The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWQ0004268_Hydrogeologic&Water Balance_20081216Hydrogeologic and RECEIVEOT,.�ION SECi10l� . A(�lIIFERPR JAN 2 8 2009 Water Balance and Wet -Weather Storage Analyses Reports Aliens, Inc. Plant# 7 Permit WQ0004268 Rowan Road Irrigation Fields Sampson County, North Carolina December 16, 2008 319 Erk Q. Lapp" c Eric G. Lappala, P.E., P.H. OF Advocacy- Sound Scienco�innovatlon-s Solutions 4005 Lake Springs Court Raleigh, NC 27613 0 Hydrogeologic Report Aliens, Inc. Plant # 7 Permit WQ0004268 Rowan Road Irri6ation Fields Sampson County, North Carolina December 16, 2008 319 Ertc a. LAPP" DCqIO�SE� ION RECEIVED I �AQUIFERpRO� ' � 2009 ,1AN 11 Eric G. Lappala, P.E., P.H. FVA` Advocacy�Sound SciencO-:�,lnnovafion i Sofutkns 4005 Lake Springs Court Raleigh, NC 27613 0 Contents Contents...................................................................................................................................... ii Listof Figures ........................................................................................................................ iii Listof Tables ................ .................................................................................................... iii Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose............................I.......................................................................................................1 Disclaimer..............:....................................... .................................................................. .......... 2 Approach....................:...... .........................................................................................................2 ExistingInformation Review .......................................................................................................... 4 Topographic Info ion Sources .............................................................................................. 4 Stream and Drainage Features ............................................. ........................................................ 4 SoilsData Sources ......... ........................................................................................................... 4 ClimaticData Sources............................................................................................................. 4 HydrogeologyData Sources...................................................................................................... 4 Project Geographic Information System'and Database ............................................... ............... 5 FieldInvestigation ...................................................................................................................... 5 Identification of Wells within 500 Feet of Application Areas .................................................. 5 Monitoring Wells, Piezometers, and Test Wells......................................................................... 6 Water Level Measurements........................................................................................................ 8 9 Hydraulic Conductivity Tests..................................................................................................10 PumpingTests ....:........ ............................... .......................................................................... 10 Ksat Measurements ... ModelConstruction .......... .....................................................................................................10 ........................................................................................................12 ConceptualModel ........... I.........................................................................................................12 HydrostratigraphicUnits .......................................................................................................12 Hydraulic Heads for Model Calibration................................................................................14 Rechargeand Discharge........................................................................................................14 SimulationModel.. .... I........................................................................................................15 ModelGrid........ .... 1........................................................................................................15 BoundaryConditions...........................................................................................................15 ModelCalibration . .... ........................................................................................................16 Single Layer Approximation Test.........................................................................................16 Three Layer Model Calibration.............................................................................................17 Hydraulic Mounding Analysis................................................................................................. 19 SensitivityAnalysis...... ........................................................................................................ 22 Compliance Monitoring Wells.................................................................................................. 23 Background Groundwater Quality................................................................................................ 23 Conclusions................ ' ............................................................................................................ Attachment A. --Cone Pe ne ometer (CPT) Logs from S&ME................................................... 24 26 Attachment B.—Boring andl Monitoring Well Logs from S&ME............................................... 27 Attachment C—Completion,1 Reports and Logs for Compliance Wells (R-5 .from S&ME) ......... 29 Attachment D.—Pumping Test Data from S&ME .................................. :.................................... 30 Attachment E.—Laboratory Reports for Compliance Monitoring Wells for Samples Taken 11/17/08............................. ....................................................................................................... 31 Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic ii List of Figures Figure1.-- Location Map .......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2.-- Log of town of Clinton Well (U35G) from the North Carolina Visual Hydrogeologic Framework........................................................................................................................13 Figure 3.--Results of Model Calibration to April 2006 Water Levels in Monitoring Wells and Piezometers............................................................................................... .19 ............... ............ Figure 4.-- Simulated Watertable Elevation and One -Foot Depth to Water for the Mounding Analysis............. .... !........................................................................................................ 21 List of Tables Table 1.-- Water Wells Within 500 Feet of Sprayfield Boundaries ................................................ 6 Table 2.-- Construction Details for Piezometers, Monitoring Wells and Test Wells... 7 Table 3.-- Construction Detail Summary for Compliance Wells .................................................... 8 Table 4.--Water Level Measurements in Piezometers and Monitoring Wells ................................ 9 Table 5.-- Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Tests..................................................................11 Table 6. -- Summary of Hydrostratigraphic Units Used for Groundwater Model........................14 Table 7: - Results of manual and PEST Calibration for the Single Layer Approximation Model. Table 8.—Calibration Statistics for the Three -Layer Model ......................................... . 17 Table 9.-- Observed and Computed Water Levels for the Best -Fit Three -Layer Model..............18 Table 10.-- Sensitivity of Modeled Watertable Depth to Hydraulic Conductivity by Zone for Values of Hydraulic Conductivity Less than the Calibrated Value of 12 ft/day.................. 22 Table 11.-- Sensitivity of Area in Each Zone with Watertable Depth Greater than One Foot to Hydraulic Conductivity Values Greater than the Calibrated Value of ................................ 22 Table 12.-- Background Groundwater Chemistry .....................................:......... 23 gr try .......................... Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc ill U Introduction This report documents ,the for a modification to non-d disposal of treated wastew., treatment capacity above tl require the permitting and was performed by Eagle R sults of the hydrogeologic investigation in support of the application charge permit WQ0004268 for additional sprayfield areas for the -r. This permit modification does not request additional wastewater present limit of 415,000 gallons per day and consequently will not instruction of additional wet -weather storage capacity. This project ounces, P.A. under contract to Allens Inc. The area that includes the additional sprayfield capacity is referred to as the Rowan Road site which comprises approximately 353 acres lying south of Rowan Road and east of State Road 1933, approximately 3.6 miles west-southwest of Turkey, NC (Figure 1). The topographic relief at the site is flat, and elevations range from approximately 80 to 135 feet. All elevations in this report are reported relative to the 1988 North American Vertical Datum (NAVD88). Purpose This hydrogeologic study has been completed in support of modifications to the existing non - discharge permit as required by 15A NCAC 2T, and conforms to the criteria outlined in 15A NCAC 2T .0504(e). The purpose of the hydrogeologic study is to provide the necessary information and analyses to document the occurrence and movement of groundwater beneath and in the vicinity of the planned sprayfield(s), to determine the maximum area with suitable soils and maximum irrigation rates that can be applied while maintaining the minimum depth to the Seasonal High Water Table of one foot, and to evaluate and recommend compliance groundwater monitoring locations for the sprayfields. In particular, 15A NCAC .02T 0504(e) requires the following information to be included: (1) A description of the regional and local geology and hydrogeology; (2) A description, based on field observations of the site, of the site topographic setting, streams, springs and other groundwater discharge features, drainage features, existing and abandoned wells, rock outcrops, and otlier features that may affect the movement of the contaminant plume and treated wastewater; a (3) Changes in lithology underlying the site; (4) Depth to bedrock and occurrence of any rock outcrops; (5) The hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity of the affected aquifer(s); (6) Depth to the seasonal high water table; (7) A discussion of the relationship between the affected aquifers of the site to local and regional geologic and hydrogeologic features; Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic We) &5af'Gr.'5 . (8) A discussion of the grc facility and post operation groundwater receptors, grc (9) If the SHWT is within SHWT after wastewater a] Disclaimer Some analyses contained Eagle Resources P.A. oral reliability of that data and Approach The analyses documented ii information as well asfrom The following tasks were in • Review of existing d • Construction of proji • Field Investigation a • Inventory of private • Data Analysis and N • Report preparation dwater flow regime of the site prior to operation of the proposed the proposed facility focusing on the relationship of the system to dwater discharge features, and groundwater flow media; and feet of the surface, a mounding analysis to predict the level of the this report relied upon data and information provided by others. no representations regarding the completeness, accuracy and this report resulted from gathering and assessing existing sources of field investigations of geologic, hydrologic, and soils conditions. ;mented in the approach: . and information and basemap preparation Geographic Information System .and Database Testing ter supply wells in the vicinity of the study area Allen Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc . 2 EXPLANATION Property Boundary Irrigation Areas 10 0.5 IF F Basemap: ESRI World Streetmap 19, A YI/ A, SR 1907 cz, 19, Aliens, Inc Plant #7 Zce7 Z_ Ln U) X T't're-qv Cuek \SR 134? IV, E. 4R� L C-i S 1 2 3 4 Miles, — — -------- [t.63,36 ov 01 Rowan Aliens, Road Irrigation Location Map Inc Plant #7m Turkey, NC 1 Figure Advocacy-> Sound sci6nm-.1nf)0vv5Dni- SotaCvns 4005 Lake Springs Court Raleigh, NC27613 3 1013 M8�qeamlere--- — Date Pro ect Number Approved: jjmnmnnQ JRn11 1 17 n I .—f� Existing Informati A review of existing reg., and hydrogeologic, infoi studies and analyses. Topographic • USGS 7.5 minute U • Two -foot topograph County by the Nortl: • Site topographic cor. • Locations of monito from previous invest Stream and Drainage • USGS 7.5 minute U • Natural Color, High Soils Data Sources Review and site -specific topographic, hydrologic, climatic, soils, geologic, >n was conducted to serve as the framework for site specific field n Sources S.G.S. topographic map, Turkey, NC quadranglel; c elevation contours developed from LIDAR Data for Sampson Carolina Department of Transportation website2; . ;ours provided by McConnell Engineering3; and test wells, and irrigation areas provided by Allens, Inc eatu res .S. topographic map Turkey Quadranglel; olution Orthophotos taken in 20066; and • Soil & Environmental Consultants Soil Scientist Report; • Soil & Environmental Consultants, Agronomist Report8 • Soil .& Material Engineers Soil Scientist and Agronomist Report; and • NRCS Online Soils Report for Sampson Countylo Climatic Data Sources • National Climatic Data Center Monthly Station Data for Clinton 2 .S, NO and Clinton 2NE, NC12 Hydrogeology Data Sources • U.S. Geological Survey Regional Hydrogeologic Studies13,14,15; I 2 b.gp://www.ncdot.or /�it/gis/ 3 AutoCAD drawing A30701 - Eli 4Soil & Material Engineers,, 2001 Canning Company, Turkey,, NC 5 Soil & Material Engineers, 200' Spray Irrigation, Turkey, NC. 6 2006 Flighf Orthophotos from t] Soil and Environmental Consult 8 Soil and Environmental Consull 9 Soil Scientist / Agronomist Rep Permit No. WQ0004268 Turkey, io hq://soildatamart.nres.usda.gc 11 12httP://www4.ncdc.noaa.uo'v/cgi- 13 Eimers, J.L., Lyke, W.L., and E rocks in the central Coastal Plain, 89-4153, 101 p. Limited Hydrogeologic Evaluation I I8-Acre Proposed Spray Irrigation Site Allen Hydrogeology Summary Report Allen Canning -Company Proposed Wastewater National Agriculture Inventory Program www.momart.com s, 2008. Soil Scientist Evaluation, Rowan Road Site, Allens, Inc, Turkey, NC ts, Agronomist Evaluation, Rowan Road Site, Allens, Inc, Turkey, NC : for Permit Modification Allen Canning Company Wastewater Spray Irrigation )rth Carolina. an, A.R., 1990, Simulation of ground -water flow in aquifers in Cretaceous Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Reps 4 • North Carolina Vi • Soil & Material E Project Geographic Base -map features for this Sampson County GIS,'the I website, site plans includinj and Associates, site coordir S&ME Hydrogeologic and S&EC. These digital maps Information System (GIS) version 9.2 was used for thi Irki8 Pl"Ge5 Hydrogeologic Framework 16; and Hers Hydrogeologic Reports5,6 nformation System and Database udy were prepared -from digital maps and records acquired from the mth Carolina State University GIS website, U.S. Geological Survey state plane grid coordinates and elevations prepared by McConnell Ies and elevations from geo-referenced drawings.from previous oils Reports, and GPS Mapping by Eagle Resources, P.A. and nd datasets were used to prepare the project Geographic ld integrated Geodatabase. The commercial GIS program Arclnfo® `Qfi_„ The project Geodatabase foi this study included the standard environmental and water resources database used by Eagle Resources for such studies. This database is structured to be used with either Microsoft Access or Microsoft SQL Server. The database schema includes tables that contain information on topography, site development, well and sampling locations, water level measurements, results of chemical analyses of samples, results of hydraulic tests, boring logs of test holes, well completion information, logs of simulation model runs, and chemical analyses. Field Investigation Field investigations were conducted that included both the project site including proposed and new sprayfields as well as the surrounding area to obtain the necessary information to support the conceptual and numeric groundwater flow models prepared for this report and to document the presence of wells within 500 feet of the sprayfield boundaries: Identification of Wells within 500 Feet of Application Areas Site visits and examination of home sites and buildings aerial photos show five water wells within 500 feet of the proposed spray application area for the proposed sprayfield. One of these wells is located on the Rowan Road property, and the remaining wells are located on adjacent properties as shown on Figure 2. The available information on these five wells is shown in Table 2. If any additional wells axaze located during clearing and sprayfield development, they will be properly abandoned prior to commencement of sprayfield operation. Eight compliance monitoring well's have been installed in locations that are down -gradient from the proposed fields, and one' well has been installed up -gradient from the fields. These well locations are within 500 Feet of the disposal boundary. Their locations are shown on Figure 2 and the construction details of the existing wells are shown in Table 2. The proposed compliance monitoring wells are located at the review boundary down gradient of the proposed sprayfield application areas. As shown on Figure 2, the review boundary is located midway between the boundary of th j application areas and the compliance boundary. i 14 Giese, G.L., Eimers, J.L.; and Coble, R.W.,1997, Simulation of ground -water flow in the Coastal Plain aquifer s1stem of North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1404- K 142 p. 1 Winner, M.D., Jr., and Coble, RW., 1996, Hydrogeologic framework of the North Carolina Coastal Plain, in Regional Aquifer -System Analysis -Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1404-I, 106 p. + 14 pls. 16t--- ii________-_-----`---__m_ _ _1, xx-A_t.__/r.__.._a 11r_a,._ _t_.. Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 5 e4efeslsrces Surface Sampson Elevation County Tax Site ID Easting Ft Northing Ft Ft Owner Address Parcel ID P.O. Box250 Siloam WW-1 2226562 446138 117 Allen Canning Co Springs AR 72761 15362 3491 Rowan Road WW-2 2226902 4465211 119 Douglas Craig Carr Clinton, NC 28328 242000202 176 Moltonville Road WW-3 2228178 4461351 93 Milton Douglas Carr Clinton, NC 28328 2420085 P.O. Box 1314 Clinton WW-4 2225716 445098 106 Betty H. McLellan NC 28328 16208 3011 Beamon Woods WW-5 2225759 444901 103 Garfield Beamon Road Clinton, NC 28328 14491 Table 1.— Water Wells Within 500 Feet of Sprayfeld Boundaries. Monitoring Wells,, Piezometers, and Test Wells Records and data from pre s 6 included 21 Cone Penetrc 17 piezometers installed u installed using HSA. The shown in Table-2. Additi< located so as to serve as ci wetted area boundaries de The new monitoring wells i Eagle Resources using the 1 with above grade inch -steel ground surface and are fitte were able to be found have licensed Water Well Contra The completion records ai by S&ME for the existing are included as Attachmer Table 3 provides the a surface and measuring s mvestigations by S&ME ° were used for tins study. These ;r (CPT) soundings, six (6) Hollow Stem Auger (HSA) borings, push technology, four (4) monitoring wells and three (3) test wells tions of these are shown in Figure 2 and the completion details are y, Eagle Resources installed eight new monitoring wells that were iance monitoring wells located at the review boundary based upon ined by this study. ✓ere installed by Protocol Sampling Services under subcontract to - c)llow stem auger methods. The new monitoring wells are completed protective casings set in a concrete pad finished flush with the t with locking covers. All wells and borings installed by S&ME that leen properly abandoned by Protocol Sampling Services,. a NC l well logs for the new monitoring wells and piezometers as prepared ✓ells and by Protocol Sampling Services for the new monitoring wells A. ction details for the new compliance monitoring wells. All ground elevations were those provided in the S&ME repore. Allen Canning Final Hydrogeologic Reporkdoc Site ID Site 7 e Eastin •i' Ft orthing -Ft Surface Elev- ation Ft Boring Depth Ft Screen Depth Ft Boring Diam- eter In Casing Diam. eter In InsW- - lation Method Installed By Top Bottom B-2 Boring 2,226,094 445,725 115 40.0 none none 3.25 none I HSA SSME B-6 Boring 2,226,792 444,220 91 40.0 none none 3.25 none HSA S&ME B-10 Boring 2,226,832 445,346 98 40.0 none none 4.25 none HSA SSME B-11 Boring 2,227,654 444,378 98 40.0 none none 4.25 none HSA SSME B-16 Boring 2,228,242 444,792 95 40.0 none none 3.25 none HSA SSME B-19 Boring 2,228,889 444,042 93 50.0 none none 3.25 none HSA SSME CPT-1 CPT 2,226,453 445,817 115 57.0 none none unk none' CPT SSME CPT-2 CPT 2,226,100 445,699 115 64.2 none none unk none CPT SSME CPT- CPT 2,227,286 445,340 100. 30.5 none none unk none CPT SSME CPT-4 CPT 2,227,315 444,892 104 48.0 none none unk none CPT 88 ME CPT-5 CPT 2,227,180 444,401 97 31.8 none none unk none CPT S&ME CPT- CPT 2,226,749 444,220 91 32.8 none none unk none CPT SSME CPT-7 CPT 2,226,341 444,852 103 36.4 none none unk none CPT SSME CPT-8 CPT 2,226,410 445,010 108 43.8 ` none none unk none CPT S8ME CPT-9 CPT 2,226,372 445,406 113 40.7 none none . unk none CPT SSME CPT-10 CPT 2,226,809 445,335 7 106 41.7 none none unk none CPT SSME CPT-11 CPT 2,227,677 444,415 98 35.5 none none unk none CPT S8ME CPT-12 CPT 2,227,743 444,797 .100 :53.0 none none unk none CPT SBdME CPT-13 CPT 2,227,832 445,257 99 42.2 none none unk none CPT SSME CPT-14 CPT 2,228,040 445,838 97 25.7 none none unk none CPT SSME CPT-15 CPT 2,228,142 444,409 96 45.4 none none: unk none CPT S8ME CPT-16 CPT 2,228,291 444,795 95 50.9 none none unk none CPT S&ME CPT-17 CPT 2,228,678 445,298 94 34.4 none none unk. none CPT SSME CPT-18 CPT 2,228,481 445,658 97 54.8 none none unk none CPT S8ME CPT-19 CPT ; 2,228,852 444,045 94 37.7 " none none unk none CPT SSME CPT 20 CPT 2,229,658 444,149 91 59.2 none none unk none CPT . S8ME CPT 21 CPT, 2,229,391 445,016 89 31.4 none none unk none CPT S&ME OW-1 Obs Well 2,228,849 444,058 94 19.2 3.6 18.2 4.25 2 HSA S8ME OW-2 Obs Well 2,228,805 444,063 94 19.0 3.7 18.3 4.25 2 NSA S8ME OW-3 Obs Well 2,227,633 444,415 98 19.2 4.2 18.9 6.25 2 HSA S8ME OW-4 Obs Well 2,227,590 444,413 98 19.5 4.3 19.0 3.25 2 HSA S8ME P-1 Piezometer 2,226,779 445,862 112 10.0 9.0 .10.0 unk 1 Push SSME P 2 Piezometer 2,226,059 445,693 115 10.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push SSME P-3 Piezometer 2,226,387 445,162 110 10.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push SSME P-4 Piezometer .2,226,335 444,507 99- 10.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push S&ME P-5 Piezometer 2,226,864 445,326 106 10.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push SSME P-6 Piezometer 2,227,274 444,887 104 10.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push S8ME P-7 Piezometer 2,227,142 444,418 97 10.0 9.0 10.0 unk '1 Push S&ME P-8 Piezometer 2,227,915 444,970 100 10.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push • S8ME P-9 Piezometer 2,227,990 445,847 97 16.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push SSME P-10 Piezometer 2,228,558 445,538. 95 10.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push SSME P-11 Piezometer 2,228,387 444,865 93 10.0- 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push S8ME . P-12 Piezometer 2,228,313 444,208 97 10.0 9.0. 1.0.0 unk 1 Push S&ME P-13, Piezometer 2,229,176 44.4,507 93 -10.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push S&ME P-14 Piezometer 2,229,375 443,839 91 10.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push S8ME P-15 Piezometer 2,229,682 444,928 89 10.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push SSME P-16 Piezometer - 2,229,968 443,986 90 10.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push S8ME P-17 Piezometer 2,228,839 444,045 94 10.0 9.0 10.0 unk 1 Push 'S8ME RWA. Test Well. ' 2,228,851 444,051 94 19.5, 4.0 18.5 6.25 2 HSA S&ME RW=2 Test Well 2,227,671 444,413,1 98 19.21 4.3 18.8 6.25 2 HSA S&ME RW-3 Test Well 2,227,673 444,412 - 44.31 34.41 43.9 6.25 4 HSA S&ME _ Table 2: Construction Details for Piezometers, Monitoring Wells and Test Wells.. 01 Allens Canning Final Hydrogeolo& Report.doe Bale l�'eSLi� M5 Surface Elev- Top Cas- Screen Bentonite Boring Casing ation •, ing bev- Well Depth Sand Pack Seal Depth Cement Diann- Diann Instal - Well Easting Northing FT at6 Fr Depth Ft Depth Ft Ft Grout eter eter iation Instal - Top Bot. Top Bot. Top Bat. Top Bot. ID Ft NAD83 Ft NAD83 NAVD88 NAVD88 Ft I In In Method I led b R-1 2,228,891 445,653 87.2 190.5 15 2 12 1.5 12 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 6 2 HSA PSS R 2 2,229,383 445,196 86.1 189.1 15 2 12 1.5 12 0.5 1,5 0 0.51 6 2 HSA PSS R-3 2,230,053 444,682 87.0 190.0 18 5 15 4 15 3 4 0 31 6 2 HSA PSS- R-4 2,229,492 443,682 88.5 192.0 15 21 12 1.5 121 0.