveyed via storm drains
directly to Lower Bath Branch.
Filling of the Lower Bath Branch stream valley confined the stream channel and
exacerbated the effects of the increased runoff. The unmanaged runoff caused
streambed and bank erosion as the receiving channel adjusted to the new flow
regime. Attempts to stabilize the bed and banks with concrete rubble, rip-rap,
and grouted rip-rap have been unsuccessful. The stream has down-cut and
eroded laterally exposing sanitary sewer lines and causing storm drain outfalls to
fail. Today a significant portion of Lower Bath Branch is very unstable.
Figure 1.11 - Failing concrete revetment.
23

Figure 1. 13 - Failing storm drain outfall
24

Figure 1.12 - Exposed sanitary sewer line
Sediment contributed by these channel adjustments has historically contributed
to sedimentation and stability problems along Salem Creek and will do so until
more permanent channel stabilization measures are implemented.
?5 IC - ? .1 h. E cif S"? 2 1 ,
tea.. ali. .c.. ? , ,...r r'" .. r ...

:a

Figure 1.15 - Unstable reach along Salem Creek immediately
downstream of confluence with Bath Branch
Project Reaches
An analysis of the data collected during this field effort indicates that widely
varying conditions exist along the project reaches. The following is a summary of
the findings of that analysis as it relates to the existing conditions within the
project study area.
Reach 1 - Business 40 to Stadium Drive
The upper section of the reach is an F4 channel characterized by a high degree
of entrenchment, high width/depth ratio, unstable banks, and large mid-channel
bars. A sanitary sewer line situated above the streambed crosses the channel at
the outfall of the culvert that carries Bath Branch under Business Route 40. A
large pool has scoured immediately downstream of the outfall. A large amount of
rubble and rip-rap, presumably scoured from the streambed in the pool area, has
piled up in the middle of the channel for 50 - 75 feet below the pool.
25
r_'?

44
Figure 1.16 - View of culvert outfall from top of slope along railroad
A.AAX
-•???`.?. ' :. .._ fir', _ ??r" s.??{._,?iR? yl X. _ ?.ry.,y.??`?; _ ??t'?A*'R?.
? ??'?''i? Nom. w i ?, -i°9???'?4 ? ?? •f ?r r1 ':I

;,~ 4:0

f,r
Figure 1.17 - View of culvert outfall and sanitary sewer line looking upstream
2 6
r?

Figure 1. 18 - View of accumulated rubble and rip-rap downstream of scour pool
in upper section of reach
The accumulated material has raised the streambed locally forcing storm flows
against the banks in this section and is contributing to the observed lateral
instability.
The middle section of the reach is a G1 channel characterized by a high degree
of entrenchment, low width/depth ratio, high shear stress and localized bank
instability. This section has bedrock grade control throughout. Although the toe
of the banks is bedrock, the upper banks are high, vertical, and composed of soil
that is easily eroded by storm flows.
The lower section is a B4 channel characterized by moderate entrenchment, very
high width/depth ratio, unstable banks, and large mid-channel bars. A large pool
has scoured immediately downstream of the bedrock section. A large amount of
rubble and rip-rap, presumably scoured from the streambed in the pool area, has
piled up in the middle of the channel for 75 - 100 feet below the pool. Multiple
storm drain outfalls, an exposed sewer line, landfill leachate, and failing bank
revetment were observed along this section of the reach.
27

- r
29
Figure 1.19a and 1.19b - Bedrock middle section of Reach 1
Figure 1.20a and 1.20b - Note upper banks along middle section of reach
are failing in spite of bedrock toe
29
Figure 1.21 - Scour pool at upstream end of lower section immediately
downstream of bedrock section
Figure 1.22 - Rubble and rip-rap accumulated in middle of channel
downstream of scour pool
M
Figure 1.23a and 1.23b - Storm drain outfalls along lower section of reach
31
Figure 1.24 - Failing concrete revetment along lower section of reach
Figure 1.25 - Exposed sanitary sewer line along lower section of reach.
32
Figure 1.26 - Stadium Drive Bridge at downstream end of Reach 1
The historic straightening and valley fill contributed to the initial channel incision.
Subsequent scouring of the bed due to increased runoff associated with
development in the upper watershed increased bank heights along this reach.
The channel continued to down-cut until it hit bedrock. Although the bank and
riparian vegetation along this reach is trees and shrubs undercutting of banks,
bank erosion, lateral migration, and exposure of utilities is common throughout
the reach. Concrete rubble, tires and other debris were observed protruding from
the slopes above the channel along the entire reach.
Reach 2 - Stadium Drive to Blum Street
The upper section of this reach is a B4/F4 channel characterized by a moderate -
high degree of entrenchment, high width/depth ratio, and localized bank
instability. A concrete encased sanitary sewer line is situated above the stream
bed near the middle of this section.
The middle section is a B1/F1 channel characterized by moderate entrenchment
transitioning to a high degree of entrenchment in a downstream direction, high
width/depth ratio, and localized bank instability. There is bedrock grade control
throughout this section. There are two concrete encased sanitary sewer
crossings at the lower end of the section. The manhole on the left bank from
which the upper sewer crossing starts is severely undermined and collapsing.
33
?? Pte' ? ? 4 I I
- 1, W-4
- tE,. i.. ? AirC1 A.r• !f
Zhv
e
X - `+?n+,Y.i' `` •;$;• i i? it
fi 411-
w.
Ilk
... ° ?L
NU .
# " + •' ??? '?... +?: ' ?• ^?_?" ? e.• Vii` ,
Figure 1.27 - View of upper section of Reach 2 looking downstream from
Stadium Drive Bridge

_ ? y F
V S ? tir:
Figure 1.28 - Concrete encased sanitary sewer line situated above the stream
bed near the middle of upper section.
T '.
r
.i
34

Figure 1.29a and 1.29b - Bedrock outcrops in B1 portion of middle section of
Reach 2

35
Figure 1.30 - Undermined manhole along left bank in middle reach
S.

TY

? 3k

Figure 1.31 - Looking upstream along bedrock middle section. Note
concrete rubble and debris on slopes
36
..
Figure 1.31a - Looking upstream along bedrock middle section from
upper concrete encased sewer line. Figure 1.31 b - Looking upstream at
upper and lower concrete encased sewer lines.

71

37
The lower section is an F4/B4 channel characterized by moderate - high
entrenchment, a high width/depth ratio, localized bank instability, and large mid-
channel bars composed of concrete rubble and rip-rap.
S
'Ck
?1 ?'? ? ri 1 J J..
?t a 'k y4ft y5.
4
?W3a,.`Fz jN
Vroji.
x
Figure 1.32a and 1.32b - Looking upstream along lower section of Reach 2 and
downstream and Blum Street culvert
38
Figures 1.33a and 1.33b - Showing concrete rubble, tires and other debris
observed protruding frorn the slopes above the channel along both sides of the
middle and lower sections of Reach 2.
39
Reach 3 - Blum Street to Salem Creek
Reach 3 is an F4 channel characterized by a high degree of entrenchment, a
high width/depth ratio, unstable banks throughout, and large mid-channel
and lateral bars. A large pool has scoured immediately downstream of the Blum
Street culvert outfall. A large amount of rubble and rip-rap, presumably scoured
from the streambed in the pool area, has piled up in the middle of the channel for
75 - 100 feet below the pool.
Two sanitary sewer lines situated above the streambed cross the channel in the
middle and lower sections of the reach. These crossings are functioning as large
check dams collecting debris and contributing to bank erosion. Previous
attempts to stabilize the banks have been unsuccessful as evidenced from areas
of failing bank revetment.

40
Figure 1.34 - Looking downstream along Reach 3 from Blum Street
VIP

L
t
Figure 1.35 - Looking upstream along Reach 3 toward Blum Street
Figure 1.36 - Looking downstream at upper sanitary sewer crossing
41
z t
All)
1
A
?' dh
M
S
S ? ? n
t
5 ?
yf,}ew x ?' L ??fi
t i
L ,N p H. ?t
Figure 1.37 - Eroding banks and failed revetment in vicinity of sewer crossing

42

.s
Y,S
Nl?l 1.
'a i .. lwF

Figure 1.38 - Lower sanitary sewer crossing
43

Salem Creek
Although not part of the current study, conditions along Salem Creek in the
vicinity of the confluence were photographically documented. This reach of
Salem Creek is very unstable characterized by a moderate - high degree of
entrenchment, a high width/depth ratio, lateral erosion, and mid-channel and
lateral bars.
rr
1 .

i.
Figure 1.39a and 1.39b - Salem Creek at and downstream of confluence with
Bath Branch

?4E ?.d?
ti , r? ?J?r ?n'' `' ¢ I?..?. + 'A .r'y ? ar ? ? rr? t?'+`,? - ?'?
'x .
. .

44
V. Ecological Assessment
The purpose of this assessment is to provide preliminary ecological baseline data
and an overall assessment of current ecological conditions along the open
stream sections in the Southern District of the Research Park and in the City's
Maintenance Yard. This will establish a general baseline of current conditions
and guide restoration planning. An ancillary component of this assessment was
to identify, delineate, and assess any jurisdictional wetlands within the immediate
stream restoration corridor for permitting purposes. The level of detail can be
characterized as a reconnaissance-level assessment that can be used to guide
any future more detailed assessments.
For the purposes of assessment and discussion, Bath Branch was divided into
the same three primary reaches utilized for the channel morphology and stability
assessment. The upper reach extends from the primary storm drain outlet below
the railroad tracks to Stadium Drive. The middle reach extends from Stadium
Drive to Blum Street. The lower reach extends from Blum Street to the
confluence with Salem Creek. A very short reach of approximately 30 feet
remains exposed above Route 40 Business that was not included in the overall
assessment, but was assessed for the presence of wetlands, along with a short
reach of Salem Creek.
This section of the report is formatted using the major components of this
assessment - Waters of the U.S. / Wetlands, Stream Biota, and Riparian Plant
Communities. Methods utilized and findings are presented within each
subsection. The overall ecological integrity of Bath Branch based on these
preliminary findings is discussed in the summary.
Waters of the U.S. / Wetlands
Discharges into Waters of the United States are regulated by the federal
government primarily through various programs of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). Other
federal agencies play less significant roles, and various states, including North
Carolina, also regulate jurisdictional waters.
Waters of the United States include a wide variety of aquatic habitats, including
territorial seas, navigable coastal and inland waterways, tributaries to navigable
waterways, streams, lakes, and wetlands. Wetlands are a unique subset of
Waters of the U.S. defined by the Corps of Engineers and Environmental
Protection Agency as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas."
45
I/
Wetlands are identified and delineated in accordance with the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACOE, 1987). This manual requires
that evidence of three parameters be present for an area to be identified as
jurisdictional wetland: wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic
vegetation. All three parameters must be present for a jurisdictional
determination, except in certain atypical or disturbed circumstances.
The entire Bath Branch corridor was searched for jurisdictional wetlands and
none were identified. For the purposes of wetland identification, the survey
corridor extended along Salem Creek approximately 300 feet downstream of the
Bath Branch confluence. Bath Branch and Salem Creek are jurisdictional Waters
of the U.S. but are riverine waters with federal jurisdiction extending up to the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which is generally defined as the top of
streambank in most instances. Stream restoration activities will require federal
authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
In most reaches of Bath Branch the stream channel is clearly defined by steep,
often unvegetated streambanks. The stream is entrenched throughout its length
with minimal floodplain development. This is a stream that has undergone
significant incision down to localized bedrock grade control, leaving high
abandoned floodplain terraces on both banks. These high terraces are
vegetated by obviously non-hydrophytic plant communities, possess high chroma
non-hydric soils, and lack any evidence of wetland hydrology.
There are several small vegetated bars throughout the length of Bath Branch and
Salem Creek that were examined in greater detail for wetland characteristics.
Although in-stream features, many of these bars supported adventitious weedy
species colonizing well-drained sands. These bars clearly lacked hydrophytic
vegetation and hydric soils, even though evidence of flooding was apparent.
Several lateral bars exist along the lower reaches of Bath Branch that consist of
silty deposits. However, these silty alluvial deposits exhibited consistently high
chromas with no other redoximorphic features present even though evidence of
flooding was present. Vegetation on these bars consisted of generally wetter
species, but the overall vegetative communities did not meet the prescribed
requirements for the vegetative parameter.
The observed lack of jurisdictional wetlands along Bath Branch and Salem Creek
is a common occurrence in highly urbanized watersheds. In addition to direct
alteration or destruction of adjacent wetlands by land clearing and urbanization,
hydrologic alterations precipitated by urbanization also lead to the indirect loss of
riparian wetlands. Stream incision leads to increasingly lowered riparian water
tables, which often effectively drain adjacent wetlands. The low baseflow /
severe flood flow characteristics of urban stream channels also do not easily
allow for the development of wetlands within the lowered base level channel.
Bath Branch and Salem Creek are excellent examples of this type of landscape
and watershed modification to the detriment of wetland resources.
46

Stream Biota
In keeping with the scope of this assessment, comprehensive sampling and
detailed examination of aquatic biota was not conducted. However, cursory
examinations were conducted along the entire reach of Bath Branch to gain
limited insights into the ecological health of this system. Further additional
studies may be warranted to document these conditions in a comprehensive
manner.
Aquatic macroinvertebrates were observed at random locations along Bath
Branch by examining the undersides of larger submerged rocks and also by the
use of a small kick seine in riffles with various substrate sizes. Passes were also
made with the kick seine through areas of overhanging streamside vegetation.
Aquatic macroinvertebrates were identified to family level in the field and
returned to the stream. No collections were made. Observations were also
made of herptiles (reptiles and amphibians) and fishes, although none of these
animals were captured and examined in detail.
Reach 1 (upper reach) is largely devoid of apparent aquatic life. Persistent
searching produced no aquatic macroinvertebrates in this reach, although empty
midge (Diptera: Chironomidae) cases were observed on the undersides of many
rocks. No herptiles or fish were observed, and wildlife use of the stream appears
to be very limited.
Water quality is certainly very compromised in this reach due to its highly
urbanized watershed and the extensive storm drainage system upstream of open
channel sections. Typical urban stream odors were very apparent. In addition to
chemical and/or biological impairment, this reach is subject to intense scouring
flows which significantly limit aquatic macroinvertebrate and vertebrate habitat.
Reach 2 (middle reach) also produced no aquatic macroinvertebrates, but empty
midge cases continued to be observed. A partially eaten large crayfish
(Crustcaea:Decapoda) was observed on an exposed in-stream rock near the
lower end of this reach, indicating some additional diversity and increased wildlife
utilization. A deep pool approximately halfway through the reach supported
several unidentified sunfish (Centrarchidae:Lepomis sp.) and minnows
(Cyprinidae) with several age classes present. A. large snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina) was also observed actively searching for prey in this pool. This
reach shows signs of recovery with urban, stream odors less apparent and a
noticeable increase in stream biota. Substrate conditions are very similar to the
upper reach and are subject to similar scouring flows.
Reach 3 (lower reach) continues the trend of ecological recovery first seen in the
middle reach. Aquatic macroinverteb rates were collected in small but increased
numbers and diversity over the upstream reaches. Aquatic earthworms
(Annelida:Oligochaeta), net spinning caddisflies (Trichoptera:Hydropsychidae),
47

craneflies (Diptera:Tipulidae) were collected, along with a single minnow mayfly
(Ephemeroptera:Baetidae). Crayfish were also observed, along with empty
midge cases. Greater numbers of sunfish and minnows were observed of
various age classes, with at least two apparent species of minnows present.
Overall, Bath Branch is typical of a highly urbanized stream system in regard to
aquatic biota Diversity and density of aquatic macroinverteb rates and
vertebrates is low and limited to pollution tolerant taxa. Bath Branch does exhibit
a classic recovery zone sequence, with diversity and density increasing with
increasing distance from the point of impact, which in this case is the discharge
point of the urbanized piped system.
Water Quality
a. Monitoring Data
Water quality monitoring was not a component of the current study. However, a
review of available data (HDR Engineering, 2000 and Winston-Salem
Stormwater Department, 2005) indicates that the water quality of Bath Branch is
poor. This is supported by the results of the stream biota assessment previously
discussed.
HDR Engineering's Watershed Master Plan for Upper Salem Creek (2000)
indicates that Bath Branch (Cloverleaf Creek) is one of the most severely
impacted drainages in the entire Upper Salem Creek watershed with elevated
concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), nutrients, ammonia, and heavy
metals, and nearly absent of aquatic life of any kind. The City's data also shows
high levels of coliform bacteria even under dry weather sampling conditions.
b. Estimated Pollutant Loadings
Actual loadings of pollutants should ideally be determined through a
comprehensive water quality monitoring effort. However, the following
computations provide reasonable methods for estimating annual pollutant
loadings from the Bath Branch watershed.
Schueler (1987) developed the Simple Method for estimating pollutant export
from urban watersheds. Using the following equation, annual pollutant loadings
from sources (i.e., upland and in-channel) in the Bath Branch watershed were
estimated.
L=I(P)(Pj)(Rv)/12](C)(A)(2.72)
Where: P = rainfall depth (inches) over the desired interval;
Pj = factor that corrects P for storms that produce no runoff;
48

Rv = runoff coefficient, which expresses the fraction of rainfall
converted to runoff - a function of subwatershed percent
imperviousness;
C = flow-weighted mean concentration of the pollutant in urban
runoff (mg/1) obtained from (NURP) National Urban Runoff Program
Study (USEPA, 1983);
A = drainage area of watershed to the point of interest;
Conversion factors = 12 and 2.72
Given: P = 44 inches/year (Winston-Salem, NC);
Pi = .9 (90 percent of rainfall events generate runoff);
Rv = (percent impervious in subbasin);
C = flow weighted mean concentrations for older urban areas:
Total Phosphorus = 1.08 mg/I
Total Nitrogen = 13.6 mg/l
Sediment = 320 mg/I
Table 1.6 shows estimated annual pollutant loadings by sub basins from the Bath
Branch watershed.
Riparian Plant Communities
The plant communities of the Bath Branch riparian zones were examined in
somewhat greater detail than the other features of the corridor. This was partially
due to the importance of plant communities in wetland identification, but also the
importance of plant community concerns in regard to ultimate stream bank
stabilization, aesthetics, and invasive species control. Although the plant
communities were assessed in a semi-quantitative manner, this is not a detailed
floristic study and was limited by time and identification constraints.
The three primary stream reaches were considered as separate plant
communities for the purposes of reporting even though this is a single continuum
of a linear riparian corridor. The surveyed riparian plant community was limited
to the streambed; stream banks, and immediately adjacent uplands.' Most
observations were made from the streambed, with limited climbing of stream
49

banks, and no plant observations were recorded more than 25 feet landward
from either stream bank.
Plants were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level based on the
author's experience, with limited use of keys. Several specimens were field
collected for closer examination with a lens and keys, but no pressed specimens
were created. Plant observations were entered on to a data sheet, then
assigned a relative dominance ranking. An ACFOR scale was utilized with
categories as follows in descending order of dominance or abundance:
Abundant, Common, Frequent, Occasional, and Rare.
The results of this survey are presented in the Appendix to this report. Plants are
organized by life form -trees, shrubs, woody vines, and herbaceous, with
dominance rankings provided for each reach. Exotic species are identified with
an asterisk and shading. A total of 104 species were observed in the Bath
Branch riparian corridor - 28 trees, 9 shrubs, 8 woody vines, and 59 herbaceous
species.
In addition to the limitations of field time and spatial extent, the plant list is limited
by the single season of observation. Many plant species can only be reliably
identified to species or even genus with flowers or fruits present. Several plants
were observed in a purely vegetative state. These plants were listed as a family
or genus entry, and these entries may include one or more species. This is most
applicable to the grass family, Poaceae, of which at least three unidentified taxa
were present. Only repeated surveys through various seasons can produce a
comprehensive list, along with detailed examination of specimens. However, the
current list certainly captures the general structure of the plant communities with
nearly all common species accounted for.
Some upstream - downstream trends can be seen that are potentially related to
changing landscape features, but this distributional data should be viewed with
caution due to the limited nature of this assessment. Some distributions are
easily attributed to specific locational features, such as ebony spleenwort
(Asplenium platyneuron) being present on bedrock outcroppings that are found in
the upper and middle reaches, but are absent in the lower reach. Conversely,
several open field weedy species such as giant foxtail (Setaria faben) and horse
nettle (Solanum carolinense) are only found in the open field areas bordering the
lower reach, with such habitats being absent in the upper reaches. Other
species are spotty in distribution, while many are found throughout to varying
degrees of dominance.
Reach 1 (upper reach) is characterized by dense immature forest cover on both
banks, with scattered open areas, primarily at the upper and lower ends.
Streambanks are steep and generally unvegetated, with dense growth above and
scattered vegetated bars below. Dominant natives include boxelder (Acer
negundo), red maple (Acer rubrum), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and
50
11
Virginia creeper(Parthenocissus quinquefolia). Exotic invasive species are
prevalent in all strata, with the shrub and herbaceous strata most heavily
impacted. The dominant exotic invasives are tree of heaven (Ailanthus
altissima), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), white mulberry (Morus alba), -privets
(Ligustrum spp.), wormwood (Artemesia vulgaris), Chinese yam (Disocorea
batatas), Japanese hops (Humulus japonicus), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum
cuspidatum), and kudzu (Pueraria lobata).
Reach 2 (middle reach) is characterized by dense immature forest on both sides,
with a higher degree of openness than the upper reach: Streambanks are less
steep and more vegetated. Dominant natives include boxelder, black willow
(Salix nigra), and slippery elm (U/mus rubra). Exotic invasive species are again
prevalent in all strata, with exotic. dominance relatively even across all strata.
The dominant exotics are tree of heaven, mimosa, white mulberry, privet, English
ivy (Hedera helix), wormwood, Chinese yam, Indian strawberry (Duchesnea
indica), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), cespitose smartweed (Polygonum
cespitosum), Japanese knotweed, and kudzu.
Reach 3 (lower reach) is much more open than the upstream reaches, with
limited immature forest cover along the left bank, and open field / scrub-shrub
conditions along the right bank. Streambanks are less steep and heavily
vegetated. Dominant natives include boxelder, poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), and grape (Vitis sp.). Exotic invasives are prevalent in all strata, with
the right bank most heavily impacted. The dominant exotics are tree of heaven,
privet, and Japanese honeysuckle along the left bank, and wormwood, Chinese
yam, Japanese hops, Japanese knotweed, and kudzu along the right bank.
The Bath Branch riparian corridor is covered with a generally dense vegetative
cover that is providing significant ecological functions, including streambank
stabilization, but the plant community is heavily impacted by exotic invasive plant
species. Exotic invasive plant species have significant ecological consequences,
including the displacement of native plant species, negative impacts to native
wildlife and stream biota, and negatively impacting the human perception and
aesthetics of natural areas.
Summary
The Bath Branch riparian corridor is typical of small urbanized stream channels
and their associated riparian corridors. Historic channelization, piping, and
watershed urbanization have resulted in a highly modified and impacted
ecological system. Bath Creek exhibits the typical urban stream physical
conditions of channel incision, streambank erosion, reduced baseflows, scouring
flood flows, and lowered riparian water tables with associated wetland loss.
There were no jurisdictional wetlands identified in the corridor.
511,
Bath Branch also exhibits the typical urban water quality and stream biotic
conditions of greatly reduced diversity and density of aquatic organisms, with the
concurrent reduced utilization by semi-aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. The
ecological integrity of Bath Branch can be summarized as poor in the upper and
middle reaches, increasing to fair in the lower reach. This is typical of impacted
streams with a point discharge and a relatively unimpacted recovery zone. The
point discharge in this instance is the storm drain outfall at the origins of the
current day Bath Branch. Physical and biological forces act to cleanse the urban
discharge to where it is capable of supporting a moderately diverse assemblage
of aquatic macroi nverteb rates and fish in its lower reaches prior to its confluence
with Salem Creek.
The plant communities of the Bath Branch corridor are dense and partially
functional in a landscape context, but are heavily impacted by exotic invasive
species. This is typical of many riparian areas, especially in urban areas, since
the disturbance regime favors many exotic invasive species.
52
SECTION 2
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
AND
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STRATEGIES
53
I. Introduction
As presented previously, The Piedmont Triad Research Park has approached
Pilot View RC&D for assistance in obtaining funding to implement the concepts
for restoring Bath Branch. Pilot View RC&D promotes a comprehensive two
tiered approach to stream restoration. This approach focuses on correcting
problems in the watershed that have contributed to stream channel instability,
degraded habitat and poor water quality. This involves implementing best
management practices that reduce peak runoff and improve water quality. It
also utilizes a natural channel design approach to stream stabilization and habitat
improvements by restoring the natural form, character, and function of unstable
streams and/or streams that have been channelized, piped, or otherwise altered.
Pilot View RC&D contracted Clear Creeks Consulting LLC and CNA Engineers to
evaluate the feasibility of utilizing a watershed-based, natural channel design
approach for implementing the Master Plan concepts for restoring Bath Branch.
II. Feasibility Issues Evaluated ,
A. Physical Constraints Related to Existing and Proposed Conditions
The information on historic and current conditions developed from the watershed
characterization, stream morphology assessment, and ecological assessments
provided a basis for evaluating the natural and man-made constraints that would
limit the utilization of a watershed-based, natural channel design approach.
The key issues evaluated included:
1. Is sufficient space available to restore Bath Branch with natural form and
function?
2. Is sufficient base flow available to provide for habitat and aesthetics?
3. Can storm water be conveyed along the stream corridor without creating
problems related to channel stability, flooding, water quality, and aesthetics?
4. Are there other constraints or issues that should be considered?
B. Conclusions
1. Central District
A detailed review of the plans developed by Sasaki for the Central District of the
Research Park indicate there is not sufficient space available to restore Bath
Branch to a stream with natural form and function. The narrow stream corridor
available between the proposed buildings and sidewalks on either side of the
proposed channel would make it extremely difficult to provide the cross-sectional
and meander geometry required by a stable natural design.
54
The results of the base flow monitoring indicate there is not sufficient. base flow
available to maintain a flowing stream with habitat and aesthetic quality using any
method of restoration, including the initial channel design proposed by Sasaki.
Unless flow is augmented by public water supply the channel would be dry
except under storm flow conditions.
There is particular concern regarding the proposed routing of storm flows along
an open channel through the Central District. The high potential for flooding and
property damage is the principal concern. However, trash, debris, and poor
water quality associated with storm water runoff conveyed from downtown
Winston-Salem would significantly impact the aesthetics of any stream channel.
Without significant quantity management upstream of the Central District peak
storm flows could cause channel instability along any open channel sections.
2. Southern District
Although constrained by historic valley filling and multiple utility crossings, there
is sufficient space available to restore Bath Branch to a stream with natural form
and function. It will not be possible to reconnect the channel to an active
floodplain nor reestablish a meandering channel. However, if the restoration
design is focused on the longitudinal profile and cross-sectional geometry a
portion of the restoration/stabilization work could be accomplished within the
existing channel. For some channel sections it will be necessary to grade the
adjacent slopes to provide floodprone areas and address slope stability.
Although the base flow regime has been altered by the urbanization of the
watershed, there is sufficient base flow available to maintain a flowing stream
year-round. Addressing habitat and aesthetics will require that trash, debris, and
water quality be managed by constructing regional water quality management
facilities and installing in-line debris interceptors upstream of the inlets to the
facilities.
Long-term maintenance of a stable channel will require reductions in peak storm
flow. This will require construction of regional storm water management facilities.
Peak management and water quality management can be provided by the same
regional facilities.
The aesthetics of the greenway will be severely impacted by the concrete rubble
and debris protruding from the steep slopes adjacent to the channel along the
entire Southern District. The presence of multiple exposed sanitary sewer lines,
collapsing sewer manholes, and failing storm drain outfalls also detract from the
natural setting the stream corridor could provide within the Research Park. In
addition, exotic invasive plants are significantly affecting the native plant
community and aesthetics along the riparian corridor.
55

