NC0001422_DRAFT_GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report_20150805

Prepared for
Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
DATA INTERPRETATION
AND ANALYSIS REPORT
CONCEPTUAL CLOSURE PLAN
L.V. SUTTON PLANT
Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
1300 South Mint Street, Suite 110
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Project Number GC5592
July 2014

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx i 07.25.14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) is currently performing a conceptual closure
evaluation to select an appropriate option to close the Coal Combustion Residual (CCR)
ponds (i.e., the 1971 Pond and the 1984 Pond) located at the L.V. Sutton Steam Electric
Plant (Sutton Plant). Detailed closure plans will be developed subsequently for the
selected closure option. DEC requested Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC
(Geosyntec) to evaluate the conceptual closure options. As part of this evaluation,
Geosyntec reviewed existing site data, developed and implemented a preliminary site
investigation program, performed preliminary data interpretations and analyses, and
conducted a feasibility analysis of the closure options. Recommendations for the
preferred closure options will be made based on this work and discussions with DEC.
The conceptual closure evaluation will be presented in three separate reports, including
the Preliminary Site Investigation Data Report (Data Report), the Data Interpretation
and Analysis Report (I & A Report), which is contained within this report, and the
Closure Options Feasibility Analysis Report (Feasibility Report). The Data Report and
the Feasibility Report are being submitted under separate covers.
The Sutton Plant is located in New Hanover County, near Wilmington, North Carolina,
situated between the Cape Fear River to the west and the Northeast Cape Fear River to
the east. The Sutton Plant is a three-unit, 575-megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant.
The Plant operated from 1954 until retirement of the coal-fired units in November 2013.
Upon retirement of the coal-fired units a new, 625-MW gas-fired unit began operating.
The Sutton Plant has two CCR ponds on Site, and they are referred to as: (i) the 1971
Pond; and (ii) the 1984 Pond. Other notable features at the Site related to the scope of
this report include the Former Ash Disposal Area (FADA), the Vanadium Pit, and a
large Cooling Pond. It is noted that the Cooling Pond is accessible to the general public
and is used for recreational purposes. Section 1 of this I & A Report provides more
details of the Site background.
The Site is located within the southeastern part of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina
and is situated on a peninsula between the Atlantic Ocean and the Northeast Cape Fear
and Cape Fear Rivers. The Cape Fear River constitutes the western boundary of the
Site. The remaining area surrounding the Site is a mixture of residential and industrial
properties. One of the predominant features of the Site is the Cooling Pond, which
covers an area of 1,110 acres. The water level in the Cooling Pond is approximately
five to eight feet above the level of the Cape Fear River. The elevation of the water in
the Cooling Pond strongly influences groundwater flow in the local area. The Site is
underlain by up to 75 feet of unconsolidated sediments consisting primarily of well
GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx ii 07.25.14
drained sands of late Tertiary age and Quaternary surficial deposits. The Cretaceous
Peedee Formation underlies the surficial deposits in the local area and typically consists
of unconsolidated green to dark-gray silt, olive-green to gray sand, and massive black
clay with unconsolidated calcareous sandstone and impure limestone. More details
including the hydrogeology of the Site and groundwater flow are discussed in Section 2
of this I & A Report.
Section 3 of the I & A Report presents a summary of the stormwater management
systems (SWMS) associated with the conceptual closure options for the CCR ponds
(i.e., the 1971 and 1984 Ponds) at the Sutton Plant. The SWMS are designed to regulate
the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff generated by the closed CCR ponds using
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize impacts to water quality and
alterations to the hydrology of receiving water bodies. Wet detention ponds and open
channel storage and conveyance features were considered at this conceptual stage. The
results demonstrate that the conceptual designs presented in Section 3, using the
selected BMPs, achieve the minimum stormwater treatment and attenuation
requirements of the local stormwater ordinance. A more detailed design will need to be
developed for the selected closure option as part of the final closure plans.
Groundwater flow modeling was performed to simulate future groundwater conditions
at the Site under various post-closure scenarios and to assist in evaluating potential
closure options. Pursuant to this, the modeling effort consisted of three objectives: (i)
creating a steady-state groundwater model of the Site that is calibrated to groundwater
conditions observed in May 2014; (ii) using the calibrated model, run a predictive
scenario to simulate the reduced 1984 Pond closure option where CCR material is
removed from the 1971 Pond and portions of the 1984 Pond, and then placed under an
engineered cap at the center of the 1984 Pond; and (iii) evaluating the predicted water
table elevation relative to the bottom of the CCR material in both CCR ponds following
closure. MODFLOW-2005 (a specific version of the MODFLOW suite of software)
was used to simulate groundwater flow at the Site. Based on the simulation, the water
table generally falls below the bottom of the CCR ponds following closure. The bottom
of CCR elevation in the 1971 Pond is being further evaluated, which may have an effect
on the model results. Initial borings in the 1971 Pond show CCR extending to an
elevation of -40 ft in some areas. This indicates that the water table would be above the
bottom of the CCR in portions of the 1971 Pond. The groundwater model can be
refined and re-calibrated with greater confidence after additional data collection during
the final design of the selected closure option. Section 4 presents more details of the
groundwater flow modeling.
GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx iii 07.25.14
Section 5 discusses the analytical results for the Vanadium Pit area soil and
groundwater results, the analytical results for CCR materials, background soil samples,
soil samples from monitoring wells outside of the CCR ponds as well as soil samples
from locations below the CCR materials. Furthermore, this section also discusses the
analytical results obtained for groundwater and CCR porewater samples. Results
indicated that the soil within the Vanadium Pit area exhibited elevated pH conditions,
and that groundwater in this area contained elevated levels of vanadium and iron.
Background and Site soil samples showed acidic conditions and levels of iron that
suggested that background soil conditions likely contribute to iron concentrations in
Site groundwater. CCR materials exhibited concentrations for most analyzed
constituents at levels much greater than background soil levels, especially with respect
to arsenic. SPLP leaching procedures indicated that arsenic still leached from CCR
materials at substantial levels. Background groundwater results indicated naturally
acidic groundwater conditions and naturally elevated levels of iron, and to a lesser
degree, manganese. Groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the 1971 Pond showed
an impact of CCR materials contained within this pond. This is likely further
pronounced due to the presence of CCR materials at considerable depths within the
1971 Pond. Monitoring points further away (i.e., north) show a diminishing impact,
suggesting that the clay liner within the 1984 Pond provides some protection of the
surrounding groundwater. Furthermore, elevated arsenic concentrations in groundwater
attenuated to below the groundwater standard in all but one of the compliance wells. In
addition, leaching tests indicated that the CCR materials did not leach substantial levels
of boron, and therefore, boron concentrations in excess of the groundwater standard in
compliance wells will likely decrease over time since the source appears to have been
depleted. However, groundwater withdrawal in the vicinity of the Site may affect
groundwater flow, and therefore, the migration potential of boron. A geochemical
Conceptual Site Model (CSM) was developed in this section to explain the distribution
of the analyzed constituents of interests (COIs) in soil and groundwater. The CSM
suggested that metals mobility was quite limited under the given geochemical
conditions. Implementation of the various pond closure options will minimize
infiltration through the CCR materials, and therefore, minimize the remaining leaching
potential of these materials. However, the apparent deep nature of the CCR materials
within the 1971 Pond, as well as the historical leaching of boron will likely have a
residual impact on the distribution of constituents in groundwater that will be difficult
to completely eliminate regardless of the final closure option selected. Moreover,
absent complete excavation and/or stabilization of all CCR materials, the type of
closure option chosen is not expected to materially affect the geochemistry of the
groundwater at this Site.
GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx iv 07.25.14
Section 6 discusses the results of the preliminary geotechnical evaluations. The
subsurface stratigraphy at the Site was developed based on the available information
obtained from the historical geotechnical investigations and the 2014 Geosyntec
conceptual closure geotechnical investigation, as presented in the Data Report. The
results of the investigations indicated that the subsurface soils primarily consist of, from
top to bottom, the CCRs (within the ponds) or Dike Fill (on the perimeters of the
ponds), and Foundation Soils (consist primarily of sand with varying amounts of silt at
the top and Peedee Formation clayey soils at the bottom).
Screening-level slope stability, liquefaction, flow potential, and settlement analyses
were performed and indicated that an appropriate closure design can be developed to
meet the geotechnical considerations. Removal of deeper CCR deposits located below
the water table by excavation may pose constructability challenges if chosen as part of
the closure option. Detailed calculations will be performed as part of the final closure
design after the closure option for the CCR ponds is selected.
Section 7 describes a framework for a site-specific risk-based approach to further
evaluate the analytical results for environmental media discussed in Section 5 in the
context of potential human and ecological receptors that may be exposed to constituents
of interest (COIs) associated with the CCR ponds. Since all closure options considered
will include an engineered cover, Sutton Plant employees will not have direct exposure
to the CCR materials post-closure, and this potential exposure route is not considered
for human receptors. However, humans could potentially be exposed to groundwater,
which has been shown to contain certain COIs at elevated levels. Maintenance workers
could potentially have intermittent exposures to Site groundwater while conducting
maintenance and/or monitoring activities associated with the piezometers or monitoring
wells. Furthermore, a water supply well survey identified 44 off-site water supply wells
to the east of the Sutton Plant, and an estimated 18 of these are hydraulically down-
gradient of the compliance boundary wells where boron exceedances have been
observed. Annual environmental monitoring of the Cooling Pond, located to the west
of the CCR ponds, has been conducted since 1972 that includes the collection of surface
water, sediment, and fish tissue samples for analytical chemistry, as well as biological
assessments of aquatic vegetation and fish community health. Monitoring reports
acknowledge that operations of the Sutton Plant, specifically effluents associated with the
CCR ponds, have contributed to trace element accumulation in water, sediments, and fish
tissues in the Cooling Pond. However, surface water concentrations are generally below
water quality standards, and selenium concentrations in fish tissue are below consumption
advisory limits. Additional groundwater assessment may be needed to evaluate the
potential for off-site drinking water exposures.
GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx v 07.25.14
The analyses results presented in this I & A Report will be further evaluated and used to
screen and rank select closure options in the forthcoming Feasibility Report. Based on
this screening evaluation and ranking, a recommendation will be given to select an
appropriate closure option.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx vi 07.25.14
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... i
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Background ..................................................................................... 1
1.2 Site Background .......................................................................................... 2
1.3 Description of Proposed Closure Options ................................................... 4
1.3.1 Option 1.1 – In-place Closure within Existing Footprint ............... 4
1.3.2 Option 1.2 – In-place Closure within Reduced Footprint .............. 4
1.3.3 Option 2.1 – Greenfield Landfill .................................................... 4
1.3.4 Option 2.2 – Brownfield Landfill ................................................... 4
1.4 Report Organization .................................................................................... 4
2. REGIONAL AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS ................................................. 6
2.1 Physiography ............................................................................................... 6
2.2 Topography .................................................................................................. 6
2.3 Surface Water Flow and Flood Plains ......................................................... 6
2.4 Geology ....................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Hydrogeology .............................................................................................. 8
2.5.1 Water Supply Wells ........................................................................ 9
2.5.2 Groundwater Elevations and Flow Patterns ................................... 9
2.5.3 Historical Aquifer Testing ............................................................ 10
2.5.4 Background Aquifer Conditions .................................................. 10
2.6 Overall Subsurface Stratigraphy Model .................................................... 11
3. SURFACE WATER FLOW MODEL ................................................................ 13
3.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Methods and Software ............................................................................... 15
3.3 Selection of Stormwater BMPs ................................................................. 15
3.3.1 Cooling Pond ................................................................................ 15
3.3.2 Wet Detention Ponds (For Conditional Design Scenario) ........... 16
GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx vii 07.25.14
3.3.3 Open Channels ............................................................................. 17
3.3.4 Open Channel Storage .................................................................. 17
3.4 Model Input Parameters ............................................................................. 18
3.5 Calculations and Results ............................................................................ 19
4. GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL ................................................................. 21
4.1 Model Objectives ....................................................................................... 21
4.2 Model Conceptualization ........................................................................... 21
4.3 Model Design ............................................................................................ 22
4.4 Model Grid ................................................................................................ 23
4.5 Boundaries ................................................................................................. 24
4.6 Recharge and Groundwater Withdrawal ................................................... 25
4.7 Hydraulic Conductivity Zones ................................................................... 27
4.8 Model Calibration ...................................................................................... 28
4.9 Predictive Simulations ............................................................................... 31
5. GEOCHEMICAL MODEL ................................................................................ 33
5.1 CCR and Soil Chemical Characterization ................................................. 33
5.1.1 Overview ...................................................................................... 33
5.1.2 Background Soil Chemical Characterization ............................... 33
5.1.3 Vanadium Pit Soil Results ............................................................ 34
5.1.4 Soil Chemical Characterization .................................................... 34
5.1.5 Chemical Characterization of CCR .............................................. 35
5.2 Groundwater and CCR Porewater Chemical Characterization ................. 35
5.2.1 Site Groundwater and CCR Porewater Chemistry ....................... 35
5.2.2 Background Groundwater Chemistry ........................................... 40
5.3 Assessment of Site Geochemistry ............................................................. 41
5.3.1 Geochemical Data Quality ........................................................... 41
5.3.2 Hydrochemical Characteristics of Site Water Samples ................ 41
5.3.3 Redox Behavior and Metal Speciation ......................................... 44
5.4 Geochemical Conceptual Site Model (CSM) ............................................ 45
6. GEOTECHNICAL MODEL .............................................................................. 48
6.1 Specific Subsurface Stratigraphy Models.................................................. 48
6.2 Phreatic Surface Interpretation .................................................................. 49
6.3 Material Parameter Interpretation .............................................................. 50
GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx viii 07.25.14
6.3.1 Index Parameters .......................................................................... 50
6.3.2 Shear Strength .............................................................................. 52
6.3.3 Compressibility ............................................................................ 55
6.3.4 CCR Flow Potential ...................................................................... 55
6.3.5 Shear Wave Velocity .................................................................... 56
6.3.6 Total Unit Weight ......................................................................... 56
6.4 Static Slope Stability Analysis .................................................................. 57
6.4.1 Analyzed Closure Options ............................................................ 58
6.4.2 Slope Stability Models ................................................................. 58
6.4.3 Slope Stability Analysis Results................................................... 59
6.5 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation ............................................................. 59
6.5.1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation .......................................................... 60
6.5.2 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation ................................................ 61
6.6 CCR Flow Potential ................................................................................... 61
6.7 Settlement Assessment .............................................................................. 62
7. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK EVALUATION..................................................... 63
7.1 Overview ................................................................................................... 63
7.2 Site Use ...................................................................................................... 63
7.3 Receptors ................................................................................................... 63
7.3.1 Human Receptors ......................................................................... 63
7.3.2 Environmental/Ecological Receptors ........................................... 64
7.4 Media and Pathways .................................................................................. 65
7.4.1 Soil and CCR Materials ................................................................ 65
7.4.2 Groundwater ................................................................................. 66
7.4.3 Surface Water, Sediments, and Fish Tissue in Cooling Pond ...... 67
7.5 Data Gaps and Risk Mitigation Measures ................................................. 67
8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 68

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.T1: Summary of Basic Information for Each Pond
Table 4.T1: Initial Pumping Rates
Table 4.T2: Observed vs. Simulated Heads
GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx ix 07.25.14
Table 4.T3: Calibrated Pumping Rates
Table 4.T4: Calibrated Hydraulic Conductivity Values
Table 4.T5: Calibrated Recharge Parameter Values
Table 6.T1: Selected Material Parameters
Table 6.T2: Summary of Consolidation Test Results
Table 6.T3: Summary of Total Unit Weight Test Results
Table 6.T4: Summary of the Calculated Factors of Safety of the Preliminary
Slope Stability Analysis
Table 6.T5: Liquefaction Potential Evaluation for Selected Locations with
Relatively Low N Values

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.F1: Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2.F1: Wetlands Mapped within 1500 ft Buffer Zone
Figure 2.F2: Regional Geologic Cross Section
Figure 2.F3: Shallow Groundwater Elevation Isocontour Map
Figure 2.F4: Lithologic Cross Section A to A′
Figure 2.F5: Lithologic Cross Section B to B′
Figure 2.F6: Lithologic Cross Section C to C′
Figure 3.F1: Option 1.1 – In-Place Closure with Existing Footprint Conceptual
Stormwater Management System Layout
Figure 3.F2: Option 1.2 – In-Place Closure with Reduced Footprint Conceptual
Stormwater Management System Layout
Figure 3.F3: Option 2.1 – Greenfield On-Site Landfill Conceptual Stormwater
Management System Layout
Figure 3.F4: Option 2.2 – Brownfield On-Site Landfill Conceptual Stormwater
Management System Layout
Figure 4.F1: Model Extent
Figure 4.F2: Model Boundary Conditions
Figure 4.F3: Model Groundwater Recharge Zones and Groundwater Supply Wells
Figure 4.F4: Model Hydraulic Conductivity Zones – Layer 1
Figure 4.F5: Groundwater Monitoring Wells Used for Model Calibration
Figure 4.F6: Simulated Water Table Elevation Contour Map (May 19, 2014)
Figure 4.F7: Observed vs. Simulated Graph
Figure 4.F8: Observed vs. Residual Graph
Figure 4.F9: Simulated Water Table Elevation Contour Map (Option 1.2 – In-
Place Closure with Reduced Footprint)
GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx x 07.25.14
Figure 5.F1: Water Sample Charge Balances
Figure 5.F2: Piper Diagram
Figure 5.F3: Schoeller Diagram 1
Figure 5.F4: Schoeller Diagram 2
Figure 5.F5: Schoeller Diagram 3
Figure 5.F6: Schoeller Diagram 4
Figure 5.F7: Eh-pH Diagram for Iron
Figure 5.F8: Eh-pH Diagram for Manganese
Figure 5.F9: Eh-pH Diagram for Arsenic
Figure 5.F10: Eh-pH Diagram for Selenium
Figure 6.F1A: Selected Cross Sections
Figure 6.F1B: Cross Section for Option 1.1
Figure 6.F1C: Cross Section for Option 1.2
Figure 6.F1D: Cross Section for Option 2.1
Figure 6.F2a: Cross Section A-A (Existing Conditions, 1971 Pond)
Figure 6.F2b: Cross Section B-B (Existing Conditions, 1984 Pond)
Figure 6.F2c: Cross Section C-C (Existing Conditions, Landfill Area)
Figure 6.F3a: Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations along the Dike
Centerline of the 1971 Pond
Figure 6.F3b: Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations along the Dike
Centerline of the 1984 Pond
Figure 6.F3c: Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations along the Dike
Centerline of the 2006 Interior Containment Area
Figure 6.F3d: Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations within the 1971
Pond
Figure 6.F3e: Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations within the 1984
Pond
Figure 6.F3f: Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations within the 2006
Interior Containment Area
Figure 6.F3g: Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations within the Landfill
Area
Figure 6.F4a: Grain Size Distribution Test Results for Dike Fill, Foundation Soils
and Landfill Area Soils
Figure 6.F4b: Grain Size Distribution Test Results for CCRs
Figure 6.F5a: Fines Content Data for Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill Area
Soils
Figure 6.F5b: Fines Content Data for CCRs
Figure 6.F6a: Natural Moisture Content Data for Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and
Landfill Area Soils
GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx xi 07.25.14
Figure 6.F6b: Natural Moisture Content Data for CCRs
Figure 6.F7a: Atterberg Limit Data for Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill
Area Soils
Figure 6.F7b: Atterberg Limit Data for CCRs
Figure 6.F8a: Specific Gravity for Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill Area
Soils
Figure 6.F8b: Specific Gravity for CCRs
Figure 6.F9a: SPT N-Blow Count of Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill Area
Soils
Figure 6.F9b: Effective Friction Angle of Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill
Area Soils Estimated from SPT
Figure 6.F10: Effective Friction Angle of Dike Fill and Foundation Soils Estimated
from CPT
Figure 6.F11: Undrained Shear Strength Ratio from CU Tests (CCRs)
Figure 6.F12: Effective Strength Parameters Estimated from CU Tests (CCRs)
Figure 6.F13: pH Test Results for CCRs
Figure 6.F14a: Shear Wave Velocities for Dike Fill and Foundation Soils
Figure 6.F14b: Shear Wave Velocities for CCRs
Figure 6.F15: Unit Weight of Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill Area Soils
Estimated from Shear Wave Velocity
Figure 6.F16a: Slope Stability Analysis Result for Option 1.1
Figure 6.F16b: Slope Stability Analysis Result for Option 1.2
Figure 6.F16c: Slope Stability Analysis Result for Option 2.1
Figure 6.F17a: Seismic Hazard Deaggregation for the Sutton Site
Figure 6.F17b: Geographic Distribution of Seismic Hazard Sources

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 2.A1: Flood Insurance Rate Map
Appendix 2.A2: Synterra Water Supply Well Supply
Appendix 3.A1: Stormwater ATC Decision Flow Chart
Appendix 3.A2: SWMS Modeling Results, Options 1.1, 1.2, and 2.2
Appendix 3.A3: SWMS Modeling Results, Option 2.1

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 1 07.25.14
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) is currently performing a conceptual closure
evaluation to select an appropriate option to close the Coal Combustion Residual (CCR)
ponds located at the L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant (Sutton Plant). Detailed closure
plans will be developed subsequently for the selected closure option. DEC requested
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC (Geosyntec) to evaluate the conceptual
closure options. As part of this evaluation, Geosyntec reviewed existing Site data,
developed and implemented a preliminary Site investigation program, performed
preliminary data interpretations and analyses and conducted a feasibility analysis of the
closure options. Recommendations for the preferred closure options will be made based
on this work and discussions with DEC.
The conceptual closure evaluation work will be presented in three separate reports as
follows:
• Preliminary Site Investigation Data Report (Data Report): This report presents a
comprehensive compilation of data from historical Site investigations performed
by others as well as current Site investigations performed by Geosyntec. Site
investigation, reconnaissance and laboratory data are included in this report.
• Data Interpretation and Analysis Report (I & A Report): This report includes
data interpretation and analysis performed as part of the conceptual closure
options evaluation. Interpretation of the Site subsurface stratigraphy, selection
of material parameters and preliminary technical analyses for different closure
options are presented in this report.
• Closure Options Feasibility Analysis Report (Feasibility Report): This report
will present the feasibility evaluations performed for the conceptual closure
options. Conceptual closure options, conceptual grading plans and details,
material quantities, cost estimates and closure options evaluations and ranking
will be included in this report.
The above three reports may refer to each other and should be considered as companion
reports. The remainder of this report constitutes the I & A Report.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 2 07.25.14
1.2 Site Background
The Sutton Plant is located in New Hanover County, near Wilmington, North Carolina,
situated between the Cape Fear River to the west and the Northeast Cape Fear River to
the east as shown in Figure 1.F1. The Sutton Plant is a three-unit, 575-megawatt (MW)
coal-fired power plant. The Plant operated from 1954 until retirement of the coal-fired
units in November 2013. Upon retirement of the coal-fired units a new, 625-MW gas-
fired unit began operating.
Notable features at the Site related to the scope of this report include two CCR ponds
and a large Cooling Pond. It is noted that the Cooling Pond is accessible to the general
public and is used for recreational purposes. Two other areas of interest include the
Former Ash Disposal Area (FADA) and the Vanadium Pit.
The Sutton Plant has two CCR Ponds on Site, and they are referred to as: (i) the 1971
Pond; and (ii) the 1984 Pond. The 2011 Dam Information Summary sheet [MACTEC,
2011a], provides a detailed summary of the Ponds. Additional information is provided
in the 2007 5-year dam inspection report [MACTEC, 2007]. Most of the information
summarized in this section was taken from these two sources. Table 1.T1 summarizes
the basic information for each pond.
According to the 2007 5-year dam inspection report, the 1971 Pond was operated from
1971 to 1985. It was opened again in 2011 for temporary use during repair work and
ash removal activities from the 1971 and 1984 Ponds. The 1984 Pond was operated
from 1984 to 2013. Both ponds contain fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, storm water,
ash sluice water, coal pile runoff, and low volume wastewater. Since scrubbers were
not installed at the Sutton Plant, Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) residuals are not
expected to be found in the CCR ponds. The 1971 Pond is unlined and was initially
constructed with a crest elevation of 18 ft and raised in 1983 to 26 ft mean sea level
(MSL). Hence, the 1971 Pond is sometimes referred to as the 1983 Pond. In this report
the name 1971 Pond is used. The 1984 Pond was constructed with a 12-in. thick clay
liner at the pond bottom which extended along the side slopes where it is protected by a
2-ft thick sand layer. The 1984 Pond crest elevation is 34 ft MSL. In 2006 an Interior
Containment Area (ICA) was constructed within the 1984 Pond with a crest elevation of
42 ft MSL.
The Cooling Pond, 1971 Pond and 1984 Pond are operated under the State of North
Carolina issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 3 07.25.14
number NC0001422 to regulate effluents to the Cape Fear River. Additionally, the
dikes of the Cooling Pond, 1971 Pond and 1984 Pond are regulated under the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Dam Safety
Program. The dam identification numbers for the Cooling Pond, 1971 Pond and 1984
Pond are NEWHA-003, NEWHA-004 and NEWHA-005, respectively. These dikes/
dams are rated as low hazard by NCDENR. The 2006 Interior Containment Area
constructed within the 1984 Pond was permitted and used as a “pond within a pond,”
where an interior dike was constructed on top of the CCR within the pond, sluiced CCR
was excavated from rim ditches, placed within the interior pond, and compacted to
heights that are above the exterior pond dikes. This operation was discontinued before
reaching the permitted final grades when the Plant was shut down in November 2013.
Both the 1971 and 1984 Ponds have areas of standing water. According to the 2011
Dam Information Summary Sheet [MACTEC, 2011a], the 1971 Pond has a 4-ft
diameter vertical outlet riser that connects to a 3-ft diameter pipe that discharges to the
Cooling Pond. The 1984 Pond also has a 4-ft diameter vertical riser, which connects to
a 3-ft diameter outlet pipe that discharges to the Cooling Pond. In addition, the 1984
Pond also has a gated diversion structure, which allows discharge to be diverted to the
Cape Fear River.
The FADA is located between the discharge canal and the coal pile. It is believed that
CCR may have been disposed of in this area between approximately 1954 and 1972.
Geosyntec understands that the FADA may be on the North Carolina Inactive
Hazardous Waste Sites Priority List and may at some point have been under the
NCDENR Department of Waste Management (DWM) Inactive Hazardous Sites
Branch’s voluntary program. Verbal communications with DEC during the Site visit
suggest that a 1-ft thick soil layer may overlay 2 to 3 ft of ash in some parts of the
FADA. A preliminary field investigation was carried out as part of this conceptual
closure evaluation in order to characterize this area. Details of this investigation and
interpretation will be presented as part of addenda to the Data Report and I & A Report.
Historical drawings show an area labeled as a “Vanadium Pit,” which is located just
outside of the ponds boundary between the entrance gate to the CCR ponds and MW-
18. A preliminary field investigation was carried out as part of this conceptual closure
evaluation in order to characterize this area. Details of this investigation and
interpretation are presented in Section 5 of this report.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 4 07.25.14
1.3 Description of Proposed Closure Options
Four preliminary closure options have been proposed: two in-place closures and two
landfill closure options. The closure options are described in detail in the Feasibility
Report. A brief description of each option is provided herein as they relate to the
interpretation and analyses presented in this I & A Report.
1.3.1 Option 1.1 – In-place Closure within Existing Footprint
Option 1.1 involves re-grading of the CCRs and closure with an engineered cover. In
this option the CCRs are closed within the existing footprint of both the 1971 and 1984
Ponds. This is the only option that closes CCRs within the 1971 Pond.
1.3.2 Option 1.2 – In-place Closure within Reduced Footprint
Option 1.2 involves removal of CCRs from the 1971 Pond and parts of the 1984 Pond.
The CCRs would then be re-graded and closed with an engineered cover within the
footprint of the 1984 Pond and utilizing the existing base clay liner.
1.3.3 Option 2.1 – Greenfield Landfill
Option 2.1 involves the removal of CCRs from both the 1971 and 1984 Ponds and
containment within an engineered lined landfill to be constructed on Site. The landfill
would be sited in a greenfield area within the property boundary to the east of the 1984
Pond. This potential landfill area is referred to as the “Landfill Area” throughout this
report. The CCRs would then be closed with an engineered cover.
1.3.4 Option 2.2 – Brownfield Landfill
Option 2.2 involves the removal of CCRs from both the 1971 and 1984 Ponds and
containment within an engineered lined landfill to be constructed within the footprint of
the 1984 Pond. The CCRs would then be closed with an engineered cover. This option
will include staged excavation and CCR management during construction of the
landfill.
1.4 Report Organization
As stated earlier, this I & A Report presents data interpretation and analyses performed
as part of the conceptual closure options evaluation. Interpretation of the Site

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 5 07.25.14
subsurface stratigraphy, selection of material properties, and preliminary technical
analyses for different closure options will be presented in this report. The remaining
sections of this report are organized as follows:
• Section 2 describes the regional Site characteristics such as physiography,
topography, surface water flow and flood plains, geology, hydrogeology, and
overall subsurface stratigraphy;
• Section 3 presents the conceptual design of stormwater management systems;
• Section 4 presents the groundwater flow model for existing and potential future
conditions associated with closure options;
• Section 5 includes a geochemical evaluation of the media at the Site;
• Section 6 presents the interpretation of geotechnical data and results of
preliminary analyses for slope stability, liquefaction, and settlement;
• Section 7 discusses the Site data from an environmental risk point of view as it
relates to media, pathways, and potential receptors; and
• Section 8 includes a list of cited references.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 6 07.25.14
2. REGIONAL AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Physiography
The Site is located on Sutton Steam Plant Road in Wilmington, New Hanover County,
North Carolina. The Site is located within the southeastern part of the Coastal Plain of
North Carolina and is situated on a peninsula between the Atlantic Ocean and the
Northeast Cape Fear and Cape Fear Rivers.
The land surface of New Hanover County is a plain with a slight overall slope toward
the southeast to the Atlantic coast and the Cape Fear River. This plain is relatively flat
in the broad interstream areas but is broken by low escarpments along the Northeast
Cape Fear and Cape Fear Rivers and breached by short tributary creeks. The plain
represents the part of the Pleistocene sea floor that has been exposed by withdrawal of
the sea in the relatively recent geologic past. Parts of the land surface are covered with
rolling sand hills. These sand hills constitute accumulations of beach sand which were
shifted by the wind to form dunes [Bain, 1970].
The Cape Fear River constitutes the western boundary of the Site. The remaining area
surrounding the Site is a mixture of residential and industrial properties.
2.2 Topography
Local surface elevations range from approximately 15 feet to 30 feet above sea level.
One of the predominant features of the Site is the Cooling Pond, which covers an area
of 1,110 acres. The water level in the Cooling Pond is approximately five to eight feet
above the level of the Cape Fear River. The elevation of the water in the Cooling Pond
strongly influences groundwater flow in the local area.
2.3 Surface Water Flow and Flood Plains
Discharges from the 1984 and 1971 Ponds are routed to either the Cape Fear River or
the Cooling Pond. Additionally, the Cooling Pond receives stormwater runoff
generated by the Site areas located west of the railroad tracks that parallel U.S. Route
421 and the Sutton Steam Plant road, which terminates near the Cape Fear River.
The 100-year floodplain for the Site varies from elevation 7 ft to 8 ft (NAVD88) from
north to south along the eastern perimeter of the Cooling Pond, as depicted on the
Floodplain Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) presented in Appendix 2.A1. According to

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 7 07.25.14
the FIRM, there are relatively few areas of the Site impacted by the 100-year floodplain,
with the exception of the Cooling Ponds and a portion of the 1984 Pond used for
stormwater collection and treatment. Based on available topographic data in the
vicinity of the perimeter dike and the 1984 Pond riser structure, projection of the
floodplain within the 1984 Pond limits may be an over-estimation of the actual extent of
the floodplain limits. Since floodplain boundaries represented on FIRMs are largely
based on interpreted topographic surfaces without benefit of site-specific structural
features and elevations, minor discrepancies between mapped and actual floodplain
limits are common.
It is noted that the 1971 and 1984 Pond dike crest elevations are above the floodplain,
and therefore the CCRs within the ponds will not be under the flood level. Ground
elevations in the FADA Area are above elevation 10 ft, while the 100-year flood
elevation adjacent to this area (as depicted on the FIRM) is between elevation 7.0 ft and
8.0 ft. The FIRM thus excludes the entire FADA area from the limits of areas
influenced by the 100-year flood. In addition, the ground elevations in the proposed
greenfield or brownfield landfill area (elevations ranging from 15 ft to 30 ft) are also
well above the flood elevation.
An abbreviated receptor survey was conducted following guidance provided by Duke
Energy for Ash Pond Closure Plan Requirements. This survey generally includes
searching for potential water supply wells, surface water bodies, and wetlands.
Geosyntec is relying on the recent potential water supply well survey conducted by
Synterra and discussed in Subsection 2.5.1 below.
Wetlands and water bodies mapped within a 1,500-foot buffer zone from the
compliance boundary are depicted on Figure 2.F1. The compliance boundary is
defined as a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the waste boundary or the property
boundary (250 feet from the waste boundary or 50 feet within the property boundary for
impoundments constructed after December 1983), whichever is closer to the source
[NCDENR, 2013]. It is noted that the compliance boundary at this Site has been
established 500 feet away from the pond boundaries and 500 feet away from the waste
areas previously delineated in the FADA Area.
Water bodies within this 1,500-foot buffer zone include portions of the Cooling Pond
(and associated intake and discharge channels), a short segment of the Cape Fear River,
standing water (or wet spots) within the 1971 and the 1984 Ponds, and a portion of the
pond located on the S.T. Wooten Corporation property to the east of the Site. Areas

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 8 07.25.14
mapped as wetlands are located to the north of the 1984 Pond, as well as within the
FADA Area and some areas adjacent to the Cape Fear River. It is noted that no actual
wetlands delineation was conducted, but that the wetlands boundary information was
obtained using the US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper
(http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html).
2.4 Geology
The Site is underlain by up to 75 feet of unconsolidated sediments consisting primarily
of well drained sands. In the 1970 publication of “Geology and Ground-Water of New
Hanover County”, George Bain presented a cross section northwest to southeast of the
area that includes the Site in the greater context of the county [Bain, 1970]. A copy of
the regional cross section is presented on Figure 2.F2. The cross section illustrates the
50 feet to 75 feet of undifferentiated sands of late Tertiary age and Quaternary surficial
deposits, typical of what was encountered at the Site during previous and current
investigations. The Cretaceous Peedee Formation underlies the surficial deposits in the
local area and typically consists of unconsolidated green to dark-gray silt, olive-green to
gray sand, and massive black clay with unconsolidated calcareous sandstone and impure
limestone. The Peedee Formation is approximately 700 feet thick in New Hanover
County.
Fifty one monitoring wells and 45 piezometers have been installed through various
phases of investigation at the Site, some of which have previously been abandoned.
During this investigation, Geosyntec installed an additional seven monitoring wells
around the 1984 Pond to assess groundwater quality in this area, and an additional ten
piezometers to assess potentiometric surfaces around the CCR ponds. In general, the
subsurface soils logged during the site investigation were comprised of well-sorted
medium-grained sands. The sands are typical of aeolian (wind-driven dune) sands and
are generally clean. A clay layer was encountered that thickens slightly toward the west
(toward the Cape Fear River) at an approximate elevation of -15 feet (NAVD88). The
clay layer is absent at well location MW-33C and increases in thickness to two feet at
location MW-13D. The clay layer becomes more plastic at MW-13D. The
stratigraphic site model is presented in Section 2.6.
2.5 Hydrogeology
The water table aquifer includes the surface sand that covers most of the county to
depths of 75 feet or more in places. This upper aquifer is a prolific water producer for

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 9 07.25.14
domestic, industrial and public water supply. The 1970 publication of “Geology and
Ground-Water of New Hanover County” reports that one of the supply wells owned by
Duke Energy on Sutton Steam Plant Road was installed to a depth of 53 feet and
yielded 480 gallons per minute (gpm) [Bain, 1970]. Well yields over 100 gpm are
typical in the upper 55 feet of undifferentiated Tertiary and Quaternary sand deposits in
the local area. The upper confined aquifer of the Peedee Formation is another aquifer
commonly used for water supply in the area. Additional confined aquifers are present
in the Peedee Formation with salt water potentially intruding at depths below 200 to 300
feet below ground surface.
2.5.1 Water Supply Wells
Synterra conducted a survey of potential water supply wells for the area approximately
½ mile to the east of the Site. The water supply well survey was conducted by Synterra
during February and March 2014 and is considered current for that time period.
Geosyntec is relying on the information provided in the well survey and a copy of the
survey is included in Appendix 2.A2. Duke Energy operates three water supply wells
and the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) currently operates two supply
wells. According to Synterra, an additional 44 possible private water supply wells were
observed or have been reported in the area within ½ mile to the east of the Duke Energy
property line.
2.5.2 Groundwater Elevations and Flow Patterns
Groundwater is encountered at an elevation of approximately eight to 10 feet above the
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Monitoring wells at the Site are
installed to assess three depth intervals. Many of the monitoring wells are installed as
clusters. Monitoring wells with the “A” designation are generally screened at five to 15
feet below ground surface (bgs), “B” wells are screened generally between 22- and 27
feet bgs, and “C” wells are screened between 40 to 45 feet bgs. There is a slight
downward vertical gradient among the well clusters of generally less than 0.05 feet
difference. Of the twelve well pairs gauged in May 2014, ten of the twelve wells
exhibited a downward vertical gradient.
A groundwater elevation contour map (Figure 2.F3) was generated based on the May
2014 data. Due to the very slight differences in vertical gradients, a single contour map
was generated as it is representative of the three depth intervals. The Cooling Pond
provides a constant head boundary to the west of the CCR ponds and groundwater

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 10 07.25.14
elevations appear to increase approximately one to two feet directly beneath the CCR
ponds. Water levels measured in the piezometers and at the staff gauges in the unlined
1971 Pond and the clay-lined 1984 Pond indicate that water present in these ponds is
perched and these data were not used for development of the contour map. Based on
this map, groundwater flow patterns in the immediate vicinity of the CCR ponds are
radially away from the ponds, and generally toward the west (Cooling Pond) and the
south (discharge canal). A more thorough discussion of groundwater flow over the
larger area is presented in Section 4.
2.5.3 Historical Aquifer Testing
There have been a number of aquifer tests conducted by different consultants over time,
with most of the testing using slug testing. The most recent aquifer testing, conducted
prior to the work presented herein, was performed by Synterra and is reported in an
Aquifer Testing Report dated 13 December 2013 [Synterra, 2013a]. Aquifer testing
was conducted using short-term aquifer tests on wells MW-32C and MW-33C. Results
varied based on the well and type of analysis used to evaluate the data; however,
Synterra estimated that hydraulic conductivity ranged between 14.5 ft/day and 30
ft/day, which is similar to the range of results calculated for other site wells using slug
tests and these results are comparable to typical hydraulic conductivity values for
medium-grained sand aquifers.
2.5.4 Background Aquifer Conditions
As discussed in Section 2.5.3.1 of the Data Report and presented in Appendix 2.A6 of
the Data Report, background aquifer conditions were evaluated by installing pressure
transducers in five monitoring wells throughout the Site for approximately two weeks.
Background conditions were monitored at monitoring wells MW-5A, MW-7C, MW-8,
MW-31C, MW-33C. The graphed data shown in Appendix 2.A6 of the Data Report
indicated three possible well groupings:
• Group 1: MW-5A;
• Group 2: MW-7C, MW-8, and MW-33C;
• Group 3: MW-31C.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 11 07.25.14
It should be noted that there was rainfall of approximately 0.75 inches on Day 2, 1.26
inches on Day 3, and 0.28 inches of rain on Day 14 1 during the performance of the
aquifer tests. The rainfall was evident in the Group 1 well as a disruption of the
oscillating groundwater elevation pattern. The oscillating pattern is most evident at
around Day 10 when groundwater rises approximately 0.4 feet, decreases approximately
0.2 feet, levels out and then decreases approximately 0.2 feet to its starting elevation.
The pattern shown in Group 2 does not show the oscillations that are present in Group
1. Instead, they show overall decreasing groundwater elevations with the exception of a
temporary 0.1 to 0.2-foot rise in groundwater elevation due to the rainfall on Day 2 and
Day 3. A small rise in groundwater elevations (less than 0.1 feet) is visible in
monitoring wells MW-8 and MW-33C due to the rain that fell on Day 14.
Group 3 monitoring well MW-31C shows an overall pattern of rising groundwater
elevations. During the monitoring period groundwater rose approximately one foot. In
addition, there were smaller daily oscillations in groundwater elevations at this
monitoring well. Geosyntec believes that the rising groundwater elevation at this well
is likely due to a decrease in off-Site groundwater pumping in the vicinity of the
Wooten plant during the monitoring period. Additionally, the daily oscillations are
likely due to varying pumping rates throughout the day.
2.6 Overall Subsurface Stratigraphy Model
Stratigraphic cross-sections were generated in support of the conceptual site model
(CSM). Cross-section A-A’ (Figure 2.F4) is oriented west-east and begins at the
Cooling Pond westward to MW-11 in a line north of the 1984 Pond. Cross-section B-
B’ (Figure 2.F5) is a west-east transect in the southern portion of the Site and begins at
MW-13 in the FADA Area, crosses over the Discharge Canal, through the 1971 Pond
and extends to well MW-33C. The third cross-section, C-C’ (Figure 2.F6), is oriented
north-south and begins north of the CCR ponds, transects the 1984 and 1971 Ponds, the
Discharge Canal, and extends to MW-20D in the south of the FADA Area.
In general, the subsurface is characterized as fine- to medium-grained sands, with some
areas in the southern portion of the Site demonstrating a mixture of sand and gravel.
The Peedee Formation is depicted in the cross-sections and is estimated based on

1 http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KILM/2014/5/10/MonthlyHistory.html?

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 12 07.25.14
literature to be present at an elevation of -50 feet NAVD88. The borings advanced at
the Site did not appear to reach into the Peedee confining layer.
A discontinuous layer of clay that thickens to the west toward the Cape Fear River is
present in the southern portion of the Site at an elevation ranging between -10 and -20
feet NAVD88. During the geotechnical investigation conducted in the 1971 Pond, a
mixture of fine sand and CCR materials was encountered in several borings at
elevations of up to-30 to -35 feet NAVD88 indicating evidence that CCRs are present at
depths well below the original grade. Additional assessment activities are ongoing to
determine subsurface conditions below the 1971 Pond and within the FADA Area.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 13 07.25.14
3. SURFACE WATER FLOW MODEL
3.1 Purpose
This section presents a summary of the stormwater management systems (SWMSs)
associated with the 1971 and 1984 Pond closure options. The SWMSs are designed to
regulate the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff generated by the closed ash pond
areas using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize impacts to water quality
and alterations to the hydrology of the receiving water bodies. The analyses herein
present the assumptions and methodologies used for the conceptual design of the
SWMS for the four (4) closure options presented earlier in this report. The conceptual
designs are presented in Figures 3.F1 through 3.F4.
The New Hanover County Stormwater Ordinance (Ordinance) [New Hanover County,
2000a] applies to “all territory within the unincorporated areas of the county and shall
govern the development and use of land and structures in the county.” Development is
categorized as ‘New Development’ or ‘Redevelopment’. New Development is defined
as “any activity for which a building permit or a grading permit is required, or where
any land disturbing activity occurs, except for the construction of a single-family home
not governed by the county subdivision ordinance.” Redevelopment is defined as a
“substantial modification of existing developed area [….] does not include interior
remodeling or modifications which do not include substantial modifications to the
impervious surface of the facility.”
Closure Options 1.1, 1.2, and 2.2 developed herein are considered to qualify under the
redevelopment guidelines described further below. The requirements of redevelopment
land disturbance activity (per the Ordinance) are based upon the extent of disturbance
together with the existing and proposed imperviousness.
• Redevelopment activities that disturb less than one acre and do not result in
additional impervious area are not required to obtain a written authorization-to-
construct (ATC) from the county.
• Redevelopment activities for a site with 10,000 square feet (sq. ft.) or more of
existing impervious area that will increase the impervious area by more than
3,000 sq. ft. are required to obtain a written ATC from the county.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 14 07.25.14
• Redevelopment activities for a site with less than 10,000 sq. ft. of existing
impervious area that will result in a total impervious area in excess of 13,000 sq.
ft. are required to obtain a written ATC.
A written ATC from the county requires a project to comply with the New Hanover
County stormwater management policy “that all developed land within the County has
adequate stormwater facilities and controls to ensure the protection and safety of life
and property and to protect water quality of streams within the County.” The New
Hanover County Stormwater Design Manual (Manual) [New Hanover County, 2000b]
manual provides guidance to demonstrate the protection and safety of life and property
by requiring that the post-development condition peak discharge rate be less than the
pre-development condition for the 2-, 10-, and 25-year, 24-hour storms.
The selected closure options are not expected to increase the imperviousness to the
extent that a written ATC from the county would be required. Further, if the existing
Cooling Pond is found to satisfy the requirements for stormwater management (meeting
water quality treatment and peak discharge attenuation requirements), then new or
additional stormwater ponds constructed outside of the existing ash ponds will not be
required. Confirmation that the Cooling Pond are sufficient and acceptable for the
selected closure option may require additional analysis and concurrence from the
county. If, however, during the design process it is determined that additional
stormwater treatment or attenuation facilities are deemed necessary, a conceptual
stormwater design is included in this section (referred to herein as the “conditional
design scenario”).
Assuming utilization of the Cooling Pond for all necessary stormwater treatment and
attenuation, redevelopment activities associated with the closure options would only
require attenuation of the 10-year, 24-hour storm. If, under the conditional design
scenario, external stormwater ponds are required, the additional imperviousness would
classify this component of the project as new development. Therefore, the external
stormwater ponds would be required to attenuate the 2-, 10-, and 25-year, 24-hour
storms.
The design criteria selection process is presented in ‘Stormwater “Authorization-to-
Construct” (ATC) Decision Flow Chart’2 as shown in Appendix 3.A1.

2 http://planningdevelopment.nhcgov.com/, accessed June 2014

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 15 07.25.14
3.2 Methods and Software
Hydraulic and hydrologic modeling of stormwater runoff routing was performed using
HydroCAD, Version 9.1 [HydroCAD, 2009]. This program combines hydrologic
calculation methods from Technical Report 55 (TR-55) [SCS, 1986] with other
hydraulic calculation methods for estimating temporal stormwater runoff volumes from
drainage areas and stage-storage-discharge relationships for storage facilities. For
conceptual design, stormwater runoff routing within the drainage features atop the
closure option cover systems were not modeled.
3.3 Selection of Stormwater BMPs
The Manual and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), “Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual” [NCDENR, 2007] lists
acceptable BMP options from which to select a detention/treatment alternative best
suited for site conditions and constraints. The BMP descriptions include a list of
applicable local and state design criteria. Conceptual sizing of stormwater ponds for the
conditional design scenario was performed in accordance with the requirements of the
Manual [New Hanover County, 2000b].
3.3.1 Cooling Pond
For each closure option that is categorized as a redevelopment activity, it is assumed
that the Cooling Pond will provide detention of stormwater runoff. The Cooling Pond is
located immediately west of the existing ash ponds and the closed ash pond areas. The
Cooling Pond receives direct rainfall and stormwater runoff from the surrounding area
in addition to process flows from the existing plant. Furthermore, discharges from the
existing ash ponds are directed to either the Cooling Pond or the Cape Fear River.
Process water enters the Cooling Pond from the discharge canal located near the
southeast corner of the Cooling Pond. Impounded water is circulated through a main
baffle and a series of “wing” dikes located west of the main baffle. Water is recycled
into the plant through an intake canal located south of the discharge canal.
The Cooling Pond has a normal pool elevation of 9.5 ft and an estimated surface of
1,100 acres. The water level can be lowered by a sluice gate while additional discharges
can be released through an overflow structure located near the end of the intake canal.
The sluice gate could lower the pond elevation to 2.5 ft, while the overflow is at

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 16 07.25.14
elevation 10.5 ft. Previous reports indicate that the water level was observed to fluctuate
between elevation 9.5 and 9.7 ft [MACTEC, 2010]. However, a recent survey recorded
the water level within the Cooling Pond at elevation 8.6 ft. In addition, water is being
released into the Cape Fear River and refilled (make-up pumping) to control algae
growth [MACTEC, 2010].
The closure options that qualify as redevelopment projects (Option 1.1, 1.2, and 2.2)
would disturb an area of approximately 140 acres. The stormwater runoff volume from
the closure areas (considering neither infiltration nor evapotranspiration) would be
approximately 84 ac-ft for the 10-year, 24-hour storm (7-in.). This volume would result
in less than a 0.1-ft increase in the stage of the Cooling Pond. As such, it is expected
that the Cooling Pond would qualify as a detention measure for stormwater runoff from
the closed ash pond areas. However, wet detention ponds were also considered for the
conditional design scenario should the closure options be required to include
supplemental stormwater treatment or detention prior to discharge into the Cooling
Pond. The sub-section below addresses provisions for wet detention ponds associated
with the conditional design scenario.
3.3.2 Wet Detention Ponds (For Conditional Design Scenario)
Wet and dry detention ponds are two types of detention facilities provided within the
Manual for stormwater runoff detention. The design procedures within the Manual
require that a SWMS detain the first 1-inch (water quality volume) if a detention facility
is utilized. Wet detention ponds include a zone within the available storage depth that is
specifically design to manage the water quality volume. Dry detention ponds do not
have this feature and, therefore, require integrating additional structural BMPs such as
infiltration facilities. As such, wet detention ponds were selected as the BMP of choice
for the conditional design scenario. Furthermore, it is important to note that wet
detention ponds are the most common BMP in New Hanover County (Manual).
The County design criteria were used to develop an estimate of the required storage
capacity of the wet detention ponds. The following are County design criteria for wet
detention ponds:
• Detain the first 1-inch of rainfall for at least two (2) days and more than five (5)
days (Manual).

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 17 07.25.14
• The top of the embankment shall be at least 0.5 ft above the peak water surface
elevation for the 100-year, 24-hour storm (Manual).
• An emergency spillway shall be provided to convey the 100-year, 24-hour storm
without the use of the principal spillway (Manual).
3.3.3 Open Channels
The design criteria set forth in the Manual were utilized in the design of the perimeter
drainage channel and other conveyance channels associated with the SWMSs of each
closure option. The design criteria are summarized below:
• Open channels shall be designed for the peak run-off produced by a 25-year, 24-
hour storm (Manual).
• Channels were designed to have at least 0.5 ft of freeboard for the 25-year,
24-hour storm.
• Maximum side slopes of channels shall be 3 horizontal (H) to 1 vertical (V)
(3H:1V) and 2H:1V with vegetated and riprap lining, respectively (Manual).
• A maximum allowable design velocity of 4.5 feet per second for vegetated
channels (grass lining of tall fescue, bahiagrass, or Kentucky bluegrass) shall be
based on a 10-year, 24-hour storm (Manual).
• Analyses shall also be provided for the 100-year, 24-hour storm (Manual).
• Channels were designed to prevent overtopping during the 100-year, 24-hour
storm.
3.3.4 Open Channel Storage
Surface water collection, storage, and conveyance for the Greenfield On-site Landfill
(Option 2.1) utilizes long, linear channels that surround the perimeter of the landfill
(Figure 3.F3). The channels would likely be graded with minimal slope but would have
outlets and spillways to convey flows downstream. These open channels can be
designed to function similar to wet detention ponds and, for the purposes of this report,
are assigned the same design criteria as wet detention ponds. Unlike the other closure
options, conventionally graded and sloped drainage ditches could not be used to convey

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 18 07.25.14
flow around the perimeter of the Greenfield On-site Landfill due to the significant
conveyance lengths required and the channel depth which would result from
maintaining a minimum channel profile of approximately 0.5 percent. The open
channel storage approach is therefor used along the landfill perimeter, while
conventionally designed and graded conveyance channels would be used to convey
runoff from the perimeter channels to the Cooling Pond.
3.4 Model Input Parameters
The following model input parameters were used to define the hydrologic calculation
parameters of the pre- and post-development conditions and perform the sizing and
routing calculations for the BMPs.
• Conceptual Stormwater Management System Layout: The layout represents the
connectivity of the various stormwater management system components to a
discharge point. The layouts for each closure option of the 1971 and 1984 Ponds
are shown in Figures 3.F1 through 3.F4. These figures also show the drainage
area delineations and the type of flow paths utilized in model development.
• Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG): The hydrologic soil groups are soil group
classifications based on minimum infiltration rates. The hydrologic soil groups
for the site area are presented in Appendix 3.A2.
• Curve Numbers: The curve number is a variable that quantifies the combined
effect of the HSG, cover type, and hydrologic conditions on the stormwater
runoff depth based on calculations using the SCS Runoff Curve Number Method
[SCS, 1986]. The curve numbers for the drainage areas are derived from the
Ordinance [New Hanover County, 2000a], with curve numbers for each
drainage area presented in Appendix 3.A2.
• Rainfall Distribution and Depths: The rainfall distribution for the project site
was selected as Type III Distribution based on geographic boundaries presented
in TR-55 [SCS, 1986]. The rainfall depths used for each storm event are
obtained from the stormwater ordinance [New Hanover County, 2000a], and are
presented in Appendix 3.A2.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 19 07.25.14
• Stage-Storage-Discharge Relationships: The stage-storage-discharge
relationship for each storage facility of the conditional design scenario is
presented in Appendix 3.A2.
3.5 Calculations and Results
The SWMSs of the redevelopment closure options (Option 1.1, 1.2, and 2.2) were
designed to convey flow to the Cooling Pond without detention. In this scenario, the
critical design element is the geometry of the open channels on the perimeter of the
facilities.
The channels were design as grass-lined trapezoidal channels. The channels were able
to satisfy the aforementioned County design criteria with grass-lining, 3H:1V side
slopes, 2.5 ft minimum depths, and a 0.5% longitudinal slope. The existing spillway
structure of the 1984 stormwater pond has sufficient capacity to be modified and
employed for each of these designs. An overflow structure, such as an armored
spillway, would be required for large storm events up to the 100-year, 24-hour storm.
Furthermore, the existing spillway structure of the 1971 stormwater pond does not have
sufficient capacity to remain in operation for these designs, and would need to be
replaced with an overflow structure.
For the conditional design scenario, stormwater ponds were conceptually placed and
sized to detain and treat stormwater runoff prior to discharging into the Cooling Pond.
A summary of the pond dimension for this scenario are provided below. The spillway
structures of each pond are detailed in Appendix 3.A2. The existing spillway structures
for each existing stormwater pond have sufficient capacity to function for the
conditional design scenario.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 20 07.25.14

The open channel storage features for Option 2.1 were designed with trapezoidal cross-
sectional geometry, having 35-ft bottom widths and 3H:1V side slopes. The perimeter
storage channels have a minimum depth of 3 ft and increase to a maximum depth of 4.5
feet. The modeling results for this option are presented within Appendix 3.A3.
In summary, the conceptual SWMS designs for Options 1.1, 1.2, and 2.2 are comprised
of grass-lined trapezoidal channels that route flows to the existing spillway structures or
the existing perimeter channel east of the ash ponds. In the conditional design scenario,
the existing stormwater ponds are modified and new external stormwater ponds are
created should additional treatment and attenuation of flows be required prior to
discharge into the Cooling Pond.

