[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
FY 1992 FINAL PRODUCT TASK 63 Strmwtr Drainage Mgt. Plan A COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE STUDY AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE TOWN OF WEST POINT, VIRGINIA PREPARED BY LANGLEY AND MCDONALD, P.C. WILLIAMSBURG AND VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA November, 1993 Langley and McDonald, P.C. Engineers 5544 Greenwich Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Surveyors (804) 473-2000 FAX (804) 497-7933 Planners Landscape Architects 201 Packets Court, Williamsburg, VA 23185 Environmental Consultants (804) 253-2975 FAX (804) 229-0049 A COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE STUDY AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE TOWN OF WEST POINT, VIRGINIA TC9777. V8 1993 PREPARED BY LANGLEY AND MCDONALD, P.C. WILLIAMSBURG AND VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA November, 1993 This report was funded, in part, by the Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources Management Program through Grant # NA27OZO312-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. TC977 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................. 4 2.0 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE .............................. 6 3.0 DRAINAGE INVENTORY ................................. 8 3.1 SMOKE TESTING AND CAMERA WSPECTION ............. 8 3.2 FUELD SURVEYS ................................... 9 3.3 WATERSHED BOUNDARIES ........................... 9 3.4 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ............................ 9 4.0 DRAINAGE STUDY ..................................... 10 4.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH ............................ 10 4.2 HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC MODELING ................. 13 4.3 WATER QUAL1TY MODELING ........................ 52 4.4 TROUBLE SPOTS .................................. 55 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CAPrrAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM .. 57 6.0 ORDINANCE/POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ................... 60 7.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM ................................ 62 8.0 FINANCING MECHANISMS ............................... 64 8.1 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ....................... 65 8.2 REVENUE BONDS ................................. 65 8.3 LAND DEVELOPMENT FEES .......... ............... 65 8.4 PARTICIPATION AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS ..... 66 8.5 SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICTS ........................ 66 8.6 STORMWATER UTILITY ............................ 67 8.7 REVENUE ESTIMATES .............................. 68 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page I LIST OF TABLES Table I SCS Curve Numbers by Land Use and Soils ................. I I Table 2 Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency West Point, Virginia ......... 12 Table 3 West Point Creek Watershed Existing Condition Hydrologic Parameters .... 16 Table 4 West Point Creek i@aie*@hed*'E*xist*in'g C*o*n*ditio*n*P*e*ak* *FI'o`w` R'a'te*s* 18 Table 5 West Point Creek Watershed Existing Drainage System Elements -19 Table 6 West Point Creek Watershed Future Condition Hydrologic Parameters ....................................... 21 Table 7 West Point Creek Watershed Future Condition Peak Flow Rates .... 22 Table 8 Magnolia Watershed Existing Condition Hydrologic Parameters ..... 27 Table 9 Magnolia Watershed Existing Condition Peak Flow Rates ......... 29 Table 10 Magnolia Watershed Existing Drainage System Elements ......... 30 Table 11 Magnolia Watershed Future Condition Hydrologic Parameters ..... 32 Table 12 Magnolia Watershed Future Condition Peak Flow Rates .......... 33 Table 13. North Chelsea Watershed Existing Condition Hydrologic Parameters ....................................... 36 Table 14 North Chelsea Watershed Existing Condition Peak Flow Rates ...... 38 Table 15 North Chelsea Watershed Existing Drainage System Elements ...... 39 Table 16 North Chelsea Watershed Future Condition Hydrologic Parameters . .41 Table 17 North Chelsea Watershed Future Condition Peak Flow Rates ...... 42 Table 18 Thompson Watershed Existing Condition Hydrologic Parameters .... 45 Table 19 Thompson Watershed Existing Condition Peak Flow Rates ......... 47 Table 20 Thompson Watershed Existing Drainage System Elements ........ 48 Table 21 Thompson Watershed Future Condition Hydrologic Parameters ..... 50 Table 22 Thompson Watershed Future Condition Peak now Rates ......... 51 Tables 23/24, Annual Storm Phosphorus Export for Existing Developed and Non- Developed Land Uses ................................ 54 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23. 1993 Page 2 LIST OF FIGURES Figure I West Point Creek Watershed Basin Map .................... 15 Figure 2 West Point Creek Watershe d Hydrologic Soils Classification ....... 17 Figure 3 West Point Creek Watershed Future IAnd Use ................ 20 Figure 4 Magnolia Tributary Basin Map .......................... 26 Figure 5 Magnolia Tributary Hydrologic Soils Classification ............. 28 Figure 6 Magnolia Tributary Existing lAnd Use ..................... 31 Figure 7 North Chelsea Tributary Basin Map ...................... 35 Figure 8 North Chelsea Tributary Hydrologic Soils Classification .. I........ 37 Figure 9 North Chelsea Tributary Future Land Use .................. 40 Figure 10 Thompson Tributary Basin Map ......................... 44 Figure 11 Thompson Tributary Hydrologic Soils Classification ............ 46 Figure 12 Thompson Tributary Future Land Use ..................... 49 Figure 13 Watershed Delineatio n- for Water Quality Calculations ........... 53 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Channel Information Appendix 2 HEC-1 Printouts Appendix 3 Water Quality Calculations Appendix 4 Cost Estimating Worksheets Appendix 5 Photographs Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 3 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUND4ARY This report documents the findings and recommendations of the comprehensive drainage study and stormwater management program for the Town of West Point. This project was divided into two phases: the development of the drainage inventory (Phase I) and the drainage study and recommendations for stormwater management (Phase H). A Stormwater Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from the Town, the State, and Langley and McDonald was formed to provide input at various stages during the study. The development of the drainage inventory included smoke testing and camera inspection of selected pipes, field surveys of the drainage system, the delineation of watershed boundaries, and aerial photographs of the Town. Deliverables to the Town include: videotapes and individual data sheets of the camera inspection, field survey notes, reproducible topographic maps with the drainage system drafted onto them, digital files of the watersheds, and color and infrared aerial photographs. The drainage study documents existing conditions within the Town with respect to the quantity and quality of runoff, and estimates potential impacts that future development may have on the Town's drainage system and receiving waters. Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling were performed on the four major stream systems within the Town. Pollutant loadings generated from existing and future development within the -Town were estimated based on procedures established by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. Hydrologic modeling of West Point Creek and three tributaries to the Mattaponi River were performed using HEC-1. Runoff hydrographs for the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storms were calculated for these watersheds under existing and future development conditions. The modeling results indicate that many of the drainage systems within the Town are inadequate. Trouble spot areas are noted in the report. The Town is divided into two watersheds for the purpose of documenting the results of the water quality calculations. The area draining to the Pamunkey River has an average existing phosphorus export of 1.06 pounds/acre/year corresponding to an impervious cover percentage of 45. The area draining to the Mattaponi River has an average existing phosphorus export of 0. 82 pounds/acre/year corresponding to an equivalent impervious cover percentage of 34. These average land cover conditions set the threshold by which future development may have to provide for water quality controls under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation regulations. Based on the results of the drainage study, recommendations for stormwater capital improvements, ordinances and policies, maintenance, and financing are provided. Specific recommendations in these four areas are found in Sections 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0. Capital improvement recommendations include the upgrade of culverts and storm sewer systems to meet VDOT-specified design criteria, and the acquisition of drainage easements to facilitate adequate drainage and maintenance. Land use management practices should be implemented to achieve a "no net increase" in phosphorus loadings to the receiving waters. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study November 29, 1993 Page 4 Recommendations for revisions and additions to the local Chesapeake Bay Preservation regulations, the Subdivision ordinance, and general policies are provided. These recommendations address the existing land cover conditions as determined for West Point for the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, and the performance of drainage systems within the Town. In the Town of West Point, the Virginia Department of Transportation is responsible for maintaining the drainage systems within the right of way. Unless the Town receives adequate funding from the State, VDOT should remain responsible for these systems. The Town should implement a regular maintenance program for those portions of the system outside the right of way, including the acquisition of drainage easements where the drainage system is located on private property. Options that the Town could consider to fund stormwater management include general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, land development fees, participation agreements, special service districts, and a stormwater utility. Each of this options is discussed is Section 8.0. A comprehensive approach consisting of traditional methods augmented by the creation of a stormwater utility and periodic issuance of revenue bonds should provide a stable, long-term source of revenue to implement the stormwater management program. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 5 2.0 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE In the Fall of 1992, the Town of West Point requested proposals from engineering firms for the development of a comprehensive drainage study and stormwater management program. As stated in the Request for Proposals, the purpose of the project "is to develop a comprehensive water management program to control flooding and property damage, soil loss, and point and nonpoint source pollution in the water stream in and around West Point". To accomplish the tasks requested by the Town, this project was divided into two phases. Phase I involves the development of the drainage inventory, and Phase H includes the drainage study and recommendations for stormwater management. Our project approach included the formation of a Stormwater Advisory Committee designed to provide input at various stages of the project to ensure that Town goals were being met. This committee included the following individuals: Watson Allen Town Manager, Town of West Point C.J. Sanders Councilmember, Town of West Point James Vadas Planning Commission, Town of West Point Herb Brown School Administration, Town of West Point Mary Causey Wetlands Board, Town of West Point Joshua Lawson Chamber of Commerce, Town of West Point John Nein Chesapeake Corporation Olen Sikes Chesapeake Corporation Brian Wagner Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department Keith White Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department Joseph Battiata Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation Julie Brown Virginia Department of Transportation Norman Mason Langley and McDonald Diana Tulis Langley and McDonald Steve Romeo Langley and McDonald Jack Whitney Langley and McDonald Periodic meetings were held to inform the committee of project status, and to develop agreed upon objectives of successive tasks. With the aid of a consultant, the Town is currently developing a Geographical Information System (GIS). Digital information created by this project (i.e. drawing, spreadsheet, and word processing files) can be utilized by a GIS. Langley and McDonald has coordinated with the GIS consultant to determine file format compatibility. Data Transfer Files (DXF) files will be used to transfer the graphic information and Worksheet Files (WK1) will be used to transfer spreadsheet data. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study November 29. 1993 Page 6 This report is divided into eight sections as follows: 1. Executive Summary: Provides a managerial overview of the project. 2. Background and Scope: Describes the objectives of the work. 3. Drainage Inventory: Discusses Phase I of the project. 4. Drainage Study: Discusses Phase H of the project. 5. CIP Recommendations: Sets forth recommendations for capital improvement projects based on the Drainage Study. 6. Ordinance/Policy Recommendations: Sets forth recommendations for new/revised stormwater management regulations. 7. Maintenance Program: Provides recommendations for maintenance of stormwater system. 8. Financing: Describes available funding options for implementing stormwater management program. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 7 3.0 DRAINAGE INVENTORY The first task undertaken in this project was to determine the physical components of the drainage system within the Town. This task included smoke testing and camera inspection of selected storm pipes, field surveys of the drainage system, and the delineation of watershed boundaries based on existing mapping and field verification of these boundaries. Also included in this phase of the project was the production of color and infrared aerial photographs of the Town from photography dated April 12, 1993. 3.1 SMOKE TESTING AND CAMERA INSPECTION To determine drainage system components and possible cross-connections, smoke testing was performed on 14,305 linear feet of pipe. By forcing smoke through pipe sections, determinations were made as to connecting structures, pipes, outfalls, pipe failures, and possible cross-connections of the sanitary sewer system. Smoke testing revealed scattered pipe failures and one possible cross-connection on Lee Street between 7th and 8th Streets. Once the system connections were determined, select pipes were cleaned and inspected by video camera to determine their condition. Camera inspection was also used to help determine the location of drainage systems where smoke testing was unable to do so. A total of 6,464.4 linear feet of the Town's drainage system from 14th Street south and selected sections north of 14th Street were videotaped. The resulting videotapes and individual data sheets from this inspection have already been provided to the Town. Listed below are some of the observations resulting from the camera inspection. 0 Initial attempts of the camera to "crawl" through some of the pipes were unsuccessful due to sediment and debris in the pipes. Efforts were made by the Town to clean the pipes by pressure washing; however, sediment and debris remained in certain sections of the system which impeded the path of the camera. 0 Many of the pipes experience root penetration at the pipe joints, some of which severely block the flow of water through the pipe. 0 Several sections of pipe within the Town have offset joints and cracks, some of which experience infiltration. 0 Several sections of pipe have other utilities running through them which reduces the capacity of the storm pipe. 0 Buried manholes were found. 0 Attempts were made to inspect tidal-influenced pipes during low tide. Water was still present during low tide in some of these systems. 0 Pipe sag was encountered in several locations. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 8 No cross-connection was found on Lee Street between 7th and 8th Streets. Camera inspection of the sanitary system revealed a broken storm drainage pipe above a broken sanitary pipe. These pipes have since been repaired by the Town. 3.2 FULD SURVEYS The Town's storm sewer systems were surveyed to determine pipe size, material, length, rim and invert elevations. Culverts at road crossings were also surveyed. These systems were drafted onto reproducible Town topographic maps at a scale of 1'= 100'. A storm drainage inventory was developed for each topographic map. This inventory was developed in a spreadsheet format that is compatible for use with the Town's future GIS. The maps and inventory have been provided to the Town under separate correspondence. Field investigations were also made to determine typical cross-sections of certain channels and ditches, and to estimate their corresponding roughness values. This information is contained in Appendix 1. 3.3 WATERSHED BOUNDARIES Watershed boundaries were delineated based on existing topographic mapping. Where appropriate, boundaries were adjusted to reflect conditions in the field. These boundaries are provided in digital format to be compatible with the Town's GIS. 3.4 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS An aerial photograph of the Town was taken on April 12, 1993. Color and infrared copies of the photograph have been provided to the Town. These photographs were used to delineate existing land uses for water quantity and quality modeling. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23. 1993 Page 9 4.0 DRAINAGE STUDY As the Town of West Point grows, additional development will impact the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. The goal of this study is to document existing conditions within the Town with respect to stormwater runoff quantity and quality, estimate the impacts that development may have on the Town's drainage system and receiving waters, and recommend measures to control adverse impacts that might occur as a result of development. 4.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH HYDROLOGIC MODEL The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' "Flood Hydrograph Package" (HEC-1) computer program (version 4.0. 1E, revised May, 199 1) was used as the flood hydrograph and routing model. Basic hydrologic inputs were developed in accordance with the USDA, SCS publication "Technical Release No. 55, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds", 2nd edition, June, 1986. Adjustments to times of concentration were made using methodologies described in A Guide to Hydrologic Analysis Using SCS Methods, Richard H. McCuen, 1982. No published soil survey exists for the Town of West Point. Soils data was taken from maps of the area located at the Three Rivers Soil and Water Conservation District. Topographic information was provided by the Town on I " = 100' scale maps at 2' contour intervals compiled by the Sirine Group from photography dated 10/26/85. Future land use was taken from a map of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan dated September 1986. Table 1 provides runoff curve numbers as a function of future land use and soil type. Existing land use was taken from the aerial photograph dated April 12, 1993. Field visits were performed in the Spring and Summer of 1993. Rainfall data for West Point was developed using information contained in "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from I to 100 Years", Technical PWr No. 40, Weather Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1961, and "Five to 60 Minute Precipitation Frequency for the Eastern and Central United States", NWS HYDRO-35, National Weather Service, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Springs, Md., June 1977. Depth/Duration/Frequency values used in this study are shown in Table 2. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 10 wX ... ....... ka . -.- ::X. I ......... ......... ........ ................... ..... .............. ............. ............... . . . ...... . . . .......... ........ . .. . .. .... . . . X., ........... I .... .. II ............. . ................... .. ...... . ...... logic S Hydro 7T oil Group Comp. Plan A B C D Land Use LDR 50 67 79 84 MDR 54 70 so 85 HDR 60 74 81 87 GC 86 90 93 94 1-1 77 85 90 92 HI 89 92 94. 95 C 39 61 74 so PS 66 78 85 88 SD 74 83 88 91 LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MDR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HDR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL LI LIGHT INDUSTRY HI HEAVYINDUSTRY C CONSERVATION PS PUBLIC SEMIPUBLIC SD SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT Reference: SCS TR-55 Q (p _ 0,2S12 S 10 (P + 0.8S) CN 0 Runoff finches) P Rainfall (inches) S Potential maximum retention after runoff begins (inches) CN SCS Curve Number Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study November 26, 1993 Page 11 ........ .. .... .. ........ ..... .......-..... ......... .. ..... .. .. ........ . .............. .................. ...... .. .... ........... ..... . ................. .. ..... .. .. .. ............ ..... .. ....... ... .. ........ .......... ...... ....... all F Ur. Von Frequent ............... .. ........ V. .......... .... ..... .... ..... .... .. . .. ..... ........ ....... . . . .. ........... .. ....... ........ .. : ::: ............ ..... .. . ... .. SVJINJ@d .......... . an Duration 2-YR 5-YR 1 0-YR 25-YR 50-YR 1 00-YR [inches] [inches] [inches] [inches] [inches] [inches] 5 min. 0.47 0.54 0.60 0.68 0.74 0.81 10 min. 0.75 0.90 1.00 1.16 1.28 1.40 15 min. 0.95 1.14 1.28 1.49 1.65 1.81 30 min. 1.27 1.56 1.77 2.07 2.31 2.54 60 min. 1.60 2.00 2.28 2.68 2.99 3.30 2 hr. 1.81 2.28 2.61 3.08 3.45 3.82 3 hr. 2.02 2.56 2.95 3.49 3.91 4.33 6 hr. 2.55 3.29 3.80 4.53 5.09 5.65 12 hr. 3.03 3.94 4.56 5.45 6.14 6.83 2=4 h r. 3.50 4.58 5.33 6.38 7.19 8.00 Sources: USWB TP-40 NWS HYDRO-35 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 12 HYDRAULIC MODEL The analysis of culverts was performed in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) culvert design and analysis techniques set forth in the publication "Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts," Hydraulic Design Series No. 5, FHWA, 1985. Hydraulic data were developed from field reconnaissance and surveys. Information relative to determining Manning's "n" value was developed from field observations. Manning's "n" values for natural channels were estimated in accordance with SCS procedures set forth in ORen Channel Hydraulics by Richard H. French, 1985. Typical channel cross-sections and significant hydraulic structure data were measured in the field. WATER QUALITY MODEL A spreadsheet model was developed to calculate pollutant loadings at various locations throughout the Town. The calculations are based upon existing and future land uses as prescribed by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department in their November 1989 Local Assistance Manual. Existing land use was based upon the aerial photograph taken April 12, 1993 as part of this project. Future land use was based upon the Town's 1986 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. PROBLEM SPOT ANALYSES The rational method (Q=ciA) was used to calculate peak runoff flow rates for existing and future development conditions. Hydraulic grade lines were estimated to evaluate system capacities. 4.2 HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC MODELING The Town of West Point is a 6.3 square mile incorporated municipality located in King William County at the confluence of the Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and York Rivers. Of the total 6.3 square miles, approximately 4.7 square miles is land area. Twenty-two and seventy-seven percent of the land area drains to the Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers respectively. Twelve acres of land located at the southeastern edge of Town drain directly into the York River. Hydrologic modeling using HEC-1 was performed on the four major stream systems within the Town. These four streams include West Point Creek and three tributaries to the Mattaponi River. Each of the four watersheds is discussed separately below. Detailed printouts of the HEC-1 models are provided in Appendix 2. As stated in the Flood Insurance Study for the Town of West Point (FEMA, June 18, 1990), the stillwater elevations for the York, Pamunkey, and Mattaponi Rivers and their adjoining tributaries within West Point have been determined for the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year floods. The stillwater elevations for the three rivers and estuaries are 6.0 feet for the 10-year storm, 7.4 feet for the 50-year storm, 8.0 feet for the 100-year storm, and 9.4 feet for the 500-year storm. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 13 Flood elevations along major stream reaches within the. Town are controlled by the corresponding flood elevations of these three rivers. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Town show the flood hazard areas inundated by the 100-year flood. West Point Creek - Existing Conditions West Point Creek flows from north to south through the middle of Town and empties into the Mattaponi River just south of 12th StreeL The West Point Creek watershed is approximately 1.75 square miles in size, with various residential, commercial, agricultural, public, and undeveloped land uses. The West Point Creek watershed was divided into 26 sub-basins for hydrologic analysis. Figure 1 shows sub-basin delineations. Hydrologic parameters developed for each sub-basin are shown in Table 3. Figure 2 shows the hydrologic soil groups present in this watershed. As seen from Figure 2, all four soil groups are represented. The West Point Creek watershed was analyzed under current conditions in the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year events. Table 4 shows calculated peak flow rates for each sub-basin. Table 5 describes selected system elements and provides estimated peak flow capacities and road crest elevations. West Point Creek - Future Conditions To estimate the impacts of future development, hydrologic parameters were developed for the sub-basin assuming full development of the watershed based on the Town's 1986 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This assumption implies that areas that are currently undeveloped will ultimately be developed to allowable densities, and that areas where densities are lower than allowable will be further densified by future development. Figure 3 represents future land use patterns for the West Point Creek watershed. If land use patterns change significantly, the results of this study must be reevaluated. Future hydrologic, parameters used as a basis for modeling are shown in Table 6. Table 7 shows the results of the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm analyses. LangleV and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater StudV October 23, 1993 Page 14 10, C-9 C-8 C-10 C-7 C-13 C-14 C-1 C-6 C-5 C-15 C-3 C-4 C-16 C-17 C-18 C-19 C-A C-21 C-20 C-22 C-23 C-26 C-24 6-25 dOo goo=. m M NMI W. w ..... ..... . Wk ....... :XX ....... .. .. . ondition:"Hyd I ....... . ..... ro 0 Sub-basin Area Curve Time of Conc. [acres) Number [hours] C1 50 83 0.65 C2 43 75 0.90 C3 61 71 2.64 C4 47 66 1.55 C5 33 68 1.28 C6 53 68 1.88 C7 54 73 2.10 C8 84 75 1.52 C9 39 72 1.41 C10 64 70 2.30 C11 108 67 2.63 C12 60 69 4.32 C13 40 65 1.76 C14 29 64 1.94 C15 42 74 1.96 C16 32 77 1.31 C17 14 70 0.96 C18 22 67 1.87 C19 27 76 3.37 C20 20 73 1.32 C21 69 69 1.89 C22 23 79 1.17 C23 19 75 2.07 C24 23 76 2.24 C25 20 76 2.49 C26 43 77 2.57 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 16 ,xz> c c D D c D B c ST c D B B B c B B c c B D B D B B B c c D c D c +V@, D c c B c D c D c c c B c c @B D c D go. we on, op mo. m, saw" w, M m, W@N ......... ... . ........... ... ....... .. .. ........... .............. ........ ............ .... ...... ..... b ........................ ........... .. ......... ... .......... ....... ....... ................. ........ W ...........- .............. ....... er h 'Cre k..W Rit: ........ .... .. ... .. i.:: :.x: :-- ........... ................. ................... ...... ............. ........... ...... ...... . .......... .. ......................... .................. xistincf@x ond ........... ................ ............... .... ... ....... . Sub-basin 2-YR 1 0-YR 25-YR 1 00-YR [CfSI [CfS1 [cfsl [CfSI C1 66 113 141 183 C2 31 63 82 113 C3 16 36 49 70 C4 13 33 47 69 C5 12 29 40 59 CIS 36 49 72 C7 19 41 54 76 C8 42 87 114 157 C9 17 37 50 71 C10 17 40 55 79 C11 21 53 75 110 C12 10 23 32 46 C13 9 24 34 51 C14 5 16 22 33 C15 17 35 46 65 C16 20 39 51 69 C17 7 16 21 30 C18 5 14 20 29 C19 8 16 21 29 C20 10 22 29 40 C21 20 48 66 95 C22 17 32 41 54 C23 8 16 21 29 C24 9 19 24 34 C25 7 15 19 27 C26 16 33 43 59 Langley and McDonald, P.C. WeSt Point stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 18 0 r- C) 0 ca D CCr CD CL 'D (a 0 0 ................... ...... ..................... ................ ............. ... . ...... .................. ...... .......... ........ ... .......... ...... .................. ......... ........ .................... ............. .... .. . ............ ........... .............. .......... ......... ........ ......... . ................... Tabfe*.@6@ ............ . .. ........ ............... ....... ... . ............ ................. . ........ ..... . .. . @ ::::::::: .......... ........................... ............ d........................ .. .... ...... W P 1. C-.-k...W t h d::::: ........ .......... .... . .............. n ree ...... .. . ........... ... .......................... .......... ................................. .......... ... ............. ........... ............. . ..... ...... D' S stemIIem'ents::.* ... 'E'l ... ................ - ..... ... ............ ......... .. ...................... ..... .... ...... ................ ....... .... ...... I...... .............. ........... Road Existing Calculated Flow Rates (cfs) Location Description Crest Capacity Existing Conditions/Future Conditions Elevation (cfs) 2-yr 1 0-yr 25-yr 1 00-yr Magnolia Avenue-East 18" RCP 11.0 15 10/19 23/37 32/49 46/67 Magnolia Avenue 18" RCP 13.2 16 35/86 88/164 123/211 186/284 Magnolia Avenue-West 24" RCP 12.9 25 17/38 37/63 50/78 71/100 Thompson Avenue-East 15" RCP 9.3 6 8/20 16/36 21/46 29/62 Thompson Avenue-West Double 42" FICP 6.3 250 101/152 185/228 224/354 386/576 ODI Street-North 18" RCP 7.8 18 20/36 39/67 51/86 69/115 ODI Street-South 15" RCP 9.8 7 7/15 16/32 21/41 30/57 Oak Lane 18" RCP 8.5 7 17/23 32/42 41/52 54/69 14th Street Double 8.5'x 7.4 >1000 148/222 292/383 370/508 574/836 8.5'RCBC CA CD in I NEV. 00 .000, to 0 O'@o 0 of'o ,V Ar 0010 41 A- Ar 0 00 0 00 PON M. ..................................... . .................... ............... ............. ...... ................ ......... ............. .. ........ . .. ..................... ..... ...... ........ . W' P t.C k.:Mter h Vest-min s ed, ............. ...... .......... ........ .. .. ................. ............... ...... .. .. .. .. .. ... ........ ....... . . ...... ............. ....... ............... .......... ........ ..I...... ................ ............. ure:.. On I d I . ....... :F t ::C difion: ro oglc:@ araind ers: 'Y ......... .. .. ....... ...... ........ ........... .. ..... ..... .. ... .... ... ..... .. ..... ..... ..... ........ Sub-basin Area Curve Time of Conc. lacresl Number [hoursl C 1 50 85 0.63 C2 43 84 0.83 C3 61 77 2.14 C4 47 87 1.32 C5 33 79 0.95 C 6 53 77 1.32 C7 54 77 1.46 C8 84 85 1.21 C 9 39 86 1.26 C10 64 78 2.20 C11 108 81 1.98 C12 60 77 3.40 C13 40 73 1.35 C14 29 75 1.71 C15 42 77 0.93 C16 32 78 0.58 C17 14 72 0.29 C18 22 74 1.31 C19 27 80 1.32 C20 20 82 1.17 C21 69 87 1.82 C22 23 81 0.84 C23 19 95 1.77 C24 23 83 1.72 C25 20 86 2.12 C26 43 84 2.14 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 21 .................... ........ ........ .. .... ..... ...... .... .... .. . .................. .. ................ ...... ..... ......... ........ .... .... ........ .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. . ree. ers Oilatc k W t .... . ...... .............. a S. .......... ........... ....... ............ UrG.*. ........... . .......... .... ......... .......... R f .......... ........... h p ow': ........ to .03 `:' ........ .. ......................... .. ........... ........... . ..... .. . ........ ............. -...........-...... -_ . . . ........... ..... ..... ...... ... ..... .. .. ........ .... ..... .. ....... . ..... ....... ...... ............................. ..... .. .. .. .. Sub-basin 2-YR 1 0-YR 25-YR 1 00-YR [cfsl [CfsI fcfsl [Cfs] C 1 73 122 150 193 C2 51 87 108 140 C3 26 53 68 93 C4 47 77 95 122 C5 29 54 69 92 C6 33 65 84 115 C7 31 61 79 107 C8 81 137 170 220 C9 38 63 78 100 C10 29 56 73 99 C11 61 112 142 189 C12 19 37 49 67 C13 19 42 55 77 C14 13 27 36 50 C15 34 65 84 113 C16 36 67 86 115 C17 15 32 41 57 C18 12 24 32 44 C19 20 36 46 62 C20 18 32 40 53 C21 53 89 110 141 C22 23 42 52 69 C23 20 30 35 44 C24 16 28 35 46 C25 13 23 28 36 C26 27 47 58 76 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 22 West Point Creek - Trouble SWts 1. Filling QDerations The drainage pattern in the area east of the King William Avenue/Magnolia Avenue intersection has recently changed. The topographic maps show a channel flowing north to south approximately 750 feet east of this intersection. An 18" culvert under Magnolia Avenue is designed to convey the channel flow from north to south. The area just south of this culvert has been disturbed by filling operations, blocking the natural north to south drainage pattern. Field investigations indicate that the channel north of Magnolia now flows in the opposite direction, eventually to a 24" culvert under Magnolia approximately 1860 feet from the Magnolia/King William intersection. The receiving channel and culvert are now serving more area than they were prior to the aforementioned filling. Other drainage patterns have been disturbed within this watershed, including areas west of Mattaponi Avenue and areas east of Chelsea Road. Drainage paths have been blocked or totally removed by fining operations on private property. 2. Unmaintained systems The drainage ditches and culverts in several areas of this watershed, including the vicinity of the Thompson Avenue/ODI Street intersection and the Magnolia Avenue/Bond Street intersection, are overgrown with vegetation. These drainage systems need to be regularly cleaned and maintained to improve the drainage in these areas. 3. Lee Street The east side of Lee Street from 22nd Street south to 18th Street experiences street flooding during significant storms. The drainage systems serving this area should be checked for sediment accumulation, and cleaned if necessary. The storm sewer systems and culverts should be sized to meet VDOT criteria for Lee Street. 4. Main Street/14th Street The piped system that serves this intersection and other areas of Main Street and 14th Street is inadequate to carry runoff from significant storms, even when operating at full capacity. Field investigations reveal that this system is experiencing heavy root penetration and sediment build-up. The trunk line changes size from 12" to 6" at the Main Street/13th Street intersection. These factors significantly reduce the capacity of this system. 5. Bagby Street Water drains to a natural low area off Bagby Street west of Mattaponi Avenue. No culvert exists to drain this water under Bagby Street, nor is there a downstream receiving channel to convey the water away from Bagby Street. The Bagby Street/Mattaponi Avenue intersection is also a low spot to which the surrounding water drains, but no outfall exists. 6. Thompson Avenue Theexisting system serving Thompson Avenue at the school is inadequate. Further Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 23 discussions of this problem area are found later is this section under "TROUBLE SPOTS". 7. Mat=ni Avenue There is no culvert at the low spot on Mattaponi Avenue north of Bagby Street to drain water away from the road, nor is there an adequate receiving channel to carry runoff away from this area. The culvert under Mattaponi Avenue south of Bagby and the receiving channels have not been maintained, preventing adequate drainage in this area. Additional information on this trouble spot are found later in this section under "TROUBLE SPOTS". Langley and McDonald. P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 24 Magnolia Tribu!M to MaqQoni River - Existing Conditions The Magnolia Tributary to the Mattaponi River (see Figure 4) drains approximately 121 acres of land. Land uses within this watershed include single family residential, agricultural, institutional, and undeveloped. The Magnolia watershed was divided into three sub-basins for hydrologic analysis. Figure 4 shows sub-basin delineations. Hydrologic parameters developed for each sub-basin are shown in Table 8. Figure 5 shows the hydrologic soil groups present in this watershed. As seen from Figure 5, soil groups B, C, and D are represented. The Magnolia watershed was analyzed under current conditions in the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year events. Table 9 shows the calculated peak flow rates for each sub-basin. Table 10 describes selected system elements and provides estimated peak flow capacities and road crest elevations. Magnolia Tribu!aa to MaLWoni River - Future Conditions To estimate the impacts of future development, hydrologic parameters were developed for the sub-basin assuming full development of the watershed based on the Town's 1986 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This assumption implies that areas that are currently undeveloped will ultimately be developed to allowable densities, and that areas where densities are lower than allowable will be further densified by future development. Figure 6 represents future land use patterns for the Magnolia watershed. If land use patterns change significantly, the results of this study must be reevaluated. Future hydrologic parameters used as a basis for modeling are shown in Table 11. Table 12 shows the results of the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm analyses. Magnolia Tribut= to Matiaggni River - Trouble S2gt 1 . Ponding at school See discussions later in this section under "TROUBLE SPOTS". 2. ftressions There are several areas within this watershed where water drains to an existing low spot with no topographic relief The topographic maps show depression areas north and south of Chelsea Road. The water ponds until it either evaporates or infiltrates into the ground. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 25 40@ low. iroo \NI wwl wooo, e0o, ,OC ST - J1 c .00 loop C-27 %. CHFLSEA Nk. "41b op 400,@l mom=, on M, m M. m M. low m ...... .... ... ............ ............. ....... ...... - ................. ....... ........ ..... ................ .... ..... @'T e'. I --@.. . . ......... ............. . .. ...... -bl' 8 .. .. .. ...... ... ........... . .... ........... ........... ................... ......... .. ....... .. ..... .. ....... ....... ............... .... .. .............. .. .......... .............. .. ........ ........- ......... . .................... I'M h d' ....... oanoux@@ caters e . .. ..... .. ...... .. .. .... . ........... .. . ..... .. ... . ... ..... . ......... ....... ...... ........... [email protected]. in. A P . .. ..... .. ........... ....... .. ........ .. ... C d aramei ers (1 10 .... ::::''y rologia ... ...... ... ....... . Sub-basin Area Curve Time of Conc. [acres] Number [hours] C27 38 78 2.01 C28 47 73 1.20 C285 35 66 1.31 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 27 D AO@ k, --- .000, FA tA IB D, ......... . col -c c W. son .. .. ....... . .. ..... . .. ........ .. .......... . ... ....... ... ........... .. ......... . .......... .. ..... ... .. . ....... .......... .... .. ........ .. ........... ....................... .. .......... . ........ .. ...... .............. .. .... .. ........... .. ........ .. ... .. ..... .... ......... .. ........ ........... .. .. .. .... . . ............ . .. ...... .... 1**'W h* d ... ........ ..... . .. ... ............. .................. ..... ... .. .. .. ... ..... .. .. .. ...I. .. ............ . ...... .. ..... .. .. .. ..... ."': :.:::: x OW Ato ........ st condifi .,Peak..IFI R S. .. .. .. -XI on.. ......... .. ........ .. .. .. .. .... .... ........ . ...... Sub-basin 2-YR 1 0-YR 25-YR 1 00-YR [CfS1 fcfsj [cfs) [CfS1 C27 18 35 46 62 C28 25 54 71 99 C285 11 28 39 58 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 29 0 C) 0CeL Cr (0 PCL too 0 .......... ...... . ............... .......... .......... .......... . . .... ........ . ................. ............ ........... .. ... . ...... ................. - ....- ........ .... aters-00M ..........- ...... ................ ..... . ...... .......... . ..... .... .. ................. ................... tem::: tj d:,Dr ... . ... ....... amagol.y4 Road Existing Calculated Flow Rates (cfs) Location Description Crest Capacity Existing Conditions/Future Conditions Elevation (cfs) 2-yr 1 0-yr 25-yr 1 00-yr Chelsea Road south of Magnolia 36" RCP 6.6 75 31/45 54/69 67/100 101/167 Avenue (1328) Bagby St. west of Chelsea Rd. (R27)T 18/40 35171 46/89 62/117 3 co (n 0 00410 VoltV I\- lk@ I .1,Moos -0001" op V .10 -x -0000 00 0 X o o A V D 0,@o 0 )-Oo o O.-N 0 Ar 00000 Ar OWOO < A@ -Ir Qjo Qj V 0 < k_7 IN 0. .. ........ ................... ........ ......... .. .. ...... .. ........... --- ...... ........I.. .. ... .. ........ .. .. .. .. ... ................. .. ........... .. __ .............. .. .. .. - ... . .. ....... ........... .. .. -.- .......... I..., ..' ........ -.....' .. ........ .. ................ .. .................. .. .. ...... .... .. ......... .. .. ........... .. .. . ............. ..... .. .... :..i:@:I:T.6b! TV ............ .......... .............. ........... ........ ...... ... .... ......... ... .. .. .. ..... . .. .. .... .. .. .. ..... .. . ............. .. ...-.... ............. ........ ....... .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. .... ... . ......... ...... ...... .... .. ......... .. ... . ............... .. .... ..... .. .. .. . .. ..... ............ .. .............. .. .... .. ............. ........ .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... ................................. ............... ....................... ..... ..... ...... t h d agno, a ers e ............ ............................ ............................................ ................ ...... ..... ........ ................... ........... ...... .......... .. ........... I.- ........... ............................. ...... .............. ........... ... ........ ..-... -........................................ ...... ..... ................. .. ........ .. P . ...... ............. .......... uture: 0 F ..C nditionl. ydrologuc arameters; ..... ......... ......... ..... .-...... ................ .. .. .. .. I...., ............ ............... ...............I............. .............. .. ... ........... .. ... ..... ........... ........-..... .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........ ........... .. ......I.......................I........ .. Sub-basin Area Curve Time of Conc. [acres] Number [hours] C27 38 82 0.86 C28 47 75 0.93 C285 35 71 0.92 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 32 ..... .. .. . .. ..... ..... . .......... .. . ..... ..... ..... .... .......... ...... ...... ............... b16:1 . .............. T ...... .... ....... . ...........-... .. ...... ........ ...... ... ............ . ................... tarsh d ........... .,,.,.......,..,.... I., @ I.....,.-......'.... * -, :Ono! ............ ........... ........ .. ............ .. .. ........... .. .. .. OhdWOOT k F1 R ea oW..ates ........ .......... Sub-basin 2-YR 1 0-YR 25-YR 1 00-YR (cfs] [cfs] [cfs] [Cfs] C27 40 71 89 117 C28 34 68 89 122 C285 20 44 59 83 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 33 North Chelsea Tribuj= to Ya=oni Rivu - Existing Condition The North Chelsea Tributary to the Mattaponi River (see Figure 7) drains approximately 424 acres of land, including 227 acres which is beyond the Town limits.. Land uses within this watershed include single family residential, agricultural, and undeveloped. The North Chelsea watershed was divided into 6 sub-basins for hydrologic analysis. Figure 7 shows sub-basin delineations. Hydrologic parameters developed for each sub-basin are shown in Table 13. Figure 8 shows the hydrologic soil groups present in this watershed. As seen from Figure 8, all four soil groups are represented. The North Chelsea watershed was analyzed under current conditions in the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year events. Table 14 shows calculated peak flow rates for each sub-basin. Table 15 describes selected system elements and provides estimated peak flow capacities and road crest elevations. North Chelsea Tribujaa to MatWorii River - Future Condition To estimate the impacts of future development, hydrologic parameters were developed for the sub-basin assuming full development of the watershed based on the Town's 1986 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This assumption implies that areas that are currently undeveloped will ultimately be developed to allowable densities, and that areas where densities are lower than allowable will be further densified by future development. Figure 9 represents future land use patterns for the North Chelsea watershed. If land use patterns change significantly, the results of this study must be reevaluated. Future hydrologic parameters used as a basis for modeling are shown in Table 16. Table 17 shows the results of the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm analyses. North Chelsea TribulM to Mag=ni River - Trouble Spgts 1. Chelsea Road north of Riverview The downstream end of the 12" culvert under Chelsea Road north of Riverview is buried. Without the culvert, water must pass over Chelsea Road to enter the downstream receiving ditch. 2. Doressions As in other portions of the Town, there are areas within this watershed where water drains to an existing low spot with no topographic relief. The topographic maps show several such areas north. of Chelsea Road between Magnolia Avenue and the tributary. The water ponds until it either evaporates or infiltrates into the ground. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 34 4@ ## '00 10 Moe, so e0ooo, Je C-331 e .0, C-31 C-29 % N A C-30 dov go, .01 fte ----CHEL A OP%. lop .00 4je aim im . .. ..... . .. .. .......... .. .. .. .... ....... ........... ... - .. .. .. .. .............. ........... .. ..... ..... .. .. .. .. .... ..... ........ .. .. .. .. . ........... 'T bl. .......... .. . . ... ............... ..... ........... n@: ............... . . . . . . . . .......... .................... Nk)rth'::CheIsea.:- ........... .... .. - - isting. on W V ro ogic: ...... ....... X" C** 'd' ::'H: d I' 'P E :arame. er OTT:: ....... ............. ............ .... -.11.11.1- ..... .......... ........... .. ....... ....... .. . Sub-basin Area Curve Time of Conc. [acres] Number [hours] C2 25 69 1.12 C30 30 71 1.68 C31 20 64 1.26 C32 40 68 1.69 C33 32 52 1.80 C34 277 67 2.19 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 36 c SOO% lol BD C ID D D c c c c c B A D -.MONO.= M.M M.M M,Mmpm@ M'm mt@ mom =.MOO# ......... .. ..... ............. . .. ..... .... ........ ........ ........ ........... ... ..-........ ..... ...... .. .... . .. .. ..... .. ........ ........................ ..... .. .. ........ ..... ..... .. .... ... . .......... .. .. .. ........ .. .. .. ..........I..... .. ...... ... .. ..... .............. ........ ......... ................... .. ............. ........... .. . ..... .................. ....... ...... ......... . .............. .. .............. .. ..... ....... ... ......... .. ........ .. .. .. ........ ..... ... ... ..... . .. ..... -.1-1-1-1 .... .... ......... ........... ... ... .... ........... ..... ........... ..... ... ............... ... .......... I.. I.- -..... ---- .............. .- ...... .. ..... ............................ W.Ch I ''d .. ............. ....... .......... ........ .. ........... Wt h . . ......... . . . . ...... .. ..... ......-v: e. sea erse ... ............ ............................I.............. .. 1. 1.. @..... .. .. . ............... ..... ......... .. ...- ........ ..... .. .. .. ... ........ ..-... ..............I... ...... .................... .. ..... _-- ... ..... .. .......... . ..... ............. .......... ....... ..... ............... ............ ........ .......................... t ondition.1 ea: f OwRateg. - k F1 R' .. .. .. ............ .... ....... E C ......... ing, ........... ....... .......... .......... Sub-basin 2-YR 1 0-YR 25-YR 1 00-YR [CfSI [Cfs] [CfS1 [CfS1 C29 11 25 34 49 C30 11 25 34 48 C31 5 15 21 31 C32 12 29 40 59 C33 1 8 13 24 C34 62 158 221 324 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 38 0 0 (a Cr CL @ K (D CA) 0 ............. ..................... ................ .................................. ................ ........... ..... ........ ... ... .... ........ ...... .. ...... ........ . ............... ........ ...... ... ..... ............ .......... ...... .. ....... ... .. ...... .......... .............. ....... ......... . .. ...... ...... b.: ........ ....... d. .......... . .. . ..... ::: .. ...... . ........ ...... :- ...- ...... ....... ...... .. ......... . ....... ........ ....... . ....... . . . . ................ ............ .......... ............ ................... ........... ... .. .. .... ........ ..... .......... - ........... .......... ... ........ .......... :....... .... .. . . ................... ...... .......... un D S t El ................. g::.,:na!ppqw:. ...... .......... I....... .. ...... .. ........... ... .... .. .... ....... Road Existing Calculated Flow Rates (cfs) Location Description Crest Capacity Existing Conditions/Future Conditions Elevation (cfs) 2-yr 1 0-yr 25-yr 1 00-yr Chelsea Road north of Riverview Dr. 12" RCP 10.5 0 - buried 11/26 25/54 34/72 48/100 (R30) outfall Chelsea Road north of Euclid Blvd. (R33)T 8'x 2' culvert 3.2 50 47/83 101 /335 239/469 390/672:] ca CA of ...... 0. oom.,\ ..... . mm. @o oi@o 0 0 @ @o ol;o 0,@ :,Ic> 0 O@000 00 o 0 0,;0008@ o 0 0 0 0 0 0,@o 0,@ D0000000000CL@- 0,@o 0,@o 0,@o 0- 0 000 O@00' 110 1 l< </ /< xl@ l< k /< k OWN" M. Nip-=. woo . ........... ..... . ......... .......... .. .. .. .. .. . .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... ......... .. .. ......... ....................... ...... __ ................ .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ........ ........ .. .. ..... .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. ........ .. ..- ..................... I.- - @......... . . ........ .. .............. .. ..- .......... ..... .. . .. .. ....... ............. ..... .. --______ . ............ ...... .. .. . ..... .. .. .. ... ......................... .. ................ .............. ..... .. .. ..... .................... .. ........... .... ...... .. .. .. .. ............... .. ... .. ..... .. .. .......... ..... .. .....-..... ..... ... . ..- .. .... N ........... . .............. .. .......... .. e 'sea W: at ................... . ........ Oi:I:h ChI rshe ....... . .. ............. ......... ........ .. .......... .. .. .. ..... ...... .......... ........... . u ture: ond on--. V ... ro og c: aram ... ....... :: .... _--..'-.'_'. - --.@ ..... . . . .. ............ ... .. .... .......... F C ifi H d 1* i :p e ............ Sub-basin Area Curve Time of Conc. [acres] Number [hours] C29 25 80 0.89 C30 30 72 0.51 C31 20 78 1.03 C32 40 78 1.52 C33 32 75 1.34 C34 277 78 1.56 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 41 .................. ..... ........ .. ......... .. .. ..... ............... .. .. .. .. T ..... ........ .............. __ .. ......- i::. I I I - @:: . .. .......... ................ v ..... .. ::a.l :T or TA: 0'sea:. ........ . 'th Ch I .. ... ....... ....... .. ...... ....... .... .. .. ..... .... .. ............ Future r Ow : ates: Wit P k.:.R R ... .. .. .. ........ Von, ...ea ......... -1-1 .. ........ .. .. .. ..... ___ .. .. ........ ... .. .. .. .. ...... ....... ... ....... . ..... .. ..... .. .. .. ... ... .. ..... ........ . ..... ..... ........ .. ... .. ..... ..... ........ ... ........ ..... ............. Sub-basin 2-YR 0-YR 25-YR 1 00-YR [Cfs] [CfS] [CfS1 [CfS1 C2 24 43 55 73 C30 26 54 72 100 C31 21 35 44 57 C32 24 46 60 81 C33 18 36 48 65 C34 311 402 543 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 42 Thompson Tributau to Maltamoni River - Existing Condition The Thompson Tributary to the Mattaponi River (see Figure 10) drains approximately 107 acres of land. Land uses within this watershed include single family residential, institutional, agricultural, and undeveloped. The Thompson watershed was divided into six sub-basins for hydrologic analysis. Figure 10 shows sub-basin delineations. Hydrologic parameters developed for each sub-basin are shown in Table 18. Figure I I shows the hydrologic soil groups present in this watershed. As seen from Figure 11, all four soil groups are represented. The Thompson watershed was analyzed under current conditions in the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100- year events. Table 19 shows the calculated peak flow rates for each sub-basin. Table 20 describes selected system elements and provides estimated peak flow capacities and road crest elevations. Thompson TribujM to Ma=ni River - Future Conditions To estimate the impacts of future development, hydrologic parameters were developed for the sub-basin assuming full development of the watershed based on the Town's 1986 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This assumption implies that areas that are currently undeveloped will ultimately be developed to allowable densities, and that areas where densities are lower than allowable will be further densified by future development. Figure 12 represents future land use patterns for the Thompson watershed. If land use patterns change significantly, the results of this study must be reevaluated. Future hydrologic parameters used as a basis for modeling are shown in Table 21. Table 22 shows the results of the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm analyses. Thompson Tribujaa to M "tta oni River - Trouble Spot I . School parking lot See discussions found later in this section under "TROUBLE SPOTS". 2. Unmaintained ditches/jDrivate j2roRgrty Many sections of open ditch in this watershed flow through private property where no regular maintenance of the ditch sections occurs. In addition to reducing flow capacity, the lack of ditch maintenance oftentimes creates a nuisance. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 43 Nor" M 00 .0010 / 41 00..* ftb 00. do, .01 .00 de #Pft C-39 C-40 C-35 *@C-37 C-36 C-38 dO v" w. m. low . ..... ...... - . ......... .. ........ ....... ..... .. .. ........ .. .. ........ .. ..... .. . ..... . .. .. .. ... ..... ........ .... ..... .. .... - .... .. ....... ... - ........ ................... ....... .............. ........ .. . . ......... ....... .. ................ ............. .......... . bi @1:12: ............ ............ .......... .. ........ ........ ............... .......... ..... .. . ................. ..... .. ... ........... .. .. .. .. .......... ...... .. ..... . . ...... ..... .......... ....... .. ........ H d** Sub-basin Area Curve Time of Conc. [acres] Number [hours] C35 8 82 0.89 C36 17 79 1.9 C37 12 70 0.86 C38 18 69 1.86 C39 29 85 1.56 C40 24 72 2.32 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 45 D D c c 0-00 .0000' c go c ST c B c B B c B D c D B D B B B B c D c c D c B c D c c c D c (b D c c c A B c M M. @NNN-\ ... ... .... ...... .... ..... ..... . .................... . ............. .. ....... .. .... __ ........... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... .... .. W. ............. ........... 11 .. @:j@:&x@xx'i@]i] I.. I..::..:, - ..... -- -.. @*...@,.@.....,.......,...""@..........,."..,... ......... .. . . ........ .. ........ .. ................. . .. ........... .. .. ............ :@::: .:-..-..- -, .:::::: : :X''. till ::::I::o -: ................. .. ........ 11.1 _--,.. !:: @ - .... .. .. ........... .. .. . . ..... ............ .. .. ...... .... .. ........... ........ .. .. ... .............. .. ........... ............ ..... ... ... .. . ... 'h d n.: OMPSO aters. *e* .. .... ............. . ........ .. ... -C ................. ......... ....... ............ ............. . E@ d't* P k F1 .:R ... ........ ....... ........ ... . . xis ing: on i, to n: pa.: ow ates, ...... .. ........ .. .. ........ Sub-basin 2-YR 1 0-YR 25-YR 1 00-YR [Cfs] [CfS1 [CfS1 [cfsl C35 8 14 18 23 C36 9 17 22 30 C37 7 15 21 29 C38 5 13 17 25 C39 23 40 49 64 C40 7 16 22 31 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 47 0 C) 0) 2 0 CE ID t40 CL 0 3 Y . .. . ........ ........ ..... ...... . ..... ......... ................ .... ........... ......... .................. ......... ........ . ............ ble* 2.0.1...'....-1 .. . ... .......... ...... ... ......... .... ....... .... ........... ... ...... W h ....... ........... ... ......................... .............. .... ... ....... .............. .......... ......... .... ..... . . . ......... ..... . . p 0 aters s n: ........... .......... ...... ....... .......- .. .......... El ....................... ......... Road Existing Calculated Flow Rates Icfs) Location Description Crest Capacity Existing Conditions/Future Conditions Elevation (cf S) 2-yr 1 0-yr 25-yr I 00-yr Chelsea Road north of 12" RCP 9.1 5 23/31 40/59 49/76 64/102 Thompson Avenue @ elem. school (1139) 3 MONO; 10 00 'AX Vxx 1010 k. 0 00000 ...... 0 00 @00 0' @0,0- 0 C) -0 @00(@O Jr N Jr 0 A- Ar Ar go, it 0;@O oj@@O 0- 00 0 :1 0 0 0 wo Mo ow low 1111 i 1111 IM. IM IM. moil" IM moon Mo go. loan IM ............. .. . . . ........ ....... ..... .......... ...... ............. ..... 'T ...... ... .......... .. ..... ....... .. .......... .. ......... ...... .. ......... .. .. .... .. ........... ........ . h d m SOW: aters ei . ... . ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ule:::::,on ion. dplogiq.... arameters... C dit@ A .............. .. .. . ........... .. ............ .. .. ..... Sub-basin Area Curve Time of Conc. [acres] Number [hours] C35 8 82 0.65 C36 17 82 1.53 C37 12 75 0.76 C38 18 80 1.23 C39 29 76 0.53 C40 24 74 0.74 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 50 ........... . .. ... .......... ........... .. ........- ... ........ .. ... ......... .. ... .. ....... ........... ..... ........... . ........ .. .. .. ..... .. ...... .... ..... .. __ ....... ... ............... ........ ..... .. .... Th: O.MDSOMMat h ers ..... .. .. ............. ................. .. .. .. ............ u 'C' d't' k'FT R re...:: on, i ion, :ea ow ......... ............. ...... ................ .. ............. .. .. ........ Sub-basin 2-YR 1 0-YR 25-YR 1 00-YR [CfS1 [CfSI [CfS1 Ids] C35 10 17 21 28 C36 12 22 28 37 C37 10 20 26 35 C38 14 25 32 43 C39 31 59 76 102 C40 19 39 51 70 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 51 4.3 WATER QUALITY MODELING The Town is divided into two watersheds for the purpose of documenting results of the water quality calculations, namely the watersheds of the Pamunkey River and the Mattaponi River (see Figure 13). As prescribed by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, average existing land cover conditions were determined for each of the two watersheds based on land use. Phosphorus loadings as a function of land use are shown in Table 23. Weighted averages of phosphorus export for each watershed were calculated based on existing land uses, excluding various undevelopable marsh/wetland areas as shown in Figure 13. The Mattaponi watershed has an average existing phosphorus export of 0.82 lb/acre/year corresponding to an equivalent impervious cover percentage of 34. The Pamunkey watershed has an average existing phosphorus export of 1.06 lb/acre/year corresponding to an equivalent impervious cover percentage of 45. These average land cover conditions set the threshold by which future development may.have to provide for water quality controls under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation regulations. If the percentage of impervious cover for a development project is kept below the threshold level for that watershed where the development takes place, then no stormwater quality controls are needed. For example, if a developer wants to build a subdivision in the Mattaponi River watershed, then no stormwater quality controls are needed as long as the average percent of impervious cover does not exceed 34 percent of the total development site. Phosphorus loading calculations were also made considering the impact of future land uses. The Mattaponi watershed has an average future phosphorus export of 0.77 lb/acre/year corresponding to an equivalent percent impervious cover of 31. The Pamunkey watershed has an average future phosphorus export of 1.28 lb/acre/year corresponding to an equivalent percent impervious cover of 55. As this figure is greater than the allowable 45 percent, development controls will be necessary or stormwater quality BMP's will be required. Detailed printouts of the water quality calculations are provided in Appendix 3. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study November 29, 1993 Page 52 IT- 16 AS A A \1k % :cj m S Z' ..25 "2 . .. ......... ... gs oof. 9' '0.0 Y? UORPORATE Y' M low 1-c4 Tv 01 0 m co 4 m m z r -4 'n 6.5 0 > c > 0 Z m Fn r, 0 a r- H@ X z 0 c oc om A Z5 z OM Z io 0 m a 9 9 30., m -Icmm M 0 F- z r. m C) c . MM Z@ Fn tO W *> .. .... .. ......- ...........- ................ ........... ... ... ................... 23 ......- bi ............. .. .. .......... .. "ANNUAL'STORWR 0S.f RL S. E A6 6: X00::A: . ...... ... ..... .. ........ .. ........... ............ ........ ng:.:: eve.opellAn ....... .............. &L' d'U'spa . .. .......... ... ..... .. .. ... ........ .. . LAND USES IMPERVIOUS PHOSPHORUS COVER EXPORT (%) (lbs/ac/yr) 0 0.12 5.0 acre residential lots 5 0.22 2.0 acre residential lots 10 0.33 1.0 acre residential lots 15 0.43 16 0.45 17 0.47 18 0.49 19 0.52 0.50 acre residential lots 20 0.54 0.33 acre residential lots 25 0.64 0.25 acre residential lots 30 0.75 35 0.85 Townhouses 40 0.96 45 1.06 50 1.17 Garden Apartments 55 1.27 60 1.38 65 1.48 'Light 70 1.59 Commercial/Industrial 75 1.69 80 1.80 Heavy 85 1.90 Commercial/Industrial 90 2.01 95 2.11 Asphalt/Pavement 100 2.22 Based on annual rainfall of 44 inches per year -7 b .. .. ......... .... .. .......... . .. .. ...... . .......... .. .... .... .. .. ..... ....... . . .. ........ .. ........- .... .. .. ... ..... ... .. .. .. .. ........ .......I.......... ..... .. .. ..... ......... . .. .. ....... ANNUAL. STORK.PHOSPHORU&EXPORT.. .. ..... 11.11 ...... ....... ...... . ...... .. .. . ........... ...... .. .. .................. . ......... . ...... ....... .. ............ An s .... ... fbr-::Non..D,eveIo d'L d'U es pe . .. .. .. .... ... HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP LAND USE A B C D Conventional Tillage 0.83 1.63 2.42 3.71 Cropland Conservation Tillage 0.52 1.02 1.52 2.32 Cropland Pasture Land 0.20 0.40 0.59 0.91 Forest Land 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.19 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 54 4.4 IROUBLE SPOTS The Town identified five specific areas where drainage was inadequate. Brief descriptions of these trouble spots are presented below, with recommended improvements provided in Section Five. The improvements mentioned in this report represent a concept only. Other trouble spots discovered during this study have been previously discussed. Detailed analysis and design, outside the scope of this study, are required for actual implementation. 7th Street and Main S The existing drainage system serving this area is inadequate in size and, therefore, cannot carry runoff from significant rainfall events. In addition, this system outfalls to an existing marsh area at the intersection of 6th Street and Kirby Street, and the outfall has a tendency to become filled with sediment and debris. This outfall. was buried at the time of our initial field inspection. 23rd Street and King William Avenue & The existing drainage system serving this area runs along King William Avenue from Bellwood Street to 16th Street where it empties into an open ditch at Chesapeake Corporation. This system can not carry the design storm runoff from the contributing drainage area. The trunk line of this system is undersized, with some pipes positioned on negative slopes. It appears that settling has occurred, resulting in sections of the systems being on a reverse gradient. The outfall ditch, in its existing condition, creates a tailwater effect which further reduces the capacity of this system. 16th Street and Kirby S The downstream end of the culvert under 16th Street is buried, thus inhibiting the conveyance of water. In addition, the piped system that outfalls to an existing ditch is inadequate for the 10-year design storm. King William Avenue between Magnolia Dlive and Pamunka Avenue The piped drainage system serving this area runs north along King William Avenue from Pamunkey Avenue and then turns east alongside the Jackson Hewitt Tax Service. This system's capacity is inadequate to serve the area draining to it. The system outfalls to an open ditch that is heavily vegetated at the point where the pipe ends. High tailwater conditions at the outfall may contribute to the inadequacy of this system during some rainfall events. Elementu3@ school ad-jacent to Chelsea Ro There are three areas around the West Point schools that are experiencing drainage problems. The gravel parking lot at the elementary school off of Chelsea Road, the grassed area adjacent to the high school along Mattaponi Avenue, and Thompson Avenue near the entrance of the high school do not drain adequately during most rainfall events. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 55 There is no topographic relief in the gravel parldng lot at the elementary school. Water drains from the surrounding area to a low spot located in the parldng lot. Water stands in this location until it either evaporates or infiltrates. A dry well was recommended to expedite the infiltration process. The school has installed dry wells at two locations at the elementary school which have improved the drainage in this area. Also, there is no topographic relief in the grassed area adjacent to the high school. An 18" culvert located under Mattaponi Avenue just northwest of this area has not been maintained and consequently does not provide any drainage from one side of the street to the other. The area north of the culvert has been designated as wetlands. A definite drainage pattern in this area cannot be, determined from the existing topography as shown on the topographic maps. The piped system draining the area near the entrance of the high school on Thompson Avenue is inadequate to carry the runoff from this area. The yard inlet on the south side of Thompson Avenue was full of water during several field visits, with no apparent positive drainage. Some of the downstream segments of this system, which outfall near Westwood Court, are positioned on adverse slopes. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 56 5.0 RECOMNIEENDATIONS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Water Quali1y IWrovements Based on the results of the water quality modeling, the Town should employ non-structural best management practices (BMP's) to manage the quality of stormwater runoff from future development. To provide a "no net increase" in phosphorus loadings to the receiving waters as prescribed by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, land use management practices should be implemented. According to the water quality modeling (see Section 4.3), a "no net increase" in phosphorus loadings can be achieved within the Town if future development does not exceed 45 % imperviousness in the Pamunkey River watershed or 34 % imperviousness in the Mattaponi River watershed. Specific recommendations for changes in Town policies and ordinances are found in Section 6.0. Although not recommended, structural BMP's were considered in the study. Wet ponds, dry ponds, and infiltration basins are structural measures accepted by CBLAD to "treat" stormwater runoff. The feasibility of locating a regional BMP facility within the Town was explored with the stormwater advisory committee. Two possible locations for regional facilities included the area just upstream of the Thompson Avenue crossing of West Point Creek and the vacant area north of 16th Street between Kirby and Main Streets. Based on several factors including wetland issues, permitting process, facility cost, and ongoing maintenance responsibilities, it was determined that a regional BMP would not be considered at this time. Water Quanti1y I=rovements Criteria According to VDOT guidelines, culverts serving secondary roads should be designed for a 5 - 10-year storm, while culverts serving primary roads should be designed for a 25-year storm. Storm sewer systems for primary and secondary roads should be designed for the 10-year storm for non-depressed roadways, and the 50-year storm for depressed roadways. Roadside and median ditches should have a 10-year storm capacity and a protective lining designed for the 2- year storm. Culverts Tables 5, 10, 15 and 20 list the existing capacities of selected culverts, and the expected peak flowrates under existing and future development for the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storms. As seen from these tables, there are several culverts that are inadequate to handle the peak flowrates from the VDOT-specified design storm. Recommendation: Upgrade the secondary and primary road culverts to meet VDOT criteria. Cost: Variable Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 57 Storm Sewer Systems As mentioned in the previous section, five specific storm sewer systems were analyzed for drainage capacity. Where capacity was determined to be inadequate, conceptual designs for improvements were developed. These improvements and cost estimates are described below. See Appendix 4 for cost estimating worksheets. 7th and Main To improve drainage in this area, an upgraded system is needed from the 7th Street/Main Street intersection down to the outfall. A system designed to handle the 10-year storm under developed conditions would increase in size from 12" at the beginning of the system to 30" at the outfall. Additional curb drop inlets would be needed along the route. Elliptical or parallel pipes may be needed to maintain minimum cover requirements. Estimated cost: $89,000 23rd and King William Avenue A drainage system designed for the 10-year storm under developed conditions would consist of pipes ranging in size from 30" to 72", with additional drop inlets along the route. The length of the system and location of other existing utilities more than likely will require pipes at minimum slopes. The existing outfall ditch needs additional capacity to decrease tailwater effects. Several sections of pipe on the lower end of the system may need to elliptical or parallel. Estimated cost: $734,000 16th Street and Kirby Street The piped system at this intersection needs to be upgraded to handle the flows from the 10-year design storm. The downstream end of the culvert under 16th Street is buried, blocking the flow through this pipe. Appropriate actions should be taken to ensure efficient flow through this culvert. Channel improvements are needed at the outfall ditch to maintain downstream capacity. Estimated cost: $11,000 Kin2 William Avenue between Magnolia Avenue and Pamunkey Avenue A drainage system designed for the 10-year storm under developed conditions would consist of pipes ranging in size from 12" to 60", with additional drop inlets. The capacity of the existing outfall ditch would need to be increased to reduce high tailwater conditions. Estimated cost: $302,000 School Drainage improvements for Thompson Avenue at the elementary school would include placing curb and gutter and a new piped system along Thompson Avenue adjacent to the school to handle the 10-year design storm. Regrading of the areas adjacent to the right- of-way would be required. The new system would outfall to an existing channel east of the Thompson/Chelsea intersection. This improvement would also decrease the amount of area draining to the Westwood Court/Mattaponi Avenue intersection, which is currently undersized for the 10-year storm. This improvement only addresses the street flooding on Thompson Avenue. Estimated cost: $71,000 Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 58 A new system to improve drainage along Mattaponi Avenue near the school, without disturbing the wetland area that has been created, would consist of a new piped system flowing south along Mattaponi Avenue from Bagby Street to Thompson Avenue and then east along Thompson Avenue to Chelsea Road. This system, ranging in pipe size from 12" to 54", would outfall to an existing channel east of Chelsea Road. Thompson Avenue and Mattaponi Avenue would need regrading and new curb and gutter. Regrading of the areas adjacent to the right-of-way would be required. The ditch flowing north to Bagby Street would require regrading and enlarging, and the culvert under Bagby Street would need upgrading. This improvement would also serve the existing problem area on Thompson Avenue at the elementary school. Estimated cost: $772,000 Additional problem areas where capital improvements for storm sewer systems are recommended include: the drainage system along Main Street from llth Street to 14th Street and along 14th Street from Main Street to the outfalls, Mattaponi Avenue north of Bagby Street, and Bagby Street west of Mattaponi Avenue. Tidal Water Due to the low and flat topography of West Point, certain drainage systems in the Town are influenced by the tidal rise and fall of the Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and York Rivers. The capacity of the drainage systems at the lower elevations will vary depending on the tide levels. During high tide, there are some systems that are completely full of water from the rivers. For example, the rim elevations of the drop inlets at the 2nd Street/Kirby Street intersection are below high tide levels. Therefore, when it rains during high tide, the pipes in this system are already full of water and they do not have the capacity to handle the runoff. This situation occurs in other areas of the Town as well. There are few feasible alternatives available to improve drainage in these situations. One choice is to pump the water from the low-lying areas, and the other is to block the tidal water from entering the low-lying areas by means of flood walls. Both of these alternatives are expensive to implement. Another option is to abandon the flooded area if the flooding cannot be tolerated. Drainage Easements Drainage and maintenance easements should be obtained on all properties where runoff from public property drains. The cost of obtaining these easements depends upon the specific property to be obtained. The Town may be successful in negotiating with the property owners to obtain the land in exchange for regular maintenance of the system. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 59 6.0 ORDINANCE/POLICY RECOAlMENDATIONS Comprehensive Land Use Plan All of the water quantity and quality modeling performed in this study estimating future development conditions was based on land uses as designated in the Town's 1986 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Results of this study are valid only for those specific land uses. Assumptions for average residential lot size used in the calculations include the following: Low density residential 0.7 acre lots 18 % impervious Medium density residential 0.33 acre lots 25 % impervious Ifigh density residential < 0.25 acre lots 35 % impervious We do not recommend any changes to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan; however, if significant land use changes are made to the plan, the results of the study will need to be reevaluated. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Existing average land cover conditions have been determined for the Town of West Point. As opposed to the default Chesapeake Bay watershed pollutant loading of 0.45 pounds/acre/year corresponding to an average percent imperviousness of 16 %, specific values for the watersheds of West Point have been determined. It is recommended that two watersheds be specified within the Town, namely the Pamunkey River watershed and the Mattaponi River watershed as shown, in Figure 13. Average land cover conditions for the Pamunkey River watershed result in a pollutant loading rate of 1.06 pounds/acre/year corresponding to an average percent imperviousness of 45%. Average land cover conditions for the Mattaponi River watershed produce a pollutant loading rate of 0.82 pounds/acre/year corresponding to an average percent imperviousness of 34 %. These values should be adopted as baseline existing average land cover conditions for the Town's two major watersheds. These existing average land cover conditions for the Town's two major watersheds were based upon existing land uses as depicted in the aerial photograph of the Town taken on April 12, 1993. Areas designated as undevelopable on Figure 13 represent potential Resource Protection Areas and were not considered in these calculations. Therefore, these areas should not be considered in site-specific calculations. These potential Resource Protection Areas were based upon the National Wetland Inventory Maps and were not field verified. Ground truthing of Resource Protection Areas on a specific site should be the responsibility of the individual developer. Subdivision Ordinance Recommended additions to the Town's Subdivision Ordinance include the following: 1. Drainage ditches should have a bottom slope greater than 0.25 percent. 2. Drainage ditches with less than one percent bottom slope should be paved with concrete Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study November 29, 1993 Page 60 or other appropriate lining as accepted by the Town. 3. No road should be constructed with less than 0.4 percent gradient. Erosion and Sediment Control Based upon our field inspections, there does not appear to be a chronic erosion problem within the Town. Flat bottom slopes and heavily vegetated ditches reduce the velocity of water flowing through open channels, thereby reducing the erosive forces of the water. No revisions to the Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance are recommended. General Recommendations 1. Avoid running other utilities through the storm drainage system. 2. Drainage systems should be designed to handle runoff from the entire area draining to the system, assuming full development of the drainage area. If stormwater controls are required, the timing of the release and corresponding downstream impacts on peak flowrates should be considered. 3. Obtain drainage easements where appropriate. 4. Prohibit the obstruction of drainageways throughout the Town. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 61 7.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM In West Point and other incorporated towns with populations under 3,500, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is responsible for maintaining drainage systems including roadside ditches, curb and gutter, drop inlets, and cross drains within the right of way. VDOT's policy states that they are not responsible for storm sewer outfalls or outlet ditches outside the right of way unless they are constructed by VDOT on easements required for that purpose. The Town of West Point is served by the Bowling Green Residency Office of VDOT. This office has no record of VDOT easements within West Point; therefore, their maintenance responsibilities are limited to systems within the right of way. The Town has the responsibility of maintaining those portions of the drainage system on public property beyond the right of way and within established drainage easements. However, much of the Town's drainage system is located on private property where no drainage easements exist. For various reasons, the drainage system in West Point has not been regularly maintained. The lack of maintenance has contributed to drainage problems experienced within the Town. Cases of buried outfalls, clogged inlets, overgrown ditches, and debris-filled pipes were discovered during field investigations. Several factors have contributed to the lack of regular maintenance of the drainage system either within or outside the right of way in West Point. Some of these factors include the following: VDOT does not have the resources necessary to implement a regular maintenance program for the localities that they serve. No maintenance program has been established for the Town. Most of the maintenance that does take place is in reaction to a problem as opposed to regularly scheduled activities. Much of the drainage system is located on private property. A successful stormwater management program will only be realized with an effective maintenance program. A maintenance program will include strategic scheduling of activities such as inlet cleaning, ditch maintenance, pipe cleaning, and sediment clean out. These activities will allow drainage systems to perform to their potential, while also providing water quality benefits. Recommendations 1 . Obtain drainage easements on private prope rty where drainage systems serve runoff from public property. 2. Clean storm pipes annually. 3. Clean inlets after significant rainfall events. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 62 4. Clean ditches every year. Cut grass-lined channels at least once per month during the growing season. 5. Inspect outfalls/culverts on a regular basis. Clean/repair as necessary. 6. Develop a GIS-based maintenance schedule. 7. Bring manholes/structures to grade. 8. Repair joints/cracks in drainage pipes/structures. It is understood that many of these maintenance tasks are the responsibility of VDOT. Unless the Town receives adequate funding from the State to take on VDOT's responsibilities, VDOT should remain responsible for maintaining the drainage systems within the right-of-way. According to sources at the Bowling Green Residency Office, VDOT's drainage maintenance costs in West Point approached $30,000 for the July, 1992 through June, 1993 fiscal year. The breakdown of costs is as follows: Maintenance of primary road systems $14,770 Maintenance of secondary road systems 11,355 Maintaining ditches by hand 2,170 Maintaining ditches by machine 1,565 Total $29,860 The Town currently has no set budget for maintaining the drainage system outside the right-of- way. Historically the Town reacts to a problem when it occurs, but no regular maintenance schedule is followed. A reliable funding source should be established to ensure that regular maintenance activities are implemented. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study November 29, 1993 Page 63 8.0 FINANCING MEECHANISMS Stormwater runoff has long been recognized as a major cause of water quality degradation. In response, the Commonwealth of Virginia will be developing strategies to reduce excess nutrients that enter the James, York and Rappahannock rivers as part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. These "tributary" strategies will deal with the excess amounts of nutrients entering the rivers from both point and non-point sources. The overall goal is to reduce nutrients currently entering the Bay by 40%. Stormwater management at the local level will play a major role. Since stormwater management programs such as ones mandated by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act are relatively new, most localities have not yet developed comprehensive programs to plan, develop, maintain and finance such programs. Nevertheless, it is clear that in order to meet existing regulatory requirements along with future nutrient reduction goals, expenditures for stormwater management at the local level must increase. Traditionally stormwater management or "drainage projects" have been financed through property taxes. Recently, some grant funding has been made available to localities to prepare stormwater management plans. However, neither property taxes nor grants alone can be expected to adequately provide the funds necessary to administer stormwater management programs including such elements as planning and engineering, property acquisition, operation and maintenance, remediation, and site plan review over the long-term. Since stormwater management costs are anticipated to increase, budget allocations are not likely to keep pace unless additional revenue sources can be identified. In a survey performed by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, local expenditures for stormwater management-related activities increased 16% to 38% between 1984 and 1989. (It should be noted that these increased expenditures occurred before localities began implementing the programmatic requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.) The survey also found that all the surveyed localities relied heavily upon general fund revenues and Capital Improvement Programs. Some localities also used general obligation bonds, Community Development Block Grants and cost share agreements with developers. Like most localities, the Town of West Point has relied on the general fund and grants to finance stormwater management. In addition to funding from the operating budget, the Town appropriated $100,000 in the FY 92-93 Capital Improvements Budget for the Master Storm Water Study and received a $30,000 grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia for stormwater management planning. However, no capital improvement funds for stormwater related projects have been allocated for FY 93-94 and beyond. Grant funds are generally awarded on an annual basis and are competitive in nature; therefore, they are not viable as a reliable long-term revenue source for administering a comprehensive stormwater management program. Since the operating budget cannot be expected to bear the entire burden of stormwater remediation needs identified in this report or administer a stormwater management system addressing future growth, other options must be considered. Those include: Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 64 General Obligation Bonds Revenue Bonds 0 Land Development Fees 0 Participation Agreements Special Service Districts Stormwater Utility 8.1 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS General obligation bonds are long-term borrowing mechanisms which are commonly sold by local governments to finance major non-revenue producing capital improvements such as roads, schools, and recreational facilities. These bonds have traditionally been used as a means of financing stormwater management projects. The taxing power of a locality is pledged through the general fund or other local sources to pay interest and retire debt on bond issues. The advantages of general obligation bonds include low interest rates, ability to finance both the short and long-term stormwater management program costs, and these bonds can be issued in a relatively short timeframe. However, localities are subject to specific debt restrictions under the Code of Virginia. A locality's outstanding debt obligation is limited to no more than ten percent of the assessed value of taxable real estate. A disadvantage of general obligation bonds is that bond installments paid from the general fund over a long period of time may reduce the Town's ability to fund other programs that are not supported by obligated funds. Interest rates also may fluctuate. 