III. Design Alternatives Analysis and Recommendations
Alternative design approaches were evaluated to develop options that work
within the limits imposed by the physical constraints but meet the objectives of
the Master Plan for Bath Branch and the greenway.
A. Central District
? Artificial Stream
If a water feature is a critical component of the development plan for the Central
District, an artificial stream could be constructed. The channel could be designed
to have natural looking streambed features. Continuous flow could be provided
by pum m a ervoir supplied by Citv?ecate?or treated
storm wa er pumpecl"trom the regional storm water management pond.
? Regional Storm Water Wetland
To avoid flooding, property damage, channel instability, and the aesthetic
impacts associated with trash, debris and poor water quality all storm water
should be routed around the artificial stream channel through piped storm drain
systems to one large regional quality and quantity storm water wetland pond
immediately upstream of Business Route 40.
A significant component of the pond would be the shallow marsh area that would
be planted with flowering emergent plants and the extensive landscaping of the
ponds slopes.
The aesthetics of the storm water wetland pond should be maintained by
trapping trash and debris with in-line debris collection systems prior to the outfalls
into the pond. Photographs of a typical in-line debris collection system are
included in the Appendix to this report..
B. South District
? Stream Restoration
Utilize a natural channel design approach to restore/stabilize the unstable upper
and lower sections of Reach 1 (Business Route 40 - Stadium Drive), the lower
section of Reach 2 (Stadium Drive - Blum Street), and Reach 3 (Blum Street to
Salem Creek).
These channel sections would be designed as stable boulder step-pool systems.
This approach would include raising the streambed to cover and protect exposed
sanitary sewer lines, narrowing the existing over-wide channel cross-sections,
dissipating energy through drops and deep pools, and grading and stabilizing
steep unstable banks.
56
The bedrock step-pool areas of the middle section of Reach 1 and the middle
section of Reach 2 would be stabilized and enhanced. The unstable upper
stream banks would be graded and stabilized.
? Storm Water Management
A critical component of the restoration of Lower Bath Branch is controlling the
peak storms and reducing pollutant loadings. To accomplish both of these
objectives implementation of quality and quantity management is required.
It is strongly recommended that the regional storm water facility proposed
upstream of Business Route 40 be designed to maximize peak control and
pollutant reduction.
It is further recommended that all storm water runoff in the Southern District be
routed through separate storm drain systems installed along either side of Bath
Branch and into large regional quality and quantity management facilities
constructed along the Salem Creek floodplain.
? Slope Restoration and Enhancement
As noted, the aesthetics of the greenway will be severely impacted by the
concrete rubble and debris protruding from the steep slopes adjacent to the
channel along the entire Southern District. It is recommended that the concrete
rubble and debris be removed from the slopes along all three reaches.
An additional problem is the height and steepness of the slopes. Under current
conditions, it would be very difficult to access the proposed trail system or view
the stream from any vantage point. Therefore, it is recommended that the slopes
be graded where feasible to lower overall height and provide a better angle of
repose.. a cut into the s stream the flood rone benches
ere y allowing better access to the stream along the greenway. Unstable
slope areas should be stabilized.
? Utility Repair and Relocation
The presence of multiple exposed sanitary sewer lines, collapsing sewer
manholes, and failing storm drain outfalls detract from the natural setting the
stream corridor could provide within the Research Park. Damaged sewer lines
and manholes present a potential for sewage spills. Some of the existing storm
drains are discharging leachate from material buried when the valley was filled in
the 1950's and 1960's.
Raising the streambed in the boulder step-pool sections will cover and protect
exposed sanitary sewer lines. It is recommended that collapsing manholes be
relocated or repaired. The two sanitary sewer lines in the bedrock section of
Reach 2 are concrete encased cast or ductile iron pipe. The concrete
57
i
encasement is cracked in places. Reinforcing should be placed across the
cracks and new concrete encasement poured. Each pipe should be slip lined to
reinforce the pipe and avoid repairs after the stream is restored.
The upper sanitary sewer line in Reach 3 is cast iron or ductile iron with push-on
joints. Prior to raising the stream bed for channel restoration the joints should be
restrained using mega lugs or similar. The pipe should be slip lined from
manhole to manhole across the stream. A steel sleeve should be installed
around the sewer with the annular space filled with cement grout.
The lower sanitary sewer line in Reach 3 is the main interceptor sewer leading to
the wastewater treatment plant. Prior to raising the stream bed for channel
restoration the pipe should be slip lined from manhole to manhole across the
stream. A steel sleeve should be constructed around the sewer and the annular
space between the sewer and the sleeve filled with cement grout.
Failing storm drain outfalls should be removed or repaired. Where feasible
existing storm drains should be connected to the new storm drain system and
routed through the proposed regional storm water facilities.
? Riparian Plant Communities
As noted, the Bath Branch riparian corridor is covered with a generally dense
vegetative cover that is providing significant ecological functions, including
stream bank stabilization. However, the plant community is heavily impacted by
exotic invasive plant species. Exotic invasive plant species have significant
ecological consequences, including the displacement of native plant species,
negative impacts to native wildlife and stream biota, and negatively impacting the
human perception and aesthetics of natural areas.
Any comprehensive restoration plan for the Bath Branch corridor should address
the exotic invasive plant problem during the planning, construction, and long-term
maintenance phases. There are a large number of viable native plants in the
corridor that can provide a natural regenerative source for revegetation if the
invasive exotics are managed and controlled. These native plant communities
can also provide the base template for future revegetation efforts.
Riparian areas and slopes adjacent to trails could be revegetated with a mixture
of native and cultivated species of trees and shrubs, as well as grasses and
wildflowers.
58

IV. Design Alternative Conceptual Designs
Concept plans and preliminary cost estimates for design and construction of the
channel restoration, slope enhancement, and regional storm water management
facilities are included in this section.
A. Proposed Bath Branch Stream Restoration Strategies
Reach 1 - Business 40 to Stadium Drive
The upper section of the reach is an F4 channel characterized by a high degree
of entrenchment, high width/depth ratio, unstable banks, and large mid-channel
bars. A sanitary sewer line situated above the streambed crosses the channel at
the outfall of the culvert that carries Bath Branch under Business Route 40. A
large pool has scoured immediately downstream of the outfall. A large amount of
rubble and rip-rap, presumably scoured from the streambed in the pool area, has
piled up in the middle of the channel for 50 - 75 feet below the pool.
The middle section of the reach is a G1 channel characterized by a high degree
of entrenchment, low width/depth ratio, high shear stress and localized bank
instability. This section has bedrock grade control throughout. Although the toe
of the banks is bedrock, the upper banks are high, vertical, and composed of soil
that is easily eroded by storm flows.
The lower section is B4 hannel characterized by moderate entrenchment, very
high width/depth ratio, stable banks, and large mid-channel bars. A large pool
has scoured immediately downstream of the bedrock section. A large amount of
rubble and rip-rap, presumably scoured from the streambed in the pool area, has
piled up in the middle of the channel for 75 -100 feet below the pool. Multiple
storm drain outfalls, an exposed sewer line, landfill leachate, and failing bank
revetment were observed along this section of the reach.
Restoration Strategies for this reach include:
Upper 174 and Lower 134 Sections
0
,1. Reconstruct the channel with a narrower baseflow and bankfull channel by
installing toe benches along the channel margins.
2. Reestablish floodprone area by raising the streambed and constructing a
bankfull bench along the right and left bank
3. Construct a series of step-pools to dissipate energy and direct flows away from
the stream banks.
59
Middle (G1) Section
Grade and stabilize upper stream banks.
Overall Reach
1. Remove concrete rubble and debris from the slopes. Grade slopes to lower
overall height and provide a better angle of repose.
2. Remove or repair failing storm drain outfalls.
3. Remove exotic invasive plants from the stream banks and riparian area and
replant these areas with native trees and shrubs.
Reach 2 - Stadium Drive to Blum Street
The upper section of this reach is a B4/F4 channel characterized by a moderate -
high degree of entrenchment, high width/depth ratio, and localized bank
instability. A concrete encased sanitary sewer line is situated above the stream
bed near the middle of this section.
The middle section is a B1/F1 channel characterized by moderate entrenchment
transitioning to a high degree of entrenchment in a downstream direction, high
width/depth ratio, and localized bank instability. There is bedrock grade control
throughout this section. There are two concrete encased sanitary sewer
crossings at the lower end of the section. The manhole on the left bank from
which the upper sewer crossing starts is severely undermined and collapsing.
The lower section is an 174/134 channel characterized by moderate - high
entrenchment, a high width/depth ratio, localized bank instability, and large mid-
channel bars composed of concrete rubble and rip-rap.
Restoration Strategies for this reach include:
Upper (B4/F4) Section
Reestablish floodprone area by excavating a bankfull bench along the right bank.
Middle (B1/F1) Section
Grade and stabilize upper stream banks. The two sanitary sewer lines in this
section of Reach 2 are concrete encased cast or ductile iron pipe. The concrete
encasement is cracked in places. Prior to channel restoration reinforcing should
be placed across the cracks and new concrete encasement poured. Each pipe
should be slip lined to reinforce the pipe and avoid repairs after the stream is
restored.
60
Lower (F4/B4) Section
1. Reconstruct the channel with a narrower baseflow and bankfull channel by
installing toe benches along the channel margin.
2. Reestablish floodprone area by raising the streambed and constructing a
bankfull bench along the right and left bank
3. Construct a series of step-pools cover and protect the two sanitary sewer
crossings, dissipate energy and direct flows away from the stream banks.
Overall Reach
1. Remove concrete rubble and debris from the slopes. Grade slopes to lower
overall height and provide a better angle of repose..
2. Relocate or repair collapsing manhole.
3. Remove exotic invasive plants from stream banks and riparian area and
replant these areas with native trees and shrubs.
Reach 3 - Blum Street to Salem Creek
Reach 3 is an F4 channel characterized by a high degree of entrenchment, a
high width/depth ratio, unstable banks throughout, and large mid-channel
and lateral bars. A large pool has scoured immediately downstream of the Blum
Street culvert outfall. A large amount of rubble and rip-rap, presumably scoured
from the streambed in the pool area, has piled up in the middle of the channel for
75 - 100 feet below the pool.
Two sanitary sewer lines situated above the streambed cross the channel in the
middle and lower sections of the reach. These crossings are functioning as large
check dams collecting debris and contributing to bank erosion. Previous
attempts to stabilize the banks have been unsuccessful as evidenced from areas
of failing bank revetment.
Restoration Strategies for this reach include:
1. Reconstruct the channel with a narrower baseflow and bankfull channel by
installing toe benches along the channel margin.
2. Reestablish floodprone area by raising the streambed and constructing a
bankfull bench along the right and left bank
3. Construct a series of step-pools to cover and protect the two sanitary sewer
crossings, dissipate energy and direct flows away from the stream banks.
61

4. Prior to raising the stream bed for channel restoration the joints on the upper
sanitary sewer crossing pipe should be restrained using mega lugs or similar.
The pipe should be slip lined from manhole to manhole across the stream. A
steel sleeve should be installed around the sewer with the annular space filled
with cement grout.
5. Prior to raising the stream bed for channel restoration the lower sanitary sewer
crossing pipe should be slip lined from manhole to manhole across the stream.
A steel sleeve should be constructed around the sewer and the annular space
between the sewer and the sleeve filled with cement grout.
Overall Reach
1. Remove concrete rubble and debris from the slopes. Grade slopes to lower
overall height and provide a better angle of repose.
2. Remove exotic invasive plants from the stream banks and riparian area and
replant these areas with native trees and shrubs.
B. Stream Restoration Cost Estimates
Preliminary cost estimates for design, permitting and construction were
developed for the restoration/stabilization of the three stream reaches and the
adjacent slopes.
Design and per costs include: consultant's professional fees for surveying,
base map preparation, stream assessment, hydraulic analysis, final design plans,
construction documents, final design report, engineer's certification, permit
application and agency meetings, and all expenses. Construction costs include:
consultants professional fees for geotechnical studies, construction
management, as-built surveys, and all expenses; as well. as the Construction
Contractor's Costs including: mobilization, clearing and grubbing, construction
stakeout, sediment control and dewatering, removal and disposal of. concrete
rubble and debris from slopes, sanitary sewer repairs, earthwork for channel and
slopes, rock for and installation of in-stream structures, erosion control matting,
seeding & mulching, and landscaping. This estimate did not include exotic and
invasive plant removal or relocation/repair of storm drain pipes an ou s.
C. Stream Restoration Concepts
Restoration concept plans are presented on the following plates.
62
Estimated Design and Permitting Costs $95,000.00
Estimated Construction Costs $1.975,000.00
Total Stream Restoration Project Cost $2,070,000.00
D. Proposed Bath Branch Watershed Stormwater Facility Sites
A total of 3 SWM facility sites were identified for the feasibility study based upon
field observations by Clear Creeks Consulting and the site layout for PTRP.
SWM facilities include a wide range of structures and treatment options that can
be used to control stormwater quality and quantity. For this study, BMP's were
analyzed based upon the ability to attenuate peak discharges while providing
pollutant load removal for the lowest cost and lowest maintenance requirements
over the life of the facility. The SWM facility that best obtains these goals is an
extended wet detention pond.
The selected SWM facility sites were conceptually designed using GIS
topography with the goal of achieving maximum amount of attenuation volume
based upon the physical characteristics of the sites. Elevation-Storage tables
were constructed to analyze the storage capacity for each of the proposed
BMP's.
Existing sub-watersheds were analyzed with the USGS National Flood
Frequency Program to obtain target peak discharges consistent with rural peak
discharges for the one- and two-year storm events. Elevation-Discharge tables
were then constructed from values obtained for the target peak discharges for
the one- and two-year storm.
E. SWM Facility Cost Estimates
Project costs are estimated based upon three criteria: project design,
construction costs and operations and maintenance costs.
Project design-costs are based upon current engineering fees to produce final
construction drawings and obtain all necessary permits. Construction cost
estimates are based upon current and generally accepted costs for completion of
key portions of the project. Estimated annual operations and maintenance cost
for wet detention ponds were estimated at 4% of the construction cost for the
assumed lifetime of the facility.
Additional costs that were not considered for this study were infrastructure
upgrades and/or relocation, land acquisition costs, permitting fees, easement
preparation, water quality monitoring costs, legal, and administrative fees. An
overall contingency fee of 20% for the total estimated cost of the project was also
included. Detailed cost estimates are included in the Design Information section
for each SWM Facility presented.
63
s {?
e
rr?? w
Ait(
1 -.
i? eEACti -A rzEAa

1
I U
Ira,. 'c
f V,; Mr`?•?
o + ...
ry {T
n? ,..111
gElpr'
i
pp ?
I05 L F-Z; R A-?_ 3 J C4' REAGH 2-A i? Sl AGH 3-3
dAlWW'
1 k 41t ^» {]rti\ 5ATH 5RANGH - STRPAM RESTORATION CONCEPT PLAN C„ ?Y
?dIN5TON-SALEM NORTH CAROLINA
F. Hydrologic Methods - Proposed Conditions
The SWM Facility Elevation-Storage-Discharge tables were incorporated into the
proposed conditions TR-20 computer model. Several additional delineations
where made to the sub-basins due to the physical location of the proposed SWM
facilities. The proposed conditions TR-20 hydraulic model was adjusted
accordingly. Figure 2.0 illustrates the proposed conditions watershed model.
Table 2.0 summarizes the hydrologic parameters of the delineated drainage
areas for the proposed conditions model.
64
Figure 2.0: Bath Branch Watershed Proposed Drainage Areas and SWM Locations
Peak-discharges for the 1- and 2-year storm events were the only storm events
analyzed, to provide support data for a Bath Branch stream restoration.
Additional peak discharges where not analyzed, but would need to be completed
when the SWM facilities are fully designed. Table 2.1 summarizes the percent
reduction that the proposed facilities would provide for the subject reach when
each one of the three possible scenarios for facility 01.
Urban stormwater runoff contains a diverse array of pollutants that can have an
adverse impact on water quality. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) Stormwater_Best Management requires that
Practices all new development would include practices that provide 85% pollutant
removal efficiency.
PTRP is primarily a redevelopment project; therefore the recommended minimum
pollutant removal efficiency would be 85%. Ongoing watershed monitoring efforts
as an independent element of the City's Storm Water Management Program
should be used to validate the results presented in this study.
65:
G. Pollutant Load and Percent Removal Calculations
The amount of total suspended solids for extended detention wet pond
permanent pool sizing was estimated based upon Table 1.1 : Surface Area Ratio
for permanent pool sizing for 85% Pollutant Removal Efficiency in the Piedmont
for the NCDENR Stormwater Best Management Manual. A permanent pool depth
of 8ft was assumed for all wet detention ponds with an average draw down time
of 48 hours for an in stream facility to prevent an sizeable temperature increase
in the retained runoff. Total removal efficiency was then calculated based upon
the correlating percent impervious for 85% removal efficiency versus the actual
impervious present for each drainage area. The estimated total removal
efficiency of the proposed SWM facilities is detailed below.
H. SWM Facility Site Design
1. SWM Facility Sites
An extended wet detention pond was conceptually designed for each BMP site
location to reduce peak discharges for the storm events that produce bankfull
flows and provide water quality benefits to the reaches. The conceptually
designed BMPs would outline benefits expected in conjunction with proposed
stream restoration project for the redevelopment of the proposed Triad Research
Park (PTRP).
2. Proposed SWM Facilities
The objective of the proposed SWM facilities is to attenuate flows to reduce the
peak discharges for the smaller storm events that typically produce bankfull flows
while bypassing larger flood flows and providing pollutant load reductions for the
reach. An extended detention wet pond for each site would fulfill this objective
and meets all regulatory requirements for NCDNER and the City of Winston-
Salem.
Typical extended wet pond design, as show in Figure 2. 1, provide a 6-10 foot
deep permanent pool with additional temporary storage above the permanent
pool for attenuating stormwater runoff. Storm events that produce bankfull flows
are responsible for the majority of stream bank erosion, and therefore detaining
runoff from these storm events should reduce the probability of downstream bank
erosion while controlling peak discharges. Stormwater wet ponds cannot be
located within jurisdictional waters or wetlands without obtaining a section 404
permit under the Clean Water Act and Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
66
I POND SUFFER 0 FEET MINIMUM)
/
FOREBAY
/ PERMANENT POOL
S to 8 FEET DEEP
ACCESSROAD
MAXIMUM ED LIMIT
MAXIMUM SAFETY STORM LIMTTJ
- ------- \L AQUAT?C
EM&
SAFETY RI$I
BENCH -
EMERGENCY
SPILLWAY
CANOPY
OUTIFALL
Y?
RISER!
BARREL
RISER M
EMaAKMENT
PLAN VIEW
Fit% 2 YEAR LEVEL
OVERFLO
W
SPILLWAY AQUAnC v BENCH
Q ED LEVEL 4PIPE
INFLOW WET POOSTABLE
OUTFALL
FOREBAY POND DRAM REVE
BARREL
AMISEEPCOU AR Of?..
FILTERIN"HRAGM
PROFILE
Figure 2.1: Typical Extended Detention Wet Pond
67
SWM Facility 01
Drainage Area 01
Total Drainage Area: 355 acres
Watershed Percent Impervious: 66.37%
Sub-Basin
Drainage Area 01 is approximately 355 acres, located within the upper Bath
Branch watershed. The drainage area drains into Bath Branch via a culvert
underneath of Business Route 40. The existing land use of the drainage area is
industrial, commercial, multifamily residential, and institutional. The average
slopes for the drainage area are 2 - 6%.
Site Location
The proposed site for Facility 1 is located in the area between Greyhound Court
and Business Route 40 near the old bus station. Bath Branch daylights from the
piped storm drain system into a short section of open channel before entering the
culvert under Route 40.
Design Information
Facility 1 was analyzed with three possible scenarios for stormwater
management and pollutant load reduction:
Scenario 1
Under Scenario 1, Facility 1 is a proposed 1.30 acre wet pond with a 0.32 acre
permanent pool at a maximum depth of 8 ft as shown in Figure 2.2. The
permanent pool has a 10' wide shallow sloped shelf needed at the edge of the
basin for safety and to provide appropriate conditions for aquatic vegetation.
Permanent pool top elevation is at 812 while maximum temporary storage occurs
at elevation 828 with a proposed storage volume of 13.54 acre-feet. The forebay
would equal 20% of the total proposed water quality volume. The control
structure would be a multistage riser that would include a permanent pool drain
pipe and a large enough orifice to maintain existing base flow. In addition to
providing permanent and temporary pools, the design would maximize the
attenuation for storm events that are larger than bankfull floods while maintaining
a high level of safety. The Surface Area to Drainage Area (SA/DA) for this BMP
is 0.09% for an 8'maximum depth permanent pool, which indicates a removal
efficiency of 6.05% and 15.57% removal efficiency for the redevelopment area.
Design information is summarized in Table 2.2 while Figure 2.2 illustrates the site
location for the proposed SWM facility. Construction would, also include the
installation of buffer plantings, landscaping and slope stabilization. Construction
cost estimate for this facility is detailed in Table 2.3 for design, implementation,
and lifetime maintenance of the proposed SWM facility.
68
Figure 2.2 - Facility 1, Scenario 1 - Extended Detention Small Wet Pond
Permanent Pool Surface Area, acre 0.32
Total Drainage Area, acre 355
Impervious Area, acre 235.61
Impervious Area, Percent 66.37%
SA/DA, percent 0.09%
Release Time, days 2 days
Maximum Temporary SWM Elevation, feet 828
Proposed Storage Volume, acre-ft 11.09
Control Structure Multi-Stage Structure
Pollutant Removal Efficiency, Drainage
Area, percent 6.05%
Pollutant Removal Efficiency: 15
57%
Development, percent .
Peak Flow Attenuation - 1-year Storm 18.63%
Event, percent
Peak Flow Attenuation - 2-year Storm 17.88%
Event, percent
Peak Flow Attenuation - 10-year Storm 3
51%
Event, percent .
Estimated Cost, $ $256,996.96
69

Item
No.
Description Quantity
Unit Price
Total Cost
1 Project Design 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Sub-Total Estimated Design Cost $25,000.00
2 Mobilization 1.0 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00
3 Stakeout 1.0 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
4 Clear and Grub / Demolition 1.3 AC $3,000.00 $3,900.00
5 Sediment Control Devices 1.3 AC $5,000.00 $6,500.00

6 Earthwork - Cut and Dispose Regulated
Disposal Location
6289.0
CY
$15.00
$94,335.00
7 Conc. Riser Structure 1.0 EA $5,000.00 $5,000.00
8 Rip Rap Inflow Protection 200.0 CY $65.00 $13,000.00
9 48" High Chain Link/Split Rail Fence 1100.0 LF $12.00 $13,200.00