Closure Option Stormwater Pond
Surface Area
at Top of Pond
(ac)
Impoundment
Depth
(ft)
Effective
Impoundment
Volume
(ac-ft)
Modified 1984
Stormwater Pond 1.3 12 12
Modified 1971
Stormwater Pond 4.4 7 28
New External
Stormwater Pond North 5.0 5 16
New External
Stormwater Pond South 3.3 4 19
Modified 1984
Stormwater Pond 1.7 10 14
Modified 1971
Stormwater Pond 9.6 5 46
New External Pond 3.4 6 19
Modified 1984
Stormwater Pond 2.3 10 20
Modified 1971
Stormwater Pond 6.0 5 29
New External Pond 5.9 4 23
1.1
1.2
2.2

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 21 07.25.14
4. GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL
4.1 Model Objectives
The purpose for creating a groundwater flow model is to simulate future groundwater
conditions at the Site under various post-closure scenarios, to assist in evaluating
potential closure options. Pursuant to this, the modeling effort consists of three
objectives:
• Create a steady state groundwater model of the Site that is calibrated to
groundwater conditions observed in May 2014;
• Using the calibrated model, run a predictive scenario to simulate the reduced
1984 Pond closure option where CCR material is removed from the 1971 Pond
and portions of the 1984 Pond, and then placed under an engineered cap at the
center of the 1984 Pond (Option 1.2: In-Place Closure with Reduced Footprint);
and
• Evaluate the predicted water table elevation relative to the bottom of the CCR
material in both CCR ponds.
4.2 Model Conceptualization
As described above in Section 2, the Site is located northwest of Wilmington, New
Hanover County, North Carolina. The general vicinity around the Site is within the
Tidewater sub-region of the Coastal Plain, where many river and streams are affected
by oceanic tides. The Site itself is underlain by three hydrogeological units which dip
and thicken toward the east. The uppermost unit is the Surficial Aquifer which is made
up of Quaternary age near shore to shore deposits (e.g. stream, terrace, and barrier shore
deposits), composed typically of sand, with some clay [Bain, 1970]. The second unit is
a confining layer that is part of the Peedee formation, which ranges from a clay, silty
clay, sandy clay, to clayey sand [Winner & Coble, 1996]. Below the confining layer is
the Cretaceous age Peedee Aquifer. The Peedee Aquifer consists of marine
environment deposits, which typically consist of silt, sand, clay, and some consolidated
sandstone and limestone [Winner & Coble, 1996]. Water level measurements collected
by Geosyntec on 19 May 2014 and shown on Figure 2.F3 indicate that there is a
groundwater divide that occurs in the general vicinity of the Site. To the west of the
Site, groundwater flows in a westward direction, towards the Cape Fear River. To the

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 22 07.25.14
east of the site, groundwater flows in an eastward direction, towards the Northeast Cape
Fear River. Local mounding of the water table occurs beneath the 1971 and 1984 Ponds
(Figure 2.F3).
Based on this information the Site is conceptualized as being located in a sedimentary
basin with three distinct hydrogeological units: (i) an overlying sand unit representing
the Surficial Aquifer (which includes the dike fills and CCR materials); (ii) a middle
unit composed of clay and silt which represents the Peedee Confining unit; and (iii) a
bottom sand unit representing the Peedee Aquifer. Hydraulic conductivity for the
Surficial and Peedee Aquifers are assumed to be similar, given their similarity in
geological composition, while the confining layer is conceptualized to have a lower
hydraulic conductivity. The confining layer is also assumed to be leaky, allowing for
some vertical flow between the Surficial and Peedee Aquifers. A groundwater divide is
estimated to exist within the center of the Site, causing groundwater to flow both to the
east and to the west, discharging into either the Northeast Cape Fear River or Cape Fear
River. Rivers and the Surficial Aquifer are assumed to be tidally influenced; the Peedee
aquifer is assumed to not be influenced by the tides, given its depth.
4.3 Model Design
Using the conceptualization of the Site described above in Section 4.2, a numerical
flow model was constructed to simulate groundwater flow at the Site. The flow model
is three-dimensional and is steady state. The model extent was chosen to encompass
physical boundaries at the Site, as appropriate, such as the Cape Fear River to the west
and the Northeast Cape Fear River to the east of the Site (Figure 4.F1).
The modular three-dimensional finite difference groundwater flow model
(MODFLOW) is free software created by the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
that simulates groundwater flow. MODFLOW-2005 (a specific version of the
MODFLOW suite of software) was used to simulate groundwater flow at the Site.
Parameter estimation software (PEST) is a model independent parameter estimation
program developed by Watermark Numerical computing. PEST was used during the
calibration process to assist in parameter value estimation. Groundwater Vistas
(GWV), developed by Environmental Simulations Inc., is a graphical user interface
(GUI) used for building groundwater models with MODFLOW and PEST, and for
performing groundwater simulations. GWV version 6.60, build 15, 64 bit, was used as
a pre-processor and post-processor of the numerical model.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 23 07.25.14
4.4 Model Grid
The model grid consists of 642 rows, 394 columns, and 5 layers. At the center of the
model, around the CCR ponds, model cell size is 25 ft by 25 ft. Cell size increases with
increasing distance from the CCR ponds, with a typical cell size of 100 ft by 100 ft
occurring near the outer extent of the model, by the model boundaries. Layer 1 of the
model represents the Surficial Aquifer, dike fill, and the CCR pond materials. Layer 2
and layer 3 represent the portion of the Surficial Aquifer beneath the CCR ponds. Layer
4 represents the Peedee Confining Unit that separates the overlying Surficial Aquifer
from the underlying Peedee Aquifer, while layer 5 represents the Peedee Aquifer.
Surface elevations for the model layers were based on a combination of field data
collected by Geosyntec, historical records, and publicly available data. The top of layer
1 is land surface and the elevation is based on LIDAR elevation data collected by
NCDOT in 2007 3. Within the CCR ponds themselves, surface elevation is based on
survey data provided to Geosyntec by DEC. The bottom of layer 1 (which is the same
as the top of layer 2) is 20 ft below land surface. For model cells in layer 1 that are
within the footprint of the ponds, the bottom of layer 1 is the estimated bottom elevation
of the CCR materials in the ponds. Layers 1 and 2 were designed in this manner to
explicitly simulate the CCR materials. Bottom elevations in the flow model for the
CCR ponds were based on initial CCR bottom elevation contours developed by
Geosyntec. These initial CCR bottom contours were estimates based on a review of
field samples collected by Geosyntec and historical survey data provided by Duke
Energy and were set at an elevation of 12 to 24 feet in the 1971 Pond and 14 feet in the
1984 Pond. It should be noted that as the modeling was completed, additional field
work showed that the 1971 Pond bottom of CCR elevation is as low as -40 feet as
shown in Figure 2.F6. As mentioned in Section 2.6, additional assessment activities
are ongoing to evaluate bottom of CCR conditions below the 1971 Pond. Therefore, it
should be noted that the groundwater model used for this Report has simulated the 1971
Pond bottom of CCR elevation at 12 to 24 feet. Further details regarding the elevation
contouring of the bottom of the CCR ponds and the potential effects on modeling results
will be discussed in the subsequent Feasibility Report.
For layer 2, the bottom elevation of the layer was set to be the midpoint between the
bottom elevation of layer 1 and the elevation of the upper contact of the Peedee
Confining unit. In layer 3, the bottom elevation of the layer was set equal to the

3 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/gis/pages/cont-elev_v2.aspx)

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 24 07.25.14
elevation of the upper contact of the Peedee Confining Unit. Layer 4, which represents
the Peedee Confining unit, was estimated to be approximately 20 ft thick at the Site.
This estimate was based on an average thickness described by Winner & Coble [1996],
and well data provided by the NCDENR Division of Water Resources. Therefore, the
bottom elevation of layer 4 was set at 20 ft below the bottom of layer 3. For layer 5,
which represents the Peedee Aquifer, the bottom of the layer was set equal to the
bottom contact of the Peedee Aquifer. Aquifer maps, geological contact data, and
borehole data used to create the bottom of layers 2 to 5 were taken from data sources
from NCDENR Division of Water Resources 4.
4.5 Boundaries
Boundary conditions within the model extent are shown on Figure 4.F2. External
boundaries for the model extent include the following:
• North Boundary: No Flow boundary;
• East Boundary: Constant Head boundary;
• South Boundary: Constant Head boundary; and
• West Boundary: Constant Head boundary.
No flow boundaries in the northwest corner of the model represent approximate
groundwater flow lines within the aquifer. The east boundary represents the Northeast
Cape Fear River while the west boundary represents the Cape Fear River. Constant
head values for these two boundaries were interpolated using water level measurements
from USGS Cape Fear River Gauge 02105769 5, USGS Northeast Cape Fear River
Gauge 02108566 6, and the NOAA Wilmington Tidal Gauge 8658120 7 for the dates of
10/2/2013 - 10/3/2013 and 5/19/2014. River Boundaries were also interpolated using
river elevation data collected by Geosyntec on 19 May 2014 from surveyed locations
along both rivers (Figure 4.F2). River elevations for gauges and river survey locations
were averaged prior to interpolation, to account for tidal fluctuations. Cells within the

4 http://www.ncwater.org/?page=525
5 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=02105769&agency_cd=USGS 6 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=02108566&agency_cd=USGS
7 http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stationhome.html?id=8658120

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 25 07.25.14
model extent that fell outside of the western and eastern boundaries were set as inactive
cells.
Internal boundaries were also used to simulate certain hydrogeological conditions
within the model extent. Constant head boundary cells were used to simulate the
cooling water pond to the west of the Site, some wetland ponds to the north of the Site,
and a pond of water located on the S.T. Wooten Corporation property to the east of the
Site. A constant head elevation value of 8.65 ft for the cooling water pond was based
on a water elevation measurement for the lake collected on 29 May 2014. It was
assumed that water level in the lake did not change significantly with time, and that it
was appropriate to use this water elevation in conjunction with river and groundwater
elevation data collected on 19 May 2014. Constant head values for the wetland ponds
and Wooten pond were designed to approximate water elevations in nearby wells, under
the assumption that these bodies of water represented the water table.
Aerial photographs of the Site and field observations by Geosyntec personnel indicated
that the unlined 1971 and clay-lined 1984 Ponds contained pooled water. However,
based on field observations by Geosyntec personnel, along with water level data at PZ-
INT in the 1984 Pond (Figure 2.F3), the pooled water was interpreted to be perched
above the water table. Therefore, constant head cells were not used within the ponds
themselves. This topic is discussed further in the sections below.
4.6 Recharge and Groundwater Withdrawal
Groundwater recharge at the Site was initially estimated to vary between zero and 4.20
in./yr (9.59 E-04 ft/day). However, it should be noted that a study conducted in
adjacent Brunswick County showed that recharge can be as high as 11 in./yr (2.51 E-03
ft/day) [Harden et al., 2003]. These recharge values were assigned to a series of
recharge zones within the model (Figure 4.F3) and were simulated using the recharge
package in MODFLOW. For all recharge zones, recharge in the model was applied to
the highest active layer. Recharge zones and associated recharge values are based on a
recharge map provided by NCDENR Division of Water Resources, on the NCDENR
Groundwater Data Map Server webpage 8. Groundwater recharge estimates and zones
provided by the NCDENR are themselves based on methods described in a groundwater
recharge study prepared for the NCDENR by Heath [1994].

8 http://www.ncwater.org/?page=20

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 26 07.25.14
Recognizing that the 1971 Pond does not have a liner, the recharge rate in that area was
initially assumed to be the same as that of the Surficial Aquifer. DEC provided
information suggesting that the recharge rate of the 1984 pond was approximately 108
gallons per minute. Based on that information the recharge for the 1984 Pond was
estimated at 100 gallons per minute or approximately 25 in./year. The initial recharge
rates for the model domain are shown in the table below.
Recharge Zone Hydrogeological Unit Recharge (in./yr)
1 Surficial Aquifer 4.20
2 Surficial Aquifer 0
3 Surficial Aquifer 4.20
4 1971 CCR Pond 4.20
5 1984 CCR Pond 25
Multiple groundwater supply wells are located at the Site and at surrounding properties.
These wells were simulated using the Well package in MODFLOW. At the Site, three
active supply wells were identified: PE-SW5, PE-SW6A, and PE-SW6B. The off Site
water supply wells included in the model domain are: Invista OH2, Invista G, CFPUA
#3, and CFPUA #4. Well coordinates for the on Site wells were estimated based on the
map prepared by Catlin Engineers and Scientists provided by DEC, titled “Figure 2 -
Site Plan with Previous Temporary Wells and Proposed Wells” [Catlin, 2012]. Off Site
well locations and both on and off Site well depths were downloaded from the
Geospatial Portal of NC One Map 9. These well depths were used to estimate the
aquifers in which the wells were screened. However, well screen elevation information
was not available at the time of this report and the screened intervals were assigned to
model layers based on well depth. This assumed well screen information is summarized
in the table below.
Off Site/On Site Well Name Assumed Screened Aquifer Screened Model Layers
On Site
PE-SW5 Surficial 2-3
PE-SW6A Surficial 2-3
PE-SW6B Surficial 2-3
Off Site
Invista OH2 Peedee 1-5
Invista G Peedee 1-5
CFPUA #3 Surficial 1-3
CFPUA #4 Surficial 1-3

9 http://www.nconemap.com

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 27 07.25.14
Initial pumping rates for the Site wells were based on daily pumping averages for 2013,
as reported on the NCDENR Water Withdrawal and Transfer Registration website, for
New Hanover County10. Initial pumping rates are shown in Table 4.T1. Pumping rates
for the Invista wells were based on daily averages for 2013, as reported on the
NCDENR Water Withdrawal and Transfer Registration website. Pumping rates for the
CFPUA wells are based on values reported in the Water Supply Well Survey Report
and Findings document prepared by Synterra [Synterra, 2014]. Initial pumping rates are
shown in Table 4.T1. Pumping rates were later modified during the calibration process;
details are discussed in section 4.8.
As part of the Synterra report, three withdrawal wells were identified on the S.T.
Wooten Corporation property located east of the Site. Based on their proximity to the
Site, the withdrawal wells on the Wooten property may be lowering the water table
surface in wells around the Site. However, at the time of this report, no information
regarding the well depth or pumping rate of these wells was available. Therefore these
wells were omitted from the model.
4.7 Hydraulic Conductivity Zones
For layer 1 through layer 3 of the model, a single hydraulic conductivity zone was
assigned to represent the hydraulic conductivity of the Surficial Aquifer. This was based
on field observations by Geosyntec, which noted that the geology of the Surficial
Aquifer at the Site consisted primarily of sand. This observation was supported by
literature stating that much of the Surficial Aquifer in New Hanover County consists of
coarse, nonfossiliferous quartz sand [Bain, 1970]. A unique set of zones was defined to
represent the CCR materials within the CCR ponds in Layer 1. For the initial set up of
the model, the berms of the CCR ponds were not assigned their own zone. Subsequent
model runs showed that the water table was below the berms and bottoms of the two
CCR ponds and therefore, the zonation of the berms was left unchanged during
calibration, and hydraulic conductivities for the CCR ponds was not modified. It should
be noted that the 1971 Pond bottom elevation was set at 12 to 24 feet in the model but
an ongoing soil investigation has shown the bottom of CCR in this pond may be as deep
as elevation -40 ft in areas. As discussed in Section 4.4, the potential effects that the
1971 Pond bottom of CCR elevation has on modeling results will be discussed in the
Feasibility Report. Figure 4.F4 shows the distribution of the zones in layer 1 of the

10
http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Water_Withdrawal_and_Transfer_Registration/report

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 28 07.25.14
model. Hydraulic conductivity zonation in layer 2 and layer 3 of the model is similar to
layer 1, with the exception of the CCR pond zones, which are not present in layer 2 or
3.
During the modeling process, hydraulic conductivity values for all zones were varied
within typical ranges for sand, clay, and silt deposits [Heath, 1983; Todd, 1980]. The
initial hydraulic conductivity values are shown in the table below.
Model Layer Hydrogeological Unit Initial Hydraulic
Conductivity (ft/day) Source
1 CCR 10-2 [Geosyntec, 2013]
1-3 Surficial Aquifer 29 [Winner & Coble,
1996]
4 Peedee Confining Unit 10-4 [Heath, 1983]
5 Peedee Aquifer 34 [Winner & Coble,
1996]
4.8 Model Calibration
The flow model was calibrated to approximate inferred groundwater flow directions,
groundwater gradients, and groundwater elevations at a total of 35 calibration targets (a
combination of monitoring wells and piezometers) observed on Site. To accomplish
this, recharge, hydraulic conductivity, and pumping rates (from groundwater supply
wells) were varied until the model output most closely matched the calibration criteria.
The model was calibrated to observed water levels in 2013 and 2014 in two phases
because of potentially different pumping conditions. In the first phase, the model was
calibrated to a subset of 17 targets, using groundwater elevations measured on 2 and 3
October 2013, by Synterra [Synterra, 2013b]. River boundaries were interpolated using
measurements from river gauges described in Section 4.5. Pumping rates were held
constant, given that the pumping rates provided were measured daily averages from
2013. Hydraulic Conductivity for layers representing the Surficial and Peedee Aquifers
were also largely constrained during calibration, given the known hydraulic
conductivities reported in Winner and Coble [1996]. Recharge was the primary
parameter calibrated during this first phase, along with the hydraulic conductivity of
layer 4 (i.e. the Peedee Confining Unit) as there was no literature reported conductivity
value for that hydrogeological unit.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 29 07.25.14
In the second phase, the model was calibrated to 35 targets, using groundwater
elevations collected by Geosyntec, on 19 May 2014 (Figure 4.F5). River boundaries
were re-interpolated using measurements from river gauges and Geosyntec measured
river elevation values, described in Section 4.5. During this second phase of the
calibration, recharge in the ponds was modified along with pumping rates from some of
the water supply wells. Pumping rates for the CFPUA wells were unchanged from
2013 since it was assumed that water use in the area would not have substantially
changed since 2013. However, pumping rates for the other supply wells were modified
to assist in calibrating the model since no pumping rates for 2014 were available for the
Site supply wells or Invista wells. Pumping rates were also varied based on the
assumption that some variability in the pumping rates occurs, however the amount of
variation is uncertain.
Calibration to observed water elevations near the 1971 and 1984 Ponds was challenging
due to uncertainty regarding the pumping rates of surrounding supply wells, a limited
number of piezometers/monitoring wells inside the ponds, uncertainty regarding the
depth of the CCR in the 1971 Pond, and questionable top of casing survey information
for some of the older monitoring wells. A further challenge was encountered when
calibrating recharge within the ponds themselves. According to information provided
by DEC to Geosyntec, the 1971 Pond is an unlined pond, while the 1984 Pond is lined
with a thin, 1 ft thick layer of clay. Therefore, it was initially assumed that the 1971
Pond was directly connected to the aquifer, while the 1984 pond was assumed to be
separated from the groundwater aquifer by the clay liner. This assumption for the 1984
Pond was supported by data from PZ-INT, which showed a water elevation
substantially above the water table, as indicated by water elevations in wells outside of
the CCR ponds (Figure 2.F3). It was also assumed that the clay liner was to some
extent allowing recharge due to the high water levels or head acting on it. To simulate
these conditions in the model, recharge in the 1971 Pond was set equal to the regional
recharge value used in the rest of the model (11 in./yr). Recharge in the 1984 Pond was
increased above the regional value, to represent recharge occurring through the clay
liner, from the overlying pooled water. Based on information from DEC, the estimated
seepage rate of the clay liner was 108 gpm, at the time of installation. Therefore, an
initial recharge value of 25 in./yr was applied to the 1984 Pond, as this recharge value
produced a seepage rate through the bottom of the pond of approximately 100 gpm.
However, as the calibration effort proceeded, model simulation results indicated that
pooled water observed in the 1971 Pond may possibly be partially to fully perched.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 30 07.25.14
This observation in the model was supported by Geosyntec field observations, which
indicated that CCR encountered during drilling at GP-1, GP-2 and GP-3 alternated in
moisture content, and that PZ-1971 was dry. Based on this, the 1971 Pond was
subsequently assumed to be separated from the Surficial Aquifer, and a higher recharge
rate was assigned to the 1971 Pond, to simulate the additional recharge to the Surficial
Aquifer caused by the infiltration of perched water in the 1971 Pond.
Once calibrated, the model reproduced the observed groundwater divide in the center of
the model area, causing groundwater to either flow east into the Northeast Cape Fear
River, or west into the Cape Fear River. This result matched the interpreted flow
direction and contours shown in Figure 2.F3. To the east of the Site, the simulated
hydraulic gradient was 0.00024 ft/ft, similar to the observed hydraulic gradient of
0.00012 ft/ft (measured approximately from GWPZ-3B to MW-31C). To the west of
the Site, the simulated gradient was 0.0011 ft/ft, matching the observed gradient of
0.001 ft/ft (measured approximately from GWPZ-3B to the shore of the cooling water
pond). The calibrated model also simulated mounding of the water table at the 1971
and 1984 Ponds, matching field observations. Figure 4.F6 depicts elevation contours of
the simulated water table along with dry model cells where the water table elevation is
below the bottom of the CCR ponds as simulated. It should be noted that the bottom of
CCR elevation in the 1971 Pond is being further evaluated and the potential effect this
may have on the model results will be discussed in the Feasibility Report. As shown in
Figure 2.F6, the initial borings in the 1971 Pond show CCR extending to an elevation
of -40 ft in some areas. This indicates that the water table would be above the bottom
of the CCR in portions of the 1971 Pond. It should be further noted that, while
reasonably calibrated, the model also simulated higher groundwater elevations than
what were observed in the field at wells located near the S.T. Wooten Property. These
simulated higher groundwater elevations (relative to observed conditions) possibly
reflect the omission of the pumping wells located on the S.T. Wooten Property as
discussed in Section 4.6.
Comparisons were made between the simulated and the field-observed heads, at the 35
targets incorporated into the model, for the May 19, 2014 groundwater elevation
measurements (Table 4.T2). The comparison showed simulated head values had a
residual mean error (ME) of -0.07 ft, a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.27 ft and a
scaled root mean square error (SRMSE) of 0.128 (or 12.8%). The minimum residual
was -0.78 ft, the maximum residual was 0.79 ft, and the range in observed head values
was 2.11 ft. The computed mass water balance error was negligible (1.75 E-08%).

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 31 07.25.14
Figure 4.F7 plots observed versus simulated head values for the 35 targets, and it
shows a good match between observed and simulated heads. Figure 4.F8 shows
observed head versus model residuals and shows that most residuals are within 0.5 ft of
the observed head value. These two figures coupled with the comparison statistics
suggest that the flow model is reasonably well calibrated, especially given the flat
hydraulic gradient, narrow range in heads observed at the Site, and uncertainty
regarding the pumping rates for many of the Supply wells. See Table 4.T3 through
Table 4.T5 for a list of calibrated parameter values.
4.9 Predictive Simulations
Once an acceptable model calibration was achieved, a predictive scenario was simulated
for the Site. The predictive scenario represented a possible closure option where CCR
is removed from the 1971 Pond and portions of the 1984 Pond, and placed under an
engineered cap at the center of the 1984 Pond (i.e. Option 1.2: In-Place Closure with
Reduced Footprint). To simulate this scenario in the flow model, recharge in the 1984
Pond was set to zero in the location of the proposed engineered cap. Recharge in the
remainder of the 1984 Pond outside of the cap, and in the 1971 Pond, was set to the
calibrated value of 10.41 in./yr. All other parameters in the model were left unchanged.
Figure 4.F9 shows the results of the predictive simulation along with model dry cells.
As mentioned in Section 4.4, the bottom of layer 1 in the CCR ponds represents the
estimated bottom elevation of the CCR material. In Figure 4.F9, dry cells located
within the CCR ponds indicate that the water table is predicted to be located below the
bottom of the CCR material within those cells. Based on the simulation, the water table
falls below the bottom of the CCR for the Option 1.2: In-Place Closure with Reduced
Footprint Scenario. As discussed in Section 4.4, the bottom of CCR elevation in the
1971 Pond is being further evaluated and the potential effect this may have on the
model results will be discussed in the Feasibility Report. As shown in Figure 2.F6, the
initial borings in the 1971 Pond show CCR extending to an elevation of -40 ft in some
areas. This indicates that the water table would be above the bottom of the CCR in
portions of the 1971 Pond.
It should be noted that this is a screening-level (i.e., preliminary) predictive simulation.
The model was used to assess input uncertainty on output and to prioritize data gaps for
additional assessment. To address this uncertainty, it is recommended that the depth of
the CCR be reexamined within the ponds, more piezometers be installed within all CCR
ponds, and that older monitoring well top of casings be re-surveyed. It is also

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 32 07.25.14
recommended that daily average pumping rates for 2014 be obtained for all wells in the
model, and that well depth and pumping rate information be obtained for the three S.T.
Wooten Corporation wells located adjacent to the Site. Once this is accomplished, the
groundwater model can be refined and re-calibrated with greater confidence in the
results, pending risk assessment.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 33 07.25.14
5. GEOCHEMICAL MODEL
5.1 CCR and Soil Chemical Characterization
5.1.1 Overview
Soil and CCR samples were collected to assess soil background concentrations of
constituents of interest (COIs), COI concentrations within the CCR ponds, and
concentrations of COIs in vadose zone soils located outside of the CCR ponds. The soil
and CCR sampling locations were presented on Figure 2.F5 in the Data Report.
Sampling and testing procedures were discussed in the Data Report, and the analytical
results were presented in Table 2.T11 of the Data Report.
In addition, an area outside of the CCR ponds boundary between the entrance gate to
the CCR ponds and monitoring well MW-18 was identified on historical drawings as a
“Vanadium Pit.” A preliminary, screening-level assessment of this area was conducted
using Geoprobe investigation techniques as described in the Data Report. Seven soil
and seven groundwater samples were collected, and sampling locations were presented
on Figure 2.F2 and soil analytical results were presented in Table 2.T5 of the Data
Report. Soil analytical results are discussed in Subsection 5.1.3 below, while
groundwater analytical results are discussed in Subsection 5.2.1.2.1 below.
Synthetic precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP) analyses were performed on select
CCR samples and two background soil samples to evaluate the possible leaching effects
on groundwater. The SPLP procedure attempts to simulate conditions that resemble
leaching conditions caused by infiltrating rainwater.
5.1.2 Background Soil Chemical Characterization
Background soil samples were collected from locations on the property that have not
received CCR materials to establish metals concentrations naturally occurring in Site
soils. Two discrete background soil samples were collected using a hand auger from
2.5 ft to 3.0 ft below ground surface (bgs) to avoid sampling soils that could potentially
be affected by surface deposition of CCR-related dust.
Table 2.T11 of the Data Report summarized the soil and CCR analytical data,
including the results from the background soil samples, and Table 2.T12 of the Data
Report summarized the SPLP leaching data.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 34 07.25.14
Background soils indicated low to non-detect levels of most constituents analyzed.
However, iron was detected at an appreciable level at location SB-2, which is located
close to monitoring well MW-7. Both background soil samples exhibited acidic pH
levels at around 4.6 and 4.7 standard units (s.u.), indicating naturally acidic soil
conditions.
SPLP results showed some leachable levels of iron and calcium, and to a lesser degree
barium, silver, and thallium at background soil location SB-2. All other COIs were not
detected above the practical quantitation limit (PQL).
5.1.3 Vanadium Pit Soil Results
As can be seen in Table 2.T5 of the Data Report, the soil results from the Vanadium
Pit area indicated relatively low levels of COIs that were generally consistent with
background soil concentrations. However, levels were slightly higher for barium,
calcium, magnesium, thallium, and vanadium at certain locations. Vanadium
concentrations in soil were relatively low, and were only slightly above the 6 mg/kg
protection of groundwater standard in two of the seven samples, indicating little
ongoing leaching potential for vanadium in the area investigated.
Contrary to the acidic background conditions, the soil pH data within this area exhibited
alkaline conditions between 7.5 and 10.9 s.u., indicating some impact from industrial
operations.
5.1.4 Soil Chemical Characterization
Soil samples were collected during the installation of monitoring wells MW-34C and
MW-36C and from soil below the CCR materials in the 1971 Pond based on visual
observations from borings GP-5 and GP-6.
As can be seen in Table 2.T11 of the Data Report, results were generally consistent
with background soil conditions, except for location GP-5, which exhibited elevated
concentrations of most COIs that may indicate leaching from the overlying CCR
materials and/or a mix of soil and CCR materials at the sampled depth (i.e., 20-24 ft
bgs). Furthermore, pH levels were higher than background conditions (i.e., circum-
neutral to slightly alkaline), but lower than in CCR materials.
SPLP results summarized in Table 2.T12 of the Data Report indicated leachable levels
of barium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium above background levels in soil samples

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 35 07.25.14
collected from below the CCR materials in the 1971 Pond. However, these levels were
substantially lower than leachable results from CCR materials (see below).
5.1.5 Chemical Characterization of CCR
CCR samples were collected from borings advanced in the CCR ponds during the
Geotechnical Investigation in order to provide representative composition and depth of
CCR materials. Samples were collected from within the 1971 Pond (GP-2, GP-3, and
SPT-3) and the 1984 Pond (SPT-7 and PZ-Int). The sampling approach was described
in the Data Report and the results were presented in Table 2.T11 of the Data Report,
while the SPLP results were presented in Table 2.T12 of the Data Report.
As can be seen in Table 2.T11 of the Data Report, with the exception of antimony,
cadmium, mercury, molybdenum, silver, and thallium (which were all basically non-
detect), all metallic COIs were substantially higher in CCR materials compared to soil
samples. Furthermore, sulfate and pH levels were also higher in CCR materials
compared to levels in soil. It is further noted that COI levels appeared to be higher in
CCR samples from the 1971 Pond as compared to the 1984 Pond.
This apparent trend generally also holds true for leachable levels of COIs as measured
using the SPLP approach. Arsenic still appeared to be leaching at substantial levels
from CCR materials, while boron, iron, manganese, and selenium levels were low to
non-detect (Table 2.T12).
5.2 Groundwater and CCR Porewater Chemical Characterization
5.2.1 Site Groundwater and CCR Porewater Chemistry
5.2.1.1 Historical Investigations (1990 - 2013)
A fairly extensive network of monitoring wells and piezometers has been in existence at
the Site dating back to about 1984. Historical groundwater data dating from 1990,
which were the earliest data submitted to Geosyntec, were summarized in Table 2.T2
(metals) and Table 2.T3 (non-metals) of the Data Report.
Background well MW-4B on the southeastern side of the Plant has exhibited consistent
exceedances of the iron groundwater standard of 300 µg/L and occasional exceedances
of the 50 µg/L manganese standard, while background well MW-5C on the northeastern
side of the property has shown consistent exceedances of the manganese standard and

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 36 07.25.14
naturally acidic pH conditions. This indicates that background geochemical conditions
are at least partially contributing to the solubility of iron and manganese. The negative
oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) measured in MW-4B likely contributes to the
higher solubility of iron, while manganese is expected to be soluble under the acidic
groundwater conditions in MW-5C.
Monitoring wells within the vicinity along the eastern and southeastern side of the 1971
Pond, including MW-2C, MW-17, and MW-18 have historically exhibited substantially
elevated concentrations of arsenic, boron, iron, and manganese. Occasionally, other
metals and TDS were detected at slightly elevated concentrations and the groundwater
pH was slightly acidic. While elevated manganese and iron concentrations and acidic
groundwater conditions can be partially explained by background conditions, arsenic
and boron concentrations are likely attributable to the presence of the CCR ponds.
Monitoring well MW-6C, which is located to the east of the Interior Containment Area
within the 1984 Pond, has historically shown elevated concentrations of boron, iron,
and manganese as well as acidic groundwater conditions, but only the boron levels
appear to have been substantially different from background conditions. This suggests
that the clay liner within the 1984 Pond may provide increased groundwater protection
and that arsenic has either been contained within the 1984 Pond or quickly attenuates
within a relatively short distance from the waste boundary.
Attenuation of arsenic has also been observed within the area outside of the 1971 Pond;
MW-21C, which serves as a compliance monitoring well within this area, is the only
well at or beyond the compliance boundary that has historically shown occasional
exceedances of the 10 µg/L arsenic groundwater standard. The highest concentration
recorded was 22.8 µg/L during the October 2013 sampling event. This suggests that
arsenic is not very mobile in groundwater and, as will be discussed in Subsection 5.3
below, is expected to be present as the less mobile arsenate (i.e., As5+) form as opposed
to the more mobile arsenite (i.e., As3+) form. Similarly, with the exception of
monitoring well MW-27B along the northern side of the 1984 Pond, which had a
detection of 48.2 µg/L during the October 2013 sampling event, selenium has not been
consistently detected above its groundwater standard of 20 µg/L. Monitoring well MW-
24B along the eastern compliance boundary outside of the Interior Containment Area
within the 1984 Pond had historically shown detections above the selenium
groundwater standard, but has been non-detect during the past four sampling events.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 37 07.25.14
On the other hand, boron, which basically acts as a conservative ion that does not get
attenuated, has historically shown concentrations above its groundwater standard of 700
µg/L in multiple monitoring wells at or beyond the compliance boundary. This includes
compliance boundary wells MW-21C, MW-22C, MW-23B, MW-23C, MW-24B, and
MW-24C. Furthermore, several wells beyond the compliance boundary, including
MW-12 (along the property boundary next to S.T. Wooten Corporation), MW-19
(downgradient of MW-21C), and MW-31C (along the property boundary next to S.T.
Wooten Corporation) have historically shown consistent exceedances of the boron
groundwater standard.
Given that MW-12 and MW-31C are approximately 1,300 feet and 1,200 feet,
respectively, east of the waste boundary suggests that groundwater extraction at the S.T.
Wooten Site may influence groundwater flow pattern at the Site. Furthermore, it is
noted that the deeper C-wells (screened at about 40 ft to 45 ft bgs) generally exhibit
higher concentrations of most COIs as compared to the B-wells, which are screened
around 22 ft to 27 ft bgs.
During the Phase II Groundwater Quality Assessment [Catlin, 2012], two temporary
piezometers were installed within the CCR materials along the western end of the 1971
Pond. Results indicated elevated levels of arsenic, iron, and manganese, and slightly
elevated levels of boron. These levels were generally consistent with the results
reported in groundwater immediately outside the eastern and southeastern side of the
1971 Pond discussed above.
5.2.1.2 Current Investigation (2014)
5.2.1.2.1 Vanadium Pit - Groundwater
As discussed in Subsection 5.1.1, a preliminary screening-level investigation was
conducted within the Vanadium Pit area. Soil results were discussed in Subsection
5.1.3. Groundwater results from this area were summarized in Table 2.T4 of the Data
Report.
As can be seen in Table 2.T4 of the Data Report, the analytical results generally
indicated low levels of COIs that were only slightly above background conditions from
historical investigations, but lower than levels observed within permanent monitoring
wells in this area of the Site. However, vanadium has previously not been analyzed for
within the existing monitoring well network, and the detected levels indicated elevated

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 38 07.25.14
vanadium concentrations of up to 1,190 µg/L. Based on these results, vanadium was
included as a COI during the current groundwater investigation to be analyzed in each
of the wells sampled.
5.2.1.2.2 CCR Porewater
As discussed in the Data Report, two piezometers were installed within the CCR ponds
to collect porewater samples for analyses of COIs. However, only one piezometer
within the Interior Containment Area of the 1984 Pond (i.e., PZ-Int) yielded sufficient
volume of water for analysis. The location of this piezometer was shown on Figure
2.F4 of the Data Report, and the results were summarized in Table 2.T8 (Field
Parameters) and Table 2.T9 (Analytical Results) of the Data Report.
As can be seen from these tables, porewater conditions were anaerobic (ORP of -267
mV) and pH conditions were circumneutral (pH 7.43). In addition, elevated levels of
arsenic, boron, iron, and manganese were detected in CCR porewater at this location.
In general, these results were consistent with the porewater results from the 1971 Pond
reported in the Phase II Groundwater Quality Assessment Report [Catlin, 2012],
although PZ-Int exhibited higher boron concentrations and lower manganese
concentrations compared to the two temporary piezometers sampled during the Phase II
Groundwater Quality Assessment. Vanadium was detected at a level of 129 µg/L,
which was generally lower than levels detected in the Vanadium Pit area.
5.2.1.2.3 Site Groundwater
As discussed in the Data Report, three intermediate-depth monitoring wells (MW-34B,
MW-35B, and MW-36B) and four deep monitoring wells (MW-27C, MW-34C, MW-
35C, and MW-36C) were installed as part of the current site investigation. These wells
were installed to supplement the existing monitoring network, especially with respect to
the areas northeast and north of the 1984 Pond.
In addition, certain existing monitoring wells that do not serve as routine compliance
monitoring wells were selected and sampled to evaluate groundwater quality conditions
along several transects away from the CCR ponds. These transects included MW-
2B/2C and MW-3B (near the 1971 Pond), MW-6B/6C and PZ-25 (near the Interior
Containment Area within the 1984 Pond), MW-34B/34C and MW-35B/35C (northeast
of the 1984 Pond), and MW-36B/36C and MW-27C to the north of the 1984 Pond.
Well MW-5B was included as a background well. These wells and transects were

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 39 07.25.14
shown on Figure 2.F4 of the Data Report, and the results were summarized in Table
2.T8 (Field Parameters) and Table 2.T9 (Analytical Results) of the Data Report.
Consistent with results from historical sampling events of other background wells (i.e.,
MW-4B and MW-5C), background well MW-5B indicated low to non-detect results for
most COIs. However, iron was detected above its groundwater standard, indicating that
geochemical background conditions contribute to elevated groundwater levels of iron.
Manganese was not detected above its groundwater standard despite fairly acidic
conditions within this well (pH 3.94), while the deeper compliance well (MW-5C) has
historically exhibited elevated levels of manganese (but not iron). The vanadium
concentration was below the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) of 2 µg/L.
Please note that vanadium does not have an existing groundwater standard, but does
have an interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC) standard of 0.3 µg/L.
While well MW-2B exhibited low concentrations of COIs, the deeper well MW-2C
indicated substantially elevated concentrations of several COIs, including arsenic,
boron, iron, manganese, and TDS. The levels were consistent with historical results
from this well. Well MW-3B downgradient of the MW-2B/2C well pair exhibited low
COI concentrations. However, it is likely that this well is screened too shallow to
evaluate whether the elevated concentrations found in MW-2C were attenuated along
the groundwater flow path. Vanadium was not detected above the MDL in wells of this
transect.
With the exception of boron and manganese, the well pair MW-6B/6C exhibited low
concentrations of COIs. The boron levels were approximately consistent with each
other, while manganese levels were substantially higher in MW-6C as compared to
MW-6B. Overall, these concentrations were substantially lower than the levels detected
in MW-2C, indicating that the clay liner within the 1984 Pond provides a level of
groundwater protection that is not found within the unlined 1971 Pond. The
downgradient piezometer PZ-25, which is screened at the same depth as MW-6B but is
located beyond the compliance boundary, did exhibit low levels of COIs and indicated
attenuation of these constituents along the groundwater flow path. Vanadium was not
detected above the MDL in wells of this transect.
Similarly, the newly installed well pair MW-34B/34C indicated low levels of COIs.
However, the deeper well MW-34C exhibited somewhat elevated levels of manganese
and iron, even though these levels were consistent with background conditions. The
downgradient newly installed well pair MW-35B/35C (located approximately

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 40 07.25.14
coinciding with the compliance boundary) exhibited similar concentrations of COIs as
wells MW-34B/34C, even though iron and manganese concentrations were somewhat
higher in MW-35C and were above their respective groundwater standards. Again, this
can likely be attributed to background conditions, and other CCR indicator parameters
such as arsenic and boron were non-detect or low at these locations. This is further
evidence that the clay liner is fairly effective in protecting groundwater from CCR
leaching. It is noted, however, that well MW-35C did exhibit a selenium detection of
55 µg/L, which is above its groundwater standard of 20 µg/L. Interestingly, the wells
closer to the pond boundary (i.e., MW-34B/34C) exhibited levels below the PQL of 40
µg/L, suggesting the 1984 Pond is unlikely to be a continuing source of selenium, and
that this elevated detection in MW-35C may be the result of historical leaching.
Vanadium was not detected above the MDL in wells MW-34B/34C and MW-35B, and
it was not detected above the PQL of 10 µg/L in MW-35C.
The northern transect formed by the newly installed well pair MW-36B/36C and the
newly installed well MW-27C indicated a very similar pattern of generally low
concentrations of COIs, but elevated levels of iron and manganese in the deeper wells
MW-36C and MW-27C. Again, well MW-27C indicated an elevated selenium
concentration of 55 µg/L, while the well pair closer to the pond boundary (i.e. MW-
36B/36C) exhibited levels below the PQL. Vanadium was not detected above the PQL
in wells of this transect.
One well (i.e., MW-31B) was sampled along the property boundary with the S.T.
Wooten Corporation Site. Elevated levels of iron (1,390 µg/L) were detected in this
well, but this is likely attributable to background conditions. The deeper compliance
well MW-31C (not sampled for this investigation) has historically shown elevated
levels of iron (about twice the levels found in MW-31B), manganese, and boron.
Vanadium was not detected above the MDL in this well.
5.2.2 Background Groundwater Chemistry
As discussed above, both the historical investigations including background wells MW-
4B and MW-5C as well as the current investigation including background well MW-5B
have indicated that the groundwater at the Site has exhibited naturally acidic conditions.
Furthermore, the historical data for MW-4B and MW-5C has also established naturally
elevated concentrations of iron and manganese above their respective groundwater
standards. It is noted, however, that the shallower background well MW-5B sampled
during the current investigation did not exhibit elevated levels of these constituents

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 41 07.25.14
above groundwater standards. Vanadium was not detected above the MDL at well
MW-5B.
5.3 Assessment of Site Geochemistry
The data generated from the groundwater and CCR porewater sampling (described in
Section 5.2) have been used in geochemical models to understand the site-wide inter-
relationships between the waters of various origins. These modeling exercises enable a
clearer understanding of geochemical dynamics (e.g., mineral precipitation/dissolution,
adsorption/desorption) occurring in the CCR ponds, as well as mixing that potentially is
occurring between CCR porewater and surrounding groundwater.
5.3.1 Geochemical Data Quality
Data from the groundwater samples (see Table 2.T9 in the Data Report) were
evaluated for charge balance. This metric assesses the percent difference between the
sum of the cations and anions (i.e., positively and negatively charged ions) within each
sample. In reality, water samples are electrically neutral; therefore, the percent
difference between the sum of positive and negative charge equivalents is ideally zero.
The actual percent differences from net neutrality are shown for the groundwater
samples on Figure 5.F1. In general, “acceptable” results are within 20% charge
balance and those samples with greater than 20% difference in the charge balance
suggest that the concentration(s) of one or more species are in error. With only one
exception (MW-5B at 22.85% excess positive charge), the charge balances are good for
these samples. Thus, the balanced chemical composition of these samples suggests the
data are reliable and are valid to be used in the geochemical evaluation discussed in the
following subsections.
5.3.2 Hydrochemical Characteristics of Site Water Samples
Piper diagrams (i.e., trilinear diagrams) can be used to classify different water types
based upon their dominant ionic composition, where units are expressed as percentage
of charge equivalents. Examples of water types include those that are dominated by
calcium and bicarbonate (Ca–HCO3), as is common for many surface waters, and
sodium-calcium-chloride (Na–Ca–Cl), which is typical of natural brine formations. The
Piper diagram for the Site waters (CCR porewater and groundwater) is shown on
Figure 5.F2. In this diagram, groundwater and/or porewater samples from the
background monitoring well (MW-5B), site monitoring wells, and piezometers (PZ-Int

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 42 07.25.14
and PZ-25) are shown. Based on this diagram, the groundwater/porewater at the Sutton
Site cannot be clearly classified as a particular “type” because the spread of cations and
anions from all the monitoring wells and piezometers covers a broad range of chemical
characteristics. Although there is a lack of a consistent ionic composition of the
groundwater samples across the Site, the signatures of the individual sample locations
indicate trends according to the area of the Site. For example, two end-members of this
range of samples are represented by sample PZ-Int, taken from within the 1984 Pond,
and MW-5B, a background sample from the northern portion of the Site. Sample MW-
5B is coincident to PZ-25, and is therefore obscured by the PZ-25 symbol on Figure
5.F2, indicating that these two samples are geochemically similar.
From the Piper plot it can be seen that all other groundwater samples are depicted along
a general spectrum (or mixing line) between these two end-member samples.
Furthermore, the samples from the east of the 1971 Pond (MW-2B, MW-2C, and MW-
3B) are most similar to PZ-Int. The samples to the north and east of the 1984 Pond
(MW-27C, MW-34B, MW-34C, MW-35B, MW-35C, MW-36B, and MW-36C) are
grouped closely together. Thus, groundwater at the Site appears to be affected, to
varying degrees, by constituents leaching from both the 1971 and the 1984 Ponds.
However, it is noted that the samples collected from locations further away (i.e., further
north) from the 1971 Pond resemble more closely the geochemical composition of the
background sample (MW-5B). This indicates that the clay liner within the 1984 Pond
appears to minimize the leaching of CCR constituents into the surrounding
groundwater.
The relationship between the groundwater in these different areas is further elucidated
using Schoeller diagrams that were prepared using the same data. Whereas the Piper
diagram is useful for showing the relative distribution of major cations and anions
(expressed in percentages of charge equivalents), Schoeller diagrams illustrate trends in
absolute concentrations of major cations and anions (calcium, magnesium,
sodium+potassium, chloride, sulfate, and alkalinity). The Schoeller diagrams for the
Sutton Plant groundwater and CCR porewater sample are shown on Figures 5.F3 –
5.F6. Major ion concentrations for all Site water samples fall between 0.2
milliequivalents per liter (meq/L) and 6 meq/L. Ion concentrations that are toward the
lower bound are considered relatively dilute and suggest that these waters are not
strongly affected by equilibrium with solid phases (MW-2B, MW-5B, and PZ-25). In
order to evaluate samples from similar water types (i.e., samples affected by potential
leaching of CCR from within the 1971 or the 1984 Ponds), the Schoeller diagrams for

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 43 07.25.14
the different areas surrounding these ponds were evaluated, revealing similar
compositions for samples of similar origin.
These trends are as follows:
• Monitoring well samples adjacent to the 1971 Pond are shown on Figure 5.F3.
It can be seen that the groundwater sample from MW-2C is similar in
composition to PZ-Int, indicating a strong influence of CCR leachate in this
sample. However, the shallow sample from the same location (MW-2B) is quite
different in composition. Furthermore, the parallel nature of the lines
representing samples MW-2C and MW-3B indicate that the composition of
MW-3B is of similar origin as MW-2C, but more dilute.
• Monitoring well samples to the east of the southern portion of the 1984 Pond
(MW-6B, MW-6C, and PZ-25) are shown on Figure 5.F4. These samples show
a strong similarity of MW-6B and MW-6C to each other, but a much weaker
similarity to the sample from within the 1984 Pond (PZ-Int), even though the
ionic strength of these samples is similar. This indicates that the groundwater to
the east of this pond is somewhat influenced by CCR leachate, but different
from the groundwater outside of the 1971 Pond. Water from PZ-25 is of similar
overall composition, but of a much more dilute nature (i.e., parallel overall trend
of ionic composition), and similar to background conditions represented by well
MW-5B (see bullet below).
• Monitoring well samples to the north of the 1984 Pond (MW-27C, MW-36B,
and MW-36C) and the background well (MW-5B) are shown on Figure 5.F5.
This diagram indicates that the samples from MW-36B/36C and MW-27C are
geochemically very similar to each other, but quite different from the CCR
porewater sample (PZ-Int), suggesting that groundwater in this area is not much
affected by CCR leachate, even though the higher ionic concentrations indicate
that some contribution from CCR leachate cannot be excluded; however, the
composition is different from the single CCR porewater sample collected. MW-
5B is substantially more dilute than the other MW samples, and is therefore not
influenced by CCR leachate, validating its use as a background well.
• Monitoring well samples to the east of the northern portion of the 1984 Pond
(MW-31B, MW-34B, MW-34C, MW-35B, and MW-35C) are shown on Figure
5.F6. Similar to the samples to the north of the 1984 Pond, the samples from

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 44 07.25.14
MW-34C and MW-35C are both of higher ionic concentrations, and therefore
may show some effect of CCR leachate, although the geochemical signature of
the CCR leachate sample (PZ-Int) is substantially different. The samples from
MW-34B and MW-35B are of similar overall composition, but much more
dilute. This indicates that the more surficial horizons are being diluted due to
the influence of precipitation (rainfall) or other water of low ionic strength (e.g.,
Cooling Pond water). This observation appears to be consistent across the
monitoring points sampled during this phase of the site investigation.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the Piper and Schoeller representations is that
the waters at the Site are, to varying degrees, influenced by leaching of CCR. However,
groundwater to the northeast and north of the 1984 Pond exhibits a geochemical
composition that is substantially different from the CCR porewater collected from
within the 1984 Pond, indicating that the clay liner within the 1984 Pond provides some
groundwater protection from CCR leaching.
5.3.3 Redox Behavior and Metal Speciation
Site data for pH and ORP were used to evaluate the importance of oxidation and
reduction (redox) chemical processes on the fate and transport of metals at the Sutton
Site. The redox transitions, as a function of Eh and pH, for iron, manganese, arsenic
and selenium are shown on Figures 5.F7 – 5.F10, respectively. Eh was calculated from
field-measured ORP values by adding 200 mV to each ORP reading, which is the
approximate potential of the reference electrode used to make the measurements. Both
Eh and pH are properties of the solution; however, they may indicate whether certain
solid phases are in thermodynamic equilibrium with the groundwater and/or CCR
porewater. These data indicate that the Site groundwater and/or CCR porewater is
generally poised (or buffered) by the Fe2+/Fe3+ transition since most data fall along the
line separating Fe2+ from Fe3+ (Figure 5.F7). This indicates that the redox potential is
poised by electron transfer in the iron system. This has significance because the
mobility of certain trace metals, including arsenic and selenium, is strongly affected by
iron redox dynamics.
As stated above, the redox state of iron as shown on Figure 5.F7 indicates that
equilibrium with the solid phase (ferrihydrite, or Fe(OH)3) is buffering redox dynamics
at this Site. Iron appears to be soluble within both the CCR porewater (PZ-Int), but also
within wells more representative of background conditions (MW-5B, PZ-25). On the

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 45 07.25.14
other hand, monitoring wells outside of, but close to, the CCR ponds fall closely along
the Fe2+ and Fe3+ line, suggesting ongoing iron precipitation and dissolution reactions.
Redox speciation of manganese is shown on Figure 5.F8. As can be seen from this
diagram, manganese is expected to be found as the soluble Mn2+ ion, without a Mn-
bearing solid phase controlling the dissolve-phase concentrations. Therefore, it is likely
that the dissolved-phase Mn2+ is controlled by attenuation processes such as sorption-
desorption rather than precipitation-dissolution reactions.
Typically, groundwater with dissolved iron concentrations of 1 mg/L (which is equal to
1,000 µg/L) or greater is considered “reducing”, because iron is more soluble in the
ferrous (Fe2+) state than in the ferric (Fe3+) state. Note that several wells outside of the
CCR ponds exhibited iron concentrations of that magnitude. However, that doesn’t
necessarily imply that arsenic is also in a reduced state. In fact, the Site data plotted
upon the Eh-pH diagram for arsenic (Figure 5.F9) show that arsenic is predominantly
in the oxidized arsenate (As5+) form, which is less mobile (and more adsorbed to solids
and particulates) than the reduced arsenite (As3+) form. In addition, the precipitation of
iron also co-precipitates arsenic, which represents another attenuation mechanism for
arsenic. Thus, although arsenic may continue to be present within the CCR ponds, iron
precipitation will facilitate arsenic attenuation at this Site.
Dissolved selenium was only detected above its PQL in two groundwater samples,
MW-27C and MW-35C. Both of these samples are adjacent to the 1984 Pond. As
shown on Figure 5.F10, the predominant species of selenium at the Site is predicted to
be the reduced selenite anion (HSeO3-), which is more strongly adsorbed (and less
mobile) than the oxidized selenate anion (SeO42-). The redox speciation of selenium
also predicts formation of iron selenite within the CCR ponds, where levels of dissolved
iron are sufficiently high to form this solid phase, which is likely responsible for the
non-detect nature of selenium from the CCR porewater sample.
5.4 Geochemical Conceptual Site Model (CSM)
The observed distributions of constituents in the Vanadium Pit area, in CCR materials
and soils as well as in CCR porewater and groundwater at the Site are consistent with
the geochemical evaluation presented in the subsections above. Based on this
evaluation, the following geochemical CSM can be developed:

