HomeMy WebLinkAboutWSA-WVWD_TechnicalMemorandumBoard of Directors
Dr. Clifford 0. Young, Sr.
President
Linda Gonzalez
Vice President
Administrative Staff
Thomas J. Crowley, P.E.
General Manager
Matthew H. Litchfield, P.E.
855 West Base Line, P.O. Box 920
Rialto, California 92377-0920
Phone (909) 875-1804
Alan G. Dyer
Donald Olinger
Gregory Young
Assistant General Manager
Suzanne Cook
Interim Chief Financial Officer
Shanae Smith
wvwd.org
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
January 27, 2016
Board Secretary
Peggy Asche
Executive Assistant
West Valley Water District (District) has prepared this Technical Memorandum (TM) to assemble and
document various calculations and reports related to the discharge of treated water from the District's
Groundwater Wellhead Treatment System Project (Project) into San Bernardino County Flood Control
District's (Flood Control) Cactus Basins #1 and #2.
The primary concern of Flood Control is that the discharged water may adversely influence groundwater
contamination. The District, USEPA and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SARWQCB) have all expressed their need to ensure that that infiltrated treated groundwater will not have
a significant impact on the perchlorate plume movement in either location or velocity. The following main
points support this opinion:
• The proposed discharge will be of a limited duration during initial plant startup ( 40 days with
estimated 336 acre-feet discharged, see Attachment A), and will be stopped any time Flood
Control requests;
• After plant startup and treated water is placed into the District's water distribution system, the
estimated annual discharge volumes to the Cactus Basins is 128 acre-feet per year. This is based
on assumed monthly 24 hour (12 times per year) discharges to the basins at 4 CFS as well as
quarterly (4 times per year) discharges to the basins at 4 CFS. See Attachment A.
• Attachment B contains an infiltrations study conducted by Byerly Incorporated documenting
estimated infiltration rates in Cactus Basins # 1 and #2 for reference.
• As noted in the demonstration phase technical memorandum from 2012, the proposed discharge
volume is an inconsequential amount, compared to volumes considered in the 2006 CEQA process
for the Cactus Basins that raised an issue of increased groundwater flow velocities in relation to
long-term recharge using the Cactus Basins (1,193 AF vs. more than 10,000 AF) [about 10%];
further the 10,000 AF was to be applied annually not just once.
• Geoscience recently published a Technical Memorandum (TM) titled "Flow and Solute Transport
Model Calibration of the Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model", dated December 1, 2015
(attached CD in Attachment C). The TM documents the consolidation, development, calibration
and various model runs of competing groundwater models developed over the past decade into
one Joint Groundwater Model (JGWM). Geoscience developed the JGWM in collaboration with
representatives from San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, West Valley Water
District, Goodrich Corporation, City of Rialto, City of Colton, USEPA, CH2M Hill, and the
USGS. In summary, based on model simulations recharging on average, 2, 700 acre-feet per year
in Cactus Basins #3 and #3A (directly up gradient from Cactus Basins #1 and #2), Geoscience
concluded the following (Section 4.0, Findings, Pages 13-14 of Predictive Model Runs of the
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model TM):
------
I. There is no significant change in the size of the geographic footprint of the
perchlorate plumes with or without recharge at the Cactus Basins, but
concentrations are decreased from dilution;
2. Water levels increased up to 2-ft in the vicinity of the recharge ponds as a result
of recharge versus no recharge. Water levels due to recharge were imperceptible
elsewhere in the Basin_
3. The model predictive results show no anticipated significant groundwater
contamination impacts from the proposed Project, suggesting that no additional
mitigation measures are needed beyond those that have been previously planned
and are in place.
• The wells being pumped to generate water for treatment that will be subsequently discharged to
Cactus Basin #2 (WVWD-11 and Rialto 6) are south/southeast of the Basin (in the down gradient
flow direction), and at a combined flow rate of approximately 4 CFS, will be capturing the majority
of any localized recharge that may observed from percolation of clean treated water discharged
from the Project to the Cactus #2 and Cactus # 1 Basins;
• Any groundwater mounding influence will be insignificant relative to the hydraulic gradient
influence/capture of pumping the extraction wells.
We understand that the SARWQCB will be sending a letter following receipt of this technical
memorandum stating their position on the discharge and groundwater contamination; while the USEPA
will also send correspondence on this point. Further discussions with USEP A will follow receipt of this
technical memorandum may occur at the request of either SARWQCB or USEP A The District is available
to meet or further discuss this with the Flood Control District at your convenience.