10 Double 9'(18') Chain Link Fence Access
Gate
1.0
EA
$500.00
$500.00
11 Permanent Seeding & Mulching 1.0 AC $2,000.00 $1,960.00
12 Geotechnical Services 1.0 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
13 Provide As-built Plans 1.0 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
14 Landscaping 1.3 AC $20,000.00 $26,000.00
Sub-Total Estimated Construction Cost $185,895.00
20% Contingency Total Estimated Construction Cost $37,179.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost $223,074.00
Total Estimated Maintenance Cost for Life of SWM Facility
4% Construction Cost Estimate
$8,922.96
Total Estimates Project Cost $256,996.96
Estimate Prepared b :
Christopher Ste Project Engineer 11/10/05
? I
MAA
M
'Millum/ i 1? Amor7
engineers, surveyors 8 landscape architects
70
Scenario 2
Under Scenario 2, Facility 1 is a proposed 4.05 acre wet pond with a 1.18 acre
permanent pool at a maximum depth of 8 ft. The permanent pool has a 10' wide
shallow sloped shelf needed at the edge of the basin for safety and to provide
appropriate conditions for aquatic vegetation. Permanent pool top elevation is at
802 while maximum temporary storage occurs at elevation 828 with a proposed
storage volume of 61.54 acre-feet. The forebay would equal 20% of the total
proposed water quality volume. The control structure would be a multistage riser
that would include a permanent pool drain pipe and a large enough orifice to
maintain existing base flow. In addition to providing permanent and temporary
pools, the design would maximize the attenuation for storm events that are larger
than bank-full floods while maintaining a high level of safety. The Surface Area to
Drainage Area (SA/DA) for this BMP is 0.33% for an 8'maximum depth
permanent pool, which indicates a removal efficiency of 22.17%. Design
information is summarized in Table 2.4 while Figure 2.3 illustrates the site
location for the proposed SWM facility.
Construction would also include the installation of buffer plantings, landscaping
and slope stabilization. Construction cost estimate for this facility is detailed in
Table 2.5 for design, implementation, and lifetime maintenance of the proposed
SWM facility.
71
i
Figure 2.3: Facility 1, Scenario 2 - Extended Detention Medium Wet Pond
Permanent Pool Surface Area, acre 1.18
Total Drainage Area, acre 355
Impervious Area, acre 235.61
Impervious Area, Percent 66.37%
SA/DA, percent 0.33%
Release Time, days 2 days
Maximum Temporary SWM Elevation, feet 828
Proposed Storage Volume, acre-ft 61.54
Control Structure Multi-Stage Structure
Pollutant Removal Efficiency, Drainage
Area, percent
22.17%
Pollutant Removal Efficiency:
Development, percent 67.56%
Peak Flow Attenuation - 1-year Storm
Event, percent 75.57%
Peak Flow Attenuation - 2-year Storm
Event, percent 78.31%
Peak Flow Attenuation - 10-year Storm
Event, percent 37.29%
Estimated Cost, $ $1,214,230.24

Item
No.
Description Quantity
Unit Price
Total Cost
1 Pro'ect Design 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Sub-Total Estimated Design Cost $25,000.00
2 Mobilization 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00
3 Stakeout 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
4 Clear and Grub / Demolition 4.05 AC $3,000.00 $12,150.00
5 Sediment Control Devices 4.05 AC $5,000.00 $20,250.00

6 Earthwork - Cut and Dispose Regulated
Disposal Location
52915
CY
$15.00
$793,718.85
7 Conc. Riser Structure 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000.00
8 Rip Rap Inflow Protection 250.0 CY $65.00 $16,250.00
9 48" High Chain Link/Split Rail Fence 1700 LF $12.00 $20,400.00

10 Double 9' (18') Chain Link Fence Access
Gate
1
EA
$500.00
$500.00
11 Permanent Seeding & Mulching 2.87 AC $2,000.00 $5,740.00
12 Geotechnical Services 1 LS $5,000,00 $5,000.00
13 Provide As-built Plans 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
14 Landscaping 2.87 AC $20,000.00 $57,400.00
Sub-Total Estimated Construction Cost $952,908.85
20% Contingency Total Estimated Construction Cost $190,581.77
Total Estimated Construction Cost $1,143,490.62
Total Estimated Maintenance Cost for Life of BMP @ 4%
Construction Cost Estimate
$45,739.62
Total Estimates Project Cost $1,214,230.24
Estimate Prepared b :
AWL:]
Christopher Ste Project En ineer 11/10/05
engineers, suntwers & landscape arthitecb
72
Scenario 3
Under Scenario 3, facility 1 is a proposed 6.07 acre wet pond with a 2.15 acre
permanent pool at a maximum depth of 8 ft. The permanent pool has a 15' wide
shallow sloped shelf needed at the edge of the basin for safety and to provide
appropriate conditions for aquatic vegetation. Permanent pool top elevation is at
802 while maximum temporary storage occurs at elevation 828 with a proposed
storage volume of 105.16 acre-feet. The forebay would equal 20% of the total
proposed water quality volume. The control structure would be a multistage riser
that would include a permanent pool drain pipe and a large enough orifice to
maintain existing base flow. In addition to providing permanent and temporary
pools, the design would maximize the attenuation for storm events that are larger
than bankfull floods while maintaining a high level of safety. The Surface Area to
Drainage Area (SA/DA) for this BMP is 0.61 % for an 8'maximum depth
permanent pool, which indicates a removal efficiency of 48.22%. Design
information is summarized in Table 2.6 while Figure 2.4 illustrates the site
location for the proposed SWM facility.
Construction would also include the installation of buffer plantings, landscaping
and slope stabilization. Construction cost estimate for this facility is detailed in
Table 2.7 for design, implementation, and lifetime maintenance of the proposed
SWM facility.
73
i
Figure 2.4: Facility 1, Scenario 3 - Extended Detention Large Wet Pond
Permanent Pool Surface Area, acre 2.15
Total Drainage Area, acre 355
Impervious Area, acre 235.61
Impervious Area, Percent 66.37%
SA/DA, percent 0.61%
Release Time, days 2 days
Maximum Temporary SWM Elevation, feet 828
Proposed Storage Volume, acre-ft 105.56
Control Structure Multi-Stage Structure
Pollutant Removal Efficiency, Drainage
area, percent
48.22%
Pollutant Removal Efficiency:
Development, percent > 85%
Peak Flow Attenuation - 1-year Storm
Event, percent 80.53%
Peak Flow Attenuation - 2-year Storm
Event, percent 82.45%
Peak Flow Attenuation - 10-year Storm
Event, percent 77.99%
Estimated Cost, $ $2,620,542.79
NIONINENEW
Item
No.
Description
Quantity
Unit Price
Total Cost
1 Project Design 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Sub-Total Estimated Design Cost $25,000.00
2 Mobilization 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00
3 Stakeout 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
--
4 Clear and Grub / Demolition 6.07 AC $3,000.00 $18,210.06
5 Sediment Control Devices 6.07 AC $5,000.00 $30,350.00

6 Earthwork - Cut and Dispose Regulated
Disposal Location
125181
CY
$15.00
$1,877,711.85
7 Conc. Riser Structure 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000.00
8 Rip Rap Inflow Protection 250.0 CY $65.00 $16,250.00
9 48" High Chain Link/Split Rail Fence 2000 LF $12.00 $24,000.00

10 Double 9' (18') Chain Link Fence Access
Gate
1
EA
$500.00
$500.00
11 Permanent Seeding & Mulching 3.92 AC $2,000.00 $7,840.00
12 Geotechnical Services 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
13 Provide As-built Plans 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
14 Landscaping 3.92 AC $20,000.00 $78,400.00
Sub-Total Estimated Construction Cost $2,079,761.85
20% Contingency Total Estimated Construction Cost $415,952.37
Total Estimated Construction Cost $2,495,714.22
Total Estimated Maintenance Cost for Life of BMP @ 4%
Construction Cost Estimate
$99,828.57
Total Estimates Project Cost $2,620,542.79
Estimate Prepared b
Christopher Ste Project Engineer 11/10/05
`r ` 1q= A
envineers, surveyors & landscape architects
74
MULTIPLE POND SYSTEMS
The Piedmont Triad Research Park requested that a system of multiple, small
stormwater management facilities integrated into the site layout developed by
Sasaki Associates, Inc. in the PTRP Master Plan (May 2003) be evaluated in.
order to avoid adversely impacting the area available for development. As
shown in Figure 2.5 a multiple facility system could be implemented without
adversely affecting the proposed site layout. The system evaluated utilized all
available green space and open space shown on the original Sasaki site layout.
The results of the evaluation shows that the area provided by the master plan for
stormwater management is only large enough to provide a portion of stormwater
management required for the proposed redevelopment. The facilities shown in
Figure 2.5 would provide approximately 60% removal efficiency for the
redevelopment area and 22% removal efficiency for the total drainage area to the
facilities based upon Table 1.1 of NCDENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices. It is clear that the master plan failed to take into account the amount
of area needed to meet all local and state requirements concerning stormwater
management for the redevelopment project. Alternative multi facility systems
could be designed to achieve the 85% pollutant removal efficiency required by
NCDENR. However, any alternatives would require some additional space and
would impact the Sasaki site layout.
Figure 2.5: Example of Multiple SWM Facilities for Central District of PTRP
75
i
SWM Facility 02
Drainage Area 03a
Total Drainage Area: 62.68
Watershed Percent Impervious:
Sub-Basin
Drainage Area 02 is approximately 158.37 acres, located within the lower Bath
Branch watershed. The drainage area drains into Bath Branch at the confluence
of Bath Branch and Salem Creek. The existing land use of the drainage area is
industrial, multifamily residential, and institutional. The average slopes for the
drainage area are 2 - 6%.
Site Location
The proposed site for Facility 2 is the overflow parking lot in the City Maintenance
Yard along the Salem Creek floodplain west of the confluence with Bath Branch.
Design Information
SWM facility 2 is a proposed 0.98 acre wet pond with a 0.45 acre permanent pool
at a maximum depth of 8 ft as shown in figure 2.1. The permanent pool has a 10'
wide shallow sloped shelf needed at the edge of the basin for safety and to
provide appropriate conditions for aquatic vegetation. Permanent pool top
elevation is at 750 while maximum temporary storage occurs at elevation 758
with a proposed storage volume of 5.15 acre-feet. The forebay would equal 20%
of the total proposed water quality volume. The control structure would be a
multistage riser that would include a permanent pool drain pipe and a large
enough orifice to maintain existing base flow. In addition to providing permanent
and temporary pools, the design would maximize the attenuation for storm
events that are larger than bankfull floods while maintaining a high level of safety.
The Surface Area to Drainage Area (SA/DA) for this BMP is 0.72% for an
8'maximum depth permanent pool, which indicates a removal efficiency of
61.86%. Design information is summarized in Table 2.8 while Figure 2.6
illustrates the site location for the proposed SWM facility.
Construction would also include the installation of buffer plantings, landscaping
and slope stabilization. Construction cost estimate for this facility is detailed in
Table 2.9 for design, implementation, and lifetime maintenance of the proposed
SWM facility. Table 2.10 is a cost estimate for design and construction of a
storm drain system along Research Drive to provide stormwater conveyance to
Facility 02.
76
Figure 2.6: Facility 2 - Extended Detention Wet Pond
Permanent Pool Surface Area, acre 0.45
Total Drainage Area, acre 62.64
Impervious Area, acre. 36.63
Impervious Area, Percent 58.48%
SA/DA, percent 0.72%
Release Time, days 2 days
Maximum Temporary SWM Elevation, feet 758
Proposed Storage Volume, acre-ft 5.15
Control Structure Multi-Stage Structure
Pollutant Removal Efficiency: Drainage
Area, percent 51.86%0
Pollutant Removal Efficiency:
Development, percent 73.31%
Peak Flow Attenuation -1-year Storm
Event, percent 63.39%
Peak Flow Attenuation - 2-year Storm
Event, percent 70.51%
Peak Flow Attenuation -10-year Storm
Event, percent 50.88%
Estimated Cost, $ $442,265.06
77

Item
No.
Description Quantity
Unit Price
Total Cost
1 Project Design 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Sub-Total Estimated Design Cost $25,000.00
2 Mobilization 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00
3 Stakeout 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
4 Clear and Grub / Demolition 1.81 AC $3,000.00 $5,430.00
5 Sediment Control Devices 1.81 AC $5,000.00 $9,050.00

6 Earthwork - Cut and Dispose Regulated
Disposal Location
21579
CY
$12.00
$258,942.00
7 Conc. Riser Structure 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000.00
8 Rip Rap Inflow Protection 125.0 CY $65.00 $8,125.00
9 48" High Chain Link/Split Rail Fence 1200 LF $12.00 $14,400.00

10 Double 9'(18') Chain Link Fence Access
Gate
1
EA
$500.00
$500.00
11 Permanent Seeding & Mulching 0.95 AC $2,000.00 $1,900.00
12 Geotechnical Services 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
13 Provide As-built Plans 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
14 Landscaping 0.95 AC $10,000.00 $9,500.00
Sub-Total Estimated Construction Cost $334,347.00
20% Contingency Total Estimated Construction Cost $66,869.40
Total Estimated Construction Cost $401,216.40
Total Estimated Maintenance Cost for Life of BMP @ 4%
Construction Cost Estimate
$16,048.66
Total Estimates Project Cost $442,265.06
Estimate Prepared b
Christopher Ste Project Engineer 11/10/05
Sub-Total Estimated Design Co st $5,000.00
2 Mobilization 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
3 Stakeout 1 LS $5000.00 $5,000.00
4 24" RCCP 1500 LF $35.00 $52,500.00
5 Combination Inlet Structures 7 EA $4000.00 $28,000.00
6 Geotechnical Services 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Sub-Total Estimated Construction Cost $10,5500.00
20% Contingency Total Estimated Construction Cost $10,550.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost $116,050.00
Total Estimates Project Cost $116,050.00
Estimate Prepared b
Christopher Ste Project En ineer 11/10/05
engineers, surveyors & landscape architects
78
SWM Facility 03
Drainage Area 03b
Total Drainage Area: 28.62 acres
Watershed Percent Impervious: 57.60%
Sub-Basin
Drainage Area 03 is approximately 98.1 acres, located within the lower Bath
Branch watershed. The drainage area drains into Bath Branch at the confluence
of Bath Branch and Salem Creek. The existing land use of the drainage area is
industrial. The average slopes for the drainage area are 2 - 6%.
Site Location
The proposed site for Facility 3 is the equipment storage area and Maintenance
Shop in the City Maintenance Yard along the Salem Creek floodplain east of the
confluence with Bath Branch.
Design Information
SWM facility 2 is a proposed 0.98 acre wet pond with a 0.45 acre permanent pool
at a maximum depth of 8 ft as shown in figure 2.1. The permanent pool has a 10'
wide shallow sloped shelf needed at the edge of the basin for safety and to
provide appropriate conditions for aquatic vegetation. Permanent pool top
elevation is at 750 while maximum temporary storage occurs at elevation 758
with a proposed storage volume of 5.15 acre-feet. The forebay would equal 20%
of the total proposed water quality volume. The control structure would be a
multistage riser that would include a permanent pool drain pipe and a large
enough orifice to maintain existing base flow. In addition to providing permanent
and temporary pools, the design would maximize the attenuation for storm
events that are larger than bankfull floods while maintaining a high level of safety.
The Surface Area to Drainage Area (SA/DA) for this BMP is 0.72% for an
8'maximum depth permanent pool, which indicates a removal efficiency of
61.86°/x. Design information is summarized in Table 2.11 while Figure 2.7
illustrates the site location for the proposed SWM facility.
Construction would also include the installation of buffer plantings, landscaping
and slope stabilization. Construction cost estimate for this facility is detailed in
Table 2.12 for design, implementation, and lifetime maintenance of the proposed
SWM facility.
79
i
Permanent Pool. Surface Area, acre 0.86
Total Drainage Area, acre 28.63
Impervious Area, acre 16.49
Impervious Area, Percent 57.60%
SA/DA, percent 3.00%
Release Time, days 2 days
Maximum Temporary SWM Elevation, feet 768
Proposed Storage Volume, acre-ft 14.97
Control Structure Multi-stage Riser
Pollutant Removal Efficiency: Drainage > 85%
Area, percent
Pollutant Removal Efficiency: > 85%
Development, percent
Peak Flow Attenuation -1-year Storm 63.93%
Event, percent
Peak Flow Attenuation - 2-year Storm 70.51%
Event, percent
Peak Flow Attenuation - 10-year Storm 78
62%
Event, percent .
Estimated Cost, $ $534,910.96
80
Figure 2.7 - Facility 3 - Extended Detention Wet Pond

Item
No.
Description
Quantity
Unit Price
Total Cost
1 Project Design 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Sub-Total Estimated Design Co st $25,000.00
2 Mobilization 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500.00
3 Stakeout 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
4 Clear and Grub/ Demolition 1.81 AC $3,000.00 $5,430.00
5 Sediment Control Devices 1.81 AC $5,000.00 $9,050.00

6 Earthwork - Cut and Dispose Regulated
Disposal Location
21579
CY
$15.00
$323,677.50
7 Conc. Riser Structure 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000.00
8 Rip Rap Inflow Protection 125.0 CY $65.00 $8,125.00
9 48" High Chain Link/Split Rail Fence 1200 LF $12.00 $14,400.00

10 Double 9'(18') Chain Link Fence Access
Gate
1
EA
$500.00
$500.00
11 Permanent Seeding & Mulching 0.95 AC $2,000.00 $1,900.00
12 Geotechnical Services 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
13 Provide As-built Plans 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
14 Landscaping 0.95 AC $20,000.00 $19,000.00
Sub-Total Estimated Construction Cost $408,582.50
20% Contingency Total Estimated Construction Cost $81,716.50
Total Estimated Construction Cost $490,299.00
Total Estimated Maintenance Cost for Life of BMP @ 4%
Construction Cost Estimate
$19,611.96
Total Estimates Project Cost $534,910.96
Estimate Prepared b :
w
Christopher Ste Project Engineer 11/10/05
dr
B
%N A
&
`/ = 1? ANW-t
engineers. sunwers 8 landscape architects
81
References
1. Claytor, R.A. and T.R. Schueler, 1996. Design of Stormwater Filtering
Systems, The Center for Watershed Protection.
2. Center for Watershed Protection, 2000. Urban Stream Restoration Practices:
An Initial Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
3. City of Winston-Salem, Planning Information and Graphics - Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) Database, 2005.
4. Doll, B. A., D.E. Wise-Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W.A.
Harman, R. E. Smith, and J. Spooner, 2002. Hydraulic Geometry
Relationships for the Urban Streams Throughout The Piedmont of North
Carolina. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 38 No.
3.
5. Forsyth County Planning Office - Planimetric and Topographic Maps 1997.
6. Forsyth County Planning Office, Historic Aerial Photograph Series 1951 -
2000.
7. HDR Engineering, Inc., 2000. Upper Salem Creek Watershed Master Plan,
Draft Report.
8. Horton, J.W. and K.I. McConnell, 1991. The Western Piedmont in Horton,
J.W. and V.A. Zullo (eds.), Geology of the Carolinas, University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, TN.
9. Huff, K. Supervisor, Storm Water Division, Department of Public Works, City
of Winston-Salem, 2005 and 2006 - Personal Communications regarding
Water quality and Biological Monitoring of Bath Branch.
10. HydroStructures, PA, (2004). Sasaki Associates, Inc - Storm Drainage Flow
Monitoring (Project No. WS.04.2).
11. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration - National Climate
Data Center Website, 2001. Regional Precipitation, Snowfall, Temperature
Records for Winston-Salem/Greensboro.
12. North Carolina State University, Cooperative Extension Service and U.S.D.A.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999. Hydraulic Geometry
Relationships for the Rural Piedmont of North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C.
13. Old Salem Inc. - Map of Old Salem 1876.
14. Pease and Caldwell Engineering Company - Map of Winston-Salem 1935.
15. Robbins, J.C. and B.F. Pope, 1996. Estimation of Flood-Frequency
Characteristics of Small Urban Streams in North Carolina. U.S. Geological
Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4084.
16. Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology.
Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
17. Sanborn Insurance Maps, Historic Maps Series -1912 -1928.
18. Sasaki Associates, Inc. (2003) Piedmont Triad Research Park
19. Sasaki Associates, Inc. (2005) SWMM Model Output.
20. Sasaki Associates, Inc. (2005) PTRP Central District Drawings
21. Sasaki Associates, Inc. (2005) PTRP South District Drawings
22. Sasaki Associates, Inc. (2005) PTRP Utilities Drawings
23. Sasaki Associates, Inc. (2005) PTRP Storm Drain Drawings
24. Sasaki Associates, Inc. (2005) PTRP Channel Drawings
25. Sasaki Associates, Inc. (2005) PTRP Channel Drawings - 2
26. Sasaki Associates, Inc. (2005) PTRP Creek Cross-Sections
27. Sasaki Associates, Inc. (2005) PTRP Full Build-Out Drawings
28. Schueler, T.R., 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for
Planning and Designing Urban BMPs, Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments.
29. Schueler, T.R., 1992. Design of Stormwater Wetland Systems: Guidelines for
Creating Diverse and Effective Stormwater Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic
Region.
30. Schueler, T. R., P.A., Kumble, and M.A. Heraty, 1992. A Current Assessment
of Urban Best Management Practices: Techniques for Reducing Non-point
Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
31. Schumm, S. A., H. D. Harvey, and C. C. Watson. 1984. Incised channels:
morphology, dynamics, and control. Water Resources. Publications.
32. Stimmel Associates, PA, 2006. PTRP South District - Preliminary Grading
Plan.
33. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual.
34. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service,
1976. Soil Survey of Forsyth County, North Carolina.
35. U.S. Geological Survey, 1950. Winston-Salem East, North Carolina
Quadrangle, 7.5 - Minute Series Topographic Map, Scale: 1:24000.
36. U.S. Geological Survey, 2001. The National Flood-Frequency Program -
Methods for Estimating Flood Magnitude and Frequency in Rural and Urban
Areas in North Carolina, USGS Fact Sheet 007-00.
Bath Branch Stream Restoration
Volume 2 - Appendix

nL

MWA CLEAR CREEKS CONSULTING
PL1111.
1317 Knopp Road, Jarrettsville, Maryland 21084 [phone]
c:-P4,Aft
enolneers.surveyors i landscape architects
+v

Bath Branch Stream Restoration
Volume 2 - Appendix
Prepared for
Pilot View RC&D
And
Piedmont Triad Research Park
Prepared by
Clear Creeks Consulting LLC
In Collaboration with
CNA
May 2006
i
Table of Contents
A. Channel Morphology Field Data Plots
B. Hydrologic Analysis Supporting Documentation
1. SCS TR-55 Model
2. SCS TR-20 Model
3. Stage Storage Model
C. Riparian Plant Community Analysis
i
Channel Morphology Field Data Plots
Bath Creek Reach 1, Riffle
40
35
30
c 25
0
20
W 15
10
5
0

0 20 40
Bankfull Dimensions
68.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
37.4 width (ft)
1.8 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth (ft)
38.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.8 hyd radi (ft)
20.4 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
8.6 velocity (ft/s)
586.1 discharge rate (cfs)
1.14 Froude number
60 80 100
Width
Flood Dimensions
44.2 W flood prone area (ft)
1.2 entrenchment ratio
11.5 low bank height (ft)
4.3 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.044 Manning's roughness
0.19 D'Arcy-Weisbach Eric.
6.6 resistance factor u/u°
4.0 relative roughness
Cross Section
referencelD
instrument height ---
longitudinal station ---
Bankfull Stage
FS = 14.2 efev
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS = 23 elev
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa r ,Ia 2
Channel Slope
percent slope 3
Flow Resistance
Manning's"n' d.Ogd
D'Arcy - Weisbach "P' VININIM0 19
Note:
. .
120 140 160
Materials
21 D50 Riffle (mm)
140 D84 Riffle (mm)
162 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
3 channel slope (%)
3.30 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
1.31 shear velocity (ft/s)
29 unit strm power (Ib/ft/s)

Distance BS Hi FS Elevation Omit Notes
x
Pi
N o 000 fO0 a N O
e- •- (8) UOIIBA91EI .
O
O
co
O
O
O
O
f0
O
N
O
M
O
N
O

2 Weighted Pebble Count
Feature Percent of Reach
Rife 60 % Run %
Riflk, Pod, Run, (aka t
Pool ®% Glitle?%
Weighted pebble count by bed features
Material Size Range mm weighted
siff1da 0 • 0.05 0.0
very fine sand 04062 - 0.125 1.0
fine send 0.125 - 0.25 2.0
medium and 0.25 - 0.5 4.0
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 2.0
very coarse sand 1 - 2 7.0
very fine gravel 2 - 4 2.0
fine gravel 4 - 6 12.0
fine gravel 6 - 8 10.0
medium gravel 8 - 11 Re
medium gravel 11 - 16 3.0
rse gravel
16 - 22
9.0
coarse gravel 22 - 32 6.0
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 5.0
ve coarse revel 45 - 64 4.0
..all wbble 64 - g0 7.0
medium cobble g0 - 128 4.0
large cobble 128 - 180 4.0
very lar a cobble 180 • 256 3.0
small boulder 256 - 362 3.0
small boulder 362 - 512 1.0
medium boulder 512 - 1024 2.0
large boulder 1024 - 2048 0.0
ve far a boulder 2048 - 4096 0.0
total particle weighted count 100
bedrock 2.0
clay hardpan 0.0
detrituVwood 0.0
artificial 0.0
total weighted count: 192.0
Note:
RIM:
Material Size Range mm Count
sillrcla 0 - 0.062
very fine sand 0_062 - 0.125
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25
medium sand 0.25 -0.6 1
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 1
ve coarse sand 1 - 2 2
very fine gravel 2 -4
fine gravel 4 - 6 4
fine gravel 6 - 8 5
medium gravel 8 - 11 8
medium gravel 11 - 16 3
coarse gravel 16 - 22 7
coarse gravel 22 - 32 6
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 2
very coarse ravel 45 - 64 2
small cobble 64 - 90 5
medium cobble 90 - 128 3
large cobb
le 128 - 180 4
l
ve la a cobbe 180 -256 3
small boulder 256 - 362 1
small boulder 362 - 512 1
medium boulder 512 - 1024 2
large boulder 1024 - 2048
v far :boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count: 60
bedrock
clay hardpan
debitusAVOOd
total count: 60
Note:
Pool
Material Size Range mm Count
sOve a 0 - 0.062
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125 T
fine sand 0125 - Of 2
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5 3
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 1
ve coarse sand 1 - 2 5
very floe gravel 2 - 4 2
fine gravel 4 - 6 8
fine gravel 6 - 8 5
medium gravel 8 - 11 1
medlum gravel 11 - 18
coarse gravel 16 • 22 2
coarse gravel 22 - 2
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 3
ve coarse revel 45 - 64 2
small cobble 64 • 90 2
medium cobble 90 - 128 1
large cobble 128 - 180
v far :cobble 180 -256
small boulder 256 - 362 2
small boulder 362 - 512
medium boulder 512 - 1024
large boulder 1024 - 2048
very large boulder 2048 - 4096
total particle count: 40
bedrock
day hardpan
dobdusiwood
artificial
total count 42
NOW
Weighted pebble count by bed features Bath Creek Reach 1
60% riffle 40% pool
-e--weighted percent -*-Rife --Pool -Run -Glide - #of partices
100% sifllda sand gravel cobble b oulder 14%

90%

80%
70% : 1 10%

60% I 8% 'o
u 6% o
40%
n 30'h - 4%
20% $
2% 3
f0%
0% 0%

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
t1%
Sme(mm) Size Distribution T
D16 2 mean 14.0 sift/day 0% bedrock 2%
035 6.9 dispersion 7.1 sand 16%
D50 12 skewness 0.05 gravel 59%
Des 28 cobble 18%
D84 98 boulder 6%
D95 290
Riffle Bath Creek Reach 1

100% sift/clay

sand ravel
?cumulartlve %
cobble boulder
-# of particles
9
l
-
X
i
1 l
70% ' 6 2
3
m 60% ?I 5 .