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 46 07.25.14
• The screening-level assessment of the Vanadium Pit area indicated low levels of
most constituents in soils that were generally consistent with background
conditions, with vanadium concentrations only slightly higher than background.
However, the soil pH was fairly alkaline (up to pH 10.9), which was much
different from the naturally acidic soil background conditions. Groundwater
conditions indicated substantially elevated levels of iron and vanadium, and
modestly elevated levels of manganese. It is unlikely that vanadium in
groundwater represents a wide-spread issue across the Site given the mostly
non-detect conditions in wells sampled during this investigation. It is noted,
however, that no downgradient well from the Vanadium Pit area was sampled.
Given the substantially elevated soil pH conditions and the substantially
elevated vanadium groundwater concentrations, some limited additional
assessment may be warranted, including soil sampling for pH and downgradient
groundwater sampling.
• CCR materials within the ponds contain most of the analyzed constituents at
levels much greater than the natural soil samples around and below the CCR
ponds. This is especially apparent for constituents that are typically indicative
of CCR materials, including arsenic, boron, and iron, and to a lesser degree,
manganese, chromium, and selenium. Furthermore, the major cations calcium,
magnesium, potassium, and sodium also exhibit concentrations substantially
above the surrounding soil concentrations.
• Leaching tests using the SPLP procedure indicate that arsenic and most of the
major cations still leach from CCR materials at substantial levels. However,
boron, chromium, iron, and manganese do not leach at elevated levels, which
indicates that these constituents are either already leached out of CCR materials
(e.g., boron) and/or are more affected by redox reactions (e.g., iron, manganese,
and selenium) than by desorption and/or dissolution.
• Groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the 1971 Pond shows an impact of
CCR materials contained within this pond. This is likely further pronounced
due to the presence of CCR materials at considerable depths within the 1971
Pond. Monitoring points further away (i.e., north) show a diminishing impact,
suggesting that the clay liner within the 1984 Pond provides some protection of
the surrounding groundwater.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 47 07.25.14
• The ionic compositions depicted in Piper and Schoeller diagrams indicate that
groundwater in the vicinity of the 1971 Pond has a geochemical signature
consistent with the CCR porewater sample. However, groundwater further to
the north and outside of the 1984 Pond indicates a geochemical signature
substantially different from CCR porewater, which also suggests that the clay
liner within the 1984 Pond provides some protection of the surrounding
groundwater not found within the unlined 1971 Pond.
• Elevated boron concentrations in groundwater are likely a historical artifact of
leaching of the CCR materials since the SPLP results indicate only minor
leaching potential for boron. Boron is not attenuated by sorption or precipitation
reactions; therefore, it has the potential to migrate over longer distances, and its
distribution may also be somewhat affected by groundwater pumping activities
along the eastern property boundary.
• The Eh-pH conditions in groundwater affect the distribution of iron, manganese,
arsenic, and selenium. Iron and manganese are found at elevated concentrations
across much of the Site, including background locations. Based on their
respective Eh-pH diagrams and using site-specific data, arsenic and selenium are
likely present in their less mobile forms in Site groundwater, which is consistent
with their low-level to non-detect results along the compliance boundary.
Furthermore, the conditions within CCR porewater are conducive to
precipitating selenium with iron, as predicted in the Eh-pH diagram, which
appears to immobilize selenium within the CCR ponds. However, the selenium
detections in wells MW-27C and MW-35C are not consistent with this
explanation, and the elevated detections at these locations remain unclear at this
point.
• Implementation of the various pond closure options will minimize infiltration
through the CCR materials, and therefore, minimize the remaining leaching
potential of these materials. However, the apparent deep nature of the CCR
materials within the 1971 Pond, as well as the historical leaching of boron will
likely have a residual impact on the distribution of constituents in groundwater
that will be difficult to completely eliminate regardless of the final closure
option selected. Moreover, absent complete excavation and/or stabilization of
all CCR materials, the type of closure option chosen is not expected to
materially affect the geochemistry of the groundwater at this Site.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 48 07.25.14
6. GEOTECHNICAL MODEL
6.1 Specific Subsurface Stratigraphy Models
The subsurface stratigraphy at the Site was developed based on the available
information from the historical geotechnical investigations and the 2014 Geosyntec
conceptual closure geotechnical investigations, discussed in the Data Report. These
investigation results indicate that the subsurface soils primarily comprise, from top to
bottom, the CCRs (within the ponds) or Dike Fill (on the perimeters of the ponds) and
the Foundation Soils, which are described as follows:
• CCRs: The CCRs consist predominantly of gray/black/dark tan silt-sized
particles with varying amounts of sand-sized particles and exhibit no to low
plasticity. The CCRs were generally reported to be very loose to loose, and
occasional pockets of medium dense CCR were encountered. In general, the
thickness of CCRs or CCR and soil mixtures were found to be approximately 18
to 84 ft thick within the 1971 pond, 18 to 19 ft thick within the southern part of
the 1984 pond, 0 to 13 ft thick in the northern part of the 1984 Pond, and 23 to
36 ft thick within the 2006 ICA. The reported Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
[ASTM D 1586] N-values of the CCRs typically range between 0 (i.e., weight of
hammer) and 7. The tip resistance and sleeve friction measured from Cone
Penetration Tests (CPTs) [ASTM D 5778] range typically between 20 and 50 tsf
and between 0.1 and 0.7 tsf, respectively.
• Dike Fill: The Dike Fill for the 1971 and 1984 ponds is predominantly sand with
varying amounts of silt. The Dike Fill is generally reported to be medium dense
to dense. The 1971 and 1984 Pond dikes are approximately 24 ft and 32 ft high,
respectively [MACTEC, 2011a]. The reported SPT N-values of the Dike Fill
typically range between 12 and 32. The tip resistance and sleeve friction
measured from CPTs range typically between 150 and 300 tsf and between 1
and 3 tsf, respectively. Based on design drawings presented in the historical
reports [AMEC, 2011], the 2006 ICA dikes were constructed from compacted
CCR and are approximately 14 ft high on top of impounded CCR in the 1984
Pond. Four CPTs were performed on the 2006 ICA dikes, and the tip resistance
and sleeve friction measured from CPTs range typically between 50 and 150 tsf
and between 1 and 4 tsf, respectively. Such sounding results indicate the dikes
consist of compacted ash, as presented in the design drawings.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 49 07.25.14
• Foundation Soils: The Foundation Soils are similar to the Dike Fill in general
and consist primarily of sand with varying amounts of silt. The Foundation
Soils are generally reported to be loose to medium dense. The reported SPT
N-values of the Foundation Soils typically range between 8 and 25. The tip
resistance and sleeve friction measured from CPTs range typically between 50
and 200 tsf and between 0.2 and 2 tsf, respectively. In localized areas, different
material types were encountered. A cohesive soil layer approximately 3 ft thick
was found in one location below the 1984 Pond dike. Both the MACTEC
[2011b] and Geosyntec field investigations found CCR-like materials below the
southern part of the 1971 Pond perimeter dike. Along the dike centerline, the
thickness of this material varied from 6.5 to 15 ft. Hand-augers at the mid-slope
and dike toe found this material to be 5.5-ft and 1.5 ft thick, respectively.
Due to the limited depths of borings compared to the bedrock location,
weathered rock or bedrock was not encountered during boring. The thickness of
the foundation soils below the Dike Fill and CCRs was not established.
Considering the height and geometry of the dikes, deeper borings were not
considered necessary to calculate minimum factors of safety for slope stability.
• Landfill Area Soil: The soil in the Landfill Area is predominantly sand with
trace silt. The Landfill Area Soil is generally reported to be very loose to
medium dense. An approximately 2 ft thick layer of cohesive soil was found in
one boring. The reported SPT N-values of the Landfill Area Soil typically range
between 3 and 20.
The geometries of three selected cross sections of the CCR ponds and landfill area were
developed based on the subsurface stratigraphy described above and the results of the
topographic survey performed on November 2013. The locations of these cross
sections are shown on Figure 6.F1a. The locations of each cross section with respect to
the particular closure option selected for analysis are shown in Figures 6.F1b through
6.F1d. The geometries are presented in Figure 6.F2a through 6.F2c.
6.2 Phreatic Surface Interpretation
The phreatic surfaces in the CCR ponds and dikes, and the Landfill Area were estimated
based on the water levels measured in piezometers and the results of the CPT pore
pressure dissipation tests, which are presented in the Data Report. Figures 6.F3a,
6.F3b and 6.F3c show the estimated water level elevations through the centerlines of

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 50 07.25.14
the 1971 Pond, 1984 Pond and 2006 ICA dikes, respectively. Figures 6.F3d, 6.F3e,
6.F3f and 6.F3g show the estimated water level elevations within the 1971 Pond, 1984
Ponds, 2006 ICA and Landfill Area, respectively. From these estimated water levels, a
representative water level elevation was selected for each pond and dike, and the
Landfill area, as shown in these figures. The representative water level elevations were
used to estimate and develop the phreatic surfaces shown on the cross sections
discussed in Section 6.1. It is noted that due to limited data, the actual phreatic surfaces
in the field may vary from the estimated ones.
6.3 Material Parameter Interpretation
The material properties of the CCRs, Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill Area
Soils were interpreted from the available laboratory and in-situ test results presented in
the Data Report.
6.3.1 Index Parameters
6.3.1.1 Dike Fill, Foundation Soils, and Landfill Area Soils
As part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing program, ten grain size distribution tests
[ASTM D 422] were conducted on the Dike Fill and Foundation Soils. Seven of these
tests included the hydrometer tests [ASTM D 422]. Twenty-one tests to determine the
fines content were also conducted [ASTM D 422]. In addition, the results of eight grain
size distribution tests are available in the historical investigation report prepared by
MACTEC [2011b]. Four grain size distribution tests were conducted on the Landfill
Area Soils, and two of these tests also included a hydrometer test. In addition, seven
tests to determine the fines content of the Landfill Area Soil were also conducted. The
grain size distribution data are plotted in Figure 6.F4a. The results of the measured
fines contents are plotted in Figure 6.F5a. The results indicate that the Dike Fill and
Foundation Soils exhibit similar particle gradation to each other and typically consist of
92% to 98% sand and 1% to 8% fines (i.e., silt and clay). The Landfill Area Soils
consist of 97% to 98% sand and 2% to 4% fines. The fines content ranges were
obtained specifically from the fines content tests, and as such the fines content ranges
do not directly correspond to the range of sand-sized particles (which came from grain-
size distribution tests).
Because the Dike Fill and Foundation soils are predominantly sandy, the natural
moisture content and Atterberg limits tests were conducted by Geosyntec for a few

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 51 07.25.14
selected samples only. As part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing program, four natural
moisture content tests [ASTM D 2216] and three Atterberg limits tests [ASTM D 4318]
were conducted on the Foundation Soils. In addition, the results of eight natural
moisture content tests and five Atterberg limits tests are available in the historical
investigation reports [MACTEC, 2011b]. Similarly, the Landfill Area Soil is
predominantly sandy so only one natural moisture content test and one Atterberg limits
test were conducted on a cohesive sample collected from the area. The measured
natural moisture contents and Atterberg limits are presented in Figure 6.F6a and
Figure 6.F7a, respectively. The data indicate that the two cohesive Foundation Soils
have moisture contents of 78% and 107%. The Landfill Area Soil sample tested has a
natural moisture content of 29%. Historical moisture content tests by MACTEC [2011b]
indicate that the Dike Fill moisture content typically ranges from 13% to 30%. The
cohesive Foundation Soils samples tested as part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing
program have liquid limits ranging from 26 to 152, plastic limits ranging from 24 to 57,
and plasticity indices ranging from 6 and 95. Historical Atterberg limits tests performed
by MACTEC [2011b] on Dike Fill show it is generally non-plastic. Historical Atterberg
limits tests performed by MACTEC [2011b] on CCR-like samples collected below the
1971 Pond dike show the materials have liquid limits ranging from 46 to 52, plastic
limits ranging from 40 to 42 and plasticity indices ranging from 6 to 10. The Landfill
Area cohesive soil sample tested has a liquid limit of 26, plastic limit of 24, and
plasticity index of 2.
As part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing program, three specific gravity tests [ASTM
D 854] were conducted on Foundation Soil samples. Additionally, one specific gravity
test was conducted on the Landfill Area Soil. The specific gravity test results are
plotted in Figure 6.F8a. The results indicate that the Foundation Soils generally have a
specific gravity of 2.68 to 2.69. The specific gravity of the Landfill Area Soil sample
tested was 2.70.
6.3.1.2 CCRs
As part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing program, six grain size distribution tests were
conducted on the CCR samples. Four of those tests included a hydrometer test. Eleven
tests to determine the fines content were also conducted. The results of the grain size
distribution and fines content tests are plotted in Figure 6.F4b and Figure 6.F5b,
respectively. The results indicate that the CCRs typically consist of 9% to 82% sand-
sized particles and 16% to 97% fines (i.e., silt and clay-sized particles). The stated fines

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 52 07.25.14
content range was obtained specifically from the fines content tests, as such the fines
content range does not directly correspond to the range of sand-sized particles (which
came from grain-size distribution tests). Also, the test results indicate the CCRs in the
1971 Pond contain a higher percentage of sand size particles when compared to those in
the 1984 Pond.
As part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing program, twelve natural moisture content tests
and eleven Atterberg limits tests were conducted on the CCR samples. The results of
the natural moisture content and Atterberg limits tests are plotted in Figure 6.F6b and
Figure 6.F7b, respectively. The data indicate that the CCR samples tested have natural
moisture contents between 27% and 74% and that the CCR samples tested are mostly
non-plastic. One sample tested as part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing program has a
liquid limit of 32, plastic limit of 26, and plasticity index of 6.
As part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing program, five specific gravity tests were
conducted on the CCR samples. The specific gravity test results are plotted in Figure
6.F8b. The results indicate that the CCRs generally have a specific gravity of 2.27 to
2.35.
6.3.2 Shear Strength
6.3.2.1 Dike Fill, Foundation Soils, and Landfill Area Soils
The Dike Fill, Foundation Soils, and Landfill Area Soils are all predominantly sandy,
and will therefore exhibit drained behavior in general. The drained shear strength
parameters, i.e., an effective stress friction angle (ϕ′) and a cohesion intercept (c’), for
those geotechnical units were estimated using in-situ test results as follows.
As part of the Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation, SPTs were conducted at 2.5-
ft to 5-ft intervals at selected boring locations in the field. The SPT N-blow counts for
the Dike Fill, Foundation Soils, and Landfill Area Soils are plotted in Figure 6.F9a.
The drained friction angle for the non-cohesive materials (i.e. the Dike Fill, Foundation
Soils, and Landfill Area Soils) was calculated using an empirical correlation with the
corrected N-blow count ((N1)60) from an SPT [Hatanaka and Uchida, 1996] as follows:
ϕ′= �15.4 × (𝑁1 )60 +20 (Equation 6.1)

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 53 07.25.14
where:
ϕ’ = drained friction angle (degrees); and
(N1)60 = corrected N-blow count.
The friction angle of the Dike Fill, Foundation Soils, and Landfill Area Soils estimated
from the empirical correlation are plotted in Figure 6.F9b. Based on the empirical
correlation, the Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill Area Soils friction angles
typically vary from 34 to 54 degrees, 34 to 46 degrees and 28 to 40 degrees,
respectively. The empirical correlation presented in Equation 6.1 was also used to
estimate the strength of the CCR-like material found under the 1971 Pond dike. In this
case the calculated friction angles were reduced by five degrees as recommended in the
FHWA [2002] guidance document.
As part of the Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation, CPTs were conducted on the
1971 Pond and 1984 Pond dikes. These measurements were used to estimate the drained
friction angle (ϕ’) of the subsurface materials. The estimation was based on an
empirical correlation with a normalized corrected cone tip resistance (qt1) [Kulhawy and
Mayne, 1990] as follows: ϕ′= 17.6°+11.0 log(𝑞𝑡1 ) (Equation 6.2)
where:
ϕ’ = drained friction angle (degrees); and
qt1 = normalized corrected CPT cone tip resistance; is given by:
𝑞𝑡1 =𝑞𝑡𝜎𝑎𝑡𝑚��𝜎𝑣𝑜′𝜎𝑎𝑡𝑚� (Equation 6.3)
where:
σatm = atmospheric pressure; and
σvo’ = effective vertical stress; and
qt = corrected CPT cone tip resistance; is given by: 𝑞𝑡=𝑞𝑐+(1 −𝑎𝑛)𝑢2 (Equation 6.4)

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 54 07.25.14
where:
qc = measured CPT cone tip resistance; and
an = area corection; and
u2 = measured pore water pressure.
The Dike Fill and Foundation Soils friction angles estimated from this empirical
correlation are plotted in Figure 6.F10. As shown in this figure, the Dike Fill and
Foundation Soils friction angles typically vary from 36 to 56 degrees and 30 to 44
degrees, respectively.
6.3.2.2 CCRs
The undrained and drained shear strength of the CCRs was interpreted from the CU
triaxial compression test [ASTM D 4767]. As part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing
program, one set of two CU tests was conducted on one sample of the CCR (also called
a 2-point CU test). A limited number of CU triaxial tests were conducted on CCRs
considering the preliminary nature of the design presented herein. During the CU
triaxial tests, the sample was trimmed into two specimens and each specimen was tested
under a different initial effective confining stress (σc’). The undrained shear strength
(Su) measured in each CU test corresponded to the σc’ applied to the specimen. From
the CU test results, the undrained shear strength ratios (Su/σc’) were calculated. A plot
of the Su/σc’ calculated from these CU tests is shown in Figure 6.F11. Also, the σf’ and
τf’ obtained from the CU test results are plotted to estimate the drained strength
parameters, and are presented in Figure 6.F12.
6.3.2.3 Selected Strength Parameters
Based on SPT-based and CPT-based estimations, representative drained shear strength
parameters were conservatively selected to be ϕ′ = 38 degrees and c’ = 0 psf for the
Dike Fill, ϕ′ = 34 degrees and c’ = 0 psf for the Foundation Soils, and ϕ′ = 31 degrees
and c’ = 0 psf for the Landfill Area Soils.
The CCR strength parameters were selected based on the CU test results for the CCRs
collected from the Site as well as the CU test results for the CCRs collected from other
Sites located in the southeastern US. A representative Su/σc’ of 0.85 and ϕ′ = 34 degrees
and c’ = 0 psf were selected as undrained and drained shear strength parameters for
CCRs, respectively. In general, compacted CCRs have a higher friction angle than

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 55 07.25.14
impounded CCRs, as indicated in CPT soundings. Geosyntec [2012] conducted CU
tests on compacted CCR samples (collected from another Site) and selected
representative strength parameters of ϕ′ = 36 degrees and c’ = 0 psf. Those values are
used for slope stability analyses presented herein. The selected shear strength
parameters are summarized in Table 6.T1. Additional CU testing on CCR samples will
be conducted to confirm these selected parameters, if necessary, during the final design.
6.3.3 Compressibility
The preconsolidation pressure (Pc), the modified compression ratio (Ccε), and the
modified recompression ratio (Crε) were estimated from the 1-D consolidation test. The
overconsolidation ratio (OCR) was calculated as the ratio between the Pc and the in-situ
effective overburden stress.
As part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing program, one 1-D consolidation test was
conducted on a sample of CCR. The test result for the CCR sample indicate that the
estimated Pc is approximately 1,500 psf, the estimated Ccε is approximately 0.0309, the
estimated Crε is approximately 0.0043, and the calculated OCR is approximately 2.0.
For settlement calculation, however, the OCR was conservatively assumed to be 1. The
compressibility parameters are summarized in Table 6.T2.
6.3.4 CCR Flow Potential
As part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing program, pH [ASTM D 4972] and calcium
content tests [ASTM D 4373] were conducted on 13 CCR samples collected from the
1971 Pond, 1984 Ponds and 2006 ICA to evaluate the flow potential.
Each set of pH tests was conducted with two types of test solutions (i.e., distilled water
and calcium chloride). The results show that the type of test solution used did not have
significant impact on the measured pH values. The average pH value for each set of
tests is plotted in Figure 6.F13. The calcium content test results indicate that no
calcium was found in the tested samples. This is consistent with the information that
FGD materials were not removed from the flue gases and disposed in the CCR ponds at
Sutton. Based on these laboratory test results, preliminary CCR flow potential was
evaluated and the evaluation result is described in a later subsection.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 56 07.25.14
6.3.5 Shear Wave Velocity
As part of the Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation, shear wave velocity
measurements were taken at 1.3-ft to 5-ft intervals at selected locations using a seismic
CPT (SCPT) in the field. These measurements were used to calculate the shear wave
velocities (Vs) of the subsurface materials. The Vs values were calculated by the Mid-
Atlantic Drilling (the CPT contractor) based on the direct SCPT measurements and
provided to Geosyntec. The Vs for the Dike Fill and the Foundation Soils was also
estimated using an empirical correlation with sleeve friction from CPT soundings
[Mayne, 2006] as follows:
Vs = 118.8 log(fs )+18.5 (Equation 6.5)
where:
Vs = shear wave velocity (m/s); and
fs = sleeve friction (kPa).
The results of Vs calculated using the direct SCPT measurements and the Vs profiles
estimated from the empirical correlation are plotted in Figure 6.F14a for the Dike Fill
and the Foundation Soils. The results of Vs calculated based on the direct SCPT
measurements are plotted in Figure 6.F14b for the CCRs in both the 1971 and 1984
ponds, and the 2006 ICA.
6.3.6 Total Unit Weight
6.3.6.1 Dike Fill, Foundation Soils, and Landfill Area Soils
No total unit weight tests on Dike Fill, Foundation Soils or Landfill Area Soils were
conducted as part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing program as those are predominantly
sandy. However, as part of the Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation, shear wave
velocity measurements were taken at 1.3-ft to 5-ft intervals at selected locations using a
seismic CPT (SCPT) in the field. These measurements were used to estimate the
saturated unit weight (γt) of the Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill Area Soils.
The estimation was based on an empirical correlation with a shear wave velocity (Vs)
[Mayne, 2005] as follows: 𝛾𝑡=8.32 × log 𝑉𝑠−1.61 × log 𝑧 (Equation 6.6)

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 57 07.25.14
where:
γt = saturated total unit weight (kN/m3); and
Vs = shear wave velocity (m/s); and
z = depth (m).
The results of unit weight calculated using the direct SCPT are plotted in Figure 6.F15
for the Dike Fill and the Foundation Soils.
6.3.6.2 CCRs
As part of Geosyntec’s laboratory testing program, the dry unit weight and initial
moisture content were measured during the Consolidated Undrained (CU) triaxial
compression test [ASTM D 4767] and one-dimensional (1-D) consolidation test [ASTM
D 2435] for one CCR sample. The total unit weight was calculated using the measured
dry unit weight and initial moisture content. The result of the total unit weight of the
CCR sample is presented in Table 6.T3. The results indicate that the total unit weight
of the CCR is approximately 95 pcf, similar to that for the CCRs from other Sites
located in the southeastern US.
6.3.2.3 Selected Total Unit Weight
A representative total unit weight of 120 pcf and 115 pcf were selected for the Dike Fill
and the Foundation Soils, respectively. A representative unit weight of 115 pcf was
also selected for the Landfill Area Soils. A representative total unit weight of 95 pcf
was selected for the CCRs. The selected total unit weights are summarized in Table
6.T1.
6.4 Static Slope Stability Analysis
The conceptual closure plans developed by Geosyntec include two engineered cover in-
place closure options (Options 1.1 and 1.2), and both a greenfield and brownfield
landfill closure options (Options 2.1 and 2.2). Descriptions of these proposed closure
options are presented in Section 1.3. This section presents the preliminary slope
stability analyses as part of the conceptual closure design. The analyses were
performed for post-closure conditions at selected critical cross sections.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 58 07.25.14
6.4.1 Analyzed Closure Options
Three cross sections were selected to be analyzed for static slope stability. The
locations of these sections are shown in Figure 6.F1a. The following closure options
were analyzed for the static slope stability:
• Option 1.1 – A critical cross section was cut through the 1971 Pond dike where
the CCRs have the highest elevation and steepest slope after closure.
Additionally the section was cut at the location where CCR-like material was
encountered below the 1971 Dike. The location of this cross section (i.e. Cross
Section A-A’) is shown in Figure 6.F1b.
• Option 1.2 – A critical cross section was cut through the 1984 Pond dike where
the CCRs have the highest elevation and steepest slope after closure. The
location of this cross section (i.e. Cross Section B-B’) is shown in Figure 6.F1c.
• Option 2.1 – A critical cross section was cut through the Landfill Area where the
CCRs have the highest elevation and steepest slope after closure. The location
of this cross section (i.e. Cross Section C-C’) is shown in Figure 6.F1d.
Note that Option 2.2 (brownfield landfill) is similar to Option 1.2 in terms of post-
closure footprint and grading. Also, the steepness of the proposed grading is the same
for both options. However, the maximum CCR elevation is higher for Option 1.2.
Therefore, Option 2.2 is considered less critical than Option 1.2 and was not analyzed.
6.4.2 Slope Stability Models
Existing subsurface geometries at Cross Sections A-A, B-B, and C-C were discussed in
Section 6.1 and are shown in Figures 6.F2a, 6.F2b and 6.F2c, respectively. For
purpose of the preliminary slope stability analyses of post-closure conditions, the
existing subsurface geometries were modified to be representative of the closure options
chosen for analysis. The final elevation of the CCRs was developed based on the
proposed conceptual closure grading plan for each option. Additionally the water level
used in the slope stability analysis was developed based on the results of the Site-wide
post-closure groundwater flow model presented in Figure 4.F9 under Section 4
“Groundwater Flow Model” of this report.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 59 07.25.14
The geotechnical material properties selected for the slope stability analyses are
summarized in Table 6.T1. Considering the permeable nature of the Dike Fill and
Foundation Soils, the slope stability analyses were performed under drained conditions
using drained shear strengths. The target FS was selected to be 1.5 for the final
condition [USACE, 2003].
6.4.3 Slope Stability Analysis Results
The static slope stability analyses were performed using the commercial computer
program SLIDE, version 6.029 [Rocscience, 2014]. Spencer’s method [Spencer, 1973]
was used to calculate the FS for the circular slip surfaces. Spencer’s method satisfies
both force and moment equilibrium and therefore, is generally considered to be more
rigorous than the other commonly used methods, such as the simplified Janbu method
[Janbu, 1973] and the simplified Bishop method [Bishop, 1955].
The results of the preliminary slope stability analysis are summarized in Table 6.T4 and
presented in Figures 6.F16a through 6.F16c. These figures show the slip surface with a
minimum FS and additional queried slip surfaces calculated by the SLIDE program.
The results indicate that the FSs calculated for Option 1.2 and Option 2.1 meet the
target FS. On the other hand, the minimum calculated FS for Option 1.1 is less than the
target FS. However, the slip surface corresponding to the minimum calculated FS
represents surficial sloughing and can be considered to be non-critical. This type of
movement is unlikely to pose a threat to global dike stability and can be remedied with
basic maintenance. The calculated FSs for the slip surfaces passing through mid-slope
and dike centerline are larger than the target FS.
The preliminary analyses presented herein indicate that the closure options
contemplated for each pond should be feasible in terms of meeting acceptable FS for
slope stability. A more detailed slope stability analysis with additional cross sections
and case scenarios, as necessary, will be performed in the final closure design after the
closure option is selected. The seismic slope stability analysis was not performed as
part of the conceptual closure design. This will be addressed in the final closure design.
6.5 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation
Liquefaction potential of the Site was evaluated using the SPT-based simplified procedure
presented by Idriss and Boulanger [2008]. The simplified procedure requires a peak
ground acceleration (PGA) and an earthquake magnitude. These parameters are

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 60 07.25.14
obtained from seismic hazard evaluation, which is described in the following
subsection.
6.5.1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation
Seismic hazard evaluation consists of the selection of appropriate hazard level and
associated hazard parameters, which include the PGA and the earthquake magnitude.
The appropriate hazard level is often expressed in probabilistic terms as a specific
hazard level that has a certain probability of exceedance in a given time period. The
USEPA proposed rules for CCR Surface Impoundments [USEPA, 2010] address
appropriate seismic hazard levels. In accordance with the rules, the liquefaction
potential evaluation presented in this report was based on establishing seismic design
parameters (i.e. PGA) consistent with a 98 percent or greater probability that the PGA
will not be exceeded in 50 years. This results in PGA levels with return period of 2,475
years, which is commonly referred to as 2,500-year event acceleration.
PGA values corresponding to different hazard levels and Site conditions can be
obtained by using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) deaggregation tool
[USGS, 2008]. This deaggregation tool also provides a corresponding earthquake
moment magnitude. Figure 6.F17a presents the seismic hazard deaggregation for the
Sutton Site, estimated using the USGS deaggregation tool. As shown in the figure, the
PGA value and the moment magnitude at the Site are estimated to be 0.114g and 7.3,
respectively. The USGS deaggregation tool also provides geographic distribution of
seismic hazard sources, as presented in Figure 6.F17b. This figure indicates that
seismic hazard with a large magnitude would approximately come from the Charleston
area in South Carolina, located more than 170 km from the Sutton Site.
The PGA value estimated using the USGS deaggregation tool is for the “firm rock”
condition (i.e., shear wave velocity of 2500 ft/sec or more). Local Site effect should be
considered to establish a design PGA. Based on the review of subsurface condition at
the Site, it is believed that the amplification of the acceleration through the Site
subsurface would be insignificant. Therefore, a PGA of 0.114g was selected and used
for the preliminary liquefaction potential evaluation.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 61 07.25.14
6.5.2 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation
The liquefaction potential was evaluated for four locations where relatively loose soils
that may have the potential to liquefy appear to be present. These three locations were
selected based on the fines contents measured during the laboratory index property testing
and the SPT N-values reported in the soil boring logs. Table 6.T5 summarizes the
evaluation details and results. The calculated FS against liquefaction in the 1971 and
1984 Pond Dikes were greater than 1.2, which indicates that the soils do not have the
potential to liquefy under the evaluated seismic hazard level. The calculated FSs for the
soils at a depth of 19.25 ft and 29.25 ft in the Landfill Area were 1.2 and 0.8, respectively.
Although the calculated FS for one location is below 1.0, this is considered to be
localized. After the closure option is selected, further evaluation will be performed during
the final design, if necessary. Modeling the height of the landfill using a Site response
analysis generally decreases the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and results in an increase of the
calculated FS value.
6.6 CCR Flow Potential
Based on experimental research and literature review, the EPRI guideline [2012] states:
• CCRs with pH > 9.5 have a high flow potential; and
• CCRs with a high calcium content have a high flow potential.
Based on the results from the pH and calcium content tests, preliminary evaluation
indicates that the CCRs have low flow potential. After the closure option is selected,
further evaluation on CCR flow potential will be performed with additional data during
the final design, if necessary. The additional data may include: (i) the results of a slump
test; (ii) shear wave velocities of the CCRs measured during SCPTs after the data is
interpreted further by Geosyntec; and (iii) stress path from the triaxial tests on CCR
samples. It is noted that triaxial test stress paths under consolidation stress conditions
that are similar to in-situ stress conditions indicate strain hardening behavior for CCR
samples. This indicates that CCR under in-situ conditions may not have flow potential.
This concept will be further developed during the final design.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 62 07.25.14
6.7 Settlement Assessment
A preliminary settlement assessment was performed to check whether the proposed cover
system for the selected closure options is anticipated to maintain positive drainage. The
assessment was based on the interpreted compressibility parameters of the CCRs
presented in Table 6.T1. For Options 1.2, 2.1, and 2.2, relatively deep soils may
experience settlement due to placement of cover system or landfill. The settlement for
the relatively deep soils was also calculated for those closure options.
Based on the proposed conceptual closure grading plans, the settlements of the existing
CCRs under the loading from the relocated or newly placed CCRs were estimated to be
less than 1 ft for Option 1.1 and up to 2.5 ft for Option 1.2. For Options 2.1 and 2.2, the
settlement of base surface under the loading from newly placed CCRs were estimated to
be up to 3 ft. Considering the permeability of the CCRs and likely presence of permeable
lenses at the deep soils, it is expected that the majority of the settlements calculated above
will likely occur prior to the placement of the cover system. After the cover system is
placed, additional settlement will occur due to the loading from the cover placement. The
thickness of the cover is expected to be approximately 2 to 3 ft. The maximum settlement
of the CCRs due to the cover placement was estimated to be less than 0.5 ft and the
differential settlement is not expected to cause grade reversal of the cover system.
Detailed settlement calculations will be performed as part of the final design after the
closure option is selected.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 63 07.25.14
7. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK EVALUATION
7.1 Overview
This section describes a framework for a site-specific risk-based approach to further
evaluate the analytical results for environmental media discussed in Section 5 in the
context of potential human and ecological receptors that may be exposed to constituents
of interest (COIs) associated with the CCR ponds. DEP’s Guidance on Developing
Closure Plans for Ash Basins [Duke Energy, 2012] presumes that an engineering
solution (i.e., CCR excavation and/or engineered covers) will be used to eliminate direct
contact with CCR materials under all of the closure options described in that guidance.
It therefore focuses on chemical transport and potential exposure considerations for
groundwater and surface water media that could be affected by COIs potentially
leaching from the CCR ponds. Accordingly, this section focuses on potential human
and ecological receptors that could be exposed to COIs associated with the CCR ponds
via groundwater and surface water.
7.2 Site Use
The Sutton Plant is located in New Hanover County, near Wilmington, North Carolina,
situated between the Cape Fear River to the west and the Northeast Cape Fear River to
the east. Three coal-fired units at the Plant were retired in 2013. A natural gas-fired
combined cycle unit started operations in November 2013 and will continue to operate
for the foreseeable future.
There are two CCR ponds at the Sutton Plant including the 1971 Pond and the 1984
Pond, and a large Cooling Pond (Figure 1.F1). The CCR ponds are located east of the
Cooling Pond. The Cooling Pond has a boat ramp and is open to the public for
recreational use.
7.3 Receptors
7.3.1 Human Receptors
The Sutton Plant is an active industrial facility that will continue to employ full-time
personnel for the foreseeable future. Since all closure options considered will include
an engineered cover, these employees will not have direct exposure to the CCR
materials post-closure, and this potential exposure route is not considered for human
receptors.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 64 07.25.14
A 1,110-acre Cooling Pond is located to the immediate north of the Plant and
immediately west of 1971 and 1984 CCR Ponds. The Cooling Pond is accessible to the
general public and is a popular recreational fishery for the area. Duke Energy and its
predecessors have conducted annual environmental monitoring of the Cooling Pond
since 1972 including the collection of surface water, sediment, and fish tissue samples
for analytical chemistry, as well as biological assessments of aquatic vegetation and fish
community health.
Land use in the general vicinity of the Sutton Plant is predominantly industrial, but also
includes some residential land use concentrated in the small community of Flemington,
which is located to the southeast of the Sutton Plant. On behalf of Duke Energy,
Synterra conducted a survey of potential water supply wells for the area approximately
½ mile to the east of the Site in 2014. Geosyntec is relying on the information provided
in the well survey and a copy of the survey is included in Appendix 2.A2. Duke
Energy operates three water supply wells and the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
(CFPUA) currently operates two supply wells. According to Synterra, an additional 44
possible private water supply wells were observed or have been reported in the area
within ½ mile to the east of the Duke Energy property line.
7.3.2 Environmental/Ecological Receptors
The Sutton Plant is situated between the Cape Fear River to the west and the Northeast
Cape Fear River to the east as shown in Figure 1.F1. The area in the vicinity of the
Plant provides a considerable amount of wildlife habitat. Most of this habitat is
provided by the forested and emergent wetland features associated with the Cape Fear
River basin in this area (USFWS Wetland Mapper). A variety of mammals are likely to
inhabit the property and surrounding areas including, raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargetilus), mink (Mustela vison),
striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), opossum (Didelphis virginianus). Avian species that
may inhabit the property include barred owl (Strix varia), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo
lineatus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis).
As described in the preceding section, the 1,110-acre Cooling Pond is accessible to the
general public and supports a recreational fishery. Fish species known to inhabit the
Cooling Pond include bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), flathead catfish (Pylodictis

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 65 07.25.14
olivaris), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides). Duke Energy has conducted annual environmental monitoring of the
Cooling Pond since 1972, including the collection of surface water, sediment, and fish
tissue samples for analytical chemistry, as well as biological assessments of aquatic
vegetation and fish community health.
The Cape Fear River constitutes the western boundary of the Site, immediately adjacent
to the Cooling Pond and main Plant area. Fish species known to inhabit the Cape Fear
River include American shad (Alosa sapidissima), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), crappie
(Pomoxis spp.), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).
7.4 Media and Pathways
7.4.1 Soil and CCR Materials
Section 5 discusses the analytical results for the CCR materials, background soil
samples, Vanadium Pit soil samples, and soil samples from monitoring wells outside of
the CCR ponds. These analytical results were compared with background levels to
assess the distribution of COIs in soils and CCR materials.
Several elements, including arsenic, barium, boron, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
manganese, molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, sodium, strontium, and zinc
exhibited higher concentrations in samples of the CCR materials as compared to
background soil samples and soil samples outside of the CCR ponds and samples
associated with the Vanadium Pit. However, soils in the Vanadium Pit area had
substantially elevated pH levels of up to 10.9 standard units, indicative of some impact
from industrial operations not associated with management of CCR materials.
In addition, SPLP analysis of CCR materials suggest that the elevated arsenic levels in
the CCR materials (and the SPLP leachate) represents the most significant concern for
continued leaching from the CCR materials to groundwater, primarily within the
footprint of the CCR Ponds (Table 2.T12 of the Data Report). However, boron,
chromium, iron, and manganese do not leach at elevated levels, which suggests that
these constituents may have largely leached out of the CCR materials (e.g., boron)
and/or are more affected by redox reactions (e.g., iron, manganese, and selenium) than
by desorption and/or dissolution.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 66 07.25.14
Closure options that involve removal of the CCR materials and/or construction of an
engineered cap over the CCR materials will eliminate potential human exposures to the
CCR materials. However, the depth of CCR materials within the 1971 Pond, as well as
the historical leaching of boron (discussed in the following section) will likely have a
residual impact on the distribution of constituents in groundwater that will be difficult
to completely eliminate regardless of the final closure option selected.
7.4.2 Groundwater
The analytical results for groundwater in wells at or beyond the compliance boundary
were compared with North Carolina 15A NCAC 2L groundwater standards and interim
maximum allowable concentrations (IMACs). Arsenic concentrations in groundwater
were elevated in the immediate vicinity of the CCR ponds, but attenuated such that
concentrations were below the standard in most of the compliance wells. On the
contrary, boron has historically shown concentrations above its groundwater standard of
700 µg/L in multiple monitoring wells at or beyond the compliance boundary. This
includes compliance boundary wells MW-21C, MW-22C, MW-23B, MW-23C, MW-
24B, and MW-24C. Furthermore, several wells beyond the compliance boundary,
including MW-12 (along the property boundary next to S.T. Wooten Corporation),
MW-19 (downgradient of MW-21C), and MW-31C (along the property boundary next
to S.T. Wooten Corporation) have historically shown consistent exceedances of the
boron groundwater standard. Groundwater within the Vanadium Pit area exhibited
substantially elevated levels of iron and vanadium. While other wells sampled during
the current investigation did not indicate a wide-spread issue with vanadium in
groundwater, it is noted that no wells downgradient of the Vanadium Pit area were
sampled.
Maintenance workers could potentially have intermittent exposures to Site groundwater
while conducting maintenance and/or monitoring activities associated with the
piezometers or monitoring wells. These events would likely be brief and intermittent in
nature and be limited primarily to the dermal exposure route. The Synterra water
supply well survey identified 44 off-site water supply wells to the east of the Sutton
Plant, and estimated that 18 of these are hydraulically down-gradient of the compliance
boundary wells where boron exceedances have been observed. Synterra recommended
the installation of additional monitoring wells along the eastern property line to better
define the width of the boron plume and refine the extent of the off-site area where
humans might be exposed to elevated concentrations of boron in groundwater. The

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 67 07.25.14
collection of additional information on groundwater use in that area was also
recommended.
7.4.3 Surface Water, Sediments, and Fish Tissue in Cooling Pond
As described above, Duke Energy has conducted annual environmental monitoring of
the Cooling Pond since 1972 that includes the collection of surface water, sediment, and
fish tissue samples for analytical chemistry, as well as biological assessments of aquatic
vegetation and fish community health. Geosyntec reviewed the reports issued since
2000, but the discussion in this subsection is based primarily on the most recent (i.e., 2012)
Annual Environmental Monitoring Report [DEP, 2013]. Consistent with earlier reports, the
2012 report acknowledges that operations of the Sutton Plant, specifically effluents
associated with the CCR ponds, have contributed to trace element accumulation in water,
sediments, and fish tissues in the Cooling Pond.
Surface water concentrations of arsenic and selenium in the Cooling Pond, while above
background levels in the Cape Fear River, have generally been below the North Carolina
Surface Water Quality Standards for these constituents. Concentrations of copper have
typically been above background levels and slightly above the North Carolina Surface
Water Action Level, but the 2012 Report concludes that the recent exceedances might be
related to the use of copper-based herbicides that have been used for algal control in the
Cooling Pond.
The 2012 Report also notes that concentrations of arsenic, copper, and selenium in the
lake sediments have been consistently elevated above background concentrations. In
addition, while selenium concentrations in fish tissues are elevated relative to levels in
fish from reference lakes, all selenium values were below the North Carolina
consumption advisory limit for selenium in fish tissue.
7.5 Data Gaps and Risk Mitigation Measures
Based on the exceedances of NCDENR groundwater standards for several constituents
in certain Site wells at or beyond the compliance boundary, it will likely be necessary to
secure an institutional control that restricts future groundwater use at the Site to non-
potable uses. The presence of substantially elevated soil pH conditions and elevated
concentrations of vanadium in groundwater in the Vanadium Pit area may warrant a
limited additional investigation in this area. Further, the presence of boron at
concentrations exceeding groundwater standards in the compliance wells may require
additional assessment to evaluate the potential for off-site drinking water exposures.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 68 07.25.14
8. REFERENCES
AMEC (2011). “Progress Energy – Sutton Plant, Ash Pond Restacking Plan – Phase II,
Completion Report”
ASTM Standard D 1586 (2011), "Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils," ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/ D1586-11, www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard D 2216 (2010), "Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination
of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass," ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/ D2216-10, www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard D 2435 (2011), "Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional
Consolidation Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading," ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/D2435_D2435M-11,
www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard D 422 (2007), "Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of
Soils," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/D0422-
63R07, www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard D 4318 (2010), "Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic
Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils," ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, DOI: 10.1520/D4318-10, www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard D 4373 (2007), "Standard Test Method for Rapid Determination of
Carbonate Content of Soils," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
DOI: 10.1520/D4373-02R07, www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard D 4767 (2011), "Standard Test Method for Consolidated Undrained
Triaxial Compression Test for Cohesive Soils," ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/D4767-11, www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard D 4972 (2007), "Standard Test Method for pH of Soils," ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/D4972-01R07,
www.astm.org.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 69 07.25.14
ASTM Standard D 5778 (2012), "Standard Test Method for Electronic Friction Cone
and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils," ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/ D5778-12, www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard D 854 (2010), "Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil
Solids by Water Pycnometer," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
DOI: 10.1520/D0854-10, www.astm.org.
Bain, G.L. (1970). Geology and Groundwater Resources of New Hanover County,
North Carolina. Groundwater Bulletin No. 17, United States Geological Survey,
p. 90.
Bishop, A. (1955). “The Use of the Slip Circle in the Stability Analysis of Slopes,”
Geotechnique, Volume 5, No. 1, Jan 1955, pp. 7-17.
Catlin (2012). Phase II Groundwater Quality Assessment for Ash Pond Impacts at the
L.V. Sutton Electric Plant, Wilmington, North Carolina; July.
Duke Energy (2012). Guidance on Developing Closure Plans for Ash Basins, Revision
0, September 27.
Duke Energy Progress (2013). L.V. Sutton Electrical Plant 2012 Environmental
Monitoring Report. DEP Water and Natural Resources, November.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2012). “Geotechnical Properties of Fly Ash
and Potential for Static Liquefaction: Volume 1 – Summary and Conclusions”,
Report No. 1023743.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2002). “Geotechnical Engineering Circular
No.5,” Report No. FHWA-IF-02-034.
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (2012). "Technical Memorandum” Confidential Client.
Geosyntec. (2013). Data Interpretation and Analysis Report – Conceptual Closure Plan
– Cape Fear Plant. December 2013, p. 386.
Harden, S.L., Fine, J.M, & Spruill, T.B. (2003). Hydrogeology and Groundwater
Quality of Brunswick County, North Carolina. Water Resources Investigation
Report 03-4051, United States Geological Survey, p. 98.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 70 07.25.14
Hatanaka, M. and A. Uchida (1996). "Empirical Correlation between Penetration
Resistance and Internal Friction Angle of Sandy Soils," Soils and Foundations,
Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 1-9.
Heath, R.C. (1983). Basic ground-water hydrology, Water-Supply Paper 2220, United
States Geological Survey, p. 86.
Heath, R.C. (1994). Groundwater Recharge in North Carolina. Unpublished report to
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section, p. 52.
HydroCAD, “HydroCADTM (2009). Stormwater Modeling System, Version 9.1”,
HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC., 2nd ed., Chocorua, New Hampshire.
Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W., (2008). “Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes”,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, EERI Publication MNO-12.
Janbu, N. (1973). “Slope Stability Computations,” Embankment Dam Engineering,
Casagrande Memorial Volume, R. C. Hirschfield and S. J. Poulos, Eds., John
Kulhawy, F.H. and P.W. Mayne (1990). "Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for
Foundation Design," Report EPRI EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, California, 306 pp.
MACTEC (2010). “Report of 2010 Limited (Annual) Field Inspection, Cooling Pond
and Ash Pond Dikes”, Raleigh, North Carolina.
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (2007). “Five-Year Independent Consultant
Inspection, Ash Pond Dikes, L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant, Wilmington,
New Hanover County, North Carolina”
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (2011a). “Dam Information Summary,
L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant, Ash Ponds, New Hanover County, North
Carolina”
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (2011b). “Ash Pond Dike Stability
Analysis, Progress Energy – Sutton Plant, New Hanover County, North
Carolina”

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 71 07.25.14
Mayne, P.W., (2005). “Integrated ground behavior: In-situ and laboratory tests”,
Deformation of Geomaterials, Vol. 2, pp.155–177.
Mayne, P.W., (2006). “The 2nd James K. Mitchell Lecture: Undisturbed Sand Strength”
NCDENR Division of Water Quality (2013). North Carolina Adminstrative Code
(NCAC), Title 15A, Subchapter 2L Section .0107 Compliance Boundary.
New Hanover County (2000a). “New Hanover County Stormwater Ordinance”,
Development Services.
New Hanover County (2000b). “New Hanover County Stormwater Design Manual”,
Development Services.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) (2007).
“Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual”, Division of Water Quality,
NCDENR, North Carolina.
Rocscience (2014). “SLIDE – 2-D Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability for Soil and Rock
Slopes,” User's Guide, Rocscience Software, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). “TR-55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds,
Technical Release 55 (TR-55)”, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, 2nd ed., Washington, D.C., 1986.
Spencer, E. (1973). “The Thrust Line Criterion in Embankment Stability Analysis,”
Stability”, Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-1902, October 2003.
Synterra (2013a). L.V. Sutton Energy Complex, Wilmington, NC, Aquifer Testing
Summary Report. December 13, p. 40.
Synterra (2013b). Figure 1 – Water Level Map – October 2013.
Synterra (2014). L.V. Sutton Energy Complex, Wilmington NC, Water Supply Well
Survey Report of Findings. April 9, p. 47.
Todd, D.K. (1980). Groundwater Hydrology. 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York,
p. 535.

GC5592/GA140475_LV Sutton_I & A Report .docx 72 07.25.14
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2003), “Engineering and Design – Slope”
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2010). CCR Surface Impoundments
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2008). “2008 Interactive Deaggregations”.
http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/ Wiley, New York, 1973, pp. 47-86.
Winner & Coble. (1996). Hydrogeologic Framework of the North Carolina Coastal
Plain. Professional Paper 1404-I, United States Geological Survey, p. 119.

TABLES
Table 1.T1 Summary of Basic Information for Each Pond
Pond Area
(acres)
Maximum
Dike
Height (ft)
Dike Elevation (ft)
Dike
Length
(ft)
Upstream
Slope
Downstream
Slope
1971 Pond 54 24 28 7,000 3H:1V 3H:1V
1984 Pond 82 32 34 (42 - 2006 Interior
Containment Area) 10,000 3H:1V 3H:1V
Notes:
1. 100-year flood elevation for the site is 8 ft NAVD88 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988)
2. The hazard ratings for the 1971 and 1984 Ponds are both low.
3. The 1971 and 1984 Ponds are designed for the 12-hour, 50-year and 100-year storms, respectively. The depths for the
50-year and 100-year storms are 9 in and 10 in, respectively.

Page 1 of 1
Well Type Well Name Model Layer Hydrogeological Unit Initial Pumping Rate
(gpm)
Site Supply Well PE-SW5 2 to 3 Surficial Aquifer 65.97
Site Supply Well PE-SW6A 2 to 3 Surficial Aquifer 16.67
Site Supply Well PE-SW6B 2 to 3 Surficial Aquifer 97.92
Off Site Supply Well CFPUA #3 1 to 3 Surficial Aquifer 27.08
Off Site Supply Well CFPUA #4 1 to 3 Surficial Aquifer 27.08
Off Site Supply Well Invista G 1 to 5 Surficial and Peedee Aquifers 61.11
Off Site Supply Well Invista OH2 1 to 5 Surficial and Peedee Aquifers 92.36
Notes:
1. gpm = gallons per minute.
2. Pumping rates are daily averages for 2013.
Table 4.T1. Initial Pumping Rates
L.V. Sutton Hydrogeologic Site Assessment
Page 1 of 1
Model Targets
(Piezometers/Monitoring Wells)
Simulated
Water Level
(ft)
Observed
Water Level
(ft)
Residual
(ft)
GWPZ-1A 10.11 10.09 -0.02
GWPZ-1B 10.11 10.02 -0.09
GWPZ-2A 10.36 10.32 -0.04
GWPZ-2B 10.36 10.30 -0.06
GWPZ-3A 10.76 10.40 -0.36
GWPZ-3B 10.75 10.43 -0.32
GWPZ-4A 10.32 10.37 0.06
GWPZ-4B 10.31 10.36 0.05
MW-05C 8.97 8.85 -0.12
MW-06C 10.62 10.13 -0.49
MW-07C 8.41 8.32 -0.09
MW-08 9.96 9.18 -0.78
MW-11 9.78 10.19 0.41
MW-12 10.26 9.83 -0.43
MW-19 9.39 9.07 -0.32
MW-21C 9.32 9.33 0.01
MW-22B 9.69 9.63 -0.06
MW-22C 9.69 9.60 -0.09
MW-23B 10.20 10.12 -0.08
MW-23C 10.12 10.08 -0.04
MW-24B 10.56 10.39 -0.17
MW-24C 10.56 10.40 -0.16
MW-27B 9.89 9.81 -0.09
MW-27C 9.89 9.75 -0.14
MW-28B 9.01 9.05 0.04
MW-28C 9.01 9.03 0.02
MW-31C 10.27 10.19 -0.08
MW-32C 8.92 9.25 0.33
MW-33C 8.52 9.31 0.79
MW-34B 10.28 10.37 0.08
MW-34C 10.28 10.33 0.05
MW-35B 10.13 10.26 0.13
MW-35C 10.13 10.21 0.08
MW-36B 9.96 9.74 -0.22
MW-36C 9.95 9.72 -0.24
Calibration Statistics:
1. Residual Mean = -0.07 ft
2. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) = 0.27 ft
3. Scaled RMSE = 0.128
4. Mass Balance = 1.75 E-08%
Notes:
1. Observed water levels were measured on May 19, 2014
Table 4.T2. Observed vs. Simulated Heads
L.V. Sutton Hydrogeologic Site Assessment
Page 1 of 1
Well Type Well Name Model Layer Hydrogeological Unit Calibrated Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Site Supply Well PE-SW5 2 to 3 Surficial Aquifer 36.36
Site Supply Well PE-SW6A 2 to 3 Surficial Aquifer 5.19
Site Supply Well PE-SW6B 2 to 3 Surficial Aquifer 31.17
Off Site Supply Well CFPUA #3 1 to 3 Surficial Aquifer 27.08
Off Site Supply Well CFPUA #4 1 to 3 Surficial Aquifer 27.08
Off Site Supply Well Invista G 1 to 5 Surficial and Peedee Aquifers 51.95
Off Site Supply Well Invista OH2 1 to 5 Surficial and Peedee Aquifers 109.90
Notes:
1. gpm = gallons per minute.
Table 4.T3. Calibrated Pumping Rates
L.V. Sutton Hydrogeologic Site Assessment
Page 1 of 1
Model Layer Hydrogeological Unit Parameter Value
1 to 3 Surficial Aquifer Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity 25.00
1 to 3 Surficial Aquifer Vertical Horizontal Conductivity 15.00
4 Confining Unit Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity 0.020
4 Confining Unit Vertical Horizontal Conductivity 0.016
5 Peedee Aquifer Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity 34.00
5 Peedee Aquifer Vertical Horizontal Conductivity 34.00
Notes:
1. Hydraulic Conductivity units are in ft/day
Table 4.T4. Calibrated Hydraulic Conductivity Values
L.V. Sutton Hydrogeologic Site Assessment
Page 1 of 1
Model Layer Zone Number Hydrogeological Unit Recharge
1 1 Surficial Aquifer 10.41
1 2 Surficial Aquifer 0.00
1 3 Surficial Aquifer 10.41
1 4 1984 Ash Pond 21.00
1 5 1971 Ash Pond 19.00
Notes:
1. Recharge values are in units of inches/year
Table 4.T5. Calibrated Recharge Parameter Values
L.V. Sutton Hydrogeologic Site Assessment
Table 6.T1. Selected Material Parameters
Material Total Unit Weight (pcf) Cohesion, c' (psf) Friction Angle, φ' (degrees)
Dike Fill 120[1] 0 38
Foundation Soils 115[1] 0 34
Landfill Area Soils 115 0 31
Impounded CCRs 95[2] 0[3] 34[3]
CCR and Soil Mix 95[2] 0 25
Graded CCR 95[2] 0 36[4]
Compacted CCR 95[2] 0 36[4]

Notes:
[1] These parameters were selected as representative values for the given material.
[2] These parameters were selected based on test results for an impounded CCR sample collected from the 2006 Interior
Containment Area. Further evaluation will be used as part of the final design if necessary.
[3] A limited number of CU triaxial tests were conducted on CCRs considering the preliminary nature of the design presented
herein. Based on these CU test results as well as the CU test results for the CCRs collected from other sites located in the
southeastern US, these parameters were estimated. An undrained shear strength ratio (Su/c’) was selected to be 0.85 based on the
referenced CU test results.
[4] These parameters were selected based on CU tests conducted on CCRs at another confidential site located in the southeastern
US [Geosyntec, 2012].
Table 6.T2. Summary of Consolidation Test Results

Boring
ID
Sample
ID Pond
Depth
[1]
(ft bgs)
Elevation[2]
(ft NAVD88) Material Pc (psf) OCR [3] Ccε Crε
SPT-9 SPT-9-ST-6 2006 11 28.9 Ash 1500 1.0 0.0309 0.0043

Notes:
[1] Mid-depth of the Shelby tube sample.
[2] NAVD88: North American Vertical Datum of 1988.
[3] The OCR was computed to be 2.0, but is conservatively assumed to be 1.0.
[4] Pc: preconsolidation pressure; Cc: modified compression ratio; Cr: modified recompression ratio.

Table 6.T3. Summary of Total Unit Weight Test Results

Boring ID Sample ID Material Elevation [1]
(ft, NAVD88)
Natural Moisture
Content [2] (%)
Dry Unit Weight[3]
(pcf)
Total Unit
Weight (pcf)
SPT-9 SPT-9-ST-6 Ash 28.9 54.9 61.5 95

Notes:
[1] NAVD88: North American Vertical Datum of 1988.
[2] For SPT-9-ST-6, the natural moisture content was also measured as part of the index, CU triaxial, and 1-D consolidation tests.
See the Data Report for these additional results.
[3] For SPT-9-ST-6, the dry unit weight was also measured as part of the CU triaxial, and 1-D consolidation tests. See the Data
Report for these additional results.
Table 6.T4. Summary of the Calculated Factors of Safety of the Preliminary Slope Stability Analysis

Case Cross Section Cross Section
Location
Minimum Factor
of Safety
Crest Slip Circle
Factor of Safety
Deep Slip Circle
Factor of Safety
Option 1.1 A-A 1971 Pond 1.17[1] 1.65 2.39
Option 1.2 B-B 1984 Pond 1.87[1] 2.69 2.28
Option 2.1 C-C Landfill Area 1.87[1] N/A 2.24

Note:
[1] The minimum FSs calculated for Options 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 are 1.17, 1.87, and 1.87. These slip surfaces represent surficial sl oughing
and can be considered to be non-critical.

Table 6.T5 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation for Selected Locations with Relatively Low N Values

Boring
ID
Depth
(ft) Location
Depth
to
Water
Level
(ft)
Total
Vertical
Stress,
σv (psf)
Effective
Vertical
Stress,
σv' (psf)
amax/g rd CSR N (N1)60[1]
Fines
Content
(%)
(N1)60-cs CRR FS
SPT-1-
SS-6 14.25 1971 Dike 14[2] 1591 1576 0.114 0.96 0.072 4 6 19 10 0.129 1.8
SPT-
11-SS-
6
19.25 Landfill
Area 13 2310 1920 0.114 0.94 0.084 5 6 2 6 0.101 1.2
SPT-
11-SS-
10
39.25 Landfill
Area 13 4710 3072 0.114 0.85 0.097 3 3 2 3 0.079 0.8

Notes:
[1] The SPT hammer energy ratio used is 86.1% based on the calibration report received from the drilling subcontractor.
[2] The depth to the water level was selected at this location to account for seasonal variations in water level.
[3] rd: Shear stress reduction coefficient; CSR: Cyclic Stress Ratio; (N1)60: SPT blow count corrected to ER=60% and an effective
overburden stress of 1 atm; (N1)60-cs: Equivalent clean sand (N1)60 for computing the CRR; CRR: Cyclic Resistance Ratio; FS:
Factor of Safety.
[4] rd, CSR, (N1)60, (N1)60-cs, CRR, and FS were calculated using the equations presented in Idriss and Boulanger [2008].

FIGURES
DUKE L.V. SUTTON
STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE
JUNE 2014
1.F1
GC5592
0 2000'4000'
SCALE IN FEET
N
COOLING
POND
CANAL
2006 INTERIOR
CONTAINMENT AREA
1971 ASH
POND AREA
1984 ASH
POND AREA
VANADIUM PIT
FADA
CAPE FEAR
RIVER
NORTHEAST
CAPE FEAR
RIVER
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE POND LOCATION
FADA
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
VANADIUM PIT
VICINITY MAP
SOURCES: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia,
‹ OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
NOT TO SCALE
N
NOTES:
1.HORIZONTAL CONTROL REPRESENTED ON THIS FIGURE IS
BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE
SYSTEM (NAD83 2011).
2.VERTICAL CONTROL REPRESENTED ON THIS FIGURE IS BASED
ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM
(NAVD88).
3.2013 ESRI AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,
i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,
swisstopo, and the GIS User Community.
4.PROPERTY LINE SOURCE: NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL GIS DATA
ARCHIVE, NEW HANOVER COUNTY, FTP WEBSITE:
ftp://ftp.nhcgov.com/outbound/gisdata/shapes/.
SITE
LOCATION
L.V. SUTTON PLANT
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Wetlands Mapped Within 1,500 ft Buffer Zone
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure
2.F1
Raleigh, NC July 2014
M:
\
G
I
S
\
D
u
k
e

S
u
t
t
o
n
\
M
X
D
s
\
R
e
p
o
r
t

N
o
.

