HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Closure Plan 1998 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
Southold Landfill
Cutchogue, New York
Ovirka and Bartilucci
Consulting Engineers
DECEMBER 1998
FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK
PREPARED FOR
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
BY
DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WOODBURY, NEW YORK
DECEMBER 1998
· 1314'u~0803801 .doc(R03)
k
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
Section
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
General .................................................................................................... 1 - 1
Site Location ........................................................................................... 1-1
Site History .............................................................................................. 1-4
EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 2-1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
Site Description ....................................................................................... 2-1
Limits of Waste ....................................................................................... 2-2
Hydrogeology .......................................................................................... 2-2
Surface Leachate ..................................................................................... 2-4
Explosive Gas .......................................................................................... 2-4
Vectors .................................................................................................... 2-6
Wetlands .................................................................................................. 2-6
PROPOSED CLOSURE SYSTEM ................................................................. 3-1
3.1 General .................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Proposed Area of the Cap ........................................................................ 3-2
3.3 Proposed Grading Plan ............................................................................ 3-4
3.4 Site Preparation ....................................................................................... 3-5
3.5 Geotextile ................................................................................................ 3-8
3.6 Gas Venting Layer ................................................................................... 3-10
3.7 Geomembrane ......................................................................................... 3-13
3.8 Geocomposite Drainage Layer ................................................................ 3-18
3.9 Barrier Protection Layer .......................................................................... 3-21
3.10 Topsoil and Vegetation ........................................................................... 3-23
3. ! 1 Erosion Control ....................................................................................... 3-26
SLOPE STABILITY ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 General .................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Basis of Stability Analyses ...................................................................... 4-2
4.3 Results of Stability Analyses ................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 4-6
· 1314~0518801 .DOC(R04)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!1
Section
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Title Page
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 5-1
HYDRAULIC EFFICIENCY .......................................................................... 6-1
SITE DRAINAGE ............................................................................................. 7-1
LANDFILL GAS MONITORING, VENTING AND CONTROL ............... 8-1
8.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Passive Gas Vents ................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Perimeter Monitoring Wells .................................................................... 8-2
8.4 Perimeter Gas Migration Control Trenches ................... .. ........................ 8-5
GROUNDWATER MONITORING ............................................................... 9-1
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE .......................................................... 10-1
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ..................................................................... 11-1
List of Figures
1-1 Site Location Map ................................................................................... 1-2
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-2
2-1
2-2
· 1314XF051880 I.DOC(R04)
Site Plan .................................................................................................. 1-3
Existing Topography and Limits of Waste .............................................. 2-3
December 1998 Soil Gas Survey Location Map ..................................... 2-7
3-1 Cap Cross-Section ................................................................................... 3-3
3-2 Average Depth of Frost Penetration ........................................................ 3-12
3-3 Rainfall Intensity "R" Factors ................................................................. 3-29
4-1 Cross Section Locations .......................................................................... 4-3
4-2 Geometry of Profiles ............................................................................... 4-4
11-1 Construction Schedule ............................................................................. 11-2
ii
I
I
I
List of Tables
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
2-1
Soil Gas Monitoring Results ................................................................... 2-8
3-1 Geotextile ................................................................................................ 3 -9
3-2 60-mil HDPE Textured Geomembrane ................................................... 3-15
3-3 Geocomposite Property Values ............................................................... 3-19
3-4 Geotextile ................................................................................................ 3-20
5-1 Estimated Settlement of MSW and C&D Landfill Materials .................. 5-3
5-2 Estimated Settlements of Yard Waste Landfill Materials .......................5-4
6-1
HELP Model, 4% Slope, Average Annual Totals for
Years 1977 Through 1981 ....................................................................... 6-4
10-1 Construction Cost Estimate ..................................................................... 10-2
List of Appendices
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
NYSDEC August 1, 1996 Response to Variance Requests ................................ A
Stability Analysis . . ............. B
Settlement Analysis ............................................................................................. C
HELP Model ........... D
· 4 Percent Slope - 3 Installation Defects Per Acre
· 4 Percent Slope - 2 Installation Defects Per Acre
· 22 Percent Slope
· 28 Percent Slope
HydroCAD Storm Water Analysis ...................................................................... E
· 1314LF0518801 .DOC(R04)
iii
I
!
Attachments/Drawings
I
I
I
!
I
i
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
· Title Sheet
· Symbols, Abbreviations and Index of Drawings ............................................................. l
· Existing Topography, Limits of Waste and
Existing Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations ......................................................... 2
· Subgrade Grading Plan, Limit of Cap and
Replacement Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations ................................................. 3
· Drainage Plan .................................................................................................................. 4
· Gas Monitoring, Venting and Control Plan .................................................................... 5
· Miscellaneous Details ..................................................................................................... 6
· Erosion Control Details ................................................................................................... 7
· 1314~0518801.DOC(R03)
Section I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
This Final Closure Plan has been prepared on behalf of the Town of Southold (Town) as
the owner of the Southold Landfill, Cutchogue, New York. This report is intended to address the
engineering aspects of designing and constructing a landfill capping/closure system for the site.
In accordance with the terms of the Stipulation Agreement between the Town and the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) dated October 15,
1994, this plan has been prepared in conformance with the requirements of 6 NYCRR 360-2.15
(Landfill Closure and Post-Closure Criteria) in effect on December 31, 1988, and the variance
requests accepted by the NYSDEC in correspondence dated August 1, 1995 (see Appendix A),
and discussed later in this document.
It should be noted that for the purposes of the text in this document, references to "north"
are in the direction of Oregon Road. References to "south" are in the direction of North Road
(also known as Middle Road and County Road 48). References to "east" are in the direction of
Cox Lane, and references to "west" are in the direction of Depot Lane.
1.2 Site Location
The Southold Landfill is an inactive municipal landfill located between Oregon Road and
North Road (also known as Middle Road and County Road 48) to the north and south,
respectively, and Cox Lane and Depot Lane to the east and west, respectively, Suffolk County,
New York (see Figure 1-1).
The landfill property is approximately 62 acres, including the 17 acres north of the
landfill which was formerly used for borrow operations. The area used for landfilling comprises
34 acres (see Figure 1-2). The Southold Landfill is situated in a rural, agricultural area in
· 1314/S0617804.DOC(R04) 1-1
I
I
I
I
i
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' '/ ~ QUADRANGLE LOCAT[
,80UTHOLD./ /
MDFILL- /;
.q
Source: USGS MAIIIIUCK HILLS, N.Y. & SOUTHOLD, N.Y. QUADRANGLE
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD - $OUTHOLD LANDFILL
RNAL CLOSURE PI.~N
Dvirko ond Borthucci SITE LOCATION MAP
A Division of Williom F. Cosulich Associates, P.C.
I
0 2000
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 1-1
mm m ,.m m .m. m imm ---- m m mm mm mm m m mm m mm m
FORMER
SCAVENGER
WASTE
LAGOONS
/
I
I
I
FORMER BORROW
AREA
//
//
// //
I)
ROA
)FILL
AREA
BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF'
STATION FOR RECYCLABLES
-OVERHEAD
ELECTRIC
LINES
STORAGE
GARAGE
HAZARDOUS WASTE
CONTAINMENT FACILITY
OIL
STORAGE TANKS
DIRECTORY: 1314
FrLE NAME: 1314S(TE
DATE: RH/B-12-98
II o wE,0H,.G STATION
(SCALE HOUSE
LEGEND:
EXISTING FENCE LINE
PROPERTY LINE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
Dvirko ond Bortiluccl
Division of Williom F, Cosuiich Associotes, P.C.
SITE PLAN
0 ,300 600
m m m
FIGURE 1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cutchogue, approximately 2.5 miles east of Mattituck and 8 miles west of the Incorporated
Village of Greenport. The landfill is located in an agricultural-industrial zoned area, with the
existing landfill zoned light industrial (LI). Residences are located adjacent to the northern and
eastern boundaries of the landfill. Farm land and industries are located on the western, southern
and northern boundaries. Properties located further to the north, south, east and west of the
landfill are zoned A-C (agricultural conservation).
1.3 Site History
The Town of Southold initiated operations at the landfill site in 1920 for the disposal of
municipal solid waste, refuse, debris and scavenger (septic system) waste, and operated the
landfill continuously until 1993 when it closed. The property includes a large excavated area
(borrow area) in the northern portion of the site, which was used to obtain cover material for the
past landfilling operations, and two abandoned scavenger waste lagoons along the western border
of the landfill, which were combined into one larger lagoon or basin as directed by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in 1987 (see Figure 1-2). The
lagoons formerly accepted septic waste from both commercial and residential sources.
Subsequent to the hurricane of 1938, large quantities of construction and demolition
debris, land clearing debris, as well as other materials, were landfilled in the southwestern
portion of the site. This area was also used for burying old automobiles.
In 1974, Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. (H2M), under contract to the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), conducted a subsurface investigation at the
Southold Landfill in order to determine the depth of fill material and municipal waste at the site.
Three borings were drilled at separate locations within the existing landfill area (approximately at
the center and south-central portions, and west-central border of the landfill). Information obtained
from the borings indicated that the landfill had been excavated to depths of approximately 3 feet
above the water table and subsequently landfilled with municipal waste and other fill material.
· 1314/S0617804.DOC(R04)
1-4
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In October 1976, a methane gas survey was conducted at the landfill. Well points were
driven into the ground in the northern, southeastern and southwestern portions of the landfill and
measured for methane gas. The results of this survey showed low levels in comparison to the lower
explosive level (LEL) for methane.
Between 1980 and 1984, five monitoring wells (S-76687, S-71045, S-69761, S-68916 and
S-68831 ) were installed on the landfill site and sampled by SCDHS.
In 1985, Woodward-Clyde Consultants prepared a Phase I Investigation of the landfill for
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
In the summer of 1986, the scavenger waste lagoons at the landfill were abandoned upon
commencement of operations at the Southold Scavenger Waste Pretreatment Plant. Sludge removal
from the scavenger waste lagoons was performed during the summer of 1987 at which time the two
waste lagoons were combined into one larger lagoon by excavating the divide of soil which existed
between the two lagoons.
In December 1990, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
conducted a site investigation at the landfill. A total of nine soil samples were collected and
analyzed for volatile and semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides and metals. The results of
this investigation are presented in the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report,
Southold Landfill, October 1991 prepared by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers (D&B)
and described below.
In July 1991, D&B a Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation. The investigation
consisted of a soil gas survey, installation of 14 monitoring wells at seven well cluster locations,
subsurface soil sampling and logging, groundwater sample collection and water level
measurement, downhole geophysical logging and permeability testing. The groundwater samples
were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) +30 parameters, Target Analyte List (TAL)
· 1314/S0617804.DOC(R04)
1-5
inorganics and cyanide as well as field and leachate parameters (indicators), as specified in the
NYSDEC Part 360 List of Expanded Parameters.
Subsequent to the July 1991 investigation, D&B conducted two groundwater sampling
events (July 1992 and January 1993). During both of these sampling events, samples were
collected from the 14 monitoring wells installed as part of the 1991 investigation and two
monitoring wells (S-68831 and S-68916) installed by the SCDHS. In addition to the groundwater
monitoring wells, three downgradient private water supply wells were sampled during the July
1992 event and five private water supply wells were sampled during the January 1993 event.
As a result of the findings of these investigations, it was determined that a weak plume was
emanating from the Southold Landfill. This was supported by contaminants identified in the
groundwater. These contaminants were 1,2-dichloropropane and 1,2-dichloroethane in low
concentrations; iron, magnesium, manganese and sodium in concentrations not substantially above
ambient conditions; aldicarb; and the leachate parameters: ammonia, nitrate and phenols.
In addition, based on soil samples obtained during the 1991 investigation and the USEPA
sampling program, only a few organic contaminants in low concentrations (toluene, 4-
chloroanaline, aldrin and 4,4'DDE) and some inorganic contaminants at slightly elevated levels
(aluminum, barium, copper, iron and zinc) were found on-site in the former scavenger waste
lagoons. However, none of the organics and relatively low concentrations of inorganics were found
in the groundwater underlying and downgradient of the landfill.
As a result of these findings, the Town of Southold petitioned the NYSDEC to delist the
site from the State Registry of inactive hazardous waste sites and the landfill was removed from the
list of potential (Class 2a) hazardous waste sites by DEC in October 1993.
In March 1995, D&B performed a test pit excavation program to gain subsurface
information to aid in the delineation of municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and
demolition debris (C&D) in and around the existing waste mass. Sixty test pits were installed to
· 1314/S061781MDOC(R04) 1-6
delineate the limits of and evaluate the waste in the landfill. In late 1997 and early 1998, an
additional 17 test pits were excavated to further define the limits of the waste. In the southwest
comer of the landfill, inconsistent results were obtained with respect to ihe limits of waste, and
therefore, additional test pit excavation was required in this area (see attached drawing titled
"Limits of Waste Map"). In mid-1998, 10 additional test trenches were excavated to specifically
determine the nature and extent of fill material in the northwestern portion of the landfill and in the
former scavenger waste lagoons in order to locate a planned storm water recharge basin in this area
in support of closure efforts. The findings of each of these test pit programs are presented in the
November 1998 report, entitled "Test Pit Waste Delineation Report," which was submitted to
NYSDEC under cover dated November 6, 1998.
As presented in the November 1998 report, based on the construction of the test pits, the
following conclusions were made:
In most areas along the northern, eastern and western landfill boundaries, waste
extends essentially to the property line.
Except for the southeast quadrant and northwest comer of the landfill, buried waste
comprises a combination of MSW and C&D material. The southeast quadrant
comprises essentially all MSW. The northwest comer comprised predominantly large
metal debris. A high pementage of yard waste was buried on the northwestern portion
of the landfill.
For the most part, buried waste is present in both the floors and eastern side walls of
the scavenger waste lagoons.
The area of buried waste comprises 34 acres.
The depth of waste increases rapidly at the limits of waste, and therefore there is little
opportunity for waste consolidation.
For the purposes of estimating the volume of waste, based on investigation results, the
following assumptions were made:
· Depth of waste is 40 feet below existing grade.
· 1314/S06178(M-.DOC(R04) 1-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· On a volume-to-volume basis, the waste mass consists of 50% soil and 50% waste.
Based on the above assumptions the estimated volume of waste is 11100,000 cubic yards.
· 1314/S0617804.DOC(R04)
1-8
Section 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
In order to fulfill the requirements of Part 360 of Title 6 of the New York State Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR), and the Stipulation Agreement
between the Town and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) dated October 5, 1994, for the closure of the Southold Landfill, a Closure
Investigation Report were completed for the landfill in December 1996. The Closure
Investigation included groundwater monitoring well and water supply well sampling and
analysis, groundwater elevation measurements, a surface leachate survey and sampling, explosive
gas monitoring and a vector survey. The elements and results of this investigation are discussed
in detail in the Closure Investigation Report and are summarized below.
2.1 Site Description
Currently, portions of the southern part of the site are used for a municipal solid waste
(MSW) transfer station, a construction and demolition debris (C&D) transfer station, a recycling
drop-off station, yard waste composting and tire loading. The northeastern comer of the property
was formerly used as a sand borrow pit and is presently not used; however, the Town is planning
to use the borrow pit for yard waste composting. The majority of the remainder of the site is
occupied by the inactive landfill.
In general the natural topography of the property, outside the limits of waste slopes
gradually upward from south to north. On the south portion of the property, excluding the
existing recharge basin in the southeast comer, elevations vary from 38 feet above mean sea level
(amsl) at the eastern perimeter to 55 feet amsl near the existing collection center, and in the north
portion of the site elevations vary from 14 feet amsl at the bottom of the former borrow pit to
65 feet amsl in the northwest comer.
The landfilled area is divided into an eastern and western portion which is delineated by a
main access road running north-south. On the east side of the landfill, with the exception of the
· 1314/S0617803.DOC(R06)
2-1
former scavenger waste lagoons, topography generally slopes upward from the southwest, at
approximately 44 feet amsl to the northeast at 60 feet amsl. In general, the west side of the
landfill is higher than the east side and slopes upward from south to north increasing from
approximately 55 feet amsl to 71 feet amsl.
2.2 Limits of Waste
Based upon the results of the test pit excavation program conducted in 1995 and
subsequent test pitting conducted in 1997 and 1998, the area of buried waste comprises 34 acres.
As described previously, waste was determined to extend to the property line in most areas along
the northern, eastern and western landfill boundaries (see Figure 2-1 and Drawing 2 for test pit
locations and limits of waste). Except for the southeast quadrant and northwestern comer of the
landfill, buried waste comprises a combination of municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction
and demolition (C&D) material. The southeast quadrant comprises essentially all MSW. The
northeast comer comprises predominantly large metal debris. A large percentage of yard waste
was buried in the northwest portion of the landfill.
2.3 Hydrogeology
The principal aquifer of interest in the area of the landfill is the Upper Glacial aquifer.
Intersecting the Upper Glacial aquifer is the North Fork glacial clay which represents a laterally
continuous flow boundary underlying the Southold Landfill.
Groundwater flow in the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer has been defined as a north to
northwesterly flow across the site with groundwater elevations across the site ranging from 7.7 to
6.6 feet above mean sea level. Average hydraulic conductivities were estimated based upon the
results of slug tests performed in on-site wells during the Closure Investigation. The
conductivities ranged in value from 2.2 xl0'4 to 8.6 x 10'2 cm/sec. The horizontal gradient was
calculated to be 3.65 x 10'4 feet of head loss per foot of horizontal distance. Data obtained from
the shallow and deep wells during the Closure Investigation indicated slight and alternating
· 1314/S0617803.DOC(R06) 2-2
:
dow or formedy
Ohn A. Droskoski
Susan ~
now or formedy
Roy A. Schelin
Joanna Schelin ,,
now or for~cjGdy
Prime Purveyors
469 54,' ~*-' *--:'
now or formerly Frank j. MCBride
or formerly dOhn
P. Krupski
COX'S
S57'b4'10"E
now or formerly
43 ( WAS'IL
5^ (WASTE >40
5 (was~ se') ,,
MW-2b
(NO ~) ....
~OA (WASTE TO S') --
lO (WASTE >73
38' (WASTE TO 8')
37* (WAS~ TO 2')
11 (DERNED LIMI~
~* (WAS~ sT)
12 (DEFINED LIMIT)
N~B-1 (NO
NV&~B-2 (DE~INED UMIT)%
NWRB-3 (DEFINED
NV, RB-4 (WASTE TO 6'
//'2 M~-6S
T/CASING
EL52.66
Bayberry Enterprises
LANE
S60'49"40".[ ''~' '
/
MW-6
13 (WASTE >6')
MW-3D
WASTE)
'W
(D
3 (DEFINED LIMIT)
(DEFINED LIMIT)
2 !w^s~' ~')-
;2A {WASTE
(WASTE
(WASTE
WABblE >10')
#AS~ ,~12')
[WAS'E >12')
(~ASTE TO 6')
(WASTE TO
NWRB-5 (DEF~ED UMI~T)
45
17 (WASTE >8') --
50 (NO
27 (WASTE '~.5')
39 (WASTE 6~-14'
40* (WASTE
2.5 (WASTE
~25A (WASTE~ TO
(DEFINED
TO
2~(WASTE >~')
-- - 965.23
21(WASTE TO 7')
23D (WASTE >5')
23C (WASTE >5')
now or fOrmerly Frank d. MCBride
Lr
now or formerly
7 (DEFtNED LIMIT)
18 (WASTE ::~')
la (WASTE :~')
IC (DEFINED UMIT)
6 (No WASTE)
Pudge Corp.
now or formerJy
Joseph Schoenstein
'~ ~ IL 'no~W or formerly
t ,, :Ar{hut V. Junge
Nathan Harris &:
Jennie Harris
or formerly_
'855'19'50"E .o. ~
T/CASING
ROAD
T CASING
',WASTE TO S') ,,
--,23B (WASTE >5')
, ' DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCl
' : ' ' ' ' I I I ' * CHECKED aV~ ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS
'" r ~ "' ' '' .... ' ' A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F, COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P,C.
' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN'
- OF laUfllCIPAL SOLID '
I I I LIMIT
CONSTRUCTION AN? )1¢1~ ,'~, '
~ SURVEYED .sTAKE LOC, ATION FOR
* ' TEST PIT LOoATiON ~NOT
ON, M~P' BASED ON
e ~:xI N~ MoNITORI
I///?A THICKNESS OF O't~lD 5 F
suRVEY ,AND TOPO~RAPMY 08TAINglD
BY YOUNQ &',YtDUN6 LAND
NO· [~ ' '~ I~VtSl0N INr, UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ~DmON TOWN OF SOUTHO~
TO THI~' ~Cg"ENT IS A ~O~TION OF SUFFOLK COUNW, N~ YORK EXISTING "', LIMITS
I
I
I
il
I
I
vertical gradients which may indicate that the landfill is situated in an area of predominantly
horizontal groundwater flow.
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
The results of the Closure Investigation indicated that, based on a comparison of the
water quality results from the monitoring wells and private water supply wells sampled during
the Closure Investigation to the NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards and guidance values
and NYSDOH maximum concentration levels (MCLs) for drinking water, water quality of the
Upper Glacial aquifer at the Southold landfill has been slightly impacted by volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), inorganic constituents and leachate parameters. The minor exceedance of
groundwater standards/guidance values on-site and no significant impact to private water supply
wells off-site indicates that a weak plume is emanating from the Southold Landfill.
2.4 Surface Leachate
During the Closure Investigation, a surface leachate survey consisting of a visual
inspection primarily involving the area surrounding the elevated portion of the landfill was
conducted. Based upon the visual inspection of the soils on-site and limited standing water, one
pooled water sample was collected from the slope of the northern side of the elevated landfill
area and analyzed for NYSDEC Part 360 Baseline Parameters. No other standing pools or
potentially leachate impacted water were observed.
The chemical analysis indicated the pooled water was impacted by leachate. However,
this water was located in a limited area along the northern perimeter of the elevated portion of the
landfill and is not migrating off-site.
2.5 Explosive Gas
As part of the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation, a total of 120 grid
node/survey points in the interior portions of the known landfilled areas were screened to
determine subsurface methane soil gas concentrations. The survey did not include the then active
· 1314/S0617803.DOC(R06)
2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
,I
I
portion of the landfill in the northeast area. Probes were advanced to a depth of approximately
31/2 feet. The results of the survey are presented in Appendix C of the 1991 Hydrogeologic
Investigation Report. At 80 of the 120 survey points explosive gas concenirations were recorded
at or above 25% of the lower explosive limit (LEL).
A perimeter landfill gas survey was conducted as part of the Part 360 Closure
Investigation. The survey included screening for combustible gas at temporary monitoring points
installed as part of the Closure Investigation and at existing permanent gas monitoring points.
The temporary points were advance to approximately 3 feet below grade and spaced at 100-foot
or less intervals around the landfill perimeter (except where permanent points already existed).