- -
r
t - °
20% 2
10%

I
1
?
o

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution Tree
D16 6.6 mean 30.4 siffl lay 0% -
D35 11 dispersion 4.9 send 7%
D50 21 skewness 0.14 gravel 62%
D65 45 cobble 25%
D84 140 boulder 7%
D95 360
1 Pool Bath Creek Reach 1
100% sift clay
sand ravel -a-cumuletive % -
cobble boulder # of particles
9
90% _:..... . ._ L_. .._. :. :_:.. 1. '.... 8
1

c
.. 60%
c
°

I 6

c

K 50%
_
4
$ 40%
I f 3
30% ... 1 e
1 1 : 2
l
0% 0

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution T
D78 0.66 mean 5.7 sift/clay 0% bedrock 5%
D35 4 dispersion 8.7 sand 29%
D50 5.4 skewness 0.02 gravel 55%
D65 7.6 cobble 7%
D84 50 boulder 5%
D95 MA
98
96
94
Bath Creek Reach 2, Run XS
0 92
90
m
M 88
86
84
82
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
66.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 36.4 W flood prone area (ft) 21 D50 Riffle (mm)
22.9 width (ft) 1.6 entrenchment ratio 140 D84 Riffle (mm)
2.9 mean depth (ft) 11.7 low bank height (ft) 125 threshold grain size (mm):
3.9 max depth (ft) 3.0 low bank height ratio
25.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
2.6 hyd radi (ft)
7.8 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
8.8 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 1.58 channel slope (%)
586.2 discharge rate (cfs) 0.14 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric. 2.54 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.97 Froude number 7.5 resistance factor uV 1.14 shear velocity (ft/s)
6.3 relative roughness 25 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
Bath Creek Reach 2, Step XS
40
40
35
30
25
W
20
W 15
10
5
0
0 20 40
Bankfull Dimensions
62.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
29.3 width (ft)
2.1 mean depth (ft)
3.2 max depth (ft)
30.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0 hyd radi (ft)
13.8 width depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
8.8 velocity (ft(s)
548.2 discharge rate (cfs)
1.09 Froude number
60 80 100
Width
Flood Dimensions
39.8 W flood prone area (ft)
1.4 entrenchment ratio
282 low bank height (ft)
8.8 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.042 Manning's roughness
0.16 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.
7.0 resistance factor Wu`
4.6 relative roughness
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station
Bankfull Stage
FS = 8 elev
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS = 33 elev
elevation
-Flood Prone Area -
Wdth fpa 39.
Channel Slope
percent slop e 3
Flow Resistance
Manning's"n" ?U - 0.042
D'Arcy - Weisbach "P' 0.17
Note:
SteV . Concrete :Maintenance Sh4
120 140 160 180
Materials
21 D50 Riffle (mm)
140 D84 Riffle (mm)
150 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
2.4 channel slope (°A)
3.06 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
1.26 shear velocity (fl/s)
28 unit strm power (Ibl t/s)
Distance es Hl FS Elevation Omit Notes
f7 in
U
U
CD N
c ?
iu p
O
c
0
r ro
m N
• X
J
4
N
U
W w
d Y
m ?
N
t
LO W
IT3
I
a

„ hall IT H.?? Ih?' .. Ilit ,li I•, 00
.ali;x?? .x P
O
4

r` v m
CN
CL
rn 7 t0 V' {(j N M
(1) co

cm)
C
•W
.Nd ?^
,? W 1? W ? t? 1? r ? N
O
LL9
N W W W GD

7L ': U3 -
` ID W W? W
t7
N
ID (0
O
.. O :1CF?. N
c+> N N

C a
O
'
. 2
i6
C U2i

O
p
r ? N ti

r 41
f
c

C «
,
riP?„? !I ? U m n ?? ? c
m
?-
l0 nu°.

ji x ?•y r _

M O j., ., .

o l i i f ? S_

1
C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O p O O
U) U) in wto Win 0wW in NON

1 Ali p

ITlli ?
?, k'"'I,k
in,

II?F?Ip+;?i
S
IS, d

s N I I i

-
lil tal: ?? ?? - -
p _
Imo
co E a

D O O O O O O r '; - •?
D N •f Cl) N c
(8) U01MA913 a

•N
O
i
Bath Creek Reach 3, Pool XS

35
30
25
a0 20
? 15
w
10
5
0
0 20 40
Bankfull Dimensions
114.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
42.4 width (ft)
2.7 mean depth (ft)
4.5 max depth (ft)
43.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
2.6 hyd radi (ft)
15.7 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
5.5 velocity (ft/s)
629.7 discharge rate (cfs)
0.60 Froude number
60 80
Width
Flood Dimensions
68.5 W flood prone area (ft)
1.6 entrenchment ratio
13.0 low bank height (ft)
2.9 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.050 Manning's roughness
0.21 D'Arcy-Weisbach Eric.
7.6 resistance factor u/u`
5.9 relative roughness
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station
Bankfull Stage
FS = 18.5 elev
elevation -
Low Bank Height
FS = 27 elev
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 68,5
Channel Slope
percent slope 3
Flow Resistance
Manning's ?n' 0 040
D'Arcy - Weisbach 'T 0 14
Note:
-.. s
100 120 140
Materials
21 D50 Riffle (mm)
140 D84 Riffle (mm)
77 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
0.96 channel slope (%)
1.56 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.90 shear velocity (ft/s)
8.9 unit strm power (Ib/ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
I
Hydrologic Analysis Supporting Documentation
1. SCS TR-55 Model
I
2. SCS TR-20 Model
I
3. Stage Storage Model
I
I

i
RUNOFF
Project BATH
CURVE NUMBER
COMPUTATION
Version 2.00
CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: DRAINAGE AREA 01
Subarea : DA 01
----------------------------- -------------- ---------------- ---
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION A B
C D

--
----- Acr es (CN)
---------

FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) --------
--------
--------------------
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Good condition; grass cover > 75% - 41.8(61)
Urban Districts Avg % imperv
Commercial & business 85 - 101(92) -
Industrial 72 - 133(88) 36(91) -
Residential districts Avg %- imperv
(by average lot size)

I 1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 41(85) 2.2(90) -
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 316. 38.2
-----------------------------
------------------
SUBAREA: DA 01 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 355 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 86
----------------------------------------
------------
* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK . User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: DRAINAGE AREA 01
---------
Flow Type ------------
2 year --------
Length --------
Slope ---------
Surface -------------
n Area --------------
Wp Velocity ------
Time

--------- rain
------------ (ft)
--- (ft/ft) code (SCrjEc) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)

Sheet
3.2 -----
100 --------
.02 ---------
f ------------- --------------- -----
0.238
Shallow Concent'd 400 .06 p 0.022
Open Channel 4800 5 0.267
Time of Concentration = 0.53*
Sheet Flow Surface Codes
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass
, Burmuda
.C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods
, Light
D Cultivated > 20 W Res. I Woods, Dense
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
--- Shallow Concentrated ---
--- Surface Codes ---
P Paved
U Unpaved
IN
GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00
Project : BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: DRAINAGE AREA 01
Data: Drainage Area 355 * Acres
Runoff Curve Number 86 *
Time of Cor_ce :`radon: 0.33 * Hours
Rainfall Type II
Pond and Swamp Area NONE
l Storm Number I 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1
1----------------------1------1------1---- I------1------1------I------1
1 Frequency (yrs) 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 10 1 25 I 50 1 100 1
I I I I I I I I
24-Hr Rainfall (in) I 3.0 l 3.5 1 4.4 1 5.1 1 5.5 1 6.5 1 7.3 1
1 Ia/P Ratio 10.11 10.09 1 0.07 l 0.06 1 0.06 1 0.05 10.04 1
I I ( I I I I
Used 10.11 10.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 1
1 Runoff (in) l 1.66 1 2.10 12.91 13.56 1 3.94 14.89 1 5.65
1 I I I
1 Unit Peak Discharge 10.796 10.802 10.802 10.802 10.802 10.802 10.802 1
(cfs/acre/in)
Pond and Swamp Factorl 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1
1 0.0% Ponds Used I I I I I I I
----------------------i------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ I------ I------1
1 Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 470 1 597 1 829 1 1014 1 1121 1 1391 1 1610 I
* - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJs Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: DRAINAGE AREA 02
Subarea : DA 02
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydroiogic Soil Group
COMER DESCRIPTION B C
Acres ON
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Good condition; grass cover > 75% - 15.1(61) 9.2(74) -
Urban Districts Avg % imperv
Commercial & business 85
Industrial 72
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65
1/4 acre 38
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
- 20.6 (92) 2.36(94)
-
- .10.7 (88) 20.5 (91) -
- 14.1(85) 14.0(90) -
42.8(75) 9.01(83) -
103. 55.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREA: DA 02 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 158.37 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 82*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: N C Checked: Date:
Subtitle: DRAINAGE AREA 02
-----------------------------
?i 2 ye-,- - r n ----------

Slope Su --------
-
:_ ---------------------------

Area Wp `7 o C i t- -----

ime
- - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sheet 3.2 100 - - - - - - -
.02 - - - - - - - -
f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - _ - - - -
0.236
Shallow Concent'd 450 .06 u 0.032
Open Channel 2850 5 0.158
Time of Concentration = 0 .43*
--- Sheet Flow Surfac e Codes -- -
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated ---
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes ---
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved
D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: DRAINAGE AREA 02
Data: Drainage Area 158.37 * Acres
Runoff Curve Number 3"`
Conce?_trat_on. -?
Rainfall Type II
Pond and Swamp Area NONE
i Storm Number 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 .5 1 6 1 7
--------------------i-----i-----i-----i--o--1-- 25 --1------1------
(yrs) i 2 5 i
Frequency 1
I 1 50 1 100 1
I I I I I I I I
1 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 1 3.0 1 3.5 i 4.4 i 5.1 1 5.5 1 6.5 1 7.3 1
1 Ia/P Ratio 1 0.15 1 0.13 1 0.10 1 0.09 1 0.08 1 0.07 1 0.06 1
I I I I I I I I i
Used 1 0.15 1 0.13 1 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 i
Runoff (in) 1 1.38 1 1.78 1 2.55 1 3.17 1 3.53 1 4.45 1 5.20 i
I I I I I i I 1 1
1 Unit Peak Discharge 10.858 10.873 10.892 10.892 10.892 10.892 10.892 1
(cfs/acre/in) i i I 1 I I 1
1 Pond and Swamp Factorl 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1
i 0.026 Ponds Used I I I I I I I I
1----------------------I------1------1------1------1--- --1------1------1
1 Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 187 1 247 i 360 1 448 1 499 1 629 1 734 l
* - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: EXISTING DR'_ _?r 1 ARE:' 03
S.,barea : DA 03
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
uydYolo So_ Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Good condition; grass cover > 75% - 18.1(61) 5.8(74) -
Urban Districts Avg % imperv
Commercial & business 85 - 1.22(92) - -
Industrial 72 - 50.4(88) 16.0(91) -
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65 - 6.58(85) - -
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 76.3 21.8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREA: DA 03 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 98.1 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 83*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: EXISTI27G DRAINAGE AREA 03
---------------------
_ y _ -------
-ic,z --------------------------
Sips -------------------
Ve o c-- ------
ism-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-

Sheet 3.2
100
.Oo f - - - -
- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.153
Shallow Concent'd 400 .08 u 0.024
Open Channel 2500 5 0.139
Time of Concentration 0.32*
Sheet Flow Surface Codes
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light
D Cultivated > 20 W Res. I Woods, Dense
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
--- Shallow Concentrated ---
--- Surface Codes ---
P Paved
U Unpaved
GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked:
Subtitle: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA 03
Dana: Drainage Area 93.1 * Acres
urve rambe
Pond and Swamp r. ea N02vE
-----------------------
-----------------------
1 Storm Number --------
-------
1 1 1 -------
- ---
2
1----------------------
Frequency (yrs) 1------1
I 1 1 ------
2
i 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 1 3.0 1 3.5

Ia/P Ratio I i
l 0.14 1
0.12
Used 1 0.14 1 0.12

1 Runoff (in) I
1 1.45 1
1.86
Version 2.00
Date:
Date:
3 I 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1
5 10 1 25 1 50 l 100 1
4.4 1 5.1 1 5.5 I 6.5 1 7.3 1
0.09 l 0.08 0.07 1 0.06 10.06 1
0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10
2.64 1 3.26 1 3.63 1 4.56 5.31 1
Unit Peak Discharge 10.997 11.013 11.026 11.026 11.026 11.026 11.026 1
(cfs/acre/in) 1 1
1 Pond and Swamp Factorl 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1
1 0.0% Ponds Used I 1 I I I I I 1
1----------------------1------1------1------1------I------1------1------1
1 Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 142 1-. 185 1 265 1 329 1 365 1 459 I 535 1
* - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
i
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA 3a
Suoarea : DA 03a
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:T,dro1ogic " oup
-------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Good condition; grass cover > 75% - 10.4(61) 0.98(74)' -
Urban Districts Avg % imperv
commercial & business 85
Industrial 72
Residential districts Avg % imperv
(by average lot size)
1/8 acre (town houses) 65
- 1.22(92) - -
- 39.5(88) 4.00(91) -
- 6.58(85) - -
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group)
57.7 4.98
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREA: DA 03a TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 62.68 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 83*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: PROPOSED
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.. _ % yc ? !yti7 S1Ot n ea '_'i.,?._
- -
Sheec 3.2 100 .06 f 0.153
Shallow Concent'd 400 .08 u 0.024
Open Channel 2600 6 0.120
s Time of Concentration = 0.30*
Sheet Flow Surface Codes
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light
D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
--- Shallow Concentrated ---
--- Surface Codes ---
P Paved
U Unpaved
GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Sul-,title: ZOPOcc J' :'.:_ - _ .. _.:. ....
Data: Drainage Area 62.68 * Acres
-?uno_= Curv,.: 83

_*a:11 Type IS
Pond and Swamp Area NONE
!Storm Number 1 2
- 3
- 4 5
------I---
-- 6
----- I 7
- ------
----------------------
Frequency (yrs) ------
1 ----
-
( 2 -----
5 -
10 25 50 100
24-Hr Rainfall (in) 3.0 3.5 I 4.4 5.1 5.5 6.5 7.3
Ia/P Ratio 0.14 0.12 4 0.09 1 0.08 0.07 1 0.06 0.06
Used 0.14 0.12 0.10 ( 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Runoff (in) 11.45 1.86 2.64 3.26 3.63 4.56 5.31
Unit Peak Discharge 1.027 1.043 11.056 1.056 1.056 1.056 1.056
(cfs/acre/in)
Pond and Swamp Factor 1.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
j 0.0% Ponds Used
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Peak Discharge (cfs) 93 I 121 175 216 240 302 352
* - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines

RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subt._tle.
Subarea ; DA 03'L)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.,vdrolo,<i S? 1 Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.)
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Good condition; grass cover t- 75% - 2.72(61) 3.00(74) -
Urban Districts Avg % imperv
Industrial 72 - 10.9(88) 12.0(91) -
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 13.6 15
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREA: DA 03b TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 28.62 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 85*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method

TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME version 2
00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date: .
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle. 'D_'_)POSED r^ ' . -. '. ... - ---
-
-_._.. ,. yea_ --------
?.: ,:--,-._ -----------------
S_OU Sumac, -----------------
a rrFa ?ip -----------
i:,,ocit.r -----
Tirr;
-------------

Sheet .2
1G0 ----.
.20 ----------------- -----
-- ---

Shallow Concent'd
400
.04 p 0.095

Open Channel
1100 0.027
6 0.051
Time of 'Concentration = 0 .17*
Sheet Flow Surface Codes
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light
D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
--- Shallow Concentrated ---
Surface Codes ---
P Paved
U Unpaved
GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle. -,PEA 3b --
Data: Drainage Area 28.62 * Acres
Rair..- De II
Pori! an:'_ Swamp ?rep NONE
Storm Number 2 I 3 I 4 f 5 I 6 7
---------------------- ------1------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Frequency (yrs) 1 1 2 5 10 25 50 100
24-Hr Rainfall (in) 3.0 I 3.5 4.4 5.1 5.5 ( 6.5 7.3
Ia/P Ratio 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05
Used 0.12 + 0..10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Runoff (in) 1.59 2.02 2.82 13.46 3.83 ( 4.78 ( 5.54
Unit Peak Discharge 1.315 1.328 1.328 1.328 1.328 1.328 11.328
(cfs/acre/in)
Pond and Swamp Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.0% Ponds Used
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------?
Peak.Discharge (cfs) 60 77 107 132 146 182 211
* - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Subtitle: PROPOSED DF:?TNA." 3?
Sub.-.z_-2a :
- -------- )A 03c
------------------
-
-- ------------ ------------------------------------
;i:._.: '.c Soli '.scup
s (C

FULLY DEVE
LOPED URBAN AREAS (V
eg Estab.) -- ---------------------
Open space (Lawns,parks etc.)
Good con dition; grass cover > 75W - 4.95(61) 1.82(74) -
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 4.95 1.82
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREA: DA 03c TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 6.77 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 64*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: ''C Checked: Date:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
Sheet 3.2 100 .20 f 0.095
Open Channel 1900 6 0.088
Time of Concentration _= 0.18*
Sheet Flow Surface Codes
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense
B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda
C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light
D Cultivated > 20 % Res_ I Woods, Dense
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
--- Shallow Concentrated ---
--- Surface Codes ---
P Paved
U Unpaved

GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00
Project BATH CREEK User: CJS Date:
County FORSYTH State: NC Checked: Date:
Dana: Drainage Area
Runoff ... rv?3 umber
?a n =.11 oe
Pond and Swamp Area
Storm Number 1
--------------------------
Frequency (yrs) 1
24-Hr Rainfall (in) 3.0
Ia/P Ratio 0.38
Runoff (in) 0.47
Unit Peak Discharge 10.996
(cfs/acre/in) 1
1
Pond and Swamp Factorl 1.00
0.0% Ponds Used 1
--------------1-----
Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 3
6.77 * Acres
4 ._
I ?.
NONE.
--------------- -
2 3 4 5 6 7
2 5 10 25 50 100
1 3.5 1 4.4 1 5.1 5.5 6.5 7.3
0.32 0.26 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.15
1.0.71 1.21 1.65 1.91 2.63 3.23
11.105 11.178 11.206 11.218 11.243 11.258
I
1 1.0o 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00
I I I I I I
1 5 1 10 1 13 1 16 1 22 1 28
-----------------------------------------
* - Value(s) provided from TR.-55 system routines

JOB TR-20 05058EX.DAT
FULLPRINT
TITLE 05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACI LITIES
TITLE EXIST ING CONDITIONS
6 RUNOFF 1 001 1 0.5546 86. c3
O
6 RUNOFF 1 001 ?<<' , y
6 ADDHYD 4 001 _ 2 3 _. J. i
6 RUNOFF 1 002 4 0.1533 83. 0
32
j
ODIL!YD ^. 002 5 .
r, l

ENDCMP 1 -' 2 2 tit
7 COMPUT 7 001 002 3.5 1.0 2 2 02
ENDCMP 1
7 COMPUT 7 001 002 5.1 1.0 2 2 10
ENDCMP 1
7 COMPUT 7 001 002 6.5 1.0 2 2 50
ENDCMP 1
7 COMPUT 7 001 002 7.3 1.0 2 2 99
ENDCMP 1
END30B 2
0
Page 1
1 05058EX.OUT
TR20 ----------------------------------------------------
--------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
15;:57:33 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.04TEST
15 57:33 PASS 1 )OB "!O.
T"V;= ' OI_ INCRE.." MA. N TIME TNCRE c ,T n(
"ECU-i IVE CJi T ZOL CGivPUT FROM XSECY 1 10 XSECTION 2
STARTING TIME = 00 RAIN DEPTH = 3.00 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM N0. = 1 - RAIN TABLE NO. _
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.20 483.1
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.66 WATERSHED INCHES; 595 CFS-HRS; 49.1 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.15 199.3
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.38 WATERSHED INCHES; 220 CFS-HRS; 18.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1 "
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.19 675.8
(NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.57 WATERSHED INCHES; 815 CFS-HRS; 67.3 ACRE-FEET.
-OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.09 153.6
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.45 WATERSHED INCHES; 143 CFS-HRS; 11.8 ACRE-FEET.
_tPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
R20 ---------------------------------
-------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
3/20/** EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.04TEST
5:57:7, PASS I ?-os tv0. 1 PAGE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.16 803.6
Page 1 (NULL)
05058EX.OUT
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.55 WATERSHED INCHES; 958 CFS-HRS; 79.1 ACRE-FEET.
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP :•1rUT ATIOir'S CC, i?LETED FOK PAS i
EXECUTIVE CONTRC!_ COMPUT XSECTZO,! ?. TO XSECTIC'
f NG TIi
_ DEPTH -- j _ _r?i:n - U
ANi .
'UiNOPF ' D. = 2 ,.IN TIME ;T = r, ?,C, 5
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STOi.?t NO. = 2 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.20 604.5
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.10 WATERSHED INCHES; 750 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.14 260.7
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.78 WATERSHED INCHES; 285 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.18 856.1
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.00 WATERSHED INCHES; 1035 CFS-HRS;
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
62.0 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
23.5 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
85.5 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
TR20 -----------------------------------------------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/20/** EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.04TEST
15:57:33 PASS 2 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.08 196.0
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.86 WATERSHED INCHES; 184 CFS-HRS;
=PERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK E(111 S' ' PEAK DISC' , GE(CFS"
12.15 1022.3 J
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.98 WATERSHED INCHES; 1218 CFS-HRS;
Page 2
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
15.2 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVA-1-ION(FEET)
(NULL)
100.7 ACRE-FEET.
N
05058EX.OUT
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 2
EXECL i _ON (ROL tCl i i c'_ T ION 1 I U L; 2
STARTING TIME _ .00 RAIN DEPTH = 5.10 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
;,i__ PN ATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. =10 RAIN TABLE NO, 7
_;v? IOi`a i Ji:OF F X-, EC TI, A 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.20 1027.3 _ (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.56 WATERSHED INCHES; 1274 CFS-MRS; 105.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.14 . 463.1 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.17 WATERSHED INCHES; 506 CFS-HRS; 41.8 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/20/'` EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.04TEST
15:57:33 PASS 3 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 4
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.18 1475.5
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.44 WATERSHED INCHES; 1779 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.08 345.0
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.26 WATERSHED INCHES; 323 CFS-HRS;
-OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.15 1779.1
RUNOFF ABOVE EASEFLO?, (BAS`'i=LOIN = .00 CFS)
3.41 WATERSHED INCHES; 2102 CFS-HRS;
4XECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP
COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS
Page 3
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
. (NULL)
147.0 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
26.7 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
173.7 ACRE-FEET.
3
N
05058EX.OUT
EXECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 2
STARTING TIME = .00 RAIN DEPTH = 6.50 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. MAIN
ALT R -. = NC-. .- 0 STOFUd ;40. =5 ? l;i TAr'Lc :U. _
ERAT-I.ON R!;NOF XSECTIO" ,
PEAL" E.
12.20 1383.9 (Ri;r;o=r)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.88 WATERSHED INCHES; 1748 CFS-HRS; .144.4 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
1
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/20/** EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.04TEST
15:57:33 PASS 4 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 5
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.14 644.1
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.44 WATERSHED INCHES; 710 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.17 2008.8
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.75 WATERSHED INCHES; 2458 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.08' 474.9
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.55 WATERSHED INCHES; 451 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.14 2434.2
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.72 WATERSHED INCHES; 2908 CFS-HRS;
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP
4XECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
58.7 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
203.1 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
37.2 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
240.3 ACRE-FEET
COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 4
FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 2
Page 4
05058EX.OUT
STARTING TIME _ .00 RAIN DEPTH 7.30 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. =99 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
OPE . XS - c,
TR20 ------------------------ T -_
--------------- - --
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILTTIF;7? VERSION
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.19 1591.2
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.65 WATERSHED INCHES; 2022 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.14 749.6
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.19 WATERSHED INCHES; 829 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.17 2320.5
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.51 WATERSHED INCHES; 2851 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.08 551.9
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.31 WATERSHED INCHES; 525 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.14 2821.2
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.48 WATEr"ISHED INCHES; 3377 CFS-14RS;
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
167.1 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
68.5 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
235.6 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
43.4 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
279.0 ACRE-FEET.
11EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 5
_ R20 --------------------------------------------------.----------.-- SCS -
-------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
3/20/** EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.04TEST
15:57:33 PASS 6 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 7
Page 5
I
05058EX.OUT
1
TR20 ---------------------------------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/20/** EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.04TEST
15:57:33 i06
Gr
SUMMARY TA.?!LE I
l
A CiI'iRA:= _Jt t: !G T + 11, 7 7 c C i iD zA, E ( :-?)I
I tD a: ??:
r-FLAT TOP ,i , ?! - -1 RUNCA ED ;,YD;Z„GRAPH R-RISING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH
XSECTION/ STANDARD PEAK DISCHARGE
STRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE RUNOFF ------ ---------- ----------- ---------
ID OPERATION AREA AMOUNT ELEVAT ION TIME RATE RATE
( SQ MI ) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CSM)
RAINFALL OF 3.00 inches AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT .0 hrs