2
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
.
F
1

-

We
t
l
a
n
d
s
.
m
x
d
;

R
D
o
n
a
h
u
e
;

7
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
0 2,500
Feet
Cooling Pond
1984 Pond
1971 Pond
³
Legend
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Riverine
PropertyBoundaryClean
Pond Locations
Compliance Boundary
1500 ft buffer from Compliance Boundary
Notes
1. Property boundary information provided by New Hanover County Online GIS
Resources. Accessed 17 June, 2014.
2. Compliance Boundary established at a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the
pond boundaries and 500 feet from the waste boundaries previously delineated in
the FADA Area.
3. Wetlands and water bodies were mapped within a 1,500-foot buffer zone from the
compliance boundary. Wetland boundary information was obtained from the US
Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands mapper (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-
Mapper.html) on 21 July 2014.
4. Horizontal coordinate system US State Plane 1983 North Carolina, US survey feet.
5. 2011 World Imagery - Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS,
AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community.
P
a
t
h
:

(
R
a
l
e
i
g
h

D
a
t
a
)

M
:
\
G
I
S
\
D
u
k
e

S
u
t
t
o
n
\
M
X
D
s
\
R
e
p
o
r
t

N
o
.

2
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
.
F
1

-

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d

1
8

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

L
W
e
l
l
b
o
r
n

Re
g
i
o
n
a
l

G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
L.
V
.

S
u
t
t
o
n

P
l
a
n
t
Figure 2.F2
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C
July 2014
No
t
e
s
:
1.

S
o
u
r
c
e
:

B
a
i
n
,

G
e
o
r
g
e
.

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

a
n
d

G
r
o
u
n
d
-
w
a
t
e
r

R
es
o
u
r
c
e
s
of

N
e
w

H
a
n
o
v
e
r

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
.

G
r
o
u
n
d

W
a
t
e
r
B
u
l
l
e
t
i
n

No
.

1
7
.

A
p
r
i
l

1
9
7
0
.

P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

b
y

U
S
G
S
.
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>&>&>
&>&>&>
&>&>
&>
&>&>
&>
&>&>
&>&>
&>&>
&>&>
&<
&<&<
&<&<
&<&<
&>
&>
$1
$1
$1
$1
&<&<
&<&<&<
&<&<
&<&<&<
&<&<&<
&<
&<
&<&<
&<
&<&<
&<&<
&<
&<
&<
&<&<
&<
&<&<
&<&<
&<&<
&<
&<&<
&<
&<
&<
1
0
.
0
'
9
.
5
'
9
.
0
'
MW-33C (9.31)
MW-36C (9.72)
MW-36B (9.74)
MW-27C (9.75)
MW-35C (10.21)
MW-35B (10.26)
MW-34C (10.33)
MW-34B (10.37)
PZ1971 (DRY)
MW-22C (9.6)
MW-19 (9.07)
MW-12 (9.83)
MW-7C (8.32)
MW-32C (9.25)
MW-28C (9.03)
MW-28B (9.05)
MW-27B (9.81)
MW-24C (10.4)
MW-22B (9.63)
MW-21C (9.33)
MW-11 (10.19)
MW-6C (10.13)
MW-2C (-5.48)*
MW-31C (10.19)
MW-24B (10.39)
MW-23C (10.08)
MW-23B (10.12)
PZ-INT (34.55)GWPZ-3A (10.4)
GWPZ-2B (10.3)
GWPZ-4B (10.36)
GWPZ-3B (10.43)
GWPZ-2A (10.32)
GWPZ-1B (10.02)
GWPZ-1A (10.09)
GWPZ-4A (10.37)
SG-4 (8.65)
SG-3 (8.65)
SG-2 (17.8)
SG-1 (25.4)
9 .0 '
9 .5 '
1 0 .0 '
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Shallow Groundwater Elevation Isocontour Map
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure
2.F3
Raleigh, NC July 2014
M:
\
G
I
S
\
D
u
k
e

S
u
t
t
o
n
\
M
X
D
s
\
R
e
p
o
r
t

N
o
.

2
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
.
F
3

-

Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
o
m
e
t
r
i
c

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

M
a
p
.
m
x
d
;

R
D
o
n
a
h
u
e;

7
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
0 1,400
FeetNotes
1. Water levels were collected on 19 May 2014.
2. Water levels measured in piezometers PZ-Int and PZ-1971 and staff gauges SG-1 and SG-2 indicate
that water is perched at these locations and these data were not used for development of the contour
map.
3. Property boundary information provided by New Hanover County Online GIS Resources. Accessed
17 June, 2014.
4. Existing monitoring well locations provided by Synterra.
5. New Monitoring Well Locations installed by Geosyntec Consultants and surveyed by WSP Sells
fllowing installation in May 2014.
6. * indicates groundwater elevation was deemed unrealiable following analysis. Value was not used
to determine contours.
7. Horizontal coordinate system US State Plane 1983 North Carolina, US survey feet.
8. 2011 World Imagery - Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community.
Cooling Pond
1984 Pond
1971 Pond
³
Legend
$1 Staff Gauge Location
showing (Water Surface Elevation ft, NAVD88)
&>Newly Installed Pieometer Location
showing (Groundwater Elevation ft, NAVD88)
&<Newly Installed Monitoring Well Location
showing (Groundwater Elevation ft, NAVD88)
&>Existing Pieometer Location
showing (Groundwater Elevation ft, NAVD88)
&<Existing Monitoring Well Location
showing (Groundwater Elevation ft, NAVD88)
Water Table Elevation (ft)
Pond Locations
Property Boundary
Approximate Groundwater Flow Direction
@@
@@
@@
@@
@@ @@
?
30 1020
-5
0
-2
0
-3
0
-4
0
-1
0
-1020100 -50-20
0
30 -30 -40
P
a
t
h
:

(
R
a
l
e
i
g
h

D
a
t
a
)

M
:
\
G
I
S
\
D
u
k
e

S
u
t
t
o
n
\
M
X
D
s
\
R
e
p
o
r
t

N
o
.

2
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
.
F
4

-

A
A
_
E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d

2
3

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

R
D
o
n
a
h
u
e

&>&>
&>
&>
&>&>
&>&>
&>&>&>
&>&>
&>
&>&>&>
&>&>
&>&>
&>&>
&<
&<&<
&<&<
&<&<
$1
$1
&<
&<
PZ
-
6
PZ-22MW-11
PZ
-
6
A
MW-11
MW
-
3
6
C
MW-35C
SG
-
3
GW
P
Z
-
1
B
So
u
r
c
e
:

E
s
r
i
,

D
i
g
i
t
a
l
G
l
o
b
e
,

G
e
o
E
y
e
,

i
-
c
u
b
e
d
,
Ea
r
t
h
s
t
a
r

G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
,

C
N
E
S
/
A
i
r
b
u
s

D
S
,

U
S
D
A
,
US
G
S
,

A
E
X
,

G
e
t
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,

A
e
r
o
g
r
i
d
,

I
G
N
,

I
G
P
,
sw
i
s
s
t
o
p
o
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

G
I
S

U
s
e
r

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
³
A
A'Lithologic Cross Section A to A'L.V. Sutton Plant Figure 2.F4 Raleigh, NC July 2014Vertical Exaggeration = 15
1,
0
0
0
0

1
,
0
0
0
50
0
Feet
No
t
e
s
:
1.

N
e
w

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

w
e
l
l

a
n
d

p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

b
y

G
e
o
s
y
n
t
e
c

i
n

M
a
y

2
0
1
4
.
2.

N
e
w

s
t
a
f
f

g
a
u
g
e

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

b
y

G
e
o
s
yn
t
e
c

i
n

M
a
y

2
0
1
4
.
3.

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

w
e
l
l

a
n
d

p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

f
r
o
m

n
o
r
t
h
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

e
a
s
t
i
n
g
s

r
e
p
or
t
e
d

o
n

b
o
r
i
n
g

l
o
g
s

b
y

B
l
a
s
l
a
n
d
,

B
o
l
i
c
k

&

L
e
e
,

S
y
n
t
e
rr
a
,

G
o
l
d
e
r

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s

a
n
d

C
a
t
l
i
n

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

a
n
d

S
c
i
e
nt
i
s
t
s
.

4.

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e

s
y
s
t
e
m

U
S

S
t
a
t
e

P
l
a
n
e

1
9
8
3

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
,

U
S

s
u
r
v
e
y

f
e
e
t
.
5.

2
0
1
1

W
o
r
l
d

I
m
a
g
e
r
y

-

S
o
u
r
c
e
:

E
s
r
i
,

D
i
g
i
t
a
l
G
l
o
b
e
,

G
e
o
E
y
e
,

i
-
c
u
b
e
d
,

U
S
D
A
,

U
S
G
S
,

A
E
X
,

G
e
t
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,

A
e
r
o
g
r
i
d
,

I
G
N
,

I
G
P
,

s
w
i
s
s
t
o
p
o
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

G
I
S

U
s
e
r

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
No
t
e
s
:
1.

W
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l
s

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d

1
9

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g

e
v
e
n
t.

2.

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

S
G
-
3

a
n
d

M
W
-
3
6
C

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

b
a
s
e
d
o
n

a

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
.
3.

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

P
e
e
d
e
e

f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

i
n
f
e
r
r
e
d

f
r
o
m
G
e
o
l
o
g
y

a
n
d

G
r
o
u
n
d
-
w
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

o
f

N
e
w

H
a
n
o
v
e
r

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

(
U
S
G
S
,

1
97
0
)
.

N
o

b
o
r
i
n
g
s

i
n

t
h
i
s

a
r
e
a

r
e
a
c
h
e
d

t
h
e

P
e
e
d
e
e

f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.

4.

N
A
V
D
8
8

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

N
o
r
t
h

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
a
t
u
m

o
f
1
9
8
8
.
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l
/
P
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Sc
r
e
e
n
#*
#
*
N
A
V
D
8
8

F
e
e
t
NAVD88 Feet
S
G
-
3
M
W
-
3
6
C
G
W
P
Z
-
1
B
MW-35C MW-11 0

2
0
0

4
0
0

6
0
0

8
0
0
100 Feet
Le
g
e
n
d
Wa
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
N
A
V
D
8
8
)
@@
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
S
e
e

N
o
t
e

3
)
Pe
e
d
e
e

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Wa
t
e
r
Cl
a
y
e
y

S
i
l
t

(
M
L
)
Cl
e
a
n

S
a
n
d
s

(
S
P
)
A'
A
Le
g
e
n
d
&>
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

P
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
$1
St
a
f
f

G
a
u
g
e
&<
Ne
w

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l
&>
Ne
w

P
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
&<
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l
Tr
a
n
s
e
c
t
Po
n
d

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
A
A'
Pe
e
d
e
e

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
@@
@@

@
@

@
@
@@
40 102030
-5
0
-2
0
-3
0
-4
0
-1
0
30 -1020 -20010 -50
0
40 -30 -40
P
a
t
h
:

(
R
a
l
e
i
g
h

D
a
t
a
)

M
:
\
G
I
S
\
D
u
k
e

S
u
t
t
o
n
\
M
X
D
s
\
R
e
p
o
r
t

N
o
.

2
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
.
F
5

-

B
B
_
E
a
s
t
W
e
s
t

C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d

2
3

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

R
D
o
n
a
h
u
e
&>
&>
&>
&>&>
&>
&<&<
&<&<&<
&<&<
&<&<&<&<
&<&<
&<
&<&<
&<&<&<
&<
&<
&<
&<&<
&<&<
&<&<&<&<
MW
-
1
5
MW-7C
AS
H

P
O
N
D

2
MW
-
1
9
MW
-
1
8
MW
-
1
3
MW-33CMW-32C
So
u
r
c
e
:

E
s
r
i
,

D
i
g
i
t
a
l
G
l
o
b
e
,

G
e
o
E
y
e
,

i
-
c
u
b
e
d
,
Ea
r
t
h
s
t
a
r

G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
,

C
N
E
S
/
A
i
r
b
u
s

D
S
,

U
S
D
A
,
US
G
S
,

A
E
X
,

G
e
t
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,

A
e
r
o
g
r
i
d
,

I
G
N
,

I
G
P
,
sw
i
s
s
t
o
p
o
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

G
I
S

U
s
e
r

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
³
B
B'Lithologic Cross Section B to B'L.V. Sutton Plant Figure 2.F5 Raleigh, NC July 2014Vertical Exaggeration = 18
1,
0
0
0

0

1
,
0
0
0
50
0
Feet
No
t
e
s
:
1.

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

w
e
l
l

a
n
d

p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

f
r
o
m

n
o
r
t
h
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

e
a
s
t
i
n
g
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

o
n

b
o
r
i
n
g

l
o
g
s

b
y

B
l
a
s
l
a
n
d
,

B
o
l
i
c
k

&

L
e
e
,

S
y
n
t
e
rr
a
,

G
o
l
d
e
r

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s

a
n
d

C
a
t
l
i
n

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

a
n
d

S
c
i
e
nt
i
s
t
s
.

2.

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e

s
y
s
t
e
m

U
S

S
t
a
t
e

P
l
a
n
e

1
9
8
3

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
,

U
S

s
u
r
v
e
y

f
e
e
t
.
3.

2
0
1
1

W
o
r
l
d

I
m
a
g
e
r
y

-

S
o
u
r
c
e
:

E
s
r
i
,

D
i
g
i
t
a
l
G
l
o
b
e
,

G
e
o
E
y
e
,

i
-
c
u
b
e
d
,

U
S
D
A
,

U
S
G
S
,

A
E
X
,

G
e
t
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,

A
e
r
o
g
r
i
d
,

I
G
N
,

I
G
P
,

s
w
i
s
s
t
o
p
o
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

G
I
S

U
s
e
r

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
No
t
e
s
:
1.

C
C
R

d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
s

c
o
a
l

c
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n

r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
.
2.

W
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l
s

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

s
a
m
p
l
in
g

e
v
e
n
t
.

3.

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

P
e
e
d
e
e

f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

i
n
f
e
r
e
d

f
r
o
m
G
e
o
l
o
g
y

a
n
d

G
r
o
u
n
d
-
w
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

o
f

N
e
w

H
a
n
o
v
e
r

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

(
U
S
G
S
,

1
97
0
)
.

N
o

b
o
r
i
n
g
s

i
n

t
h
i
s

a
r
e
a

r
e
a
c
h
e
d

t
h
e

P
e
e
d
e
e

f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.

4.

N
A
V
D
8
8

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

N
o
r
t
h

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
a
t
u
m

o
f
1
9
8
8
.
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Sc
r
e
e
n
#*
#
*
N
A
V
D
8
8

F
e
e
t
NAVD88 Feet
M
W
-
1
3
D
M
W
-
1
8
M
W
-
1
9
MW-32C MW-33C 0

2
5
0

5
0
0

7
5
0

1
,
0
0
0
125 Feet
Le
g
e
n
d
Wa
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
N
A
V
D
8
8
)
@@
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
S
e
e

N
o
t
e

3
)
Cl
e
a
n

S
a
n
d
s

(
S
P
)
CC
R
Sa
n
d

a
n
d

C
C
R

M
i
x
t
u
r
e
Cl
a
y
e
y

S
a
n
d

(
S
C
)
Cl
a
y

(
C
H
)
Sa
n
d

a
n
d

G
r
a
v
e
l

(
S
P
/
G
P
)
Si
l
t

(
M
L
)
Wa
t
e
r
B'
B
Le
g
e
n
d
&>
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

P
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
&>
Ne
w

P
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
&<
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l
Tr
a
n
s
e
c
t
Po
n
d

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
B
B'
?
Pe
e
d
e
e

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

C
a
n
a
l
19
7
1

P
o
n
d
FA
D
A
@@

@
@

@
@

@
@

@
@

@
@

@
@

@
@
-100 -201 -30 -40 -50
30 20 1050
40
-1
0
0
-2
0
-3
0
-4
0
-5
0
4050 102030
P
a
t
h
:

(
A
R
O
-
1
\
P
R
J
1
)

M
:
\
G
I
S
\
D
u
k
e

S
u
t
t
o
n
\
M
X
D
s
\
R
e
p
o
r
t

N
o
.

2
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
.
F
6

-

C
C
_
N
o
r
t
h
S
o
u
t
h

C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d

2
3

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

R
D
o
n
a
h
u
e
&<&<&>
&<
&<&<&<&?
MW
-
4
SG
-
C
a
p
e

F
e
a
r
SG
-
4
So
u
r
c
e
:

E
s
r
i
,

D
i
g
i
t
a
l
G
l
o
b
e
,

G
e
o
E
y
e
,

i
-
c
u
b
e
d
,
Ea
r
t
h
s
t
a
r

G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
,

C
N
E
S
/
A
i
r
b
u
s

D
S
,

U
S
D
A
,
US
G
S
,

A
E
X
,

G
e
t
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,

A
e
r
o
g
r
i
d
,

I
G
N
,

I
G
P
,
sw
i
s
s
t
o
p
o
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

G
I
S

U
s
e
r

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
³
C
C'Lithologic Cross Section C to C'L.V. Sutton Plant Figure 2.F6 Raleigh, NC July 2014Vertical Exaggeration = 45
6,
0
0
0

0

6
,
0
0
0
3,
0
0
0
Feet
No
t
e
s
:
1.

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

w
e
l
l

a
n
d

p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

f
r
o
m

n
o
r
t
h
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

e
a
s
t
i
n
g
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

o
n

b
o
r
i
n
g

l
o
g
s

b
y

B
l
a
s
l
a
n
d
,

B
o
l
i
c
k

&

L
e
e
,

S
y
n
t
e
rr
a
,

G
o
l
d
e
r

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s

a
n
d

C
a
t
l
i
n

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

a
n
d

S
c
i
e
nt
i
s
t
s
.

2.

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e

s
y
s
t
e
m

U
S

S
t
a
t
e

P
l
a
n
e

1
9
8
3

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
,

U
S

s
u
r
v
e
y

f
e
e
t
.
3.

2
0
1
1

W
o
r
l
d

I
m
a
g
e
r
y

-

S
o
u
r
c
e
:

E
s
r
i
,

D
i
g
i
t
a
l
G
l
o
b
e
,

G
e
o
E
y
e
,

i
-
c
u
b
e
d
,

U
S
D
A
,

U
S
G
S
,

A
E
X
,

G
e
t
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,

A
e
r
o
g
r
i
d
,

I
G
N
,

I
G
P
,

s
w
i
s
s
t
o
p
o
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

G
I
S

U
s
e
r

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
No
t
e
s
:
1.

C
C
R

d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
s

c
o
a
l

c
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n

r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
.
2.

W
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l
s

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d

1
9

M
a
y

2
0
1
4
.

3.

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

P
e
e
d
e
e

f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

i
n
f
e
r
e
d

f
r
o
m
G
e
o
l
o
g
y

a
n
d

G
r
o
u
n
d
-
w
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

o
f

N
e
w

H
a
n
o
v
e
r

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

(
U
S
G
S
,

1
97
0
)
.

N
o

b
o
r
i
n
g
s

i
n

t
h
i
s

a
r
e
a

r
e
a
c
h
e
d

t
h
e

P
e
e
d
e
e

f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.

4.

N
A
V
D
8
8

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

N
o
r
t
h

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
a
t
u
m

o
f
1
9
8
8
.
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l
/
P
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Sc
r
e
e
n
#*
N
A
V
D
8
8

F
e
e
t
NAVD88 Feet
M
W
-
5
C
M
W
-
1
0
M
W
-
2
7
C
S
P
T
-
9
/
P
Z
-
I
N
T
MW-13D 0

7
0
0

1
,
4
0
0

2
,
1
0
0

2
,
8
0
0
350 Feet
C'
C
Le
g
e
n
d
&>
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

P
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
&<
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l
Tr
a
n
s
e
c
t
Po
n
d

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
C
C'
#
*
M
W
-
3
6
C
GP-03 MW-20D
So
i
l
/
C
C
R

B
o
r
i
n
g

Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
N
o

W
e
l
l
/
P
Z
)
$1
St
a
f
f

G
a
u
g
e
&<
Ne
w

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l
&>
Ne
w

P
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
Pe
e
d
e
e

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
MW
-
5
C
MW
-
1
0
MW
-
1
3
D
MW
-
2
0
D
GP
-
0
3
SP
T
-
9
/
P
Z
-
I
N
T
#
*
19
8
4

P
o
n
d
1971 PondDischarge Canal FADA
Le
g
e
n
d
Wa
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
N
A
V
D
8
8
)
@@
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
S
e
e

N
o
t
e

3
)
Wa
t
e
r
Cl
a
y

(
C
H
)
Cl
a
y
e
y

S
a
n
d

(
S
C
)
CC
R
Sa
n
d

a
n
d

C
C
R

M
i
x
t
u
r
e
Co
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

C
C
R

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
Cl
e
a
n

S
a
n
d
s

(
S
P
)
#
*
MW
-
3
6
C
MW
-
2
7
C
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxxxx
1.0
%1.0%
1.0%
1.
0
%
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
L.V. SUTTON PLANT
OPTION 1.1 - IN-PLACE CLOSURE WITH EXISTING FOOTPRINT
CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM LAYOUT
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE
JULY 2014
3.F1
GC5592
0 600'1200'
SCALE IN FEET
N
LEGEND
ESTIMATED CLOSURE
CONTOUR ELEVATION
APPROXIMATE LAKE
OUTLINE
APPROXIMATE PONDS
OUTLINE
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
EXISTING CONTOUR
ELEVATION
FENCE LINE
PROPOSED GRADE LABEL
POWER STRUCTURE
EXISTING PERIMETER
CHANNEL
SWMS CHANNEL
EXISTING RISER AND
BARREL STRUCTURE
SWMS CULVERT
STORMWATER POND
(CONDITIONAL DESIGN
SCENARIO)
CHANNEL HIGH POINT
SWMS CHUTE
FLOW PATH - SHEET
FLOW PATH -
CONCENTRATED
DRAINAGE AREA
BOUNDARY
COOLING
POND
CREST ROAD
CANAL
1971 ASH POND AREA
1984 ASH POND AREA
x x x x x
10
30
1.0%
NOTE:
1.DIKES HAVE BEEN LOWERED FOR THE CLOSE IN
PLACE OPTION TO AN AVERAGE ELEVATION OF 30-FT
FOR THE 1984 ASH POND AND 29.5-FT FOR THE 1971
ASH POND.
APPROXIMATE
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
>
ABBREVIATIONS:
SWMS = STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
L.V. SUTTON PLANT
OPTION 1.2 - IN-PLACE CLOSURE WITH REDUCED FOOTPRINT
CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM LAYOUT
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE
JULY 2014
3.F2
GC5592
0 600'1200'
SCALE IN FEET
N
LEGEND
ESTIMATED CLOSURE CONTOUR
ELEVATION
APPROXIMATE LAKE OUTLINE
APPROXIMATE PONDS OUTLINE
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATION
FENCE LINE
CLEAN CLOSURE AREA
PROPOSED GRADE LABEL
PROPOSED SLOPE LABEL
POWER STRUCTURE
EXISTING PERIMETER CHANNEL
SWMS CHANNEL
EXISTING RISER AND BARREL
STRUCTURE
SWMS CULVERT
STORMWATER POND
(CONDITIONAL DESIGN
SCENARIO)
CHANNEL HIGH POINT
SWMS CHUTE
FLOW PATH - SHEET
FLOW PATH - CONCENTRATED
FLOW PATH - DOWN DRAIN PIPE
DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY
COOLING
POND
CREST ROAD
CANAL
1971 ASH POND AREA
1984 ASH POND AREA x x x x x
10
10
3H:1V
3H:1V
3H:1V
3H:1V
3H:1V
APPROXIMATE
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
5%
5%5%
5%
5
%
>
ABBREVIATIONS:
SWMS = STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
COOLING
POND
x
x
x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1984 ASH POND AREA
PROPOSED
ONSITE LANDFILL AREA
3H:1V
3H:1V
3H:1V
3H:1V
APPROXIMATE
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
>
>
>
>
L.V. SUTTON PLANT
OPTION 2.1 - GREENFIELD ON-SITE LANDFILL
CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM LAYOUT
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE
JULY 2014
3.F3
GC5592
0 600'1200'
SCALE IN FEET
N
LEGEND
ESTIMATED CLOSURE CONTOUR
ELEVATION
APPROXIMATE LAKE OUTLINE
APPROXIMATE PONDS OUTLINE
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATION
FENCE LINE
CLEAN CLOSURE AREA
PROPOSED GRADE LABEL
PROPOSED SLOPE LABEL
SWMS CHANNEL (OPEN)
SWMS CHANNEL (SUBMERGED)
EXISTING RISER AND BARREL
STRUCTURE
OPEN CHANNEL STORAGE
FLOW PATH - SHEET
FLOW PATH - DOWN DRAIN PIPE
DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY
x x x x x
10
10
NOTES:
1.TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES WERE OBTAINED FROM
THE NORTH CAROLINA DOT GIS WEBSITE:
www.https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/gis/Pages/Cont-
Elev_v2.aspx, AS 4FT CONTOURS IN DWG FORMAT,
GENERATED APRIL 2007.
2.200-FT SEPARATION TO PROPERTY LINE IS NOT
OBTAINABLE
3H:1V
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
>
>
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
L.V. SUTTON PLANT
KWd/KEϮ͘ϮͲZKtE&/>KEͲ^/d>E&/>>
CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM LAYOUT
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE
JULY 2014
3.F4
GC5592
0 600'1200'
SCALE IN FEET
N
COOLING
POND
CREST ROAD
CANAL
1971 ASH POND AREA
1984 ASH POND AREA 3H:1V
3H:1V
3H:1V
3H:1V
APPROXIMATE
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
5%
5%
5
%
5
%
LEGEND
ESTIMATED CLOSURE CONTOUR
ELEVATION
APPROXIMATE LAKE OUTLINE
APPROXIMATE PONDS OUTLINE
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
EXISTING CONTOUR ELEVATION
FENCE LINE
CLEAN CLOSURE AREA
PROPOSED GRADE LABEL
PROPOSED SLOPE LABEL
POWER STRUCTURE
EXISTING PERIMETER CHANNEL
SWMS CHANNEL
EXISTING RISER AND BARREL
STRUCTURE
SWMS CHUTE
STORMWATER POND
(CONDITIONAL DESIGN
SCENARIO)
CHANNEL HIGH POINT
FLOW PATH - SHEET
FLOW PATH - CONCENTRATED
FLOW PATH - DOWN DRAIN PIPE
DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY
x x x x x
10
10
3H:1V
5%
>
ABBREVIATIONS:
SWMS = STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Model Extent
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure
4.F1Raleigh, NC July 2014
N :\
D \D
u k e \D u
k e S u t t o n G
W M
o d e l \G
W _M
o d e l \G
I S \m x d \R e p
o r t 2 \F i g u r e 4 .F
1 - M o d e l E x t e n t .m x d ; J G a l l e g o s ; 7 /1 /2 0 1 4
Legend
Ash Pond Boun dary
500 ft Complia nce Bo undary
Prop erty Bound ary
Mo del Exten t
Ina ctive Model Ce lls
USA Topo Maps
0 2
Miles
Note s1. Property bound ary info rmatio n provided by New Hanover County OnlineGIS Resou rce s. Accessed 17 June , 2014.2. Ho rizontal coo rd inate syste m US State Plane 1983 North Carolina, USsurvey feet.3.Top ograph ic Sou rce : USGS 7.5 Min ute series, North Carolina, Leland,Castle H ayne, W inna bow, an d W ilmin gto n Q uadrangles.4. 2011 World Image ry - Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA, USGS, AEX, G etma pping , Aerogrid, IG N, IG P, swisstopo, and theGIS User Community.
1984 Pond
1971 Pond
Cooling Pond
N
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t

C
a
p
e

F
e
a
r

R
i
v
e
r
C
a
p
e

F
e
a
r

R
i
v
e
r
#*
#*
Mode l Boundary Conditions
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure
4.F2Raleigh, NC July 2014
N :\D \D u k e \D u k e S u t t o n G W M o d e l \G W _M o d e l \G I S \m x d \R e p o r t 2 \F i g u r e 4 .F 2 - M o d e l B o u n d a r y C o n d i t i o n s .m x d ; j g a l l e g o s ; 7 /2 /2 0 1 4
Legend
#*River Stage Su rvey Lo cation
Ash Pond Boundary
500 ft Compliance Boundary
Property Bo undary
Co nstant Head Mode l Bo undary
No Flow Model Bou ndary
Inactive Model Ce lls
0 2Miles
Note s1. Rive r Stage Survery locations mark tempo ra ry lo cations where river sta ge wasmeasured through out the day on 5/19/20 14. Stage me asurements from theselocations were used as pa rt of th e pro ce ss to create the Cap e Fear andNortheast Cape Fea r River con stan t h ead b ound aries. Stag e measure me ntsfrom USG S Cap e Fear River Ga uge 02105 769, USG S Northeast Ca pe FearRiver G auge 02 10856 6, and NO AA W ilmin gto n Tidal Ga uge 86581 20, we re alsoused as part o f the process in creating the rive r bo unda ries. USG S a nd NOAAGauges a re no t shown on this ma p, as th ey fall ou tsid e the extent o f th e mod el.
1984 Ash Pond
1971 Ash Pond
³
CoolingPond
Northeast Cape Fear River
C
a
p
e

F
e
a
r

R
i
v
e
r
Wooten Pond
Wetland Ponds
Invista G
CFPUA #4CFPUA #3
Invista OH2
PE-SW-5 PE-SW6BPE-SW6A
Model Groundwater Recharge Zones and Groundwater Supply We lls
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure
4.F3Raleigh, NC July 2014
N :\
D \D
u k e \D u
k e S u t t o n G
W M
o d e l \G
W _M
o d e l \G
I S \m x d \R e p
o r t 2 \F i g u r e 4 .F
3 - M o d e l R e c h a r g e Z o n e s .m x d ; J G a l l e g o s ; 7 /1 /2 0 1 4
Legend
Plant Su pply Well
Off Site Supp ly Well
Ash Pon d Bo und ary
500 ft Complian ce Bo unda ry
Pro perty Bou ndary
Constant Head Mod el Bound ary
No Flo w Mo del Bou ndary
Ina ctive Mod el Cells
Recharg e Zon e 1
Recharg e Zon e 2
Recharg e Zon e 3
Recharg e Zon e 4
Recharg e Zon e 5
0 2
Miles
Note s1.Re charge Zone s a re based on da ta from the NCDENR and the report titledGroundwater R echarge in North Carolina (Heath, 1994).2. Plant Supply Well locatio ns we re p ro vided by Duke.3. Off Site Supply Well lo cations were provide d by the NCDENR.
1984 Ash Pond
1971 Ash Pond
CoolingPond
Northeast Cape Fear River
C
a
p
e

F
e
a
r

R
i
v
e
r
Wooten Pond
Wetland Ponds
Invista G
CFPUA #4CFPUA #3
Invista OH2
PE-SW-5 PE-SW6BPE-SW6A
Mode l Hydraulic Conductiv ity Zones - Layer 1
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure
4.F4Raleigh, NC July 2014
N :\
D \D
u k e \D u
k e S u t t o n G
W M
o d e l \G
W _M
o d e l \G
I S \m x d \R e p
o r t 2 \F i g u r e 4 .F
4 - H y d r a u l i c K Z o n e s .m x d ; J G a l l e g o s ; 7 /1 /2 0 1 4
Leg en d
Plan t Supp ly Well
Off Site Su pply We ll
Ash Po nd Bou nda ry
500 f t Comp liance Bo unda ry
Property Boun dary
Co nstan t Hea d Mo del Bou ndary
No Flo w Mod el Bound ary
Inactive Mod el Cells
Hyd rau lic Condu ctivity Z one 1
Hyd rau lic Condu ctivity Z one 2
Hyd rau lic Condu ctivity Z one 3 0 2
Miles
Note s1.Hyd ra ulic con ductivity zon es are based on ash extent within the ash ponds,NCDENR da ta , an d the USG S Geo logy of New Hanover County, North Carolinareport (Bain , 1970 ).2. Prope rty bou ndary, w ith drawal wells, and constant head boundaries shown forreference.
1984 Ash Pond
1971 Ash Pond
CoolingPond
Northeast Cape Fear River
C
a
p
e

F
e
a
r

R
i
v
e
r
Wooten Pond
Wetland Ponds
MW-22B/C
Invista G
CFPUA #4
CFPUA #3
Invista OH2
MW-8
MW-19
MW-12
MW-11
MW-7C
MW-6C
MW-5C
MW-32C
MW-31C
MW-28CMW-28B
MW-27B
MW-24B/C
MW-23CMW-23B
MW-33CMW-21C
MW-36B/C
MW-35B/CMW-34B/C
MW-27C
GWPZ-4A/B
GWPZ-3A/B
GWPZ-2A/B
GWPZ-1A/B
PE-SW-5 PE-SW6BPE-SW6A
Groundwater Monitoring Wells Used For Model Ca libration
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure
4.F5Raleigh, NC July 2014
N :\
D \D
u k e \D u
k e S u t t o n G
W M
o d e l \G
W _M
o d e l \G
I S \m x d \R e p
o r t 2 \F i g u r e 4 .F
5 - M o d e l G r o u n d w a t e r T a r g e t s .m x d ; J G a l l e g o s ; 7 /1 /2 0 1 4
Leg en d
Existing Monitoring Well
New Monitoring Well
New Piezometer
Plant Supply Well
Off Site Supply Well
River Stage Survey Location
Ash Pond Boundary
500 ft Compliance Boundary
Property Boundary
Constant Head Model Boundary
Inactive Model Cells
0 1
Miles
Note s1. Well coordinate system is U S State Plan e 1983 North Carolina, US surveyfeet. Vertical datum is NAVD88 , US Survey fe et.2.Existing well locations we re provided by Synterra. New wells and piezometerswere installe d b y Ge osynte c.3. We ll labe ls with a slash indicate a well cluster; for example MW38B/Cindicates th at there are two we lls (MW 38B and MW38C) at the shown location.4. G round water withdrawa l wells, p roperty boundary, compliance boundary, andconstant hea d mod el boun dary a re sho wn for reference.
1984 Ash Pond
1971 Ash Pond
CoolingPond
N
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t

C
a
p
e

F
e
a
r

R
i
v
e
r
C
a
p
e

F
e
a
r

R
i
v
e
r
Wooten Pond
Wetland Ponds
C a p e F e a r R i v e r
N o r t h e a s t C a p e F e a r R i v e r
Invista G
CFPUA #4
CFPUA #3
Invista OH2
PE-SW-5 PE-SW6BPE-SW6A
10
1
0
4
6
0
8
8
8
1
0
2
1
1 6
7
0
9
9
8
11
1 0
9
Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community
Simulated Water Table Elevation Contour Map
(May 19, 2014)
Duke Cape Fear
500 C P and L Rd.
Moncure, NC
Figure
4.F6
P a t h : (A R O -1 \P R J 1 ) N :\D \D u k e \D u k e S u t t o n G W M o d e l \G W _M o d e l \G I S \m x d \R e p o r t 2 \F i g u r e 4 .F 6 - S i m u l a t e d W a t e r T a b l e E l e v a t i o n - M a
y 2 0 1
4 .m x d
0 1 J u l y 2 0
1 4 L S W
Raleigh, NC June 2014
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
Legend
Existing Monitoring We ll
New Monitoring Well
New Piezometer
Plant Supply Well
Off Site Supply We ll
Ash Pond Boundary
Approximate Ground water Flow Dire ctio n
Water Table Elevation Contour
Water Table Elevation Contour (depre ssion)
Dry Model Cells in Ash Pond s
Property Boundary
500 ft Compliance Bo undary
Notes:1. Isocontours were estimated using a g roundw ate rmodel calibrated to May 19, 201 4 me asured wa terlevels. Contours represent the e stimated water tableelevation in May 2014 .2. Contour interval is 1 fo ot.3. Horizontal coo rdinate system: US State Plane 1983North Carolina , US su rvey feet.4. Vertical D atu m: NAVD8 8, US Survey feet.5. Monitoring we lls, withd rawal wells, and piezomete rsshown fo r reference . Monitorin g w ells andpiezometers are left unla bele d so as not to blockcontour lines.6. Dry model cells show cells in th e mode l wh ere thewater table is simulate d to fall belo w the e stimatedbottom of ash in the ash ponds.7. 2011 World Imagery - Sou rce: Esri, DigitalGlo be,GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USG S, AEX, G etma pping ,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, an d the GIS UserCommunity.
Figure 4.F7
Ju
l
y

2
0
1
4
Ke
n
n
e
s
a
w
,

G
e
o
r
g
i
a
Ob
s
e
r
v
e
d

v
s
.

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

Gr
a
p
h
8
8.
5
9
9.
510
10
.
5
11
8

8
.
5

9

9
.
5

1
0

1
0
.
5

1
1
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

H
e
a
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
f
t
)
Ob
s
e
r
v
e
d

H
e
a
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
f
t
)
Ob
s
e
r
v
e
d

v
s
.

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

T
a
r
g
e
t

H
e
a
d

V
a
l
u
e
s
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3
Figure 4.F8
Ju
l
y

2
0
1
4
Ke
n
n
e
s
a
w
,

G
e
o
r
g
i
a
Ob
s
e
r
v
e
d

v
s
.

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

Gr
a
p
h
-1
-0
.
8
-0
.
6
-0
.
4
-0
.
2
0
0.
2
0.
4
0.
6
0.
8
1
8

8
.
5

9

9
.
5

1
0

1
0
.
5

1
1
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
V
a
l
u
e

(
f
t
)
Ob
s
e
r
v
e
d

H
e
a
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
f
t
)
Ob
s
e
r
v
e
d

H
e
a
d

v
s
.

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

V
a
l
u
e
s
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3
!´!´
!´
!´
@A@A@A
&>&>
&>&>
&>&>
&>&>
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<&<
&<&<
&<
&<
&<&<
&<&<
&<&<
&<
&<
&<&<
&<&<&<&<
&<
C a p e F e a r R i v e r
N o r t h e a s t C a p e F e a r R i v e r
Invista G
CFPUA #4CFPUA #3
Invista OH2
PE-SW-5 PE-SW6BPE-SW6A
10
1
0
4
6
0
8
8
8
1
0
2
1
1 6
7
0
9
9
8
11
1 0
9
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, andthe GIS User Community
Simulated Water Table Elevation Contour Map
(Option 1.2 – In-Place Closure with Reduced Footprint)
Duke Cape Fear
500 C P and L Rd.
Moncure, NC
Figure
4.F9
P a t h
: (A R
O -1 \P R J 1 ) N :\D \D u k e \D u k e S u
t t o n G W M o d e l \G W _M o d e l \G I S \
m x d \R e p o r t 2 \F i g u
r e 4 .F 9 - P r e d i c t i v e S c e n a r i o - 1 9 8
4 P o n d R e d u
c e d C l o s u r e .m x d 1 0 J u l y 2 0 1
4 L S W
Raleigh, NC June 2014
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
³
Legend
&<Existing Monitoring Well
&<New Monitoring Well
&>New Piezometer
@A Plant Supply Well
!´Off Site Supply Well
Ash Pond Boundary
Approximate Groundwater Flow Direction
Water Table Elevation Contour
Water Table Elevation Contour (depression)
Dry Model Cells in Ash Ponds
Property Boundary
500 ft Compliance Boundary
Notes:1. Water Table Contours represent simulatedaquifer conditions for the Reduced 1984 PondClosure Scenario.2. Contour interval is 1 foot.3. Horizontal coordinate system: US State Plane1983 North Carolina, US survey feet.4. Vertical Datum: NAVD88, US Survey feet.5. Monitoring wells, withdrawal wells, andpiezometers shown for reference. Monitoring wellsand piezometers are left unlabeled so as not toblock contour lines.6. Dry model cells show cells in the model wherethe water table is simulated to fall below theestimated bottom of ash in the ash ponds.7. 2011 World Imagery - Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, andthe GIS User Community.
Water Sample Charge Balances
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure

5.F1
Project No. GC5592

July 2014
Piper Diagram
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure

5.F2
Project No. GC5592

July 2014
Schoeller Diagram 1
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure

5.F3
Project No. GC5592

July 2014
Schoeller Diagram 2
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure

5.F4
Project No. GC5592

July 2014
Schoeller Diagram 3
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure

5.F5
Project No. GC5592

July 2014
Schoeller Diagram 4
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure

5.F6
Project No. GC5592

July 2014
Eh-pH Diagram for Iron
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure

5.F7
Project No. GC5592

July 2014
Eh-pH Diagram for Manganese
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure

5.F8
Project No. GC5592

July 2014
Eh-pH Diagram for Arsenic
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure

5.F9
Project No. GC5592

July 2014
Eh-pH Diagram for Selenium
L.V. Sutton Plant
Figure

5.F10
Project No. GC5592

July 2014
PZ-5B
PZ-4B
PZ-3B
PZ-2B
CPT-1
CPT-2
CPT-3
CPT-4
CPT-5
CPT-6A
CPT-7A
CPT-8
GP-1
GP-2
GP-3
GP-4
GP-5
GP-6
SCPT-1
SCPT-2
SCPT-3A
SCPT-4
SCPT-5A
SCPT-6
SPT-1
SPT-2
SPT-3
SPT-4
SPT-5
SPT-6
SPT-7
SPT-8
SPT-10
SPT-11
PZ-1B
PZ-6B
B-1
B-2
B-3
HA-1-1
HA-1-2
HA-2-2 HA-2-1
HA-3-1
HA-3-2
A
A
B
B
C
C
L.V. SUTTON PLANT
SELECTED CROSS SECTIONS
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE
JULY 2014
6.F1A
GC5592
0 1600'800'
SCALE IN FEET
N
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
SECTION LINE
GEOSYNTEC CONE PENETRATION TEST
GEOSYNTEC GEOPROBE
GEOSYNTEC PIEZOMETER
GEOSYNTEC SEISMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST
GEOSYNTEC STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
HISTORICAL HAND-AUGER
HISTORICAL PIEZOMETER
HISTORICAL STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
NOTES:
1.B-SERIES, HA-SERIES, AND PZ-B-SERIES POINTS ARE SHOWN AT APPROXIMATE
LOCATIONS.
2.POST-FIX 'A' INDICATES A POINT ON THE DIKE OF 2006 INTERIOR CONTAINMENT
AREA.
3.THE LOCATIONS OF THE GEOSYNTEC BORINGS WERE SURVEYED BY WSP
SELLS, INC., IN MAY 2014.
4.APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SOURCE: NEW HANOVER COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA GIS SHAPE FILE DATA, LAST UPDATE ON AUG 10, 2005,
WEBSITE: http://www.nhcgov.com/gis-data-available-for-download/
COOLING
POND
CANAL
CPT-1
GP-1
SPT-1
SCPT-1
2006 INTERIOR
CONTAINMENT AREA
1971
ASH POND AREA
1984 ASH
POND AREA
HA-1-1
B-1
PZ-1
PZ-1971
A A
APPROXIMATE
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
A
A
L.V. SUTTON PLANT
CROSS SECTION FOR OPTION 1.1
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE
JULY 2014
6.F1B
GC5592
0 1600'800'
SCALE IN FEET
N
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
POST-CLOSURE GRADE CONTOUR
PROPOSED GRADE LABEL
SECTION LINE
NOTE:
1.APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SOURCE: NEW HANOVER COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA GIS SHAPE FILE DATA, LAST UPDATE ON AUG 10, 2005,
WEBSITE: http://www.nhcgov.com/gis-data-available-for-download/
COOLING
POND
CANAL
2006 INTERIOR
CONTAINMENT AREA
1971
ASH POND AREA
1984 ASH
POND AREA
A A
APPROXIMATE
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
1.0
%1.0%
1.0%
1.
0
%
1.0%
30
B
B
L.V. SUTTON PLANT
CROSS SECTION FOR OPTION 1.2
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE
JULY 2014
6.F1C
GC5592
0 1600'800'
SCALE IN FEET
N
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
POST-CLOSURE GRADE CONTOUR
PROPOSED GRADE LABEL
PROPOSED SLOPE LABEL
SECTION LINE
NOTE:
1.APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SOURCE: NEW HANOVER COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA GIS SHAPE FILE DATA, LAST UPDATE ON AUG 10, 2005,
WEBSITE: http://www.nhcgov.com/gis-data-available-for-download/
COOLING
POND
CANAL
2006 INTERIOR
CONTAINMENT AREA
1971
ASH POND AREA
1984 ASH
POND AREA
B B
APPROXIMATE
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
5.0%
20
3H:1V
3H:1V
3H:1V
3H:1V
5%
5%
5%
5
%
3H:1V
CANAL
2006 INTERIOR
CONTAINMENT AREA
1971 ASH POND AREA
200'
1984 ASH POND AREA
PROPOSED
ONSITE LANDFILL AREA
3H:1V
3H:1V
3H:1V
APPROXIMATE
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
3H:1V
C
C
L.V. SUTTON PLANT
CROSS SECTION FOR OPTION 2.1
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE
JULY 2014
6.F1D
GC5592
0 1600'800'
SCALE IN FEET
N
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
POST-CLOSURE GRADE CONTOUR
PROPOSED GRADE LABEL
PROPOSED SLOPE LABEL
SECTION LINE
NOTE:
1.APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SOURCE: NEW HANOVER COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA GIS SHAPE FILE DATA, LAST UPDATE ON AUG 10, 2005,
WEBSITE: http://www.nhcgov.com/gis-data-available-for-download/
COOLING
POND
C C
5.0%
20
3H:1V
5%
5%
5%
5%

Figure 6.F2a. Cross Section A-A (Existing Conditions, 1971 Pond)
Notes:
[1] The maximum structural height of the 1971 Pond dike was estimated to be approximately 24 ft.
[2] The inner and outer slopes of the 1971 Pond dikes were estimated to be approximately 3H:1V.
[3] At SPT-1, CCR-soil mixture encountered below the dike was approximately 15-ft thick.
[4] No information on the subsurface material below Discharge Canal is available. The material shown above is assumed based on HA-series borings performed along Discharge Canal.

Figure 6.F2b. Cross Section B-B (Existing Conditions, 1984 Pond)
Notes:
[1] The maximum structural height of the 1984 Pond dike was estimated to be approximately 24 ft. The maximum height from the 1984 dike toe to the top of the 2006 Interior Containment Area dike is 32 ft.
[2] The maximum structural height of the 2006 Interior Containment Area dike was estimated to be approximately 14 ft above the CCR grade.
[3] The inner and outer slopes of the 1984 Pond dikes were estimated to be approximately 3H:1V.
[4] The inner and outer slopes of the 2006 Interior Containment Area dike were estimated to be approximately 2H:1V and 4H:1V, respectively [AMEC, 2011].
[5] The 1984 Pond has a 1-ft-thick clay liner across the bottom of the pond and extending into the interior side slopes. At the side slopes the liner is covered with a 2-ft-thick sandy layer.
[6] The phreatic surfaces within and outside the 1984 Pond may not be connected due to presence of the clay liner. However, the phreatic surface shown above can be conservatively used for engineering analyses.

Figure 6.F2c. Cross Section C-C (Existing Conditions, Landfill Area)

Note:
[1] The Landfill Area is located to east of the 1984 Pond.

Figure 6.F3a. Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations along the Dike
Centerline of the 1971 Pond
Notes:
[1] The representative water level was selected based on the pore water pressure dissipation test
results and historical piezometer measurements.
[2] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data, while
the hollow points represent the historical data.
[3] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the North American
Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).The elevation for the historical data points is approximate.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)

CPT Dissipation Historical Borehole Representative Water Level
Top of Dike
(approximate)
Bottom of Dike
(approximate)

Figure 6.F3b. Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations along the Dike
Centerline of the 1984 Pond
Notes:
[1] The representative water level was selected based on the pore water pressure dissipation test
results, and 2014 and historical piezometer measurements.
[2] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data, while
the hollow points represent the historical data.
[3] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88. The
elevation for the historical data points is approximate.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)

CPT Dissipation Piezometer
Representative Water Level Historical Piezometer
Top of Dike
(approximate)
Bottom of Dike
(approximate)

Figure 6.F3c. Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations along the Dike
Centerline of the 2006 Interior Containment Area
Notes:
[1] The data point circled was considered to be an outlier. The representative water level was
selected based on an average of the pore water pressure dissipation test results.
[2] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[3] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t

)

CPT Dissipation Representative Water Level
Bottom of Dike
(approximate)
Top of Dike
(approximate)

Figure 6.F3d. Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations within the 1971 Pond
Notes:
[1] Due to presence of discharge from the plant, two water levels potentially exist within the
1971 Pond. An elevated water level indicated by the piezometer may be due to proximity to the
discharge from the plant. The CPT dissipation test measurements may be affected by the lower
water level.
[2] On 29 May 2014, water elevation in the 1971 Stormwater Pond was measured to be 17.8’
(NAVD88). The representative water level was selected based on the measured stormwater
pond water level.
[3] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[4] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)

CPT Dissipation Piezometer Representative Water Level

Figure 6.F3e. Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations within the 1984 Pond
Notes:
[1] On 29 May 2014, standing water elevation in the northern part of 1984 Pond was measured
to be 25.4’ (NAVD88).
[2] There are no water level measurements available within the southern part of the 1984 Pond.
However, SPT-7 was performed within the southern part of the pond and no saturated soil was
found down to the termination of the boring at an elevation of 21 ft. The water level within the
southern part of the 1984 Pond can be conservatively estimated to be at elevation 20 ft
(NAVD88).

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)

Standing Water in 1984 Pond Represntative Water Level (Southern Part)
Bottom of CCRs
(approximate)

Figure 6.F3f. Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations within the 2006 Interior
Containment Area
Notes:
[1] The representative water level was selected based on the piezometer measurement.
[2] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[3] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)

Piezometer Representative Water Level
Bottom of CCRs
(approximate)

Figure 6.F3g. Measured and Estimated Water Level Elevations within the Landfill
Area
Notes:
[1] The representative water level was selected based on the monitoring well measurements.
[2] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[3] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t

)

Monitoring Well Representative Water Level

Figure 6.F4a. Grain Size Distribution Test Results for Dike Fill, Foundation Soils
and Landfill Area Soils

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data, while
the hollow points represent the historical data.
[2] When a hydrometer test was not performed for the sample, percent compositions of silt and
clay are not plotted. See Figure 6.F5a for fines content data.
[3] The data for the CCR-like material encountered below the 1971 Dike are included in the
plot above.
[4] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F4b. Grain Size Distribution Test Results for CCRs

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[2] When a hydrometer test was not performed for the sample, percent compositions of silt and
clay are not plotted. See Figure 6.F5b for fines content data.
[3] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F5a. Fines Content Data for Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill
Area Soils

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data, while
the hollow points represent the historical data.
[2] The data shown above include the results from grain size distribution testing and fine
content testing.
[3] The data for the CCR-like material encountered below the 1971 Dike are included in the
plot above.
[4] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F5b. Fines Content Data for CCRs

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[2] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F6a. Natural Moisture Content Data for Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and
Landfill Area Soils

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data, while
the hollow points represent the historical data.
[2] The data for the CCR-like material encountered below the 1971 Dike are included in the
plot above.
[3] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F6b. Natural Moisture Content Data for CCRs

Note:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data, while
the hollow points represent the historical data.
[2] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F7a. Atterberg Limit Data for Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill
Area Soils

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data, while
the hollow points represent the historical data.
[2] The Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill Area Soils are predominantly sandy. As such
Atterberg limits tests were conducted for selected cohesive samples only.
[3] Historical Atterberg limits tests performed by MACTEC [2011b] on Dike Fill show it is
non-plastic. Also, the data for the CCR-like material encountered below the 1971 Dike are
included in the plot above.
[4] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F7b. Atterberg Limit Data for CCRs

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[2] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F8a. Specific Gravity for Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill Area
Soils

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[2] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F8b. Specific Gravity for CCRs

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[2] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F9a. SPT N-Blow Count of Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill Area
Soils

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data, while
the hollow points represent the historical data.
[2] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.
[3] The energy ratio for the 2014 Geosyntec data is 86.1%, while for the historical data the
energy ratio is 85%.

Figure 6.F9b. Effective Friction Angle of Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill
Area Soils Estimated from SPT

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data, while
the hollow points represent the historical data.
[2] The data points for the 1971 Pond, 1984 Pond, Landfill Area and 1971 Historical are
estimated using a correlation proposed by Hatanaka and Uchida [1996].
[3] The data points for the CCR & Soil Mix were estimated by using a correlation proposed by
Hatanaka and Uchida [1996] and adjusted with soil type based on recommendations found in
FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5 [2002].
[4] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.
CCR & Soil,
Selected ϕ’=25°
Landfill Area,
Selected ϕ’=31°
Foundation Soil,
Selected ϕ’=34°
Dike Fill,
Selected ϕ’=38°
Approximate bottom of dike
elevation

Figure 6.F10. Effective Friction Angle of Dike Fill and Foundation Soils Estimated
from CPT

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[2] The data points are estimated using a correlation proposed by Kulhawy and Mayne [1990].
[3] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F11. Undrained Shear Strength Ratio from CU Tests (CCRs)

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[2] The undrained shear strength ratio shown above is taken with respect to an effective
confining stress. For slope stability analyses, however, a undrained shear strength ratio with
respect to an effective vertical stress (Su/σv’) should be used. After applying a correction factor,
a Su/σv’ ratio of 0.51 can be used for the slope stability analyses.
[3] It is common to exhibit a relatively higher Su/σv’ ratio for a low effective confining stress.
The CCR undrained strength parameter was selected based on the CU test results shown above
as well as the CU test results for the CCRs collected from other sites located in the southeastern
US.
Figure 6.F12. Effective Strength Parameters Estimated from CU Tests (CCRs)

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[2] The CCR drained strength parameters were selected based on the CU test results shown
above as well as the CU test results for the CCRs collected from other sites located in the
southeastern US.

Figure 6.F13. pH Test Results for CCRs

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[2] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F14a. Shear Wave Velocities for Dike Fill and Foundation Soils

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[2] The individual data points represent the measurements from seismic cone penetration tests
(SCPTs) and the dotted profiles represent the data estimated using an empirical correlation
proposed by Mayne for using CPT data [2006].
[3] The measured Vs values shown above were calculated by the Mid-Atlantic Drilling (the
CPT contractor) and provided to Geosyntec. These values will be further reviewed by
Geosyntec and subject to change during the final closure design.
[4] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F14b. Shear Wave Velocities for CCRs

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[2] The individual data points represent the measurements from seismic cone penetration tests
(SCPTs).
[3] The measured Vs values shown above were calculated by the Mid -Atlantic Drilling (the
CPT contractor) and provided to Geosyntec. These values will be further reviewed by
Geosyntec and subject to change during the final closure design.
[4] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.F15. Unit Weight of Dike Fill, Foundation Soils and Landfill Area Soils
Estimated from Shear Wave Velocity

Notes:
[1] The solid points represent the 2014 Geosyntec conceptual closure investigation data.
[2] The data points are estimated using a correlation proposed by Mayne [2005].
[3] The elevation of the 2014 Geosyntec data points is referenced to the NAVD88.

Figure 6.16a. Slope Stability Analysis Result for Option 1.1

Notes:
[1] The estimated final water level was used in the analysis.
[2] The cap material was assumed to have a unit weight of 120 pcf and a friction angle of 32 degrees.
[3] The slip surface with a calculated factor of safety (FS) of 1.17 represents surficial sloughing and can be considered to be non-critical.