The permanent wells, located at approximately 300-foot intervals along the perimeter of the
landfill, except the northern boundary, consist of capped 2-inch O.D., Schedule 40 PVC pipe and
4-foot long screen approximately 25 feet deep.
Based on the explosive soil gas monitoring conducted as part of the Closure
Investigation, two areas exist on the landfill site where off-site migration of explosive gas is
possible. One of the two areas is on the northwestern portion of the property and the second area
is on the eastern portion of the site. Organic vapor readings were measured over 1,000 ppm
(2% LEL) at all of the off-site points in these two areas indicating the possibility of off-site
explosive gas migration.
Presently, migration of landfill gas in these two areas is controlled by gas migration
trenches. In 1997, an approximately 200-foot long trench was excavated to a depth of
approximately 12 feet and backfilled with broken concrete along the northwestern perimeter. On
the eastern perimeter of the site, mixed wood, metal and concrete were used to fill the portion of
the property which borders the fence line. In addition, in the southwest comer of the site and
along the western property boundary, trenches were excavated to a depth of approximately 8 to
10 feet in the mid-1980s and backfilled with concrete to promote venting and reduce gas
migration.
· 1314/S0617803.DOC(R06)
2-5
In addition, in response to NYSDEC's comments on the draft Final Closure Plan,
additional landfill gas migration control trenches were excavated, and a soil gas survey was
conducted on December 3, 1998. As agreed to during a meeting with NYSDEC that was held on
November 12, 1998, the surveying was conducted in the two (2) areas discussed above (near the
northwest and east perimeters of the landfill). (Refer to Figure 2-2 for the locations of the soil
gas survey points and Drawing 5 for the locations of the landfill gas migration control trenches.)
Elevated levels of combustible gas had previously been reported at the soil gas survey locations
in the December 1996 Part 360 Closure Investigation Report. Although monitoring was
conducted subsequent to the surveying events reported in the Closure Investigation Plan and the
levels of combustible gas detected at that time were determined to be acceptable, the December
1998 survey was undertaken to reconfirm this conclusion.
The soil gas was monitored with a combustible gas indicator and flame ionization
detector at approximately 2.5 feet below ground surface utilizing the methods described in the
Part 360 Closure Investigation Report. The results of the survey are presented in Table 2-1. As
indicated in the table, the highest concentration of combustible gas detected was 4% of the lower
explosive limit (LEL) and at most locations a reading of 0% LEL was recorded.
2.6 Vectors
Based on the vector survey performed as part of the Closure Investigation, the landfill has
been found to attract herring gulls, and to a lesser extent, rodents and mosquitoes. Feeding areas
for birds and mammals exist in and around the collection center building and at the dirt roadway
to the north of the elevated landfill area. The presence of whelk shells in this area actively
promotes feeding in this area by a number of birds.
2.7 Wetlands
According to information obtained from the NYSDEC, there are no New York State or
federally regulated wetlands located on or in close proximity to the Southold Landfill. The
nearest wetland is located approximately 4,000 feet southeast of the landfill.
· 1314/S0617803.DOC(R06) 2-6
LEGEND:
EXISTING FENCE LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PERMANENT EXPLOSIVE GAS
MONITORING POINT LOCATION
AND DESIGNATION
TEMPORARY EXPLOSIVE GAS
MONITORING POINT LOCATION
FORMER BORROW
AREA
I
I
BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF
STATION FOR RECYCLABLES
-OVERHEAD
ELECTRIC
LINES
HOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
CONTAINMENT FACILITY
~ CENTER
STORAGE I._.~ ] r"l ii WEIGHING STATION
GARAGE ~] ~ (SCALE HOUSE
II
OIL
STORAGE TANKS
0 300 600
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
DECEMBER 1998
Dvirko ond Bortilucci LOCATIONS OF SOIL (;AS SURVEY POINTS
Consultlng Engineers
A Division of William F. Cosul[ch Associates, P.C.
FIGURE 2-2
I
I
I
Table 2-1
DECEMBER 1998
SOIL GAS MONITORING RESULTS
FID Reading
Probe Point Percent Lower Probe
Location Percent Oxygen Explosive Limit Background (ppm)
llE 19.0 0 6.1 3.0
11F 19.4 1 5.0 5.2
I1G 19.5 0 6.2 6.0
12 20.0 0 6.3 6.8
12A 19.9 0 6.2 6.0
15G 14.6 1 1.4 1.5
16 20.2 1 14 405
17 20.0 1 16 38
38 20.1 0 6.1 6.3
39 20.6 0 5.6 5.7
40 19.9 0 6.2 6.3
41 20.0 0 6.1 6.1
42 20.1 0 6.1 6.1
43 20.1 0 6.2 6.1
44 20.1 0 6.0 5.9
45 20.0 0 6.1 6.1
47 14.5 2 8 *
48 20.3 4 12 >1000
49 20.3 0 8 30
50A 20.4 4 8.4 920
51A 20.3 0 9 26
I
I
* Measurement not collected due to instrument malfunction (no flame), probably due to low
oxygen.
· 1314/S0617803.DOC(R06) 2-8
Section
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 PROPOSED CLOSURE SYSTEM
3.1 General
The proposed closure system for the capping of the Southold Landfill will consist of a
layered system of soils and geosynthetics to provide a cost effective low permeability hydraulic
barrier which will mitigate the vertical percolation of precipitation into the underlying waste
mass. The primary functions of the layered capping system are as follows:
Mitigate the vertical percolation of precipitation into the underlying waste mass,
· Mitigate the generation of leachate resulting from contact between precipitation and
the waste mass,
· Mitigate the release of leachate to the groundwater system by inhibiting the
generation of leachate,
· Reduce the rate of generation of landfill gas (methane) over time by reducing the
moisture content of the unsaturated waste mass. As a consequence, the generation
period will likely be extended over a longer period of time,
· Control the accumulation of landfill gas below the capping system and mitigate the
potential for lateral migration,
· Mitigate the potential for direct contact with waste,
· Provide control of surface runoff and subsurface drainage to promote the efficiency of
the hydraulic barrier,
· Resist the erosional forces of storm events,
· Provide physical protection to the hydraulic barrier layer of the capping system, and
· Provide for an aesthetically acceptable appearance of the completed system.
The proposed capping system is intended to achieve the above objectives within the
framework of the existing site conditions and constraints.
*1314~A0701802.DOC(R07)
3-1
The proposed capping system is intended to provide general conformance to the
regulations and performance criteria of 6 NYCRR Part 360 Solid Waste Management Facilities
(effective December 3 l, 1988). The proposed capping system, described from bottom to top, will
be as follows:
· Existing municipal solid waste.
· Contour grading material of varying thickness, minimum thickness of 6 inches.
· Geotextile separation layer.
· Gas venting layer (12 inches).
· 60-mil textured high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane.
· Geocomposite drainage layer on slopes greater than 20 pement.
· Barrier protection layer (12 inches).
· Topsoil or equivalent vegetative growth medium layer (6 inches).
· Vegetation.
· Erosion control blanket.
An illustration of the proposed capping system is presented in Figure 3-1.
3.2 Proposed Area of the Cap
As previously discussed, a test trench program was conducted on site to establish the
approximate lateral limits of waste and determine the area of the landfill property which requires
closure. The findings to this program indicate that the waste mass generally extends to or in close
proximity of the property boundaries. The waste extends to the boundary line along the no.beast
and northwest portions of the site. The only areas where it does not extend to the property line is
in the southwestern portion of the site where Tuthill Road borders the landfill, the southeastern
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R07) 3 -2
m m m m mm mm m mm m m m mm ,m, m mm m m mm m
GEOCOMPOSITE ~
60 MIL HDPE
TEXTURED
GEOMEMBRANE
GEOTEXTILE --
-- 6" VEGETATIVE GROWTH MEDIUM
SLOPE (MIN.~
12" ~RRIER10'
PROTECTION LAYER
12" GAS VENTING
) GENERAL FILl
WASTE
ANCHOR TRENCH BACKFILL
WITH TAMPED BARRIER
PROTECTION LAYER MATERIAL-
NOTE.' PROPOSED SLOPES AT 3,.if[ ARE
LIMITED TO SELECT AREAS OF SITE
GRAVEL PAD AT PIPE OUTLET
4" PERFORATED HDPE
DRAIN PIPE WITH INTEGRAL
GEOTEXTILE WRAP
TO DRAJNAGE
SYS'IEM __
Dvirka and Bartiluccl
A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C.
SOUTHOLD I.~DFILL
FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
CAP CROSS-SECTION
FIGURE 3-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
portion of the landfill where the current waste transfer facilities are, and the extreme northern
portion of the landfill along the border between the landfill and the borrow area.
3.3 Proposed Grading Plan
As previously discussed and reflected by the existing topography, with the exception of
isolated mounds and depressions, the natural topography of the property generally slopes gently
upward in a northward direction from a low (approximately 38 feet amsl) on the southeastern
portion of the property to a high of approximately 65 feet amsl in the northwest comer of the site.
This natural gradual slope has been interrupted by the landfill (which is approximately 71 feet
amsl at its highest point), the former scavenger waste lagoons in the northwest portion of the site
(which are approximately 20 feet deep), and the sand borrow area north of the landfill which has
been excavated to approximately 15 feet amsl.
For the purposes of the following discussion and consistent with design of the proposed
subgrade grading plan, the landfill is divided into eastern and western sections which are
delineated by the main access road which runs in a north/south direction through the center of the
proposed landfill cap area.
The proposed grading plan for the landfill site attempts to make use of the existing terrain
to the greatest extent practical in order to minimize the need for gross reshaping and landfilling
of the site. This approach proposes to make use of relatively flat slopes of 4 percent across the
majority of the landfill as stipulated by 6 NYCRR Part 360. In areas of the site where the
existing grades provide for slopes in excess of 4 percent, the proposed grades will attempt to
parallel the existing shape. The proposed maximum slope of the capping system is approximately
33 percent, with the exception of the extreme northeast comer where grades approach
approximately 40 percent for up to 20 vertical feet in order to tie into existing grades. This
complies with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360 for a maximum slope of 33 percent and
not greater than 50 percent for a 20-foot vertical rise (6 NYCRR 360-2.15(i)(1) - effective
December 31, 1988). The proposed areas of 33 percent slope are minimal compared to the
overall site and are provided where dictated by existing topography. In addition, the slope
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R07)
3-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
stability analysis presented in Section 4.0 of this Plan provides an evaluation of the northeast
comer of the landfill where the slope approaches 40 percent. The slope stability analysis shows
that adequate factors of safety exist for the proposed capping system in this area, as well as
across the remainder of the landfill. (It should be noted that an additional portion of the subgrade
plan includes slopes which approach 40 percent in the area of the existing borrow pit; however,
this is beyond the northern extremes of the cap system and the limits of waste.) The proposed
grading plan is presented on Drawing 3.
It is estimated that the total quantity of fill required to achieve a minimum slope of 4
percent throughout the site is approximately 101,000 cubic yards. It should be noted that this
includes filling in of the former scavenger waste lagoons.
3.4 Site Preparation
The first step in preparing the site for construction of the proposed capping system will be
the shaping and grading of the existing ground surface to develop a prepared subgrade. Prior to
any excavation or filling, the existing vegetation within the area of the cap will be cleared.
Woody vegetation such as trees will be cut down, chipped and used on-site in the perimeter areas
not being capped. Tree stumps will be excavated and disposed of off-site at a NYSDEC-
permitted or registered solid waste management facility for land clearing debris. As an alternate,
tree stumps may be reduced in size on site for on-site use or off-site disposal.
Brash and ground cover will be cleared by thoroughly and completely tracking the areas
with a bulldozer to grind up the vegetation and incorporate it into the loosened soil. The existing
vegetation will be cleared prior to proceeding with any other aspects of the cap construction.
However, the contractor will be permitted to phase the clearing and grabbing operation to make
use of the existing vegetation for erosion control purposes.
After clearing, the existing ground surface will be cut, graded and/or filled as required to
achieve prepared subgrade elevations. Excavated waste materials resulting from cuts or
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08)
3-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
excavations will be relandfilled on site in areas requiring fill. Relandfilled waste will be spread in
lifts up to 2 feet in thickness, covered with a 6-inch lifts of general fill and compacted using a
landfill compactor or pad-footed vibratory compactor.
At the end of each day, exposed waste in cut areas and/or relandfilled areas will be
covered with a 6-inch layer of daily cover (general fill). The layer of daily cover will be
compacted with a landfill compactor or pad-footed vibratory compactor. Open excavations will
be graded and protected from the accumulation of surface runoff.
Areas requiring fill to attain the proposed prepared subgrade elevations will be
constructed with controlled lifts of compacted general fill, processed C&D and/or other approved
alternate materials. The fill will be placed and spread in lifts of uniform thickness and compacted
to a density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with
ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the fill material will be controlled to
facilitate compaction and the maximum compacted lift thickness will be limited to 12 inches,
except on-site processed C&D material will be compacted in lifts of no greater than
approximately 6 inches. Compacted lifts will be tested to determine the in-place density and
moisture content by nuclear methods at a minimum frequency of nine tests per acre per lift.
At a minimum, 6 inches of compacted contour grading material will be placed over the
entire surface of the landfill to be capped. Existing ground surfaces which coincide with
proposed prepared subgrade elevations and exhibit waste at the surface will be scraped to a depth
of 6 inches to allow for placement of the contour grading material. In areas where the existing
surface presents itself as being suitable for establishment of the prepared subgrade surface,
scraping of the surface will be eliminated and the existing surface will be accepted as the
prepared subgrade surface.
The subgrade surface will be proofrolled with a smooth drum vibratory roller to provide a
smooth, uniformly sloping, unyielding surface. Depressions, soft spots and yielding areas
detected by proofrolling will be remedied by recompaction or excavation and replacement as
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08)
3-6
appropriate. The prepared subgrade surface will be free from protruding rocks, litter, debris and
disturbance due to erosion which may inhibit intimate contact with the overlying geotextile.
The general fill/contour grading material will be obtained from off-site sources subject to
inspection, testing and pre-approval. On-site borrow from the excavation of recharge basin(s)
will be used as general fill/contour grading material to off-set the quantity of off-site material
required to be imported. The general fill/contour grading material will be clean, inert, well
graded, granular material generally free from any organic material, roots, stumps, chunks of earth
or clay, shale or other soft, poor durability particles. Use of alternate contour grading material,
such as reprocessed or recycled soils containing incidental fractions of concrete and asphalt,
dredge material meeting the basic requirements for Upland Disposal Category 2, reduced
construction and demolition (C&D) debris, and recycling residue, such as glass sand, will be
permitted to reduce the cost of closure. Approval will be obtained from the NYSDEC prior to
the use of alternate contour grading material. It is planned to reduce all C&D on-site. The
general fill/contour grading material will conform to the following gradation:
Sieve Size
Percent Passing By Weight
6 inch 100
No. 40 0-70
No. 200 0-40
The final (uppermost) 6-inch lift or layer of contour grading material which will serve as
the prepared subgrade for the overlying capping system will be constructed with contour grading
material with a maximum particle size of 4 inches and otherwise be in accordance with the above
gradation requirements. The prepared subgrade surface will be surveyed for as-built conditions.
Conformance testing of the general fill/contour grading material will be performed at a
minimum frequency of one per 5,000 cubic yards and as the material is perceived to change.
Testing will include gradation analysis (ASTM D422) and moisture/density relationships
(ASTM D698 - Standard Proctor with a minimum of 95 percent density).
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08) 3-7
3.5 Geotextile
Immediately above the prepared subgrade surface, the capping system will be constructed
in a layered arrangement. The first layer placed will be a geotextile fabric to separate the
underlying contour grading material from the overlying gas venting material. The geotextile will
provide for vertical separation of the two soils, allow for vertical migration of landfill gas from
the waste mass up to the gas venting layer, allow for vertical percolation of water and prevent
blending of the gas venting layer with the subgrade materials.
The geotextile will be a nominal 8 ounce per square yard continuous filament polyester or
polypropylene, nonwoven, needlepunched fabric. The geotextile polymer composition will be at
least 95 percent polypropylene or polyester by weight. The geotextile will conform to the
properties listed in Table 3-1.
The geotextile will be deployed in the direction of the slope, overlap adjacent panels by
3 inches and will be seamed by a sewn, double thread lockstitch Type 401 or equivalent. The
seam will be a "flat" or "prayer" seam. Geotextile deployment will be controlled to ensure that
the placed geotextile is not exposed to sunlight for more than 14 days.
Prior to placing the geotextile, the prepared subgrade will be visually inspected to
evaluate the suitability of the subgrade and ensure that the surface is properly compacted, smooth
and uniform. The surface will be reasonably free of stones, organic matter, irregularities,
protrusions, loose soil and any abrupt changes in grade that could damage the geotextile.
Quality control testing will be performed by the geotextile manufacturer. Conformance
testing of the delivered material will be performed only if the need is perceived based upon an
examination of the materials.
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08) 3 -8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-1
GEOTEXTILE
Fabric Property Test Method Unit I Specified Value I Qualifier°)
Fabric Weight ASTM D3776 oz/sq yd 7.9 MARV
Thickness, t ASTM D1777 mils 90 MARV
Grab Strength(2) ASTM D4632 lbs 210 MARV
Grab Elongation(2) ASTM D4632 % 50 MARV
Trapezoid Tear ASTM D4533 lbs 85 MARV
Strength(2)
Puncture Resistance ASTM D4833 lbs I00 MARV
Mullen Burst ASTM D3786 psi 320 MARV
Strength
Water Flow Rate ASTM D4491 gpm/sq ft 100 MARV
Permitivity ASTM D4491 sec-~ 1.3 MARV
Permeability ASTM D4491 cm/sec 0.3 MARV
Apparent Opening ASTM D4751 sieve size 70 MARV
Size (AOS) mm 0.212
Transmissivity ASTM D4716 MARV
@0.3 psi gpm/ft 0.11
@ 14.5 psi gpm/ft 0.07
@29.0 psi gpm/ft 0.04
UV Resistance ASTM D4355 % strength retained 70 MARV
pH Resistance 2-13 Range
I
I
I
I
I
I
(1)MARV - Minimum average roll value.
(2)Values in the weakest principal direction.
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08)
3-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
The proposed geotextile satisfies the filter criteria of 6 NYCRR Part 360. The geotextile
satisfies retention criteria prescribed by 6 NYCRR Part 360 for geosynthetic filters. The apparent
opening size (095) of 0.212 mm is sufficient to retain a soil with 15 percent passing a No. 200
sieve with a multiplier of 3. The overlying gas venting layer is limited by regulation to a
maximum of 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Therefore, the d85 (15 percent passing) value
of the gas venting soil will be a particle size larger than a No. 200 sieve (0.074 mm). The ratio of
the apparent opening size (095) of the geotextile is between two and three times the d85 value of
the soil as required. In addition, the geotextile has a permeability on the order of 100 times the
permeability of the overlying gas venting soil.
3.6 Gas Venting Layer
The gas venting layer will be installed as one continuous layer over the area to be capped.
The gas venting layer will have a thickness of 12 inches and a coefficient of hydraulic
conductivity (permeability) equal to or greater than 1 x 10.3 cm/sec. The soils used to construct
the gas venting layer will be imported from off-site sources given the limited opportunity for on-
site borrow.
The gas venting layer will serve as a permeable layer of soil which will allow for the
lateral transmission to the landfill gas vents of landfill gas which may accumulate below the
geomembrane. The gas venting layer serves several purposes in the function of the capping
system, including the following:
The uppermost surface of the gas venting layer provides for a smooth, uniformly
sloped, well compacted surface for the installation of the overlying geomembrane.
The gas venting layer serves as a permeable layer of soil which will allow for the
lateral movement of landfill gas below the geomembrane. The gas venting layer, in
combination with the gas vents, will allow for the dissipation of landfill gas which
vertically migrates to the underside of the geomembrane. The evacuation of landfill
gas via the gas venting layer will inhibit the formation of positive gas pressures below
the geomembrane. In turn, the relief of these pressures will minimize vertical uplift
forces on the geomembrane and reduce the potential for lateral migration of the
landfill gas to areas beyond the cap and the property boundaries.
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08)
3-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
The gas venting layer serves as a free draining, low fines content, permeable layer
below the geomembrane which, in the event of deep frost penetration into the capping
system, is not prone to frost heave which would impose stresses on the geomembrane.
In general, the average depth of frost penetration for the Long Island area is on the
order of 15 to 20 inches as reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce Weather
Bureau (see Figure 3-2). Given that the proposed soil layers overlying the
geomembrane measure 18 inches, the frost heave resistance of the 12 inch gas venting
layer provides the added benefit of over 20 inches of free draining soil.
The gas venting layer will be installed directly on top of the geotextile separation layer as
one single lift using low ground pressure machines. The gas venting layer will be placed at a rate
corresponding to deployment of the geotextile to ensure that the geotextile is not exposed to the
elements for more than 14 calendar days.
Wheeled vehicles will not be permitted to travel directly on the geotextile or on a layer of
gas venting material less than 3 feet in thickness (temporary travel ways). Grade control for
placement of the 12-inch thick gas venting layer will utilize non-intrusive methods such as laser,
stanchions, traffic cones, etc. Each in-place layer will consist of 6-inch thick compacted lifts.
The gas venting layer will be compacted to achieve a minimum of 95 pement maximum dry
density in accordance with ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor) and will provide a smooth, regular
surface free of protrusions, debris, loose soil, and other conditions which may be deleterious to
the geomembrane and/or prevent intimate contact between the geomembrane and the surface of
the gas venting layer. The moisture content of the soil will be controlled to facilitate compaction.
The gas venting soil will be natural sand and will consist of hard, strong, durable particles
which are free from a coating or any injurious material or other deleterious substances. The soil
will be virgin, select, clean, inert, well graded granular material, free of any organic materials,
roots, stumps, chunks of earth or clay, shale or other soft, poor durability particles, construction
and demolition debris, reprocessed or recycled soils, concrete or other foreign material and have
less than 10 percent of the material by weight pass the No. 200 sieve. All other material will pass
the 3/8-inch sieve. The minimum coefficient of permeability will be 1. x 10-3 cm/sec as
determined by ASTM D2434 - Test for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head).
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08)
3-11
Source: U.S. DEPT. OF CO~M[RCE WEATHER BUREAU
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
CLOSURE PLAN
l)Dvirko and Bartilucci AVERAGE
Conlu~lng [nginee~
A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C.
DEPTH OF FROST PENETRATION (IN.)
FIGURE 3-2
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
I
i
I
I
i
I
!
I
I
The source of supply will be subject to prequalification testing and acceptance. During
construction, the soils will be sampled at a frequency of once per 1,000 cubic yards and tested for
gradation analysis (ASTM D422) and once per 5,000 cubic yards and tested for hydraulic
conductivity (permeability) ASTM D2434.