$ 1.5 0 1.5 61 2 HSA PSS R-5 2,227,878. 443,978 95.4 197.6 '28 8 28 6.5 28 no 0 6.5 61 2 HSA S8ME Rf 2,226,727 444,187 -93.2 195.8 18 5 15 4 15 3 4 0 3 6 2 HSA PSS R 7 2,226,250 444,901 104.4 107.4 15 2 12 1.5 12 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 6 2 HSA PSS R . 2,226,467 446,134 118.7 121.7 18 5 15 4 15 3 . 4 01 3 6 2 HSA PSS Table 3.- Construction Detail Water Level Measurei One round of water level n S&ME. Eagle Resources r 1.1/19/200T Water levels development and recovery wells by Microbac Laborat 2008. Table 4 summarizes for Compliance Wells surements was made at the site on April 4, 2006 as reported by sured water levels in those wells found operational at the site on e measured in the seven new compliance wells following well Protocol Sampling Services on 11/7/2008 and in all compliance .s during the first round of sampling these wells. on November 17, ;se measurements. Well ID Easting Northing Date Measured Depth to Water (rOC) Ft TOC Bevadion Ft Water Level Bev. (NAVD88 Ft) Depth to Water (GS) R OW-1 2,228,849.1 1444,058.4 4/4/2006 3.90 95.97 92.07 1.21 2,228,849.1 1444,058.4 11/19/2007 7.02 - 95.97 88.95 4.33 OW-2 2,228,805.0 ;, 1444,062.7 4/4/2006 3.90 95.75 91.85 2.11 2,228,805.0 1444,062.7 11/19/2007 6.92 95.75 88.83 5.13 2,227,633.5 1444,415.5 4/4/2006 4.90 100.22 95.32 3.11 2,227,633.6 1444,415.5 11/19/2007 7.40 100.22 92.82 5.61 OW-4 2,227,590.4 1444,412.6 4/4/2006 4.50 99.85 95.35 3.13 2,221,590.4 1444,412.6 11/19/2007 7.01 99.85 92.84 5.64 P-1 2,226,778.9 1445,861.8 4/4/2006 8.50 116.89 108.39 3.52 P-10 2,228,557.8 1445,538.1 4/4/2006 3.30 97.30 94.00 1.52 P-11 2,228,386.8 444,865.0 4/4/2006 2.10 96.59 94.49 (0.64) 2,228,386.8 444,865.0 11/19/2007 5.68 96.59 90.91 2.94 P-12 2,228,313.0 1444,208.1 4/4/2006 3.70 99.45 95.75 0.79 P--13 2,229,176.0 1444,507.4 4/4/2006 3.90 93.75 89.85 3.15 P-14 2,229,375.2 1443,839.1 4/4/2006 3.80 94.15 90.35 0.35 P-15 2,229,682.5 1444,927.6 4/4/2006 4.40 94.60 90.20 (0.99) P 16 2,229,967.6 1 443,985.7 4/4/2006 6.80 92.82 86.02 4.05 R-17 2,228,838.7 1 444,044.6 4/4/2006. 3.70 97.24 93.54 0.10 2,228,838.7 1 444,044.6 11/19/2007 8.30 97.24 88.94 4.70 P2 2,226,059.4 1445,693.2 4/4/2006 5.10 117.44 112.34 2.89 P-3 2,226,386.8 1445,162.3 4/4/2006 5.20 112.91 107.71 2.34 P-4 2,226,335.1 ', 1 444,507.4 4/412006 3.50 101.87 98.37 0.94 2,226,863.7 1. 1 445,326.0 414/20061 3.701 109.66 105.96 0.55 Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 8 04L° & wceo Table 4.-7Water Level Measurements in Piezometers and Monitoring Wells. Well ID Easting Northing Date Measured Depth to Water (TOC) Ft TOC Elevation Ft Water Level Elev. (NAVD88 Ft) Depth to Water (GS) Ft P-6 2,227,274 4 444,886.5 4/4/2006 6.10 107.35 101.25 3.10 2,227,142:3 444,418.3 4/4/2006 4.70 100.98 96.28 0.58 P-g 2,227,91'5':0 J 444,969.8 4/4/2006 4.80 102.53 97'13' 1.97 2,227,915:0 444,969.8 11/19/2007 7.78 102.53 94.75 4.95 P-9 2,227,990•.2 J 445,847.3 4/4/2006 5.00 100.12 95.12 1.91 2,227,990'.2 . 445,847.3 11/19/2007 8.40 100.12 91:72 5.31 RW-1 228,851;4 2Lf2,22-8--,851;"4 444,050.6 4/4/2006 3.90 95.58 91.68 1.60 444,050.6 11/19/2007 6.74 95.58 88.84 4.44 RW-2 2,227,676.8 444,412.6 4/4/2006 4.80 100.05 95.25 3.03 2,227,670; 8 444,412.6 11/19/2007 6.22 100.05 93.83 4.45 RW-3 2,227,672`.7 J 444,411.6 4/4/2006 12.70 99.80 87.10 11.18 2,227,672;.7 J 444,411.6 1'l/19/2007 15.40 99.80 84.40 13.88 R-1 2,228,931'.8 445,653.3 11/7/2008 6.55 88.26 81.71 3.56. 2,228,931i.8 J 445,653.3 11J17/2008 5.20 88.26 83.06 2.21 R-2 2,229,400:5 445,268.8 1117/2008 6.55 86.12 79.57 3.55 2,229,406,.5 J 445,268.8 11/17/2008 4.10 86.12 82.02 1.10 R-3 2,230,129.4 444,700.0 11/7/2008 8.45 83.20 74.75 5.45 2,230,129.4 444,700.0 11/17/2008 7.10 83.20 76.10 4.10: R-4 2,229,506.6 443,678.6 11/7/2008 6.45 89.20 82.75 3.45 2,229,500.6 443,678.6 11/17/2008 7.70 89.20 81.50 4.70 R-5 2,227,882.1 443,978.2 1/16/2001 11.92 92.19 80.27 9.1.7 2,227,882:1 443,978.2 11/16/2007 5.00 92.19 87.19 2.25 2,227,882.1 443,978.2 3/3/2008 13.00 .92.19 79.19 10.25 2,227,8821 { 443,978.2 7/7/2008 .6.50 92.19 85.69 3.75 2,227,882.1 { 443,978.2 11/17/2008. 10.70 92.19 81.49. 7.95 R-6 2,226,780.9 J 444,1.83.3 11/7/2008 8.65 93.46 84.81 5.65 2,226,780..9 444,183.3 11/17/2008 6.70 93.46 86.76 3.70 R-7 .2,226,192.3 J 444,963.4 11/7/2008 6.55 105.63 99.08 3.55 2,226,192.3 { 444,963.4 � 11/17/2008 4.60 105.63' .' 100.73 1.90 R-8 2,226,467:3 446,136.8 11/7/2008 8.25 120.66 112.41 5.25 2,226,467.3 1 446,136.8 11/17/2008 4.901 120.66 115.761 1.90 Table 4 (Concluded).-- Water The large depth to water persisted from the end of 17 U.S Drought Monitor: Measurements in Piezometers and Monitoring Wells. in well R-5 for 3/3/08 is a result of the extreme drought that ;tuber 2007 through the end of March 200817. . and Allen Canning Final Hydrogeologic E Hydraulic Cond Pumping Tests During Apri12006 S&ME i approximately one (1) galh pumping rate of approxima test of RW-2, water level n approximately 30 feet from the pumping test on RW-2, which is approximately 30 RW-2. The results of the il reviewed these results and i that for the test on RW-1, f larger than the value calcul the method used. As all an coefficient values are ne= S&ME also conducted a t occurs at beneath the site. minute for 24-hours and in is screened only in the, det minute for 3 hours and mE 3 and OW-4. Both ofthe; non -pumped aquifer. Ksat Measurements Ieale Re5W `C.e5 Tests nducted a 22-hour pumping test at a constant pumping rate of per minute on test well RW-1 and.a 24-hour test at a constant .y six (6) gallons per minute on test well RW-2. For the pumping isurements were made in observation wells OW-1 which is W-1 and in OW-2 which is approximately 55 feet from RW-I. For ater level measurements were made on observations wells OW-3 ,t from RW-2 and in OW-4 which is approximately 70 feet from ,rpretation of these tests by S&ME are shown in Table 5. We have acur with the methodology used and the results. However, we note value of storage coefficient calculated from the early -time curve is ;d from the late time curve, which does not agree with the theory of (ses used for the present report are steady state, no storage ry, so this inconsistency is not important. t to assess the hydraulic connection across the confining layer that his test was conducted by first pumping RW-2 for 6 gallons per asuring the water level response in the deep aquifer in RW-3 which aquifer. The second part of this test pumped RW-3 at 17 gallons per wring water level response in the shallow aquifer in RW-2 and OW - parts of the test showed no measurable water level response in the S&EC measured the valuesi of the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of each horizon of the soil units judged to be suitable for spray irrigation. S&ME reported Ksat measurements in multiple horizons at eight (8) locations within the boundaries of soil units that S&ME judged to be suitable. The locations of the Ksat measurements are shown on Figure 1 and the results of the measurements are shown in Table 5. Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic 10 Depth of HydraulicTrans- Tested Interval Cond- mis- Storage Soil Horizon or I Ft Test Analysis uctivity sivity Coef- Data Site ID Formation Method Method ff/day ft^2/day ficient Source Top Bottom RW 1 22-hour Observation Surficial Aquifer .00 17.61 pumping Neuman Kh =11.7 159 S = 0.002, S&ME Wells OW-1 Kv= 0.21 Sy= 0.004 at 1 gpm &OW2 RW 2 24-hour Observation Surficial Aquifer 4.00 17.61 pumping Neuman Kh = 9.2 123 S = 0.009, S&ME Wells OW-3 Kv= 0.11 Sy 0.023 at gpm & OWE Norfolk / E 1.00 0.13 n/a n/a Btl 2.67 0.67 n/a n/a Ksat 1 CHP Glover S&EC Wagram Bt2 4.67 1.38 n/a n/a Norfolk / E 1.17 4.19 n/a n/a 2.50 0.25 n/a n/a Ksat-4 CHP Glover S&EC WagramBt1 Bt2 J 5.00 0.29 n/a n/a Norfolk/ E J 1.00 0.62 n/a n/a Btl J 2.33 1.77 n/a n/a Ksat-6 CHP Glover S&EC Wagram Bt2 4.75 0.64 n/a n/a Ksat SME- Norfolk / BT/E 1.58 5.44 n/a n/a CHP Glover S&ME ' Bt , 3.00 0.10 n/a n/a 54 Wagram Ksat SME- Norfolk / Bt CHP Glover 49 Wagram 2 58 0.82 n/a n/a S&ME Ksat SME- Norfolk/ E j 1.00 6.52 n/a n/a CHP Glover Bt 2.00 6.26 n/a n/a 33 Wagram S&ME Ksat SME- Norfolk/ Bt 2.00 CHP Glover 5.26 nla n/a Bt J 3.33 1.32 n/a n/a 16 Wagram S&ME Norfolk /Wagram Ksat SME-1 Bt 2 50 CHP Glover 5.16 n/a n/a S&ME Goldsboro / E 1.00 1.01 n/a n/a Btl j 2.25 0.04 n/a n/a Ksat 2 CHP Glover S&EC Noboco Bt2 J 4.08 0.20 n/a n/a Goldsboro / E 0.83 0.24 n/a n/a Bt1 j 2.00 0.61 n/a n/a Ksat 3 CHP Glover S&EC Noboco Bt2 3.58 0.23 n/a n/a Goldsboro / E 0.83 0.90 n/a n/a Btl 2.00 1.05 n/a n/a Ksat-5 CHP Glover S&EC Noboco Bt2 J 2.75 0.55 n/a n/a Ksat SME- Goldsboro / E 1.50 0.32 n/a n/a Btl 2.33 0.20 n/a n/a CHP Glover S&ME 22 Noboco Bt2 2.33 0.34 n/a n/a Ksat SME- Goldsboro / Bt 1.33 CHP Glover 0.16 n/a n/a Bt 2.17 0.10 n/a n/a 47 Noboco S&ME Ksat 7 Tarboro / Bw 2.33 CHP Glover 5.37 n/a n/a C j 4.58 23.25 n/a n/a Kalmia S&EC Ksat 8 Tarboro / Bw 1.83 CHP Glover 16.07 n/a n/a C J 5.00 43.68 n/a n/a S&EC Kalmia Tarboro / Bw 2.42 5.21 n/a n/a Ksat 9 CHP Glover C 5.08 58.09 n/a n/a Kalmia Ksat SME- Tarboro / Bt 2.50 CHP Glover 20.56 n/a n/a S&ME 28 Kalmia Table 5.- Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Tests. Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic ReporLdoc 11 _ Model Construction Conceptual Model The conceptual model'of th, studies and reports an previ, regional model boundaries 1 from the spray irrigation sit affect the results of moundi new spray irrigation site. Hydrostratigraphic, Uni The hydrogeologic framew hydrogeologic studie?,lo,ll surficial materials referred and the Black Creek Aquif Hydrogeologic Framework Upper and Lower Cape Fee shown in Figure 3 is locates deep test well from the D % the site and shows essential Creek Confining Unit., The site hydrostratigraphy wells, and piezometers inst it is apparent that the drain Creek Confining unit. Alsi Black Creek Aquifer and U low permeability of the Bb soundings for reported by i Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic 0Ale&woo site was constructed using information provided by both regional is studies S&MEs,6,10The model was constructed by extending the hydrologic features (topographic divides) or a sufficient distance so that the use of either a drain or no flow boundary would not ir analyses. Figure 1 shows the modeled area and the location of the rk for the conceptual model was taken from regional geologic and The site is underlain by approximately 15 feet of fine-grained i as the Surficial Aquifer that overly the Black Creek Confining Unit . Based upon the log of a deep well from the North Carolina Visual s shown in Figure 3, the Black Creek Aquifer is underlain by the Confining Units and Aquifers and basement rocks. Well U35G approximately 3.5 miles west of the Rowan Road site. A similar database is located at Turkey approximately 3 miles northeast of i the same elevation of formation tops and thickness of the Black vas estimated using logs of CPT soundings, test wells, observation lied by S&MES°6 that are summarized in Table 2. Based upon these ges at the margins of the'Rowan Road site are- eroded into the Black based upon these logs the RW-3 is screened in the upper part of the previously discussed test of RW-2 and RW-3 demonstrated.the very I Creek Confining Unit. For completeness, the logs and CPT &ME are included as Attachment A to this report. 12 Hydrogeologic Framework Database Detail for _ __ U35G ell ll Field Data County_ _ Sampson--i Latitude 34.975275 I I - Longitude-78.308337 Location Accuracy +, _ Quad U 35G sy Town of 1 N Clinton, Depth Land Surface _ 152 _ _ Black Creek CU 100 Black Creek _ _ Upp_er_Cape Fear CU_ ' - 79 -70~�V--' Upper Cape Fear -114 ;Lower Cape Fear CU Lower Cape Fear Basement -184 4 -206 -303 WI-)eaarceg p Surficial ® Upper Tertiary CU ❑ Upper Tertiary IN Yorktown CU ® Yorktown 8 Pungo River CU © Pungo River ® Castle Hayne CU ■ Castle Hayne ® Beaufort CU El Beaufort IN Peedee CU 91 Peedee ® Black Creek CU 0 Black Creek ® Upper Cape Fear CU 11 Upper Cape Fear 0 Lower Cape Fear CU ■ Lower Cape Fear I EM Lower Cretaceous CUI 10 Lower Cretaceous ❑ Basement Figure 2.— Log of town of Clinton Well (U35G) from the North Carolina Visual Hydrogeologic Framework" The conceptual model and the numerical model include the Surficial Aquifer, the Black Creek Confining Unit and the upper portion of the Black Creek Aquifer as described below 1) Surficial Aquifer: top of the Surflcial approximated by si configuration of th, and monitoring we The initial horizon estimated to be 12 S&M E. As discu calibrate the grour single layer, the vt 19 lurficial materials extending to a depth of approximately 15 feet. The Jnit was taken as the land surface. The base of the Surficial Unit was Itracting 15 ft from the land surface. It also reflects the apparent base of the Surficial Unit at the Site based on logs of piezometers and vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Surficial Unit was per day based upon the aquifer tests of RW-1 and RW-2 reported by .d subsequently, it was not necessary to modify these values to eater model. Because the Surficial Aquifer was simulated using a ical conductivity is not explicitly included in the model equations. Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic 13 We a5ara.5 Table 5 summarizes the initial hydraulic conductivity values used for the Surficial Unit and underlying units. 2) Black Creek Confining Unit: a low hydraulic layer that was assigned a uniform thickness of five (5) feet based upon the log of RW-3, the regional well U35G and leakance values -reported by the USGS regional model for this unit1o. The base of this unit was determined�I in the model by subtracting five (5) feet from the bottom of the Surficial Aquifer. able 5 shows the hydraulic properties used for the Black Creek Confining Unit. TI 3) Upper portion of Black Creek Aquifer: The upper portion of the Black Creek Aquifer was included in the model as extending from the base of the Black Creek Confining Unit to an arbitrary plane, surface at an elevation of 50 feet NAVD88. The hydraulic properties for the Black Creek Aquifer were estimated from the U.S.G.S regional groundwater model and are shown in Table 5. Hydrostratigraphic Unit Thickness, ft Lithology Hydraulic Conductivity, ft/da Kx Kr Kz Surficial Aquifer 15 Sand to Silty Sand 12 12 1 Black Creek Confining Unit 5 Clay 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 Upper Part of Black Creek Aquifer Base of BCCU to an elevation of 50 ft NAVD88 Sandstone 20 20 20 Table 6. — Summary of Hydrostratigraphic Units Used for Groundwater Model Hydraulic Heads for Model Calibration Because the water levels measured by S&ME on April 4, 2006 as shown in Table 3 provide the largest number of measurements ents on the same date in the modeled area. These were used for model calibration. Recharge and Discharge Recharge to the modeled area results from the balance between infiltrated precipitation and evapotranspiration (ET) from the soil zone. Because all of the watertable depths at the Rowan Road site are less than 10 feet the model was used to compute the net recharge rate as follows: 1. An average rate of 39 inches per year of precipitation was applied to the top of the model based upon climatic records for Clinton, NC. 2. ET from groundwater was simulated using a depth -dependent function that decreased from the maximum valued of 36 inches per year for PET when the watertable was at the ` land surface to zero at a watertable depth of 8 feet. As discussed subsequently, this extinction depth for ET was increased to 10 feet during model calibration. Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 14 3. The effective rec computed by the This method of simulating 1 boundary condition applied more realistic models than the utility of this method rei check against during model method was used to determ analysis discussed subsequf Simulation Model The analyses documented i maintained as a public don developed, calibrated, and was developed for the'U.S. i, Inc. We &MC12-1.5 rate was determined by subtracting ET from groundwater 1 from the precipitation that was applied as -recharge. -.charge to groundwater when combined with the use of a drain to the entire land surface of the model has been found to produce pecifying an a priori recharge rate over the entire model. However wires sufficient number and distribution of measured water levels to calibration. This condition was met for the present study. The same ne the recharge rates under irrigated conditions for the mounding this report used MODFLOW-2000 which is developed and in code by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) The model was )plied within the Groundwater Modeling System (GMSTM) which Department of Defense, and which is a commercial product of ems - Model Grid The finite difference grid used for the simulation model covers the area shown in Figure 1, and comprises 230 rows oriented east west, 302 columns oriented nortn-south,3and 4 layers. The grid spacing over the entire model is 20 feet by 20 feet and corresponds to the previously discussed grid used to approximate the land surface. Layer one (1) represents the Surficial Aquifer and extends for a uniform thickness of 15 feet from the land surface. Layer two (2) represents the Black Creek Confining Unit and Layer three (3) the upper part of the Black Creek Aquifer. The top of layer one was taken as the land surface. The land surface was modeled using a 20 by 20 -foot grid constructed using the NC DOT 2-foot topographic contours outside of the Rowan Road property and site topographic contours provided by McConnell Associates Engineering for the interior of the Rowan Road Site. The top of Layer 2 was determined by subtracting 15 feet from the land surface, the top of layer 3 was determined by subtracting 20 feet from the land surface. The bottom of layer 3 corresponded to the bottom of the model and was set at a constant elevation of 50 feet NAVD 88. 1 Boundary Conditions Drain boundary conditions Iwere assigned to entire upper surface of model (the land surface). This boundary condition allows the site to drain if and when the watertable intercepts the land surface. The combination lof the detailed topographic surface available from the surveyed site topography and the 20-foot grid spacing provided a good representation of the elevation of the drains. The drain conductance was set at 10 ff/day/ft. In addition to the areal drail boundary condition used to simulate diffuse discharge to the land surface in the wetland and natural drainage courses, linear drainage features were used to Allen Canning Final Hydrogeologic Reoort.doc 15 simulate the five existing di constructed in the middle of existing drains are incised t feet to 5 feet along portions shown on Figure 2. An ave in the model. The proposes No flow boundary conditi 2 as well as to the bottom thalweg of natural drainai tins shown on Figure 2 as well as the proposed drain to be Zone 18. Field surveys were conducted to estimate the depth that the ;low the prevailing topography. The depth of incision ranges from 3 A the long east west drain at the southern portion of the property as age depth of incision for the existing linear drains of 4 feet was used new drain in Zone 18 had inverts ranging from 85 to 82 feet. s were used in all layers along the model boundary shown in Figure Layer 3. These correspond to either topographic divides or the Model Calibration The calibration of a groundwater model is achieved by adjusting initial estimates of hydraulic properties and boundary conditions to achieve an acceptable fit between simulated water levels and observed water levels in wells that are representative of the simulated hydrologic units. This fitting of simulated to observed water levels is the same process that is used in curve matching during pumping test analysis to determine aquifer properties. However, model calibration results in a more realistic representation of a hydrologic system than can be achieved by the use of type curves in aquifer test analysis. This is because numerical models do not require the use of simplifying assumptions regarding flow geometry, boundary conditions and homogeneity in hydraulic properties that are necessary to construct the analytical solutions represented by the type curves. The groundwater model was calibrated by matching simulated water levels in the 23 wells and piezometers measured on April 4, 2006 as reported by S&ME6 and shown in Table 3. All calibration and mounding analyses conducted for this report were steady state to demonstrate the maximum potential water level elevations in response to hydraulic loading. This approach is considered conservative because no credit is taken for the additional water that the Surficial Unit would accept into storage as the water table rises. No storage properties are required for steady state analyses for any of the hydrostratigraphic units. This also eliminates another potential source of uncertainty in simulated water levels. Single Layer Approximation Test To assess the reasonableness of the preliminary model parameters reported by S&ME6, the hydraulic conductivity of layers 2 and 3 were set to an extremely low value of 0.00001 ft/day (3.5 x 10-9 cm/sec). This created essentially a single layer model. Examination of the fit to observed water levels showed that while acceptable, simulated values were generally higher than observed values. The first adjustment to correct this was to increase the ET extinction depth to 10 feet. While some improvement was achieved, simulated water levels were still too high. Manual incremental increases in the hydraulic conductivity of the Surficial Aquifer were used to improve the fit by examinatron of calibration statistics as shown in Table 6. While a value of the Normalized Root Mean Square Residual (NRMSR) of less than 10% is generally considered acceptable, it was felt that a better fit might be achieved using automatic adjustment of hydraulic conductivity of the Surficial Aquifer. Consequently, the automatic Parameter Estimation (PEST) component of GMS was used to determine the value of hydraulic conductivity of the Surficial Aquifer that provided the best fit when starting with values of 5 feet Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 16 We & arne5 feet per day. The results of this analysis resulted in a best fit value of 18.4 ft/day as shown in Table 6. Model Parameters Assessed for Adjustment Fit Statistics HK ET I Precipitation Mean Res Mean Abs Res RMSR RMSR% of Range Ex Depth ET Max ET Surf ft/day ft in/yr Ft in/yr ft/day ft ft ft 12 8 36 LS 39.42 0.009 - (0.89764) 1.04 1.22 4.51 % 12 10 36 LS 39.42 0.009 (0.64860) 0.84 1.05 3.88% 141 10 36 LS 39.42 0.009 (0.41858) 0.69 0.92 3.40% 161 101 361 LS 1 39.42 0.009 (0.21190) 0.64 0.84 3.11 % 18F36'In t0?0"Oi1L1J2�0 KE_)T_65J N KE_)1_8171J3?QO°7oi Table 7.- Results of manual ai Three Layer Model, Gal As discussed above, the fie the Black Creek Confuting and Black Creek Aquifers. model resulted in increasin more a complete hydrogeo: feet per day for this condu( layer model was tested. Tl for the hydraulic conductiv Creek Aquifer as shown in Calibration of the three -la conductivity from the `PEA adjusting it until the Lowe: statistics for the three -Jaye levels and Figure 4 shows was achieved using the say RW-2. PEST Calibration for the Single Layer Approximation Model. d tests on RW-2 and RW-3 reported by S&ME and demonstrate that Layer provides an effective hydraulic barrier between the Surficial The preceding PEST calibration of the single layer approximation the hydraulic conductivity of the Surficial Aquifer. To provide a )gic analysis and to test the reasonableness of using the value of 12 ;ivity value from the on -site pumping tests, calibration of the three - is calibration began by assigning a value of 0.00003 ft/day (1 x 10-7 ty of the Black Creek Confining Unit and 20 ft per day for the Black Table 5. -r model was implemented by starting with the value of hydraulic analysis of the single layer approximation model and manually value of NRMSR was achieved. Table 8 shows the calibration model. Table 9 shows the values of the observed and simulated water he visual goodness of fit, which is considered excellent. The best fit e value of 12 ft/day derived from the pumping tests on RW-1 and Model Parameters Assessed for Adjustment Fit Statistics HK ET I I I Precipitation Mean Res Mean Abs Res RMSR RMSR% of Range Ex Depth ET Max I ET Surf ft/day ft in/yr � Ft in/yr ft/day ft ft ft 15 10 36 LS 39.42 0.009 0.368 0.82 0.97 3.56% 14 10 36 LS 39.42 0.009 0.256 0.79 0.92 3.41 % NEIL&1'0' i J Ll 1S.' 39742 010(9 0.71 0�88 3><2A% 11 10 36 LS 39.42 0.009 (0.13) 0.69 0.88 3.26% 11.5 10 361 LS 39.42 0.009 (0.06) 0.70 0.88 3.24% 12.5 10 361 LS 1 39.42 0.009 1 0.07 0.73 0.88 3.26% Table 8.--Calibration Statistics for the Three -Layer Model. Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Reporkdoc 17 0 Well Fasting Ft NAVD88 Northing Ft NAVD88 Obsened Water Le%el Ft Computed Water level Ft P-10 2,228,558 445,538 91.66 91.26 P-11 2,228,387 444,865 92.00 93.28 P-9 2,227,990 445,847 92.54 93.19 P-1 2,226,779 445,862 105.75 107.55 P-3 2,226,387 445,162 105.32 105.10 P-5 2,226,864 445,326 103.45 102.07 P-8 2,227,915 444,970 95.41 96.48 P-6 2,227,274 444,887 99.24 98.44 P-4 2,226,335 444,507 96.161 96.42 P-7 2,227,142 444,418 92.97 93.02 RW-2 2,227,671 444,413 94.15 94.09 OW-3 2,227,633 444,415 94.26 94.03 OW-4 2,227,590 444,413 94.32 93.86 P-12 2,228,313 444,208 93.34 91.42 P-13 2,229,176 444,507 89.52 90.12 RW-1 2,228, 851 444,051 90.29 89.85 OW-1 2,228,849 444,058 90.34 89.91 OW-2 2,228,805 444,063 90.22 89.97 P-17 2,228,839 444,045 90.50 89.82 P-14 2,229,375 443,839 87.99 86.98 P-16 2,229,968 - 443,986 83.53 84.33 P-15 2,229,682 444,928 84.96 85.41 P-2 2,226,059 445,693 110.63 111.82 Table 9.