8.2 REVENUE BONDS Revenue bonds are usually associated with water and sewer projects. Revenues from such projects are used to pay annual dividends to bond holders. Debt is retired from the revenues produced by a particular enterprise rather than from the general fund. A prime advantage of revenue bonds is that, because they are not backed by the full faith and credit of the Town, bonding capacity is not reduced. A disadvantage is that interest rates for revenue bonds are higher than general obligation bonds and are, therefore, more expensive to issue. Also, a stormwater utility must be established to serve as the revenue generator if the bond funds are used for stormwater management projects. Nevertheless, revenue bonds together with a stormwater utility may represent a very viable financing strategy for West Point. 8.3 LAND DEVELOPMENT FEES Pursuant to Section 15.1-466(d) of the Code of Virginia, localities are required to provide adequate drainage and flood control. Section 15.1-4660) enables localities to assess fees to developers based on the pro-rata share of runoff contributed by development. However, the Town must have a comprehensive stormwater management plan in place. Also, fees can only Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 65 be used for off-site facilities serving the developer's project. These fees are usually assessed on a per acre basis, based on imperviousness, land use or contribution to peak flow. Credits may be given if on-site control is provided. This option is especially attractive where regional systems are contemplated. Under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations, the Town may implement this alternative in lieu of a program which requires on-site controls. On-site control programs are generally less effective and are more difficult to administer than regional systems. A number of disadvantages to this option include: 0 Fees can only be assessed on new development. Costs cannot be recovered from existing developers in the watershed. 0 Fees can only be used for the construction of facilities that serve new development. 0 Facilities must be constructed in advance of development and before receipt of fees. 0 Since fees can only be used to construct regional stormwater management facilities, the availability of suitably sized tracts of undeveloped land within the Town limits becomes an issue. 0 Since approximately 40% of the Town's land area has established uses, and the rate of new growth has slowed, the opportunity to utilize this option is somewhat limited. 0 Long term maintenance obligations would be incurred without a commensurate source of funds identified. 8.4 PARTICIPATION AND REBOURSEMIENT AGREMEENTS This technique would involve agreement by a developer to finance and construct a regional stormwater management facility to the specifications of the Town and then be reimbursed over time as new development occurs in the same watershed. The benefit of this approach is that the Town does not have to provide the up-front capital to construct a facility. However, given the relatively slow rate of undeveloped land conversion within the Town, the rate of reimbursement may not be attractive to potential developers. 8.5 SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICTS Spe cial service stormwater management districts can be established in designated watersheds. Property owners in such districts would be taxed by the Town to provide funds for the construction and maintenance of stormwater management facilities. The establishment of a special stormwater management district may be difficult since its formation is contingent upon the approval of fifty percent of the proposed district's voters. Consequently, this alternative is probably only viable in developed areas of the Town where Langley and McDonald'P.C. West Point Stormwater Study November 29, 1993 Page 66 chronic flooding problems are so severe that residents are willing to tax themselves to obtain relief. It is unlikely that residents of a sparsely developed watershed without existing drainage problems would create a district in anticipation of future development. 8.6 STORMWATER UTI]LrrY Establishment of a stormwater utility is an attractive option for the financing of stormwater management in West Point. Many localities throughout the United States are using stormwater utilities in combination with bonds and other programs to finance all aspects of local stormwater management. In Virginia, several localities in Hampton Roads, including the Cities of Norfolk, Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, have created stormwater utilities. A stormwater utility is similar to a water and sewer utility in that it is a local go vernment enterprise, financially separate from other municipal functions, and it is financed by user fees placed into restricted accounts that can be used only for stormwater management purposes. The main advantage of a stormwater utility is that revenues can be generated without impacting the Town's operating budget. These revenues a0b can be used to support the issue of revenue bonds. Nationwide, the emergence of stormwater utilities is a relatively new phenomenon. Although some localities, such as Boulder, Colorado, have stormwater utilities dating back to 1973, most were authorized during or after the mid-1980's, largely following the recognition that traditional revenue sources at the local level were not keeping pace with the costs of mandated stormwater management related programs. This was especially evident in the area of maintenance. Stormwater management facilities were not performing as effectively as possible due to lack of proper maintenance. Proper maintenance was not being performed due to lack of funds. In Virginia, no stormwater utilities existed prior to 1991. This was due to the fact that no clear authorization under Virginia law enabled localities to establish such utilities. In 1991, the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation authorizing every county, city or town in the Commonwealth to adopt a "stormwater control program" by "establishing a utility or enacting a system of service charges." Pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 15.1-292.4, the local governing body of any locality which administers a stormwater control program may recover related costs through the establishment of a utility. All revenues so derived, however, are considered "dedicated special revenue" and can only be used for certain purposes. Those are: 1. Acquisition of real and personal property necessary to construct, operate and maintain stormwater control facilities. 2. Administrative costs. 3. Engineering and design, debt retirement, construction costs for new facilities and improvement of existing facilities. 4. Facility maintenance. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 67 5. Monitoring of stormwater control devices. 6. Pollution control and abatement, consistent with State and Federal regulations for water pollution control and abatement. This legislation also authorizes localities to issue general obligation bonds or revenue bonds in order to finance infrastructure costs. Two or more localities may also enter into cooperative agreements for the management of stormwater. Stormwater utilities should assess fees to all generators of runoff located in areas where runoff is conveyed through the town system. Stormwater utility fees should be related to the amount of runoff generated over and above that of a given parcel in the natural condition. In some instances, credits for on-site runoff control are allowed. The following briefly describes three techniques for assessing stormwater utility fees. 0 The "rational method" bases the fee on runoff coefficients associated with different land uses. 0 A fee based on the amount of impervious surface on a given lot or parcel. 0 A flat, uniform charge assessed to each property owner. 8.7 REVENUE ESTEWATES In order to determine an "order of magnitude" estimate of the potential annual revenue contribution of a stormwater utility to the Town of West Point, the "rational method" was adapted to existing land uses. The following assumptions were used; 0 An "Equivalent Residential Unit" (ERU) was the base unit adjusted for land use. One acre of residential use represented approximately 3,000 square feet of impervious surface. 0 All residences, regardless of lot size, would be assessed a monthly charge based on one ERU. 0 Commercial uses would be assessed based upon an impervious surfaces percentage of 50 - 70% per acre or 6 ERUs per acre. 0 Industrial uses would be assessed based upon on impervious surfaces percentage of 70 - 90% per acre or 8 ERUs per acre. 0 Institutional, agricultural and undeveloped properties would be exempt. 0 1993 land use data. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 68 All developed property within the Town limits would be assessed regardless of drainage pattern. HYPOTHETICAL ANNUAL REVENUE YIELD WEST POINT STORMWATER UTILITY TOTAL LAND AREA = 3,133 ACRES LAND USE (DWELLINGS) PERCENT ERU/ ANNUAL REVENUE ACREAGE IMPERVIOUS ACRE SURFACES LOW HIGH RESIDENTIAL (1099) 10% 1 $23,079 $39,564 659 COMMERCIAL 96 50%-70% 6 $12,096 $20,736 INDUSTRIAL 193 70%-90% 8 $32@256 $55,296 AGRICULTURAL 294 N/A 0 0 0 INSTITUTIONAL 51 N/A 0 0 0 UNDEVELOPED 1,840 N/A 0 0 0 ITOTAL 3,133 $67,431 1 $115,596 Rate: Low $1.75/month/ERU High $3.00/month/ERU Recommendations Clearly, the Town of West Point must develop a comprehensive approach to the financing of stormwater management. The traditional approach which has relied heavily upon the operating budget, capital improvement budget and occasional grant funding will not provide revenues in an amount sufficient to correct existing drainage problems or offset long-term costs associated with administering new programs such as mandated by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. A comprehensive approach consisting of traditional approaches augmented by the creation of a stormwater utility and periodic issuance of revenue bonds holds the greatest promise to provide a stable, equitable, long-term source of revenue to meet these difficult challenges. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 69 Specifically, the following recommended actions are offered. The Town should: 1. Conduct an audit to determine the level of current expenditures devoted to stormwater management. This would include all costs associated with planning and administration, engineering, site plan review, operations and maintenance, inspection and enforcement, capital expenditures, etc. 2. Conduct an analysis of the anticipated costs associated with mandated programs compliance. This should include the future cost of ordinance development and administration, comprehensive plan amendments, enhanced site plan review, stormwater master plan preparation and administration, and operation and maintenance of facilities. 3. Adopt a Stormwater Control Program or its equivalent in accordance with Section 15. 1- 292.4 of the Code of Virginia. 4. Conduct a detailed cost/effectiveness analysis including draft ordinance preparation to determine the feasibility and anticipated public acceptance of a Stormwater Utility. REFERENCES 1 . Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Discussion PaWr: Reducing Nutrients in Virginia's Tidal Tributaries. May 1993. 2. Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. Stormwater Mana2ement Financing Strategy for Hampton Roads Virginia. February 1991. 3. Maryland Department of the Environment. A Survey of Stormwater Utilities. March 1988. 4. Maryland Department of the Environment. Financing Stormwater Management: The Utility A1212roach. August 1988. 5. Maryland Department of the Environment. Potential Revenues from Stormwater Utilities in MaUland. July 1991. 6. Town of West Point. ftrating BUdM FY 92-93. 7. Town of West Point. Cagital Iml2rovements Budget. 7/l/92 - 6/30/97. 8. Town of West Point. A Coml2rehensive Plan, September, 1986. Langley and McDonald, P.C. West Point Stormwater Study October 23, 1993 Page 70 I I .. I I I I I I I I APPENDIX 1 1 CHANNEL INFORMATION I I I I I I I I ==M= ==mom CHANNEL INFORMATION TYPICAL MAP HEC-1 CROSS-SECTION ESTIMATED TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ID LOCATION ID (DIMENSIONS IN FEET) ROUGHNESS SHEET # I Channel flowing east to S11 TRAPEZOIDAL 17 Magnolia Ave. B=3.5 T=7.0 D=1.6 0.05 2 Swale flowing south n/a TRAPEZOIDAL 17 to 1 B=2.5 T=6.5 D=1-1 0.05 3 Swale flowing south n/a TRAPEZOIDAL 21 to 2 B=2.0 T=4.5 D=1-9 0.05 4 Co nfluenoe in sub- n/a TRAPEZOIDAL 17 basin C-1 1 Upstream B=2.0 T=7.0 D=0.5 0.045 Downstream B=4.0 T=7.0 D=0-9 0.045 5 Swale flowing east n/a TRAPEZOIDAL 17 under old RR Upstream B=3.0 T=6.0 D=1.5 0.045 Downstream B=5.0 T=8.0 D=1.3 0.045 "Now Channel flowing east to n/a TRAPEZOIDAL 17 Magnolia in C-9 B=6,0 T-10.0 D=1.0 0.055 7 Confluenoe south of U/S East=S10 TRAPEZOIDAL 17 Magnolia in C-13 U/S West=S9 Upstream East DIS n/a 8=4.0 T=8.0 D=1.0 0.045 Upstream West B=3.0 T=6.0 D=0.6 0.045 Downstream B=5.0 T=7.0 D=1.4 0.045 8 Confluence in n/a TRAPEZOIDAL 21 sub-basin C-1 2 Upstream East B=6.0 T=8.0 D=1.3 0.066 Upstream West B=6.0 T=9.0 D=1.2 0.065 Downstream South B=6.0 T=9.0 D=1.1 0.065 9 Confluenoe of C-13, n/a NO DEFINED CHANNELS 18 C-15, and C-14 B=3.0 D=0.2 0.05 10 Confluence In C-13 U/S North=S12 TRAPEZOIDAL 18 upstream of (9) Upstream North 8=0 T=9.0 D=1.0 0.05 NO DEFINED CHANNELS Upstream South, Downstream 11 Confluenoe of C-14, S14.S7,S6 NO DEFINED CHANNELS 13 C-7, and C-6 Upstream North (S14) B=4.0 D=0.25 0.065 Upstream South (S7) B=3.5 D=0.15 0.065 Downstream (S6) B=5.0 D=0.3 0.065 12 Channel flowing west S16 TRAPEZOIDAL 13 to West Pt. Creek B=4.0 T=5.0 D=0.5 0.065 13 Channel in C-25 n/a NO DEFINED CHANNEL 0.08 14 flowing south 14 Channel flowing south n/a TRAPEZOIDAL 14 in C-26 B=3.0 T=5.0 D=1.2 0.09 16 Confluence in C-21 S21 TRAPEZOIDAL 14 Upstream West B=3.5 T=6.0 D=1.5 0.045 Upstream East B=1.5 T=4.0 D=2.0 Upstream South B=3.0 T=5.0 D=2.0 U-SHAPED Downstream T=5.0 D=1.0 17 Channel In C-21 n/a NO DEFINED CHANNEL 9 Upstream West, Downstream 0.06 TRAPEZOIDAL Upstream East B=3.0 T=3.0 D=11.5 19 Confluence at C-24, n/a TRAPEZOIDAL 14 C-25, and C-23 Upstream West, East B=4.0 T=6.0 D=1.5 0.055 Downstream B=6.0 T=8.0 D=2.0 20 Confluenos at C-26, D/S=S20 TRAPEZOIDAL 9 C-23, and C-20 Upstream West B=3.0 T=4.0 D=3.0 U/S East=S23 Upstream East B=4.0 T=6.0 D=2.0 0.055 Downstream B=5.5 T=6.0 D=3.5 0.06 21 Magnolia Ave. Tributary (P Chelsea Rd. S285 MARSH 0.05 22 22 Channel flowing north D/S=S28 TRAPEZOIDAL 22 to (21) Downstream B=2.5 T=4.0 D=3-5 0.065 Upstream B=4.5 T=5 D=0.75 23 Confluenos at C-29 and D/S=S31 U-SHAPED 22 C-31 Upstream north B=1.5 D=1.0 TRAPEZOIDAL Upstream south B=4.0 T=5.0 13=11.0 0.06 Downstream B=2.0 T=5.0 D=4.5 0.05 m = = = = = = m = m m m m = m m m = m 24 North Chelsea Tributary S32 MARSH 0.04 25 I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX 2 I HEC-1 PRINTOUTS I I I I I I I I HECI S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\WP2EXIN.PRN t FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) t t U.S. ARMY caRp5 OF ENE.i@jEERE. I MAY 1991 t I HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER t I VERSION 4.0.IE I t 609 SECOND STREET t 1 $ t DAVIS. CALIFORNIA 95616 1 t RUN DATE 08/19/1993 TIME 10:33:36 1 $ (916) 756-1104 x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x xx x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx Full Microcomputer Implementation by Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road $ Waterbury, Connecticut 06708 t (203) 755-1666 THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HECI (JAN 73), HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HEC1KW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 29 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREGUENCY, 111:R111 TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RITE:GREEN AND IMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE:-NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM HEC-1 INPUT PAGE I LINE ID .......I.......2....... 3....... 4....... 5....... 6.......7....... 8....... 9 ...... 10 I ID WEST POINT CREEK EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 11 LIM 111 12-191 2-111R STIRI $DIAGRAM 3 IT 5 288 4 la 5 5 KK III 6 BA 0.168 t 2-YEAR STORM VDOT t 0.47 0.95 1.6 2.06 2.28 2.52 2.76 2.88 t2-YEAR STORM NWS 7 PH 0.47 0.95 1.6 1.81 2.02 2.55 3.03 J.5 t10-YEAR STORM VDOT t 0.6 1.28 2.3 2.96 3.27 3.6 3.96 4.08 110-YEAR STORM NWS $ 0.6 1.28 2.28 2.61 2.95 3.8 4.56 5.33 t25-YEAR STORM VOGT 1 0.68 1.49 2,71 3.5 3.87 4.38 4.56 4.8 t25-YEAR STORM NWS t 0.68 1.49 2,68 3.08 3.49 4.53 5.45 6.38 I100-YEAR STORM VDGT t 0.81 1.81 3.35 4.32 4.77 5.16 5.64 5.76 t100-YEAR STORM NWS t 0.81 1.81 3.3 3.82 4.33 5.65 6.83 a 8 LS 67 9 UD 1.578 10 KK 511 11 RS 3 FLOW -1 12 RE 0.07 0.05 0.07 1400 0.003 13 RX 175 240 271.5 273.25 276.76 278.5 320 410 14 RY 16 14 13.5 11.9 11.9 13.5 14 16.1 16 BA 0.1 '10 17 LS 70 11 11 1,31 19 KK J@MAG COMBINE SlI AND CIO 20 HC 2 1 MAG CULVERT AT MAGNOLIA t I ELEV 21 KK SIO 22 RS FLOW -1 23 RC 0.085 0.045 0.065 440 0.003 24 RX 0 80 127 128.5 131.5 133 270 400 25 RY 14 12 10.07 9.33 9.33 10.07 12 14 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2 ............. 26 KK C? 27 BA 0.06 28 LS 72 29 UD 0.846 t MAGW CULVERT AT MAGNOLIA-WEST t I ELEV ? t 30 KK S9 31 RS 4 FLOW -1 32 RC 0.085 0.045 0.085 1050 0.003 33 RX 0 80 127 128.5 131.5 133 270 400 34 RY 14 12 10.07 9.47 9.47 10.07 12 14 35 KK C12 37 LS 69 38 UD 2.592 $ MAGE CULVERT AT MAGNOLIA-EAST I I ELEV ? 39 KK 512 40 RS 7 FLOW -1 41 RC 0.085 0.05 0.085 1000 0.0008 42 RX 100 160 165.5 170 174.5 180 270 360 43 RY 10 a 7.9 6.BB 7.9 a 9 10 44 KK HC13 COMBINE S9, SIO, AND 512 45 HC 3 46 KK Cli, 47 BA 0.062 48 LS 65 49 UD 1.056 50 KK C15 51 BA 0.066 52 LS 74 53 UD 1.176 54 KK HS14 COMBINE HC13, C13, AND C15 55 HC 3 56 KK S14 57 RS 18 FLOW -1 58 RC 0.105 0.065 0.105 1550 0,0012 51 RI 210 231 210 215 211 291 411 120 60 RY a 6 4 3.75 3.75 4 6 8 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 3 LINE ID ....... I.......2....... 3....... 4....... 5........0.......7....... 8.......9...... 10 61 KK C14 62 BA 0.045 63 L5 64 64 UD 1.164 65 KK C7 66 BA 0.084 61 Ll 13 68 UD 1.26 69 KK ca 70 BA 0.131 71 LS 75 72 UD 0.912 73 KK S7 74 Rs 10 FLOW -1 75 11 1,111 0,061 0,115 1451 0,0112 76 RX ISO 170 185 223 227 255 275 310 77 RY 12 10 8 6.15 6.15 a 10 12 78 KK J@S6 COMBINE C14, S14, C7, AND 97 79 HC 4 so KK 96 81 RS 20 FLOW -1 82 RC 0.105 0.065 0.105 1900 0.0011 13 RI 130 310 331 311 312 411 141 510 84 RY a 2 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.9 2 a 85 KK C6 86 BA 0.083 87 LS 68 as UD 1.129 B9 KK C16 qO EA 0.05 11 LS 77 92 UD 0.786 I ODI-N CULVERT AT ODI-NORTH t I ELEV ? 93 KK S16 94 RS 2 FLOW -1 95 RC 0.105 0.065 0.105 450 0.0125 96 RX 155 180 197.5 19B 202 202.5 215 265 97 RY a 4 2.54 2.49 2.49 2.54 4 B HEC-I INPUT PAGE 4 LINE ID .......I.......2....... 3....... 4....... 5....... 6.......7....... 8....... 9...... 10 98 KK C17 99 BA 0.021 100 LS 70 101 UD 0.576 t ODI-S CULVERT AT ODI-SOUTH I I ELEV ? 112 KI 117 103 RS 2 FLOW -1 104 RC 0.03 0.03 0.03 660 0.01 105 RX 0 ISO 260 264 266 268 280 320 106 RY 9.9 a 6.5 5 5 6.5 7 8 107 KK J@TWEST COMBINE C6, S6, S16, S17 III IC 4 109 KK TWEST CULVERT AT THOMPSON-WEST 110 RS I IL11 3 III SA 4.82 7.54 9.3 9.37 9.56 9.87 10.31 10.89 12.54 14.73 112 SA 17.29 20.18 30.73 31.35 32.92 34.33 35.43 113 SE 1.8 2 3 3.04 3.15 3.33 3.58 3.91 4.32 4.79 114 SE 5.34 5.96 6.66 6.7 6.8 6.89 6.96 115 so 0 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 116 so 200 225 250 350 400 450 500 117 KK S5 Ila RS 4 FLOW -1 119 RC 0.06 0.04 0.06 1700 0.0005 120 RX 110 145 150 155 340 345 350 365 121 RY 6 4 2 1.5 1.5 2 4 6 122 KI ClI 123 BA 0.034 124 LS 67 125 UD 1.122 126 KK C5 127 BA 0.052 128 LS 6B 129 UD 0.768 110 1K C19 131 BA 0.042 132 LS 76 133 UD 2.022 $ TEAST CULVERT AT THOMPSON-EAST t I ELEV ? HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 5 134 KK SIB 135 RS 6 FLOW -1 136 RC 0.07 0.065 0.07 2300 0.0067 137 RX 200 215 230 240 270 285 295 305 138 RY a 6 4 2 2 4 6 a 139 KK J@S4 COMBINE CIB, CS, S5, AND SIB 140 HI 4 141 KK S4 142 RS -7 FLOW -1 143 RC 0.06 0.04 0.06 2800 0.0005 144 RX 68 78 88 170 320 330 340 380 145 RY 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 146 KK C4 147 BA 0.074 141 Ll 16 149 UD 0.93 150 KK HS3 COMBINE S4 AND C4 151 HC 2 152 KK S3 153 RS 9 FLOW -1 154 RC 0.06 0.04 0.06 3700 0.0005 155 RX 110 125 155 178 325 335 347 357 156 RI 1 6 4 2 2 1 6 1 157 KK C24 158 HA 0.036 159 LS 76 160 UD 1.344 161 KK 121 162 BA 0.031 163 LS 76 164 UD 1.494 165 KK HS23 COMBINE C24 AND C25 166 HC 2 167 KK S23 168 RS 5 FLOW -1 161 RC 0,091 0,011 0,115 1601 0*0101 170 RX 0 10 50 51 55 56 356 656 171 RY 5.8 5.8 4.B 2.8 2.8 4.8 4.q 5 172 KK C26 173 BA 0.068 174 LS 77 175 11 1*542 HEC-I INPUT PAGE 6 LINE ID ....... I.......2....... 3....... 4.......5....... 6....... 7....... 8.......9...... 10 176 KK C23 177 SA 0.03 178 LS 75 111 11 1,212 IBO KK HS20 COMBINE C23, C26, AND S23 181 HC 3 182 KK 520 183 RS 10 FLOW -1 III IC 1,161 1,16 1,061 2111 0,0111 185 RX 0 50 250 250.25 255.75 256 386 406 186 RY 7.2 6.2 6 2.5 2.5 6 6.2 7.2 187 KK C20 188 BA 0.037 189 LS 73 190 UD 0.792 191 KK C3 192 11 1,111 193 LS 71 194 UD 1.58 195 KK C22 196 BA 0.035 197 LS 79 191 11 1,702 t OAK CULVERT AT OAK LANE t I ELEV ? 171 KK 121 200 RS 16 FLOW -1 201 RC 0.065 0.045 0.065 3900 0.0006 202 RI 0 70 90 111 221 240 311 390 203 RY 10.5 11.5 10 a a 10 10.4 10.8 204 KK C21 205 BA 0.107 206 LS 69 207 UD 1.134 208 KK J@S20A COMBINE S21 AND C21 209 HC 2 210 KK 920A 211 RS 2 FLOW -1 212 RC 0.065 0.06 0.065 400 0.0004 213 RX 40 46 55 65 85 95 125 150 214 RY 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 7 11 IE ....... 1- 215 KK HS2 COMBINE S20A, C3, S20, C20, AND S3 216 HC 5 217 KK S2 218 RS 4 FLOW -1 219 RC 0.06 0.04 0.06 1750 0.0005 220 RX 50 90 110 150 310 340 380 390 221 RI 1 6 4 2 2 4 6 1 222 KK C2 223 11 0,117 224 LS 75 225 UD 0.54 226 KK HR14 COMBINE C2 AND S2 227 HC 2 t R14 CULVERT AT 14TH STREET i I ELEV ? t t t 228 KK si 229 RS 4 FLOW -1 230 RC 0.06 0.04 0.06 1800 0.0005 231 RX 0 0.1 50 82 132 139 146 186 232 RY 5 5 4 2 2 4 6 8 233 KK Cl 234 BA 0.078 235 LS 83 236 UD 0.39 237 KK HMAT COMBINE Sl AND Cl 238 HC 2 239 zz SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF STREAM NETWORK INPUT LINE (VI ROUTING DIVERSION OR PUMP FLOW NO. CONNECTOR RETURN OF DIVERTED OR PUMPED FLOW 5 Cil V V 10 Sil 15 CIO 19 J@MAG ............ V V 21 Slo 21 11 V V 30 S9 35 C12 V V 39 S12 44 J@C13' ........................ 46 C13 50 C15 54 J@S14 ........................ V V 56 S14 61 C14 65 C7 69 Cs V V 73 S7 78 J@S6 .................................... v BO S6 85 C6 B9 C16 v 93 S16 9B C17 v v 102 S17 107 HTWES .................................... v v 109 TWEST v v 122 Cie 126 C5 130 C19 134 SIB 139 J@S4 ..................................... v v 141 S4 146 C4 150 j@S3 ............ v V 152 S3 157 C24 161 C25 165 J@S23 ............ v 167 S23 172 C26 176 C23 180 HS20 ........................ v 182 S20 IB7 C20 191 C3 195 C22 v v 199 S21 204 C21 208 J@S20A ............ v v 210 S20A 215 HS2 ................................................ v 217 S2 222 C2 226 HR14 ............ v v 228 Sl 233 Cl 231 HIAT ............ (00 RUNOFF ALSO COMPUTED AT THIS LOCATION HECI S/N: 1343000 043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\WP2EXIN.PRN 1 11,11 11111111PH PACKAGE (HEC-11 I t U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS t t MAY 1991 t t HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER t I VERSION 4.0.IE $ t 609 SECOND STREET I t t t DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 t I RUN DATE 08/17/1993 TIME 10:33:36 t 9 (916) 756-1104 t WEST POINT CREEK EXISTING CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 2-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NNIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NQ 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NOTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SGUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SOUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE HYDROGRAPH AT C11 21. 13.83 12. 4. 4. 0.17 ROUTED TO Sil 20. 14.25 12. 4. 4. 0.17 13.73 14.25 HYDROGRAPH AT CIO 17. 13.50 9. 3. 3. 0.10 2 COMBINED AT J@MAG 35. 13.83 20. 6. 6. 0.27 ROUTED TO slo 35. 14.00 20. 6. 6. 0.27 10.88 14.00 HYDROGRAPH AT C9 17. 12.92 6. 2. 2. 0.06 ROUTED TO S9 16. 13.33 6. 2. 2. 0.06 10.60 13.33 HYIRIIRAPH IT C12 10, 11,01 1, 2, 2, 0,09 ROUTED TO S12 10. 15.75 7. 2. 2. 0.09 8.37 15.75 3 COMBINED AT J@C13 50. 13.67 32. 10. 10. 0.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C13 9. 13.17 4. 1. 1. 0.06 HYDROGRAPH AT C15 17. 13.25 7. 2. 2. 0.07 3 COMBINED AT J@S14 73. 13.50 43. 14. 14. 0.55 ROUTED TO S14 72. 14.17 43. 13. 13. 0.55 5.56 14.17 HYDROGRAPH AT C14 5. 13.33 3. 1. 1. 0.05 HYDROGRAPH AT C7 19. 13.33 9. 3. 3. 0.08 HYDROGRAPH AT CB 42. 13.00 15. 4. 4. 0.13 ROUTED TO 57 42. 13.25 15. 4. 4. 0.13 7.52 13.25 4 COMBINED AT J@S6 115. 13.92 67. 21. 21. 0.81 ROUTED TO S6 114. 14.42 66. 20. 20. 0.81 3.01 14.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C6 14. 13.25 6. 2. 2. 0.08 HYDROGRAPH AT C16 20. 12.83 6. 2. 2. 0.05 ROUTED TO 516 20. 12.92 6. 2. 2. 0.05 3.44 12.92 HYDROGRAPH AT C17 7. 12.58 2. 1. 1. 0.02 ROUTED TO S17 7. 12.67 2. 1. 1. 0.02 5.68 12.67 4 COMBINED AT J@TWES 130. 14.33 76. 25. 25. 0.76 ROUTED TO TWEST 101. 15.33 75. 25. 25. 0.96 3.59 15.33 ROUTED TO S5 100. 15.75 115. 24. 24. 0.96 2.26 15.715 HYDROGRAPH AT cis 5. 13.25 2. 1. 1. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C5 12. 12.83 4. 1. 1. 0.05 HYDROGRAPH AT C19 B. 14.25 5. 1. 1. 0.04 ROUTED TO SIG B. 15.00 5. 1. 1. 0.04 2.28 15.00 4 COMBINED AT HS4 112. 15.58 83. 27. 27. 1.09 ROUTED TO S4 110. 16.42 82. 25. 25. 1.09 2.89 16.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C4 13. 13.00 5. 2. 2. 0.07 2 COMBINE D AT j@s3 113. 16.42 B4. 27. 27. 1.17 ROUTED TO S3 111. 17.42 82. 24. 24. 1.17 2.93 17.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C24 9. 13.42 4. 1. 1. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C25 7. 13.58 4. 1. 1. 0.03 2 COMBINED AT HS23 16. 13.50 B. 2. 2. 0.07 ROUTED TO S23 11. 16.25 B. 2. 2. 0.07 4.89 16.25 HYDROGRAPH AT C26 16. 13.67 a. 3. 3. 0.07 HYDROGRAPH AT C23 B. 13.33 3. 1. 1. 0.03 3 COMBINED AT J@S20 32. 13.58 19. 6. 6. 0.17 ROUTED TO S20 26. 16.00 19. 6. 6. 0.17 6.29 16.00 1YDR11RA11 AT C20 10, 12,1.1 3* 1, 1, 0*03 HYDROGRAPH AT C3 16. 13.75 8. 3. 3. 0.09 HYDROGRAPH AT C22 17. 12.75 5. 1. 1. 0.04 ROUTED TO S21 10. 15.00 4. .1. 1. 0.04 9.34 15.00 RYDROGRAPH AT C21 20. 13.25 9. 3. 3. 0.11 2 COMBINED AT 11121A 20* 13*25 12, 4, 4, 0,14 ROUTED TO S20A 20. 13.42 12. 4. 4. 0.14 1.47 13.42 5 COMBINED AT J@S2 146. 