The finished surface of the gas venting layer will be examined for its suitability for
deployment of the geomembrane.
The in-place thickness of the gas venting layer will be confirmed on a 100-foot by 100-
foot grid pattern by hand digging test holes to the geotextile surface. A straightedge or board will
be used to span the holes to reference the grade surface. The average of three depth
measurements will be recorded as the actual depth. The average thickness of the compacted gas
venting layer will be no less than 12 inches.
Gas vents will be installed at a frequency of one vent per acre in order to provide for
passive relief of landfill gas which has accumulated below the geomembrane. The gas vents will
include a 10 foot length horizontal "cross arm" of 6-inch diameter Schedule 80 slotted PVC (slot
size 0.12 inch) embedded in the gas venting layer. The vertical slotted riser pipe will extend
downwards a minimum of 5 feet into the waste mass. Immediately surrounding the horizontal
cross arm and vertical screen will be washed rounded gravel. The open end of the vent, an above
grade gooseneck fitting, will be constructed with at least 3 feet of clearance above ground
surface. A typical gas vent detail is provided on the Drawing 6. The gas vents will function
based upon differential pressure between the underside of the geomembrane where positive gas
pressure may accumulate and atmospheric pressure at the exposed open end of the vent.
3.7 Geomembrane
The proposed geomembrane to serve as the hydraulic barrier layer in the capping system
will be a 60-mil, textured high density polyethylene (HDPE) sheet or equivalent as provided by
· 1314~0701802.DOC(R08)
3-13
I
i
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
i
!
6 NYCRR Part 360. The HDPE geomembrane will conform to the physical properties listed in
Table 3-2.
The geomembrane will be in contact with the underlying gas venting layer and the
overlying geocomposite drainage layer/barrier protection layer. The geomembrane will not be in
direct contact with the waste or leachate generated by the waste. Therefore, the chemical
compatibility of the geomembrane materials and the waste materials will not be at issue. HDPE
geomembrane is well documented for its use in landfill liner systems as both bottom liner
systems and capping systems. For the purpose of this project, site-specific chemical compatibility
of the proposed geomembrane is not warranted.
The geomembrane will be installed on the uppermost surface of the gas venting layer.
The prepared surface will be inspected, corrected as necessary and accepted prior to the day's
deployment of geomembrane.
The geomembrane will be fumished in standard roll widths and standard roll lengths.
There will be no special requirements for extra long or custom roll lengths. Geomembrane panels
will be deployed in the direction of the slope. Adjacent panels will be seamed by either the fusion
weld or extrusion weld process. All seams will be nondestructively tested in total and
destructively tested at a frequency no less than once per 500 feet of seam length.
Conformance samples will be obtained at a frequency of once per 100,000 square feet of
geomembrane. Testing of the conformance samples will be performed at the discretion of the
certifying engineer based upon field observation, as well as the geomembrane fabrication quality
control data.
Textured geomembrane is proposed to be used throughout the project rather than require
that smooth sheet be used in the flatter areas and textured sheet in the steeper areas. The purpose
of this approach is to avoid two types of liner material on the job site, confusion during
construction over where each is to be used, avoid transition areas in the liner, and minimize the
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08)
3-14
1
I
il
I
I
i
Table 3-2
60-MIL TEXTURED HDPE GEOMEMBRANE
Property Test Method Units I Specified Value ] Qualifiers(~)
Thickness ASTM D751 Mils 54 Minimum
Density ASTM D 1505 g/cc 0.94 Minimum
Melt Flow Index ASTM D1238 g/10 minutes 0.4 Maximum
Condition E
(190°C, 2.16 kg.)
Carbon Black % ASTM D1603 % 2-3
Carbon Black ASTM D3015 Rating A-l, A-2, B-1
Dispersion
Tensile Properties ASTM D638
Type IV, 2" gauge
length Dumb-bell
@ 2 ipm
Strength at Yield PPI 140 MARVt2)
· Strength at Break PPI 75 MARV®
· Elongation at Yield % 13 MARV
· Elongation at Break % 150 MARV
Tear Resistance ASTM D1004 Die C Pounds 45 MARV
Puncture Resistance FTMS 10lB Pounds 80 MARV
Method 2065
Environmental Stress ASTM D1693 Hours 1500 Minimum
Crack 10% Igepal, 50°C
Dimensional Stability ASTM D1204 100°C, % change :e2 Maximum
1 hour
Thermal Stability OIT ASTM D3895 130°C, Minutes 2000 Minimum
800 PSI O2
Low Temperature ASTM D746 Degree F -107 Maximum
Brittleness Procedure B
Coefficient of Linear ASTM D696 x 10-4 em/ 2.0 Maximum
Thermal Expansion cm°C
Volatile Loss ASTM D 1203 % 0.3 Maximum
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
!
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08)
3-15
i
I
I
I
I
Table 3-2 (continued)
60-MIL TEXTURED HDPE GEOMEMBRANE
Units Specified Value I Qualifiers(~)
Property
Test
Method
Water Absorption ASTM D570 % 0.1 Maximum
Resistance to Soil ASTM D3083
Burial (as modified in NSF
54 Appendix A)
· Tensile Strength at % change 10 Maximum
Yield and Break
· Elongation at Yield % change 10 Maximum
and Break
Hydrostatic Resistance ASTM D751 PSI 350 MARV
Seam Strengths ASTM D4437
· Peel Strength (Wedge) PPI 88 & FTB Minimum
· Peel Strength (Extrusion) PPI 63 & FTB Minimum
· Shear Strength PPI 151 & FTB Minimum
i
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MARV = Minimum average roll values.
The values given correspond to a yield stress of 2,300 psi and a break stress of 1,250 psi for
textured HDPE geomembrane.
FTB = Film tearing bond
· 1314XA0701802.DOC(R08)
3-16
I
I
1
t
I
i
i
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
generation of scrap and partial roll excess associated with a two-product system. Of more
importance is the fact that the use of textured geomembrane with an overlying geocomposite will
not promote an interface between the geomembrane and the geocomposite which exhibits a low
interface friction susceptible to sliding or displacement during construction. At face value, a
smooth geomembrane would suffice on the proposed flat slopes, but its merits would be readily
overshadowed by displacement during construction. The textured geomembrane also provides for
enhanced interface friction with the underlying gas venting layer when compared to a smooth
geomembrane.
Penetrations of the liner material for the construction of landfill gas recovery wells or
drainage piping will be sealed with a fabricated pipe boot. The flange of the pipe boot will be
welded to the geomembrane. The barrel of the pipe boot will be secured with stainless steel band
clamps or batten strips as appropriate and sealed with a neoprene strip.
All geomembrane panels will be uniquely identified with a panel number which is
correlated to the roll number and fabrication (production) quality control test data. Quality
control test data will be reviewed prior to deployment and any material with questionable or
unacceptable test data or documentation will not be utilized. Upon completion, an as-built panel
layout will be prepared identifying as a minimum, panel numbers (correlated to roll numbers),
seam numbers, destructive sample numbers and locations, repairs, patches, etc.
The free end of the in-place geomembrane which exists at the perimeter of the capped
area will be secured in an anchor trench. The overlying geocomposite will also be secured in this
anchor trench. The anchor trench will be backfilled with barrier protection layer material and
tamped to provide a nominal 95 percent Standard Proctor density with the emphasis on not
damaging the geosynthetic materials. If solid waste is encountered during excavation of
perimeter anchor trenches, it will be removed and relocated to a different part of the landfill
beneath the cap.
· 13145A0701802.DOC(R08)
3-17
i
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
3.8 Geocomposite Drainage Layer
A geocomposite drainage layer will be installed immediately above the textured
geomembrane over areas to be capped with slopes of 20 percent or greater. In addition, a
minimum of 10 feet of geocomposite will be extended from the top of steep slopes over the
surface of the shallower slopes above, as shown in the capping details on the attached Drawing 6.
The geocomposite drainage layer will serve as a lateral or horizontal drainage medium to relieve
the potential for developing a significant hydraulic head of water above the geomembrane in
areas with shallow slopes to improve the hydraulic efficiency of the cap and in areas with steep
slopes in order to address potential stability concerns which would occur with saturated soils
above the geomembrane.
The geocomposite drainage layer will consist of a geosynthetic drainage layer (geonet)
core with an 8-ounce per square yard geotextile heat fused to both the upper and lower surfaces.
The upper geotextile will serve as a separation/filter layer to the overlying bamer protection
layer. The lower geotextile will serve to secure the geocomposite to the textured geomembrane
through interface friction. The geocomposite drainage layer and geotextile will have the physical
properties detailed in Table 3-3 and 3-4, respectively.
The geocomposite drainage layer will be installed directly on top of the geomembrane
after the prepared surface of the geomembrane has been inspected, tested and accepted.
Deployment of the geocomposite drainage layer will be coordinated with the placement of the
overlying barrier protection layer to ensure that the geotextiles will not be exposed to the
elements for more than 14 calendar days.
The geocomposite drainage layer will be deployed in the direction of the slope. The lower
geotextiles of adjacent panels will be overlapped. The drainage net cores will be overlapped and
secured by tying with nylon cable ties. The upper geotextiles will be seamed by sewing using a
double-thread lockstitch Type 401 or equivalent. The seam will be a "flat" or "prayer" seam. All
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08)
3-18
I
I
I
I
Table 3-3
GEOCOMPOSITE PROPERTY VALUES
Geonet Component:
Polymer Composition % 95 polyethylene Minimum
by weight
Polymer Specific ASTM D792 0.94 MARV
Gravity
Polymer Melt Index ASTM D1238 g/10 min 0.3 MARV
Carbon Black Content ASTM D 1603 % 2-3 Range
Foaming Agents N/A % 0.0 Maximum
Nominal Thickness ASTM D374C inches 0.20 MARV
Compressibility @ % 50 Maximum
20,000 psi
Peak Tensile Strength ASTM D638 lbs/ft 575 MARV
(machine direction) modified
Flow Capacity @ ASTM D4716 gpm/ft 9.5
Gradient of 1 @ 500 psf
Geotextile Component: See Table 3-4
Geocomposite:
Peel Strength ASTM F904 or gm/in 500 Minimum
ASTM D413
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Note: All values represent minimum average roll values (i.e., any roll in a lot should meet or
exceed the values in this table).
· 1314~A070 ! 802.DOC(R08)
3-19
I
1
I
I
I
Table 3-4
GEOTEXTILE
Fabric PropertyITest Method Unit Specified Value Qualifier~)
Fabric Weight ASTM D3776 oz/sq yd 7.9 MARV
Thickness,'t ASTM D1777 mils 90 MARV
Grab Strength® ASTM D4632 lbs 210 MARV
Grab Elongation(2) ASTM D4632 % 50 MARV
Trapezoid Tear ASTM D4533 lbs 85 MARV
Strength(:)
Puncture Resistance ASTM D4833 lbs 100 MARV
Mullen Burst Strength ASTM D3786 psi 320 MARV
Water Flow Rate ASTM D4491 gpm/sq ft 100 MARV
Permitivity ASTM D4491 sec-~ 1.3 MARV
Permeability ASTM D4491 cm/sec 0.3 MARV
Apparent Opening Size ASTM D4751 sieve size 70 MARV
(AOS) mm 0.212
Transmissivity ASTM D4716 MARV
· @ 0.3 PSI gpm/ft 0.11
· @ 14.5 PSI gpm/ft 0.07
· @29.0 PSI gpm/ft 0.04
UV Resistance ASTM D4355 % strength 70 MARV
retained
pH Resistance 2-13 Range
I
/
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
Notes:
1. MARV - Minimum average roll value.
2. Values in the weakest principal direction.
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08)
3-20
terminal ends or edges of the geocomposite will be finished by seaming the upper and lower
geotextiles by sewing as described above.
The geocomposite drainage layer will convey subsurface flow resulting from precipitation
which has infiltrated the topsoil and barrier protection layers. The direction of flow wilt follow
the direction of the slope and convey the water to storm water drainage swales. In the area of the
swales, along the upslope side of the swale, a 4-inch diameter perforated HDPE pipe with
integral geotextile wrap will be installed on top of the geocomposite. The perforated pipe will run
parallel to the edge of the swale. At 100-foot intervals along the pipe length, a tee fitting and
pipe extension will be installed to protrude through the overlying soil layers to "daylight" the
flow into the swales.
3.9 Barrier Protection Layer
The barrier protection layer will be installed directly above the geocomposite drainage
layer or geomembrane as applicable over the entire area to be capped. The barrier protection
layer will be installed as one compacted lift of 12 inches.
The barrier protection layer is intended to provide physical protection to the hydraulic
barrier (geomembrane) against the effects of frost penetration, roots, erosion, burrowing animals
and the elements. The proposed 12-inch thick barrier protection layer combined with the
proposed 6-inch thick topsoil layer and 12-inch thick gas venting layer will provide adequate
frost protection for the hydraulic barrier. As discussed previously, the average depth of frost
penetration in the Long Island area during a normal winter is on the order of 15 to 20 inches.
The barrier protection layer material will be imported to the site from approved off-site
sources. Each proposed source will be subject to prequalification testing and acceptance.
The barrier protection layer material will be clean, inert, well graded granular material
free from any organic materials, roots, stumps, chunks of earth or clay, shale or other soft, poor
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08) 3 -21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
durability particles, construction and demolition debris, reprocessed or recycled soils, concrete
asphalt or other foreign material and shall conform to the following gradation.
Sieve Size
Percent Passing By Weight
1 inch 100
No. 40 0-70
No. 200 0-15
The minimum coefficient of permeability of the soil will be 1 x 10'3 cm/sec as measured
in accordance with ASTM D2434 - Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head).
A coarse grained, granular soil has been selected for the barrier protection layer to
provide a stable, non-yielding surface suitable for potential secondary uses of the site such as
outdoor storage. Fine grained soils containing substantial quantities of silt and/or clay would be
prone to moisture retention, capillary action and ultimately, pumping or displacement under load.
Shifting of the barrier protection layer under load could then result in damage or stresses imposed
on the underlying geosynthetics.
The barrier protection soil will be placed as a loose lift 12 inches in thickness. The
material will be placed by low ground pressure machines. Construction equipment will not be
permitted to travel directly on the geocomposite drainage layer. Rubber tired vehicles will only
be permitted to operate on a layer of soil at least 3 feet in thickness over the liner as a temporary
access way. The first lift of material will be compacted by making several passes with the low
ground pressure spreading/placing equipment. The moisture content of the soil will be controlled
to facilitate compaction; however, a minimum degree of compaction will not be specified for the
first lift.
Prior to placement of the barrier protection layer, the exposed surface of the
geocomposite drainage layer or geomembrane, as applicable, will be inspected to ensure that it is
clean, free of debris and defects, flat and in intimate contact with the underlying layer. Placement
of the barrier protection layer in the flat (4 percent) areas may proceed either upslope or
I * 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08) 3 -22
downslope with care taken to ensure that displacement of the geocomposite or geomembrane
does not occur. Placement of the barrier protection layer in the steeper slope areas (7 percent and
greater) will only be permitted to progress upslope (pushing up the side slopes) to prevent undo
stress from being imposed on the geomembrane or geocomposite.
Grade control for placement of the barrier protection layer will utilize non-intrusive
means such as laser, stanchions, traffic cones, etc. to prevent damage to or penetration of the
underlying geosynthetics.
Testing of the barrier protection layer material during construction will be performed at a
frequency of once per 1,000 cubic yards for gradation analysis (ASTM D422) and once per
5,000 cubic yards for permeability (ASTM D2434). In-place moisture/density measurements of
the second lift will be performed at a frequency of nine tests per acre per lift utilizing nuclear
methods (ASTM D3017 and D2922, respectively).
The finished surface of the barrier protection layer will be surveyed for as-built
conditions. The in-place thickness of the barrier protection layer will be confirmed by hand
excavating a test hole on a 100-foot grid pattern. A board or straight edge will be used to
reference grade and three measurements of the in-place depth will be made. The average of the
three readings will be considered the depth of the material. The average thickness of the
compacted barrier protection layer will be no less than 12 inches.
3.10 Topsoil and Vegetation
The topsoil layer will be the uppermost layer of soil in the capping system and suitable
for establishing and growing surface vegetation. The topsoil layer will be 6 inches in thickness
and placed over the entire area to be capped. The topsoil to be utilized for this project will be a
manufactured (processed) vegetative growth medium.
· 1314~A0701802.DOCfR08) 3 -23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A review of existing site conditions suggests that there is no appreciable or salvageable
quantities of topsoil on-site which would serve to satisfy the need for cap construction.
Therefore, all topsoil requirements for the site must be satisfied by the import of topsoil from
approved off-site soumes or manufacture of top soil on-site.
The manufactured or processed topsoil to be used will be a blend of natural soil and yard
waste compost material in prescribed proportions to provide an equivalent vegetative growth
medium. The manufactured topsoil will be a mixture of sand or silty sand and screened yard
waste compost. The approximate mixture will be on the order of 65 percent sand or silty sand
and 35 percent compost. Sources of yard waste compost will be facilities permitted or registered
by NYSDEC or other appropriate regulatory agency. The planned source of compost will be
from the yard waste composting operation at the Southold Landfill and the topsoil will be
manufactured on-site.
The actual mixture of soil and compost will be proposed by the Town or construction
contractor. The Town or contractor will retain the services of an experienced agronomist who
will provide a written opinion of the proposed mixture, its suitability as an equivalent vegetative
growth medium, its compatibility with the specified seed mixtures, any erosion control measures
which differ from the specified requirements and are necessitated by the fabricated material, and
any soil amendments or fertilizers which may be required to provide a suitable material.
The yard waste compost will be mature and stable, not phytotoxic (not toxic to plants)
and will be free of any traces of municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, construction and
demolition debris, animal offal or manure, bulking agents or any other objectionable or
deleterious materials. The compost material will be free of particles larger than 2 inches and will
be generally free of plastics. The blended compost/soil vegetative growth medium will have a
total organic content between 5 percent and 20 percent and a pH between 5.5 and 7.2.
The topsoil layer will be placed as one lift 6 inches in depth over the exposed surface of
the barrier protection layer. The topsoil layer will be raked and cleaned and rolled with a roller
· 1314XA0701802.DOC(R08)
3-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
weighing between 40 and 65 pounds per foot of width. During rolling, all depressions caused by
settlement will be filled with topsoil and the surface will be regraded and rolled until a smooth,
even finished grade is achieved.
The placement and spreading of topsoil will be coordinated with the planting and seeding
operation to allow for planting and seeding within 7 days of placement. Soil amendments such as
fertilizer, lime, etc., will be applied as required based upon test data.
The proposed vegetation for the capped area of the site will be a mixture of turf grasses
which will provide for rapid establishment to minimize erosion, as well as slower growing
species to minimize long-term maintenance. The seed mixture will include:
· Crown Vetch;
· White Clover;
· Palmer Perennial Ryegrass;
· Little Bluestone;
· Chewings Red Fescue;
· Kentucky 31 Tall Fescue;
· Redtop;
· or equivalent species.
The seed mixture will be applied by hydroseeding onto the loosened surface of the topsoil
layer. The hydroseeding operation will include the application of a hydromulch and hydromulch
adhesive to secure and protect the seeding sufficiently to allow for the placement of the overlying
erosion control fabric.
The finished surface of the topsoil layer will be surveyed for as-built conditions.
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08)
3-25
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3,11 Erosion Control
Erosion control will be implemented during construction of the capping system and
incorporated as part of the final capping system. During construction, the contractor will be
required to install an maintain erosion control measures which will include, but not necessarily
be limited to, silt fences, hay bales, grade and excavation control, stockpile maintenance and
control measures and surface runoff controls. Construction-related erosion control measures will
be initiated prior to disturbance of the affected area and shall be maintained through the course of
the construction. Vehicle tracking pads will be constructed at all exits from the construction site
to minimize the carryover of construction soils from the site to surrounding roads by way of
vehicle tires. Surface runoff from the site will not be permitted to run off onto adjacent roads or
properties.
A detailed construction erosion control plan will be provided in the construction plans
and specifications. Typical details to be used in formulating the erosion control plan are
presented on Drawing 7.
The final capping system will provide for erosion control through the inclusion of erosion
control materials on the exposed finished surfaces. Erosion control blankets will be installed on
the seeded landfill surfaces to provide temporary soil erosion resistance. Erosion control fabrics
will be installed in the seeded drainage channels and swales to provide permanent soil erosion
resistance and vegetation reinforcement. Each product will assist in establishing the permanent
vegetation by shielding the seeded areas from direct impact by precipitation, direct exposure to
sunlight, and surface runoff, as well as improving the moisture conditions of the seed bed which
are necessary for proper germination.
The erosion control blanket will be a fabricated machine-produced mat consisting of
70 percent agricultural straw and 30 percent coconut fiber. The upper surface of the mat will be
covered with UV stabilized black polypropylene netting having approximately a 5/8 inch by
5/8-inch mesh size. The bottom surface of the mat will be a lightweight, photodegradable netting
* 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08)
3-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
with approximately 1/2 by l/2-inch mesh size. The components of the blanket will be factory
sewn together using biodegradable thread.
The erosion control blanket will be installed directly over the prepared seed bed and
secured in place using heavy duty staples. Anchor trenches and check slots will be installed as
appropriate to anchor the material and minimize erosion from occurring below the blanket. The
erosion control blankets will be installed in the direction of the slope. The erosion control blanket
will remain viable for two to three growing seasons.
The erosion control fabric will be a fabricated machine-produced mat suitable as a
permanent channel lining and turf reinfomement mat. The mat will be fabricated from 100
percent UV stabilized polypropylene. The fiber matrix core will have a minimum of 0.70 lb./sq.
yd. of high denier UV stabilized polypmpylene fiber. The top netting and bottom netting will be
UV stabilized polypropylene netting with approximately 1/2 inch by 1/2-inch and 5/8 inch by
5/8-inch mesh, respectively. The netting and core will be secured in relative position by sewing
using UV stabilized polypropylene thread.
The erosion control fabric will be installed in the drainage swales on top of the prepared
seed bed and will be positioned longitudinally with the channel. The fabric will be secured in
place using anchor slots, check slots and heavy duty staples. Adjacent panels will overlap a
minimum of 6 inches. The fabric will be installed to ensure intimate contact with the ground
surface. Trampolining of the material above the ground surface will not be permitted.
The erosion control materials will serve to protect the site, promote the establishment of
the vegetation layer and minimize the loss of topsoil due to the erosional forces of surface runoff.
During construction, a bare, exposed topsoil surface presents the most susceptible condition for
erosion prior to establishment of the vegetation. During the period of establishing the vegetation
from seed, erosion of the topsoil surface will disturb the prepared seedbed and transport the seeds
from their intended location. Repair efforts requiring heavy equipment will typically disturb
additional areas while accessing the area of concern thereby further setting back the overall
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08)
3 -27
establishment of vegetation. In addition, landfill capping construction projects typically near
completion toward the latter part of the construction season, considered late fall to early winter.
