NC0025542_Wasteload Allocation_20080522

NPDES DOCVHENT SCANNING; COVER SHEET
NC0025542
Catawba WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation~ - -
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File
- Historical
Report
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
May 22, 2008
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reiirerise side

NC Division of Water Quality L Unit
Planning Section — Modeling & T�
Technical Memorandum
May 22, 2008
TO: .Kathy Stecker, Modeling and TMDL Unit
FROM: Pam Behm, Modeling & TMDL Unit
CC: Susan Wilson, Western NPDES Unit
Sergei Chernikov, Western NPDES Unit
Jackie Nowell, Western NPDES Unit
Dianne Reid, Basinwide Planning Unit
Hannah Stallings, Basinwide Planning Unit
Trish MacPherson, Biological Assessment Unit
RE: Lyle Creek WASP Model Review
Modeling and TMDL Unit (MTU) has reviewed the documentation listed eloon to
The Mode g from Catawba WWTP (NC00255 )
evaluate the effect of a 3.0 MGD dischargeof the MTU's review is
dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in Lyle Creek. A summary
provided below:
1. Documentation: Catawballorth
Study or the HickoryCatawba submitted DWQ.
a. yVasteload Allocation Stu - The initialodeling reportto
Carolina (ENSR Dec. 2007)A ri124, 2008,
b. Memorandum from Ken Heim,
ENSR to Pam Behm, DWQ, p
Subject: Comments Regarding the WASP Model of the Catawba River - After
initial review of the December 2007 report, MTU reported to the Western
NPDES
Unit that the report was not complete as submitted and more information was
needed to evaluate the model. ENSR responded with the
Input
m.
c. DVD containing model input files: "Lyle Creek DM� with the memorandum in
files 12401-001 ", ENSR 4/28/08 -- Submitted to have Q all relevant model files.
response to an MTU comment that DWQ should
2. Limitations and Uncertainty:
As always, there is uncertainty associated with interpretation of the model results.
Uncertainty results from: (1) limitations within the WASP model framework,
Unc tY p
)
assumptions made during model development, and (3) model calibration.
. the modelingtime period is
Limitations specific to the Lyle Creek Model include: (1)
less than a month, although the time period does represent worst case conditions
(August 2007, during a drought), (2) there are limited data points available

calibration, and (3) calibration results were provided for 2 out of the 7 monitoring
stations.
Pages 3-18 to 3-20 of the December 2007 Report doe 3 document
0. theMreseults of poictmiodel are
calibration, with the DO calibration providedon page
vertically averaged and represent average DO througout the 5 tml� column.
he
difference between measured and predicted DO high
In ord
er to better understand the uncertainty associated
du ithhtthe DWmodel predictions,
request.
ENSR
ENSR provided a sensitivity analysis in the memoran in several parameter
evaluated the sensitivity of model predictions to changesi n demand keyrate, p which r
is
rates. The most sensitive parameter is the sediment oxygen
e ine the model. See Figure
estimated from ranges found ohe results of the senn literature to be sitivity analysis.
7A in the memorandum
lexit of the analysis done to develop the Lyle Creek
The MTU recognizes the comp Y
collection of chemical and physical
Model. Significant fieldwork was performedtoprovide site -specific information or
model development. This included dye studies,
parameters, and flow gages. However, due to the limited number of data points,
sufficient conclusion on the accuracy of the calibration
of model results nuncertainty
cannot be determined. Therefore the interpretation
determination of speculative limits should be viewed carefully in light of this
limitation.
3. Results of Loading Scenarios:
Three loading scenarios based on possible permit limits for are provided of
in 3.0the MGD
were evaluated for this effort. Details 1 and 4-2.ree Resultsof the three scenarios at
December 2007 Report on pages in Figure 4-1 (page 4-3
monitoring station LC7 (Lyle Creek near mouth) are provided result
of the report). As shown in Figure 4-1, Scenarios 1nandel d 2 bothruns, while in
Oemains
concentrations below 5.0 mg/L at times during
theabove 5.0 mg/L for Scenario 3. Therefore,
Scenario 3, 3.0 MGD flow with 1' '
above
with tertiary treatment and effluent aera e most vianie opt�.,t r
consideration of an expansion o ischarge into Lyle Creek.
The Decem
ber 2007 Report provided modeling results only at station LC above which is
the most downstream monitoring n
in
station.
response that impacts of the discharge should
bullet lb) resulted from D Q
be evaluated throughout Lyle Creek, not just at the most downstreamoand as a
ing
station. The memorandum contains plots of DO longitudinally (Figure rre e 1nit athend as a
g
time -series at each e ult in DO below 5.0 station (Figures A). g/L. At
point
time period does Scenario 3 r
eir
Figure 1 provided below shows the locations of the below contain additional plots
associated model segments. Figures 2-9 providedwith Scenario 3. MTU
comparing current conditions (referred to as "calibration,� )
generated these figures using the model input files provided by ENSR.

moran
8-9
It should be noted that, as shown in Figure 1 A of the0 m at themonfluence and
the
below, DO decreases longitudinally to just above 5 g�
Catawba River. The model predicts downstream D de concentrations
ing DO trend remains ehighersee
r
than current conditions for Scenario 3, however
to
Figures 8-9 below). In addition, reversing flMTU recommends ows occur in LyleChat fsreek ueculative
hydropower dam releases. Because of th
limits are issued for this •' .ld be frequent monitoring at this
downstream site to ensure that DO levels do not fall .e ow i m:
4. The model was not evaluated for nutrients (e.g. total phosphorus (TP) and total
nitrogen (TN)). This discharge is not far from the co3 MGD ref LylepreseCreets a k with the
Catawba River/Lake Norman and the expansioninto ge
increase from the current flow and potentialnutrient
from delng radation aMTUorman
from Lyle Creek. Therefore, to protect Lake Norman
recommends that if s e . - imits are issued the Western NP 1 S it should
TP and TN loads, and issue appropriate limits on both
an
5. MTU is concerned about the effect of the increased o he benthic community. Thiseexpansion
l
morphology of Lyle Creek and the quality
will result in a permitted flow that is lthan
4 8 cfs on18/20/07 as t Station
permitted. Flows in Lyle Creek were calculated to be
LC2, which is just upstream of the discharge. This equates
the in -stream obout3.1 under o in
(�ermitted discharge at 3.0 MGD wi 1
similar flow conditi s.
DWQ should ensure that such a significant in ease inMTU recommends that theow does not increase n
of the stream banks and impact the benthic community.) have
DWQ Environmental Sciences Section (particularly
Biologicse lisesamechargton the the
opportunity to comment on the possible effect of
stream morphology and the condition of the benthic community.
(. MTU's interpretation of model results is b dmodel development should be directed
on model documentation and review
of model input files. Specific questions about
to ENSR.

Trn Transect Olst(11)
T1 T181-C1A 0
72 100
13 200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2050
2100
2150
2200
2250
2300
2350
2400
2450
14
T5
T6
17
18
T9
110
111
112
T13
T14
T15
T16
T17
T18
T19
T20
721
T22
123
724
T25
726
127
T28
129
130
Trn Transect OIs n)
131 2500
132 2550
733 2600
T34 2650
135 2700
T36 2750
T37 2800
T38 2850
139 2900
T40 2950
T41 T4 3000
742 3050
T43 3100
144 3150
T45 3200
T46 3250
747 3300
148 3350
149 3400
750 3450
T51 3500
T52 3550
153 3600
T54 3650
155 3700
756 3760
T57 3800
158 3850
T59 1900
160 3950
jr�.
Creek Variable
ME — Flow Tributary Boundary
:,'1'r ll� (11
1
Transact
Trn Trammel Diit(fl)
T71 10000 T139
10100 0
1140 11900
10200 T141 T1S 12000 ,
10300 1142 12100
10400 1143 12200
10500 1144 12300
LC2 10600 1145 LCd 12400 S
10700 1146 12500
10800 1147 12600
10900 'r 1148 12700
T72 11000 1149 12800
1 t100 T150 12900
11200 T151 T14 13000
11300 1152 13100
LCS 11400 1153 LCS 13200 `\
11500 0
1155 13400
11600 1155
11700 1156 13.W0
T157 13600
- 1L- 1158 13700
1159 13800 \�-
'� 7160 13900
1 161 T16 14000
7 T162 14100
11631164 1420014300
�Yie Cr 7165 14400
ek ,_y 1166
n ,J �Oy ��' r� _ T167 LC8 ; O
, /;,7- g T10 1<�o Le'
°main .� LC —
Main
Trn
T121
7122
1123
1124
1125
1126
7127
7128
1129
T 136
T131
1132
T133
1134
1135
T138
1137
1138
Trn Transect Ole* (1)
781 75 4000
T62 4100
163 4200
T64 4300
165 4400
T66 4500
167 4600
T68 4700
169 4800
170 4900
171 T6 5000
772 5100
T73 5200
T74 5300
175 5400
176 5500
T77 5600
178 5700
T79 6800
T80 5900
182
183 6200
184 6300
185 6400
186 6500
T87 6600
T88 6700
189 6800
190 6900
191 19 7000
192 7100
193 7200
194 7300
195 7400
796 7500
197 7600
198 7700
T99 7800
7100 7900
1103
T104
T105
1106
T107
1 108
1 109
T110
T111
T112
T113
1114
T115
T116
1117
T 118
1 119
1120
Trn Transect 015t90)
1171 116
1172 15100
T173 15200
T174 15300
1175 LC7 15400
T176 15500
T177 15600
1178 - 15700
1179 16800
T180 15900
T181 T17 16000
1182 16100
1183 T18 16200
Transacts and Sampling Station Locations
Trn Numbers are Coincident with WASP Segment Numbers
Figure 1. Model segmentation and locations of monitoring stations.

ti
V
DO - Segment 151 (at the discharge)
8/4 8/8 8/12
Date (2007)
Calibrated Scenario 3 I
Figure 2. DO (mg/L) at Segment 151, the location of the discharge. Calibrated refers to
conditions as they existed in August 2007 and Scenario.3 represents the expansion to 3.0 MGD
with tertiary treatment and DO of 6.0 mg/L.
8.5
8
7.5
7
E
0 6.5
0
6
5.5
5
DO - Segment 153 (below the discharge)
'"\ION4y
7/31 8/4
8/8 8/12
Date (2007)
ICalibrated Scenario 3
8/16 8/20
Figure 3. DO (mg/L) at Segment 153, downstream of the discharge.

Figure 5. DO (mg/L) at Segment 175, the location of monitoring station LC7.

Figure 6. DO (mg/L) at Segment 181.
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
J
6.5
p 6.0
0
5.5
5.0
4.5
DO - Segment 182 (at Catawba R.)
4.0
7/31
8/4 8/8 8/12
Date (2007)
Calibrated Scenario 3
8/16 8/20
Figure 7. DO (mg/L) at Segment 182, at the Catawba River.

8.5
8.0
7.5
J 7.0
E 6.5
0
0 6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
0
DO Longitudinal Profile 819107
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Segment
Figure 8. DO longitudinal profile for 8/9/07 at 10:36.
DO Longitudinal Profile 8114/07
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
m 7.0
E
O 6.5
0
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
Hickory WWTP
Discharge
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Segment
Calibrated -- Scenario 3
Figure 9. DO longitudinal profile for 8/14/07 at 15:24.

• ENSR
Scenario #2: Final Flow with limits Consistent with Advanced Secondary Treatment
• Increase discharge flow = 3.0 MGD
• BOD5=15mg/L
• Ammonia = 4 mg/L
• TSS = 30 mg/L
• Effluent DO = 5.0 mg/L
final Flow with Limits Consistent with Tertiary Treatment and Effluent Aeration (Modification of
ncrease discharge flow = 3.0 MGD
• BOD5 = 5 mg/L
• Ammonia = 2 mg/L
• TSS=30mg/L
• Effluent DO = 6.0 mg/L
•
4.2 Scenario Predictions
The calibrated eutrophication model of Lyle Creek was used to predict DO concentrations throughout the
model domain under the three treatment scenarios. The predictions indicate that Scenario #1 and Scenario #2
both result in lower DO concentrations than during the calibration simulation and fell below the 5.0 mg/L DO
ambient water quality criterion (Figure 4-1). Additionally, the simulations indicate that the predicted DO
concentrations for Scenario #1, the tertiary treatment, are only moderately greater than the predicted DO
concentrations for Scenario #2, the advanced secondary treatment. The results of the Scenario #3 simulation,
which is a modified version of Scenario #1, where the effluent DO concentration is 6 mg/L rather than 5 mg/L,
indicates that predicted DO concentrations were greater than 5 mg/L throughout the entire model domain.
Therefore, the POTW discharge represented by Scenario #3 meets instream water quality requirements as
defined by the minimum DO limit of 5 mg/L.
4-2
January 2008

HSMM
HSMM
1460 John B. White Boulevard, Suite 1-C, Spartanburg, South Carolina 29306
T 864.597.0580 F 864.597.0583 www.hsmm.com
Ms. Pamela Behm
NC DWQ TMDL Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
February 20, 2008
Dear Ms. Behm:
Subject:
Request for Speculative Limits
Proposed WWTP Expansion and Renovation to 3.0 MGD
Town of Catawba WWTP
City of Hickory, NC
HSMM Commission No. 60709
r• •-
�J
F E B 2 2 2008 j }r
A letter requesting speculative effluent limits for the Hickory -Catawba WWTP was sent to NPDES Western Unit
on May 12, 2005. On October 10, 2005 a response was sent back to the City of Hickory notifying them that
speculative limits could not be provided at that time. The letter mentioned that a more complex water quality
'model was recommended for this discharge, and recommended the Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program
(WASP6) be used to model the Lyle Creek area for oxygen consuming parameters, such as BOD5, dissolved
oxygen, and ammonia, in addition to nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. The letter suggests that
additional modeling needs to be performed due to the location of the discharge point into a "covelike area of the
receiving stream."
HSMM contracted with ENSR to complete the above mentioned modeling for the proposed discharge. Attached
please find the Wasteload Allocation Study for the Hickory -Catawba WWTP conducted by ENSR.
HSMM
Kevin Smith
Project Engineer
Enclosures: As noted
Copy to: Jackie Nowell, NCDENR (w/ enclosures)
Hannah Stallings, NCDENR
Kevin Greer, PE, City of Hickory
Gene Haynes, HSMM
Jim Tindall, PE, HSMM
Rich Anderson, PE, HSMM
Project file

Prepared for:
HSMM
Spartanburg, South Carolina
Wasteload Allocation Study for the
Hickory Catawba WWTP, Catawba
North Carolina
Prepared -By
"" Reviewed By
ENSR Corporation
December 2007
Document No.: 12401-001
ENSR
AECOM

01101,
Executive Summary
The City of Hickory is seeking a phased expansion of the Catawba WWTP from 0.225 to 1.5 MGD, and then to
3.0 MGD under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) number NC0025542. The
Catawba WWTP is located on Lyle Creek, a tributary to Lake Norman in the Catawba River Basin of North
Carolina. The facility currently discharges an average of 0.032 MGD and has a 30 mg/L limit on five-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5). In order to plan for the expansion of the WWTP, HSMM requested
speculative limits from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). The NCDWQ was unable to
provide speculative limits, thus providing the impetus for this wasteload allocation study.
ENSR conducted an intensive field study, consistent with N.C. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NC DENR) guidelines, for the period ranging from July 5 to August 20, 2007 to obtain data
necessary for the wasteload allocation study. It is important to note that the conditions during this survey were
both hot and dry. In fact, streamflows in the area were lowered by an ongoing drought and were, in many
cases, well below the summertime 7Q10 discharge of 16 cfs (NC DENR 2005). The highest calculated flow
taken in Lyle Creek during the study period was 9 cfs, more than 40% below the 7Q10flow. For these reasons,
the survey period provided an excellent case for evaluating water quality impacts under severe conditions
consistent with NC DENR guidelines.
Physical and chemical samples were collected on six different occasions throughout the study period.
Additionally, cross -sectional measurements and flow data were collected at various locations throughout Lyle
Creek and McLin Creek to characterize bathymetry and flow regimes. During the first sampling event, reverse
flows (i.e., flows in the upstream direction) were observed, necessitating a re-evaluation of the study approach
and the addition of a dye study that was conducted on August 9 and 10, 2007. The results of the dye study
indicated that the reversing flows, resulting from hydropower dam releases, were intermittent and fleeting and
did not drastically increase residence time in Lyle Creek. To further understand the nature of the reversing
flow, ENSR deployed level -loggers at various locations throughout Lyle Creek on July 31, 2007 to record stage
height at 15-minute intervals. Results from these sampling events, dye movement, and water levels, as well
as observed water quality, were used for model calibration.
ENSR selected both DYNHYD5 (a hydrodynamic model) and WASP7.2 (a water quality model) to simulate
flow and water quality in the Lyle Creek study area. This modeling suite was selected because of its
applicability to the simulation of dynamic instream eutrophication and because of its continued support by the
EPA's Center for Environmental and Assessment Modeling (CEAM) in Athens, GA. Due to the drought
conditions ENSR chose to run the models using flow data calculated from study period measurements instead
of 7Q10 flows because they provided more conservative estimates. As a result of the observed intermittent
upstream flows into Lyle Creek, the calibration period was restricted to the period ranging from July 31 through
August 20, 2007 to incorporate the level -logger measurements and thus minimize estimation of stage heights.
Using these models three separate scenarios were simulated. Scenario #1 represented the quality of
wastewater discharged from the plant after receiving tertiary treatment and Scenario #2 represented the
quality of wastewater discharged from the plant after receiving advanced secondary treatment. Scenario #3
was a modification of Scenario #1 that incorporated an effluent DO concentration of 6 mg/L as opposed to 5
mg/L. Each scenario represented a significant increase over the flow rate and the loadings from the WWTP
applied to the model during the calibration period.
The predictions indicated that Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 both resulted in lower DO concentrations than
during the calibration simulation. Additionally, the simulations indicated that the predicted DO concentrations
for Scenario #1, the tertiary treatment, were only moderately greater than the predicted DO concentrations for
Scenario #2, the advanced secondary treatment. The results of the Scenario #3 simulation indicated that
predicted DO concentrations were greater than 5 mg/L throughout the entire model domain. Therefore, the
ES-1
January 2008

ENSR
POTW discharge represented by Scenario #3 results in adequate instream water quality as defined by the
minimum DO limit of 5 mg/L.
These results indicate that the proposed expansion to 3.0 MGD at the Catawba WWTP is a viable option
under Scenario #3 where effluent DO concentrations are maintained at a minimum level of 6.0 mg/L Further,_
proposed BOD and NH effluent c s will need to be 5 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively. Under such
con itions, modeled DO concentrations in Lyle Creek do not reach levels below the North Carolina standard
-crl of—rion of 5 mg/L.
Movement of the discharge outfall to the Catawba River is not likely to be a cost-effective alternative as the
current discharge location is already within close proximity of the Catawba River confluence. Residence time
in Lyle Creek was calculated to be relatively short even with the observed backwater effect.
ES-2
January 2008

r�1 ENSR
1.0 Introduction
The City of Hickory is seeking a phased expansion of the Catawba WWTP from 0.225 to 1.5 MGD, and then to
3.0 MGD under NPDES permit number NC0025542. The Catawba WVVI'P is located on Lyle Creek, a
tributary to Lake Norman in the Catawba River Basin of North Carolina. The facility currently discharges an
average of 0.032 MGD and has a 30 mg/L limit on five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and a
minimum DO concentration limit of 5 mg/L. Currently, the facility is required to test for ammonia on a weekly
basis but has not yet received a permitted limit (a copy of the current NPDES permit is attached as Appendix
A]. In order to plan for the expansion of the VVWTP, HSMM requested speculative limits from the North
�+ Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). The NCDWQ was unable to provide speculative limits, thus
providing the motivation for this wasteload allocation (WLA) study.
tzM
This WLA study was designed to determine if the existing BOD5 limit was adequate to protect in -stream water
quality for an expanded discharge from the Catawba WWTP, or if alternative permit limits for oxygen
consuming wastes would be necessary. The NCDWQ Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for WLA studies
includes guidelines for modeling and evaluating discharges of oxygen consuming wastes (NC DEM 1990).
The inclusion of site -specific data enhances the ability of models to predict in -stream responses to effluent
discharges. Special cases are provided for reservoirs, estuaries, and immediate tributaries to reservoirs and
estuaries. The Catawba Hickory WWTP is located within the Lake Norman project area; therefore, potential
impacts to Lake Norman must be considered when evaluating discharge limitations.
In situations where major dischargers or rapidly developing areas potentially face over -allocation, a Level C
model is often required to provide a more accurate depiction of stream processes (NC DEM 1990). A Level C
model differs from other models in that site -specific data are calibrated rather than empirically derived. It is
recommended that these data be gathered through an intensive survey to ensure adequate data are available
for modeling purposes (NC DEM 1990). As such, ENSR performed a detailed field study throughout the
period of July 5 to August 20, 2007 to collect data necessary for the WLA study. Using these site -specific
`s' data, the system was modeled to simulate hydrodynamic and constituent loading so that a variety of predicted
scenarios could be compiled for analysis.
ral
1-1
January 2008

ENSR
2.0 Field Study
Po, The NCDWQ maintains approximately 400 ambient stations where water chemistry is monitored on a regular
basis. While Lyle Creek, located in NCDWQ Subbasin 03-08-32 of the Catawba River Basin, is not included in
the current NCDWQ ambient chemistry monitoring program, the creek was included in benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring for the 2002 Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2002).
rot
Benthic macroinvertebrate communities in Lyle and McLin Creeks were found to be supporting their
designated uses as described in this basinwide water quality plan. Discharge, or flow, is monitored on a
regular basis by the US Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS, in cooperation with other federal, state, and
local governments, maintains equipment for the regular measurement of flow and stage. However, the USGS
does not maintain discharge measurements of Lyle Creek. Further, due to the size of the existing Catawba
WWTP, NPDES instream monitoring requirements are minimal. In summary, limited hydrologic and water
quality data exist for Lyle Creek; the available information and data were inadequate for the development of
rat
discharge limits.
In order to support the development of a WLA for lower Lyle Creek in the vicinity of the Catawba WWTP
rat discharge, a field study was designed and executed in early July. This initial field study included hydrologic
and chemistry monitoring assuming flow in lower Lyle Creek was unidirectional. During this field study, ENSR
noted that water flow in lower Lyle Creek was bi-directional with a short cyclical pattern. Is was determined
that upstream flow into Lyle Creek is driven by water level changes in the Catawba River associated with
tat hydroelectric releases. Following this field observation, additional monitoring was performed to characterize
water elevation and resulting changes in flow direction, as well as additional hydrologic monitoring and a dye
tracer study.
rat
ENSR augmented the initial field study with an additional 17-day field study to characterize the reversing flows
in lower Lyle Creek. Continuous monitoring equipment was placed in Lyle Creek and the Catawba River/Lake
Norman to monitor changes in the water level and temperature. These were used to track the frequency and
magnitude of reversing flows (described further in Sections 2.1 and 2.2). As part of the augmented study,
additional samples were analyzed for chemistry (Section 2.3). In summary, ENSR performed several different
types of field activities, including water chemistry sampling, a dye study, and cross -sectional and flow
measurements to support the WLA development. Field monitoring was completed on the following dates
during July -August 2007.
July 5-6, 2007
`—. July 10-11, 2007
July 30-August 1, 2007
August 9-10, 2007 (Dye study)
August 15-16, 2007
August 20, 2007.
The field monitoring study included ten monitoring stations in McLin and Lyle Creeks, with additional
monitoring at the wastewater treatment plant. A map of the monitoring locations is shown in Figure 2-1. A list
of monitoring locations and coordinates is provided in Table 2-1.
01114 ENSR conducted the field study under worst -case conditions (e.g., drought conditions and low ambient flows,
maximum seasonal temperatures). The highest calculated flow taken in Lyle Creek during the study period
was 9 cfs, only 56 percent of the 7Q10 discharge of 16 cfs. For these reasons, the survey period provided an
excellent case for evaluating water quality impacts under severe conditions consistent with NC DENR
guidelines.
2-1
January 2008

Pig
1i
MEI
Put
ENSR
Table 2-1. Lyle Creek Sampling Stations
Location
abbreviation Monitoring location Latitude
Longitude
LC1a
Lyle Creek at Hwy 70
35.720439
-81.108661
MC1
McLin Creek at Old Catawba Road
35.711307
-81.095550
LC2
Lyle Creek at Mile 1.18
35.713481
-81.080560
LC3
Lyle Creek above Hwy 10
35.714457
-81.078622
LC3a
Lyle Creek at west end of island below
Hwy10
35.715300
-81.076900
LC4
Lyle Creek above WWTP
35.716018
-81.075470
LC5
Lyle Creek below WWTP
35.715293
-81.073206
LC6
Lyle Creek at Mile 0.3
35.712805
-81.070231
LC6a1
Lyle Creek at private boat ramp
35.711881
-81.068553
LC7
Lyle Creek near mouth
35.712212
-81.067176
2.1 Hydrologic Monitoring
The USGS does not currently operate discharge gages on Lyle Creek, thus flow measurements were made by
ENSR staff on each field outing. In general, flow measurements were made following the NCDWQ protocol
utilizing channel width, depth, and water velocity measurements at various depths. ENSR marked bank
locations at LC1a, MC1, LC4, LC5 and LC7 for the measurement of flows. Locations on the bank were
selected that were assumed to be above the water level at all times during the study. These bank markers
remained in place for the duration of the study.
Flows were determined from measured velocity and depth across the stream channel. Rope that was marked
in 2.5-foot increments was tied off on each bank marker. Velocity and depth were then monitored every 2.5
feet moving across the channel at MC1 and LC1a. Velocity and depth were measured using a Marsh-
McBumey Flowmate 2000. Velocity measurements were taken at 60% of the depth for these two stations. At
wider stream locations (LC4, LC5 and LC7) velocity and depth were measured every five feet. Depths were
measured using a graduated tape measure, and velocities measured using the Marsh-McBurney Flowmate
r=1 2000. Where depth exceeded 5 feet, velocity measurements were taken at 20 and 80% of the depth and then
averaged together. Each of these five transects was monitored on at least three different outings. The output
of this monitoring included a detailed bathymetry profile at these cross -sections, a record of water level
changes during the study, a picture of the varying water velocity profile, and sufficient data to calculate an
average velocity across the cross-section. Cross-section measurements are provided in Appendix B.
The average velocity calculations at LC4, LC5 and LC7 were affected by changes in flow direction (see
Section 2.1.1). Field teams required approximately one hour to cross the channel at LC5 and 1.5 hours at
LC7. During all monitoring events, the water direction changed while measuring depth and velocity. Thus, an
accurate estimate of average velocity across these cross -sections was difficult to determine using the available
equipment. A summary of cross -sectional information is provided in Table 2-2, with flow velocity ranges
provided where average velocities could not be calculated.
2-3
January 2008