RAINTABLE NU
MBER 2, A
RC 2 .
MAIN TIME IN CREMENT .10 0 HOU RS
ALTERNATE
--------- 0 STORM
- 1

XSECTION 1 ------------
RUNOFF -----
.55
1.66 ---
12.20
483
878
2
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 1.38 --- 12.15 199 .
796
0
XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 1.57 --- 12.19 676 .
845
0
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .15 1.45 --- 12.09 154 .
1026
7
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .96 1.55 --- 12.16 804 .
837.5
RAINFALL OF 3.50 inches AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT .0 hrs.
ALTERNATE
-------- 0 STORM 2
--
-XSECTION 1 -------------
RUNOFF ----
.55
2.10 ---
12.20
604
1098
2
=XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 1.78 --- 12.14 261 .
1044
0
=XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 2.00 --- 12.18 856 .
1070
0
SECTION 2 RUNOFF .15 1.86 --- 12.08 196 .
1306.7
SECTION 2 ADDHYD .96 1.98 --- 12.15 1022 1064.6
RAINFALL OF 5.10 inches AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT .0 hrs.
ALTERNATE 0 STORM 10
----------
*SECTION 1 -------------
RUNOFF ----
.55
3.56 ---
12.20
1027
1867
3
-CSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 3.17 --- 12.14 463 .
1852
0
SECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 3.44 --- 12.18 1475 .
1843
8
SECTION 2 RUNOFF .15 3.26 --- 12.08 345 .
2300
0
SECTION 2 ADDHYD .96 3.41 --- 12.15 1779 .
1853.1
EtAINFALL OF 6.50 inches AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT .0 hrs.
ALTERNATE
---------- 0 STORM
------------- 50
----
R20 -------- ------------- ----- -------------

/20/**

05058

BATH
EX ---------
--------
CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES
------ -- SCS -

VERSION

5:57:33 ISTING CONDITIONS 2.04TEST
SU MMARY, JOB P!0. 1 PAGE 9
SUMMARY TABLE 1
Page 6
05058EX.OUT
SELECTED RESULTS OF STANDARD AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL IN ORDER PERFORMED

A CHARACTER FOLLOWING THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND
RATE (CFS) .
INDICATES:
F-FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH T-TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH R-RI SING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH
XSECTIONj/ STANDARD
"' C-r iitiR0 RUNOFF ----------- ---------- ------- --

ID
OPERATION
AREA
AMOUNT ELEVATION
TIME
RATE -------
RATE
(SQ MI) (IN) (FT) (H^) (CFS) (CSM)
_ l !N f 0 STO U
--------
XSECTION ------------
1 RUNOFF -------
.55
4.88 ---
12.20
1384
251
4
6
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 4.44 --- 12.14 644 -
.
2576
0
XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 4.75 --- 12.17 2009 .
2511
3
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .15 4.55 --- 12.08 475 .
3166
7
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .96 4.72 --- 12.14 2434 .
2535.4
RAINFALL OF 7.30 inches AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT .0 hrs.
ALTERNATE 0 STORM 99

XSECTION
1 ------
RUNOFF ----
.55 5.65 ---
12.19
1591
2892
7
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 5.19 --- 12.14 750 .
3000
0
XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 5.51 --- 12.17 2321 .
2901
3
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .15 5.31 --- 12.08 552 .
3680.0
XSECTION
? 2 ADDHYD .96 5.48 --- 12.14 2821 2938.5
TR20 ----- --- ------------- ------------

03/20/* 05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION

15:57:33 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.04TEST
SUMMARY, JOB NO. 1 PAGE 10
SUMMARY TABLE 3
---------------
STORM DISCHARGES (CFS) AT XSECTIONS AND STRUCTURES FOR ALL ALTERNATES
QUESTION MARK (?) AFTER: OUTFLOW PEAK -RISING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH.
=<SECTION/ DRAINAGE
-STRUCTURE AREA STORM NUMBERS..........
ID (SQ MI) 1 2 10 50 99
=<SECTION 1 .80
ALTERNATE 0
676 856 1475 2009 2321
-CSECTION 2 .96
---------------------------
ALTERNATE 0 .804 1022 1779 2434 2821
t20 --------------- ----------------------------- --- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
31201** EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.04TEST
IND OF 1 JOBS IN THIS RUN
Page 7
05058EX.OUT
SCS TP, '). UrTEST
INPUT = \- rt20\05058EX. DE` T GIVEN DATA FILE
OUTPUT = C:\TR20\05058EX.OUT DATED 03/20/**,15:57:33
FILES GENE'AT_U - DATED 03/20/*,15 : 57: 33
.NONE!
TOTAL NUMBER OF WARNINGS 0, MESSAGES = 0
*** TR-20 RUN COMPLETED ***
Page 8
N
05058PS.DAT
JOB TR-2 0 FULLPRINT
TITLE 05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES
TITLE PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL
3 STRUCT 01
g 810.0 0.9 0.0
8i/Lo 198.65 0.71
8 814.0 281.21 1.57
8 816.0 344.42 2.61
818.0 397.70 ;.85

8?2.0 750.12
8 824.0 1270.10 8.90
8 826.0 2024.91 11.09
8 828.0 2516.28 13.54
9 ENDTB L
3 STRUCT 02
8 750.0 0.00 0.00
8 752.0 49.10 0.99
8 754.0 69.72 2.16
8 756.0 84.70 3.55
8 758.0 153.21 5.15
8 760.0 495.24 6.98
9 ENDTBL
3 STRUCT 03
8 756.0 0.00 0.00
8 758.0 22.09 1.18
8 760.0 31.25 3.94
8 762.0 38.27 6.29
8 764.0 44.19 8.90
8 766.0 189.69 11.80
8 768.0 211.23 14.97
8 770.0 227.89 18.45
9 ENDTBL
6 RUNOFF 1 001 1 0.5546 86. 0.53 1 1 DA 1
6 RESVOR 2 01 1 2 802.0 1 1 swM 1
6 RUNOFF 1 001 3 0.2475 82. 0.43 1 1 DA 2
6 ADDHYD 4 001 2 3 4 1 1
6 RUNOFF 1 002 5 0.0979 83. 0.30 1 1 DA 3a
6 RESVOR 2 02 5 6 750.0 1 1 SWM 2
6 ADDHYD 4 002 4 6 7 1 1
6 RUNOFF 1 002 1 0.0447 85. 0.17 1 1 DA 3b
6 RESVOR 2 03 1 2 756.0 1 1 SwM 3
6 ADDHYD 4 002 2 7 3 1 1
6 RUNOFF 1 002 4 0.0106 64. 0.18 1 1 DA 3c
6 ADDHYD 4 003 3 4 5 1 1
ENDATA
7 INCREM 6 0.1
7 COMPUT 7 001 003 3.0 1.0 2 2 01
ENDCMP 1
7 COMPUT 7 001 003 3.5 1.0 2 2 02
ENDCMP 1
7 COMPUT 7 001 003 5.1 1.0 2 2 10
ENDCMP 1
7 COMPUT 7 001 003 6.5 1.0 2 2 50
ENDCMP 1
-7 COMPUT 7 001 003 7.3 1.0 2 2 99
ENDCMP 1
EN'sJOB 2
Page 1

05058Ps.OUT
1
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
14:30:51 PASS 1 309 NO. 1 PAGE ?
EXECUT.IVE COQ; T RO: irIAIN TIME.. INCREMENT =
_X CUTIVc CONTROL COM: UT FRGIM XSEC-i !OI, 1 TO XSEC-710N 3
STARTING TIME = .00 RAIN DEPTH = 3.00 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. - 1 F.ATN TABLE NO. = 2
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.20 483.1 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.66 WATERSHED INCHES; 595 CFS-HRS; 49.1 ACRE-FEET.
*** MESSAGE - STRUCTURE 1, USER ENTERED STARTING ELEVATION ( 802.0 FEET) CAN
ADD -.096 INCHES OF RUNOFF TO THE OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH VOLUME.***
*** WARNING - STRUCTURE 1, MAIN TIME INCREMENT EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
TIME INCREM ENT OF .085 HOURS. ***
*** WARNING - STRUCTURE 1, RESERVOIR ROUTING HAS NEGATIVE DISCHARGES
FIRST NEGAT IVE VALUE IS -794 CFS. ***
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
7.44 143.5
.12.36 393.3
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.61 WATERSHED INCHES; 576 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS)
12.15
PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
199.3
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
811.44
817.84
47.6 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.38 WATERSHED INCHES;. 220 CFS-HRS;
18.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION
_TR20 ---------------------------------
----------------------------------- SCS
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRATN GE ARIA 01 -- SMIALL 2.04TEST
14:30:51 PASS 1. JOB NO. 1 PAGE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
Page 1
r - -
05058PS.OUT
7.44 143.5
12.24 554.2
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CPS)
7 5A ,.:qT=^ 4ED INCH: 7q,? { ?:
OPERATION RUNC''=r= XSECTION 2
i2.
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CPS)
1.45 WATERSHED INCHES; 91 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.26 57.4
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CPS)
1.45 WATERSHED INCHES; 91 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
7.44 143.5
12.24 611.6
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CPS)
1.53 WATERSHED INCHES; 888 CFS-HRS;
(NULL)
(NULL)
F5.' 'ICRE-.-ET.
` ij L
7.5 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
752.80
7.5 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
(NULL)
73.3 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
11.99 61.4 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CPS)
1.59 WATERSHED INCHES; 46 CFS-HRS; 3.8 ACRE-FEET.
*** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT 1.0%. -- ***
4R20 --------- --------------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
X3/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
?t4:30:51 PASS 1 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 3
=PERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.21 22.2 758.02
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CPS)
1.59 WATERSHED INCHES; 46 CFS-HRS; 3.8 ACRE-FEET.
Page 2
r -
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2 05058PS.OUT
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
7.44 143.5
(NULL)
12.24 633.7
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.53 WATERSHED INCHES; 933 CFS-HR.S; 77.1 ACRE-FEET.
C RUP..
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.04 3.2
(RUNOFF)
WARNING - XSECTION 2, MAIN TIME INCREMENT TOO LARGE, COMPUTED PEAK
( 3.17) EXCEEDS ADJACENT COORDINATE ( 3.01) BY 5
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
.47 WATERSHED INCHES; 3 CFS-HRS; .3 ACRE-FEET.
** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE .
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .18) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT 9.6%. ***
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
7.44 143.5
12.24 635.0 (NULL)
(NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
-152-WATERSHED INCHES; 937 CFS-HRS; 77.4 ACRE-FEET.
L20 ------------
SCS
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
D3/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
44:30:51 PASS 2 JOB NO. 1
PAGE 4
XECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 1
?XECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 3
STARTING TIME = .00 RAIN DEPTH = 3.50 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. = 2 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
WERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVAT'ON(FEET)
1.2.20 6N.5
(RUN0;=F)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.10 WATERSHED INCHES; 750 CFS-HRS; 62.0 ACRE-FEET.
II?" MESSAGE - STRUCTURE 1, USER ENTERED STARTING ELEVATION ( 802.0 FEET) CAN
ADD -.096 INCHES OF RUNOFF TO THE OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH VOLUME.***
* WARNING - STRUCTURE 1, MAIN TIME INCREMENT EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
Page 3

05058PS.OUT
TIME INCREMENT OF .085 HOURS.
WARNING - STRUCTURE 1, RESERVOIR ROUTING HAS NEGATIVE DISCHARGES
FIRST NEGATIVE VALUE IS -794 CFS.
OPENA ION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
r ?
I ME(HRS PEAK DISCHARGE CF r
. :; C ) PEAK _L_Ev.AT:?=JN(.=E
_ ,
495.6 ??.0.3'
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.00 WATERSHED INCHES; 716 CFS-HRS; 59.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.14 260.7
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.78 WATERSHED INCHES; 285 CFS-HRS; 23.5 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
TR20 --------
-------- -------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
14:30:51 PASS 2 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 5
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
6.64 143.5
12.27 674.1
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.93 WATERSHED INCHES; 1000 CFS-HRS;
-bPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.07 129.3
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = ..00 CFS)
1.86 WATERSHED INCHES; 117 CFS-HRS;
tPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.28 67.5
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.86 WATERSHED INCHES; 117 CFS-HRS;
4ERATION ADDHYD XSE.C ION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
6.64 143.5
Page 4
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
(NULL)
82.7 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
9.7 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
753.79
9.7 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)

05058Ps.OUT
12.27 741.6 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.92 WATERSHED INCHES; 1118 CFS-HRS; 92.4 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK ?''=(=iRS Pc'K ;R. ?CCF` =LEV ?Tl
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEr;,LOW .00 CFS)
2.01 WATERSHED INCHES; 58 CFS-HRS; 4.8 ACRE-FEET.
*** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT .0%. ***
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
14:30:51 PASS 2 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 6
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.23 23.5 758.30
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.02 WATERSHED INCHES; 58 CFS-HRS; 4.8 ACRE-FEET.
MOPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
6.64 143.5 (NULL)
12.27 765.0 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.95 WATERSHED INCHES; 1191 CFS-HRS; 98.4 ACRE-FEET.
7tPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.03 5.4 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
.70 WATERSHED INCHES; 5 CFS-HRS; .4 ACRE-FEET.
** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .18) FOR SUBW.ATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT 10.1%.
***
APERATION ADDHYD
PEAK TIME(HRS)
6.64
12.27
XSECTION 3
PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
143.5
766.8
Page 5
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
(NULL)

05058PS.OUT
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.94 WATERSHED INCHES; 1196 CFS-HRS; 98.8 ACRE-FEET.
EXECUTIVE CONTRO!.. ENDCMP COMPUTATT(-j"COMPLETED Fn,:? RASc 2
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
.. ... PASS N: P. 7
EXECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 3
STARTING TIME = .00 RAIN DEPTH = 5.10 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. =10 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.20 1027.3 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.56 WATERSHED INCHES; 1274 CFS-HRS; 105.2 ACRE-FEET.
MESSAGE - STRUCTURE 1, USER ENTERED STARTING ELEVATION ( 802.0 FEET) CAN
ADD -.096 INCHES OF RUNOFF TO THE OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH VOLUME.***
*** WARNING - STRUCTURE 1, MAIN TIME INCREMENT EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
TIME INCREMENT OF .085 HOURS.
WARNING - STRUCTURE 1, RESERVOIR ROUTING HAS NEGATIVE DISCHARGES
FIRST NEGATIVE VALUE IS -794 CFS. * *.
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
5.04 143.5
12.26 991.2
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.51 WATERSHED INCHES; 1257 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS)
12.14
PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
463.1
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
811.44
822.93
103.9 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.17 WATERSHED INCHES; 506 CFS-HRS;
41.8 ACRE-FEET.
PERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
R20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- scs -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
X3/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
x.4:30:51 PASS 3 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 8
Page 6

05058PS.OUT
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
5.04 143.5
12.23 (NULL)
1427.9 (NULL)
.00
3.41 WATERSHED INCHES; 1763 CFS-HRS; 145.7 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK - TMI (Fir, S,) P._A" DISC!lARGE(CFSj PEAK ELEVATION(FEEI)
12.07 225.7
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00,_CFS)
3.26 WATERSHED INCHES; -206 CFS-HRS; 17.0 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.30 110.7 756.76
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.26 WATERSHED INCHES; 206 CFS-HRS; 17.0 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
5.04 143.5
12.23 1535.3 (NULL) .
(NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.39 WATERSHED INCHES; 1969 CFS-HRS; 162.7 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
11.99 131.4
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.46 WATERSHED INCHES; 100 CFS-HRS; 8.2 ACRE-FEET.
*** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT .9%. ***
TR20 ------------------------------------------------------------
- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
W)3/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
14:30:51 PASS 3 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 9
=PERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHh.RGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FE:Ei)
12.29 28.2 759.34
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.45 WATERSHED INCHES; 100 CFS-HRS; 8.2 ACRE-FEET.
Page 7

05058PS.OUT
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIMP (HRS) PF ++<
U 14 .5 (NULL)
12.23 1563.6 (NULL)
RU„OF "BOVE 3ASEFLOW (BASEFLLOW = .00 CFS)
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.01 14.4 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.64 WATERSHED INCHES; 11 CFS-HRS; .9 ACRE-FEET.
WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .18) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT 3.4%.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
5.04 143.5 (NULL)
12.23 1568.0 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.37 WATERSHED INCHES; 2080 CFS-HRS; 171.9 ACRE-FEET.
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 3
-TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/-* PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
14:30:51 PASS 4 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 10
m1EXECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 3
STARTING TIME _ .00 RAIN DEPTH = 6.50 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. =50 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.20 1383.9 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.88 WATERSHED INCHES; 1748 CFS-HRS; 144.4 ACRE-FEET.
MESSAGE - STRUCTURE 1., USE FNTERED STARTING ELEVATION ( 802.0 FEET) CAN
ADD -.096 INCHES OF RUNOFF TO THE OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH VOLUME.***
WARNING - STRUCTURE 1, MAIN TIME INCREMENT EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
TIME INCREMENT OF .085 HOURS.
Page 8

05058Ps.OUT
WARNING - STRUCTURE 1, RESERVOIR ROUTING HAS NEGATIVE DISCHARGES
FIRST NEGATIVE VALUE IS -794 CFS.
RENO
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
4.14 1.4.3.5
}FF AB0'41E S,_=L04v .130 CFS)
4.84 WATERSHED INCHES; 1734 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.14 644.1
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.44 WATERSHED INCHES; 710 CFS-HRS;
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
811..44
82
143.3 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
58.7 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
1
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
14:30:51 PASS 4 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 11
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
4.14 143.5
12.21 1967.9
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.72 WATERSHED INCHES; 2443 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.06 311.9
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.55 WATERSHED INCHES; 288 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.22 204.8
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.56 WATERSHED INCHES; 288 CFS-HRS;
-OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
4.14 143.5
12.21 2171.7
Page 9
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
(NULL)
201.9 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
23.8 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
758.30
23.8 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
(NULL)

05058PS.OUT
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.70 WATERSHED INCHES; 2731 CFS-HRS; 225.7 ACRE-FEET.
OPEP , i ._'.:;J RUNG.=r _. = i .
PEAK TIME(HRS) PE^.K DISCHARC;E(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
11.99
178.9 {RUB :?F =}
AEG'-._ EAS FLO;-r 'RASEFLG'V - ; r
?.77 l ; ERSF1ED i`;CH_S; 133 CFS-HRS; 11.4 ACRE-FEET.
WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTIONJ 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT .3%. ***
TR20 -------------------------------------------------- SCS -
------------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
14:30:51 PASS 4 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 12
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.32 32.7 760.40
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.77 WATERSHED INCHES; 138 CFS-HRS; 11.4 ACRE-FEET.
-OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
4.14 143.5
12.21 2204.2 (NULL)
(NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.70 WATERSHED INCHES; 2868 CFS-HRS; 237.0 ACRE-FEET.
_?PERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.01 - 23.5
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.62 WATERSHED INCHES; 18 CFS-HRS;
- ** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( 100) IS GREATER THAN
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .18) FOR SUBWATERSH
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
1.5 ACRE-FEET.
50% OF THE
ED XSECTION 2.
-1.6%. .. r..
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAT: TINIE(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
4.14 143.5
12.21 2212.0 (NULL)
(NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
Page 10
05058PS.OUT
4.68 WATERSHED INCHES; 2886 CFS-HRS; 238.5 ACRE-FEET.
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP
1
Ti 2 ... --------
05058
03,/23/** PROPOSED
COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 4
--------------------------------------------------
SCS -
BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
FACILITY DRAINAGE.AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
PASS 5 JOg N0. i o
1 AGE
EXECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 3
STARTING TIME = .00 RAIN DEPTH = 7.30 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = 100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. =99 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12..19 1591.2
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.65 WATERSHED INCHES; 2022 CFS-HRS; 167.1 ACRE-FEET.
MESSAGE - STRUCTURE 1, USER ENTERED STARTING ELEVATION ( 802.0 FEET) CAN
ADD -.096 INCHES OF RUNOFF TO THE OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH VOLUME.***
** WARNING - STRUCTURE 1, MAIN TIME INCREMENT EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
TIME INCREMENT OF .085 HOURS. ***
WARNING - STRUCTURE 1, RESERVOIR ROUTING HAS NEGATIVE DISCHARGES
.FIRST NEGATIVE VALUE IS -794 CFS. ***
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
3.74 143.5 811.44
12.23 1588.8 824.84
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.61 WATERSHED INCHES; 2007 CFS-HRS; 165.9 ACRE-FEET.
:?PERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.14 749.6
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.19 WATERSHED INCHES; 829 CFS-HRS; 68.5 ACRE-FEET.
PERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
R20 --------------------------------------- SCS -
-----------------------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
/23/* PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
X4:30:51 PASS 5 70B NO. 1 PAGE 14
Page 11

05058PS.OUT
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
3.74 143.5
12.20 2288.6
rm.,!
(BA.SEF1...''
n7 WATERSHED INCHES; 2837 CFS-HRS;
aATION *UNIO' - :S':CT70'' 2
?E.=!{ TT .?(Hr''S P ':,^.K DISCHAR C (C S)
12.06 360.8
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.31 WATERSHED INCHES; 335 Cr=y-HRS;
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.21 287.4
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.30 WATERSHED INCHES; 335 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
3.74 143.5
12.20 2575.8
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.46 WATERSHED INCHES; 3171 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
11.99 206.5
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.54 WATERSHED INCHES; 160 CFS-HRS;
WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSH
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
(NULL)
234.4 ACRE-FEE-1.

X7.7 ACREE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
758.78
27.7 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
(NULL)
262.1 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
13.2 ACRE-FEET.
50% OF THE
=D XSECTION 2.
=rR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
3/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
11I 4:30:51. PASS 5 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 15
tPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
1.2.34 35.i 761.09
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.54 WATERSHED INCHES; 160 CFS-HRS; 13.2 ACRE-FEET.
Page 12
05058PS.OUT
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
3.74 14,.5
-- 2010.5
RUNOFF ABOVE PASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.46 WATERSHED INCHES: 3331 CFS-F

PEAK TIME(HRS)
12.00
PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
29.1
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
?7S.3 AC':':-::=EE?-.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOF=F)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.23 WATERSHED INCHES; 22 CFS-HRS;
1.8 ACRE-FEET.
* WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .18) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT .8%.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
3.74 143.5
(NULL)
12.20
2620.7 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.44 WATERSHED INCHES; 3353 CFS-HRS; 277.1 ACRE-FEET.
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS
4 5
TR20 ---------------------

----
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES
03/23/** PROPOSE
-----------
SCS -
VERSION
D FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL
14:30:51 2.04TEST
PASS 6 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 16

TR20 ------------------------------------
--------------
-------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES
03/23/** PROPO
--------
--- SCS -
VERSION
SED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL
14:30:51 2.04TEST
SUMMARY, JOB NO. 1 PAGE 17
SUMMARY TABLE 1
---------------
SELECTED RESULTS OF STANDARD AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL IN ORDER
PERFORMED
.
A CHARACTER FOLLOWING THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) INDICATES:
!-FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH T-TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH R-RISING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH
SECTION/ STANDARD PEAK DISCHARGE
TRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE RUNOFF -------------------- ---------------

ID OPERATION AREA AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME -
RATE RATE
(SQ MI) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) '(CSM)
INFALL OF 3.00 inches AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT .0 hrs.
INTABLE NUMBER 2, ARC 2
AIN TIME INCREMENT .100 HOURS
Page 13

05058PS.OUT
ALTERNATE
---- 0 STORM 1
-
-----
XSECTION 1 ---
-----
RUNOFF ---------
.55
1.66 ---
12.20
483
878.2
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55 1.61 817.84 12.36 393 714.5
XSECTTr?.! ?_ aIJNn-r: 5 K --- - 795
XSEC-IO;; .80 1.54 --- 12.24 -
554 692.5
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10 1.45 --- 12.08 100 1000.0
STR! -URE 2 RESVOR 10 '.^5 752.80 ?Z.26 57 570.