For a project the size of the Southold Landfill, it is unlikely that seeding'of the topsoil surface
can occur during the normal windows of the growing season, suggesting that the topsoil surface
may lay bare and exposed for an extended period.
The Erosion Control Material Design Software V4.1 Slope Module (published by North
American Green), which uses the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), provides an opportunity
to assess the impacts of erosion to the topsoil surface, as well as gauge the apparent effectiveness
of an included erosion control material. The USLE is used to calculate the loss of topsoil in terms
of inches. The loss of surface soils is most directly dependent on the texture and erodability of
the surface soil, the geographic location of the landfill site in terms of rainfall events, the slope
angle or gradient, and the unbroken length of slope.
The following input data was used in estimating potential top soil loss due to erosion:
Annual R Factor or Rainfall Intensity Factor is 175 for the Southold Landfill as shown
on Figure 3-3;
Slope Gradient - 28 Percent (the steepest slope of over 100 feet in length in the cap
design);
Total Slope Length - 125 Feet (the approximately length of the 28% slope);
Soil Type - Sandy Loam.
The predicted maximum loss of bare topsoil is 0.46 inches over a 6-month period based
on the input data presented above. This value represents the potential loss of soil from the
steepest closure slopes on the landfill at a point in time where the slopes have been constructed,
but the vegetation has not become established (i.e., bare ground). The addition of erosion control
materials allows for a reduction in soil loss. Using the proposed erosion control blanket
(coconut/straw), a maximum soil loss of 0.046 inches is calculated by the model. This quantity
· 1314~.0701802.DOC(R08) 3-28
,mm m mm mm m m mm m mm m mm m
Source: NORTH AMERICAN GREEN
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - Sou'n-IOLD LANDFILL
CLOSURE PLAN
"R" FACTORS
Dvirko ond Bortilucci RAINFALL INTENSITY
Cengulflng Emjineem
A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C.
FIGURE 3-3
of soil is negligible given that a 6-inch layer of topsoil will be placed. The proposed erosion
control blanket should provide 2 to 3 years of surface protection before it naturally decomposes.
This period should be more than ample to allow the ultimate vegetation to establish. The
proposed erosion control fabric for the drainage swales is considered a permanent material and
should provide long-term utility.
· 1314~A0701802.DOC(R08) 3 -30
Section 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
4.0 SLOPE STABILITY
4.1 General
A critical element in the design of a landfill capping system is the assessment of the
lining system to remain stable and to not impose undue stresses in the components of the system.
These stresses may be imparted through the sliding action of one surface against another.
Typically, the focus of concern is addressed to the interface or contact plane between the soil
components of the systems against the geosynthetic components of the system and also the
interface between two contacting geosynthetics.
The design requirements prescribed by 6 NYCRR Part 360 place restrictions on the
maximum slope angle permitted. The maximum prescribed slope angle may be considered to be
1 vertical to 3 horizontal (1V:3H), 33 percent or 18.4 degrees and up to 50 percent for no more
than a 20-foot vertical rise. In instances where the interface friction angle (resistance) is not
sufficiently large to counteract the tendency of the lining materials to progress downslope
(driving force) the difference in forces must be assumed by the tensile properties of the lining
components. In instances where the resistive forces of friction exceed the driving forces, the
forces acting across the interface are considered to be neutral and no tensile contribution is
required of the geosynthetics.
The typical landfill capping system is constructed in a succession of layers, each of a
generally uniform and definable cross section. Each layer may be equated to a thin veneer
separated from underlying and overlying layers or veneers by identifiable boundaries or
interfaces. An examination of the forces acting at the critical interfaces is referred to as a Veneers
Stability Analysis.
For landfills, which project upwards as a mound above surrounding grades and impart
unbalanced loads through the waste and/or underlying and adjacent soils, the issue of global or
· 1314\G0818804.DOC(R03)
4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
slope stability is an area of concern, as well as the effects of seismic loading conditions on
stability.
4.2 Basis of Stability Analyses
In order to evaluate potential stability concerns on the proposed landfill capping system
an analysis was performed by Tectonic Engineering Consultants, P.C. (Tectonic) and is presented
in Appendix B. Slope stability analyses were performed for three geometric cross-sections of the
proposed landfill cap subgrades using the computer program PCSTABL 5M. The cross-sections
were analyzed for overall slope stability considering both static and seismic loading conditions,
and the veneer stability of the landfill sideslopes was also analyzed.
The analysis performed by Tectonic was based on the capping system described in
Section 3.0 of this plan and presented on Drawing 6. As discussed above, three geometric cross-
sections, designated as profile A-A', profile B-B' and profile C-C', were analyzed for overall
(global) slope stability. The locations of the cross-sections are indicated on Figure 4-1. The
geometry of profiles A-A', B-B' and C-C' are shown on Figure 4-2.
4.3 Results of Stability Analyses
Slope stability analyses were performed by Modified Janbu Method utilizing the
PCSTABL 5M computer program. Failure surfaces along the cross-sections were generated
using the "CIRCLE" searching algorithm and "SURFAC" for both static and pseudo-static
(seismic) conditions. Iterations using these subroutines yielded the critical failure surfaces for
the subject slopes.
· 1314\G0818804.DOC(R03)
4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
SOURCE:
TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C,
~Jl~Dvir~ka and Bartilucci
~ i Consu,tina Engineers
~L~ A D;vision- of William F OOSUl~Ch Associates, PC.
/i
TOWN Of SOUTHOLD
FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
LOCATION OF PROFILES
OF WaS'i~
FIGURE 4--1
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROFILE A-A'
SOURCE: TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C.
~11~[~ Dvirko ond Borfilucci
Consulting Engineers
~L~ A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates,
8O
PROFILE B-B'
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
GEOMETRY OF PROFILES
PROFILE C-C'
FIGURE 4-2
il
SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Calculated Minimum Calculated Minimum
Cross Section Design Condition Static Factor of Pseudo-static Factor
Safety of Safety
A-A' Northern Landfill Slope 1.9 1.3
B-B' Northeastern Comer of 1.5 1.2
Landfill Slope
C~C' Southeastern Landfill Slope 1.6 1.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
Veneer Slope Stability Analysis
To facilitate the veneer slope stability analysis for the surficial stability of the landfill cap,
a typical profile as presented in Section 3.1 of this plan was utilized. The interface between
geomembrane and landfill cap was considered to be the critical potential slip surface. For the
purpose of the analyses, water was assumed to be 3 inches above the geomembrane at the top of
the slope and increase to the total depth of the cap at the base of the slope. The slope was
assumed to be inclined at 39 percent.
The veneer slope stability analysis yielded a factor of safety of 2.2 under static loading
conditions, and a factor of safety of 1.7 under seismic loading conditions.
4.4 Conclusions
Based on the results of the stability analyses, the proposed construction of the slopes for
closure of the Southold Landfill is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The slope stability
analyses indicate that adequate factors of safety were obtained for the static gross slope stability
condition, for the pseudo-static (seismic) condition and for potential surficial failures through the
landfill cap materials. However, installation of a geocomposite drainage layer overlying the
HDPE geomembrane liner is recommended for slopes of 20 percent or greater in order to
mitigate potential for fully saturated conditions on the steeper sideslopes and reduce the surficial
water head over the geomembrane liner. This is consistent with the proposed design as discussed
in Section 3.8.
· 1314\G0818804.DOC(R03)
4-6
Section 5
!
I
i
!
i
i
I
1
I
I
!
I
i
I
i
I
I
i
5.0 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Settlement of the capping system will occur over time as a resul~ of compression and
decomposition of the waste. Therefore, the impact of settlement on the capping system was
evaluated by Tectonic Engineering Consultants, P.C. (Tectonic). Tectonic's report is presented
in Appendix C, and a summary of the settlement analysis is presented below.
The final cover system must be designed to provide adequate surface water drainage after
settlement of the waste has occurred. The primary purpose of the settlement analysis is to
evaluate the slopes that will exist after settlement and determine whether the slopes are adequate
to maintain sufficient drainage of the capping system.
Two components of settlement, known as primary and secondary, are the cause of the
total compression of waste. Primary settlement is caused by waste densification due to added
surcharge (i.e., the landfill capping system). The magnitude of primary compression of waste is a
function of the applied surcharge to the waste, the thickness of the waste and a factor defining the
compressibility of the waste.
Secondary settlement will occur as a result of decomposition of the waste in the landfill.
The magnitude of secondary compression of waste is dependent upon the waste thickness, time
and a factor defining the compressibility of waste due to secondary compression.
As a result of review of available information, including profile and age of the landfill, it
is assumed that the majority of primary settlement within the landfill materials has already
occurred. This is based on the consolidation characteristics of the waste material under its own
weight and the weight of the existing cover soil and the amount of time (since 1993) that the
landfill has not been active. The proposed final subgrade and cap elevations for the landfill
which were evaluated include placement of fill up to 10 feet for the 4 percent grading plan prior
to construction of the 2.5-foot thick final landfill cap. Additional settlement within the landfill
material will therefore be due to the added weight of the fill soils and cap soils.
· 1314~GO819801.DOC(R02)
5-1
!
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
To model the anticipated settlement of the landfill materials, the following assumptions
were made:
· The final cap will be 2.5 feet thick and has a moist unit weight of 110 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf).
The amount of fill placement associated with the final subgrade preparation will vary
from 0 to 10 feet. The proposed fill will be a sandy material with a moist unit weight
after placement of 113 pcf.
· The thickness of waste material in the landfill varies between 5 and 40 feet.
The landfill material consists of MSW and/or C&D that was last placed in 1993. The
northwest section of the landfill may also contain "yard waste" in the upper
approximately 15 feet of landfill materials.
The results of the settlement analysis indicate that the landfill material will settle
relatively significantly due to further compression of the waste, and the weight of the proposed
fill soils and final landfill cap. Table 5-1 presents the estimated amounts of primary, secondary
and total settlements based on landfill depths ranging between 5 and 40 feet and proposed fill
depths ranging between 0 and 10 feet. This table assumes that the landfill material consists of
MSW and C&D without any yard waste.
The study also evaluated the estimated settlement based on the above-presented
assumptions with the upper 15 feet of landfill material consisting of relatively soft, organic yard
waste. Table 5-2 presents the estimated settlements based on a 2.5-foot thick final cap, proposed
subgrade fill depths up to 10 feet, and up to 15 feet of yard waste underlain by up to 25 feet of
MSW and C&D.
Based on the results of the settlement analysis, long-term settlements for the landfill may
range from approximately 1 foot to over 9.5 feet, depending on the condition and depth of the
landfill material, and depth of proposed overlying fill and cap.
· 1314\G0819801 .DOC(R02)
5-2
Table 5-1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS OF MSW AND C&D LANDFILL MATERIALS
Landfill Primary Settlement with Cap andz Secondary Total Settlement with Cap and
Material 0 Feet Fill 5 Feet Fill 10 Feet Fill Settlement 0 Feet Fill 5 Feet Fill 10 Feet Fill
Thickness (ft)~ (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)3 (ft) (ft) fit)
5.0 0.59 1.04 1.27 0.34 0.93 1.38 1.61
10.0 0.75 1.49 1.92 0.68 1.43 2.17 2.60
15.0 0.84 1.79 2.37 1.02 1.86 2.81 3.39
20.0 0.89 2.00 2.71 1.36 2.25 3.36 4.07
25.0 0.92 2.16 2.98 1.70 2.62 3.86 4.68
30.0 0.95 2.28 3.21 2.04 2.99 4.32 5.25
35.0 0.97 2.39 3.40 2.38 3.35 4.77 5.78
40.0 0.99 2.47 3.56 2.72 3.71 5.19 6.28
tLandfill material assumed to be comprised of MSW and C&D placed for at least 5 years.
2primary settlement anticipated to occur within I year of cap and fill placement.
3Secondary settlement anticipated to occur between 1 year and 50 years after fill and cap placement.
· 1314\G0819801.DOC(R02) 5-3
Table 5-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS OF YARD WASTE LANDFILL MATERIALS
Landfill Primary Settlement with Cap and2 Secondary Total Settlement with Cap and
Material 0 Feet Fill 5 Feet Fill 10 Feet Fill Settlement 0 Feet Fill 5 Feet Fill 10 Feet Fill
Thickness (ft)~ (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)3 (ft) (ft) (ft)
5.0 1.26 2.22 2.72 0.56 1.82 2.78 3.28
10.0 1.61 3.20 4.10 1.19 2.80 4.39 5.29
15.0 1.79 3.83 5.07 1.78 3.57 5.61 6.85
20.0 1.84 4.04 5.42 2.12 3.96 6.16 7.54
25.0 1.88 4.20 5.69 2.46 4.34 6.66 8.15
30.0 1.91 4.33 5.91 2.80 4.71 7.13 8.71
35.0 1.93 4.43 6.10 3.14 5.07 7.57 9.24
40.0 1.94 4.51 6.26 3.48 5.42 7.99 9.74
~Landfill material assumed to be comprised of yard waste for upper 15 feet and MSW or C&D material for bottom 15-40 feet.
2Primary settlement anticipated to occur within 1 year of cap and fill placement.
3Secondary settlement anticipated to occur between 1 year and 50 years after fill and cap placement.
· 1314\G0819801.DOC(R02) 5-4
Section 6 /
6.0 HYDRAULIC EFFICIENCY
The hydraulic efficiency of the proposed capping system is a measure of the ability of the
cap to inhibit the percolation of infiltrated precipitation into the waste mass and the cause of the
generation of leachate. In order to assess this efficiency, the proposed capping system was
modeled using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model developed by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. The HELP model,
Version 3.01, October 1994 was utilized.
The HELP model is a quasi-two dimensional model of water movement across, into,
through and out of landfills. The model accepts weather, soil and design data, and uses solution
techniques that account for the effects of surface storage, snow melt, runoff, infiltration,
evapotranspiration, vegetative growth, soil moisture storage, lateral subsurface drainage,
unsaturated vertical drainage and leakage through geomembrane liners. The model may be used
to evaluate the efficiency of bottom lined landfills, as well as landfill caps over lined and unlined
landfills. In the case of the Southold Landfill as an unlined landfill, the examination is limited to
the efficiency of the proposed cap.
The level of hydraulic efficiency for a single hydraulic bamer landfill cap was
characterized by the NYSDEC in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for revisions to 6 NYCRR Part 360 - Solid Waste Management Facilities, dated April
1988. The NYSDEC found that the proposed capping system would provide an acceptable
hydraulic efficiency of 94.40 poment in terms of inhibiting the vertical pemolation of infiltrated
precipitation through the cap and entering the underlying waste. The capping system analyzed by
NYSDEC is generally consistent with the proposed capping system for the Southold Landfill
with the noted difference that NYSDEC modeled 18 inches of low permeability soil
(permeability less than lxl0'7 cra/sec) as the hydraulic barrier. The NYSDEC further notes that a
synthetic geomembrane, which is proposed as the low permeability bamer as part of the cap for
the Southold Landfill, may be substituted for the low permeability soil liner.
· 1314~:0814803.DOC(R04) 6-1
For the purpose of this report, the calculated efficiency of 94.4 percent, which NYSDEC
considered acceptable in 1988, will be used as a reference to gauge the efficiency of the proposed
capping system for the Southold Landfill.
In order to utilize the HELP model, certain variables must be selected or defined. Where
appropriate, default values and data contained within the model may be utilized in lieu of
developing site-specific data. For the Southold Landfill, evapotranspiration and weather data for
New Haven, Connecticut was utilized as being geographically representative of the site. The
evaporative zone depth was selected as 18 inches, representative of a humid area with surface
maximum depth of soil to liner vegetation. The maximum leaf area index was selected as 2.0,
representing a fair stand of grass which should be appropriate for a typical landfill cap which
receives nominal maintenance. The start and end of the growing season was selected to coincide
with the period of the middle of April through the middle of October.
In order to provide an accurate appraisal of the proposed capping system, a finite number
of defects were assumed to exist in the completed geomembrane hydraulic barrier. Typical
geomembranes may have about 0.5 to 1 pinhole per acre from manufacturing defects. The
density of installation defects is a function of the quality of installation, testing, materials, surface
preparation, equipment and the construction quality assurance/quality control (CQAJCQC)
program. For an excellent installation, the HELP model guidance indicates a defect density of up
to 1 per acre and for a good installation, the geomembrane installation defect density is defined
as one to four defects per acre, consistent with good CQAJCQC. The HELP model guidance
document suggests that an excellent installation quality (one defect per acre) is achieved 10
percent of the time, as opposed to a good installation (1 to 4 defects per acre), which is routinely
achieved 40 percent of the time.
For the purpose of evaluating the proposed capping system for the Southold Landfill, an
installation quality of both 2 defects per acre and 3 defects per acre were selected as discussed
further below. The geomembrane placement quality was also selected as "good," representing a
good field installation with a well prepared, smooth soil surface and geomembrane wrinkle
· 1314~814803.DOC(R04) 6-2
control to ensure good contact between the geomembrane and the underlying soil. The period of
analysis was selected as five years to coincide with the climate data available from the model for
the calendar years 1977 through 1981.
In addition, in performing the HELP model evaluation, in accordance with the proposed
design, slopes of 4 percent, 22 percent and 28 percent were evaluated. (The complete output for
each HELP model analysis is presented in Appendix D.)
The results of the HELP model for a 4 percent slope presented in the model output titled
"Average Annual Totals for Years 1977 through 1981" have been excerpted and are presented on
Table 6-1. The hydraulic efficiency shown on Table 6-1 is calculated as the percentage of annual
precipitation which is prevented by the liner system from entering the waste mass. The equation
for hydraulic efficiency follows:
Hydraulic Efficiency = --
P-L
xl00
P
where:
P = total inches of precipitation per year.
L = percolation/leakage through the hydraulic barrier (measured in inches of precipitation).
As shown in Table 6-1, for a 4 percent slope, the hydraulic efficiency is calculated to be
86.6 percent assuming a good installation with 3 defects per acre. For an installation with 2
defects per acm, the hydraulic efficiency improves to 90.4 percent. Based on these results, an
overall system efficiency which approaches the 94.4 percent suggested by NYSDEC can be
achieved by an installation resulting in 2 defects per acre. In light of these conditions, the
proposed capping program will entail a stringent CQA/CQC program to ensure a minimal
number of defects occur during liner installation. (It should be noted, again, as stated above, that
the hydraulic efficiency of 94.4 percent cited by NYSDEC is not a regulatory standard and
represents a result obtained when modeling an 18 inch thick low permeability soil such as clay as
the hydraulic barrier with no defects.)
* 1314~0814803'DOC(R04) 6-3
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
Table 6-1
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
HELP MODEL
4% SLOPE
AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
Installation Defects
Two Per Acre Three Per Acre
in Geomembrane
Inches Percent Inches Percent
Precipitation 49.71 100 49.71 100
Runoff 7.74 15.6 6.87 13.8
Evapotranspiration 30.23 60.8 29.79 59.9
Lateral Drainage Collected 6.92 13.9 6.38 12.8
from Layer 2
Pemolation/Leakage 4.77 9.6 6.65 13.4
Through from Layer 3
(Geomembrane)
Average Head Across Top 7.05 N.A. 6.59 ' N.A.
of Layer 3 (Geomembrane)
Hydraulic Efficiency 90.4 N.A. 86.6 N.A.
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
· 1314~0814803.DOC(R04)
6-4
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
To complete the discussion on system hydraulic efficiency, HELP model runs for slopes
of 22 pement and 28 percent with a geocomposite drainage layer are included in Appendix D.
Slopes of 22 percent and 28 percent were selected because they represent the steepest slopes with
the longest lengths based on the grading plan for closure of the Southold Landfill. As discussed
in Section 3.8, in order to ensure slope stability, a geocomposite drainage layer will be included
in the cap design for steeper slopes (greater than 20 percent). In each case, the assumptions and
details of the system discussed previously, including an installation resulting in 2 defects per
acre, have been used. The results of this modeling provides the following hydraulic efficiencies
based on the average annual totals for the years 1977 through 1981:
Slope Hydraulic Efficiency
22% 99.997%
28% 99.999%
These values exceed the criteria suggested by NYSDEC and should be considered
acceptable.
· 1314'd~0814803.DOC(R04)
6-5
7.0 SITE DRAINAGE
At the present time, site drainage for the Southold Landfill 'is managed through
infiltration and pemolation of precipitation into and through the waste mass with discharge to the
groundwater system. Existing grading patterns suggest that storm water runoff does not leave the
site to any appreciable extent. The existing site is not connected or tributary to any local or
regional storm water drainage system.
With the construction of the proposed capping system, the opportunity for infiltration to
occur over the entire site will be mitigated as a basic function of the cap. Therefore, management
of storm water runoff after cap construction will require use of facilities which do not presently
exist, except for use of one recharge basin in the southeast portion of the landfill property.
In order to develop a basic storm water management approach for the property, an
examination of the property and its surrounding area must be considered. The first step involves
a determination of the potential for existing facilities to accommodate, with or without
modifications, flow from a source which is not currently tributary to it. Absent any existing
facilities, consideration is then given to developing new facilities specifically to satisfy the need
for storm water management.
The effort to define available opportunities to manage storm water runoff from the site
has considered facilities located both on-site and off-site. An examination of existing storm
water management facilities at the landfill and in the local area surrounding the landfill, and
consultation with the Town of Southold, reveals that presently, on-site, there is a recharge basin
located in the southeast area of the landfill property which currently accepts storm water runoff
from the surrounding area. The recharge basin is not actively maintained and is presently heavily
vegetated. There are no other storm water disposal facilities at the landfill. Off-site, based on
available information, the closest storm water recharge basin in the surrounding area is a Suffolk
County basin at the intersection of Depot Lane and County Route 48, approximately 2,000 feet
from the landfill.
· 1314\G0804802.DOC(R06) 7 - 1
Therefore, the drainage plan for the Southold Landfill was developed to manage all storm
water runoff from the cap on-site utilizing the existing recharge basin in the southeast area of the
landfill (with minor mgrading), and a system of newly constructed drainage swales, culverts and
recharge basins. In order to establish the needed capacity for on-site recharge basins and to
develop preliminary estimates of the required sizes for the proposed culverts, a hydraulic analysis
of the site was performed. In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360, the storm water management
system must be sufficient to accommodate a 25-year storm event with a 24-hour duration. For
the Long Island area, this storm event is equivalent to 6 inches of rainfall with an intensity
distribution for a Type III coastal setting (see Appendix E). As a factor of safety, consideration
was also given to accommodation of a 100-year storm event with a 24-hour duration equivalent
to 7.3-inches of rain fall with an intensity distribution for a Type Ill coastal setting (also see
Appendix E).