MI
RR
PUI
Pal
MI
ENSR
Table 2-2. Lyle Creek Average Cross -Sectional Information
Location Average
abbreviation Monitoring location width (feet)
Average
depth (feet)
Average
Velocity (fps)
LC1a
Lyle Creek at Hwy 70
30.8
1.2
0.23
MC1
McLin Creek at Old Catawba Rd.
34.75
1.8
0.068
LC2
Lyle Creek at Mile 1.18
65
2.4
'
0.03
LC4
Lyle Creek above WWTP
95
2.75
-0.42 — 0.49*
LC5
Lyle Creek below WWTP
90.8
3.8 '
-0.33 — 0.50*
LC7
Lyle Creek near mouth
105
5.9
-0.39 — 0.37*
*Average velocity was not calculated due to reversing flows during times of measurement.
2.1.1 Flow Direction and Water Level Monitoring
During the first two field outings, reversing flows were noted in the lower reaches of the stream while collecting
chemistry samples, therefore negating the initial assumption of unidirectional flow. Further, visual changes in
water elevation of approximately six inches were observed during the second field outing. These field
observations necessitated additional measurements of flow and stage in Lyle Creek.
ENSR placed five level -loggers in the study area on July 30, 2007 in order to monitor changes to water levels
and relate those to changes in flow direction. Level loggers were placed at LC1a, LC2, LC5, LC7 and in the
Catawba River/Lake Norman (CR1) upstream of Lyle Creek. These level loggers recorded stage (by
calculating the difference between water and atmospheric pressure) and temperature at 15-minute intervals.
To support a decision regarding a dye study, the level logger at LC5 was retrieved and replaced with a new
level -logger on August 1st. The initial results at LC5 from July 30t" to August 1st displayed water levels
`al changes up to 9 inches even though no rainfall was recorded. These measurements, combined with visual
observations of reversing flows, indicated that a dye study was needed to characterize the flows and residence
time in Lyle Creek. The dye study is described in Section 2.2.
fan
PEI
fmn
falq
To better understand the nature of the reversing flows in Lyle Creek, ENSR contacted Duke Energy which
owns and operates hydroelectric generating facilities upstream and downstream of Lyle Creek within the
Catawba River system. Upstream of Lyle Creek in the Catawba River is the Lookout Shoals dam; this dam is
approximately 3.68 miles upstream of the Lyle Creek confluence. Downstream of Lyle Creek in the Catawba
River is Cowans Ford dam, which impounds Lake Norman and is located approximately 27.6 miles
downstream of the Lyle Creek confluence.
Elevation and discharge data for Lookout Shoals and Cowans Ford Dams were obtained from Duke Energy,
which provided hourly data that spanned the duration of the study period. For comparison purposes, CR1 and
LC5 water surface measurements were converted to hourly increments so the relationships between the dams
and the level -loggers could be analyzed. Figure 2-2 presents an elevation/stage height time -series plot.
2-4
January 2008

ENSR
Figure 2-2. Elevation/Stage Time -series
Stage (ft): Cowans, Lookout Shoals
Stage (ft): CR1, LC5
The times -series shows that CR1 and LC5 have near parallel trends. In fact, a regression between the two
level -loggers yielded a R2 value of 0.97. The level -loggers appeared to follow the long-term downward trend of
Cowans Ford Dam, which controls the level of Lake Norman and Catawba River near Lyle Creek. To further
examine the relationships, individual regressions were run between the level -loggers and both dams (Figure 2-
3).
Figure 2-3. Regression Analysis: CR1, LC5 Based on Cowans Ford Dam Elevation
94.5 95 95.5 96
Cowans Stage (ft)
96.5
6
5
E 4
w
rn
I0 3
u)
v 2
J
0
94.5 95 95.5 96
Cowans Stage (ft)
96.5
The regression analyses in Figure 2-3 show that CR1 and LC5, when plotted against Cowans Ford dam, have
R2 values of 0.64 and 0.62, respectively. Regressions with Lookout Shoals yielded R2 values Tess than 0.26,
which was expected given the apparent increasing trend in stage at Lookout Shoals throughout the study
2-5
January 2008

ENSR
period as opposed to an overall decreasing trend at all other locations. Lookout Shoals Lake is relatively small
and operated as a run -of -the -river reservoir, thus its stage is a function of releases from the upstream dams.
Figure 2-4, which focuses the time -series from August 1 to August 3, 2007, shows that peaks in Lookout
Shoals elevation (which are indicative of minimal discharge) correspond with lower stages at CR1 and LC5;
and reduced water levels in Lookout Shoals (which are indicative of release from the dam) lead to peaks in the
downstream locations. This inverse relationship suggests that stage at CR1 and LC5, while generally
mirroring Lake Norman as influenced by Cowans Ford dam, are subject to short-term influence from releases
at Lookout Shoals.
Figure 2-4. Elevation/Stage Time Series from 8/1 - 8/3/2007
Lookout Stage (ft)
98.2
98 -
97.8 -
97.6 -
97.4 -
97.2 -
97 -
96.8 -
96.6 -
96.4
96.2 -
96
8/1
8/2
8/3
Figure 2-5 compares Lookout Shoals discharge with stage height at CR1 and LC5 for three weeks in August.
Each time discharge increased, stage height at both CR1 and LC5 increased, indicating that the increased
flow into the Catawba River resulted in the observed upstream flows into Lyle Creek. Available information on
the hydropower facilities at Lookout Shoals indicates that there are five vertical turbines, with three main
generating turbines (8,970 kW each), and two smaller auxiliary units (450 kW). 1 The auxiliary generators
typically provide the minimum instream flow requirements set by state and federal agencies. The larger
generators are dispatched as required by peak electrical demands. The dam releases (and thus their
influence on flow into Lyle Creek) vary both in magnitude and duration depending on generation needs and
other factors. This variability may somewhat hinder illustrating the cause -effect relationship between the
releases and their downstream influences; however it is clear that they produce the reversing flows in Lyle
Creek observed during drought conditions.
1 Federal Register: March 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 54) [Page 13272]
2-6
January 2008

-
Figure 2-5. Lookout Shoals Dam Discharge Patterns Compared to CR1, LC5
0
N
O
N 2500
0 0
N 2000 -
•°° 1500 -
0
0
-3 1000 -
5000
ENSR
4500 -
4000 -
3500
3000 -
500
0
— Lookout Shoals Discharge
— CR1
— LC5
NW
'A,m'
07/31 08/05 08/10 08/15 08/20
7
6
0
Figure 2-6 illustrates the relationship between Lookout Shoals discharge and stage measurements at CR1 and
LC5 on a reduced time scale (0600 hrs on August 9'h to 1400 hrs on August 10th). The discharge data appear
to show incremental discharges from additional turbines coming on line (e.g., increase in discharge rates from
0900 to 1300 hrs). The stage data from the water level -loggers demonstrate an increase in water levels at
CR1 and LC5 associated with these releases. Both Figures 2-4 and 2-6 appear to illustrate a sloshing or ripple
effect following initial response in water level to a release, which may be responsible for the short -duration
reversals observed in Lyle Creek (15 to 30 minute intervals).
Figure 2-6. Lookout Shoals Dam Discharge Patterns Compared to CR1, LC5 from August 9th —10th
5000
4500 -
-- 4000 -
0 °
, 3500 -
0
b
0 3000 -
2500 •
0
0
N 2000
• 1500
0
0
1000
500
0
— Lookout Shoals Discharge
—CR1
LC5
13:10
10:55
6:00 11:00
16:00
21:00
2-7
2:00
7:00
12:00
6
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5 ,E
5.4 u0
5.3
5.2
5.1 0
5 ro
4.9 L
4.8
4.7 =
4.6 co
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
January 2008

rzn ENSR
M, 2.2 Dye Study
North Carolina WLA procedures recommend that at least two separate dye studies be conducted accounting
for at least a 15 to 20 cfs difference in stream flow between studies so that average stream velocity can be
A., estimated under different flow conditions (NC DEM 1990). Due to the prevailing drought conditions only one
study was conducted. However, the flows observed during the field study represent worst -case conditions with
respect to oxygen dynamics.
'M' The dye study was conducted on August 9th and 10th, 2007 with low ambient flows (Section 2.1), calm humid
conditions, and record heat (ambient air temperatures on August 9th reaching 104°F and on August 10th
reaching 102° F). Background fluorescence samples were collected several hours prior to releasing the dye,
WI with background fluorescence ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 ppb. One-half gallon of Rhodamine WT dye (20 percent
solution) was released into Lyle Creek at LC3a (below the island downstream of Highway 10; Figure 2-1) at
1210 hrs on August 9th while the water flow was in a downstream direction. The dye was released across the
width of the stream channel.
PEI
Fluorescence was regularly measured at LC4, LC5 and LC6a1 for approximately 24 hours following the dye
release (stations depicted in Figure 2-1). Approximate distances downstream from the release point for these
fir stations are 500 feet, 1,300 feet and 3,150 feet, respectively. Station LC6a1 is approximately 1,150 feet
upstream of the confluence of Lyle Creek with the Catawba River.
A boat -based field team remained downstream of the dye release point at LC4 and collected samples every 10
sal minutes during the afternoon of August 9th (the exception being a crew change from 1410-1500 hrs due to
concerns over heat exposure). The boat and operator (provided by the City of Hickory) was available until
1700 hrs, thus sample collection at LC4 was terminated at that time. ISCO automatic samplers were placed at
,,,n LC5 and LC6a1 to pull samples automatically. The sampling time interval was initially set for every 10
minutes, but was increased to 15 minutes after 8 hours into the study. The automatic sampler at LC5
continued to run into the night until all sample bottles were filled (approximately 0300 hrs). The battery on the
LC6a1 automatic sampler failed overnight, so data from that station are limited to the afternoon of August 91h
WI and the morning of August 10`h.
ENSR staff in the boat at LC4 in mid -channel visually observed the dye moving downstream after release from
,., LC3a, with the downstream current pattern appearing to split the dye toward each shoreline but predominately
to the northern side of the creek. The field crew then observed the dye return past LC4 due to flow reversal in
the creek. Fluorometric measurements document this with an initial increase in fluorescence noted at LC5 by
1317 hours (approximately 1 hour from release). The peak measurement of 5 ppb was followed by a rapid
rail decrease in concentration at LC5 and an increase at LC4 (Figure 2-7). The "return" dye traveled the 800-foot
distance back to LC4 by 1350 hrs, approximately 0.5 hour after the initial peak at LC5. Dye concentration at
LC4 rapidly fell by 1400 hrs. Peaks in dye concentrations at LC5 followed in roughly 1-2 hour intervals (e.g.,
1451 hrs, 1618 hrs, 1728 hrs, and 1908 hrs. Detailed dye study results are provided in Appendix C.
Pon
When compared to the level -logger data, the initial increase in dye at LC5 coincided with decreasing water
levels, consistent with downstream flow and falling stage. As water levels increased, concentration at LC5
Fin decreased and the dye moved upstream to yield the observed peak at LC4. Subsequent peaks in dye
concentration at LC5 and LC6 appeared to coincide with falling water levels.
,., These data confirm that changes in stage in the Catawba River affect both the water level and the flow
direction in Lyle Creek, at least during low flow conditions in the creek such as those that occurred during this
study. The hydraulic influence of the Catawba River can therefore potentially increase the residence time in
the lower reaches of Lyle Creek beyond what would be predicted based on runoff from the Lyle Creek
CalPf watershed alone. However, examination of the dye study results indicates that the backwater flow is short
term and does not significantly increase residence time in Lyle Creek. Further details are provided in Section
3.4.8.2.
SKI
2-8
January 2008
MI

onong
OWN
NMI
ENSR
Figure 2-7. Dye Concentrations and Level -Logger Readings from August 9 to August 10, 2007
12:00
15:30
19:00
—4.— LC4
—a— LC5
22:30
2:00
5:30
9:00
5.4
5.2
5
4.8 —I
co
4.6
d
0,
N
4.4
4.2
4
12' 30
— LC6a1
—oo— Level Logger at LC5
2.3 Chemical Monitoring
_. Water chemistry measurements were taken at several locations in lower Lyle Creek along with in -situ
measurements of temperature, DO, pH, conductivity, and secchi depth. Grab samples were collected four
times over the study period at a subset of locations and sent to a Prism Laboratories for analysis. Grab
samples collected from locations LC1a, MC1, LC4, LC5 and LC7 were analyzed for BOD, ammonia (NH3),
nitrate+nitrite (NO2+NO3), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS),
turbidity, hardness, and chlorophyll a. Analysis of BOD at six locations included BOD5, 30-day BOD analyses
(BOD30), and a 5-day carbonaceous BOD (CBOD) in which nitrifying bacteria are inhibited. A summary of the
chemical monitoring strategy is provided in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3. Lyle Creek Sampling Locations for Chemistry
Location
abbreviation Monitoring location Analysis
LC1a
Lyle Creek at Hwy 70
Physicals, nutrients, BOD, chlorophyll a
MC1
McLin Creek at
Physicals, nutrients, BOD, chlorophyll a
LC2
Lyle Creek at Mile 1.18
Physicals
LC3
Lyle Creek above Hwy 10
Physicals
LC4
Lyle Creek above WWTP
Physicals, nutrients, BOD, chlorophyll a
LC5
Lyle Creek below VVWTP
Physicals, nutrients, BOD, chlorophyll a
LC6
Lyle Creek at Mile 0.3
Physicals
LC7
Lyle Creek near mouth
Physicals, nutrients, BOD, chlorophyll a
EFF1
Catawba WWTP Effluent
Physicals, nutrients, BOD
2-9
January 2008

fmcl
Fan
• ENSR
EPA analysis methods were typically used for all parameters. The NCDWQ specifically requested EPA
Method 445.1 for the analysis of chlorophyll a instead of Standard Methods 10200H. A summary of methods
is provided below in Table 2-4 and chemistry data results are provided in Appendix D.
As previously stated, the NCDWQ does not monitor water quality in Lyle Creek. During the collection of
benthic macroinvertebrate samples, NCDWQ did monitor physical parameters such as temperature, DO, pH
and conductivity. Measurements from the last basinwide assessment are provided below in Table 2-5. These
measurements were taken on July 14, 2004, and reflect cooler temperatures than those during this study.
Based on the macroinvertebrate sampling, NCDWQ rated Lyle Creek's bioclassification as Excellent.
Table 2-4. Standard Methods Used for Physical/Chemical Analysis
Parameter
Method
Temperature, DO, pH, and Conductivity
YSI hand-held meter
Biochemical oxygen demand, 5-day
EPA Method 450.1
Carbonaceous oxygen demand, 5-day
EPA Method 450.1
Ammonia -Nitrogen
EPA Method 350.3 or
SM4500 NH3 H
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
EPA Method 351.2
Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen
EPA Method 353.1/
353.2 or SM4500NO3
Total phosphorus
EPA Method 365.2 or
SM4500P F
TSS
EPA Method 160.2
Turbidity
EPA Method 180.1
Hardness
SM2340 C
Chlorophyll a
EPA Method 445.1
fan Table 2-5. Results from the July 14, 2004 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Event
ran
azgl
Parameter(units) i
Result
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
6.5
Specific Conductance (pS/cm)
95
Temperature (°C)
23.4
pH (s.u.)
6.2
Bioclassification (poor — excellent)
Excellent
2.4 Weather Data
Weather data measured at the Hickory Airport were obtained from the State Climate Office of North Carolina
website (CRONOS database). Daily measurements of air temperature, humidity, pressure, precipitation,
2-10
January 2008

r=1
Pin
f�l
Mc,
f�1
ENSR
evapotranspiration, wind speed, wind direction, and cloud levels were downloaded for the July 1st through
August 20th , 2007 period. Additionally, hourly measurements of several parameters were downloaded for the
August 7 — August 20 period. An overall summary of climate data during the field study period is provided in
Table 2-6.
Table 2-6. Descriptive Statistics for Meteorological Data
Parameter (units)
Range
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Daily Average Air
Temperature(°F)
69.2 — 88.6
78.91
78.1
8.87
Daily Maximum Air Temperature
(°F)
75 —104
88.63
90.0
7.92
Daily Average Sea Level
Pressure (mbar)
1009 —1021.2
1014.6
1014.1
2.83
Daily Average Wind Speed (mph)
0.6 — 6.3
4.19
4.6
3.29
Daily Average Relative Humidity
(percent)
49 - 79
61.14
62
18.83
Daily Total Precipitation (inches)
0.0001 — 0.58
0.02
0.0001
0.078
Daily Potential
Evapotranspiration, inches
0.157 — 0.315
0.23
0.23
0.037
2-11
January 2008
f=1

MINN
ENSR
3.0 Model Development and Calibration
3.1 Overview
A hydrodynamic and water quality model of Lyle Creek was developed and applied to simulate existing
conditions in Lyle Creek and to predict the potential effect of proposed BOD and NH3 Toads on ambient DO
concentrations in the Lyle Creek system, downstream to the confluence of Lyle Creek with Lake Norman on
the Catawba River. Predicted concentrations and effects are expected to impact the Catawba River less than
the Lyle Creek system due to proximity and dilution. The Lyle Creek modeling effort featured the following
components:
• A field investigation conducted during July and August of 2007.
• Selection of appropriate hydrodynamic and water quality models for the Lyle Creek application.
• Setup and calibration of the Lyle Creek hydrodynamic and water quality models.
• Application of the model to simulate water quality characteristics under various conditions.
Physical, hydrological and water quality data required to support the model application were collected through
a review of available data and using data collected during the field investigation. Once all relevant data were
summarized, the model was selected, set up, calibrated, and applied.
The Lyle Creek hydrodynamic and water quality model was developed and applied to evaluate water quality
characteristics under a variety of conditions. "Worst -case" conditions, in particular, were identified and
simulated to provide conservative estimates of potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed
treated effluent discharge. Worst -case conditions were defined as conditions whereby effluent CBODu and
NH3 had the greatest impact on ambient waters during drought conditions; particularly as they impacted
ambient DO concentrations.
3.2 Model Selection
The hydrodynamic and water quality model selected to simulate flow and water quality in the Lyle Creek study
area was the DYNHYD5 hydrodynamic model and the WASP7.2 water quality model. This modeling suite
was selected because of its applicability to the simulation of dynamic instream eutrophication and because of
its continued support by the EPA's Center for Environmental and Assessment Modeling (CEAM) in Athens,
Georgia.2
The DYNHYD5 hydrodynamic model is a longitudinally one-dimensional Zink -node model that represents the
model domain as a series of junctions interconnected by channels. The model is fully dynamic and can be
ro. used to represent branched networks. The upstream inflows can be represented as time -varying boundary
conditions and the downstream boundary can be represented by a variable water level. The DYNHYD5 model
was selected because of its versatility and dynamic capability. While the model is not suitable in systems that
demonstrate strong lateral or vertical flow or water quality gradients, it is suitable in the Lyle Creek system
where data collected during the field investigation suggest that such gradients do not exist to any significant
degree. The ability of the DHYHYD5 model to simulate dynamic boundary conditions is not unique; however,
2 http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/swater/index.htm
3-1
January 2008

• ENSR
these features and the fact that DYNHYD5 is fully linked to the WASP7.2 water quality model made this model
a sensible choice. Importantly, the DYNHYD5/WASP7.2 models are commonly applied and have wide
acceptance by regulatory agencies.
The WASP7.2 water quality model is capable of using the hydrodynamic predictions developed by DYNHYD5
to generate water quality predictions throughout the model domain. The WASP7.2 model represents the
model domain as a series of interconnected segments that correspond to the junctions used in the DYNHYD5
model. The WASP7.2 model can use either the TOXI or EUTRO subroutines to calculate the fate and
transport of toxic chemicals or eutrophication, respectively. In each subroutine, the WASP7.2 model uses
appropriate boundary conditions, constants, and reaction kinetics to predict constituent concentrations
throughout the model domain. The ability of the WASP7.2 model to predict toxic chemicals and oxygen
son cycling was advantageous in that the TOXI subroutine was used to predict dye tracer concentrations in Lyle
Creek and the EUTRO subroutine was used to predict the concentrations of constituents relevant to the
oxygen cycle. The WASP7.2 model was selected because of its linkage with the fully dynamic DYNHYD5
model, the ability of the model to predict both toxic chemicals and oxygen cycling, and because the EUTRO
ragl
subroutine can be used to represent the oxygen cycle at various levels of complexity. Additionally, unlike
many other water quality models available, WASP7.2 incorporates a Windows® interface to simplify model
setup and to enhance the evaluation of model results.
ral
3.3 Conceptual Approach
The process of developing and calibrating the hydrodynamic and water quality model of the Lyle Creek system
was considered prior to and during the collection of data during the field investigation in July and August of
2007 and was consistent with Level C Model guidelines. Sufficient hydrologic and water quality data were
collected both synoptically and continuously to characterize the system in support of the modeling process.
'a) Field measurements were used extensively to parameterize the hydrodynamic and water quality model of the
Lyle Creek system. In the hydrodynamic model, for example, stream flow measurements in the most
upstream Lyle Creek station (Station LC1a) and the measured stage at the downstream station (Station LC7)
pa, were used to define the boundary conditions in the hydrodynamic model. Adjustments were then made to the
physical characteristics represented by the model including channel width, elevation and depth and the
roughness coefficient to enable the model to accurately reproduce measured values of flow and stage
throughout the model domain.
Once the hydrodynamic model was calibrated, the water quality model was set up using field measurements to
specify model boundaries. Calibration of the water quality model proceeded similarly to that of the
hydrodynamic model in that adjustments were made to relevant parameters to match the model -predicted
concentrations and rates with those measured and collected during the field study and analyzed by a
laboratory. The goal of the calibration process was to use the measured flow, stage, and water quality data to
develop accurate representations of the physical and chemical processes within the model domain and to also
4111 remain consistent with Level C Modeling guidelines. As expected, the calibration step was an important part of
the modeling process since the model predictions are directly dependent on the parameter values selected
during model calibration. Model setup and calibration are described below.
3.4 Hydrodynamic Model Setup and Calibration
0.4 3.4.1 Model Setup
Setup of the hydrodynamic model consisted primarily of identifying the model domain and assigning a physical
representation of the Lyle Creek system to the DYNHYD5 model through a process of data evaluation and
earn model calibration. In addition to physically representing the Lyle Creek in the model, the field measurements
of stage and flow were used to indicate the model boundary conditions (e.g., the varying flows at the upstream
station (Station LC1a) and the varying water levels at the downstream boundary). The physical representation
r=,
3-2
January 2008