XSEC TION 2 "'um ' ( ? 1 . --- 9? 61 1525.0
STRUCTURE RESVOR .04 1.59 758.0z- 12.21 22 550.0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .94 1.53 --- 12.24 634 674.5
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .01 .47 --- 12.04T 3T 300.0
XSECTION 3 ADDHYD .96 1.52 --- 12.24 635 661.5
RAINFALL OF 3.50 inches AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BE GINS AT .0 hrs.
ALTERNATE
---- 0 STORM 2
------
XSECTION 1 ---------
RUNOFF --------
.55
2.10 ---
12.20
604
1098.2
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55 2.00 820.33 12.37 496 901.8
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 1.78 --- 12.14 261 1044.0
XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 1.93 --- 12.27 674 842.5
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10 1.86 --- 12.07 129 1290.0
STRUCTURE 2 RESVOR .10 1.86 753.79 12.28 68 680.0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .90 1.92 --- 12.27 742 824.4
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .04 2.01 --- 11.99 78 1950.0
STRUCTURE 3 RESVOR .04 2.02 758.30 12.23 23 575.0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .94 1.95 --- 12.27 765 813.8
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .01 .70 --- 12.03 5 500.0
TR20 -------- --------- --------- --------------------- ----------- ------- --- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
14:30:51 SUMMARY, JOB NO. 1 PAGE 18
SUMMARY TABLE 1

SELECTED RESULTS OF
STANDARD
---- -----------
AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL IN ORDER
PERFORMED.
A CHARACTER FOLLOWING THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) INDICATES:
F-FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH T-TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH R-RISING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH
=tCSECTION/ STANDARD PEAK DIS CHARGE
STRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE RUNOFF ---------- ---------- -------- --------
ID OPERATION AREA AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME RATE RATE
(SQ MI) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CSM)
ALTERNATE
- 0 STORM 2
----------
SECTION 3 ---------
ADDHYD -------
.96
1.94 ---
12.27
767
799.0
AINFALL OF 5.10 irich eS AND 2 4.00 hr DURATION', BEG 111S AT .0 hrs.
ALTERNATE
------ 0 STORM 10
-----
-(SECTION 1 ---------
RUNOFF -------
.55
3.56 ---
12.20
1027
1867.3
Page 14
05058PS.OUT
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55 3.51 822.93 12.26 991 1801.8
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 3.17 --- 12.14 463 1852.0
XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 3.41 --- 12.23 1428 1785.0
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10 3.26 --- 12.07 226 2260.0
STRUC_URE 2 SVOK 10 3.26 756.75 12.30 ?1! 1110.0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .90 3.39 --- 12.23 1535 1705.6
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .04 3.46 --- 11.99 131 3275.0
STR!C SURF 3 :FSVOR .04 !5 750.31 . 12.29 28 700.0
66". 3
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF 01 1.54 --- 12.01 14 1400.0
XSECTION 3 ADDHYD .96 3.37 --- 12.23 1568 1633.3
RAINFALL OF 6.50 inches AND 24.00 hr DU vAT-)N, BEGINS .0 hrs.
ALTERNATE
---- 0 STORM 50
---
XSECTION ---
1 ---------
RUNOFF --------
.55
4.88 ---
12.20
1384
2516.4
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55 4.84 824.28 12.24 1374 2498.2
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 4.44 --- 12.14 644 2576.0
XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 4.72 --- 12.21 1968 2460.0
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10 4.55 --- 12.06 312 3120.0
STRUCTURE 2 RESVOR .10 4.56 758.30 12.22 205 2050.0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .90 4.70 --- 12.21 2172 2413.3
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .04 4.77 --- 11.99 179 4475.0
TR20 ----- --- --------- --------- ---------
0 5058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILI TIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
14:30:51 SUMMARY, JOB NO. 1 PAGE 19
SUMMARY TABLE 1

SELECTE
D RESULTS OF ---
STANDARD ------------
AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL
IN ORDER
PERFORMED.
A CHARACTER FOLLOWING THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) INDICATES.:
F-FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH T-TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH R-RI SING TRUNC ATED HYDROGRAPH
=<SECTION/ STANDARD PEAK DIS CHARGE
STRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE RUNOFF ---------- ---------- ------- ---------
ID OPERATION AREA AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME RATE RATE
(SQ MI) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CSM)
ALTERNATE 0 STORM 50
-------
ATRUCTURE ----
3 ---------
RESVOR -------
.04
4.77 760.40
12.32
33
825.0
SECTION 2 ADDHYD .94 4.70 --- 12.21 2204 2344.7
SECTION 2 RUNOFF .01 2.62 --- 12.01 24 2400.0
-.SECTION 3 ADDHYD .96 4.68 --- 12.21 2212 2304.2
=?)?INFALL OF 7.30 inch r-S AND 2 4.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT .0 hrs.
I
ALTERNAT
E
0 STORM 99
--------
SECTTON ---
1 ---------
RUNOFF -------
.55
5.65 ---
12.19
1591
2892.7
TRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55 5.61 824.84 12.23 1589 2889.1
SECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 5.19 --- 12.14 750 3000.0
SECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 5.48 --- 12.20 2289 2861.3
1 ISECTION 2 RUNOFF .10 5.31 --- 12.06 361 3610.0
Page 15
05058PS.OUT
STRUCTURE 2 RESVOR .10 5.30 758.78 12.21 287 2870
0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .90 5.46 --- 12.20 2576 .
2862
2
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .04 5.54 --- 11.99 206 .
5150.0
STRUCTURE 3 PFSVOR 04 5^- 761.C^ ?, 3 3 J
XSECTIC:, -LjDHYD .)4 x.40 --- 12.20 2610 2776.6
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .01 3.23 --- 12.00 29 2900
0
XSECTI0N1 3 ADDHYD .96 5'.44 --- .20 2621 .
2730
_r- 20

J5058
BATH
CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES ________
VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2
04TEST
14:30:51 SUMMARY, 30B NO. 1
K .
PAGE 20
SUMMARY TABLE 3
---------------
STORM DISCHARGES (CFS) AT XSECTIONS AND STRUCTURES FOR ALL ALTERNATES
QUESTION MARK (?) AFTER: OUTFLOW PEAK - RISING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH.
XSECTION/ DRAINAGE
STRUCTURE AREA STORM NUMBERS..........
ID (SQ MI) 1 2 10 50 99
STRUCTURE 3
--------------
- .04

ALTERNATE --
0 --------- -
22
23
28
33
35
STRUCTURE 2
--------------
--- .10
--

ALTERNATE
0 ------- -
57
68
111
205
287
STRUCTURE 1
--------------
- .55

ALTERNATE --
0 --------- -
393
496
991
1374
1589
XSECTION 1
--------------
- .80

ALTERNATE --
0 --------- -
554
674
1428
1968
2289
XSECTION 2
--------------- .01
-
ALTERNATE ---
0 -------- 3 5 14 24 29
-XSECTION 3
---------------- .96

ALTERNATE ---
0 ---------
635
767
1568
2212
2621
-TR20 ---------- --- --------- ---------------

05058 -----------
BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILI ---------
TIES -------- --- SCS -
VERSION
X3/23/* PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - SMALL 2.04TEST
-ND OF 1 30BS IN THIS RUN
Page 16
05058PS.OUT
2u, VERSJ'C, ; L . l r l'E
FILES
INPU- = C:\ clr?C\0 50 5?':'SBps. a? ; ? -, -
CUT?
FILE G=i'?, - I _U - DATED
1! ,
NONE!
TOTAL NUMBER OF WARNINGS = 21, MESSAGES = 5
*** TR-20 RUN COMPLETED **°
Page 17
05058PM:DAT
JOB TR-20 FULLPRINT
TITLE 05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES
TITLE PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM
3 STRUCT 01
8 802
8 804.0 19. 2.51
8 806.0 70.30 5.33
8 808.0 86.10 8.48
8
810.0
99.42
1'.9
j 0-1
121. / 7 20ie e"
8 816.0, 131.53 24.67
8 818.0 403.65 29.69
8 820.0 893.14 35.13
8 822.0 1619.69 41.03
8 824.0 1853.61 47.38
8 826.0 2060.27 54.21
8 828.0 2247.51 61.54
9 ENDTBL
3 STRUCT 03
8 756.0
8 758.0
8 760.0
8 762.0
8 764.0
8 766.0
8 768.0
8 770.0
9 ENDTBL
6 RUNOFF 1 001 1 0.5546
6 RESVOR 2 01 1 2 802.0
6 RUNOFF 1 001 3 0.2475
1 6 ADDHYD 4 001 2 3 4
6 RUNOFF 1 002 5 0.0979
6 RESVOR 2 02 5 6 750.0
6 ADDHYD 4 002 4 6 7
6 RUNOFF 1 002 1 0.0447
6 RESVOR 2 03 1 2 756.0
1 6 ADDHYD 4 002 2 7 3
6 RUNOFF 1 002 4 0.0106
6 ADDHYD 4 003 3 4 5
ENDATA
7 INCREM 6 0.1
-7 COMPUT 7 001 003
ENDCMP 1
=7 COMPUT 7 001 003
ENDCMP 1
7 COMPUT 7 001 003
ENDCMP 1
ZZ-7 COMPUT 7 001 003
ENDCMP 1
COMPUT 7 001 003
ENDCMP 1
W ENDJOB 2
0.00 0.00
22.09 1.18
31.25 3.94
38.27 6.29
44.19 8.90
189.69 11.80
211.23 14.97
227.89 18.45
86.- 0.53 1 1 DA 1
1 1 SWM 1
82. 0.43 1 1 DA 2
1 1
83. 0.30 1 1 DA 3a
1 1 SWM 2
1 1
85. 0.17 1 1 DA 3b
1 1 SwM3
1 1
64. 0.18 1 1 DA 3c
1 1
3.0 1.0 2 2 01
3.5 1.0 2 2 02
5.1 1.0 2 2 10
6.5 1.0 2 2 50
7.3 1.0 2 2 99
Page 1
i
1 05058PM.OUT
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.04TEST
14:38:13 PASS 1 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 1
EXECUTIVE CONTROL INCRE 4 MAIN TIME I tCREMENT = .100 HOURS
_ .:. UT: VE CONTROL CC-`1PUT RC,y1 XSECTICNN 1 TO ;:S7CTlC;N 3
STARTING TIME _ .00 RAIN DEPTH = 3.00 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. = 1 RAIN TABLE ",0. = 2,,.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.20 483.1 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.66 WATERSHED INCHES; 595 CF.S-HRS;
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.85 117.7
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW. (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS).
1.66 WATERSHED INCHES; 594 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.15 199.3
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.38 WATERSHED INCHES; 220 CFS-HRS;
-OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.18 282.8
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.57 WATERSHED INCHES; 814 CFS-HRS;
49.1 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
813.24
49.1 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
18.2 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
67.3 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
7TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
3/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.04TEST
4:38:13 PASS 1 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.08 100.4 (RUNOFF)
Page 1
05058PM.OUT
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.45 WATERSHED INCHES; 91 CFS-HRS;
PEAK T.TME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE.(CFS)
12•Os 100.4
..!Ii jF:.' 0 V E L3 h`. S= --OW ( AS) =FLOV .'Jn _P S)
WATERSHED 91 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.13 374.2
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.56 WATERSHED INCHES; 906 CFS-HRS;
7.5 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
.7.5. ACRE-TEAT.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
74.9 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
11.99 61.4 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.59 WATERSHED INCHES; 46 CFS-HRS; 3.8 ACRE-FEET.
WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT 1.0%. ***
-OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.21 22.2 758.02
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.59 WATERSHED INCHES; 46 CFS-HRS; 3.8 ACRE-FEET.
PERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
R20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
43/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.04TEST
4:38:13 PASS 1 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.1.4 396.0
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.56 WATERSHED INCHES; 952 CFS-HRS;
-OPERATION RUNOFF
PEAK TIME(HRS)
XSECTION 2
PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
Page 2
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
78.6 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)

12.04 3.2 05058PM.oUT
(RUNOFF)
WARNING - XSECTION 2, MAIN TIME INCREMENT TOO LARGE, COMPUTED PEAK
( 3.17) EXCEEDS ADJACENT COORDINATE ( 3.01) BY 5 %.
'v?10Fr (SASEFLOW = uu
.47 WATERSHED INCHES; 3 CFS-HRS; .3 ACRE-FEET.
WARNING - i'tAIN TIME INCREMiEt _ ( 100) `S GREATER TH'%l;N, 500%
uc
THT_S EDUCE +1 3Y r r u
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.13 398.5
(NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.55 WATERSHED INCHES; 955 CFS-HRS; 78.9 ACRE-FEET.
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 1
EXECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 3
STARTING TIME = .00 RAIN DEPTH = 3.50 RAIN
ANT
RUNOFF COND
= 2 DURATION = 1.00
.
.
MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO
= 2 HOURS
.
RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12
20
.
604.5
(RUNOFF)
_TR20 -------------------------
--------
* 05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES
W)3/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - ------------
VERSION
MEDIUM
=4:38:13 PASS 2 JOB NO
1 2.04TEST
. PAGE 4
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.10 WATERSHED INCHES; 750 CFS-HRS; 62.0 ACRE-FEET.
-bPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12
91
.
131.5 815.99
RUNOFF ABOVE.BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.10 WATERSHED INCHES; 750 CFS-HRS; 62.0 ACRE-FEET.
I PERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
14
12
.
260.7 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.78 WATERSHED INCHES; 285 CFS-HRS; 23.5 ACRE-FEET.
Page 3
0505.8PM.OUT
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.17 753.0 r
RUNOFF ABOVE 3ASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.00 WATERSHED INCHES; 1035 CFS-HRS; 85.5 ACRE-FEET.
_ XSECTTC; I 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.07 129.3
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.86 WATERSHED INCHES; 117 CFS-HRS; 9.7 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.07 129.3 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.86 WATERSHED INCHES; 117 CFS-HRS; 9.7 ACRE-FEET.
_7R20 ------------------------------------ SCS -
-------------------
-------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
W)3/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.04TEST
14:38:13 PASS 2 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 5
-PPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.13 473.4
(NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.98 WATERSHED INCHES; 1152 CFS-HRS; 95.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
11.99 77.7
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.01 WATERSHED INCHES; 58 CFS-HRS; 4.8 ACRE-FEET.
* WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT .0%.
=ERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PE, K, DISCHARG.E(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.23 23.5 758.30
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.02 WATERSHED INCHES; 58 CFS-HRS; 4.8 ACRE-FEET.
Page 4
05058PM.OUT
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK
12.13 496.7 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOV. BASEFLOW (BASEFLO'r;' _ CFS)
199 %",'A.TERSHECl _.. % >R5 ET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.03 5.4 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
.70 WATERSHED INCHES; 5 CFS-HRS; .4 ACRE-FEET.
TR20 ----------------------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.04TEST
14:38:13 PASS 2 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 6
* * WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
.TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .18) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT 10.1%. *?*
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.13 500.8 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE SASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.97 WATERSHED INCHES; 1215 CFS-HRS; 100.4 ACRE-FEET.
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 2
4XECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 3
STARTING TIME = .00 RAIN DEPTH = 5.10. RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT.-RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. =10 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.20 1027.3 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOWN (BASEFLOWI = .00 CFS)
3.56 'WATERSHED INCHES; 1274 CFS-HRS; 105.2 ACRE-FEET.
=PERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.46 644.3 818.98
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
Page 5
05058PM.OUT
3.55 WATERSHED INCHES; 1272 CFS-HRS; 105.1 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.14 463.1 (RUNOFF)
T ?0; ----------------- --- -- ------- --- -------------------- ----- -- SCS -
UJ -C1( t'YC: ,C F \C Ll l i .7 V`U? :J1
0D/2 _ r t T-FY DRAI.M.',GE ; -.,A 01 - r
2.0 ?_;
14: 38: PA3, S 3 Sou "i0. 1 PAGE 7
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLCl,1 = .00 CFS)
3.17 WATERSHED INCHES; 506 CFS-HRS; 41.8 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.42 879.9 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.43 WATERSHED INCHES; 1778 CFS-HRS; 146.9 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.07 225.7 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.26 WATERSHED INCHES; 206 CFS-HRS; 17.0 ACRE-FEET.
M)PERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.07 225.7 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.26 WATERSHED INCHES; 206 CFS-HRS; 17.0 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.12 792.6 (NULL)
12.41 942.1 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.42 WATERSHED INCHES; 1984 CFS-HRS; 163.9 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
11.99 131.4 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1 3.46 WATERSHED INCHES; 100 CFS-HRS; 8.2 ACRE-FEET.
Page 6
------- ----- ---- --------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.04TEST
14:38:13 PASS 3 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 8
WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSH ED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT .9%. ***
OPE"'IT:± ON RESVOR S TRUCTU::'= 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.29 28.2 759.34
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.45 WATERSHED INCHES; 100 CFS-HRS; 8.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.12 820.1 (NULL)
12.40 970.2 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.42 WATERSHED INCHES; 2083 CFS-HRS; 172.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.01 14.4 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.64 WATERSHED INCHES; 11 CFS-HRS; .9 ACRE-FEET.
*** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .18) FOR SUBWATERSHED.XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT 3.4%. ***
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.12 830.3 (NULL)
12.40 972.8 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.40 WATERSHED INCHES; 2095 CFS-HRS;
1 173.1 ACRE-FEET.
-TR20 ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIU M 2.04TEST
4:38:13 PASS 4 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 9
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 3
4XECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 3
Page 7
05058PM.OUT
STARTING TIME _ .00 RAIN DEPTH = 6.50 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. =50 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
OPEP,ATIC , , :,SEC ::':V I
PEAK TIVE(HRS) PEAK DISCHA RCE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.20 1383.9 (RUNOFF)

+. 3 _L, ;C icy; -174u 14.4 ACRE-FEcT.
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.38 1101.7 820.57
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.87 WATERSHED INCHES; 1743 CFS-HRS; 144.0 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.14 644.1 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.44 WATERSHED INCHES; 710 CFS-HRS; 58.7 ACRE-FEET.
-OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.33 1526.2 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.74 WATERSHED INCHES; 2453 CFS-HRS; 202.7 ACRE-FEET.
NOPERATION RUNOFF . XSECTION 2
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
=3/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.04TEST
14:38:13 PASS 4 .JOB NO. 1 PAGE 10
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.06 311.9
RUNOFF ABOVE= BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.55 WATERSHED INCHES; 288 CFS-HRS;
=PERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.06 311.9
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.55 WATERSHED INCHES; 288 CFS-HRS;
Page 8
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
23.8 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
23.8 ACRE-FEET.

05058PM.OUT
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.31 1686.3 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.70 WATERSHED TNCHES; 2896 CFS- "' i r`CR - =cr_T
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 4.
CCi T <UL CC;`.i UT :tC l ;KS;-. TIOi'j 1 TO XSr-C-rr 3
:. _ JG TI r ._ = 0 DEPTH = 7.30 ? N DURATIC.11 ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. =99 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME.(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.19 1591.2 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.65 WATERSHED INCHES; 2022 CFS-HRS; 167.1 ACRE-FEET.
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.04TEST
14:38:13 PASS 5 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 12
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.34 1369.6 821.31
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.65 WATERSHED INCHES; 2020 CFS-HRS; 167.0 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.14 749.6 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.19 WATERSHED INCHES; 829 CFS-HRS; 68.5 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.30 1889.4 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.51 WATERSHED INCHES; 2850 CFS-HRS; 235.5 ACRE-FEET.
-OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTI:ON 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.06 360.8 (RUNOFF)
Page 10
05058PM.OUT
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.31 WATERSHED INCHES; 335 CFS-HRS; 27.7 ACRE-FEET.
OPEC. -?^-N; ...? r o - -)RF 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.06 360.8 (NULL)
5.31 s;
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
t
TR20 ---------------------------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.04TEST
14:38:13 PASS 5 30B NO. 1 PAGE 13
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.28 2051.0 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW =. .00 CFS)
5.48 WATERSHED INCHES; 3185 CFS-HRS; 263.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
11.99 206.5 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.54 WATERSHED INCHES; 160 CFS-HRS; 13.2 ACRE-FEET.
*?`* WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT .7%, ***
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.34 35.1
.RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.54 WATERSHED INCHES; 160 CFS-HRS;
7)PERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.28 2086.0
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.49 WATERSHED INCHES; 3345 CFS-HRS;
MPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.00 29.1
Page 11
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
761.09
13.2 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
276.4 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
05058PM.OUT
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.23 WATERSHED INCHES; . 22 CFS-HRS; 1.8 ACRE-FEET.
1
TR20 --------------
---------------
IJ,JVJi7 SHi"H ?.rEEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.04TEST
14:38:13 PASS 5 30B NO. 1 PAGE 14
i uZNi?1C= - ;'S,ti
TIME C-RE;;E?fT
I M_ IN_ TS
„E;,i ;. THAN

` OF
-F It-;E OF CONCENTRATION ( , IL") j FOR SUL: JTERSHED XSEC T IO ! 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT .8%. ***
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12. 28 2093.2 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.46 WATERSHED INCHES; 3367 CFS -HRS; 278.2 AC RE-FEET.
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 5
1
TR20 ---- --------------------------------
--
----------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES
-----------
---
SCS -
VERSION
03/23/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2
04TEST
14:38:13 SUMMARY, JOB NO. 1 .
PAGE 15
SUMMARY TABLE 1
---------------
SELECTED RESULTS OF STANDARD AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL
IN ORDER PERFORMED.
A CHARACTER FOLLOWING THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) INDICATES:
F-FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH T-TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH R-RISING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH
XSECTION/ STANDARD PEAK DISCHARGE
STRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE RUNOFF ---------- ------- ----------- --------
ID OPERATION AREA AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME RATE RATE
(SQ MI) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CSM)
RAINFALL OF 3.00 inches AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BEG INS AT .0 hrs.
RAINTABLE NUMBER 2, ARC 2
MAIN TIME INCREMENT .100 HOURS
ALTERNA
------ TE 0 STORM 1
-
XSECTION --------------------
1 RUNOFF .55 1.66 ---
12.20
483
878.2
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55 1.66 813.24 12.85 118 214.5
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 1.38 --- 12.15 199 796.0
XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 1.57 --- 12.18 283 353.8
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10 1.45 --- 12.08 100 MOM
STRUCTURE 2 RESVOR .10 1.45 --- 12.08 100 1000.0
_CSECTION 2 ADDHYD .90 1.56 --- 12.13 374 415
6
:::PCSECTION 2 RUNOFF .04 1.59 --- 11.99 61 .
1525.0
-STRUCTURE 3 RESVOR .04 1.59 158.02 12.21 22 550.0
=SECTION 2 ADDHYD .94 1.56 --- 12.14 396 421.3
SECTION 2 RUNOFF .01 .47 --- 12.04T 3T 300.0
SECTION 3 ADDHYD .96 1.55 --- 12.13 399 415.6
Page 12

05058PM.OUT
go

1 RAINFALL OF 3.50 inches AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BEG INS AT .0 hrs.'
ALTERNATE
------- 0 STORM 2

:SECT- ON --- ----------
tu;v0i r ----------
.5j
2.10 ---
12.20
604
1098
2
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55 2.10 815.99 12.91 131 .
238.2
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 1.78 --- 12.14 261 1044.0
XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 2.00 --- 12.17 35, 4'41 3
0; ;0...
S-: :' CTURE 2 RESVO{: 10 1. --- 12.07 _L29 1290
0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .90 1.98 --- 12.13 473 .
525
6
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .04 2.01 --- 11.99 78 .
1950
0
STRUCTURE 3 RESVOR .04 2.02 758.30 12.23 23 .
575
0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .94 1.99 --- 12.13 .
497 .
528.7
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .01 .70 --- 12.03 5 500
0
1 .
TR20 ----- ---- -------- --------- --------
-

03/23/**
0
PROPO
5058 BATH
S -
----------------------
CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES -------- -- SCS -
VERSION
ED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2
04TEST
14:38:13 SUMMARY, JOB NO. 1 .
PAGE 16
SUMMARY TABLE 1

SELECTED RESULTS OF ---
STANDARD ------------
AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL
IN ORDER
PERFORMED

A CHARACTER
FOLLOWING THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) .
INDICATES:
F-FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH T-TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH R-RIS ING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH
XSECTION/ STANDARD PEAK DISCHARGE
STRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE RUNOFF ----------- --------- -------- --------
ID OPERATION AREA AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME RATE RATE
(SQ MI) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CSM)
ALTERNATE
------- 0 STORM 2

XSECTION ---
3 ------------
ADDHYD -----
.96
RAINFALL OF 5.10 inches AND
ALTERNATE
------- 0 STORM 10

::::CSECTION ---
1 -------------
RUNOFF ----
.55
TRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55
CSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25
=(SECTION 1 ADDHYD .80
=CSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10
-TRUCTURE 2 RESVOR .10
'SECTION 2 ADDHYD .0c)
SECTION 2 RUNOFF .04
TRUCTURE 3 RESVOR .04
SECTION 2 ADDHYD .94
*SECTION 2 RUNOFF .01
SECTION 3 ADDHYD .96
=AINFALL OF 6.50 inches AND
1.97 --- 12.13
24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT
3.56
3.55
3.17
3.43
3.26
81898
12.20
12.46
12.14
12.42
12.07
3.26
3.42
3.46
3.45
3.42
759.34
12.07
12.41
11.99
12.29
12.40
1.64 --- 12.01
3.40 --- 12.40
24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT
Page 13
501 521.9
0 hrs.
1027 1867.3
644 1170.9
463 1852.0
880 1100.0
226 2260.0
226 2260.0
942 1046.7
131 3275.0
28 700.0
970 1031.9
14 1400.0
973 1013.5
.0 hrs.