A review of the proposed Final Grading Plan indicates that there are four primary areas of
the landfill cap with definable flow paths. These areas are identified as areas D-1 through D-4 on
the attached Drainage Plan (Drawing 4). The analysis also takes into consideration, as a potential
alternative, management of storm water from a fifth area identified as D-5 located beyond the
cap, which includes the entrance to the landfill site and a portion of the area around the existing
collection center, drop-off center and scale house. Presently, the low-lying area near the scale
house occasionally experiences flooding during storm events.
The analysis of the storm water discharge from each drainage area was performed using
HydroCAD 4.0. HydroCAD 4.0 is a computer model which makes use of the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) TR-20 and TR-55 methods to develop linked hydrographs for the drainage areas,
conveyance systems and impoundments. Several of the parameters which are input for each
subarea include storm frequency (25 or 100-year storm), storm duration (24 hours), rainfall
intensity distribution (Type Ill - coastal setting), plan area of the subarea (acres), slope, slope
length, quality and nature of vegetative cover, and a soil group to reflect the nature of the soil. In
performing the HydroCAD analyses, in order to use an appropriate runoff curve number (RCN)
· 1314\G0804802.DOC(R06) 7-2
which simulates runoff conditions from the cap during a storm event, output data from the HELP
model (discussed in Section 6.0) was used. The peak daily runoff number generated by the
HELP model was divided by the peak daily precipitation number to develop a RCN for the cap.
This represents a conservative and more realistic approach to analyzing the size of the proposed
recharge basins, since the typical RCN for vegetative cover and soils planned for the cap would
be less than the RCN developed from the HELP model results. The RCN used takes into account
saturation which will occur on the cap during peak storm events and results in increased
quantities of runoff.
The output from the HydroCAD model provides data on the total quantity of runoff from
each area as well as the time distribution and peak flow rate for each subarea. Conveyance
systems are analyzed for their capacity to transmit the flow and impoundments are analyzed for
their capacity to receive, contain and dispose of the discharge. Recharge from the basins to the
groundwater system is conservatively assumed to occur only from the bottom area of the basins
(no allowance for submerged side slopes) at a rate of 5 gallons per day per square foot. This rate
is typical for recharge basins in the Long Island area. A copy of this analysis is provided in
Appendix E.
As discussed previously, the opportunities for on-site disposal are limited by the available
free space at the perimeter of the site beyond the limits of waste. As shown on the Drainage
Plan, in order to provide on-site disposal capacity, four recharge basins, one at each comer of the
landfill, have been incorporated into the closure design. Storm water will be conveyed to the
basins by means of open drainage swales, drainage structures (such as stilling basins) and
culverts located beneath roads, as needed (see Drawing 4).
Basin 1 will be constructed in the southwest comer of the property. Excavation of soil
and possibly some waste will be required to construct Basin 1. Soil and waste excavated during
construction of Basin 1 will be used as general fill/contour grading material in obtaining the
required landfill cap subgrades. Excavated waste, if encountered, will be cut back and replaced
with clean soil as necessary to eliminate waste from the recharge basin side walls.
· 1314\G0804802.DOC(R06) 7-3
Basin 2 will be constr cted in the northwest comer of the property. Based on the results
of test pit/trench excavations in this area and in the area of the adjacent former scavenger waste
lagoons, it was determined that these areas contain buried waste. As a result, it will be necessary
to fill and cover the lagoons as part of cap construction, and excavate buried waste in the
northwest corner of the landfill in order to constr ct Basin 2 as indicated on the Subgrade
Grading Plan (Drawing 3). Excavated waste will be cut back and replaced with clean soil as
necessary to eliminate waste from beneath the recharge basin side walls. Since the buried waste
in the northwest comer of the landfill substantially consists of large metal debris (e.g., vehicle
parts, pipes and scrap), efforts will be made to recover this material as scrap metal for recycling,
and the remaining waste and soil excavated during construction of Basin 2 will be used as
general fill/contour grading material for achieving subgrade elevations.
Basin 3 will be constmcted in the northeast corner within the existing borrow pit. A berm
will be required on the north and west sides of Basin 3 to construct the recharge basin. Basin 4
will be constructed in the area of the existing recharge basin in the southeast comer of the
landfill.
In general, after capping, the majority of the southern portion of the landfill,
encompassing approximately 16.4 acres, will be tributary to Basin 1. Approximately 4.5 acres in
the northwest portion of the landfill will be tributary to Basin 2. Approximately 14.1 acres
comprising the majority of the eastern half of the landfill will be tributary to Basin 3. The area
tributary to Basin 4 comprises approximately 5.0 acres which includes the southeast portion of
the cap along with a portion of the eastern perimeter of the landfill cap, as well as the
southeastern comer of the site beyond the landfill cap which presently slopes towards the existing
drainage basin in this area.
Basin 1 has also been evaluated for its potential to manage additional storm water from
drainage area D-5, which as discussed above, includes the approximately 5.5 acre area south of
the cap comprising the existing entrance roadway, the area of the scale house, and a portion of
· 1314\GOSO4802.DOC(R06) 7 -4
the area around the collection and drop-off centers. Drainage structures and buried piping would
be required to convey the storm water from drainage area D-5 to Basin 1.
A summary of the major features of each of the four basins, as well as the results of the
HydroCAD analysis for a 25-year 24-hour storm event, is tabulated below.
Bottom Elevation Maximum (High Estimated Peak Freeboard at
Basin Number (feet amsl) Water) Elevation Water Elevation~ Estimated Peak Water
(feet amsl) (feet amsl) Elevation (feet)
I (without 26.0 42.0 35.3 6.7
drainage area D-5)
1 (with drainage 26.0 42.0 36.9 5.1
area D-5)
2 40.0 48.0 44.6 3.4
3 12.0 20.0 17.0 3.0
4 30.0 40.0 35.1 4.9
Igeak elevation during a 25-year storm with a 24-hour duration, based on results of HydroCAD analysis.
As indicated in the table above, based on the results of the HydroCAD analysis, each of
the four drainage basins is adequately sized to manage the storm water anticipated from the
corresponding drainage area during a 25-year 24-hour storm event, allowing for at least 2 feet of
freeboard in each case. This includes conveying the estimated additional storm water generated
by area D-5 during a 25-year 24-hour storm to Basin 1.
hn addition to the analysis for a 25-year 24-hour storm event required by 6 NYCRR 360
an analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of a 100 year 24-hour storm event. The results
of this analysis are presented below.
,1314\G0804802. DOC(R06) 7-5
Maximum (High Estimated Peak Freeboard at Peak
Basin Number Bottom Elevation Water) Elevation Water Elevation~
(feet amsl) (feet amsl) (feet amsl) Elevation (feet)
1 (without 26.0 42.0 38.8 3.2
drainage area D-5)
1 (with drainage 26.0 42.0 41.0 1.0
area D-5)
2 40.0 48.0 46.2 1.8
3 12.0 20.0 18.8 1.2
4 30.0 40.0 36.8 3.2
~Peak elevation durin a 100-year storm with a 24-hour duration, based on results of HydroCAD analysis.
The results presented above indicate that adequate capacity is available in the four
proposed recharge basins to manage the increased runoff associated with a 100-year 24-hour
storm. This includes the additional runoff from drainage area D-5, if it is conveyed to Basin 1.
An analysis was also performed to determine the effects on storm water runoff of
constructing the proposed transfer station being consider by the Town in the southern portion of
the property. The new transfer station as proposed represents increased paved areas, and
therefore, would result in increased runoff to Basin 1 (in the southwest comer) as shown below
for a 25-year and 100-year 24-hour storm.
Analysis of Effects Maximum (High Estimated Peak
of Constructing Bottom Elevation Water) Elevation Water Elevation Freeboard at Peak
Proposed Transfer (feet amsl) (feet amsl) (feet amsl) Elevation (feet)
Station on Basin 1
25-year 24-hour 26.0 42.0 37.4 4.6
Storm
lO0-year 24 hour 26.0 42.0 41.5 0.5
Storm
I
I
I
I
I
As anticipated, the table above shows an increase in peak water elevations in Basin 1 for
a 25-year and 100-year storm if the new transfer station is constructed. Nevertheless, as
indicated, adequate capacity is available to contain a 100-year, 24-hour storm.
· 1314\G0804802.DOC(R06)
7-6
To address the concern that recharge from the storm water basins planned for
construction at the landfill site will raise the water table and potentially saturate the waste
materials at the landfill, an analysis was performed to determine the mounding that would occur
under the recharge basins. Based on soil borings conducted at the site, the depth of the waste
material at the landfill is approximately 5 feet above the water table.
An equation developed by Hantush (1967) was used to calculate the height of a mound
formed on the water table under a rectangular basin during recharge events using site-specific
data. To assess worst case conditions, the calculations were conducted using the volume of water
generated during a 100-year storm event and the physical features of the recharge basin in the
southwestern comer of the landfill (Basin 1), which is the largest capacity basin to be constructed
at the landfill. The equation utilizes the following input parameters:
Q = recharge rate to the basin (gal/day)
A = basin area (ft2)
t = duration of recharge (days)
b -- saturated thickness (ft)
K = hydraulic conductivity (ft/day)
S = specific yield (dimensionless)
The volume of water entering the basin is estimated to be 1,610,000 gal/day using a
100-year storm event over a 24-hour period and the physical characteristics of the study area.
The volume was calculated using HydroCAD 4.0 as previously described. The estimated
infiltration rate of the basin is 137,200 gal/day and is based on a published infiltration capacity of
5 gal/day/ft2 and an estimated basin infiltration area of 27,440 ft2.
The saturated thickness of the aquifer receiving the recharge is estimated at 115 feet and
is based on the elevation of the water table near the basin (approximately 8 feet above mean sea
level) and the elevation of the bottom of the aquifer beneath the landfill (top of the clay unit
· 1314\G0804802.DOC(R06) 7 -7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
underlying the site) (-107 feet below mean sea level). The hydraulic conductivity is estimated at
260 feet/day and is based on published values for the Upper Glacial aquifer on Long Island. The
specific yield is estimated at 0.1 and is based on literature values of this coefficient for water
table aquifers.
Based on the parameter values selected for this analysis, the predicted increase in the
water table surface beneath the recharge basin is approximately 0.3 feet. As a result, it is
unlikely that the waste near any of the proposed basins will become saturated as a result of
planned storm water recharge at the landfill.
· 1314\GO804802.DOC(R06)
7-8
Section 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.0 LANDFILL GAS MONITORING, VENTING AND CONTROL
8.1 Existing Conditions
As discussed in Section 2.0 of this Final Closure Plan, based on existing gas monitoring
data, the Southold Landfill is generating landfill gas (methane) through the natural, anaerobic
decomposition of organic waste materials. Landfill gas monitoring performed as part of the Part
360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation revealed explosive gas was present above 25% of
the LEL at 80 of 120 survey points within the landfilled area. In addition, as indicated in Section
2.5, based on the explosive gas monitoring conducted as part of the Closure Investigation, the
potential for off-site migration of landfill gas exists along portions of the northwest and eastern
boundaries of the site. The migration of landfill gas in these two areas is currently controlled by
gas migration/cut-off trenches at the property boundary (see Drawing 5).
As indicated above, based upon the monitoring data available, portions of the landfill are
actively generating methane as a result of decomposition of waste materials. It is assumed that
this generation of methane gas will continue for a period of time after the construction of the cap.
Given these conditions, it appears prudent to assume that the installation of the landfill cap may
have a tendency to contain the existing vertical surface venting of landfill gas from the ground
surface and promote lateral migration of landfill gas beyond the limits of the waste. Since the
limits of waste roughly coincide with the property boundaries along many portions of the landfill
perimeter, lateral migration beyond the property lines is a possibility. In order to address this
potential, a system of passive gas vents in the landfill cap and a network of perimeter monitoring
wells in conjunction with the existing gas migration control trenches is planned.
8.2 Passive Gas Vents
Passive gas vents will be constructed in the capping system to provide for passive relief
of landfill gas which accumulates below the geomembrane in the void space of the gas venting
layer. As shown in the attached drawing, the gas vents will be located at a frequency of one per
· 1314\S0806802.DOC(R09)
8-1
acre in the landfill cap in accordance with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360. Also shown
in a typical detail on Drawing 5, each gas vent will consist of a perforated or slotted cross arm
embedded in the 12-inch gas venting layer and a vertical perforated or slotted riser pipe
extending downwards at least 5 feet into the waste mass.
The passive relief vents will function based upon differential pressure between the
underside of the geomembrane where positive gas pressures may accumulate and atmospheric
pressure at the exposed open end of the vent. By necessity, the open end of the vent (above grade
gooseneck fitting) is constructed above grade with at least 3 feet of clearance to the ground
surface to promote unobstructed conditions at all times. Since after closure, the southern portion
of site will remain active and the entire property is fenced, potential vandalism concerns at times
associated with passive gas vents will be mitigated.
8.3 Perimeter Monitoring Wells
In order to monitor the potential for off-site migration of landfill gas from the waste mass
to nearby structures, construction of 12 perimeter landfill gas monitoring wells, spaced at
approximately 200 feet intervals along the southern and eastern property boundaries is planned.
The proposed location for each well is shown on Drawing 5. The monitoring wells have been
located to detect migration at the portions of the landfill perimeter which border on land to the
south and east of the landfill where structures are present and the potential for accumulation of
explosive gases exists. Based on review of an October 1995 aerial photograph of the property,
them are no structures located within 1,000 feet of the northern and western limits of waste.
Each monitoring well will be positioned at or in the vicinity of the limits of waste and the
property boundary to allow measurement of the subsurface methane concentrations.
It is anticipated that it will not be possible to maintain the existing perimeter gas
monitoring wells during grading activities associated with construction of the landfill cap. As
discussed below, the newly constructed monitoring wells will be designed and installed to
provide for conversion to active perimeter gas collection wells, if necessary. If the existing gas
· 1314\S0806802.DOC(R09)
8-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
monitoring wells could be maintained, due to the small diameter (2 inch) of the existing wells
and the possibility that the existing gas monitoring wells may not be grouted above the screens,
the ability to convert the existing monitoring wells to active collection welis, if necessary, would
be limited.
Each new monitoring well will be constructed in a drilled borehole approximately
12 inches in diameter. Drilling will be performed with hollow stem augers. The screened interval
for each well will begin 3 feet below the ground surface and extend to within 5 feet of the water
table. If future conversion to an active collection system is necessary, the potential for air
intrusion from the surface which would result from the shallow screen depth will be minimized
by installing a solid screen to block off the upper 10 feet of the well. The screened length will be
in increments of 5 feet. The casing and screen will be 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40 PVC joined
with internally threaded flush joints. The bottom of the screen will be sealed with a threaded
plug. The screen slot will be 0.125 inch and the annulus between the screen and the borehole will
be filled with coarse well gravel. The upper 2 feet of annulus will be sealed with bentonite. The
well casing will project above grade 3.5 feet and be enclosed in a steel protective surface casing
with lockable hinged cover. The top of the casing will be closed with an end of pipe, lockable
compression plug and a sampling cock will be provided. The steel protective surface casing is
intended to prevent vandalism.
If, based on the results of monitoring after cap construction, it is determined that the
potential for off-site migration of explosive gases into structures exists, an active perimeter
control system will be installed or the existing passive system will be expanded/improved. The
control system will be intended to extract/vent subsurface landfill gas from the waste mass at the
property boundary and cut-off the potential for off-site migration. The active system, if utilized,
will include a series of perimeter collection wells, a collection header(s), gas blower(s) and
appurtenances. Based on concentrations of landfill gas discharged from the active system, the
need for treatment of the gas by flaring or other means will be evaluated. As discussed above,
the new monitoring wells will be modified for conversion to collection wells and connection to
header piping, if necessary.
· 1314~S0806802.DOC(R09)
8-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If additional perimeter migration control (collection) wells are needed to supplement the
12 perimeter gas monitoring wells prepared as part of this Closure Plan, they will be constructed
in similar fashion to the perimeter monitoring wells. The well casing and screen will be
fabricated with 4-inch Schedule 40 PVC pipe joined with internally-threaded flush joints. The
screened interval will begin 10 feet below ground surface and extend to within 5 feet of the
groundwater surface. The screen slot will be 0.125 inch and the bomhole annulus in the screened
interval will be filled with a coarse well gravel. The wellheads will be fitted with 3-inch PVC
globe valves to allow for flow modulation. Sampling taps will be provided to allow
measurements of gas quality and wellhead pressure.
Each extraction well will operate under vacuum conditions generated by a gas blower.
The design flow rate for each well will be approximately 50 cubic feet per minute (cfm) with a
wellhead vacuum of 6 inches water column (w.c.).
Wellhead connections to the collection header will be constructed with corrugated PVC
tubing to provide flexibility and accommodate movement of the header relative to the wellhead.
The collection header will be constructed of solid wall HDPE piping. Lengths of HDPE piping
will be jointed by the butt fusion process. The collection header will be installed above the
geomembrane hydraulic barrier and be bedded in the barrier protection layer. The collection
header will be located above the geomembrane to allow future access for service or repairs
without requiring disturbance of the geomembrane. Straight lengths of collection header will be
installed with a snaked or sinusoidal pattern (plan view) to allow for thermal expansion and
contraction. If the wells are located outside the limits of the waste, condensate will be collected
from the collection header in drainage traps for proper disposal.
A rotary lobe, positive displacement gas blower and appurtenances will be installed to
achieve the desired gas flows and wellhead vacuums. The blower will be fitted with an inlet
water separator/silencer, valving, pressure gauge taps and discharge silencer, and driven by an
explosion-proof, electric motor through a belt and sheave arrangement. The blower will operate
· 1314\S0806802.1X)C(R09)
8-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
at a single, pre-selected speed to provide the required displacement and throughput. Blower
speed control, should it be necessary, will be accomplished by changing belts and sheaves to
change the blower rotational speed. The blower will also be fitted with a valved, bypass piping
arrangement to allow a variable portion of the blower discharge to be recirculated to the blower
inlet to allow for the equivalent of variable speed control.
As mentioned above, the need for installation of a flare or alternate treatment options for
landfill gas discharged from the collection system blower will be evaluated based on the
concentrations of landfill gases.
8.4 Perimeter Gas Migration Control Trenches
Based on available information, as shown on Drawing 5, existing gas migration control
trenches are present along portions of the northern, eastern, western and southern perimeter of the
landfill. The trenches vary from approximately 5 to 10 feet in width and 8 to 10 feet in depth,
and mn parallel to and within 20 feet of the property fence lines. The trenches are filled with
concrete, asphalt, coarse sand and/or bulky waste with the exception of the trench at the northern
perimeter which has not been filled.
In order to control potential off-site migration of landfill gas the existing trenches will be
maintained to the extent practical during construction. If damage to the trenches (e.g., covering,
regrading, etc.) occurs during construction, the trenches will be restored and/or new trenches will
be constructed as needed during closure activities. New trenches will be 5 feet in width and 10
feet deep and lined with a geotextile and filled with stone. Additionally, as discussed above, the
gas monitoring well network to be installed around the perimeter of the landfill will be monitored
to determine the effectiveness of the gas migration control trenches and determine whether
additional perimeter controls are needed.
· 1314\S0806802.DOC(R09)
8-5
Section 9
.m m m m .~ m m mmm m mm m m m m m,. m mm m m
I
i
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
9.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Currently, there are 16 monitoring wells at the Southold Landfill which are used to
monitor groundwater quality. These wells are grouped in pairs, with one well being shallow and
screened across the water table, and the other well being screened deep just above the clay unit
that underlies the landfill, with the exception of S-68916, which is screened below the water
table at 103 feet, and S-68831, which is screened below the clay unit at 190 feet. Depending on
location and ground surface elevation, the water table wells vary in depth from 27 to 77 feet
below ground surface (bgs) with the average depth being approximately 55 feet, and the deep
wells (exclusive of S-68831) vary in depth from 85 feet to 150 feet bgs with the average depth
being about 130 feet. The locations of these wells are shown on Drawing 2.
The existing monitoring wells are constructed with 2-inch diameter PVC casing and
stainless steel screens with locking steel protective surface casings. Screen lengths for the
shallow wells are 20 feet, and screen lengths for the deep wells are 10 feet. These wells,
exclusive of S-68831 and S-68916, are constructed in accordance with Part 360 requirements.
(S-68831 and S-68916 were constructed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services in
the early 1980s and the construction details are not known.)
As part of closure construction, ten groundwater monitoring wells at five locations will
need to be abandoned since they are located in areas that will be graded and capped or where
maintenance access roads are planned to be constructed. These wells are MW-2S and 2D; MW-
3S and 3D; MW-6S and 6D; MW-7S and 7D; and S-68831 and S-68916. Well abandonment
will be in accordance with Part 360 procedures contained in 360-2.1 l(a)(8)(vi). After the cap
and maintenance roads are constructed, six of the ten monitoring wells will be replaced with new
wells at approximately the same locations as the abandoned wells and constructed in accordance
with Part 360-2.11 (a)(8).
Monitoring wells MW-2S and 2D will not be replaced since well clusters MW-4 and
MW-5 will effectively monitor groundwater quality downgradient of the MW-2 cluster, and
*I314\G0820801.DOC(R02)
9-1
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
i
I
i
I
I
monitoring wells MW-7S and 7D will not be replaced since they are located upgradient of the
area of waste and historically have shown little/background contamination. Locations of the
replacement wells are shown on Drawing 3.
Each new groundwater monitoring well will be constructed in a drilled borehole
approximately 8 inches in diameter. Drilling will be performed with hollow stem augers. The
wells will be constructed of a 2-inch diameter Schedule 304 stainless steel screen and threaded,
flush joint Schedule 40 PVC casing. Ten feet of stainless steel wire wrapped screen with 0.02-
inch openings will be installed in each deep borehole, and 20-foot screens will be installed in
each shallow borehole, 5 feet above the water table and 15 feet below. The PVC riser will
extend from the top of the screen to 2V2 feet above ground surface and will be contained in a steel
protective casing with a locking cover.
The annulus of the borehole in the area of the screen will be sand-packed to a height of 2
feet above the screened interval with No. I Grade clean silica sand. A finer grained No. 00 sand
pack material (100 percent passing the No. 30 sieve and less than 2 percent passing the No. 200
sieve), 6 inches in thickness, will be placed on top of the sand pack between the sand and the
bentonite seal. A 3-foot seal of bentonite pellets or slurry will be placed immediately above the
filter material and 6 inches of No. 00 Grade silica sand pack will be placed above the bentonite
seal. The remaining annulus will be grouted to the surface with cement/bentonite grout. The
bentonite will be tested and/or warranteed to be free or organic and inorganic contaminants. All
material placed in the annulus of the borehole will be installed using a tremie pipe.
A 4-inch diameter protective outer steel surface casing with locking cover and a surface
cement pad will be installed around each well casing/riser. An illustration of well construction is
provided on Drawing 6.