ENSR
of Lyle Creek in the DYNHYD5 model, including both the initial estimates and measurements of physical
characteristics and the values determined through model calibration, is described below.
3.4.2 Model Domain
The model domain is the study area and the area included in the hydrodynamic and water quality model. The
model domain for this investigation begins in the intersection of Lyle Creek and U.S. Routes 64/70 and
continues downstream to the confluence with the Catawba River (Figure 3-1).
The model domain was divided into junctions 100 feet long in the upstream and downstream reaches and into
junctions 50 feet long in the vicinity of the transition from a naturally flowing stream to the slow moving area
influenced by the Catawba River; coinciding with the reach extending from 2,000 feet downstream of Station
LC1a to 4,000 feet downstream from Station LC1a. The junctions within the model domain were all
interconnected by channels according to the setup and configuration required by DYNHYD5. The junction
lengths of 50 and 100 feet were necessary to ensure numerical stability of the hydrodynamic and water quality
model throughout the simulation period. In total, 184 junctions and 183 channels were used to represent Lyle
Creek in the DYNHYD5 model, and 182 water quality modeling segments were used to represent Lyle Creek
in the WASP7.2 model. Lyle Creek was described in the DHYNHD5 model using physical characteristics of
length, width, elevation, and roughness. Measurements of channel width and elevation were derived from a
variety of sources including the USGS topographic maps and DEMs (digital elevation models), and
measurements made during the field investigation by ENSR. Channel roughness was determined through
model calibration (within a range of expected values).
Figure 3-1. Site map of Lyle Creek showing model domain and sampling stations (LC1a through LC7)
Seta Width (RI Dspm in)
I', '' LC 1A 32.50 0.9?
MCI 35.00 1.54
LC2 66_00 2.03
Upelteam Variable Flow ?'' LC4 96.00 2.15
�1.44.461 Boundary •1
LCS 92.50 3.25
LC7 105.01? 5.00
U)r
tray. �YfN f `�: -
Yri 4�� CAA.,, .-• _ •
'I-7.y1 �I+Y "'rf dFO�'afy �i LC4
3-3
January 2008

fail
fa, ENSR
Selection of an appropriate model domain is important for several reasons. First, the domain had to be large
fini
enough so that boundary conditions did not control the model predictions in critical areas of the system. The
domain selected for this application is appropriate since both upstream boundaries are at monitoring stations.
Can
3.4.3 Measured Channel Widths
The channel widths of Lyle Creek were largely based on measurements made during the ENSR field
I 1 investigation. During model calibration, further refinements were made to the measured values to arrive at a
suitable channel representation, primarily to define the active portions of the channel cross -sections. The
channel widths affect the predicted water depths at a given flow rate and subsequently the predicted velocities
and associated travel time. Channel width also affects the volume of water exchanged at the downstream tidal
boundary.
Channel widths were measured by ENSR at nine locations during the field investigation at stations coincident
,=, with the water quality measurement locations. Channel cross -sections were measured during each of the
water quality surveys as depth from a fixed reference point to the channel bottom. The reference points for
each transect were not surveyed so transects could only be used to provide cross -sectional shape and area
and not channel bottom elevation. This data set was the most accurate and complete available since the data
were collected at the calibration flow rate and because the data were approximately evenly distributed
throughout the model domain.
f,g, Measurements of channel width available during model development are summarized in the table inserted in
Figure 3-1. The Lyle Creek channel is approximately 30 feet at the upstream station LC1a and demonstrates
a consistent increase in width downstream to the confluence with the Lake Norman at approximately Station
LC7, where the width is approximately 105 feet. Lyle Creek was observed to begin widening at approximately
piti the point where variable stage influence from Lake Norman is exerted, as evidenced by the variable water
levels measurements.
cal 3.4.4 Measured Channel Bed Elevations
The channel bed elevations of the Lyle Creek study area were based on the average depth from each station's
measured cross -sections (Figure 3-1) and the downstream boundary water level in Lake Norman (759.36 feet)
1=1 at the start of the simulation. The upstream extent of the area in Lyle Creek influenced by Lake Norman was
presumed to extend upstream to a point approximately 3,000 feet downstream of Station LC1a (Figure 3-1).
The location of this extent of river influence is based on information derived from a USGS 7.5 minute
,I topographic map of the area. The channel bed elevations at each of the transects measured by ENSR were
determined by subtracting the average cross -sectional depth for each measurement section from the
measured water level in Lake Norman at the start of the simulation period on July 5, 2007. Bed elevations
were linearly interpolated between measurement sections to provide information for all the junctions and
'"` channels required in the DYNHYD5 simulation.
3.4.5 Channel Roughness
The Manning's Roughness number was used to characterize the channel roughness throughout Lyle Creek in
the DYNHYD5 model. Larger roughness values indicate more irregular channel bottoms that induce greater
depths and lower velocities whereas smaller roughness values indicate the opposite. Channel roughness
min values typically range from 0.03 to more than 0.10 in natural channels; however, it is understood that it is
difficult to assign roughness values simply based on channel type. That is why the roughness value is often
used as a calibration parameter as it was in the development of the hydrodynamic model of the Lyle Creek
rag, system. Values were initially set at 0.030 throughout the entire model domain prior to model calibration.
MIR
3-4
January 2008
MI)

P.1
ENSR
3.4.6 Measured Boundary Conditions
There were three boundary conditions necessary to parameterize the hydrodynamic model: flows at the
upstream boundary of Lyle Creek, from the only major tributary (McLin Creek), and a stage boundary at the
confluence of Lyle Creek and the Catawba River. Field measurements collected during the survey in July and
August of 2007 were used to specify boundary conditions in the Lyle Creek hydrodynamic model. Unlike the
physical representation of the river system, the boundary conditions were not adjusted during model
calibration. The following is a description of the boundary conditions applied to the DYNHYD5 model of the
Lyle Creek system.
Awl
• Upstream Lyle Creek Flow — The upstream flow boundary used to describe flow in Lyle Creek was set
to the daily measured flows throughout the monitoring period occurring from July 5, 2007 through
August 20, 2007. Daily flow for LC1A was similarly calculated, using daily discharge from the Conover
VWVTP and the nearby KHKY weather station daily precipitation. The following equation, created via
regression analysis, was used to estimate Lyle Creek flow:
LC1A Flow = 36.05 -32.884 WV TP Q (cfs) + 5.317 Precipitation (in)
• McLin Creek Flow — The tributary flow boundary from McLin Creek was set to the daily measured
flows throughout the monitoring period occurring from July 5, 2007 through August 20, 2007. Daily
flow for MC1A was calculated via a multiple regression technique using a combination of the upstream
Claremont McLin Creek WVVTP daily discharge and precipitation from the KHKY weather station.
Using JMP® statistical software, the following regression equation was calculated:
MC1 Flow = 4.52 + 3.41 VWVTP Q (cfs) + 7.06 Precipitation (in)
non
• Downstream Lyle Creek Stage — While the upstream boundaries were considered to be variable flows
averaged on a daily basis during the model simulation, the downstream stage was constantly
changing due to the effects of the variable water level in the Catawba River. The water level
fon measured at station LC7 was used to define the downstream stage boundary in the Lyle Creek for the
simulated calibration period from July 31, 2007 through August 20, 2007. Due to reversing nature of
flow in Lyle Creek, only the time period capturing use of the level -loggers was used.
The daily average flows for the upstream boundary at Station LC1 a and the tributary boundary at Station MC1
are graphically represented in Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3, respectively. The variable water levels measured in
Lake Norman are graphically represented in Figure 3-4.
3.4.7 Model Calibration Settings
Once the physical characteristics describing Lyle Creek and the boundary conditions specific to the calibration
simulation were initialized in the DYNHYD5 model, initial hydrodynamic and water quality simulations were
made. Initial simulations were evaluated by comparison with flow and stage measurements collected within
the model domain to determine model accuracy. The calibration of Lyle Creek was an iterative process
Carl whereby predictions and measurements were brought into close agreement through repeated adjustment of
model parameters including channel width, channel bed elevation, and channel roughness. Adjustments were
made to facilitate a more accurate prediction while maintaining values that were also suggested by the
available measured data.
3-5 January 2008

Wog
MIR
PIM
OMR
ANEW
ENSR
Figure 3-2. Calculated daily average flow rate at Lyle Creek upstream model boundary Station LCIa
U
0
LL
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
O\ 01 O‘ 01 O\ O� O, 01 0A 0\ O� 6\ 01 0c\ 01 0\ O� O1 0� O� 6
rlO rvO ryO �O �O �O �O yO ryO ,yO �O yO nO ryO ryO lO vO �O rvo �O r1O
os o�x\ ooy� o�y� e��\ ono\ o\o �o� y\^�� o\^• 4., $\\�� �,� 0\^� 4N. o\,��� $\�,� es
Figure 3-3. Calculated daily average flow rate at McLin Creek tributary model boundary Station MCI
6.00 -
5.00
4.00
U
3.00
LL
2.00
1.00 -
0.00
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F!1111 1 1 1 1 1 1
O\ 0� OA OA OA 01 O� O� O� O� O� 01 O� O� 01 O� O� O� O� O\ 01
�yo ,yo yo \yo \,yo \,yo tio \yo \,yo \�y' \yo 0 do \tio \ep \�yo \tio \�yo \�yo �yo \�yo
��3 o� y�� ono ono o�y o\o �� o\o ego ��o c& ��� \^o o��� o��y o�xs 0��� �o �o ��`�o
3-6
January 2008

ENSR
Figure 3-4. ENSR-measured hourly water levels and the confluence of Lyle Creek and Lake Norman
757.20
757.00 -
756.80 -
756.60 -
a
c 756.40 -
0
m 756.20 -
W
756.00 -
755.80 -
755.60 -
755.40
7/31/2007 8/2/2007 8/4/2007 8/6/2007 8/8/2007 8/10/2007 8/12/2007 8/14/2007 8/16/2007 8/18/2007 8/20/2007
3.4.7.1 Calibrated Channel Widths
Since the ENSR data were collected during the calibration period, those data were used to parameterize the
model throughout the entire Lyle Creek system. Adjustments of channel width were made concurrently with
adjustments to channel bed elevations and channel roughness to match travel time. In particular, the channel
widths at the ENSR transects were reduced by 25% to decrease the predicted cross-section area, increase
the predicted depths, and increase the predicted travel times to bring predicted and measured values into
close agreement during the calibration period. The channel widths at model junctions and channels between
measured transects were determined by linear interpolation, in the same fashion as the channel bed
elevations were determined.
3.4.7.2 Hydrologic Parameters
The Manning's Roughness was adjusted during the model calibration process concurrent with adjustment of
channel widths and bed elevations to bring predicted and measured stage, flow, and velocities into close
agreement. The Manning's Roughness within the entire model domain was initially assigned a value of 0.030
to represent a first approximation for a relatively shallow, sandy channel bottom. It was necessary to increase
the Manning's Roughness to 0.045 to reduce velocities and match the predicted and measured travel times as
indicated by the dye study results. The Manning Roughness values used throughout the model domain are
within the range of recommended values for natural channels.
3.4.8 Hydrodynamic Model Calibration Results
The hydrodynamic model was able to accurately predict water levels and flows throughout the Lyle Creek
system at the completion of the calibration process, covering the period from July 31, 2007 through August 20,
2007. This period was selected for the hydrodynamic model calibration period because it was the deployment
period that included the dye tracer investigation. The primary factors adjusted in the model calibration process
3-7
January 2008

ENSR
were channel widths, bed elevations, and roughness. The results of the hydrodynamic model calibration are
presented below in terms of flow, water level, and travel time.
3.4.8.1 Water Level Calibration Results
Water levels are an important component of hydrodynamic systems, particularly those exhibiting variable
stage, and were used to evaluate the hydrodynamic model's performance. Accurate water depth predictions
provide an indication that the channel widths, channel bed elevations, and channel roughness values are
accurate. Figure 3-5 provides a comparison between the predicted and measured water depths and
demonstrates the ability of the hydrodynamic model to accurately simulate the portion of the Lyle Creek
system influenced by Lake Norman. Figure 3-5 reveals that the model accurately predicts water depth in the
variable stage areas of the Lyle Creek system, indicating that the propagation of variable flow is of the same
magnitude as measured values at upstream stations.
Figure 3-5. Predicted and measured stages at Station LC5 (July 31, 2007 through August 20, 2007)
7/31/07
8/7/07
—Predicted
3.4.8.2 Travel Time Calibration Results
• Measured
8/14/07
The accuracy of hydrodynamic model predictions was significantly enhanced by the use of travel time data
collected through long-term dye study. Since the model processes represented in the model occur by first -
order decay rate, an accurate estimation of travel time is a key component of the calibration process. To
simulate the dye study completed during the field investigation, the results of the DYNHYD5 model were
incorporated into the TOXI subroutine of the WASP7.2 model to predict concentrations of a conservative
tracer. During calibration of the hydrodynamic model, adjustments were made to the channel widths, channel
bed elevations, and channel roughness to enable the model to effectively reproduce the temporally and
spatially distributed dye concentrations measured during the field investigation.
3-8
January 2008

ENSR
As described in Section 2.2, dye was released uniformly across Lyle Creek at Station LC3a, which is located
approximately midway between Station LC3 and LC4 (Figure 3-1). After the dye was released, fluorescence
was measured downstream of Station LC3a to characterize the movement of the dye in the lower reach of Lyle
Creek. These measurements were then compared to dye concentrations simulated using DYNHYD5. The
dye simulation made using DYNHYD5 was made by assuming a similar dye volume and the precise location
of discharge within the model domain and timing if the discharge during the simulation. Some adjustment was
made to the simulated dye volume to bring the general magnitude of the predicted and measured
concentrations into agreement, but the timing of the response and the evaluation of this response was based
solely on the predicted instream hydrodynamics. An accurate prediction of the dye mass is not as crucial for
this evaluation since the model is only being used to predict travel time.
After repeated adjustment of the Lyle Creek physical representation, the measured and predicted longitudinal
dye concentration profiles in the Lyle Creek were in close agreement, indicating that the travel times predicted
by the model are accurate. Figure 3-6 presents model predictions of dye concentration and subsequent travel
time at Station LC5 for the actual and simulated dye study. Figure 3-7 presents model predictions of dye
concentration and subsequent travel time at Station LC6a1 for the actual and simulated dye study. The travel
times, occurrence of peak values, and centers of mass are very similar between the predicted and measured
values. The shape of the dye concentration curve was captured better at Station LC5 than at Station LC6a1.
Overall, the time of travel calibration was very strong due to the availability of field measurements throughout
the system.
Figure 3-8 displays the concentration of dye as predicted by the calibrated model on a longitudinal scale where
segment 1 is the upstream boundary and segment 182 is the downstream boundary. The two curves
represent predicted concentrations subsequent to the dye release on August 9. The curve on August 11
indicates that the dye was flushed from Lyle Creek within 2 days as no observable dye is predicted on August
12. This further emphasizes that while a backwater effect exists in Lyle Creek, overall residence time is not
greatly affected.
Dye Concentration (ug/L)
Figure 3-6. Predicted and measured dye concentrations at Station LC5
12.0
10.0 -
80-
6.0 -
4.0
2.0 -
Release of 0.5 gallons of
Rhodamine WT at Station
LC3A - 12:10 pm
QNts N.V � � � �
o O O O
16p �ti' 16q 1� 160 ^�O° 6q <V
4
—Predicted • Measured
3-9
January 2008

�. ENSR
REMIR
MEM
Dye Concentration (ug!L)
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
4.50E+00
4.00E+00
3.50E+00
3.00E+00
a 2.50E+00
u 2.00E+00
1.50E+00
1.00E+00
5.00E-01
0.00E+00
Figure 3-7. Predicted and measured dye concentrations at Station LC6a1
Release of 0.5 gallons of
Rhodamine WT at Station
LC3A - 12:10 pm
o0e� OOPS oOV-
O. �ti. o.
VP 4 0
—Predicted • Measured
Figure 3-8. Residence Time of Dye in Lyle Creek
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Segment
3-10
—8/10/2007 11:04
—8/11/2007 11:04
8/12/2007 11.04
--- 8/13/2007 11:04
—8/14/2007 11:04
—8/152007 11.04
— 8/162007 11:04
—8/172007 11:04
January 2008

.2., ENSR
1.1 3.5 Water Quality Model Setup and Calibration
Once the hydrodynamic model was successfully calibrated, the focus of the modeling effort tumed to the water
quality model. The setup and calibration of the water quality model is described below. Each of the junctions
in the hydrodynamic model was assigned as equivalent to segments in the water quality model. Since the
water quality model is implicitly linked to the hydrodynamic model in this manner, the model domain and
physical representation for both the hydrodynamic model and water quality model were the same.
Hydrodynamic model results were then used to drive the water quality model simulation. The water quality
'ail model was calibrated to the water quality measurements collected during the field investigation through
interactive adjustment of appropriate model input parameters.
3.5.1 Model Setup
Setting up the water quality model included selecting the simulation options (e.g., level of complexity for DO
simulation) and selecting parameters for the simulation. The WASP7.2 model can be applied to simulate the
DO cycle using a simple Streeter -Phelps equation, a modified Streeter -Phelps representation that considers
NBOD, or can consider nutrient cycling, and even photosynthesis and respiration. Once the level of
complexity is decided upon, boundary conditions are defined and calibration parameters must be identified,
,.9 and the model calibration process begins. The model setup process for the Lyle Creek water quality modeling
project is described below.
3.5.1.1 Simulation of BOD and Related Water Quality Parameters
The water quality model was applied primarily to predict in -stream oxygen concentrations as effected by
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which is the sum of carbonaceous oxygen demand (CBODu) and
nitrogenous oxygen demand (NBOD), and atmospheric reaeration. Typically, the CBOD is exerted first,
normally as a result of a lag in growth of the nitrifying bacteria necessary for oxidation of the nitrogen forms.
The CBOD is exerted by the presence of heterotrophic organisms that are capable of deriving the energy for
oxidation from an organic carbon substrate. Except for cases where toxic chemicals are presented in the
water, the CBOD is exerted almost immediately.
The first -stage CBOD is often followed by the second stage representing the oxidation of the nitrogenous
P al compounds in the waste or water body during nitrification. Nitrogenous matter in waste consists of proteins,
urea, ammonia (NH3), and, in some cases, nitrite (NO2). The NH3, which is highly soluble, combines with the
hydrogen ion to form the ammonium ion (NH4+), thus increasing the pH. The NH3 is oxidized under aerobic
conditions to nitrite (NO2) by bacteria of the genus Nitrosomonas. The NO2 thus formed is subsequently
'm' oxidized to nitrate (NO3) by bacteria of the genus Nitrobacter. The total oxygen utilization in the entire forward
nitrification process is 4.57 grams of oxygen per gram of NH3 nitrogen oxidized to NO3 (Thomann and Mueller,
1987). The NBOD is often differentiated from the CBOD by adding a nitrification suppressant to the BOD
bottle and therefore measuring only CBOD. The BOD is also measured on an unsuppressed sample and
NBOD can be obtained by difference. However, since this differentiation step was not done during the
determination of the BOD30 for the Lyle Creek samples, the following simple assumptions were made to
support interpretation of the CBOD and BOD measurements:
• CBOD5 concentrations are equivalent to the BOD5 concentrations.
• BODu concentrations are equivalent to BOD30 concentrations.
• CBODu concentrations can be determined by subtracting the NH3 equivalent oxygen concentration
from the BODu concentration.
farl
3-11
January 2008

faxl
forl
ENSR
Nitrogenous oxygen demand was simulated as the transformation from ammonia to nitrate using first -order
reaction kinetics. Both the CBOD and NH3 transformation utilize oxygen and therefore act as an oxygen sink.
The only external source of oxygen, exclusive of at the model boundaries, is from atmospheric reaeration.
3.5.1.2 Boundary Conditions
The water quality model boundary conditions were represented by the measurements collected during the field
investigation at the study area boundaries. Water quality boundary conditions included DO concentrations,
calculated concentrations of CBODu, and NH3. Concentrations of NO3 were predicted but not used for
comparative purposes since aquatic vegetation removes nitrate from the system and such a sink was not
accounted for in the model. This is not considered to be a significant shortfall of the model because the
measured chlorophyll a concentrations indicate a relatively minor amount of photosynthetic activity.
Additionally, the turbid conditions of the creek likely limit photosynthesis by both rooted vegetation and
planktonic algae.
1.9
3.5.1.3 Hydrodynamic Simulation Used for Water Quality Modeling
The hydrodynamic simulation used to drive the water quality simulation was longer than that used in the
calibration of the hydrodynamic model. The hydrodynamic simulation used for the hydrodynamic calibration
ran from July 31, 2007 through August 20, 2007 to coincide with the dye study investigation while the
hydrodynamic simulation used for the water quality calibration also ran for the same time period to coincide
with the water quality investigation. This change was made to take advantage of the information collected
during the water quality data collection surveys throughout this extended period.
1.9 3.5.2 Model Boundary Conditions and Calibration Settings
A description of model boundary conditions and calibration settings describing the water quality kinetics is
provided below. Boundary concentrations were all derived from the results of the water quality surveys and
,=, reaction coefficients were initially derived using site data as well as EPA guidance and then adjusted within a
reasonable range during model calibration.
3.5.2.1 Boundary Conditions
An important part of initializing the water quality calibration scenario involved selecting appropriate boundary
conditions to represent the water quality constituents. Unlike water quality models with flow in only one
p., direction, boundary conditions for Lyle Creek needed to be defined for the downstream as well due to the
inflow of water during flow reversals induced by the increase Catawba River water levels. Water quality
boundary conditions were derived from the results of the field survey of July 5, 2007 through August 20, 2007.
Additionally, the results of the field survey were used for comparative purposes to evaluate the accuracy of the
model predictions within the model domain.
Water quality boundary conditions were specified at the upstream boundary based on field data collected near
,=, Station LC1 a. Specification of water quality boundary conditions at the downstream boundary was made
using measured values at Station LC7 to represent the water quality at the confluence of Lyle Creek and Lake
Norman. This presents a non -ideal situation in that the water constituent concentrations at Station LC7 are not
necessarily that at the downstream boundary; however, it is not expected to significantly impact the
'm' downstream results for two reasons.
ral
• The degree of upstream flow during downstream water level increases are relatively minor and are not
expected to generate any significant migration of water upstream but rather to significantly &ow
downstream flow thereby increasing the retention time in the lower reaches.
3-12
January 2008

f
PIM
ENSR
• The water quality at Station LC7 is not expected to be drastically different than that at the confluence
with the Catawba River due to proximity.
In summary, the presence of a reversing flow boundary complicates water quality simulation near the
suri boundary, but only to the degree that it alters the downstream residence time rather than resulting in any
significant upstream flow migration.
Inn
Carl
Upstream and Downstream TSS Boundary Concentrations
During the water quality modeling of the Lyle Creek system it was realized that the removal of CBODu would
be a necessary component of the nutrient cycling process. The settling of suspended material was used to
simulate the settling of CBODu throughout the system and in particular in the lower reach influenced by the
Catawba River. The removal of carbonaceous material in natural systems is not uncommon and in systems
receiving wastewater discharges can result in the accumulation of organic material, which results in elevated
SOD rates in the system. TSS was simulated in the WASP7.2 model of the Lyle Creek system and was
removed at a rate equivalent to the settling velocity of fine silt size material entering the model domain. The
upstream, downstream, and tributary boundary concentrations of TSS were all fixed at 10 mg/L throughout the
simulation, which was reasonable given the concentrations of TSS measured by ENSR during the field portion
of the investigation.
Upstream Lyle Creek Boundary Concentrations
Water quality conditions at the upstream boundary of the Lyle Creek, at Station LC1, are all summarized in
Table 3-1.
• Ammonia — The model was run with an upstream ammonia concentration indicated by Station LC1 a
that varied linearly from one measurement point to the next during the duration of the simulation. The
measured upstream ammonia concentrations in Lyle Creek during the field survey were defined by 4
sample points and ranged from 0.036 mg/L to 0.056 mg/L during the period from July 5, 2007 through
August 20, 2007.
• CBODu — The model was run with an upstream CBODu concentration indicated by Station LC1a that
varied linearly from one measurement point to the next during the duration of the simulation. The
calculated upstream CBODu concentrations in Lyle Creek during the field survey were defined by 3
BOD5 sample points and 1 BOD30 sample point. The BOD5 concentrations ranged from 2 mg/L to 4.2
mg/L and the BOD30 concentration was 11 mg/L. An f-factor, or the ratio of BODE to BOD5 that is
estimated from the decay rate constant observed in the BOD test (Thomann and Mueller 1987), was
used to calculate the upstream CBODu concentrations, and ranged from 10.8 mg/L to 24.7 mg/L
during the period from July 5, 2007 through August 20, 2007.
• Dissolved Oxygen — The model was run with an upstream DO concentration indicated by Station
LC1 a that varied linearly from one measurement point to the next during the duration of the simulation.
The measured upstream DO concentration in Lyle Creek during the field survey was defined by 5
sample points, which were collected at the surface of the water column throughout the survey period.
The upstream concentrations of DO ranged from 7.74 mg/L to 9.72 mg/L during the period from July
5, 2007 through August 20, 2007.
Downstream Lyle Creek Boundary Concentrations
Water quality conditions at the downstream boundary of the Lyle Creek, just upstream of the confluence with
the Catawba River at Station LC7, are all summarized in Table 3-1.
3-13
January 2008

ENSR
Table 3-1. Table of water quality concentrations developed during the ENSR field data collection
program.
River / Creek ID
Lyle Creek
Sample Location ID
At Hwy 70
at Mile 1.8
downstream of
McLin Creek
Upstream of Hwy
10
Upstream of
Hickory WWTP
outfall
Duplicate -
Upstream of
Hickory WWTP
outfall
Downstream of
Hickory WWTP
outfall
Downstream of
Hickory WWTP
outfall
At Mile 0.3
upstream of
Catawba River
Sample ID
LC1A
Seg 1
LC2
Seg 127
LC3
Seg 135
LC4
Seg 145
LC4D
Seg 145
LC5
Seg 153
LC5
Seg 153
LC6
Seg 167
Lab Analysis (mg/L unless otherwise
noted)
Dissolved Oxygen
7/5/07
9.72
7.30
7.17
7.13
7.16
7.69
Dissolved Oxygen
7/10/07
9.71
6.99
6.80
6.94
NA
7.12
7.45
Dissolved Oxygen
7/31/07
7.74
6.22
6.21
6.26
NA
6.24
6.32
Dissolved Oxygen
8/1/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
8/15/07
8.68
7.27
7.17
6.80
NA
7.22
6.63
Dissolved Oxygen
8/20/07
8.32
9.35
8.35
8.02
NA
7.99
NA
Ammonia
7/5/07
0.056
NA
NA
0.077
0.086
NA
Ammonia
7/10/07
0.052
NA
NA
0.055
0.066
0.056
NA
Ammonia
7/31/07
0.036 J
NA
NA
0.053
0.056
0.075
NA
Ammonia
8/1/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ammonia
8/15/07
0.04 J
NA
NA
0.034 J
0.12
0.038 J
NA
Ammonia
8/20/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BOD - 5
7/5/07
R
R
R
R
R
R 1
BOD - 5
7/10/07
4.1 U
NA
NA
4.1 U
4.1 U
4.1 U
NA
BOD - 30
7/10/07
11
NA
NA
6.9
9.4
6.5
NA
BOD - 5
7/31/07
2 U
NA
NA
2 U
2 U
2 U
NA
BOD - 5
8/1/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BOD - 5
8/15/07
4.2 U
NA
NA
2.3
3.6
3.1
NA
BOD - 5
8/20/07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Calculated CBODU
7/5/07
Calculated CBODU
7/10/07
10.76
6.65
9.10
6.24
Calculated CBODU
7/31/07
24.67
3.24
5.77
3.05
Calculated CBODU
8/1/07
Calculated CBODU
8/15/07
11.55
7.14
21.53
4.26
Calculated CBODU
8/20/07
J = Estimated value between reporting limit and MDL
U = Below reporting limit
R = Quality control indicates that data are unusable
3-14
January 2008