05058PM.OUT
? ALTERNATE
-------- 0 STORM 50

XSECTION --
1 -------------
RUNOFF ----
.55
4.88 ---
12.20
1384
2516
4
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55 4.87 820.57 12.38 1102 .
2003
6
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 4.44
J ... .- .

XSECTIG;
-L
;-ADDHYD
.80
4,74 ---
12.33 .
1526 _ J .. '..
1907
5
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10 4.55 --- 12.06 312 .
3120.0
STRUCTURE 2 RESVOR .10 4.55 --- 12,06 312 3120
0
[I ?4
`48 .
;
.C, RUri OFF 04 4.77 --- ?' ; 7 _.0
-
TR20 ----- --- ------------- ------ ------

3/23/**

05058
PRO

BATH ------
--------=---------
CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES
----

- VERSION

14:38:13 POSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.'D4iE-
'
SUMMARY, JOB NO. 1 PAGE 17
SUMMARY TABLE 1
---------------
SELECTED RESULTS OF STANDARD AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL IN ORDER PERFORMED.
A CHARACTER FOLLOWING THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) INDICATES:
F-FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH T-TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH R-RISING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH
XSECTION/ STANDARD PEAK DISCHARGE
STRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE RUNOFF ------------------------------------
ID OPERATION AREA AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME RATE RATE
(SQ MI) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CSM)
ALTERNATE
--------- 0 STORM 50

STRUCTURE -
3 ------------
RESVOR -----
.04
4.77 760.40
12.32
33
825
0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .94 4.72 --- 12.31 1681 .
1788
3
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .01 2.62 --- 12,01 24 .
2400
0
XSECTION 3 ADDHYD .96 4.70 --- 12.31 '1686 .
1756.3
RAINFALL OF 7.30 inches AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT ,0 hrs.
ALTERNA
------- TE
--- 0 STORM 99

XSECTION
1 ------------
RUNOFF -----
.55
5.65 ---
12.19
1591
2892
7
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55 5.65 821.31 12.34 1370 .
2490
9
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 5.19 --- 12.14 750 .
3000
0
XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 5.51 --- 12.30 1889 .
2361
3
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10 5.31 --- 12.06 361 .
3610.0
STRUCTURE 2 RESVOR .10 5.31 --- 12.06 361 3610
0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .90 5.48 --- 12.28 2051 .
2278
9
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .04 5.54 --- 11.99 206 .
5150
0
STRUCTURE 3 RESVOR .04 5.54 761.09 12.34 35 .
875
0
-XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .94 5.49 --- 12.28 2086 .
2219.1
::XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .01 3.23 --- 12.00 29 2900
0
=CSECTION 3 ADDHYD .96 5.46 --- 12.28 2093 .
2180.2
-TR20 ------ --- ------------ ----- ---------

3/23/**

05058
PRO

EATH ------------------
----
CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES
--------
---
SCS -
VERSION

E14:38:13 POSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.04TEST
SUMMARY, JOB NO. 1 PAGE 18
Page 14
N- -
44
05058PM.OUT
SUMMARY TABLE 3
---------------
STORM DISCHARGES (CFS) AT XSECTIONS AND STRUCTURES FOR ALL ALTERNATES
QUESTION MARK (?) AFTER: OUTFLOW PEAK - RISING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH.
XSEC- IOM/ DRAINAGE
STRUCTURE AREA STORM NUMBERS..........
ID (SQ MI) 1 2 10 50 99
STRUCTURE 3
------ .0"
--------
ALTERNATE ----
0 --------
22.
23
28
33
35
STRUCTURE 2
-------- .10
------
ALTERNATE -----
0 --------
100
129
226
312
361
STRUCTURE 1
---------- .55
----
ALTERNATE -----
0 --------
118
131
644
1102
1370
XSECTION 1 .80
--------------
ALTERNATE -----
0 --------
283
353
880
1526
1889
XSECTION 2
--------- .01
------
ALTERNATE ----
0 --------
3
5
14
24
29
XSECTION 3
---- .96
-----------
ALTERNATE ----
0 --------
399
501
973
1686
2093

TR20 ---------- ---- ---------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - MEDIUM 2.04TEST
END OF 1 JOBS IN THIS RUN
SCS TR-20, VERSION 2.04TEST
FILES
INPUT C:\TR20\05058\05058PM.DAT GIVEN DATA FILE
OUTPUT = C:\TR20\05058\05058PM.OUT DATED 03/23/**,14:38:13
FILES GENERATED - DATED 03/23/* 14:38:13
NONE!
Page 15
05058PL.DAT
JOB TR-20 FULLPRINT
TITLE 05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES
TITLE PROPOSED F ACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE
3 STRUCT 01
8 802.0 0.00 0.00
8 604.0 49.71 5.39
8 806.0 70.30 11.16
8 808.0 86.10 17.31
8 810.0 99.42 23.86

816.0 131.33 46.00
8 818.0 403.65 54.25
8 820.0 893.14 63.27
8 822.0 1619.65 73.08
8 824.0 1853.61 83.40
8 826.0 2060.27 94.22
8 828.0 2247.51 105.56
9 ENDTBL
- 3 STRUCT 02
8 750.0 0.00 0.00
8 752.0 49.10 0.99
8 754.0 69.72 2.16
8 75.6.0 84.70 3.55
8 758.0 153.21 5.15
8 760.0 495.24 6.98
9 ENDTBL
3 STRUCT 03
8 756.0 0.00 0.00
8 758.0 22.09 1.18
8 760.0 31.25 3.94
8 762.0 38.27 6.29
8 764.0 44.19 8.90
8 766.0 189.69 11.80
8 768.0 211.23 14.97
8 770.0 227.89 18.45
9 ENDTBL
6 RUNOFF 1 001 1 0.5546 86. 0.53 1 1 DA 1
6 RESVOR 2 01 1 2 802.0 1 1 SWM 1
6 RUNOFF 1 001 3 0.2475 82. 0.43 1 1 DA 2
6 ADDHYD 4 001 2 3 4 1 1
6 RUNOFF 1 002 5 0.0979 83. 0.30 1 1 DA 3a
6 RESVOR 2 02 5 6 750.0 1 1 SWM 2
6 ADDHYD 4 002 4 6 7 1 1
6 RUNOFF 1 002 1 0.0447 85. 0.17 1 1 DA 3b
6 RESVOR 2 03 1 2 756.0 1 1 SWM 3
6 ADDHYD 4 002 2 7 3 1 1
6 RUNOFF 1 002 4 0.0106 64. 0.18 1 1 DA 3c
6 ADDHYD 4 003 3 4 5 1 1
ENDATA
7 INCREM 6 0.1
7 COMPUT 7 001 003 3.0 1.0 2 2 01
ENDCMP 1
7 COMPUT 7 001 003 3.5 1.0 2 2 02
ENDCMP 1
7 COMPUT 7 001 003 5.1 1.0 2 2 10
ENDCMP 1
-7 COM PUT 7 001 003 6.5 1.0 2 2 50
ENDCMP 1
COMPUT 7 001 003 7.3 1.0 2 2 99
ENDCMP 1
ENDJOB 2
Page 1
1 05058PL.OUT
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------
------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 P:1.ss 1 0B
r!n.
EXECUTIVE CONTROL INCREM MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
?X. Ci fIVt LG TRI " v. rUT 0, i XSECf v 1 TO XSEC i ivY 3
STARTING TIME .00 RAIN DEPTH = 3.00 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. = 1 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.20 483.1 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.66 WATERSHED INCHES; 595 CFS-HRS; 49.1 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.99 93.8 809.16
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.66 WATERSHED INCHES; 595 CFS-HRS; 49.1 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.15 199.3 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.38 WATERSHED INCHES; 220 CFS-HRS; 18.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.17 262.1 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.57 WATERSHED INCHES; 815 CFS-HRS; 67.3 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECT.I..OINt 2
I=
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/21_/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 i'r>.s5 1 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.08 100.4 (RUNOFF)
Page 1
05058PL.OUT
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.45 WATERSHED INCHES; 91 CFS-HRS;
OPErRA s I&N KESVOR S iRUCTu <E 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.26 57.4
[= .S.'`.`.E`3 C'.; `.;SEFLO,.' = . ,0 -S)
.4? i i-SHED It CHES; 91 CFS-fi tS;
OPERATION ADDHYD 11SECTI01 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.18 318.4
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.56 WATERSHED INCHES; 906 CFS-HRS;
7.5 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
752.80
7.5 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
74.9 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
11.99 61.4 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.59 WATERSHED INCHES; 46 CFS-HRS; 3.8 ACRE-FEET.
*** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.r
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT 1.0%. ***
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCH.ARGF(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.21 22.2 758.02
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.59 WATERSHED INCHES; 46 CFS-HRS; 3.8 ACRE-FEET.
'OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
TR20 -------------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 PASS 1 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DTSCHAR.GE(CFS)
12.18 340.4
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.56 WATERSHED INCHES; 952 CFS-HRS;
-PPERATION RUNOFF
PEAK TIME(HRS)
XSECTION 2
PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
Page 2
F`.=:AK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
78.6 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
N
05058PL.OUT
12.04 3.2 (RUNOFF)
*** WARNING - XSECTION 2, MAIN TIME INCREMENT TOO LARGE, COMPUTED PEAK
( 3.17) EXCEEDS ADJACENT COORDINATE ( 3.01) BY 5
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = 00 CFS)
.47 WATERSHED INCHES; 3 CFS-HRS; .3 ACRE-FEET.
JARNTNG INCREMENT ( 1_00) IS GREATER THAN 50.% ,.)F THE
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.18 342.1 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.55 WATERSHED INCHES; 955 CFS-HRS; 78.9 ACRE-FEET.
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 1
EXECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 3
STARTING TIME = .00 RAIN DEPTH = 3.50 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. = 2 RAIN TABLE NO. 2
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.20 604.5 (RUNOFF)
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 PASS 2 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 4
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.10 WATERSHED INCHES; 750 CFS-HRS; 62.0 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK.TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
13.04 106.1 811.14
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW .00 CFS)
2.10 WATERSHED INCHES; 750 CFS-HRS; 62.0 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.14 260.7 (FUNOf=F)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.78 WATERSHED INCHES; 285 CFS-HRS; 23.5 ACRE-FEET.
Page 3
05058PL.OUT
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
! .11 ?_ 3?0. 5
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.00 WATERSHED INCHES; 1035 CFS-HRS; 85.5 ACRE-FEET.
RAT:_' RUNIC),
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.07 129.3 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.86 WATERSHED INCHES; 117 CFS-HRS; 9.7 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.28 67.5 753.79
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.86 WATERSHED INCHES; 117 CFS-HRS; 9.7 ACRE-FEET.
TR20 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
031211** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 PASS 2 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 5
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.17 395.3 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.98 WATERSHED INCHES; 1152 CFS-HRS; 95.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
11.99 77.7 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW .00 CFS)
2.01 WATERSHED INCHES; 58 CFS-HRS; 4.8 ACRE-FEET.
*** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT .0%. ***
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
I 12.23 23.5 758.30
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.02 WATERSHED INCHES; 58 CFS-HRS; 4.8 ACRE-FEET.
Page 4

05058PL.OUT
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
ryr
PE-, ?r?,;< pL._. "(CFS}
i1. i8 418..
RUNOFF ABOVE B.ASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.99 WATERSHED INCHES; 1210 CFS ;, ;S
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.03 5.4
ON -\
(NULL)
a 0 . 7? FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
.70 WATERSHED INCHES; 5 CFS-HRS; .4 ACRE-FEET.
TR20 --------------------------------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 PASS 2 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 6
*** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .18) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT 10.1%. ***
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.17 421.4 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.97 WATERSHED INCHES; 1215 CFS-HRS; 100.4 ACRE-FEET.
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 2
=1EXECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 3
STARTING TIME = .00 RAIN DEPTH = 5.10 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. =10 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
=PERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.20 1027.3 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.56 WA TERSHED INCHES; 1274 CFS -HRS; 105.2 ACRE-FEET.
=PERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.88 226.2 816.70
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
Page 5
05058PL.OUT
3.56 WATERSHED INCHES; 1273 CFS-HRS; 105.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK Yii-IEO RS) PEAK DYSChARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.14 463.1 (RUNOFF)
Z
+TR20 -----------------------------------------------------------------------cam: _
S
04
16. J P :S J06 No. 1 PAGE 7
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.17 WATERSHED INCHES; 506 CFS-HRS; 41.8 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.15 555.4 (NULL)
12.77 308.0 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.44 WATERSHED INCHES;. 1779 CFS-HRS; 147.0 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.07 225.7 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW .00 CFS)
3.26 WATERSHED INCHES; 206 CFS-HRS; 17.0 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.30 110.7 756.76
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.26 WATERSHED INCHES; 206 CFS-HRS; 17.0 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.17 652.2 (NULL)
12.74 384.8 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.42 WATERSHED INCHES; 1985 CFS-HRS; 164.0 ACRE-FEET.
-OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TII'?E(h{F:.) PEAK DISCHAi-GE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
11.99 131.4 (RUNOFF)
R20. --------------------
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
Page 6

05058PL.OUT
03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 PASS 3 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 8
RLJNC *..- A. OVA _rLv':'.' '?A?Er ?1.! 00 C' )
3.46 WATERSHED INCHES; 100 CFS-HRS; 6.2 ACRE-FEET.
WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( . 1_ 7) FOR SUBW,A.T=RSHFD XS CTTCj ? -
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) F_AK ELEVATION(,=ETj
12.29 28.2 759.34
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.45 WATERSHED INCHES; 100 CFS-HRS; 8.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.17 680.2 (NULL)
12.74 411.6 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.42 WATERSHED INCHES; 2084 CFS-HRS; 172.3 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.01 14.4 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
1.64 WATERSHED INCHES; 11 CFS-HRS; .9 ACRE-FEET.
** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .18) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT 3.4%.**
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.17 686.8 (NULL)
12.74 413.2 - (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.40 WATERSHED INCHES; 2096 CFS-HRS; 173.2 ACRE-FEET.
--TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
-03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 PASS 4 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 9
mmEXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 3
Page 7
05058PL.OUT
EXECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 3
STARTING TIME = .00 RAIN DEPTH = 6.50 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. =50 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
P,=AK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHA RGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)

BA:. rtiU,
' ;?

xac: _i -
W

uu CFS
)
4.88 WATERSHED INCHES; 1748 CFS-HRS; 144.4 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.59 602.7 818.81
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.88 WATERSHED INCHES; 1746 CFS-HRS; 144.3 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.14 644.1 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.44 WATERSHED INCHES; 710 CFS-HRS; 58.7 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.15 756.6 (NULL)
12.52 820.3 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW .00 CFS)
4.74 WATERSHED INCHES; 2456 CFS-HRS; 203.0 ACRE-FEET.
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 PASS 4 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 10
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2'
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.06 311.9
RUNOFF ABOVLE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.55 WATERSHED INCHES; 288 CFS-HRS;
OPERATION RES` O 51--RUCTURE 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
12.22 204.8
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
23.8 ACRE-FEET.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
758.30
Page 8
05058PL.OUT
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.56 WATERSHED INCHES; 288 CFS-HRS; 23.8 ACRE-FEET.
OPE . , "r?,, 4r Yr; v_TTC'
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.19 937.8 (NULL)
17.50 940.0 (NULL)
t. 'Z lA ER>FicD :;ACHE Z73 CFS iRS;1 . / ACRt-FEET .
OF'=RATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
11.99 178.9
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
4.77 WATERSHED INCHES; 138 CFS-HRS;
*** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSH
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
11.4 ACRE-FEET.
50% OF THE
ED XSECTION 2.
.3%.
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.32 32.7 760.40
1
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 PASS 4 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 11
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = 00 CFS)
4.77 WATERSHED INCHES; 138 CFS-HRS; 11.4.ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.19 970.1 (NULL)
12.50 972.3 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS) !
4.73 WATERSHED INCHES; 2881 CFS-HRS; 238.1 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.01 23.5 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2.62 WATERSHED INCHES; 18 CFS-HRS; 1.5 ACRE-FEET.
*** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .18) FOR SUBWATERSHED XSECTION 2.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT -1.6%. ***
Page 9
05058PL.OUT
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAK TIN, , pRr?) PEA','
12.19 979.4 (NULL;
12.50 975.7 (NULL)
RUNOFF A71 )'E ` ASEFLO' ' (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
2 3
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 4
EXECUTIVE CONTROL COMPUT FROM XSECTION 1 TO XSECTION 3
STARTING TIME = .00 RAIN DEPTH .= 7.30 RAIN DURATION = 1.00
ANT. RUNOFF COND. = 2 MAIN TIME INCREMENT = .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE NO. = 0 STORM NO. =99 RAIN TABLE NO. = 2
TR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 PASS 5 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 12
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.19 1591.2 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.65 WATERSHED INCHES; 2022 CFS-HRS; 167.1 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.52 840.0 819.78
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.65 WATERSHED INCHES; 2023 CFS-HRS; 167.2 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.14 749.6 (RUNOFF)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.19 WATERSHED INCHES; 829 CFS-HRS; 68.5 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 1
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.14 870.5 (NULL)
12.44 1150.8 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.51 WATERSHED INCHES; 2853 CFS-HRS; 235.7 ACRE-FEET.
Page 10
05058PL.OUT
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12'6^ _FF,
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.31 WATERSHED INCHES; 335 CFS-HRS; 27.7 ACRE-FEET.
- TR20 ---------------------.----------------------------------------------- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
031/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 PASS 5 JOB NO. 1 PAGE 13
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.21 287.4 758.78
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.30 WATERSHED INCHES; 335 CFS-HRS; 27.7 ACRE-FEET.
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.42 1288.8 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.49 WATERSHED INCHES; 3187 CFS-HRS; 263.4 ACRE-FEET.
W)PERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
11.99 206.5
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW.= .00 CFS)
5.54 WATERSHED INCHES; 160 CFS-HRS;
mm*** WARNING - MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .17) FOR SUBWATERSH
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT
=PERATION RESVOR STRUCTURE 3
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(RUNOFF)
13.2 ACRE-FEET.
50% OF THE
ED XSECTION 2.
.7%. ***
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.34 35.1 761.09
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOS,, _ .00 CFS)
5.54 WATERSHED INCHES; 160 CFS-HRS; 13.2 ACRE-FEET.
PERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 2
PEAK TIME(HRS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
12.42 1323.8 (NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.49 WATERSHED INCHES; 3347 CFS-HRS; 276.6 ACRE-FEET.
Page 11

05058PL.OUT
OPERATION RUNOFF XSECTION 2
1
TR20 scs
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 PASS 5 30B NO. 1 PAGE 14
-. , - ,-
lc. 00 .
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
3.23 WATERSHED INCHES; 22 C;S-HRS;
*** WARNING -,MAIN TIME INCREMENT ( .100) IS GREATER THAN
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ( .18) FOR SUBWATERSH
THIS WILL REDUCE THE COMPUTED PEAK BY ABOUT
OPERATION ADDHYD XSECTION 3
PEAK TIME(HRS)
12.42
PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS)
1328.5
(RU :OT F)
1.8 ACRt - . ` E7 .
50% OF THE
_D XSECTION 2.
.8%.
PEAK ELEVATION(FEET)
(NULL)
RUNOFF ABOVE BASEFLOW (BASEFLOW = .00 CFS)
5.46 WATERSHED INCHES; 3369 CFS-HRS;
278.4 ACRE-FEET.
EXECUTIVE CONTROL ENDCMP COMPUTATIONS COMPLETED FOR PASS 5
MfTR20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SCS -
050.58 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 SUMMARY, 30B NO. 1 PAGE 15
SUMMARY TABLE 1
---------------
SELECTED RESULTS OF STANDARD AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL IN ORDER PERFORMED.
A CHARACTER FOLLOWING THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) INDICATES:
F-FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH T-TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH R-RISING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH
XSECTION/. STANDARD PEAK DISCHARGE
STRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE RUNOFF ---------- ------- ---------- ---------
ID OPERATION AREA AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME RATE RATE
(SQ MI) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CSM)
RAINFALL OF 3.00 i nches AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BEG INS AT .0 hrs.
RAINTABLE NUMBER 2, ARC 2
MAIN TIME INCREMENT .100 HOURS
ALTERNATE 0 STORM 1
-------
XSECTION ----------
1 RUNOFF ----------
.55
1.66
---
12.20
483
878.2
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55 1.66 809.16 12.99 94 170.9
_CSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 1.38 --- 12.15 199 796.0
=<SECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 1.57 --- 12.17 262 327.5
::::CSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10 1.45 --- 12.08 100 1000.0
STRUCTURE 2 RESVOR .10 1.45 752.80 12.26 57 570.0
=<SECTION 2 ADDHYD .90 1.56 --- 12.18 318 353.3
Page 12
05058PL.OUT
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .04 1.59 --- 11.99 61 1525.0
STRUCTURE 3 RESVOR .04 1.59 758.02 12.21 22 550.0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .94 1.56 --- 12.18 340 361.7

XSECTION4 ADDHYD .96 1.55 --- 12.18 342 356.3
RAINFALL O F 3.50 inc hes AND 24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT .0 hrs.

^SECTION RUNOFF >j 2.10 --- 1z-.20 604 1098.2
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55 2.10 811.14 13.04 106 192.7
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25 1.78 --- 12.14 261 1044.0
XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80 2.00 --- 12.16 330 412.5
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10 1.86 --- 12.07 129 1290.0
STRUCTURE 2 RESVOR .10 1.86 753.79 12.28 68 680.0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .90 1.98 --- 12.17 395 438.9
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .04 2.01 --- 11.99 78 1950.0
STRUCTURE 3 RESVOR .04 2.02 758.30 12.23 23 575.0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .94 1.99 --- 12.18 419 445.7
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF ..01 .70 --- 12.03 5 500.0

TR20 ----- ---- -------- --------- ---------------------- ---------- -------- --
SCS -
0 5058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILI TIES VERSION
03/21/** PROPOSED FACI LITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 SUMMARY, 30B NO. 1 PAGE 16
SUMMARY TABLE 1
--

SELECTED RE
SULTS OF -
STANDARD ------------
AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL
IN ORDER
PERFORMED.
A CHARACTER FOLLOWING THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) INDICATES:
F-FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH T-TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH R-RI SING TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH
XSECTION/ STANDARD PEAK DIS CHARGE
STRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE RUNOFF ---------- ---------
-
--------
--------
ID OPERATION AREA AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME RATE RATE
(SQ MI) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CSM)
ALTERNATE 0 STORM 2
------
XSECTION ----
3 ------------
ADDHYD -----
.96
RAINFALL OF 5,.10 inches AND
ALTERNATE 0 STORM
= 10
------
XSECTION ----
1 --------
----
RUNOFF ----
.55
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25
XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10
STRUCTURE 2 RESVOR .10
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .90
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .04
STRUCTURE 3 RESVOR ..04
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .94
1.97 --- 12.17
24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT
421 438.5
.0 hrs.
3.56 --- 12.20 1027
3.56 816.70 12.88 226
3.17 --- 12.14 463
3.44 --- 12.15 555
3.26 --- 12.07 226
3.26 756.76 12.30 111
3.42 --- 12.17 652
3.46 --- 11.99 131
3.45 759.34 12.29 28
3.42 --- 12.17 680
Page 13
1867.3
410.9
1852.0
693.8
2260.0
1110.0
724.4
3275.0
700.0
723.4
05058PL.OUT
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .01 1.64 --- 12.01 14 1400.0
XSECTION 3 ADDHYD .96 3.40 --- 12.17 687 715.6
RAINFALL 6.50 i t h- AND 2".00 h?- DURf':T" . RE3T-' S AT
ALTERNA TE 0 STORM 50
-------
XSECTION -----------
1 RUNOFF ----------
.55
4.88 ---
12.20
1384
2516.4
- - FS'/?, fir.