· 1314\G0820801 .DOC(R02)
9-2
Section 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
A cost estimate for the construction of the Southold Landfill capping system and landfill
gas monitoring and venting system is presented in Table 10-1. The estimate has been prepared
based upon the closure plan described in this document. The unit costs used to develop this
estimate are representative of comparable work performed in the Long Island area.
The total cost for the construction of the landfill capping system and appurtenances as
presented is estimated to be approximately $6.84 million.
Planned use of alternate contour grading material for general fill/contour grading material
as described in Section 3.3, manufacture of topsoil as described in Section 3.10 and local
pumhase of barrier protection and gas venting material could significantly reduce this cost,
perhaps by $1.2 million dollars or greater, resulting in a closure cost of about $5.6 million or less.
· 1314kF0818803.DOC(R02)
10-1
I
I
I
I
Table 10-1
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE
Budgetary Estimate
tem Estimated
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price
1. Pre-Mobilization LS LS LS $250,000
2. Mobilize, Maintain and Demobilize LS LS LS $125,000
3. Cleadn~l and Grubbing 34 acres $2,800.00 $95,200
4. Unclassified Excavation and Relandfiilin~ 70,000 cu yd $6.00 $420,000
5. General F /Contour Grading Matedal 101,000 cu yd $12.00 $1,212,000
6. Geotextile 165,000 sq yd $1.50 $247,500
7. Gas Venting Layer (12") 55,000 cu yd $18.00 $990,000
8. B0 Mil Textured HDPE Geomembrane 165,000 sq yd $6.75 $1,113,750
;). Geocomposite Drainage Layer 37,200 sq yd $5.75 $213,900
10. Barrier Protection Layer (12") 55,000 cu yd $12.00 $660,000
11. Topsoil Layer (6") 27,500 cu yd $18.00 $495,000
12. Erosion Control Blanket 140,700 sq yd $1.50 $211,050
13. Erosion Control Fabric 20,600 sq yd $5.00 $103,000
14. 4" Diameter Perforated Drain Pipe 13,200 If $4.00 $52,80~
15. iSilt Fence 5,000 If $1.251 $6,250
16. Hydroseeding 165,000 sq yd $1.00 $165,000
17. 18" dia. HDPE Drain Pipe 250 If $45.00 $11,250
18a. Perimeter Roads, 20' 4,300 If $32.25 $138,675
18b. '~edmeter Roads, 30, 1,800 If $70.00 $126,000
19. Landfill Gas Monitoring Wells 12 ea $4,500.00 $54,000
20. Landfill Gas Vents 34 ea $3,500.00 $119,000
_)la.Abandon Existing Groundwater Monitoring
Wells, 50' 5 ea $500.00 $2,500
21b. Abandon Existing Groundwater Monitoring
Wells, 125' 5 ea $1,200.00 $6,000
22a. Construct Replacement Groundwater
Monitoring Wells, 50' 3 ea $2,000.00 $6,000
22b. Construct Replacement Groundwater
Monitoring Wells, 125' 3 ea $5~000.00 $15~000
Total Amount of Estimate ~6~838~875
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
Note: Unit price for perimeter roads includes furnishing and installing stone, goetextile and
harder protection layer material. Contour grading material, gas venting layer, geotextile
below gas venting layer, geocomposite drainage layer and geomembrane under roads
included in other items.
RPEST.WK4/1314/dsg
08/20/98 05:35 PM
Section
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
A schedule for construction of the Southold Landfill capping system has been prepared
and is presented as Figure 11-1. The Construction Schedule addresses the physical construction
effort for the project and will follow the preparation of plans and specifications, NYSDEC
review, competitive bidding, award of bid and execution of contracts. The schedule projects the
work to be performed in a 9-month period, excluding premobilization, provided there are no
interruptions of the work due to weather delays or need to shut down for winter conditions.
The proposed schedule is predicated on an aggressive approach providing for multiple
operations to be performed concurrently. This approach is not uncommon for landfill
construction projects given the size of the Southold Landfill, the ability to spatially separate
activities and the need to perform the activities in a prescribed succession.
· 1314~F0804815.DOC(R02)
11-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL- FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
FIGURE 11-1
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
1999 2000
FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN
PREMOBILIZATION
!
MOBILIZATION ......
EROSION CONTROL .......
EXCAVATION AND RELANDFILLING OF
WASTE, UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION ....
CONTOUR GRADING MATERIAL ........
LFG MONITORING WELLS ..............
I
GEOTEXTILE .........
GAS VENTING LAYER !,
GEOMEMBRANE
GEOCOMPOSITE
BARRIER PROTECTION LAYER
,
TOPSOIL
HYDROSEEDING
EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS
d F Dvirka
I ~ and
Supervisor Thomas H. Wickhas 2.
Town of Sou=hold's "Stipule=ion of Sst=lament" outlines the
three conditions whereby a groundwater monitoring variance
may be raq'aes=ed (Page 9 of Attachment I of the settlement)
as follows: .
Condition No. i is "upon implemsntat~on of the DEC-approved
Closure Investigation ~ap~r~..."
I final Closurs ~nvsst~gai~ion Rapor~ (ClR) has not been
submit=ad =o =hi. DEC. Thm submi~tsd CIR must be approvabls
to DEC and must anclude a:~ initial round of baseline
monitoring reeul=a as outlined in ~ec=ion 3.2.1. ~
SamDlina and Analysis of ':he Landfill Closure Xnvestiga=ion
workplan for =he Town of :=au=hold' Landfill, dated March,
1995.
Com~i~ion No. 2 is "upon :~mpXsmsnta=ion of complete b~seline
param~=sr monitoring one :1) year from ~he data of imm=ia1
baaellne monitoring in pem:fo~anoe of ~/~e approved
hy?rogsologic ~o=~plan and approved CIR..."
Thls condi=ion requires =ha= a second round of baseline
parameter monitoring mus= be ~omplst~d (for comparison to
~.he ~irs= round) before a varlanoe re~uee~ can be
considered.
Cond~tion No. ~ is "upon ~mplaman=ation of q~taL~cer}y routine
monitoring for =wa (2) yeers from the data of £ni~al
baseline monitoring in accordance with the approved Work
Plans and CIR..."
This condi=ion requires that Cwo (2) years of routine
monitoring must be performed quarterly~ ~hree (3) rounds
after ~.he initial baseline monitoring is completed
(Condi=ion No. 1) and =brae (3) rounds after the second
round of baseline monitoring {Condi~ion No. 2) is completed.
~ variance for eu~hor£za~ion =o reduce ~he post-closure
monitoring frequency should be submit~ed at ~haC ~ime. ~e
"S~ipula~ion of Se~lemen~" fu~er s~a~s ~a~ "~he To~
annual~for =ou~ine parameters and eve~ ~ree (3) y~rs
for ~ne parameCers, unless monl=orin~ repo~s reveal a
con=ration of applicabl.~ gro~d and~or e~face wa~er
I
!
standards deemed material ~y the DEC."
In summary, variance rsque:i=s Nos. 1, 2, end 3 are a~proved,
and action on variance request 14o. 4 is deferred until the
condi=ions in =he etipul&ted ag::eemen= are fulfilled.
I
I
Supervisor Thomas H. ~ickhsm 3.
you any ~es~ions, please conCac~-
If
have
~. S=anley Far,as, P.E., of my staff, a= (~16) 444 0375.
Sinc~ely,
R~ional Solid Wa.~e ~gine~
~C:ek
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cC: Stanley Farkas, P.E., Reg:,on I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
NYSDEC AUGUST 1, 1998 RESPONSE TO VARIANCE REQUESTS
August 1, 1995
Supervisor Thomas H. Wickham
Town of Sou=hold
Town Hall0 Main Road
Sou=hold, NY 11971
I Dear Supervisor wickham:
The Department has reviewed =he four Applications for ·
Variance From 6 NYCRR Part 360, da=md March 2, 1995, relating to
the capping/closure and po~t-closurs monitoring of =he
Sou=hold (Cu=chogue) LandfLll. Our review was concluded aN
follows: \"~
1. variance R~lusst No. I - 3es venting Leyer
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This variance requests authorization to increase ~ha finns
con=ant of =he gas venting layer of ~le final cover from
five percent by weight =o 10 percent by weight. This
variance request ia approved.
2. Varianos Request No. 3 - i3errier Protmetion Lmysr
This variance requests au~:horization to reduce ~.he ~hi~.2~nesa
of the barrier protection layer from 24 inches to 12 inches
over a gsomembrana berrie]: layer. This variance request is
approved.
3. varianoe Request Mo. 3 - ~!opsoil Liysr
This variance requests aut~or£zation to replace the
six-inch topsoil layer with a aix(6)-inch ~hick layer of
equival~l~ vegetative gro~h medium. This variance is
approve.
4. Variance Request Mo. 4 - 61roundwaCsr Monitoring
This variance requests modification of the groundwater
frequency to semi-annual ~or routine parameters and every
~hree years flor baseline ~arameterl. This variance cannot
~a approved at this =imm, as the =sits specified in ~ha
"Stipulation of Settlement" have not been me=. The
Appendix B
I
I
1
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
il
$1314\F0518801 .DOC( R01 )
APPENDIX B
STABILITY ANALYSIS
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
PREPARED FOR:
DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS
330 CROSSWAYS PARK DRIVE
WOODBURY, NEWYORK 11797-2015
PREPARED BY:
615 ROUTE 32, P.O. BOX 447
HIGHLAND MILLS, N.Y. 10930
,,
THO~~o~13~
2142.02 FILE 6~214202.COV
TECTONIC
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
ITEM
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE OF SERVICES
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
5.1 Waste and Refuse Materials
5.2 Native Materials
5.3 Groundwater
LABORATORY TESTING
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
8.1 Shear Strength Parameters
8.2 Slope Stability Design Considerations
8.3 Veneer Slope Stability Analysis
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LIMITATIONS
PAGE
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
10
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX II
SITE PLAN
PROFILES
TYPICAL CAP CROSS SECTION
LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES COMPUTER OUTPUT
I
I
I
t
'!
i
!
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TECTONIC
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A slope stability analysis was performed for the proposed landfill closure at Southdd,
New York. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the stability of the final proposed
closure slopes for the Southold Landfill project. This report presents our findings and
recommendations for the design of the landfill closure slopes.
As part of our analyses, we have reviewed "Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic
Investigation Report- Southold Landfill" dated October, 1991;" Part 360 and Phase II
Supplemental Investigation Report - Southold Landfill" dated March, 1993; "Part 360
Closure investigation Report- Southold Landfill" dated December, 1996 and "Test Pit
Waste Delineation Report - Southold Landfill" dated June, 1998. All the above
referenced reports were prepared by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The specific scope of services for the proposed Southold Landfill closure includes:
· Review of the proposed landfill closure design drawings and previous reports that
were provided by the client.
· Sampling and laboratory testing of soil samples proposed as the landfill cap and
general fill material,
· Compilation and geotechnical engineering analysis of the subsurface conditions as
they relate to the slope stability analysis of the proposed landfill closure slopes.
Performing slope stability analysis for three geometric cross-sections using the
computer program PCSTABL 5M. Cross-sections were analyzed for overall slope
stability considering both static and seismic loading conditions. The veneer stability
of the landfill side slope was also analyzed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
!
I
t
I
I
I
I
i
TECTONIC
Preparation of this report presenting the results of our slope stability analysis, as well
as the conclusions and geotechnical recommendations for design and construction
of the landfill closure slopes.
3.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The landfill is located in the Town of Southold, New York. The landfill site is an
approximately 45 acre (excluding the 17 acre area north of the landfill which was
formerly used for mining operation) property bounded by Oregon Road on the north,
North Road (also known as Middle Road and County Road 48) on the south, Cox Lane
on the east and Depot Lane on the west. The proposed landfill closure subbase grading
plan is shown in Figure 1.
Based on our background review, the Southold Landfill was in operation from 1920 until
its closure in 1993. The present landfill setting includes a large excavated area (borrow
area) in the northern portion of the site, and an abandoned scavenger waste lagoon
along the western border of the landfill. The remainder of the Southold Landfill
comprises of a mix of municipal solid waste (MSW), construction and demolition debris
(C&D), and yard waste with the southeastern quadrant comprised of almost entirely
MSW.
4.0 GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
The geologic and hydrogeologic conditions were described in the reports previously
mentioned in Section 1.0 of this report and are summarized as follows:
The Southold Landfill site is generally underlain by Pleistocene-aged
unconsolidated soil deposits associated with glacial outwash from the
Wisconsin glaciation, as well as recent soil deposits. The Pleistocene
2
TECTONIC
deposits constitute the Upper Glacial aquifer and consist primarily of stratified
sand and gravel containing little clay or silt. A clay layer is also described
within the Pleistocene deposits which is referred to as the NoAh Fork glacial
clay. The overlying recent soil deposits include stream, shore, beach and salt-
marsh sediments, and some fill materials.
The thickness of Pleistocene deposits and the Upper Glacial aquifer below
the landfill is approximately 250 to 300 feet. The North Fork glacial clay layer
appears to lie approximately 150 feet below the surface of the landfill and is
estimated to be approximately 40 feet thick below the site. Groundwater in
the Upper Glacial aquifer (overlying the North Fork glacial clay) is in an
unconfined (water table) condition. The water table is at an elevation of about
6 to 11 feet. Some perched water may exist above this water table elevation
within the landfill.
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on the earlier Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation monitoring well
drilling program conducted by Dvirka and BartiHucci Consulting Engineers in 1991, the
subsurface soil conditions are summarized as follows:
5.1 Waste and Refuse Materials
Based on review of previously submitted reports, the waste and refuse materials
in the Southold Landfill primarily consist of two types of wastes: MSW, C&D with
some areas containing yard waste. MSW typically consisted of household
wastes in plastic bags, and in some areas was comprised of burned waste
materials and ash. Household waste is regarded as organic waste and includes
decomposed food wastes, kitchen scraps and other residential-type wastes, such
as newspaper and other paper products. C&D was comprised of mainly concrete,
metal scraps and appliances, steel rebar, plastic tarps, glass, wood, sheetrock,
carpeting and asphalt. In most locations, the wastes were covered with soil or
wood chips.
3
!
TECTONIC
In general, the northeastern portion (quadrant) of the landfill (south of the former mimng
area) contains a mix of MSW and C&D. The southeastern quadrant (north of the
collection center facilities) is comprised of almost entirely MSW. The northwestern
quadrant contains metal scraps and appliances directly north of the former scavenger
waste lagoons. The northwestern quadrant of the landfill does not contain a high
percentage of MSW compared to other areas of the landfill. The interior of this
northwestern portion is a combination of land clearing and composting debris including
leaves, tree trunks, logs and branches, most of which is the result of storm cleanup, and
lesser percentages of MSW and other C&D. The southwestern portion of the landfill
contains primarily MSW with C&D. Further south in the southwestern quadrant, much
of the waste is burned MSW.
5.2 Native Materials
The "Hydregeologic Investigation Report for the Southold Landfill", prepared by
Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers dated October 1991, indicates that a
total of 14 groundwater monitoring wells were installed with split-spoon soit
sampling to depths ranging from 27 to 152 feet below ground surface at 7
locations within or in the vicinity of the Southold Landfill area. The lowest
geologic unit of the site consists of gray-brown silty clay and was encountered at
an average depth of approximately 130 feet below ground surface at all locations
drilled. Overlying the clay is a unit composed of medium to coarse sand and
gravel with an average thickness of approximately 15 feet, except for cluster
locations MW-1 and MW-4, where the clay was ovedain by a roughly 10-foot
thick transitional zone consisting of fine sand with thin intermittent layers of clays
and silts. At monitoring well cluster locations MW-6 and MW-7, the clay was
ovedain by the next most prevalent stratigraphic unit composed of medium to
fine sand with traces of gravel and mica. At the MW-1 cluster, this unit was not
vertically continuous, but was interrupted by a layer of medium to coarse sand
4
TECTONIC
and gravel. These same conditions occurred at the MW-6 cluster location. This
medium to fine sand unit is approximately 50 to 60 feet in thickness.
Overlying this unit and extending to the surface is medium to coarse sand and
gravel, similar to that found overlying the clay. Some isolated lenses of brown
silty fine sand were encountered within this layer at well cluster MW-1. Silty
sands were also encountered within this unit in isolated lenses at cluster MW-6.
Throughout drilling operations, isolated pockets of reddish brown to orange-
brown (iron-stained) sand were encountered.
5.3 Groundwater
As reported by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers in their December
1996 "Part 360 Closure Investigation Report - Southold Landfill", the
groundwater elevation measurements conducted on June 24, 1996 of 21
installed monitoring wells indicated that the groundwater elevation ranged
between 6.25 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the northern border of the
landfill and 10.69 feet above MSL on the southwestern portion of the landfill.
Groundwater elevation data also indicated that the groundwater flow in the Upper
Glacial aquifer is generally in a north-northwest flow direction.
!
I 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was conducted on soil samples proposed as the cap soil and
general fill material to evaluate their engineering properties. The laboratory
testing in this phase of our study included five gradation analyses in acCOrdance
with ASTM D422, five moisture content tests in accordance with ASTM D2216,
two modified proctor tests in accordance with ASTM D1557, five standard proctor
tests in accordance with ASTM D698 and three direct shear tests in accordance
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
TECTONIC '.
with ASTM D3080. The results of above mentioned laboratory testing are
included in Appendix I.
7.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Based on our review of the "Subgrade Grading Plan" (4% slope) for Southold Landfill
Closure prepared by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers dated August 1998,
and our conversations with the Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers, the following
was considered for the slope stability analyses.
The closure of the Southold Landfill will include subgrade preparation of the existing
landfill surface and construction of the final landfill cap. Our review of the grading plans
indicates that relatively minor cuts and fills will be associated with the subgrade
preparation. Fills generally on the order of I to 4 feet are planned over the majority of
the landfill as part of the subgrade preparation. Fill heights will be up to 5 to 10 feet in
some isolated areas.
After the subgrade has been graded, it is our understanding that the final landfill cap will
be constructed. Based on our conversation with the client, the cap will consist, in turn,
of a geotextile, a 12-inch sand gas venting layer, a textured 60 mil HDPE geomembrane
liner, a geocomposite drainage layer over slopes greater than about 20 percent, a 12
inch thick barrier protection layer, and a 6 inch thick vegetative growth medium. The
total thickness of the final cap will be approximately 2.5 feet.
The western half of the proposed landfill closure is relatively fiat with a proposed grade
of about 4 percent to the south (or 2 percent in the western portion of the landfill as an
alternate grading plan). Steeper slopes are located mostly in the eastern half of the
landfill. The high point of the landfill after the final cap is constructed will be in the
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TECTONIC:
northeastern portion of the site as indicated on Figure 1. The landfill final cap slopes
will descend, as indicated by profile A-A' in Figure 2, from a high elevation of about 76.5
feet to an elevation of approximately 14 feet at the base of the landfill. The upper
approximately 4 feet of slope gently descends at an inclination of 4 percent (or 2
percent in the western portion of the landfill), whereas the lower portion of the slope
becomes steeper at an average inclination of about 20 percent. The maximum slope in
profile A-A' of about 35 percent occurs at the bottom 8 feet at the northern portion of the
landfill. The total height of the final landfill slope is up to 62.5 feet. The water table
elevation at the base of profile A-A' was assumed to be at an elevation of 20 feet, which
is the high water level in the basin located at the base of this slope after storm events.
The water level was assumed to decrease from an elevation of 20 feet adjacent to the
basin to an elevation of 11 feet under the landfill. The water table elevation of 11 feet
was assumed as a worse case, as the water table elevation may typically be 6 feet.
The groundwater table for profile B-B' was assumed to be at an elevation of 11 feet
above MSL. The piezometric surface for profile C-C' was evaluated by assuming a
water table elevation of 40 feet in the detention basin at the base of the landfill slope,
decreasing to an elevation of 11 feet under the landfill.
8.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Based on the final closure plan sheets, three geometric cross-sections designated as
profiles A-A', profile B-B' and profile C-C' were analyzed for overall (global) slope
stability. The locations of the cross sections are indicated on Figure 1. The geometry of
profiles A-A', B-B' and C-C' are shown on Figure 2.
Slope stability analyses were performed by the Modified Janbu Method utilizing the
PCSTABL 5M computer program. Failure surfaces along the cross sections were
generated using the "CIRCLE" searching algorithm and "SURFAC" for both static and
7
I TECTONIC
pseudo-static (seismic) conditions. Iterations using these subroutines yielded the critical
failure surfaces for the subject slopes.
8.1 Shear Strength Parameters
Shear strength parameters used in our analyses were based on the subsurface
exploration, laboratory test results on similar materials, published data, and
professional judgment. The shear strength parameters for the cap cover soil over
the geomembrane and the general fill material are based on our laboratory test
results for the Imported Golf Course Material and the Glass Sand resulting from
glass recycling from Waste Management, Inc., respectively. A summary of the
shear strength data is presented in the following table:
SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
MOIST SATURATED FRICTION
SLOPE UNIT UNIT WEIGHT ANGLE COHESION
MATERIAL WEIGHT (pcf) (degrees) (psf)
(pcf
Landfill Cap Soils 105 115 31 130
General Fill
(Glass Materials) 110 120 30 0
Landfill Solid
Waste Materials 65 75 20 200
Native
Sand Soils 110 120 32 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.2 Slope Stability Design Considerations
I The slopes were analyzed to evaluate the static slope stability, the seismic effect
on the gross stability of the subject slopes, and the surficial stability of the landfill
cap material and underlying waste. The pseudo-static subroutine of the PCSTBL
5M program and a coefficient of horizontal acceleration of 0.10g were used in our
analyses. The 0.10g horizontal ground acceleration was obtained from the BOCA
National Building Code.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
TECTONIC
The design is based on a static factor of safety of 1.5 and a pseudo-static factor
of safety of 1.1 and the assumption that the slope configuration will be as
indicated on Figures 1 through 3.
The following table summarizes the results of the static and pseudo-static slope
stability analyses. In addition, plots of our slope stability analyses are provided in
Appendix
SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
CALCULATED
CALCULATED MINIMUM PSEUDO-
CROSS SECTION DESIGN CONDITION MINIMUM STATIC STATIC FACTOR OF
FACTOR OF SAFETY SAFETY
Northern landfill
A-A' slope 1.9 1.3
Northeastern Corner
B-B' Landfill Slope 1.5 1.2
Southeastern landfill
C-C' slope 1.6 1.2
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.3 Veneer Slope Stability Analysis
To facilitate the veneer slope stability analysis for the surficial stability of the
landfill cap, a typical profile as shown in Figure 3 was utilized. This profile was
created based on information provided verbally by Dvirka and Bartilucci
Consulting Engineers.