- Observed and Water Levels for the Best -Fit Three -Layer Model. 04e &a ceg Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic 18 120.00 115.00 110.00 G Q Z ILL. c 105.00 m W 100.00, 95.00 r 0 a E 0 v 90.00 85.00 80.00 80.00 eave fi5arce5 —1- F ♦ Observed I � i and Computed i ! 1 i — I f ! + ITH -4-I--I--III--- -�---,�r-f- I II - I----�-�—� , � _ � 'I�T ! — F- I 1 85.00 90.00 95.00 100.00 105.00 110.00 115.00 120.00 Observed Water Level Elevation, Ft NAVD Figure 3.—Results of Model Hydraulic Moundin The calibrated model was for by increasing the irrigi in the watertable being les rates for this process were most restrictive horizon fc mean Ksat values were de Rowan Road Site'. to April 2006 Water Levels in Monitoring Wells and Piezometers. Analysis sed to simulate the water table configuration and the depth to water .on recharge to the reasonable maximum values that would not result than 1 foot below any of the irrigation zones. The initial recharge etermined by multiplying the geometric mean Ksat value for the the most restrictive soil present in an irrigation zone. The geometric rmined by S&EC and are reported in the Soil Scientist report for the Initial boundaries of irrigation zones corresponded to boundaries of soil units as mapped by S&EC. However during the mounding analysis, it was necessary to further subdivide areas containing the same soil and to apply different recharge rates to the subdivisions. This process was used to maximize the irrigation capacity of the entire Rowan Road site, while keeping the Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Re ort.doc 19 recharge rates used less than the drainage rates recommended by S&EC in the Soil Scientist 1- Evaluation report$. Some irrigation zones (for example Zone 18) were developed to include more than one soil unit. In these cases, the applied recharge was restricted to that allowable for the most restrictive soil unit present in the zone. 01 The recharge rates that resulted in the maximum irrigation rates for all 18 irrigation zones that resulted in a water table depth of greater than one foot under all zones were determined as follows: 1. Apply the 80'h percent total precipitation as recharge for all areas of the model outside of the irrigation zones; 2. Determine the maximum recharge rate for each zone that results in the watertable being a minimum of one foot below the land surface within that zone and adjacent zones. This rate is effectively the total of recharge from precipitation and applied irrigation; 3. Allow the model to linear function of E PET at the land sur irrigation zone: 4. Compute the actual removed by ET for 5. Use the net rates for each zone. )mpute the amount of recharged water removed by ET using the vs. depth to the watertable that sets ET at the maximum average :e and zero at a depth of 10 feet and tabulate the ET loss from each drainage as the difference between the applied recharge and water i irrigation zone; and as the drainage in the water balance to compute hydraulic loading The results of the moundimganalyses are shown in Figure 5 by the contour showing the limits of areas where the simulated depth to watertable is equal to one foot. Figure 5 also shows the simulated steady state water table configuration for the Surficial Unit for these loading rates. The mounding analysis was used to eliminate areas of the sprayfields that have the potential for the permanent watertable under the 800' percent wettest year conditions to be less than one foot below land surface. There is one small area (less than 700 ft2, or 0.015 acres) in Zone 17 (Figure 5) that is a depression that needs to be filled with suitable soil to eliminate the potential for a water table less than one foot within the area. Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic 20 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was c in the value of hydraulic cc of layer one of the model 31 04-qj ((anra.5 lucted with the calibrated model to evaluate potential uncertainties .ctivity of the Surficial Unit. Sensitivity to hydraulic conductivity less than and 50% greater than the calibrated value of 12 ft/day. Zone Area DTW > 1.0, Ac Kh=12 Kh 10 Kh=8 1. 1.93 1.93 1.62 2 3.23 2.41 1.14 3 11.69 10.14 5.21 4 1.89 1.63 0.92 5 0.78 0.71 0.48 6 1.94 1.94 1.94 7 1.00 0.88 0.61 8 2.59 2.24 0.98 9 1 0.79 0.78 0.74 10 1.83 1.83 1.83 11 0.67 0.67 0.67 12 3.74 3.19 2.20 13 2.13 2.13 2.12 14 7.65 6.72 5.22 15 0.97 0.97 0.97 16 720 7.09 6.40 17 2.27 0.79 0.21 18.00 16.87 15.20 12.10 Total 69.15 61.24, 45.37 For the sensitivity analyses using values of hydraulic conductivity less than the calibrated value, the sensitivity variable evaluated was the area of each zone with a modeled depth to water of less than 1 ft under conditions of the UP % wettest precipitation. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 10. Because of the excellent agreement between measured and computed water levels as shown in Tables 8 and 9 and on Figure 4, it is considered unlikely that the effective hydraulic conductivity is significantly less than the calibrated value, of 12 ft/day. Table 10.- Sensitivity of Modeled Watertable Depth to Hydraulic Conductivity by Zone for Values of Hydraulic Conductivity Less than the Calibrated Value.of 12 ft/day. Table 11 summarizes the sensitivity analyses using values of hydraulic conductivity 2 ft/day using sensitivity variables equal to the minimum, maximum, and mean water table depth within each Zone 1 Depth to Watertable Kh =12 (Calibrated Model)I Kh = 14 Kh = 16 Kh = 18 Zone Mn Max Mean j Mn Max Mean Mn Max Mean Mn Max Mean 1 1.80 4.70 : 3.07 1 2.30 5.16 3.53 2.71 5.56 3.93 3.05 5.91 4.27 2 1.23 3.05 1.951 1.72 3.51 2.37 2.14 3.89 2.73 2.49 4.23 3.03 3 1.12 3.12 2.081 1.49 3.58 2.53 1.80 3.98 2.90 2.01 4.34 3.23 4 1.06 2.42 ;1.73 1 1.32 2.71 2.02 1.54 2.96 2.28 1.73 3.18 2.49 5 1.10 2.20 ' 1.65 1.27 2.41 1.86 1.41 2.59 2.03 1.53111 2.75 2.18 6 1.59 4.53 2.83 1.75 4.65 3.02 1.87 4.74 3.1.7 1.98 1 4.81 3.30 7 1.08 2.17 1.74 1.44 2.47 2.05 1.75 2.72 2.31 2.01 2.94 2.54 8 1.27 3.14 .2.02 1.80 3.55 2.50 2.23 3.90 2.90 2.52 4.20 3.24 9 1.32 3.89 , 2.75 1.63 4.12 3.02 1.89 4.31 3.25 2.11 4.47 3.45 10 2.89 5.20 •3.65 3.14 5.33 3.86 3.33 5.44 4.03 3.48 5.52 4.16 11 1.88 3.18 2.42 2.18 3.37 2.67 2.42 3.52 2.87 2.63 3.64 3.04 12 1.20 4.29 2.45 1.72 4.63 2.87 2.15 4.91 3.22 2.52 1 5.14 3.52 13 2.07 8.50 4.29 2.50 8.78 4.71 2.85 8.99 5.06 3.16 9.17 5.36 14 0.95 5.40 ,2.56 1.28 5.72 2.95 1.51 5.98 3.28 1.71 6.21 3.55 15 2.19 4.96 3.68 2.44 5.18 3.97 2.65 5.35 4.21 2.84 5.50 4.41 16 1.08 7.74 3.09 1.23 8.06 3.44 1.35 8.33 3.74 1.46 8.55 3.99 17 1.08 3.71 1.42 1.21 3.92 1.73 1.21 3.92 173-1 1.48 4.28 2.23 18 1.14 6.18 3.11 1.54 6.35 3.48 1.74 6.49 3.78 1 1.87 1 6.73 4.03 Table 11.-- Sensitivity of Area in Each Zone with Watertable Depth Greater than One Foot to Hydraulic Conductivity Values Greater than the Calibrated Value of . Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 22 Compliance Monitoring Wells As discussed previously, seven new monitoring wells were installed in November 2008. These wells and a monitoring4ell,previously constructed by S&ME (RW-5) will serve as the compliance monitoring system for the Rowan Road site. The details of the compliance wells are shown in Table 3 and their locations are shown on Figure 2. Wells RW-I, RW-2, RW-3, RW-4, RW-6, RW-7, and RW78 wee installed by Protocol Sampling Services, a Licensed North Carolina Well Contractor under subcontract to Eagle Resources. Background Groundwater- Quality Groundwater quality beneath the Rowan Road was assessed by S&ME on April 13, 2006 by sampling four (4) test wells and analyzing them for four of the seven parameters required by permit WQ0004268. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 12. ,r E > w a� C ) Sample `o o - .°� C6 2 °- Well ID Date 'U El 0U E E U z z aEi� l- 0� E a 0) co E NC 2L Groundwater Standard 2501 ns n/a- 10 n/a 500 6.5-8.5 250 P-15 4/13/2006 25 n/a n/a 19 n/a 200 n/a n/a P-4 4/13/2006 36 n/a n/a 14 n/a 210 n/a n/a P-15 4/13/2006 15� n/a n/a 3 n/a 44 n/a n/a OW-2 4/13/2006 7.0 n/a n/a < 0.10 n/a, < 20 n/a n/a OW-3' 4/13/2006 38 n/a n/a 26 n/a 280 n/a n/a R-1 11/17/2008 .12.3 50.3 75 0.'58 16.0 71 5.26 12.0 R-2 11/17/2008 , 9.251 25.5 158 2.76 16.1 108 4.87 48.4 R-3 11117/20081 5.5 63.1 118 3.0 15.0 56.6 4.37 - 31.8 R-4 11/17/2008 6.5 18.6 763 1.22 15.8 55.6 4.92 15.4 11 /16/07 ' 19.5 17.8 n/a 0.21 n/a ' 158 5.62 47.4 3/3/08 8.011 13.5 n/a 1.24 n/a 138 6.39 18.7 R-5 7/7108 10 19.9 n/a <.10 n/a 106 3.96 <5.0 11/17/2008 9.251 19.6 81 < 0.10 17.1 74 5.76 8.01 R-6 11/17/2008 45 46.8 288 4.83 18.1 77 4.72 34.2 R-7 111/17/20081 21.2 1 13.1 110 0.4. 1 18.1 66 4.74 12.6 R-8 11/17/2008 � 26.5 I < 5.0 381 24.1 1 21.9 200 1 4.66 22.4 n/a: no analysis reported;, ns: no standard Table 12.-- Background Groundwater Chemistry. i I, Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc i 23 Compliance monitoring we] the sampling and analysis n of these analyses are also A 4 and OW-3 shown in Tab1E These differences are attribl P-15, the eastern part of the cleared for cropping based i 2 of the S&ME Hydrogeolo where the elevated nitrate v elevated nitrate levels ate H agronomic demand. We &LCra.5 R-5 has been sampled and analyzed by Allens in conjunction with juired by permit WQ0004268 since November 20071 . The results ,wn in Table 12. Note that the nitrate values in the test wells P-1, P- 12 are significantly higher than the values for OW-2 and P-15. ed to the fact that at the time the samples were taken in OW-2 and Iowan Road site in which these wells were located had not been Ion reports by R. Wells and T. Langston of Allens, and upon Figure is Report6. Conversely, based upon the same sources, the area hies were detected apparently had been cropped for some time. The ,ly the result of nitrogen fertilizer being applied in excess of To further assess pre -irrigation groundwater quality conditions for the Rowan Road site the compliance monitoring ;wells were sampled on November 17, 2008 as part of the regularly scheduled fall sampling that includes monitoring wells for the existing irrigation areas north of Rowan Road. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 12. i The nitrate levels in all the compliance wells except R-8 are below the NC 2L standard of 10 mg/l. Well R-8 is also in the area that has been cropped for many years, and this well is also up - gradient of all proposed irrigation zones. Conclusions r A defensible conceptual hydrogeologic model of the Rowan Road site and surrounding areas has U been constructed using available information from public domain sources, field investigations, and tests by other contractors for Allens. A three-dimensional groundwater flow model has been constructed and successfully tested against measured groundwater level measurements. The simulated groundwater flow patterns are consistent with the conceptual model. The agreement. between measured and observed water level elevations is well within industry and NCDENR guidelines. Consequently the model can reliably be used to assess thei likely average water table configuration and depth to water table under conditions where irrigation is applied to the existing and expanded sprayfields. A uniform value of hydraulic conductivity equal to the value determined by a previous contractor from a long term pumping test was used in the simulation model for the surficial aquifer. Values for hydraulic conductivity o I the underlying Black Creek confining Layer and the Upper Black Creek Aquifer were taken from regional studies by the U.S. Geological Survey. Acceptable model calibration was achieved by applying recharge from average precipitation and simulating evapotranspiration from groundwater as a function of the depth to the watertable. The calibrated model was used to develop the boundaries of 18 irrigation zones and to determine the maximum rate of recharge that under steady state conditions resulted in a depth to water greater than one foot beneatli each zone. The recharge used in the mounding analysis was the sum of the 80t1% wettest year precipitation and applied irrigation water. 19 Reid Wells, Personal Communication:" Monitoring Wells Spreadsheet" November 2008. Allen Canning Final Hydrogeologic Report.doc 24 The recharge rates resulting from the mounding analysis were used as the drainage rates in the water balance to determine the recommended hydraulic loading rates for each zone. The drainage rates were used to calculate an effective drainage coefficient (ratio of the drainage rate to the geometric mean vertical hydraulic conductivity or Ksat for the most restrictive horizon) for the most restrictive soil present in each irrigation zone. All the computed drainage coefficients and drainage rates are less than those recommended in the Soil Scientist Report for the Rowan Road Site. i i Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Repoitdoc 25 { Attachment A. —Con Irc�'lj e fnrc._5 Penetrometer (CPT) Logs from S&ME. Allen Canning Final Hydrogeologic Repo) .doe 26 S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 141Febl2006 620 Wando Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-1 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: I Project: 1584-060-009 TCleary@smeinc.com Client: Allen Canning www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT 6 (tsf) O (tsf) 600 0 (%) B O (tsf) 30 O Class. FIR 10 -- O - - -- Sands Sand Mix Q 12 O- -- - - - -- - - - 12 Sands Sand Mix 24 24 L c v 1 36 36 i Sand Mix 60 i t t t i i i r j i i i t t r 60 Maximum depth: 57.03 (tt) Class FR-. Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990) N Q Estimated Phreatio Surface f S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 14/Feb/2O06 620 Wando Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-2 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: I Pgect: 1584-06-009 ' TCleary@smeinc.com Client: Allen Canning www.smeine.com Jab Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT s (tsf) 0 (tsf) 600 0 (%) B 0 1 (tsf) 30 O Class. FR 10 0 1 -- Or Band VS Fine Or — — — — Q- Sande 13 13 26 W 7 i Sand Mix i 39 39 i i 52 52 7 J. 65 Maximum depth: 64.22 (ft) Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref. Robertson 1990) SZEstimated Phreatic Surfaoe r— m z C) z z z i7 S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 14/Feb/2006 620 Wando Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: C-3 $SAM Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: Project: 1584-06-009 TCleary@smeinc.com Client: Allen Canning - www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress 6 (tsf) 0 - 0 - - - - 13 2E 35 5S 65 Maximum eepm: 30AS (R) Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT (tsn 600 0 (%) 6 0 (tsf) 30 0 Class. FR 10 k, w Claas FR. Friction Ratio Ctassification (Ref: Robertson 1990) p SZ Estimated Phreafic Surfaoe i i I 11 f t 1 S&ME Inc. , (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 14/Feb/2006 620 Wando Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-4 �• Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: Project: 1584-06-009 TC16ary@smeinc.com Client: Allen Canning www.smainc.com Job Site: Alien Canning Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR pore Pressure SBT 6 (tst) 0 (tsf) 600 0 M 6 0 (tsf) 30 0 Class. FR 10 --- -- - •o 13 26 C 39 52 65 Maximum depth: 47.97 (ft) - -- - - i3rsand Sande Q Sand Mix Cyr Sand Sands 1 1 i i 4 1 29 1 i i Band Mfx , 1 i 39 i th Sanda 52 65 Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990) SZ Estimated Phreatic Surface I M t— m z� (7 D Z Z 3 Z 0 CD C1 E SWE Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 14/Feb/2006 620 Wando Park Boulevard Easting: Test 1D: CPT-5 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: Project: 1584-06-009 Client: Allen Canning TCleary@smeinc.com WWW.Smeinc.com Job Site: Alien Canning Sleeve Stress 6 (tst) 0 Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT (tst) 600 0 M 6 -0 (tsfl 30 0 Class. FIR 10 Sands Q Gr Sand Sands 13 13 Sbnd'Mlz Sands z5 26 ' Gr Sand 39 39 52 52 65 Maximam depth: 31.78 (ft) Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Rai: Robertson 1990) Q Estimated Phreatie Surface e S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date:14/Feb/2006 ssm620 Wando Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-6 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: Pro'ect: 1584-06-009 " TCleary@smeinc.com Client: Allen Canning www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning sleeve Stress 6 (tsf) O Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SST (tsf) 600 0 (%) 6 0 (tsf) 30 . 0 Class. FIR 10 - Maximum depth: 32.8a (it) Class Fit Friction Ratio Classification (Ref. Robertson 1990) -j Q Estimated Phreatic Surface S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 14/Feb/2O06 620 Wando Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-7 • Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: Project: 1584-06-009 :TCleary@smeinc.com Client: Allen Canning www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress 6 (tst) 0 Maximum depth: 38.42 (ft) I m m Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT (tsf) 800 0 (°i6) 6 0 (tsf) 30 0 Class. FIR 1O V D r r— m z n 3) z z 13 Z G) 26 39 52 65 Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990) SZ Estimated Phreatic Surface Gr6and SanA Mix Sand Mix "la m Oa S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 14/Feb/2006 620 Wando Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-8 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: Proiect: 1584-06-009 TCleary@smeinc.com Client: Allen Canning www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR -Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT B (tsf) 0 (tsf) 600 I? (°.6) 6 0 (tg1) 30 0 Class. FR 10 - -0. - Gf Sand Sends —V6 Fln® Gr r Z 0 D Z Z. 13 73 Z G7 52 65 ' lWwdmum depth: 43.?s (R) Sand Mix 26 1 39 5.2 �� 11�•��,��1 165 U m Ciass FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990) V Estimated Phreatie Surface S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 14/Feb/2006 620 Wando Paris Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-9 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: Project: 1584-06-009 TCleary@smeinc.com Client: Allen Canning www.smeine.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR 6 (tat) 0 (tat) Maximum depth: 40.73 (M Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT 600 0 M . 6 O (tsf) 30 O Class. FR 10 u DD r- m Z ' C7 Z Z 13 Z 0 26 52 65 Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990) SZEstimated Phreatic SurMoe Sands rarsd MIX Sands Sanda Send Mix Sands . S&ME Inc. , (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 14/Feb/2006 . ssm620 Wando Park Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 TCleary@smeinc.com Easting: Elevation: Test -ID: CPT-10 Pm ect: 1584-06-009 Client: Allen Canning www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR B (tsf) 0 _ (tsf) 'Maximum depth: 41.10 (tt) Ratio COR Pore Preaaure SBT Boo O (0/6) 8 0 (tsf) 30 0 Class. FIR 10 V m z n 3) z Z. 13 z 0 26 39 52 85 Class FR: Friction Ratio ClassitiwUon (Ref. Robertson 1990) SZ Estimated Phneatic Suftee — Send Mix —Sattd•tdBr— Sanda ' Sand Mix Sande 9 S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date:14/Feb/2006 620 Wando Park Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 1° TCleary@smeinc.com Easting: Elevation: Test ID: CPT-11 Pro'ect: 1584-06-009 Client: Allen Canning www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress 8 (tsf) 0 I I N 0 m N Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT (tsf) 600 0 (%) 6 O (tsf) 30 0 Class. FIR 10 -v- Q Sand Mix 13 26 39 62 Q� i i i drSand Sands Sand Mix sand& Maximum depth: 35.54 (ft) O r— m z 3) z z 13 Z 0 26 39 52 65 Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990) Q Estimated Phreatic Surface ER t f 3 S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 'Northing: Date: 14/Feb/2006 620 Wando Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-12 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: Pro'ect: 1584-06-009 TCleary@smeinc.com - Client: Allen Canning www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress s (tsf) 0 Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT (tsf) Goo 0 (0/0) s 0 (tsf) 30 o Class. FIR 10 Sandc Q Gr Santl Gr Bend 13 1 Sand Mix. zs i 2e Send Mbc 39 39 52 52 cc 65 Maximum depth: 53.00 (ft) Class FR: Friction Ratio Ciasslfication (Ref: Robertson 1990)� Q Estimated PhreaticSurfaoe w A I ro m z n -D Z Z 3 Z 0 S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 14/Feb/2006 620 Wanda Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-13 �S�i�IIE Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: Proiect: 1584-06-009 TCleary@smeinc.com Client: Allen Canning www.smeine.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress 6 " (tsf) 0 - - -'-- 0 S t IL 13 26 39 5s" a5 Maximum depth: 42.95 (ft) Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT (tsf) GOO 0 (a/0) a 0 (taf) 30 0 Class. FR 10 Sande Und Mix Q Send$ 13 26 Sands I ' 39 Sand Mix 52 65 Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ret Robertson 1990) Q Estimated Phreatic Surface 11 I r— m z n z z_ z G7 S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 14/Feb/2006 620 Wando Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-14 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: Pro'ect:1584-M009 ` tm TCleary@smeinc.com - Client: Allen Canning www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT 6 (tst) 0 (tsf) Soo O (%) 6 0 (tst) 30 0 Class. FR 10 Sands D Q r sand mix Z Gr Sand Z 13 sand Mix 13 Z @ Sande GrSand. Sands 26 26 a. v 0 139 39 52 52 65' 65Ul Clan® FR: Frictlon Ratio Ctassilicatlon Rot. Robertson 1990 Maximum depth: 25.70 (ft} ( ) SZ Estimated Phreatic Surface I r ��i I r i r i r �� .� r r• it r t .- �� S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date:15Neb/2006 620 Wanda Park Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 ' TCleary@smeinc.com Easting: Elevation: Test ID: CPT-15 Pro'ect: 1584-06-009 Client: Allen Canning www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning sleeve Stress 6 (tsf) 0 Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT (tsf) 6o0 O (%) 6 O (tsf) 30 O Class. FR 10 -0-- - GS tl Sands Gr Sand Gr Sand 13 13 Sand Mix 26 i 26 Gr Send. Sand Mix 39 39 Gr Sand 52 52 a� 65 Mwdmum depth: 45.41 (tt) Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref. Robertson 1f)90) $z Estimated Phreatic Surface i rU I m m r z n 3) z z_ Z G) F S&ME Inc.' (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 15/Feb/2006 osm- 620 Wanda Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-16 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: -]Project: 1584-MO09 TCleary@smeinc.com Client: AIIen Canning www.smeinc.corn Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT 8 (tsf) O (tsf) 800 0 (%) 8 0 (tsf) 30 O Class. FIR 10 O 13 28 39 52 CL Ma;dmum depth: 50.91 (ft) Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990) Q Estimated Phreadc Surface i I f t e— S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 15/1=eb/2006 sim6201Nando Park Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 TCleary@smeinc.com Easting: Elevation: Test ID: CPT-1 7 Project: 1584-0"09 Client~ Allen Canning www.smeine.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress 6 (tst) O Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pare Pressure SBT (tst) 600 0 (°/a) 6 O (tsf) 30 O Class. PR 10 O Sands 13 Sand Mbr 26 Sands 39 52 a� Maximum depth: 34.39 (11) O D r f-- m z c� z a 13 z 26 52 65 Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref Robertson 1990) $ZEstimated Phreatic Surface F #' I'* U f II f f S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 15/Feb/2006 I*sm620 Wando Park Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 TCleary@smeinc.com Easting: Elevation: Test ID: CPT-18 Project: 1584-06-009 Client: Allen Canning www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress 6 (tat) O 13 26 E t Q 39 52 65 Maximum depth: 54.78 (ft) Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SST (tat) 600 ' 0 M 6 0 (tat) 30 0 Class. FR 10 - — — SZ sawn s Sands 1: Sand Mix Sans 2E Send Mbr i 39 Stand Mix 52 1 Sands B5 Class FIR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 1990) $ZEstimatad PhreatioSuriaoe I N .A I N t9 m a N r— m z n z_ Z Gl S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 15/Feb/2006 620 Wando'Park Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 TCleary@smeinc.com Easting: Elevation: Test ID: CPT-19 Pro'ect: 1584-06-009 Client: Allen Canning www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning 13 26 39 I N m ID N N Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT 6 (tsn O (tsf) Soo O (%) 6 O (tat) 30 0 Class. FR 10 52 65' Maximum depth:37.74 (ft) n D Z Z 13 Z G] Sands 26 39 52 k� t..t 1.J � � � 65 N Class FR: Friction Ratio Classiffcatlon (Ref, Robertson 1990) 0 $Z Fstimated Phreatic Surface S&ME Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date:15/Feb/2006 620 Wando Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT-20 �S Mt -Pleasant, SC 29464 Elevation: I Project: 1584-06-009 TCleary@smeinc.com Client: Allen .Canning www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR 8 (tsf) O oso Maximum depth: 69.25 (ft) Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT 600 0 (%) 6 O (tsi) 30 O Class. FR 10 a u 33 r r— m z n z z 13 z G) 26 39 62 65 Gass FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref. Robertson 1990) Q Estimated Phreatic Surface Sands tar Sand Sand Mix Sands Sand Mix Sands. Sand Mix Sands Sand Mix Sands ntarbodded Sands Attachment ir4e &5Ll. m5 ng and Monitoring Well Logs from S&ME Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic 27 E --I O r w RJ -c - l I SWE Inc. (843)884-0005 Northing: Date: 15/Feb12006 620 Wando Park Boulevard Easting: Test ID: CPT 21 -3 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464. Elevations: Project: 1584-06-009 TCleary@smeinc.com Client: Allen Canning ` www.smeinc.com Job Site: Allen Canning Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR Ratio COR Pore Pressure SBT s- - (tsll) - -o = -- _—_- _ 0 (A) - �= a (;sr) 30 o Class. FIR 10 -- - -- 0 Q —Cyr-Bedd— 13 1 Ma)dmum.depth: 31.39 (ft) Class FR: Friction Ratio Classification (Ref: Robertson 189D) Q Estimated Phreatic Surface 3 t-- m z n 3) z z GZ,) MRY-24-2007 13:16 i ALLEN CANNING .