17.17 107. 38. 38. 1.60 ROUTED TO S2 145. 17.58 107. 36. 36. 1.60 3.02 17.58 HYDROGRAPH AT C2 31. 12.58 8. 2. 2. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT J@R14 148. 17.58 108. 38. 38. 1.67 ROUTED TO SI 147. 17.92 108. 37. 37. 1.67 3.93 17.92 HYDROGRAPH AT cl 66. 12.42 13. 4. 4. 0.08 2 COMBINED AT HMAT 150. 17.83 ill. 41. 41. 1.75 It$ NORMAL END OF HEN ttt HECI S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\WPF21N.PRN $ FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) I U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS t MAY 19q1 t t HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER t VERSION 4.0.IE I t 609 SECOND STREET t t $ DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 t t RUN DATE 08/19/1993 TIME 11:43:51 t $ (916) 756-1104 t x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxgx xxxx x XXXXI x x x x x x x x x x I x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx Full Microcomputer Implementation by Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road I Waterbury, Connecticut 06708 1 (203) 755-1666 THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEN KNOWN AS HECI (JAN 73), HECIGS, HECIDB, AND HEClKW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMNEAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREGUENCY, DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM HEC-1 INPUT PAGE I LINE ID ....... I....... 2....... 3....... 4....... 5.......6....... 7....... 8....... 9 ...... 10 I ID WEST POINT CREEK FUTURE CONDITIONS 2 ID L&M JOB 92-093 2-YEAR STORM $DIAGRAM 3 IT 5 28B 4 10 5 I KK III 6 BA 0.168 4 2-YEAR STORM VDOT t 0.47 0.95 1.6 2.06 2.28 2.52 2.76 2.88 t 2-YEAR STORM NWS 7 PH 0.47 0.75 1.6 1.81 2.02 2.55 3.03 3.5 t 10-YEAR STORM YDOT 0.6 1.28 2.3 2.96 3.27 3.6 3.96 4.08 10-YEAR STORM NWS 0.6 1.28 2.28 2.61 2.95 3.8 4.56 5.33 1 25-YEAR STORM VDOT i 0.6B 1.49 2.71 3.5 3.87 4.38 4.56 4.8 9 25-YEAR STORM NWS 1 0.68 1.49 2.68 3.08 3.49 4.53 5.45 6.38 1 100-YEAR STORM VDOT s 0.81 1.81 3.35 4.32 4.77 5.16 5.64 5.76 t 100-YEAR STORM NWS t 0.81 1.81 3.3 3.82 4.13 5.65 6.B3 8 a LS 81 9 UD 1.188 10 KK Sil 11 RS 3 FLOW -1 12 RC 0.07 0.05 0.07 1400 0.003 13 RX 175 240 271.5 273.25 276.76 278.5 320 410 14 RY 16 14 13.5 11.9 11.9 13.5 14 16.1 15 KK III 16 BA 0.1 17 LS 78 Is UD 1.32 19 KK J@MAG COMBINE S11 AND C10 20 HC 2 t MAG CULVERT AT MAGNOLIA t I ELEV ? t 21 KK sio 22 RS FLOW -1 23 RC 0.085 0.045 0.085 440 0.003 24 RX 0 80 127 128.5 131.5 133 270 400 25 RY 14 12 10,17 1,33 1,13 11,17 12 14 HEC-I INPUT PAGE 2 LINE ID .......I.......2....... 3....... 4....... 5.......6....... 7....... 9.......9...... 10 26 KK C7 27 BA 0.06 28 LS 86 29 UD 0.756 1 MAGW CULVERT AT MAGNOLIA-WEST I I ELEY ? 30 KK S9 31 RS 4 FLOW -1 32 RC 0.085 0.045 0.085 1050 0.003 33 RX 0 80 127 128.5, 131.5 ILI 270 400 34 RY 14 12 10.07 7.47 9.47 10.07 12 14 35 KK C12 11 IA 1,191 37 LS 77 38 UD 2.04 t MAGE CULVERT AT MAGNOLIA-EAST I I ELEV ? 37 KK S12 40 IS 7 FLOW -1 41 RC 0.085 0.05 0.085 1000 0.0009 42 RX 100 160 165.5 170 174.5 180 270 360 43 RY 10 a 7.9 6.88 7.9 a 9 10 44 KK HC13 COMBINE S9, SIO, AND S12 45 HC 3 46 KK C13 47 BA 0.062 41 LS 73 49 UD 0.81 so KK C15 51 BA 0.066 52 LS 77 53 UD 0.55B 54 KK HS14 COMBINE J@CI3, C13, AND C15 55 HC 3 56 KK S14 57 IS 18 FLOW -1 58 RC 0.105 0.065 0.105 1550 0.0012 59 RX 210 230 280 285 289 295 410 420 60 RY 8 6 4 3.75 3.75 4 6 8 HEC-I INPUT PAGE 3 LINE ID .......I....... 2....... 3....... 4....... 5.......6....... 7....... 8.......9...... 10 11 11 114 62 BA 0.045 63 LS 75 14 Ul 1,126 65 KK C7 66 BA 0.084 67 LS 77 68 UD 0.888 69 KK C8 70 BA 0.131 71 LS 85 72 11 0,726 73 KK S7 74 RS 10 FLOW -1 75 RC 0.105 0.065 0.105 1450 0,0032 76 RX 150 170 185 223 227 255 275 310 77 RY 12 10 8 6.15 6.15 8 10 12 78 KK HS6 COMBINE C14, S14, C7, AND S7 79 HC 4 80 KK S6 al RS 20 FLOW -1 82 RC 0.105 0.065 0.105 1900 0,0011 13 RI 230 331 331 317 112 415 440 110 84 RY 8 2 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.9 2 a 15 KK C6 86 BA 0.083 87 LS 77 sa UD 0.792 89 KK C16 90 HA 0.05 11 Ll 71 92 UD 0.348 t ODI-N CULVERT AT ODI-NORTH I I ELEV ? 93 KK S16 94 RS 2 FLOW -1 15 11 0,101 0*061 0,115 450 0,1121 96 RX 155 ISO 197.5 198 202 202.5 215 265 97 RY a 4 2.54 2.49 2.49 2.54 4 a HEC-I INPUT PAGE 4 LINE ID ....... I.......2....... 3....... 4....... 5....... 6....... 7.......8....... 9...... 10 98 KK C17 99 BA 0.021 100 LS 72 101 UD 0.174 1 ODI-S CULVERT AT ODI-SOUTH t I ELEV ? 102 KK III 103 RS 2 FLOW -1 104 RC 0.03 0.03 0.03 660 0.01 105 RX 0 180 260 264 266 268 280 320 106 RY 9.9 a 6.5 5 5 6.5 7 a 107 KK J@TWEST COMBINE C6, S6, S16, S17 111 11 4 109 KK TWEST CULVERT AT THOMPSON-WEST Ill RI I ELEV 3 Ill SA 4.82 7.54 9.3 9.37 9.56 9.87 10.31 10.89 12.54 14.73 112 SA 17.29 20.16 30.73 31.35 32.92 34.33 35.43 36.69 38.1 39.2 113 SE 1.8 2 3 3.04 3.15 3.33 3.58 3.91 4.32 4.79 114 SE 5.34 5.96 6.66 6.7 6.8 6.89 6.96 7.04 7.13 7.2 115 so 0 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 1175 116 so 200 225 250 350 400 450 500 560 67JO Ifoo 117 KK S5 lie RS 4 FLOW -1 119 RC 0.06 0.04 0.06 1700 0.0005 120 RX 110 145 150 155 340 345 350 365 121 RY 6 4 2 1.5 1.5 4 6 122 KK cis 123 BA 0.034 124 LS 74 125 11 0,716 126 KK C5 127 BA 0.052 128 LS 79 129 UD 0.57 130 KK C19 131 BA 0.042 132 LS 80 131 UD 1,792 t TEAST CULVERT AT THOMPSON-EAST t I ELEV ? t HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 5 LINE ID ....... I.......2....... 3....... 4.......5....... 6....... 7.......8.......9...... 10 134 KK SIB 135 RS 6 FLOW -1 136 RC 0.07 0.065 0.07 2300 0.0067 137 RX 200 215 230 240 270 285 295 305 138 RY 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 139 KK HS4 COMBINE CIB, C5, S5, AND S18 140 Hc 4 141 KK S4 142 RI 7 FLOW -1 143 RC 0.06 0.04 0.06 2800 0.0005 144 RX 68 78 as 170 320 330 340 380 145 RY a 6 4 2 4 6 8 146 KK C4 147 BA 0.074 148 LS 07 14q UD 0,792 III KK 1@13 COMBINE 14 AID 14 151 HC 2 152 KK S3 i53 RS 9 FLOW -1 154 RC 0.06 0.04 0.06 3700 0.0005 155 RX 110 125 155 178 325 335 347 357 116 RY 1 6 4 2 2 4 1 1 157 KK C24 151 IA 0,036 159 LS 83 160 UD 1.032 161 KK C25 162 BA 0.031 163 LS B6 164 Ul 1,272 165 (K J@523 COMBINE C24 AND C25 166 HC 2 167 KK S23 168 RS 5 FLOW -1 161 RI 0,095 0*151 0,191 1600 1,0011 170 RX 0 10 50 51 55 56 356 656 171 RY 5.8 5.8 4.8 2.8 2.8 4.8 4.9 5 172 KK C26 173) BA 0.068 174 LS 84 171 UD 1,214 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE. 6 LINE ID ....... I.......2....... 3....... 4....... 5.......6....... 7....... 8.......9...... 10 176 KK C23 177 BA 0.03 178 LS 95 179 UD 1.062 180 KK HS20 COMBINE C23, C26, AND S23 181 HC 3 182 KK S20 183 RS 10 FLOW -1 114 IC 1,065 0.01 0,161 2100 0,1101 185 RX 0 50 250 250.25 255.75 256 386 406 186 RY 7.2 6.2 6 2.5 2.5 6 6.2 7.2 187 KK C20 ISO BA 0.032 189 LS 82 190 UD 0.702 191 KK C3 112 11 1,011 193 LS 77 194 UD 1.284 195 KK C22 196 BA 0.035 197 LS 81 191 ID 1,504 t OAK CULVERT AT OAK LANE t I ELEV ? t 199 KK S21 200 RS 16 FLOW -1 201 RC 0.065 0.045 0.065 3BOO 0.0006 202 RI 0 70 10 150 220 211 315 390 203 RY 10.5 11.5 10 8 a 10 10.4 10.8 211 KI 121 205 BA 0.107 206 LS 87 207 UD 1.092 208 KK HS20A COMBINE S21 AND C21 209 HC 2 210 KK S20A 211 RS 2 FLOW -1 212 RC 0.065 0.06 0.065 400 0.0004 213 RX 40 46 55 65 85 95 125 150 214 RY 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 7 LINE ID ....... I.......2....... 3....... 4.......5....... 6.......7 ....... 8.......9...... 10 211 11 1112 COMBINE S20A, C3, S20, C20, AND S3 216 HC 5 211 11 S2 218 RS 4 FLOW -1 219 RC 0.06 0.04 0.06 1750 0.0005 220 RX 50 90 110 150 310 340 380 390 221 RY 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 a 222 KK C2 221 11 1,161 224 LS 94 225 UD 0.498 226 KK J@R14 COMBINE C2 AND 52 227 HC 2 t R14 CULVERT AT 14TH STREET t I ELEV ? I 228 KK st 229 RS 4 FLOW -1 230 RC 0.06 0.04 0.06 1800 0.0005 231 RX 0 0.1 so B2 132 139 146 186 232 RY 5 5 4 2 2 4 6 8 233 KK cl 234 BA 0.078 235 Ll 15 236 UD 0.378 237 KK HMAT COMBINE SI AND Cl 238 KC 2 239 zi SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF STREAM NETWORK INPUT LINE (V) ROUTING DIVERSION OR PUMP FLOW N1, CONNECTOR (< --- RETURN OF DI VERTED OR PUMPED FLOW 5 C11 V V 10 Sil 15 CIO 19 J@MAG ............ V V 21 Slo 26 C9 V V 30 S9 35 C12 V V 39 S12 44 J@C13 ........................ 46 C13 50 C15 54 J@S14 ........................ V V 56 514 61 C14 15 C7 69 CB V V 73 S7 78 J@S6 .................................... V I so S6 85 C6 89 C16 v 93 S16 98 C17 v v 102 S17 107 J@TWES .................................... v v T 109 TWES v 117 S5 122 cis 126 C5 130 C19 v v 134 SIB 139 HS4 ..................................... v v 141 S4 146 C4 150 AS3 ............ v 112 S3 157 C24 161 C25 165 HS23 ............ v v 167 S23 176 C23 180 J@S20 ........................ v 182 S20 187 C20 191 C3 195 C22 v v 199 S21 204 C21 211 J@S20A ............ v v 210 S20A 215 J@S2 ................................................ v v 217 S2 222 C2 226 J@R14 ............ v v 228 91 233 cl 237 J@MAT ............ (ttt) RUNOFF ALSO COMPUTED AT THIS LOCATION HEC1 S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File% C:\WESTPT\WPF21N.PRN I FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (NEC-1) I I U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS t t MAY 1991 9 t HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER t t VERSION 4.0,IE 9 t 609 SECOND STREET t t 9 t DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 t I RUN DATE 08/19/1993 TIME 11:43:51 t t (916) 756-1104 t WEST POINT CREEK FUTURE CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 2-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT 1Y1R11R1P1 TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SOUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE H11R11RAP1 AT 111 61, 11,21 21, 1, 1, 1,11 ROUTED TO Sil 58. 13.56 25. a. 8. 0.17 14.26 13.58 HYDROGRAPH AT CIO 29. 13.42 13. 4. 4. 0.10 2 COMBINED AT J@MAG 86. 13.50 38. 11. 11. 0.27 ROUTED TO sio 85. 13.67 38. 11. 11. 0.27 11.35 13.67 HY1R11RA11 IT C1 11, 12,71 11, 1, 3, 1,16 ROUTED TO S9 36. 13.08 11. 3. 3. 0.06 10.92 13.08 HYDROGRAPH AT C12 19. 14.25 11. 3. 3. 0.09 ROUTED TO S12 18. 14.93 11. 3. 3. 0.09 8.60 14.83 3 COMBINED AT J@CI3 118. 13.58 60. 18. Ia. 0.42 HYDRIGRAP" AT C13 19* 12,11 1, 2, 2, 0,16 HYDROGRAPH AT C15 34. 12.59 a. 3. 3. 0.07 3 COMBINED AT J@S14 140. 13.42 74. 23. 23. 0.55 ROUTED TO S14 139. 13. 83 74. 22. 22. 0.55 6.08 13.83, HYDROGRAPH AT C14 13. 13.08 5. 2. 2. 0.05 HYDROGRAPH AT C7 31. 12.92 .11. 3. 3. 0.08 HYDROGRAPH AT C8 81. 17.75 23. 7. 7. 0.13 ROUTED TO S7 80. 13.00 23. 7. 7. 0.13 7.93 13.00 4 COMBINED AT J@S6 210. 13.33 Ill. 34. 34. 0.81 ROUTED TO S6 209. 13.75 111. 33. 33. 0.81 3.51 13.75 HYDROGRAPH AT C6 33. 12.83 11. 3. 3. 0.08 HYDROGRAPH AT C16 36. 12.33 7. 2. 2. 0.05 ROUTED TO 516 36. 12.42 7. 2. 2. 0.05 3.74 12.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C17 15. 12.17 2. 1. 1. 0.02 ROUTED TO S17 15. 12.17 2. 1. 1. 0.02 6.01 12.17 4 COMBINED AT J@TWES 230. 13.67 125. 37. 39. 0.96 ROUTED TO TWEST 152. 15.17 121. 39. 0.96 4.35 15.17 ROUTED TO 95 Ist- 19-90 17A- IA IR A QA. I A7 iq qo 1111111111 11 118 12. 12.83 4. 1. 1. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C5 29. 12.58 7. 2. 2. 0.05 HYDROGRAPH AT C19 20. 12.83 6. 2. 2. 0.04 ROUTED TO S18 19. 13.25 6. 2. 2. 0.04 2.48 13.25 4 COMBINED AT HS4 162. 15.33 130. 43. 43. I.oq ROUTED TO S4 161* 16,11 129* 41, 11, 1,19 1,11 11*00 HYDROGRAPH AT C4 47. 12.75 14. 4. 4. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT HS3 166. 15.92 134. 45. 45. 1.17 ROUTED TO S3 165. 16.67 133. 42. 42. 1.17 3.17 16.67 HYDROGRAPH AT C24 16. 13.08 6. 2. 2. 0.04 IY1111RIP1 AT C21 11, 13,31 6, 2, 2, 1,03 2 COMBINED AT HS23 29. 13.17 12. 3. 3. 0.07 ROUTED TO S23 16. 16.00 12. 3. 3. 0.07 4.99 16.00 HYDROGRAPH AT C26 27. 13.33 11. 3. 3. 0.07 HYDROGRAPH AT C23 20. 13.00 7, 2. 2. 0.03 3 COMBINED AT HS20 54. 13.17 30. 9. 9. 0.17 ROUTED TO S20 43. 15.25 29. 9. 9. 0.17 6.44 15.25 HYDROGRAPH AT C20 18. 12.75 5. 2. 2. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C3 26. 13.33 12. 4. 4. 0.09 HYDROGRAPH AT C22 23. 12.50 S. 2. 2. 0.04 ROUTED TO S21 12. 14.50 5. 1. 1. 0.04 B.38 14.50 HYDROGRAPH AT C21 53. 13.OB 20. 6. 6. 0.11 2 11111111 IT J1121A 14* 13,01 21, 1, B. 0.14 ROUTED TO S20A 53. 13.25 24, a. S. 0.14 2.29 13.25 5 COMBINED AT HS2 220. 16.17 178. 64. 64. 1.60 ROUTED TO S2 219. 16.50 178. 62. 62. 1.60 3.30 16.50 HYDROGRAPH AT C2 51. 12.50 11. 3. 3. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT HR14 222. 16.50 191. 66. 66. 1.67 ROUTED TO sl 222. 16.8 3 180. 64. 64. 1.67 4.36 16.83 HYDROGRAPH AT cl 73. 12.33 14. 4. 4. 0.08 2 COMBINED AT HMAT 225. 16.83 183. 68. 69. 1.75 tit opmai Pmn np HFr-l ttl HECI S/N: 1343000043 HMVer5ion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\WPFIOIN.PRN t 11111 111R11R111 1111111 111-11 1 t U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS t MAY 1991 t t HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER t 9 VERSION 4.0.1E t t 609 SECOND STREET t t t t DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 $ t RUN DATE 08/19/1993 TIME 11:42:53 t t (916) 756-1104 t WEST POINT CREEK FUTURE CONDITIONS L&M JOB q2-093 10-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NODATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SGUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIRE OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE IIIRIIRAIH 11 CII 112, 11,11 41, 11, 11, 1,11 ROUTED TO Sil 109. 13.50 47. 14. 14. 0.17 14.61 13.50 HYDROGRAPH AT CIO 56. 13.33 26. B. 8. 0.10 2 COMBINED AT J@MAG 164. 13.42 72. 22. 22. 0.27 ROUTED TO sio 163. 13.58 72. 22. 22. 0.27 11.79 13.56 HYDROGRAPH AT C9 63. 12.75 19. 6. 6. 0.06 ROUTED TO S9 60. 13.00 19. 6. 6. 0.06 11.17 13.00 HYDROGRAPH AT C12 37. 14.17 23. 7. 7. 0.09 ROUTED TO S12 37. 14.67 22. 7. 7. 0.09 8.92 14.67 3 COMBINED AT J@C13 225. 13.50 113. 35. 35. 0.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C13 42, 12.83 14. 4. 4. 0.06 HYDROGRAPH AT C15 65. 12.58 17. 5. 5. 0.07 3 COMBINED AT J1114 112, 13,21 142, 45. 45. 0.55 ROUTED TO S14 272. 13.67 142. 44. 44. 0.55 6.74 13.67 HYDROGRAPH AT C14 27. 13.08 11. 3. 3. 0.05 HYDROGRAPH AT C7 61. 12.q2 21. 6. 6. 0.06 HYDROGRAPH AT CB 137. 12.75 41. 13. 0. 0.13 ROUTED TO 17 117, 12,92 41* 13, 11, 1,13 1*31 12,12 4 COMBINED AT J@S6 427. 13.11' 212. 66. 66. 0.81 ROUTED TO 56 427. 13.50 212. 65. 65. 0.81 4.37 13.50 HYDROGRAPH AT C6 65. 12.83 21. 6. 6. 0.08 HYDROGRAPH AT C16 67. 12.33 13. 4. 4. 0.05 ROUTED 11 S16 61, 12,42 11, 4, 1, 0,01 4,14 12,12 HYDROGRAPH AT C17 32. 12.17 5. 1. 1. 0.02 ROUTED TO S17 31. 12.17 5. 1. 1. 0.02 6.44 12.17 4 COMBINED AT J@TWES 475. 13.50 246. 77. 77. 0.96 ROUTED TO TWEST 228. 15.50 208. 76. 76. 0.96 6.05 15.50 ROUTED TO S5 229. 15.83 207, 75, 75. 0.96 2,74 15.83 HYDROGRAPH AT CIB 24. 12.83 8. 2. 2. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C5 54. 12.58 14. 4. 4. 0.05 HYDROGRAPH AT C19 36. 12.75 11. 4. 4. 0.04 ROUTED TO SIG 35. 13.08 11. 4. 4. 0.04 2.72 13.08 4 COMBINED AT J@S4 246. 15.33 224. 85. 85. 1.09 ROUTED TO S4 241* 11,92 221* 12, 12, 1,09 3,42 11,12 HYDROGRAPH AT C4 77. 12.75 24. B. a. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT j@S3 256. 15.67 233. 89. 89. 1.17 ROUTED TO S3 255. 16.33 233. 84. 84. 1.17 3.52 16.33 HYDROGRAPH AT C24 28. 13.00 11. 3. 3. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C25 23. 13.25 10. 3. 3. 0.03 2 COMBINED AT J@S23 50. 13.08 20. 6. 6. 0.07 ROUTED TO S23 33. 15.08 20. e 6. 0.07 5.11 15.08 HYDROGRAPH AT C26 47. 13.25 20. 6. 6. 0.07 HYDROGRAPH AT C23 30. 13.00 11. 4. 4. 0.03 3 COMBINED AT J@S20 94. 13.17 50. 16. 16. 0.17 ROUTED TO S20 74. 14.58 48. 16. 16. 0.17 6.64 14.58 IYIRIIRAP" AT 120 32. 12.67 9. 3. 3. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C3 53. 13.33 24. 7. 7. 0.09 HYDROGRAPH AT C22 42. 12.50 10. 3. 3. 0.04 ROUTED TO S21 28. 13.92 9. 3. 3. 0.04 6.62 13.92 HYDROGRAPH AT C21 87. 13.08 35. Il. 11. 0.11 2 COMBINED AT JIS20A 10, 11,11 13, 14, 14, 0*14 ROUTED TO S20A 89. 13.17 43. 14. 14. 0.14 2.86 13.17 5 COMBINED AT J@S2 374. 14.50 322. 1"24. 124. 1.60 ROUTED TO S2 372. 14.92 322. 121. 121. 1.60 3.76 14.92 HYDROGRAPH AT C2 87. 12.50 20. 6. 6. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT J@R14 383. 14.92 326. 128. 128. 1.67 ROUTED TO SI 382. 15.25 329. 125. 125. 1.67 5.06 15.25 HYDROGRAPH AT cl 122. 12.33 24. B. a. 0.08 2 COMBINED AT MAT 392. 15.17 334. 133. 133. 1.75 HECI S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\WPIOEXIN.PRN t FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) t t U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS t $ MAY 1991 t 9 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER t t VERSION 4.0.1E I t 609 SECOND STREET I I t t DAVIS. CALIFORNIA 95616 t RUN DATE 08/19/1993 TIME 10:32:36 t 1 (916) M6-1104 t .............. t............ t" ...... WEST POINT CREEK EXISTING CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 10-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0PLOT CONTROL OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION IN TERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SOUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SOUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE HYDROGRAPH AT Cil 53. 13.67 29. 9. 9. 0.17 ROUTED TO Sil 52. 14.08 29. 9. 9. 0.17 14.20 14.OB HYDROGRAPH AT Clo 40. 13.50 19. 6. 6. 0.10 2 COMBINED AT J@MAG 88. 13.83 48. 15. 1.5. 0.27 ROUTED TO Slo 87. 14.00 48. 15. 15. 0.27 11.36 14.00 HYDROGRAPH AT C9 37. 12.83 13. 4. 4. 0.06 ROUTED TO S9 36. 13.17 13. 4. 4. 0.06 10.92 13.17 HYDROGRAPH AT C12 23. 14.92 16. 5. 5. 0.09 ROUTED TO S12 23. 15.50 16. 5. 5. 0.09 8.70 15.50 3 COMBINED AT J@C13 120. 13.83 75. 24. 24. 0.42 HYIRIIRIPI IT 113 21, 11,01 11, 3* 1, 0,06 HYDROGRAPH AT C15 35. 13.25 is. 5. 5. 0.07 3 COMBINED AT J@S14 167. 13.50 100. 31. 31. 0.55 ROUTED TO S14 167. 13.72 99. 31. 31. 0.55 6.24 1j.92 HYDROGRAPH AT C14 16. 13.25 7. 2. 2. 0.05 lYlRllRIll AT C7 41, 11,33 11, 1, 6, 1,11 HYDROGRAPH AT ca 87. 12.92 31. 9. 9. 0.13 ROUTED TO S7 86. 13.17 31. 9. 9. 0.13 7.99 13.17 4 COMBINED AT J@S6 275. 13.58 152. 46. 48. 0.91 ROUTED TO S6 274. 14.00 152. 46. 46. 0.81 3.80 14.00 HYlRllRAlH AT 16 16, 13,17 15, 5, 5, 1,11 HYDROGRAPH AT C16 39. 1233 13. 4. 4. 0.05 ROUTED TO 516 39. 12.83 13. 4. 4. 0.05 3.80 12.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C17 16. 12.58 4. 1. 1. 0.02 ROUTED TO S17 16. 12.67 4. 1. 1. 0.02 6.04 12.67. 4 COMBINED AT J@TWES 315. 13.92 177. 56. 56. 0.96 ROUTED TO TWEST 185. 15.75 162. 56. 56. 0.96 5.01 15.75 HYDROGRAPH AT Cie 14. 13.17 6. 2. 2. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C5 29. 12.83 10. 3. 3. 0.05 HYDROGRAPH AT C19 16. 14.17 10. 3. 3. 0.04 ROUTED TO SIB 16. 14.58 10. 3. 3. 0.04 2.44 14.58 4 COMBINED AT J@S4 205. 15.50 179. 62. 62. 1.09 ROUTED TO 54 205. 16.08 178. 59. 59. 1.09 3.28 16.08 HYDROGRAPH AT C4 33. 13.00 13. 4. 4. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT J@S3 211. 16.00 183. 63. 63. 1.17 ROUTED TO S3 211. 16.67 182. 59. 59. 1.17 3.36 16.67 HYDROGRAPH AT C24 19. 13.42 9. 3. 3. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C25 15. 13.58 7. 2. 2. 0.03 2 COMBINED AT J@S23 33. 13.42 16. 5. 5. 0.07 ROUTED TO S23 22. 15.67 16. 5. 5. 0.07 5.04 15.67 HYDROGRAPH AT C26 33. 13.58 17. 5. 5. 0.07 HYDRGGRAPH AT C23 16. 13.25 7. 2. 2. 0.01) I COMBINED AT J1120 51, 11,11 31, 12, 12, 0,17 ROUTED TO S20 50. 15.17 36. 12. 12. 0.17 6.49 15.17 HYDROGRAPH AT C20 22. 12.83 7. 2. 2. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C3 36. 13.67 19. 6. 6. 0.09 HYDROGRAPH AT C22 32. 12.67 9. 3. 3. 0.04 ROUTED TO 121 23, 14,21 1* 3, 3, 0,04 1*16 11,25 HYDROGRAPH AT C21 46. 13.17 20. 6. 6. 0.11 2 COMBINED AT J@S20A 50. 14.17 29. 9. 9. 0.14 ROUTED TO S20A 49. 14.25 28. 9. 9. 0.14 2.22 14.25 5 COMBINED AT J@S2 288. 16.33 242. 88. 88. 1.60 ROUTED TO S2 217, 16,67 212, 15, 11, 1,61 3,12 16,17 HYDROGRAPH AT C2 63. 12.50 16. 5. 5. 0.07 COMBINED AT J@R14 292. 16.67 246. 90. 90. 1.67 ROUTED TO sl 291. 16.92 245. Be. Be. 1.67 4.69 16.92 HYDROGRAPH AT Cl 113. 12.33 23. 7. 7. 0.08 2 COMBINED AT HMAT 297. 16.92 250. 95. 95. 1.75 HECI S/N: 1343000043 RMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\WP25EXIN.PRN i FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) t t U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS t, MAY 1991 t $ HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER t t VERSION 4.0.1E t t 609 SECOND STREET t t t t DAVIS. CALIFORNIA 95616 t t RUN DATE 08119/1993 TIME 10:44:53 t s (916) 756-1104 $ ..................... ,.............. WEST POINT CREEK EXISTING CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 25-YEAR STORM 4 IQ OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL USCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NODATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NOTIME 2355@ ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.q2 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SGUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE HYDROGRAPH AT Cil 75. 13.67 40. 12. 12. 0.117 ROUTED TO Sil 74. 14.00 40. 12. 12. 0.17 14.38 14.00 HYDROGRAPH AT Clo 55. 13.42 26. B. 8. 0.10 2 COMBINED AT J@MAG 123. 13.93 66. 20. 20. 0.27 ROUTED TO Slo 122. 13.92 66. 20. 20. 0.27 11.58 13.92 HYDROGRAPH AT C9 50. 12.83 17. 51. 5. 0.06 ROUTED TO S9 48. 13.17 17. 5. 5. 0.06 11.06 13.17 HYDROGRAPH AT C12 32. 14.83 22. 7. 7. 0.09 ROUTED TO 112 32, 11,42 22, 7, 1, 1,01 1,15 11,12 3 COMBINED AT J@C13 167. 13.83 103. 33. 33. 0.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C13 34. 13.OB 14. 4. 4. 0.06 HYDROGRAPH AT C15 46. 13.17 20. 6. 6. 0.07 3 COMBINED AT J@S14 234. 13.50 136. 43. 43. 0.55 ROUTED TO S14 233. 13.92 136. 42. 42. 0.55 6.57 13.92 HYDROGRAPH AT C14 22. 13.25 10. 3. 3. 0.05 HYDROGRAPH AT C7 54. 13.33 24. 8. B. 0.08 HYDROGRAPH AT ce 114. 12.9 2 40. 13. 13. 0.13 ROUTED TO S7 113. 13.06 40. 12. 12. 0.0 9.16 13.06 4 COMBINED AT J@S6 377. 13.59 207. 65. 65. 0.81 ROUTED TO S6 376. 13.92 207. 64. 64. 0.81 4.19 13.92 IY1111RIP1 AT 16 49, 11,11 21, 6, 6, 0*01 HYDROGRAPH AT C16 51. 12.75 16. 5. 5. 0.05 ROUTED TO S16 51. 12.93 16. 5. 5. 0.05 3.97 12.83 HYDROGRAPH AT C17 21. 12.58 6. 2. 2. 0.02 ROUTED TO S17 21. 12.58 6. 2. 2. 0.02 6.20 12.JG 4 COMBINED IT l@TlEl 416, 11,13 243, 71, 17, 0,96 ROUTED TO TWEST 224. 16.00 205. 76. 76. 0.96 5.94 16.00 HYDROGRAPH AT cis 20. 13.17 B. 3. 3. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C5 40. 12.75 13. 4. 4. 0.05 HYDROGRAPH AT C19 21. 14.17 13. 4. 4. 0.04 ROUTED TO 111 21, 14,11 13, 4, 1* 1,14 1,52 11*10 4 COMBINED AT J@S4 250. 15.50 226. 85. 85. 1.09 ROUTED TO S4 249. 16.08 226. al. al. 1.09 3.43 16.08 HYDROGRAPH AT C4 47. 13.00 17. 5. 5. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT HS3 259. 15.92 233. 86. 86. 1.17 ROUTED TO S3 258. 16.58 232. 81. 81. 1.17 3.53 16.58 HYDROGRAPH AT C24 24. 13.42 11. 4. 4. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C25 19. 13.50 10. 3. 3. 0.03 2 COMBINED AT HS23 44. 13.42 21. 7. 7. 0.07 ROUTED TO S23 31. 15.42 20. 6. 6. 0.07 5.10 15.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C26 43. 13.50 22. 7. 7. 0.07 HYDROGRAPH AT C23 21. 13.25 9. 3. 3. 0.03 3 COMBINED AT HS20 72. 13.50 49. 16. 16. 0.17 ROUTED TO S20 66. 15.00 47. 16. 16. 0.17 6.59 15.00 HYDROGRAPH AT C20 29. 12.83 9. 3. 3. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C3 49. 13.67 26. 8. a. 0.09 HYDROGRAPH AT C22 41. 12.67 12. 4. 4. 0.04 ROUTED TO S21 32. 14.08 11. 3. 3. 0.04 8.67 14.08 HYDROGRAPH AT C21 66. 13.17 28. a. a. 0.11 2 COMBINED AT HS20A 73. 13.92 38. 12. 12. 0.14 ROUTED TO S20A 73. 14.00 38. 12. 12. 0.14 2.62 14.00 5 COMBINED AT HS2 364. 16.00 314. 119. 119. 1.60 ROUTED TO S2 364. 16.25 313. 116. 116. 1.60 3.74 16.25 HYDROGRAPH AT C2 82. 12.50 21. 6. 6. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT J@R14 370. 16.25 319. 122. 122. 1.67 ROUTED TO si 370. 16.50 318. 119. 119. 1.67 5.02 16.50 HYDROGRAPH AT cl 141. 12.33 29. 9. 9. 0.08 2 11"111EI IT IIIAT 171, 16*11 121* 129* 121, 1,71 HECI S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\WPF251N.PRN t FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) t t U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS t t MAY 1991 t t HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER $ t VERSION 4.0.IE t t 609 SECOND STREET 4 I t I DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 4 t RUN DATE 06/19/1993 TIME 11:41:55 t t (916) 756-1104 t WEST POINT CREEK FUTURE CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 25-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SOUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE HYDROGRAPH AT Cil 142. 13.17 60. 19. 19. 0.17 ROUTED TO Sil 139. 13.50 60. 19. 19. 0.17 14.77 13.50 HYDROGRAPH AT CIO 73. 13.33 33. 10. 10. 0.10 2 COMBINED IT 111AI 211, 11,42 11, 21, 21, 0,21 ROUTED TO slo 209. 13.50 93. 29. 29. 0.27 11.98 13.50 HYDROGRAPH AT C9 78. 12.75 24. 8. B. 0.06 ROUTED TO S9 75. 13.00 24. B. a. 0.06 11.29 13.00 HYDROGRAPH AT C12 49. 14.17 29. 9. 9. 0.09 ROUTED TO S12 48. 14.67 29. 9. 9. 0.09 9.07 14.67 3 COMBINED AT J@C13 298. 13.50 145. 46. 46. 0.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C13 55. 12.83 18. 6. 6. 0.06 HYDROGRAPH AT C15 84. 12.5B 22. 7. 7. 0.07 3 COMBINED AT J@S14 354, 13.25 184. 58. 58. 0.55 ROUTED TO S14 353. 13.58 193. 57. 57. 0.55 7.07 13.58 HYDROGRAPH AT C14 36. 13.00 14. 4. 4. 0.05 lYlRllRAPl AT 17 79, 12,91 27, 1, 1, 1,01 HYDROGRAPH AT ca 170. 12.67 51. 16. 16. 0.13 ROUTED TO S7 169. 12.83 51. 16. 16. 0.13 8.47 12.83 4 COMBINED AT J@S6 561. 13.17 273. 86. 86. 0.81 ROUTED TO 96 559. 13.50 273. 85. 85. 0.81 4.78 1J.50 H11R11111H IT C6 14, 12,75 27, 1, 1, 1,01 HYDROGRAPH AT C16 86. 12.33 17. 5. 5. 0.05 ROUTED TO S16 84. 12.42 17. 5. 5. 0.05 4.33 12.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C17 41. 12.17 6. 2. 2. 0.02 ROUTED TO S17 41. 12.17 6. 2. 2. 0.02 6.59 12.17 1 COMBINED IT 11TIE1 624, 11,12 119, 101, 111* 1,96 ROUTED TO TWEST 354. 15.00 252. 99. 99. 0.96 6.71 15.00 HYDROGRAPH AT cis 32. 12.75 10. 3. 3. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C5 69. 12.58 18. 6. 6. 0.05 HYDROGRAPH AT C19 46. 12.75 15. 5. 5. 0.04 ROUTED TO 111 41* 11,01 15* 1, 1, 0,01 2,13 11*11 4 COMBINED AT J@S4 375. 15.25 272. 110. 110. 1.09 ROUTED TO S4 363. 15.83 272. 106. 106. 1.09 3.77 15.83 HYDROGRAPH AT C4 95. 12.75 30. 10. 10. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT J@53 375. 15.75 286. 115. 115. 1.17 ROUTED TO S3 366. 16.42 286. 109. 109. 1.17 3.88 16.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C24 35. 13.00 13. 4. 4. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C25 28. 13.25 12, 4. 4. 0.03 2 COMBINED AT J@S23 62. 13.08 26. a. a. 0.07 ROUTED TO S23 42. 14.83 25. B. a. 0.07 5.17 14.83) HYDROGRAPH AT C26 5B. 13.25 26. a. a. 0.07 HYDROGRAPH AT C23 35. 13.00 14. 5. 5. 0.03 1 11MIIIED AT 11121 112, 13,17 62, 21, 21, 0*17 ROUTED TO S20 93. 14.42 61. 21. 21. 0.17 6.74 14.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C20 40. 12.67 12. 4. 4. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C3 68. 13.33 31. 10. 10. 0.09 HYDROGRAPH AT C22 52. 12.50 13. .4. 4. 0.04 ROUTED TO S21 38. 13.83 12. 4. 4. 0.04 8.74 13.83 HYDROGRAPH AT C21 110. 13.08 43. 14. 14. 0.11 2 COMBINED AT J@S20A 118. 13.58 54. 18. 18. 0.14 ROUTED TO S20A 117. 13.67 54. 17. 17. 0.14 3.21 13.67 5 COMBINED AT HS2 497. 14.17 408. 160. 160. 1.60 ROUTED TO 12 491, 14,42 407* 111, 116, 1,61 4,06 14*42 HYDROGRAPH AT C2 10B. 12.50 26. 1. B. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT J@R14 508. 14.42 416. 164. 164. 1.67 ROUTED TO si 505. 14.67 416. 161. 161. 1.67 5.49 14.67 HYDROGRAPH AT CI 150. 12.33 31. 10. 10. 0.08 2 111111EI AT J@MAT 121, 11,67 421, 171, 171, 1,75 HECI S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\WPIOOEXN.PRN t FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (NEC-1) t t U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS t I MAY 1991 1 t HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER t I VERSION 4.0.IE I t 609 SECOND STREET $ t t t DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 75616 t t RUN DATE 08/19/1993 TIME 10:31:13 s $ (916) 756-1104 t t 9 t t .............t ................ "t ........ WEST POINT CREEK EXISTING CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-Oq3 100-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL USCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME No 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA 'ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE HYDROGRAPH AT Cil 110. 13.67 58. 18. is. 0.17 ROUTED TO Sil 109. 13.92 58. Is. 18. 0.17 14.61 133.92 HYDROGRAPH AT CIO 79. 13.42 38. 12. 12. 0.10 2 COMBINED AT HMAG 180. 13.75 95. 30. 30. 0.27 ROUTED TO slo l7q. 13.83 95. 30. 30. 0.27 11.85 13.B3 HYDROGRAPH AT C9 71. 12.83 24. 7. 7. 0.06 ROUTED TO S9 68. 13.17 24. 7. 7. 0.06 11.24 13.17 HYDROGRAPH AT C12 46. 14.83 32. 10. 10. 0.09 ROUTED TO S12 46. 15.33 32. 10. 10. 0.09 9.04 15.33 3 COMBINED AT J@C13 746. 13.75 149. 47. 47. 0.42 IY1111RAll AT 111 51, 13,11 21, 6, 6, 0,16 HYDROGRAPH AT C15 65. 13.17 27. 9. 9. 0.07 3 COMBINED AT J@S14 343. 13.50 196. 62. 62. 0.55 ROUTED TO 514 342. 13.63 05. 61. 61. 0.55 7.03 13.83 HYDROGRAPH AT C14 33. 