ENSR
• Ammonia — The model was run with a downstream ammonia concentration indicated by Station LC7
that varied linearly from one measurement point to the next during the duration of the simulation. The
measured downstream ammonia concentrations in Lyle Creek during the field survey were defined by
,a, 4 sample points and ranged from 0.058 mg/L to 0.086 mg/L during the period from July 5, 2007
through August 20, 2007.
• CBODu — The model was run with a downstream CBODu concentration indicated by Station LC7 that
varied linearly from one measurement point to the next during the duration of the simulation. The
calculated downstream CBODu concentrations in Lyle Creek during the field survey were defined by 3
BOD5 sample points and 1 BOD30 sample point. The BOD5 concentrations ranged from 2.8 mg/L to
5.3 mg/L and the BOD34 concentration was 8.5 mg/L. The downstream CBODu concentrations,
calculated using the f-factor developed for the downstream station, ranged from 8.1 mg/L to 21.8 mg/L
during the period from July 5, 2007 through August 20, 2007.
• Dissolved Oxygen — The model was run with a downstream DO concentration indicated by Station
LC7 that varied linearly from one measurement point to the next during the duration of the simulation.
The measured downstream DO concentration in Lyle Creek during the field survey was defined by 5
sample points, which were collected generally throughout the water column during the survey period.
The downstream concentrations of DO ranged from 5.59 mg/L to 8.40 mg/L during the period from
July 5, 2007 through August 20, 2007.
Point Source Boundary Concentrations
Catawba — City of Hickory VVWTP — The City of Hickory currently discharges an average of 0.032 MGD but
has a permit to discharge up 0.225 MGD to Lyle Creek under NPDES permit number NC0025542 with a BOD5
limit of 30 mg/L and a minimum DO concentration limit of 5 mg/L. Currently, the facility is required to test for
Ammonia Nitrogen on a weekly basis but has no permit limit. Throughout the duration of the study period the
WWTP was found to be in compliance with its NPDES permit. A maximum BOD5 concentration of 5.0 mg/L
Inn was recorded on August 16, 2007 and a minimum DO concentration of 5.9 mg/L was recorded on July 30,
2007. Discharge Monitoring Report data were obtained from NCDWQ.
The location of LC5 was selected to capture immediate impacts of the WWTP discharge when Lyle Creek is
ran
flowing downstream. During times of reversing flow, LC4 is within close proximity and samples taken at that
location provide a reasonable characterization of WWTP discharge.
raM
3-15
January 2008

Fal
,.9
ENSR
tall 3.5.2.2 Water Quality Kinetic Rates
Reaction rates were applied to the water quality model to indicate the rates at which transformations relative to
oxygen cycling occur during a simulation. The reaction rates that needed to be defined in the water quality
ma simulation included the nitrification rate, rate of ammonia release from sediments, the CBOD decay rate, the
fraction of CBOD available for settling, sediment oxygen demand rate, and the atmospheric reaeration rate.
The nitrification rate indicates the first -order rate that ammonia is converted to nitrate, thereby removing
dissolved oxygen from the system in the process. The rate of ammonia release from sediments is an area -
weighted distributed source of ammonia that is dependent on the surface area of the model segment. The
CBOD decay rate indicates the first -order rate that CBOD removes oxygen from the system during natural
degradation processes. The fraction of CBOD available for settling is a constant fraction of CBOD that is
mst dissolved in the water column. The particulate fraction is all available for removal through the settling of fine
particulates. The sediment oxygen demand rate is an area weighted distributed source and the removal of
oxygen is dependent on the surface area of the model segment. Finally, the atmospheric reaeration rate
indicates the rate at which oxygen is added to the system. Reaction rates were derived initially using EPA
Guidance (1985) and finally through adjustment during model calibration. Final rates are summarized in Table
4-2.
mr► • Nitrification Rate — The nitrification rate was determined to be 0.05 day' @ 20°C during the calibration
process by adjusting the rate until the predicted instream ammonia concentrations in the upstream
reaches approximately matched the measured ammonia concentrations. Literature values from other
freshwater systems ranging from 0.003 to 0.5 day' were used as a guide during the adjustment
`' process. While the actual instream nitrification rate may vary spatially, there were no data available to
substantiate the potential variation, so the rate was held constant throughout the model domain.
m+ • Distributed Source Rate of Ammonia — A distributed source of 20 mg/m2/day of NH3 was included to
increase the downstream NH3 concentrations and to ultimately bring the predicted and measured NH3
concentrations into close agreement. The source of NH3 from the sediment bed was necessary to
account for NH3 diffusion into the surface water as a direct result of NO3 reduction in the presumably
' anoxic sediment bed. The presumption of anoxia in the sediment bed is very reasonable because of
the proximity of upstream wastewater and nonpoint sources and the settling of organic material in the
headwater areas of the Catawba River.
mrt
• CBODu decay Rate — The CBODu decay rate was determined to be 0.30 day' @ 20°C during model
calibration by adjusting the rate until the predicted instream CBODu concentrations approximately
matched the measured concentrations. This CBODu decay rate is similar to the 0.08 to 0.19 day"'
pm
calculated using data from the measured long-term BOD tests and is a reasonable approximation of
the CBOD decay rate for the system. Literature values ranging from 0.004 to 5.6 day' indicate that
while the rates can be two orders of magnitude higher than that determined during the calibration
MI process, the rates determined in this investigation are reasonable. A higher rate than observed in site
samples is a conservative approach as it would tend exert its influence relatively quickly and locally,
maximizing the predicted DO sag. While the actual instream CBODu decay rate may vary spatially
there were no data available to substantiate this so the rate was held constant throughout.
owl
• Fraction of CBOD available for settling — The fraction of CBODu available for settling with associated
TSS was adjusted to 80% to bring the measured and predicted concentrations of CBODu throughout
mil the period from July 7, 2007 through August 20, 2007. This fraction is fixed throughout the entire
simulation and controls the removal of CBODu via settling of TSS, which primarily occurs in the very
slow moving backwater area of the Lyle Creek.
`— • Sediment Oxygen Demand — The sediment oxygen demand rate that was universally applied to the
model was 4 g/m2/day. While the value used to represent Lyle Creek is at the low end of the range of
reported literature values (EPA, 1985) it is still reasonable.
MA
3-16
January 2008
sal

r=1 ENSR
• Reaeration Rate — The oxygen reaeration rate was calculated within the WASP7.2 model using the
method of O'Connor (Bowie et al. 1985), which used calculated water depth and velocity to calculate
the atmospheric reaeration.
3.5.3 Model Calibration Results
The accuracy of the model calibration predictions is demonstrated by comparing model predictions with water
quality measurements collected during the field investigation. Predicted ammonia concentrations were
compared with grab sample concentrations collected during the survey while predicted CBODu concentrations
were compared with values calculated from the BOD5 tests. Predicted dissolved oxygen concentrations were
compared with the vertically averaged concentrations measured during each of the several synoptic surveys.
3.5.3.1 Water Chemistry Calibration Results
To demonstrate the accuracy of the model predictions a comparison was made between the model predictions
and the results of the water quality survey completed by ENSR during the summer of 2007. Comparisons
were made between measured and predicted ammonia, CBOD, and dissolved oxygen concentrations. The
dynamic model simulation was run for 47 days using the measured water level at Station LC7 as the
downstream hydrodynamic boundary condition.
• Ammonia
Predicted ammonia concentrations were in close agreement with measured concentrations made during the
field investigation with the exception of the most upstream boundary concentration (Figures 3-9 and 3-10).
The upstream concentration was not matched because of the fixed boundary concentration of 0.8 mg/L.
However, downstream of this most upstream measured concentration, an appropriate ammonia decay rate
provided reasonable model predictions when compared to all of the other measured concentrations.
Increases in ammonia concentration in the downstream reaches of the model domain near the end of the
simulation are a direct result of the increase in concentrations at the upstream boundary.
• CBODU
Calculated CBODu concentrations indicated a decreasing trend downstream from the upstream boundary at
Station LC1 a, throughout the entire model domain (Figures 3-11 and 3-12).
3.5.3.2 In -Situ Dissolved Oxygen Calibration Results
Dissolved oxygen was the only in situ parameter calibrated and likely the most important ambient water quality
parameter used in the final evaluation of the potential impacts associated with the effluent discharge on
''"`' instream water quality. Comparisons were made between predicted DO concentrations and the vertically
averaged values of concentrations measured during sampling events throughout the duration of the study
period. Predicted DO concentrations were similar to the measured median values throughout most of the
model domain with the exception of at the most upstream stations. This was a direct result of using a value of
DO that was lower than that measured to enable the model to accurately predict downstream concentrations.
Predicted DO concentrations showed a gradual increase throughout most of the model domain from
approximately 5.5 mg/L at the upstream boundary to 8.0 at the downstream boundary (Figures 3-13 and 3-14).

ENSR
Figure 3-9. Predicted and measured NH3 concentrations at Station LC4 during calibration period
0.14
0.12
0.1
J
0.08
44; 0.06
0.04
0.02
0
7/31/07 8/2/07 8/4/07 8/6/07 8/8/07 8/10/07 8/12/07 8/14/07 8/16/07 8/18/07 8/20/07
Figure 3-10. Predicted and measured NH3 concentrations at Station LC5 during calibration period.
/1 I A
Concentration (mg/L)
0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0
A O) co N J
•
•
0.02
—Predicted
■ Measured
0
7/31/07 8/2/07
8/4/07
8/6/07
8/8/07
8/10/07
8/12/07
8/14/07
8/16/07 8/18/07 8/20/07
3-18
January 2008

ENSR
Figure 3-11. Predicted and measured CBODU concentrations at Station LC4 during calibration period
Concentration (mg/L)
N W A Cn m V CO u
•
•
1
Predicted
—
■ Measured
0
,
7/31/07
8/2/07
8/4/07
8/6/07
8/8/07
8/10/07
8/12/07
8/14/07
8/16/07 8/18/07 8/20/07
Figure 3-12. Predicted and measured CBODu concentrations at Station LC5 during calibration period
Concentration (mg/L)
N W A C71 Q) V CO U
•
•
—Predicted
1
• Measured
0
7/31/07
8/2/07
8/4/07
8/6/07
8/8/07
8/10/07
8/12/07
8/14/07
8/16/07 8/18/07 8/20/07
3-19
January 2008

ENSR
Figure 3-13. Predicted and measured DO concentrations at Station LC4 during calibration period
Concentration (mg/L)
cn a) -J co
CJ1 co CT V CT co CT (!
1A/1/4\ pl\fi,
\ljt\rivV/)
•
Predicted
—
4.5
• Measured
4
7/31/07 8/5/07
8/10/07
8/15/07
8/20/07
Figure 3-14. Predicted and measured DO concentrations at Station LC5 during calibration period
O G
Concentration (mg/L)
cn 0) V C
Cfl 61 O) 61 V (1 CO C
•
•
4.5
Predicted
—
• Measured
4
7/31/07 8/5/07 8/10/07 8/15/07 8/20/07
3-20
January 2008

!�1
far, ENSR
3.6 Summary of Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model Calibration
The hydrodynamic and water quality model of Lyle Creek was developed using available data and data
collected during the surveys that occurred from July 5, 2007 through August 20, 2007 to support development
of a hydrodynamic and water quality model. The DHYHYD5/WASP7.2 modeling package was selected for
use in predicting hydrodynamics and water quality in the system because of its dynamic capabilities,
robustness, and regulatory acceptance.
The setup of the hydrodynamic model relied on channel locations taken from USGS 7.5-minute topographic
maps, bed elevations available from the USGS DEM data and from USGS topographic maps, and channel
widths from ENSR field observations. Model boundary conditions included a variable inflow at the upstream
boundary and at the McLin Creek tributary and a variable stage at the downstream boundary to represent
water level fluctuations in the Catawba River. Channel roughness was estimated and, along with bed
elevation and width, was adjusted during model calibration, as predicted flows and stages were compared with
measured flows and stages. The hydrodynamic model was successfully calibrated with only minor adjustment
'"' to the calibration parameters and both dynamic flows and stages closely matched those measured during the
field investigation. Additionally, the dye study conducted during the field investigation was accurately
replicated using the hydrodynamic model and a simulated conservative tracer. Calibration to the measured
travel time added significantly to the level of confidence associated with the model calibration.
The water quality setup and calibration was conducted once the hydrodynamic calibration was complete.
Water quality parameters simulated by the WASP model and included in the model calibration included 1)
NH3, 2) CBODu, and 3) dissolved oxygen. The CBODu concentration was determined by subtracting the
oxygen equivalent for the ammonia concentration in each respective long-term BOD sample analysis. For
each of the individual water quality constituents, the upstream and downstream boundary conditions were
fan specified based on field measurements. During model calibration, adjustments were made to several reaction
rates and atmospheric reaeration to match the predicted instream concentrations to field measurements
collected throughout the study area. Additionally, an area -distributed non -point source of NH3 was added to
the model segments to account for increases in the NH3 concentrations in the absence of any unaccounted for
F.4 point sources entering Lyle Creek.
The calibrated water quality model has been demonstrated to accurately simulate NH3, CBODu, and dissolved
,tz, oxygen concentrations in the Lyle Creek during the survey period, which represents summertime low -flow
conditions. The ammonia reaction rate determined through model calibration was in the range of literature
values and the CBODu reaction rate was in the range of measured values using samples from the Lyle Creek.
The SOD, the rate of NH3 diffusion from the sediments, the rate of TSS settling, and the association of CBODu
rat with TSS was appropriate to bring predicted and measured CBODu concentrations into close agreement.
MIA
The successful calibration of the hydrodynamic and water quality models demonstrates the accuracy of the
DYNHYD/WASP7.2 modeling application for the Lyle Creek system. The DYNHYD hydrodynamic model was
able to accurately simulate the water levels and flow reversals resulting from the variable downstream
boundary conditions, as well as the travel time measured during the dye investigation, demonstrating the
reliability of the hydrodynamic predictions under low flow conditions. The calibrated hydrodynamic model will
likely be accurate over a range of flow regimes as long as the bulk of the flow remains within the banks of the
channel.
3-21 January 2008

fatl ENSR
4.0 Modeling Results
owl The calibrated hydrodynamic and eutrophication model of the Lyle Creek system demonstrates that NH3,
CBODu, and DO concentrations can be simulated with reasonable assurance over the period extending from
July through August of 2007. The calibrated model was used to predict DO concentrations throughout the Lyle
Creek system as described by two discharge scenarios; each scenario describing an increased loading from
the Hickory VW TP to Lyle Creek. During the simulation of the two scenarios, all of the model parameters
initially set and potentially adjusted during model calibration remained unchanged. The same is true for the
upstream and downstream boundary conditions during the simulation period. The only values that changed
Ron for the simulation of the scenarios were the flow from the WWTP and the associated loads of NH3, CBODu,
and DO. The scenario simulations were run over the same period as the calibration period from July 31, 2007
through August 20, 2007.
4.1 Scenario Development
In order to determine the BOD and ammonia discharge limitations, the Lyle Creek DO model was applied at
the critical Lyle Creek 7Q10 flow, the proposed expanded flow from the Catawba VVWTP (i.e., 1.5 MGD and 3.0
MGD), and three prospective treatment levels at the expanded Catawba VW TP. Using these combined
conditions, the Lyle Creek model was used to predict in -stream levels of parameters including DO, BOD,
CBOD, nitrogenous BOD, and ammonia. If water quality downstream of the proposed discharge met
required conditions, the modeled wastewater treatment was deemed sufficient. If, however, downstream
water quality did not meet required conditions, then additional wastewater treatment may be needed or,
alternatively, design flows may be reduced. For the proposed expanded discharge in Lyle Creek, background
levels of CBOD, nitrogenous BOD, and DO must be reached prior to the Catawba River/Lake Norman.
ENSR ran the Lyle Creek DO model assuming the phased expansion with design treatment (Le., estimated
BOD and ammonia discharge concentrations), and other standard limitations used by the NCDWQ. The
scenarios represented a significant increase over the flow rate and the loadings applied to the model from the
WWTP during the calibration period. The flow increased from an average of 0.024 MGD during the calibration
period to 3.0 MGD during Scenario #1. Correspondingly, the BOD5 increased from an average of 2.7 mg/L,
the NH3 increased from an average of 0.186 mg/L, and the DO decreased from an average of 5.2 mg/L.
Scenario #1 represents the quality of wastewater discharged from the plant after receiving tertiary treatment
and Scenario #2 represents the quality of wastewater discharged from the plant after receiving advanced
,,,, secondary treatment. Scenario #3 is a modification of Scenario #1 that incorporates an effluent DO
concentration of 6 mg/L as opposed to 5 mg/L. The following describes the three scenario simulations that
were run using the calibrated model of the Lyle Creek system.
pal
Scenario #1: Final Flow with Limits Consistent with Tertiary Treatment
fo, • Increase discharge flow = 3.0 MGD
• BOD5 = 5 mg/L
'I' • Ammonia = 2 mg/L
• TSS = 30 mg/L
• Effluent DO = 5.0 mg/L
4-1
January 2008

Scenario #2: Final Flow with Limits Consistent with Advanced Secondary Treatment
• Increase discharge flow = 3.0 MGD
FIR • BOD5 =15mg/L
• Ammonia = 4 mg/L
• TSS = 30 mg/L
• Effluent DO = 5.0 mg/L
twl
ENSR
Scenario #3: Final Flow with Limits Consistent with Tertiary Treatment and Effluent Aeration (Modification of
Scenario #1)
• Increase discharge flow = 3.0 MGD
rim
• BOD5 = 5 mg/L
r�
• Ammonia = 2 mg/L
• TSS = 30 mg/L
6•A • Effluent DO = 6.0 mg/L
rag
4.2 Scenario Predictions
The calibrated eutrophication model of Lyle Creek was used to predict DO concentrations throughout the
ram model domain under the three treatment scenarios. The predictions indicate that Scenario #1 and Scenario #2
both result in lower DO concentrations than during the calibration simulation and fell below the 5.0 mg/L DO
ambient water quality criterion (Figure 4-1). Additionally, the simulations indicate that the predicted DO
concentrations for Scenario #1, the tertiary treatment, are only moderately greater than the predicted DO
concentrations for Scenario #2, the advanced secondary treatment. The results of the Scenario #3 simulation,
which is a modified version of Scenario #1, where the effluent DO concentration is 6 mg/L rather than 5 mg/L,
indicates that predicted DO concentrations were greater than 5 mg/L throughout the entire model domain.
Therefore, the POW/ discharge represented by Scenario #3 meets instream water quality requirements as
defined by the minimum DO limit of 5 mg/L.
Pal
fowl
4-2
January 2008

ENSR
Figure 4-1. Predicted DO concentrations at Station LC7; calibrated Scenarios #1 - #3
7.5
— Calibration
Scenario 1
—Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Concentration (m gIL)
(71 Q)
01 U1 U1 6) U1
k
?
I
1�
I
I�,(' ,,
r
l
4`Ih'y\x,
1
I
.1
,
jli
�1
W1,A
'IA
'
I
�^
h
7/31/07 8/2/07 8/4/07 8/6/07 8/8/07 8/10/07 8/12/07 8/14/07 8/16/07 8/18/07 8/20/07
4.3 Evaluation of Treatment Options
Proposed expansion to 3.0 MGD at the Catawba WWTP is a viable option under Scenario #3 where effluent
DO concentrations are maintained at a minimum level of 6.0 mg/L. Further, proposed BOD5 and NH3 effluent
concentrations will need to be 5 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively. Under such conditions, DO concentrations in
Lyle Creek modeled under the August 2007 conditions do not reach levels below the NC standard of 5 mg/L.
'-• It may be feasible to consider seasonal aeration as the modeled conditions represent worst -case summertime
conditions with maximum seasonal temperatures and minimal DO saturations.
4-3
January 2008

POI
,., ENSR
rml
Poi
ran
1
poll
MI
rgal
Pal
MEI
5.0 References
Ambrose, R.B., Wool, T.A., and J.L. Martin. 1993. The Dynamic Estuary Model Hydrodynamics Program,
DYNHD5. Athens, GA.
Bowie, G.L., Mills, W.B., Porcelia, D.B., Campbell, C.L., Pagenkopf, J.R., Rupp, G.L., Johnson, K.M., Chan,
P.W.H. and S.A. Gherini. 1985. Rates, Constants, and Kinetic Formulations in Water Quality Modeling.
Athens, GA.
NC Division of Environmental Management. (NC DEM). 1990. Wasteload Allocation Standard Operating
Procedures Manual.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR). 2005. Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit
Development. NPDES No. NC0025542.
Thomann, R.V. and J.A. Mueller, 1987. Principles of Surface Water Modeling and Control. Harper Collins
Publishers Inc. 644 pages.
Wool, T.A., Ambrose, R.B., Martin, J.L., and E.A. Comer. 2006. Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program.
Atlanta, GA.
5-1
January 2008
rz1

1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1
Appendix B-1. LC1A and MC1 Cross -Sections and Flow
Level logger
ced here
+ 5-Jul -F 10-Jul -A- 1-Aug
LC1A Cross Sections
- 9-Aug AC16-Aug -II- 20-Aug
0
5
10
Width (feet)
15 20
25
-�5-Jul
-A-11-Jul
--15-Aug
- m-10-Jul
-x-31-Jul
- f- 20-Aug
0
0
0.5
m 1
d 2
2.5
3
5
MC1 Cross Sections
Width (feet)
10 15 20
25
30
35
•
!
`x•
= •i
♦
x
x
i ♦
♦ ii ♦. ♦ i
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
Date
Discharge (cfs)
07/05/07
9.00
07/10/07
8.26
08/01/07
5.74
08/09/07
3.94
08/16/07
1.92
08/20/07
3.52
Date
Discharge (cfs)
07/05/07
5.05
07/10/07
5.54
07/11/07
9.73
07/31/07
5.40
08/15/07
9.21
08/20/07
1.16

Appendix B-2. LC2 and LC4 Cross -Sections and Flow
LC2 Cross Section
Width (ft)
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
50
6J
ELevel logger
placed here
70
Date
Discharge (cfs)
08/20/07
4.8
t6 Jul f 11-Jul
-4-1-Aug 20-Aug
0
10
20
LC4 Cross Sections
Width (feet)
30 40 50 60
70
80
90
100
Unable to calculate due to reversing flows
Date
Discharge (cfs)
07/06/07
N/A*
07/11/07
N/A*
08/01/07
N/A*
08/20/07
N/A*

1 1 ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 1
Appendix B-3. LC5 and LC7 Cross -Sections and Flow
-6-Jul f 11-Jul
—&-1-Aug
LC5 Cross Sections
Leve
—F20-Aug
place
Width (feet)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
90 100
Depth (feet)
n cn .A w NJ 1 c
•
ire
V
• x x
I
x X x x ■
•
-
• • •x x• •
•
— 6-Jul
f 11-Jul
--A-1-Aug —x-20-Aug
d
a►
0
8
10
0
LC7 Cross Sections
Width (feet)
20 40 60 80 100
logger
d here
Date
Discharge (cfs)
07/11/07
N/A*
08/01/07
N/A*
08/20/07
N/A*
Level logger
placed here
*Unable to calculate due to reversing flows
Date
Discharge (cfs)
07/11/07
N/A*
08/01/07
N/A*
08/20/07
N/A*

1
8
7
6
5
es
0
4
3
2
1
0
Lyle Creek Dye Study
1
■
I
- LC4
f LC5
—A— LC6a1
•
•I
4L.
\A'r%
0 00 200 300 AO 500 600 00 800 90 000 00 200 300 AO 500 500 00
Time (mins)

0
08/09/07 Lyle Creek Dye Study at LC4
Time

E 5
0
a 4
w
v° 3
08/09/07 - 08/10/07 Lyle Creek Dye Study at LC5
0 I
r
N N
u ▪ '- co in • - coin
N CO CO CO V' V' V Le)
I I i I f l l l l l l l l l
I'- • CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO M Cr)
✓ O N V' 0 N V' O N V' O N V 0 CO 0 CO O Cr) O CO O L() N t[) N
Lt) CO C0 CO N I- � CO CO CO O) C) O O O — — CV N CO CO O O N
N N N N N N N N O O O ▪ O O
Time

1 i l i 1 I 1 1 1 1 l 1 1
3.5
2.5
a
a
0
c
:6
0
U
0.5
08/09/07 - 08/10/07 Lyle Creek Dye Study at LC6a1

3.5
08/10/07 Lyle Creek Dye Study
2.5 -
LC5
—f— LC6a1
0.5 -
0
0000
0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200
Time

1
Appendix 13-1. Hickory WLA Sample Results July 5, 2007
River Creek ID
Lyle Creek
McClin Creek
Hickory
Sample Location ID
At Hwy 70
at Milo 1.8
downstream of
McLin Creek
Upstream of Hwy
10
Upstream of
Hickory V NlTP
outfall
Downstream of
Hickory WWTP
outfall
At Mile 0.3
upstream of
Catawba River
Near confluence
°f Catawba River
At Old Catawba
Road
Pre -chlorination
Sample ID
LC1A-070507
LC2-070507
LC3-070507
LC4-070507
LC5-070507
LC6-070507
LC7-070507
MC1-070507
EFFI-070507
Lab Analysis (mg7L unless otherwise
noted)
Method
Depth Qualifier
Time
2:33 PM
10:59 AM
10:49 AM
10:39 AM
10:25 AM
10:15 AM
10:00 AM
1:29 PM
11:40 AM
Temperature (°C)
Surface
23.24
21.46
21.91
21.96
22.36
22.4
23.82
22.07
26.22
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.31
22.32
22.4
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
21.34
21.93
21.96
22.31
22.31
22.38
NA
NA
Conductivity (pStan)
Surface
110
106
104
104
105
110
89
92
469
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
105
109
107
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
103
105
107
106
109
106
NA
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
Surface
9.72
7.36
7.27
7.13
7.18
7.79
6.97
9.38
2.96
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.23
7.65
7
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
7.23
7.07
7.13
7.06
7.63
7.01
NA
NA
pH
Surface
7.78
7.44
7.68
7.74
7.94
7.78
8.07
5.7
7.35
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.14
6.68
5.76
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
6.73
6.93
7.19
7.33
6.92
6.68
NA
NA
Ammonia
SM4500-NH3 H
Surface
0.056
NA
NA
0.077
0.086
NA
0.086
0.06
0.52
BOD-5
SM5210C
Surface
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Carbonaceous BOD-5
SM5210 B
Surface
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Chlorophyll a (pslcm)
SM10200 H
Surface
1.1
NA
NA
1.1
1.1
NA
2.1
2.1
NA
Nitrate + Nitrite as N
SM4500-NO3 F
Surface
0.58
NA
NA
0.63
0.71
NA
0.58
0.68
23
Total Phosphorous _
SM4500-PE
Surface
0.14
NA
NA
0.13
0.13
NA
0.12
0.12
2.1
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
351.2
Surface
0.16 J
NA
NA
0.22 J
0.22 J
NA
0.5 U
0.5 U
1.1
Total Suspended Solids
SM2540-D
Surface
7.6
NA
NA
13
16
NA
14
8
21
turbidity (NTU)
180.1
Surface
12
NA
NA
19
19
NA
16
10
15
Notes:
Field parameters of temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and pH are listed prior to laboratory analyses. Field parameters recorded at surface, mid -depth and bottom depending upon water depth. Deeper waters (e.g.. LC7) have readings at surface,
mid -depth, and bottom. Shallower waters (e.g., MC1) have readings at the surface only.
All samples were taken mid -channel.
NA = Not analyzed
Data
J= Estimated qualifiers:
J = value between reporting limit and MDL
U = Below Reporting Limit
R = Quality Control indicates That the data are unusable.