The interface between the geomembrane and landfill cap was considered to be
the critical potential slip surface. For the purpose of our analyses, water was
assumed to be 3 inches above the geomembrane at the top of the slope and
increase to the total depth of the cap at the base of the slope. The slope was
assumed to be inclined at 39 percent.
9
i TECTONIC
The veneer slope stability analysis yielded a factor of safety of 22 under static
loading conditions, and a factor of safety of 1.7 under seismic loading conditions.
9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our background review and slope stability analyses, it is our
opinion that the proposed construction of the landfill closure slopes is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. Our slope stability analyses indicates that adequate factors of
safety were obtained for the static gross slope stability condition, for the pseudo-static
(seismic) condition, and for potential surficial failures through the landfill cap materials.
Design and installation of a geocomposite drainage layer overlying the HDPE
geomembrane liner is recommended in areas with slopes over 20 percent in order to
reduce the surficial water head over the geomembrane liner.
The scope of our evaluation does not include detailed recommendations regarding
earthwork and grading activities; however, we recommend that caution be given during
construction of the landfill cap since large equipment loads applied during construction
and earthwork exposed to precipitation and runoff may result in localized failures of the
slope, especially along the interface between the landfill cap soils and geomembrane.
I
I
I
I
10.0 LIMITATIONS
Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill
ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers
and geologists practicing in this or similar situations. The interpretation of the field data
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TECTONIC
is based on good judgment and experience. However, no matter how qualified the
geotechnical engineer or detailed the investigation, subsurface conditions cannot
always be predicted between the points of actual sampling and testing. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this
report.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting
Engineers for the specific application to the proposed landfill closure located at the
Town of Southold, New York. In the event that any changes in the design of the
proposed landfill closure are planned or additional subsurface or laboratory test data
inconsistent with that presented in this report become available, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless reviewed
and verified in writing by Tectonic Engineering Consultants P.C.
File FX~142_O2rep.doc
11
FIGURE 1
PROPERTY LINE
APPROX LIMIT
OF WASTE
I LEGEND
CL. ~C' APPRO×,MATE
LOCATION OF PROFILES
NOTES
TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE FEATURES TAKEN FROM
DRAW1NG ENTiTLED "SUBGRADE GRADING PLAN",
DATED AUGUST, 1998 BY DV1RKA AND
BARTILUCCl, PC
TECTONIC
CONSULTANTS P.C.
SITE PLaN
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TO~N OF SOUTHOLD
NEW YORK
's~o~ 2142.02 FIGUEE 1
1~=100'
FIGURE 2
BO
7O
6O
5O
40 -
50
2O
PROPOSED F]N~ L CAP
PROPOSED SUE ~
0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+£,0 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00
80
~ /~PR( °OSED FINAL C P
7O
60
5O
40
50
20
0+00
0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 5+00
70
6O
50
4O
5O
2O
,/
IST GRADE
INAL
0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
( OFI! E A-A'
SCALE: HOmZ: 1"=50'
__OFI__AE
VERT: 1"=10'
2 3
IN I~JCHES
CONSULTANTS P.C.
RO~iLES
SOU'i~HOLD LANDFILL
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
NEW YORK
xs s_~Ol,m J ~1 ~:.02 ~JJUIRE 2 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I FI UF £
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL
FILL LAYER--
VEGETA'RON ANO BARRIER
PROTECTION LAYER
(LANDFILL CAP) ~
GEOTEXTILE
SAND GAS
VEN'RNG LAYER
LANDFILL WASTE
MATERIAL
~--60
MIL HDPE
GEOMEI~BRANE LINER
TECTONIC
ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS F'.C.
(914) 921~--65.~ 1
TYPICAL CAP CROSS SECTION
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
NE~ YORK
e/to/ge
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
I
I
I
APPENDIX I
~ECTONIC
ENGINEEKING CONSULTANTS P.C.
PROJECT ~. 42.01 I D^TE: 7/1/98
GRAIN
SIZE
ANALYSIS
Southold Landfill
PROJECT:
LOCATION: Southold, N.Y.
SOURCE:Import Golf Course Mat./S. Boundr
lOO
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I
12 6 4 3 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4
U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
6 810 141620 30 40 50 70100140200
HYDRONIETER
90
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
8O
70
60
50
40
3o¸
II
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
GRAIN SIZE IN MILL~dETERS
GRAVEL I SAND ~
COBBLES ' ~ SILT OR CLAY
coarse i fine Icoarse[ mediumI fine ,
0.00I
Specimen Identification
® [ BS-1
M4c l
Classification
Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trace Silt
LL PL PI
Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt
0.1880
19.0
79.4
· I BS-1
50.00
1.23
0.422
Cc I Cu
0.77 i 6.5
[ %Clay
1.6
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C.
PROJECT No.2142.01
D^TE: 7/1/98
Southold Landfill
PROJECT:
LOCATION: Southold, N.Y.
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
SOURCE:Import Golf Course Mat./Sand Pit
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
1oo
U.S. SIEVE OPENING [Iq INCHES [ U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS [ HYDROMETER
2 1 3 6 41620 30 50 ~ 100140 200
60 {
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL coarse SAND SILT OR CLAY
COBBLES coarse [ fine [ medium t fine
Specimen Identification
$ lBS-2
Specimen Identification
· BS-2
Classification
Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trace Silt
D60
1.29
D30
0.528
D10
0.2208
DIO0
MC% LL PL PI [ Cc Cu
4 I 0.98 5.8
Gravel
%Sand %Silt
83.7
37.50
15.2
[ %Clay
1.1
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C.
PROJECT No.2142.01 I DATE: 7/1/~-8
Southold Landfill
PROJECT:
LOCATION: Southold, N.Y.
GRAEN SIZE ANALYSIS
SOURCE:Dredged Mat. From Plum Island
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
12 6 4 2 1.5 I 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100140200
G~ S~E ~ M~L~E~
G~VEL coarse S~D
COBBLES SILT OR CLAY
coarse I ~ne I me~m I fine
Spec[men Identification
· lbs-3
Specimen Identification
· BS-3
Classification
B~m c-f SAND, some c-f Gravel, little Silt
DI00
75.00
D60
1.85
D30
0.413
DI0
MCll % LL PL PI
% Gravel % Sand
30.5 55.9
~Silt [
Cc i Cu
13.6
%Clay
pRO/ECT No.2142.01 i DATE: 7/1/98 ] GRALN SIZE ANALYSIS
Southold Landfill
PROIECT:
~ECTONIC
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C.
LOCATION: Southold, N.Y.
SOURCE:Glass Mat. From Waste Managemer
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN UVCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS [ HYDROMETER
12 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3 4 6 810 141620 30 40 50 70100140200
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
I GRAVEL coarse SAND
COBBLES I SILT OR CLAY
coarse I fine I medium [ fine
Specimen Identification Classification
· I BS-4 Gy c-f GLASS, trace Silt
Specimen Identification
· BS -4
D100
19.00
D60 D30
1.86 0.589
D10
0.1703
MC%
11
% Gravel
9.7
LL
Sand
86.1
PL PI
Cc Cu
1.09 i 10.9
%Silt : %Clay
4.2
~CFO~C
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C.
PROJECT No. 2142.01 iDA'rE: 7/1/98
PROJECT: Southold Landfill
LOCATION: Southold, N.Y.
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
SOURCE:Native Sand From Sand Pit
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES [ U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROblETER
4 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70100140200
GRAIN SIZE IN blILLUvIETERS
GRAVEL [ SAND SILT OR CLAY
COBBLES t coarse [ fine ]coarse[ medium t fine
Specimen Identification Classification
· BS-5 Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trace Silt
D100 D60 D30 D10
Specimen Identification
· BS-5
50.00
1.51 I 0.624
0.2712
6 0.95i 5.'~
%Gravel %Sand
81.9 0.a
17.8
%Silt i %Clay
PROIECTNo. 2142.01 [DATE: 7/1/98 [ COMPACTION TESs
PROJECT: Southold Landfill
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C.
LOCATION: Southold, N.Y.
SOURCE:Import Golf Course Mat./S. Boundr.
Specimen Identification BS-1
Description of Material Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trac~
Silt
Test Method ASTM D698/A
~ A~E~ERG LIMITS
LL PL PI
~ ~ ~ CURVES OF 1~% SATU~TION
Xkx FOR SPECIFIC G~VITY EQU~ T'
2.80
" .......... 2.70
~N 2.60
'ti I
,
, ,, , ' '"-
0 5 10 15
WATER CONTENT (Percent Dry Weight)
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C.
PROIECT No. 2142.01 ]DATE: 7/1/98
Southold Landfill
PROJECT:
LOCATION: Southold, N.Y.
COMPACTION TEST
SOURCE:Import Golf Course Mat./Sand Pit
Specimen Identification BS-2
Description of Material Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trac
Silt
Test Method ASTM D698/A
TEST RESULTS
Maximum Dry De~uity 109.0 PCF
Optimum Water Content 14.0 %
h ATTERBERG LIMITS
.. ~ La Pa PI
!\~',
CURVES OF 100% SATURATION
\ FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL T~
,~**x 2.80
" 2.60
? ., N,
·
0 5 10 15 20 25
WATER CONTENT {Percent Dry Weight)
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ENGI.NEEKING CONSULTANTS P.C.
PROIECT No.2142.01 I DATE: 7/1/98
Southold Landfill
PROIECT:
LOCATION: Southold, N.Y.
COMPACTION TEST
souRcE:Dredged Mat. From Plum Island
Specimen Identification BS-3
Description of Material Bwn c-f SAND, some c-f Gravel,
little Silt
Test Method ASTM D698/C
Maximum Dry Density 127.0 PCF
Optimum Water Content 8.5 %
~ ATTERBERG LIMITS
LL PL PI
" ~ % % %
X FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL
N ,,, ~ .......... 2.70
\ 2.60
\ ,
0 5 10 15 20
WATER CONTENT (Percent Dry Weight)
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP -
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C.
PRO/ECT No. 2142.01
DATE: 7/1/98
Southold Landfill
PROJECT:
LOCATION: Southold, N.Y.
COMPACTION TEST
SOURCE:Glass Mat. From Waste Manageme~
Specimen Identification BS-4
Description of Material Gy c-f GLASS, trace Silt
Test Method ASTM D698/A
TEST RESULTS
Maximum Dry Density 112.0 PCF
Optimum Water Content 12.0 %
ATI'ERBERG LIMITS
~ LL PL PI
\ FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL T(
,,X
2.60
0 5 10 15 20
WATER CON'I~NT (Percent Dry Weight)
MOISTURE-DENSITY REI,ATIONSHIP --
PROIECTNo. 2142.01 ] D.nTE: 7/1/98 i COMPACTION TEST
PROJECT: Southold Landfill I
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C.
LOCATION: Southold, N.Y.
SOURCE:Native Sand From Sand Pit
Specimen Identification BS-5
Description of Material Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trac
Silt
Test Method ASTM D698/A
TEST RESULTS
~ Maxlnmm DE,' Density 105.0 PCF
"',i~ Optimum Water Content 12.5 %
'., % % %
~ ".1 t CURVES OF 100% SATURATION
~ 1, ~ FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL T'
' ''1''' \ 2.80
X ~ 2.60
~ I~ '' \
· I IX , I'%,
I I ~''
I", , ,I I
0 5 10 15 20 25
WATER CONTENT (P~rcent Dry Weight)
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ENGINEER~G CONSULTANTS P.C.
PROIEC'r No. 2142.01
DATE: 6/29/98
Southold Landfill
PROIECT:
LOCATION: $outhold, N.Y.
COMPACTION TEST
SOURCE:Import Golf Course Mat./S. Boundr
I Description of Material Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trao
[ I ] \ Silt
ill 'I.
i ] I".~' Test Method ASTM D1557/A
['l /
I I ti'..
TEST RESULTS
Optimum Water Content 13.5 %
,,, I I
I ] i I 5 ~ ATTERBERGLIMITS
I 15 X i.i. m.
Ii Il I[ I I i \\ "'~ CURVES OF100%SATURATION
\ ~ FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL T(
, ~ I [ I I ~ ' ~.) ",l X .......... 2.70
; i I, I i/j~,
I
0 5 10 15 20 25
WA'ITeR CONTENT (Percent Dry Weight)
MOISTURE-DENSITY REI,ATIONSHIP
ENGIIX/EERING CONSULTANTS P.C.
<OJEC'TNo. 2142.01 i DATE: 6/29/98
Southold Landfill
PROIECT:
LOCATION: Southold, N.Y.
COMPACTION TEST
SOURCE:Native Sand From Sand Pit
SpecLmen Identification BS-5A
Description of Material Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trac
Silt
TEST RESULTS
opt~u~ Water Co~t~t 12.0~
ATTER~ERG LIMITS
LL PL PI
~' ~ CURVES OF 100% SATURATION
I ~ ,, ~ FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL T'
I I ', \ 2.80
.......... 2.70
", 2.,0
· .1'k, ,,
, ,,,Ix
,, " ' '"~N ' '
~ I
0 5 10 15 20 25
WATER CONTENT (P~rccnt Dry Weight)
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP --
24O0
-0. 040
1600
' -0. 020
0. 020
80O
0. 040 .-
O. 060 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4
Horiz. Deform.. in
1200
1000
800
· i"i"~'i' 'i"i"i":' 'i"'::"~":' i.
4-00
0
0 0.1 0.2. 0.3 0.4
Horiz. Deform. , in
SAMPLE DATA
SAMPLE TYPE: COMPACTED
DESCRIPTION: BS-1
PI=
LL= PL=
SPECIFIC GF~VI~r'= 2.60
REMARKS:
SATURATED
PRIOR TO TESTING
FIG. NO, TECT1
C.
TAN
PF_.AK RESIDUAL
sf 145 131
eg 40.7 31 .2
~ o .ae 0.67 '
~": :':' .: ::..:. ;..:,:..: ..:.: ..
0 800 1600 2AGO
Normol Stress
SAMPLE NO. I 2 5
WATER CONTENT,
DRY DENSITY, pcf
SATURATION, %
VOID RATIO
SIDE LENOTH, in
HEIGHT, in
WATER CONTENT,
~IDRY DENSITY, pcf
SATURATION, %
VOID RATIO
SIDE LENGTH in
HE GHT, in
1.3.5 1.~.5 15.5
103.9 10.3.9 103.9
62.4 62.4 62.4
0.562 0.562 0.562
4.00 4.00 4.00
1 .60 1.60 1 .60
21.6 20.0 19.4
103.9 105.0 105.8
100.0 100.0 100.0
0.562 0.520 0.504
4.00 4.00 4.00
~.60 1.60 1.60
NORMAL STRESS, psf 150 ~00 600
MAXIMUM SHEAR, psf 267 413 657
RESIOUAL SHEAR, psf 211 329 489
Strain rste, in/min 0,010 0.010 0.010
CLIENT: TECTONIC ENGINEERING
PROJECT: SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
;AMPLE LOCATION: SOUTHOLD, NY
'ROd. NO.: 98S2307-01 DATE: 7-7-98
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
J & L TESTING CO., INC.
APPENDIX II
Ten
4~
Southola LF Cross-section fl-fl Slope Stab ilit9 ~nalgsis - ~eep
No~t C~itical. C:$H~,PLT Bg: Tectoaic Eagiaee~in~ 98-~?-98 4:55p~
FS
2.32
2.37
2.39
2.42
2.43
2.46
87 2.47
2.52
388 9 2.55
y_Axisl110 2.56
I I I I
~oil TotWt SatWt C Phi Ru Po~e Piez.
~o. (pc£) (pc£) (ps£)
I 105 115 130 31 0 0
2 110 120 0 30 0 0 WI
3 65 75 200 20 0 0
4 Ilo 12o o 32 o o
288 388 488 588
PCSTABLSM FS~in=2.32 E-Axis
mmm ~ m ~mm m m m mm m
Ten
300
~o~thola LF ¢~oss-seetion fi-fi Slope Stab ilit~ finalgsis - shallo~
Nost C~itical. C:~Hfi_~I.PLT B~: ~eotoni¢ En~xnee~in~ ~0-17-9~ 4:56pm
FS
1.87
1.91
2.0?
2,08
2.25
2.27
2.3?
2.38
· 9 2.40
lO 2.33
TotWt SatWt C Phi Ru Pore Piez,
(pc~) (pc~) (ps£) (deq) Param Press SurF#
105 115 130 31 0 0
110 120 0 30 0 0 Wi
65 75 200 20 0 0 WI
110 120 0 32 0 0 WI
100 200 300 400 500 600
PCSTABL5M FS~in--1.87 X-fixis (ft)
Southol~ LF C~oss-section fl-fl SeisMic Slope Stability flnalgsi~ -
Ten Most C~itical. C:SHflE1.PLT Bg. Tectonic Engineering 98-17-98
Y-Axis
(ft)
1.57
1.57
1.60
1.61
1.62
1.63
1.66
1.66
' 9 1.67
10 1.67
, I { Ipie~',
Soil TotMt SatMt C Phi Ru Pore
Lo. (pcf) ¢pc£) (ps£) (deg) ParaM P~ess Surf#
105 115 130 31 0 0 WI
~ 11o 12o o 30 o o
65 75 200 20 0 0 MI
4 110 120 0 32 0 0
299 399 499 599 69~
PCSTABLSM FS~in=l.57 X-ilxis (£t)
Southold LF Cross-sectioo A-A Seismic Slope Stabilit~ Analysis - shallow
Ten Most Critical. C:SHA_~EI.PLT By. Tectonic Engineering 98-17-98 4:58pM
400
8
Y-Axis!
FS
1.~-?
1.3~-
1.40
1.43
1.49
1.50
1.51
1.53
1.54
1.54
I I I
~oil TotWt SatWt C P6i Ru Poee Piez.
Mo. (pc~) (pc£) (ps~)
I 105 115 130 31 0 0
2 110 120 0 30 0 0 W1
3 65 ?5 200 20 0 0
4 110 120 0 32 0 0 Wi
I I I I
188 288 388 488 588 68~a
PCSTABL5M FS~in=l.2? ~-A×is (~t)
Soathold LF C~oss-seotion B-B
Ten Bg:
160
120
4~
Host C~itical.
FS
1.52
1.55
1.59
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.65
1.66
1.72
~.. 74
C:SHB.PLT
Stabilitg Analgsis - static loading
Tectonic Engineering ~8-10-98 2:0~p~
Soil To%Wt SatWt C Phi Ru Pore Piez.
No. {pc£) (pc£) (psF)
I 105 115 130 31 0 0
2 65 75 200 20 0 0 Wi
3 ilo 120 0 32 0 0 Wi
6l°
W1 ......... ~ ............................................ Wi
I { I I I I I
413 BE) 12(~ 168 200 24~ 288 32~
PCSTflBLSN FSmin=l.52 X-/txis (it)
Ten
120
~-Axis
(£t)
89
4O
Southola LF C~oss-section B-B Stability Analgsis - seismic loaaing
Host C~itical. C:SH_BE.PLT B9: Tectonzc En~xnee~in~ 08-1B-98 2:97p~
1.21
1.23
.1..27
1,29
1.31
~.3~
i.3I
i.35
ISoi l
No.
TotWt SatWt C Phi Rtt Po~'e Piez.
I
(pC£) (pCF) (psf)
105 115 130 31 0 0
wi I
65 75 200 20 0 0
ilo 120 0 32 0 0 Wi
W.1. ......... 3- ............................................ W1
I I I I t I I
PCSTflBLSH FS~in--l.21 M-~xis (ft)
mm mm m
Soul,old LF C~oss-section C-C Slope Stabilitg Analg$i~-~t~tio loadio9
Teo Mo~t C~i~ical. C:SN_C2.PLT B~: Tectooio Eogi~ee~in~ ~8-~8-98 11:2~am
240
1
2
3
?
160
40
FS Soil
1,64 [o.
1
1.65 ~
1.68 3
1,69 4
1~69
1.?1
1.72
1.72
1,73
1.74
TotMt SatMt C Phi Ru Pore Piez.
¢pc£) (pcS) (ps£) (de~) Para~ Press
105 115 130 31 0 0 WI
110 120 0 30 0 0 Wi
65 75 200 20 0 0
ilo 120 0 32 0 0
9 ~ 78
0 0 49 89 129 16~ 299 249 28~ 32~ 36~
PCST~BLS[4 FSmin--l.64 %-Axis (ft)
mm m m m mm m m m m
Southold LF ¢~oss-seotion ¢-¢ Slope Sta~ilit9 flnalgsis-seis~i¢ loading
Ten Most C~itical. C:SS_CEI.PLT Bg, Tectonic Engineering 08-18-98 li.27a~
240
2 1
3 l
4 l
200 ~ 1
6 l
~ I
160
40
FS
· 23
Soil TotMt SatWt C Phi Ru Po~e Piez.
No. (pc£) (pc£) (ps~) (deg) Para~ P~ess
I 105 115 1~0
2 110 120 0 30 0 0
3 65 75 200 20 0 0
4 110 120 0 32 0 0 Wi
0 40 80 121~ 16~ 200 240 280 320 360
PCSTflBL5H FS~in=l.16 X-Axis (ft)
8~
Y-fi×is
(ft)
40
I
~oil Toter Sa~t C P~i Rt~ Po~e Piez.I
105 115 65 31 0 0 W1
PCSTflBLSM FS=2.22 X-fl×i~ <ft)
Uenee~ Aaal~si5 -
Speci£iea SL~£ace. C:SH_UE.PLT
Y-Axis
49
SeisMic Loi~linf~ Sout]~ol~l LF.
Bg; Tectonic Engineel~ing 08-19-98 3:53p~
I I I
TotMt SatWt C Phi Ru Pore Piez.
(pc£) (pcF) (ps£) (deg) Pawa~ Press
105 115 65 31 0 0
I I I
PCSTABLSM FS=I.Ti X-flxis (£t)
Appendix C
mm m mm m m m m m m m m mmm m mm m m mm mm
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· 1314~F0518801.DOC(R01 )
APPENDIX C
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
CONSULTANTS
I
I
I
PO Box ~.47. 615 Route 32
Highland Mills, New York 10930 914-928-6531
Dvirka & Bartilucci
Consulting Engineers
330 Crossways Park Drive
Woodbury, New York 11797-2015
Attention: Mr. Thomas Maher, P.E.
Fax No 914-928-9211
August 20, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RE:
W.O. 2142.03
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
Dear Mr. Maher:
In accordance with Dvirka & Bartilucci's (D&B) request, we have performed a
geotechnical engineering analysis to assess the anticipated settlement from the landfill
closure activities at the above referenced project. The purpose of the settlement
analysis was to evaluate the amount of settlement anticipated at the surface of the
landfill based on final landfill subgrade preparation and the placement of the final landfill
closure cap.
1.0 Site Location
The Southold Landfill is located between Oregon Road to the north and North Road
(also known as Middle Road and County Road 48) to the south, Cox Lane to the east
The
and Depot Lane to the west, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
landfill "footprint" is comprised of approximately 34 acres.