13.25 15. 4. 4. 0.05 IY111GRAPI AT C7 76, 13,25 31, 11, 11, 0,11 HYDROGRAPH AT CB 157. 12.92 56. 17. 17. 0.13 ROUTED TO S7 156. 13.08 56. 17. 17. 0.13 B.40 13.08 4 COMBINED AT J@S6 552. 13.50 295. 94. 94. 0.81 ROUTED TO S6 550. 13.83 295. 92. 92. 0.81 4.75 13.83 11IR11RAPI AT 16 72, 11,17 31, 9, 9, 0,01 HYDROGRAPH AT C16 69. 12.75 22. 7. 7. 0.05 ROUTED TO S16 69. 12.83 22. 7. 7. 0.05 4.18 12.83 HYDROGRAPH AT C17 30. 12.58 8. 2. 2. 0.02 ROUTED TO S17 30. 12.58 8. 2. 2. 0.02 6.41 12.56 4 COMBINED AT J@TWES 639. 13.75 349. Ill. Ill. 0.96 ROUTED TO TWEST 386. 15.33 274. 108. 108. 0.96 6.77 15.33 HYDROGRAPH AT CIB 29. 13.17 12. 4. 4. 0.031 HYDROGRAPH AT C5 59. 12.75 19. 6. 6. 0.05 HYDROGRAPH AT C19 29. 14.08 18. 6. 6. 0.04 ROUTED TO 111 21, 11,12 17, 6, 6, 1*14 2,65 11,12 4 COMBINED AT HS4 426. 15.50 303. 120. 120. 1.09 ROUTED TO S4 422. 16.00 303. 114. 114. 1.09 3.93 16.00 HYDROGRAPH AT C4 69. 12.92 25. a. B. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT HS3 435. 15.92 314. 122. 122. 1.17 ROUTED TO S3 430. 16.50 314. 114. 114. 1.17 4.06 16.50 HYDROGRAPH AT C24 34. 13.33 16. 5. 5. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C25 27. 13-50 13. 4. 4. 0.03 2 COMBINED AT J@S23 60. 13.42 29. 9. 9. 0.07 ROUTED TO S23 45. 15.08 27. 9. 9. 0.07 5.16 15.08 HYDROGRAPH AT C26 59. 13.59 30. 9. 9. 0.07 HYDROGRAPH AT C23 2q. 13.25 13. 4. 4. 0.03 3 COMBINED AT J@S20 96. 13.50 68. 22. 22. 0.17 ROUTED TO S20 92. 14.83 66. 22. 122. 0.11/ 6.74 14.83 HYDROGRAPH AT C20 40. 12.75 13. 4. 4. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C3 70. 13.67 36. 11. 11. 0.09 HYDROGRAPH AT C22 54. 12.67 16. 5. 5. 0.04 ROUTED TO S21 45. 13.92 16. 5. 5. 0.04 8.82 13.72 HYDROGRAPH AT C21 95, 13.17 40. 12. 12. 0.11 2 COMBINED AT J@S20A 114. 13.75 55. 17. 17. 0.14 ROUTED TO S20A 113. 13.83 55. 17. 17. 0.14 3.17 13.83 5 COMBINED AT J@S2 569. 16.42 439. 169. 169. 1.60 ROUTED TO S2 166, 16,67 431, 164, 164* 1*60 4,22 16,67 HYDROGRAPH AT C2 113. 12.50 29. 9. 9. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT J@Rl4 574. 16.67 447. 173. 173. 1.67 ROUTED TO si 571. 16.72 446. 170. 170. 1.67 5.70 16.92 HYDROGRAPH AT Cl 183. 12.33 39. 12. 12. 0.08 2 COMBINED AT J@MAT 580. 16.92 456. 182. 182. 1.75 HECI SIN: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\[email protected] t FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) t t U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS t $ MAY 1991 t t HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER $ I VERSION 4.0.1E t t 609 SECOND STREET t t t t DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 $ 1 RUN DATE 08/19/1993 TIME 11:40:56 t t (9161 756-1104 t WEST POINT CREEK FUTURE CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 100-YEAR STORM 4 IG OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME No 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NODATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT iq CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 77-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE HYDROGRAPH AT Cil 189. 13.17 80. 25. 25. 0.17 ROUTED TO Sil 186. 13.42 80. 25. 25. 0.17 14.98 13.42 HYDROGRAPH AT CIO 9q. 13.33 45. 14. 14. 0.10 2 C111INEI-AT 111AI 211, 13,42 125, 10, 40, 1,27 ROUTED TO SIO 282. 13.50 125. 39. 3q. 0.27 12.24 13.50 HYDROGRAPH AT C9 100. 12.75 31. 10. 10. 0.06 ROUTED TO S9 97. 13.00 31. 10. 10. 0.06 11.44 13.00 HYDROGRAPH AT C12 67. 14.17 40. 13. 13. 0.09 ROUTED TO S12 67, 14*11 41, 11, 13, 0,09 1,21 11,51 3 COMBINED AT J@C13 389. 13.42 195. 62. 62. 0.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C13 77. 12.83 25. a. a. 0.06 HYDROGRAPH AT C15 113. 12.58 9. 9. 0.07 3 COMBINED AT J@S14 483. 13.17 248. 80. 80. 0.55 ROUTED TO 914 481. 13.50 246. 7B. 78. 0.55 7.54 13.50 HYDROGRAPH AT C14 50. 13.00 19. 6. 6. 0.05 DROGRAPH AT C7 107. 12.92 37. 12. 12. 0.08 HYDROGRAPH AT ce 220. 12.67 68. 22. 22. 0.13 ROUTED TO S7 220. 12.83 68. 22. 22. 0.13 8.71 12.93) 4 COMBINED AT J@Sh 774. 13.17 369. lie. 118. 0.81 ROUTED TO S6 772. 13.42 369, 116. 116. 0.81 5.37 13.42 lYlRllRIPl IT C6 115, 12,75 31, 12, 12, 0*11 HYDROGRAPH AT C16 115. 12.33 23. 7. 7. 0.05 ROUTED TO S16 113. 12.33 23. 7. 7. 0.05 4.58 12.33 HYDROGRAPH AT C17 57. 12.17 a. 3. 3. 0.02 ROUTED TO S17 56. 12.17 8. 3. 3. 0.02 6.77 14".17 4 COMBINED IT 11TIE1 163, 11,31 433* 137, 137* 0*96 ROUTED TO TWEST 576. 14.50 353. 135. 135. 0.96 7.06 14.50 HYDROGRAPH AT Cla 44. 12.75 14. 4. 4. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C5 92. 12.58 24. 8. G. 0.05 HYDROGRAPH AT C19 62. 12.75 20. 6. 6. 0.04 ROUTED TO 111 60, 13,11 20, 6, 6, 1,11 2*19 13*10 4 COMBINED AT J@S4 615. 14.67 390. 150. 150. 1.09 ROUTED TO S4 610. 15.08 389. 145. 145. 1.09 4.32 15.08 HYDROGRAPH AT C4 122. 12.75 39. 13. 13. 0.07 1. COMBINED AT J@Sj 633. 15.00 414. 157. 157. 1.17 ROUTED TO 93 627. 15.50 412. 150. 150. 1.17 4.54 15.50 HYDROGRAPH AT C24 46. 13.00 10. 6. 6. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C25 36. 13.25 16. 5. 5. 0.03 2 COMBINED AT HS23 82. 13.OB 34. 11. 11. 0.07 ROUTED TO 923 61. 14.50 32. 11. 11. 0.07 5.25 14.50 HYDROGRAPH AT C26 76. 13.25 34. 11. Ii. 0.07 HYDROGRAPH AT C23 44. 13.00 6. 6. 0.03 3 COMBINED AT J@S20 130. 13.17 BI. 28. 28. 0.17 ROUTED TO S20 124. 14.42 90. 27. 27. 0.17 6.89 14.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C20 53. 12.67 16. 5. 5. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C3 93. 13.33 42. 13. 0. 0.09 HYDROGRAPH AT C22 69. 12.50 17. 5. 5. 0.04 ROUTED TO 121 13, 13,67 17, 5, 5, 0,14 1,11 11,67, HYDROGRAPH AT C21 141. 13.08 57. Is. is. 0.11 2 COMBINED AT HS20A 167. 13.50 72. 23. 23. 0.14 ROUTED TO 520A 166. 13.58 72. 23. 23. 0.14 3.75 13.58 5 COMBINED AT HS2 82q. 15.42 592. 218. 'Lie. 1.60 ROUTED TO S2 111, 11,67 511, 214, 214, 1,60 4,71 15*67 HYDROGRAPH AT C2 140. 12.50 34. 11. 11. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT J@R14 836. 15.67 605. 225. 225. 1.67 ROUTED TO sl 833. 15.83 605. 221. 221. 1.671 6.43 15.83 7 HYDROGRAPH AT Ci 193. 12.33 40, 13. 1j. 0.08 2 COMBINED IT IIIAT 141, 15,11 619, 214, 234, 1,71 j P 'A zt-! ,U, v 17 2 28 L Z 0 @T RM, 77 C-1 'n a r @n TZ 77 f@; 7 Q @@c 7 Z i";. I i7 74 C ..-7z1 I A in z '7- @77 77 7RWn- IN 3 T 7-T C; i f) 077 C."', 7 T 'i ,j ja@ r, -i C. C U, ID MAGNOLIA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI FUTURE CONDITIONS ID L JOB 92093 100-YEAR STORM *DIAGRAM IT 5 288 IO 5 * * KK C 2 7 BA 0.059 * 2-YEAR STORM * 0.47 0.95 1.6 1.61 2.02 2.55 3.03 3.5 * 10-YEAR STURM * 0.6 1.28 2.28 22.61 2.95 3.8 4.56 5.33 * 25-YEAR STORM * 0.68 1.49 2.68 3.0q6 3.49 4.q53 5.45 6.38 * 100-YEAR STORM PH 0.81 1.81 3.3 3.62 4.33 5.65 6.93 0 LS 82 UD 0.516 * BASBY CULVERT AT BAGBY - R27 * 1 ELEY ? * KK S28 RS 3 FLOW -1 RC 0.065 0.065 0.065 1410 0.006 RX 214 222 239 240 742 243 260 294 RY 8 6 6 2.5 2.5 6 6 8 KK C2 9 BA 8 LS 0.074 75 UD 0.558 A KK J8R28 COMBINE S2 AND C28 HC 2 KKCHEL28 CULYERT AT CHELSEA - R28 RS 1 ELEV SA 0 0.19 0.51 0.82 1.48 2.13 2.62 3.27 3.6 SE 1.17 3 4 5 6 6.66 7.55 7.97 so 0 24 37 52 40 74 200 400 KK B285 RS 6 FLOW -1 RC 0.07 0.05 O.07 1690 0.004 RX 0 30 32 125 135 210 214 230 * a 2 0 -0.5 -0.5 -0.2 2 9 RY 8.5 2.5 0.5 0 0 0.3 2.5 8.5 KK C285 BA 0. 055 LS 71 UD 0.592 KK J@END COMBINE S2B5 AND C285 HC 2 ZZ ID NORTH CHELSEA TRIB TO NATTAPONI FUTURE CONDITIONS ID L&M JOB 92-093 100-YEAR STORK *DIAGRAM IT 5 286 IO 5 * * KK C29 BA 0.039 *2-YEAR STORK * 0.47 0.95 1.6 1.81 2.02 2.55 3.03 14.5 *10-YEAR STORM * 0.6 1.28 2.28 2.61 2.95 3.8 4.56 5.33 *25-YEAR STORM * 0.68 1.49 2.68 3.08 3.49 4.53 5.45 6.38 *100-YEAR STORM PH 0.81 1.81 3.3 3.82 4.33 5.65 6.83 q9 LS 80 UD 0.534 KK C30 BA 0.047 LS 72 * R30 CULVERT AT CHELSEA - R30 * 1 ELEV ? KK J@S31 COMBINE C29 AND R30 HC 2 XX B31 RS 3 FLOW -1 RC 0.09 0.05 0.09 2020 0.005 RX 90 130 146 160 172 106 210 260 RY 10 8 6 4 4 6 0 10 KK 04 BA 0.433 LS 78 UD 0.936 KK C33 BA 0.05 LS 75 UD G.804 KK J@R33 COMBINE C34, S31, C31, AND C33 HC 4 KK R33 CULVERT AT CHELSEA - R33 RB 1 ELEV 3 SA 7.44 9.42 11.39 12.29 12.61 13.3 SE 2 3 4 4.25 4.47 4.64 5 SO 37 47 100 300 400 500 700 XX S32 RS 5 FLOW -1 RC 0.07 0.04 0.07 2890 0.005 RX 40 90 120 300 320 350 372 380 RY 4 2 1.1 1 1 1.1 2 4 XX D32 BA 0.063 LS 79 UD 0.912 HECI SIN: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\THEXIOON.PRN t FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) t t U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS $ t MAY 1?91 1 t HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER t $ VERSION 4.0.1E t 609 SECOND STREET $ t DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 t t RUN DATE 08120/1993 TIME 08:35:43 t $ (916) 756-1104 9 x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x x x I x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx Full Microcomputer Implementation by Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road t Waterbury, Connecticut 06708 t (203) 755-1666 THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HECI (JAN 73), HECIGS, HECIDS, AND HEClKW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 29 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREGUENCY, DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM HEC-1 INPUT PAGE I LINE 10 ....... I.......2 .......3 ....... 4 ........ ;.......6....... 7 ... 'o i .... a....... 9 ...... I ID THOMPSON TRIB. TO MATTAPONI EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 ID L&M JOB 72-093 100-YEAR STORM *DIAGRAM 3 IT 298 4 5 KK C40 6 BA 0.038 t 2-YEAR STORM NWS t 0.47 0.95 1.6 1.81 2.02 2.55 3.03 3.5 1 10-YEAR STORM 4 0.6 1.28 2.28 2.61 2.95 3.8 4.56 5.33 t 25-YEAR STORM t 0.68 1.49 2.68 3.08 3.49 4.53 5.45 6.38 i 100-YEAR STORM 7 PH 0.81 1.81 3.3 3.82 4.33 5.65 6.83 3 a LS 72 7 UD 1.392 t R40 CULVERT AT DRIVEWAY - R30 t I ELEV ? 10 KK C39 11 BA 0.045 12 Ll 15 13 UD 0.936 t R39 CULVERT AT CHELSEA - R39 t I ELEV ? t t 14 KK J@537 COMBINE R39 AND R40 15 HC 2 16 KK S37 17 RS 4 FLOW -1 11 IC 0,01 1,15 1,11 1110 1,107 19 RX 24 40 55 105 120 125 131 141 20 RY a 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 21 KK C37 22 BA 0.019 23 LS:) 70 24 Ul 0,511 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2 LINE ID ....... I....... 2....... 3.......4 ....... 5....... 6.......7.......8....... 9...... 10 25 KK C36 26 BA 0.027 27 LS 7q 21 11 1*11 29 KK C35 30 BA 0.012 31 LS 82 32 UD 0.534 t R35 CULVERT AT DRIVEWAY R35 I I ELEV t t I 33 KK S36 34 RS 12 FLOW -1 35 RC 0.00 0.05 0.08 880 0.00025 36 RX 0 70 so 92 158 160 168 260 37 RY 6 4 2 1.5 1.5 2 4 5.5 7 J8 XK J@S38 COMBINE S37, C37, C36, AND S36 39 HC 4 40 KK S38 41 RS 16 FLOW -1 42 RC 0.06 0.04 0.06 1180 0.00025 13 RX 110 208 220 315 330 560 570 584 44 RY 6 2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 2 6 45 KK C38 46 BA 0.028 47 LS 69 48 UD 1.116 49 KK HEND COMBINE S38 AND C38 50 HC 2 51 11 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF STREAM NETWORK INPUT LINE (V) ROUTING DIVERSION OR PUMP FLOW NO. CONNECTOR RETURN OF DIVERTED OR PUMPED FLOW 5 C40 10 C39 14 J@S37 ............ V V 16 S37 21 CN 25 C36 21 C35 V V 33 S36 38 J@53B ..... .............. V v 40 silo 45 C38 49 J@END' ............ Mt@ RUNOFF ALSO COMPUTED AT THIS LOCATION HECI S/N: 1343000043 HMVe rsion: 6.33 Data File; C:\WESTPT\THEXIOON.PRN t FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) t t U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS $ MAY 1991 t t HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER I VERSION 4.0.11 $ $ 607 SECOND STREET 9 9 t DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 I RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 08:")5:43 t 1 (916) 756-1104 THOMPSON TRIB. TO MATTAPONI EXISTING CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 100-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL 9SCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT 1Y1R11RAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL HATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 28B NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SOUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE HYDROGRAPH AT C40 31. 13.42 15. 5. 5. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C39 64. 12.72 23. 7. 7. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT J@S37 91. 13.00 38. 12. 12. 0.08 ROUTED TO 937 90. 13.17 38. 12. 12. O.OB 3.27 13.17 HYDROGRAPH AT C37 29. 12.50 7. 2. 2. 0.02 HYDR111API AT 131 11, 11,17 12, 1, 4, 0,03 HYDROGRAPH AT C35 23. 12.50 6. 2. 2. 0.01 ROUTED TO S36 22. 12.92 6. 2. 2. 0.01 2.27 12.92 4 COMBINED AT J@S38 155. 13.00 63. 20. 20. 0.14 ROUTED TO S39 153. 13.42 63. 20. 20. 0.14 2.09 13.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C38 25. 13.17 10. 3. 3. 0.03 2 COMBINED AT J@END 176. 13.42 74. 23. 23. 0.17 H EI S N 11 @"T 4 ;ila: .4iiiercion: 6.7 t @f rn @.-IoRnpgg pArl'o; L UUL M .0 n " , G i VERSION '.3.1E 6,01IQ SECIOND STREET T'ME 08:75:0 a :'H@Npqnhi TRIS. TI. MATTAPCNT FUTURE OgNiDITION'S 100-YEAF. STOR'l n-i-lf@;.T CONTROL T P! T 0. wYDRGG;., 1:1 DT C@Cilj HY D R 00 G p -A PH T Imv A T P MIN11T7 1! -:njV,0.!..JT"T" tM-j!U-- n -,TART; 1. - 1 1; T Nr, n- !I Il @'. AC T Al :) T T : i Li i i Ui I Vr% N r. A 7 r 'I" ';,Iq D n'T.- D @"Tk EPID 7 rir @,7C4 MI TT@- 7@ kgf! P, -"Q,- WMH L E NIG LS H U N. T S , )11 11 @ Oiju r. DR.A.POH LKA -"AR' Vt C: T@ F-RECIPPITIATICIN C - P ITI@CHCq El EV"'I'M '!:'T L C. 1, 1 1 u 7 ": , r'ET "C!,!"rj FILIDW L. iL rr Dt N -CIMA @ C.nr-@P-- a@ AMCE VOLIUME -i r- @MpE- SIURF@Aill'z AREA TEMPERATURE n-G-E-- CA H 9- E NIH. ETT cr, .r, c r- P. ZZ -14 IN PER S;C.-.Tqn 0, N n um' M"Ell llill SGUARE MILZES 'P E A KTTMr M- AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAYTMI@- PURIOD B A @ I MAX, ! MUM TTM; n' U;RITTON Ay -:@Tro; STAT12N P. n@ _KUP. "_HOP PREA ST"K z @ m c HYDROCRAPq AT a 11 APH IT f--q in-, Hill @! D RG G R .4 T rl.'OUTED To A 7 T Hly D F. GOR A PH AT r7_1 I li f - ;@ 4. V V11 HIIAROBIAPH A' 29. 12 t RO-111T," TO '71 24, 4 K8 2316. 12.50 0.14 COMBINED AT .1 JU R Oul T E D To '35. 11.23, 1 -71 7- WIDIROGRAPR AT 17. 12.79 4. 4. -7 7 T rrM-TNED AT j END 277. 12 . S L % .31, 1 FLIOND @YLDRTGRAPH PAICIK'AGE Hl E C- 1. t JUS. ARMY CORTS 0 ENGSINEEI Q_ MA. v IVIERSIGN 4.01,1E t I An@' n-rCj"n -7-P7T DO, Dc, ;,,_ _'Ir.- q RUN DATE 2. f 9 Q 7 T14P OS.:'8:4S t -WGMpCGtl TPT7Q,, T@o MITT "FICINI HISTING rog"T&ln L R Z AB 02-11q@_ RT PPLES, 1 P R 1 '14 T C 21 N TI R G 1. Gr CC.%FTP,3! I ii-, L HOTDRINRWH Pl ST 3C'l 1; I n U IT '1111RIG1111 TD11 2,11,J]'i M T NlUT E ; T I'J C OW4 PUIT A. T I rl C- 4 TNITERVAL I L Tnp.T@ fl 'TARTIINGS DAH 'TTM' STARTT"C TIMP .-C 3 NUMBER OF PYNOORAPH, 10-RDI.NJES, r@ A Tr @pi n T 14 - 1.4 0 "Cc "DE r Bif :@ ,T 1 ME -9 CDj"Y .4T Srj@APUTP,T-114 TNTERVAL (I j,., "TL'L M.7 r-m uu j:NCLTQP, UNITS 'Olul "r- iLz lir U111-1 MTi PREi'TF'lT,,r-N D-TH I NUES 4 Lit r@ fG T H ELEVATION FErT Pr.-T PER SECOND STOIRAGE VOLUME ACRE-"@-T @ @if A OURFACE AREA T U; D E GR EE SR E NET T 'A Q T AP '07T A JW 174@,,Tg f-t-I A P, 1w pj@48-1, IZ,1 ?9 T I T U J1 I c P, a r., 0 U T @6T i T I iV 031HUND31 47- T 0 T I T Oil 031"'0" IV H-I18S1r;T'DH T IV Hjvusojallp 7 A -7 1),@ 7T 'T7 IV HjUSHUH V V L @1 2 't i @ i Q I e. I '67 T IF -6 Z i . Z T 76-77 '64 fldw89DvG,H T '7' zr V* 6 S. 0 "J, 0 1, H, w c v V zzlVis )j P,,.3 Ll D a 9 No j i 14 ki ;.IT i T v A -H-Ve C ,Zj Wnur-ikk vo@ moij qzwu7AW in 3WTJ @,O 3- Al@v Q _V-- V I i V 3 H 11 -. 1 11, --jL 1 4 W liKIBS N" "T" 'ETHION' 3,21 amn-mc gO-,4 HH"ers on, at a E I, THF25 "I.PRN FLOOD HURn.GRAPH F "P. C K A E R 1 U S. M A Y 19 3 i H D P 01 G C N G 1 W E T E FKS 1 ON 4 , 0 . 12 1'*.-721 n P T A 7 1 .11; Cnrk!T t FRUN VATE '09/2-011`30Z TTIJE 6 7 71 J lIV. THnMPSON 7PTB. T@' M-T%PON1 ; @ . I - li ;M I !". r lu P4 u L&A JOB 92-091, 25-YEAR STORM d io GUTPUT C-P-INTROL VAIRIABLES 11. @ I T = PRIINT CONTROL ful I 1@ A I I u 1 0. PLOT CONTROL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLO, SCALE, HYDROLE""RAPH TIME DATA 1 STARTTtiC mA7- !TT-;: 00.10 ST-'RTINC, TTME 228 "UNDEP COF HYDROGRAPI; 01RDIIIATEES ilm "D DA T E 1 0 ;NDING DATP D T 11 P 3 5 5ENOTNG TIME I E jCE"T mr?4TIMV H-PK CC1@5fl@tTAT'g'I'vI 4PNTERVA! n.02 wou" T,TA H1L T111tE B-A u- 2 3- K.,' w I Ut ISS A 16,1 AREA S 9R E S PRECTPTTATION DEPTH 1CHIE 3 L E Nfr3 T.W , E L E VA' T I D N PEET F L G 10 CUDIC FEET PER SECONID ACRE STURiGE VGLUME MLf%r-;EET SURFACE -PPEA .I:,- A C R E S, _I- A TU.,R C DECREES 76.7T 'SLT a NERE I V U3N;IgWn3 7 T E-2 i iti HdvuvlrluiTAH 7" .'1 7 'VT T ZW6 Z i E I- S oi 7 T 'A T z NTC@hal Ir F@ v FT. - @f 1@ , V.. B i1i 1 ,C5 T ','C 'LT c 7 T 'T7 "A IOT jH@ 7,*'-.A -7 7-'TT '97 @,j C;- 7 T or - 7 T - T71 IE "'7T 'r7T C@,p 1W n=NTjWoj 7 T T .9! HJUHOOH L -TT L, v L. i 2 E, c I., k Z J A Po 13 9 i 14 i 0 1 H 3 d C, Cl 3 V! i Ff @l T L'i CAC z iA I= w5w1lov"N 8*02 mol@ v ii-I 3 W I A'V 3 -2 'nFIC MT WW-i 'CNrjD`: kil @gTj -ITU ZW4 L-v Iq d NO 3 3 S 3 d 13 3 3 H 3 N- MI 0 1 4 14 a t 1 $ it I t 4 t it i a a t at t, a a a a it till a 't a T t t t FLOOD HY'jR,*F.RuWrP, PACVAISE H.. n P I T C i(,@ T@7 T VERSION 4.0i.lE A u a R U E -N DAT- 0' 70 '19?1 TIME 8 5 13 it TNnM-QON TR!n, To MATTAPD! @X!'T-NG CO'lojljq@-:: LP NP Q2-0137 10 -Y EAP STIOPM C'UTFFUT CO.NTROL @111AFIABLESS 'PRNT 5 P9,1,14T CONTROL @ :1 1 L Ill I P P L Ou TOu N T R D L MT -1) HYDRCRAPH P; .-,T ',-C@Ii Z Il@ . - oll I ;,;, .111; D P. A P 4TIME D'TA 1 14 UE Q I @4 CnlPJlj-,'TjGj4 INTERVAL i 0 SUPTING DATE 1: P'l E QT"TjNtG -E -mr, 11 , Nllvn@p. IN L 0 UimOC I 'HYDRC3RAPH OIRDT'@IA',@Q i f:,jD 7 NG @ATC POTIM -77@q rl@4n I US TTMr i? I IE - U ICE:- 11 ii r"DIJURV MARK IVERVAl pn"Pc: U IN' ". L Z F.-Ul- T'u';AL TIMIE ESSE 2 3 27 U rl 11 I- "':TTQ LIM A 7,111NAHC AREA SgUmRt- MILESS PR@@r P T -A,- T rl@. ,I El U13 CUSIC FEE ED-in U STORAGE VOLUME lic Q E E E T S U R F A 11", EA. A c R E 1 IN IUSTr PUT PER -'"ND - "- - r. Ot,-@ '-P- IN ;,nu"-E JIM P;,qK T-Mr OF AVERAGE PLOW FOR MAXIMUM PI;PTnn -A-,TN MAXIMUM TIME OF , J.- , - - I r I'M-- -1- r. - 4!1 o r OPERATION AK AQ,, 'Uri S TIP T T il L 0; w PEM 6-HOUR 24-H 7^-ROUR 1. 1 Up R f c M.- Z.4 z I OZ I, A' I I A 2 YU-0 tlrm IT C 101 -6, 117,11 16 2, AA. 1. rl@ I H v n R C R A p H AT .41 ful 7 2 COMBINED A T @S" n 1, 53, 17 . 00 ROUTED TO Q"7 I- C" H Y I R &S R A, PH A T 11 R '1' 073 1 A P IIT C-6 17 11 17 A 7 1 'PH A 1 IT 14. 127 . 50 ROUTED TO 3- n -7 ;'i 7 1 - I A i COMBINED AT .1 PGIIT;n Tl 7. ia 76. 8 -A7 1 4, 7. -OMPINED AT MEND ?Q, 17.;q HCI S/N 1343000043 HMVErsion: 6.33 Data File C:\WESTPT\THF10IN.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0 1F 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 08:57:40 (916) 756-1104 THOMPSON TRIB, TO MATTAPONI FUTURE CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 10-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES 1PRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL 1PLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NNIH 3 MINUTES IW COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME WQ 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NODATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NOTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE HILES TME PEAK TI OF AVERAGE FLOM FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERAT10k STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HaUR 722-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE HYDROSRAPH AT C40 39. 12.42 9. 3. 3. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C39 59. !2.33 111. 3. 3. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT j@S37 96. 12-33 20. 6. 6. 0.08 A ROUTED TO Irl 93. 12.50 20. 6. 6. 0.08 3.29 2.50 HYDROGRAPH AT C.357 70. 12.42 4. 0.02 HYDROGRAPH AT C36 22. 12.?2 a. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C35 17. 12-33 3. 1. i. 0.01 ROUTED TO B36 15. 12.92 3. 1. 1. 0.01 2.11 12.92 4 COMBINED AT J1931B 130. 12.50 35. 11. IL. 0.14 ROUTED TO 43 126. 13.00 35. 11. 11. 0.14 2.00 HYDROGRAPH AT C38 25. 12.75 8. 2. 2. 0.03 2 COMBINED AT J@END 148. 13.00 42, 0. 113. 0.17 HEC1 S/N 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\THEX21N.PRN I FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS t I MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC :ENGINEERING CENTER t I VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET t I DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 s t RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 08:59:52 (916) 756-1104 1 THOMPSON TRIB. TO MATTAPOINI EXISTING CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 2-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIH 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME No 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT FUNGFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE HILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGEE HYDROeRAPH AT C40 7. 13.50 4. 1. 1. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C39 23. 12.92 8. 2. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT J@537 29. 13.00 12. 4. 4. 0.09 ROUTED TO 937 29. 13.17 1.2. 3. 3. 0.08 2.71 13.17 HYDROGRAPH AT C37 7.. 12.58 2. 1. 0.02 IYDROI.RIP" IT C16 1, 11,17 4, 1, 1, 0,13 HYDROGRAPH AT C35 a. 112.50 2. 1. 1. O.Oi ROUTED TO S36 7. 13.33 22. 1. 0.01 138 !3.33 4 COMBINED AT J1938 47. 13.25 19. 6. 6. 0.14 ROUTED TO S 38 45. 13.92 !9. 6. 6. 0.!4 1.64 13.92 HYDROGRAPH AT C38 5. 13.25 2. 1. 1. 0.03 2 COMBINED AT J@END 48. 13.92 20. 6. 6. 0.17 HECI S/N 1343000043 HMVersion 6.33 Data Files C\WESTPT\THF21N.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS. CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME O8:58:13 (916)756-1104 THOMPSON TRIB. TO MATTAPONI FUTURE CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 2-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME No 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TINE BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH,ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE MILES PEAK TIRE OF AVERAGE FLOM FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXINUI TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLGM PEAK 6-INOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE 1111111RIll IT Co I 1 11, 12*11 1 , 1. , 1, 1,11 HYDROGRAPH AT C39 31. 12.33 6. 2. 2. 0.05 2 COMBINED Af J@837 40. 12.33 .0. 3. 3. 0.08 ROUTED TO S37 46. 12.50 10. 3. 3. 0.08 2.91 2.30 HYDROGRAPH AT C37 10. 12.50 2. 1., 1. 0.02- HYDROGRAPH AT C36 12. 12.92 4. 1. 1. 01.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C35 10. 12.42 2. 1. 0.01 ROUTED 170 936 S. 13.17 2. 1. 1. 0.01 1.9i .113.411 4 CUIBINED AT u1@938 65. 12.58 .18. 5. 5. 0.14 ROUTED TO 538 571. 13.25 i8. 5. 5. 0.14 1.72 13.2-51 1111111API IT 131 14, 12,71 11, 1, .1, 1,11 2 COMBINED AT JIEND 66. 13.25 21. 6. 6. 0.17 HECI S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion 6.33 Data File; C:\WESTPT\MGEX100N.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/19/1993 TIME 16:41:54 (916) 756-1104 x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x I I x x x xx x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x x x I x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx Full Microcomputer Implementation by Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road I Waterbury, Connecticut 06708 (203) 755-1666 THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-I KNOwN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HECIGS, HECID AND HECIKW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED KITH REVISIONS DATED 29 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FoRTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREUENCY, DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 1 LINE ID ....... I....... 2....... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5 ....... ....... 8....... 9...... 10 I ID MAGNOLIA TRIS. TO MATTAPONI EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 ID L&M JOB 92-093 100-YEAR STORK IDIAGRAM 3 IT 5 288 4 11 5 KK C27 6 BA 0.059 t 2-YEAR STORM t 0.47 0.95 1.6 11.81 2.02 2.55 3.03 01.5 t 10-YEAR STORM t 0.6 1.2B 2.28 2.61 2.15 33 4.56 5.33 t 25-YEAR STORM 1 0.68 1.49 2.69 3.08 3.49 4.53 5.45 6.38 1 100-YEAR STORM 7 PH 0.01 1.81L 3.3 3.82 4.33 5.65 6.83 8 LS 78 9 UD 1.206 t BAGRY CULVERT AT BAGBY - R27 I I ELEY ? 10 KK S2AB 11 RS 3 FLOW -1 12 RC 0.065 0.065 0.065 1410 0.006 iz RX 2214 222 239 240 242 243 260 2974 14 RY 6 6 2.5 2.5 6 6 B KK CA"S 16 BA 0.074 17 LS 73 ia UD 0.72 19 KK JIR28 COMBINE S28 AND C28 20 HC 2 21 KK CREL28 CULVERT AT CHELSEA - R20 22 RI I ELEV 1 23 SA 0 0.19 0.51 0.82 1.48 2.13 2.612 3.27 3.6 24 SE 1.17 2 3 4 5 6.66 7.55 7.71' 25 so 0 11 24 37 52 67 74 200 400 26 KK B285 27 RS 6 FLOW -1 2B RC 0 . 07 0.05 0.07 1690 0.004 29 RX 0 30 A 125 135 210 214 230 1 9 2 0 -0.5 -0.5 -0.2 2 a 30 RY 8.5 2.5 0.5 0 0 0.3 2.5 8.5 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2 LIKE ID ....... I.......2.......3....... 4.......5 .......6....... 7.......8....... 9...... 10 31 KK C285 32 BA 0.055 33 LS 66 3 44 Ul 1,711 35 KK 'JIEND COMBINE S285 AND C285 36 HC 2 37 zz SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF STREAM NETWORK INPUT LINE (Y) ROUTING DIVERSION OR PUMP FLOW NO. G) CONNECTOR RETURN OF DIVERTED OR PUMPED FLOW 5 C27 y 10 S28 15 C2B 13 J@R2B ............ V V 21 CHEL28 y V 26 S285 41 C285 11 JlElD* ... (111) RUNOFF ALSO COMPUTED AT THIS LOCATION HEC1 S/N 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\MGEX100N.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/19/1993 TIME 16:41:54 (916) 736-1104 MAGNOLIA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI EXISTING CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 100-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERASE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPSRATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE 11111111PI AT 121 11, 11,11 21, 1, 1, 1,11 ROUTED TO S29 61. 13.42 27. B. 8. 0.06 6.64 13.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C.28 99. 12.75 30. 9. 9. 0.07 Z COMBINED AT JOR28 135. 12.92 57. is. 18. 0.13 ROUTED TO CHEL28 loi. 13.59 57. Is. Is. 0.0 6.85 07.58 ROUTED TO 3111 110, 13,13 17, 11, 11, 0,11 1,14 13,61 HYDROSRAPH AT C285 58. 12.83 19. 6. 6. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT JiEND 123. '13.75 75. 24. 24. 0.19 ttt NORMAL END OF HEC-1 111 HEC1 S/N: 1343000043 HMVERSION: 6.33 DATA FILE: C:\WESTPT\MGF100IN.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/19/1993 TIME 16:41:24 (916) 756-1104 MAGNOLIA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI FUTURE CONDITIONS LAM JOB 92-093 100-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME MG 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC'FEET PER SECOND TIRE IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AYERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA 3TAGE MAX STAGE HYDROGRAPH AT C27 117. L2.50 29. 9. 9. 0.06 ROUTED TO S28 113. 1211.67 9. 9. 7. 0.06 71.06 ilAl.ill HYDROGRAPH AT C28 122. 12.58 32. 10. 10. 0.07 A.13 2 COMBINED AT ilR20 2-,o,. 19. 19. v @A 12. 59 61. ROUTED TO CHEL28 1.61'. 12.92 60. 0. 19. 0.0 7.311 12.92 ROUTED TO 1211 112, 11,25 11, 20, 21, 1*13 1,12 03,25 HYDROGRAPH AT C2G5 83. 12.58tl 22. 7. 7. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT JIEND 197. 0.17 02. 26. 26. 0.19 / 3 6 6 6 HEC1 S/N: 1343000043 HMVERSION: 6.33 DATA FILE: C:\WESTPT\MGEX25IN.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERING MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 09:03:38 (916) 756-1104 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE 17 HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMNIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 ST ARTING TIME NQ 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE MILES THE OF PEAK TA AVERABE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOM PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE HYIRIIRAPH IT 121 11, 174,21 11, 6, 1, 1,11 ROUTED TO 928 45. 13.50 20. 6. 6. 0.06 6.46 13.50 HYDROGRAPH AT C28 71. 12.75 1.2. 7. 7. 0.07 0.0 2 COMBINED AT JIR28 94. 12.03 41. 13. 13. -3.71 ROUTED TO CHEL2B 611. 13.115 41. 13. 5.38 ROUTED TO 3265 61'. 14.00 41. 13. 13. 0.13 0.54 14.00 HYDROGRAPH AT C2B5 39. 12.83 13. 4. 4. 0.05 COMBINED AT lj'@END 87. 13.08 54. 17. 17. 0.19 HEC1 5/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\MGF25IN.FRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 09:05:09 (916) 756-1104 MAGNOLIA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI FUTURE CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 25-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES 1PRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL 1PLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL 0OSCAL 0 HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE STIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES MDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOM FOR MAXIMUM PERIDD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE 11010111 IT 117 11, 12,50 12, 7, 1, 1, 11 ROUTED TO 828 65. 12.67 22. 7. 7. 0.06 6.26 12.67 HYDROGRAPH AT C28 89. 12.59 23. 7. 7. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT JOR28 011. !2.67 45. 14. 14. 0.13 ROUTED '10 CHEL28 100. 13.06 45. 14. 14. 0.13 6.95 13.08 A ROUTED TO 1215 17, 11,42 41, 11, A.G5 Y,61 11,0- HYDROBRAPH AT C285 59. 12.58 15. 5. 