Appendix D-2. Hickory WLA Sample Results July 10, 2007
River l Creek ID
Lyle Creek
McClin Creek
Hickory WWTP
Sample Location ID
At Hwy 70
at Mlle 1.8
downstream of
McLin Creek
Upstream of Hwy
10
Upstream of
Hickory WWTP
outfall
Duplicate -
Upstream of
Hickory WWTP
outfall
Downstream of
Hickory WWTP
outfall
At Mlle 0.3
upstream of
Catawba River
Near confluence of
Catawba River
At Old Catawba
Road
Pre chlorination
Sample ID
LC1A-071007
LC2-071007
LC3-071007
LC4-071007
LC4D-071007
LC5-071007
LC6-071007
LC7-071007
MC1-071007
EFF1-070507
Lab Analysis (mg1L unless
otherwise noted)
Method
Depth Qualifier
Time
1:20 PM
10:52 AM
10:42 AM
10:25 AM
10:30 AM
10:15 AM
10:06 AM
9:57 AM
12:30 PM 11:55 AM
Temperature ('C)
Surface
24.37
23.57
23.59
24.4
NA
24.75
24.91
25.31
23.47
26.81
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.4
24.62
24.96
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
23.47
23.41
24.25
NA
24.39
24.82
24.87
NA
NA
Conductivity (palm)
Surface
118
114
113
117
NA
120
119
119
104
78.3
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
115
118
118
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
113
113
116
NA
118
117
117
NA
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
Surface
9.71
7,08
6.92
7.01
NA
7.5
7.78
6.65
9.33
6.67
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7,14
7.63
6.41
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
6.89
6.68
6.87
NA
671
6.94
6.38
NA
NA
pH
Surface
6.55
7.3
6.37
5.89
NA
7.2
7.33
7.12
7.15
7.1
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.37
5.2
6.11
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
4.42
5.63
5.18
NA
5.44
5
6.21
NA
NA
Ammonia
SM4500-NH3 H
Surface
0.052
NA
NA
0.055
0.066
0.056
NA
0.083
0.06
0.063
BOO. 5
5M5210 C
Surface
4.1 U
NA
NA
4,1 U
4,1 U
4.1 U
NA
4.1 U
12
4.1 U
BOO. 30
SM5210 C
Surface
11
NA
NA
6.9
9.4
6.5
NA
8.5
9.6
7
Carbonaceous BOD - 5
SM5210 B
Surface
4.1 U
NA
NA
4.1 U
4.1 U
4.1 U
NA
4.1 U
4.1 U
4.1 U
Chlorophyll a(ps/cm)
SM10200 H
Surface
0.5
NA
NA
0.5
0.5
0.5
NA
0.5
0.5
NA
Nitrate + Nitrite as N
SM4500•NO3 F
Surface
0.58
NA
NA
0.54
0.54
0.61
NA
0.67
0.86
24
Total Phosphorous
SM4500-PE
Surface
0.13
NA
NA
0.16
0.16
0.12
NA
0.16
0.28
2.6
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
351.2
Surface
0.19 J
NA
NA
0.31 J
0.15 J
0.3 J
NA
0.36 J
0.16 J
0.45 J
Total Suspended Solids
SM2540•D
Surface
10
NA
NA
15
16
13
NA
17
10
6.6
Turblday (NTU)
180. 1
Surface
7
NA
NA
6.8
7.2
1 6.8
NA
6.8
6.7
0.96
Notes:
Field parameters of Temperature, conductwly, dissolved oxygen and pH are listed poor to labora ory analyses. Field parameters recorded at surface, mid -depth and bottom depending upon water depth. Deeper waters (e.g., LC7) have readings at surface,
mid -depth. and bottom. Shallower waters (e.g. . MCI) have readings al the surface only.
All samples were taken mid -channel.
NA = Not analyzed
Data qualifiers:
J = Estimated value between reporting limit and MDL
U = Below Reporting Lima
R = Quality Control Indicates that the data are unusable.

Appendix D-3. Hickory WLA Sample Results July 31, 2007
River / Creek ID
Lylo Creek
McClin Creek
Hickory WWTP
Sample Location ID
At Hwy 70
at Mile 1.8
downstream of
McLin Creek
Upstroam of Hwy
10
Upstroam of
Hickory WWTP
oulfall
Duplicate -
Upstream of
Hickory WWTP
oullall
Downstream of
Hickory WWTP
outfall
At Milo 0.3
upstream of
Catawba River
Near confluence of
Catawba River
At Old Catawba
Road
Pre -chlorination
Sample ID
LC2-071007
LC34171007
LC4-071007
LC4D-071007
LC5-071007
LC6-071007
LC7-071007
MC1-071007
EFFI-070507
Lab Analysis (mg/L unless
otherwise noted)
Method
Depth QualifierLC1A-071007
Time
238 PM
03d
43 Al 0044
006 Al
000 Al
001
0 Al 6 Al
050 Al
Temperature (-C)
Surface
23.04
22.23
22.27
22.7
NA
22.4
23.3 25.06
2BB
273
Mid4epth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.67 23.04
23
9 NA
NA
Bottom
NA
22.2
22.5
22.67
NA
22.68
23.06
23.5
NA
NA
Conductivity h slcre)
_
Surface
21
1
4 1
NA
3
3
7
00
530
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3 C
9
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
0
3
3
NA 3
0
08
NA
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
Surface
74
6.7
6.7
5.22
NA 634
6.4
5.6
A
6.01
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.1
5.5 567
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
6.27
6.24
6.29
NA
6.27
6.33
5.64
NA
pH
Surface
6.8
722
722
725
NA
729 109
b4
6.82
A6
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
726
a A<
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
A
722
722
NA
729 A
721
NA
NA
/amania
SM600-NH3 H
Surface
0.036 J
NA
NA
0.053
0.056
0.05
NA
0.058
0.036 J
7.911 J
BOD-5
SM520B
Surface
2 U
NA
NA
2 U
2 U
2 U
NA
2.8
2 U
2 U
Carbonaceous BOD - 5
SM520 B
Surface
91
NA
NA
2 U
2.6
2 U
NA
1
2 U 2
6
Chlorophyll a/L)
6.0
Surface
0.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
VA N4
0.7
NA
Hardness
SM230 C
Surface
34
NA
NA
34
NA
33
NA
7 29
31
Nitrate Nitrite as N
SM600-NO3 F
Surface
0.66
NA
NA
0.51
0.53
0.57
NA
0.21 (.58
20
Total Phosphorous
SM400-PE
Surface
0.2
NA
NA
0.1
0.2 0.2
NA 0.05
0.2
2.4
Total Mehl Nitrogen
352
Surface
0.5 U
NA
NA
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
NA
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.7,1
Total Suspended Solids
SM250-D
Surface
8.7
NA
NA
A
8.8
91
NA
8
t
Turbidity NTU)
30.1
Surface
6.7
NA
NA
91
6.1 6.2 NA 3.3 5.
j 2
Notes:
Field parameters of temperature, con0uc6vity, dissolved oxygen and pH are •sled prior to laboratory analyses Field parameters recorded at surface, mid -depth and bottom depending upon water depth. Deeper waters 8.g.. LCyrave readings at surface,
mid -depth. and bottom. Shallower waters 8.g.. MC) have readings at the surface only.
Asamples were taken mid -channel.
NPNot analyed
Data qualifiers:
J 0)stimated value between reporting limit and MDL
U 43elow Reporting Limit
R 4Iality Control indicates that the data are unusable.

Appendix D-4. Hickory WLA Sample Results August 1, 2007
River / Crook ID
Lylo Crook
McClin Creok
Hickory WWTP
Sample Location ID
At Hwy 70
at Milo 1.8
downstream of
McLin Crook
Upstream of Hwy
10
Upstream of
Hickory WWTP
outtall
Duplicate
Upstream
Hickory
WWTP
outtall
-
of
Downstream of
Hickory WWTP
outtall
Al Milo 0.3
upstream of
Catawba River
Near confluence of
Catawba River
Al Old Catawba
Road
Pro -chlorination
Samplo ID
LC1A-071007
LC2-071007
LC3-071007
LC4-071007
LC40-071007
LC5-071007
LC6-071007
LC7-071007
MC1-071007
EFF1-070507
Lab Analysis (mAAL unless
otherwise noted)
Method
Depth Qualifier
Time
NA
NA
NA
Or7M
07PM 03
PM NA
255 PM
NA
NA
Temperature ('C)
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
NA
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
NA
Bottom
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
NA
Conductivity a scan)
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
NA
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
NA
Bottom
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
NA
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
NA
Bottom
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
NA
pH
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
NA
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
NA
Bottom
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
NA
7omonia
SM600-NH3H
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
JA N1
NA
NA
BOO - 5
SM520 B
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
JA NA
NA
NA
Carbonaceous BOD -5
SM520 B
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4JA NA
NA
NA
Chbrophyll aWL)
6.0
Surface
NA
NA
NA
0.5
0.6
0.5
NA
22.6
NA
NA
Hardness
SM230 C
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
N NA
NA
Nitrate Nieite as N
SM600-NO3 F
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
rIA N
N NA
NA
Total Phosphorous
SM600-PE
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4A N
NA
NA
Total Mehl Nitrogen
35.12
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
N NA
NA
Total Suspended Solos
SM250-D
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N:,
NA
NA
Turbmty NTU)
80.1
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
JA N
\ NA
NA
NA
Notes:
Field parameters of temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and pH are isled prior to laboratory analyses. Field parameters recorded al surface, mid -depth and bottom depending upon water depth. Deeper waters e.g.. LC7rave readings at surface,
mid -depth, and bottom. Shallower waters e.g., MC) have readings at the surface only.
hsamples were taken mid -channel.
WNW analyed
Data qualifiers:
J Estimated value between reporting limit and MDL
U 43ebw Reporting Limn
R SBi lity Control indicates that the data are unusable.

Appendix D-5. Hickory WLA Sample Results August 15, 2007
River f Crook ID
Lyle Creek
McClin Creek
Hickory WWTP
Sample Location ID
At Hwy 70
at Milo 1.8
downstream of
McLIn Crook
Upstream of Hwy
10
Upstream of
Hickory WWTP
outfall
Duplicate -
Upstream of
Hickory WWTP
outfall
Downstream of
Hickory WWTP
outfall
At Mile 0.3
upstream of
Catawba River
Near confluence of
Catawba River
Al Old Catawba
Road
Pre -chlorination
Sample ID
LC1A-071007
LC2-071007
LC3-071007
LC4-071007
LC4D-071007
LC5-071007
LC6-071007
LC7-071007
MC1-071007
EFF1-070507
Lab Analysis (mg1L unless
otherwise noted)
Method
Depth Qualifier
Tune
355 PM
S6 PM
So PM
5 PM
20 PM C
5 PM 252
PM 26 P
300 PN
2S PM
Temperature (C)
Surface
25.6
241
25.26
26.06
NA
26.58
28.59
2914
25.6 3C.34
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A NA
NA
Bottom
NA
23.9
NA
NA
NA
NA 2..8
2..4
NA
NA
Conductivity 0 stun)
Surface
5
07
6.31
5
NA 7
5
67
1
0
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A NA
NA
Bottom
NA
07
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
Surface
8.68
A3
77
6.8
NA
722
Al
7 77
5.23
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A NA
NA
Bottom
NA
721
NA
NA
NA
NA 5
9 6.
7 Ni
NA
pH
Surface
A
724
2
23
VA 27
231
6.9
728
6.9
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A NA
NA
Bottom
NA
723
NA
NA
NA
NA
- A:
NA
NA
yomonia
SM11500.NH3 H
Surface
0.041
i NA
NA
0.0341
0.2 (.038
J
NA 0.
J 0.2
BOD - 5
SM520 B
Surface
_
42 U
NA
NA
2.3
3.6
3.1
NA
5.3
2 U
2 U
Carbonaceous BOD - 5
SM520 B
Surface
41
NA
NA
4t
Y 2.3
N
• 6
3
2.3
Chlorophyll a((L)
5.0
Surface
R
NA
NA
R
R
R
NA
R
R
NA
Hardness
SM230 C
Surface
35
NA
NA
36
37
37
NA
20
32
30
Nitrate +Jnnte as N
SM000-NO3 F
Surface
0.56
NA
NA
0.5
0.4
04
A 0.2
0.54
23
Total Phosphorous
SM500-PE
Surface
0.1
NA
NA
0.4 0.4
05
N •
0.04
0.3
2.6
Total)Odahl Nitrogen
354
Surface
0.211
NA
NA
0.41
0.36 J
0.26 J
NA
0.5 U
0.291 0
8
Total Suspended Solids
SM250-D
Surface
5.2
NA
NA
A
8.2
1
NA
5.8
6.2
6.2
Iurbdity NIU)
50.1
Surface
5.3
NA
NA
A
72
8.7
A 3.; 8.3 :3
Notes:
Field parameters of temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and pH are fisted prior to laboratory analyses. Field parameters recorded al surface. mid -depth and bottom depending upon water depth. Deeper waters e.g.. LCIiave readings at surface.
mid -depth, and bottom. Shallower waters 0.g.. MClhave readings al the surface only.
*samples were taken mid -channel.
NANot analyed
Data qualifiers:
J £sbmated value between reporting limn and MOL
U 41olow Reporting Limn
R 40rhty Control indicates that the data are unusable.

Appendix 0-0. Hickory WLA Samplo Rasults August 20, 2007
Riverl Creek ID
Lylo Crook
McClin Creek
Hickory WWTP
Samplo Location ID
Al Hwy 70
at Milo 1.8
downstream of
Mcl.in Crook
Upslroam of Hwy
10
eam of
Upstream
Hickory WWTP
outfall
-
Upstream of
Hickory WW P
outfa8
Downstream of
Hickory WWTP
omtall
At Milo 0.3
upstream of
Catawba River
Near confluence of
Catawba River
At Old Catawba
Road
Pro -chlorination
Sample ID
LC2-071007
LC3-071007
LC4-071007
LC4D-071007
LC5-071007
LC6-071007
LC7-071007
MC1-071007
EFF1-070507
Lab Analysis (mg(_ unless
olhorwiso noted)
Method
Depth QualifierLC1A-071007
Time
20 PM
35 PM
250 PM
22 PM
26 PM
235 PM
NA 2
0 PM _ 233'M
NA
Temperature CC)
Surface
25.6
26.9
25.9
272
NA 2Z
NA
275
2E5
NA
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA 26
2 NA
NA
Bottom
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA 26.
38
NA NA
Conductivity (i stun)
Surface
4
36
36
4
VA 55
NA
4
22
NA
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA 0
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA 0
NA
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
Surface
8.32
935
8.35
8.02
NA
A
NA 0.59
75
NA
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA 23
NA
NA
Bottom
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA 732
NA
NA
pH
Surface
z
58
A
7d
\lA A
NA
7d
726
NA
Mid -depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ti NA
NA
Bottom
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA 52
N
k NA
#rrnonia
SM600-NH3 H
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
JA N,'\
NA
NA
BOD-5
SM5208
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
Carbonaceous BOO - 5
SM520 B
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IA NA
NA
NA
Chlorophyll a 011.)
6.0
Surface
0.9
NA
NA
2.6
2.9
2.3
NA EA
C.9
NA
Hardness
SM230C
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
Nitrate +lase as N
SM600-NO3 F
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
JA N
1 NA
NA
Total Phosphorous
SM600-PE
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
JA N
1 NA
NA
Total pldahl Nitrogen
352
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA N
r NA
NA
Total Suspended Solids
SM250-D
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
JA N
\ NA
NA
i timidity N LU)
60.1
Surface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1A NA NA
NA
NA
Notes:
Field parameters of temperature. conductivity, dissolved oxygen and pH are listed pnor to laboratory analyses. Field parameters recorded at surface, mid -depth and bottom depending upon water depth. Deeper waters e.g., LC Save readings at surface,
middepth, and bottom. Shallower waters e.g., MC) have readings at the surface only.
tksample5 were taken mid -channel.
NAN01 analyed
Data qualifiers:
J Estimated value between reporting Ina and MDL
U 43e2ow Reporting Limit
R A2ality Control indicates that the data are unusable.

Appendix E
Modeling Input Files
El — DYNHYD5 Calibration Inputs
E2 — WASP7.2 Calibration Inputs
r9,
January 2008

Appendix E-1. DYNHYDS_HYDRO_CALIB.txt
M9 Dynamic hydrologic simulation of Lyle Creek in Catawba, NC 7/31/2007 - 8/20/2007
variable and upstream and lateral flow and variable downstream head boundaries
***** PROGRAM CONTROL DATA *****************************************************
184 183 0 1 5 1 0 0 21 0 0 0.0 1 1 2000 0 0
***** PRINTOUT CONTROL DATA ****************************************************
ran
0.0 1.000 6
1 5 10 15 20 25
***** SUMMARY CONTROL DATA *********************************************** *
1 2 0 0 1.0 5 5
r� ***** JUNCTION DATA *******************************************************
1 237.710 230.00 237.413 1 0 0 0 0 0
2 237.610 230.00 237.313 1 2 0 0 0 0
3 237.366 230.00 237.066 2 3 0 0 0 0
m' 4 237.122 230.00 236.819 3 4 0 0 0 0
5 236.878 230.00 236.571 4 5 0 0 0 0
6 236.633 240.00 236.324 5 6 0 0 0 0
7 236.389 240.00 236.077 6 7 0 0 0 0
mn 8 236.145 240.00 235.830 7 8 0 0 0 0
9 235.901 240.00 235.582 8 9 0 0 0 0
10 235.657 240.00 235.335 9 10 0 0 0 0
11 235.412 250.00 235.088 10 11 0 0 0 0
M9 12 235.168 250.00 234.841 11 12 0 0 0 0
13 234.924 250.00 234.593 12 13 0 0 0 0
14 234.680 250.00 234.346 13 14 0 0 0 0
15 234.435 260.00 234.099 14 15 0 0 0 0
16 234.191 260.00 233.851 15 16 0 0 0 0
17 233.947 260.00 233.604 16 17 0 0 0 0
18 233.703 260.00 233.357 17 18 0 0 0 0
19 233.459 260.00 233.110 18 19 0 0 0 0
20 233.214 270.00 232.862 19 20 0 0 0 0
PE' 21 232.970 270.00 232.615 20 21 0 0 0 0
22 232.787 130.00 232.430 21 22 0 0 0 0
23 232.665 140.00 232.306 22 23 0 0 0 0
24 232.543 140.00 232.182 23 24 0 0 0 0
mm 25 232.421 140.00 232.059 24 25 0 0 0 0
26 232.299 140.00 231.935 25 26 0 0 0 0
27 232.176 140.00 231.812 26 27 0 0 0 0
28 232.054 140.00 231.688 27 28 0 0 0 0
mn 29 231.932 140.00 231.564 28 29 0 0 0 0
30 231.810 140.00 231.441 29 30 0 0 0 0
31 231.688 140.00 231.317 30 31 0 0 0 0
32 231.566 140.00 231.193 31 32 0 0 0 0
33 231.444 140.00 231.070 32 33 0 0 0 0
mm 34 231.322 140.00 230.946 33 34 0 0 0 0
35 231.200 140.00 230.822 34 35 0 0 0 0
36 231.077 140.00 230.699 35 36 0 0 0 0
37 230.955 140.00 230.575 36 37 0 0 0 0
M9 38 230.833 140.00 230.452 37 38 0 0 0 0
39 230.711 140.00 230.328 38 39 0 0 0 0
40 230.589 140.00 230.204 39 40 0 0 0 0
41 230.467 140.00 230.081 40 41 0 0 0 0
mn 42 230.406 150.00 230.018 41 42 0 0 0 0
43 230.406 150.00 230.017 42 43 0 0 0 0
44 230.406 150.00 230.015 43 44 0 0 0 0
45 230.406 150.00 230.014 44 45 0 0 0 0
ri 46 230.406 150.00 230.012 45 46 0 0 0 0
47 230.406 150.00 230.011 46 47 0 0 0 0
48 230.406 150.00 230.009 47 48 0 0 0 0
49 230.406 150.00 230.007 48 49 0 0 0 0
MR50 230.406 150.00 230.006 49 50 0 0 0 0
51 230.406 150.00 230.004 50 51 0 0 0 0
52 230.406 150.00 230.003 51 52 0 0 0 0
53 230.406 150.00 230.001 52 53 0 0 0 0
rq
Page 1

Appendix E-1. DYNHYDS_HYDRO_CALIB.txt
mn 54 230.406 150.00 230.000 53 54 0 0 0 0
55 230.406 150.00 229.998 54 55 0 0 0 0
56 230.406 150.00 229.997 55 56 0 0 0 0
57 230.406 150.00 229.995 56 57 0 0 0 0
mg 58 230.406 150.00 229.994 57 58 0 0 0 0
59 230.406 150.00 229.992 58 59 0 0 0 0
60 230.406 160.00 229.991 59 60 0 0 0 0
61 230.406 160.00 229.989 60 61 0 0 0 0
62 230.406 310.00 229.987 61 62 0 0 0 0
RR
63 230.406 320.00 229.984 62 63 0 0 0 0
64 230.406 320.00 229.981 63 64 0 0 0 0
65 230.406 320.00 229.978 64 65 0 0 0 0
66 230.406 320.00 229.975 65 66 0 0 0 0
m' 67 230.406 320.00 229.972 66 67 0 0 0 0
68 230.406 330.00 229.969 67 68 0 0 0 0
69 230.406 330.00 229.966 68 69 0 0 0 0
70 230.406 330.00 229.962 69 70 0 0 0 0
pm 71 230.406 330.00 229.959 70 71 0 0 0 0
72 230.406 330.00 229.956 71 72 0 0 0 0
73 230.406 340.00 229.953 72 73 0 0 0 0
74 230.406 340.00 229.950 73 74 0 0 0 0
75 230.406 340.00 229.947 74 75 0 0 0 0
76 230.406 340.00 229.944 75 76 0 0 0 0
77 230.406 340.00 229.941 76 77 0 0 0 0
78 230.406 350.00 229.938 77 78 0 0 0 0
79 230.406 350.00 229.935 78 79 0 0 0 0
80 230.406 350.00 229.932 79 80 0 0 0 0
81 230.406 350.00 229.929 80 81 0 0 0 0
82 230.406 360.00 229.926 81 82 0 0 0 0
83 230.406 360.00 229.923 82 83 0 0 0 0
'm 84 230.406 360.00 229.920 83 84 0 0 0 0
85 230.406 360.00 229.917 84 85 0 0 0 0
86 230.406 360.00 229.914 85 86 0 0 0 0
87 230.406 370.00 229.911 86 87 0 0 0 0
p+ 88 230.406 370.00 229.908 87 88 0 0 0 0
89 230.406 370.00 229.905 88 89 0 0 0 0
90 230.406 370.00 229.902 89 90 0 0 0 0
91 230.406 370.00 229.898 90 91 0 0 0 0
M, 92 230.406 380.00 229.895 91 92 0 0 0 0
93 230.406 380.00 229.892 92 93 0 0 0 0
94 230.406 380.00 229.889 93 94 0 0 0 0
95 230.406 380.00 229.886 94 95 0 0 0 0
96 230.406 390.00 229.883 95 96 0 0 0 0
MR
97 230.406 390.00 229.880 96 97 0 0 0 0
98 230.406 390.00 229.877 97 98 0 0 0 0
99 230.406 390.00 229.874 98 99 0 0 0 0
100 230.406 390.00 229.871 99 100 0 0 0 0
m' 101 230.406 400.00 229.868 100 101 0 0 0 0
102 230.406 400.00 229.865 101 102 0 0 0 0
103 230.406 400.00 229.862 102 103 0 0 0 0
104 230.406 400.00 229.859 103 104 0 0 0 0
ral 105 230.406 400.00 229.856 104 105 0 0 0 0
106 230.406 410.00 229.853 105 106 0 0 0 0
107 230.406 410.00 229.850 106 107 0 0 0 0
108 230.406 410.00 229.847 107 108 0 0 0 0
_ 109 230.406 410.00 229.844 108 109 0 0 0 0
110 230.406 420.00 229.841 109 110 0 0 0 0
111 230.406 420.00 229.838 110 111 0 0 0 0
112 230.406 420.00 229.834 111 112 0 0 0 0
113 230.406 420.00 229.831 112 113 0 0 0 0
1.1
114 230.406 420.00 229.828 113 114 0 0 0 0
115 230.406 430.00 229.825 114 115 0 0 0 0
116 230.406 430.00 229.822 115 116 0 0 0 0
Page 2