Figure 6.16b. Slope Stability Analysis Result for Option 1.2

Notes:
[1] The estimated final water level was used in the analysis.
[2] The slip surface whose calculated FS is 1.87 passes along the slope.
[3] The cap material was assumed to have a unit weight of 120 pcf and a friction angle of 32 degrees.
[4] The sand liner cover and clay liner were assumed to have a unit weight of 125 pcf and a friction angle of 3 2 degrees, and a unit weight of 125 pcf and a friction angle of 22 degrees with a cohesion of 150 psf, respectively,
based on available information.

Figure 6.16c. Slope Stability Analysis Result for Option 2.1

Notes:
[1] The estimated final water level was used in the analysis.
[2] The slip surface whose calculated FS is 1.87 passes along the slope.
[3] The cap material was assumed to have a unit weight of 120 pcf and a friction angle of 32 degrees.

Figure 6.F17a. Seismic Hazard Deaggregation for the Sutton Site

Figure 6.F17b. Geographic Distribution of Seismic Hazard Sources

APPENDIX 2.A1

Flood Insurance Rate Map
. . . .
•1
.,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.........,., ..........................
.. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. ..........................
. .I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. ZONE AE
(EL a)'
WON _ FfNR N, CGS
ER1. 6i
T L
" WX - op"
iG.�If.Lb.lr-
Nc%\ 11MIOV101- Count)
I Inincorporated Arc is
370168
GRID NORTH
4LE V = 500' (1 : 6,000)
250 500 750 1,000
FEET
PANEL 3200K
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA
PANEL 3200
(SEE LOCATOR DIAGRAM OR MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL
LAYOUT)
CONTAINS;
COMMUNITY CID No. PANEL SUFFIX
NAVASSA. TOWN OF 370593 3200 K
NEW HANOVER COUNTY 370168 3200 K
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below should be used
when placing map orders: the Community Number shown above
should be used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
MAP REVISED MAP NUMBER
JUNE 2l 2006 3720320000K
e0 � °` FAr Rah
y T
State of North Carolina
Federal Emergency Management Agency
This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On-line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program fleod maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gc

.a
ZONE AE -
• ELri �f
•NEA
EL
r . i • .
...... NEW HAN+IIER COUNTY
T•WN �FNAVASSA
. -. . . • . . . . • . . • . . .
{ ZONE AE
l'EL 6:)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » , . . . . . . . . . . .
t
ZONE, X«
R.AILRi311D
W.M
.0
?tl 168
GRID NORTH
IILE V = 500' (1 : 6,000)
250 50o 750 1,000
FEET.fTf^._,
PANEL 3109K
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA
1-1►I:I1B111 :
(SEE LOCATOR DIAGRAM OR MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL
LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY CID No- PANEL SUFFIX
NAVASSA TOWN OF 370593 3109 K
NEW HANOVER COUNTY 370168 3109 K
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below should be used
when placing snap orders: the Community Number shown above
should be used on insurance applications for the subject
community.
MAP (REVISED MAP NUMBER
JUNE 2, 2006 3720310900K
a "Sr
r-14T
a..,wr" •41Pb 5E
State of North Carolina
Federal Emergency Management Agency
This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On -Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
M title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www-msc.fema.gov

APPENDIX 2.A2

Synterra Water Supply Well Survey

Privileged and Confidential – Prepared at the Request of Counsel

April 9, 2014

Mr. Daniel W. Kemp
Associate General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
Duke Energy
410 South Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27601

RE: L.V. Sutton Energy Complex, Wilmington NC
Water Supply Well Survey Report of Findings

Dear Dan:

SynTerra conducted a survey of potential water supply wells for the area approximately ½ mile
to the east of the Duke Energy Progress L. V. Sutton Energy Complex property line in
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina. The following letter report, including a
summary table, maps and relevant attachments describe the approach and findings of the
survey. Conclusions and recommendations are also provided.

Survey Methods

The water supply well survey was conducted during February through March 2014 and thus is
current for this time period.

The results of a previous Water Supply Well Survey conducted by Catlin Engineers and
Scientists, August 30, 2013 have been incorporated into the findings of this report. The Catlin
survey focused on an area within ½ mile of the ash pond compliance boundary and within 500
feet of the property boundary along Sutton Steam Plant Road.

A review of public database information provided by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
(EDR) was also conducted. The public water well information has been incorporated in the
summary table and on the attached maps. A copy of the EDR report is included as Attachment
1.

The website for Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) was reviewed for water line layout
information. CFPUA was also contacted to confirm the current accuracy of the water line map
posted on the website (map date 11/6/2013). CFPUA confirmed the accuracy of the water line
Privileged and Confidential – Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Sutton Energy Complex Water Well Survey
Report of Findings April 2014
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. SynTerra

Page 2
P:\Progress Energy.1026\08.SUTTON PLANT\08. Legal Dept. Sutton PreConsent Order Work\Water Supply Well
Survey\Sutton Water Well Survey 4-09-14.docx
map and provided location information for customers in the area. The water line layout and
customer location information provided by CFPUA is included as Attachment 2.

During February and March, 2014, SynTerra personnel conducted a vehicular survey along
public roads located within ½ mile of the Sutton plant eastern property line. Observations on
property use, apparent proximity to available municipal water lines and structures that may
represent potential water supply wells were noted.

Survey Findings

The Catlin survey reported seven active water supply wells in the area.
 Two of four CFPUA water supply wells, #3 and #4, located on Fredrickson Drive are
used to supply municipal water to the area. The wells are reportedly screened at a
depth of approximately 50 feet with average flow rates of approximately 39,000 gallons
per day (or approximately 27 gallons per minute each).
 Three water supply wells were reported to be in use by S.T. Wooten Corporation,
located on Sutton Lake Road (Map ID#s 4, 5, and 6). Two of the wells are reportedly 200
feet deep and used for process water for concrete production. One of the wells,
reportedly 150 feet deep, is used for irrigation, restrooms, and wetting of site materials.
Flow rate information was not provided.
 One water supply well was reported to be used for irrigation at the Soccer Complex
located on Sutton Steam Plant Road (Map ID# 34). It is reportedly 50 feet deep with a
potential flow rate of approximately 100,000 gallons per day (70 gallons per minute).
 One water supply well was reported to be used by Port City Concrete, located on Sutton
Steam Plant Road (Map ID# 33), for process water. No depth or flow rate information
was provided.
The Catlin survey report also indicated the residential community of Flemington has access to
the municipal water system and no water supply wells were observed in the area.

The EDR report provided additional information on the CFPUA wells (EDR reference numbers
A, C, and D), plus identified the following additional water wells in the area:
 Three wells located to the northeast of the Sutton property previously owned by Invista
and purchased by S.T. Wooten Corporation in December 2013 (EDR reference numbers
1, B9/B10, and 16; well depths reportedly 93 feet, 96 feet and 90 feet respectively);
 Three wells located on Highway 421 due east of the Sutton property (EDR reference
numbers 4, 6, and 13; well depths reportedly 57 feet, 40 feet and 80 feet respectively);
 One well located near the intersection of Sutton Lake Road and Fredrickson Drive (EDR
reference number 2; well depth reportedly 54 feet);
 One well located on Sutton Steam Plant Road (EDR reference number 19; well depth
reportedly 57 feet deep); and
Privileged and Confidential – Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Sutton Energy Complex Water Well Survey
Report of Findings April 2014
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. SynTerra

Page 3
P:\Progress Energy.1026\08.SUTTON PLANT\08. Legal Dept. Sutton PreConsent Order Work\Water Supply Well
Survey\Sutton Water Well Survey 4-09-14.docx
 Three wells located within the Sutton Energy Complex property (EDR reference
numbers 3, 5 and 11. Only well 11 had a reported depth of 50 feet).

The map provided by CFPUA indicates water lines are located on the southern half of Metro
Circle, the southern half of Richardson Drive, Sutton Steam Plant Road, Highway 421 south of
the I-140 intersection, within the Flemington residential community and along the eastern
portion of Sampson Street. CFPUA map also indicates the locations of customers within the
area. The map provided by CFPUA is provided as Attachment 2 and the water lines are
included in Figures 1 and 2.

SynTerra conducted a visual reconnaissance of the water well survey area ½ mile east of the
property line by driving public road-ways and noting properties that appeared to be developed
or occupied. Structures resembling water supply wells or well houses were noted where
visible. Most of the area development consists of industrial and commercial properties with the
exception being the Flemmington residential community. No water supply wells were
observed within the Flemmington residential community consistent with the Catlin survey
report. The locations of the wells on the CFPUA, S.T. Wooten and the Port City Cement
properties could not be visually confirmed from the drive-by survey. Sutton Energy Complex
water supply wells located on Sutton Steam Plant Road, the Soccer Complex irrigation well
house, former Invista wells located along the plant’s northeastern property line, and structures
resembling wells or well houses were observed on Metro Circle, Sutton Lake Drive, Highway
421, Transcom Court, Fredrickson Road, Roymac Drive and Sampson Street. Additional
properties within ½ mile of the eastern property line appeared to be developed and in-use
(occupied) with no apparent water supply well observed.

Table 1, attached, summarizes information available from the New Hanover County website on
developed property within ½ mile of the eastern property line. The table summarizes property
location and owner information where a water supply well may be present based upon drive-by
observations, Catlin or EDR information. The table also summaries where properties appear to
use municipal water based upon CFPUA customer information.

Suspected water supply well locations within ½ mile of the eastern property line are shown on
the Water Well Survey Map (Figure 1, attached). The suspected water supply well locations
shown are based upon field observations, Catlin and EDR information. The suspected well
locations are numbered on the map to cross-reference information provided in Table 1.
Additional notations are provided on the map where properties appeared to be occupied and
no water well structure was observed, where the CFPUA map indicates a customer location,
and where adjoining parcels appear to have the same occupant (which suggests the parcels may
share a water source).

Privileged and Confidential – Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Sutton Energy Complex Water Well Survey
Report of Findings April 2014
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. SynTerra

Page 4
P:\Progress Energy.1026\08.SUTTON PLANT\08. Legal Dept. Sutton PreConsent Order Work\Water Supply Well
Survey\Sutton Water Well Survey 4-09-14.docx
The question marks shown along the northeastern property line indicate location uncertainty
due to conflicting information regarding the locations of the former Invista wells G, OG2 and
H2. Field observations suggest these three water supply wells may be located further to the
south than reported location coordinates suggest. The locations shown are based on reported
coordinates. The question marks indicate possible locations based upon field observations.

In summary, approximately 44 possible private water supply wells were observed or have been
reported in the area ½ mile to the east of the property line, not including the CFPUA water
supply wells and the Sutton plant’s water supply wells (Figure 1).

The ½ mile from the eastern property line survey area also includes approximately 17 parcels
that appear to be developed beyond the service area of CFPUA with no water well structures
observed or reported. In addition, approximately five properties appear to be developed near
water lines that were not reported to be CFPUA customers and no water well structures were
observed or have been reported.

Three properties appear to have water wells or have reported water wells but also appear to be
CFPUA customers. These include the Port City Concrete (Map ID# 33) facility and the Soccer
Complex (Map ID# 34) on Sutton Steam Plant Road and the Waste Industries facility (Map ID#
35) on Sampson Street.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The anticipated purpose for the water well survey is to evaluate the potential risk to receptors
located hydraulically downgradient of the ash pond,. A copy of the most recent water level
map is provided as Figure 2. Boron is routinely detected at concentrations greater than the
North Carolina 2L groundwater standard downgradient of the ash ponds along the eastern
property line at monitoring wells MW-12 and MW-31C. Boron has not been detected in MW-11
(to the north) and the boron concentrations have been less than the groundwater standard in
MW-32C and MW-33C to the south. Manganese is the only other constituent routinely detected
at concentrations greater than the 2L groundwater standard at the property line. Based upon
background monitoring well data, the manganese concentrations detected near the property
line appear to be within the range of naturally occurring concentrations. The remainder of the
constituents which have had one or more reported 2L groundwater standard exceedances at the
Compliance Boundary (thallium, antimony, selenium, total dissolved solids (TDS), sulfate, iron,
lead and arsenic) appear to naturally attenuate prior to migration to the property line.

Therefore, the risk to off-site receptor focus area would be the zone downgradient (to the east)
of the boron exceedances in groundwater. Based upon available monitoring well data this zone
is estimated to be approximately 5000 feet in width along the eastern property line. This is
approximately the same area that would be considered downgradient of the ash ponds as
Privileged and Confidential – Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Sutton Energy Complex Water Well Survey
Report of Findings April 2014
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. SynTerra

Page 5
P:\Progress Energy.1026\08.SUTTON PLANT\08. Legal Dept. Sutton PreConsent Order Work\Water Supply Well
Survey\Sutton Water Well Survey 4-09-14.docx
shown on Figure 3. Extending this area hydraulically downgradient approximately ½ mile
encompasses approximately 18 identified off-site water supply wells (Map ID#s 2 through 16,
19, 20, and 36) as well as four developed properties where no wells were observed, but are
suspected.

Available information suggests the six of the 18 wells located in the focus survey area are not
currently being used for human consumption. Two of the properties appear to be vacant (221
and 233 Sutton Lake Road). 221 Sutton Lake Road is advertised as ‘For Sale’. Four wells are
located on S.T. Wooten property and are reportedly 93 to 200 feet deep. The monitoring wells
along the Sutton plant property line are approximately 45 to 50 feet deep. Information available
on these six off-site water supply wells in the potential receptor focus area is summarized
below.

Map Well
ID # OWNER PARCEL
ADDRESS FIELD DESCRIPTION / NOTES
3 EZZELL
TRUCKING INC 233 Sutton Lake Rd Vacant on 2/19/2014
4 S T WOOTEN 230 Sutton Lake Rd Catlin survey reports 150 to 200 feet deep, used
only as process water
5 S T WOOTEN 230 Sutton Lake Rd Catlin survey reports 150 to 200 feet deep, used
only as process water
6 S T WOOTEN 230 Sutton Lake Rd Catlin survey reports 150 to 200 feet deep, used
only as process water
7 L C H HOLDINGS 221 Sutton Lake Rd Vacant on 2/19/2014, EDR reports 54 feet deep
36 S T WOOTEN 4101 Hwy 421 INVISTA well G, EDR reports 93 feet

Installation of additional monitoring wells along the eastern property line south of MW-12 and
north of MW-31C is recommended to better define the width of the potential receptor focus
area. Installation of deeper monitoring wells adjacent to MW-12 and MW-31C is recommended
to determine aquifer water quality at depths similar to the S.T. Wooten water supply wells and
to assess whether use of the S. T. Wooten water supply wells is affecting constituent migration.

Additional information is needed on the remaining wells potentially in use in the survey focus
area to assess potential receptor risk due to ingestion of groundwater. Developed parcels
located beyond available water lines likely use water supply wells for restroom service water
and possibly drinking water. Mailing a questionnaire to owners of occupied parcels within the
survey focus area could be used to resolve this receptor survey data gap. The questionnaire
would request information such as well depth and use to further assess the risk to the potential
receptors identified.

Privileged and Confidential – Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Sutton Energy Complex Water Well Survey
Report of Findings April 2014
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. SynTerra

Page 6
P:\Progress Energy.1026\08.SUTTON PLANT\08. Legal Dept. Sutton PreConsent Order Work\Water Supply Well
Survey\Sutton Water Well Survey 4-09-14.docx
Please give me a call if you have any questions or require additional information.

SynTerra

Kathy Webb, NC PG 1328
Project Manager

Cc: John Toepfer, P.E.
Kent Tyndall
Ed Sullivan, P.E.

Attachments:
Table 1. Property of Interest Information
Figure 1. Water Well Survey Map
Figure 2. Water Level Map - March 2014
Figure 3. Potential Receptor Focus Area
Attachment 1 - EDR water well database report
Attachment 2 – CFPUA Information
Privileged and Confidential - Prepared at the Request of Counsel
TABLE 1. PROPERTY OF INTEREST INFORMATION
SUTTON STEAM PLANT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
Map Well
ID #PARCEL ID OWNER PARCEL ADDRESS FIELD DESCRIPTION / NOTES
NA R03200-001-001-000 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO 801 SUTTON STEAM PLANT RD PE-SW2, PE-SW3, PE-SW4, PE-SW5, PE-SW6A, PE-SW6B, PE-SW6C, PE-SW6D and PE-SW6E (EDR-19 REPORTED DEPTH ~57 FT), EDR-
3 (NH-438 NO DEPTH REPORTED), EDR-5 (NH-108) NO DEPTH REPORTED, EDR-11 (NDH-670) REPORTED DEPTH 50 FT)
1 R03200-002-025-000 ABSOLUTE PROPERTIES OF THE CAROLINAS LLC 331 METRO CIR NETWORK DISTRIBUTORS AND ABSOLUTE WALL AND CEILING, WELL HOUSE TO RIGHT OF DRIVEWAY
NA R03200-002-027-000 SAUNDERS & SAUNDERS LLC 347 METRO CIR OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-002-015-000 MAOLA MILK & ICE CREAM CO 307 METRO CIR OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
2 R03200-002-028-000 ROYMAC PARTNERSHIP 363 METRO CIR FERRELL GAS, WELL BY FENCE LINE FAUX ROCK WELL HOUSE COVER
NA R03200-002-029-000 QUARLES PETROLEUM 3601 FREDERICKSON RD METRO CIRCLE AT CORNER OF FREDERICKSON, OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-002-001-003 SOUTH ATLANTIC SERV INC 3773 FREDRICKSON RD OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
HNC-SW1, 2,
3 & 4 R03200-002-001-011 NEW HAN CNTY 3405 FREDRICKSON RD CFPUA WELL FIELD PROPERTY, SW-3 AND SW-4 WELLS IN USE AND MONITORED
3 R03200-002-001-007 EZZELL TRUCKING INC 233 SUTTON LAKE RD PROPERTY VACANT ON 2/19/2014, WELL OBSERVED NEAR ROAD
4 R02400-001-004-000 S T WOOTEN CORP 230 SUTTON LAKE RD WELL LOCATED FROM CATLIN SURVEY
5 R02400-001-004-000 S T WOOTEN CORP 230 SUTTON LAKE RD WELL LOCATED FROM CATLIN SURVEY
6 R02400-001-004-000 S T WOOTEN CORP 230 SUTTON LAKE RD WELL LOCATED FROM CATLIN SURVEY
7 R03200-002-001-026 L C H HOLDINGS LLC 221 SUTTON LAKE RD VACANT ON 2/19/2014, WELL PREVIOUSLY OBSERVED IN FRONT, EDR 2 REPORT, NH-711, REPORTED TO BE 54 FT DEEP
8 R03200-001-021-000 NEW HANOVER COUNTY 3805 421 HWY FIRE STATION, WELL OBSERVED
9 R03200-001-036-000 OLD NORTH STATE PROPERTIES LLC 3813 421 HWY NEFF RENTAL, WELL OBSERVED
10 R03200-001-013-000 MARLEY ISAAC R DOROTHY F 3821 421 HWY FAYE'S RESTAURANT AND ROY'S BAIT AND TACKLE SHOP, EDR (6) REPORTED DEPTH 40 FT, WELL
NA R03200-001-037-000 HARDT PROPERTIES LLC 3861 421 HWY 3871 HIGHWAY 421, OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-001-038-000 MASTEC NORTH AMERICA INC 3857 421 HWY OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
11 R03200-001-039-000 ZAMBESI ENTERPRISES LLC 3865 421 HWY 3873 HIGHWAY 421 WELL OBSERVED, HYDRANT OBSERVED
12 R03200-001-034-000 WIL FERGIE LLC 3881 421 HWY FERGUSON WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-001-035-000 WIL FERGIE LLC 3901 421 HWY PROPERTY USE UNKNOWN
13 R02400-001-009-000 DLH HOLDINGS LLC 3810 421 HWY WELL OBSERVED
14 R02400-001-009-000 DLH HOLDINGS LLC 3814 421 HWY WELL OBSERVED
15 R02400-001-010-000 DLH HOLDINGS LLC 3818 421 HWY WELL OBSERVED
16 R02400-001-010-000 DLH HOLDINGS LLC 3822 421 HWY WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-002-001-010 GENERAL SHALE BRICK INC 3750 421 HWY OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
17 R03200-002-001-014 BUENA VISTA SUN LLC 3700 421 HWY LOCATION UNOCCUPIED ON 2/19/2014, 2 WELLS OBSERVED
18 R03200-002-001-014 BUENA VISTA SUN LLC 3700 421 HWY LOCATION UNOCCUPIED ON 2/19/2014, 2 WELLS OBSERVED
NA R03200-002-001-017 WASTE INDUSTRIES MERGECO LLC 3618 421 HWY OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
P:\Progress Energy.1026\08.SUTTON PLANT\08. Legal Dept. Sutton PreConsent Order Work\iPAD GPS DATA\Prop_Interest_Info_Sutton Page 1 of 3
Privileged and Confidential - Prepared at the Request of Counsel
TABLE 1. PROPERTY OF INTEREST INFORMATION
SUTTON STEAM PLANT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
Map Well
ID #PARCEL ID OWNER PARCEL ADDRESS FIELD DESCRIPTION / NOTES
NA R03200-002-001-020 J D EDWARDS INVESTMENTS LLC 3608 421 HWY 353? HIGHWAY 421 WELL, USE UNKNOWN, APPEARS OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
19 R03200-001-026-000 OLD MBC OFFICE LLC 3701 421 HWY STRAIGHTWAY MINISTRIES, OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED, EDR (13) REPORT INDICATES A WELL
20 R03200-001-030-000 BCC OF EDENTON LLC 3625 421 HWY OLD TRUCKING LOCATION, WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-001-010-000 SOUTH ATLANTIC SERVICES INC 3527 421 HWY 2625 HIGHWAY 421, GOODYEAR, CFPUA CUSTOMER
NA R03200-001-008-000 YELLOW TRANSPORTATION INC 3501 421 HWY OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
21 R03200-002-001-024 F&B INVESTMENT GROUP 3340 421 HWY WELL OBSERVED
22 R03200-002-001-024 F&B INVESTMENT GROUP 3340 421 HWY WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-002-016-000 NOWAK & WARWICK LLC 208 TRANSCOM CT OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
23 R03200-002-023-000 HARDING WILLIAM L LINDA R 212 TRANSCOM CT CAPE FEAR CUSTOM POWDER COATING, WELL AT CORNER OF PROPERTY
NA R03200-002-001-013 M2 LLC 3505 FREDRICKSON RD END OF TRANSCOM STORAGE UNITS, WATER FAUCET OBSERVED
24 R03200-002-012-000 SMITH KENNETH P CONNIE H 219 ROYMAC DR WELL HOUSE IN BACK LEFT CORNER OF PROPERTY
NA R03200-002-013-000 PORTERFIELD J C JUDY C 218 ROYMAC DR OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-001-028-000 AMERIGAS PROPANE L P 214 ROYMAC DR OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-001-027-000 ROYMAC PROPERTIES LLC 210 ROYMAC DR 136 ROYMAC DR, OCCUPIED NO WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-001-029-000 ROYMAC PROPERTIES LLC 202 ROYMAC DR OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
25 R03200-002-001-025 F&B INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 3306 421 HWY WELL OBSERVED
26 R03200-002-001-018 F&B INVESTMENT GROUP 3300 421 HWY WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-002-001-004 421 NORTH LLC 3321 421 HWY OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
27 R03200-002-008-000 THORNBERRY VENTURES LLC 3240 421 HWY 3252 HIGHWAY 421, WELL OBSERVED
28 R03200-002-008-000 THORNBERRY VENTURES LLC 3240 421 HWY 3246 HIGHWAY 421, WELL OBSERVED
29 R03200-002-008-000 THORNBERRY VENTURES LLC 3240 421 HWY 3240 HIGHWAY 421, WELL OBSERVED
30 R03200-002-009-000 STONE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 3310 421 HWY 3234 HIGHWAY 421, WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-001-004-000 BUENA VISTA SUN LLC 3301 421 HWY OCCUPIED, CFPUA CUSTOMER
31 R03200-001-002-001 KENAN TRANSPORT CO 3201 421 HWY WELL OBSERVED
32 R03200-001-003-000 KENAN TRANSPORT COMPANY 3201 421 HWY WELL OBSERVED
33 R04000-001-018-000 RIVERFRONT COMPANY LLC 301 SUTTON STEAM PLANT RD WELL REPORTED BY CATLIN FOR PORT CITY CONCRETE PROCESS WATER, CFPUA CUSTOMER
NA R03200-002-001-001 BGCS PROPERTY ASSOC LLC 208 SUTTON STEAM PLANT RD CORNER OF FREDERICKSON, OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
NA R03200-002-007-000 MH CAROLINA LLC 200 SUTTON STEAM PLANT RD OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
34 R03200-004-002-000 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO 201 SUTTON STEAM PLANT RD SOCCER COMPLEX WELL HOUSE, CFPUA CUSTOMER
35 R04000-001-015-000 WASTE INDUSTRIES LLC 310 SAMPSON ST WELL OBSERVED IN FRONT NEAR ROAD, CFPUA CUSTOMER
P:\Progress Energy.1026\08.SUTTON PLANT\08. Legal Dept. Sutton PreConsent Order Work\iPAD GPS DATA\Prop_Interest_Info_Sutton Page 2 of 3
Privileged and Confidential - Prepared at the Request of Counsel
TABLE 1. PROPERTY OF INTEREST INFORMATION
SUTTON STEAM PLANT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
Map Well
ID #PARCEL ID OWNER PARCEL ADDRESS FIELD DESCRIPTION / NOTES
NA R04000-001-020-000 P&A MILLWARD 1ST FAM LTD PTNRP 420 SAMPSON ST OCCUPIED , NO WELL OBSERVED
36 R02400-001-040-000 S T WOOTEN CORPORATION 4101 421 HWY INVISTA WELL G, INVISTA WAS PREVIOUS OWNER - PROPERTY SELL DATE 12/20/2013, EDR (1) report indicates 93 feet deep
37 R02400-001-040-000 S T WOOTEN CORPORATION 4101 421 HWY INVISTA WELL OG2, INVISTA WAS PREVIOUS OWNER - PROPERTY SELL DATE 12/20/2013, EDR (B9) report indicates 96 feet
38 R02400-001-040-000 S T WOOTEN CORPORATION 4101 421 HWY INVISTA WELL H2, INVISTA WAS PREVIOUS OWNER - PROPERTY SELL DATE 12/20/2013, EDR (16) reports 90 feet deep
NA R02400-001-001-001 UNION CARBIDE IND GASES INC 4660 421 HWY INVISTA, OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
NA R02300-001-010-000 YTC PROPERTIES LLC 4900 421 HWY 4838 HIGHWAY 421, OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
39 R02300-001-005-001 TAR RIVER INVESTMENTS LLC 4838 421 HWY WELL OBSERVED
40 R02300-001-012-000 EAST COAST PARTNERS LLC 4910 421 HWY 4844 HIGHWAY 421, WELL OBSERVED
41 R02300-001-011-000 MURRELL WILLIAM W CATHY G 4920 421 HWY 4910 HIGHWAY 421, WELL OBSERVED
42 R02300-001-013-000 MURRELL WILLIAM W JR CATHY G 5004 421 HWY 4920 HIGHWAY 421, SRRJ ENVIRONMENTAL, WELL OBSERVED
43 R02300-001-021-000 CURRIE CREEK ENTERPRISES LLC 5104 421 HWY 5140 HIGHWAY 421, PET CREMATORIUM, WELL OBSERVED
NA R02300-001-001-000 SOUTHERN EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC 5125 421 HWY OCCUPIED, NO WELL OBSERVED
44 R02300-001-002-000 JENKINS GAS & OIL CO INC 5211 421 HWY WELL OBSERVED
NA R01500-002-001-001 NEW HANOVER COUNTY 5210 421 HWY NEW HANOVER COUNTY LANDFILL, BEYOND SURVEY AREA
The Field Description/Notes column is a brief summary of SynTerra field observations or other relevant information as follows:
Street identification numbers observed during the drive-by survey are noted where available and may or may not match the County GIS parcel address information.
Adjoining parcels that appear to have the same occupant or owner have been grouped as one occupant.
Parcels that appear to be undeveloped have not been included as a 'Property of Interest'.
The Sutton plant water supply wells are provided for completeness.
The notation for the New Hanover County Landfill property is for reference only.
Parcel ID, owner and address information were obtained from the New Hanover County North Carolina website (http://www.nhcgov.com/Pages/GISData.aspx).
Notes:
The name of the occupant based upon road or building signage is noted where observed.
"Occupied" indicates the site appeared to be in use based upon drive-by observations.
"Vacant" indicates the site has been developed but did not appear to be currently used based upon drive-by observations.
Map Well # refers to well number shown on the Water Well Survey Map. NA indicates not applicable due to no suspected water supply well observed or reported.
P:\Progress Energy.1026\08.SUTTON PLANT\08. Legal Dept. Sutton PreConsent Order Work\iPAD GPS DATA\Prop_Interest_Info_Sutton Page 3 of 3
PE-SW2
PE-SW4
PE-SW3
PE-SW5 PE-SW6A
PE-SW6B PE-SW6C
0G2
H2
PE-SW6D
PE-SW6E
EDR 11
EDR 5
G
EDR 3
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
WS WS WS
WS
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
NC WILDLIFE
LAKE ACCESS
OLD ASH POND AREA
NEW ASH POND AREA
FORMER ASH DISPOSAL AREA
FORMER ASH
DISPOSAL AREA
CA
N
A
L
C
A
N
A
L
AST
CONCRETE
PAD
CAPE FEAR RIVER
SUTTON LAKE

R
D
RAILROAD
COOLING POND
SUTT
O
N

L
A
K
E

R
D
SOLAR FARM
COOLING POND
COOLING POND
SUTTON STEAM

P
L
A
N
T

R
D
TRAN
S
C
O
M

C
T
ROYMAC

D
R
F
R
E
D
R
I
C
K
S
O
N

R
D
C
A
N
A
L
ACCESS ROAD
NHC-SW4
NHC-SW3
NHC-SW2
(NOT IN USE)
BRUCE B CAMERON, TRUSTEE
METR
O

C
I
R
C
L
E
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E

1
4
0

(
U
S

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

1
7
)
F
R
E
D
R
I
C
K
S
O
N

R
D
SOURCES:
JANUARY 3, 2013 AERIAL IMAGERY OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH PRO.
PARCEL DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE LIBRARIES AT
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/gis/counties.html FOR NEW HANOVER COUNTY .
THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY FOR THE L.V. SUTTON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT WAS BASED ON A
COMPOSITE MAP PREPARED BY DAVIS-MARTIN-POWELL & ASSOC., INC. THE DRAWINGS ARE
DATED JUNE, 1995 WITH REVISION NOTE FOR MARCH 4, 2004. FILE NAME IS L-D-9022-7.DWG.
HORIZONTIAL DATUM IS NAD83 AND THE VERTICAL DATUM IS NGV 29.
WELL LOCATIONS AND MEASURING POINTS WERE BASED ON A SURVEY BY JAMES L. HAINES &
ASSOCIATES FOR ISH, INC. DATED DECEMBER 23, 2008. ISH DRAWING IS TITLED "POTENTIAL
LOCATIONS FOR PROPOSED GEOPROBE AND WELL INSTALLATIONS", DATED FEBURARY 25, 2009
WITH A CAD FILE NAME Figure 22.dwg
THE LOCATION OF THE FORMER ASH DISPOSAL AREAS WAS BASED ON A FIGURE 2-2 PREPARED
BY BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC. THE FIGURE IS TITLED "HORIZONTAL EXTENT OF THE ASH
WITHIN THE FORMER DISPOSAL AREA".
NEW WELL LOCATIONS AND MEASURING POINTS WERE BASED ON A TABLE BY PARAMOUNTE
ENGINEERING, WILMINGTON NC DATED 2012-03-05 SUPPLED BY PROGRESS ENERGY.
HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83(NSRS2007) AND THE VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD29.
APPROXIMATE ROUTE OF THE
NEW WILLMINGTON BYPASS (I-140)
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
2014-04-02
N
C

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

4
2
1
MW-5A
MW-9
MW-10
MW-5B
N
C

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

4
2
1
MW-8
MW-32C MW-33C
MW-18
MW-1A
MW-17
MW-14
MW-16
MW-16D
MW-20
MW-15DMW-15
N
C

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

4
2
1
FH
FLEMINGTON TANK
PROPOSED WATERLINE
RIVER CROSSING TIE-IN
FLE
M
M
I
N
G

S
T
FL
E
M
M
I
N
G

D
R
SAM
P
S
O
N

S
T
N
C

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

4
2
1
N
C

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

4
2
1
CLINTON ST
HALES LN
MW-3B
WASTE BOUNDARY
500 ft COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS SUTTON PLANT
LEGEND
NEW HANOVER CO. PARCEL LINE (APPROXIMATE)
REPORTED OR OBSERVED WATER WELL
(APPROXIMATE)
PROPERTY OCCUPIED NO OBSERVED WATER WELL
(APPROXIMATE)
HALF MILE WATER WELL SURVEY BOUNDARY FROM THE
PROPERTY LINEWS
CAPE FEAR WATER LINE (APPROXIMATE)
2013-03-25
2013-03-25KATHY WEBB
JOHN CHASTAIN
PROJECT MANAGER:
LAYOUT NAME:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
KATHY WEBB
DATE:
DATE:
FIGURE 1
WATER WELL SURVEY MAP
FIG 1 WATER WELL SURVEY
1200
GRAPHIC SCALE
(IN FEET)
0 600300600
www.synterracorp.com
148 River Street, Suite 220
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
864-421-9999
SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
801 SUTTON POWER PLANT RD
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PRELIMINARY
MW-6C
MW-6B
MW-6A
MW-13D
MW-13
MW-3A
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
MW-20D
MW-7B
MW-7A
MW-4A
MW-4
MW-1B
MW-2A
MW-2B
MW-2C
MW-4B
MW-5C
MW-19
MW-21C
MW-22CMW-22B
MW-23CMW-22B
MW-24C
MW-24B
MW-27B
BACKGROUND COMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED)
COMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED)
MW-4B
MW-19
MW-11
MW-6B
MW-12
MW-7C
MW-28BMW-28C
MW-31C
PE-SW2 DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS PRODUCTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
04/09/2014 11:23 AMP:\Progress Energy.1026\08.SUTTON PLANT\08. Legal Dept. Sutton PreConsent Order Work\dwg\DUKE ENERGY SUTTON BASE.dwg
PROPOSED WATERLINE
RIVER CROSSINGSAMPSON ST
1
2
3
4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
MW-11
MONITORING WELL (SURVEYED)
WELL BEYOND COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY (SURVEYED)
CFPUA WATER CUSTOMER
22
23
24
CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY (CFPUA) CUSTOMERS AND WATER LINE LAYOUT WERE
BASED ON FIGURE PROVIDED BY CFPUA TO SYNTERRA ON MARCH 27, 2013 TITLED FLEMINGTON
AREA WATER DISTRIBUTION.
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
34
33
NHC-SW4 CFPUA PRODUCTION WELL (APPROXIMATE)
PE-SW2 DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS PRODUCTION WELL (SURVEYED)
19
NHC-SW1
(ABANDONED)
31
44
43
42
41
40
39
NEW HANOVER COUNTY LANDFILL
36
37
38
ADJOINING CFPUA WATER CUSTOMER PARCEL
HORTON IRON & METAL SUPERFUND SITE
35
?
?
13
W
A
T
E
R

L
E
V
E
L

M
A
P
0
4
/
0
7
/
2
0
1
4
0
4
/
0
7
/
2
0
1
4
K
A
T
H
Y

W
E
B
B
B
R
A
N
D
O
N

R
U
S
S
O
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:
L
A
Y
O
U
T

N
A
M
E
:
D
R
A
W
N

B
Y
:
C
H
E
C
K
E
D

B
Y
:
K
A
T
H
Y

W
E
B
B
D
A
T
E
:
D
A
T
E
:
F
I
G
U
R
E

2
W
A
T
E
R

L
E
V
E
L

M
A
P

-

M
A
R
C
H

2
0
1
4
4/9/2014 3:13 PM P:\Progress Energy.1026\08.SUTTON PLANT\08. Legal Dept. Sutton PreConsent Order Work\dwg\DukeEnergySutton-2014-03-FIG 2 WL.dwg
1
2
0
0
G
R
A
P
H
I
C

S
C
A
L
E
(
I
N

F
E
E
T
)
0
6
0
0
3
0
0
6
0
0
w
w
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
1
4
8

R
i
v
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

2
2
0
G
r
e
e
n
v
i
l
l
e
,

S
o
u
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

2
9
6
0
1
8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
W
A
S
T
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
5
0
0

f
t

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
S
U
T
T
O
N

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
8
0
1

S
U
T
T
O
N

P
O
W
E
R

P
L
A
N
T

R
D
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

L
I
N
E

(
B
A
S
E
D

O
N

S
U
R
V
E
Y
)
L
E
G
E
N
D
N
P
D
E
S

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
:
2
0
1
2

A
E
R
I
A
L

P
H
O
T
O
G
R
A
P
H

W
A
S

O
B
T
A
I
N
E
D

F
R
O
M

T
H
E

N
R
C
S

G
E
O
S
P
A
T
I
A
L

D
A
T
A
G
A
T
E
W
A
Y

A
T

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
a
t
a
g
a
t
e
w
a
y
.
n
r
c
s
.
u
s
d
a
.
g
o
v
/
P
A
R
C
E
L

D
A
T
A

W
A
S

O
B
T
A
I
N
E
D

F
R
O
M

T
H
E

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

S
T
A
T
E

L
I
B
R
A
R
I
E
S

A
T
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
l
i
b
.
n
c
s
u
.
e
d
u
/
g
i
s
/
c
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
.
h
t
m
l

F
O
R

N
E
W

H
A
N
O
V
E
R

C
O
U
N
T
Y
.
T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

F
O
R

T
H
E

L
.
V
.

S
U
T
T
O
N

S
T
E
A
M

E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C

P
L
A
N
T

W
A
S

B
A
S
E
D
O
N

A

C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
E

M
A
P

P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

B
Y

D
A
V
I
S
-
M
A
R
T
I
N
-
P
O
W
E
L
L

&

A
S
S
O
C
.
,

I
N
C
.

T
H
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S

A
R
E

D
A
T
E
D

J
U
N
E
,

1
9
9
5

W
I
T
H

R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N

N
O
T
E

F
O
R

M
A
R
C
H

4
,

2
0
0
4
.

F
I
L
E

N
A
M
E
I
S

L
-
D
-
9
0
2
2
-
7
.
D
W
G
.

H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
I
A
L

D
A
T
U
M

I
S

N
A
D
8
3

A
N
D

T
H
E

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

D
A
T
U
M

I
S

N
G
V

2
9
.
W
E
L
L

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S

A
N
D

M
E
A
S
U
R
I
N
G

P
O
I
N
T
S

W
E
R
E

B
A
S
E
D

O
N

A

S
U
R
V
E
Y

B
Y

J
A
M
E
S

L
.
H
A
I
N
E
S

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S

F
O
R

I
S
H
,

I
N
C
.

D
A
T
E
D

D
E
C
E
M
B
E
R

2
3
,

2
0
0
8
.

I
S
H

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

I
S

T
I
T
L
E
D
"
P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S

F
O
R

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

G
E
O
P
R
O
B
E

A
N
D

W
E
L
L

I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
"
,

D
A
T
E
D
F
E
B
U
R
A
R
Y

2
5
,

2
0
0
9

W
I
T
H

A

C
A
D

F
I
L
E

N
A
M
E

F
i
g
u
r
e

2
2
.
d
w
g
T
H
E

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

T
H
E

F
O
R
M
E
R

A
S
H

D
I
S
P
O
S
A
L

A
R
E
A
S

W
A
S

B
A
S
E
D

O
N

A

F
I
G
U
R
E

2
-
2
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

B
Y

B
L
A
S
L
A
N
D
,

B
O
U
C
K

&

L
E
E
,

I
N
C
.

T
H
E

F
I
G
U
R
E

I
S

T
I
T
L
E
D

"
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
E
X
T
E
N
T

O
F

T
H
E

A
S
H

W
I
T
H
I
N

T
H
E

F
O
R
M
E
R

D
I
S
P
O
S
A
L

A
R
E
A
"
.
N
E
W

H
A
N
O
V
E
R

C
O
.

P
A
R
C
E
L

L
I
N
E

(
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
)
W
A
T
E
R

L
E
V
E
L

I
N

F
E
E
T

(
m
s
l
.
)
W
A
T
E
R

L
E
V
E
L

C
O
N
T
O
U
R

I
N

F
E
E
T

(
m
s
l
.
)
M
W

2
1
C
1
9
7
7
7
3
.
5
3
2
3
0
6
9
1
3
.
7
3
3
1
.
4
7
2
9
.
0
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

W
E
L
L
M
W

2
2
C
1
9
8
3
4
9
.
4
8
2
3
0
7
0
2
3
.
2
9
2
0
.
4
0
1
8
.
0
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

W
E
L
L
M
W

2
3
C
1
9
8
9
7
2
.
1
0
2
3
0
6
9
0
3
.
5
2
1
7
.
9
4
1
5
.
5
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

W
E
L
L
M
W

2
4
B
2
0
0
7
1
2
.
1
2
2
3
0
6
2
5
1
.
0
9
1
6
.
6
7
1
3
.
9
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

W
E
L
L
M
W

2
4
C
2
0
0
7
1
6
.
5
5
2
3
0
6
2
6
3
.
9
0
1
6
.
3
2
1
3
.
7
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

W
E
L
L
M
W

2
7
B
2
0
2
5
8
5
.
2
7
2
3
0
4
6
7
9
.
4
5
1
5
.
5
9
1
2
.
7
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

W
E
L
L
M
W

2
8
C
1
9
7
3
5
6
.
5
7
2
3
0
7
3
5
4
.
0
9
3
2
.
2
3
2
9
.
8
M
W

3
1
C
2
0
1
0
4
6
.
8
2
2
3
0
6
8
5
8
.
1
7
1
8
.
8
7
1
6
.
2
W
E
L
L

B
E
Y
O
N
D

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
W
E
L
L

B
E
Y
O
N
D

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
M
W

2
2
B
1
9
8
3
4
9
.
0
5
2
3
0
7
0
1
6
.
9
6
2
0
.
3
4
1
7
.
8
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

W
E
L
L
M
W

2
3
B
1
9
8
9
6
7
.
4
4
2
3
0
6
9
0
1
.
7
6
1
7
.
5
0
1
5
.
3
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

W
E
L
L
M
W

2
8
B
1
9
7
3
6
8
.
4
3
2
3
0
7
3
5
9
.
9
7
3
3
.
0
7
3
0
.
2
W
E
L
L

B
E
Y
O
N
D

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
M
W

1
9
1
9
7
8
3
3
.
5
7
8
2

2
3
0
7
0
4
1
.
3
4
4
2
3
1
.
3
8
2
8
.
3
9
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

W
E
L
L
M
W

1
1
M
W

1
2
2
0
2
5
4
2
.
0
8
3
8
1
9
9
6
4
6
.
3
1
3
0
2
3
0
6
2
9
5
.
0
5
0
2
2
3
0
7
5
0
8
.
2
2
1
7
2
5
.
3
7
2
0
.
8
3
2
2
.
1
9
1
8
.
4
7
W
E
L
L

B
E
Y
O
N
D

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
W
E
L
L

B
E
Y
O
N
D

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
M
W

5
C
2
0
5
9
0
3
.
1
2
8
5

2
3
0
3
8
5
8
.
9
5
0
5
1
4
.
3
5
1
4
.
1
9
B
A
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D

W
E
L
L
M
W

7
C
1
9
6
6
0
0
.
8
1
4
4

2
3
0
7
5
6
7
.
4
3
7
8
1
6
.
9
8
1
6
.
7
7
W
E
L
L

B
E
Y
O
N
D

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
M
W

4
B
1
9
4
2
3
3
.
8
9
4
1

2
3
0
8
8
9
8
.
6
5
2
5
1
8
.
0
9
1
6
.
9
0
B
A
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D

W
E
L
L
N
O
R
T
H
I
N
G
E
A
S
T
I
N
G
W
E
L
L

I
D
M
E
A
S
U
R
I
N
G

P
T
F
E
E
T

(
m
s
l
.
)
G
R
O
U
N
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
F
E
E
T

(
m
s
l
.
)
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L
S
W
E
L
L

S
T
A
T
U
S
N
E
W

W
E
L
L

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S

A
N
D

M
E
A
S
U
R
I
N
G

P
O
I
N
T
S

W
E
R
E

B
A
S
E
D

O
N

A

T
A
B
L
E

B
Y
P
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
E

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
,

W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N

N
C

D
A
T
E
D

2
0
1
2
-
0
3
-
0
5

S
U
P
P
L
E
D

B
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
E
N
E
R
G
Y
.

H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L

D
A
T
U
M

I
S

N
A
D
8
3
(
N
S
R
S
2
0
0
7
)

A
N
D

T
H
E

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

D
A
T
U
M

I
S

N
G
V
D
2
9
.
8
1
0
9
M
W

3
2
C
1
9
7
6
8
6
.
2
2
2
3
0
7
8
7
9
.
0
4
3
5
.
5
7
3
3
.
4
8
W
E
L
L

B
E
Y
O
N
D

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
M
W

3
3
C
1
9
7
5
9
8
.
3
4
2
3
0
8
2
7
5
.
7
0
2
5
.
4
5
2
2
.
2
8
W
E
L
L

B
E
Y
O
N
D

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
1
0
8
9
9
D
U
K
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S

S
U
T
T
O
N

P
L
A
N
T
N
O
T
E
:
C
O
N
T
O
U
R

L
I
N
E
S

A
R
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

R
E
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S

O
N
L
Y

A
N
D
A
R
E

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

D
E
S
I
G
N

O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
M
W

1
1
1
0
.
3
3
M
W

5
C
9
.
9
2
M
W

1
1
1
0
.
3
3
M
W

5
C
9
.
7
3
M
W

1
2
1
0
.
0
4
M
W

1
9
*
8
.
6
8
M
W
-
7
C
8
.
7
4
M
W
-
2
3
C
1
0
.
3
6
M
W
-
2
4
B
1
0
.
7
3
M
W
-
2
4
C
1
0
.
7
3
M
W
-
2
7
B
1
0
.
6
4
M
W
-
2
2
C
1
0
.
0
3
M
W
-
2
1
C
1
0
.
0
0
M
W
-
2
8
C
9
.
6
5
M
W
-
3
1
C
1
0
.
4
5
M
W
-
2
3
B
1
0
.
4
0
M
W
-
2
2
B
1
0
.
0
6
M
W
-
2
8
B
9
.
6
7
M
W
-
3
2
C
9
.
2
0
M
W
-
3
3
C
8
.
9
5
M
W
-
4
B
7
.
6
7
N
C

W
I
L
D
L
I
F
E
L
A
K
E

A
C
C
E
S
S
S
U
T
T
O
N

L
A
K
E

R
D
N
C

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

4
2
1
O
L
D

A
S
H

P
O
N
D

A
R
E
A
N
E
W

A
S
H

P
O
N
D

A
R
E
A
F
O
R
M
E
R

A
S
H

D
I
S
P
O
S
A
L

A
R
E
A
F
O
R
M
E
R

A
S
H
D
I
S
P
O
S
A
L

A
R
E
A
C
A
N
A
L
C
A
N
A
L
S
O
L
A
R

F
A
R
M
A
S
T
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
A
D
CA
P
E

F
E
A
R

R
I
V
E
R
S
U
T
T
O
N

S
T
E
A
M

P
L
A
N
T

R
D
S
U
T
T
O
N

L
A
K
E

R
D
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
COOLING POND WATER LEVEL = 9.58 ftPROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY 04-08-2014
F
R
E
D
R
I
C
K
S
O
N

R
D
M
E
T
R
O

C
I
R
C
L
E
COOLING POND COOLING POND
N
C

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

4
2
1
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E

1
4
0

(
U
S

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

1
7
)
T
R
A
N
S
C
O
M

C
T
B
E
V
E
L

R
D
R
O
Y
M
A
C

D
R
F
R
E
D
R
I
C
K
S
O
N

R
D
C
A
N
A
L
E
Z
Z
E
L
L

T
R
U
C
K
I
N
G
L
C
H
H
O
L
D
I
N
G
S
S
.

T
.

W
O
O
T
E
N

C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
V
I
S
T
A
N
E
W

H
A
N
O
V
E
R

C
O
U
N
T
Y
S
A
U
N
D
E
R
S

&
S
A
U
N
D
E
R
S
,

L
L
C
R
O
Y
M
A
C
B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S
P
A
R
K
R
O
Y
M
A
C
P
A
R
T
N
E
R
S
H
I
P
A
B
S
O
L
U
T
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
H
U
R
R
I
C
A
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
M
A
O
L
A

M
I
L
K

&
I
C
E

C
R
E
A
M

C
O
.
A
N
O
M
A
L
O
U
S

W
A
T
E
R

L
E
V
E
L

M
A
Y

B
E

D
U
E

T
O
T
R
A
N
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

E
R
R
O
R
M
W

1
9
*
8
.
6
8
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

W
O
R
K

P
R
O
D
U
C
T
P
R
I
V
I
L
E
G
E
D

A
N
D

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
2
0
1
4
-
0
4
-
0
2
M
W

5
C
9
.
9
2
M
W

8
9
.
5
6
M
W

8
2
0
6
8
9
4
.
9
3
2
3
0
4
4
4
3
.
7
9
1
7
.
4
9
1
4
.
9
9
B
A
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D

W
E
L
L
N
H
C
-
S
W
4
N
H
C
-
S
W
3
N
H
C
-
S
W
2
(
N
O
T

I
N

U
S
E
)
N
H
C
-
S
W
1
(
A
B
A
N
D
O
N
E
D
)
N
H
C
-
S
W
4
C
F
P
U
A

P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N

W
E
L
L

(
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
)
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
-
1

O
F

1
S
H
E
E
T
-
A
2
0
1
4
-
0
4
-
0
2
2
0
1
4
-
0
4
-
0
2
K
A
T
H
Y

W
E
B
B
J
O
H
N

C
H
A
S
T
A
I
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:
L
A
Y
O
U
T

N
A
M
E
:
D
R
A
W
N

B
Y
:
C
H
E
C
K
E
D

B
Y
:
K
A
T
H
Y

W
E
B
B
D
A
T
E
:
D
A
T
E
:
R
E
V
.

D
A
T
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
I
S
S
U
E
D

F
O
R

C
L
I
E
N
T

R
E
V
I
E
W
B
Y
J
E
C
-
C
H
K

A
P
V
-
A
-
F
I
G
U
R
E

3
P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L

R
E
C
E
P
T
O
R

F
O
C
U
S

A
R
E
A
4/7/2014 5:37 PM P:\Progress Energy.1026\08.SUTTON PLANT\08. Legal Dept. Sutton PreConsent Order Work\dwg\DUKE ENERGY SUTTON BASE.dwg
F
I
G

3

P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L

R
E
C
E
P
T
O
R
w
w
w
.
s
y
n
t
e
r
r
a
c
o
r
p
.
c
o
m
1
4
8

R
i
v
e
r

S
t
r
e
e
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

2
2
0
G
r
e
e
n
v
i
l
l
e
,

S
o
u
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

2
9
6
0
1
8
6
4
-
4
2
1
-
9
9
9
9
S
U
T
T
O
N

E
N
E
R
G
Y

C
O
M
P
L
E
X
8
0
1

S
U
T
T
O
N

P
O
W
E
R

P
L
A
N
T

R
D
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
MW-10MW-27BMW-11
M
W
-
3
1
C
MW-6C MW-6B MW-6A MW-24
C
MW-24B
M
W
-
2
3
C
M
W
-
2
2
B
M
W
-
1
2
M
W
-
3
B
M
W
-
3
A
M
W
-
2
2
C
M
W
-
2
2
B
MW-1
8
MW-1A
M
W
-
1
B
M
W
-
1
7
M
W
-
1
9
M
W
-
2
1
C
M
W
-
3
2
C
M
W
-
3
3
C
M
W
-
2
8
B
M
W
-
2
8
C
M
W
-
1
6
M
W
-
1
6
D
MW-14 MW-13DMW-13 M
W
-
2
A
MW
-
2
B
MW
-
2
C
N
H
C
-
S
W
4
N
H
C
-
S
W
3
N
H
C
-
S
W
2
(
N
O
T

I
N

U
S
E
)
N
H
C
-
S
W
1
(
A
B
A
N
D
O
N
E
D
)
T
R
A
N
S
C
O
M

C
T
R
O
Y
M
A
C

D
R
M
E
T
R
O

C
I
R
C
L
E
S
U
T
T
O
N

L
A
K
E

R
D
F
R
E
D
R
I
C
K
S
O
N

R
D
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
F
L
E
M
I
N
G
T
O
N

T
A
N
K
2
3
2
4
F
H
2
1
2
2
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
1
7
1
8
2
0
1
9
8
9
1
0
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
1
1
2
N
C

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

4
2
1
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
N
C

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

4
2
1
3
6
?
?NC WILDLIFELAKE ACCESS SUTTON LAKE RDCOOLING PONDSUTTON LAKE RDFORMER ASH DISPOSAL AREAFORM
E
R

A
S
H
DISPO
S
A
L

A
R
E
A
C
A
N
A
L
M
W
-
7
B
M
W
-
7
A
M
W
-
7
C
S
O
L
A
R

F
A
R
M
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E

1
4
0

(
U
S

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

1
7
)
N
C

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

4
2
1
F
R
E
D
R
I
C
K
S
O
N

R
D
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
:
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y

3
,

2
0
1
3

A
E
R
I
A
L

I
M
A
G
E
R
Y

O
B
T
A
I
N
E
D

F
R
O
M

G
O
O
G
L
E

E
A
R
T
H

P
R
O
.
P
A
R
C
E
L

D
A
T
A

W
A
S

O
B
T
A
I
N
E
D

F
R
O
M

T
H
E

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

S
T
A
T
E

L
I
B
R
A
R
I
E
S

A
T
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
l
i
b
.
n
c
s
u
.
e
d
u
/
g
i
s
/
c
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
.
h
t
m
l

F
O
R

N
E
W

H
A
N
O
V
E
R

C
O
U
N
T
Y
.
T
H
E

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

F
O
R

T
H
E

L
.
V
.

S
U
T
T
O
N

S
T
E
A
M

E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C

P
L
A
N
T

W
A
S

B
A
S
E
D

O
N

A
C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
E

M
A
P

P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

B
Y

D
A
V
I
S
-
M
A
R
T
I
N
-
P
O
W
E
L
L

&

A
S
S
O
C
.
,

I
N
C
.

T
H
E

D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S

A
R
E
D
A
T
E
D

J
U
N
E
,

1
9
9
5

W
I
T
H

R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N

N
O
T
E

F
O
R

M
A
R
C
H

4
,

2
0
0
4
.

F
I
L
E

N
A
M
E

I
S

L
-
D
-
9
0
2
2
-
7
.
D
W
G
.
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
I
A
L

D
A
T
U
M

I
S

N
A
D
8
3

A
N
D

T
H
E

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

D
A
T
U
M

I
S

N
G
V

2
9
.
W
E
L
L

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S

A
N
D

M
E
A
S
U
R
I
N
G

P
O
I
N
T
S

W
E
R
E

B
A
S
E
D

O
N

A

S
U
R
V
E
Y

B
Y

J
A
M
E
S

L
.

H
A
I
N
E
S

&
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S

F
O
R

I
S
H
,

I
N
C
.

D
A
T
E
D

D
E
C
E
M
B
E
R

2
3
,

2
0
0
8
.