5. v .9. 2 COMBINED AT JOEND 117. 13.33 60. 19. HED1 S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion 6.33 Data File:C\WESTPT\MGEX10IN.PRN I FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-l) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER I VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET I DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 06/20/1993 TIME 09:04;08 (916) 756-1104 MAGNOLIA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI EXISTING CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 10-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL GSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NKIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME GRAPH NG 288 NUMBER OF HYDRO ORDINATES HODATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLON IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SOUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 712-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STASE HYDROGRAPH AT C27 35. 13.25 is'. 5. 5. 0.016 ROUTED TO 328 35. 13.50 15. 5. 5. 0.06 6.32 !1`3.50 HYDROGRAPHAT C20 54. 12.715 16. 5. 5. 0.01, 2 COMBINED AT JOR28 74. 12.75 31. .0. 10. 0.0 ROUTED TO CHEL28 54. 13.61' Ill. 10. 10. 0.0 5.0 _13.67 ROUTED TO S2S5 54. 130.92 311. io. io. 110.13 0.50 13.92 pis, i HYDROGRAPH AT C285 .4 -2.83 9. 3. 3. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT 01END 69. 13.25 41. 13. 13. 0.19 HEC1 S/N: 134300O043 HMVersion 6.33 Data File: C\WETPTMGFl0IN.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.6.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/7019930 TIME 09:03:38 (916) 756-1104 MAGNOLIA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI FUTURE CONDITION'S L&N JOB 92-093 10-YEAR STORK 4 ID OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRXT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL 9SCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE TT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NNIN. 5 MINUTES IN CONFUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME 11 111 IUMIER IF IYDIIIIAPI IRIIATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2353 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS T0TAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIMS IN HOURS, AREA IN 99UARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERABE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM Tislirl ulr" OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STASIC 11IR11RIPH AT C21 7/1, 11,11 17, 1, 1, 1,11 ROUTED TO 92S 67. 12.75 17. 5. 5. 0.06 6.110 HYDROGRAPH AT C28 68. 12.59 17. S. 5. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT JIR28 133. 12.67 35. 11. 11. 0.13 ROUTED TO CHEL28 69. 13.17 35. 11. 11. 0.0 6.20 13.1, ROUTED TO S285 69. 13.50 34. 11. .1. 0.0 0.55 13.30 HYDROGRAPH AT C285 44. L2.59 11. 3. 3. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT JIEND 87. 13.00 46. 115, 15. 0.19 CI SIM: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: CWESTPTNBEX21N.PRM FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 114AY 19RI HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.IE 509 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 55616 RUN DATE 09120/1993 TIME 09:04:38 (916) 756-1104 MAGNOLIA TRID. TO MATTAPUNI EXISTING CONDITIONS L&K JOB 92-093 2-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IFRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL 0SCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH FLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA RMIN ION INTERVAL 1 5 MINUTES IN COKPUTAT IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIRE No 230 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES ADDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NOTIFE 2355 ENDING TIRE .CENT 19 CENTURY KARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL O.OB HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA 28SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOM IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE MILES PEAK TINE OF AVERASE FLOW FOR NAXINU? PERIOD BASIN MAIINUN TIME OF OPERATION ISTATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR ARE.; STACE MAX STASE IIIRIIIIP" IT 121 11, 11,21 1, 2, 2, 1,16 ROUTED '10 S28 18. 13.42 8. 2. 2. 0.06 5.717 13.42 HYDROGRAPH AT C28 25. 12.75 a. 2. 2. 0.07 2 COMBINED AT jlR2B 37. 13.06 15. 5. 5. 0113 ROUTED TO CHEL28 31. 13.42 15. 5. 5. O.is 3-54 13.42- ROUTED TO 9285 30. 14.Oe 15. 5. 5. 01170 0.38 14.00 HYDROORAPH AT C285 11. 12.92 4. 1. i. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT JOEND 35. 14.00 19. 7. 7. 0.19 HEC1 S/M 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPPBF21N.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOSIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 09:06:08 (916) 756-1104 MAGNOLIA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI FUTURE CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 2-YEAR STORK 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5PRINT CONTROL. IPLOT 0PLOT CONTROL 9SCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA 44,19 5NIKUTES, IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0STARTING DATE TIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0ENDING DATE NDTINE 2355 ENDING TIME CENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SLIMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND T!ME IN HOURS, AREA IN-SGUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AYERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN' MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION ST 4@rfi IATION FLOW PEAK &-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR STA6E MAX ST40E HYDROGRAPH AT C27 40. 12.50 9. 3. 0.06 .6 4 12 ROUTED TO 328 36, 12.83 9. 3. 01c 6.3 T. -Z HYDROGRAPH AT C28 34. 12.58 9. 2 COMBINED AT JIR28 207. 12.75 5. 5. 0.13 ROUTED TO CAEL28 45. -13.17 18. 0.13 415r. ROUTED TO 1211 41* 13,12 11, 6, 1,13 1,41 11,42 HYDROGRAPH AT C235 20. !2.58 5. 2. 2. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT JIEND 53. 13.25 23. a. a. 0.19 HEC1 S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\NCEX100N.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPLH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 08:36:16 (916) 756-1104 X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X X X X X X XX X X X X X XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX Full Microcomputer Implementation by Heastad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road & Waterbury, Connecticut 06708 & (203) 755-1666 THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE UPED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. 77THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE, SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS: WRITE STATE FREQUENCY, DSS: READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE: GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM HEC-1 INPUT PAGE i LINE ID .......1.......2.......3.......4 .......5.......6....... 7.......8 .......9 ...... 10 I ID NORTH CHELSEA TRIB. TO NATTAPONI EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 Ill L&N JOB 92-093 100-YEAR STURM $DIAGRAM 3 IT 5 288 4 11 5 1 I 5 KK C29 6 BA 0.039 12-YEAR STORM 1 0.47 0.95 1.6 1.31 2.02 2.55 3.03 3.5 110-YEAR STORM I, 0.6 11.28 2.28 2.61 2.95 34 4.56 5.33 t25-YEAR STURM 9 0.68 1.49 2.68 3.08 3.49 4.53) 5.45 6.33 1100-YEAR STORM 7 PH 0.81 1.91 3.3 3.22 4.33 5.65 6.83 B 0 LS 69 9 Ull 0.672 10 lK C31 11 BA 0.047 112 LS 71 13 UD 1.008 t R30 CULVERT AT CHELSEA - R30 I I ELEY ? 11 KK J1131 11"1111 C29 AID 130 !5 HC 2 16 KK 93i 17 RS 3 FLOW -1 is RC 0.09 0.05 0.09 2020 0.005 19 RX 90 130 146 160 j2 186 Allo 260 21 11 11 1 1 4 4 6 1 11 21 KK C34 22 IA 0,431 23 L8 67 24 Ull 1.314 25 KK C31 26 SA 0.031 2-1 LS 64 21 11 0,751 H.EC-l INPUT PABE 2 LINE ID ....... I.......2 ....... 3....... 4....... 5....... 6 ....... 7 ....... 8....... 9...... IG 29 KK C33 30 BA 0.05 31 LS 52 32 UD 1.08 33 KK JOR33 COMBINE C34, 331, C31, AND C33 33,5 "KK' R3'3 CULYERT AT CHEL*SEA - R3%7? 36 RS 1 ELEY 3 37 SA 7.44' 9.42 11.39 1.1.87 12.29 .12.61 113.3 38 r 2 3 4 4.25 4.47 4.64 5 19 300 400 so 37 47 100 500 700 40 KK S32 41 RS 5 FLOW -1 12 IC 0,07 0,14 0,07 2890 0.005 43 RX 40 90 120 300 320 330 380 44 RY 4 2 1.1 1 1 1.1 2 4 45 KK C32 46 SA 0.063 47 LS 68 41 UD 1,114 49 KK JIEND COMBINE 932 4RD C32 10 IC 2 51 zz SCHERA711C DIAGRAM OF STREAM NETWORK INPUT LINE (Y) ROUTING DIVERSION OR PUMP FLOW No. (.1 CONNECTOR RETURN OF DIVERTED OR PUMPED FLOW 5 C29 10 C30 14 J1831 ........... 16 S31 21 C34 25 C31 29 CLI 33 J033 .................................... y v 35 133 40 S32 C.? 45 32 49 JIEND ............. (181) RUNOFF ALSO COMPUTED AT THIS 'LOCATION HEC1 S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\NCEX100N.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 08:36:16 DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 (916) 756-1104 NORTH CHELSEA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI EXISTING CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 100-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL OSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES I COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING ATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NQ 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTRATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE MILES. PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOM FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF 01PERATIGN STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR '112-HOUR HAREA STAGE NAX STAGE 11DR111A11 IT C21 11, 12,61 11, 1, 1, 1,11 HYDROGRAPH AT ISO 48. 13.00 IS. 6. 6. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT JlS31 92. 12.83 33. 10. !0. 0.09 ROUTED TO 931 91. 13.00 33. 10. 10. 0.09 5.67 113.004 HYDROGRAPH AT C34 324. 13.33 151. 47. 47. 0.43 "11111RAP1 IT 111 31, 12,75 10, 1, 1, 1,01 C-P HYDROGRAPH AT 53 24. '13.17 10. 3. 3. 0.05 4 COMBINED AT J@R33 449. 13.17 204. 63. ail. 0.60 ROUTED TO R33 390. 13.67 1177. 77. 77. 0.60 4.45 13.67 ROUTED TO 832 386. 14.00 176. 77. 77. 0.60 1.20 14.00 HYDROGRAPH AT C32 59. 13.1010 23. 7. 7. 0.06 2 COMBINED AT JIEND 417. 13.92 193. 34. 84. 0.66 01 NORMAL END OF HEC-1 Itt HEC1 S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\GCF100IN.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYRDROLIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 08:36:49 (916) 756-1104 NORTH CHELSEA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI FUTURE CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 100-YEAR STORX 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL GSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY XARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE HYDROGRAPH AT C29 73. 12.50 is. 10. 6. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C30 100. 12.25 1q. 6. 6. 0105 2 COMBINED AT J@93! 163. 12.33 37. !2. 12. 0.09 ROUTED TO 831 157. 12.50 37. 12. 12. 0.09 6.15 !2.50 0 HYDROGRAPH AT 34 143. 12.q2 196. 62. 62. 0.43 HYIRGIIAPH IT C31 11, 12,51 11, 1, 1, 1,174 CT HYDROGRAPH AT 33 65. 12.83 "Lt. 7. 7. 0.05 4 COMBINED AT J@R.)3 764. 1-2.33 271. 85. 85. 0.60 ...I ROUTED TO R33 672. 13.09 24B. 96. 56. V 9j. ROUTED TO 932 666. 110.33 246. 96. -0.60 2.09 .1.11.133 HYDROGRAPH AT C32 6.1. 12.92 149, 3. 9. 0.06 2 COMBINED At' JIENG 730. 13.33 271. .105. 105. 0.66 HEC1 S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\NCEX25IN.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYRDROLIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 09:00:25 (916) 756-1104 NORTH CHELSEA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI EXISTING CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 25-YEAR STORX 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL GSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SOUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN "AWAIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-ROUR 24-HGUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE NAi STAGE 1111111AII IT 121 11, 12,67 11, 1, 1, ','4' HYDROGRAPH AT C30 34. 13.00 0. 4. 4. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT JIS31 65. 12.03 7. 7. 0.0 A A9 ROUTED TO S31 63. Moo 23. 7. 7. J'v HYDROGRAPH AT C34 221. 13.42 104. 32, 32. 0.43 HYDROGRAPH AT c3i 21. 12.75 7. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C33 0. 13.25 6. 2. 21. 0.05 4 'COMBINED AT J@R33 304. 13.25 140. 43. 43. 0.60 ROUTED 710 ;33) 739. 13.92 116, CO. 60. 0.60 ROUTED TO 932 230. 1-4.25 .116. 60. 60. 0.100 1.60 .1-4.25 HYDROGRAPH AT C32 40. 13.08 16. 5. q. 0.016 2 COMBINED AT 40END 246. 14.25 11.26. 65. 6151 0..,- SECI SIN: 134@000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\NCFA'51N.PRJ"v t FLOOD HYDRGERAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARKY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 9 ?AY 1991 t I HYDROLOGIC E401EERING C@1'4TE I VERSION 4.0.1E 1 1 @09 SECOND STREST 9 1 DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 75616 S RUN DATE 06/20/1593 TIME 09:02:02 1 1 i916) 75cm-1104 NORTH,CFELSEA TRIB. TO PATTAPONI FUTURE CONDITIONS 'IM JOB 92-0?3 u 25-YEAR STORM 4 0 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES [FRUT 5 PRINT CGHTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL 9SCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPY TIME DATA 1,81.14 5 MINUTE3 lN COMPUTAT71' INTERVAL Z;ATE 1 0 STARTING DATE 0000 Sr -P?4E @ARTINC TIME NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES HAGRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE HILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOM FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF 87 OPERATION STATION FLOM PEAK 6-.40UR 24-HOUR 712-HOUR AREA 1AGE MAX 37AGE HYDROGRAPH AT C29 55. 12.50 14. 4. 4. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C30 72. 12.25 13. 4. 4. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT 9301 119, 12.33 27. S. a. 0.09 ROUTED TO 331 112. 12.58 27. a. a. 0.09 5.86 12.5S HYDROGRAPH AT C34 402. 1.2.92 144. 45. 45. 0.413 IYIRIGRAPH IT 131 11, 12,11 12, 4, 4, 1,03 HYDROGRAPH AT C33 48. 12.83 15. S. 5. 0.05 4 COMBINED AT JOR33 569. 12.93 199. 62. 0.60 ROUTED TO R@3 469. 13.25 .175. 73. 75. 00.601 4.59 1.3.25 3 ROUTED-TO 932 460. 13.50 174. 75. 75. 0.60 15.50 -7 P'TDROGRAPH AT C32 60, 12.92 21. 1. 7. 0.06 2 COMBINED AT JIEND 50. 13.42 i9l. 82. 82. 0.66 HECI S/Nl 13430000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\NCEX10IN.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 09:00:58 (916) 756-1104 NORTH CHELSEA TRIB. TO KATTAPONI EXISTING CONDISTIONS L&M JOB 92-093 10-YEAR STORM OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 286 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PERCIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME 1N HOURS, AREA IN SGUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AYERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE 1111111111 IT 111 21, 12,11 1, 2, 2, 1,01 HYDROGRAPH AT C30 25. 17-08 10. 3. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT -3@1931 46. 12.83 17. 5. S. 0.09 ROUTED TO S31 46. 13.08 17. 5. 5. 0.09 5.19 1,01 . a HYDROGRAPH AT C34 158. 13.42 75. 23. 23. 0.43 HYDROGRAPH AT C31 15. 12.83 5. 1. 1. 0.014 HYDROGRAPH AT C33 8. 13.25 4. 1. i. 0.05 4 COMBINED AT JIR33 217. 13.23 iol. 3l. 31. 0.60 ROUTED TO R33 101. 14.92 80. 50. 50. 0.60 4.00 14.92 ROUTED TO S32 100. L5.33 80. 50. 50. 0.60 1.30" 15.33 HYDRORRAPH AT C32 29. 13.00 4. 4. 0.06 2 COMBINED AT JOEND 109. 15.25 53. 53. 0.610 HECI S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\NCF101N.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 09:02:34 (916) 756-1104 NORTH CHELSEA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI FUTURE CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 10-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA HMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITES DRAINAGE AREA SQAURE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGRESS FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIRE IN HOURS, AREA IN 99UARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME Or' OPERATION iATION FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE HID1111AIH IT 121 41, 11,11 11, 1, 34, 1,11 HYDROGRAPH AT C30 54. 12.33 10. J. 3. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT JIS31 91. !2.33 21. 6. 0.09 ROUTED TO 931 66. 12.58 21. 6. 6. 0.09 5:63 12.59 HYDROGRAPH AT C34 311. 12.92 Ill.' 34. 34. 0.43 HYDROGRAPH AT C31 35. 12.5B 9. 3. 3. 0.03 HYDROGRAPH AT C33 36. 12.93 12. 4. 4. 0.05 4 COMBINEiAT JOR33 442. 12.83 153. 47. 47. 0.60 ROUTED TO R33 335. 13.33 130. 63. 63. 0.60 4.33 113.33 ROUTED TO 932 327. 13.58 130. 63. 63. 0.60 1.72 13.58 HYDROGRAPH AT C32 46. !2.92 16. 5. 0.06 2 COMBINED AT J@END 355. 13.59 143. 68. 68. 0.66 HECI S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\WESTPT\NCEX2IN.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 09:01:30 (916) 756-1104 NORTH CHELSEA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI EXISTING CONDISTIONS L&M JOB 92-093 2-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NO 286 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2655 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SgUARE MILES IN PEAK TIME OF AYERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASS MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOM PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA 3TAGE MAX STAGE HYDROGRAPH AT C29 11, 12.75 S. 1. 1. 0.04 HYDROGRAPH AT C30 11. 13.08 4. 1. 1. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT J1831 20. 12.92 9. 2. 2. 0.0-1 ROUTED-TO 931 20. 13.17 G. 2. 2. 0.09 4.75 13.17 HYDROGRAPH AT C.34 62. 13.50 3i. 10. 110. 0.410 HYDROGRAPH AT c3i 5. 12.83 2. 1. 1. vi HYDROGRAPH AT C33 1. 00.58 1. 0.. 0. 0.05 4 COMBINED AT J@R33 84. 13.33 41. IS. 0.60 ROUTED TO R'33 47. 0.08 40. 33. 36. 0.60 3.00 0.00 ROUTED TO 832 47. 0.08 40. 39. 39. 0.60 1.25 O.Z-0 HYDROGRAPH AT C32 12. 13.08 5. 1. 1. 0.06 2 COMBINEII AT JIEND 49. 13.17 45. 40. 40. HEC1 S/N: 1343000043 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: C:\NESTPT\NCF21N.PRN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER VERSION 4.0.1E 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 RUN DATE 08/20/1993 TIME 09:03:06 (916) 756-1104 NORTH CHELSEA TRIB. TO MATTAPONI FUTURE CONDITIONS L&M JOB 92-093 2-YEAR STORM 4 10 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL IPLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL QSCAL 0 HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 5 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 1 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NQ 288 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 1 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 2355 ENDING TIME ICENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.08 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23.92 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT JPJNOFF SUMMARY FLON IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AYERAGE FLOV.FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLGW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR AREA STAGE MAX STAGE HID111RAPI AT C21 21, 12,11 1, 1, 2, 1,14 HYDROGRAPH AT C30 26. 12.33 5. 1. i. 0.05 2 COMBINED AT ils3i 46. 12.42 10. 3. 3. 0.09 ROUTED TO 831 42. 12.67 10. 3. S. 0.09 5.14 .42.67 HYDROGRAPH AT C34 161. 13.00 57. 17. !7. 0.43 IYDRIIIAPH AT C31 21, 12,11 1, 1, 2, 1-.11 HYDROGRAPH AT C33 13. 1.2.03 6. 2. 2. 0.05 4 COMBINED AT JIR33 230. 12.83 79. 24. 24. 0.60 ROUTED TO R33 B3. 14.17 64. ;5. 45. 0.60 3.69 14.17 ROUTED TO 932 23. .14.58 64. 45. 45. 0.60 1.34 414.558 HYDROBRAPH AT C32 24. 12.92 B. 2. 2. 0.06 2 COMBINED AT JIEND 91. 14.42 71. 47. '41'. 0.66 I I I I I I I 0 1 1 1 APPENDIX 3 1 WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS I I I I I I I I N J3, rNORTH. iELSEA ` in P6 "-.-s 15 F s NN F IN* M4' i 3 3.% v M3 P2- n.M2 -pi M TOWN OF WEST POINT COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE STUDY AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM @,VEST POINT V-1ATER QUALITY DATA T PC -)IN T CREEK 11OAl-EBOH ED EXISTIN G LAND USE I'JAHEA AREA AREA LAN D $OIL (RcreD) LISE 13POLIP AREA CN CO?AP.CN LOADIP40 VMLOAD 49.68 (1.25 B 12.61 0.75 9.46 1.1.25 2.6!) 0.75 2.02 HC 17.27 1.9 32.81 HC c 2.06 1.9 3.lqo "C 9 UI4 1.9 1.79 0.3 B 0.82 0.64 0.52 0.3 0 3.16 0.64 2.02 u 0 0 0.19 0.00 LI 0.08 0.00 C2 [email protected] 0.3 c 2.93 0.64 1.88 H C D 0.49 1.9 0.93 23 H C B 1.72 1.9 3.2? (2.04) u c 0 0.12 0.00 (4.31) u D 0 0.19 0.00 6. -?) u D 16.87 0.19 3.21 LI D 1.48 1.4? U.41? C.3 0.3 c 21.91 0.64 14.0? u c 4.06 0.12 0.58 30.22 1: 13.56) u D 0.19 0.00 u B 0.08 0.00 1.9 B 1.27 0.33 0.42 1-1 c 2.12 1.48 3.14 W60 C4 47.4 0.5 0.49 0.54 0.416. 1-1 1.11 1.48 1.64 V.25 A B 3.4!) 1.0 5.69 CEPA 1.06 2.40 u c 22.4.1 0.12 2.69 u 0 1.0M 0.19 0.26 (7.3-4) u B 6.1 0.08 0.49 33.4? CEM c 3. 11 1.06 3.H CEIIJI c 2.511) 1.06 2.68 22.66 u c ?.26) 0.12 0.87 (4.2) u 0 0 0.19 0.00 u B 0.08 0.00 VVEST POINT ))VATER QUALITY DATA !::T FICAN T CREEK 100ATERSH ED EXISTING LAMD USE "AHEA AREA ARE.a@ LAND SOIL (wi.n.11) USE GROUP AREA CN CO?AP.CN LOADIN G WT.LOAD 1.87 0.47 0.08 (1.8 c 1.48 0,47 Milo 0.6 B 1.05 GA? 0.0 0.13 D 1.89 0.47 0.09 U 0 1.89 0.19 0.@16 U B 0.90 0.08 0.08 A D 0.51'. 3.71 2.04 0.54 06 53.07 A c 3.11 2.42 7.f.3 0.0 c 14.13 0.47 6.64 42.16 (1.8 D 0.87 0.4? 0.11 U c 6.23 0.12 0.75 ((;.63) U D 2.1 0.19 0.40 U B 1 0.00 0.08 U B 2.32 - 0.08 0.19 (,1. 1!)) U B 0 0.00 0.00 A B 0." 1.63 1.14 U c 3.11 0.12 0.@? U B 3.4 0.08 0.,.!? 0.0 B 0.59 0.47 0. 28 0.8 c 1.39 0.47 0.65 0.8 13 2.22 0.47 1.04 0.8 D 0.87 0.4? 0.41 0.48 c 7 54.06 1 c 6.64 0.43 2.43 A c 6.03 2.42 14.11 5 41. 0 A D 2.57 3.71 9.53 U c 0.06 0.12 0.97 H C c 10.72 1.9 2 0.'0? U B 10.9 0.09 0.8? A B 7.72 1.63 12.$8 U 0 0.43 0.19 0.08 U 8 1.02 0.08 0.08 A 13 0.96 1.63 1.66 1.16 C8 83.6 LI c 3.45 1.48 5.11 U 0 6.52 0.19 1.24 75.05 APT D 3.01 1.17 3.52 WEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA :@J' POINI CREEK 'OJAI ERSH ED EXISTING LAN 0 USE BANE.O. AFIE.P. AREA LAND MI. USE GROUP AREA c" COPAP.CN LOADIN 0 WT.LOAD LI c 0.66 1.48 1.27 0.4 c 10.67 0.6 6.40 0.4 4.43 0.6 2.66 u D 4.50 0.19 0.8? u D 3.26 0.19 0.62 APT c 1.14 1. 1? 1.33 0.5 c 2.43 0.54 1.31 H C c 2.22 1.9 4.22 1 7.66 0.43 3.29 1.48 1.64 F c 1.43 0.12 0. 1? F D 1.19 0.19 0.23 H 0 c 1.64 1.91 3.12 u D 3.67 0.19 0.74 L C D 2.03 1.59 3.23 u B 10.31) 0.08 0.83 A B 3.3 1.63 5.38 c 0.60 1.48 1.01 0.64 38.51 c 6.68 0.6 4.01 0.4 D 0.45 0.6 0.2? 35.@ L C c 0.26 1.59 0.41 u c 1.06 0.12 0.13 u D 21.09 0.19 4.01 A D 0.91 3.71 3.30 u c 0.64 0.12 0.00 u B 2.82 0.08 0.23 A B 0.23 1.63 0.3? u 1.16 0.12 0.14 0.37 64.26 u 1.59 0.12 0.19 LC c 0.94 1.59 14.21 0.9 c 1.14 0.45 0.51 0.4 c 1.08 0.6 0.65 LC 0 0.6s 1.59 1.08 A D 0.66 3.71 2.41 u D 8.46 0.19 1.61 u c 4.68 0.12 0.56 MMM'MMM 'WEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA !-;T F,011-41- CRUEK WATERSH ED EXISTIN 0 LAND LISE "AFIE.D. ANEA MiE.,@ LAND $OIL i:rj(l.n-ii) LISE GROUP AREA CN COPAP.CU LOADING VIT.LOAD li B o.?4 0.08 0.06 A D 3.49 3.71 12.95 A c 3.25 2.42, Ut? u A 3.71 0.04 0.15 c 8.21 0.12 0.99 9 5.57 0.08 0.46 A B 1.69 1.63 2.75 A A 0.66 0.03 0.55 0.6 A 0.42 0.52 0.122 1.1 A 0.47 0.43 0.1110 A c 0.72 2.42 U41 0.6 c 0.7.9 0.52 0.41 A c 0.48 2.42 1.16 A B 0.41 1.63 oJi? 1.1 D 0.@]) 0.43 0.16 A 0 0.86 3.71 3.15 A B 1.6!) 1.63 2.75 0.95 Cil 107." TH D 2.17 0.92 2.00 u c U4 0.12 0.16 10?.62 A c 2.76 2.42 6.68 A D 1.68 3.71 6. 12, 3 L C D 1.1 1.69 1.75 u D 41.43 0.19 ?.V? u c 41.83 0.12 5.02 u c 6.21 0.12 8.63 u B 1.5.4 0.08 0.12 u A 8.56 0.04 0.24 0.29 012 60.40 A c 0.48 2.42 1.16 .0. D 1.39 3.71 5.116 @;@.34 A 9 013 1.63 O.W 0 0.73 3.71 2.71 B 1.11) 1.61 1.92 0.7 D 3.22 0.49 1.68 0.7 D 2.2 0.49 Mia 0.7 c 0.52 0.49 0.26 A B 1.58 1.63 2.58 I 'WEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA P,:.',lN I'C:Rl-'-EK W.0.11HSH ED EXISTING LAND USE AREA AREA LAND SOIL (a q.m USE GROUP AREA CN CO?Ap.cN LOADING WT.LOAD U B ?,44 0.08 0.60 u c 2.96 0.12 0.36 1.1 A 0.54 0.43 0.23 1.1 c 0.91 0.43 0.39 0.6 B 1.41 0.62 o.?3 1 1) 0.54 0.43 0.23 1 B 0.36 0.43 0.15 1 8 0.44 0.42 0.19 0.8 D 0.07 0.4? 0.41 A 1.5111 3.71 5.90 A 1.07 3.71 3.9? U 13.43 0.19 2.55 U c 2.46 0.12 0.29 U c 7.17 0.12 0.86 A 0 2.32 3.71 8.61 A B 1.04 1.63 Vo U B 2.39 0.08 0.19 U D 1.38 0.19 0.26 c 113 U 1.43 0.08 0.11 A 6.1 1.63 9.94 36.18 A D 0.95 3.71 3.52 A 9 0.75 1.63 1.22 A B 2.64 1.0 4.30 A B 1.52 1.63 2.49 U D 0.?2 0.19 0.14 M, c 0.49 0.64 0.26 U 0 2.26 0.19 0.43 U 9 5.93 0.09 0.4? U a 1.84 0.1.10 0.15 0.9 B 1.69 0.45 0.72 U B 1.96 0.08 0.16 A B 2.1 1.63 3.42 (1.7 a 0.79 0.49 0.39 A B 3.72 1.63 6.06 U B 1.39 0.08 0.11 0.94 c 14 28. t? A 1.63 3.52 'i.?q'EST POINT WATER QUALITY'DATA I ';T Pf '11H T C:Bl::EK WATERSH ED EXISTING LAN D USE F.I.P. HE"o, AREA AREA LAND SOIL I:rj(l.illl) USE GROUP AREA CH Co?Ap.cN LOADING V)T.LOAD U B 1.74 0.118 0.14 5.61 3.71 20.89 A D U B 11.75 0.08 0.94 A B 3,84 1.63 6.26 U a 1.34 0.19 0.25 0.5 c 0.71 0.54 0.38 U D 0.65 0.19 0.12 1. 1? c 15 412.16 U B 0.36 0.08 0.03 U D 2.49 0.19 0.47 -10.8$ U c 11.4 .0.12 1.37 2.3 B 0.69 0.31 0.21 A B 2.63 1.63 4.29 0.7 9 2.4 0.49 1.18 A c 4.76 2.42 11.62 A D 1.7 3.71 6.31 A B 2.1 1.63 3.42 A 8 5.18 1.63 8.44 A c 3.10 2.42 7.70 A c 3.96 2.42 9.58 1.33 22.22 0.5 r. 3.17 0.54 1.71 0.5 c 0.62 0.54 0.33 1.33 0.5 D 0.55 0.64 0.30 0.5 D 1.47 0.54 0.?9 0.5 c 1.71 0.54 0.92 A a 0.34 1.63 0.55 A D 1.41 3.71 5.23 U D 1.07 0.19 0.20 0.5 D 1.22 0.54 0.66 0.5 B 2.52 0.64 1.36 A c 0.55 2.42 1,33 0.5 0.39 Q. '1 4 0.21 0@5 1.74 0,54 0@94 0.5 D 3.04 0.64 1.64 A c 0.69 2.42 1.6? A D 2.22 3.71 8.24 A 2.70 2.42 6.73 WEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA I- POIN T C:P.I-.--EK WAT GRSH ED EXISTIN G LAND USE F EA AREA ARE.O. LAN D SOIL Ficreu) IJ S E GROUP AREA CN COPAP.CN LOADING VOT.LOAD u D 1.71) 0.19 0.33 ii B 2.29 0.08 0.18 li c 0.38 0.12 0.05 u 1) 0.67 0.19 0.13 u c 0.26 0.12 0.03 .06 B 0.6 1.63 0.92 Cl? 13.66 u c 0.36 0.12 0.04 A B 1.09 1.63 1138 12.6 u B 0.36 0.08 0.03 u D 1.11 0.19 0.21 A B 0.90 1.63 1.60 u 8 1.24 0.08 0.10 0.5 B 1.23 0.54 0.66 0.5 D 2.21 0.54 1.19 0.5 B 4.03 0.64 2.18 0.62 2 1.69 u B 5.4 0.08 0.43 .06 8 2.69 1.63 4.38 19.30 0.6 c 1.97 0.52 1.02 A c 1.70 2.42 4.31 D 1) 0.19 0.00 D 0.66 3.71 2.45 B 0.66 1.6a 1.08 u 0 1) 0.19 0.00 u B 0.59 0.08 0.05 u c 2.20 0.12 0.27 0.7 B 0.73 0.49 0.36 0.7 c 1.7 0.49 0.03 0.7 c 0.91.) 0.49 0.46 0.81 c 26.1@b 0.5 c 2.,49 0.54 1.29 A D 0.47 3.71 1.74 A c 2.q6 2.42 5.71 A D 2.26 3.71 8.38 A c 4.915) 2.42 11.90 u c 1.71 0.12 0.21 u c 0.03 0.12 0.11 'WEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA '-:T POINT C:Rl::EK WATERSHED EXISTING LAND USE ::Af7:EA AHEA AREA LAN D SOIL (Fi c r c. a) (11 (1. n-1 1) LISE GROUP AREA c N CopAp.cN LOADIN G WT.LOAD u a 2.52 0.08 u 0.87 0.19 0. 1? 1 2.75 0.43 1.18 li D 1.11 0.19 0.9!1 03 1) 1.14 0.49 M56 1 c 2.46 0.43 1.06 1.27 C20 20.25 u c 1 0.12 0.12 (19) u 0 14.37 0.19 2.73 0.19 C21 68.64 C4. 1) u D 0.9 0.19 0. 1? u c 14.82 0.12 1.78 65.09 u 0 1.21 0.19 0.23 u D 4.38 0.19 0.03 u B 5.92 0.08 0.47 A B 3.96 1.63 6.45 u D 12.71 0.19 2.41 A 5.12 1.63 8.35 A 2.27 1.63 3.70 u B 1.34 0.08 0.11 A B 2.2 1.63 3.59 u D 2.39 0.19 0.45 0.7 D 1.98 0.49 0.97 03 c 1.19 0.49 0. ". u 3.1 0.12 0,14? u 1.61 0.12 0.19 0.47 C22 22.? A c 1.66 2.42 4.02 1 1.13 0.43 0.49 23.2 1 4.19 0.43 1.00 1 5.23 0.43 1). 2 ? 1 D 6.34 0.43 2.30 u D 4.8 0.19 0.91 u 0.43 0.19 0.08 u 0.37 0.12 0.04 0.51 C24 18.38 u 9.37 0.19 1.78 u 2.01 0.12 0.24 "NEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA :-;T PClt4l'C:Fll-:EKP)A'l ER.SHED EXISTIN Q LAND USE AHEP. AFIE.A. t-AMI) SOIL USE GROUP AREA CN COfAp.cN LOADING Y)T.LOAD M6 U D 1.37 0.19 0.26 A c 0.9 2.42 2.18 A D 1.3? 3.? 1 5.08 A c 0.69 2.42 1.67 A c 1.6 2.42 3.8? A D 1.29 3.71 4.79 1.0? U D 4.43 0.19 0.86 0.7 D 0.55 0.49 0.27 c 0.93 0.49 0.46 0.7 U D 0.50 0.19 0.11 U 1) 0.91*3 0.19 0.18 0.5 D 1.35 0.64 0.73 U D 4.86 0.19 0.92 A D 0.76 3.71 2.92 A c 0.3 2.42 o.?3 U c 0.54 0.12 0.06 A c 0.32 2.42 0.?? A D 0.42 3.71 1.56 0.? D 0.63 0.49 0.31 0.5 c Me 0.54 0.42 0.7 c 4.79 0.49 2.35 0.56 19.93 U D 5.70 0.19 1.10 U c 1.35 0.12 0.16 19. IV, 6 A D 0.63 3.71 2.34 A c 1.12 2.42 2.71 A D 0.59 3.71 2.19 A c 0.69 2.42 1.67 A A 0.63 0.83 0.52 A c 0.13 2.42 0.31 U c 1.72 0.12 0.21 A c 4.33 2.42 10.48 A D 1.07 3.71 3.9? 0.5 c 0.96 0.54 0.52 A c 0.85 2.42 2.06 1.42 C26 43.23 U c 2.75 0.14, 0.33 = IM IM = m @ = m VVEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA :;T POINT CREEK WATERSHED EXISTING LAND USE ANIE.A. AREA AREA LAND $OIL USE GROUP AREA CN COIAP.CM LOADING WT.LOAD U D 10.41 0.19 1.98 46.19 A D 3.52 3.71 13.06 A B 0.49 1.63 0.00 A D 1.46 3.71 5.42 U D 0.75 0.19 0.14 0.7 D 2.19 0.49 1.0? U 0 5.73 0.19 1.09 9.5 D 3.52 0.54 1.90 0.5 8 2.19 0.54 1.18 (1.5 c 1.01 0.54 0.55 0.7 c 1.21 0.49 0.59 0.7 B 1.35 0.49 0.66 0.7 c 4.78 0.49 2.M IN ST D 1.26 1.38 1.?4 IN ST 8 2.57 1.38 3.55 0.81 0.74 :3N OHA THID TO MATTAPON I C2? 3 ?.!) 2 A 0 1.12 3.? 1 4.16 A c 1.:) 2.42 3.15 4.0 4 A D 1.11 3.71 4.12 A c 0.88 2.42 2.13 0.5 c 1.92 0.54 1.04 0.5 D 4.21 0.54 2.27 0.5 c 1.46 0.54 0.119 0.7 c 0.95 0.49 0. 