Appendix E-1. DYNHYD5_HYDRO_CALIB.txt
MR 117 230.406 430.00 229.819 116 117 0 0 0 0
118 230.406 430.00 229.816 117 118 0 0 0 0
119 230.406 430.00 229.813 118 119 0 0 0 0
120 230.406 440.00 229.810 119 120 0 0 0 0
MR 121 230.406 440.00 229.807 120 121 0 0 0 0
122 230.406 440.00 229.804 121 122 0 0 0 0
123 230.406 440.00 229.801 122 123 0 0 0 0
124 230.406 450.00 229.798 123 124 0 0 0 0
125 230.406 450.00 229.795 124 125 0 0 0 0
126 230.406 450.00 229.792 125 126 0 0 0 0
127 230.406 450.00 229.789 126 127 0 0 0 0
128 230.406 460.00 229.786 127 128 0 0 0 0
129 230.406 470.00 229.784 128 129 0 0 0 0
130 230.406 480.00 229.782 129 130 0 0 0 0
131 230.406 490.00 229.780 130 131 0 0 0 0
132 230.406 510.00 229.778 131 132 0 0 0 0
133 230.406 520.00 229.776 132 133 0 0 0 0
MR 134 230.406 530.00 229.774 133 134 0 0 0 0
135 230.406 540.00 229.772 134 135 0 0 0 0
136 230.406 550.00 229.770 135 136 0 0 0 0
137 230.406 560.00 229.768 136 137 0 0 0 0
,n, 138 230.406 570.00 229.766 137 138 0 0 0 0
139 230.406 590.00 229.764 138 139 0 0 0 0
140 230.406 600.00 229.762 139 140 0 0 0 0
141 230.406 610.00 229.760 140 141 0 0 0 0
142 230.406 620.00 229.758 141 142 0 0 0 0
143 230.406 630.00 229.756 142 143 0 0 0 0
144 230.406 640.00 229.754 143 144 0 0 0 0
145 230.406 660.00 229.752 144 145 0 0 0 0
146 230.406 660.00 229.730 145 146 0 0 0 0
147 230.406 660.00 229.688 146 147 0 0 0 0
148 230.406 660.00 229.646 147 148 0 0 0 0
149 230.406 650.00 229.604 148 149 0 0 0 0
150 230.406 650.00 229.562 149 150 0 0 0 0
151 230.406 650.00 229.520 150 151 0 0 0 0
152 230.406 650.00 229.477 151 152 0 0 0 0
153 230.406 650.00 229.435 152 153 0 0 0 0
154 230.406 650.00 229.402 153 154 0 0 0 0
155 230.406 650.00 229.378 154 155 0 0 0 0
156 230.406 650.00 229.354 155 156 0 0 0 0
157 230.406 660.00 229.329 156 157 0 0 0 0
158 230.406 660.00 229.305 157 158 0 0 0 0
159 230.406 670.00 229.281 158 159 0 0 0 0
160 230.406 670.00 229.257 159 160 0 0 0 0
161 230.406 670.00 229.233 160 161 0 0 0 0
162 230.406 680.00 229.208 161 162 0 0 0 0
163 230.406 680.00 229.184 162 163 0 0 0 0
M9 164 230.406 690.00 229.160 163 164 0 0 0 0
165 230.406 690.00 229.136 164 165 0 0 0 0
166 230.406 690.00 229.111 165 166 0 0 0 0
167 230.406 700.00 229.087 166 167 0 0 0 0
rnR 168 230.406 700.00 229.063 167 168 0 0 0 0
169 230.406 710.00 229.039 168 169 0 0 0 0
170 230.406 710.00 229.015 169 170 0 0 0 0
171 230.406 710.00 228.990 170 171 0 0 0 0
_ 172 230.406 720.00 228.966 171 172 0 0 0 0
173 230.406 720.00 228.942 172 173 0 0 0 0
174 230.406 730.00 228.918 173 174 0 0 0 0
175 230.406 730.00 228.893 174 175 0 0 0 0
176 230.406 730.00 228.869 175 176 0 0 0 0
MR 177 230.406 740.00 228.845 176 177 0 0 0 0
178 230.406 740.00 228.821 177 178 0 0 0 0
179 230.406 750.00 228.797 178 179 0 0 0 0
Page 3

Appendix E-1. DYNHYDS_HYDRO_CALIB.txt
fa+ 180 230.406 750.00 228.772 179 180 0 0 0 0
181 230.406 750.00 228.748 180 181 0 0 0 0
182 230.406 760.00 228.724 181 182 0 0 0 0
183 230.406 760.00 228.700 182 183 0 0 0 0
ram, 184 230.406 760.00 228.700 183 0 0 0 0 0
***** CHANNEL DATA*************************************************************
1 30.479 7.429 0.079 0.0 0.045 0.24722 1 2
2 30.479 7.499 0.078 0.0 0.045 0.24629 2 3
3 30.479 7.569 0.078 0.0 0.045 0.24537 3 4
4 30.479 7.639 0.077 0.0 0.045 0.24447 4 5
5 30.479 7.709 0.077 0.0 0.045 0.24358 5 6
6 30.479 7.780 0.076 0.0 0.045 0.24270 6 7
7 30.479 7.850 0.076 0.0 0.045 0.24183 7 8
8 30.479 7.920 0.076 0.0 0.045 0.24097 8 9
9 30.479 7.990 0.075 0.0 0.045 0.24012 9 10
10 30.479 8.060 0.075 0.0 0.045 0.23929 10 11
11 30.479 8.130 0.074 0.0 0.045 0.23846 11 12
m+ 12 30.479 8.200 0.074 0.0 0.045 0.23764 12 13
13 30.479 8.270 0.074 0.0 0.045 0.23684 13 14
14 30.479 8.340 0.073 0.0 0.045 0.23604 14 15
15 30.479 8.410 0.073 0.0 0.045 0.23525 15 16
m, 16 30.479 8.480 0.073 0.0 0.045 0.23447 16 17
17 30.479 8.551 0.072 0.0 0.045 0.23370 17 18
18 30.479 8.621 0.072 0.0 0.045 0.23294 18 19
19 30.479 8.691 0.072 0.0 0.045 0.23218 19 20
20 30.479 8.761 0.071 0.0 0.045 0.23144 20 21
21 22.859 8.831 0.071 0.0 0.045 0.23070 21 22
22 15.239 8.866 0.071 0.0 0.045 0.23034 22 23
23 15.239 8.901 0.071 0.0 0.045 0.22997 23 24
24 15.239 8.936 0.070 0.0 0.045 0.22961 24 25
A`' 25 15.239 8.971 0.070 0.0 0.045 0.22925 25 26
26 15.239 9.006 0.070 0.0 0.045 0.22890 26 27
27 15.239 9.041 0.070 0.0 0.045 0.22854 27 28
28 15.239 9.076 0.070 0.0 0.045 0.22819 28 29
min 29 15.239 9.111 0.070 0.0 0.045 0.22784 29 30
30 15.239 9.146 0.069 0.0 0.045 0.22749 30 31
31 15.239 9.181 0.372 0.0 0.045 0.04231 31 32
32 15.239 9.216 0.373 0.0 0.045 0.04197 32 33
ram, 33 15.239 9.251 0.375 0.0 0.045 0.04164 33 34
34 15.239 9.286 0.376 0.0 0.045 0.04132 34 35
35 15.239 9.321 0.378 0.0 0.045 0.04100 35 36
36 15.239 9.357 0.379 0.0 0.045 0.04068 36 37
37 15.239 9.392 0.381 0.0 0.045 0.04037 37 38
38 15.239 9.427 0.382 0.0 0.045 0.04006 38 39
39 15.239 9.462 0.384 0.0 0.045 0.03975 39 40
40 15.239 9.497 0.385 0.0 0.045 0.03945 40 41
41 15.239 9.532 0.387 0.0 0.045 0.03915 41 42
m`' 42 15.239 9.567 0.389 0.0 0.045 0.03885 42 43
43 15.239 9.602 0.390 0.0 0.045 0.03856 43 44
44 15.239 9.637 0.392 0.0 0.045 0.03827 44 45
45 15.239 9.672 0.393 0.0 0.045 0.03798 45 46
rnR 46 15.239 9.707 0.395 0.0 0.045 0.03770 46 47
47 15.239 9.742 0.396 0.0 0.045 0.03742 47 48
48 15.239 9.777 0.398 0.0 0.045 0.03714 48 49
49 15.239 9.812 0.399 0.0 0.045 0.03687 49 50
ri, 50 15.239 9.847 0.401 0.0 0.045 0.03660 50 51
51 15.239 9.882 0.402 0.0 0.045 0.03633 51 52
52 15.239 9.917 0.404 0.0 0.045 0.03606 52 53
53 15.239 9.952 0.405 0.0 0.045 0.03580 53 54
54 15.239 9.987 0.407 0.0 0.045 0.03554 54 55
55 15.239 10.022 0.408 0.0 0.045 0.03528 55 56
56 15.239 10.057 0.410 0.0 0.045 0.03503 56 57
57 15.239 10.092 0.411 0.0 0.045 0.03478 57 58
mq
Page 4

m+ 58 15.239
59 15.239
60 15.239
61 22.859
62 30.479
63 30.479
64 30.479
65 30.479
66 30.479
67 30.479
68 30.479
69 30.479
70 30.479
m' 71 30.479
72 30.479
73 30.479
74 30.479
n 75 30.479
76 30.479
77 30.479
78 30.479
m, 79 30.479
80 30.479
81 30.479
82 30.479
83 30.479
pm
84 30.479
85 30.479
86 30.479
87 30.479
min 88 30.479
89 30.479
90 30.479
91 30.479
ran 92 30.479
93 30.479
94 30.479
95 30.479
96 30.479
97 30.479
98 30.479
99 30.479
100 30.479
mm
101 30.479
102 30.479
103 30.479
104 30.479
105 30.479
106 30.479
107 30.479
108 30.479
PR 109 30.479
110 30.479
111 30.479
112 30.479
113 30.479
114 30.479
115 30.479
116 30.479
117 30.479
118 30.479
119 30.479
120 30.479
Appendix E-1
10.127 0.413
10.162 0.414
10.198 0.416
10.233 0.417
10.303
10.373
10.443
10.513
10.583
10.653
10.723
10.793
10.863
10.933
11.004
11.074
11.144
11.214
11.284
11.354
11.424
11.494
11.564
11.634
11.704
11.774
11.845
11.915
11.985
12.055
12.125
12.195
12.265
12.335
12.405
12.475
12.545
12.616
12.686
12.756
12.826
12.896
12.966
13.036
13.106
13.176
13.246
13.316
13.386
13.457
13.527
13.597
13.667
13.737
13.807
13.877
13.947
14.017
14.087
14.157
14.227
14.298
14.368
0.421
0.424
0.427
0.430
0.433
0.436
0.439
0.442
0.445
0.448
0.451
0.454
0.457
0.460
0.463
0.466
0.469
0.472
0.475
0.478
0.481
0.485
0.488
0.491
0.494
0.497
0.500
0.503
0.506
0.509
0.512
0.515
0.518
0.521
0.524
0.527
0.530
0.533
0.536
0.539
0.542
0.545
0.549
0.552
0.555
0.558
0.561
0.564
0.567
0.570
0.573
0.576
0.579
0.582
0.585
0.588
0.591
0.594
0.597
. DYNHYD5_HYDRO_CALIB.tXt
0.0 0.045 0.03453 58 59
0.0 0.045 0.03429 59 60
0.0 0.045 0.03404 60 61
0.0 0.045 0.03380 61 62
0.0 0.045 0.03333 62 63
0.0 0.045 0.03287 63 64
0.0 0.045 0.03241 64 65
0.0 0.045 0.03197 65 66
0.0 0.045 0.03153 66 67
0.0 0.045 0.03111 67 68
0.0 0.045 0.03069 68 69
0.0 0.045 0.03028 69 70
0.0 0.045 0.02988 70 71
0.0 0.045 0.02948 71 72
0.0 0.04.5 0.02910 72 73
0.0 0.045 0.02872 73 74
0.0 0.045 0.02835 74 75
0.0 0.045 0.02798 75 76
0.0 0.045 0.02763 76 77
0.0 0.045 0.02728 77 78
0.0 0.045 0.02693 78 79
0.0 0.045 0.02660 79 80
0.0 0.045 0.02627 80 81
0.0 0.045 0.02594 81 82
0.0 0.045 0.02562 82 83
0.0 0.045 0.02531 83 84
0.0 0.045 0.02500 84 85
0.0 0.045 0.02470 85 86
0.0 0.045 0.02441 86 87
0.0 0.045 0.02412 87 88
0.0 0.045 0.02383 88 89
0.0 0.045 0.02355 89 90
0.0 0.045 0.02327 90 91
0.0 0.045 0.02300 91 92
0.0 0.045 0.02274 92 93
0.0 0.045 0.02248 93 94
0.0 0.045 0.02222 94 95
0.0 0.045 0.02197 95 96
0.0 0.045 0.02172 96 97
0.0 0.045 0.02147 97 98
0.0 0.045 0.02123 98 99
0.0 0.045 0.02100 99 100
0.0 0.045 0.02076 100 101
0.0 0.045 0.02054 101 102
0.0 0.045 0.02031 102 103
0.0 0.045 0.02009 103 104
0.0 0.045 0.01987 104 105
0.0 0.045 0.01966 105 106
0.0 0.045 0.01945 106 107
0.0 0.045 0.01924 107 108
0.0 0.045 0.03974 108 109
0.0 0.045 0.03932 109 110
0.0 0.045 0.03891 110 111
0.0 0.045 0.03850 111 112
0.0 0.045 0.03810 112 113
0.0 0.045 0.03771 113 114
0.0 0.045 0.03732 114 115
0.0 0.045 0.03694 115 116
0.0 0.045 0.03657 116 117
0.0 0.045 0.03620 117 118
0.0 0.045 0.03583 118 119
0.0 0.045 0.03548 119 120
0.0 0.045 0.03512 120 121
Page 5

121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
30.479
Appendix E-1
14.438 0.600
14.508 0.603
14.578 0.606
14.648 0.609
14.718
14.788
14.858
15.239
15.620
16.001
16.382
16.763
17.144
17.525
17.906
18.287
18.668
19.049
19.430
19.811
20.192
20.573
20.954
21.335
21.716
21.645
21.573
21.502
21.430
21.359
21.287
21.216
21.144
21.274
21.404
21.534
21.664
21.794
21.924
22.054
22.184
22.313
22.443
22.573
22.703
22.833
22.963
23.093
23.223
23.352
23.482
23.612
23.742
23.872
24.002
24.132
24.262
24.391
24.521
24.651
24.781
24.911
25.041
0.613
0.616
0.619
0.621
0.623
0.625
0.627
0.629
0.631
0.633
0.635
0.637
0.639
0.641
0.643
0.645
0.647
0.649
0.651
0.653
0.655
0.697
0.739
0.781
0.823
0.865
0.907
0.949
0.992
1.016
1.040
1.064
1.088
1.113
1.137
1.161
1.185
1.210
1.234
1.258
1.282
1.306
1.331
1.355
1.379
1.403
1.428
1.452
1.476
1.500
1.525
1.549
1.573
1.597
1.621
1.646
1.670
1.694
1.718
. DYNHYDS_HYDRO_CALIB.tXt
0.0 0.045 0.03477
0.0 0.045 0.03443
0.0 0.045 0.03409
0.0 0.045 0.03376
0.0 0.045 0.03343
0.0 0.045 0.03311
0.0 0.045 0.03279
0.0 0.045 0.03187
0.0 0.045 0.03099
0.0 0.045 0.03016
0.0 0.045 0.02936
0.0 0.045 0.02860
0.0 0.045 0.02788
0.0 0.045 0.02718
0.0 0.045 0.02652
0.0 0.045 0.02589
0.0 0.045 0.02528
0.0 0.045 0.02470
0.0 0.045 0.02414
0.0 0.045 0.02360
0.0 0.045 0.02308
0.0 0.045 0.02258
0.0 0.045 0.02211
0.0 0.045 0.02164
0.0 0.045 0.02120
0.0 0.045 0.01998
0.0 0.045 0.01891
0.0 0.045 0.01795
0.0 0.045 0.01709
0.0 0.045 0.01631
0.0 0.045 0.01560
0.0 0.045 0.01502
0.0 0.045 0.01443
0.0 0.045 0.01400
0.0 0.045 0.01359
0.0 0.045 0.01320
0.0 0.045 0.01283
0.0 0.045 0.01248
0.0 0.045 0.01214
0.0 0.045 0.01181
0.0 0.045 0.01151
0.0 0.045 0.01121
0.0 0.045 0.01093
0.0 0.045 0.01065
0.0 0.045 0.01039
0.0 0.045 0.01014
0.0 0.045 0.00990
0.0 0.045 0.00967
0.0 0.045 0.00945
0.0 0.045 0.00923
0.0 0.045 0.00902
0.0 0.045 0.00883
0.0 0.045 0.00863
0.0 0.045 0.00845
0.0 0.045 0.00827
0.0 0.045 0.00810
0.0 0.045 0.00793
0.0 0.045 0.00777
0.0 0.045 0.00761
0.0 0.045 0.00746
0.0 0.045 0.00731
0.0 0.045 0.00717
0.0 0.045 0.00703
Page 6
121 122
122 123
123 124
124 125
125 126
126 127
127 128
128 129
129 130
130 131
131 132
132 133
133 134
134 135
135 136
136 137
137 138
138 139
139 140
140 141
141 142
142 143
143 144
144 145
145 146
146 147
147 148
148 149
149 150
150 151
151 152
152 153
153 154
154 155
155 156
156 157
157 158
158 159
159 160
160 161
161 162
162 163
163 164
164 165
165 166
166 167
167 168
168 169
169 170
170 171
171 172
172 173
173 174
174 175
175 176
176 177
177 178
178 179
179 180
180 181
181 182
182 183
183 184

Appendix E-1. DYNHYDS_HYDRO_CALIB.txt
rm ***** CONSTANT INFLOWS*********************************************************
0
***** VARIABLE INFLOWS*********************************************************
3
MR 1 21
1 0 0-0.1444
2 0 0-0.1331
3 0 0-0.1293
4 0 0-0.1271
`n 5 0 0 -0.1475
6 0 0-0.1227
7 0 0-0.1205
8 0 0-0.1182
ram 9 0 0 -0.1160
10 0 0-0.1138
11 0 0-0.1116
12 0 0-0.1094
PR 13 0 0 -0.1072
14 0 0-0.1049
15 0 0-0.1027
16 0 0-0.1005
m, 17 0 0 -0.0983
18 0 0-0.0961
19 0 0 -0.0939
20 0 0-0.0916
21 0 0-0.0894
`'' 105 21
1 0 0-0.1570
2 0 0-0.1552
3 0 0-0.1533
mq 4 0 0 -0.1535
5 0 0-0.1836
6 0 0-0.1538
7 0 0-0.1540
rq 8 0 0 -0.1541
9 0 0-0.1543
10 0 0-0.1544
11 0 0-0.1546
M, 12 0 0 -0.1547
13 0 0-0.1549
14 0 0-0.1550
15 0 0-0.1552
16 0 0-0.1553
17 0 0-0.1555
18 0 0-0.1556
19 0 0-0.1558
20 0 0-0.1559
21 0 0-0.1561
152 21
1 0 0-0.001124
2 0 0-0.001088
RR 3 0 0 -0.001090
4 0 0-0.001092
5 0 0-0.001094
6 0 0-0.001097
7 0 0-0.001099
8 0 0-0.001101
9 0 0-0.001103
10 0 0-0.001106
11 0 0-0.001108
12 0 0-0.001110
13 0 0-0.001112
14 0 0-0.001115
f awl
Page 7
FRI

Appendix E-1. DYNHYD5_HYDRO_CALIB.txt
mm 15 0 0 -0.001117
16 0 0 -0.001119
17 0 0-0.001121
18 0 0-0.001124
m, 19 0 0-0.001126
20 0 0-0.001128
21 0 0-0.001130
***** SEAWARD BOUNDARY DATA ****************************************************
1
rim
3 184 489 25 0.00 0.00 0.000 1.00
1 0 0 230.41 1 8 39 230.41 1 9 24 230.35 1 10 24 230.38
1 11 24 230.38 1 12 24 230.39 1 13 24 230.47 1 14 24 230.34
1 15 24 230.34 1 16 24 230.48 1 17 24 230.43 1 18 24 230.45
mm 1 19 24 230.43 1 20 24 230.41 1 21 24 230.47 1 22 24 230.41
1 23 24 230.39 2 0 24 230.44 2 1 24 230.44 2 2 24 230.41
2 3 24 230.43 2 4 24 230.42 2 5 24 230.43 2 6 24 230.42
2 7 24 230.40 2 8 24 230.43 2 9 24 230.37 2 10 24 230.35
mm 2 11 24 230.43 2 12 24 230.43 2 13 24 230.38 2 14 24 230.41
2 15 24 230.39 2 16 24 230.33 2 17 24 230.34 2 18 24 230.42
2 19 24 230.54 2 20 24 230.38 2 21 24 230.40 2 22 24 230.46
2 23 24 230.41 3 0 24 230.41 3 1 24 230.42 3 2 24 230.42
mm 3 3 24 230.43 3 4 24 230.39 3 5 24 230.42 3 6 24 230.43
3 7 24 230.39 3 8 24 230.40 3 9 24 230.41 3 10 24 230.40
3 11 24 230.39 3 12 24 230.39 3 13 24 230.36 3 14 24 230.30
3 15 24 230.45 3 16 24 230.45 3 17 24 230.40 3 18 24 230.42
3 19 24 230.44 3 20 24 230.43 3 21 24 230.42 3 22 24 230.47
mm 3 23 24 230.42 4 0 24 230.45 4 1 24 230.43 4 2 24 230.43
4 3 24 230.46 4 4 24 230.41 4 5 24 230.42 4 6 24 230.42
4 7 24 230.47 4 8 24 230.41 4 9 24 230.38 4 10 24 230.41
4 11 24 230.43 4 12 24 230.45 4 13 24 230.32 4 14 24 230.46
m+ 4 15 24 230.48 4 16 24 230.42 4 17 24 230.45 4 18 24 230.45
4 19 24 230.52 4 20 24 230.48 4 21 24 230.41 4 22 24 230.49
4 23 24 230.48 5 0 24 230.44 5 1 24 230.45 5 2 24 230.47
5 3 24 230.48 5 4 24 230.46 5 5 24 230.45 5 6 24 230.49
mm 5 7 24 230.47 5 8 24 230.45 5 9 24 230.43 5 10 24 230.50
5 11 24 230.36 5 12 24 230.42 5 13 24 230.43 5 14 24 230.44
5 15 24 230.44 5 16 24 230.49 5 17 24 230.52 5 18 24 230.48
5 19 24 230.52 5 20 24 230.48 5 21 24 230.48 5 22 24 230.50
MR 5 23 24 230.47 6 0 24 230.49 6 1 24 230.49 6 2 24 230.49
6 3 24 230.50 6 4 24 230.49 6 5 24 230.49 6 6 24 230.48
6 7 24 230.44 6 8 24 230.52 6 9 24 230.43 6 10 24 230.51
6 11 24 230.43 6 12 24 230.47 6 13 24 230.51 6 14 24 230.51
6 15 24 230.36 6 16 24 230.50 6 17 24 230.55 6 18 24 230.50
`R 6 19 24 230.54 6 20 24 230.49 6 21 24 230.51 6 22 24 230.54
6 23 24 230.49 7 0 24 230.51 7 1 24 230.52 7 2 24 230.52
7 3 24 230.52 7 4 24 230.52 7 5 24 230.52 7 6 24 230.52
7 7 24 230.50 7 8 24 230.51 7 9 24 230.51 7 10 24 230.51
'R 7 11 24 230.47 7 12 24 230.46 7 13 24 230.48 7 14 24 230.60
7 15 24 230.51 7 16 24 230.48 7 17 24 230.53 7 18 24 230.62
7 19 24 230.54 7 20 24 230.54 7 21 24 230.53 7 22 24 230.53
7 23 24 230.58 8 0 24 230.48 8 1 24 230.59 8 2 24 230.50
mm 8 3 24 230.56 8 4 24 230.56 8 5 24 230.53 8 6 24 230.56
8 7 24 230.51 8 8 24 230.55 8 9 24 230.54 8 10 24 230.47
8 11 24 230.48 8 12 24 230.58 8 13 24 230.53 8 14 24 230.49
8 15 24 230.57 8 16 24 230.55 8 17 24 230.57 8 18 24 230.56
Nol 8 19 24 230.62 8 20 24 230.65 8 21 24 230.53 8 22 24 230.61
8 23 24 230.62 9 0 24 230.59 9 1 24 230.59 9 2 24 230.58
9 3 24 230.64 9 4 24 230.60 9 5 24 230.56 9 6 24 230.57
9 7 24 230.59 9 8 24 230.60 9 9 24 230.59 9 10 24 230.46
9 11 24 230.53 9 12 24 230.52 9 13 24 230.54 9 14 24 230.55
m 9 15 24 230.55 9 16 24 230.56 9 17 24 230.58 9 18 24 230.61
9 19 24 230.64 9 20 24 230.65 9 21 24 230.58 9 22 24 230.61
9 23 24 230.63 10 0 24 230.60 10 1 24 230.61 10 2 24 230.58
Page 8