I
S
H

D
R
A
W
I
N
G

I
S

T
I
T
L
E
D

"
P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S

F
O
R

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

G
E
O
P
R
O
B
E

A
N
D

W
E
L
L

I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
"
,

D
A
T
E
D

F
E
B
U
R
A
R
Y

2
5
,

2
0
0
9
W
I
T
H

A

C
A
D

F
I
L
E

N
A
M
E

F
i
g
u
r
e

2
2
.
d
w
g
T
H
E

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

T
H
E

F
O
R
M
E
R

A
S
H

D
I
S
P
O
S
A
L

A
R
E
A
S

W
A
S

B
A
S
E
D

O
N

A

F
I
G
U
R
E

2
-
2

P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y

B
L
A
S
L
A
N
D
,

B
O
U
C
K

&

L
E
E
,

I
N
C
.

T
H
E

F
I
G
U
R
E

I
S

T
I
T
L
E
D

"
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L

E
X
T
E
N
T

O
F

T
H
E

A
S
H
W
I
T
H
I
N

T
H
E

F
O
R
M
E
R

D
I
S
P
O
S
A
L

A
R
E
A
"
.
N
E
W

W
E
L
L

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S

A
N
D

M
E
A
S
U
R
I
N
G

P
O
I
N
T
S

W
E
R
E

B
A
S
E
D

O
N

A

T
A
B
L
E

B
Y

P
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
E
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
,

W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N

N
C

D
A
T
E
D

2
0
1
2
-
0
3
-
0
5

S
U
P
P
L
E
D

B
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S

E
N
E
R
G
Y
.
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L

D
A
T
U
M

I
S

N
A
D
8
3
(
N
S
R
S
2
0
0
7
)

A
N
D

T
H
E

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L

D
A
T
U
M

I
S

N
G
V
D
2
9
.
W
A
S
T
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
5
0
0

f
t

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
D
U
K
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S

S
U
T
T
O
N

P
L
A
N
T
L
E
G
E
N
D
N
E
W

H
A
N
O
V
E
R

C
O
.

P
A
R
C
E
L

L
I
N
E

(
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
)
R
E
P
O
R
T
E
D

O
R

O
B
S
E
R
V
E
D

W
A
T
E
R

W
E
L
L

(
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
)
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

O
C
C
U
P
I
E
D

N
O

O
B
S
E
R
V
E
D

W
A
T
E
R

W
E
L
L
(
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
)
H
A
L
F

M
I
L
E

W
A
T
E
R

W
E
L
L

S
U
R
V
E
Y

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

F
R
O
M

T
H
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

L
I
N
E
W
S
C
A
P
E

F
E
A
R

W
A
T
E
R

L
I
N
E

(
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
)
B
A
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L

(
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L

(
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
M
W
-
4
B
M
W
-
1
9
M
W
-
6
B
P
E
-
S
W
2
D
U
K
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S

P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N

W
E
L
L

(
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
)
M
W
-
1
1
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

W
E
L
L

(
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
W
E
L
L

B
E
Y
O
N
D

C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E

B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y

(
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
C
F
P
U
A

W
A
T
E
R

C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R
C
A
P
E

F
E
A
R

P
U
B
L
I
C

U
T
I
L
I
T
Y

A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

(
C
F
P
U
A
)

C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R
S

A
N
D

W
A
T
E
R

L
I
N
E

L
A
Y
O
U
T

W
E
R
E
B
A
S
E
D

O
N

F
I
G
U
R
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D

B
Y

C
F
P
U
A

T
O

S
Y
N
T
E
R
R
A

O
N

M
A
R
C
H

2
7
,

2
0
1
3

T
I
T
L
E
D

F
L
E
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
R
E
A

W
A
T
E
R

D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
.
N
H
C
-
S
W
4
C
F
P
U
A

P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N

W
E
L
L

(
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
)
P
E
-
S
W
2
D
U
K
E

E
N
E
R
G
Y

P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S

P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N

W
E
L
L

(
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
)
A
D
J
O
I
N
I
N
G

C
F
P
U
A

W
A
T
E
R

C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R

P
A
R
C
E
L
S
C
A
L
E
:

1
"

=

3
0
0
'
G
R
A
P
H
I
C

S
C
A
L
E
6
0
0
3
0
0
1
5
0
0
3
0
0
(
I
N

F
E
E
T
)
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E

R
O
U
T
E

O
F

T
H
E

N
E
W
W
I
L
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N

B
Y
P
A
S
S

(
I
-
1
4
0
)
OLD ASH POND AREA NEW ASH POND AREA
Z
O
N
E

D
O
W
N
G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T

O
F

T
H
E

A
S
H

P
O
N
D
S

T
O

1
/
2

M
I
L
E
F
R
O
M

T
H
E

D
U
K
E

E
N
E
G
R
Y

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

L
I
N
E
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

W
O
R
K

P
R
O
D
U
C
T
P
R
I
V
I
L
E
G
E
D

A
N
D

C
O
N
F
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
2
0
1
4
-
0
4
-
0
2
1
3
FORM-NULL-CCA
tropeR ®kcehCoeG RDE ehT
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
Duke Energy - Sutton
801 Sutton Steam Plant Rd.
Wilmington, NC 28401
Inquiry Number: 3887607.1s
March 21, 2014
SECTION PAGE
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary A-2
Physical Setting Source Map A-8
Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-9
Physical Setting Source Records Searched A-30
TC3887607.1s Page 1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2014 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TC3887607.1s Page 1
geologic strata.
of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the
Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics
2. Groundwater flow velocity.
1. Groundwater flow direction, and
Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principal investigative components:
forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration.
EDR’s GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in
2001Most Recent Revision:
34078-C1 LELAND, NCWest Map:
2000Most Recent Revision:
34077-C8 CASTLE HAYNE, NCTarget Property Map:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
13 ft. above sea levelElevation:
3798643.0UTM Y (Meters):
225097.0UTM X (Meters):
Zone 18Universal Tranverse Mercator:
77.9866 - 77˚ 59’ 11.76’’Longitude (West):
34.2944 - 34˚ 17’ 39.84’’Latitude (North):
TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
801 SUTTON STEAM PLANT RD.
DUKE ENERGY - SUTTON
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE REPORT ®
TC3887607.1s Page 2
should be field verified.
on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
TP
TP
0 1/2 1 Miles✩Target Property Elevation: 13 ft.
North South
West East
3
4
5
8
8
9
1
1
1
7
1
8
1
3
2
8
1
2
1
3
2
4
1
4
1
9
1
8
3
6
1
3
0
0
2
9
1
0
1
5
1
3
2
0
2
9
2
0
2
1
1
4
1
4
1
4
3
2
1
3
General WNWGeneral Topographic Gradient:
TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY
should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,
Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).
sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data
using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other
Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC3887607.1s Page 3
Not Reported
GENERAL DIRECTIONLOCATION
GROUNDWATER FLOWFROM TPMAP ID
hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table.
authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
AQUIFLOW®
Search Radius: 1.000 Mile.
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the
Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail MapCASTLE HAYNE
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
NWI Electronic
Data CoverageNWI Quad at Target Property
37019C - FEMA DFIRM Flood dataAdditional Panels in search area:
37129C - FEMA DFIRM Flood dataFlood Plain Panel at Target Property:
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail MapNEW HANOVER, NC
FEMA FLOOD ZONE
FEMA Flood
Electronic DataTarget Property County
and bodies of water).
Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC3887607.1s Page 4

> 60 inchesDepth to Bedrock Max:
> 60 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min:
LOW Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel:
Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil.
water table is more than 6 feet.
Well drained. Soils have intermediate water holding capacity. Depth toSoil Drainage Class:
excessively drained sands and gravels.
Class A - High infiltration rates. Soils are deep, well drained toHydrologic Group:
fine sandSoil Surface Texture:
BAYMEADE Soil Component Name:
The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data.
in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps.
for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns
Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil
DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION
Stratified SequenceCategory:MesozoicEra:
CretaceousSystem:
Navarro GroupSeries:
uK4Code: (decoded above as Era, System & Series)
at which contaminant migration may be occurring.
Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
move more quickly through sandy-gravelly types of soils than silty-clayey types of soils.
characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes
to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil
using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary
Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC3887607.1s Page 5
clay loam
clay
sandy clay loam
fine sand
sandy loam
loamy sand
sandDeeper Soil Types:
fine sand
sandy loam
sandShallow Soil Types:
silty clay loam
muck
fine sandy loam
sand
loam
loamy fine sandSurficial Soil Types:
silty clay loam
muck
fine sandy loam
sand
loam
loamy fine sandSoil Surface Textures:
appear within the general area of target property.
Based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data, the following additional subordinant soil types may
OTHER SOIL TYPES IN AREA
Min: 4.50
Max: 6.50
Min: 6.00
Max: 20.00
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularloamy fine sand78 inches49 inches 3
Min: 4.50
Max: 6.50
Min: 2.00
Max: 6.00
Clayey sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularfine sandy loam49 inches36 inches 2
Min: 4.50
Max: 6.50
Min: 6.00
Max: 20.00
Silty Sand.
Sands with fines,
SOILS, Sands,
COARSE-GRAINED
and Sand.
Clayey Gravel
200), Silty, or
passing No.
pct. or less
materials (35
Granularfine sand36 inches 0 inches 1
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Permeability
Rate (in/hr)
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction
(pH)
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC3887607.1s Page 6
1/2 - 1 Mile SENC2000000000330 D17
1/2 - 1 Mile NorthNC2000000000384 16
1/2 - 1 Mile SENC2000000000332 C14
1/2 - 1 Mile EastNC2000000000361 13
1/2 - 1 Mile SENC2000000000331 C12
1/2 - 1 Mile SENC2000000000329 A7
1/2 - 1 Mile ENENC2000000000369 6
1/4 - 1/2 Mile NNENC2000000000376 1
STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID
Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.
1/2 - 1 Mile SENC0465191 D18
1/2 - 1 Mile SENC0465191 D15
1/2 - 1 Mile SENC0465191 A8
FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION
LOCATION
FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID
1/2 - 1 Mile SEUSGS40000882090 19
1/2 - 1 Mile SouthUSGS40000882089 11
1/2 - 1 Mile NorthUSGS40000882232 B10
1/2 - 1 Mile NorthUSGS40000882231 B9
1/2 - 1 Mile SSEUSGS40000882095 5
1/2 - 1 Mile ENEUSGS40000882181 4
1/2 - 1 Mile SSWUSGS40000882106 3
1/2 - 1 Mile EastUSGS40000882156 2
FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID
1.000State Database
1.000Federal FRDS PWS
1.000Federal USGS
WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION
SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)DATABASE
opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells.
professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an
EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
TC3887607.1s Page 7
NC30001514
NC30001513
_________
Site Name
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION GAME LANDS DATABASE
NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER FLOODPLAIN NC10003396
BRUNSWICK RIVER/CAPE FEAR RIVER MARSHES NC10003051
421 SAND RIDGE NC10002997
421 SAND RIDGE NC10002996
421 SAND RIDGE NC10002993
_________ ___
Name ID
NORTH CAROLINA SIGNIFICANT NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS DATABASE:
Animal NC50021379
Natural Community Occurrence NC50020453
Animal NC50020075
Natural Community Occurrence NC50018458
Natural Community Occurrence NC50017263
Animal NC50016537
Animal NC50016198
Natural Community Occurrence NC50015387
Natural Community Occurrence NC50015357
Natural Community Occurrence NC50012587
Plants NC50009782
Animal NC50006804
Natural Community Occurrence NC50006414
Plants NC50002473
Plants NC50002414
_________ ___
Class ID
NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE ELEMENT OCCURRENCES
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY®
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.
40
4
0
10
1
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
0
20
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
20
20
20
2
0
20
2
0
2
0
3 0
30
30
3
0
3
0
30
230 kv
2
3
0

k
v
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
2
3
0

k
v
0
0
0
0
0
0
BBBBB
44444
22222
33333
55555
19191919191111111111
1616161616
11111
66666
1313131313
CCCCC DDDDD
AAAAA
0 1/4 1/2 1 Miles
NC
TC3887607.1s Page 9
Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0
Not ReportedWellholedepth units:
Not ReportedWellholedepth:ftWelldepth units:
54Welldepth:19991215Construction date:
Confined single aquiferAquifer type:
Peedee FormationFormation type:
Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer systemAquifername:
USCountrycode:Not ReportedVert coord refsys:
Not ReportedVertcollection method:
Not ReportedVert accmeasure units:
Not ReportedVertacc measure val:Not ReportedVert measure units:
Not ReportedVert measure val:NAD83Horiz coord refsys:
Interpolated from mapHoriz Collection method:
UnknownHoriz Acc measure units:UnknownHoriz Acc measure:
24000Sourcemap scale:-77.977975Longitude:
34.2930306Latitude:Not ReportedContrib drainagearea units:
Not ReportedContrib drainagearea:Not ReportedDrainagearea Units:
Not ReportedDrainagearea value:03030007Huc code:
Not ReportedMonloc desc:
WellMonloc type:
NH-711Monloc name:
USGS-341735077584101Monloc Identifier:
USGS North Carolina Water Science CenterFormal name:
USGS-NCOrg. Identifier:
2
East
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
USGS40000882156FED USGS
NC2000000000376Site id:
INVISTA_465520Owner name:
FTWell dep 1:
93Well depth:
AAvailavili:
-77.984737Longitude :
34.301064Latitude m:
OOGFacility a:
WELL GFacility n:
GWWater type:
GWPrimary so:
WILMINGTONCity:
NEW HANOVERCounty:
NTNCPws type:
INVISTASystem nam:
NC0465520Pwsidentif:
1
NNE
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Higher
NC2000000000376NC WELLS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation EDR ID NumberDatabase
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 10
Post Miocene (Quaternary + Pliocene) RocksFormation type:
Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer systemAquifername:
USCountrycode:NGVD29Vert coord refsys:
ReportedVertcollection method:
feetVert accmeasure units:
2.5Vertacc measure val:feetVert measure units:
14Vert measure val:NAD83Horiz coord refsys:
ReportedHoriz Collection method:
UnknownHoriz Acc measure units:UnknownHoriz Acc measure:
24000Sourcemap scale:-77.9763785Longitude:
34.2982246Latitude:Not ReportedContrib drainagearea units:
Not ReportedContrib drainagearea:Not ReportedDrainagearea Units:
Not ReportedDrainagearea value:03030007Huc code:
Not ReportedMonloc desc:
WellMonloc type:
NH-723Monloc name:
USGS-341753077583601Monloc Identifier:
USGS North Carolina Water Science CenterFormal name:
USGS-NCOrg. Identifier:
4
ENE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
USGS40000882181FED USGS
Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0
Not ReportedWellholedepth units:
Not ReportedWellholedepth:Not ReportedWelldepth units:
Not ReportedWelldepth:Not ReportedConstruction date:
Not ReportedAquifer type:
Post Miocene (Quaternary + Pliocene) RocksFormation type:
Surficial aquifer systemAquifername:
USCountrycode:Not ReportedVert coord refsys:
Not ReportedVertcollection method:
Not ReportedVert accmeasure units:
Not ReportedVertacc measure val:Not ReportedVert measure units:
Not ReportedVert measure val:NAD83Horiz coord refsys:
Interpolated from mapHoriz Collection method:
secondsHoriz Acc measure units:1Horiz Acc measure:
Not ReportedSourcemap scale:-77.98999Longitude:
34.2860026Latitude:Not ReportedContrib drainagearea units:
Not ReportedContrib drainagearea:Not ReportedDrainagearea Units:
Not ReportedDrainagearea value:03030005Huc code:
Not ReportedMonloc desc:
WellMonloc type:
NH-438 C P AND L COMonloc name:
USGS-341709077592501Monloc Identifier:
USGS North Carolina Water Science CenterFormal name:
USGS-NCOrg. Identifier:
3
SSW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
USGS40000882106FED USGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation EDR ID NumberDatabase
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 11
NC2000000000369Site id:
MARLEY, ROYOwner name:
FTWell dep 1:
40Well depth:
AAvailavili:
-77.974771Longitude :
34.297245Latitude m:
S01Facility a:
WELL #1Facility n:
GWWater type:
GWPrimary so:
WILMINGTONCity:
NEW HANOVERCounty:
NCPws type:
ROYS BAIT & TACKLE SHOPSystem nam:
NC0465623Pwsidentif:
6
ENE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
NC2000000000369NC WELLS
Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0
Not ReportedWellholedepth units:
Not ReportedWellholedepth:Not ReportedWelldepth units:
Not ReportedWelldepth:Not ReportedConstruction date:
Not ReportedAquifer type:
Post Miocene (Quaternary + Pliocene) RocksFormation type:
Surficial aquifer systemAquifername:
USCountrycode:NGVD29Vert coord refsys:
Interpolated from topographic mapVertcollection method:
feetVert accmeasure units:
1Vertacc measure val:feetVert measure units:
10Vert measure val:NAD83Horiz coord refsys:
Interpolated from mapHoriz Collection method:
secondsHoriz Acc measure units:1Horiz Acc measure:
Not ReportedSourcemap scale:-77.9836009Longitude:
34.2848915Latitude:Not ReportedContrib drainagearea units:
Not ReportedContrib drainagearea:Not ReportedDrainagearea Units:
Not ReportedDrainagearea value:03030005Huc code:
Not ReportedMonloc desc:
WellMonloc type:
NH-108 CAROLINA POWERMonloc name:
USGS-341705077590201Monloc Identifier:
USGS North Carolina Water Science CenterFormal name:
USGS-NCOrg. Identifier:
5
SSE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
USGS40000882095FED USGS
Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0
Not ReportedWellholedepth units:
Not ReportedWellholedepth:ftWelldepth units:
57Welldepth:Not ReportedConstruction date:
Unconfined single aquiferAquifer type:
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 12
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:StorageFacility type:
STORAGE_HYDRO_1Facility name:
2136Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:Treatment_plantFacility type:
TREATMENT_PLT_WELLS #2,3,4Facility name:
9347Facility id:
28403-1672Contact zip:
WILMINGTONContact city:
Not ReportedContact address2:
230 MARKETPLACE DR SUITE 160Contact address1:910-798-7139Contact phone:
THOMPSON, GREGOriginal name:
THOMPSON, GREGContact name:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:Common_headersFacility type:
COMMON HEADERFacility name:
65826Facility id:
Local_GovtOwner type:ActiveStatus:
CWSPws type:
GroundwaterPWS Source:
73Pwssvcconn:400Population Served:
NEW HANOVER CO--421 SECTIONPws name:
New HanoverCounty:NCState:
04Epa region:NC0465191Pwsid:
A8
SE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
NC0465191FRDS PWS
NC2000000000329Site id:
CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITYOwner name:
FTWell dep 1:
50Well depth:
AAvailavili:
-77.977778Longitude :
34.286667Latitude m:
W02Facility a:
WELL #2Facility n:
GWWater type:
GWPrimary so:
WILMINGTONCity:
NEW HANOVERCounty:
CPws type:
CFPUA/ NHC-421System nam:
NC0465191Pwsidentif:
A7
SE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
NC2000000000329NC WELLS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation EDR ID NumberDatabase
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 13
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #2Facility name:
35496Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #1 (ABANDONED)Facility name:
35495Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:StorageFacility type:
STORAGE_HYDRO_1Facility name:
2136Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:Treatment_plantFacility type:
TREATMENT_PLT_WELLS #2,3,4Facility name:
9347Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:Common_headersFacility type:
COMMON HEADERFacility name:
65826Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:Distribution_system_zoneFacility type:
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMFacility name:
60512Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:StorageFacility type:
STORAGE_ELEVATED_1Facility name:
505Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #4Facility name:
35498Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #3Facility name:
35497Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #2Facility name:
35496Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #1 (ABANDONED)Facility name:
35495Facility id:
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 14
B9
North
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
USGS40000882231FED USGS
Not ReportedEnf. Action:Not ReportedEnforcement Date:
0005835Violation ID:
2000-01-19 - 2015-12-31Compliance Period:
7000Contaminant:
CCR Inadequate ReportingViolation Type:
NEW HANOVER CO WATER-421 SSystem Name:
ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION:
Violations information not reported.
300Population:TreatedTreatment Class:
WILMINGTONCity Served:
77 58 32.0000Facility Longitude:34 17 15.0000Facility Latitude:
77 58 28.0000Facility Longitude:34 17 13.0000Facility Latitude:
77 58 40.0000Facility Longitude:34 17 12.0000Facility Latitude:
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
3002 HWY 421 NORTH
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
System Owner/Responsible PartyAddressee / Facility:
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
3002 HWY 421 NORTH
RAY CHURCH OR MANAGER NOW
System Owner/Responsible PartyAddressee / Facility:
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATERPWS Name:
Not ReportedDate Deactivated:Not ReportedDate Initiated:
NC0465191PWS ID:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:Distribution_system_zoneFacility type:
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMFacility name:
60512Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:StorageFacility type:
STORAGE_ELEVATED_1Facility name:
505Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #4Facility name:
35498Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #3Facility name:
35497Facility id:
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 15
Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0
Not ReportedWellholedepth units:
Not ReportedWellholedepth:ftWelldepth units:
0Welldepth:Not ReportedConstruction date:
Confined single aquiferAquifer type:
Peedee FormationFormation type:
Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer systemAquifername:
USCountrycode:Not ReportedVert coord refsys:
Not ReportedVertcollection method:
Not ReportedVert accmeasure units:
Not ReportedVertacc measure val:Not ReportedVert measure units:
Not ReportedVert measure val:NAD83Horiz coord refsys:
ReportedHoriz Collection method:
UnknownHoriz Acc measure units:UnknownHoriz Acc measure:
24000Sourcemap scale:-77.9863789Longitude:
34.3054467Latitude:Not ReportedContrib drainagearea units:
Not ReportedContrib drainagearea:Not ReportedDrainagearea Units:
Not ReportedDrainagearea value:03030007Huc code:
Not ReportedMonloc desc:
WellMonloc type:
NH-746Monloc name:
USGS-341819077591202Monloc Identifier:
USGS North Carolina Water Science CenterFormal name:
USGS-NCOrg. Identifier:
B10
North
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
USGS40000882232FED USGS
Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0
Not ReportedWellholedepth units:
Not ReportedWellholedepth:ftWelldepth units:
96Welldepth:Not ReportedConstruction date:
Not ReportedAquifer type:
Peedee FormationFormation type:
Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer systemAquifername:
USCountrycode:NGVD29Vert coord refsys:
Interpolated from topographic mapVertcollection method:
feetVert accmeasure units:
5Vertacc measure val:feetVert measure units:
16Vert measure val:NAD83Horiz coord refsys:
Interpolated from mapHoriz Collection method:
secondsHoriz Acc measure units:1Horiz Acc measure:
Not ReportedSourcemap scale:-77.9863789Longitude:
34.3054467Latitude:Not ReportedContrib drainagearea units:
Not ReportedContrib drainagearea:Not ReportedDrainagearea Units:
Not ReportedDrainagearea value:Not ReportedHuc code:
Not ReportedMonloc desc:
WellMonloc type:
NH-536 HERCOFINA WELL P-1Monloc name:
USGS-341819077591201Monloc Identifier:
USGS North Carolina Water Science CenterFormal name:
USGS-NCOrg. Identifier:
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 16
NC2000000000331Site id:
CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITYOwner name:
FTWell dep 1:
55Well depth:
AAvailavili:
-77.9765Longitude :
34.287083Latitude m:
W04Facility a:
WELL #4Facility n:
GWWater type:
GWPrimary so:
WILMINGTONCity:
NEW HANOVERCounty:
CPws type:
CFPUA/ NHC-421System nam:
NC0465191Pwsidentif:
C12
SE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
NC2000000000331NC WELLS
Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0
Not ReportedWellholedepth units:
Not ReportedWellholedepth:ftWelldepth units:
50Welldepth:Not ReportedConstruction date:
Unconfined single aquiferAquifer type:
Post Miocene (Quaternary + Pliocene) RocksFormation type:
Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer systemAquifername:
USCountrycode:NGVD29Vert coord refsys:
ReportedVertcollection method:
feetVert accmeasure units:
2.5Vertacc measure val:feetVert measure units:
11Vert measure val:NAD83Horiz coord refsys:
ReportedHoriz Collection method:
UnknownHoriz Acc measure units:UnknownHoriz Acc measure:
24000Sourcemap scale:-77.9888789Longitude:
34.2835026Latitude:Not ReportedContrib drainagearea units:
Not ReportedContrib drainagearea:Not ReportedDrainagearea Units:
Not ReportedDrainagearea value:03030007Huc code:
Not ReportedMonloc desc:
WellMonloc type:
NH-670Monloc name:
USGS-341700077592101Monloc Identifier:
USGS North Carolina Water Science CenterFormal name:
USGS-NCOrg. Identifier:
11
South
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
USGS40000882089FED USGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation EDR ID NumberDatabase
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 17
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:Common_headersFacility type:
COMMON HEADERFacility name:
65826Facility id:
Local_GovtOwner type:ActiveStatus:
CWSPws type:
GroundwaterPWS Source:
73Pwssvcconn:400Population Served:
NEW HANOVER CO--421 SECTIONPws name:
New HanoverCounty:NCState:
04Epa region:NC0465191Pwsid:
D15
SE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
NC0465191FRDS PWS
NC2000000000332Site id:
CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITYOwner name:
FTWell dep 1:
55Well depth:
AAvailavili:
-77.975556Longitude :
34.2875Latitude m:
W03Facility a:
WELL #3Facility n:
GWWater type:
GWPrimary so:
WILMINGTONCity:
NEW HANOVERCounty:
CPws type:
CFPUA/ NHC-421System nam:
NC0465191Pwsidentif:
C14
SE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
NC2000000000332NC WELLS
NC2000000000361Site id:
MILLER BUILDING CORPOwner name:
FTWell dep 1:
80Well depth:
AAvailavili:
-77.972931Longitude :
34.293917Latitude m:
S01Facility a:
WELL #1Facility n:
GWWater type:
GWPrimary so:
WILMINGTONCity:
NEW HANOVERCounty:
NCPws type:
STRAIGHTWAY MINISTRIES INCSystem nam:
NC7065033Pwsidentif:
13
East
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
NC2000000000361NC WELLS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation EDR ID NumberDatabase
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 18
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:Treatment_plantFacility type:
TREATMENT_PLT_WELLS #2,3,4Facility name:
9347Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:Common_headersFacility type:
COMMON HEADERFacility name:
65826Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:Distribution_system_zoneFacility type:
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMFacility name:
60512Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:StorageFacility type:
STORAGE_ELEVATED_1Facility name:
505Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #4Facility name:
35498Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #3Facility name:
35497Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #2Facility name:
35496Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #1 (ABANDONED)Facility name:
35495Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:StorageFacility type:
STORAGE_HYDRO_1Facility name:
2136Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:Treatment_plantFacility type:
TREATMENT_PLT_WELLS #2,3,4Facility name:
9347Facility id:
28403-1672Contact zip:
WILMINGTONContact city:
Not ReportedContact address2:
230 MARKETPLACE DR SUITE 160Contact address1:910-798-7139Contact phone:
THOMPSON, GREGOriginal name:
THOMPSON, GREGContact name:
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 19
Violations information not reported.
300Population:TreatedTreatment Class:
WILMINGTONCity Served:
77 58 32.0000Facility Longitude:34 17 15.0000Facility Latitude:
77 58 28.0000Facility Longitude:34 17 13.0000Facility Latitude:
77 58 40.0000Facility Longitude:34 17 12.0000Facility Latitude:
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
3002 HWY 421 NORTH
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
System Owner/Responsible PartyAddressee / Facility:
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
3002 HWY 421 NORTH
RAY CHURCH OR MANAGER NOW
System Owner/Responsible PartyAddressee / Facility:
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATERPWS Name:
Not ReportedDate Deactivated:Not ReportedDate Initiated:
NC0465191PWS ID:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:Distribution_system_zoneFacility type:
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMFacility name:
60512Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:StorageFacility type:
STORAGE_ELEVATED_1Facility name:
505Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #4Facility name:
35498Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #3Facility name:
35497Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #2Facility name:
35496Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #1 (ABANDONED)Facility name:
35495Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:StorageFacility type:
STORAGE_HYDRO_1Facility name:
2136Facility id:
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 20
NC2000000000330Site id:
CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITYOwner name:
FTWell dep 1:
45Well depth:
IAvailavili:
-77.974444Longitude :
34.286944Latitude m:
W01Facility a:
WELL #1Facility n:
GWWater type:
GWPrimary so:
WILMINGTONCity:
NEW HANOVERCounty:
CPws type:
CFPUA/ NHC-421System nam:
NC0465191Pwsidentif:
D17
SE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
NC2000000000330NC WELLS
NC2000000000384Site id:
INVISTA_465520Owner name:
FTWell dep 1:
90Well depth:
AAvailavili:
-77.987592Longitude :
34.306865Latitude m:
OH2Facility a:
WELL #OH2Facility n:
GWWater type:
GWPrimary so:
WILMINGTONCity:
NEW HANOVERCounty:
NTNCPws type:
INVISTASystem nam:
NC0465520Pwsidentif:
16
North
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
NC2000000000384NC WELLS
Not ReportedEnf. Action:Not ReportedEnforcement Date:
0005835Violation ID:
2000-01-19 - 2015-12-31Compliance Period:
7000Contaminant:
CCR Inadequate ReportingViolation Type:
NEW HANOVER CO WATER-421 SSystem Name:
ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION:
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 21
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #4Facility name:
35498Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #3Facility name:
35497Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #2Facility name:
35496Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #1 (ABANDONED)Facility name:
35495Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:StorageFacility type:
STORAGE_HYDRO_1Facility name:
2136Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:Treatment_plantFacility type:
TREATMENT_PLT_WELLS #2,3,4Facility name:
9347Facility id:
28403-1672Contact zip:
WILMINGTONContact city:
Not ReportedContact address2:
230 MARKETPLACE DR SUITE 160Contact address1:910-798-7139Contact phone:
THOMPSON, GREGOriginal name:
THOMPSON, GREGContact name:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:Common_headersFacility type:
COMMON HEADERFacility name:
65826Facility id:
Local_GovtOwner type:ActiveStatus:
CWSPws type:
GroundwaterPWS Source:
73Pwssvcconn:400Population Served:
NEW HANOVER CO--421 SECTIONPws name:
New HanoverCounty:NCState:
04Epa region:NC0465191Pwsid:
D18
SE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
NC0465191FRDS PWS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation EDR ID NumberDatabase
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 22
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:Distribution_system_zoneFacility type:
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMFacility name:
60512Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:StorageFacility type:
STORAGE_ELEVATED_1Facility name:
505Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #4Facility name:
35498Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #3Facility name:
35497Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #2Facility name:
35496Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:WellFacility type:
WELL #1 (ABANDONED)Facility name:
35495Facility id:
disinfectionTreatment objective:
gaseous chlorination, postTreatment process:StorageFacility type:
STORAGE_HYDRO_1Facility name:
2136Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:Treatment_plantFacility type:
TREATMENT_PLT_WELLS #2,3,4Facility name:
9347Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:Common_headersFacility type:
COMMON HEADERFacility name:
65826Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:Distribution_system_zoneFacility type:
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMFacility name:
60512Facility id:
corrosion controlTreatment objective:
ph adjustmentTreatment process:StorageFacility type:
STORAGE_ELEVATED_1Facility name:
505Facility id:
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 23
Post Miocene (Quaternary + Pliocene) RocksFormation type:
Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer systemAquifername:
USCountrycode:NGVD29Vert coord refsys:
ReportedVertcollection method:
feetVert accmeasure units:
2.5Vertacc measure val:feetVert measure units:
18Vert measure val:NAD83Horiz coord refsys:
ReportedHoriz Collection method:
UnknownHoriz Acc measure units:UnknownHoriz Acc measure:
24000Sourcemap scale:-77.9749894Longitude:
34.2837804Latitude:Not ReportedContrib drainagearea units:
Not ReportedContrib drainagearea:Not ReportedDrainagearea Units:
Not ReportedDrainagearea value:03030007Huc code:
Not ReportedMonloc desc:
WellMonloc type:
NH-673Monloc name:
USGS-341701077583101Monloc Identifier:
USGS North Carolina Water Science CenterFormal name:
USGS-NCOrg. Identifier:
19
SE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
USGS40000882090FED USGS
Not ReportedEnf. Action:Not ReportedEnforcement Date:
0005835Violation ID:
2000-01-19 - 2015-12-31Compliance Period:
7000Contaminant:
CCR Inadequate ReportingViolation Type:
NEW HANOVER CO WATER-421 SSystem Name:
ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION:
Violations information not reported.
300Population:TreatedTreatment Class:
WILMINGTONCity Served:
77 58 32.0000Facility Longitude:34 17 15.0000Facility Latitude:
77 58 28.0000Facility Longitude:34 17 13.0000Facility Latitude:
77 58 40.0000Facility Longitude:34 17 12.0000Facility Latitude:
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
3002 HWY 421 NORTH
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
System Owner/Responsible PartyAddressee / Facility:
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
3002 HWY 421 NORTH
RAY CHURCH OR MANAGER NOW
System Owner/Responsible PartyAddressee / Facility:
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATERPWS Name:
Not ReportedDate Deactivated:Not ReportedDate Initiated:
NC0465191PWS ID:
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 24
Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0
Not ReportedWellholedepth units:
Not ReportedWellholedepth:ftWelldepth units:
57Welldepth:Not ReportedConstruction date:
Unconfined single aquiferAquifer type:
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 25
ExtantOccurrence Status:
AnimalClassification by Type:
511811GIS ID:
NC50006804NC_NHEO
ExtantOccurrence Status:
Natural Community OccurrenceClassification by Type:
11482GIS ID:
NC50006414NC_NHEO
ExtantOccurrence Status:
PlantsClassification by Type:
12167GIS ID:
NC50002473NC_NHEO
Historic, no evidence of destructionOccurrence Status:
PlantsClassification by Type:
21861GIS ID:
NC50002414NC_NHEO
NEW HANOVERCounty:PRVStatus:
1530.55102539063Acres:Archery ZoneSite Type:
Carolina Power & LightOwner:
Sutton LakeSite Name:
NC30001514NC_WILD
NEW HANOVERCounty:PRVStatus:
1729.4912109375Acres:Restricted Firearms ZoneSite Type:
Carolina Power & LightOwner:
Sutton LakeSite Name:
NC30001513NC_WILD
Map ID
Direction
Distance EDR ID NumberDatabase
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 26
NC50017263NC_NHEO
ExtantOccurrence Status:
AnimalClassification by Type:
402050GIS ID:
NC50016537NC_NHEO
ExtantOccurrence Status:
AnimalClassification by Type:
472861GIS ID:
NC50016198NC_NHEO
ExtantOccurrence Status:
Natural Community OccurrenceClassification by Type:
181166GIS ID:
NC50015387NC_NHEO
ExtantOccurrence Status:
Natural Community OccurrenceClassification by Type:
262442GIS ID:
NC50015357NC_NHEO
ExtantOccurrence Status:
Natural Community OccurrenceClassification by Type:
11128GIS ID:
NC50012587NC_NHEO
ExtantOccurrence Status:
PlantsClassification by Type:
141763GIS ID:
NC50009782NC_NHEO
Map ID
Direction
Distance EDR ID NumberDatabase
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 27
1232.48Acres per Polygon:
PRIMARYQuality:
421 SAND RIDGESite Name:
NC10002996NC_SNHA
163.54Acres per Polygon:
SECONDARYQuality:
421 SAND RIDGESite Name:
NC10002993NC_SNHA
ExtantOccurrence Status:
AnimalClassification by Type:
783166GIS ID:
NC50021379NC_NHEO
ExtantOccurrence Status:
Natural Community OccurrenceClassification by Type:
222185GIS ID:
NC50020453NC_NHEO
ExtantOccurrence Status:
AnimalClassification by Type:
121714GIS ID:
NC50020075NC_NHEO
ExtantOccurrence Status:
Natural Community OccurrenceClassification by Type:
781482GIS ID:
NC50018458NC_NHEO
ExtantOccurrence Status:
Natural Community OccurrenceClassification by Type:
222185GIS ID:
North Carolina Locations of Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Sites:
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 28
25679.23Acres per Polygon:
Not ReportedQuality:
NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER FLOODPLAINSite Name:
NC10003396NC_SNHA
3872.88Acres per Polygon:
Not ReportedQuality:
BRUNSWICK RIVER/CAPE FEAR RIVER MARSHESSite Name:
NC10003051NC_SNHA
188.46Acres per Polygon:
PRIMARYQuality:
421 SAND RIDGESite Name:
NC10002997NC_SNHA
Map ID
Direction
Distance EDR ID NumberDatabase
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS®
TC3887607.1s Page 29
Not ReportedNot ReportedNot ReportedNot ReportedBasement
Not ReportedNot ReportedNot ReportedNot ReportedLiving Area - 2nd Floor
0%0%100%0.240 pCi/LLiving Area - 1st Floor
% >20 pCi/L% 4-20 pCi/L% <4 pCi/LAverage ActivityArea
Number of sites tested: 10
Federal Area Radon Information for NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
: Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L.
: Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and <= 4 pCi/L.
Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L.
Federal EPA Radon Zone for NEW HANOVER County: 3
AREA RADON INFORMATION
®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON
®
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
EDR acquired the USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model in 2002 and updated it in 2006. The 7.5 minute DEM corresponds
to the USGS 1:24,000- and 1:25,000-scale topographic quadrangle maps. The DEM provides elevation data
with consistent elevation units and projection.
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2003 & 2011 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002, 2005 and 2010 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data: Wetlands Inventory
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
AQUIFLOW Information SystemR
Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has
extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table
information.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit
Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital
representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national
Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil
survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation
of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO)
soil survey maps.
SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS)
Telephone: [phone]
SSURGO is the most detailed level of mapping done by the Natural Resources Conservation Services, mapping
scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360. Field mapping methods using national standards are used to
construct the soil maps in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the
original soil survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships and county
natural resource planning and management.
TC3887607.1s Page A-30
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
FEDERAL WATER WELLS
PWS: Public Water Systems
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at
least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources.
PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after
August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS)
This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface
water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater.
STATE RECORDS
North Carolina Public Water Supply Wells
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: [phone]
OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
NC Natural Areas: Significant Natural Heritage Areas
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
A polygon converage identifying sites (terrestrial or aquatic that have particular biodiversity significance.
A site’s significance may be due to the presenceof rare species, rare or hight quality natural communities, or
other important ecological features.
NC Game Lands: Wildlife Resources Commission Game Lands
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
All publicly owned game lands managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and as listed in Hunting
and Fishing Maps.
NC Natural Heritage Sites: Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Sites
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
A point coverage identifying locations of rare and endangered species, occurrences of exemplary or unique natural
ecosystems (terrestrial or aquatic), and special animal habitats (e.g., colonial waterbird nesting sites).
RADON
State Database: NC Radon
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Radon Statistical and Non Statiscal Data
Area Radon Information
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey.
The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at
private sources such as universities and research institutions.
TC3887607.1s Page A-31
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
EPA Radon Zones
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor
radon levels.
OTHER
Airport Landing Facilities: Private and public use landing facilities
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 800-457-6656
Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater
Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Earthquake Fault Lines: The fault lines displayed on EDR’s Topographic map are digitized quaternary faultlines, prepared
in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2010 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.
TC3887607.1s Page A-32
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
SS
S
ÍB
ÍB
ÍB
ÍB
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
!(
W
!(
W
UT
3Q
!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Proposed Connection Point
From Sweeney to Existing Well System
£¤421
£¤421
ISA
B
E
L

S
HO
L
M
E
S
BRI
D
G
E
PARSLEY S
T
R03200-002-017-000
NC DEPT OF
TRANSPORTATION
R03200-002-018-000
NC COASTAL
LAND TRUST
R03200-002-001-000
NC COASTAL
LAND TRUST
R03200-002-008-000
THORNBERRY
VENTURES LLC
R04700-002-007-000
EAGLE ISLAND LTD
R04700-002-006-000
EAGLE ISLAND LTD
R03200-002-001-007
EZZELL TRUCKING INC
R02400-001-003-000
DLH HOLDINGS
LLC
R04000-003-015-000
SOUTHERN STATES
CHEMICAL INC
R02400-001-037-000
KOCH RP HOLDINGS
II LLC
R04000-001-006-000
CAROLINA
POWER & LIGHT
R03200-002-001-029
WILMINGTON
LANDCO LLC
R04000-001-023-000
CAROLINA
POWER & LIGHT
R04000-001-009-000
BERG STEVEN
R SR ETAL
R04000-001-011-000
MIDRIVER HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL PK
R04000-001-001-002
CAROLINA POWER
&LIGHT CO
R04000-001-021-000
BRYDEN ROBERT L
ANN STAPLETON
R04000-003-009-000
NEW HAN CNTY
R04000-003-005-002
SOUTHERN STATES
CHEMICAL INC
R04000-003-003-000
LOUISIANA PACIFIC
CORPORATION
R03200-002-003-000
RIVER BLUFF
GROUP LLC
R04000-001-019-000
RIVERFRONT
COMPANY LLC
R03200-002-001-003
SOUTH ATLANTIC
SERV INC
R02400-001-004-000
S T WOOTEN CORP
R04000-001-007-000
CAROLINA POWER
&LIGHT CO
R04000-001-018-000
RIVERFRONT
COMPANY LLC
R03200-002-001-011
NEW HAN CNTY
R04000-003-012-001
CEMEX
INC
R04000-003-009-001
SIGMA MARINE LP
R04000-003-007-000
HORTON IRON
&METAL CO
R04000-003-007-001
HORTON JOSEPHINE
C TRUST
R04000-003-011-000
TERMINAL ROAD
PROPERTY LLC
R03200-001-001-000
CAROLINA POWER &
LIGHT CO
R03200-002-003-001
NEW HAN CNTY
R02300-002-001-000
CAROLINA POWER
&LIGHT CO
R04000-003-006-000
AGRIUM
US INC
R04000-002-003-002
GREAT NECK
HOLDINGS LLC
R03200-004-003-000
CAROLINA POWER
&LIGHT CO
R04000-001-008-000
CAROLINA
POWER & LIGHT
R04000-001-005-000
WILMINGTON CITY OF
R04000-001-004-000
CAROLINA
POWER & LIGHT
R04000-001-001-000
NC COASTAL
LAND TRUST
R04000-001-002-000
CAROLINA
POWER & LIGHT
R04000-001-017-000
RIVERFRONT
COMPANY LLC
R04000-001-012-000
CAPE FEAR
SOCCERPLEX LLC
R04000-003-013-000
ATLANTIC
SCRAP/PROCESSING WILM
R04000-003-014-000
HILLTOP
HOLDINGS INC
R03200-004-002-000
CAROLINA POWER
&LIGHT CO
20''
6''
6 ''
8''
8''
2
'
'
0'
'1.25''
4 ''
2 4 ''
2
4
'
'
1
6
'
'
6
'
'
3''
1
2
'
'
8''
0'
'
8'
'
8 ''
8'
'
2
4
'
'
6''
8'
'
6''
8''
8'
'
8
'
'
6''
Su
t
t
o
n

L
a
k
e
N
E

C
a
p
e
F
e
a
r

R
i
v
e
r
Cape FearRiver
H
i
l
t
o
n
P
a
r
k
BRUNSWICKBRUNSWICK
COUNTYCOUNTY
J
e
l
W
a
d
e

D
r
Grafflin
St
H
a
l
e
s
L
n
Fle
m
i
n
g
t
o
n

R
d
Clinton St
Trans
c
o
m

C
t
Te
r
m
i
n
a
l

R
d
Sutton Steam Plant
R
d
Beval

R
d
Sutto
n

L
a
k
e

R
d
F
r
e
d
r
i
c
k
s
o
n

R
d
Roymac D
r
Fleming St
Me
t
r
o

C
i
r
Sampson St
Flemington
Tank
191-3
191-4
PENDERPENDER
COUNTYCOUNTY
BRUNSWICKBRUNSWICK
COUNTYCOUNTY
HOLLY
SHELTER

R
D
SHIPYAR
D
BLV
3
R
D

S
T
CA
U
S
E
W
A
Y
DR
1
6
T
H

S
T
MARKET
ST
GORDON
RD
2
3
R
D

S
T
CO
L
L
E
G
E

R
D
KE
R
R
AV
E
R
I
V
E
R
R
D
OLEANDE
R
DR
MAR
K
E
T

S
T
SIDBURY RD
§¨¦40
§¨¦140£¤421
£¤76
S
u
t
t
o
n
L
a
k
e
ICW
W
FutchCreek
Pages
Creek
Brad
l
e
y
Cree
k
G
r
e
e
n
f
i
e
l
d
L
a
k
e
Hewlet
t
s
Creek
BarnardsCreek
Whisk
e
y
Creek At
l
a
n
t
i
c
Oc
e
a
n
NE C
a
p
e
Fear

R
i
v
e
r
C
a
p
e

F
e
a
r
R
i
v
e
r
Legend
!CFPUA Water Customers
Proposed Waterline
CFPUA Water Mains
Diameter
8" or Less (or Unknown)
10" - 12"
Greater Than 12"
Raw Water Mains
Owned By
CFPUA
!(
W CFPUA Supply Wells
UT Water Tanks
Flemington Area Water Distribution
Sensitive Public Security Information Non-Releasable per NCGS 132-1.7 ²MAT
Created: 10/23/2013 Last Saved: 3/26/2014
\\CFPUAFS01\shares\homedirs\matthew.tribett\My Documents\Projects\Sutton Plant Ash Ponds\Flemington Area Water Distribution-24x36.mxd
0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet
1 inch = 500 feet

APPENDIX 3.A1

Stormwater ATC Decision Flow Chart
Start
Is the Development
Commercial or
Residential ?
Is the Development
Single Family
or Multi-Family ?
Is there existing
impervious surface
on the site ?
Residential Commercial
Multi-Family
Was the current Lot
recorded prior to
September 2000 ?
No ATC required
Single
Family
Yes
Will there
be more than 10,000 sf
of Impervious placed
on the site ?
Submit and receive an ATC
prior to Construction or
Land Disturbing
No
Yes
No No
No ATC required.
Request Exemption with
Site Plan Documentation.
Project will be assigned a
Tracking Number and Impervious
will be considered cumulative
for future development.
No Fee.
Submit and receive an ATC
prior to Construction or
Land Disturbing
Yes
Will the development
disturb 1 acre or more ?
Yes
Does the site
have 10,000 sf or more
of existing impervious
surface ?
Yes
Will the
development result in 3000
sf of additional impervious
surface ?
Yes
Will
there be more
than 10,000 sf of NEW
impervious surface
placed on the
site ?
Yes Will the
NEW impervious
exceed 50% of the
remaining existing
impervious
surface ?
Submit and receive an ATC prior to
Construction or Land Disturbing,
The ENTIRE site must comply with
2-, 10-, 25-year ATC regulations.
Yes
No
Submit and receive an ATC prior to
Construction or Land Disturbing.
The NEW impervious on site must comply
with 2-, 10, 25-year ATC regulations.
The EXISTING impervious to remain must
comply with the redevelopment regulation
of the ordinance (10-year storm).
Will there
be a NET increase in
impervious
surface ?
No
Yes No ATC required.
Must comply with the redevelopment regulations
of the ordinance (10-year storm) for the entire site.
Request Exemption with Documentation. Submit for
Approval prior to Construction or Land Disturbing.
Project will be assigned a Tracking Number and
Impervious will be considered cumulative for
future development.
No Fee.
No
Will the
development result in
13,000 sf or more TOTAL
impervious
surface ?
No
No
No
Stormwater “Authorization-to-Construct” (ATC) Decision Flow Chart
Yes
No
No ATC required.
Must comply with the redevelopment regulations
of the ordinance (10-year storm) for the entire site.
Request Exemption with Documentation. Submit for
Approval prior to Construction or Land Disturbing.
Project will be assigned a Tracking Number and
Impervious will be considered cumulative for
future development.
No Fee.
Does the
project include the
creation of NEW lots or
parcels ?
Submit and receive an ATC
prior to Construction, Land Disturbing,
Preliminary Plat Approval, and/or
Recording Final Plat,
Yes
No
Notes:
ATC Designers Construction Certification must
be submitted and approved prior to issuing
Certificate of Occupancy and
prior to recording final Plat.