The District has included with this TM the following supporting documents:
• Attachment "A"-Groundwater Wellhead Treatment System Cactus Basin Discharge Schedule.
• Attachment "B" -Percolation tests report by John R. Byerly (March 11, 2011) and District
prepared infiltration calculations.
• Attachment "C" -CD containing the Geoscience Technical Memorandum titled "Flow and Solute
Transport Model Calibration of the Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model", dated December 1,
2015.
ATIACHMENTA
ATTACHMENT A
GROUNDWATER WELLHEAD TREATMENT SYSTEM
CACTUS BASIN DISCHARGE SHCEDULE
DESCRIPTION ACRE-FEET
APRIL-JUNE 2016
Plant Startup (Apr-Jun.)
40 days @1,800 GPM (4 CFS) 320.0
Monthly Operations (2)
24 hours @1,800 GPM (4 CFS) 16.0
PERIOD TOTAL 336.0
ANNUAL OPERATION DISCHARGE
JULY 2016 to DECEMBER 2016
Monthly Operations (6)
24 hours @1,800 GPM (4 CFS) 48.0
Quartlery Operations (2)
24 hours @1,800 GPM (4Cfs 16.0
PERIOD TOTAL 64.0
ANNUAL OPERATION DISCHARGE
JANUARY 2017-FORWARD
Monthly Operations (12)
24 hours @1,800 GPM (4 CFS) 96.0
Quartlery Operations (4)
24 hours @1,800 GPM (4Cfs 32.0
ANNUAL TOTAL 128.0
* Dicharge permit renewal will occur in 2020
ATTACHMENT B
John R. Byerly
IN CORPORATED
March 11,2011
Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc.
1820 Commercenter Circle
San Bernardino, Califomia 92408
Attention: Ron Worthington
Rpt. No.: 7997..a
File No.: &-13043
Subject: West Valley Water District Facility, Existing Cactus Basins 1 and 2, Southwest
Comer of Baseline Avenue and Cactus Avenue, Rialto, California; Results of
Percolation Testing
Reference: Foundation Investigation, Proposed Zone 3A-2 Reservoir, Baseline Road and
Cactus Avenue, Rialto; John R. Byerly, Inc., File No. S-8481, Rpt. No. 2112 ,
December 30, 1994
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are pleased to present the results of percolation testing at the existing infiltration basins
below the West Valley water District Facility. The purpose of our testing was to evaluate the
percolation characteristics of the soils below the footprint of the basins. The site conf~guratlon Is
illustrated on Enclosure 1.
PREVJOUS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
To assist in the preparation of this study, the referenced foundation investigation was reviewed.
The subsurface exploration desaibed in that report included five test borings were drilled to
depths of up to 31 feet with a truck-mounted flight-auger. Boring 1 was drlled to a depth of
31 feet and is the deepest and closest boring to the infiltration basins . The location of this boring
and the boring log is included in this current report in Enclosures 1 and 2, respectively. The
ground surface at this boring was at an elevation of about 1345 feet, which Is about 24 feet above
tM elevation of the central portion of the northem basin. At this boring location, 4 feet of artificial
fill comprised of loose to dense sands and silty sands with gravel and debris was encountered.
The underlying natural soils consisted of dense sands with gravel and a trace of silt Neither
bedrock nor ground water was encountered in our test borings.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS • TESTING AND INSPECTION
2257 South Ulac Ave., Bloomington, CA 92316-2907
Bloomington (909) an-1324 Riverside (909) 783·1910 Fax (909) 877-5210
Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc.
March 11,2011
Page2
SITE CONDITIONS
Rpt. No .: 7997-a
File No.: 8-13043
The existing West vaney Water District Facility Is located on the southwest comer of Baseline
Avenue and Cactus Avenue In the city of Rialto. The coordinates of the site are latitude
34.1188° N and longitude 117.3853° W, utilizing the North American Datum (NAP} from 1983.
The two infiltration basins are located in the southern portion of the site; they generally slope
downward to the south at a gradient of less than 2 percent. A spillway connects the two basins .