Appendix E-1. DYNHYDS_HYDRO_CALIB.txt
M► 10 3 24 230.64 10 4 24 230.60 10 5 24 230.59 10 6 24 230.61
10 7 24 230.57 10 8 24 230.56 10 9 24 230.57 10 10 24 230.56
10 11 24 230.53 10 12 24 230.51 10 13 24 230.58 10 14 24 230.59
10 15 24 230.62 10 16 24 230.58 10 17 24 230.62 10 18 24 230.62
mm 10 19 24 230.62 10 20 24 230.64 10 21 24 230.63 10 22 24 230.63
10 23 24 230.60 11 0 24 230.59 11 1 24 230.54 11 2 24 230.67
11 3 24 230.65 11 4 24 230.62 11 5 24 230.63 11 6 24 230.60
11 7 24 230.64 11 8 24 230.61 11 9 24 230.42 11 10 24 230.45
11 11 24 230.54 11 12 24 230.54 11 13 24 230.56 11 14 24 230.51
mm 11 15 24 230.45 11 16 24 230.63 11 17 24 230.57 11 18 24 230.54
11 19 24 230.57 11 20 24 230.54 11 21 24 230.56 11 22 24 230.53
11 23 24 230.56 12 0 24 230.46 12 1 24 230.50 12 2 24 230.55
12 3 24 230.59 12 4 24 230.54 12 5 24 230.55 12 6 24 230.54
m" 12 7 24 230.56 12 8 24 230.53 12 9 24 230.52 12 10 24 230.53
12 11 24 230.49 12 12 24 230.46 12 13 24 230.54 12 14 24 230.55
12 15 24 230.50 12 16 24 230.50 12 17 24 230.50 12 18 24 230.61
12 19 24 230.54 12 20 24 230.54 12 21 24 230.53 12 22 24 230.51
m+ 12 23 24 230.56 13 0 24 230.48 13 1 24 230.52 13 2 24 230.52
13 3 24 230.51 13 4 24 230.52 13 5 24 230.51 13 6 24 230.51
13 7 24 230.51 13 8 24 230.50 13 9 24 230.45 13 10 24 230.54
13 11 24 230.49 13 12 24 230.50 13 13 24 230.53 13 14 24 230.47
m, 13 15 24 230.55 13 16 24 230.53 13 17 24 230.52 13 18 24 230.56
13 19 24 230.54 13 20 24 230.55 13 21 24 230.56 13 22 24 230.53
13 23 24 230.47 14 0 24 230.57 14 1 24 230.59 14 2 24 230.55
14 3 24 230.55 14 4 24 230.56 14 5 24 230.57 14 6 24 230.56
14 7 24 230.55 14 8 24 230.55 14 9 24 230.58 14 10 24 230.52
14 11 24 230.57 14 12 24 230.56 14 13 24 230.58 14 14 24 230.58
14 15 24 230.56 14 16 24 230.60 14 17 24 230.54 14 18 24 230.54
14 19 24 230.60 14 20 24 230.63 14 21 24 230.66 14 22 24 230.60
14 23 24 230.58 15 0 24 230.63 15 1 24 230.64 15 2 24 230.59
MR 15 3 24 230.60 15 4 24 230.64 15 5 24 230.62 15 6 24 230.59
15 7 24 230.61 15 8 24 230.62 15 9 24 230.60 15 10 24 230.58
15 11 24 230.60 15 12 24 230.62 15 13 24 230.60 15 14 24 230.61
15 15 24 230.70 15 16 24 230.65 15 17 24 230.53 15 18 24 230.63
rm 15 19 24 230.73 15 20 24 230.67 15 21 24 230.60 15 22 24 230.67
15 23 24 230.68 16 0 24 230.62 16 1 24 230.65 16 2 24 230.65
16 3 24 230.67 16 4 24 230.63 16 5 24 230.62 16 6 24 230.67
16 7 24 230.64 16 8 24 230.61 16 9 24 230.61 16 10 24 230.58
,;, 16 11 24 230.56 16 12 24 230.57 16 13 24 230.59 16 14 24 230.59
16 15 24 230.58 16 16 24 230.58 16 17 24 230.59 16 18 24 230.61
16 19 24 230.70 16 20 24 230.64 16 21 24 230.62 16 22 24 230.67
16 23 24 230.60 17 0 24 230.57 17 1 24 230.67 17 2 24 230.64
17 3 24 230.62 17 4 24 230.64 17 5 24 230.62 17 6 24 230.56
mm 17 7 24 230.60 17 8 24 230.67 17 9 24 230.60 17 10 24 230.62
17 11 24 230.47 17 12 24 230.65 17 13 24 230.63 17 14 24 230.47
17 15 24 230.69 17 16 24 230.65 17 17 24 230.63 17 18 24 230.63
17 19 24 230.63 17 20 24 230.68 17 21 24 230.49 17 22 24 230.59
m 17 23 24 230.64 18 0 24 230.50 18 1 24 230.62 18 2 24 230.57
18 3 24 230.71 18 4 24 230.63 18 5 24 230.60 18 6 24 230.68
18 7 24 230.64 18 8 24 230.62 18 9 24 230.64 18 10 24 230.55
18 11 24 230.68 18 12 24 230.56 18 13 24 230.52 18 14 24 230.69
r=+ 18 15 24 230.65 18 16 24 230.63 18 17 24 230.66 18 18 24 230.69
18 19 24 230.69 18 20 24 230.63 18 21 24 230.61 18 22 24 230.70
18 23 24 230.64 19 0 24 230.62 19 1 24 230.65 19 2 24 230.63
19 3 24 230.65 19 4 24 230.62 19 5 24 230.61 19 6 24 230.63
m, 19 7 24 230.63 19 8 24 230.55 19 9 24 230.60 19 10 24 230.58
19 11 24 230.57 19 12 24 230.59 19 13 24 230.49 19 14 24 230.67
19 15 24 230.53 19 16 24 230.53 19 17 24 230.63 19 18 24 230.61
19 19 24 230.62 19 20 24 230.63 19 21 24 230.63 19 22 24 230.64
19 23 24 230.58 20 0 24 230.62 20 1 24 230.62 20 2 24 230.58
mm 20 3 24 230.65 20 4 24 230.60 20 5 24 230.61 20 6 24 230.59
20 7 24 230.64 20 8 24 230.61 20 9 24 230.59 20 10 24 230.61
20 11 24 230.62 20 12 24 230.63 20 13 24 230.61 20 14 24 230.62
Page 9

r=l
fart
Appendix E-1. DYNHYD5_HYDRO_CALIB.txt
ram 20 15 24 230.60 20 16 24 230.48 20 17 24 230.53 20 18 24 230.55
20 19 24 230.68 20 20 24 230.68 20 21 24 230.61 20 22 24 230.68
20 23 24 230.64 21 0 24 230.63 21 1 24 230.65 21 2 24 230.66
21 3 24 230.64 21 4 24 230.64 21 5 24 230.64 21 6 24 230.64
21 7 24 230.67 21 8 24 230.63 21 9 24 230.64 21 10 24 230.65
21 11 24 230.62 21 12 24 230.65 21 13 24 230.69 21 14 24 230.65
21 15 24 230.68
***** WIND DATA *******************************:r*******************************
pin
****�PRECIPITATION OR EVAPORATION DATA ****************************************
0 0.0 0.0
***** JUNCTION GEOMETRY DATA ***************************************************
0
raq ***** CHANNEL GEOMETRY DATA ****************************************************
0
***** MAP TO WASP4*************************************************************
0 184
mm 1 0
2 1
3 2
4 3
m, 5 4
6 5
7 6
8 7
9 8
mm
10 9
11 10
12 11
13 12
mm 14 13
15 14
16 15
17 16
rm 18 17
19 18
20 19
21 20
,r, 22 21
23 22
24 23
25 24
26 25
27 26
28 27
29 28
30 29
'n 31 30
32 31
33 32
34 33
1J 35 34
36 35
37 36
38 37
,n, 39 38
40 39
41 40
42 41
43 42
mR 44 43
45 44
46 45
Page 10

n 47 46
48 47
49 48
50 49
m, 51 50
52 51
53 52
54 53
55 54
56 55
57 56
58 57
59 58
MR 60 59
61 60
62 61
63 62
m, 64 63
65 64
66 65
67 66
r^., 68 67
69 68
70 69
71 70
72 71
''' 73 72
74 73
75 74
76 75
mn 77 76
78 77
79 78
80 79
PR 81 80
82 81
83 82
84 83
E„m 85 84
86 85
87 86
88 87
89 88
m' 90 89
91 90
92 91
93 92
ran 94 93
95 94
96 95
97 96
rq 98 97
99 98
100 99
101 100
m, 102 101
103 102
104 103
105 104
106 105
mm 107 106
108 107
109 108
Appendix E-1. DYNHYD5_HYDRO_CALIB.txt
Page 11

n 110 109
111 110
112 111
113 112
mR 114 113
115 114
116 115
117 116
118 117
mg
119 118
120 119
121 120
122 121
mm 123 122
124 123
125 124
126 125
m+ 127 126
128 127
129 128
130 129
m, 131 130
132 131
133 132
134 133
135 134
mm
136 135
137 136
138 137
139 138
mm 140 139
141 140
142 141
143 142
RR 144 143
145 144
146 145
147 146
Pq 148 147
149 148
150 149
151 150
152 151
mm
153 152
154 153
155 154
156 155
'' 157 156
158 157
159 158
160 159
mm 161 160
162 161
163 162
164 163
m, 165 164
166 165
167 166
168 167
169 168
`_' 170 169
171 170
172 171
Appendix E-1. DYNHYDS_HYDRO_CALIB.txt
Page 12

cz1
119
173 172
174 173
175 174
176 175
177 176
178 177
179 178
180 179
181 180
182 181
183 182
184 0
Appendix E-1. DYNHYDS_HYDRO_CALIB.txt
Page 13

rAt
forl
Min
MR
PM
fwl
rml
r,
rm
MI
WI
r1
Appendix E-2. WASP_WQ_CALIB_INPUT.tXt
NSEG NSYS ICRD MFLG IDMP NSLN INTY ZMON ZDAY ZYR HH MM
183 16 0 0 16 0 0 0.00 0 0
2
0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 44.9999
2
0.0400 0.0000 0.0400 44.9999
0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
1
1 1.0000 1.0000
183
1.00 1.00 1 0
1.00 1.00 2 1
1.00 1.00 3 2
1.00 1.00 4 3
1.00 1.00 5 4
1.00 1.00 6 5
1.00 1.00 7 6
1.00 1.00 8 7
1.00 1.00 9 8
1.00 1.00 10 9
1.00 1.00 11 10
1.00 1.00 12 11
1.00 1.00 13 12
1.00 1.00 14 13
1.00 1.00 15 14
1.00 1.00 16 15
1.00 1.00 17 16
1.00 1.00 18 17
1.00 1.00 19 18
1.00 1.00 20 19
1.00 1.00 21 20
1.00 1.00 22 21
1.00 1.00 23 22
1.00 1.00 24 23
1.00 1.00 25 24
1.00 1.00 26 25
1.00 1.00 27 26
1.00 1.00 28 27
1.00 1.00 29 28
1.00 1.00 30 29
1.00 1.00 31 30
1.00 1.00 32 31
1.00 1.00 33 32
1.00 1.00 34 33
1.00 1.00 35 34
1.00 1.00 36 35
1.00 1.00 37 36
1.00 1.00 38 37
1.00 1.00 39 38
1.00 1.00 40 39
1.00 1.00 41 40
1.00 1.00 42 41
1.00 1.00 43 42
1.00 1.00 44 43
1.00 1.00 45 44
1.00 1.00 46 45
1.00 1.00 47 46
1.00 1.00 48 47
1.00 1.00 49 48
1.00 1.00 50 49
1.00 1.00 51 50
Page 1
PM

r1
Appendix E-2. WASP_WQ_CALIB_INPUT.txt
M9 1.00 1.00 52 51
1.00 1.00 53 52
1.00 1.00 54 53
1.00 1.00 55 54
m, 1.00 1.00 56 55
1.00 1.00 57 56
1.00 1.00 58 57
1.00 1.00 59 58
1.00 1.00 60 59
PR
1.00 1.00 61 60
1.00 1.00 62 61
1.00 1.00 63 62
1.00 1.00 64 63
mn 1.00 1.00 65 64
1.00 1.00 66 65
1.00 1.00 67 66
1.00 1.00 68 67
rq 1.00 1.00 69 68
1.00 1.00 70 69
1.00 1.00 71 70
1.00 1.00 72 71
mn 1.00 1.00 73 72
1.00 1.00 74 73
1.00 1.00 75 74
1.00 1.00 76 75
1.00 1.00 77 76
'm 1.00 1.00 78 77
1.00 1.00 79 78
1.00 1.00 80 79
1.00 1.00 81 80
mq 1.00 1.00 82 81
1.00 1.00 83 82
1.00 1.00 84 83
1.00 1.00 85 84
MR 1.00 1.00 86 85
1.00 1.00 87 86
1.00 1.00 88 87
1.00 1.00 89 88
,, 1.00 1.00 90 89
1.00 1.00 91 90
1.00 1.00 92 91
1.00 1.00 93 92
1.00 1.00 94 93
mq
1.00 1.00 95 94
1.00 1.00 96 95
1.00 1.00 97 96
1.00 1.00 98 97
1.00 1.00 99 98
1.00 1.00 100 99
1.00 1.00 101 100
1.00 1.00 102 101
p, 1.00 1.00 103 102
1.00 1.00 104 103
1.00 1.00 105 104
1.00 1.00 106 105
,R 1.00 1.00 107 106
1.00 1.00 108 107
1.00 1.00 109 108
1.00 1.00 110 109
1.00 1.00 111 110
m' 1.00 1.00 112 111
1.00 1.00 113 112
1.00 1.00 114 113
Page 2

Appendix E-2. WASP_WQ_CALIB_INPUT.txt
1.00 1.00 115 114
1.00 1.00 116 115
1.00 1.00 117 116
1.00 1.00 118 117
1.00 1.00 119 118
1.00 1.00 120 119
1.00 1.00 121 120
1.00 1.00 122 121
1.00 1.00 123 122
1.00 1.00 124 123
1.00 1.00 125 124
1.00 1.00 126 125
1.00 1.00 127 126
1.00 1.00 128 127
1.00 1.00 129 128
1.00 1.00 130 129
1.00 1.00 131 130
1.00 1.00 132 131
1.00 1.00 133 132
1.00 1.00 134 133
1.00 1.00 135 134
1.00 1.00 136 135
1.00 1.00 137 136
1.00 1.00 138 137
1.00 1.00 139 138
1.00 1.00 140 139
1.00 1.00 141 140
1.00 1.00 142 141
1.00 1.00 143 142
1.00 1.00 144 143
1.00 1.00 145 144
1.00 1.00 146 145
1.00 1.00 147 146
1.00 1.00 148 147
1.00 1.00 149 148
1.00 1.00 150 149
1.00 1.00 151 150
1.00 1.00 152 151
1.00 1.00 153 152
1.00 1.00 154 153
1.00 1.00 155 154
1.00 1.00 156 155
1.00 1.00 157 156
1.00 1.00 158 157
1.00 1.00 159 158
1.00 1.00 160 159
1.00 1.00 161 160
1.00 1.00 162 161
1.00 1.00 163 162
1.00 1.00 164 163
1.00 1.00 165 164
1.00 1.00 166 165
1.00 1.00 167 166
1.00 1.00 168 167
1.00 1.00 169 168
1.00 1.00 170 169
1.00 1.00 171 170
1.00 1.00 172 171
1.00 1.00 173 172
1.00 1.00 174 173
1.00 1.00 175 174
1.00 1.00 176 175
1.00 1.00 177 176
Page 3

Appendix E-2. WASP_WQ_CALIB_INPUT.txt
m+ 1.00 1.00 178 177
1.00 1.00 179 178
1.00 1.00 180 179
1.00 1.00 181 180
m, 1.00 1.00 182 181
1.00 1.00 0 182
2
0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.450E+02
�, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0.
1. 1.
1 183 1 0.186E+02 0.33670 0.00000 0.08989 0.00000
2 183 1 0.186E+02 0.37050 0.00000 0.08075 0.00000
M, 3 183 1 0.185E+02 0.37000 0.00000 0.08060 0.00000
4 183 1 0.185E+02 0.36950 0.00000 0.08040 0.00000
5 183 1 0.193E+02 0.36900 0.00000 0.08020 0.00000
6 183 1 0.192E+02 0.36850 0.00000 0.08005 0.00000
P, 7 183 1 0.192E+02 0.36800 0.00000 0.07990 0.00000
8 183 1 0.191E+02 0.36800 0.00000 0.07975 0.00000
9 183 1 0.191E+02 0.36750 0.00000 0.07965 0.00000
10 183 1 0.199E+02 0.36700 0.00000 0.07955 0.00000
mq 11 183 1 0.199E+02 0.36650 0.00000 0.07945 0.00000
12 183 1 0.198E+02 0.36600 0.00000 0.07930 0.00000
13 183 1 0.198E+02 0.36600 0.00000 0.07915 0.00000
14 183 1 0.205E+02 0.36550 0.00000 0.07905 0.00000
15 183 1 0.205E+02 0.36500 0.00000 0.07895 0.00000
r' 16 183 1 0.205E+02 0.36500 0.00000 0.07885 0.00000
17 183 1 0.205E+02 0.36450 0.00000 0.07870 0.00000
18 183 1 0.204E+02 0.36400 0.00000 0.07860 0.00000
19 183 1 0.212E+02 0.36400 0.00000 0.07855 0.00000
r+ 20 183 1 0.212E+02 0.36357 0.00000 0.07850 0.00000
21 183 1 0.102E+02 0.36300 0.00000 0.07846 0.00000
22 183 1 0.109E+02 0.36300 0.00000 0.07835 0.00000
23 183 1 0.110E+02 0.36300 0.00000 0.07830 0.00000
m 24 183 1 0.109E+02 0.36300 0.00000 0.07825 0.00000
25 183 1 0.109E+02 0.36250 0.00000 0.07825 0.00000
26 183 1 0.110E+02 0.36250 0.00000 0.07820 0.00000
27 183 1 0.109E+02 0.36300 0.00000 0.07810 0.00000
pm 28 183 1 0.110E+02 0.36250 0.00000 0.07805 0.00000
29 183 1 0.109E+02 0.36200 0.00000 0.07800 0.00000
30 183 1 0.110E+02 0.36250 0.00000 0.07800 0.00000
31 183 1 0.109E+02 0.36250 0.00000 0.07810 0.00000
32 183 1 0.110E+02 0.36300 0.00000 0.07810 0.00000
MR 33 183 1 0.108E+02 0.36249 0.00000 0.07830 0.00000
34 183 1 0.112E+02 0.36348 0.00000 0.07786 0.00000
35 183 1 0.104E+02 0.35886 0.00000 0.07858 0.00000
36 183 1 0.120E+02 0.36454 0.00000 0.07720 0.00000
f"'+ 37 183 1 0.874E+01 0.33522 0.00000 0.08431 0.00000
38 183 1 0.171E+02 0.20290 0.00000 0.15113 0.00000
39 183 1 0.334E+02 0.11520 0.00000 0.25461 0.00000
40 183 1 0.502E+02 0.08010 0.00000 0.35059 0.00000
M, 41 183 1 0.631E+02 0.06774 0.00000 0.40612 0.00000
42 183 1 0.632E+02 0.06485 0.00000 0.42150 0.00000
43 183 1 0.634E+02 0.06445 0.00000 0.42250 0.00000
44 183 1 0.635E+02 0.06390 0.00000 0.42350 0.00000
mm 45 183 1 0.637E+02 0.06350 0.00000 0.42450 0.00000
46 183 1 0.638E+02 0.06305 0.00000 0.42550 0.00000
47 183 1 0.641E+02 0.06255 0.00000 0.42650 0.00000
48 183 1 0.642E+02 0.06215 0.00000 0.42800 0.00000
49 183 1 0.644E+02 0.06175 0.00000 0.42950 0.00000
MR 50 183 1 0.645E+02 0.06155 0.00000 0.43050 0.00000
51 183 1 0.647E+02 0.06125 0.00000 0.43150 0.00000
52 183 1 0.648E+02 0.06090 0.00000 0.43250 0.00000
Page 4

Appendix E-2. WASP_WQ_CALIB_INPUT.txt
r.► 53 183 1 0.651E+02 0.06050 0.00000 0.43350 0.00000
54 183 1 0.652E+02 0.06005 0.00000 0.43450 0.00000
55 183 1 0.654E+02 0.05970 0.00000 0.43600 0.00000
56 183 1 0.657E+02 0.05925 0.00000 0.43750 0.00000
P, 57 183 1 0.658E+02 0.05880 0.00000 0.43850 0.00000
58 183 1 0.660E+02 0.05845 0.00000 0.44000 0.00000
59 183 1 0.706E+02 0.05805 0.00000 0.44150 0.00000
60 183 1 0.708E+02 0.05768 0.00000 0.44260 0.00000
61 183 1 0.138E+03 0.05714 0.00000 0.44415 0.00000
mm 62 183 1 0.143E+03 0.05650 0.00000 0.44651 0.00000
63 183 1 0.144E+03 0.05585 0.00000 0.44901 0.00000
64 183 1 0.144E+03 0.05535 0.00000 0.45151 0.00000
65 183 1 0.145E+03 0.05465 0.00000 0.45401 0.00000
66 183 1 0.146E+03 0.05365 0.00000 0.45651 0.00000
67 183 1 0.151E+03 0.05305 0.00000 0.45901 0.00000
68 183 1 0.152E+03 0.05240 0.00000 0.46151 0.00000
69 183 1 0.153E+03 0.05150 0.00000 0.46401 0.00000
PR 70 183 1 0.154E+03 0.05080 0.00000 0.46651 0.00000
71 183 1 0.155E+03 0.05010 0.00000 0.46901 0.00000
72 183 1 0.160E+03 0.04925 0.00000 0.47151 0.00000
73 183 1 0.161E+03 0.04845 0.00000 0.47451 0.00000
,R 74 183 1 0.162E+03 0.04770 0.00000 0.47751 0.00000
75 183 1 0.163E+03 0.04690 0.00000 0.48051 0.00000
76 183 1 0.164E+03 0.04625 0.00000 0.48351 0.00000
77 183 1 0.170E+03 0.04555 0.00000 0.48601 0.00000
78 183 1 0.171E+03 0.04465 0.00000 0.48851 0.00000
` ' 79 183 1 0.172E+03 0.04385 0.00000 0.49151 0.00000
80 183 1 0.173E+03 0.04325 0.00000 0.49401 0.00000
81 183 1 0.179E+03 0.04250 0.00000 0.49651 0.00000
82 183 1 0.180E+03 0.04200 0.00000 0.49951 0.00000
m83 183 1 0.181E+03 0.04150 0.00000 0.50200 0.00000
84 183 1 0.182E+03 0.04100 0.00000 0.50451 0.00000
85 183 1 0.183E+03 0.04055 0.00000 0.50751 0.00000
86 183 1 0.189E+03 0.03970 0.00000 0.51051 0.00000
mrl 87 183 1 0.190E+03 0.03925 0.00000 0.51300 0.00000
88 183 1 0.191E+03 0.03875 0.00000 0.51551 0.00000
89 183 1 0.192E+03 0.03825 0.00000 0.51851 0.00000
90 183 1 0.193E+03 0.03800 0.00000 0.52151 0.00000
MR 91 183 1 0.199E+03 0.03755 0.00000 0.52451 0.00000
92 183 1 0.200E+03 0.03725 0.00000 0.52700 0.00000
93 183 1 0.201E+03 0.03710 0.00000 0.52951 0.00000
94 183 1 0.202E+03 0.03660 0.00000 0.53301 0.00000
95 183 1 0.209E+03 0.03615 0.00000 0.53651 0.00000
mm 96 183 1 0.210E+03 0.03575 0.00000 0.53951 0.00000
97 183 1 0.211E+03 0.03515 0.00000 0.54251 0.00000
98 183 1 0.213E+03 0.03465 0.00000 0.54500 0.00000
99 183 1 0.214E+03 0.03430 0.00000 0.54751 0.00000
MR 100 183 1 0.220E+03 0.03385 0.00000 0.55051 0.00000
101 183 1 0.221E+03 0.03355 0.00000 0.55351 0.00000
102 183 1 0.223E+03 0.03345 0.00000 0.55651 0.00000
103 183 1 0.224E+03 0.03310 0.00000 0.55951 0.00000
RP 104 183 1 0.225E+03 0.04274 0.00000 0.56200 0.00000
105 183 1 0.232E+03 0.05225 0.00000 0.56451 0.00000
106 183 1 0.233E+03 0.05180 0.00000 0.56751 0.00000
107 183 1 0.234E+03 0.05130 0.00000 0.57000 0.00000
_ 108 183 1 0.235E+03 0.05075 0.00000 0.57251 0.00000
109 183 1 0.242E+03 0.05005 0.00000 0.57551 0.00000
110 183 1 0.243E+03 0.04930 0.00000 0.57800 0.00000
111 183 1 0.244E+03 0.04865 0.00000 0.58051 0.00000
112 183 1 0.245E+03 0.04810 0.00000 0.58351 0.00000
m' 113 183 1 0.246E+03 0.04755 0.00000 0.58600 0.00000
114 183 1 0.253E+03 0.04690 0.00000 0.58901 0.00000
115 183 1 0.255E+03 0.04645 0.00000 0.59251 0.00000
Page 5