-A am PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING TURKEY; NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-2 1584-06;-009 . NOTES: DATE DRILLED: 312l08 �II ELEVATION: DRILLING METHOD: 31/4" H.S.A. 1 BORING DEPTH: 40.0 LOGGED BY: LBUTLER WATER LEVEL: DRILLER: R. Norwood DRILL RIG: CME-550 v J w p a w w STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w F 2" IL o ows {bll t► > U z O W v 10 20 30 6080 Gray Tan Silty Fine SAND 4 Orange Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Slightly Sandy SILT 7 Red Tan Orange Silty CLAY I 5 4 4 Gray.Whfte Silty FineiSANO 3 Grayand Tan Orange SiltyCLAY 10 5 Orange D wn Silty Fine Medium SAND (Saturated) -to Orange Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND Interlayered 4 - with red and orange silty clay Laminated Gra and Oran a CLAY 15 2 Gray Black Silly CLAY inter) lyered with fine sand seams 5 7 20 i 10 11 25 Black CLAY with Gray micaceous medium to fine sand 10 seams at 18.8 -18.9, 20.8-21.0, 21.2-21.3, 21.4-21.6, 22.9-23, 23.2-23.3, 23.E-24.6, 25.25.2, 25.E-25.7, - 28.2-28.4, 28.7-29; 29.1-29.2, 29.3.29.4, 31.1-31.3, i 31.5-31.85, 32.2-32.3, 32.542.65, 32.7-32.8 17 30 i 12 15 3 5 13 Gray Black CLAY ir&rlayered fine sand-mi with black gray medium to s 18 17 Black CLAY sand seams at 38.5-38.6, 38.75.38.8 � i 40 1 Boring Terminated at;40 Feet c e a 9 9 C C 0 NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. j 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. i.� 3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. i Page 1 of 9 ENMIGtRAL SERVICES MAY-24-2007 13:16 ALLEN CANNING P.03 4r b. .40. 'PROJECT. ALLEN CANNING TURKEY, NGRTH CAROLINA 1584-46-009 BORING LOG B-G NOTES: DATE DRILLED: 312106 ELEVATION: DRILLING METHOD: 3'/4" H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 40.0 LOGGED BY: LBUTLER WATER LEVEL: DRILLER: R. Norwood DRILL RIG: CME-550 ❑ is U a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION l?� w w p a W W w J a < a 0 STANDARD PENETRATION (blowslif) 10 20 TEST 30 DATA 60 80 z Black Very SiltyRne $AND 3 3 Orange and Tan Brown Slightly Clayey SILT 5 3 7 Black Fine Slightly Sandy Sil - I y CLAY (Moist) - 5 ra Sil Fine to Coarse SAND QuadzPebblas 10 5 Gray Fine SAND with; Wood Fragments Gray Fine to Coarse SAND with Rounded Quartz Pebbles 6 t. 15 25 21 19 Green Gray Very Silly Fine SAND with Mica; intedayered black clay 15 to 15.5 feet Green Gray Fine SAND Alt mating with Black Clay' 20 36 0 Interlap with rt r1ay12 Green CLAY with Thin seems of Gray Fine Sand 25 19 Black CLAY with thin seamsl of Gray Fine Sand 20 30 19 34 ,• • Green Fine SAND Alternating with seams of Black Clay " (Clay seams 28.4 to 28.8 feet and Sand seams 29 to 29.4 feet and 30.6 to 31 feet 1 42 � i3 35 i $ Green Gray Slightly Silty Fine SAND 3 4 Dark Green Slightly Sandy Clayey SILT 40 Boring Terminated at 40 Feet a o 0 J i _ Q m NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF,A REPORT FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. {I 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-15". .... 3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEIPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. i rage r U1 r # &I a SME ENVIRONMEWAL SERVICES 1 MAY-24-2007 13:16 ALLEN CANNING NMI wo bw PROJECT: ALCEN CANNING TURKEY,, NORTHCAROLINA BORING LOG B-10 1584-06�009 NOTES: DATE DRILLED: 2128106 ELEVATION: DRILLING METHOD: 4'/:' H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: •50.0 LOGGED BY: LBUTLER WATER LEVEL: DRILLER: R. Norwood DRILL RIG: CMES60 v i 1 > p w STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA Su o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I F0. - < a a°�") to z 3 10 20 30 6080 4 Tan Brown Gray Slightly Clayey Fine Very Sandy 5 and SILT 5 11 _.._..._ 8 7 Oran a Brown VerySiltyCLAM Gray Fine Sandy SILT (Moist] to Medium to Fine Sandy __ SIR with Mica 12 Gray and Orange Silty;' Fine td Coarse SAND (Saturated) 10 .. 3 5 Brown Orange Silty Fine to Coarse 3ANU with Rounded 15 9 '. Gray Silty Fine SAND with C purse to Fine Sand Seams, • Black Slightly Clayey SILT with Thin Micaceous seams 11 9 20 10 Gray Black Fine Slightly Sandy SILT with Mica, with g irregular fine sand pockets, clay seam 22 to 23 feet 25 �, 9 10 23 30 Dark Green Silty Fine to Medium SAND with clay seams 53 from'30.5 to 31 feet; Micaceous (Moist) 22 v 26 Black Green CLAY with Dark Green Medium to Fine Sand 35 s 30 Black Green CLAY InteriayerW with silty medium to fine i sand (Organics at 35.75 feet) 36 40 45 r : •. Dark Green Silly Fine to Medium SAND Saturate Black Green CLAY tnterlayered with silty medium to fine z 11 3" a 45 15 Green Black CLAY Fine sand seams 1/32" thick every from 46 to 48 feet 16 . 15 50 Boring Terminated at 5O Feet o z - a 0 ' m NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A;REPORT FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERALACCORDANCE NTH ASTM D-1586. 3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEP rliS ARE NOT EXACT. 4, WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 7 of 7 is ENVIRONMENNIIAL TESTING MAY-24-2007 0:16 i ALLEN CANNING P.05 60 s.. imm Ml L PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING TURKEY,.NORTI CAROLINA BORING LOG B-11 1584.06 009 NOTES: DATE DRILLED: 312106 I ELEVATION: DRILLING METHOD: 3 W' H.SJL BORING DEPTH: 40.0 LOGGED BY: LBUTLER WATER LEVEL: DRILLER: R. Norwood DRILL RIG: CME•660 U p w STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION > > toZ Z 10 20 30 60 80 Gray Silty Fine SANG ,; J 3 Orange Brown Fine Very Sandy SILT (Damp, moist a( 3 3 feet) 5 14 : Tan Orange and White Slight) Silty Fine SAND (Moist) 19 Gray White Silty Fine PAND (Saturate mirnmeous Gray White Fine to Coarse SAND (Saturated) slightly micaceous 7 Tan to Orange Silty Fine to Coarse SAND with Rounded 10—, Quartz Pebbles 5 Tan Orange Silty Flne to Coarse SAND Orange Gray Fine Slightly Sai dy Clayey SILT (Low 3 Orange Silty Flne SAND 19 ' 15 I h Organics 25 In a Alternating Gray Fine Sand Alnd Black CLAY (Moist) 20 Green CLAY with irregular inclusions of gray g sand 8 (Moist) z 9 z i 12 25 !$� Black CLAY with seams of gray fine sand; organlc debris 13 0 14 a -'a 0 m NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA 1N GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-188 . 3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DE THIS ARE NOT EXACT. 4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATIO AND WILL VARY. rage 7 yr z cm 0 S&ME ENGINE W WAL SEVM MRY-24-2007 0: 17 ALLEN CANNING I P.06 r.. ►= a. 4— PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING TURKEY, NORTH CAROLINA BORING LOG B-11 1584.06.008 NOTES: DATE DRILLED: 312106 ELEVATION: DRILLING METHOD: 3 V H.S.A. I BORING DEPTH: 40.0 LOGGED BY: LBUTLER WATER LEVEL: DRILLER: R. Norwood DRILL RIG: 'CME-550 w ZEu>O W u1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA W o MATERIAL DESCRIPTIO w a v�z z o.. 3 w 10 20 30 fi0 80 Black CLAY with seams of gri y fine sand; organic debris 21 continued AA Finely LarnlnatedBlack CLAY And gray green fine sand Green CLAY with irregular inCl Usions of gray green fine 23 • 35 37 I Green Gray Fine SAND with Mica with black organic silt with fine sand seams from 36.3 to 35.7 feet 32 ica 7 30 with seams of gray fine sand me 40- Green Gray Fina Ica Boring Terminated at 40 feet t c w a c4 z z 7d' U i U z it O m NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.. 2., BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH AST D-158 i . 3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. JI 4. WATER LEVEL 15 AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY, a.. ragecu+c *SWE WINEERING • TESTING "MEWAL SERVICES MRY=24-2007 13:17 ALLENC A_ CANNING P.07 imp 6w k— r.. a., TURKEY, NORTHI CAROLINA BORING LOG 8-16 1684.06-009 NOTES: DATE DRILLED: 311106 ELEVATION: DRILLING METHOD: 3'/4 H.S.A. BORING DEPTH: 40.0 LOGGED BY: LBUTLER WATER LEVEL: DRILLER: R. Norwood DRILL RIG: CME-550 U J w p w wa STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA m °a¢. o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (blowslft) w o 0. 1 r Lu u� z Z w 10 20 30 .6.0.8.0. • 4 Gray Slightly Silty Fine to Medium SAND (Damp) 3 6 4 Gray Fine Sandy CLAY (Moist) - 11 3 Tan Silty Fine to Coarse SAND (Saturated) 10 7 - Orange Tan Slightly Clayey Silty Fine to Coarse SAND Green Gray Fine Siigtitly Sandy Very Clayey SILT (Damp); 15 with mica; clay and rock fragments 9 -S1 . 20 24 Green bray Silty Fine SAND (Saturated) with Mica Green Gray Fine Sligq uy Saridy Very Clayey SILT (Damp); Clay and Rock 9 16 25 • 14 Green Black Very Silty CLAY with Thin, Fine Sand Seams 1.1 Green Gray Silty Fine,'to Medium SAND with Mica and 8 30 " 13 n 22 f Green Black CLAY with Thin Fine Sand Seams at 75 35 30.E-30.65, 31.2-31.3, 33.4-33.6, 38.5-38.55, 39.4-39.6 15 z' z 21 6 40 Boring Terminated MAO Feet O Z R 0 m NOTES: t: THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. 2. BORING, SMAPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN --- " GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-158I . 3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WLL VARY_ Page 1 of 1 e 0 EE�NIVOIROENNiAL E MAY-24-2007- 13:17 ALLEN CANNING P.013 PROJECT: ALIEN CANNING TURKEY,;NORTil CAROLINA BORING LOG.B-19 ' 1584-06-009. J NOTES: DATE DRILLED: 311106 J ELEVATION:. BORING DEPTH:. 50.0 DRILLING METHOD: 3 V H.S.A. ! WATER LEVEL: LOGGED BY: LBUTLER I DRILL RIG: CME-550 DRILLER R Norwood 9 m z J a STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION m Z i > W p '� Fes^ } m v W Z 10 zo 30 sa so Z Tan Brown Slightly Clayey Silty Fine SAND a. 5 Orange Tan Brown to Red and Tan Orange Fine Sandy 5 SILT 11 i� Tan'Silty Fine SAND with Mica 17 • Orange Slightly Silty Fine to Medium SAND (Saturated) - • 7 Orange Fine to Coarse SAND with Rounded Quartz _ 10 Red and Tan Orange Fine Slighily Sandy Clayey SILT 9 Green Gray Fine'Slightly Sandy Clayey SILT (Moist) With r� I Tan Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy SILT Finely Laminated Black CLAY with Gray Fine Sand = Tan Silty Fine to Coarse SAND with Mica 5 15 Green Gray Fine SAND with Mica Interlayered wdh Black . 22 Black CLAY Interlayered with Gray Green Fine Sand • Green Gray Fine SAND Intedayered with Blade Clay fr .. 19 _ ul !' GO .. d Black CLAY with Thin Gray Green Fine Sand Seams from z 19.1 to 19.3 feet and from 20A to 20.4 feet 12 13 25 , 14 Finely Laminated Black Ci I4Y And Gray Green Fine Sandmen o ,.. i 21 • I . Black CLAY with Thin Finel Sand Seems; organic -seem at 0 29.5 feet m Page 9 of NOTES= ... 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REP PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER ORT FOR THE NAMED WITH THAT REPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1�586: 3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT, ENGINEERING ' TESiIh�G 4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION I AND WILL VARY. ENVIRONMENUI. S C S MAY-24-2007 13r17 ALIEN CANNING P.09 ,-- W. r- M 4- bw PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING TURKEY, NORTH CAROLMA BORING LOG B-19 1684-Ofr009 NOTES: DATE DRILLED: 311106 ELEVATION: DRILLING METHOD: 3 VV H.S.A. I BORING DEPTH: 50.0 LOGGED BY: LBUTLER WATER. LEVEL: DRILLER: R: Norwood DRILL RIG: CME-560 U .J > p w w STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA ur az o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w o (biows/tt) w ;. 4rz -� Y v� z z W 10 20 30 .6.0.8.0. 000, 15 35 Dark Green Silty Fine to Medium SAND (Saturated) clay 16 seams 35.1 to 35.2 feet, 3515 to 35.6 feet: silty clay seams 35.25 to 35.3 feet, 38.5 to 38.6 feed organic layer 35.2 to 35.25 feet; slightly indurated seams 40 to 41 feet 34 I 47 40 . 73 Dark Green Shale (Weathered Seam) 51 61 4500 Dark Green Very Silty Fine SAND; Possible Organic 0.0000 Seams at 47.2 and 48.5 feet 16 LU so - Boring Terminated at 50 Feet z 3z t3 , z m , C7 O J i • 0 M NOS 1 w 1, THIS LOG IS 014LY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1 I66 S. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORAT ON AND WILL VARY_ Page z or z ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING S ww bw ..- MAY724-2007 13:14 PROJECT: AL.LEN PROJECT NO: 1584-06 PROJECT LOCATION: TURKE DRILLING CONTRACTOR: R. NOry DRILLING METHOD: 4 IY4' H DATE DRILLED: 3120/06 CANNING P.10 'LETION REPORT OF WELL No. OW-1 Sheet 1 of 1 ZING WATER LEVEL: RTH CAROLINA LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: DATUM: MSL i nr•r_cn cv. I MITI =I* STRATA VV�ELL DETAILS .. a .. o `Z" 0 < WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS J 0 = DESCRIPTION W a w rn 1 w PROTECTIVE CASING ' 0.00 GS Diameter. Type: . Light Tan Fine SaIdy0 0.20 SS Interval: IndyLT ck Fine VerySILTwith 3.00 FP anics 3.60 TSC RISER CASING ' ray Green Fine CLAY Diameter: 2" Blade Very Silty 5 Type: PVC SAND v Interval: +1.7 to 3.6 GROUT Tan Slightly Silty Fine SAND Gray Tan Slightly' ilty Type,• Fine to Medium 101 Interval: AND Orange Tan Fine to Coarse SAND with Rounded Quartz SEAL Fragments Type: Bentonite Interval: 0.2-3.0 Black CLAY with Green Gray Fine Sand t5 eams Gray Green Fine to FILTERPACK Medium SAND with 18.20 BSC Type: #2 Sand Blade Clay Seams TD interval: 3.048.2 18.60 19.20 BIBck CLAY SCREEN Diameter: 2" Type: 0.010 13 Interval: 3.6 to 18.2 o - L LEGEND 0 FILTER PACK a BENTONITE TOC TOP OF CASING CEMENT GROUT GS . GROUND SURFACE BS BENTONkTE SEAL z ® CUTTINGS I BACKFILL FP FILTER PACK SCREEN w 4 TSC TOP OF STATIC WATER LEVEL. BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN s5 TD TOTAL DEPTH q CG CEMENT GROUT COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. OW-i a Sheet t of 1 E o E iAL 2 MAY-24-2007 13:17 A i Cl i PROJECT: -ALLEN PROJECT NO: 1584.M L� PROJECT LOCATION: TURKE 0- r-. DRILLING CONTRACTOR; R. Nory DRILLING METHOD: 4'/s' H DATE DRILLED; 3120106 =N CANNING WPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. OW-2 INNING 09 WATER LEVEL: NORTH CAROLINA LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: DATUM: MSL i nr r;Fn Rv LRUTLER P.11 Sheet 1 of 1 STRATA WELL DETAILS x w ❑ o > � . WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS m m DESCRIPTION L ❑ J j v}i o w PROTECTIVE CASING 0 0.00 GS Diameter: Type: Gray Brown Fine Very 0.30 BS Sandv SILT interval: Tan Brown Fine Sandy SILT (Damp) 3.00 FP 3.70 TSC RISER CASING Diameter. 2" Orange and Gray Brown Slightly Silty 5 Type: PVC Fine SAND (Moist) Interval: +1.6 to 3.7 . GROUT Tan Fine to Medium SAND with Thin Clay Seems(Moist)Type: 10 Interval: Tan Gray Fine Sand and Fine to Medium • SAND (Saturated) SEAL Type: Bentonite Interval:. 0.3-3.0 B a CLAY with Green Grey Fine Sand 15 Seams FILTERPACK Gray Green Fine to Medium SAND wlfh Black ClaySeams r 18.30 18.70 BSC TD Type: #2 Sand Interval; 3.0-19 tack CLAY with - teen Gray Fine Sand 19.00 SCREEN Green Fine to rV um SAND with Diameter.. T' k Clav Seams Type-` 0.010 S interval: 3.7 to 18.3 o w LEGEND EIFILTER PACK z ■ BENTONITE Too TOP OF CASING z ® CEMENT GROUT GS GROUND SURFACE SS BENTONITESEAL. ® CUTTINGS / BACKFILL FP FILTER PACK TSC TOP OF SCREEN STATIC -WATER LEVEL BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN TD TOTAL DEPTH CG CEMENT GROUT J COMPLETION REPORT OF o i WELL No. OW-2 • 1 M Sheet 1 of 1 Z EEMEM s MAY-24-2007 13:17 ! Al Cl PROJECT: ALLEN PROJECT NO: 1684-OE % PROJECT LOCATION: TURKE DRILLING CONTRACTOR: R. NorY DRILLING METHOD: 61/a " HAI DATE DRILLED: 3115106 i- 6w U- ft- .r EN CANNING P.12 WPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. OW-3 Sheet 1 of 1 INNING' 09 WATER LEVEL: NORTH CAROLIlNA LATITUDE: Dd LONGITUDE: 1_ TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: DATUM: MSL nnncn my I RI ITI ER STRATA I WELL DETAILS o 0 < WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS o = DESCRIPTION W v A~ w 1 v t1S A I � PROTECTIVE CASING 0 0.00 GS Diameter. Type: Brown Tan Fine 0.60 BS Sandy SILT Interval: 3AO 420 FP TSC RISER CASING Gray Brown Silty Fine SAND 5 Diameter: 2" Type: PVC Orange Fine SAND Gray Silty Fine SAND interval: +1.1 to 4.2 GROUT Type: 10 Interval: SEAL ' Type: Bentonite Interva! 0,$-3.4 Gray Tan Si tyFine to Medium SAND 5 FILTERPACK Brown Slightly clayey Fine to Coaise Sandy Type: #2 Sand SILT ' 18.90 19.20 BSC TD Interval: 3.4-19.2 SCREEN Green CLAY Diameter..2" Type: 0.010 Interval: 4.2 to 18.9 r o ' - LEGEND b a FILTER PACK zBENTONrm TOC TOP OF CASING ® CEMENT GROUT S GROUND SURFACE BS BENTON1TIs SEAL z ® CUTTINGS I BACKFILL FP FILTER PACK TSC TOP OF SCREEN 1 STATIC WATER LEVEL BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN TO TOTAL DEPTH $ G CEMENT GROUT J COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. OW-3 � Sheet t of 1 e DWGSm. S I` MAY,-24-2007. 13:17 ALLEN CANNING P.13 COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. OW-4 Shoot of t PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING / PROJECT NO: 1584-06.409 WATER LEVEL: PROJECT LOCATION: TURKEY J NORTH CAROLINA LATITUDE: DRILLING CONTRACTOR: R. Norwood LONGITUDE: DRILLING METHOD: 3'/a' H.S.A. TOP 01 CASING ELEVATION: DATUM: MSL DATE DRILLED: 3116106 1 nr_r_rzn av 1 Al 1'f11 FR bw 6.. W. STRATA i WELL DETAILS z w e c w o a ' WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS o = DESCRIPTION _ O v t�i .r N reo V Ul PROTECTIVE CASING 0.00 GS Diameter. -Type: Tan Brown Silty Fine 0.30 BS SAND Interval: 3,30. 4.30 FP TSC RISER CASING Gray Silty Fine to Medium SAND Diameter: 2" Type: Pvc Interval: +1.0 to 4.3 Gray Silly Fine to i GROUT Coarse SAND 10 p Type: Interval. Gray Brown Very Silty Fine SAND SEAL Gray White Fine.to Coarse SAND - Type: Bentonite 15 Interval: 0.3-3.3 Brown Green Very Silty Fine SAND FILTERPACK' ' ^• • Type: #2 Sand I:. 19.00 BSC Interval: 3.3-19.6 ,, r r 19.30 19.50 TD SCREEN Green CLAY ' Diameter. 2" Type: 0.010 Interval: 4.3 to 19 t; LEGEND FILTER PACK ■ BENTONITE TOC TOP OF CASING GS GROUND SURFACE ® CEMENT GROUT BS SENTONITE SEAL ® CUTTINGS 113ACKFILL FP FILTER PACK _TSC TOP OF SCREEN t STATIC WATER LEVEL BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN TD TOTAL DEPTH i G CEMENT GROUT COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No.-IOW-4 t Sheet 1 of 1 s _ - MAY-24-2007 13:18 ALLEN CANNING COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. RWA PROJECT: ALLEN CANNING PROJECT NO: 1684.06-009 J PROJECT LOCATION: TURKEY; NORTH CAROLINA i DRILLING CONTRACTOR: R. Norwood DRILLING METHOD: 6'/au " H.S.A. DATE DRILLED: 311;T106 WATER LEVEL: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: DATuM: MSL LOnGEn sY: LBUTLER P.14 Sheet 1 of 1 STRATA WELL DETAILS �.. a. °z ; o >� WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 0m DESCRIPTION v Lu p LLJ w p j m PROTECTIVE CASING 0 0.00 GS Diameter. Type: Tan Brown Fine Very 0.40 BS Sandy SILT Interval:' � 3.40 4.00 FP TSC RISER CASING . Diameter: 4" 5 Type: PVC interval:. +1.4 to 4.0 Tan Silty Fine SAND GROUT. Tan Very Silty Fine 10 Type: Interval: SAND SEAL Brown Green Clayey Silty Fine SAND - Type: Bentonite interval: OA-3.4 15 FILTERPACK .: 18.5D 18.9D BSC TD Type: #2 Sand Interval: 3.4-19.5 Green Fine Slightly an CLAY SCREEN lack CLAY I19.50 Diameter. 4" Type: 0.010 3 Interval: 4.0 to 18.5 9 LEGEND FILTER PACK ■ BENTONITE TOC TOP OF CASING ®CEMENT GROUT GS GROUND SURFACE BS BENTONITE SEAL a ® CUTTINGS / BACKFILL FP FILTER PACK TSC TOP OF SCREEN BOTTOM OF SCREEN STATIC WATER LEVEL BSC TD TOTAL DEPTH CG CEMENT GROUT 0 d - COMPLETION REPORT OF z WELL No. RW-1 Sheet 1 of 1 °s �/I�IFNrAL r.. 6W "0 MAY-24-2007 13:18 I i PROJECT: ALLEN PROJECT NO: 1584-0( PROJECT LOCATION: TURKE DRILLING CONTRACTOR: R. Nory DRILLING METHOD: 6'/�' DATE DRILLED: 3116106 i =N CANNING MPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. RW-2 INNING 09 WATER LEVEL: NORTH CAROUNA LATITUDE: )d LONGITUDE: �. TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: DATuM: MSL LOGGED BY: L13UTLER- P.15 Sheet 1 of 1 STRATA {HELL o o _ DETAILS �� WELL CONSTRUCTION- DETAILS DESCRIPTION o. e n u� rn Lu c i w• PROTECTIVE CASING 0 0.00 GS Diameter. Type: Brown Tan Fine 0.40 BS Sandy SILT Interval: ` - 3.90 FP RISER CASING S 4.30 TSC Diameter. 4' Type: PVC Tan Very Silty Fine SAND Interval: +1.1 to 4.3 GROUT Gray silty Fine to Medium SAND Type:' 10 Interval: SEAL Tan Orange Fine to Type: BeSt011lte Coarse SAND Interval: 04-3.9 Gray Brown Slightly 15 Clayey Fine to Coarse iz.. FILTERPACK Sandy SILT Type: 42 Sand 18.80 BSC Interval: 3.9-19.2 19.20 TD SCREEN Preen CLAY Diameter: 4" Type: 0.010 ' Interval: 4.3 to 18.8 9 LEGEND ` i Q FILTER PACK ■ BENTONITE TOC TOP OF CASING GS GROUND SURFACE CEMENT GROUT BS BENTONITE SEAL. i CUTTINGS / 8ACKFILL FP FILTER PACK TSC TOP F SCREEN o = STATIC WATER LEVEL BSC BOTTOM OF SCREEN TD TOTAL DEPTH CG CEMENT GROUT R � - COMPLETION REPORT OF WELL No. RW-2- EER1N NO Sheet 1 of 1 a - w MW " r MAY-24-2007 13:18 PROJECT: ALLEN PROJECT NO: 1584-04 PROJECT LOCATION: TURKE DRILLING CONTRACTOR: R. Nory DRILLING METHOD: 6%" HAI DATE DRILLED: 3/16106 CANNING P.16 >LETION REPORT OF WELL No. RW-3 Sheet 1 of 1 KING - WATER LEVEL: RTH CAROLINA LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: TOP OF CASING ELEVATION: DATUM: MSL i nnarn Rv LRUTLER STRATA WELL DETAILS x L o w 0 ¢ WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS o DESCRIPTION C° w G�i V r}n o v I w PROTECTIVE CASING � 0.00 GS' Diameter. Type: Brown Tan Fine 0.50 BS Sandy SILT i Interval: 5 5.5o cG RISER CASING Diameter: 4" '• Tan Silty Fine SAND Type: PVC Interval: +1.0 to 34A Tan Very Silty Fine to Medium SAND GROUT 15 ' T Type: Neat Cement Grout Interval: 5.6-29.7 Brown Gray Slightly Clayey Silty Fine SAND SEAL Type: Bentonite Brown Green Fine Slightly Sandy CLAY 201 ' Interval: 0.54.6 and 29.7-33.4 Green to Black Fine Slightly Sandy CLAY FILTERPACK 251 Type: #2 Sand Interval: 33.4-44.3 i 30 29.70 BS SCREEN Diameter. 4" 33.40 FP Type: 0.010 - g 34.40 TSC interval: 34.4 to 43.9 Brown Green Fine 35' SAND LEGEND 40 FILTER PACK ■ SENTONITE TOC . TOP OF CASING z z 43.90 BSC ®CEMENT GROUT GS " GROUND SURFACE BS BENTONITE SEAL 44.30 TD ® CUTTINGS-, BACKFILL FP FILTER PACK OF EN TSC TOP = STATIC WATER LEVEL BSC - BOTTOM OF SCREEN a - TD TOTAL DEPTH CG CEMENT GROUT COMPLETION REPORT OF _ WELL No. RW-3 ENNWDNIiABdrAL Sheet 1 of 1 TOTAL P.16 i We C.-0 1 Attachment C—Completion Reports and Logs for Compliance Wells (R-5 from S&ME) i Aliens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Re ort.doc 29 \� J North Carolina s= WELL C 1. WELL CONTRACTOR: David E. Meyer Well Contractor (Individual) Name Protocol Sampling Service, Inc. Well Contractor Company Name STREET ADDRESS PO BOX 31133 Raleigh NC City or Town State 9�)_ 210-6547 Area code- Phone number 2, WELL INFORMATION: r SITE WELL ID#(Ifapple eble) CW-7 L WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMITdt(If app OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT #(if appl 3. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box) Mon IndustriauCommerciali] Agriculturalll Irrigation0 OtherO (list use) DATE DRILLED October 31, 2008 TIME COMPLETED 1400 4. WELL LOCATION: CITY: Turkey C Rowan Road 1 of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality TOR CERTIFICATION # 2527 27622 Zip Code Municlpai/PublicD oveW InjectlDnil AMD PM13 (Street Name, Numbers, Community, 3ubdivisii ,Eat No., Passel, Code) TOPOGRAPHIC (LAND SETTING: p Slope a Valley 0 Flat 0 Ridge 13 Other (check appropriate bo:t) Maybe in degrees, LATITUDE 34.972091 minutes, secamds or LONGITUDE 78 235786 in a decimal format _ _ ' Latitude4ongitude source: 8 GPS III Topographic map (location of well must be shown on a USGS topo map and aftachad to this form it not using GPS) S FACILITY -is ennam arthebusinesswHerathe i Ieloceted FACILITY ID #of applicable) NAME OF FACILITY Alien Canning STREET ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway _Turkey NC 28393 City or Town state Zip Code CONTACT PERSON Mr. Tornmy Langston MAILING ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway Turkey NC 1 28393 City or Town State I Zip Code 91� 0 j_ 598-0028 Area code - Phone number S. WELL DETAILS: a. TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0 b, DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YESD NOd e. WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing! 6.55 FT, (Use '+" ff Above Top of Casing) d. TOP OF CASING IS 3.0__ FT. Above Land Surface' 'Top of casing terminated atlor below land surface may require a variance In accordance with t5A NGAC 2C .0118. e, YIELD (gpm): 1 METHOD OF TEST PUMP f- DISINFECTION: Typo na Amount na g. WATER ZONES (depth): From 6.0 To 12.0 From To From To From To From To From To 7. CASING: Depth Diameter ThicknessANelght Material From +$.0 To -2.0 Ft. 20 SCM4 PVC From To Ft. From Tc Ft S. ®ROUT: Depth Material Method From 0.0 To -0.5 Ft. Portland pour From -0.5 To -1.5 Ft. Bentonite pour From TO Ft. 2. SCREEN- Depth Diameter Slot Size Material From-2.0 To -12.0 Ft.2" In. 0.010 in. VP c_ From Tc Ft. in. In. From To Ft. in_ In. 10. SANDIGRAVEL PACK: Depth Size Material From -� 5 To -12,0 Ft. #3 quart;' sand From To Ft. From To Ft. 11.DRILLING LOG From To Formation Description 0.0 3.0• Brown silty sand (SM) 3.0 5.0' Dark brown clayey sand (SC) 5.0 8.0' Black clavev sand (SC) 8.0 12.9 Black sandy clay (ML) 12. REMARKS: I DO HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE N7TH ISA NC:AC 2C, WELL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, AND THAT A COPY OF THIS 6EEN PROM TO THE WELLOAWER_ `< IIM2008 SIGNATURE OF CERTIFOED WELL CONTRACTOR DATE David E. Meyer PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL Submit the original to the Division of Water Quality within 30 days. Attn: Information Mgt., Form GW-1b 1617 Mail Servloe Center - Raleigh, NC 27899.1617 Phone No. (919) 733 7015 ext 6611. Rev.12fO7 L-cl XUA 10001ONd WU06t01 8002 92 ADW �i North Carolina Dep�ent of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION o 2527 1. WELL CONTRACTOR: David E. Meyer Well Contractor (Individual) Name Protocol Sampling Service, Inc. Well Contractor Company Name STREET ADDRESS PO Box 31133 1 Raleigh . NO I 27622 City or Town Slate Zip Code 91( 9 ).210-6547 Area code- Phone number 2. WELL INFORMATION:- R-2 SITE WELL ID#gfapplicabb) CW-6 WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT#(Ifnppllcetae) OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT #(if applicable) 3. WELL USE (Check Applicable 8ox): Monitoiring0 Municipal/Pubiid] Industrial(Gommerdalp Agricufl6ral0 }tscoveryp InjectiorE - Inrigatiora ,Othero (list use) DATE DRILLED October 31, 2608 .TIME COMPLETED 1300 I AMEI PM13 4. WELL LOCATION: CITY: Turkey COUNTY Sampson Rowan Road (Street Nance, Numbers, Community, Subdivision. Lot No.. Parcel, ZIP Code) TOPOGRAPHIC ( LAND SETTING.: 0 Slope 0 Valley 0 Flat to Ridge 0 Other (check a pprt*riate box) . May be in dogrees, LATITUDE 34.971024 minutes, seconds or 78 234232 in a decimal format LONGITUDE _ _ Latitude/longitude source: H CPS 0 Topographic map (location of wolf must be shown on a USGS topo map and attached to this form if not using PPS) 5. FACILITY -is the nartte dthe buslnesswhom the we9 is located FACILITY ID #{if applicable) 11 'NAME OFFACILITYAllen Cannina I STREET ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway Turkey NQ 28393 City or Town State I Tip CodI CONTACT PERSON Mr_ Tommy Langston MAILING ADDRESS 5900 Turkey Highway - City or Town State I Tip Code ( 91a__j. 596-0026 -Area code Phone number S. WELL DETAILS:' a. TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0 b. DOES WELL.REPLACE EX<STINQ WELL? YESD NON c. WATER LEVEL Below Top ofiCasing]: 6.55 FT. (Use "+" if Above Tap of Casing) d. TOP OF CASING IS •_ 3.0 FT. Above Land Surface' 'Top of casing terminated atlor below land surface may require a variance in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .0118. e. YIELD (gpm): 1 - METHOD OF TEST pump f. DISINFECTION: Type na Amount na g. WATER ZONES (depth): From 6.0 To 12.0 - From To From To Frorn To - Fro rnTo From To 7. CASING: Depth Diameter ThicknessAftight Material From +3.0_ To -2.0 Ft 2" Sch40 DVC From To Ft From To Ft 8. GROUT: Depth Material Method From 0.0 To -0.5 Ft. Portland pour From-: 0.5 To -1.5 Ft Bentonite pour _ From To Ft. 9. SCREEN: • •Depth Diameter -Slot Size Material From -2.0 To -12.0 Ft 2" In. 0.010 in.PVC _ From To Ft. In. In. From To Ft. in. in. 10. SANDfORAVEL PACK: Depth . Size Material From -1.5 To -12.0 Ft #t3 quartz sand_ From To Ft. From To Ft. 11.DRILLING LOG From TO Formation Description 0.0 3.0' Brown silty sand (SM) 3.0 5.0' Darts brown clayey sand (SC) 5.0 8.0' Black clayey sand (SC) 8.0 12.0' Black sandy clay (MIL) 12. REMARKS: 100 HEREBY CER71FY THAT THrS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 15A NCAC 2C, WELL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, ANDTHAT A COPY OF THIS 7""E�f1 PR DED TO THE WELL OWNER. 4 11r7r2008 SIGNATURE OF CE IFIED WELL CONTRACTOR DATE David E. Meyer _ PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL Submit the original to the Dhtislon of Water Quality within 30 days. Attn: Information Mgt., Form GWAb Raleigh, 1617 Mall Service Center - NC 2769.9-1617 Ptione No. (919) 733-7015 ext 568. Rev.1007 9 -d 8EZ,0926616 XU=l 100010Nd Wd62 =01 8002 92 AON North Carolina WELL C 1. WELL CONTRACTOR: David E. Meyer Well Contractor (Individual) Name Protocol Sampling Service, Inc. Well Contractor Company Name STREETADDRESS PO Box 31133 Raleigh NC City or Town . State 9( 19-210-6547 Area code- Phone number 2. WELL INFORMATION: 317E WELL ID #(dapplleabla) 9W 5 WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT#(If app OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT#(ff appl 3. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box) Mon! IndusbiaUCommerctalp Agricukurall3 Irrlgatbra OtherO 01st use) DATE DRILLED 0CtOber 31, 2008 TIME COMPLETED 1700 4, WELL LOCATION: cn-y: Turkey C Rowan Road TOPOGRAPHIC 1 LAND SETTING: 0 Slope 0 Valley 0 Flat B Ridge 13 01 (cheek appropriate box) LATITUDE 34.969446 LONGITUDE 78.231813 Latitudc/tongitude source: 0 GPS I (location otwell must be shdwn on, attached to this loan if not Uarng I 6.'FACILITY Is the nerMafIIIIDWMMWhe FACILITY ID #(H app®cable) NAME OF FACILrry Allen Cann STREETADDRESS 5900 TurN NC City or Town CONTACT PERSON Mr. MAILING ADDRESS 591 City or Town State 91f 0 )-596-0028 Area code - Phone number S. WELL DETAILS: a. TOTAL DEPTH: 18.0 b. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING W c, WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: (Use '+' If Above Top of Casl of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality TUR CERTIFICATION # 2527 27622 Zip Codt ingl$ MunicipallPubllcO lecovery0 In)ection(3 AMl'3 PMQf INTY 8empson a,. Lot No., Parcel, Zip Code} er May be in degms, minutes, seconds or in a decimal format Topographic map USGS topo map and PS) Is located. Ihway 28393 ZIp:Code ston 1way 28393 Zip Code !LL? YESO NOD d. TOP OF CASING IS 3.0 FT. Above Land Surface* 'Top of casing temninated atfor below land surface may require a variance In accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .01 IS. e. YIELD (gpm): 2 METHOD OF TESTpUITIp 1. DISINFECTION: Type na Amount na g. WATER ZONES (depth): From 7.0 Tc 15.0 From To From Ta From To From To From To 7. CASING: Depth Diameter TtdcknessNWe'oht Material From +3.0 To -5.0 Ft. 2" Sch40 ove From To Ft. From To Ft 8. GROUT: Depth Material Method From 0.0 To -3.0 Ff. Portland pour From -3.0 To -4.0 Ft. Bentonite pour From To Ft. 9. SCREEN: Depth Diameter. Slot Size Material From-5-0 To -15.0- Ft 2" in 0-010 in. VC - From To Ft in. in. From To Ft In. In.. 10. SANDIGRAVEL PACK: Depth Size Material From -4.0 To -15.0 Ft. #3 Quartz sand From To Ft. From To Ft. 11.113RILLING LOG From TO Formation Description 0.0 3.0, Brown silty sand (SM) 3.0 5.0' Yellowish brown clayey sand (SC) 5.0 8ff Reddish yellow clayey sand (SC1 8.0 13.0' Red'clavev sand (SC) 13.0 15.0' Dark aray clay (MIL) 12. REMARKS: I DO HEREBY CERTiFYTHA- THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1�5ANCAC+�2C,WTHE 11AR%j DCOPOTHLTWD6,S VIDED O V j,v 11/7/2008 SIGNATURE OF CEIkTIFIED WELL CONTRACTOR DATE David E. Meyer PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL Submit the original to the Division, of Water Quality within 30 days. Attn: Information Mgt., _Farm GW-1b 1617 Mall3etvice Center -Raleigh, NC 27699-'1617 Phone No, (919) 733 7015 extSSS. Rev.12107 5'd - BEL0920616 XHd 1000IONd Wd6Zt01 8002 92 AOW North Carolina Dep WELL CON 1. WELL CONTRACTOR: David E. Meyer. Well Contractor (Individual) Name Protocol Sampling Service, Inc. Well Contractor Company Name i STREET ADDRESS PO Box 31133 Ralaiah INC City or Town State ( 919)-210-6547 Area code- Phone number 2. WELL INFORMATION: SITE WELL ID #(If applIeWe) CW-4 WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMiT#(irapplic OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT *(if appllo 3. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box) Monitc Induatrial/Comfnerciall] Agriculturalp irrigatloril OtherI3 (list use) DATE DRILLED October 31, 2008 TIME COMPLETED 1200 I. WELL LOCATION: CITY: Turkey Col Rowan Road j (Sliest Name, Numbers, community, Subdivisk TOPOGRAPHIC ILAND SETTING; 0 Slope 13 Valley 0 Flat 0 Ridge I] Ott (check appropriate box) LATITUDE 34.966653 LONGrrUDE 78.233938 Latitude/longitude source: A GPS C U=tfon of well most be shown on a attached to this form if not using C- S. FACILITY- Is tyre name or tho bush FACILITY ID *(If applicable), NAME OF FACILITY Allen STREET ADDRESS 5900 NC City or Town CONTACT PERSON-Mr-.1 MAILING ADDRESS 5900 City or Town State, 91� 0 1- 596-0028 Area code - Phone number Q. WELL DETAILS: a. TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0 b. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WI c. WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: (Use W If Above Top of Cash Submit the original to the Division 1617 Mail Service Center- Raleigh, NI ofEnvironment and Natural. Resources- Division of Water Quality I OR CERTIFICATION a 2527 27622 In913 Municipal/Publlci7 tecoveryD In)edion17 AMn PM® INN Sampson i, Lot No., Paroel, Zip Code) tvley be in degrees, minutes, seconds or in a decimal format Topographic map JSGS topo map and 'S) Is located Ihvvey 28393 Zip Code ston Tway 28393 Zip Code LL7 YESa NOD d. TOP OF CASING IS „ 3.0 FT. Above Land Surface' 'Top of casing terminated at/or below land surface may require a variance In accordance with 15A NCAC 20.0118. e. YIELD Opm): .5 METHOD OF TEST Up rnp L DISINFECTION: Type na Amount na p. WATER ZONES (depth): From 6.0 To 15.0 From To From To From To From To From To 7. CASING: Depth Diameter TnickneaalWeight Material From +3.0 To--2-0 Ft. 2" SCh40 Dyc From To Ft. From To FL S. GROUT: Depth Material Method From 0.0 To '0.5 FL Portland pour From -0.5 To -1.5 Ft. Bentonite your From To FL s. SCREEN: Depth Diameter- • Slot Size Material From -2,0 To -12,0 Ft 2" in. 0.010 in. vim_ From To Ft. in. In. From To Ft in. In. Ia. SAND/GRAVEL PACK: Depth Size Material From -1.5 To -12.0 Ft. #3 quartz Sand From To Ft. From To Ft. t 1.DRILLING LOG From TO Formation Description 0.0 3.0' Brown silty sand (SM) 3.0 6.9 Yellowish brown clavev sand (SC) 5.0 10.0' Dark brown dayev sand (SC) 10.0 12.0' Black sandy clay (ML) 12. REMARKS: 1 DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 15A NCAC 2C, WELL C014STRUCTION STANDARDS, AND THAT A COPY OF THIS `Ur-- 2- P VIDEDTOTHEYYELLOWNER. L.� 111712008 SIGNATURE OF CERTIFIED WELL CONTRACTOR DATE David E.•Meyer PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL if Water Quality within 30 days. Attn: Information Mgt, Form GW-1b 276994617 Phone No. (919) 733=7015 ext 586. Rev.12107 i, -d BE1,09B86I6 XUU 10001ONd WUB2 =01 "BOOZ 92 A0W Nov 02 07 01;37p . JR-5 Apr-ZS-«6td 84;Starr F,-,a-."#E 1�TTB A,ODPI000 WILL M N" Noe>df Ceaf;�ina •;DgAo+ma►t afl3vl<aofsei� and NrmralRoea.ena �Div�iaaaf W l�m� • (�+nrta# 960 w ne�eiaferQeomale�tuta fjaiwQ Mir js may{ Q.-rcu�`_ c ataer� �xrimr.s�r�ae.�a.�elrllal� . �1►.G_ �.+�)C --- - -- 1�0��r4�i7 Y, Mamtaelat GT Rmo 2 yDL'fI.ZOGp:ttL►1�F. ro* bVZr : Frrnaemid l:e M=dcl;.iyl'r *bbt 0 b dUtW Q AW..:'U=' G hoot?urr�p'DVat�ltd®.sanp QrbexO ifO�r�LittII TopolpraplfkMlaad xKiog �6a,sAWlvlsim.fu7a�i�,Coi) i.otltdddlpe+8►adaof WX kem ms 3• Add— �,,,,�;�,,,�' Latiardrimglar�ooworfliil*SGiopo e OV-7l — 18"OL I*C FM TO tlmDo.erlp na�ooirllnw.�Ma � -- 4. MAElD�1LLt9. nOFSWEu;ItM l aCf'YFsa NO 0 . v. s�iu'�c�v'�IgA�1I►>+L>_��•+zoR�rc_�e: t.�si�'r. . wAbPvo B. x'dP OP CA9A1G 15 ; �.0 �FT~, L+rdrJ StR'F�C" - - �l��f wig IvaYllMtlirlllr.eb� F.1 g1%/iq�s Ylriiaff..UlW.aiewl�iS� �fA:.CA11R 9. Ynix to. W, MZAO*mt ) _. 1L i i.. �• ti: W.7j wYCl7KSG t"rAWa wnol, 41 r 4(imiyv, ch. RoaF-lwCe qtC EMM iR Ff_a !L— .1.'i..fi bile FAM—_� To! Pt 13 Q L=; =m& MXWA Bdow I -Ad EW thT 14. %MMW. ligO �, 7iem m 63A SIa afamw . r� �.rTa Is. a mw vvlpj, 10. guuaoYc•..,.`T� �� ..71._en'.1w�CC•'� w } .�...�.� _ i DO RLL�DY C�dA'1''>�A7Tlf 4s W�L4IKAS CdHS7>f11C1t�?]1d AOC1]lta� Wrll:1�' "^.`..��:'. "'�'� I• ��.••�•-s4pj,�o�s.�r��„r.Mi':Em:: �COl�Y^.1iww.:•�.�.:�..�:;�.�..'"v2#wti�n�.lUTi�wisl.l.uwNliYl 9.b.rlt era .r!#is+rL fo 'w76�issi live �Toti {9 Si(l:lA71JR1i W' pF:p CM0 THE VAMI HATE ashas olFY.t.r Q�.6SNe C. auodar.�.r Seetion� xd9s edru �+++iev Cw�-Ruti� NC )2u. Vol" 30 days. OW-2 REV* Wr*11 I V UIVI j1 ;YWP,1VIIAL, WELL UUNNIXILIC lUN JILVA-Umy North Carolina Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION # 2527 1. WELL CONTRACTOR: David E. Meyer well Contractor (Individual) Name Protocol Sampling Service, Inc. Well Contractor Company Name STREETADDRESS PO BOX 31133 Raleigh NC City or Town State (919 )-210-6547 Area code- Phone number Z. WELL INFORMATION: SITE WELL ID#(dapplicable) CW-3 WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMrr#(rrapp OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT *Q.f appi 3. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box) Mon Industriai/Commercial17 Agriculturai0 Inigaticr0 Othed3 (listuse) DATE DRILLED October 31, 2008 TIME COMPLETED 1100 4. WELL LOCATION: CITY: Turkey C Rowan Road TOPOGRAPHIC / LAND SETTING: D Slope D Valley D Flat C1 Ridge D OI (check appropriate box) LATITUDE 34.968097 LONGITUDE 78.243003 Latitude/longitude source: 0 GPS I {location of well must be shown on I attached to this form if not Using 6. FACIL M- Is the rune of the bud rneas whei FACILITY ID #(f applicable) NAME OF FACILITY Allen Canni STREET ADDRESS 5900 Turk Turkey NC City or Town State CONTACT PERSON Mr. Tommy MAILING ADDRESS 5900 Turke Turkey NC City or Town State 91� _ 0 ,- 596-0028 Area code - Phone number 27622 Zip C odl ingO Municipal[PublicD ZecoveryD Injections AMO Pml3 INTY Sampson 1, Lot No., Parcel, Zip Code) er May be in degrees, minutes, seconds or in a decimal format Topographic map USGS topo map and PS) Is located. ihway 28393 Zip Code stun )way 28393 Zip Code G. WELL DETAILS: a- TOTAL DEPTH: 18.0 b. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YESD NOE c. WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: 8•65 FT. (Use '+" if Above Top of Casing) d. TOP OF CASING IS 3 :g FT. Above Land Surface` 'Top of casing terminated at/or below land surface may require a variance in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .0i18. v. YIELD (gpm): 3-5 METHOD OF TEST }SUMP _ f. DISINFECTION: Type_Ma Amount na g WATER ZONES (depth): From 7.0 To 15:0 Frorn To From To From To From To From To 7. CASING: Depth Diameter Thicknessrweighl Material From +3.0 To -5.0 Ft. 2" Sch40 pvc From To_ Ft. From To Ft. S. GROUT: Depth Material Method From 0.0 To -3.0 Ft Portland pour From -3.0 To -4.0 Ft Bentonite pour From To Ft 9. SCREEN: Depth Diameter Slot Size Material From -5.0 To: 5.Q Ft. 2" In. 0.010 in_ PVC From To Ft. in. _ in. From To Ft in. in. 10. SANDIGRAVEL PACK: Depth Size Material From -4.0 TD -15.0 Ft. #3 -Quartz sand From To Ft_ From To Ft. I I.DRILLING LOG From To Formation Description 0.0 3.0' Black silty sand (SM) 3.0 10.0' Black clayey sand (SC) 10.0 15.0' Black sandy clay_(CL) 12. REMARKS: I WHEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORM610E WITH ISA NCAC2C, WELL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, ANDTHATA COPY OF THIS �@5 BEEN P DED TO THE WELL OYMER. /rtlJ 11/7/2008 SIGNATURE OF CERTIFIED WELL CONTRACTOR DATE David E. Meyer PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL Submit the original to the Divlsion ;of Water Quality within 30 days. Attn: Information Mgt; Form CW-1b 1617 Mail Service Ce niter— Raleigh, NC 276994617 Phone No. (919) 733-7015 ext 666. Rev.12I07 6 ' Cl BELO 3 T 6 XUJ-1000-LONd WUB2 r 0 T B002 92 AON North Carolina WELL C 1. WELL CONTRACTOR: David E. Meyer Well Contractor (Individual) Name Protocol Sampling Service,,lnc. Well Contractor Company Name ' STREET ADDRESS PO BOX 311133 Raleigh NC City or Town State 9L 19- 210-6547 Area code- Phone number 2. WELL INFORMATION: SITE WELL ID "fapplleable) CW"8 WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMITO(if app OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT 0(if appl 3. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box) Monl IndustriaUCommerclaID Agriculturalll Irrigated) Otherp (list use) DATE DRILLED October 31, 2008 TIME COMPLETED 1000 4. WELL LOCATION: CITY: Turkey A C Rowan Road TOPOGRAPHIC / LAND SETTING:' .13 Slope 0 valley 0 Flat JB Ridge 13 Oil (check appropriate box) LATITUDE 34.970253 LONGITUDE 78.244948 Latitude/longitude source: 0 CPS C (location of well must be shown on a attached to this Ibmt if not using G 8. FACILITY- is tho name or the bueinese where the FACILITY ID #of applicable) NAME OF FACILITY Allen Cannln�l STREET ADDRESS 5900 Turkey I Turkev NC City or Town CONTACT PERSON Mr- T MAILING ADDRESS 5900 City or Town State ( 91 D - 596-0028 . Area code - Phone number d of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality TOR CERTn4CATiON # 2527 Code ingl3 MunicipalMublic0 lecovery0 1njecdon0 AMM PMO: NW Sampson i, Lot No., Parcel, Zip Code) May be in degrees, minutes, seconds or in a decimal format Topographic map JSGS topo map and 'SI isJoOted hway 28393 Zip Code 5ton IWay 28393 Zip Code G. WELL DETAILS: j a. TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0 1 b. DOES WELLREPLACE EXISTING WELL? YESD NOM c. WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: 6.55 FT, (Use "+" if Above Top of Casing) 1 d. TOP OF CASING IS 3.6 FT. Above Land Surface `Top of casing terminated atfor below land surface may require a variance In accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .0116. e. YIELD (gpm): 1 METHOD OF TEST pump L DISINFECTION: Type na Amount na g. WATER ZONES (depth): From 6.0 To 12.0 From To From To From To From To From To 7. CASING: Depth Diameter ThlcknessMleieht Material From +3.0 - To -2.0 Ft. 2". Sch40 Pvc From To Ft. From To Ft. 8, GROUT: Depth Material Method From 0.0 To -0•5 Ft Portland pour From -0.5 To -1.5 Ft. Bent3onite pour From To Ft. 8. SCREEN: Depth Diameter Slot Size Material From -2.0 To -12.0 Ft. 2" In. 0.010 in. PVC From To Ft. in. in. From To__FL In. in. 10. SANDIGRAVEL PACK: Depth Size Material From -1.5 To-: 12.0 Ft. #3 quartz sand From To Ft. From To Ft. 11.DRILLING LOG From TO Formation Description 0.0 3.W Brown silty sand (SM) - 3.0 5.0' _Dark brown clayey sand (SC) 5.0 10.0' Black clayey sand (SC) 10.0 12.0 Black sandy clay (MIL) 12- REMARKS: I BY DO HERECERTIFY THAT THIS MLL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1aA NCAc 2C5 WELL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, AND THAT A COPY OF THIS er PRO TO TH E WELL OWNER. VC6 A- 1117/2008 SIGNATURE OF CERT IED WELL CONTRACTOR DATE David E. Meyer PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL Submit the original to the Division Of Water Quality within 30 days. Attn: Information Mgt., Form GW-1b 1617 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone No. (919) 733-7016 ext 668. Rev.12107 B - d BEG09zE6 T 6 XH=l -1000IONd' WU06 t 01 8002 92 AOW Dec "19 2008 1:44PM PROTOCOL FAX 9193260738 P.1 srai�` ' North Carolina .WELL C 1. WELL CONTRACTOR: David E. Meyer Wet Contractor (lndnviduaq Name Protocol Sampling Service, Il Well Contractor Company Name; STREETADDRESS PO BOX 311 Raleigh NC City or Town State 9919-210-8547 Area code- Phone number 2. WELL INFORMATION: SITE WELL ID *(If aA%cahle) CUN 1 WELL CONSTRUCTION PERmrrnt; OTHER ASSOCIATED PERMIT #"(If a 3. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box) M IndustriallCommerdaip Agricuibirr irrigaborg Others] (listuse) DATE DRILLEL3-October 31, 2001 TIME COMPLETED 0900 4. WELL LOCATION: CITY: Turkey Rowan Road (Sbwt Name, Numbers, Community, SuWivi TOPOGRAPHIC / LAND SETTING: 0 Slope 13 Valley D Flat [3"Ridge 13 C (check apllIDW&P box) LATITUDE 34.973471 LONGITUDE 78,244000 LatttudrAongitude source: 13 GPS QocaHon of wet! must be Shown on attached to this fonnrr if not using S. FACIUTY-IslhemswcftebuairiL-wwtibm FACILITY ID *(if applicable) NAME OF FACILITY Allen Cannir STREET ADDRESS 5900 Turke Turkey NC !, City or Town State;; CONTACT PERSON Mr. Tommy 1 MAILING ADDRESS 5900 Turkey 91` 0�_ 596-0028 Area code - Phone number 6. WELL DETAILS: a. TOTAL DEPTH. 18•0 b. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING iN C. WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: (Use "+" if Above Top of Casi Submit the original to the Division 1617Mail Service Center -Raleigh, Ni of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of Water Quality TOR CERTIFICATION # 2.523 27622 )rFngM. MunlGpaIA%blid] Recoveryii Injectiort0 AM13 PM13 Maybe in degrees, minutes, seconds or in a decimal format Topographic map USGS tope map and PS) isixaw.- ihway -28393 Zip Code stun sway . 28393 Zip Code .LT YES13 NOa .25 FT, d. TOP OF CASING IS 3.0 FT. Above Land Surface" 'Top of casing terminated aVor below land surface may require a variance in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .0118. e. YIELD (gpm): 3-5 METHOD OF TEST pump f. DISINFECTION: Type na Amount na % WATER ZONES (depth): From T.0 To 15.0 From To From To - From To From To From To 7. CASING: Depth Diameter TticknessiNV ght Material From +3.0 To -5.0 Ft 2" Sch40 Pvc From To Ft. From To Ft. 9- GROUT: Depth Material Method From 0.0 To -3.0 Ft. Poitland pour Flom -3-0 To -4.0 Ft. Bentonite pour From To Ft. 9. SCREEN: Depth Diameter SlotSl-e Material From -5.0 To --I 5 .0 FL 2" _ In. 0.010 In.PVC From To Ft. In. in. From To Ft in. In. 10. SANDIGRAVEL PACK: Depth Sae Material From -4.0 To -15.Q Ft #3 quartz sand From To Ft From To Ft. 11.DRILLING LOG From To Formation Description 0.0 5.0' Reddish brown calvey sand (SC) 5.0 10.0' Dark red sandy clay (CL) 10.0 13.0' Yellowish red clayey sand fSC) 13.0 15.0' Dark Aray clay (ML) 12. REMARKS: r DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 16A NCAC 2C, WELLr.ONSTRUCTION STANDARCR. AND THAT A COPY OF THIS EEWRD HAS BEENAfROVICEDTOTHEWELLOWNER. a.. 11/7/2008 SIGNATURE OF CERTIFIED WELL CONTRACTOR DATE David E. Meyer PRINTED NAME OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL K Water Quality within 30 days. Attn: Information Mgt., Farm GW-1b 27699-1617 Phone No. (919) 733.7016 ext 668. Rev.12107 MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC EXPANSION PLUG. BOREHOLE O.D. V2 GEOLOGIST MATERIAL O.D. Z STATIC WATER LEVEL -E-15CI MATERIAL TYPE DATE MEASURED SCREEN SLOT SIZE LOCK Dimensions in Inches PROTECTIVE E 'OUTER COVER rMSH GRADE NATIVE SOIL GROUT BENTONITI SAND PAC NOTES: NOT TO SCALE ALL DEPTHS REFERENC: FROM FINISH GRADE, IN MONITOR WELL DATE DRILLED- 10/31108 DRILLING METHOD HSA —DEPTH TO.TOP OF BENTONITE DEPTH TO TOP OF f SAND DEPTH TO TOP OF SCREEN. DEPTH, TO BOTTOM OF 'T SCREEN —TOTAL DEPTH 2-0 : Aw-69 CARU10 JNG SERVLa- TNC, p L PJM Box 31133' ligmy .4k*JOH C0vqTylu(, Ratel9K NC 27622 1. PROD. # 08-15 BEL09266 L 6 XUJ 10301ONd. WUE8:0T 0002 92 AOW 0 i MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC EXPANSION * BOREHOLE O.D. PLUG. I /Z * 2 MATERIAL O.D. MATERIAL TYPES * SCREEN SLOT SIZE DIb * Dimensions i_ n Inches 2' +t Z! fowev- TE iii/i`i. NATIVE i0Z GROUT GEOLOGIST STATIC WATER LEVEL DATE MEASURED 11I5)0� LOCK PROTECTIVE OUTER- COVER nNISH GRADE • DEPTH TO,TOP OF BENTONITE BENTONITE DEPTH TO TOP AND I,5' DEPTH TO TOP OF t - SCREEN Z,0 SAND PACK = - II Z� NOTES: NOT TO SCALE = DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF ALL DEPTHS REFERENCED - O FROM FINISH GRADE IN (FEET SCREEN TOTAL DEPTH IZ<< MONITOR WELL R_211 _ _. ��I-e).�. C1�t�W�h1U ,n 131 0p PRUTOGt1L UH2L NG cERV1C . '1N�, DATE DRILLED ! O I P.D. Box 31133' U YF_Y SAMPJ tdU % U Ratelgh, NC 27622 1 DRILLING METHOD NSA I PROD. # O$-I",�j 6 T' d SEL0926E T 6 Xdzl 100010bd WU66 s 0 T- 6002 9Z noW 0 r * BOREHOLE O.D. * MATERIAL O.D. MATERIAL TYPE * SCREEN SLOT SIZE * Dimensions in Inches ,f z: �G♦N�£iE NATIVE SOIL MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC MANSION . PLUG. CJ 12 2.. . ui GROUT SAND PACK NOTES: NOT TO SCALE ALL DEPTHS REFERENC: FROM FINISH GRADE. IN MONITOR WELL -5 R DATE DRILLED to h loS DRILLING METHOD. GEOLOGIST STATIC WATER LEVEL DATE MEASURED 10 a LOCK PROTECTIVE OUTER COLTER ) :.=H GRADE DEPTH TO,TOP OF 3'D BENTONITE _ DEPTH TO TOP OF SAND A - DEPTH TO TOP OF i 5 - SCREEN DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF r Is`0 T - - SCREEN - - TOTAL DEPTH 15.0 P$OT�C2S SAl+PL2NG SERVICE. 2NC. ALL 41 CAt-Wig& /�i\ PQ box 31133' UWEY S.AMPJON COLATrYi uG ,�° ,� Raleigh, f1C 27622 1 PROJ. i ZT'd. 8EL09ZE6i6 Xdd 1000108d WU2E:01 B002 92 ADW * BOREHOLE O.D. * MATERIAL O.D. MATERIAL TYPE * SCREEN SLOT SIZE * Dimensions in Inches . 2' ,(v (QpCpt-M NATIVE Son G BENTO: I SAND P NOTES: NOT TO SCALE ALL DEPTHS REFERENCE FROM FINISH GRADE; IN REMONITOR wELL____� " DATE DRILLED 10111109 DRILLING METHOD H 5A MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC KPANSION PLUG. GEOLOGIST Z. Lfj5 I • o STATIC WATER LEVEL - DATE MEASURED 15 0 LOCK PROTECTIVE OUTER COVER .� nxrsx GROE DEPTH TO,TOP OF } BENTONITE ©'S DEPTH TO TOP OF 1 SAND 1'S DEPTH TO TOP OF SCREEN DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF , SCREEN 1�0 :T - TOTAL DEPTH 1240t y- AL-UF L cANMIMb �RUB,.