4? 0.7 0 1.4 0.49 0.69 0.7 c 0.36 0.49 0. 1? A D 0.66 3.71 2.45 A B I'll 1.63 1.01 A c 0.39 2.42 0.92 U c 2.07 0.12 0.25 U a 2.51 0.08 0.2.0 U c 2.98 0.12 0.146 U 0 1.31) 0.19 0.26 IN ST D 2.3 1.38 3. 1? IN ST c 5.96 1.38 8.21 1.08 WEST POINT 11VATER QUALITY DATA 'r POIN T CREEK 'AP.0.1-ER811 ECI EXISTIN G LAN D LISE V! E A AHEA A F; E.A. LAN D SOIL 1) USE GROUP AREA CH COMP.CM LOADING VMLOAD C28 47.33 u 2.97 0.26 0.5 c 3.84 0.54 2.07 0.6 a 1.57 0.54 0.85 0.5 D 2.11 0.54 1.14 u c 0.5 0.12 0.06 A c 1.37 2.42 3.32 1 c 0.76 0.43 0.33 1 c 0.39 0.43 0. 1? 1 B 3.01 0.43 1.29 A 8 3.86 1.63 6.29 A c 1.99 2.42 4.5? A B 1.13 1.63 1.84 A D 3.64 3.71 13.50 A B 2. 3 2 1.63 3.?e 1 D 0.0 0.43 0.34 u 8 5.14 0.08 0.41 u D 3.77 0.19 0.72 0.7 c 4.94 0.49 2.42 A D 1.37 3.71 5.09 A B 1.53 1.63 2.49 1.09 C 2 b, 5 A c 0.69 2.42 1.0 0.6 a 0.5 0.52 0.26 29.6 A 13 3.33 1.63 5.43 A c 1.51 2.42 3.65 F c 0.99 0.12 0.11 F B 0.63 0.08 0.05 1.5 0.86 0.38 0.33 1.5 0.56 0.30 0.21 (4) u c 0 0.12 0.00 u B 7.20 0.08 0.50 1 B 2.35 0.43 1.01 1 D 1.01 0.43 0.43 1 B 2.36 0.43 1.01 A a 3.54 1.63 S.?7 A B 1.41 1.63 2.30 1 B 0.69 0.43 0.110 A D 0.?2 3.71 2.67 mmm 'WEST POINT ).AfATER QUALITY'DATA ':T POIN T'C:R[:-:r=K IIJ.13,1-ERSH ED EXISTING LAND USE )AREA AREA AREA LAND SOIL (sq.n.11) USE GROUP AREA cN cOpAP.cN LOADING WT.LOAD A B 1.27 1.63 2.07 1.04 FITH CHELSEA TRIB TO PAATTAPON I C29 4. 7 1 A c 2.71 2.42 6.56 U B 1.54 0.08 0.12 U c 9.46 0.12 1.14 U D 8.04 0.19 1.1;3 I c 1.64 0.43 0.66 0.43 C30 $0.26 A c 2.05 2.42 4.96 1 c 0.87 0.43 0. 4? 2?.99 1 B 5.31 0.43 2.20 1 c 5.68 0.43 2.44 1 B 9.26 0.43 3.98 1 c 1.93 0.43 0.83 1 2.89 0.43 1.24 0.58 C31 19.58 U B 1.8 0.08 0.14 U D ?. is 0.19 MIS U c 8.35 0.12 1.08 U B 1.31 0.00 0.10 U B 0.95 0.08 0.118 0.14 C32 40.03 1.2 1.0? 0.43 0.46 U 2.01 0.09 0.16 20.99 A 1.25 1.63 2.04 A c 3.95 2.42 9.56 1 c 1.14 0.43 0.49 U c 1.1 0.12 0.13 (mv) U D 1.02 0.19 0.19 11.6?) U c 6.47 0.12 0.78 U B 2.90 0.00 0.24 0.67 C31 U B 15.46 0.00 1.24 U a 9.96 0.19 1.89 WEST POINT WATER QUALITYCIATA T P"JIN T CREEK WATEFISH ED EXISTING LAND USE ABEA AREA AREA LAN 1) SOIL a (I. n-i 1) USE GROUP AREA CN COPAP.CM LOADIN G 111T.LOAD U A 7.27 0.04 0.29 0. lu C34 277.41 6) U A 15.36 0.04 0.61 1:37.44) U B 6.23 0.08 0.50 50.27 (64.4@) U c $.of) 0.12 0.97 ('124.01) U 20.62 0.19 3.92 0.15 0.30 TRID 1-0 MATTAPONI C:3FJ 7.66 F D 0.93 0.19 0,18 A D 2.06 3.71 ?.(;4 A c 0.72 2.42 1,?4 A c 0.46 2.42 I'll A c 0.06 2.42 0.15 A c 0.87 2.42 2.11 0.5 c 0.37 0.54 0.20 A c 0.11) 2.42 0.44 F D 0. b 0.19 0.03 F c ().M) 0.12 0.04 F D 0.22 0.19 0.04 .1% D 0.81 3.71 3.01 2.32 C. 36 1?. I@ 0.7 c 1.35 0.41a 0.66 1.4 c 03 1 0.43 0.31 A c 0.? 1 2.42 1.72 1.4 D 1. h- 0.43 0.75 A D 0.89 3.71 3.@o U D 1.43 0.19 0.14's A c 1.02 2.42 2.47 U c 1.:) 0.12 0.16 A c 0.72 2.42 A D 5. C, 3.71 20.89 2.0? CI-37 12.2 1 IN s*r 8 02) 1.38 0.54 I n s,r D 0.7!) 1.30 1.09 8.96 IN ST B 0.9 1.39 1.24 0.9 B 0.01 0.45 0.40 "NEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA '-;T PiDIN T CBF-EK WATERSH ED EXISTING LAND USE A F; E A AHEA AREA I. AN D SOIL 1) USE GROUP AREA CN COFAKCH LOADIN G V;T.LOAD A B 1.57 1.0 2.66 U B 0.? 1 0,08 0.06 A c 0.22 2.42 0.53 u c 2.23 0.12 0.12? U D 0 0.19 0.00 0.? c 0.33 0.49 0.116 U c 0.92 0.12 0.11 0.?$ C38 VAJ 1 U c 1.08 0.12 0. U 13 2.22 0.08 0. 10. 1? (14.4?) U 11 6.87 0.19 M0 0.16 28.64 IN ST c 1.35 1.38 1.06 IN ST 1) 5.52 1.38 ?.62 INST 13 16.26 1.38 22.44 0.9 c 1.17 0.45 0.!;3 IN ST 1) 1.1 1.38 I.Q IN ST c 1.64 1.38 2.26 1.34 C41) 24.33 0.9 c 15.64 0.45 T(14 A 13 1.81 3.71 632 0.9 13 3.02 0.45 1.72 U 13 3.27 0.08 0. 6 0.64 11. fA, 0 0.25 3.59 0.75 2,69 6.14 0.76 1 72.77 LC 6.69 1.59 M64 11-25 33.12 72.43 us 1) LI 1) 3.26 1.48 4J12 us D 0.25 0 1.40 0.75 I'll 't-VEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA ;T P0114 T C:Fil:-:EK WATEFISH ED EXISTING LAND USE A,REA ABEA AREA LAND SOIL foq.mi) USE GROUP AREA CN CO?AP.CN LOADING VJT.LOAD us D 0.93 ?A2 us 0 LI D 5.68 1.48 8.41 17@67 LI c 2.09 1.48 4.28 us c us D 1.48 I'All 403.99 0.5 0.83 0.54 0.48 us c A 0 7 3.71 2s.9'II .1% c 4.21 2.42 10.19 A D 5.38 3.71 19.96 1.1 D 1.1 0.43 0.47 A D 5.8 3.71 21.52 us D 3.22 I'Al 194.26 c 0.40 2.42 20.52 A B 1.87 1.63 3.05 194.26 0.9 8 0.90 0,45 0.44 F c 0.61 0.12 0.07 us D A D 1.99 3,71 7.38 0.5 D 2.35 0.54 1.27 A D 1.0 3.71 6.68 A B 0.61 1.63 0.99 F c 0.69 0.12 0.118 0.8 c 0.72 0.47 0.34 us c us B us D (1.7 c 1.5 0.49 0.74 A c 3.33 2.42 3.06 .1% 9 2.95 1.63 4.81 .1% 0 3.?5 3.71 13.91 'WEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA ;T PiDINT CHEEK WATERSHED EXISTING LAND USE ABEA AREA AREA LAN D WIL 1) USE GROUP AREA CN Co?Ap.cU LOADING WT.LOAD 1.5 D 2.45 0.38 0.93 us a LC 13 3.90 1.59 6.4 LC D 1.33 1.59 2.,@ 1 1 B 1.3 0.43 0.56 0 4.69 0.43 2.02 B 6.88 1.63 11.1111 A c 2.58 2.42 6.24 us D PAS 1.04 1 c 1.07 0.43 0.46 1.5 4.01 0.@o 1.52 '12.43 0.12 0.05 F c 0.44 F B 0.32 0.08 0.03 1.5 a 1.7? 0.38 0. 6? 1.5 c 4.23 0.38 1.6 1 1 B 15.21 0.43 6.64 1 c 5.57 0.43 2.40 us c us D I D 4.61 0.43 1.94 0.3 0 0.37 0.64 0.24 us D 0.9 D 0.91 0.45 0.44 us D 0.41 p 1 128,IJ2 0.26 0 7.25 0.75 5.44 0.25 B 6.31 0.75 4.73 104.81 0.25 B 13.91 0.75 10.43 LC B 0.59 1.59 13.66 us D 29.73 1.9 56.49 1.31) 1.9 2.0 0.67 1.9 1.27 0.3 D 0.53 0.64 U14 H I D 2. 15 1.9 4.09 mmmm MMM Mao M M MM m w M m "NEST POINT WATERQUALITY DATA .;T POIN T CREEK W.O.TERSH ED EXISTING LAND USE AHEA AREA ARE.A. LAND $OIL (ral.nil) USE GFIC)UP AREA CN COfAP.CN LOADING V)T.LOAD F D 0.19 3.05 US D HI 1) 0.63 1.9 16.21 0.25 B 1.97 0.75 1.48 HI B 5.64 1.9 10.72 0.4 B 1.1.1 0.6 0.68 HC B 0.915 1.9 1.82 1.27 p 168.43 H I D 103.66 1.9 196.95 H C B 5.66 1.9 10.75 169.97 0.3 c 13.13 0.64 8.44 H C c 5.7 1.9 10.83 H I c 19.36 1.9 3638 0.5 c 1.02 0.@Al 0.55 F c 6.71 0.12 0.81 CEPA c 3.47 1.06 3.68 F c 0.62 0.12 0.0? 0.3 c 2.04 0.64 1.82 F c 1.86 0.12 0.22 H C c 4.9@ 1.9 9.41 IF c 0.94 0.12 0.11 1.65 P3 lo?.613 H I D 7.515 1.9 14.35 H I c 6.14 1.9 11.6? 95.61 H I D 15.43 1.9 29.32 V; D V; c H I c 11.4111 1.9 21.83 0.3 c 17.64 0.64 11.29 us c H c c 0. 5 1.9 0.95 F c 1.14 0.12 0.14 0.1.) c 7.77 0.4? 3.65 1 c 1.52 0.43 0.66 F c 0.37 0.12 0.04 0.0 c 3.49 0.47 1.64 VVEST POINT WATER QUALITYDATA T POIN T CRFEK VO.A.TERSH ED EXISTIN Q LAND USE 0, F; E A AREA AREA LAND SOIL USE GROUP AREA CN COPAKCH LOADING V)T.LOAD HC c 0.46 t9 0.87 0.9 c 5.39 0.45 2.43 1-11 c 4.05 1.9 9.21 F c 1.09 0.12 0.13 0.4 c 1.92 0.6 1.15 APT c 0.9@ 1.17 1.15 0.5 c 1.51 0.54 0.82 1-11 c 4.90 1.9 9.46 0.9 c 1.02 0.45 0.46 us c 0.4 c 0.37 0.6 0. 12, 2 1.27 P4 45.25 us c 0.4 c 3.39 0.6 2.03 35.64 F c 3.94 0.12 0.47 F c 1.7 0.12 0. 1, 0 0.8 c 4.78 0.47 2.25 1 c 21.03 0.4$ 9.39 us 0.40 ps @;9.73 us D us c '19.53 c 19.53 0.43 8.40 0.43 F6 %3A4 F c 12.72 0.12 1.65 F D 19.71 0.19 3.?4 157.65 0.6 c 0.47 0.52 0.24 F c 3.01 0.12 0.36 1.1.25 c 3.0@ 0.115 2.32 F c S.?2 0.12 0.69 0.7 c 11.07 0.49 5.42 LC c 2.59 1.59 4.12 LC c 4.2 1.1.19 fl.68 F 5.6 0.12 0.67 owl VVEST POINT V-1ATER QUALITY DATA !':I' POINTCREEKWATERSHED EXISTIN G LAND LISE :AREA AREA AREA LAN D SOIL 1) LISE GROUP AREA C N cOmp.cN LOADING VIT.LOAD F c 7.7.) 0.12 o,q3 0.9 c 76.07 0.45 3 4.21 3 0.9 D 6.37 0.46 2.42 2.8 D 1.2 0.31 0.3? 2.0 c 1.1 0.31 0.34 0.40 WEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA TOWN OF WEST POINT Lk% I'A JOB 92-093 ,"IrVATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS ONLY" SUBAREA AREA AREA LAN D SOIL (oq.mi) USE GROUP AREA LOADING ij,r.LOAU C 1 49.68 0.078 RH B 9.85 0.05 10? RH C 3.9? OAS 3.3? 3?.?9 (6.97) RH 0 0 0.135 0.00 RH C 3.90 0.06 3.38 GB B 17.09 1.8 32.20 Ge C 2.1 1.8 :11.78 (4.28) OB D 0 I.e 0.00 1.311' C2 42.59 0.06? RH c 3.61 03.15 3.0? OB C 2.64 1.8 4.75 18.17 OB 0 3.71 1.0 63 1 08 D 3.35 1.0 6.03 GB D 2.12 1.0 J.82 (11.61) Cos D 0 0.12 0.00 (3.04) Cos D 0 0.12 0.00 (1.98) Cos C 0 0.12 0.00 (C..53) Cos D 0 0.12 0,00 LI C 2.?2 IAB 4.03 1. 6 C, 60.7? 0.095 RH C 26.11 0.135 22. 19 PSP C 2.25 1.06 2.39 28.36 (9.77) COS C 0 0.12 0.00 (12.15) Cos D 0 0.12 0.00 (?.53) Cos B 0 0.12 0.00 Cal 47.4 0.074 PSP c 4.09 1.06 4.34 PSP C 4.59 1.06 4.11? 36.6 SD C 13.43 1.138 10.53 (3.07) Cos D 0 0.12 0.00 (4.5?) COS D 0 0.12 0.00 (1.29) COS B 0 0.12 0.00 IND D 4.79 1.9 9.10 IND B 9.7 1.9 10.43 1.51 cs 33.47 0.052 PSP C 8.21 1.06 Mo RM C 6.56 0.64 4.20 22.66 (4.7) COS 0 0 0.12 0.00 WEST POINT WATER QUALITY'DA*rA TOWN OF WEST POINT L.1 PA JOB 92-093 "'PATER QUALITV CALCULATIONS ON L'Y'll SUBAREA AREA AFIEA LAND SOIL (Dq.nil) USE GROUP AREA LOADING vj,r.LOAD (14.8?) Cos B 0 0.12 0.00 RL c 1.44 0.49 0.71 RL 9 2.02 0.49 0.99 RL D 2.2 0.49 1.08 FIL D 2.23 0.49 1.09 C co 53.07 0.093 RM C 23.75 0.64 15.20 R?A 0 4.07 0.64 2.60 42.2? RM a 1.09 0.154 0.70 RPA B 2.39 0.61 1.0 RPA 0 0.?4 0.64 0.217 (2.24) Cos 8 0 0.12 0.00 (1.0) Cos 8 0 0.12 0.00 (2.1) Cos D 0.12 0,110 RL a 0.56 0.49 0.127 RL D 0.20 0.49 0.13 RL B 1.82 0.49 8.09 AL C 3.91 0.49 1.92 RL 8 2.89 0.49 1.112 RL 0 0.79 0.49 0.29 0.60 C? 54.06 0.004 SD C 1.69 1.38 2.23 RM C 28.95 0.64 10.63 533 1 RM 0 4.17 0.64 2.6? RM a 18.9 0.64 12.10 1.1.66 C" 83.6 0.131 IND C 4.0 1.9 @.'12 IND 0 1.53 1.9 2.9 1 00.64 RH c 3.15 0.1115 2.68 RH 0 1.79 0.1.45 1.52 SD C 10.9 1.38 V5. (14 S D 0 10.25 1.38 14.15 so c 16.5 1.1118 22.77 S D D 3.05 i.qo 5.2 1 2.75 1.140 S D M10 H m B 11.05 0.64 ?.(1? R m C 5.63 0.64 3.64 "NEST POINT WATER QUALITY* DATA TOWN OF WEST POINT 1.31`4 JOB 92-093 111)12)93 "'APATER QUALITV CALCULATIONS ON LV** SUBAREA AREA AREA LAND MI. (oq.mi) USE GROUP AREA LOADIN 0 ViT.LOAD RM D 7.24 4.63 R?A D 1.16 0.74 1. ifi C9 39.51 0.060 SD C 8.06 1.38 11.12 so 0 0.04 1.30 12.20 35.93 R" D 14.32 0.134 @. 16 RPA C 0.59 0.1A 0.38 RM B 2.77 0.134 1.77 RPA C 1.35 0.114 0.86 Clo 64.26 0.100 SD c 13.05 1.38 1 u. 11 SD D 3.16 1.3p 4.@6 62.99 AM D 11.11 0.1m 7.11 RM B 0.79 0.64 0.51 RM C 5.51-1 0.154 @.55 R?A A 1.94 0.1,14 1.24 RM C 3.99 0. 13, 4 2.55 RL A 3.31 0.49 1.62 RL C 9.19 0.49 4.50 R L 8 10.1 0.49 4.@s Cil 10?.58 0.168 so C 4.20 l.: 9 5.9 1 SD D 1.:3E, 17.V RM rl 27.72 0.1A 17.74 RM D 24,75 0.154 16.84 R?A C 0.44 0.64 (1.28 RPA .0, O.ii4 4 1., RL c 0.49 6AI) R'L D @.07 0. .14 q -1.44 RL c 4.74 0.49 2.32 R L .01 5.02 0.19 2.46 11,71 C 12 60.48 0.095 RL C 2.98 0.49 1.46 RL C 4.1 0.1119 2.01 63.9 RL B 15.95 0.49 T02 RL B 1.24 0.49 (1.61 RL D 29.47 0.19 1 9 5 3 =@MMIM mm 'WEST POINT WATER QUALITY'DATA TOWN OF WEST POINT L3 M JOB 92-093 10)12)93 "'APATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS ONLY" SUBAnEA AREA AREA LAND SOIL USE GROUP AREA LOADIN G IIJT.L(.',AU AL C 7.09 0.49 RL 8 3.97 0.49 MIS C 13 39.85 0.062 RM 12.45 0.154 7.97 RPA 7.2 0.134 4.61 40.21 RM C 0.93 0.64 0.60 FIL C 0.4? 0.49 0.113 RL 0 4.11 0.49 2.01 AL B 15.05 0.49 ?.2? C14 29.77 0.045 APA a 3.46 0.1M 2. 2 1 AM D 6.85 0.154 4.28 29.37 0.64 RM B 8.66 ..f;4 RL D 1.76 0.49 fMis RL B 5.63 0.19 2.116 RL C 1.51 0.119 0. M RL C 0.5 0.19 0. 2 5 1).S9 C15 42.16 0.066 R L B 6.59 0.49 3. .! 3 R L D ?.04 0.49 2.115 42.3 RL C 27.01 0.14Q 13.1.13 R L 8 1.66 0.49 fi. 0 1 1.1. 4 @4 C16 @12.22 0.050 R L C 4.33 0.49 2.12 RL 0 11.32 0.49 5 R L C 6.3 0.49 D 9 RL B 5.22 0.49 2.@i6 RL C 3.4 0.49 Mi? R L 1.75 0.49 (1.06 C 1? 13.56 0.021 RL C 0.19 0.0 0.09 RL 8 1.53 0.49 0.115 13.15 RL D 3.64 0.49 1.78 Al. B ?.58 0.49 :). -11 1 RL D 0.21 0.49 f). l 0 9 CIO 911.59 (1.73) R L 0 1.42 0.19 0.70 ='Mmmmm 'WEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA T OWN OF WEST POIN T L.1 ?A JOB 92-093 10)12)93 "WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS ON LVA* SUBAREA AREA AREA LAND ML USE GROUP AREA LOADING %0;T.L0AD (10.36) RL B 9.96 19.92 RL C 7.29 0.49 3.57 (.22) RL 0 0 0.49 0.00 (.4) RL 0 0 OA14 0.00 RL C 1.25 0.49 0.61 C19 26.96 0.042 RL c 2.42 0.49 1.19 RL 0 0.52 0.49 0.1115 26.94 RL 0 2.85 0.49 1.40 FIL D 7.94 0.49 3.09 RL C 9.93 0.49 4.89 RL B 2.23 0.49 1.09 4 9 C20 20.25 0.032 IN 0 0 3.42 1.9 @.50 (16.83) Cos 0 12.2 0.12 1.46 16.32 Cos C 0.7 0.12 0.08 0.0 C21 68.64 (1.69) Cos D 0.12 0.00 Cos C 5.29 0.12 0.63 6333 (1.51) Cos 0 0 0.12 0.00 IND 8 0.61 1.9 1.16 IND D 13.1 1.9 24.F.;9 IND C 4.01 1.9 ?.(;2 IND B 11.91 1.9 22.0 IND C 9.2 1.9 WAS IND B 1.53 1.9 2.91 RL B 2.1 0.49 1.03 RL D ?.?9 0.49 M12 RL C 0.49 0.69 RL C 2.77 0.49 M;6 RL B 4.04 0.49 1.98 1.@s C22 22.7 0.035 RL C 2.01 0.414 IM18 RL D 6.63 0.49 2.76 22.85 RL C 11.19 0.49 5.63 PSP C 0.91 1.06 o.q ,6 PSP 0 1.72 1.06 1.02 MMM'MMMMMM VVEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA TOWN OF WEST POINT Ll ?A JOB 92 -093 11))12193 *11WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS ON LV*A SUBAREA AflEA AREA LAND SOIL (McreD) (0q.ml) USE GROUP AREA LOADING WT.LOAD PSP c 1.09 1.06 1j. 6 3 C23 18.80 0.030 IND D 1.42 1.9 2.70 IND C 2,02 1.9 rj.@i6 18.72 IND D 11.83 1.9 22.18 IN D c 2.65 1.9 6.04 1.91) C24 22.86 0.036 IND D 1.59 1.9 3.02 AL D 12.07 0.0 5.91 22.74 RL C 1.72 0.49 0.04 RL C 1.14 0.49 0.1;6 AL C 6.22 0.49 3.05 0.5!@ C25 19.93 0.031 IN D D 2.17 1.9 4.12 IND C 2.57 1.9 4.08 V.63 IND D 1.43 1.9 2.112 RL D 4.28 0.49 2. *10 AL C 7.18 3.52 0. 9 el C26 43.23 0.069 IND B 0.25 1.9 0.118 IND D 9.71 1.9 18.45 42.56 IN D c 2M 1.9 5.10 RL D 19.16 0.49 M:9 RL 8 6.19 0.49 3.03 RL C 2.63 0.49 1.1119 PSP 0.94 1.1.16 1.110 PSP 0.04 1,06 0.89 0.9 4 996.61 0.14 MAGN OLIA TRIB. TO MATTAPON I C27 V.92 0.059 PSP C 9.1 1.116 @.65 PSP D 5.49 1.06 6.112 36.97 PSP C 3.21 1.06 3.10 PSP D 0.8 1.01 0.05 R L 0 1.25 0.49 0.6 1 IM IMIMM = m m = mm WEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA TOWN OF WEST POIN T [.,%?A JOB 92-093 11))12)93 "WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS ONLY" SUBAREA AREA AREA LAND SOIL (Dq.ml) USE GROUP AREA LOADIN 0 VJT.L0AD RL 4.33 0.49 2.12 RL 5.44 0.49 2.0 RL C 3.19 O.lq 1.56 RL 8 4.16 0.49 2.04 1). 7 C28 4?.38 0.074 RL C 3.32 0.414 1.63 RL B 6.88 0.49 :017 46.08 RL D 0.30 0.49 0.19 RL D 8.39 0.49 4.11 RL B 9.52 0.49 4.66 RL 0 0.72 0.49 0.135 RL C 5M 0.49 2.61 RL B 2.63 0.19 1.29 RL C 8.92 9.4q 4.@:7 1-M!@ C205 35.23 0.055 RL 13 19.51 0.49 @.S6 RL C 0.91 0.4q 0.45 30.53 RL D 2.91 0.49 1.43 RL B 5.71 0.49 2.00 RL C 1.49 0.49 0.73 (3.96) Cos C 0 0.12 0.00 0.49 M OFITH CHELSEA TRIB. TO MATTAPON I C29 24.? 1 0.039 RL 0 8.22 0.49 4.03 RL C 14.?3 0.49 7. 1, 2 24.62 RL B 1.67 0.49 0.e2 4 9 C30 30.26 0.047 R L c 9.6 0.49 4.70 R L B 5.41 0.49 2.65 30.11 R L 8 9.54 0.119 4.67 R L C 2.03 0.49 1.39 R L B 2.73 0.49 1.34 1). 49 ,7 = m = mm m = = = WEST POINT WATER QUALITY'DATA TOWN OF 'NEST POIN T L3 ?A JOB 92-093 "WATER QUALITY CALCULATION 8 ON LVAA SUBAFIEA AREA AREA LAND SOIL USE GROUP AREA LOADIN G V)T.L0AD C31 19.50 0.031 RL B 1.95 0.49 0.96 RL D 6.72 0.49 3.29 RL c 0.27 0.49 4.05 RL B 0.06 0.414 OA2 RL B 1.29 0.49 0.63 C32 40.03 0.063 RL B 3.13 0.49 M;3 RL 0 10.77 0.49 5.129 22.11 RL B 4.03 0.49 1.97 RL c 2.49 0.49 1.122 RL D 1.69 0.49 1).(13 (12.65) Cos D 0 0.12 0,00 (6.2) Cos c 0 0.12 0.00 11.44 C33 32.31 0.050 RL 8 15.56 0.49 ?.62 RL D 13.93 0.49 6.83 (im) Cos D 0 0.12 0.00 (1.24) Cos c 0 0.12 0.00 0.49 C34 0.433 RL A 15.36 0.1119 ?.!;3 40.69 RL B 6.23 0.49 3.05 50.27 69.22 RL c 8.06 0.49 MIS 122.08 RL D 20.62 0.4q 10.110 175.60 THOMPSON TRIB. TO PAATTAPONI C35 ?.56 0.012 RL c 0.08 0.49 0,04 RL c 1.09 0.49 0.0 ?.45 RL c 1.96 0.49 0.96 RL D 0.94 0.49 0.116 RL D 3.30 0.49 1.(i6 0. 4V C36 17.15 0.02? RL c 2.79 0.49 1.27 FIL D 1.61 0. 9 15.89 RL c 3.1 0.49 1.S2 RL D 9.149 0.44 4.11 = m MIMIM m = m m = mm WEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA TOWN OF YVEST POINT L,% I'A JOB 92-093 11))12)93 "APAT Eli QUALITY CALCULATIONS ONLV" SUBAREA AREA AREA LAND SOIL USE GROUP AREA LOADING VOT.LOAD (.47) Cos C 0 0. V 0.00 (.09) Cos D 0 0.12 (1.00 fj.4@4 CV 12.21 0.019 R L a 4.1 QAq 2. 0 1 R L c 2.23 0.19 1.09 9.61 R L 0 1.6 0.49 (.1.74 A L B 0.30 0.149 0.19 RL c 1.4 0.49 0.69 (2.23) Cos D 0 0.12 0.00 0. 4 9 C38 17.61 0.020 R L C 1.09 0.119 0.53 R L B 2.33 0.149 1.14 10.12 R L 0 4.45 0.49 2), is RL D 2.25 0.4f4 1.10 (7.6) Cos D 0 0.12 0.00 0.49 C39 20.54 0.045 PSP D 0.64 1.136 0.68 PSP B 0.74 1.06 0.78 2?.61 PSP D ?.(13 1.06 7.77 PSP a 3.16 1.06 111. @, 15 RL 8 12.65 0.49 fA. 2 0 FIL C 2.84 AAIQ M19 RL D 0.26 0Aq 0.12 (1.74 C40 24.33 0.039 RL B 1.82 0Aq 0.09 RL C 9.34 0. -1 @4 4.58 24.54 RL c 5,05 0.49 2.47 RL B 8.33 0.49 1.08 (1.41 0. 5 fj v 1 11.88 RH B 3.51 2.98 11,63 RH D 8.12 0.15 6M 0.85 1 72.77 RH B 15.72 n.:35 13.@o RH D 0.35 0.00 MMMM M 'WEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA TOWN OF WEST POIN T 1.3 1`4 JOB 92-093 10)1243 "WATER QUALITV CALCULATIONS ONLVAx SUBAHEA AREA AREA LAND $OIL (Dq.m 1) USE GROUP AREA LOADING VOT10AD 44.53 OB B 5.84 1.0 0.5 1 RH B 10.21 0.05 15.48 RH 0 4.76 0.135 4.05 26.54 Cos D 0.00 Ll c 2.89 I.-IV 4-28 16.37 Ll 0 6 1.0 MIS PSP D 2.4 1.06 2.54 GB 0 3.43 1.8 6.17 GB D 1.65 1.8 2.0 M3 403.99 IND D 17.32 1.9 32.91 IN 0 c 4.21 1.9 8.00 27.88 RL c 5.21 0.49 2.55 RL c 1.14 0.49 0.66 Cos 0 0.12 0.00 M4 144.26 RL c 2.58 0.49 1.26 RL 8 17.42 0.49 8.!;4 48.02 RL D 10.84 0.119 S.M RL c 12.6 0.49 6.17 RL B 4.58 0.49 2.24 Cos D 0.12 0.00 0.414 PAS 91.84 Cos D 0.12 0.00 Cos c 0.12 0.00 V.04 AL c 8.6 0.19 4..! 1 RL B 18.47 0.49 MIS RL c 9.97 0.49 4.09 RL D 0.49 0.00 Cos D 0.12 0.00 0. 4 @4 '10 MMM MIMI M mmmm m WEST POINT WATER QUALITY* DATA TOWN OF WEST POINT L,% ?A JOB 92-093 "10YATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS ON LVIll SUBAREA AREA AREA LAND SOIL (mcrea) USE GROUP AREA LOADINCA 100T.LOA0 P 1 120.02 RH D 15.32 0.05 RH B 6.81 0.85 5.?9 114.25 GB B 13.36 1.0 24.05 RH B 14.04 0.05 11.93 GB B 6.99 1.8 12.58 IND D 60.82 1.9 96.56 IND a 6,91 1.9 113.13 1. 13 5 P2 168.48 RH C 15.91 0.05 13.F@2 GB c 4.90 1.8 @.93 168.99 IND D 100.45 1.9 190.86 IND c 17.09 1.9 3 2.4? so C 8.46 1.08 11.6? PSP C 14.31 1.06 K 1? PSp C 2.31 1.0r. 2. 4 5 G B B 5.5 1.8 9.90 P3 10?.68 IND D 18.49 1.9 13 IND c 17.51 1.9 23.27 94.68 IND C 3.43 1.9 6.52 RH c 15.06 0.85 12.(10 so c 36.44 1.30 so.29 IND c 3.75 1.9 T 13 1. 5 P4 45.25 IND C 0 RI-I c 16.09 13. (i a R L C 18.51 0.49 @.07 Cos 0 0.12 (1.00 6 6, P5 59.73 RH C 1) 0.05 0.00 R L c 2 1.2? 0.49 10.42 21.27 Cos c 0.12 f). (10 Cos D 0.11, 0.00 u. 49 M.Mmm mmm = 'WEST POINT WATER QUALITY DATA TOWN OF WEST POINT L,% PA JOB 92-093 10)12)93 QUALITV CALCULATIONS ONLVA-1 SUBAREA AREA AREA LAN D SOIL (Dq.ml) USE GROUP AREA LOADIN 0 VJT.LOA0 pe 163.64 RL c 94.82 0.49 46.216 RH c 11.2 0.145 9.52 160.26 so C 25.16 1.38 34.72 LI c 11.83 I.-Is 17.tia RH D 4.26 0.05 3.62 AM C 12.94 0.154 9 '12 I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX 4 1 COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEETS I I I I I I I I LANGLEY fi MONALD, P.C. 8 12 1993 5544 GRIENNICH ROAD VIRGINIA BIACH, VA. 23462 PRELIMINARY COST, ISTISITING WORKSBIFT TOWN OF WES' POINT, VIRGINIA Tth & MATE JOB 10. 92093 UPGRADE EXISTING STS. SYSTI1 TO CARRY ULTIIATR 10 YR. STM UNIT ISIT IINATED LINE ITH QUANT ON PRICE COST 01 15' RCP 22 LF $16.00 $352,00 02 Is* RCP 31 LF $18.00 $594.00 03 27' RCP 277 LF $29.00 $8,033.00 04 30" RCP '039 LF $36.00 $12,204.00 '100 TF '4x2'u u 11 0 a u v I i 05 1 M. CON" $27.00 $8,160.00 TWIN PIPE 150' 06 CATCR BASIN R11OVAL 3 H $400.00 $11,200.00 07 PIPE RHOVAL 621 LF $4.50 $3,694.50 08 CATCR BASIN RIPLACIIINT 6 1A 12,000.00 $12,000.00 09 CURB & GUTTE3 REMOVAL 12 IV, LF $V .1 $4120.00 10 COBB I GUTTER REPLACRKKN91 1120 LF $T.50 $90030 III ASPEALT PAVRIENT REMOVIAL 400 SY $3.50 $1,400.00 12 ASPHALT PAVRIENT REPLACHM 400 ST $12.00 $4,800.00 OTIT i3 RELOCATION Of HIM. JJITIRS 1 Lcu $7,000.00 $7,000,00 14 SELECT IIATIVA' 300 CY $8.00 $21400,00 T 15 SELECT BIDDING 30 TN $2i.00 $630,00 1 RIF RAP io SY $,Vo.oo $3nc,on I v v 17 SIDEWALK REEOVATU env LF 0-1.00 $1H.00 REPT ACEII! IS SIDEWALK FUT 115 SY $16.r.0 $577,50 u L li 11 19 TOPCOIL SEEDING 400 CUT $11.00 $400.00 IAT 201 RAUL OFF UNSUITABLE IATIER u 300 CY $3.00 $900.00 SUB. TOTAL $66,141030 tODT' 5, lLjIZ./BORDS/INSUB. .0 $3,307.21" EROS. & SID. CONTROL 2% $1,3112.90 TRAFFIC CONTROL 2% $11,322.90 Irv PROFFISSiONAL SERVICES 04 $9,921.75 CONTINGENCY 10% $6,614,50 GRAND TOTAL $88,634.30 LANGLEY & MCDONALD. P.C. 8 9 1993 5544 GREENWICH ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET TOWN OF WEST POINT, VIRGINIA KING WILLIAM AVE. JOB NO. 92093 UPGRADE EXISTING STM. SYSTEM TO CARRY ULTIMATE 10 YR. STM UNIT ESTIMATED LINE ITEM QUANT UN PRICE COST 01 12" RCP 120 LF $15.00 $1,800.00 02 18" RCP 72 LF $18.00 $1,296.00 03 21" RCP 343 LF $22.00 $7,546.00 04 24" RCP 102 LF $27.00 $2,754.00 05 30" RCP 51 LF $36.00 $1,836.00 06 36" RCP 35B LF $44.00 $15,752.00 07 42" RCP 331 LF $50.00 $16,550.00 08 48" RCP 699 LF $65.00 $45,435.00 09 54" RCP 1149 LF $80.00 $91,920.00 10 48"X76" ELL, RCP (60") 705 LF $135.00 $95,175.00 11 58"X91" ELL, RCP (72") 147 LF $170.00 $24,990.00 12 CATCH BASIN REMOVAL 27 EA $400.00 $10,800.00 13 PIPE REMOVAL 4077 LF $4.50 $18,346.50 14 CATCH BASIN REPLACEMENT 27 EA $2,600.00 $70,200.00 15 CURB & GUTTER REMOVAL 2500 LF $3.50 $8,750.00 16 CURB & GUTTER REPLACEMENT 2500 LF $7.50 $18,750.00 17 ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL 1500 SY $3.50 $5,250.00 18 ASPHALT PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT 1500 SY $12.00 $16,000.00 19 RELOCATION OF EXIST. UTILITIES 1 LB $25,000.00 $25,000.00 20 SELECT MATERIAL 2300 CY $8.00 $18,400.00 21 SELECT BEDDING 200 TN $21.00 $4,200.00 22 RIP RAP 20 SY $30.00 $600.00 23 WIDEN & RESRADE EXIST. DITCH 1 LB $5,000.00 $5,000.00 24 SIDEWALK REMOVAL 2800 LF $3.00 $8,400.00 25 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT 1250 SY $16.50 $20,625.00 26 TOPSOIL & SEEDING 3000 SY $1.00 $3,000.00 27 HAUL OFF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 2500 CY $3.00 $7,500.00 SUB. TOTAL $547,875.50 MOBILIZ./BONDS/INSUR. 5% $27,393.78 EROS. & SED. CONTROL 2% $10,957.51 TRAFFIC CONTROL 2% $10,957.51 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15% $82,181.33 CONTINGENCY 10% $54,787.55 GRAND TOTAL $734,153.17 ANGLEY & MCDONALD, P.C. 10 12 1993 544 GREENWICH ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 RELIMINARY COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET TOWN OF WEST POINT, VIRGINIA KIRBY ST. & 16TH ST. JOB NO. 92093 LINE ITEM QUANT UN UNIT ESTIMATED PRICE COST 1 18" RCP 54 LF $18.00 $372.00 2 24" RCP 12 LF $29.00 $348.00 3 ES-1 24" 1 EA $575.00 $575.00 4 PIPE REMOVAL 66 LF $4.50 $297.00 5 CATCH BASIN REMOVAL 2 EA $400.00 $800.00 6 CATCH BASIN REPLACEMENT 2 EA $1,500.00 $3,000.00 7 CURB & GUTTER REMOVAL 8 LF $3.50 $28.00 8 CURB & GUTTER REPLACEMENT 8 LF $7.50 $60.00 9 ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL 25 SY $3.50 $87.50 10 ASPHALT PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT 25 SY $12.00 $300.00 11 RELOCATION OF EXIST. UTILITIES 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 12 SELECT MATERIAL 20 CY $8.00 $160.00 13 RIP RAP 6 SY $30.00 $180.00 14 TOPSOIL & SEEDING 100 SY $1.00 $100.00 15 HAUL OFF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 20 CY $3.00 $60.00 SUB. TOTAL $7,967.50 MOBILIZ./BONDS/INSUR/ 5% $398.38 EROS. & SED CONTROL 2% $159.35 TRAFFIC CONTROL 2% $159.35 PROFFESSIONAL SERVICES 15% $1,195.13 CONTINGENCY 10% $796.75 GRAND TOTAL $10,676.45 LANGLANGLEY & McDONALD, P.C. 8 16 1993 55445544 GREENWICH ROAD VIRGVIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23462 PRELPRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET TOWNTOWN OF WEST POINT, VIRGINIA PROPPROPPSED ULTIMATE SYSTEM AT OLD OUTFALL NO 1208 JOB JOB NO 92093 UNIT ESTIMATED LINELINE ITEM QUANT UM PRICE COST 1 1 12" RCP 250 LF $15.00 $3,750.00 2 2 15" RCP 440 LF $16.50 $7.260.00 3 3 24" RCP 252 LF $25.00 $6,300.00 4 4 30" RCP 210 LF $36.00 $7,560.00 5 5 33" RCP 400 LF $40.00 $16,000.00 6 6 36" RCP 40 LF $45.00 $1,800.00 7 7 54" RCP 470 LF $80.00 $37,600.00 8 8 60" RCP 484 LF $100.00 $48,400.00 9 9 GRADE PROPOSED DITCH 540 LF $20.00 $10,800.00 10 10 PROP EW w/WING WALLS 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000.00 11 11 PROP. D.I. 15 EA $1,800.00 $27,000.00 12 12 PROP JB-1 3 EA $3,000.00 $9,000.00 13 13 PIPE REMOVAL 680 LF $4.50 $3,060.00 14 14 CATCH BASIN REMOVAL 6 EA $400.00 $2,400.00 15 15 CURB & GUTTER REMOVAL 204 LF $3.50 $714.00 16 16 CURB & GUTTER REPLACEMENT 204 LF $7.50 $1,530.00 17 17 ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL 240 SY $3.50 $840.00 18 18 ASPHALT PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT 240 SY $12.00 $2,880.00 19 19 RELOCATION OF EXIST. UTILITIES 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 20 20 SELECT MATERIAL 150 CY $8.00 $1,200.00 21 21 RIP RAP 15 SY $30.00 $450.00 22 22 TOPSOIL & SEEDING 2000 SY $1.00 $2,000.00 23 23 HAUL OFF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 150 CY $3.00 $450.00 24 24 REPLACE 4"x4' CONC. WALK 711 SY $16.00 $11,376.00 SUB. TOTAL $225,370.00 MOBILIZ./BONDS/INSUR 5% $11,268.50 EROS. & SED. CONTROL 2% $4,507.40 TRAFFIC CONTROL 2% $4,507.40 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15% $33,805.50 CONTINGENCY 10% $22,537.00 GRAND TOTAL $301,995.80 LANGLEY & McDONALD, P.C. 8 12 1993 5544 GREENWICH ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET TOWN OF WEST POINT, VIRGINIA THOMPSON AVE. @ SCHOOL SITE JOB NO. 92093 SHIFT DRAINAGE DIVIDES REMOVE 6.32 AC. FROM WESTWOOD DRAINAGE AREAS UNIT ESTIMATED LINE ITEM QUANT ON PRICE COST 1 18" RCP 262 LF $18.00 $4,716.00 2 27" RCP 450 LF $29.00 $13,050.00 3 30" RCP 350 LF $36.00 $12,600.00 4 RS-1 30" 1 RA $575.00 $575.00 5 ES-1 18" 1 EA $310.00 $310.00 6 PIPE REMOVAL 44 LF $4.50 $198.00 7 CATCH BASIN REMOVAL 1 EA $400.00 $400.00 8 CATCH BASIN REPLACEMENT 5 EA $1,800.00 $9,000.00 9 STORM MANHOLE 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00 10 CURB & GUTTER REMOVAL 148 LF $3.50 $518.00 11 CURB & GUTTER REPLACEMENT 148 LF $7.50 $1,110.00 12 ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL 60 SY $3.50 $210.00 13 ASPHALT PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT 60 SY $12.00 $720.00 14 RELOCATION OF EXIST. UTILITIES 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 15 SELECT MATERIAL 150 CY $8.00 $1,200.00 16 RIP RAP 10 SY $30.00 $300.00 17 TOPSOIL & SEEDING 1100 SY $1.00 $1,100.00 18 HAUL OFF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 150 CY $3.00 $450.00 SUB. TOTAL $52,657.00 MOBILIZ./BONDS/INSUR. 5% $2,632.85 EROS. & SED. CONTROL 2% $1,053.14 TRAFFIC CONTROL 2% $1,053.14 PROFFESSIONAL SERVICES 15% $7,898.55 CONTINGENCY 10% $5,265.70 GRAND TOTAL $70,560.38 LANGLEY I KcDONALD. P.C. 1993 5544 GREENNICR ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23462 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATING NORKSHEET TOWN OF WEST POINT, VIRGINIA SATTAP041 AVE. 7n NCt. 92093 UPGRADE EXISTING STM. SYSTEM '10 CARRY ULTIMATE 10 YR. STIM ADD CURB & GUTTER ALONG MATTAPOKI AVE. THOMPSON AYE. UNIT ESTIMATED LIKE ITEM GUANT UK PRICE COST 1 121 RC? 768 LF $14.00 $10,752.00 2 151 RCP 792 LF $15.50 612t276.00 260 LF $19.00 $4,680.00 4 14'x23' ELL RCP 139 LF $23.00 $3,174.00 ' "I 'CP 5 19*00" ELL RC? 340 LF $31.00 $10,540.00 6 24'x3a' ELL RCP 294 LF $45.00 $13,230.00 7 27'x45' ELL RCP 330 LF $56.00 $18,480.00 a 362 RCP 225 LF $44.00 $9,900.00 9 420 RCP 728 LF $50.00 06t400.00 10 484 RlnP 704 LF $65.00 $45.760.00 11 341 RCP 810 LF $80.00 $64,80%0.00 JA 12 ES-1 151 V EA $275.00 $2.750.00 13 ES-1 A'E' 3 EA $310.00 $730.00 14 ES-A' 54" 1 lrA $1,200.00 11,200.00 15 PIPE REMOVAL I DRIVEWAYS 504 LF 14.50 $2,268.00 16 CATCH BASIN 29 EA $2,400.00 $69.600.00 17 DROP lNLET 5 EA $1,000.00 $5,000.00 2 DRIYEKAY @EFAIR 32 EA $235.00 $7,520.00 19 HISC ZRADING I CULVERT & PnU4 I .DING AREAS LS $2,000.00 $2fooo.00 21 E111 I 117@1 6250 LF $7.50 $46,875.00 21 ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL 8950 BY $3.00 Q'IM0.00 ASPHALT PAVErENT REPLACEMENT 8950 SY $12.00 $107,400.00 2 "' RELICCATION' 97 =.@ISTL !j7'r' ITM i Ls $15.000.00 115101011.110 WV v 24 Z.Z'-..ECT ma-rR@Ai i0oo ruy $8,00 $8.000.00 25 SELECT BED'w-"-:N6 125 I'N $21.00 $2,625.00 26 RIP RAP 20 SY $30.00 $600.00 27 WIDEN & REGRADD-le EXIST. DIVIN 45500 LF $4.00 $18,000.00 28 SIDEWALK REMOVAL 3508 LF 13.00 $1,050.00 2? SIDEWALK 925 SY 116.50 $151262.50 11 TIP1111-6 &- EEED1111 3500 SY 11.00 s7p.. 500. AVA v 31 EAUL OFF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 1200 CY $3.00 $3,600.00 32 DITCH 800 LF $7.50 $6,000.00 SUB. TUTIAL 076,022.50 NO0.71 17. ;BONDSIINSUR. 5% 128,801.13 ERGS. SED. CONTROL 2% $11,520.45 TRAFFIC CONTROL 21 111.,520.45 PROFFESSIONAL SERVICES 15% $869403.38 CONTINGENCY 10j". $57,602-25 GRAND.'TBTAL $771,670.15 I I i I I I I I I i APPENDIX 5 PHOTOGRAPHS I i I 4 i i I i I i it WEST POINT HIGH SCHOOL AUGUST 5,1993 WEST POINT HIGH SCHOOL MARCH 4,1993 ANN&, ML WEST POINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AUGUST 5,1993 THOMPSON AVENUE V @&A WEST POINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MARCH 4,1993 THOMPSON AVENUE t.: -17' KING WILLIAM AVENUE AUGUST 5,1993 BETWEEN PAMUNKEY AVE. & MAGNOLIA AVENUE _6 A 7 KING WILLIAM AVENUE MARCH 4,1993 IN, P lx- BETWEEN PAMUNKEY & MAGNOLIA AVENUE hod. ,y,, I)ITCH NORTH OF 16TH STREET AUGUST 5. 1993 Vl@ Owl IQLI 7f 166@ 17 m. L'i, : , , 1\ DROP INLET AT CORNER OF AUGUST 5,1993 KING WILLIAM AVE. & PAMUNKEY AVE. ma gi, KING WILLIAM AVENUE AINED CHANNEL WELL-MAINT -AUGUST 5, 1993 .71 PRIVATE PROPERTY JUNE 14,1993 FLOW IN CHANNEL IS BLOCKED 5-od NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 14111753 3