APPENDIX 3.A2

SWMS Modeling Results
Options 1.1, 1.2, and 2.2

SWMS MODELING RESULTS
OPTIONS 1.1, 1.2, AND 2.2
CHANNEL DESIGN
01S
1984 DA01
02S
1984 DA02
03S
1984 DA03
04S
1984 DA04
05S
1984 DA05
06S
1984 DA06
07S
1984 DA07
08S
1984 DA08
09S
1984 DA09
10S
1984 DA10
11S
1984 DA11
12S
1984 DA12
13S
1984 DA13
01C
SWMS Cu01
01E
Existing Ch01
01R
1984 Ch01
02C
SWMS Cu02
02E
Existing Ch0202R
1984 Ch02
02T
SWMS Chute 01
03R
1984 Ch03
04R
1984 Ch04
05R
1984 Ch05
06R
1984 Ch06
07R
1984 Ch07
08R
1984 Ch08
09R
1984 Ch09
10R
1984 Ch10
11R
1984 Ch11
12R
1984 Ch12
13R
1984 Ch13
27R
SWMS Chute 02
01P
1984 Riser Conditional
1PCB
1984 Riser
02P
1971 Riser Conditional
03P
External Conditional P1
04P
External Conditional P2
01L
Cooling Pond 01
02L
Cooling Pond 02
03L
Cooling Pond 03
Drainage Diagram for Option 1_1
Prepared by GEOSYNTEC, Printed 7/18/2014
HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Subcat Reach Pond Link
Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 2HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Area Listing (all nodes)
Area
(acres)
CN Description
(subcatchment-numbers)
127.752 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (01S, 02S, 03S, 04S, 05S, 06S, 07S, 08S, 09S,
10S, 11S, 12S, 13S)
5.710 91 Gravel roads, HSG D (01S, 02S, 03S, 04S, 05S, 06S, 07S, 08S, 09S, 10S, 11S,
12S, 13S)
Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 3HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Soil Listing (all nodes)
Area
(acres)
Soil
Group
Subcatchment
Numbers
0.000 HSG A
0.000 HSG B
0.000 HSG C
133.462 HSG D 01S, 02S, 03S, 04S, 05S, 06S, 07S, 08S, 09S, 10S, 11S, 12S, 13S
0.000 Other
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 4HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=425,695 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.81"Subcatchment 01S: 1984 DA01
Flow Length=470' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=28.1 min CN=81 Runoff=31.73 cfs 3.913 af
Runoff Area=722,763 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 02S: 1984 DA02
Flow Length=660' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=30.0 min CN=80 Runoff=51.20 cfs 6.491 af
Runoff Area=289,537 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 03S: 1984 DA03
Flow Length=594' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.3 min CN=80 Runoff=20.75 cfs 2.600 af
Runoff Area=440,787 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 04S: 1984 DA04
Flow Length=627' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.7 min CN=80 Runoff=31.37 cfs 3.959 af
Runoff Area=303,031 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.92"Subcatchment 05S: 1984 DA05
Flow Length=254' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=23.0 min CN=82 Runoff=25.16 cfs 2.850 af
Runoff Area=192,524 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.81"Subcatchment 06S: 1984 DA06
Flow Length=233' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=21.4 min CN=81 Runoff=16.13 cfs 1.770 af
Runoff Area=320,049 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 07S: 1984 DA07
Flow Length=462' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=28.0 min CN=80 Runoff=23.38 cfs 2.874 af
Runoff Area=743,455 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 08S: 1984 DA08
Flow Length=642' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.8 min CN=80 Runoff=52.87 cfs 6.677 af
Runoff Area=330,806 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 09S: 1984 DA09
Flow Length=616' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.6 min CN=80 Runoff=23.61 cfs 2.971 af
Runoff Area=805,255 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 10S: 1984 DA10
Flow Length=558' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.0 min CN=80 Runoff=57.97 cfs 7.232 af
Runoff Area=323,811 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.81"Subcatchment 11S: 1984 DA11
Flow Length=300' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=26.3 min CN=81 Runoff=24.87 cfs 2.977 af
Runoff Area=634,521 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 12S: 1984 DA12
Flow Length=560' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.0 min CN=80 Runoff=45.68 cfs 5.699 af
Runoff Area=281,372 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 13S: 1984 DA13
Flow Length=590' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.3 min CN=80 Runoff=20.17 cfs 2.527 af
Inflow=50.34 cfs 6.559 afReach 01C: SWMS Cu01
Outflow=50.34 cfs 6.559 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.95' Max Vel=2.56 fps Inflow=101.66 cfs 13.295 afReach 01E: Existing Ch01
n=0.033 L=2,000.0' S=0.0020 '/' Capacity=203.67 cfs Outflow=89.38 cfs 13.295 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.34' Max Vel=2.71 fps Inflow=31.73 cfs 3.913 afReach 01R: 1984 Ch01
n=0.035 L=1,515.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.60 cfs Outflow=29.04 cfs 3.913 af
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 5HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Inflow=37.64 cfs 4.620 afReach 02C: SWMS Cu02
Outflow=37.64 cfs 4.620 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.42' Max Vel=2.88 fps Inflow=158.39 cfs 22.846 afReach 02E: Existing Ch02
n=0.033 L=3,000.0' S=0.0020 '/' Capacity=203.67 cfs Outflow=134.04 cfs 22.846 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.72' Max Vel=3.12 fps Inflow=51.20 cfs 6.491 afReach 02R: 1984 Ch02
n=0.035 L=1,213.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.68 cfs Outflow=48.98 cfs 6.491 af
Inflow=101.66 cfs 13.295 afReach 02T: SWMS Chute 01
Outflow=101.66 cfs 13.295 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.11' Max Vel=2.45 fps Inflow=20.75 cfs 2.600 afReach 03R: 1984 Ch03
n=0.035 L=866.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=19.97 cfs 2.600 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.37' Max Vel=2.74 fps Inflow=31.37 cfs 3.959 afReach 04R: 1984 Ch04
n=0.035 L=899.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.70 cfs Outflow=30.37 cfs 3.959 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.19' Max Vel=2.54 fps Inflow=25.16 cfs 2.850 afReach 05R: 1984 Ch05
n=0.035 L=1,305.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.59 cfs Outflow=22.78 cfs 2.850 af
Avg. Flow Depth=0.96' Max Vel=2.27 fps Inflow=16.13 cfs 1.770 afReach 06R: 1984 Ch06
n=0.035 L=904.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=15.02 cfs 1.770 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.18' Max Vel=2.53 fps Inflow=23.38 cfs 2.874 afReach 07R: 1984 Ch07
n=0.035 L=883.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.57 cfs Outflow=22.49 cfs 2.874 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.74' Max Vel=3.14 fps Inflow=52.87 cfs 6.677 afReach 08R: 1984 Ch08
n=0.035 L=1,294.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=50.28 cfs 6.677 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.29' Max Vel=3.66 fps Inflow=92.90 cfs 12.057 afReach 09R: 1984 Ch09
n=0.035 L=970.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=90.97 cfs 12.057 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.78' Max Vel=3.17 fps Inflow=57.97 cfs 7.232 afReach 10R: 1984 Ch10
n=0.035 L=1,873.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.60 cfs Outflow=52.74 cfs 7.232 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.18' Max Vel=2.54 fps Inflow=24.87 cfs 2.977 afReach 11R: 1984 Ch11
n=0.035 L=1,407.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.67 cfs Outflow=22.62 cfs 2.977 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.61' Max Vel=3.01 fps Inflow=45.68 cfs 5.699 afReach 12R: 1984 Ch12
n=0.035 L=1,398.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=42.85 cfs 5.699 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.10' Max Vel=2.44 fps Inflow=20.17 cfs 2.527 afReach 13R: 1984 Ch13
n=0.035 L=793.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.56 cfs Outflow=19.53 cfs 2.527 af
Inflow=72.58 cfs 9.551 afReach 27R: SWMS Chute 02
Outflow=72.58 cfs 9.551 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 01P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=20.96' Inflow=78.01 cfs 10.404 afPond 1P: 1984 Riser
Outflow=78.01 cfs 10.404 af
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 6HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 02P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0.000 afPond 03P: External Conditional P1
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0.000 afPond 04P: External Conditional P2
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Inflow=78.01 cfs 10.404 afLink 01L: Cooling Pond 01
Primary=78.01 cfs 10.404 af
Inflow=143.71 cfs 19.289 afLink 02L: Cooling Pond 02
Primary=143.71 cfs 19.289 af
Inflow=134.04 cfs 22.846 afLink 03L: Cooling Pond 03
Primary=134.04 cfs 22.846 af
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 7HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=425,695 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.79"Subcatchment 01S: 1984 DA01
Flow Length=470' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=28.1 min CN=81 Runoff=38.00 cfs 4.715 af
Runoff Area=722,763 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 02S: 1984 DA02
Flow Length=660' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=30.0 min CN=80 Runoff=61.52 cfs 7.843 af
Runoff Area=289,537 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 03S: 1984 DA03
Flow Length=594' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.3 min CN=80 Runoff=24.94 cfs 3.142 af
Runoff Area=440,787 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 04S: 1984 DA04
Flow Length=627' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.7 min CN=80 Runoff=37.70 cfs 4.783 af
Runoff Area=303,031 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.91"Subcatchment 05S: 1984 DA05
Flow Length=254' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=23.0 min CN=82 Runoff=30.03 cfs 3.425 af
Runoff Area=192,524 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.79"Subcatchment 06S: 1984 DA06
Flow Length=233' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=21.4 min CN=81 Runoff=19.32 cfs 2.132 af
Runoff Area=320,049 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 07S: 1984 DA07
Flow Length=462' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=28.0 min CN=80 Runoff=28.10 cfs 3.473 af
Runoff Area=743,455 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 08S: 1984 DA08
Flow Length=642' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.8 min CN=80 Runoff=63.54 cfs 8.067 af
Runoff Area=330,806 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 09S: 1984 DA09
Flow Length=616' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.6 min CN=80 Runoff=28.37 cfs 3.589 af
Runoff Area=805,255 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 10S: 1984 DA10
Flow Length=558' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.0 min CN=80 Runoff=69.67 cfs 8.738 af
Runoff Area=323,811 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.79"Subcatchment 11S: 1984 DA11
Flow Length=300' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=26.3 min CN=81 Runoff=29.79 cfs 3.586 af
Runoff Area=634,521 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 12S: 1984 DA12
Flow Length=560' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.0 min CN=80 Runoff=54.90 cfs 6.885 af
Runoff Area=281,372 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 13S: 1984 DA13
Flow Length=590' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.3 min CN=80 Runoff=24.24 cfs 3.053 af
Inflow=60.71 cfs 7.925 afReach 01C: SWMS Cu01
Outflow=60.71 cfs 7.925 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.17' Max Vel=2.71 fps Inflow=122.56 cfs 16.028 afReach 01E: Existing Ch01
n=0.033 L=2,000.0' S=0.0020 '/' Capacity=203.67 cfs Outflow=108.69 cfs 16.028 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.46' Max Vel=2.85 fps Inflow=38.00 cfs 4.715 afReach 01R: 1984 Ch01
n=0.035 L=1,515.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.60 cfs Outflow=35.01 cfs 4.715 af
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 8HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Inflow=45.27 cfs 5.557 afReach 02C: SWMS Cu02
Outflow=45.27 cfs 5.557 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.69' Max Vel=3.05 fps Inflow=192.36 cfs 27.568 afReach 02E: Existing Ch02
n=0.033 L=3,000.0' S=0.0020 '/' Capacity=203.67 cfs Outflow=164.41 cfs 27.568 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.87' Max Vel=3.27 fps Inflow=61.52 cfs 7.843 afReach 02R: 1984 Ch02
n=0.035 L=1,213.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.68 cfs Outflow=59.07 cfs 7.843 af
Inflow=122.56 cfs 16.028 afReach 02T: SWMS Chute 01
Outflow=122.56 cfs 16.028 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.22' Max Vel=2.58 fps Inflow=24.94 cfs 3.142 afReach 03R: 1984 Ch03
n=0.035 L=866.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=24.10 cfs 3.142 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.49' Max Vel=2.89 fps Inflow=37.70 cfs 4.783 afReach 04R: 1984 Ch04
n=0.035 L=899.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.70 cfs Outflow=36.62 cfs 4.783 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.30' Max Vel=2.67 fps Inflow=30.03 cfs 3.425 afReach 05R: 1984 Ch05
n=0.035 L=1,305.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.59 cfs Outflow=27.39 cfs 3.425 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.06' Max Vel=2.39 fps Inflow=19.32 cfs 2.132 afReach 06R: 1984 Ch06
n=0.035 L=904.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=18.09 cfs 2.132 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.29' Max Vel=2.66 fps Inflow=28.10 cfs 3.473 afReach 07R: 1984 Ch07
n=0.035 L=883.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.57 cfs Outflow=27.11 cfs 3.473 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.90' Max Vel=3.29 fps Inflow=63.54 cfs 8.067 afReach 08R: 1984 Ch08
n=0.035 L=1,294.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=60.66 cfs 8.067 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.49' Max Vel=3.84 fps Inflow=111.94 cfs 14.567 afReach 09R: 1984 Ch09
n=0.035 L=970.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=109.81 cfs 14.567 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.94' Max Vel=3.34 fps Inflow=69.67 cfs 8.738 afReach 10R: 1984 Ch10
n=0.035 L=1,873.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.60 cfs Outflow=63.83 cfs 8.738 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.30' Max Vel=2.67 fps Inflow=29.79 cfs 3.586 afReach 11R: 1984 Ch11
n=0.035 L=1,407.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.67 cfs Outflow=27.29 cfs 3.586 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.76' Max Vel=3.16 fps Inflow=54.90 cfs 6.885 afReach 12R: 1984 Ch12
n=0.035 L=1,398.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=51.75 cfs 6.885 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.21' Max Vel=2.56 fps Inflow=24.24 cfs 3.053 afReach 13R: 1984 Ch13
n=0.035 L=793.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.56 cfs Outflow=23.53 cfs 3.053 af
Inflow=87.55 cfs 11.540 afReach 27R: SWMS Chute 02
Outflow=87.55 cfs 11.540 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 01P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=22.30' Inflow=94.08 cfs 12.557 afPond 1P: 1984 Riser
Outflow=94.08 cfs 12.557 af
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 9HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 02P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0.000 afPond 03P: External Conditional P1
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0.000 afPond 04P: External Conditional P2
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Inflow=94.08 cfs 12.557 afLink 01L: Cooling Pond 01
Primary=94.08 cfs 12.557 af
Inflow=173.64 cfs 23.305 afLink 02L: Cooling Pond 02
Primary=173.64 cfs 23.305 af
Inflow=164.41 cfs 27.568 afLink 03L: Cooling Pond 03
Primary=164.41 cfs 27.568 af
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 10HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=425,695 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.65"Subcatchment 01S: 1984 DA01
Flow Length=470' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=28.1 min CN=81 Runoff=49.65 cfs 6.229 af
Runoff Area=722,763 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 02S: 1984 DA02
Flow Length=660' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=30.0 min CN=80 Runoff=80.73 cfs 10.399 af
Runoff Area=289,537 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 03S: 1984 DA03
Flow Length=594' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.3 min CN=80 Runoff=32.73 cfs 4.166 af
Runoff Area=440,787 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 04S: 1984 DA04
Flow Length=627' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.7 min CN=80 Runoff=49.47 cfs 6.342 af
Runoff Area=303,031 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.78"Subcatchment 05S: 1984 DA05
Flow Length=254' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=23.0 min CN=82 Runoff=39.07 cfs 4.508 af
Runoff Area=192,524 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.65"Subcatchment 06S: 1984 DA06
Flow Length=233' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=21.4 min CN=81 Runoff=25.23 cfs 2.817 af
Runoff Area=320,049 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 07S: 1984 DA07
Flow Length=462' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=28.0 min CN=80 Runoff=36.91 cfs 4.605 af
Runoff Area=743,455 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 08S: 1984 DA08
Flow Length=642' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.8 min CN=80 Runoff=83.38 cfs 10.697 af
Runoff Area=330,806 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 09S: 1984 DA09
Flow Length=616' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.6 min CN=80 Runoff=37.23 cfs 4.760 af
Runoff Area=805,255 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 10S: 1984 DA10
Flow Length=558' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.0 min CN=80 Runoff=91.41 cfs 11.586 af
Runoff Area=323,811 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.65"Subcatchment 11S: 1984 DA11
Flow Length=300' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=26.3 min CN=81 Runoff=38.92 cfs 4.738 af
Runoff Area=634,521 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 12S: 1984 DA12
Flow Length=560' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.0 min CN=80 Runoff=72.03 cfs 9.129 af
Runoff Area=281,372 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 13S: 1984 DA13
Flow Length=590' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=29.3 min CN=80 Runoff=31.80 cfs 4.048 af
Inflow=79.98 cfs 10.508 afReach 01C: SWMS Cu01
Outflow=79.98 cfs 10.508 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.52' Max Vel=2.94 fps Inflow=161.55 cfs 21.192 afReach 01E: Existing Ch01
n=0.033 L=2,000.0' S=0.0020 '/' Capacity=203.67 cfs Outflow=144.94 cfs 21.192 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.67' Max Vel=3.07 fps Inflow=49.65 cfs 6.229 afReach 01R: 1984 Ch01
n=0.035 L=1,515.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.60 cfs Outflow=46.15 cfs 6.229 af
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 11HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Inflow=59.50 cfs 7.325 afReach 02C: SWMS Cu02
Outflow=59.50 cfs 7.325 af
Avg. Flow Depth=3.14' Max Vel=3.31 fps Inflow=256.05 cfs 36.494 afReach 02E: Existing Ch02
n=0.033 L=3,000.0' S=0.0020 '/' Capacity=203.67 cfs Outflow=221.76 cfs 36.494 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.13' Max Vel=3.51 fps Inflow=80.73 cfs 10.399 afReach 02R: 1984 Ch02
n=0.035 L=1,213.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.68 cfs Outflow=77.89 cfs 10.399 af
Inflow=161.55 cfs 21.192 afReach 02T: SWMS Chute 01
Outflow=161.55 cfs 21.192 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.40' Max Vel=2.78 fps Inflow=32.73 cfs 4.166 afReach 03R: 1984 Ch03
n=0.035 L=866.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=31.75 cfs 4.166 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.70' Max Vel=3.10 fps Inflow=49.47 cfs 6.342 afReach 04R: 1984 Ch04
n=0.035 L=899.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.70 cfs Outflow=48.22 cfs 6.342 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.48' Max Vel=2.87 fps Inflow=39.07 cfs 4.508 afReach 05R: 1984 Ch05
n=0.035 L=1,305.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.59 cfs Outflow=35.97 cfs 4.508 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.21' Max Vel=2.57 fps Inflow=25.23 cfs 2.817 afReach 06R: 1984 Ch06
n=0.035 L=904.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=23.80 cfs 2.817 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.48' Max Vel=2.87 fps Inflow=36.91 cfs 4.605 afReach 07R: 1984 Ch07
n=0.035 L=883.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.57 cfs Outflow=35.73 cfs 4.605 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.16' Max Vel=3.54 fps Inflow=83.38 cfs 10.697 afReach 08R: 1984 Ch08
n=0.035 L=1,294.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=80.03 cfs 10.697 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.85' Max Vel=4.09 fps Inflow=147.41 cfs 19.316 afReach 09R: 1984 Ch09
n=0.035 L=970.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=144.68 cfs 19.316 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.21' Max Vel=3.59 fps Inflow=91.41 cfs 11.586 afReach 10R: 1984 Ch10
n=0.035 L=1,873.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.60 cfs Outflow=84.57 cfs 11.586 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.48' Max Vel=2.87 fps Inflow=38.92 cfs 4.738 afReach 11R: 1984 Ch11
n=0.035 L=1,407.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.67 cfs Outflow=35.98 cfs 4.738 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.01' Max Vel=3.40 fps Inflow=72.03 cfs 9.129 afReach 12R: 1984 Ch12
n=0.035 L=1,398.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=68.36 cfs 9.129 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.38' Max Vel=2.76 fps Inflow=31.80 cfs 4.048 afReach 13R: 1984 Ch13
n=0.035 L=793.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.56 cfs Outflow=30.99 cfs 4.048 af
Inflow=115.57 cfs 15.302 afReach 27R: SWMS Chute 02
Outflow=115.57 cfs 15.302 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 01P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=25.47' Inflow=124.04 cfs 16.628 afPond 1P: 1984 Riser
Outflow=124.04 cfs 16.628 af
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 12HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 02P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0.000 afPond 03P: External Conditional P1
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0.000 afPond 04P: External Conditional P2
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Inflow=124.04 cfs 16.628 afLink 01L: Cooling Pond 01
Primary=124.04 cfs 16.628 af
Inflow=229.25 cfs 30.902 afLink 02L: Cooling Pond 02
Primary=229.25 cfs 30.902 af
Inflow=221.76 cfs 36.494 afLink 03L: Cooling Pond 03
Primary=221.76 cfs 36.494 af
01S
1984 DA01
02S
1984 DA02
03S
1984 DA03
04S
1984 DA04
05S
Remaining 1984 Area
West
06S
1971 Clean Closure
07S
Remaining 1984 Area
South
01C
SWMS Chute
01E
Existing Ch01
01R
SWMS Ch01
02R
SWMS Ch02
03R
SWMS Ch03
04R
SWMS Ch041PCB
1984 Riser
5P
1984 Riser Conditional
6P
1971 Riser Conditional
8P
External Conditional P1
01L
Cooling Pond 01
02L
Cooling Pond 02
03L
Cooling Pond 03
Drainage Diagram for Option 2_2
Prepared by GEOSYNTEC, Printed 7/18/2014
HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Subcat Reach Pond Link
Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 2HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Area Listing (all nodes)
Area
(acres)
CN Description
(subcatchment-numbers)
135.687 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (01S, 02S, 03S, 04S, 05S, 06S, 07S)
2.211 91 Gravel roads, HSG D (01S, 02S, 03S, 04S)
Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 3HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Soil Listing (all nodes)
Area
(acres)
Soil
Group
Subcatchment
Numbers
0.000 HSG A
0.000 HSG B
0.000 HSG C
137.898 HSG D 01S, 02S, 03S, 04S, 05S, 06S, 07S
0.000 Other
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 4HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=403,031 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.81"Subcatchment 01S: 1984 DA01
Flow Length=478' Tc=14.2 min CN=81 Runoff=39.63 cfs 3.705 af
Runoff Area=829,370 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 02S: 1984 DA02
Flow Length=468' Tc=14.2 min CN=80 Runoff=79.88 cfs 7.448 af
Runoff Area=456,939 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.81"Subcatchment 03S: 1984 DA03
Flow Length=467' Tc=14.2 min CN=81 Runoff=44.93 cfs 4.200 af
Runoff Area=760,206 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 04S: 1984 DA04
Flow Length=467' Tc=14.2 min CN=80 Runoff=73.22 cfs 6.827 af
Runoff Area=628,302 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 05S: Remaining 1984 Area
Flow Length=1,629' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=54.1 min CN=80 Runoff=33.01 cfs 5.643 af
Runoff Area=2,339,518 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 06S: 1971 Clean Closure
Flow Length=2,858' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=72.0 min CN=80 Runoff=103.38 cfs 21.011 af
Runoff Area=589,471 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 07S: Remaining 1984 Area
Flow Length=1,337' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=49.8 min CN=80 Runoff=32.47 cfs 5.294 af
Inflow=100.47 cfs 11.028 afReach 01C: SWMS Chute
Outflow=100.47 cfs 11.028 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.00' Max Vel=2.60 fps Inflow=119.06 cfs 16.322 afReach 01E: Existing Ch01
n=0.033 L=3,000.0' S=0.0020 '/' Capacity=203.67 cfs Outflow=93.76 cfs 16.322 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.43' Max Vel=2.82 fps Inflow=39.63 cfs 3.705 afReach 01R: SWMS Ch01
n=0.035 L=1,485.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.67 cfs Outflow=33.34 cfs 3.705 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.99' Max Vel=3.38 fps Inflow=79.88 cfs 7.448 afReach 02R: SWMS Ch02
n=0.035 L=1,783.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.60 cfs Outflow=67.07 cfs 7.448 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.51' Max Vel=2.90 fps Inflow=44.93 cfs 4.200 afReach 03R: SWMS Ch03
n=0.035 L=1,654.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=37.16 cfs 4.200 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.94' Max Vel=3.33 fps Inflow=73.22 cfs 6.827 afReach 04R: SWMS Ch04
n=0.035 L=1,500.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=63.40 cfs 6.827 af
Peak Elev=30.90' Inflow=100.42 cfs 11.153 afPond 1P: 1984 Riser
Outflow=100.42 cfs 11.153 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 5HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0.000 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Inflow=117.98 cfs 16.796 afLink 01L: Cooling Pond 01
Primary=117.98 cfs 16.796 af
Inflow=103.38 cfs 21.011 afLink 02L: Cooling Pond 02
Primary=103.38 cfs 21.011 af
Inflow=93.76 cfs 16.322 afLink 03L: Cooling Pond 03
Primary=93.76 cfs 16.322 af
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 6HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=403,031 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.79"Subcatchment 01S: 1984 DA01
Flow Length=478' Tc=14.2 min CN=81 Runoff=47.45 cfs 4.464 af
Runoff Area=829,370 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 02S: 1984 DA02
Flow Length=468' Tc=14.2 min CN=80 Runoff=95.95 cfs 8.999 af
Runoff Area=456,939 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.79"Subcatchment 03S: 1984 DA03
Flow Length=467' Tc=14.2 min CN=81 Runoff=53.79 cfs 5.061 af
Runoff Area=760,206 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 04S: 1984 DA04
Flow Length=467' Tc=14.2 min CN=80 Runoff=87.95 cfs 8.249 af
Runoff Area=628,302 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 05S: Remaining 1984 Area
Flow Length=1,629' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=54.1 min CN=80 Runoff=39.70 cfs 6.818 af
Runoff Area=2,339,518 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 06S: 1971 Clean Closure
Flow Length=2,858' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=72.0 min CN=80 Runoff=124.41 cfs 25.385 af
Runoff Area=589,471 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 07S: Remaining 1984 Area
Flow Length=1,337' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=49.8 min CN=80 Runoff=39.05 cfs 6.396 af
Inflow=121.73 cfs 13.310 afReach 01C: SWMS Chute
Outflow=121.73 cfs 13.310 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.23' Max Vel=2.75 fps Inflow=144.00 cfs 19.706 afReach 01E: Existing Ch01
n=0.033 L=3,000.0' S=0.0020 '/' Capacity=203.67 cfs Outflow=114.54 cfs 19.706 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.57' Max Vel=2.96 fps Inflow=47.45 cfs 4.464 afReach 01R: SWMS Ch01
n=0.035 L=1,485.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.67 cfs Outflow=40.33 cfs 4.464 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.18' Max Vel=3.55 fps Inflow=95.95 cfs 8.999 afReach 02R: SWMS Ch02
n=0.035 L=1,783.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.60 cfs Outflow=81.42 cfs 8.999 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.65' Max Vel=3.05 fps Inflow=53.79 cfs 5.061 afReach 03R: SWMS Ch03
n=0.035 L=1,654.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=44.99 cfs 5.061 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.12' Max Vel=3.50 fps Inflow=87.95 cfs 8.249 afReach 04R: SWMS Ch04
n=0.035 L=1,500.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=77.12 cfs 8.249 af
Peak Elev=33.20' Inflow=121.75 cfs 13.463 afPond 1P: 1984 Riser
Outflow=121.75 cfs 13.463 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 7HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0.000 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Inflow=142.84 cfs 20.281 afLink 01L: Cooling Pond 01
Primary=142.84 cfs 20.281 af
Inflow=124.41 cfs 25.385 afLink 02L: Cooling Pond 02
Primary=124.41 cfs 25.385 af
Inflow=114.54 cfs 19.706 afLink 03L: Cooling Pond 03
Primary=114.54 cfs 19.706 af
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 8HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=403,031 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.65"Subcatchment 01S: 1984 DA01
Flow Length=478' Tc=14.2 min CN=81 Runoff=61.94 cfs 5.897 af
Runoff Area=829,370 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 02S: 1984 DA02
Flow Length=468' Tc=14.2 min CN=80 Runoff=125.79 cfs 11.933 af
Runoff Area=456,939 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.65"Subcatchment 03S: 1984 DA03
Flow Length=467' Tc=14.2 min CN=81 Runoff=70.22 cfs 6.686 af
Runoff Area=760,206 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 04S: 1984 DA04
Flow Length=467' Tc=14.2 min CN=80 Runoff=115.30 cfs 10.938 af
Runoff Area=628,302 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 05S: Remaining 1984 Area
Flow Length=1,629' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=54.1 min CN=80 Runoff=52.16 cfs 9.040 af
Runoff Area=2,339,518 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 06S: 1971 Clean Closure
Flow Length=2,858' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=72.0 min CN=80 Runoff=163.60 cfs 33.661 af
Runoff Area=589,471 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 07S: Remaining 1984 Area
Flow Length=1,337' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=49.8 min CN=80 Runoff=51.28 cfs 8.481 af
Inflow=162.12 cfs 17.624 afReach 01C: SWMS Chute
Outflow=162.12 cfs 17.624 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.60' Max Vel=2.99 fps Inflow=190.62 cfs 26.105 afReach 01E: Existing Ch01
n=0.033 L=3,000.0' S=0.0020 '/' Capacity=203.67 cfs Outflow=153.83 cfs 26.105 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.79' Max Vel=3.18 fps Inflow=61.94 cfs 5.897 afReach 01R: SWMS Ch01
n=0.035 L=1,485.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.67 cfs Outflow=53.42 cfs 5.897 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.48' Max Vel=3.82 fps Inflow=125.79 cfs 11.933 afReach 02R: SWMS Ch02
n=0.035 L=1,783.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.60 cfs Outflow=108.33 cfs 11.933 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.88' Max Vel=3.28 fps Inflow=70.22 cfs 6.686 afReach 03R: SWMS Ch03
n=0.035 L=1,654.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=59.65 cfs 6.686 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.41' Max Vel=3.77 fps Inflow=115.30 cfs 10.938 afReach 04R: SWMS Ch04
n=0.035 L=1,500.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=102.43 cfs 10.938 af
Peak Elev=38.70' Inflow=161.75 cfs 17.830 afPond 1P: 1984 Riser
Outflow=161.75 cfs 17.830 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 9HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0.000 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Inflow=189.34 cfs 26.870 afLink 01L: Cooling Pond 01
Primary=189.34 cfs 26.870 af
Inflow=163.60 cfs 33.661 afLink 02L: Cooling Pond 02
Primary=163.60 cfs 33.661 af
Inflow=153.83 cfs 26.105 afLink 03L: Cooling Pond 03
Primary=153.83 cfs 26.105 af
01S
1984 DA01
02S
1984 DA02
03S
1984 DA03
04S
1984 DA04
05S
Remaining 1984 Area
West
06S
1971 Clean Closure
07S
Remaining 1984 Area
South
01C
SWMS Chute
01E
Existing Ch01
01R
SWMS Ch01
02R
SWMS Ch02
03R
SWMS Ch03
04R
SWMS Ch041PCB
1984 Riser
5P
1984 Riser Conditional
6P
1971 Riser Conditional
8P
External Conditional P1
01L
Cooling Pond 01
02L
Cooling Pond 02
03L
Cooling Pond 03
Drainage Diagram for Option 2_2
Prepared by GEOSYNTEC, Printed 7/18/2014
HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Subcat Reach Pond Link
Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 2HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Area Listing (all nodes)
Area
(acres)
CN Description
(subcatchment-numbers)
135.687 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (01S, 02S, 03S, 04S, 05S, 06S, 07S)
2.211 91 Gravel roads, HSG D (01S, 02S, 03S, 04S)
Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 3HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Soil Listing (all nodes)
Area
(acres)
Soil
Group
Subcatchment
Numbers
0.000 HSG A
0.000 HSG B
0.000 HSG C
137.898 HSG D 01S, 02S, 03S, 04S, 05S, 06S, 07S
0.000 Other
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 4HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=403,031 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.81"Subcatchment 01S: 1984 DA01
Flow Length=478' Tc=14.2 min CN=81 Runoff=39.63 cfs 3.705 af
Runoff Area=829,370 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 02S: 1984 DA02
Flow Length=468' Tc=14.2 min CN=80 Runoff=79.88 cfs 7.448 af
Runoff Area=456,939 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.81"Subcatchment 03S: 1984 DA03
Flow Length=467' Tc=14.2 min CN=81 Runoff=44.93 cfs 4.200 af
Runoff Area=760,206 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 04S: 1984 DA04
Flow Length=467' Tc=14.2 min CN=80 Runoff=73.22 cfs 6.827 af
Runoff Area=628,302 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 05S: Remaining 1984 Area
Flow Length=1,629' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=54.1 min CN=80 Runoff=33.01 cfs 5.643 af
Runoff Area=2,339,518 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 06S: 1971 Clean Closure
Flow Length=2,858' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=72.0 min CN=80 Runoff=103.38 cfs 21.011 af
Runoff Area=589,471 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.69"Subcatchment 07S: Remaining 1984 Area
Flow Length=1,337' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=49.8 min CN=80 Runoff=32.47 cfs 5.294 af
Inflow=100.47 cfs 11.028 afReach 01C: SWMS Chute
Outflow=100.47 cfs 11.028 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.00' Max Vel=2.60 fps Inflow=119.06 cfs 16.322 afReach 01E: Existing Ch01
n=0.033 L=3,000.0' S=0.0020 '/' Capacity=203.67 cfs Outflow=93.76 cfs 16.322 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.43' Max Vel=2.82 fps Inflow=39.63 cfs 3.705 afReach 01R: SWMS Ch01
n=0.035 L=1,485.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.67 cfs Outflow=33.34 cfs 3.705 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.99' Max Vel=3.38 fps Inflow=79.88 cfs 7.448 afReach 02R: SWMS Ch02
n=0.035 L=1,783.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.60 cfs Outflow=67.07 cfs 7.448 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.51' Max Vel=2.90 fps Inflow=44.93 cfs 4.200 afReach 03R: SWMS Ch03
n=0.035 L=1,654.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=37.16 cfs 4.200 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.94' Max Vel=3.33 fps Inflow=73.22 cfs 6.827 afReach 04R: SWMS Ch04
n=0.035 L=1,500.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=63.40 cfs 6.827 af
Peak Elev=22.90' Inflow=100.42 cfs 11.153 afPond 1P: 1984 Riser
Outflow=100.42 cfs 11.153 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 5HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0.000 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Inflow=117.98 cfs 16.796 afLink 01L: Cooling Pond 01
Primary=117.98 cfs 16.796 af
Inflow=103.38 cfs 21.011 afLink 02L: Cooling Pond 02
Primary=103.38 cfs 21.011 af
Inflow=93.76 cfs 16.322 afLink 03L: Cooling Pond 03
Primary=93.76 cfs 16.322 af
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 6HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=403,031 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.79"Subcatchment 01S: 1984 DA01
Flow Length=478' Tc=14.2 min CN=81 Runoff=47.45 cfs 4.464 af
Runoff Area=829,370 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 02S: 1984 DA02
Flow Length=468' Tc=14.2 min CN=80 Runoff=95.95 cfs 8.999 af
Runoff Area=456,939 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.79"Subcatchment 03S: 1984 DA03
Flow Length=467' Tc=14.2 min CN=81 Runoff=53.79 cfs 5.061 af
Runoff Area=760,206 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 04S: 1984 DA04
Flow Length=467' Tc=14.2 min CN=80 Runoff=87.95 cfs 8.249 af
Runoff Area=628,302 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 05S: Remaining 1984 Area
Flow Length=1,629' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=54.1 min CN=80 Runoff=39.70 cfs 6.818 af
Runoff Area=2,339,518 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 06S: 1971 Clean Closure
Flow Length=2,858' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=72.0 min CN=80 Runoff=124.41 cfs 25.385 af
Runoff Area=589,471 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 07S: Remaining 1984 Area
Flow Length=1,337' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=49.8 min CN=80 Runoff=39.05 cfs 6.396 af
Inflow=121.73 cfs 13.310 afReach 01C: SWMS Chute
Outflow=121.73 cfs 13.310 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.23' Max Vel=2.75 fps Inflow=144.00 cfs 19.706 afReach 01E: Existing Ch01
n=0.033 L=3,000.0' S=0.0020 '/' Capacity=203.67 cfs Outflow=114.54 cfs 19.706 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.57' Max Vel=2.96 fps Inflow=47.45 cfs 4.464 afReach 01R: SWMS Ch01
n=0.035 L=1,485.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.67 cfs Outflow=40.33 cfs 4.464 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.18' Max Vel=3.55 fps Inflow=95.95 cfs 8.999 afReach 02R: SWMS Ch02
n=0.035 L=1,783.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.60 cfs Outflow=81.42 cfs 8.999 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.65' Max Vel=3.05 fps Inflow=53.79 cfs 5.061 afReach 03R: SWMS Ch03
n=0.035 L=1,654.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=44.99 cfs 5.061 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.12' Max Vel=3.50 fps Inflow=87.95 cfs 8.249 afReach 04R: SWMS Ch04
n=0.035 L=1,500.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=77.12 cfs 8.249 af
Peak Elev=25.20' Inflow=121.75 cfs 13.463 afPond 1P: 1984 Riser
Outflow=121.75 cfs 13.463 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 7HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0.000 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Inflow=142.84 cfs 20.281 afLink 01L: Cooling Pond 01
Primary=142.84 cfs 20.281 af
Inflow=124.41 cfs 25.385 afLink 02L: Cooling Pond 02
Primary=124.41 cfs 25.385 af
Inflow=114.54 cfs 19.706 afLink 03L: Cooling Pond 03
Primary=114.54 cfs 19.706 af
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 8HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=403,031 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.65"Subcatchment 01S: 1984 DA01
Flow Length=478' Tc=14.2 min CN=81 Runoff=61.94 cfs 5.897 af
Runoff Area=829,370 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 02S: 1984 DA02
Flow Length=468' Tc=14.2 min CN=80 Runoff=125.79 cfs 11.933 af
Runoff Area=456,939 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.65"Subcatchment 03S: 1984 DA03
Flow Length=467' Tc=14.2 min CN=81 Runoff=70.22 cfs 6.686 af
Runoff Area=760,206 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 04S: 1984 DA04
Flow Length=467' Tc=14.2 min CN=80 Runoff=115.30 cfs 10.938 af
Runoff Area=628,302 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 05S: Remaining 1984 Area
Flow Length=1,629' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=54.1 min CN=80 Runoff=52.16 cfs 9.040 af
Runoff Area=2,339,518 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 06S: 1971 Clean Closure
Flow Length=2,858' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=72.0 min CN=80 Runoff=163.60 cfs 33.661 af
Runoff Area=589,471 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.52"Subcatchment 07S: Remaining 1984 Area
Flow Length=1,337' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=49.8 min CN=80 Runoff=51.28 cfs 8.481 af
Inflow=162.12 cfs 17.624 afReach 01C: SWMS Chute
Outflow=162.12 cfs 17.624 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.60' Max Vel=2.99 fps Inflow=190.62 cfs 26.105 afReach 01E: Existing Ch01
n=0.033 L=3,000.0' S=0.0020 '/' Capacity=203.67 cfs Outflow=153.83 cfs 26.105 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.79' Max Vel=3.18 fps Inflow=61.94 cfs 5.897 afReach 01R: SWMS Ch01
n=0.035 L=1,485.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.67 cfs Outflow=53.42 cfs 5.897 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.48' Max Vel=3.82 fps Inflow=125.79 cfs 11.933 afReach 02R: SWMS Ch02
n=0.035 L=1,783.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.60 cfs Outflow=108.33 cfs 11.933 af
Avg. Flow Depth=1.88' Max Vel=3.28 fps Inflow=70.22 cfs 6.686 afReach 03R: SWMS Ch03
n=0.035 L=1,654.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=59.65 cfs 6.686 af
Avg. Flow Depth=2.41' Max Vel=3.77 fps Inflow=115.30 cfs 10.938 afReach 04R: SWMS Ch04
n=0.035 L=1,500.0' S=0.0050 '/' Capacity=110.63 cfs Outflow=102.43 cfs 10.938 af
Peak Elev=33.45' Inflow=161.75 cfs 17.830 afPond 1P: 1984 Riser
Outflow=161.75 cfs 17.830 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0 cfPond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 9HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=0.00' Storage=0.000 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af
Inflow=189.34 cfs 26.870 afLink 01L: Cooling Pond 01
Primary=189.34 cfs 26.870 af
Inflow=163.60 cfs 33.661 afLink 02L: Cooling Pond 02
Primary=163.60 cfs 33.661 af
Inflow=153.83 cfs 26.105 afLink 03L: Cooling Pond 03
Primary=153.83 cfs 26.105 af

SWMS MODELING RESULTS
OPTIONS 1.1, 1.2, AND 2.2
CONDITIONAL DESIGN SCENARIO
NODAL DIAGRAM
01
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
1
02
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
2
03
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
3
04
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
4
05
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
5
06
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
6
07
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
7
08
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
8
09
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
9
10
S
19
8
4

D
A
1
0
11
S
19
8
4

D
A
1
1
12
S
19
8
4

D
A
1
2
13
S
19
8
4

D
A
1
3
01
C
SW
M
S

C
u
0
1
01E
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

C
h
0
1
01
R
19
8
4

C
h
0
1
02
C
SW
M
S

C
u
0
2
02E
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

C
h
0
2
02
R
19
8
4

C
h
0
2
02
T
SW
M
S

C
h
u
t
e

0
1
03
R
19
8
4

C
h
0
3
04
R
19
8
4

C
h
0
4
05
R
19
8
4

C
h
0
5
06
R
19
8
4

C
h
0
6
07
R
19
8
4

C
h
0
7
08
R
19
8
4

C
h
0
8
09
R
19
8
4

C
h
0
9
10
R
19
8
4

C
h
1
0
11
R
19
8
4

C
h
1
1
12
R
19
8
4

C
h
1
2
13
R
19
8
4

C
h
1
3
27
R
SW
M
S

C
h
u
t
e

0
2
1PCB
19
8
4

R
i
s
e
r
01
P
19
8
4

R
i
s
e
r

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
02
P
19
7
1

R
i
s
e
r

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
03
P
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
1
04
P
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
2
01
L
Co
o
l
i
n
g

P
o
n
d

0
1
02
L
Co
o
l
i
n
g

P
o
n
d

0
2
03L
Co
o
l
i
n
g

P
o
n
d

0
3
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e

D
i
a
g
r
a
m

f
o
r

O
p
t
i
o
n

1
_
1
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d

b
y

G
E
O
S
Y
N
T
E
C
,

P
r
i
n
t
e
d

7
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
4
Hy
d
r
o
C
A
D
®

9
.
1
0

s
/
n

0
3
9
3
3

©

2
0
0
9

H
y
d
r
o
C
A
D

S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

L
L
C
Su
b
c
a
t
Re
a
c
h
Po
n
d
Li
n
k
01
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
1
02
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
2
03
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
3
04
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
4
05
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
5
06
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
6
07
S
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

1
9
8
4

A
r
e
a
W
e
s
t
08
S
19
7
1

C
l
e
a
n

C
l
o
s
u
r
e
09
S
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

1
9
8
4

A
r
e
a
S
o
u
t
h
01
C
SW
M
S

C
u
0
1
01
E
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

C
h
0
1
01
R
SW
M
S

C
h
0
1
02
C
SW
M
S

C
u
0
1
02
R
SW
M
S

C
h
0
2
03
C
SW
M
S

C
h
u
t
e
03
R
SW
M
S

C
h
0
3
04
R
SW
M
S

C
h
0
4
05
R
SW
M
S

C
h
0
5
06
R
SW
M
S

C
h
0
6
07
R
SW
M
S

C
h
0
7
08
R
SW
M
S

C
h
0
8
1PCB
19
8
4

R
i
s
e
r
5P
19
8
4

R
i
s
e
r

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
6P
19
7
1

R
i
s
e
r

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
8P
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
1
01
L
Co
o
l
i
n
g

P
o
n
d

0
1
02
L
Co
o
l
i
n
g

P
o
n
d

0
2
03
L
Co
o
l
i
n
g

P
o
n
d

0
3
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e

D
i
a
g
r
a
m

f
o
r

O
p
t
i
o
n

1
_
2
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d

b
y

G
E
O
S
Y
N
T
E
C
,

P
r
i
n
t
e
d

7
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
4
Hy
d
r
o
C
A
D
®

9
.
1
0

s
/
n

0
3
9
3
3

©

2
0
0
9

H
y
d
r
o
C
A
D

S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

L
L
C
Su
b
c
a
t
Re
a
c
h
Po
n
d
Li
n
k
01
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
1
02
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
2
03
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
3
04
S
19
8
4

D
A
0
4
05
S
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

1
9
8
4

A
r
e
a
W
e
s
t
06
S
19
7
1

C
l
e
a
n

C
l
o
s
u
r
e
07S Remaining 1984 Area South
01
C
SW
M
S

C
h
u
t
e
01
E
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

C
h
0
1
01
R
SW
M
S

C
h
0
1
02
R
SW
M
S

C
h
0
2
03
R
SW
M
S

C
h
0
3
04
R
SW
M
S

C
h
0
4
1PCB
19
8
4

R
i
s
e
r
5P
19
8
4

R
i
s
e
r

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
6P
19
7
1

R
i
s
e
r

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
8P External Conditional P1
01
L
Co
o
l
i
n
g

P
o
n
d

0
1
02
L
Co
o
l
i
n
g

P
o
n
d

0
2
03
L
Co
o
l
i
n
g

P
o
n
d

0
3
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e

D
i
a
g
r
a
m

f
o
r

O
p
t
i
o
n

2
_
2
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d

b
y

G
E
O
S
Y
N
T
E
C
,

P
r
i
n
t
e
d

7
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
4
Hy
d
r
o
C
A
D
®

9
.
1
0

s
/
n

0
3
9
3
3

©

2
0
0
9

H
y
d
r
o
C
A
D

S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

L
L
C
Su
b
c
a
t
Re
a
c
h
Po
n
d
Li
n
k

SWMS MODELING RESULTS
OPTIONS 1.1, 1.2, AND 2.2
CONDITIONAL DESIGN SCENARIO
STORMWATER POND DESIGN CRITERIA
1-INCH, 10-YEAR, AND 100-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM ANALYSES
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 1HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=10.20' Storage=6,437 cf Inflow=0.49 cfs 0.195 afPond 01P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Outflow=0.04 cfs 0.195 af
Peak Elev=12.09' Storage=13,769 cf Inflow=0.78 cfs 0.342 afPond 02P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Outflow=0.03 cfs 0.185 af
Peak Elev=16.55' Storage=0.215 af Inflow=0.66 cfs 0.264 afPond 03P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=0.04 cfs 0.264 af
Peak Elev=16.54' Storage=0.124 af Inflow=0.43 cfs 0.170 afPond 04P: External Conditional P2
Outflow=0.04 cfs 0.170 af
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 2HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 01P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 26.365 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.09" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.49 cfs @ 13.13 hrs, Volume= 0.195 af
Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 13.35 hrs, Volume= 0.195 af, Atten= 92%, Lag= 13.1 min
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 13.35 hrs, Volume= 0.195 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 10.20' @ 25.13 hrs Surf.Area= 31,801 sf Storage= 6,437 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,489.4 min calculated for 0.195 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,489.8 min ( 2,509.6 - 1,019.8 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 10.00' 528,994 cf 200.00'D x 12.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 9.37'36.0" Round Culvert
L= 122.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.37' / 7.96' S= 0.0116 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 10.00'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 10.00'
#3 Device 1 10.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 2x8" FCS X 2.00 when above 10.50'
#4 Device 1 20.00'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 13.35 hrs HW=10.03' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Passes 0.04 cfs of 2.38 cfs potential flow)
2=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
3=Q10 - 2x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 3HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 01P: 1984 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.54
0.52
0.5
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Inflow Area=26.365 ac
Peak Elev=10.20'
Storage=6,437 cf
0.49 cfs
0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 4HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 02P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 49.306 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.08" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.78 cfs @ 13.33 hrs, Volume= 0.342 af
Outflow = 0.03 cfs @ 26.51 hrs, Volume= 0.185 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 791.0 min
Primary = 0.03 cfs @ 26.51 hrs, Volume= 0.185 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 12.09' @ 26.51 hrs Surf.Area= 159,410 sf Storage= 13,769 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 3,086.6 min calculated for 0.185 af (54% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 2,917.2 min ( 3,952.2 - 1,035.0 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 12.00' 1,220,443 cf 450.00'D x 7.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 12.00'12.0" Round Culvert
L= 115.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 12.00' / 9.00' S= 0.0261 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 12.00'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 12.00'
#3 Device 1 12.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 5x8" FCS X 5.00 when above 12.50'
#4 Device 1 18.42'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 26.51 hrs HW=12.09' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.03 cfs @ 1.00 fps)
2=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Passes 0.03 cfs of 0.07 cfs potential flow)
3=Q10 - 5x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 5HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 02P: 1971 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Inflow Area=49.306 ac
Peak Elev=12.09'
Storage=13,769 cf
0.78 cfs
0.03 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 6HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 03P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 33.377 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.09" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.66 cfs @ 13.07 hrs, Volume= 0.264 af
Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 19.30 hrs, Volume= 0.264 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 373.8 min
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 19.30 hrs, Volume= 0.264 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 16.55' @ 25.64 hrs Surf.Area= 4.513 ac Storage= 0.215 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 2,118.0 min calculated for 0.264 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 2,118.8 min ( 3,134.8 - 1,016.0 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 18.910 af 500.00'D x 4.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.00'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 19.30 hrs HW=16.54' TW=20.02' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 7HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 03P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Inflow Area=33.377 ac
Peak Elev=16.55'
Storage=0.215 af
0.66 cfs
0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 8HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 04P: External Conditional P2
Inflow Area = 24.415 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.08" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.43 cfs @ 13.12 hrs, Volume= 0.170 af
Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 20.70 hrs, Volume= 0.170 af, Atten= 91%, Lag= 455.0 min
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 20.70 hrs, Volume= 0.170 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 16.54' @ 24.89 hrs Surf.Area= 2.889 ac Storage= 0.124 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,262.6 min calculated for 0.170 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,262.9 min ( 2,281.1 - 1,018.2 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 15.533 af 400.00'D x 5.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.07 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 2.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.25'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 20.70 hrs HW=16.54' TW=16.03' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 9HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 04P: External Conditional P2
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Inflow Area=24.415 ac
Peak Elev=16.54'
Storage=0.124 af
0.43 cfs
0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 10HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=18.49' Storage=340,492 cf Inflow=78.01 cfs 10.404 afPond 01P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Outflow=2.30 cfs 10.306 af
Peak Elev=15.73' Storage=622,808 cf Inflow=143.71 cfs 19.289 afPond 02P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Outflow=5.72 cfs 17.917 af
Peak Elev=18.73' Storage=10.340 af Inflow=101.66 cfs 13.295 afPond 03P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=3.54 cfs 6.641 af
Peak Elev=18.99' Storage=7.456 af Inflow=72.58 cfs 9.551 afPond 04P: External Conditional P2
Outflow=2.37 cfs 5.363 af
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 11HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 01P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 26.365 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.74" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 78.01 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 10.404 af
Outflow = 2.30 cfs @ 10.90 hrs, Volume= 10.306 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 2.30 cfs @ 10.90 hrs, Volume= 10.306 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.49' @ 20.40 hrs Surf.Area= 49,461 sf Storage= 340,492 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,477.4 min calculated for 10.306 af (99% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,471.2 min ( 2,312.8 - 841.5 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 10.00' 528,994 cf 200.00'D x 12.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 9.37'36.0" Round Culvert
L= 122.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.37' / 7.96' S= 0.0116 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 10.00'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 10.00'
#3 Device 1 10.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 2x8" FCS X 2.00 when above 10.50'
#4 Device 1 20.00'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=2.30 cfs @ 10.90 hrs HW=10.60' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Passes 2.30 cfs of 9.85 cfs potential flow)
2=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
3=Q10 - 2x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 2.26 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 12HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 01P: 1984 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=26.365 ac
Peak Elev=18.49'
Storage=340,492 cf
78.01 cfs
2.30 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 13HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 02P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 49.306 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.69" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 143.71 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 19.289 af
Outflow = 5.72 cfs @ 13.15 hrs, Volume= 17.917 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 38.0 min
Primary = 5.72 cfs @ 13.15 hrs, Volume= 17.917 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 15.73' @ 18.31 hrs Surf.Area= 175,245 sf Storage= 622,808 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,239.2 min calculated for 17.917 af (93% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,200.8 min ( 2,045.7 - 844.9 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 12.00' 1,220,443 cf 450.00'D x 7.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 12.00'12.0" Round Culvert
L= 115.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 12.00' / 9.00' S= 0.0261 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 12.00'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 12.00'
#3 Device 1 12.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 5x8" FCS X 5.00 when above 12.50'
#4 Device 1 18.42'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=5.72 cfs @ 13.15 hrs HW=14.83' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Passes 5.72 cfs of 5.77 cfs potential flow)
2=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
3=Q10 - 5x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 5.65 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 14HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 02P: 1971 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=49.306 ac
Peak Elev=15.73'
Storage=622,808 cf
143.71 cfs
5.72 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 15HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 03P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 33.377 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.78" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 101.66 cfs @ 12.45 hrs, Volume= 13.295 af
Outflow = 3.54 cfs @ 13.25 hrs, Volume= 6.641 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 47.7 min
Primary = 3.54 cfs @ 13.25 hrs, Volume= 6.641 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.73' @ 18.67 hrs Surf.Area= 4.752 ac Storage= 10.340 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,428.4 min calculated for 6.638 af (50% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,313.1 min ( 2,151.9 - 838.9 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 18.910 af 500.00'D x 4.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.00'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=3.54 cfs @ 13.25 hrs HW=18.27' TW=20.04' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 3.39 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 16HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 03P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=33.377 ac
Peak Elev=18.73'
Storage=10.340 af
101.66 cfs
3.54 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 17HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 04P: External Conditional P2
Inflow Area = 24.415 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.69" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 72.58 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 9.551 af
Outflow = 2.37 cfs @ 13.05 hrs, Volume= 5.363 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 34.0 min
Primary = 2.37 cfs @ 13.05 hrs, Volume= 5.363 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.99' @ 19.31 hrs Surf.Area= 3.104 ac Storage= 7.456 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,436.6 min calculated for 5.363 af (56% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,325.3 min ( 2,166.0 - 840.8 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 15.533 af 400.00'D x 5.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.07 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 2.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.25'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=2.37 cfs @ 13.05 hrs HW=18.32' TW=16.05' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 2.26 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 18HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 04P: External Conditional P2
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=24.415 ac
Peak Elev=18.99'
Storage=7.456 af
72.58 cfs
2.37 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 19HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=20.59' Storage=449,339 cf Inflow=124.04 cfs 16.628 afPond 01P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Outflow=16.11 cfs 16.498 af
Peak Elev=18.27' Storage=1,083,259 cf Inflow=229.25 cfs 30.902 afPond 02P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Outflow=5.72 cfs 29.391 af
Peak Elev=20.24' Storage=17.629 af Inflow=161.55 cfs 21.192 afPond 03P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=3.54 cfs 14.217 af
Peak Elev=19.72' Storage=9.736 af Inflow=115.57 cfs 15.302 afPond 04P: External Conditional P2
Outflow=15.49 cfs 11.059 af
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 20HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 01P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 26.365 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.57" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 124.04 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 16.628 af
Outflow = 16.11 cfs @ 14.00 hrs, Volume= 16.498 af, Atten= 87%, Lag= 91.2 min
Primary = 16.11 cfs @ 14.00 hrs, Volume= 16.498 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 20.59' @ 14.00 hrs Surf.Area= 54,537 sf Storage= 449,339 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,346.9 min calculated for 16.493 af (99% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,343.7 min ( 2,170.6 - 826.9 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 10.00' 528,994 cf 200.00'D x 12.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 9.37'36.0" Round Culvert
L= 122.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.37' / 7.96' S= 0.0116 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 10.00'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 10.00'
#3 Device 1 10.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 2x8" FCS X 2.00 when above 10.50'
#4 Device 1 20.00'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=16.11 cfs @ 14.00 hrs HW=20.59' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Passes 16.11 cfs of 106.09 cfs potential flow)
2=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
3=Q10 - 2x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 2.26 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 13.81 cfs @ 1.88 fps)
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 21HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 01P: 1984 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=26.365 ac
Peak Elev=20.59'
Storage=449,339 cf
124.04 cfs
16.11 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 22HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 02P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 49.306 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.52" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 229.25 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 30.902 af
Outflow = 5.72 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 29.391 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 3.0 min
Primary = 5.72 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 29.391 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.27' @ 21.55 hrs Surf.Area= 186,756 sf Storage= 1,083,259 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,841.3 min calculated for 29.391 af (95% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,813.1 min ( 2,643.0 - 830.0 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 12.00' 1,220,443 cf 450.00'D x 7.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 12.00'12.0" Round Culvert
L= 115.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 12.00' / 9.00' S= 0.0261 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 12.00'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 12.00'
#3 Device 1 12.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 5x8" FCS X 5.00 when above 12.50'
#4 Device 1 18.42'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=5.72 cfs @ 12.55 hrs HW=14.95' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Passes 5.72 cfs of 5.92 cfs potential flow)
2=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
3=Q10 - 5x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 5.65 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 23HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 02P: 1971 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=49.306 ac
Peak Elev=18.27'
Storage=1,083,259 cf
229.25 cfs
5.72 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 24HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 03P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 33.377 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.62" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 161.55 cfs @ 12.44 hrs, Volume= 21.192 af
Outflow = 3.54 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 14.217 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 3.7 min
Primary = 3.54 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 14.217 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 20.24' @ 22.45 hrs Surf.Area= 4.921 ac Storage= 17.629 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,659.5 min calculated for 14.212 af (67% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,563.1 min ( 2,387.3 - 824.2 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 18.910 af 500.00'D x 4.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.00'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=3.54 cfs @ 12.50 hrs HW=18.28' TW=20.04' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 3.39 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 25HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 03P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=33.377 ac
Peak Elev=20.24'
Storage=17.629 af
161.55 cfs
3.54 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 26HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 04P: External Conditional P2
Inflow Area = 24.415 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.52" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 115.57 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 15.302 af
Outflow = 15.49 cfs @ 13.90 hrs, Volume= 11.059 af, Atten= 87%, Lag= 85.7 min
Primary = 15.49 cfs @ 13.90 hrs, Volume= 11.059 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 19.72' @ 13.90 hrs Surf.Area= 3.170 ac Storage= 9.736 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 940.4 min calculated for 11.055 af (72% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 851.7 min ( 1,678.0 - 826.2 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 15.533 af 400.00'D x 5.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.07 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 2.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.25'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=15.49 cfs @ 13.90 hrs HW=19.72' TW=16.73' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 2.26 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice (Weir Controls 13.12 cfs @ 2.23 fps)
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 27HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 04P: External Conditional P2
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=24.415 ac
Peak Elev=19.72'
Storage=9.736 af
115.57 cfs
15.49 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 1HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 1441 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=10.16' Storage=8,073 cf Inflow=0.65 cfs 0.231 afPond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Outflow=0.04 cfs 0.198 af
Peak Elev=12.05' Storage=20,732 cf Inflow=1.21 cfs 0.485 afPond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Outflow=0.01 cfs 0.053 af
Peak Elev=16.57' Storage=0.202 af Inflow=0.69 cfs 0.248 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=0.04 cfs 0.198 af
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 2HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 33.250 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.08" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.65 cfs @ 12.90 hrs, Volume= 0.231 af
Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 13.30 hrs, Volume= 0.198 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 24.1 min
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 13.30 hrs, Volume= 0.198 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 10.16' @ 24.92 hrs Surf.Area= 49,474 sf Storage= 8,073 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,591.5 min calculated for 0.198 af (86% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,525.2 min ( 2,527.9 - 1,002.7 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 10.00' 618,108 cf 250.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 9.37'36.0" Round Culvert
L= 122.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.37' / 7.96' S= 0.0116 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 10.00'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 10.00'
#3 Device 1 10.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 10.50'
#4 Device 1 18.00'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 13.30 hrs HW=10.03' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Passes 0.04 cfs of 2.36 cfs potential flow)
2=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 3HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Inflow Area=33.250 ac
Peak Elev=10.16'
Storage=8,073 cf
0.65 cfs
0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 4HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 69.405 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.08" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 1.21 cfs @ 13.33 hrs, Volume= 0.485 af
Outflow = 0.01 cfs @ 26.48 hrs, Volume= 0.053 af, Atten= 99%, Lag= 789.0 min
Primary = 0.01 cfs @ 26.48 hrs, Volume= 0.053 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 12.05' @ 26.48 hrs Surf.Area= 385,200 sf Storage= 20,732 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,879.1 min calculated for 0.053 af (11% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,642.8 min ( 2,656.6 - 1,013.8 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 12.00' 2,007,870 cf 700.00'D x 5.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 12.00'12.0" Round Culvert
L= 115.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 12.00' / 9.00' S= 0.0261 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 12.00'0.11 cfs WQV - 1x3" FCS when above 12.00'
#3 Device 1 12.50'1.13 cfs Q10 7x8" FCS X 7.00 when above 12.50'
#4 Device 1 14.42'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 26.48 hrs HW=12.05' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.01 cfs @ 0.79 fps)
2=WQV - 1x3" FCS (Passes 0.01 cfs of 0.11 cfs potential flow)
3=Q10 7x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 5HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
1
0
Inflow Area=69.405 ac
Peak Elev=12.05'
Storage=20,732 cf
1.21 cfs
0.01 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 6HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 34.515 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.09" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.69 cfs @ 12.92 hrs, Volume= 0.248 af
Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 14.80 hrs, Volume= 0.198 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 112.8 min
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 14.80 hrs, Volume= 0.198 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 16.57' @ 24.94 hrs Surf.Area= 2.891 ac Storage= 0.202 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,615.7 min calculated for 0.198 af (80% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,527.3 min ( 2,526.0 - 998.7 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 18.914 af 400.00'D x 6.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 19.00'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 19.00'
#4 Primary 20.00'18.0" Horiz. Q25 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 14.80 hrs HW=16.53' TW=16.01' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Q25 ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Inflow Area=34.515 ac
Peak Elev=16.57'
Storage=0.202 af
0.69 cfs
0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 7HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 1441 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=17.10' Storage=411,332 cf Inflow=97.03 cfs 13.007 afPond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Outflow=3.43 cfs 12.502 af
Peak Elev=14.46' Storage=965,877 cf Inflow=118.49 cfs 27.178 afPond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Outflow=5.29 cfs 19.712 af
Peak Elev=19.97' Storage=10.540 af Inflow=96.06 cfs 13.564 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=3.54 cfs 6.559 af
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 8HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 33.250 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.69" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 97.03 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 13.007 af
Outflow = 3.43 cfs @ 11.10 hrs, Volume= 12.502 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 3.43 cfs @ 11.10 hrs, Volume= 12.502 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 17.10' @ 18.70 hrs Surf.Area= 67,244 sf Storage= 411,332 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,147.7 min calculated for 12.502 af (96% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,125.1 min ( 1,960.0 - 834.9 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 10.00' 618,108 cf 250.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 9.37'36.0" Round Culvert
L= 122.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.37' / 7.96' S= 0.0116 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 10.00'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 10.00'
#3 Device 1 10.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 10.50'
#4 Device 1 18.00'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=3.43 cfs @ 11.10 hrs HW=10.61' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Passes 3.43 cfs of 9.91 cfs potential flow)
2=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 3.39 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 9HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=33.250 ac
Peak Elev=17.10'
Storage=411,332 cf
97.03 cfs
3.43 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 10HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 69.405 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.70" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 118.49 cfs @ 12.85 hrs, Volume= 27.178 af
Outflow = 5.29 cfs @ 22.10 hrs, Volume= 19.712 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 555.2 min
Primary = 5.29 cfs @ 22.10 hrs, Volume= 19.712 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 14.46' @ 22.10 hrs Surf.Area= 401,230 sf Storage= 965,877 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,535.4 min calculated for 19.698 af (72% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,445.1 min ( 2,305.8 - 860.7 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 12.00' 2,007,870 cf 700.00'D x 5.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 12.00'12.0" Round Culvert
L= 115.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 12.00' / 9.00' S= 0.0261 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 12.00'0.11 cfs WQV - 1x3" FCS when above 12.00'
#3 Device 1 12.50'1.13 cfs Q10 7x8" FCS X 7.00 when above 12.50'
#4 Device 1 14.42'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=5.29 cfs @ 22.10 hrs HW=14.46' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 5.29 cfs @ 6.74 fps)
2=WQV - 1x3" FCS (Passes < 0.11 cfs potential flow)
3=Q10 7x8" FCS (Passes < 7.91 cfs potential flow)
4=Orifice/Grate (Passes < 0.23 cfs potential flow)
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 11HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=69.405 ac
Peak Elev=14.46'
Storage=965,877 cf
118.49 cfs
5.29 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 12HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 34.515 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.72" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 96.06 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 13.564 af
Outflow = 3.54 cfs @ 13.00 hrs, Volume= 6.559 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 41.3 min
Primary = 3.54 cfs @ 13.00 hrs, Volume= 6.559 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 19.97' @ 18.79 hrs Surf.Area= 3.193 ac Storage= 10.540 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 807.2 min calculated for 6.559 af (48% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 688.0 min ( 1,523.6 - 835.6 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 18.914 af 400.00'D x 6.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 19.00'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 19.00'
#4 Primary 20.00'18.0" Horiz. Q25 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=3.54 cfs @ 13.00 hrs HW=19.02' TW=16.03' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 3.39 cfs)
4=Q25 ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=34.515 ac
Peak Elev=19.97'
Storage=10.540 af
96.06 cfs
3.54 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 13HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 1441 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=18.81' Storage=530,077 cf Inflow=154.90 cfs 20.839 afPond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Outflow=25.74 cfs 20.312 af
Peak Elev=16.00' Storage=1,592,210 cf Inflow=186.07 cfs 43.529 afPond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Outflow=7.07 cfs 28.721 af
Peak Elev=21.26' Storage=14.746 af Inflow=153.09 cfs 21.703 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=13.10 cfs 14.646 af
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 14HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 33.250 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.52" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 154.90 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 20.839 af
Outflow = 25.74 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 20.312 af, Atten= 83%, Lag= 77.2 min
Primary = 25.74 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 20.312 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.81' @ 13.60 hrs Surf.Area= 72,029 sf Storage= 530,077 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 978.5 min calculated for 20.312 af (97% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 963.0 min ( 1,783.8 - 820.8 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 10.00' 618,108 cf 250.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 9.37'36.0" Round Culvert
L= 122.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.37' / 7.96' S= 0.0116 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 10.00'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 10.00'
#3 Device 1 10.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 10.50'
#4 Device 1 18.00'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=25.74 cfs @ 13.60 hrs HW=18.81' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Passes 25.74 cfs of 95.88 cfs potential flow)
2=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 3.39 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 22.31 cfs @ 2.20 fps)
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 15HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=33.250 ac
Peak Elev=18.81'
Storage=530,077 cf
154.90 cfs
25.74 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 16HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 69.405 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.53" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 186.07 cfs @ 12.84 hrs, Volume= 43.529 af
Outflow = 7.07 cfs @ 23.13 hrs, Volume= 28.721 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 617.5 min
Primary = 7.07 cfs @ 23.13 hrs, Volume= 28.721 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 16.00' @ 23.13 hrs Surf.Area= 411,678 sf Storage= 1,592,210 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,629.4 min calculated for 28.701 af (66% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,530.3 min ( 2,377.4 - 847.1 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 12.00' 2,007,870 cf 700.00'D x 5.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 12.00'12.0" Round Culvert
L= 115.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 12.00' / 9.00' S= 0.0261 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 12.00'0.11 cfs WQV - 1x3" FCS when above 12.00'
#3 Device 1 12.50'1.13 cfs Q10 7x8" FCS X 7.00 when above 12.50'
#4 Device 1 14.42'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=7.07 cfs @ 23.13 hrs HW=16.00' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 7.07 cfs @ 9.01 fps)
2=WQV - 1x3" FCS (Passes < 0.11 cfs potential flow)
3=Q10 7x8" FCS (Passes < 7.91 cfs potential flow)
4=Orifice/Grate (Passes < 57.02 cfs potential flow)
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 17HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=69.405 ac
Peak Elev=16.00'
Storage=1,592,210 cf
186.07 cfs
7.07 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 18HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 34.515 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.55" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 153.09 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 21.703 af
Outflow = 13.10 cfs @ 15.33 hrs, Volume= 14.646 af, Atten= 91%, Lag= 182.1 min
Primary = 13.10 cfs @ 15.33 hrs, Volume= 14.646 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 21.26' @ 15.33 hrs Surf.Area= 3.312 ac Storage= 14.746 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 619.6 min calculated for 14.636 af (67% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 524.2 min ( 1,345.9 - 821.6 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 18.914 af 400.00'D x 6.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 19.00'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 19.00'
#4 Primary 20.00'18.0" Horiz. Q25 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=13.10 cfs @ 15.33 hrs HW=21.26' TW=16.67' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 3.39 cfs)
4=Q25 (Orifice Controls 9.56 cfs @ 5.41 fps)
Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=34.515 ac
Peak Elev=21.26'
Storage=14.746 af
153.09 cfs
13.10 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 1HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=10.08' Storage=5,595 cf Inflow=0.48 cfs 0.208 afPond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Outflow=0.07 cfs 0.208 af
Peak Elev=12.07' Storage=15,712 cf Inflow=0.94 cfs 0.373 afPond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Outflow=0.02 cfs 0.137 af
Peak Elev=16.54' Storage=0.221 af Inflow=0.78 cfs 0.301 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=0.07 cfs 0.301 af
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 2HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 28.292 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.09" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.48 cfs @ 12.94 hrs, Volume= 0.208 af
Outflow = 0.07 cfs @ 15.25 hrs, Volume= 0.208 af, Atten= 85%, Lag= 138.7 min
Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 15.25 hrs, Volume= 0.208 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 10.08' @ 24.40 hrs Surf.Area= 70,909 sf Storage= 5,595 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 794.6 min calculated for 0.208 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 795.1 min ( 1,812.6 - 1,017.5 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 10.00' 857,655 cf 300.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 9.37'36.0" Round Culvert
L= 122.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.37' / 7.96' S= 0.0116 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 10.00'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 10.00'
#3 Device 1 10.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 4x8" FCS X 4.00 when above 10.50'
#4 Device 1 18.00'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.07 cfs @ 15.25 hrs HW=10.04' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Passes 0.07 cfs of 2.48 cfs potential flow)
2=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
3=Q10 - 4x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 3HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.52
0.5
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Inflow Area=28.292 ac
Peak Elev=10.08'
Storage=5,595 cf
0.48 cfs
0.07 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 4HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 53.708 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.08" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.94 cfs @ 13.36 hrs, Volume= 0.373 af
Outflow = 0.02 cfs @ 25.67 hrs, Volume= 0.137 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 738.6 min
Primary = 0.02 cfs @ 25.67 hrs, Volume= 0.137 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 12.07' @ 25.67 hrs Surf.Area= 237,926 sf Storage= 15,712 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 3,493.6 min calculated for 0.137 af (37% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 3,303.5 min ( 4,315.5 - 1,012.0 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 12.00' 1,253,888 cf 550.00'D x 5.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 12.00'12.0" Round Culvert
L= 115.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 12.00' / 9.00' S= 0.0261 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 12.00'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 12.00'
#3 Device 1 12.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 5x8" X 5.00 when above 12.50'
#4 Device 1 15.42'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 25.67 hrs HW=12.07' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.02 cfs @ 0.88 fps)
2=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Passes 0.02 cfs of 0.07 cfs potential flow)
3=Q10 - 5x8" ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 5HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
1
0
Inflow Area=53.708 ac
Peak Elev=12.07'
Storage=15,712 cf
0.94 cfs
0.02 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 6HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 41.474 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.09" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.78 cfs @ 12.96 hrs, Volume= 0.301 af
Outflow = 0.07 cfs @ 23.80 hrs, Volume= 0.301 af, Atten= 91%, Lag= 650.6 min
Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 23.80 hrs, Volume= 0.301 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 16.54' @ 24.68 hrs Surf.Area= 5.459 ac Storage= 0.221 af
Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,286.8 min ( 2,293.3 - 1,006.6 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 22.782 af 550.00'D x 4.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 4x8" FCS X 4.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.00'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.07 cfs @ 23.80 hrs HW=16.54' TW=16.03' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
3=Q10 - 4x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 7HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Inflow Area=41.474 ac
Peak Elev=16.54'
Storage=0.221 af
0.78 cfs
0.07 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 8HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=14.19' Storage=321,728 cf Inflow=100.42 cfs 11.153 afPond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Outflow=4.59 cfs 10.951 af
Peak Elev=14.86' Storage=700,389 cf Inflow=103.38 cfs 21.011 afPond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Outflow=5.72 cfs 18.678 af
Peak Elev=18.74' Storage=12.542 af Inflow=119.06 cfs 16.322 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=4.70 cfs 8.289 af
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 9HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 28.292 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.73" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 100.42 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 11.153 af
Outflow = 4.59 cfs @ 11.70 hrs, Volume= 10.951 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 4.59 cfs @ 11.70 hrs, Volume= 10.951 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 14.19' @ 16.66 hrs Surf.Area= 83,031 sf Storage= 321,728 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 890.6 min calculated for 10.947 af (98% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 881.3 min ( 1,711.7 - 830.4 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 10.00' 857,655 cf 300.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 9.37'36.0" Round Culvert
L= 122.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.37' / 7.96' S= 0.0116 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 10.00'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 10.00'
#3 Device 1 10.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 4x8" FCS X 4.00 when above 10.50'
#4 Device 1 18.00'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=4.59 cfs @ 11.70 hrs HW=10.62' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Passes 4.59 cfs of 10.11 cfs potential flow)
2=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
3=Q10 - 4x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 4.52 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 10HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=28.292 ac
Peak Elev=14.19'
Storage=321,728 cf
100.42 cfs
4.59 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 11HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 53.708 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.69" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 103.38 cfs @ 12.95 hrs, Volume= 21.011 af
Outflow = 5.72 cfs @ 16.75 hrs, Volume= 18.678 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 228.1 min
Primary = 5.72 cfs @ 16.75 hrs, Volume= 18.678 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 14.86' @ 19.18 hrs Surf.Area= 252,628 sf Storage= 700,389 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,412.4 min calculated for 18.678 af (89% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,359.7 min ( 2,228.9 - 869.2 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 12.00' 1,253,888 cf 550.00'D x 5.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 12.00'12.0" Round Culvert
L= 115.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 12.00' / 9.00' S= 0.0261 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 12.00'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 12.00'
#3 Device 1 12.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 5x8" X 5.00 when above 12.50'
#4 Device 1 15.42'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=5.72 cfs @ 16.75 hrs HW=14.79' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Passes 5.72 cfs of 5.72 cfs potential flow)
2=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
3=Q10 - 5x8" (Exfiltration Controls 5.65 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 12HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=53.708 ac
Peak Elev=14.86'
Storage=700,389 cf
103.38 cfs
5.72 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 13HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 41.474 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.72" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 119.06 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 16.322 af
Outflow = 4.70 cfs @ 13.20 hrs, Volume= 8.289 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 53.3 min
Primary = 4.70 cfs @ 13.20 hrs, Volume= 8.289 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.74' @ 18.26 hrs Surf.Area= 5.724 ac Storage= 12.542 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,374.5 min calculated for 8.286 af (51% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,259.6 min ( 2,095.2 - 835.6 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 22.782 af 550.00'D x 4.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 4x8" FCS X 4.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.00'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=4.70 cfs @ 13.20 hrs HW=18.26' TW=16.04' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Q10 - 4x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 4.52 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 14HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=41.474 ac
Peak Elev=18.74'
Storage=12.542 af
119.06 cfs
4.70 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 15HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=16.94' Storage=562,127 cf Inflow=161.75 cfs 17.830 afPond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Outflow=4.59 cfs 17.533 af
Peak Elev=16.64' Storage=1,159,712 cf Inflow=163.60 cfs 33.661 afPond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Outflow=7.70 cfs 31.213 af
Peak Elev=19.55' Storage=17.198 af Inflow=190.62 cfs 26.105 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=21.49 cfs 17.984 af
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 16HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 28.292 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.56" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 161.75 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 17.830 af
Outflow = 4.59 cfs @ 10.60 hrs, Volume= 17.533 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 4.59 cfs @ 10.60 hrs, Volume= 17.533 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 16.94' @ 18.29 hrs Surf.Area= 91,681 sf Storage= 562,127 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,251.4 min calculated for 17.533 af (98% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,240.7 min ( 2,056.2 - 815.4 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 10.00' 857,655 cf 300.00'D x 10.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 9.37'36.0" Round Culvert
L= 122.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.37' / 7.96' S= 0.0116 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 10.00'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 10.00'
#3 Device 1 10.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 4x8" FCS X 4.00 when above 10.50'
#4 Device 1 18.00'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=4.59 cfs @ 10.60 hrs HW=10.61' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Passes 4.59 cfs of 9.95 cfs potential flow)
2=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
3=Q10 - 4x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 4.52 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 17HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 5P: 1984 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=28.292 ac
Peak Elev=16.94'
Storage=562,127 cf
161.75 cfs
4.59 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 18HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
Inflow Area = 53.708 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.52" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 163.60 cfs @ 12.93 hrs, Volume= 33.661 af
Outflow = 7.70 cfs @ 19.91 hrs, Volume= 31.213 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 418.9 min
Primary = 7.70 cfs @ 19.91 hrs, Volume= 31.213 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 16.64' @ 19.91 hrs Surf.Area= 262,256 sf Storage= 1,159,712 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,751.8 min calculated for 31.213 af (93% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,713.5 min ( 2,569.5 - 856.0 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 12.00' 1,253,888 cf 550.00'D x 5.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 12.00'12.0" Round Culvert
L= 115.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 12.00' / 9.00' S= 0.0261 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 Concrete pipe, straight & clean
#2 Device 1 12.00'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 12.00'
#3 Device 1 12.50'1.13 cfs Q10 - 5x8" X 5.00 when above 12.50'
#4 Device 1 15.42'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 0.75 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=7.70 cfs @ 19.91 hrs HW=16.64' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 7.70 cfs @ 9.80 fps)
2=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Passes < 0.07 cfs potential flow)
3=Q10 - 5x8" (Passes < 5.65 cfs potential flow)
4=Orifice/Grate (Passes < 41.64 cfs potential flow)
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 19HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 6P: 1971 Riser Conditional
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=53.708 ac
Peak Elev=16.64'
Storage=1,159,712 cf
163.60 cfs
7.70 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 20HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 41.474 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.55" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 190.62 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 26.105 af
Outflow = 21.49 cfs @ 14.36 hrs, Volume= 17.984 af, Atten= 89%, Lag= 123.8 min
Primary = 21.49 cfs @ 14.36 hrs, Volume= 17.984 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 19.55' @ 14.36 hrs Surf.Area= 5.823 ac Storage= 17.198 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 904.4 min calculated for 17.978 af (69% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 810.9 min ( 1,632.3 - 821.3 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 22.782 af 550.00'D x 4.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 4x8" FCS X 4.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.00'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=21.49 cfs @ 14.36 hrs HW=19.55' TW=16.85' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Q10 - 4x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 4.52 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice (Weir Controls 16.79 cfs @ 2.43 fps)
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 21HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=41.474 ac
Peak Elev=19.55'
Storage=17.198 af
190.62 cfs
21.49 cfs