�33 UWF-`j SAMNog COUMY, W(,Z J PROJ. iT'd 8EG09�E6T6 XUA 1000108d WdZE=OT 9002 92 noW * BOREHOLE O.D. * MATERIAL O.D. MATERIAL TYPE * SCREEN SLOT SIZE * Dimensions in Inches 2' � 2` CoNUzEi-E NA7M Son BENTO MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC MANSION PLUG. �2 GEOLOGIST STATIC WATER LEVEL • 651 JG fl DATE MEASURED 111.5105 DIV LOCK PROTECTIVE OUTER COVER /' llF7MSH GRADE UT SAND PACK JNOTES: NOT TO SCALE ALL DEPTHS REFERENC; FROM FINISH -GRADE IN MONITOR WELL - R- DATE DRILLED 61108 DRILLING METHOD NSA DEPTH TO.TOP OF BENTONITE 3-O DEPTH TO TOP OF SAND r0 DEPTH TO TOP OF SCREEN 5:p DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF j • SCREEN I S'o 'T TOTAL DEPTH 15.0 �>�unYoco� s�wa� iNG SERVEE.. FN-C.- 'E�'f. G�4hliJllab / \ PJ3. Box 31133' oWF-Y SAMPJDH CDLJgrfj uC Rn{elgK NC 27622 J FIPROJ. # 0$--5$ — 01'd BEL096E6i6 }Clod 100010ad WUZE s 01 B002 9Z AoW MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC EXPANSION PLUG. p1 * ' BOREHOLE O.D. * MATERIAL 0 D Z MATERIAL TYPE * SCREEN SLOT SIZE • Dic * Dimensions in Inches Z' � 2' CowGRE7'� NATM S011 GROUT i i BENTONITE SAND PACK NOTES: NOT TO SCALE ALL DEPTHS REFERENC7 FROM FINISH GRADE' IN R- MONITDR WELL DATE DRILLED 1011110 DRILLING METHODUS GEOLOGIST STATIC WATER LEVEL 6'�+ DATE MEASURED I115IO`d LOCI{ PROTECTIVE OUTER COVER FINISH GRA33E DEPTH TO.TOP OF BENTONITE d'S DEPTH TO TOP OF SAND ('s DEPTH TO TOP OF �. - - SCREEN 2.0 - DEPTH -TO BOTTOM OF j SCREEN "''0 'T TOTAL DEPTH ■�x•o pRotmilt LgrSERVICE, 'INC. `L•LE�, C IMV /J�\ RM Box 31133, UWi(-Y :iAWJO i (0Uq j UC Rclelgh, NC 27622 PROD. # O$- ,S ST'd 86L0926ST6 XUA 1000IONd WUf E s 0 T 8002 92 ADW * BOREHOLE O.D. * MATERIAL O.D. MATERIAL TYPE * SCREEN SLOT. SIZE * Dimensions in Inches i � 2 CvNf�rE NA3'1RE son MONITOR WELL SCHEMATIC MNSION PLUG. 8J 2 Z. u i i GROUT BENTONITE SAND PACK NOTES: NOT TO SCALE ALL DEPTHS REFERENCI FROM FINISH GRADE; IN MONITOR' ' ' R-' DATE DRILLED DRILLING METHOD EA GEOLOGIST STATIC WATER LEVEL � •Z� 1 DATE MEASURED- I11510'5 LOCK PROTECTIn OUTER COVER FINISH GRADE DEPTH TO.TOP OF BENTONITE DEPTH TO TOP OF SAND qi° DEPTH TO TOP OF s SCREEN DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF 1S�1 ;T SCREEN TOTAL DEPTH (E.0 mnTSn SAMPLING SERVICE. INC. F PD. Box 31133' owk`( SAMPS�N COL4 ; LIC Ralelgh NC 23fi22 ) J. # 0$-50 B-d 06L0926616 Xdd 1000108d WdZC=OT BODE 92 AoN tole)&Was Attachment D.—Pumping Test Data from SWE Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic 30 d b - 3 D- -< RJ A ' N 0 m Time-Drawdown Curve for Observation Well OW-1 Pumping at Recovery Well RW-1 W co 0.1 0.01 0.001 1 �� ■wa��wr�r•�r�ri�_iwr��rrrrwr�w.wu��■ Irw,iw��wi,��_iwr�nwwrr �tt■n�®ttt®®s■s■tan®�■s■■s�r�■■■ ■■��s�■rsiIN, �t■s�s�s�s■sip■■ ANNE OEM OEM ■■■MEMIN MENMM.■■■.■��i....C��t��■... ��■�11111� Mp.ngmjj hpoint,lary :0 min, ho-h0 - IIIII��IIIII ■11NIII �nnnnlnnntnnttnnl�■nI A�nnn■nn■tttnnlnl■■nnn■■tttt■n■nnnl■■n�nnn■�ttw�nl■ ■n -MEN IMrr■.► ��■■i■=�� WOMEN !�!■■■■�■��.��■■■�■■NIA■■■■■0■1N1�■■■EN1 1 �MENSP. 11�1��111�1�� HIMM E111 1 MAOpe It � � 0.27 Curve feet)mom A ■011111MEN11111i �111 III■ 1111111 �■��nn■■n��■■nnn�n�nnn■�■■■� �■■n■nnnn�nnn■t�■��■■■■�n■n�nn�n■rn■��■■n ��■■�■■Ni�NN•■■!t■NII��N■■NI■■!!�N■�■��N11�, rt��11111��n1111��■ 111111��IIIII �1111111� ®1111111� ■111IIII��111IIII 10 100 Time (minutes) 1,000 10,000 D r z n D z Z z m N OW-1, TYPE A CURVE 7u` 100 Matchpoint for Type Curve A =a (1/uA =1.6, W(uA,r) = 0.38) � I 10-1 10,21 10-1 100 r= —r=1.o r = 2.0 r = 4.0 r = 6.0 - 10' 11ua 102 i r) W Lo r = 0.001 r = 0.01 r� m r = 0.06 z z r = 0.2 z TYPE A CURVES FOR: UNCONFINED AQUIFER 103 i[1 -o m w 1 U' 100 10-' 10-2 10-3 OW-1, TYPE B CURVE - - ---- -- _ _ - ---- _--- _ - _ _ - r ; 0.001- Match_point for Type Curve B r = 0.01 (1/ua = 25, W(us,r) = 2) r = 0.06 r - 0.2 r=0.6 r =1.0 r=2.o TYPE B CURVES FOR, UNCONFINE© AQUIFER r=4.0 r T 6.0 10-2 101, Ua 100 10' 102 m z a z z z M MAY-24-2007' 13:0 �-, RLLEN CANNING' P.05 *` Sample Calculations for'Aquifer Parameters RW-1 Analysis �,. Using the Type A Curve for early drawdown: T_ W�uA�I') :- 4,T(ho, - h) where ho-'ho=diaw(feet) �- Q =pumping rate (ft�/day} W(UAZID =well functionfrom.early.drawdown matchpoint (dimensionless) 3 1 gal x 1 ft X.1440 min nun 7.48gal 1' day z �_ (0.38)=215.61 4yr(0.027 feet) day where L S = storativity of the aquifer (dimensionless) S = 4TuAt r2 T = transmissivity' (ft2/day) uR = value from early drawdawn'malchpoint (dimesionless) t = time (days) ; r = radial distance from recovery well (feet) lda� 4 215.61 ftz{0625J� I6minxday)1440min) S = 1)2 = 0.0035935 25 Using the Type B Curve for late drawdown: T = 4�(ho - h) W t B r) -where ho-ho =drawdown (feet) Q = pumping rate (ft�/day) �.. W(u8,1) well function from late drawdown matchpoint (dimensionless) MAY-24-2007 13:19 ALLEN CANNING km gal i ft min _ 1 min x 7.4$gal x 1440 T day fie 41t 0.3 eet (2) =102.13 { f ,) day where Sy = specific yield of the aquifer (dimensionless) 4TuBt :. Sy = 2 w.. r T = transmissivity (JiI/day) uB = value from late drawdown matchpoint (dimesionless) t = time (days) r = radial distance from recovery ,well (feet) z � 4 102.13 f _ 6.04 80 minx lday y da , k1 1440 min )-- Sy = (25A)2 = 0.00145 1 Average transmissivity using both calculated transmissivity values: t� t2 215.61.f+ 102.13 'f 1 T= day 2 d=158.87 ay where: .. Kh = horizontal Hydraulic conductivity (feetlday) K T b ` T = transmissiviry Olday) b = initial saturated thil kness of the aquifer (feet) z 158.87 fa K y =11.67 feet l day h 13.61 feet j rb2Kh Kv =- 2 r _ where: K„ = vertical hydraulic conductivity feetlday) T = shape of type curve (dimensionless) b = initial saturated thickness of the aquifer (feet) r = radial distance from recovery well (feet) 1 . K _ (0.06XI3.61 feet)z (111.67 feet J day) ^ 0.2075 feet 1 day (25 feet),2 P.06 a- am am "M MRY-24-2007 13:19. RL EN CANNING P.07 Alled Canning'', S&ME Project No. 1584-06-009 Flowrate. gpM rPot lit, Start Time: dll End Time: -4 1444 TA, • -f- RW1,1 OW-1 OW-2 P-17 Initial beoth'to Water (TOC). Total Depth TUC Distance from TOC to Grade. WED" f- fy bi.1 Depth to Water (TOC) Time 114 66 Bf 40 9 (0, cQ 41 fo:kLi r Y?3 Ci q UC 1, qz JQ. CLA 1 61.0 1, eft U. d 1 6-11 Zj :3h I C ' 4b3 he ► ;L 13 6.3k A b 7 33 a & 4 me u COO TO- 7. 6 9 36 ?"Lit !a L50 -7-io OLA All : A L JAJ iw.le6- . T I oft & ffy� i - -- - 10 1 0.1 0.01 1 Time-Drawdown Curve for Observation Well OW-3 Pumping at Recovery Well RW-2 =M--MWEIMEM -�r■.�-■=E--■ =---■wiw --rr——�■-- =.I■■■■n��■■.ti■■■■�■■■�=■I■■■■ �r�■s•■.■m. ■■�a�®Emuee®�MMME■e■ss■i■ia on 1001010■■■■ IMMESEN 11 1111�MEE �llo000o�11��1001111 Nol�ll��ll11�� . , . - NEW EmilOJN1111 Jim .Mitc. ,. ZOOnrr.r,� �■i�lIlI�IlIlIl --------------�..r..---------.,...--------- I■■■■��I�I- ■■sI>r��w■�-�■■■■��a■��MENO■■■■ ---... r��■WOMEN ��mmo■■r MMI I■■■■■��■■■■��i■■�■ �11E/�11EN■IN1�m �1�►��111�MEN 11II10M1—E1I111 MMEM1/11 ��I�IIIIi��11111��5�11111r�n11111 ►1111 ICI■ HE��1il�l Illlil� �Illilll own ME MM"WERE �AMM"M ■■■■ IMM8■■■ ��r■■■■ �EEK1MMi■■011 NEW ■■■ IMESEME■■■■ IMENUME■E■N ii■1�0 oil111ommoll moommill 11ommill III0011 1 M=11111 I■■1111111B�l11111 1111110 100111NIf��11111� IN iI HIRE milli 111111 10 100 Time (minutes) 1,000 10,000 1. m z 3) z z z m 00 3 D c I 11] .p N 0 m OW-3, TYPE A CURVE . W ,u, Matchpoint for Type Curve A (1/uA = 3.2, W(uA,r) = 0.7) 10° I� r = 0.6 r-1.o r = 2.0 101, r = 4.0 r = 6.0 10-2 10-' 100 10' 102 1/ua. r = 0.001 4 r = 0.01 m z r = 0.06 z r=0.2 4 TYPE A CURVES FOR UNCONFINED AQUIFER 103 104 ro ' N • 0 0 OW-3, TYPE B CURVE F� N 0 lul 0.001.- r=o.o1 r M— r = 0.06 n D Z r=0.2 100 Matchpoint for Type Curve B M, a r = 0.6 r =1.o r=2.0 1.0-1 r=4.0 r = s.o 10*1 10°, U$ 10,21 10.3 10-2 WUB =10, W(u1j) = 2.5) F TYPE B CURVES FOR . UNCONFINED AQUIFER 101. 102 MAY-24-2007 13:20 ALL Saml 6w Using the Type A Curve for early T -- 4tt(ho -- h) W uA�I') where ho-h =drawdown (feel �.. Q = pumping rate ffi?, JV(uA, I) = well fundh imn fto WW on ft- CANNING Calculations for Aquifer Parameters RW-2 Analysis early drawdown matchpoint (dimensionless) 6 gar x l ft3 x 1444 min T = min 7.48ga1 ; I day (0.7-) = 102.13,-: ftz 4tr(0.63 feet) day where S = storativity of the aquifer (dimensionless)' S4TUA1 = 2 r T = transmissivity uA = value from early drawdown matchpoint (dimesionless) t = time (days) r = radial distance fromj recovery well (feet) 1�y 102.13 � (Oi.3125k9minx 1440min� S = y 30 � 2 = 0.0008865 ( ft' Using the Type B Curve for late drawdown: _ Q T _ 4tr(ho —h) W (uB4O where ho-ho =drawdown (feet) Q = pumping mate O/day) W(u&1) = well f inctlion from late drawdown matchpoint (dimensionless) 3 gal 1 fl min T — 6 mix 7.48gal x 1 J40 day (Z.5)=143.62 ftz n 4yr(1.6 feet) day where Sy = specific yield of he aquifer (dimensionless) i MAY-24-2007 13:20 FALLEN CANNING .. S — 4Tugt y 2 r T = transmissivity (ft day) ua = valuefrom late drawdown matchpoint (dimesioniess) t = time (days) r = radial distance from recovery well (feet) L—) 4 143.62(0.1 600 minxlday ( 1440 min Sy 130 �2 = 0.0266 Average transmissivity using both calculated transmissivity values: 102.13 �ty + 143.62 f--y — ft` � _ 2 122.88 day where: ... Kh = horizontal hydraulic conductivity (feet/day) Kh r T = transmissivity 042y) b = initial saturated thickness of the aquifer (feet) 2 122.88 'fr day K — = 9.24 feet I day `' _ 13.3 feet rb2Kh km K1' — r 2 where: K, = vertical hydraulic conductivity (feet/day) F— shape of type curve (dimensionless) b = initial saturated thickness of the aquifer (feet) r = radial distance from recovery well (feet) K = (0,06X13.3 feety (9.24 feet / day) = 0.109 feet / day (30feet)j . P.12 .MAY-247-2007 13:20 R Flowrate. Start Time: End Time: -WT—i IlInitial Depth to Water (TOC Total Depth (TOC) Distance from TOC to Grade Time Win RW-2 V; ih] .N CANNING Allen -Canning S&ME Project No. 1584-06-009 M. OW-3 OW-4 Dewh to Water (TOO RW-3 (dee P. 13 ArL "V 94 q ITO- a. A, 14-101 4 61 V 13.5 Na -�Lt.-w Ls - k-9 ka, 15114 I 1 74r 9 q I -7 -TaL &.50 30 Wit /! 54' TO -LC1 .1fa-1 ritv 15.5w / I!- bq I AA to, 5 33 - i wi- 3 - te (3.6 'I'l Y., 4 EU'16 81, 4 A,4 MAY-24-2007 0: 20 AILEN CANNING Allen- Canning �r S&M[E Project No.1584-06-009 Flowrate: c f7 --i gPm Start Time: 2 •. �' End Time: RW1, 2 Ow-3 OW-4 Initial Depth to Water TOC) Total Depth TOC) Distance from to Water Times RW-3 (de, 13.7d` ,f5• 3 P.14 - ►a•. 31. to. N�3 to'S 31 y Ito ! ' cf , q Ito ��,CD• C� C, .Ito �'�.� JL.� t51 ' i+%• '7 n I 1 I I Til Yl' • 4Z-M !1 1 of 2 TOTAL P.14 Attachment E.—Laboratory Reports for Compliance Monitoring Wells for Samples Taken 11/17108 Allens Canning Final Hydrogeologic Repot.doc 31 Microbac Laboratories, Inc.-. Page 1 of 5 FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION STATE CERT ID. 2592 HOPE MILLS ROAD FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306 NC #11 (910) 864-1920 FAX (910) 864-8774 NC #37714 R. W. SANDERS, VICE PRESIDENT USDA #3787 http://www.microbac.coin. E-Mail: rsanderbac.com CHEMISTRY • MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • CONSUMER PRODUCTS WATER AIR • WASTES - FOOD . PHARMACEUTICALS NUTRACEUTICALS CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Allens, Inc. Date Reported: 11/30/2008 Ms. Kathryn Yeager Date Received: 11/17/2008 Post Office Box 250 Order Number: 0811-00007 Siloam Springs, AR 72761 InvoiceNo.: 61829 Customer #: A004 Sample Date: 11/17/2008 Permit No. Sample Time: 0:00 Sampler: Miller Subject: M/Well samples - 3/Yearly SMP Test Method Result Date Time Tech 001 M/W #R1 CHLORIDE SM 4500 a C 12.3 mg/L 11/24/2008 14:00 RAS COD SM 5220 D 50.3 mg/L 11/18/2008 11:30 RAS CONDUCTIVITY SM 2510 B 75 umhos/cm 11/18/2008 14:15 PAS 1 I NITROGEN, NITRATE SM 4500 NO3 E 0.58 mg/L 11/19/2008 15:00 ENC PH SM 4500 H B 5.26 s.u. 11/17/2008 12:38 ROM SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED SM 2540 C 71.0 mg/L 11/18/2008 12:00 ENC SULFATE SM 15th 426 C 12.0 mg/L 11/24/2008 10:30 DCR TEMPERATURE FIELD 16.0 deg., C 11/17/2008 12:38 RDM TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON SM 5310D 2.7 mg/L 11/20/2008 " 9:00 ECI WATER LEVEL FIELD 5.2 feet 11/17/2008 12:38 ROM 002 M/W #R2 CHLORIDE SM 4500 CI C 9.25 mg/L 11/24/2008 14.00 RAS COD SM 5220 D 25.5 mg/L 11/18/2008 11:30 RAS CONDUCTIVITY { i SM 2510 B 158 umhos/cm 11/181200B .14:15 RAS NITROGEN, NITRATE SM 4500 NO3 E 2.76 mg/L 11/19/2008 15:00 ENC pH SM 4500 H B 4.87 sm. 11/17/2008 12:25 RDM SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED SM 2540 C 108 mg/L 11/18/2008 12:00 ENC SULFATE SM 15th 426 C 48.4 mg/L 11/24/2008 10:30 DCR TEMPERATURE FIELD 16.1 deg., C 11/17/2008 12,25 ROM TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON SM 5310D 3.9 mg/L 11/20/2008 9:00 ECI WATER LEVEL FIELD 4.1 feet 11/17/2008 12:25 RDM LAB CODES: N/D = None Detected N/F = None Found <= Less than > = Greater than Est. = Estimated The data and otherinfon. tion 1 oo i ntahrea on this, and other acmnnpanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is rendered upon the MElY18ER wndidon [fiat a la not W be reproduced wholly or In part for advert6ing or other purposes without written approval from the laboratory. USDA-EPA7H Testing rood Sanitation Consulting OteMml and tNaobiological Analyses and Research CHEMII WATER i Allens, Inc. Ms. Kathryn Yeager Post Office Box 250 Siloam Springs, AR 72761 Permit No. Sampler: Miller Subject: M/Well samples - 3/Yearly SMP Test 003 M/W #R3 CHLORIDE COD CONDUCTIVITY NITROGEN, NITRATE pH SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED SULFATE TEMPERATURE TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON WATER LEVEL 004 M/W #114 CHLORIDE COD CONDUCTIVITY NITROGEN, NITRATE PH SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED SULFATE TEMPERATURE TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON WATER LEVEL Microbac Laboratories, Inc. Page 2 of 5 FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION 2592 HOPE MILLS ROAD STATE CERT ID. FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306 NC #11 (910) 864-1920 FAX (910) 864-8774 NC #37714 R. W. SANDERS, VICE PRESIDENT USDA #3787 http://*ww.microbac.com E-Maih rsanders@microbac.com • MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY - CONSUMER PRODUCTS WASTES - FOOD • PHARMACEUTICALS • NUTRACEUTICALS CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Date Reported: 11/30/2008 Date Received: 11/17/2008 Order Number: 0811-00007 Invoice No.: 61829 Customer #: A004 Sample Date: 11/17/2008 Sample Time: 0:00 Method Result Date Time Tech SM 4500 a C 5.50 mg/L 11/24/2008 14:00 RAS SM 5220 D 63.1 mg/L 11/18/2008 11:30 RAS SM 2510 B 118 umhos/cm 11/18/2008 14:15 RAS SM 4500 NO3 E 3.00 mg/L 11/19/2008 15:00 ENC SM 4500 H B 4.37 s.u. 11/17/2008 12:13 ROM SM 2540 C 56.6 mg/L 11/18/2008 12:00 ENC SM 15th 426 C 31.8 mg/L 11/24/2008 10:30 DCR FIELD 15. deg., C 11/17/2008 12:13 RDM SM 5310D 2.6 mg/L 11/20/2008 9:00 ECI FIELD 7.1 feet 11/17/2008 12:13 RDM SM 4500 a c 6.50 mg/L 11/24/2008 14:00 RAS SM 5220 D 18.6in9/L 11/18/2008 11:30 RAS SM 2510 B 763 umhos/cm 11/18/2008 14:15 RAS SM 4500 NO3 E 1.22 mg/L 11/19/2008 15:00 ENC SM 4500 H B 4.92 s.u. 11/17/2008 11:55 RDM SM 2540 C 55.6 mg/L 11/18/2008 12:00 ENC SM 15th 426 C 15A mg/L 11/24/2008 10:30 DCR FIELD 15.8 deg., C 11/17/2008 11:55 RDM SM 5310D 1.2 mg/L 11/20/2008 9:00 Ea FIELD 7.7feet 11/17/2008 11:55 RDM LAB CODES: N/D = None Detected N/F = None Found < =Less than > = Greater than Est. = Estimated The data and other Informati(XI talned on th6, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon the condition that it Is not to be reproduced wholly or In part for advertising or other purposes without written approval from the laboratory. °'USDA-FPA i IOSH Testing Food Sanitation Consulting Chemical and Kcrobiological Analyses and Research' MEMBER i i M .erobac Laboratories, Inc.. Page 3 of 5 FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION 2592 HOPE MILLS ROAD - STATE CERT ID. o FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306 NC #11 (910) 864-1920 FAX (916) 864-8774 NC #37714 R. W. SANDERS, VICE PRESIDENT USDA #3787 http://www.microbac.com E-Mail: rsanders@microbac.com CHEMISTRY • MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY - CONSUMER PRODUCTS WATER • AIR - WASTES • FOOD • PHARMACEUTICALS - NUTRACEUTICALS CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS, Aliens, Inc. Date Reported: 11/30/2008 Ms. Kathryn Yeager Date Received: 11/17/2008 Post Office Box 250 Order Number. 0811-00007 Siloam Springs, AR 72761 Invoice No.: 61829 Customer #: A004 Sample Date: 11/17/2008 Permit No. ! Sample Time: 0:00 Sampler: Miller Subject: M/Well samples - 3/Yearly SMP Test Method Result Date Time Tech 005 M/W #R5 CHLORIDE SM 4500 CI C 9.25 mg/L 11/24/2008 14:00 RAS COD SM 5220 D 19.6 mg/L 11/18/2OD8 11:30 RAS CONDUCTIVITY SM 2510 B 81 umhos/ctn 11/18/2008 14:15 RAS . { NITROGEN, NITRATE SM 4500 NO3 E <0.1 mg/L 11/19/2008 15:00 ENC pH i SM 4500 H B 5.76 s.u. 11/17/2008 11.45 ROM SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED i SM 2540 C 74.0 mg/L 11/18/2008 12:00 ENC SULFATE SM 15th 426 C 8.01 mg/L 11/24/2008 10:30 DCR TEMPERATURE FIELD 17.1 deg., C - 11/17/2008 11:45 RDM TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON SM 5310D 1.9 mg/L 11/20/M08 9:00 Ea WATER LEVEL FIELD 10.7fieet 11/17/2008 11:45 RDM 006 M/W #R6 CHLORIDE SM 4500 CI C 45.0 mg/L 11/24/2008 14:00 RAS COD SM 5220 D 46.8 mg/L 11/18/2008 11:30 } RAS CONDUCTIVITY SM 2510 B 286 umhos/cm 11/18/2008 MIS RAS NITROGEN, NITRATE SM 4500 NO3 E 4.83 mg/L 11/19/2008 15:00 ENC pH SM 4500 H B 4.72 s.u. 11/17/2008 11:30 RDM SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED SM 2540 C 77.0 mg/L 11/18/2008 12:00 ENC SULFATE SM 15th 426 C 34.2 mg/L 11/24/2008 10,30 DCR TEMPERATURE I' FIELD 18.1 deg., C 11/17/2008 11:30 RDM TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON SM 5310D 6.1 mg/L 11/20/2008 9:00 ECI WATER LEVEL FIELD 6.7 feet 11/17/2008 11:30 RDM LAB CODES: N/D = None Detected N/F = None Found < = Less than > = Greater than l Est. = Estimated The data and other!Inforno contained on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the samplets) anaWed and is rendered upon the comlhion that R is rat Oo be reproduced wholly or In part for advertising or other purposes without written approval from the laboratory. MEMBER - USDA-EPAIMM Testing rood sanitation ConsWtlng Chemical and Kdobbbgical Anat ses and Rrch CHEMISTI WATER • A Allen, Inc. Ms. Kathryn Yeager Post Office Box 250 Siloam Springs, AR 72761 Permit No. Sampler: Miller Subject: M/Well samples - 3/Yearly SMP Test 007 M/W #R7 CHLORIDE COD CONDUCTIVITY i \� NITROGEN, NITRATE pH SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED SULFATE TEMPERATURE TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON WATER LEVEL 008 M/W #R8 CHLORIDE COD CONDUCTIVITY NITROGEN, NITRATE PH SOLIDS, TOTAL DISSOLVED SULFATE TEMPERATURE TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON WATER LEVEL Microbac Laboratories, Inc. Page 4 of 5. FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION, 2592 HOPE MILLS ROAD STATE CERT ID. FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306 NC #11 (910) 864-1920 FAX (910) 864-8774 NC #37714 R. W. SANDERS, VICE PRESIDENT USDA #3787 http://www.microbac.com FMaiL-.rsanders@microbac.com • MICROBIOLOGY - FOOD SAFETY • CONSUMER PRODUCTS WASTES - FOOD • PHARMACEUTICALS • NUTRACEUTICALS CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Result Date Reported: Date Received: Order Number: Invoice No.: Customer #: Sample Date: Sample Time: Date Time 11/30/2008 11/17/2008 0811-00007 61829 A004 11/17/2008 0:00 SM 4500 CI C 21.2 mg/L 11/24/2008 14:00 RAS SM 5220 D 13.1 mg/L 11/18/2008 11:30 RAS SM 2510 B 110 umhos/cm 11/18/2008 14:15 RAS SM 4500 NO3 E 0.40 mg/L 11/19/2008 15:00 ENC SM 4500 H B 4.74 s.u. 11/17/2008 11:19 ROM SM 2540 C 66.0 mg/L 11/18/2008 12:00 ENC SM 15th 426 C 12.6 mg/L 11/24/2008 10:30 DCR FIELD 18.1 deg., C 11/17/2008 11:19 RDM SM 5310D 4.9 mg/L 11/201200B 9:00 ECI FIELD 4.9feei 11/17/2008 11:19 RDM SM 4500 a C 26.5 mg/L 11/24/2008 14:00 RAS SM 5220 D <5.00 mg/L 11/18/2008 11:30 RAS SM 2510 B 381 umhos/Cm 11/18/2008 14:15 RAS SM 4500 NO3 E 24.1 mg/L 11/19/2008 15:00 ENC SM 4500 H B 4.66 s.u. '11/17/2008 11:00 RDM SM 2540 C 200 mg/L .11/18/2008 12.00 ENC SM 15th 426 C 22.4 mg/L 11/24/2008 10:30 DCR FIELD 21.9 deg., C 11/17/2008 11:00 ROM SM.5310D 0.7 mg/L 11/20/2008 9:00 EQ FIELD 4.9 feet 11/17/2008 11:00 RDM LAB CODES: N/D = None Detected N/F = None F, ound i = Less than > = Greater than Est. = Estimated The data and other Information contained on this, and other acmmpamying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and Is midered upon the Condition that it B not to be reproduced wlroAy or In part for admWng or other purposes wahout written approval from the laboratory. USDA-EP/-NIOSN Testing Food Sanitation ConsulUng Chemical and Kcroblologloal Analyses and Research MEMBER CHED WATE Allen, Inc. Ms. Kathryn Yeager Post Office Box 250 Siloam Springs, AR 72761 Permit No. Sampler: Miller Subject: M/Well samples - 3/Yearly SMP Test Microbac Laboratories, Inc. Page 5 of 5 FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION 2592 HOPE MILLS ROAD STATE CERT ID. FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306 NC #11 (910) 864-1920 FAX (910) 864-8774 NC #37714 R. W. SANDERS, VICE PRESIDENT USDA #3787 http://www.micxobac.com E-Mail xsanders@t i obacxom • MICROBIOLOGY • FOOD SAFETY • CONSUMER PRODUCTS WASTES • FOOD • PHARMACEUTICALS • NUTRACEUTICALS CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Date Reported: Date Received: Order Number: Invoice No.: Customer #: _ Sample Date: Sample Time: 11/30/2008 11/17/2008 0811-00007 61829 A004 11/17/2008 0:00 Time Tech RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: MICROBAC LABORATORIES, INC. Thank you for your business. We irwile your feedback on our It ofservice to you. Please contact the Laboratory Director, Ron Sanders at 910-864-1920 , Robert Morgan, e r D, at rmorgan@mtcrobac.com or Trevor Boyce, CEO, at iboyce@microbac.com with any comments or suggestions. 0 LAB CODES: N/D = None Detected N/F = None Fbund I< = Less than > =.Greater than Est = Estimated The data and other Information contained on this, and other accompanying documents, repn:sentony the sample(s) anaWed and is rendered upon the condition that a Is not )to be reproduced wholty or In part for advatWng or other purposes widmut written approval from the laboratory. USDA-EPA-NIOSH Testing Food Sanitation consulting Chemical and MlcrobMagical Analyses and Research MEMBER Water Balance and Wet -Weather Storage Analyses Aliens, Inc. Plant # 7 Permit.WQ0004iM Rowan Road Irr.igation Fields Sampson County, North Carolina December 17, 2008 INS Eric G. Lappala, P.E., P.H. Advacacy-*Sotind Sdbnce-,idnaovifian--► Sbtutlon's 4005 Lake Springs Court Raleigh NC 27613 1 Contents 1. 1.1. 12. 2. 3. 4. 5. Purpose............................................................................... Disclaimer..............................................:.......................... .....................................1 ...................I................1 .................................... 2 DataSources .'...........................................................................................................2 SprayfieldBuFers........................................................................................................2 IrrigationAreas....................................................................................................4 WaterBalance Equations.........................................................................................4 5.1. Climate and Rui 5.1.1. Precipitatic 5.1.2. Surface Ru 5.1.3. Potential E 5.2. Precipitation on 5.3. Soils and Drain, 6. Monthly Wat 7. Conclusions.. Attachment A.--W Attachment A ' (con Attachment A' (con Attachment A, (con List of Figures ' Figure I.Rowan Road S Figure 2. -- Net Precipitati List of Tables Table 1.--Climatic and Rug Table 2.-- Drainage Coefl Report...................... ..... Table 3.—Drainage (Red Drainage Coefficients Cc Within each Irrigation Zor. Table 4.-- Recommended Requirements for the Row Table 5.--Recommended r the 80th % Wettest Year.. 0 1� off Data for Water Balance ............................ :..................................... 4 (PCP)................................................................................................. 4 )ff (SRO)............................................................................ ............. 5 tpotranspiration (PET)........................................................................ 5 nd Evaporation from Storage Reservoir Surfaces .............................. 7 e (GWQ) for Water Balance............................................................... 7 BalanceAnalysis.......................:........................................................9 .......................................................................................................12 ;er Balance Computation....................................................................13 inued). -Water Balance Computation................................................14 inued).--Water Balance Computation ............................ .............15 luded).--Water Balance Computation . ................................................ 16 y Zones and Buffered Areas......:..................................................... 3 (PCP -SRO) and PET by Month ....................................................... 6 off Data Used for Water Balance........................................................ 5 cients and Drainage Rates Recommended by S&EC in Soil Scientist ......................................................................................................... 