The southern perimeter of the southern basin is immediately north of Etiwanda Avenue.
fiELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
For this current study, five test borings were excavated to depths of 2 feet below the bottom of
the infiltration basins with hand-auger equipment. The locations of the test borings are shown
on the site plan provided as Enclosure 1. The soHs encountered in the explorations were
examined and visually classified by one of our field engineers . A summary of the soil
classifications appears as Enclosure 2. The exploration logs show subsurface conditions at the
dates and locations indicated, and may not be representative of other locations and times . The
stratification lines presented on the logs represents the approximate boundaries between soil
types, and the transitions may be gradual.
A percolation test was conducted In the boreholes. Subsequent to removal of the auger, a
perforated plastic can, 6 inches in diameter by 12 inches in height, was inserted into the
borehole at the appropriate test depth. The annular space between the boring sidewalls and
can was backfilled with soli cuttings . Percolation testing was performed between depths of
12 Inches and 2 feet. Water was introduced Into the test holes to bring the water level to about
10 Inches above the bottom of the hole, and the water was allowed to percoJate into the soil . At
intervals, the level of water was measured and additional water was added to the test hole to
bring the water level up to approximately 10 inches above the bottom of the hole. The field data
are presented on Enclosure 3. The percolation rates have been corrected for the p.resence of
the soil adjacent to the perforated pi pe . The derivation of the correction factor is presented on
Enclosure 4.
Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc.
March 11, 2011
Page3
SOli, CONDITIONS
Rpt. No .: 7997-a
File No.: 8-13043
The soils encountered in our current test borings consisted of medium dense silty sands with
gravel and cobbles and stiff sandy silts with gravel and cobbles . Neither artificial fill, bedrock,
nor ground water was encountered In the borings.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The percolation tests revealed rates incorporating a sidewall correction ranging from 2.8 inches
per hour to 15.6 Inches per hour. This correction accounts for the sidewall contribution to the
overall percolation rate. The rate to be used for design should be 2.8 inches per hour.
A safety factor has not been applied to this design value. Siltation and the effects of long-term
loading will reduce the effective infiltration rate, and an appropriate factor of safety is
recommended. The project civil engineer will decide on a suitable factor of safety.
Free ground water was not encountered in our current explorations and in the test borings
drilled for the referenced report. Maps prepared by Carson and Matti, dated 1982 (Map MF-
1802), indicate that ground water levels at the site were at a depth in excess of 350 feet
between the years 1973 and 1979. Therefore, ground water should not be a factor in the
design or function of the infiltration basins.
It is recommended that the sanely silt be removed from the bottom of the basins. This material
should be removed until a silty sand or sand is exposed. A representative of this firm should be
present to verify that suitable material is exposed.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the fiefd
investigation described herein and represent our best engineering judgment. Should conartions
be encountered in the field that appear different from those descnbed In this report, we should be
contacted immediately in order that appropriate recommendations might be prepared.
Engineering Resources of Southem Callfcmia, Inc.
March 11, 2011
Page4
Rpt. No.: 7997 -a
Fi le No.: S-13043
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should there be questions,
please feel free to contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN R. BYERLY, INC.
faLl~
GlennS. Fraser, Geotechnical Engineer
Project Manager
/John R. Byer1y, Geotechnical Engineer
President
JRB :GSF :jet
Enclosures : (1) Site Plan
(2) Test Boring Logs
(3) Percolation Test Data Sheets
(4) Backfill Correction Factor Derivation
Copies: (5) Client
..
i
j
I
~ ..
~
I
!
I
f
I
I
I
~
I
I
i
t-I t-
f-
I
r-1 ~
f-
t-
f-
t-
r-2
t-
f-
f-
..
r3
~ r
L
r 4
t-
f-
r-
r5
f-
t-
1-
f..
r8
r-
t-
t-
f-
r-7
Boring 1
! .. : .. ~:,~·, SP
1\t:'l.\.(
~~~~~!~~~
··?&~~ .v,.:·f,.:· ',.':...:: ..... _ ... ,,,,..., ......
'\4'",:''\ \.i .. ,, .. , ~~~~s ~
Boring Date: 2115111
Surface Elevation:
Drill1ng Method: Hand-auger
Ught brown fine to coarse sand with gravel and cobbles,
damp and medium dense
Total Depth at 2.0 Feet
No Free Ground Water Encountered
LOG OF BORING
(/) John R. Byerly, Inc.