Appendix E-2. WASP_WQ_CALIB_INPUT.txt
mm 116 183 1 0.256E+03 0.04620 0.00000 0.59551 0.00000
117 183 1 0.257E+03 0.04570 0.00000 0.59800 0.00000
118 183 1 0.258E+03 0.04510 0.00000 0.60051 0.00000
119 183 1 0.266E+03 0.04460 0.00000 0.60351 0.00000
m, 120 183 1 0.267E+03 0.04420 0.00000 0.60651 0.00000
121 183 1 0.268E+03 0.04405 0.00000 0.60900 0.00000
122 183 1 0.269E+03 0.04390 0.00000 0.61151 0.00000
123 183 1 0.277E+03 0.04340 0.00000 0.61451 0.00000
✓ 124 183 1 0.278E+03 0.04275 0.00000 0.61751 0.00000
125 183 1 0.279E+03 0.04225 0.00000 0.62051 0.00000
126 183 1 0.280E+03 0.04190 0.00000 0.62300 0.00000
127 183 1 0.288E+03 0.04109 0.00000 0.62552 0.00000
128 183 1 0.295E+03 0.03989 0.00000 0.62751 0.00000
R+ 129 183 1 0.302E+03 0.03889 0.00000 0.62901 0.00000
130 183 1 0.309E+03 0.03794 0.00000 0.63101 0.00000
131 183 1 0.323E+03 0.03704 0.00000 0.63301 0.00000
132 183 1 0.330E+03 0.03625 0.00000 0.63501 0.00000
m+ 133 183 1 0.337E+03 0.03544 0.00000 0.63701 0.00000
134 183 1 0.345E+03 0.03465 0.00000 0.63901 0.00000
135 183 1 0.352E+03 0.03374 0.00000 0.64051 0.00000
136 183 1 0.360E+03 0.03300 0.00000 0.64201 0.00000
,, 137 183 1 0.367E+03 0.03229 0.00000 0.64401 0.00000
138 183 1 0.381E+03 0.03129 0.00000 0.64601 0.00000
139 183 1 0.389E+03 0.03050 0.00000 0.64801 0.00000
140 183 1 0.396E+03 0.03005 0.00000 0.65001 0.00000
141 183 1 0.404E+03 0.02945 0.00000 0.65201 0.00000
m 142 183 1 0.412E+03 0.02880 0.00000 0.65401 0.00000
143 183 1 0.420E+03 0.02809 0.00000 0.65601 0.00000
144 183 1 0.434E+03 0.02699 0.00000 0.66311 0.00000
145 183 1 0.448E+03 0.02584 0.00000 0.68483 0.00000
146 183 1 0.476E+03 0.02468 0.00000 0.72158 0.00000
147 183 1 0.504E+03 0.02369 0.00000 0.76354 0.00000
148 183 1 0.523E+03 0.02258 0.00000 0.80551 0.00000
149 183 1 0.551E+03 0.02134 0.00000 0.84749 0.00000
mm 150 183 1 0.578E+03 0.02039 0.00000 0.88946 0.00000
151 183 1 0.605E+03 0.01954 0.00000 0.93144 0.00000
152 183 1 0.633E+03 0.01864 0.00000 0.97134 0.00000
153 183 1 0.655E+03 0.01800 0.00000 1.00527 0.00000
M, 15.4 183 1 0.670E+03 0.01765 0.00000 1.03013 0.00000
155 183 1 0.686E+03 0.01714 0.00000 1.05526 0.00000
156 183 1 0.712E+03 0.01670 0.00000 1.08012 0.00000
157 183 1 0.729E+03 0.01630 0.00000 1.10525 0.00000
158 183 1 0.756E+03 0.01585 0.00000 1.13012 0.00000
m' 159 183 1 0.772E+03 0.01555 0.00000 1.15012 0.00000
160 183 1 0.788E+03 0.01515 0.00000 1.17524 0.00000
161 183 1 0.816E+03 0.01480 0.00000 1.20011 0.00000
162 183 1 0.833E+03 0.01445 0.00000 1.22523 0.00000
r+ 163 183 1 0.862E+03 0.01400 0.00000 1.25011 0.00000
164 183 1 0.879E+03 0.01375 0.00000 1.27522 0.00000
165 183 1 0.895E+03 0.01360 0.00000 1.30011 0.00000
166 183 1 0.926E+03 0.01320 0.00000 1.32010 0.00000
M, 167 183 1 0.942E+03 0.01275 0.00000 1.34521 0.00000
168 183 1 0.973E+03 0.01240 0.00000 1.37010 0.00000
169 183 1 0.990E+03 0.01215 0.00000 1.39520 0.00000
170 183 1 0.101E+04 0.01195 0.00000 1.42010 0.00000
,m 171 183 1 0.104E+04 0.01165 0.00000 1.44520 0.00000
172 183 1 0.106E+04 0.01135 0.00000 1.47010 0.00000
173 183 1 0.109E+04 0.01115 0.00000 1.49009 0.00000
174 183 1 0.111E+04 0.01090 0.00000 1.51519 0.00000
175 183 1 0.112E+04 0.01050 0.00000 1.54009 0.00000
176 183 1 0.116E+04 0.01020 0.00000 1.56518 0.00000
177 183 1 0.118E+04 0.00997 0.00000 1.59009 0.00000
178 183 1 0.121E+04 0.00972 0.00000 1.61009 0.00000
Page 6

Appendix E-2. WASP_WQ_CALIB_INPUT.txt
m+ 179 183 1 0.123E+04 0.00949 0.00000 1.63518 0.00000
180 183 1 0.125E+04 0.00940 0.00000 1.66009 0.00000
181 183 1 0.128E+04 0.00925 0.00000 1.68517 0.00000
182 183 1 0.130E+04 0.00904 0.00000 1.70503 0.00000
m, 183 0 3 0.110E+10 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3 6C:\Projects\
182
230.00 1 183 230.00 2 183 230.00 3 183 230.00 4 183
240.00 5 183 240.00 6 183 240.00 7 183 240.00 8 183
mg
240.00 9 183 250.00 10 183 250.00 11 183 250.00 12 183
250.00 13 183 260.00 14 183 260.00 15 183 260.00 16 183
260.00 17 183 260.00 18 183 270.00 19 183 270.00 20 183
130.00 21 183 140.00 22 183 140.00 23 183 140.00 24 183
m"`' 140.00 25 183 140.00 26 183 140.00 27 183 140.00 28 183
140.00 29 183 140.00 30 183 140.00 31 183 140.00 32 183
140.00 33 183 140.00 34 183 140.00 35 183 140.00 36 183
140.00 37 183 140.00 38 183 140.00 39 183 140.00 40 183
m+ 150.00 41 183 150.00 42 183 150.00 43 183 150.00 44 183
150.00 45 183 150.00 46 183 150.00 47 183 150.00 48 183
150.00 49 183 150.00 50 183 150.00 51 183 150.00 52 183
150.00 53 183 150.00 54 183 150.00 55 183 150.00 56 183
,, 150.00 57 183 150.00 58 183 160.00 59 183 160.00 60 183
310.00 61 183 320.00 62 183 320.00 63 183 320.00 64 183
320.00 65 183 320.00 66 183 330.00 67 183 330.00 68 183
330.00 69 183 330.00 70 183 330.00 71 183 340.00 72 183
340.00 73 183 340.00 74 183 340.00 75 183 340.00 76 183
mg 350.00 77 183 350.00 78 183 350.00 79 183 350.00 80 183
360.00 81 183 360.00 82 183 360.00 83 183 360.00 84 183
360.00 85 183 370.00 86 183 370.00 87 183 370.00 88 183
370.00 89 183 370.00 90 183 380.00 91 183 380.00 92 183
'g 380.00 93 183 380.00 94 183 390.00 95 183 390.00 96 183
390.00 97 183 390.00 98 183 390.00 99 183 400.00 100 183
400.00 101 183 400.00 102 183 400.00 103 183 400.00 104 183
410.00 105 183 410.00 106 183 410.00 107 183 410.00 108 183
m, 420.00 109 183 420.00 110 183 420.00 111 183 420.00 112 183
420.00 113 183 430.00 114 183 430.00 115 183 430.00 116 183
430.00 117 183 430.00 118 183 440.00 119 183 440.00 120 183
440.00 121 183 440.00 122 183 450.00 123 183 450.00 124 183
,, 450.00 125 183 450.00 126 183 460.00 127 183 470.00 128 183
480.00 129 183 490.00 130 183 510.00 131 183 520.00 132 183
530.00 133 183 540.00 134 183 550.00 135 183 560.00 136 183
570.00 137 183 590.00 138 183 600.00 139 183 610.00 140 183
620.00 141 183 630.00 142 183 640.00 143 183 660.00 144 183
mn 660.00 145 183 660.00 146 183 660.00 147 183 650.00 148 183
650.00 149 183 650.00 150 183 650.00 151 183 650.00 152 183
650.00 153 183 650.00 154 183 650.00 155 183 660.00 156 183
660.00 157 183 670.00 158 183 670.00 159 183 670.00 160 183
mg 680.00 161 183 680.00 162 183 690.00 163 183 690.00 164 183
690.00 165 183 700.00 166 183 700.00 167 183 710.00 168 183
710.00 169 183 710.00 170 183 720.00 171 183 720.00 172 183
730.00 173 183 730.00 174 183 730.00 175 183 740.00 176 183
m, 740.00 177 183 750.00 178 183 750.00 179 183 750.00 180 183
760.00 181 183 760.00 182 183
2
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 45.4583
mg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
1.00 1.00
1 5
0.0560 0.0000 0.0520 4.4583 0.0360 25.4583 0.0400 40.4583
mg 0.0400 45.4583
182 5
0.0860 0.0000 0.0830 4.4583 0.0580 25.4583 0.0780 40.4583
Page 7

Appendix E-2. WASP_WQCALIB_INPUT.txt
m, 0.0780 45.4583
2
1.00 1.00
1 2
M9 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
182 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
2
1.00 1.00
mq 1 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
182 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
ram, 2
1.00 1.00
1 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
182 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
2
1.00 1.00
mg 1 5
10.7600 0.0000 10.7600 4.4583 24.6700 25.4583 11.5500 40.4583
11.5500 45.4583
182 5
8.1200 0.0000 8.1200 4.4583 21.7900 25.4583 11.8800 40.4583
11.8800 45.4583
2
1.00 1.00
1 5
9.7200 0.0000 9.7100 4.4583 7.7400 25.4583 8.6800 40.4583
8.3200 45.4583
182 5
6.9900 0.0000 6.4800 4.4583 5.5900 25.4583 6.6400 40.4583
r, 8.4000 45.4583
2
1.00 1.00
1 2
m, 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
182 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
2
1.00 1.00
mn 1 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
182 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
rq 2
1.00 1.00
1 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
m, 182 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
2
1.00 1.00
m, 1 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
182 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
2
1.00 1.00
1 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
Page 8

Appendix E-2. WASP_WQCALIB_INPUT.tXt
MR 182 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
2
1.00 1.00
rn 1 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
182 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
,;, 2
1.00 1.00
1 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
182 2
pal 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
2
1.00 1.00
1 2
pn 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
182 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
2
p, 1.00 1.00
1 2
1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
182 2
mn 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 45.0000
2
1.00 1.00
1 2
10.0000 0.0000 10.0000 45.4583
'' 182 2
10.0000 0.0000 10.0000 45.4583
2
0.100E+01 0.100E+01
p, 104 46
0.7700E+000.0000E+000.7700E+000.1458E+010.7500E+000.2458E+010.7800E+000.3458E+01
0.1410E+010.4458E+010.8200E+000.5458E+010.7700E+000.6458E+010.7400E+000.7458E+01
0.7500E+000.8458E+010.6700E+000.9458E+010.6700E+000.1046E+020.7000E+000.1146E+02
_ 0.6800E+000.1246E+020.6900E+000.1346E+020.7600E+000.1446E+020.6300E+000.1546E+02
0.5900E+000.1646E+020.7400E+000.1746E+020.6400E+000.1846E+020.5700E+000.1946E+02
0.5500E+000.2046E+020.5400E+000.2146E+020.5200E+000.2246E+020.4900E+000.2346E+02
0.4700E+000.2446E+020.4900E+000.2546E+020.5500E+000.2646E+020.6100E+000.2746E+02
pp 0.6700E+000.2846E+020.8800E+000.2946E+020.8100E+000.3046E+020.8700E+000.3146E+02
0.9400E+000.3246E+020.1010E+010.3346E+020.1070E+010.3446E+020.1140E+010.3546E+02
0.1210E+010.3646E+020.1270E+010.3746E+020.1340E+010.3846E+020.1410E+010.3946E+02
0.1480E+010.4046E+020.1480E+010.4146E+020.1480E+010.4246E+020.1480E+010.4346E+02
0.1480E+010.4446E+020.1480E+010.4546E+02
'�' 151 46
0.3994E-010.0000E+000.2619E-010.1458E+010.1909E-010.2458E+010.1199E-010.3458E+01
0.6600E-020.4458E+010.4090E-020.5458E+010.5680E-020.6458E+010.4660E-020.7458E+01
0.5040E-020.8458E+010.4950E-020.9458E+010.4870E-020.1046E+020.4570E-020.1146E+02
pm, 0.5980E-020.1246E+020.5240E-020.1346E+020.4120E-020.1446E+020.6260E-020.1546E+02
0.6140E-020.1646E+020.6020E-020.1746E+020.4570E-020.1846E+020.4470E-020.1946E+02
0.4200E-020.2046E+020.3750E-020.2146E+020.3840E-020.2246E+020.3760E-020.2346E+02
0.3670E-020.2446E+020.4080E-020.2546E+020.4440E-020.2646E+020.4930E-020.2746E+02
ram, 0.5430E-020.2846E+020.5940E-020.2946E+020.6440E-020.3046E+020.6950E-020.3146E+02
0.7460E-020.3246E+020.7970E-020.3346E+020.8480E-020.3446E+020.9000E-020.3546E+02
0.9510E-020.3646E+020.1003E-010.3746E+020.1055E-010.3846E+020.1108E-010.3946E+02
0.1160E-010.4046E+020.1163E-010.4146E+020.1165E-010.4246E+020.1167E-010.4346E+02
_, 0.1170E-010.4446E+020.1172E-010.4546E+02
0
0
0
Page 9

Appendix E-2. WASP_WQ,_,CALIB_INPUT.txt
rm 2
0.100E+01 0.100E+01
104 46
0.1199E+030.0000E+000.1190E+030.1458E+010.1166E+030.2458E+010.1218E+030.3458E+01
m, 0.2197E+030.4458E+010.1270E+030.5458E+010.1185E+030.6458E+010.1131E+030.7458E+01
0.1134E+030.8458E+010.1008E+030.9458E+010.1007E+030.1046E+020.1049E+030.1146E+02
0.1008E+030.1246E+020.1015E+030.1346E+020.1102E+030.1446E+020.9080E+020.1546E+02
0.8376E+020.1646E+020.1045E+030.1746E+020.8948E+020.1846E+020.7861E+020.1946E+02
0.7507E+020.2046E+020.7258E+020.2146E+020.6923E+020.2246E+020.6376E+020.2346E+02
0.6077E+020.2446E+020.6173E+020.2546E+020.6304E+020.2646E+020.6429E+020.2746E+02
0.6638E+020.2846E+020.8180E+020.2946E+020.7052E+020.3046E+020.7260E+020.3146E+02
0.7469E+020.3246E+020.7678E+020.3346E+020.7887E+020.3446E+020.8098E+020.3546E+02
0.8308E+020.3646E+020.8519E+020.3746E+020.8729E+020.3846E+020.8941E+020.3946E+02
m' 0.9153E+020.4046E+020.9162E+020.4146E+020.9171E+020.4246E+020.9180E+020.4346E+02
0.9189E+020.4446E+020.9198E+020.4546E+02
151 46
0.6250E+000.0000E+000.5210E+000.1458E+010.5210E+000.2458E+010.5210E+000.3458E+01
r+ 0.7030E+000.4458E+010.4350E+000.5458E+010.6040E+000.6458E+010.4940E+000.7458E+01
0.5330E+000.8458E+010.5230E+000.9458E+010.5130E+000.1046E+020.4810E+000.1146E+02
0.6280E+000.1246E+020.5490E+000.1346E+020.4300E+000.1446E+020.6530E+000.1546E+02
0.6390E+000.1646E+020.6250E+000.1746E+020.4730E+000.1846E+020.4620E+000.1946E+02
m, 0.4330E+000.2046E+020.3850E+000.2146E+020.3940E+000.2246E+020.3840E+000.2346E+02
0.3740E+000.2446E+020.4140E+000.2546E+020.3970E+000.2646E+020.3950E+000.2746E+02
0.3930E+000.2846E+020.3900E+000.2946E+020.3880E+000.3046E+020.3860E+000.3146E+02
0.3840E+000.3246E+020.3810E+000.3346E+020.3790E+000.3446E+020.3760E+000.3546E+02
0.3740E+000.3646E+020.3720E+000.3746E+020.3690E+000.3846E+020.3670E+000.3946E+02
0.3640E+000.4046E+020.3650E+000.4146E+020.3660E+000.4246E+020.3670E+000.4346E+02
0.3670E+000.4446E+020.3680E+000.4546E+02
2
0.100E+01 0.100E+01
'' 104 46
0.1199E+030.0000E+000.1183E+030.1458E+010.1152E+030.2458E+010.1197E+030.3458E+01
0.2197E+030.4458E+010.1291E+030.5458E+010.1226E+030.6458E+010.1191E+030.7458E+01
0.1216E+030.8458E+010.1102E+030.9458E+010.1122E+030.1046E+020.1192E+030.1146E+02
ran 0.1170E+030.1246E+020.1205E+030.1346E+020.1339E+030.1446E+020.1129E+030.1546E+02
0.1068E+030.1646E+020.1368E+030.1746E+020.1204E+030.1846E+020.1088E+030.1946E+02
0.1070E+030.2046E+020.1068E+030.2146E+020.1053E+030.2246E+020.1004E+030.2346E+02
0.9929E+020.2446E+020.1049E+030.2546E+020.1038E+030.2646E+020.1027E+030.2746E+02
M, 0.1030E+030.2846E+020.1234E+030.2946E+020.1035E+030.3046E+020.1037E+030.3146E+02
0.1040E+030.3246E+020.1042E+030.3346E+020.1045E+030.3446E+020.1048E+030.3546E+02
0.1050E+030.3646E+020.1053E+030.3746E+020.1055E+030.3846E+020.1058E+030.3946E+02
0.1060E+030.4046E+020.1041E+030.4146E+020.1022E+030.4246E+020.1003E+030.4346E+02
0.9836E+020.4446E+020.9643E+020.4546E+02
MR
151 46
0.3450E+000.0000E+000.3450E+000.1458E+010.4030E+000.2458E+010.4600E+000.3458E+01
0.6990E+000.4458E+010.4380E+000.5458E+010.6160E+000.6458E+010.5110E+000.7458E+01
0.5590E+000.8458E+010.5560E+000.9458E+010.5540E+000.1046E+020.5260E+000.1146E+02
`' 0.6980E+000.1246E+020.6200E+000.1346E+020.4940E+000.1446E+020.7610E+000.1546E+02
0.7570E+000.1646E+020.7540E+000.1746E+020.5810E+000.1846E+020.5780E+000.1946E+02
0.5510E+000.2046E+020.5000E+000.2146E+020.5210E+000.2246E+020.5190E+000.2346E+02
0.5160E+000.2446E+020.5830E+000.2546E+020.5600E+000.2646E+020.5560E+000.2746E+02
mai 0.5520E+000.2846E+020.5490E+000.2946E+020.5450E+000.3046E+020.5410E+000.3146E+02
0.5370E+000.3246E+020.5330E+000.3346E+020.5290E+000.3446E+020.5250E+000.3546E+02
0.5220E+000.3646E+020.5180E+000.3746E+020.5140E+000.3846E+020.5100E+000.3946E+02
0.5060E+000.4046E+020.5070E+000.4146E+020.5080E+000.4246E+020.5090E+000.4346E+02
m, 0.5100E+000.4446E+020.5110E+000.4546E+02
0
0
0
m" 0
0
0
Page 10

Appendix E-2. WASP_WQ_CALIB_INPUT.txt
ran 0
0
1
0.100E+01 0.100E+01
rm 104 46
0.1285E+030.0000E+000.1276E+030.1458E+010.1249E+030.2458E+010.1305E+030.3458E+01
0.2355E+030.4458E+010.1395E+030.5458E+010.1335E+030.6458E+010.1308E+030.7458E+01
0.1347E+030.8458E+010.1231E+030.9458E+010.1264E+030.1046E+020.1355E+030.1146E+02
0.1342E+030.1246E+020.1394E+030.1346E+020.1563E+030.1446E+020.1330E+030.1546E+02
mm 0.1269E+030.1646E+020.1640E+030.1746E+020.1456E+030.1846E+020.1329E+030.1946E+02
0.1320E+030.2046E+020.1329E+030.2146E+020.1323E+030.2246E+020.1274E+030.2346E+02
0.1272E+030.2446E+020.1357E+030.2546E+020.1341E+030.2646E+020.1325E+030.2746E+02
0.1326E+030.2846E+020.1587E+030.2946E+020.1329E+030.3046E+020.1330E+030.3146E+02
m' 0.1331E+030.3246E+020.1333E+030.3346E+020.1334E+030.3446E+020.1336E+030.3546E+02
0.1337E+030.3646E+020.1338E+030.3746E+020.1339E+030.3846E+020.1341E+030.3946E+02
0.1342E+030.4046E+020.1343E+030.4146E+020.1345E+030.4246E+020.1346E+030.4346E+02
0.1347E+030.4446E+020.1349E+030.4546E+02
m+ 0
3
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.1000E+01PARAM 90.1000E+01
1
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
2
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
3
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
4
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
5
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
'' 6
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
7
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
lam 8
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
9
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
,:, 10
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
11
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
12
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
13
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
14
'm' PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
15
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
16
mm PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
17
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
18
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
19
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
20
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
mm
21
PARAM 40.1000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
22
Page 11

Fxn
s
MI
WI
ran
f=►
Fa,
ran
r+n
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
Appendix
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
23
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
24
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
25
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
26
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
27
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
28
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
29
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
30
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
31
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
32
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
33
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
34
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
35
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
36
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
37
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
38
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
39
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
40
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
41
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
42
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
43
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
44
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
45
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
46
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
47
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
48
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
49
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
50
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
51
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
52
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
53
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
E-2. WASP_WQ_CALIB_INPUT.tXt
2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
Page 12
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01

M1
tw1
rAl
r=1
r=1
riq
r-,
farl
ral
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
Appendi
54
40.1000E+01PARAM
55
40.1000E+01PARAM
56
40.1000E+01PARAM
57
40.1000E+01PARAM
58
40.1000E+01PARAM
59
40.1000E+01PARAM
60
40.1000E+01PARAM
61
40.1000E+01PARAM
62
40.1000E+01PARAM
63
40.1000E+01PARAM
64
40.1000E+01PARAM
65
40.1000E+01PARAM
66
40.1000E+01PARAM
67
40.1000E+01PARAM
68
40.1000E+01PARAM
69
40.1000E+01PARAM
70
40.1000E+01PARAM
71
40.1000E+01PARAM
72
40.1000E+01PARAM
73
40.1000E+01PARAM
74
40.1000E+01PARAM
75
40.1000E+01PARAM
76
40.1000E+01PARAM
77
40.1000E+01PARAM
78
40.1000E+01PARAM
79
40.1000E+01PARAM
80
40.1000E+01PARAM
81
40.1000E+01PARAM
82
40.1000E+01PARAM 7
83
40.1000E+01PARAM 7
84
40.1000E+01PARAM 7
85
X E-2. WASP_WQCALIB_INPUT.tXt
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
70.2000E+02PARAM
0.2000E+02PARAM
0.2000E+02PARAM
0.2000E+02PARAM
Page 13
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01

r=1
Pal
forl
0.1
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
Appendix
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
86
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
87
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
88
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
89
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
90
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
91
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
92
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
93
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
94
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
95
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
96
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
97
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
98
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
99
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
100
40.1000E+01PARAM 70.
101
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
102
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
103
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
104
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
105
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
106
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
107
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
108
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
109
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
110
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
111
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
112
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
113
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
114
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
115
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
116
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
E-2. WASP_WQ_CALIB_INPUT.txt
2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
Page 14
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01

n
Mr,
r-�
r=1
OKI
117221
r=1
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
Appendix
117
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
118
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
119
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
120
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
121
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
122
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
123
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
124
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
125
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
126
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
127
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
128
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
129
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
130
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
131
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
132
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
133
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
134
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
135
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
136
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
137
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
138
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
139
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
140
40.2000E+01PARAM 70.
141
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
142
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
143
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
144
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
145
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
146
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
147
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
148
E-2. WASP_WQCALIB_INPUT.txt
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
Page 15
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01

n
12101
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
PARAM
Appendix
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
149
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
150
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
151
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
152
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
153
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
154
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
155
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
156
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
157
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
158
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
159
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
160
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
161
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
162
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
163
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
164
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
165
40.3000E+01PARAM 70.
166
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
167
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
168
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
169
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
170
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
171
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
172
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
173
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
174
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
175
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
176
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
177
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
178
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
179
40.4000E+01PARAM 70.
E-2. WASP_WQ_CALIB_INPUT.tXt
2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
2000E+02PARAM
Page 16
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01
90.4000E+01

0
rxt
Appendix E-2. WASP_WQ_CALIB_INPUT.txt
180
PARAM 40.4000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
181
PARAM 40.4000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
mq 182
PARAM 40.4000E+01PARAM 70.2000E+02PARAM 90.4000E+01
183
PARAM 40.0000E+00PARAM 70.0000E+00PARAM 90.0000E+00
H: Constants
1
6
CONST 110.5000E-01 CONST 120.1070E+01
CONST 850.1000E+01 CONST 840.2300E+03
CONST 710.3000E+00 CONST 720.1070E+01
0
0
0
faq 0
0
0
0
g
0
0
0
0
0
0
m' 4
24.80 0.00 24.80 45.46
25.40 0.00 25.40 45.46
26.10 0.00 26.10 45.46
fam 27.40 0.00 27.40 45.46
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
PM 0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
0 1. 100.
fal
Page 17