7 arge) Rates from Groundwater Mounding Analysis and Equivalent nputed Geometric Mean Ksats for the Most Restrictive Soil Unit ........................................................................................................ 8 leverage Annual Hydraulic Loading Rates and Wet Weather Storage .n Road Irrigation Zones ................... .............................................. 10 lonthly, Seasonal, and Annual Irrigation Rates in Inches Based Upon ................................................................................................... 11 1. Antroduction This report documents calculations in support of for additional sprayfield I does not request addition gallons per day and cons wet -weather storage 'cap contract to Allens Inc. results of water balance and wet weather storage requirement application for a modification to non-dischargepermit WQ0004268 is for the disposal of treated wastewater. This permit -modification wastewater treatment capacity above the present limit of 415,000 gently will not require the permitting and construction of additional y. This project was performed by Eagle Resources, P.A. under The area that includes the Iadditional sprayfield capacity is referred to as .the Rowan Road site which comprises approximately 353 acres lying south of Rowan Road. and east of State Road 1933, approximately 3.6 miles west-southwest of Turkey, NC (Figure 1). 'The topographic relief at the site is flat, and ;elevations range from approximately 80 to 135 feet. All elevations in this report are reported relative to the 1988 North American Vertical Datum (NAVD88). 1.1. Purpose This water balance study leas been completed in support of the non -discharge permit as required by 15A NCAC 02T.0504 (k). The purpose of the water balance study is to provide recommended hydraulic loading rates and the necessary volume for storage of reclaimed water when irrigation is not possible or desirable during wet weather ;periods and the recommended hydraulic loading rates based upon the hydraulic characteristics of sprayf e' ld soils and underlying groundwater system. . The permit modification being applied for does not increase the total existing permitted wastewater flow, and the existing permit includes adequate storage for that, flow rate. Consequently additional calculations should not be necessary in support of the permit modification. However, we have included a statistical analysis of the historic wastewater flows generated at the plant for the period from April 2000 through March 2008. The analyses described in (this report conform to the requirements of Water Balance Calculation Policy recently issued by the North Carolina Division of Water .Quality (DWQ)'. This water balance. modi Scientist - Evaluation;; Rel explicitly incorporate evapotranspiration and incorporates all of these have been reduced from high watertable. The dr, the Hydrogeologic Study ' North Carolina Division. of Wa Chief, Aquifer Protection Sectio 2 Soil & Environmental Consul Allen Canning Project Sampson 'Eagle Resources, P.A. 2008 H] Aliens Final Water Balance Report.d the seasonal hydraulic loading rates as recommended by the Soil for the Rowan Road site2 Group (2006). Those rates did not isideration ,the balance - between precipitation, runoff, and drainage to groundwater _(recharge). This water balance report ors. Additionally, the soil drainage rates used in the water balance rates- recommended by S&EC to avoid mounding of the seasonal ge rates used were determined by mounding analyses described in Rowan Road3. r Quality; 2008, Water Balance Calculation Policy. Memorandum from Ted Bush September 12, 2008. its 2008. Soil Series and Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Verification Report Runty, NC Report - Allens Canning Facility Sampson -county, NC. 1.Z Disclaimer Some analyses contained Eagle Resources P.A. m< reliability of that data and i 1. 2. , . Data- Source, The following data sources • Soil Series and Saft • Eagle Resources, H • Existing permit nun of Monthly climatic temperature for the through December • Monthly average so 3. Sprayfiel, B The water balance arialysi; soil areas mapped by' the no irrigation is allowed un comprise the following: 1. 400 feet from any r, 2. 100. feet from any v 3. 150 feet from the pi 4..100 feet from ;any s 5. 100, feet fromany' g The locations of water wE resolution aerial vhotbgrav this reportrelied upon data and information provided by others. s no` representations regarding the completeness, accuracy and were used for this report: rated Hydraulic Conductivity Verification Report by S&EC2; Mrogeologic ReporO;.' fiber WQ0004268_ ,tation data including precipitation, minimum and maximum air Clinton 2 -S climatic ,station, period of record used:, January 1936 1007. radiation data for the Raleigh Durham International Airport, itters first determined the gross area available for irrigation by removing kEC. that fell withini the aggregate of all sprayfield buffers in which or 15A NCAC 02T.0500. These buffers are shown on Figure 1 and ence or publicly -occupied building; r well•, ,rty boundary; m, wetland or other water body; and ndwater lowering drain. and residences Were determined by field, investigation and high Aliens Final water Balance 2 ICJ/ Figure 1. Rowan Road Spray Zones and Buffered Areas. (In Pocket) { 04B ICe56 irao Aliens Final Water Balance RE 3 DRAFT LL a. 7 EXPLANATION Field inve8tl0etlon Locatlona � LOG —TYPE ` Zoni T J /W&V @13 —— _ _ aealmnon_SvIhY Wm _ s ssEcdbvwavmwm. '�/^_ - � � f` Zoni;id + � o _•lu;;s � t..� l _ .. ,..,�.w. \ f V to / / a `� J + � � � '•Zone 1e5 � c.?+.�a. ,s? � T 1 gp ag M..eml+roN.n.ue•mmer �a1e�a.,c.N bwmme60» It11 \`\ � ii +nw+wwW mw. wb:mrwoa wyemeamMwvmoltl Muar]�u.+eu nW.W00bra�lallln �LYea!¢WoJwlmaE ,+y+a CemeeTub/.K. uoll>*F'alq+l+an+na WYq Onlnp. eee11k6nY wumnom tlemmovulWm., C, macaw olwlnEnec`nxWrOuµlaemwan.amauamumronrllwwmm�e emr. ///�� d p� � ``�� 1 ,�� CZ— ��L•*7®vim \ 1 Inch - 200 feet , 8 200 400 800 1.200 1,600 4. Irrigation Areas The boundaries of the sp Iay zones were determined by Eafle Resources using the procedure . described in the Hydrogeologic Report for Rowan Road that maximized drainage under irrigation areas whilekeeping the depth to the watertable greater than one foot. inches/year: 5. Water Balance Equations Water balance calculations were .performed using the following equation: St=St-I+[nowt] -[ St=St-I+[Qt *At!+ (1) Where: St = Storage requi St_I = Storage requ AR = Surface area PCPs= Precipitatio: Qt = Flow of rec. At = time betwee = no of days i IA = Allowable = Ax * (PETt AX. = Total spray EVPt = Evaporatio: PETt = Potential E, SROt = Surface Ru GWQxt _ Drainage tc ]; or PCPs /12 ] — [ IA +AR . EVPt /12 ] ed at the end of month t, Ac-Ft; red at end of previous month, Ac-Ft; of area draining to all storage cells, Ac; i during month t, inches; aimed water, Ac-Ft/day; a month t and t-1, in days [)r each month; rrigation during month, ac-ft la) + SROt + GWQxt - PCPt) /12; ield area, acres; i from free water surface during month t = 0.6 * PET, inches; apotranspiration_for month t, inches; toff for month t, inches; and groundwater. for Soil Area x during month t, inches. (1) Equation 1 was solved using Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet with at least two annual cycles that. demonstrated a convergent solution to wet weather storage requirements., - 5. 1. Climate and F Climatic data from the Rc for the water balance. 5.1.1. Precipitation (i In accordance with recomi of record from 1936 to 20 of average and the 8& we off Data for Water Balance Mount -8ESE climatic station for the period 1955-2004 was used idations of NC DWQ, the 8e percentile wettest year for the period was used for the water balance analysis.. Table 1 shows the values . it monthly precipitation used for the water balance. Aliens Final Water Balance Report.doc 4 i L IWe&'e ce$ Month Average Precip 80th ' Wettest Preci Surface Runoff Average PET Ave rage 80th Wettest SRO SRO in/mo % of Preci SRO % of Preci in/mo in/rho in/mo in/mo Jan 4.04 4.58 0.81 20% 0.90 20% 1.81 Feb 3.81 4.32 0.76 ' -20% 0.84 20% 2.17 Mar 4.36 '; 4.94 0.87 20% 0.97 20% 3.18 Apr 3.31 3.76 0.66 20% 0.73 20%, 3.85 May 3.21 3.64 0.64 20% 0.71 20% 4.34 Jun 3.92 4.45 0.78 20% 0.87 20% 4.41- Jul 4.90 ;, 5.56 0.98 20% 1.09 20% 4.41 Aug4.78 5.43 0.96 20% 1.06 206/ 4.05 Sep 4.07 1 4.62 0.81 20% 0.90 20% 3.29 Oct 3.25 3.69 0.65 20% 0.72 20% 2.82 Nov. 2.99 3.39 0.60 20% 0.66 20%1 1.96 Dec 3.38 3.83 0.68 20% 0.75 20%1 1.66' Annual 46.031, 52.20 9.21 20% 10.20 20%1 37.94 Table L--Climatic and Runoff Data Used for Water Balance. 5.1.2. Surface Runoff, (SRO) Because the precipitation used for the wet weather storage water balance calculations uses the 8& percent wettest condition, the,surface runoff used should also reflect -the 81f percent wettest condition. Consequently, the average monthly surface runoff values were computed using 20% of the -monthly 80 percentile wettest precipitation discussed above. 5.1.3. Potential Evapotranspiration (PET) PET was calculated using the Priestly -Taylor equation which is a simplification of the Penman energy balance equation. The Penman Equation accounts for the balance between radiant and sensible heat and the loss of latent heat by advection (wind). The Priestly -Taylor equation modifies the Penman` equation by ignoring the advective term and by multiplying the remaining energy term by constant (aPET = 1.28) to estimate Ep from climatic data.for conditions when the general surroundings are wet or humid: PET =AEp = apET s (R�, -G). s+Y Where A = latent heat of vaporiz.ation of water, Ep = potential' water vapor flux density, , s = slope ofthe saturation vapor density curve, y = thermodynamic psychrometric constant, R„ = net radiative flux density, and G = sensibld soil heat flux density. By ignoring the advective (wind) term in the Penman equation, and using apET, to account for humid conditions expected in sprayfield environments; the Priestly -Taylor Equation is the most applicable to the Allen's project. Several recent publications support the use of the Priestly - Taylor Equation for sites in North Carolina. 'The North Carolina State Climate Office maintains the on-line CRONOS database to assist the agricultural industry in determining Potential ET Aliens Final Water Balance Report.d c 5 04e P'emrceo using hourly and daily data collected at stations throughout North Carolina. This agency uses J both the Penman-Monteitl I and the Priestly -Taylor equations to compute PET. Table 1 shows the monthly values of PET used for the water balance, and Figure 2 shows the monthly balance between net precipitation (PCP SRO) and PET. 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 s ' c 3.00 ai 2.50 ,E 2.00 c. C 1.50 1.00 0.50 M 80th % Wettest PCP -SRO ® PET Jan Feb I Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 2. -- Net Precipitation (PCP -SRO) and PET by Month. Aliens Final Water Balance Report.doc 6 0 5. Z . Precipitat Surfaces This�water balance i 27 acre wet weather 5.3. Soils and 1 The method recomm for the drainage coi coefficient of 0.05 to least permeable hori: horizons and recomrr in Table 2. ea lj B a56 ao on and Evaporation from Storage Reservoir accounts for precipitation on and evaporation from the existing tge reservoir. (GWQ) for Water Balance 3ed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality to account lonent of the water balance equation is to apply a drainage 10 that is multiplied by the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the i (Ksat). The S&EC conducted measurements of Ksat in these .ded applied drainage coefficients ranging from 1 to 7% as shown Soil Map Unit Geometric Mean Ksat in/hr Recommended Drainage Coefficient- Drainage in/hr in/yr Norfolk / Wa ram 0.316 4% 0.0126 110.7 Goldsboro / Noboco 0.147 7% 0.0103 90.1 Tarboro / Kalmia 3.83 1 % . 0.0383 335.7 Table 2.-- Drainage'Coefficients and Drainage Rates Recommended by S&EC in Soil Scientist Report JI The drainage values u'sed for this water balance analysis and report were determined by initially applying the Yvet season values from Table 2 to'the groundwater flow model as. recharge and then making the necessary adjustments irrigation zones and drainage rates to prevent the modeled steady state watertable from being within one foot of the land surface while maximizing the applied irrigation rates. This process resulted in eighteen (18) irrigation zones. Table 3 shows the zones, areas, and drainage rates determined from the mounding analysis. Table 3 also includes the equivalent drainage coefficients computed as the ratio between drainage rate from mounding analysis anc the geometric mean Ksat value for the most restrictive soil within each zones. Because! all the equivalent drainage coefficients are less than the values recommended by S&EC, the drainage rates used in the water balance all are less than those recommended b� S&EC.. Allens Final Water Balance ReOrt.doc 7 �1 e� Drainage Capacity from Mounding Analysis Geom. Mean Ksat Calculated Most for Most Equivalent Restrictive Restrictive Drainage Area Soil within Soil In Coef- Irrigation Zone, Ac inlwk Inlyr Zone Zone in/wk ficient 1 Nofolk/ Zone 1 1.93 1.36 71.00 Wagram 53.09 2.563°% Zone 2 Nofolk/ 3.23 1.12 58.51 Wagram 53.09 2.112% Zone 3 i, Goldsboro/ 1.13 59.11 Noboco 24.70 4.587% Zone 4 El� Goldsboro/ 0.32 16.53 Noboco 24.70 1.283% Zone 5 Goldsboro/ 0.78 0.31 16.01 Noboco 24.70 1.243% Zone 6 Goldsboro/ 1.94 0.88 45.85 Noboco 24.70 3.558% Zone 7 Goldsboro/ i 1.00 0.69 36.25 Noboco 24.70 2.813% Zone 8 Goldsboro/ 2.59 0.82 43.03 Noboco 24.70 3.339% Zone 9 Goldsboro/ Q.79 0.57 29.53 Noboco 24.70 2.291 % Zone 10 • Nofolk/ 1.83 0.79 73.13 Wagram 53.09 2.640% Zone 11 { Goldsboro/ 0.67 0.79 66.34 Noboco 24.70 5.148% Zone 12 Goldsboro/ 3.74 1 0.79 68.90 Noboco 24.70 5.347% Goldsboro/ Zone 13 2.13 0.79 64.83 Noboco 24.70 5.031% Zone 14 Goldsboro/ 7.65 0.79 69.79 Noboco 24.70 5.416% Zone 15 Goldsboro/ 9.971 0.79 64.05 1 Noboco 24.70 4.970% Zone 16 I Goldsboro/ T.20 0.79 66.37 Noboco 24.70 5.151 % Zone 17 I �' Goldsboro/ 2.27 0.79 17.25 Noboco 24.70 1.339% Zone 18 Goldsboro/ 17.09 0.79 79.80 Noboco 24.70 6.193% Table 3.-Drainage (Recharge) Rates from Groundwater Mounding Analysis and Equivalent Drainage Coefficients Computed Geometric Mean Ksats for the Most Restrictive Soil Unit Within _ J each Irrigation Zone. Aliens Final Water Balance Report.doc We{.'es rao 6. Monthly Water Balance Analysis The monthly water balance equation was solved to determine the wet season and dry season application rates to the combination of the old and new sprayfields that resulted in a convergent water balance solution. A convergent solution is required to assure that adequate wet weather storage capacity is available to hold water during periods when irrigation cannot be applied. Table 4 shows the resultant recommended average annual hydraulic loading rates and Table 5 shows. the recommended rates for the wet (October -February) and dry (March - September) seasons asI, well as the average annual rate weighted for the duration of the wet and dry seasons. The annual average rates range from 12.60 inches per year on zone 5 to 75.75 inches per year on zone 18. The annual irrigation capacity for the Rowan Road Fields is 245,000,, gallons per day as shown in Table 4. The convergent required wet weather storage for the 69.37 acres comprising the Rowan Road irrigation. zones is 10.16 million gallons as shown in Table 4. The Rowan Road irrigation zones :will have .the capacity to handle 59% of the permitted capacity of 415,000 gallons per day, leaving a balance of 170,000 gallons per day to be applied to the existing fields. Assuming that the ratio of irrigation capacity between the existing and Rowan Road fields is equal to the ratio of storage requirements for the existing and Rowan Road fields a total storage capacity, of 17.2 million gallons would be required (10.16mgal x 245,,000 gpd for Rowan Road / 415,000 gpd permit capacity). It is estimated that the existing reservoir has a storage capacity of at least 20 million gallons assumingan effective surface area of 27 acres and an effective average depth of 2.5 feet. Consequently, the existing storage reservoir provides adequate capacity to handle the full 415,000 gallons per day. Attachment A shows, the monthly convergent water balance solution that is broken out for the eighteen (18) irrigation zones and the maximum wet weather storage requirements. Aliens Final Water Balance Report.doc 9 Wepmme5 Prorated Maximum Net Irrigation Capacity of Sprayfields Net Wastewater Flow Most Precip - Restrictive Evap on Irrigation Area Soil within Storage Zone Ac Zone in/wk in/yr ac-ft/yr (ac-ft/yr) gal/day ac-ft/yr Nofolk/ Zone 1 1.93 Wagram 1.29 66.94 10.75 2.09 7,728 8.66 Zone 2 i Nofolk/ 3.23 I Wagram 1.05 54.45 14.64 2.84 10,523 11.80 Zone 3 Goldsboro/ 111.69 Noboco 1.06 55.06 53.62 10.42 38,545 43.21 Zone 4 Goldsboro/ 1.89 Noboco 0.25 12.99 2.05 0.40 1,471 1.65 Zone 5 Goldsboro/ 10.78 Noboco 0.241 12.60 0.82 0.16 586 0.66 Zone 6 Goldsboro/ + .1.94 Noboco 0.80 41.79 6.76 1.31 4,859 5.45 Zone 7 Goldsboro/ '•1.00 Noboco 0.62 32.19 2.68 0.52 1,924 2.16 Zone 8 Goldsboro/ 2.59 Noboco 0.75 38.98 8.41 1.63 6,043 6.77 Goldsboro/ Zone 9 0.79 Noboco 0.49 25.47 1.68 0.33 1,206 1.35 Nofolk/ Zone 10 1.83 Wagram 1.33 69.07 10.53 2.05 7,571 8.49 Zone 11 Goldsboro/ 0.67 Noboco 1.20 62.28 3.48 0.68 2,501 2.80 Zone 12 I Goldsboro/ 3.74 { Noboco 1.25 64.84 20.18 3.92 14,509 16.26 Goldsboro/ Zone 13 !•2.13 Noboco 1.17 60.78 10.81 2.10 7,769 8.71 Zone 14 l Goldsboro/ 7.65 i Noboco 1.26 65.73 41.88 8.13 30,102 33.74 Zone 15 Goldsboro/ 0.97 Noboco 1.151 59.99 4.85 0.94 3,490 3.91 Goldsboro/ Zone 16 •7.20 Noboco 1.20 62.32 37.39 7.26 26,873 30.12 Zone 17 Goldsboro/ 2.27 Noboco 0.26 13.61 2.58 0.50 1,854 2.08 Goldsboro/ Zone 18 17.09 Noboco 1.46 75.75 107.86 20.95 77,529 86.91 Total Application 69.37 340.96 Total Area Analysis Date 1216108 245,044 GPD 10.16 Mal 41 Days Table 4.-- Recommended Average Annual Hydraulic Loading Rates and Wet Weather Storage Requirements for the Rowan Road Irrigation Zones. Allens Final Water Balance Report.doc 10 We pmmee f Irrigation Rates (Wastew ater Plus Precip-.Evap on Storage) Based upon 80th % w ettest year (inches) Zone Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Oct -Feb Mar - Sep Zone 1 4.15 4.19 5.23 6:65 7.43 6.66 5.96 5.71 5.41 5.88 5.67 4.61 66.94 23.89 43.05 Zone 2 3.09 3.23 1 4.17' 5,63 6.37 1 5.64 4.90 4.65 4.38 4.82 4.04 1 3.55 54.45 18.72 36.74 Zone 3 3.14 3.27 4.22 5,68 6.42 5.69 4.95 4.70 4.43 4.87 4.09 3.60 55.06 1 18.97 36.09 Zone 4 - - 0.61 118 2.81 2.19 1.34 1.09 0.93 1.26 0.59 - 12.99 1.85 11.14 Zone 5 - - 0.56 204 2.76 2.15 1.30 1.04 0.89 1.21 0.55 - 12.60 1.76 10.84 Zone 6 2.01 2.25 3.09 4.59 5.30 4.60 3.83 3.57 3.34 3.74 3.00 2.47 41.79 13.47 28.32 Zone 7 1.20 1.50 2.28 3.80 4.48 3.81 3.01 2.76 2.55 2.93 2.21 1.66 32.19 9.50 22.70 Zone 8 1.77 2.03 2.86 4.36 5.06 4.36 3.59 3.33 3.11 3.50 2.77 2.23 38.98 12.31 26.67 Zone 9 0.63 0.98 1.71 3.25 3.91 3.25 2.44 2.19 2.00 2.36 1.66 1.09 25.47 6.71 18.76 f Zone 10 4.33 4.36 5.41 I.83 7.61 6.84 6.14 5.89 5.58 6.06 5.24 4.79 69.07 24.77 44.30 Zone 11 3.75 3.83 4.83 6.27 .7.04 6.28 5.57 5.31 5.02 5.48 4.68 4.21 62.28 21.96 40.32 Zone 12 3.97 4.03 5.05 f.48 7.25 6.49 5.78 5.53 5.23 5.70 4.89 4.43 64.84 23.02 41.82 Zone 13 3.62 3.71 4.71 6.15 6.91 6.15 5.44 5.18 4.90 5.35 4.56 4.08 60.78 21.33 39.44 Zone 14 4.04 4.10 5.13 j 6.56 7.33 6.56 5.86 5.61 5.31 5.78 4.97 4.50 65.73 23.39 42.34 Zone 15 3.56 3.65 4.64 i 6.08 6.84 6.09 5.37 5.12 4.84 5.29 4.50 4.02 59.99 21.01 38.98 Zone 16 3.75 3.83 4.84 6.27 7.04 6.28 5.57 5.32 '5.03 5.49 4.69 4.21 62.32 21.97 40.34 Zone 17 - 0.03 0.67 2.24 2.87 2.25 1.40 1.15 0.99 1.32 0.65 0.05 13.61 2.05 11.56 Zone 18 4.89 4.87 5.98 7.38 8.18 7.38 6.71 6.46 6.13 6.63 &M 5.35 75.75 27.53 48.21 Table 5.-Recommended 80th % Wettest Year. Seasonal, and Annual Irrigation Rates in Inches Based Upon the Allens Final Water Balance 11 r --1 7. Cond6sic This report presents a i for the expanded wa irrigation fields for tt analysis is based upon minus losses from ev years of local climatic mapped by S&EC as v final recommended it modeling and mounds than one foot. The annual average rat year on zone 18. The gallons per day. Wet weather storage ri million gallons for the combination of the exi the estimated total pem We PIMM.5 nthly water balance analysis used to design wet weather storage water treatment facilities for the Rowan Road supplemental Allen Canning Facility, Sampson County, NC. The storage e 80th percentile wettest condition (combination of precipitation )transpiration, runoff, and drainage to groundwater) using 72 to that extends from 1936 to 2007. The analysis used soil areas 1 as and initial soil drainage rates recommended by S&EC. The ation ' rates were based upon drainage rates that groundwater analyses showed resulted in a likely depth to water of greater range from 12.60 inches per year on zone 5 to 75.75 inches per ival irrigation capacity for the Rowan Road Fields is 245,000 .merits for the convergent water balance solution are 10.16 m Road fields and an estimated 17.2 million gallons for the fields and the Rowan Road fields. This volume is less than capacity of the existing reservoir of 20 million gallons. Allens Final Water Balance Report.doc 12 0a?'e awces Attachment A. --Water Balance Computation. Year Mo Days per month Average Precip Both % Wettest Precip I 801h % Drysst Precip Average PET Prelstley- Taylor SRO @ 0.2x Bo% Wettest Precip Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Drain. -age Sum of Losses - Irrigation - Drain • age Sum of Losses Irrigation Drain- - age Sum of Losses Irrigatlo n - -- - Drain- age Sum of Losses Irrigation Drain- age Sum of Losses --- Irrigation_.- Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Ac-Ft GPO Inches Inches Inches Ac-Ft GPD Inches Inches Inches Ao-Ft GPD Inches Inches Inches Ao-Ft GPD Inches Inches Inches Ac-Ft GPD _Jan_ 31 4.04 4.58 3.51 1.81 0.90 6.03 8.73 4.15 0.67 0,999 4.97 7.67 3.09 0.83 8,721 5.02 7.72 3.14 3.08 32,117 1.40 4.11 1.36 4.06 Feb 28.25 3.81 4.32 3.31 2.17 0.84 5.49 8.51 4.19 0.67 7,764 4.53 7.54 3.23 0.57 10,001 4.57 7,59 O 3.10 _98,750 120 4.30 -1.24' --4;26' -Mar 31 4.36 4.84 3.79 3.18 0.97 6.03 10.17 5.23 0.84 8,828 4.97 8.11 4.17 1.12 11,783 5.02 9.16 4.22 4.11 43.209 1.40 5.55 0.61 0.10 1,005 1.36 5.514 383 Apr 30 3.31 3.76 2.68 3.85 0.73 5.83 10.41 0.85 1.07 11.608 4.81 0.39 5.63 1.51 16.437 4.06 9.44 5.88 5.53 60,089 1.30 5.94 2.18 0.34 3,731 1.32 5.9014 1.504 Me 31 3.21 3,84 2.78 4.34 0.71 0.03 11.08 7.43 1.19 12,544 4.87 10.02 8.37 1.71 18,004 5.02 10.07 6.42 e.ze 65,745 1,40 6.45 2.81 0.44 4,849 1.38 8.4118 j2.1S0.14 1,BB7Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 0.87 5.83 11.11 6.66 1.07 11,020 4.81 10.08 5.64 1.52 16,456 4.86 10.13 5.68 5.54 00,138 1.36 6.63 2.19 0.34 3.742 1.32 6.5814 1,508 Jul 31 4.90 5.56 4.26 4.41 1.09 6.03 11.52 5.96 0.96 10,066 4.97 10AB 4.90 1.32 13,655 5.02 10.51 4.95 4.83 50.717 1.40 6.90 1.34 0.21 2,219 1.38 6.858 BB2 u31 4.78 5.43 4.16 4.05 1.06 6.03 11.13 5.71 0.92 9.630 4.97 10.07 4.65 1.25 13.135 5.02 10.13 4.70 4.58 48,108 1.40 6.51 1.09 0.17 1,797 1.36 6.477 708 30 4.07 4.62 3.54 3.29 0.90 5.63 10.02 5.41 0.87 9.431 4.81 9.00 4.38 1.18 12,792 4.88 9.05 4.43 4.31 46.864 1.36 5.55 0.93 0.15 1,598 1.32 5.516 628 Oct 31 3.25 3.69 2.83 2.82 0.72 6.03 9.57 5.08 0.94 9.922 4.97 8.51 4.82 1.30 13.515 5.02 8.56 4.87 4.74 49,846 1.40 4.94 1.28 0.20 2,078 1.36 4.90 1.21 0.08 824 Nov 30 2.99 3.39 2.59 1.98 0.66 5.83 8.45 5.07 0.81 8.837 4.81 7.43 4.04 1.09 11,789 4.86 7.48 4.00 3.98 43,267 1.38 3.98 0.59 0.09 1,014 1.32 3.94 0.55 0.04 367 Dec 31 3.38 3.83 2.94 1.66 0.75 6.03 8.44 4.61 0.74 7,777 4.97 7.38 3.55 0.95 10,023 5.02 7.43 3.60 3.60 36.834 1,40 3.81 1.36 3.77 Jan 31 4.04 4.58 3.51 1.81 0.90 6.03 8.73 4.15 0.67 6,999 4.97 7.67 3.09 0.63 8,721 5.02 7.72 3.14 3.05 32,117 1.40 4.11 US 4.08 Feb 28.25 3.81 4.32 3.31 1 2.17 0.84 5.48 8.51 4.19 0.57 7,784 4.53 7.54 323 0.87 10,001 4.57 7.59 327 3.19 36.758 128 4.30 124 4.26 Mar 31 4.36 4.94 3.79 3.18 0.97 8.03 10.17 5.23 0.84 6,828 4.97 9.11 4.17 1.12 11,703 5.02 9.16 4.22 4.11 43=9 1.40 5.56 O.61 0.10 1.005 1.36 5.51 0.58 0.04 383 Apr 30 3.31 3.76 2.88 3.85 0.73 5.83 10.41 6E5 1.07 11,608 4.81 9.39 5.63 1.51 16.437 4.88 9.44 5.68 5.53 80,089 1.36 5.94 2.18 0.34 3,731 1.32 5.90 2.14 0.14 1.504 May 31 3.21 3.64 2.79 4.34 0.71 6.03 11.08 7.43 1.19 12.644 4.97 10.02 6.37 1.71 18.004 5.02 10.07 6.42 6.26 65.745 1.40 6.45 2.81 0.44 4,84E 1.36 6.41 2.76 0.18 1,881 Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 0.87 5.83 11.11 6.66 1.07 11,620 4.81 10.08 5.64 1.52 18,456 4.08 10.13 6.60 5.54 60,138 1.36 6.63 2.19 0.34 3,742 1.32 6.59 2.161 0.14 1,508 2 Jul 31 4.90 5.58 4.26 4.41 1.09 6.03 11.52 5.96 0.96 10.066 4.97 10.46 4.90 1.32 13.855 5.02 10.51 4.95 4.83 50,717 1.40 6.90 1.34 0.21 2,210 1.35 6.88 1.30 0.08 882 Aug 31 4.78 5.43 4.10 4.05 1.06 6.03 11.13 5.71 0.92 9.636 4.97 10.07 4.65 1.25 13,135 5.02 10.13 4.70 4.50 48.108 1.40 6.51 1.09 0.17 1,797 1.36 8.47 1.04 0.07 709 Sep 30 4.07 4.62 3.54 3.29 0.90 5.83 10.02 5.41 0.67 9.431 4.81 0.00 4.38 1.18 12,792 4.86 9.05 4.43 4.31 46,664 1.36 5.55 0.93 0.15 1,596 1.32 5.51 0.89 0.061 628 Oct 311 3.2SI 3.59 2.83 2.82 0.72 8.03 9.57 5.88 0.94 9,922 4.97 8.51 4.82 1.30 13,615 5.02 8.58 1 4.87 4.74 49.846 1.40 4.94 1.26 0,20 2,078 1.36 4.90 1.21 0.08 624 Nov 30 2.99 3.39 2.59 1.96 0.66 5.83 8.45 5.07 0.81 8,837 4.81 1 7.43 4.04 1.09 11,799 4.86 7.48 4.09 3.98 43.267 1.36 3.98 0.59 0.09 1.014 1.32 3.94 0.55 0.04 387 Dec 31 3.38 3.83 2.94 1.68 0.75 5.03 8.44 4.61 0.74 7,777 4.97 7.38 3.55 0.95 10,023 5.02 7.43 1 3.60 3.50 36,834 1.40 3.81 1.36 3.77 Jan 31 4.04 4.58 3.51 1.81 0.90 6.03 8.73 4.15 0.67 6.999 4.97 7.67 3.09 0.83 8.721 5.02 7.72 3.14 3.06 32.117 1.40 4.11 1.36 4.06 Feb 26.25 3.81 4.32 3.31 2.17 0.84 5.49 8.51 4.19 0.67 7,784 4.53 7.54 323 0.87 10,001 4.67 7.59 3.27 3.19 38,756 1.28 4.30 1.24 426 Mar 31 4.36 4.94 3.79 3.18 0.97 6.03 10.17 523 0.84 8.828 4.97 9.11 4.17 1.12 11,783 5.02 9.16 4.22 4.11 43.209 1.40 5.55 0.61 0.10 1,005 1.36 5.51 0.56 0.04 383 Apr 30 3.31 3.76 2.88 3.85 0.73 5.83 10.41 6.65 1.07 11,608 4.81 9.39 5.63 1.51 16,437 4.86 9.44 5.68 5.53 WOO 1.36 5.94 2.18 0.34 3,731 1.32 5.90 2.14 0.14 1,504 May 31 3.21 3.64 2.79 4.34 0.71 6.03 11.08 7.43 1.19 12,544 4.97 10.02 6.37 1.71 18,004 5.02 10.07 6.42 6.26 65,745 1.40 6.45 2.81 0.44 4,849 1.36 6.41 2.76 0.18 1.881 Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 0.87 5.83 11.11 8.66 1.07 11,620 4.81 10.05 5.64 1.52 16,456 4.86 10.13 5.69 5.54 60.138 1.36 6.63 2.19 0.34 3,742 1.32 6.59 2.15 0.14 1,508 3 Jul 31 4.90 5.56 4.26 4.41 1.09 6.03 11.52 5.88 0.98 10,066 4.97 10.46 4.90 1.32 13,855 5.02 10.51 4.95 4.83 50.717 1.40 6.90 1.34 0.21 2.219 1.36 6.66 1.30 0.08 882 Aug 31 4.78 5.43 4.18 4.05 1.08 6.03 11.13 5.71 0.92 9,636 4.97 10.07 4.65 1.25 13.135 5.02 10.13 4.70 4.58 48,108 1.40 6.51 1.09 0.17 1,797 1.36 6.47 1.04 0.07 709 Se 30 4.07 4.62 3.54 3.29 0.90 5.83 10.02 5.41 0.87 9.431 4.81 9.00 4.38 1.13 12.792 4.86 9.05 4.43 4.31 46.864 1.36 5.55 0.93 0.15 1,508 1.32 5.51 0.69 0.06 626 Oct 31 3.26 3.69 2.83 2.82 0.72 6.03 9.57 5.88 0.04 9,922 4.97 8.51 4.82 1.30 13,615 5.02 8.58 4.87 4.74 49,846 1.40 4.94 1.28 0.20 2,078 1.36 4.90 1.21 0.08 624 Nov 30 2.90 3.39 2.59 1.98 0.66 5.83 8.45 5.07 0.01 3,537 4.81 7.43 4.04 1.09 11,799 4.86 7.48 4.09 3.98 43,267 1.36 3.98 0.59 0.09 1,014 1.32 3.94 0.55 0.04 367 Dec 31 3.38 183 2.94 1.66 0.75 6.03 8.44 4.81 0.74 7,T77 4.97 7.38 3.55 0.96 10,023 5.02 7.43 3.60 3.50 38,834 1.40 3.61 1.36 3.77 Jan 31 4.04 4.58 3.51 1.81 0.90 6.03 8.73 4.15 0.67 6,909 4.97 7.67 3.09 0.83 8,721 5.02 7.72 3.14 3,08 321117 1.40 4.11 1.36 4.06 Feb 28.25 3.81 4.32 3.31 2.17 0.84 5.49 8.51 4.19 0.67 7,764 4.53 7.54 323 0.87 10,001 4.57 7.59 3.27 3.19 36,756 128 4.30 124 4.26 Mar 31 4.36 4.94 3.79 3.18 O,B7 6.03 10.17 5.23 0.04 8,828 4.97 9.11 4.17 1.12 11,783 5.02 8.18 4,22 4.11 43,208 1.40 5.55 0.01 0.10 1,005 1.38 5.51 0.58 0.04 383 4 Apr 30 3.31 3.78 2.88 3.85 0.73 5.83 10.41 6.65 1.07 11,808 4.81 9.39 5J33 1.51 18,437 4.88 9.M 5.68 5.53 80,069 1.38 5,94 2.18 D.34 3,731 1.32 5.90 2.14 0.14 1,504 May 31 321 3.64 2.79 4.34 0.71 6.03 11.08 7.43 7.19 12,544 4.97 10.02 6.37 1.71 16,004 5.02 10.07 6.42 6.20 85,745 1.40 8.45 2.81 0.44 4,849 1.36 8.41 2.76 0.18 1.881 Jun 30 3.92 4.45 I 3.41 I 4.41 0.87 5.83 11.11 8.86 1.07 11,620 4.81 10.06 5.64 1.52 10,456 4.86 10.13 5.89 5.54 60,138 1.38 8.83 2.18 D.34 3,742 1.32 8.59 2.15 0.14 1,508 Aliens Final Water Balance Report.doc 13 Oa*hwee.5 Attachment A (continued). --Water Balance Computation. Year Nb Days per nnnth Average Frectp 80th % Wettest Fyeelp 80th % Dryest Preeip Average PET Preistley Taylor SRO x 80% Wettest Frecip Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Wain- age Sumof Losses krlgatlo: n Drain- age Sumof Losses krigatio _ _ _ _ n Drain- age Sum of Losses 4rigatlo n i jOreio- age Sum of Losses 4rigatb --- n - - Drain- age Sum of Losses krigaflo n I Inches Inches Inches Inches inches Inches Inches Inches Ac-Ft GPO Inches Inches inches Ac-Ft GPD Inches Inches Inches Ac-Ft GPD Inches aches Inches Ac-Ft GPD Inches Inches Inches Ac-Ft GPD Jan- 31 -4.04- -4,58- -3.51- 1.81- -0.90• -3.89- -6.59- -2.01- -0.33- r3,419. _3.08- -5.78_ 1.20- -0.10_ �.048-, -3.65- -6.36_ 1.77 0.36 4,019 2.51 5.21 0.63 0.04 434 8.21 8.91 4.33 0.65 6,935 Feb 28.25 3.81 4.32 3.31 2.17 0.84 3.55 6.58 2.25 0.36 4,190 2.80 5.82 1.50 0.13 1,442 3.33 6.35 2.03 0.44 5,046 228 5.30 0.98 0.06 747 5.66 8.67 4.36 0.66 7.661 Mar 31 4.36 4.94 3.79 3.18 0.97 3.69 8.04 3.09 0.50 5,251 3.08 7.22 2.28 0.19 1,993 3.65 7.60 2.86 D.62 6,475 2.51 6.85 1.71 0.11 1.184 6.21 10.35 5.41 0.83 8,672 Apr 30 3.31 3.78 2.88 3.85 0.73 3.77 8.35 4.59 0.74 8,062 2.98 7.56 3.80 0.32 3,432 3.53 8.12 4.36 0.94 10,210 2.43 7.01 3,25 0.21 2,324 6.01 10.59 6.83 1.04 11,312 May 31 3.21 3.64 2.79 4.34 0.71 3.89 8.94 5.30 0.86 9,004 3.08 8.13 4.48 0.37 31916 3.65 8.70 5.08 1.09 110487 2.51 7.56 3.g1 026 2.708 6.21 11.26 7.61 1.18 12,200 Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 0.87 3,77 9.04 4.60 0.74 8,073 2.98 8.25 3.81 0.32 3,438 3.53 8.81 4.38 0.94 10,225 2.43 7.70 3.25 0.21 2,329 6.01 11.20 6.84 1.04 11,322 1 Jul 31 4.90 6.56 4,26 4.41 1.09 3.89 9.39 3.83 0.62 8,508 3,08 8.57 3.01 9.26 2,633 3.65 9.15 3.59 0.77 8,138 2.61 8.00 2.44 0.16 1,692 6.21 11.70 6.14 0.94 9,847 Aug 31 4.78 5.43 4.18 4.05 1.06 3.89 9.00 3.57 0.58 5,075 3.08 8.19 2.76 0.23 2,411 3.65 8.78 3.33 0.72 7,560 2.51 7.61 2.19 0.14 1,515 6.21 11.32 5.69 O.9D 9,439 Sep 30 4.07 4.62 3,54 3.29 0.90 3.77 7.96 3.34 0.54 5,868 2.98 7.17 2.55 021 2,305 3.53 7.72 3.11 0.67 7,285 2.43 6.62 2.00 0.13 1,431 6.01 10.20 5.58 0.85 9,244 Oct 31 3.25 3.69 2.83 2.82 0.72 3.89 7.43 3.74 0.61 6,364 3.08 6.62 2.93 0.24 2,559 3.65 7.19 3.50 0.76 7,945 2.51 6.05 2.38 0.18 1.633 6.21 9.75 6.06 0.92 9.711 Nov 30 2.99 3.39 2.59 1.98 0.66 3.77 6.39 3.00 0.49 5,271 2.98 5.60 2.21 0.18 1,998 3.53 BAB 2.77 0.60 6,488 2.43 5.D5 1.66 0.11 1,188 6.01 8.63 5.24 0.80 8,681 Dec 31 3.38 3.83 2.94 1.66 0.75 3.89 6.30 2.47 0.40 4,203 3.08 5.49 1.66 0.14 1,448 3.65 6.06 2.23 0.48 6,063 2.51 4.92 1.09 0.07 753 6.21 8.62 4.79 0.73 7,573 I Jan 31 4.04 4.58 3.51 1.81 0.90 3.69 6.59 2.01 0.33 3,419 3.08 5.78 1.20 0.10 1,046 3.65 6.36 1.77 0.38 4,019 2.61 5.21 0.63 0.04 434 8.21 8.g1 4.33 0.66 6,935 Feb 28.25 3.81 4.32 3.31 2.17 0.84 3.55 6.56 2.25 0.36 4,190 2.80 5.82 1.50 0.13 1,442 3.33 8.35 2.03 0.44 5.048 228 5.30 0.98 0.06 747 5.66 8.67 4.36 0.68 7,681 Mar 31 4.36 4.94 3.79 3.18 0.97 3.89 8.04 3.09 0.50 5,261 3.08 7.22 2.28 0.19 1.993 3.65 7.80 2.86 0.62 6,475 2.51 6.65 1.71 0.11 1,184 6.21 10.35 5.41 0.83 8,572 Apr 30 3.31 3.76 2.55 3.85 0.73 3.77 8.35 4.59 0.74 8,062 2.95 7.55 3.00 0.32 3,432 3.53 0.12 4.38 0.94 10.210 2.43 7.01 3.25 0.21 2,324 5.01 10,59 6.83 1.04 11,312 May 31 3.21 3.64 2.79 4.34 0.71 3.89 8.94 5.30 0.66 9,004 3.08 8.13 4.48 0.37 3,916 3.65 0.70 5.06 1.09 11.467 2.51 7.56 3.91 0.26 2,708 6.21 11.26 7.61 1.16 12,200 Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 0.87 3.77 9.04 4.60 0.74 8,073 2.98 825 3.81 0.32 3.438 3.53 8.81 4.36 0.94 10,225 2.43 7.70 3.25 0.21 2,329 8.01 11.28 6.84 1.04 11,322 2 Jul 31 4.90 5.56 4.26 4.41 1.09 3.89 9.39 3.83 0.62 6,508 3.08 8.57 3.01 0.25 2,633 3.65 9.15 3.59 0.77 8,13E 2.51 8.00 Z44 OAS 1,692 6.21 11.70 6.14 0.94 9,847 j Aug 31 4.78 5.43 4.18 4.05 1.06 3.09 9.00 3.57 0.58 6,076 3.08 8.19 2.76 023 2,411 3.65 8.76 3.33 0.72 7.560 2.51 7.61 2.19 0.14 1.515 5.21 11.32 5.89 0.90 9,439 Sep 30 4.07 4.62 3.54 3.29 0.90 3,77 7.95 3.34 0.54 5.868 2.98 7.17 2.55 0.21 2,305 3.53 7.72 3.11 0.67 7.285 2.43 6.62 2.00 0.13 1,431 6.01 10.20 5.58 0.85 9,244 Oct 31 325 3.69 2.83 2.82 0.72 3.89 7.43 3.74 0.61 6,364 3.08 6.62 2.93 0.24 2.559 3.65 7.19 3.60 0.76 7,945 2.51 6.05 2.36 0.16 1.633 6.21 9.75 6.06 0.92 9,711 Nov 30 2.99 3.39 2.59 1.96 0.66 3.77 6.39 3.00 0.49 5,271 2.98 5.60 2.21 0.18 1,998 3.53 6.15 2.77 0.60 8,488 2.43 5.05 1.66 0.11 1.188 6.01 8.63 5.24 0.80 8,681 Dec 31 3.38 3.63 2.94 1.65 0.75 3.09 6.30 2.47 0.40 4,203 3.08 SA 1.66 0.14 1.448 3.65 6.06 2.23 0.48 5,063 2.51 4.92 1.09 0.07 753 6.21 8.62 4.79 0.73 7,673 Jan 31 4.04 4.58 3.51 1.81 0.80 3.89 6.59 2.01 0.33 3,419 3.08 5.78 1.20 0.10 1,046 3.65 6.36 1.77 0.38 4.019 2.51 5.21 0.63 0.04 434 6.21 8.91 4.33 0.66 6,935 Feb 2825 3.81 4.32 3.31 2.17 0.84 3.65 6.56 225 0.36 4,190 2.80 5.82 1.50 0.13 1,442 3.33 6.35 2.D3 0.44 5,048 2.28 5.30 0.08 0.06 747 5.66 8.67 4.38 0.66 7,661 NInr 31 4.36 4.94 3.79 3,18 0.97 3.69 8.04 3.09 0.50 5,261 3.08 7.22 2.28 0.19 1.993 3.65 7.80 2.86 0.62 6,475 2.51 6.65 1.71 0.11 1,184 6.21 10.35 5.41 0.83 8,672 Apr 30 3.31 3.76 2.88 3.85 0.73 3.77 8.35 4.59 0.74 8.062 2.98 7.56 3.80 0.32 3,432 3.53 8.12 4.36 0.94 10,210 2.43 7.01 3.25 0.21 _ 2,324 6.01 10.59 6.83 1.D4 11,312 May 31 3.21 3.64 2.79 4.34 0.71 3.89 8.94 5.30 0.86 9,004 3.08 8.13 4.48 0.37 3,916 3.65 8.70 5.06 1.09 11,467 2.51 7.56 3.01 0.26 2,708r6.21 1 11.28 7.61 1.16 12,200 Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4,41 0.67 3.77 9.04 4.60 0.74 6,073 2.98 6.25 3.81 0.32 3,438 3.53 8.81 4.36 0.94 10,225 2.43 7.70 3.25 021 2,3281 11.28 6.84 1.04 11,322 3 Jul 31 4.90 5.56 4.28 4.41 1.09 3.89 9.39 3.83 0.62 8,508 3.08 8.57 3.01 0.25 2,633 3.55 9.15 3.59 0.77 8,138 241 8.00 2.44 0.16 1,6921 11.70 8.14 0.94 9,047 Aug 31 4.78 5.43 4.16 4.05 1.08 3.89 9.00 3.57 0.58 8,075 3.08 8.19 2.78 0.23 2,411 3.8.5 8.78 3.33 0.72 7,560 2,51 7.81 2.19 0.14 1,5151 11.32 5.89 0,90 9,438 Sep 30 4.07 4.62 3.54 3.29 0.90 3.77 7.96 3.34 0.54 5,868 2.98 7.17 2.55 0.21 2,305 3.53 7.72 3.11 0.67 7,285 2.43 6.02 2.00 0.13 1,4311 10.20 5.58 0.85 9,244 Oct 31 3.25 3.69 2.83 2.82 0.72 3.89 7.43 3.74 0.61 8,364 3.08 6.62 2.93 0.24 2,559 3.65 7,18 3.50 0.76 7,945 2.51 6.05 2.36 0.16 1,633 9.75 8.06 0.92 9,711 Nov 30 2.99 3.39 2.59 1.96 0.66 3.77 6.39 3.00 0.49 5,271 2.98 5.60 2.21 0.18 1.998 3.53 6.15 2.77 D.60 6,488 2.43 5.05 1.66 0.11 1,1881 8.63 6.24 O.BO 8.681 Dee 31 3.38 3.83 2.94 1.68 0.75 3.89 6.30 247 0.40 4,203 3.08 5.49 1.68 0.14 1,448 3.85 8.06 223 0.48 5,083 2.51 4.92 1.09 0.07 753 1 6.02 4.79 0.73 7,873 Jan 31 4.04 4.56 3.51 1.81 0.90 3.89 6.59 2.01 0.33 3,419 3.08 5.78 1.20 0.1D 1,046 3.65 6,36 1.77 0.38 4,019 2.51 5.21 0.63 0.04 434 621 8.91 4.33 0.68 6,935 Feb 28.25 3.81 4.32 3.31 2.17 0.84 3.55 6.56 2.25 0.36 4,190 2.80 5.82 1.50 0.13 1,442 3.33 6.35 2.03 0.44 5.046 228 5.30 0.98 0.06 747 6.68 8.67 4.36 0.66 7,661 Mar 31 4.36 4.94 3.79 3.18 0,97 3.89 8.04 3.09 0.50 5,261 3.08 7.22 2.28 0.19 11993 3.65 7.80 2.86 0.62 6.476 2.51 6.65 1.71 0.11 1,184 6.21 10.35 5.41 0.83 8,672 4 Apr 30 3.31 3.76 E88 3.85 0.73 3.77 8.35 4.59 0.74 0,062 ..98 7.56 3.80 0.32 3,432 3.53 8.12 4.36 0.94 10,210 2.43 7.01 325 0.21 2,324 6.01 10.59 6.83 1.04 11,312 May 31 3.21 3.84 Z79 4.34 0.71 3.89 8.94 5.30 0.88 9,004 3.08 8.13 4.48 0.37 3.916 3.05 6.70 5.06 1.09 11,487 2.51 7.56 3.91 026 2.708 621 11.28 7.81 1.18 12,200 Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 0.87 3.77 9.04 4.60 0.74 6,073 2.98 8.25 3.81 0.32 3,438 3.53 8,81 4.36 0.94 10,225 2.43 7.70 325 0.21 2,329 6.01 11.28 6.84 1.04 11,322 Aliens Final Waler Balance Report.doc 14 Attachment A (continued). --Water Balance Computation. Year Mo Days per month Average Precip 801h % Wettest Preci 80th % Dryest Precip Average PET Prelstley- Taylor SRO x 80% Wettest Precip Zone 11 Zane 12 Zone 13 Zone 14 Zone 15 Drain- age Sum of Lasses Imilalio n Drain- age Sum of Lasses Irrigalio n Drain- age Sum of Losses Inigatlo n Drain- age Sum of Losses Inigatlo n Drain- age sum of Losses Irrigatlo n Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Ac-Ft GPD Inches Inches Inches A�Ft GPD Inches Inches Inches 'Ac-FI GPD Inches Inches Inches Ac-Ft GPD Inches Inches Inches Ac-Ft GPD Jan 31 4.04 4.58 3,51 last 0.90 5,83 8.33 3:75 0.21 2,202 5.85 8.55 3.97 1.24 12,902 5.50 8.21 3.62 0.64 6.772 5.92 8.63 4.04 2.58 37,075 5.44 8.14 3.66 0.29 3,025 - -Feb- -2825 _3.81_ _4.32. _3.31 2.17 0.84 5.13 8.15 3.83 0.27 2,469 5.33 8.35 4.03 1.25 14,464 5.01 8.03 3.71 0.66 7,619 5.40 8.42 4.10 2.61 30.1O9 4.95 7.97 3.65 0.30 3,410 Mar 31 4.36 4.94 3.70 3.18 0.97 5.63 9.78 4.83 0.27 2,830 5.85 9.09 5,05 1.57 16,527 5.50 9.65 4.71 0.84 8,707 5.02 10.07 5:13 -3:27' '34;330- -5.44- -9:58' `4:64' -0:38- -3;946' Apr 30 3.31 3.76 2.88 3.85 0.73 5.45 10.03 627 0.35 3,806 5.66 1024 8.48 2.02 21,916 5.32 9.91 6.15 1.09 11.876 5.73 10.31 6,56 4.1It 45,359 5.28 9.84 6.06 0,49 5.347 May 31 3.21 3.64 2.79 4.34 0.71 5.63 10.88 7.04 0.39 4,132 5.85 10.00 725 2.26 23.730 5.50 10.55 6.91 1.23 12,013 5.92 10.87 7.33 4.67 49,073 5.44 10.49 6.84 0.55 5,81E Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 0.87 5.45 10.73 628 0.35 3.810 5.06 10.94 6.49 2.02 21,938 5.32 10.60 6.15 1.09 11,889 5.73 11.01 0.56 4.18 45,404 5.28 10.54 6.09 0.49 5.353 1 Jul 31 4.90 5.56 4.26 4.41 1.09 5.63 11.13 5.57 0.31 3,269 5.85 11.34 5.76 1.80 18.927 5.50 11.00 5.44 0.97 10,168 5.92 11.42 5.86 3.73 39,242 5.44 10.93 5.37 0.43 4.570 31 4,78 5,43 4.18 4.05 1,06 5.63 10.74 6.31 0.30 3,120 5.85 10.98 5.53 1.72 18,083 5.50 10.61 5.18 0.92 9.692 5.92 11.03 5.61 3.57 37,535 5.44 10.54 5.12 0.41 4,353 30 4.07 4.62 3.54 329 0.90 5.45 9.64 5.02 0.28 3,048 5.66 9.85 523 1.83 17,685 5.32 0.52 4.90 0.87 9,465 5.73 9.92 5.31 3.38 38,721 5.26 9.45 4.84 0.39 4,250 r..1 31 3.25 3.89 2.83 2.82 0.72 5.63 9.17 5.48 0.31 3,220 5.85 9.39 5.70 1.77 18,648 5.50 0.04 6.35 0.95 10,009 5.92 9.46 5.78 3.68 38,672 5.44 8.28 5.29 0.43 4,498 30 2.99 3.39 2.50 1.96 0.66 5.45 8.07 4.68 0.26 2,1142 5.66 8.28 4.89 1.52 10,545 5.32 7.05 4.56 0.81 8,808 5.73 5.35 4.97 3.16 34,358 5.28 7.85 4.50 0.36 3.951 31 3.38 3.83 2.94 1.68 0.75 5.63 8.04 421 024 2.473 5.85 6.25 4.43 1.38 14,409 5.50 7.01 4.08 0.73 7,633 5.92 8.33 4.50 2.87 30,150 5.44 7.85 4.D2 0.33 3,417 Jan 31 4.04 4,58 151 1.81 0.90 5.63 8.33 3.75 0.21 2,202 5.85 8.55 3.97 1.24 12,982 5.50 8.21 3.62 0.64 6.772 5.92 8.63 4.04 2.58 27.075 5.44 8.14 3.50 0.29 3,025 Feb 28.251 3.81 1 4.32 3.31 1 2.17 0.84 5.13 8.15 3.83 021 2,469 5.33 8.35 4.03 1.25 14,464 5.01 8.03 3.71 0.66 7.619 5.40 BA2 4.10 2.81 30,109 4.95 7.97 3.65 0.30 3.410 Mar 31 4.36 4.94 3.70 3.18 0.97 5.63 9.78 4.93 027 2,839 5.85 9.99 5.05 1.57 16,627 5.50 9.65 4.71 0.84 8,797 5.92 10.07 5.13 3.27 34,33D 5.44 9.58 4.64 0.38 3.946 Apr 30 3.31 3.76 2.80 3.85 0.73 5.45 10.03 827 0.35 3,808 5.66 10.24 6.48 2.02 21,916 5.32 9.91 6.16 1.09 11.876 5.73 10.31 6.56 4.18 45,359 5.28 9.84 6.08 0.49 5.347 May 31 3.21 3.64 2.79 4.34 0.71 5.63 10.88 7.04 0.39 4,132 5.85 10.90 725 2.28 23,730 5.50 10.55 8.91 1.23 12,913 5.92 10.97 7.33 4.67 49.073 5.44 10.49 6.84 0.55 5.819 Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 0.67 5.45 10.73 6.28 0.35 3.810 5.66 10.94 6.49 2.02 21.938 5.32 10.60 6.15 1.09 11,889 5.73 11.01 6.56 4.18 45,404 5.26 10.54 6.09 0.49 5,353 2 Jul 31 4.90 5.56 4.28 4.41 1.09 5.63 11.13 5.57 0.31 3,269 5.85 11.34 5.78 1.80 18,927 5.50 11.00 5.44 0.97 10,168 5,82 11.42 5.88 3.73 39.242 5.44 10.93 5.37 0.43 4.570 Aug 31 4.78 5.43 4.16 4.05 1.06 5.63 10.74 5.31 0.30 3,120 5.85 10.96 5.53 1.72 18,093 5.50 10.61 5.18 0.92 9.602 5.02 11.03 5.61 3.57 37,535 5.44 10.54 5.12 0.41 4.353 Sep 30 4.07 4.62 3.54 3.29 0.90 5.45 9.64 5.02 0.28 3,048 5.66 9.86 523 1.63 17.695 5.32 9.52 4.80 0.87 9.465 5.73 9.92 5.31 3.38 30,721 5.28 9.45 4.84 0.39 4,250 Oct 31 3.25 3.69 2.83 2.82 0.72 5.63 9.17 5.4s 0.31 3,220 5.85 9.39 5.70 1.77 18.648 5.50 9.04 5.35 0.95 10,009 5.92 9.46 5.78 3.66 38.672 5.44 8.98 5.28 0.43 4,498 Nov 30 2.99 3.39 2.59 1.98 0.66 5.45 8.07 4.68 026 2,842 5.66 8.28 4.89 1.52 16,545 5.32 7.95 4.58 0.81 8.808 5.73 8.35 4.97 3.16 34.368 5.26 7.88 4.50 0.36 3.951 Dec 31 3.38 3.83 2.94 1.68 0.75 5.83 6.04 421 024 2,473 5.85 8.26 4,43 1.38 14,489 5.50 7.07 4.08 0.73V12,913 5,02 8.33 4.50 2.87 30,180 5,44 7.55 4.02 093 3,417 Jan 31 4.04 4.58 3.51 last 0.90 5.83 8.33 3.75 021 2,202 5,85 8,55 3.07 1.24 12,082 5.50 5.21 3.62 0.84 5.02 8.63 4.04 2,58 27,075 5.44 8.14 3.58 0.29 3,025 Feb 28.25 3.81 4.32 3.31 2.17 0.84 5.13 8.15 3.83 021 2,460 5.33 8.35 4.03 1.25 14,484 5.01 8.03 3.71 0.66 5.40 8.42 4.10 2.61E27 100 4.05 7.97 3.85 0.30 3,410 Mar 31 4.38 4.84 3,78 3.16 0.97 5.63 9.78 4.83 027 2,839 5.85 9,99 5.05 1.57 16,527 5.50 8.85 4.71 0.84 5.02 10.07 5.13 3.27330 5.44 8.58 4.64 0.38 3,048 Apr 30 3.31 3.76 2.88 3.85 0.73 5.45 10.03 827 0.35 3.806 5.66 10.24 6.48 2.02 21,916 5.32 9.91 8.15 1.09 5.73 10.31 6.56 4.18350 5.26 9.84 ea08 0.49 5,347 May 31 3.21 3.64 2.79 4.34 0.71 5.63 10.68 7.04 0.39 4.132 5.85 10.90 725 2.28 23.730 5.50 10.55 6.91 1.23 5.92 10.97 7.33 4.67073 5.44 10.49 6.84 0.55 5.619 Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 0.87 5.45 10.73 828 0.35 3,810 5.68 10.84 8.48 2.02 21,938 5.32 10,60 6.15 1,09 5.73 11.01 8.56 4.18404 5.28 10.54 6.09 0.48 5,353Jui 3 31 4.00 5.56 4.28 4.41 1.09 6,83 11.13 5.57 0.31 3,Z6B 5.85 11.34 5.7B 1.80 16,927 5.50 11.00 5.44 0.97, 5.92 11 A2 5.68 3.7342 5.44 10.83 5.37 0.43 4,570 Au 31 4.78 5.43 4.18 4.05 1.08 5.83 10.74 5.31 0.30 3,120 5.65 10.88 5.53 1.72 18,O93 5.50 10.81 5.18 0,92 9,892 5.02 11.03 5.81 3,57535 5.44 10.54 5.12 0.41 4,353 Sep 30 4.07 4.82 3S4 3.28 0.90 5.45 9.64 5.02 0.28 3,048 Sass 8.85 6.23 1.83 17,895 5.32 8.62 4.00 0.87 0,485 5.73 0.92 5.31 3.38721 526 9.45 4.84 0.38 4,250 Oct 31 325 3.69 2.83 2.82 0.72 5.63 9.17 5.48 0.31 3.220 5.85 9.39 5.70 1.77 18.648 5.50 9.04 5.35 0.95 10,009 5.92 9A6 5.78 3.6872 5.44 8.98 5.29 0.43 4.498 Nov 30 2.99 3.39 2.59 1.98 0.66 5.45 8.07 4.68 0.25 2,842 5.68 8.28 4.09 1.52 16.545 5.32 7.95 4.56 0.81 8.808 5.73 8.35 4.97 3.1668 526 7.88 4,50 0.36 3,951 Dac 31 3.38 3.83 2.94 1.66 0.75 5.63 8.04 4.21 0.24 2,473 5.85 8.26 4.43 1.38 14.489 5.50 7.91 4.08 0.73 7,633 5.92 8.33 4.50 2.87180 5.44 7.85 4.02 0.33 3,417 Jan 31 4.04 4.58 3.51 1.01 0.90 5.63 8.33 3.75 021 2,202 5.85 8.55 3.97 124 12,982 5.50 8.21 3.82 0.64 8,772 S.B2 8.63 4.04 2.5875 5.44 6.14 3.56 029 3,025 Feb 2825 3.81 4.32 3.31 2.17 0.84 5.13 8.15 3.83 0.21 2.469 5.33 6.35 4.03 125 14484 5.01 s.03 3.71 0.66 7,819 5.40 9.42 4.10 2.611090 3.410 31 4.36 4.94 3.79 3.18 0.97 5.63 9.78 4.83 0.27 2,839 5.85 9.89 5.05 1.57 18,527 5.50 9.85 4.71 0.84 B,7B7 5.92 10.07 5.13 32730 5.44 8.58 4.84 0.38 3.946 4Mar Apr 30 ..31 3.76 2,88 3.85 0.73 5.45 10.03 6.27 0.35 3,808 5.66 10.24 8.46 2.02 21,016 5.32 9.91 6.15 1.09 11,876 5.73 10,31 6.56 4.18,350 5.28 0.84 0.OB 0.49 5,347 May 31 3.21 3.64 279 4.34 0.71 5.63 10.68 7.04 0.39 4,132 5.85 10.00 725 2.26 23,730 5.50 10.55 8.01 1.23 12,813 5.92 10.07 7.33 4.87 48,073 5.44 10.49 8.84 0.55 5,819 Jun 30 3.02 4.45 3.41 I 4.41 0.87 5.45 10.73 828 0.35 3,810 Sass 10.04 8.49 2.02 21,938 5.32 10.60 6.15 1.09 11,889 5.73 11.01 8.58 4.18 45,404 5.26 10.54 6.00 0.49 5,353 Aliens Final Water Balance Report.doc 15 oajB ICC. ce.5 Attachment A (concluded). --Water Balance Computation. Year Ma Days per month Average Precl Both % Wettest Precl Both % Dryest Precl Average PET Prelstley- Taylor SRO a x 80% Wettest Precl Zone 16 Zone 17 Zone 18 Total Irrigation Precip on Storage In from WWTP Total In to storage Evap from storage Total Out of Storage End of Month Storage Drain. age Sum of Lasses IOlgatlo n Draln- age Sum of Losses Inigallo n Drain- age Sum of Losses Irrlgatlo n Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Ar Ft GPD Inches Inches Inches Ac-Pt GPD Inches Inches Inches Ao-Ft GPD Ao-Ft Ao-Ft Ac-Ft Ac-Ft Ac-Ft Ao-Ft Ao-Ft Days MGal Jan 31 4.04 4.5B 3.51 1.81 0.90 5.63 8.34 3.75 2.25 23,669 1.46 4.17 6.77 9.48 4.89 6.97 73,235 20.23 10.31 23.31 33.62 2.44 72.67 10.95 15 3.57 _Feb_ _28.25 3.81 4.32 3.31 2.17 0.84 5.13 8.15 3.83 2.30 26,526 1.33 4.35 0.03 0.01 75 6.17 9.19 4.87 6.94 80,017 20.66 9.72 21.25 30.96 2.94 23.60 18.32 24 5.97 Mar 31 4.36 4.94 3.79 3.18 0.97 5.63 9.78 4.84 2.90 30,501 1.46 5.61 0.67 0.13 1,331 &77 10.92 S.BB BS1 89,451 26:3f -11.12- -23:31- -34:44- -4.28- -30:60" -22:15- -29- -7.22- Apr 30 3.31 3.78 2.88 3.85 0.73 5.45 10,03 827 3.76 40,086 1.42 6.00 2.24 0.42 4,012 6.55 11.14 7.38 10.51 114,102 34.87 8.48 22.58 31.02 5.19 39.07 13.30 18 4.33 May 31 3.21 3.84 2.78 4.34 0.71 5.63 10.88 7.04 4.22 44,383 1.48 6.51 2.87 0.54 5,718 6.77 11.82 8.18 11.65 122,400 39.04 8.20 23.31 31.51 5.86 44.89 Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 0.87 5.45 10.73 6.25 3.77 40,928 1A2 6.69 225 0.43 4,625 6.55 11.83 7.38 10.51 114,202 34.71 10.01 22.56 32.57 5.95 40.88 1 Jul 31 4.90 5,56 4926 4.41 1.09 5.63 11.13 6.57 3.34 351128 !As 6.08 1.40 0.27 2.792 6.77 12.27 6.71 9.55 100.429 30.55 12.51 23.31 35.82 5.95 35.50 31 4.78 5.43 4,16 4.05 1.08 5.63 10.74 5.32 3.19 33.618 1.46 6.57 1.15 0.22 2,284 6.77 11.88 6.46 9.19 96,614 29.07 12.21 23.31 35.52 5.47 34.54 0.98 1 0.32 30 4.07 4.62 3,54 3.29 0.90 5.45 9.64 5.03 3.02 32,752 1.42 5.61 0.99 0.19 2,042 6.55 10.74 6.13 8.73 94,795 27.48 10.38 22.55 32.95 4.44 31.90 2.03 3 0.66 r 31 325 3.69 2.83 2.82 0.72 5.63 9.17 5.49 3.29 34,589 1.46 5.00 1.32 0.25 2,622 6.77 10.31 6.63 9,43 99,155 30.08 8.30 23.31 31.61 3.81 33.8630 2,99 3.39 2.59 1.96 0.66 5.45 8.07 4.69 2.81 30.538 1.42 4.04 0.85 0.12 1,342 6.55 9.18 5.79 824 89,536 25.49 7.62 22.56 30.18 2.64 28.14 2.04 3 0.67 31 3.38 3.83 2194 1,68 0.75 5.83 8.04 421 2.53 26.574 1.46 3.88 0.05 0.01 90 6.77 9.18 5.35 7.62 80,130 22.71 8.62 23.31 31.93 2.24 24.96 9.02 12 2.94 Jan 31 4.04 4.58 3.51 1.81 0.90 5.03 8.34 3.75 2.25 23,869 1.46 4.17 6.77 9.48 4.89 6.97 73.235 20.23 10.31 23.31 33.62 2.44 22.67 19.97 27 6.51 Fab 28.25 3.61 4.32 3.31 2.17 0.84 5.13 8.15 3.83 2.30 26,526 1.33 4.35 0.03 0.01 75 6.17 9.19 4.87 6.94 80,017 20.66 9.72 21.25 30.96 2.94 23.50 27.34 36 8.91 Mar 31 4.36 4.94 3.79 3.18 0.97 5.63 9.78 4.84 2.90 30,501 1AS 5.61 0.67 0.13 1.331 6.77 10.92 5.98 8.51 89.451 26.31 11.12 23.31 34.44 4.29 30.60 31.17 41 10.16 Apr 30 331 3.76 2.88 3.85 0.73 5.45 10.03 6.27 3.76 40.886 1.42 8.00 224 0.421 4,612 5.55 11.14 7.38 10.51 1 114,102 34.67 8.46 22.56 31.02 5.19 39.87 22.32 30 7.27 May 31 3.21 3.64 2.79 4.34 0.71 5.63 10.68 7.04 4.22 44,3831 1.46 6.51 2.87 0.54 5.716 8.77 11.82 8.18 11AS 122,400 30.04 8.20 23.31 31.51 5.86 44.89 8.95 12 2.91 Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 0.87 5.45 10.73 628 3.77 40,928 1A2 8.69 2.25 0.43 4,625 8.55 11.83 7.38 10.51 114.202 34.71 10.01 22.56 32.57 5.95 40.66 0.85 1 0.28 2 Jul 31 4.90 5.66 4.26 4.41 1.09 5.83 11.13 5.57 3.34 35,128 1.46 6.96 1.40 0.27 2.792 6.77 1227 6.71 9.55 100,429 30.55 12.51 23.31 35.82 5.95 36.50 0.17 0 1 0.06 Aug 31 4.78 1 5.43 4.16 4.05 1.06 5.63 10.74 5.32 3.18 33,518 1.46 6.57 1.15 0.22 2.284 8.77 11.88 6.48 9.19 98,614 29.07 12.21 23.31 35.52 5.47 34.54 1.15 2 0.38 Sep 30 4.071 4.62 3.54 329 0.90 5.45 9.64 5.03 3.02 32,752 1.42 5.61 0.99 0.19 2,042 6.55 10.74 6.13 8.73 94,795 27.46 10.35 22.56 32.95 4.44 31.90 220 3 0.72 Oct 31 325 1 3.69 2.83 2.82 0.72 5.63 9.17 1 5.49 3.28 34,589 1.46 5.00 1.32 0.25 2,622 6.77 10.31 6.63 9.43 99,155 30.06 8.30 23.31 31.61 3.81 33.86 Nov 30 2,99 3.39 2.59 1.96 0.66 5.45 8.07 4.69 2.81 30,536 1.42 4.04 0.65 0.12 1,342 8.55 9.18 5.79 8.24 89,536 25.49 7.62 22.56 30.18 2.64 2814 2.04 3 0.67 Dec 31 3.38 3.83 2.94 1.66 0.75 5.63 8.04 4.21 2.53 25.574 1.46 3.88 0.05 0.01 90 6.77 9.18 5.35 7.62 80,130 22.71 8.62 23.31 31.93 2.24 24.96 9.02 12 2.94 Jan 31 4.04 4.58 3.51 1.81 0.90 5.63 8.34 3.75 2.25 23,669 1.48 4.17 6.77 9A8 4.89 6.97 73,235 20.23 10.31 23.31 33.62 2.44 22.67 19.97 27 6.51 Feb 28.25 3.81 4.32 3.31 2.17 0.84 5.13 8.15 3.83 2.30 26,526 1.33 4.35 0.03 0.01 7S 6.17 9.19 4.87 8.94 00.017 20.66 9.72 21.25 30.98 2.94 23.60 27.34 36 8.91 Mar 31 4.36 4.94 3.79 3.18 0.97 5.63 9.78 4.84 2.90 30,501 1AS 5.61 0.87 0.13 1,331 6.77 10.92 5.08 8.51 69,451 26.31 11.12 23.31 34.44 4.29 30.60 31.17 41 10.16 Apr 30 3.31 3.76 2.88 3.65 0.73 5.45 10.03 627 3.76 40,886 1A2 6.00 2.24 0.42 4.012 6.55 11.14 7.38 10.51 114,102 34.67 8.46 22.56 31.02 5.19 39.87 22.32 30 727 may 311 321 3.64 2.79 4.34 0.71 5.63 10.68 7.04 4.22 44,383 1.46 6.51 2.87 0.54 5,716 6.77 11.82 8.18 11.65 122,400 39.04 8.20 23.31 31.51 5.88 44.89 6.95 12 2.91 Jun 301 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 0.87 5.45 10.73 8.28 3.77 40,928 1.42 6.69 2.25 0.43 4,625 6.55 11.83 7,38 10.51 114,202 34.71 10.01 22.58 32.57 5.95 40.66 0.85 1 028 3 Jul 31 4.90 5.56 4.26 4.41 1.09 5.63 11.13 5.57 3.34 35.126 1.46 6.96 1.40 0.27 2,792 6.77 1227 6.71 9.55 100,429 30.55 12.51 23.31 35.82 5.95 36.50 0.17 0 0.08 Aug 31 4,78 5.43 4.16 4.05 1.06 5.53 10.74 5.32 3.19 33,51E 1.46 6.57 1.15 0.22 2.284 6.77 11.88 6.46 9.10 98,614 29.07 12.21 23.31 35.52 5.47 34.54 1.16 2 0.38 Sep 30 4.07 4.62 3.54 3.29 0.90 5.45 9.64 5.03 3.02 32.752 1.42 5.61 0.99 0.19 2,042 6.55 10.741 8.13 8.73 94,795 27.46 10.38 22.56 32.95 4.44 31.90 220 3 0.72 Oct 31 3.25 3.69 2.B3 2.82 0.72 5.63 9.17 5.49 3.29 34.589 1.46 5.00 1.32 026 2.622 6.77 10.31 6.63 9.43 99,155 30.06 8.30 1 23.31 31.61 3.81 33.86 Nov 30 2.99 3.39 2.59 1.96 0.66 5.45 8.07 4.69 2.81 30,536 IA2 4.04 0.65 0.12 1,342 8.55 9.18 5.79 8.24 89,536 25.49 7.62 22.56 30.18 2.84 28.14 2.04 3 0.67 Dec 31 3.38 3.83 2.94 1.66 0.75 5.63 8.04 421 2.53 26,574 1.46 3.88 0.05 0.01 90 6.77 9.18 5.35 7.62 80,130 22.71 8.62 23.31 31.93 2.24 24.9E 9.02 12 2.94 Jan 31 4.04 4.58 3.51 1.81 0.90 5.63 8.34 3.75 2.25 23.669 1.46 4.17 6.77 9.48 4.89 6.97 73,235 2023 10.31 23.31 33.62 2.44 22.67 19.97 27 6.51 Feb 1 2825 3.81 4,32 3.31 1 2.17 0.84 1 5.13 8.15 3.83 2.30 26,526 1.33 4.35 0.03 0.01 75 6.17 9.19 4.87 5.94 80.017 20.66 9.72 21.25 30.961 2.94 23.60 27.34 36 8.91 Mar 31 4.36 4.94 3.79 3.18 0.97 5.63 9.78 4.84 2.90 30,501 1.46 5.81 0.67 0.13 1,331 6.77 10.92 5.98 8.51 89,451 26.31 11.12 23.31 34.44 4.29 30.60 31.17 41 10.16 4 Apt 30 3.31 3.78 2.88 3,85 0,73 5.45 10.03 6.27 3.78 40,886 1.42 8.00 2.24 0.42 4,612 6.55 11.14 7.38 10.51 114,102 34.67 8.46 22.56 31.02 5.19 39.87 22,32 30 7.27 May 31 321 3,64 2.79 4.34 1 0.71 1 5.63 1 10.88 7.04 4.22 44,383 1.46 8.51 2.87 0.54 5,716 8.77 11.82 8.18 11.65 122,400 39.04 8.20 23.31 31.51 5.86 44.89 8.95 12 2.91 Jun 30 3.92 4.45 3.41 4.41 D.87 6.45 10.73 6.28 3.77 40,928 1.42 6.69 2.25 0,43 4,625 8.55 11.83 7.38 10.51 114,202 34.71 10,01 22.66 32,57 5.95 40.661 0.851 7 1 028 Aliens Final Water Balance Repod.doc