West Valley Water District
Cactus Basins 1 and 2
Enclosure 2, Page 1
Report No.: 7997 -a
File No.: S-13043
Boring 2
/ ~; r~~ ~€'-z/~ ~/ _/_~ ... · ' ~ /..~~ ' , ~/'
/; ~,-,/Jj<f At.cF/' ~ '\.,/ Boring Date: 2115111
/# ~ ~ ' ~ v ,.-cr ~ Surface Elevation: k{~~/~/_4_~+~--Q~~~~/~---~~~·~o~~~·-~-~+-~~~n.m-~=-~~~--~D~nl_lln~g-M_e_fu_od_:_Ha7n~d4~~--·r~~~~~
SM Light brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and cobbles,
-1
.. -~~
~ft--2 ,-
i
~-
~i -3
;-
1 ~
-
-
-4
a-
1
j:
l f-5
I
~~-
lr-6
I
it-
1-7
damp and medium dense
Ught brown fine to coarse sand with a trace of silt and gravel
and cobbles, damp and medium dense
Total Depth at 2 .0 Feet
No Free Ground Water Encountered
LOG OF BORING
(I) John R. Byerly, Inc.
West Valley Water District
Cactus Basins 1 and 2
Encloaure 2, Page 2
Report No.: 7997.a
File No.: S-13043
~ I
1-I
~ c: •
1-~
1-1 ~
r-
._I-
l r-
~ . -
.!~2
"r-Jt-
ir-
~---3 !-
I 1-
r
...
~4
1-f,..
F r---5
~~
~~--
f~-
~1-6 ~~--
j:
1-
1-7
Boring 3
"•.',;·~/ .. '-
~{'!··!\ ~,:~~~~ ~/,'t~ ~~~~ ,,_,.(,\ ..
·,!,~ .. ~~ .. ~ ,,: ... v ...... ,,/,"' .... ~
SP
Bortng Date: 2115/11
Surface E.Jewtion:
Drilling Method: Hand-«uger
Light brown sandy sUt with gravel and cobbles, damp and stiff
Light brown fine to coarse sand with gravel and cobbles,
damp and medium dense
Total Depth at 2.0 Feet
No Free Ground water Encountered
LOG OF BORING
(/) John R. Byerly, Inc.
West Valley Water Disbict
Cactus Basins 1 and 2
Enclosure 2, Page 3
Report No.: 7997 -a
File No.: S-13043
r
t-1
-
-7
Boring 4
Boring Date: 2115111
SUtface Elevation :
Drilling Method: Hand-auger
Ught brown fine to coarse sand with gravel end cobbles.
damp and medium dense
Total Depth at 2.0 Feet
No Free Ground water Encountered
LOG OF BORING
(/) John R. Byerly, Inc.
West Valley Water District
Cactus Basins 1 and 2
Enclosure 2, Page 4
Report No.: 7997 .a
File No.: 8·13043
:: §
~
J
J
i
i
l
I
I
i c..
~
I ..;
f
I
~
I
I
i
I
~
-1 ~
1-
1-
t-
t--2
1-
1-
1-
1-
r----3
t-
1-
t-
1-
>--4
r-
1-
t-
1-
t--5
1-
I-
-
-
t--6
-
-
r-
-7
Boring 5
~·:/ .... /~~ SP ,~~,.1\"'~ ~\~~~~~~ ~~~'...'~\ \t:~ .. !~~
~;~<~~: '~.t~ .. ' ;;~-:;~ ... ;,
4,!._.!1.\,1 ~
Boring Date: 2115111
Surface Etevation:
Drilling Method: Hand-auger
Light brown sandy silt with gravel and cobbles, damp and stiff
Light brown fine to coarse sand w ith gravel and cobbles,
damp and medium dense
Total Depth at 2.0 Feet
No Free Ground Water Encountered
LOG OF BORING
(]f) John R. Byerly, Inc.
West Valley Water District
Cactus Basins 1 and 2
Enelosure 2, Page 5
Report No.: 7997 -a
File No.: S-13043
PIOJBCT : Zone 3A-Z Reaer voir ---} FI~BBR : S-8481
BCRIIG IUIBIR: 1 PIO/KCT LOCATIOI: Jaael ia e Road, Rialto
IICLOSURR HO . : Z
DATI OF TIBTS: 11/21/94
,p,,, lDriYiA~l Dry I Koist . I Rel.
8lo11 lEnerg, IDensit,IContentl Colp.