SWMS MODELING RESULTS
OPTIONS 1.1, 1.2, AND 2.2
CONDITIONAL DESIGN SCENARIO
STORMWATER POND DESIGN CRITERIA
2-YEAR AND 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM ANALYSES
(APPLICABLE ONLY TO EXTERNAL PONDS)
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 1HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=17.99' Storage=6.844 af Inflow=52.90 cfs 7.033 afPond 03P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=0.15 cfs 1.644 af
Peak Elev=18.15' Storage=4.871 af Inflow=37.69 cfs 5.008 afPond 04P: External Conditional P2
Outflow=0.11 cfs 1.208 af
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 2HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 03P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 33.377 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.53" for 002-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 52.90 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 7.033 af
Outflow = 0.15 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 1.644 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 7.1 min
Primary = 0.15 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 1.644 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 17.99' @ 25.54 hrs Surf.Area= 4.670 ac Storage= 6.844 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 3,949.5 min calculated for 1.644 af (23% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 3,803.3 min ( 4,663.1 - 859.8 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 18.910 af 500.00'D x 4.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.00'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.60 hrs HW=17.03' TW=20.01' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 3HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 03P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=33.377 ac
Peak Elev=17.99'
Storage=6.844 af
52.90 cfs
0.15 cfs
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 4HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 04P: External Conditional P2
Inflow Area = 24.415 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.46" for 002-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 37.69 cfs @ 12.51 hrs, Volume= 5.008 af
Outflow = 0.11 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 1.208 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 5.4 min
Primary = 0.11 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 1.208 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.15' @ 25.35 hrs Surf.Area= 3.029 ac Storage= 4.871 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 3,935.2 min calculated for 1.208 af (24% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 3,792.4 min ( 4,653.8 - 861.4 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 15.533 af 400.00'D x 5.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.07 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 2.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.25'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.11 cfs @ 12.60 hrs HW=17.06' TW=16.02' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 5HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 04P: External Conditional P2
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inflow Area=24.415 ac
Peak Elev=18.15'
Storage=4.871 af
37.69 cfs
0.11 cfs
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 6HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=19.24' Storage=12.756 af Inflow=122.56 cfs 16.028 afPond 03P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=3.54 cfs 9.264 af
Peak Elev=19.40' Storage=8.735 af Inflow=87.55 cfs 11.540 afPond 04P: External Conditional P2
Outflow=4.75 cfs 7.299 af
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 7HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 03P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 33.377 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.76" for 025-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 122.56 cfs @ 12.45 hrs, Volume= 16.028 af
Outflow = 3.54 cfs @ 12.80 hrs, Volume= 9.264 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 21.2 min
Primary = 3.54 cfs @ 12.80 hrs, Volume= 9.264 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 19.24' @ 20.03 hrs Surf.Area= 4.809 ac Storage= 12.756 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,400.6 min calculated for 9.261 af (58% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,293.4 min ( 2,126.3 - 832.9 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 18.910 af 500.00'D x 4.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.00'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=3.54 cfs @ 12.80 hrs HW=18.29' TW=20.04' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 3.39 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 8HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 03P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
135
130
125
120
115
110105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
4035
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=33.377 ac
Peak Elev=19.24'
Storage=12.756 af
122.56 cfs
3.54 cfs
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 9HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 04P: External Conditional P2
Inflow Area = 24.415 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.67" for 025-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 87.55 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 11.540 af
Outflow = 4.75 cfs @ 16.72 hrs, Volume= 7.299 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 254.6 min
Primary = 4.75 cfs @ 16.72 hrs, Volume= 7.299 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 19.40' @ 16.72 hrs Surf.Area= 3.141 ac Storage= 8.735 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,305.8 min calculated for 7.299 af (63% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,202.4 min ( 2,037.2 - 834.9 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 15.533 af 400.00'D x 5.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.07 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 2.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.25'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=4.75 cfs @ 16.72 hrs HW=19.40' TW=16.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 2.26 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice (Weir Controls 2.38 cfs @ 1.27 fps)
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 1_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 10HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 04P: External Conditional P2
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=24.415 ac
Peak Elev=19.40'
Storage=8.735 af
87.55 cfs
4.75 cfs
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 1HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 1441 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=18.83' Storage=6.947 af Inflow=49.63 cfs 7.129 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=0.15 cfs 0.754 af
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 2HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 34.515 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.48" for 002-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 49.63 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 7.129 af
Outflow = 0.15 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 0.754 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 0.5 min
Primary = 0.15 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 0.754 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.83' @ 25.16 hrs Surf.Area= 3.090 ac Storage= 6.947 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,815.4 min calculated for 0.753 af (11% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,640.9 min ( 2,496.3 - 855.4 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 18.914 af 400.00'D x 6.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 19.00'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 19.00'
#4 Primary 20.00'18.0" Horiz. Q25 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.35 hrs HW=17.08' TW=16.01' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Q25 ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=34.515 ac
Peak Elev=18.83'
Storage=6.947 af
49.63 cfs
0.15 cfs
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 3HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 1441 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=20.42' Storage=11.995 af Inflow=115.96 cfs 16.380 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=7.77 cfs 9.344 af
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 1_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 4HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 34.515 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.69" for 025-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 115.96 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 16.380 af
Outflow = 7.77 cfs @ 16.20 hrs, Volume= 9.344 af, Atten= 93%, Lag= 233.6 min
Primary = 7.77 cfs @ 16.20 hrs, Volume= 9.344 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 20.42' @ 16.20 hrs Surf.Area= 3.234 ac Storage= 11.995 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 740.0 min calculated for 9.344 af (57% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 630.0 min ( 1,460.0 - 830.0 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 18.914 af 400.00'D x 6.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs WQV - 1x2" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 19.00'1.13 cfs Q10 - 3x8" FCS X 3.00 when above 19.00'
#4 Primary 20.00'18.0" Horiz. Q25 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=7.77 cfs @ 16.20 hrs HW=20.42' TW=16.48' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Q10 - 3x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 3.39 cfs)
4=Q25 (Weir Controls 4.23 cfs @ 2.13 fps)
Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=34.515 ac
Peak Elev=20.42'
Storage=11.995 af
115.96 cfs
7.77 cfs
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 1HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=18.01' Storage=8.356 af Inflow=61.07 cfs 8.583 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=0.18 cfs 1.980 af
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 2HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 41.474 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.48" for 002-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 61.07 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 8.583 af
Outflow = 0.18 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 1.980 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 12.5 min
Primary = 0.18 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 1.980 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.01' @ 25.27 hrs Surf.Area= 5.635 ac Storage= 8.356 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 3,938.5 min calculated for 1.980 af (23% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 3,791.5 min ( 4,647.4 - 855.9 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 22.782 af 550.00'D x 4.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 4x8" FCS X 4.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.00'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.18 cfs @ 12.55 hrs HW=17.04' TW=16.02' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Q10 - 4x8" FCS ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 3HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=41.474 ac
Peak Elev=18.01'
Storage=8.356 af
61.07 cfs
0.18 cfs
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 4HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=19.16' Storage=14.939 af Inflow=144.00 cfs 19.706 afPond 8P: External Conditional P1
Outflow=7.36 cfs 11.600 af
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 5HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
Inflow Area = 41.474 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.70" for 025-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 144.00 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 19.706 af
Outflow = 7.36 cfs @ 17.07 hrs, Volume= 11.600 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 285.8 min
Primary = 7.36 cfs @ 17.07 hrs, Volume= 11.600 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 19.16' @ 17.07 hrs Surf.Area= 5.775 ac Storage= 14.939 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,239.1 min calculated for 11.600 af (59% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,130.6 min ( 1,960.4 - 829.8 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 22.782 af 550.00'D x 4.00'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.07 cfs WQV - 1x2.5" FCS when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 17.00'0.11 cfs Q2 - 1x3" FCS when above 17.00'
#3 Primary 18.25'1.13 cfs Q10 - 4x8" FCS X 4.00 when above 18.25'
#4 Primary 19.00'48.0" Horiz. Q25-100 Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=7.36 cfs @ 17.07 hrs HW=19.16' TW=16.47' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV - 1x2.5" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs)
2=Q2 - 1x3" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Q10 - 4x8" FCS (Exfiltration Controls 4.52 cfs)
4=Q25-100 Orifice (Weir Controls 2.66 cfs @ 1.31 fps)
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 2_2
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 6HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 8P: External Conditional P1
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=41.474 ac
Peak Elev=19.16'
Storage=14.939 af
144.00 cfs
7.36 cfs

APPENDIX 3.A3

SWMS Modeling Results
Option 2.1
01S
DA01 02S
DA02 03S
DA03 04S
DA04
05S
DA05
06S
DA06
07S
DA07
08S
DA08
09S
DA0910S
DA10
02P
Pond 02 03P
Pond 03 04P
Pond 04
05P
Pond 05
06P
Pond 06
07P
Pond 07
08P
Pond 08
09P
Pond 09
01L
Cooling Pond 01
02L
Cooling Pond 02
Drainage Diagram for Option 2_1
Prepared by GEOSYNTEC, Printed 7/18/2014
HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Subcat Reach Pond Link
Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 1HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Area Listing (all nodes)
Area
(acres)
CN Description
(subcatchment-numbers)
71.097 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (01S, 02S, 03S, 04S, 05S, 06S, 07S, 08S, 09S,
10S)
3.306 91 Gravel roads, HSG D (01S, 02S, 03S, 04S, 05S, 06S, 07S, 08S, 09S, 10S)
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 2HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=315,009 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.08"Subcatchment 01S: DA01
Flow Length=372' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=0.25 cfs 0.050 af
Runoff Area=386,491 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.08"Subcatchment 02S: DA02
Flow Length=372' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=0.31 cfs 0.062 af
Runoff Area=393,471 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.08"Subcatchment 03S: DA03
Flow Length=372' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=0.32 cfs 0.063 af
Runoff Area=242,863 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.10"Subcatchment 04S: DA04
Flow Length=372' Tc=8.7 min CN=81 Runoff=0.26 cfs 0.046 af
Runoff Area=265,476 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.10"Subcatchment 05S: DA05
Flow Length=383' Tc=9.2 min CN=81 Runoff=0.28 cfs 0.050 af
Runoff Area=392,481 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.08"Subcatchment 06S: DA06
Flow Length=372' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=0.32 cfs 0.063 af
Runoff Area=391,081 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.08"Subcatchment 07S: DA07
Flow Length=372' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=0.32 cfs 0.062 af
Runoff Area=381,739 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.08"Subcatchment 08S: DA08
Flow Length=372' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=0.31 cfs 0.061 af
Runoff Area=198,798 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.10"Subcatchment 09S: DA09
Flow Length=383' Tc=9.2 min CN=81 Runoff=0.21 cfs 0.037 af
Runoff Area=273,567 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.08"Subcatchment 10S: DA10
Flow Length=383' Tc=9.2 min CN=80 Runoff=0.22 cfs 0.044 af
Peak Elev=15.58' Storage=0.112 af Inflow=0.61 cfs 0.270 afPond 02P: Pond 02
Outflow=0.04 cfs 0.270 af
Peak Elev=16.08' Storage=0.063 af Inflow=0.36 cfs 0.158 afPond 03P: Pond 03
Outflow=0.04 cfs 0.158 af
Peak Elev=16.53' Storage=0.026 af Inflow=0.28 cfs 0.095 afPond 04P: Pond 04
Outflow=0.04 cfs 0.095 af
Peak Elev=17.04' Storage=0.030 af Inflow=0.28 cfs 0.050 afPond 05P: Pond 05
Outflow=0.02 cfs 0.050 af
Peak Elev=17.05' Storage=0.043 af Inflow=0.32 cfs 0.063 afPond 06P: Pond 06
Outflow=0.02 cfs 0.063 af
Peak Elev=16.55' Storage=0.042 af Inflow=0.34 cfs 0.125 afPond 07P: Pond 07
Outflow=0.04 cfs 0.125 af
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 3HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=16.08' Storage=0.061 af Inflow=0.35 cfs 0.186 afPond 08P: Pond 08
Outflow=0.04 cfs 0.186 af
Peak Elev=15.56' Storage=0.081 af Inflow=0.47 cfs 0.267 afPond 09P: Pond 09
Outflow=0.04 cfs 0.267 af
Inflow=0.04 cfs 0.270 afLink 01L: Cooling Pond 01
Primary=0.04 cfs 0.270 af
Inflow=0.04 cfs 0.267 afLink 02L: Cooling Pond 02
Primary=0.04 cfs 0.267 af
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 4HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 01S: DA01
Runoff = 0.25 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Depth= 0.08"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"
Area (sf) CN Description
303,009 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
12,000 91 Gravel roads, HSG D
315,009 80 Weighted Average
315,009 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
8.3 160 0.0500 0.32 Sheet Flow,
Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 4.50"
0.4 212 0.3333 9.29 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps
8.7 372 Total
Subcatchment 01S: DA01
Runoff
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Type III 24-hr 1-inch
Rainfall=1.00"
Runoff Area=315,009 sf
Runoff Volume=0.050 af
Runoff Depth=0.08"
Flow Length=372'
Tc=8.7 min
CN=80
0.25 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 5HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 02S: DA02
Runoff = 0.31 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.062 af, Depth= 0.08"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"
Area (sf) CN Description
371,491 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
15,000 91 Gravel roads, HSG D
386,491 80 Weighted Average
386,491 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
8.3 160 0.0500 0.32 Sheet Flow,
Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 4.50"
0.4 212 0.3333 9.29 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps
8.7 372 Total
Subcatchment 02S: DA02
Runoff
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Type III 24-hr 1-inch
Rainfall=1.00"
Runoff Area=386,491 sf
Runoff Volume=0.062 af
Runoff Depth=0.08"
Flow Length=372'
Tc=8.7 min
CN=80
0.31 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 6HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 03S: DA03
Runoff = 0.32 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.063 af, Depth= 0.08"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"
Area (sf) CN Description
378,471 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
15,000 91 Gravel roads, HSG D
393,471 80 Weighted Average
393,471 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
8.3 160 0.0500 0.32 Sheet Flow,
Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 4.50"
0.4 212 0.3333 9.29 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps
8.7 372 Total
Subcatchment 03S: DA03
Runoff
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Type III 24-hr 1-inch
Rainfall=1.00"
Runoff Area=393,471 sf
Runoff Volume=0.063 af
Runoff Depth=0.08"
Flow Length=372'
Tc=8.7 min
CN=80
0.32 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 7HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 04S: DA04
Runoff = 0.26 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.046 af, Depth= 0.10"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"
Area (sf) CN Description
227,863 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
15,000 91 Gravel roads, HSG D
242,863 81 Weighted Average
242,863 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
8.3 160 0.0500 0.32 Sheet Flow,
Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 4.50"
0.4 212 0.3333 9.29 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps
8.7 372 Total
Subcatchment 04S: DA04
Runoff
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Type III 24-hr 1-inch
Rainfall=1.00"
Runoff Area=242,863 sf
Runoff Volume=0.046 af
Runoff Depth=0.10"
Flow Length=372'
Tc=8.7 min
CN=81
0.26 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 8HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 05S: DA05
Runoff = 0.28 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Depth= 0.10"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"
Area (sf) CN Description
250,476 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
15,000 91 Gravel roads, HSG D
265,476 81 Weighted Average
265,476 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
8.8 170 0.0500 0.32 Sheet Flow,
Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 4.50"
0.4 213 0.3333 9.29 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps
9.2 383 Total
Subcatchment 05S: DA05
Runoff
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Type III 24-hr 1-inch
Rainfall=1.00"
Runoff Area=265,476 sf
Runoff Volume=0.050 af
Runoff Depth=0.10"
Flow Length=383'
Tc=9.2 min
CN=81
0.28 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 9HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 06S: DA06
Runoff = 0.32 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.063 af, Depth= 0.08"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"
Area (sf) CN Description
377,481 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
15,000 91 Gravel roads, HSG D
392,481 80 Weighted Average
392,481 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
8.3 160 0.0500 0.32 Sheet Flow,
Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 4.50"
0.4 212 0.3333 9.29 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps
8.7 372 Total
Subcatchment 06S: DA06
Runoff
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Type III 24-hr 1-inch
Rainfall=1.00"
Runoff Area=392,481 sf
Runoff Volume=0.063 af
Runoff Depth=0.08"
Flow Length=372'
Tc=8.7 min
CN=80
0.32 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 10HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 07S: DA07
Runoff = 0.32 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.062 af, Depth= 0.08"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"
Area (sf) CN Description
376,081 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
15,000 91 Gravel roads, HSG D
391,081 80 Weighted Average
391,081 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
8.3 160 0.0500 0.32 Sheet Flow,
Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 4.50"
0.4 212 0.3333 9.29 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps
8.7 372 Total
Subcatchment 07S: DA07
Runoff
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Type III 24-hr 1-inch
Rainfall=1.00"
Runoff Area=391,081 sf
Runoff Volume=0.062 af
Runoff Depth=0.08"
Flow Length=372'
Tc=8.7 min
CN=80
0.32 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 11HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 08S: DA08
Runoff = 0.31 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.061 af, Depth= 0.08"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"
Area (sf) CN Description
366,739 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
15,000 91 Gravel roads, HSG D
381,739 80 Weighted Average
381,739 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
8.3 160 0.0500 0.32 Sheet Flow,
Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 4.50"
0.4 212 0.3333 9.29 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps
8.7 372 Total
Subcatchment 08S: DA08
Runoff
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Type III 24-hr 1-inch
Rainfall=1.00"
Runoff Area=381,739 sf
Runoff Volume=0.061 af
Runoff Depth=0.08"
Flow Length=372'
Tc=8.7 min
CN=80
0.31 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 12HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 09S: DA09
Runoff = 0.21 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.037 af, Depth= 0.10"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"
Area (sf) CN Description
183,798 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
15,000 91 Gravel roads, HSG D
198,798 81 Weighted Average
198,798 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
8.8 170 0.0500 0.32 Sheet Flow,
Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 4.50"
0.4 213 0.3333 9.29 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps
9.2 383 Total
Subcatchment 09S: DA09
Runoff
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.2
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
Type III 24-hr 1-inch
Rainfall=1.00"
Runoff Area=198,798 sf
Runoff Volume=0.037 af
Runoff Depth=0.10"
Flow Length=383'
Tc=9.2 min
CN=81
0.21 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 13HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 10S: DA10
Runoff = 0.22 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af, Depth= 0.08"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"
Area (sf) CN Description
261,567 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
12,000 91 Gravel roads, HSG D
273,567 80 Weighted Average
273,567 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
8.8 170 0.0500 0.32 Sheet Flow,
Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 4.50"
0.4 213 0.3333 9.29 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps
9.2 383 Total
Subcatchment 10S: DA10
Runoff
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.2
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
Type III 24-hr 1-inch
Rainfall=1.00"
Runoff Area=273,567 sf
Runoff Volume=0.044 af
Runoff Depth=0.08"
Flow Length=383'
Tc=9.2 min
CN=80
0.22 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 14HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 02P: Pond 02
Inflow Area = 36.807 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.09" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.61 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.270 af
Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 0.270 af, Atten= 93%, Lag= 14.2 min
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 0.270 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 15.58' @ 24.55 hrs Surf.Area= 1.466 ac Storage= 0.112 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,513.1 min calculated for 0.270 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,513.6 min ( 3,170.9 - 1,657.3 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 15.50' 10.425 af 35.00'W x 1,800.00'L x 5.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 15.50'0.04 cfs WQV orifice when above 15.50'
#2 Primary 16.00'0.11 cfs Q2 -1x3" when above 16.00'
#3 Primary 17.75'12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#4 Primary 18.50'15.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 12.60 hrs HW=15.51' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 -1x3" ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 15HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 02P: Pond 02
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Inflow Area=36.807 ac
Peak Elev=15.58'
Storage=0.112 af
0.61 cfs
0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 16HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 03P: Pond 03
Inflow Area = 20.703 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.09" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.36 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.158 af
Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 13.85 hrs, Volume= 0.158 af, Atten= 89%, Lag= 89.2 min
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 13.85 hrs, Volume= 0.158 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 16.08' @ 24.50 hrs Surf.Area= 0.815 ac Storage= 0.063 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 819.4 min calculated for 0.158 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 819.5 min ( 2,155.6 - 1,336.1 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.00' 4.372 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 4.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.00'0.04 cfs Q2 orifice when above 16.00'
#2 Primary 17.50'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 13.85 hrs HW=16.03' TW=15.53' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Pond 03P: Pond 03
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Inflow Area=20.703 ac
Peak Elev=16.08'
Storage=0.063 af
0.36 cfs
0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 17HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 04P: Pond 04
Inflow Area = 11.670 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.10" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.28 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.095 af
Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 26.30 hrs, Volume= 0.095 af, Atten= 86%, Lag= 839.0 min
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 26.30 hrs, Volume= 0.095 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 16.53' @ 21.97 hrs Surf.Area= 0.808 ac Storage= 0.026 af
Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 289.8 min ( 1,588.1 - 1,298.2 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 3.697 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 3.50'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs Q2 orifice when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 18.00'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 26.30 hrs HW=16.53' TW=16.08' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Pond 04P: Pond 04
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Inflow Area=11.670 ac
Peak Elev=16.53'
Storage=0.026 af
0.28 cfs
0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 18HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 05P: Pond 05
Inflow Area = 6.094 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.10" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.28 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af
Outflow = 0.02 cfs @ 14.20 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Atten= 93%, Lag= 112.4 min
Primary = 0.02 cfs @ 14.20 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 17.04' @ 22.93 hrs Surf.Area= 0.809 ac Storage= 0.030 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 682.7 min calculated for 0.050 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 682.9 min ( 1,624.7 - 941.8 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 17.00' 2.459 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 2.50'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 17.00'0.02 cfs Q2 orifice when above 17.00'
#2 Primary 18.50'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 14.20 hrs HW=17.02' TW=16.52' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Pond 05P: Pond 05
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Inflow Area=6.094 ac
Peak Elev=17.04'
Storage=0.030 af
0.28 cfs
0.02 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 19HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 06P: Pond 06
Inflow Area = 9.010 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.08" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.32 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.063 af
Outflow = 0.02 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 0.063 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 74.2 min
Primary = 0.02 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 0.063 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 17.05' @ 24.07 hrs Surf.Area= 0.811 ac Storage= 0.043 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 905.9 min calculated for 0.063 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 906.2 min ( 1,859.5 - 953.3 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 17.00' 2.459 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 2.50'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 17.00'0.02 cfs Q2 orifice when above 17.00'
#2 Primary 18.50'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 13.60 hrs HW=17.02' TW=16.52' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Pond 06P: Pond 06
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Inflow Area=9.010 ac
Peak Elev=17.05'
Storage=0.043 af
0.32 cfs
0.02 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 20HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 07P: Pond 07
Inflow Area = 17.988 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.08" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.34 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.125 af
Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 14.50 hrs, Volume= 0.125 af, Atten= 88%, Lag= 128.2 min
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 14.50 hrs, Volume= 0.125 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 16.55' @ 24.06 hrs Surf.Area= 0.811 ac Storage= 0.042 af
Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 450.1 min ( 1,857.4 - 1,407.3 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 3.059 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 3.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs Q2 orifice when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 18.00'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 14.50 hrs HW=16.53' TW=16.03' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Pond 07P: Pond 07
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Inflow Area=17.988 ac
Peak Elev=16.55'
Storage=0.042 af
0.34 cfs
0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 21HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 08P: Pond 08
Inflow Area = 26.752 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.08" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.35 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.186 af
Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 14.40 hrs, Volume= 0.186 af, Atten= 89%, Lag= 122.2 min
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 14.40 hrs, Volume= 0.186 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 16.08' @ 24.55 hrs Surf.Area= 0.814 ac Storage= 0.061 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 848.1 min calculated for 0.186 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 848.6 min ( 2,409.9 - 1,561.3 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.00' 3.697 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 3.50'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.00'0.04 cfs Q2 orifice when above 16.00'
#2 Primary 17.50'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 14.40 hrs HW=16.03' TW=15.53' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Pond 08P: Pond 08
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Inflow Area=26.752 ac
Peak Elev=16.08'
Storage=0.061 af
0.35 cfs
0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 22HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 09P: Pond 09
Inflow Area = 37.596 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.09" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.47 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 0.267 af
Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 13.20 hrs, Volume= 0.267 af, Atten= 91%, Lag= 50.8 min
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 13.20 hrs, Volume= 0.267 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 15.56' @ 24.55 hrs Surf.Area= 1.460 ac Storage= 0.081 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,175.5 min calculated for 0.267 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,175.9 min ( 3,142.6 - 1,966.7 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 15.50' 7.825 af 35.00'W x 1,800.00'L x 4.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 15.50'0.04 cfs WQV orifice when above 15.50'
#2 Primary 16.00'0.11 cfs Q2 1-3" when above 16.00'
#3 Primary 17.75'12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#4 Primary 18.50'24.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 13.20 hrs HW=15.52' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 1-3" ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 23HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 09P: Pond 09
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.52
0.5
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Inflow Area=37.596 ac
Peak Elev=15.56'
Storage=0.081 af
0.47 cfs
0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 24HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Link 01L: Cooling Pond 01
Inflow Area = 36.807 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.09" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.04 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 0.270 af
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 0.270 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Fixed water surface Elevation= 9.50'
Link 01L: Cooling Pond 01
Inflow
Primary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.044
0.042
0.04
0.038
0.036
0.034
0.032
0.03
0.028
0.026
0.024
0.022
0.02
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
Inflow Area=36.807 ac
0.04 cfs0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 1-inch Rainfall=1.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 25HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Link 02L: Cooling Pond 02
Inflow Area = 37.596 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.09" for 1-inch event
Inflow = 0.04 cfs @ 13.20 hrs, Volume= 0.267 af
Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 13.20 hrs, Volume= 0.267 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Fixed water surface Elevation= 9.50'
Link 02L: Cooling Pond 02
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0.044
0.042
0.04
0.038
0.036
0.034
0.032
0.03
0.028
0.026
0.024
0.022
0.02
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
Inflow Area=37.596 ac
0.04 cfs0.04 cfs
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 1HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=18.08' Storage=1.447 af Inflow=23.12 cfs 2.515 afPond 07P: Pond 07
Outflow=1.93 cfs 1.339 af
Peak Elev=17.60' Storage=1.468 af Inflow=22.59 cfs 3.136 afPond 08P: Pond 08
Outflow=2.71 cfs 1.770 af
Peak Elev=17.51' Storage=3.426 af Inflow=28.00 cfs 4.027 afPond 09P: Pond 09
Outflow=0.15 cfs 1.648 af
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 2HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 07P: Pond 07
Inflow Area = 17.988 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.68" for 002-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 23.12 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 2.515 af
Outflow = 1.93 cfs @ 16.00 hrs, Volume= 1.339 af, Atten= 92%, Lag= 232.3 min
Primary = 1.93 cfs @ 16.00 hrs, Volume= 1.339 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.08' @ 16.00 hrs Surf.Area= 1.031 ac Storage= 1.447 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,553.4 min calculated for 1.338 af (53% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,074.9 min ( 2,290.8 - 1,215.9 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 3.059 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 3.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs Q2 orifice when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 18.00'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=1.93 cfs @ 16.00 hrs HW=18.08' TW=17.60' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.89 cfs @ 0.68 fps)
Pond 07P: Pond 07
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Inflow Area=17.988 ac
Peak Elev=18.08'
Storage=1.447 af
23.12 cfs
1.93 cfs
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 3HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 08P: Pond 08
Inflow Area = 26.752 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.41" for 002-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 22.59 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 3.136 af
Outflow = 2.71 cfs @ 16.29 hrs, Volume= 1.770 af, Atten= 88%, Lag= 250.0 min
Primary = 2.71 cfs @ 16.29 hrs, Volume= 1.770 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 17.60' @ 16.29 hrs Surf.Area= 1.034 ac Storage= 1.468 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,242.2 min calculated for 1.770 af (56% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 575.1 min ( 2,028.0 - 1,452.8 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.00' 3.697 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 3.50'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.00'0.04 cfs Q2 orifice when above 16.00'
#2 Primary 17.50'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=2.71 cfs @ 16.29 hrs HW=17.60' TW=16.77' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 2.67 cfs @ 0.77 fps)
Pond 08P: Pond 08
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Inflow Area=26.752 ac
Peak Elev=17.60'
Storage=1.468 af
22.59 cfs
2.71 cfs
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 4HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 09P: Pond 09
Inflow Area = 37.596 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.29" for 002-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 28.00 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 4.027 af
Outflow = 0.15 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.648 af, Atten= 99%, Lag= 4.0 min
Primary = 0.15 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.648 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 17.51' @ 26.50 hrs Surf.Area= 1.959 ac Storage= 3.426 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 3,917.4 min calculated for 1.648 af (41% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 3,296.3 min ( 4,651.7 - 1,355.4 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 15.50' 7.825 af 35.00'W x 1,800.00'L x 4.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 15.50'0.04 cfs WQV orifice when above 15.50'
#2 Primary 16.00'0.11 cfs Q2 1-3" when above 16.00'
#3 Primary 17.75'12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#4 Primary 18.50'24.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=16.03' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 1-3" (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Type III 24-hr 002-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=4.50"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 5HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 09P: Pond 09
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inflow Area=37.596 ac
Peak Elev=17.51'
Storage=3.426 af
28.00 cfs
0.15 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 6HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=18.60' Storage=2.001 af Inflow=44.04 cfs 5.862 afPond 07P: Pond 07
Outflow=27.35 cfs 4.671 af
Peak Elev=18.60' Storage=2.572 af Inflow=43.01 cfs 8.099 afPond 08P: Pond 08
Outflow=35.77 cfs 6.730 af
Peak Elev=18.60' Storage=5.700 af Inflow=52.42 cfs 11.014 afPond 09P: Pond 09
Outflow=4.25 cfs 7.621 af
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 7HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 07P: Pond 07
Inflow Area = 17.988 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.91" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 44.04 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 5.862 af
Outflow = 27.35 cfs @ 12.51 hrs, Volume= 4.671 af, Atten= 38%, Lag= 23.6 min
Primary = 27.35 cfs @ 12.51 hrs, Volume= 4.671 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.60' @ 17.88 hrs Surf.Area= 1.106 ac Storage= 2.001 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 592.2 min calculated for 4.671 af (80% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 372.4 min ( 1,366.2 - 993.9 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 3.059 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 3.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs Q2 orifice when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 18.00'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=27.14 cfs @ 12.51 hrs HW=18.45' TW=18.02' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 27.10 cfs @ 1.73 fps)
Pond 07P: Pond 07
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inflow Area=17.988 ac
Peak Elev=18.60'
Storage=2.001 af
44.04 cfs
27.35 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 8HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 08P: Pond 08
Inflow Area = 26.752 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.63" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 43.01 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 8.099 af
Outflow = 35.77 cfs @ 12.58 hrs, Volume= 6.730 af, Atten= 17%, Lag= 27.4 min
Primary = 35.77 cfs @ 12.58 hrs, Volume= 6.730 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.60' @ 17.83 hrs Surf.Area= 1.179 ac Storage= 2.572 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 737.4 min calculated for 6.727 af (83% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 446.8 min ( 1,577.8 - 1,131.0 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.00' 3.697 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 3.50'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.00'0.04 cfs Q2 orifice when above 16.00'
#2 Primary 17.50'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=35.64 cfs @ 12.58 hrs HW=18.03' TW=17.40' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 35.60 cfs @ 1.92 fps)
Pond 08P: Pond 08
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inflow Area=26.752 ac
Peak Elev=18.60'
Storage=2.572 af
43.01 cfs
35.77 cfs
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 9HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 09P: Pond 09
Inflow Area = 37.596 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.52" for 010-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 52.42 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 11.014 af
Outflow = 4.25 cfs @ 17.78 hrs, Volume= 7.621 af, Atten= 92%, Lag= 339.2 min
Primary = 4.25 cfs @ 17.78 hrs, Volume= 7.621 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.60' @ 17.78 hrs Surf.Area= 2.237 ac Storage= 5.700 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,327.8 min calculated for 7.618 af (69% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 861.3 min ( 2,140.3 - 1,279.1 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 15.50' 7.825 af 35.00'W x 1,800.00'L x 4.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 15.50'0.04 cfs WQV orifice when above 15.50'
#2 Primary 16.00'0.11 cfs Q2 1-3" when above 16.00'
#3 Primary 17.75'12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#4 Primary 18.50'24.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=4.25 cfs @ 17.78 hrs HW=18.60' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 1-3" (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 3.48 cfs @ 4.43 fps)
4=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 0.62 cfs @ 1.02 fps)
Type III 24-hr 010-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=7.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 10HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 09P: Pond 09
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=37.596 ac
Peak Elev=18.60'
Storage=5.700 af
52.42 cfs
4.25 cfs
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 11HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=18.85' Storage=2.282 af Inflow=60.55 cfs 7.324 afPond 07P: Pond 07
Outflow=44.35 cfs 6.131 af
Peak Elev=18.85' Storage=2.872 af Inflow=69.42 cfs 10.273 afPond 08P: Pond 08
Outflow=59.61 cfs 8.901 af
Peak Elev=18.85' Storage=6.267 af Inflow=85.76 cfs 14.071 afPond 09P: Pond 09
Outflow=8.31 cfs 10.666 af
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 12HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 07P: Pond 07
Inflow Area = 17.988 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.89" for 025-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 60.55 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 7.324 af
Outflow = 44.35 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 6.131 af, Atten= 27%, Lag= 11.7 min
Primary = 44.35 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 6.131 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.85' @ 15.88 hrs Surf.Area= 1.143 ac Storage= 2.282 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 503.7 min calculated for 6.131 af (84% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 319.2 min ( 1,289.5 - 970.3 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 3.059 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 3.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs Q2 orifice when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 18.00'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=42.77 cfs @ 12.37 hrs HW=18.63' TW=18.22' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 42.73 cfs @ 1.95 fps)
Pond 07P: Pond 07
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=17.988 ac
Peak Elev=18.85'
Storage=2.282 af
60.55 cfs
44.35 cfs
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 13HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 08P: Pond 08
Inflow Area = 26.752 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.61" for 025-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 69.42 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 10.273 af
Outflow = 59.61 cfs @ 12.43 hrs, Volume= 8.901 af, Atten= 14%, Lag= 7.5 min
Primary = 59.61 cfs @ 12.43 hrs, Volume= 8.901 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.85' @ 15.83 hrs Surf.Area= 1.216 ac Storage= 2.872 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 601.0 min calculated for 8.898 af (87% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 366.9 min ( 1,461.1 - 1,094.2 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.00' 3.697 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 3.50'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.00'0.04 cfs Q2 orifice when above 16.00'
#2 Primary 17.50'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=56.29 cfs @ 12.43 hrs HW=18.24' TW=17.71' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 56.25 cfs @ 2.17 fps)
Pond 08P: Pond 08
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=26.752 ac
Peak Elev=18.85'
Storage=2.872 af
69.42 cfs
59.61 cfs
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 14HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 09P: Pond 09
Inflow Area = 37.596 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.49" for 025-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 85.76 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 14.071 af
Outflow = 8.31 cfs @ 15.78 hrs, Volume= 10.666 af, Atten= 90%, Lag= 204.2 min
Primary = 8.31 cfs @ 15.78 hrs, Volume= 10.666 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 18.85' @ 15.78 hrs Surf.Area= 2.301 ac Storage= 6.267 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 1,022.6 min calculated for 10.663 af (76% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 647.1 min ( 1,867.0 - 1,219.9 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 15.50' 7.825 af 35.00'W x 1,800.00'L x 4.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 15.50'0.04 cfs WQV orifice when above 15.50'
#2 Primary 16.00'0.11 cfs Q2 1-3" when above 16.00'
#3 Primary 17.75'12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#4 Primary 18.50'24.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=8.31 cfs @ 15.78 hrs HW=18.85' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 1-3" (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 3.96 cfs @ 5.04 fps)
4=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 4.20 cfs @ 1.93 fps)
Type III 24-hr 025-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=8.05"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 15HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 09P: Pond 09
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=37.596 ac
Peak Elev=18.85'
Storage=6.267 af
85.76 cfs
8.31 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 16HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-144.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 2881 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Peak Elev=19.26' Storage=2.766 af Inflow=107.43 cfs 10.094 afPond 07P: Pond 07
Outflow=73.51 cfs 8.898 af
Peak Elev=19.26' Storage=3.385 af Inflow=127.07 cfs 14.391 afPond 08P: Pond 08
Outflow=98.79 cfs 13.016 af
Peak Elev=19.26' Storage=7.235 af Inflow=155.53 cfs 19.861 afPond 09P: Pond 09
Outflow=17.96 cfs 16.447 af
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 17HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 07P: Pond 07
Inflow Area = 17.988 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 6.73" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 107.43 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 10.094 af
Outflow = 73.51 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 8.898 af, Atten= 32%, Lag= 6.1 min
Primary = 73.51 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 8.898 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 19.26' @ 14.13 hrs Surf.Area= 1.203 ac Storage= 2.766 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 389.6 min calculated for 8.898 af (88% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 251.1 min ( 1,191.8 - 940.7 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.50' 3.059 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 3.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.50'0.04 cfs Q2 orifice when above 16.50'
#2 Primary 18.00'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=68.53 cfs @ 12.25 hrs HW=18.95' TW=18.56' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 68.49 cfs @ 2.05 fps)
Pond 07P: Pond 07
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inflow Area=17.988 ac
Peak Elev=19.26'
Storage=2.766 af
107.43 cfs
73.51 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 18HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 08P: Pond 08
Inflow Area = 26.752 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 6.46" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 127.07 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 14.391 af
Outflow = 98.79 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 13.016 af, Atten= 22%, Lag= 5.4 min
Primary = 98.79 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 13.016 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 19.26' @ 14.06 hrs Surf.Area= 1.277 ac Storage= 3.385 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 442.9 min calculated for 13.011 af (90% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 272.6 min ( 1,313.8 - 1,041.2 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 16.00' 3.697 af 35.00'W x 1,000.00'L x 3.50'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 16.00'0.04 cfs Q2 orifice when above 16.00'
#2 Primary 17.50'35.0' long x 3.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Coef. (English) 2.44 2.58 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.68 2.68
2.72 2.81 2.92 2.97 3.07 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=85.83 cfs @ 12.26 hrs HW=18.57' TW=18.06' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Q2 orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 85.79 cfs @ 2.29 fps)
Pond 08P: Pond 08
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=26.752 ac
Peak Elev=19.26'
Storage=3.385 af
127.07 cfs
98.79 cfs
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 19HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond 09P: Pond 09
Inflow Area = 37.596 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 6.34" for 100-yr, 24-hr event
Inflow = 155.53 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 19.861 af
Outflow = 17.96 cfs @ 14.01 hrs, Volume= 16.447 af, Atten= 88%, Lag= 107.9 min
Primary = 17.96 cfs @ 14.01 hrs, Volume= 16.447 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-144.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 19.26' @ 14.01 hrs Surf.Area= 2.408 ac Storage= 7.235 af
Plug-Flow detention time= 713.1 min calculated for 16.442 af (83% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 441.2 min ( 1,576.9 - 1,135.6 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 15.50' 7.825 af 35.00'W x 1,800.00'L x 4.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 15.50'0.04 cfs WQV orifice when above 15.50'
#2 Primary 16.00'0.11 cfs Q2 1-3" when above 16.00'
#3 Primary 17.75'12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#4 Primary 18.50'24.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow Max=17.96 cfs @ 14.01 hrs HW=19.26' TW=9.50' (Dynamic Tailwater)
1=WQV orifice (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)
2=Q2 1-3" (Exfiltration Controls 0.11 cfs)
3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 4.64 cfs @ 5.91 fps)
4=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 13.17 cfs @ 4.19 fps)
Type III 24-hr 100-yr, 24-hr Rainfall=10.00"Option 2_1
Printed 7/18/2014Prepared by GEOSYNTEC
Page 20HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 03933 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Pond 09P: Pond 09
InflowPrimary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
14013513012512011511010510095908580757065605550454035302520151050
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inflow Area=37.596 ac
Peak Elev=19.26'
Storage=7.235 af
155.53 cfs
17.96 cfs