XSECTION 1 ALLi 7. -- 12.52 $20 1025.0
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10 4.55 --- 12.06 312 3120.0
STRUCTURE. 2 RESVOR .10 4.56 758.30 12.22 205 2050.0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .90 4.72 --- 12.50 940 1044.4
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .04 4.77 --- 11.99 179 4475.0

TR20 ----- ----------- ---------- ---------------------- ---------- ------- --- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILI TIES VERSION
03/21/*° PRO POSED FACI LITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 SUMMARY, JOB NO. 1 PAGE 17
I
SUMMARY TABLE 1

SELECTED RESULTS O ---
F STANDARD ------------
AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL
IN ORDER
PERFORM
ED.
A CHARACTER FOLLOW ING THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) INDICA TES:
F-FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH T-TRUNCATED HYDROGRAPH R-RI SING TRUNC ATED HY DROGRAPH
XSECTION/ STANDARD PEAK DIS CHARGE
STRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE RUNOFF ---------- ---------- ------- ---------
ID OPERATION AREA AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME RATE RATE
(SQ MI) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CSM)
ALTERNATE 0 STORM 50
--------
STRUCTURE ----------
3 RESVOR ---------
.04
4.77 760.40
12.32
33
825.0
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .94 4.73 --- 12.50 972 1034.0
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .01 2.62 --- 12.01 24 2400.0
XSECTION 3 ADDHYD .96 4.70 --- 12.19 979 1019.8
RAINFALL OF 7.30 inches AND
ALTERNATE 0 STORM 99
-------
XSECTION ---
1 -------------
RUNOFF ----
.55
STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .55
XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .25
XSECTION 1 ADDHYD .80
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .10
STRUCTURE 2 RESVOR .10
XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .90
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .04
STRUCTURE 3 RESVOR .04
XSECTION 2 ADDIO'D .94
XSECTION 2 RUNOFF .01
XSECTION 3 ADDHYD .96

24.00 hr DURATION, BEGINS AT .0 hrs.
5.65 -- 12.19 1591 2892.7
5.65 819.78 12.52 840 1527.3
5.19 --- 12.14 750 3000.0
5.51 --- 12.44 1151 1438.8
5.31 --- 12.06 361 3610.0
5.30 758.78 12.21 287 2870.0
5.49 --- 12.42 1289 1432.2
5.54 --- 11.99 206 5150.0
5.54 761.09 12.34 35 875.0
5.49 --- 12.42 1324 1408.5
3.23 --- 12.00 29 2900.0
5.46 --- 12.42 1329 1384.4
Page 14
9
L oUT
------- -------------- ----- _
.05058• BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILIT IES VERSION
03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
16:13:03 SUMMARY, JOB NO. 1 PAGE 18
SUMMARY TABLE 3

STOR?? DIS
CHA
RGES (,f--=S) ---------------
AT XSECTIONS AND STRUCTURE
S FOR ALL
ALTE
RNATES

X?+ 1.l 1'.iP'e 4AGE
STRUCTURE AREA STORM NUMBERS......... .
TO (SQ MI) 2 10 50 99
STRUCTURE 3
- .04
----
----------
ALTERNATE ---
0 ----------
22 23
28
33
35
STRUCTURE 2 .10
--------------
ALTERNATE ---
0 ----------
57 68
111
205
287
STRUCTURE 1 55
--------------
ALTERNATE ----
0 ---------
94 106
226
603
840
XSECTION 1 .80
--------------
ALTERNATE ----
0 ---------
262 330
555
820
1151
XSECTION 2 .01
---------------
ALTERNATE ---
0 ---------
3 5
14
24
29
XSECTION 3 .96
---------------
ALTERNATE ---
0 ---------
342 421
687
979
1328

TR20 ---------- --- ---------- --------------------------- ---
------
-----
---- SCS -
05058 BATH CREEK PROPOSED FACILITIES VERSION
03/21/** PROPOSED FACILITY DRAINAGE AREA 01 - LARGE 2.04TEST
END OF 1 JOBS IN THIS RUN
i.
SCS Tt-20, VERSION 2.04TEST
FILES
INPUT = C:\TR20\05058\05058PL.DAT GIVEN DATA FILE
OUTPUT = C:\TR20\05058\05058PL.OUT DATED 03/21/**,16:13:03
Page 15

05058PL.OUT
FILES GENERATED - DATED 03/21/**,16:13:03
NONE!
TOTAL NUMBER OF WARNINGS = 11, MESSAGES = 0

Page 16
11
05058 BATH CREEK
STAGE-STORAGE
FACILITY 01 -Small

Elevation. Area Area Delta h Average Storage Cumulative Cumulative
Area Storage Storage
(ft) (sf) (acre.) (ft) (arce.) (ac-ft) (ac-ft) !cfl
PERMANENT POOL STORAGE
304.00 2950.00 0.07 0.00 0.00

310.00 0550.00 0.15 2.00 0.13 0.27 0.64 28000.00
811.00 7250.00 0.17 2.00 0.16 0.32 0.96 41800.00
812.00 13850.00 0.32 1.00 '.24 0.24 1.20 52350-.1-10
DRY STORAGE
812.00 13850.00 0.32 0.00 0.00
814.00 17050.00 0.39 2.00 0.35 0.71 0.71 30900.00
816.00 20650.00 0.47 2.00 0.43 0.87 1.57 68600.00
818.00 24600.00 0.56 2.00 0.52 1.04 2.61 113850.00
820.00 29100.00 0.67 2.00 0.62 1.23 3.85 167550.00
822.00 34000.00 0.78 2.00 0.72 1.45 5.29 230650.00
824.00 39200.00 0.90 2.00 0.84 1.68 6.98 303850.00
826.00 44700.00 1.03 2.00 0.96 1.93 8.90 387750.00
828.00 50500.00 1.16 2.00 1.09 2.19 11.09 482950.00
830.00 56500.00 1.30 2.00 1.23 2.46 13.54 589950.00
CNA, Inc.
C.Stepp
N:\Design\05000\05058-BathCreek\Documents\05058_Stage_Storage.As
9:26 AM
4/17/2006
05058 BATH CREEK
STAGE-STORAGE
FACILITY 01 - tilled

Elevation Area Area Delta h Average Storage Cumulative Cumulative
Area Storage Storage

PERMANENT POOL STORAGE
794.00 12775.00 0.29 0.00 0.00

_., 1.01 ,.7•r , _. ,_
800.00 32890.00 0.76 2.00 0.67 1.34 3.08 134065.00
801.00 35775.00 0.82 2.00 0.79 1.58 4.65 202730.00
802.00 51300.00 1.18 1.C0 1.00 1.00 5.65 24F..`E;7.&]
DRY S TORAGE
802.00 51300.00 1.18 0.00 0.00
804.00 58000.00 1.33 2.00 1.25 2.51 2.51 109300.00
806.00 65000.00 1.49 2.00 1.41 2.82 5.33 232300.00
808.00 72300.00 1.66 2.00 1.58 3.15 8.48 369600.00
810.00 79900.00 1.83 2.00 1.75 3.49 11.98 521800.00
812.00 87875.00 2.02 2.00 1.93 3.85 15.83 689575.00
814.00 96150.00 2.21 2.00 2.11 4.22 20.06 873600.00
816.00 104800.00 2.41 2.00 2.31 4.61 24.67 1074550.00
818.00 113800.00 2.61 2.00 2.51 5.02 29.69 1293150.00
820.00 123400.00 2.83 2.00 2.72 5.45 35.13 1530350.00
822.00 133300.00 3.06 2.00 2.95 5.89 41.03 1787050.00
824.00 143600.00 3.30 2.00 3.18 6.36 47.38 2063950.00
826.00 154000.00 3.54 2.00 3.42 6.83 54.21 2361550.00
828.00 165100.00 3.79 2.00 3.66 7.33 61.54 2680650.00
830.00 176300.00 4.05 2.00 3.92 7.84 69.38 3022050.00
CNA, Inc.
C.Stepp
N:\Design\05000\05058-Bath Creek\Documents\05058_Stage_Stora ge.xl s
9:26 AM
4/17/2006
05058 BATH CREEK
STAGE-STORAGE
FACILITY 01 - Large

Elevation Area Area Delta h Average Storage Cumulative Cumulative
Area Storage Storage
s , (arse) {ac -?) (ac-#t)
PERMANENT POOL STORAGE_
794.00 30200.00 0.69 0.00 0.00
7-
7-
800.00 53300.00 1.22 2.00 1.13 2.25 5.69 247800.00
801.00 62350.00 1.43 2.00 1.33 2.65 8.34 363450.00
802.00 93700.00 2.15 1.00 1.79 1.79 10.13 441475.00
DRY S TORAGE
802.00 113500.00 2.61 0.00 0.00
804.00 121493.00 2.79 2.00 2.70 5,39 5.39 234993.00
806.00 129708.00 2.98 2.00 2.88 5.77 11.16 486194.00
808.00 138202.00 3.17 2.00 3.08 6.15 17.31 754104.00
810.00 146963.00 3.37 2.00 3.27 6.55 23.86 1039269.00
812.00 155984.00 3.58 2.00 3.48 6.95 30.81 1342216.00
814.00 165267.00 3.79 2.00 3.69 7.37 38.19 1663467.00
816.00 174813.00 4.01 2.00 3.90 7.81 46.00 2003547.00
818.00 184621.00 4.24 2.00 4.13 8.25 54.25 2362981.00
820.00 208425.00 4.78 2.00 4.51 9.02 63.27 2756027.00
822.00 219109.00 5.03 2.00 4.91 9.81 73.08 3183561.00
824.00 230054.00 5.28 2.00 5.16 10.31 83.40 3632724.00
826.00 241269.00 5.54 2.00 5.41 10.82 94.22 4104047.00
828.00 252777.00 5.80 2.00 5.67 11.34 105.56 4598093.00
830.00 264575.00 6.07 2.00 5.94 11.88 117.43 5115445.00
CNA, Inc.
C.Stepp
N:\Des ig n\05000\05058-BathCree k\Docu men is\05058_Stage_Storage.xls
9:26 AM
4/17/2006
05058 BATH CREEK
STAGE-STORAGE
FACILITY 02
Elevation Area Area Delta h Average Storage Cumulative Cumulative
Area Storage Storage
(ft) ral ,2s =:; i ft?
PERMANENT POOL STORAGE
742.00 6400.00 0.15 0.00 0.00
0.'i ;Y6w..;
-7 6.()C
748.00 12300.00 0.28 2.00 0.26 0.52 1.27 55500.00
749.00 13400.00 0.31 1.00 0.29 0.29 1.57 68350.00
750.00 i9500.00 0.45 1.00 0.38 0.38 1.95 84800.00
DRY ST ORAGE
750.00 19500.00 0.45 0.00 0.00
752.00 23500.00. 0.54 2.00 0.49 0.99 0.99 43000.00
754.00 27800.00 0.64 2.00 0.59 1.18 2.16 94300.00
756.00 32500.00 0.75 2.00 0.69 1.38 3.55 154600.00
758.00 37300.00 0.86 2.00 0.80 1.60 5.15 224400.00
760.00 42475.00 0.98 2.00 0.92 1.83 6.98 304175.00
61
CNA, Inc.
C.StePP 9:27 AM
N:\Design\05000\05058-13athCreek\Documents\05058_Stage_Storage.xis _ 4/17/2006
I\
05058 BATH CREEK
STAGE-STORAGE
FACILITY 03
Elevation Area Area Delta h Average Storage Cumulative Cumulative
Area Storage Storage
?
PERMANENT POOL STORAGE
748.00 12800.00 0.29 0.00 0.00
_ 75.00
? .: _
1,;;00.00 0.3..
754.00 20200.00 0.46 .2.00 0.43 0.87 2.26 98450.00
755.00 25700.00 0.59 1.00 0.53 0.53 2.79 121400.00
756.00 37650.00 0.86 1.00 0.73 0.73 3.51 153075.00
DRY STORAGE
756.00 37650.00 0.86 0.00 0.00
758.00 42850.00 0.98 2.00 0.92 1.85 1.85 80500.00
760.00 48300.00 1.11 2.00 1.05 2.09 3.94 171650.00
762.00 54000.00 1.24 2.00 1.17 2.35 6.29 273950.00
764.00 59900.00 1.38 2.00 1.31 2.61 8.90 387850.00
766.00 66050.00 1.52 2.00 1.45 2.89 11.80 513800.00
768.00 72400.00 1.66 2.00 1.59 3.18 14.97 652250.00
770.00 79000.00 1.81 2.00 1.74 3.48 18.45 803650.00

CNA, Inc.
C.Stepp
N:\Design\05000\05058-BathCree k\Docu men is\05058_Stage_Storage.xls
9:27 AM
-4/17/2006

Y
w
w
U
2
F-
Q
m
00
Lf)
O
LO
O
L
d
N
R
a?
o ?
J v
N
a
LL
O
w
111
N
U
w
o
0 3
s ? w
x
0) m
(/1
N
X
Q O
a
N N O

Q' (0
O
2
7
C

X
Q L
U
- u
a _

U-'
X S ()
Y
II 0
> It
L j
'U U
E

C5

II

U v

0
O
-

O

N N
(0
t

Y

O CL
? o
N L 3
O
Q N
N CD
< C
a)
W
c M c a) E
U
II -j

U _

`

O v,
11 J o
O =3
N
N
(D '` N
rn 0 3 M o E

o
u
Y
u
> U y

c
t
= a? L? N
f-
-o
0 0 I 11
u 3 3 «
N
X
N
O
U
cu
LL
OI
O
m
t
U
N
C
O
_N
W
cI
0
LO
0
N
c
N
E
7
U
O
0
U
t
c
D7
co
O
?o
Q O
O )o
C) U)
O) o
Z o 0
- N N
Q
U)
-7Z
UUvz
m CD m ?? r? v rn r rn
7` w ?- O O -N r 1, W) (D r aD c0 N
cl = v ti M r- am -M Cl
O y (?J 00 07 r r r tt 00 tD00 O
U-D ? r N
1 t i '
3 w
a C7
I ?
T
cA 1 y a
j U
W
J
N N N (D I- N M M O I')
N N d 0 0 f` d (D (D d r- N M
v d tt0 N O to 00 00 N O d M
f` N N O 0 N (D O d r- O
(D N O N d LO h M O N M LO
o o U r. N N N N N N M M M M M
N o m U
° ° cc
r
o at
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. O
' L (D aD ? r .d-- O M O N d (D 00 O
CO (D d N N N N N M
Z v^y-. N N ~d Lq r N r m?
J C Q p (D co 00 Cl) 0) (0
C
M co N 00 M h O M 0 (D
Y J N .t •C C O p C C! ti .M .? N N N N N N
W , Q N c°c c r o
W d (n ?> o v
U a(D d c c
V 3 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a a a 'ca 0 0 0° ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3: n• (L H L N d (o a0 O N a (O W O N N
? V r 4
y w O O N O ti to (D r (D (D N
cx) Q' -C n M - d
O U O) O (o m fh "? ' lM O
'J °
(
D
p m y C7 d t` ao rn d° co co 0 0
U N
C m Q o
> U_
d
_N
LY U
N
d
t w ?
Im w
y cm 0 t
S w U 4
J
O cD w d O V ti co
y co C`7 d. (D coo 0000 L
N CJ N e?' cD o2 x
d x ,
y N_
O y Ce t H O O O O O C
0-
1)
d U N d (D C6 N _
x
J Q
x i
Y i
0° w o o N M d o ao II
o O `a" n M d ti to CD .-- N M N .1
t?+ N .O O CD m '- O O II- N U I
co 01
O O I
LL R
3 :3 c
c
-? j 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w
O O O
04 U
O O C Q N d 0 00 O- -- (D N O N N N N
O c
_ Q
c r?
Oo o g o -. oo 0 o
(D go b d' w "0 N tt co > C) CD C)
W 0tJ co co W 00-S j, co m so co 00 N _O S
0 N
°u
o CD
°- o CL
C -0 d
ca -
O
7 w
6 d 0)
? U C
i ? a c
L U E
co) O
tr
? R
1 O 3 2
L O
(h G= C
C N
1 J J _u O
n J o m
1
o E
II = -C
> U c
O 4) ?.
O L 11 I I
FL 3
2 c
Q C
C
N tC(
C
Z O u
N
Z C
U U ? ?
m
w t? M N a
O 7 A w O O '.N h Lo t0 ?- tO0. (0 N (O.
CL 0 h M
V v 01 O tD O r W) tOD~d.'.
t- W to eN•- eM,-. er t7M0 w co O 04
a CY
w m U G
J
N I? N N (? f? M 0 M U-,
w N N V O O f, V <O- c0 q n N
O h co N 0 C ( D N ( 00 O't? m M N
?" to W O N V' to r 00 O N M to (0
C '- N N N N N N m M m (M OO cM
o N o U
r o o a>
o `O ~ y _
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L 6 00 O <t (D 00 O N V (0 0 O N
,W d N N N N N M M
CD
L Q ? ti N ti a0 (D M N N
L ? ? to N V' r <t to .- N O7 ? M
co v co (o M Lo O P- O a N (D to
C C •?•? a p 0 co () M N 00 ('7 O M to (0 1-
Y p +t+ c 7 N Or h L2 v N N N N N to (D N N
W d Z?! C o c
. t -Z N C 0
W Q c U
a to d c 3 2' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
U L IL EL ° 1C c O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4. d 1- L N V (D co tJ 04 (D CO 0 N v (D
L d N N N N
r V
m Q G d d
a) O f`
00 c
T C tT O (D O M M E to (OD V
O ,? p o (n CY ti m 0) ? ? ?° co fl 0 O N <
N N
O ~
n J i
iii Q CY
LL
3 r = w
S J V
to '
U L
N tT M (0 1 w N c
co 4 y o v O OC f- O N O 3
M O M V (D 00 00 (0 L N «L
H , <
a) CY N r O au N X (ri N N i
m v Ol N > a
X Q _ •a E
0 .. W N N
L L 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,C L O
.? m N L O O O O O N N CL C
= C Q N v cD 00
U X
X (v = N 1
45 11 0
E a
0 00 w O O (D n to (0 N 00 N N 11 L t U ' O
C: if
r Ct ?m
CC
g a o Y ? c
3 N N t O Q
fh C
-? C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W N W m 0 O N
d- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J J tT C
Q C d cV 4 6 06 O N c0 Or N NN N t= M U t O Z o c
_ U
0 _C
Q N 1? J O N Q
(O O Q h
of 0 3 ri o E -Uiz\c
o o C:, 0 b 0 0 O o o 0 0 0 ! u u c U U? Z
a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° Y> U c
R 4Y (O PO 0 6 O et (1A CO w y O
O O y ? N
tJ, -O i k- r- N ?^I N a N ? ? ? F-- ?
O
W ?pd co co (X) ca 00 00 co
co' 3 z
- - t ° 11
3 3 .

L
0
N
Y
w ,
w
M
Co
L
a -J
moo
to L ?
CD O
U') a+
O
d
W
CJ 7 l?C w 5 N N O1 N
CL z v O N N er c a) V-
F- U G (J N M co st N..N
CNI
.
a 'IO
v -?
W to U G
J
w N V M to 10 M
O .U.. co 0) co m c0 c0
CJ ^ ?'• ? ? N N N
C
m co
O
6
O to h e+
N
7 ?.' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 O O O O O O O
Q •- M ll7 h D) c- ?
M O m t00 M. to N M
U) z r- n 1? m ri o M Cj ti
c
.? L C C 7 4) O` (y N e0 .N- ??- N N
c t r d °
(n 43) 4)
v -? > m U
_a m m - a c 3
O O O O O N N N
d a •N N N N N N
tD o0 C5 (Ij .-4--
13)
(Y) I- to
O N N O r •,t
u ai m
U 0 N co co 4V In (`TO
? O
v
N
d ?
d m d L
S ? U d
J
n co V N (lD T
~ v
a)
r d n
Of # d LO
t9 ?
H s W O O O
_m r
C) C, C) L ON V O
IJ 0)) U C
J
O p' N D) to h m 0C14 (D
O ?- O N N .- •ct
w
n 0 N c7 c°7' V V 7) o
O
LL
O C
m S 0 0 C0 C0 0
m O O O O O O O
6 C. d CV V' o c6 cN
gg,
MIN .
p ? if
b' o o o 0 C) CD -
Q. jQ,. o 0 o a o 0
.? CA i90. O N V tD fz O
> t[1, Fp (D iD O (D tD h
N
U
w
O •?
0 3
L `) -C
X
tT (0
an
d
O
X O
N N

cr - t
d O
N
Cl) O C
X
Q U >? N

X
M >
_ ?
N
Y

II

t If

r

U
U
E
0 O O
II .
G L c
O V)
L
Y
'Zl a 0
3

N

N N

< t 0

C
N
w m r
O
W
U
-
11

0
N
q-
O m

N
I?
J
cu
N
C)) c
D
O 3 _
CO o f
o 11

Y

> If

U
-?
c
t
L N O N 1? -4a)
F-- -0
O L O L II II
LL 3 LL
3
.
tU
U
L
co
C6
0
o
Q O
O
N to
0
Z oo .o)
N y
Q h 0
U U v Z
Riparian Plant Community Analysis
Botanical Name Common Name Upper
Reach Middle
Reach Lower
Reach
Trees
Acer barbatum southern sugar maple O
Acer negundo boxelder F F C
Acer rubrum red maple F
Acer saccharinum silver maple R O O
Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven C C F
Albizia 'ulibrissin mimosa F F O
Ca rya labra pignut hickory R
Celtis occidentalis hackberry O
Cornus orida flowering dogwood R
Fraxinus pennsylvanicus green ash R
Gleditsia triacanthos honey locust O R
Juglans nigra black walnut O R
Li uidambar styraciflua sweetgum R R
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree O
Maclura omifera osage orange R
Morus alba white mulberry F F O
Paulownia tomentosa empress tree O O
Platanus occidentalis sycamore F O O
Prunus avium sweet cherry R
Prunus serotina black cherry O R R
Pyrus calleryana Gallery pear R O O
Quercus falcata southern red oak R
Quercus phellos willow oak R R R
Quercus rubra northern red oak R
Robinia pseudo-acacia black locust O O
Salix nigra black willow O F O
Sassafras albidum sassafras R
Ulmus rubra slippery elm O F
Shrubs
Cornus amomum silky dogwood O
Hibiscus syriaca rose of sharon R R O
Ilex crenata Japanese holly R
Li ustrum ovalifolium California privet O
Ligustrum vulgare common privet F C F
Rosa multi flora multiflora rose O O O
Rubus sp. blackberry O O
Salix s p. willow R R
Sambucus canadensis elderbeffy R R
Botanical Name Common Name Upper
Reach Middle
Reach Lower
Reach
Wood Vines
Am elo sis brevipedunculata porcelain berg O
Cam psis radicans trumpet creeper F O O
Hedera helix English ivy F
Lonicera ja,_onica Japanese honeysuckle F R F
Parthenocissus uinquefolia Virginia creeper F O O
Smilax rotundifolia reenbrier O
Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy O O F
Vitis s. grape O O F
Herbaceous
Acal ha s p. three seeded mercury O R
Ambrosia artemesii olia annual ragweed R O
Artemesia vulgaris mu wort F F F
Aster s p. aster O
Ascle ias syriaca common milkweed R
As lenium latyneuron ebony s leenwort O O
Bidens sp. beggar-ticks R
Boehmeria c lindrica false nettle R
Bromus s p. brome R
Canna s p. canna R
Carex blanda sedge R
Carex vul inoidea fox sedge R
Chenopodium album lambsquat-ters R
Commelina communis Asiatic dayflower O O O
Con za canadensis horseweed O
Cruciferae s p. mustard R
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda ass R
Dac lis glomerata orchard grass O
Datura stramonium jimsonweed R R
Di itaria s p. crabgrass R
Dioscorea battatas wild am F F F
Duchesnea indica Indian strawberry R F O
Elymus s p- wild e R O
Eu horbia maculata spotted spurge R
Festuca arundinacea tall fescue O F R
Glechoma hederacea ground ivy R
Gramineae s pp. grasses O O O
Gratiola s p. hedge hyssop R
Humulus ja owcus Japanese hops F O F
Impatiens ca ensis jewelweed R
Juncus of usus soft rush O
Juncus tenuis path rush 0 0 0
Botanical Name Common Name Upper
Reach Middle
Reach Lower
Reach
Lactuca s p. wild lettuce R
Lath rus s p. pea R
Lepidium sp. pepper-grass O R
Les edeza cuneata sericea les edeza R R O
Lirio e s icata lirio e R
Lolium erenne perennial rye grass R R
Microste ium vimineum stilt mass O O O
Oenethera biennis evening primrose R O
Oxalis s p. wood sorrel R
Perilla utescens beefsteak plant R
Phytolacca americana pokeweed O O O
Planta o lanceolata lance-leaved plantain R
Planta o major broad-leaved plantain R
Poly ovum aviculare prostrate knotweed O
Poly ovum ces itosum ces itose smartweed F O
Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed F C F
Poly ovum sp. smartweed R
Pseudosasa s p. bamboo R
Pueraria lobata kudzu C A A
Rumex obtusifolius broad-leaved dock R
Setaria faberi giant foxtail O
Sorghum halapense johnson ass R R O
Solanum carolinense horse nettle O
Solidago sp. goldenrod R
Taraxacum o acinale dandelions R R
Trifolium re ens White clover R R
Viola sp. violet 0 0