Per :t-ft/ftl PCP I I I I I I
Foot I I I
I I I
r
I
'I I -·-· 1 I I I
I I I I
1511: lOil 1131 u:
I I I
I I I
I I ' ' I I I I
I I ' ' I n.o: •. 1 ~.&: ··l -I -· I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I .......... ~---1
I I I I
I I I I u.ar ua: a.i: 151
I I
I I , I ' ., ... _ ·-··"'-""--' I I I I I
I I I I I
I 36 ,Q! WI ~.z: u: ~
I I I
I I ' I ' ' --· ' I
' I
I ' ' I I
I I I I I
'-lWL -·: ~~3L.-:-.:.:
I I I I
I I I I
I t I I
I
I I
I I
I I I --.... _I
I I I
I I I
I ' I
I
' I
I
I
' I I
' ' I ulo: .-•: u: -·' I
I I
I ' I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
r I r ' ""U &Dr ..:.·I ~ .z .... ._.:.::
I I
I I
I ' I
r I
I I
I I ..... I
F
e
e
t
RPT I Jro.: !112
firual Classification
1 ;: ::: :;: ·: (Sil Dr~ Bin silty f·• 1ud r/gravel l h gravel sized asphalt
·:: :;::;: :; l c:ol'lcrete debris (da•p l dense) FILL
2 l ~ ~ll ~jj ~l b above, v/larger gr&Yel FILL
1
i·;.!,!l t·i IBPI Ll Bn !·c sud 1/lr ailt I ooae gravel ldup I leuel
5 <::;:;:;:;:;: ORIGIHAL GlOUIID
' ,
8
I
:: ::::jj,·!,·:
:: lililllillili
15
1S
18
20
u
~---------------------------------~------L------------------------------·---------------,------·------~
Log Continued 01 Hett Page
Enclosure 2, Page 6
Rpt. No.: 7997-a
File No.: S-13043
PROliCt: Zone 3!-t Reservoir ----)
PROJICf LOCATIOM: Baseline Road, Rialto
•KJCLOIOII 10. : 2
DATI OF T!STr: 11/Zl/'4
F~HBBI: S-1481
BORl~~ NUKBRI: 1
IPT. MO.: 21U
-----------~----------------------------------------·-------.P.T.
Blows
Per
. Foot
:Drivinc: DrJ l KoLst.:
llnergy lDeasitriContent:
lt·.ft/ftl PCF I I I
I I
I I
iel.
Coap.
s
I I
I I
I I 1 __ ...... _____ ___.__....., ____ ,
I I
I I
I I 1 __ ....._ ______ ..._ ______ 1
I I I I I
I I I I I
-----·~l~~~~fi~.e~:---~----~~~'~·z~:-~:
I I I I I
I I 1 I I
I l I l --·-· .. ---~·-··11',_.....·~--........ l!lo •• __ .. ,
I
I
I
I
I
I 1._ ____ _. ____________________ ~-------1
I I
I I
I I I --'---·..._ __ _,_ __ ....__._1
I
I
I
--~_.,_ _____ ..._ _____ w---~-----1
I
I
.35.0l
I I
I I
3.5: --:
F
e
e
t Visual Classifieation
Total depth 31.0 feet
10 nD GIOIDilTD EICOIIH&UD
Enclosure 2, Page 7
Rpt. No.: 7997-a
File No.: 8-13043
Job: Infiltration Baa!n Percolation Teatlngl S-13043
Bor. No. ---s.1 __ Dia. (ln.) 7.0''
Depth ofTest.___.~..1'3-2~' ----
Time Read. Rate
Read (ln.) loiHr
8:13 2.0" 15.6
8:23 12.0"
8:24 2.0" 15.6
8:34 12.0"
8:35 2.0" 13.6
8:45 11.25"
8:46 2.0' 13.6
8:56 11.25"
8:57 2.0" 13.0
9:07 11.0"
9:08 2.0" 12.5
9:18 10.75"
9:19 2.0" 11.4
9:29 10.25"
9:30 2.0" 11.4
9:40 10.25"
JOHN R. BYERLY, INC.
PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET
Date: 02-14-11 By:.JI, ____ Remartal: 10 Min Readings-------
Bor. No. _,:2 __ Dla. (ln.) 7 .0" Bor. No • .....A..,_ Dla. (ln • ....z.g: __
Depth afTHt 1'~2' Depth of Teet 1'-2'
Time Read. Rata Time Read. Rate
Read (ln.) lniHr Read (ln.) lniHr
9:44 2.0' 7.2 11:18 2.0" 15.6
9:54 8.0" 11:28 12.0"
9:55 2.0' 5.0 11:29 2.0" 1s.eL
10:05 6.5' 11:39 12.0"
10:06 2.0' 4.0 11:40 2.0" 14.3
10:16 5.75" 11:50 11.5"
10:17 2.0' 3.4 11:51 2.0' 14.3
10:27 5.25' 12:01 11.5'
10:28 2.0" 3.1 12:02 2.0" 13.6
10:38 5.0" 12:12 11.25"
10:39 2.0' 3.1 12:13 2.0" 12.5
10:49 5.0' 12:23 10.75"
10:50 2.0" 2.8 12:24 2.0' 11.4
11:00 4.75" 12:34 10.25"
11:01 2.0" 2.8 12:35 2.0" 10.8
11:11 4.75" 12;45 10.0"
JOHN R. BYERLY, INC.
PERCOLATION TEST OAT A SHEET
Job: Infiltration Ba&ln percolation Testlnal S-13043 Date: 02-1+11 By: IT Remarb: 10 llln Raacljnqa -------
Bor. No. 4
DepthofTest
Time ~d.
Read (ln.)
7:11 2.0"
7:21 12.0"
7:22 2.0"
7:32 12.0'
7:33 2.0"
7:43 12.0"
7:44 2.0"
7:54 12.0"
7:55 2.0"
8:05 12.0"
8:06 2.0"
8:16 12.0"
8:17 2.0'
8:27 12.0"
8:28 2.0'
8:38 12.0"
Dla. (ln.) 7 .0"
1'-2'
Rate
lniHr
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.8
!!:tl~ ·~s-~z.
15.6 :. ~ c .. ca
C'(l--.lt.) .... co~
c.>CO'tl ~d;'~~~
Bor. No. _ _:6 __ Dla. (ln.) 7.0" Bor. No. __ Dia. (in. __ _
Depth of Teet 1'·2' Depth of Teet
Time Read. Rate Time Read. Rate Rete
Read {ln.) lniHr Read (ln.) Mlnlln lnfHr
12:55 2.0" 15.6
1:05 12.0"
1:06 2.0" 15.6 1
1:16 12.0"
1:17 2.0" 15.6
1:27 12.0"
1:28 2.0" 15.6
1:38 12.0"
1:39 2.0" 15.6
1:49 12.0"
1:50 2.0" 16.6 I
2:00 12.0"
2:01 2.0" 15.6
2:11 12.0"
2:12 2.0" 15.6
2:22 12.0"
CORRECTION FACTOR CALCULATIONS
Correction Factor = [Volume Boring -Volume Pipe] x % Voids of Gravel + Volume Pice
Volume Boring
Diameter of Boring = 7.0 inches
Diameter of Pipe = 6.0 inches
% Gravet Voids (Based on Laboratory Testing) = 0.304
Assume Unit Depth
Correction Factor= [1t(7/2)2(1) -n(6/2)2(1)](.304) + 1t(6/2)2(1)
1t(7/2)2 { 1)
= 0.82
Enclosure 4
Rpt. No.: 7997-a
File No.: S-13043
i
&
I
Ji
T..:MacM
't:' WetTest
~ B«<h Modo
Ill Ccnanuow Ph~e 1
::!. ConttnuowPMsel
e " "
Stood,SCO<o
Feed v.riltiont
NG .... t"ticMMse
ltold..ec'd"'SI
Totalo . .aa.umes U am for lnftlt,..Uon
C.ctusll tllta
Duntlan Flow In
(Doyal (AFD)
30 ...
"' 0.00
15 .,_2
15 4A2 .., ·~· 30 U4
"'"
ZOI.U
1DA3 Acres (bo~)
Volume (AF)'" 62.57
Tot.llntlow
IN!
265'.11
0.00
0030 ..... ... ,.,
215.20
0.00
l,UUO
C.i!ylnflltr.atlon•
CARll •••
1.10 ,..
1.10
.so
1.10
110
I ftus.abledtopth
0.125 ft/hr lnfiltratlon
Total Mllx Jnftttr-tlon
IAFI ••oo
13.ll0
:.tso
19.50
7100
39.ll0
6257
210.57
$tqr.p
152.57 N "'"" s.o .... l
6257
49.57
6l57
02.57
o~S7
02.57
6257
<llnlh ~1.1•1 lnflitmion
IN! IAFI
11311 3900
O.liO 13.00
sao 1950
46.10 1!1.50
.U40 noo
226.20 39.00
000 6257
12:2:.1) 210.57
ATTACHMENTC