I 2.0 Site Background and Operating History
I
I
I
I
The Southold Landfill is owned and was formedy operated by the Town of Southold.
The Southold Landfill was in operation from 1920 until 1993. The landfill was filled
primarily with a mixture of municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and demolition
(C&D) debris with some areas receiving yard waste. The site also includes an
abandoned scavenger waste lagoon located in the northwestern portion of the landfill.
Based on our review of the background materials, the northeast and southwest portions
of the landfill consist of a mixture of C&D debris and MSW, the northwest portion is
mainly C&D debris and yard waste, and southeast portion mainly consists of MSW. The
total depth of the landfill materials were reported to be up to approximately 40 feet.
CIVIL · GEOTECHNICAL · STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
I TECTONIC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dvirka and Bartilucci
Page 2
August20,1998
During a site visit in June 1998, our field representative spoke with Mr. James
Bunchuck, the Solid Waste Coordinator for the Southold Town Landfill District. Mr.
Bunchuck indicated that "yard waste" was placed in the northwestern quadrant of the
landfill until the end of 1990. Mr. Bunchuck also indicated that the "yard waste" material
appeared to be highly organic and soft. The yard waste material consists primarily of
leaves, grasses, and other organic matter. The depth or aerial extent of the yard waste
material was not reported by Mr. Bunchuck. However, based on our review of a test pit
investigation performed by D&B, the yard waste thickness was found to be about 14
feet thick. For the purpose of our analyses, a yard waste thickness of 15 feet is
assumed. A copy of the test pit logs and sketch map of the test pit locations is shown
as Attachment "A."
3.0 Geologic Setting and Site Specific Subsurface Conditions
Based on our review of the report titled, "Closure Investigation Report for the Southold
Landfill," dated December 1996, prepared by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting
Engineers, the landfill site is underlain by Pleistocene-aged unconsolidated soil deposits
associated with glacial outwash from the Wisconsin glaciation, as well as recent soil
deposits. The Pleistocene deposits constitute the upper glacial aquifer and consist
primarily of stratified sand and gravel containing little clay or silt. A clay layer is also
described within the Pleistocene deposits which is referred to as the North Fork glacial
clay. The overlying recent soil deposits include stream, shore, beach and salt-marsh
sediments, and some fill materials.
I
I
I
I
I
The thickness of Pleistocene and recent soil deposits below the landfill is approximately
250 to 300 feet. Our review of the Final Closure report indicates that the North Fork
glacial clay layer appears to lie approximately 150 feet below the surface of the landfill
and is estimated to be approximately 40 feet thick below the site. Groundwater in the
Upper Glacial aquifer (overlying the North Fork glacial clay) is in an unconfined
condition. The water table lies approximately 40-45 feet below the surface of the site at
an elevation of 6 to 11 feet.
As part of our services, we also reviewed a report prepared by Dvirka and Bartilucci
titled, "Test Pit Waste Delineation Report, Southold Landfill," dated June 1998. Based
on subsurface information contained in this report and on our conversations with
representatives of your office, typical subsurface profiles were created. The typical
existing subsurface profile consists of about a 0.5 foot layer of cover soil overlying
between 5 and 40 feet of landfill waste materials.
I 4.0 Settlement Analysis
I
!
Based on the above profile and age of the landfill, we have assumed that the majority of
pdmary settlement within the landfill materials has already occurred. This is due to the
consolidation characteristics of the waste material under its self-weight and the weight
of the existing cover soil, and the minimum amount of time that has elapsed since
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dvirka and Bartilucci
Page 3
August20,1998
landfilling in the western portion of the site (no landfilling since 1990). Other areas have
older waste deposited prior to 1990. For such waste, the settlement will generally be
less based on typical landfill settlement behavior. It is our understanding that as part of
the landfill closure, a final landfill subgrade and a landfill cap will be constructed. Based
on our review of the proposed 4% final subgrade and cap elevations, fills up to 10 feet
will be placed prior to construction of the 2.5 feet thick final landfill cap. Additional
settlement within the landfill material will likely occur as a result of the added weight of
the fill soils and final cap soils.
To model the anticipated settlement of the landfill materials we have made the following
assumptions:
· The final cap will be 2.5 feet thick and has a moist unit weight of 110 pounds per
cubic foot (pcO.
The amount of fill placement associated with the final subgrade preparation will vary
from 0 to 10 feet. The proposed fill will be a sandy material with a moist unit weight
after placement of 113 pcf.
· The thickness of waste material in the landfill vades between 5 and 40 feet.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The landfill material consists of MSW and/or C & D debds that was last placed in
1993. The northwest section of the landfill may also contain "yard waste" in the
upper approximately 15 feet of landfill materials.
The results of our settlement analysis indicate that the landfill material will settle
relatively significantly due to the weight of the proposed fill soils and final landfill cap.
The attached Table 1 presents the estimated amounts of primary, secondary and total
settlements based on landfill depths ranging between 5 and 40 feet and proposed fill
depths ranging between 0 and 10 feet. This table assumes that the landfill material
consists of MSW and C & D debris containing no more yard waste than typically found
as a percentage of household MSW.
As part of our study, we also evaluated the estimated settlement based on the above
presented assumptions and the upper 15 feet of landfill materials containing soft,
organic "yard waste" composed primarily of leaves, grass, branches and tree stumps.
The attached Table 2 presents the estimated settlements based on a 2.5 feet thick final
cap, proposed subgrade fill depths up to 10 feet, and up to 15 feet of "yard waste"
underlain by up to 25 feet of MSW and/or C & D debris.
The attached tables provide a summary of our settlement evaluation. A sample
calculation of the estimated settlement based on a 2.5 feet thick cap, 5 feet of proposed
fill, and 20 feet of MSW and C & D debds landfill material is shown as attachment "B."
Dvirka and Bartilucci Page 4 August 20, 1998
5.0 Conclusion
of our settlement long-term '
Based on the results analysis, settlements for the landfill
1 foot to
may range from approximately over 9.5 feet, depending on the condition and
depth of the landfill material, and depth of proposed overlying fill and cap.
6.0 Limitations
Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill
ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers
and geologists practicing n this or similar situations. The interpretation of the field data
s based on good judgement and experience. However, no matter how qualified the
geotechncal eng neer or deta ed the investigation, subsurface conditions cannot
a ways be pred cted beyond the points of actual sampling and testing. The evaluation
was based on the subsurface and background information provided by others. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this
report.
In the event that any changes in the design or location of the proposed Southold Landfill
closure are panned, or if any additional subsurface or laboratory test data inconsistent
wth that presented herein becomes available, the conclusions and recommendations
contained in this letter-report shall not be cons dered valid unless reviewed and verified
in writing by Tectonic Engineering Consultants
We trust this lette~l, allow you to proceed with design and construction of the
proposed Sou~.
Sincerely,
Chief Geotec~ TJC/MAS/FX File 6~14203settlement.doc
Hated Settlements of MSW and C&D Debris Materials
Tabl~'f'-' E~tir
Attachments:
Table 2 - Estimated Settlements of "Yard Waste" Materials
Attachment "A" - Test Pit Location Plan and Test Pit Logs
Attachment "B" - Settlement Calculation
.'FABLE 1
ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS OF MSW AND C&D DEBRIS LANDFILL MATERIALS
Landfill Primary Settlement Secondary Total Settlement
Material With Cap and2 Settlement With Cap And
Thickness (ft)3
(ft)
121 Feet 5 Feet 10 Feet 0 Feet 5 Feet 10 Feet
Fil~ (ft) Fil~ (tt) Fi~ (ft) Fm (ft) Fm (tt) Fm (ft.)
5.0 0.59 1.04 1.27 0.34 0.93 1.38 1.61
10.0 0.75 1,49 1.92 0.68 1.43 2.17 2.60
15.0 0.84 1.79 2.37 1,02 1,86 2.81 3.39
20.0 0.89 2.00 2.71 1.36 2.25 3.36 4.07
25.0 0.92 2.16 2.98 1.70 2.62 3.86 4.68
30.0 0.95 2.28 3.21 2.04 2.99 4.32 5.25
35.0 0.97 2.39 3.40 2.38 3.35 4.77 5.78
40.0 0.99 2.47 3.56 2.72 3.71 5.19 6.28
Landfill material assumed to be comprised of MSW and C&D debris placed for at least 5 years
Primary settlement anticipated to occur within 1 year of cap and fill placement
Secondary settlement anticipated to occur between 1 year and 50 years after fill and cap placement
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS OF "YARD WASTE" "LANDFILL MATERIALS
Landfill Primary Settlement Secondary Total Settlement
Material With Cap and2 Settlement With Cap And
Thickness (ft)3
(ft)
~ Feet 5 Feet 10 Feet ~ Feet 5 Feet 10 Feet
Fill (ft) Fill {ft) Fill (fl) Fill (fi)Fill (fl) Fill
5.0 1.26 2.22 2.72 0.56 1.82 2.78 3.28
10.0 1.61 3.20 4.10 1.19 2.80 4.39 5.29
15.0 1.79 3.83 5.07 1.78 3.57 5.61 6.85
20.0 1.84 4.04 5.42 2.12 3.96 6.16 7.54
25.0 1.88 4.20 5.69 2.46 4.34 6.66 8.15
30.0 1.91 4.33 5.91 2.80 4.71 7.13 8.71
35.0 1.93 4.43 6.10 3.14 5.07 7.57 9.24
40.0 1.94 4.51 6.26 3.48 5.42 7.99 9.74
I Landfill matedal assumed to be comprised of "yard waste" for upper 15 feet and MSW or C&D debris
material for bottom 15-40 feet.
2 Pdmary settlement anticipated to occur within 1 year of fill and cap placement
3 Se~condary settlement anticipated to occur between 1 and 50 years after fill and cap placement
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT A
!
II
· . !
I/ II
i~ I/
I
ELEVA I E D
LANDFILl_
AREA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SAJV~oI.~ OVA [:~SC:RIPlION OF MAT~I'~IAI~ R~VIAflKS
C~TH INI~VAL
,8
__
12
14
8ARllLUG~
Sample~s) Location(s) ~,~ c 7/~ - /
I Sampie(s) and/or Welt Numk, eris)
t. ocation of sample points, wells, borings, etc., with t. efefmce to
I Messme ~ distances, clearly [~el ro*,'l% wells and ~:~zmnnent featu~s.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
lC
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TE~I' PIT NO.
I~ECT NO.INAIV~
T~.,ST PIT LOG
LOCATION
ELEMATION O~: GROUND SI.J~AC~./BOTi'OM OF PIT
jSTA~i"fF1NISH DATE
~/t~l~
OONDI'I1ON O1: [IHT
.f Ta L I~
'o
9
.. I0
,
· 12
INIk'RVAL
QVA
S~mpie(s) Lo.iota(s) -~C - 'I'P-~-
5mnple(s) ~,d/o~ Well Numbe:is) ~ '
t~ ' I?1 ,~ ts" J~f ( '-t ~,l,~
Lo~aSion of s..ampte poims, wells, boring, etc., wid~ r~fere~:e m. d'~ l~'mm~m ~fi~r~ porto.
I l~ssum ~tl d~s~s, ciesdy lsi~el roscls, wells snd pem~z~m f~mums.
i
I 0 ~ ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TEST PIT LO0
ILOCAI1ON
[SI'/~T/RNISH DAI~
CONOITION OF Fff
w~ t~
(3VA
I:~"SC~II:qlON OF MATEI"aAI. S
~ 1o
-- It
t2
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
TE~T PIT LOO
~RNI~, DA1~ ~
CONDt'nON OF I~ , t
__~
OVA
c.~,,,./,2 ,4~
~'.., 1~.~ *'~ e
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T~ST PIT LOG
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
1
I
I
I
f I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT B
!
!
TECTONIC
CONSULTANTS PC.
SHEET NO
Highland Mills, New York 10930
Albany, New York 12205 C^LCUL~,rED BY
Auburn, Massachusetts 01501
(800) 829-6531 CHECKED BY
SCALE
oF ~
///e///~ ///~¥//~-.
//h//,e ///~ '//
lid
!
!
TECTONIC ~N~,N~,,,~ JoB
CONSULTANTS PC.
SHEET NO
Highland Mills, New York 10930
Albany, New York 12205 CALCULATED BY
Auburn, Massachusetts 01501
(800) 829-6531 CHECKED BY
SCALE
0-7
I
I
TECTONIC ENG,NEER,~~
CONSULTANTS PC
SHEET NO
Highland Mills, New York 10930
Albany, New York 12205 CALCUli, TED E~Y
Auburn, Massachusetts 01501 C,ECXEO
(800) 829-6531
I
I
I
I
I
I
Existing Landfill Po S_dP0 S_dP5 S_dP10 Ss S_total
Thickness(fi) (pst') (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
5.0 125,0 0.589 1.036 1.269 0.340
10.0 250.0 0.752 1.492 1.915 0.680
15.0 375.0 0,836 1.787 2.367 1.019
20.0 500.0 0.888 1.998 2.711 1.359
25.0 625.0 0.924 2.158 2.984 1.699
30.0 750.0 0.950 2.284 3.209 2.039
35.0 875.0 0.969 2.387 3.397 2.379
40.0 1000.0 0.985 2,472 3.557 2.718
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Assumptions:
Porosity
Void Ratio
Compressive
Index
Coefficient of
secondary
compression
0.67
2
0.7
0~04
O- LJO'
TECTONIC
Existing Landfill Po S_dPO S_dP5 S_dPIO Ss S_total
Thickness(fi) (psf) (fi) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
5.0 125.0 1.263 2.219 2.719 0.595
10.0 250.0 1.611 3.197 4.104 1.189
15.0 375.0 1.792 3.829 5.073 1.784
20.0 500.0 1.844 4.040 5.416 2.124
25.0 625.0 1.879 4.200 5.690 2.464
30.0 750.0 1.905 4.326 5.914 2.803
35.0 875.0 1.925 4.429 6.102 3.143
40.0 1000.0 1.940 4.514 6.262 3.483
Appendix D
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· 1314'~F051880 I.DOC(R01)
APPENDIX D
HELP MODEL
4 PERCENT SLOPE - 3 INSTALLATION DEFECTS PER ACRE
, 1314~F0518801.DOC(R01 )
** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE **
** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.01 (14 OCTOBER 1994)
** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION
** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
PRECIPITATION DATA FILE:
TEMPERATURE DATA FILE:
SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE:
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA:
SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE:
OUTPUT DATA FILE:
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D4
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D7
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D13
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.Dll
C:\HELP3\SOU4NG2T.D10
C:\HELP3\SOU4NG2T.OUT
TIME: 18:13 DATE: 8/11/1998
TITLE: SOUTHOLD LANDFILL, 4% SL, NO GEO, BPL MTN #2,TOPSOIL MTN #2
NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE
COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM.
THICKNESS
POROSITY
LAYER 1
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2
= 6.00 INCHES
= 0.4370 VOL/VOL
Page 1
$cu4ng25.cuu
FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0620 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT = 0.0240 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.2888 VOL/VOL
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.579999993000E-.02 CM/SEC
NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00
FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE.
LAYER 2
TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2
THICKNESS
POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY
WILTING POINT
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
SLOPE
DRAINAGE LENGTH
12.00 INCHES
0.4370 VOL/VOL
= 0.0620 VOL/VOL
= 0.0240 VOL/VOL
= 0.4370 VOL/VOL
= 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC
= 4.00 PERCENT
= 300.0 FEET
LAYER 3
TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35
THICKNESS
POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY
WILTING POINT
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
FML PINHOLE DENSITY
FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS
FML PLACEMENT QUALITY
= 0.06 INCHES
= 0.0000 VOL/VOL
= 0.0000 VOL/VOL
= 0.0000 VOL/VOL
0.0000 VOL/VOL
0.199999996000E-12 CM/SEC
1.00 HOLES/ACRE
= 3.00 HOLES/ACRE
= 3 - GOOD
THICKNESS
LAYER 4
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2
= 12.00 INCHES
Page 2
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY
WILTING POINT
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
= 0.4370 VOL/VOL
= 0.0620 VOL/VOL
= 0.0240 VOL/VOL
= 0.1578 VOL/VOL
= 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC
GENEP. AL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA
NOTE:
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT
SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE ~ 2 WITH A
FAIR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 4.%
AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 300. FEET.
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 56.90
FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENT
AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRES
EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 18.0 INCHES
INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 6.977 INCHES
UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 7.866 INCHES
LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.432 INCHES
INITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHES
INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 8.870 INCHES
TOTAL INITIAL WATER = 8.870 INCHES
TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR
NOTE:
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM
NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT
MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.00
START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 83
END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 296
AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 12.00 MPH
AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 65.00 %
AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 69.00 %
AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 74.00 %
AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 70.00 %
NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA FOR NEW HAVEN
CONNECTICUT
Page 3
WAS ENTERED PROM THE DEFAULT DATA FILE.
NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT
NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
35.20 32.60 42.20 49.50 63.10 69.00
78.30 78.50 69.80 55.30 44.80 32.00
NOTE:
SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT
STATION LATITUDE = 41.30 DEGREES
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1977
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
2.44 2.89 6.35 4.89 3.92 5.02
1.26 4.01 6.23 6.25 6.14 6.58
RUNOFF 0.000 0.000 0.518 1.278 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.110 3.052
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
1.609 1.122 2.716 2.289 2.641 5.749
3.196 3.292 2.724 3.059 1.734 1.022
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 2
1.1721 0.5816 1.2275 1.1384 0.9777 0.5518
0.0775 0.0013 0.1938 0.8862 1.2472 1.7416
PERCOLATION THROUGH 1.2056 0.7242 1.2283 1.1683 1.0936 0.6709
LAYER 3 0.0700 0.0018 0.1879 1.0021 1.2211 1.4991
PERCOLATION THROUGH
1.2733 0.7901 1.1188 1.2020 1.1277 0.8048
Page 4
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
$ou~nu2z.ouz
LAYER 4 0.3684 0.1107 0.0083 0.6001 1.1637 1.5050
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 14.059 9.604 14.280 14.060 12.846 8.303
LAYER 3 0.774 0.010 2.137 11.826 14.623 17.070
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 1.155 1.251 1.776 1.736 1.767 2.138
HEAD ON LAYER 3 1.281 0.029 2.677 2.304 1.973 0.565
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1977
2
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
55.98 203207.344 100.00
4.958 17998.396 8.86
31.153 113083.727 55.65
9.7968 35562.516 17.50
10.072868 36564.512 17.99
9.9659
10.072877 36564.543 17.99
0.000 -1.779 0.00
9.056 32874.937
9.056 32873.156
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.0000 -0.059 0.00
Page 5
aou4~g=~, out
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1978
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
9.61 1.34 3.90 1.76 7.65 1.35
4.69 4.18 4.02 2.57 3.72 6.05
RUNOFF 4.914 0.805 0.674 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.482
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
1.070 1.346 1.286 1.887 4.252 4.631
5.073 3.498 3.670 3.046 1.148 0.785
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 1.4681 0.3873 0.6446 0.8934 1.0014 0.5827
FROM LAYER 2 0.0454 0.1384 0.1989 0.0976 0.0079 0.3852
PERCOLATION THROUGH 1.3581 0.3263 0.6252 1.0332 1.0775 0.6935
LAYER 3 0.0369 0.0971 0.1423 0.0712 0.0066 0.4216
PERCOLATION THROUGH 1.3423 0.6960 0.2908 1.0997 1.0180 0.9180
LAYER 4 0.3245 0.0530 0.1028 0.1639 0.0926 0.0975
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 15.628 4.044 7.164 12.583 12.640 8.519
LAYER 3 0.362 1.020 1.515 0.719 0.060 4.990
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 1.624 4.645 6.425 1.198 2.487 3.267
HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.648 0.915 0.441 0.815 0.217 1.766
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1978
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DP~AINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
50.84 184549.234 100.00
7.875 28587.150 15.49
31.692 115041.594 62.34
5.8511 21239.354 11.51
5.889451 21378.705 11.58
5.7704
6.199028 22502.473 12.19
-0.777 -2821.376 -1.53
9.056 32873.156
8.015 29094.590
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.264 957.192 0.52
0.0000 0.038 0.00
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1979
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION 14.58 2.57 4.99 5.35 4.67 2.95
0.55 5.35 4.55 4.25 2.25 3.65
RUNOFF 10.843 0.000 1.868 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.905
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.579 1.438 1.891 2.948 3.943 5.477
Page 7
Sou4ng2z.ouu
1.668 3.139 2.298 3.160 1.457 0.674
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.9170 0.8130 1.1999 0.6677 0.7369 0.4597
FROM LAYER 2 0.0342 0.1567 0.3158 0.6395 0.4795 0,3537
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.8007 0.9358 1.2137 0.8042 0,9268 0.5326
LAYER 3 0.0254 0.1458 0.2948 0.7960 0.5622 0.3788
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.4936 1.0093 1.2237 0.7940 0.9390 0.7260
LAYER 4 0.2933 0.0484 0.1032 0.6923 0.5891 0.5194
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 9.106 12.227 14.112 9.930 11.034 6.565
LAYER 3 0.252 1.633 3.495 9.533 6.990 4.453
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 7.187 1.590 2.117 1.572 0.974 2.485
HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.541 1.369 2.249 1.403 0.657 1.663
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1979
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
2
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
55.71 202227.234 100.00
13.616 49424.383 24.44
29.672 107708.133 53.26
6.7735 24587.682 12.16
7.416692 26922.594 13.31
7.4442
7.431464 26976.215 13.34
-1.782 -6469.083 -3.20
8.015 29094.590
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
6.497 23582.699
0.264 957.192 0.47
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.0000 -0.085 0.00
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1980
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT PLAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
1.35 1.15 10.65 6.60 2.05 2.60
7.30 1.22 1.70 3.06 4.98 1.04
RUNOFF 0.241 0.287 1.994 2.351 0.000 0.000
0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
EVAPOTRANSPIP~ATION
1.446 1.168 2.249 2.507 3.555 4.096
3.855 2.813 2.194 2.747 1.323 0.960
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 2
0.2398 0.2174 0.9175 1.3261 0.7984 0.3003
0.0395 0.4666 0.2807 0.0881 0.0722 0.4454
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.1720 0.2145 0.8930 1.2657 0.9496 0.3290
LAYER 3 0.0477 0.5392 0.2727 0.0653 0.0752 0.5111
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2656 0.1099 0.5846 1.3004 1.0454 0.5931
LAYER 4 0.1817 0.2554 0.3645 0.2531 0.0872 0.2795
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 1.755 2.679 10.379 15.101 11.26~ 4.020
LAYER 3 0.571 6.463 3.222 0.650 0.887 6.077
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.344 1.998 5.291 1.936 1.814 2.765
Page 9
So,s4ng2~.ou~
HEAD ON LAYER 3 2.179 1.439 0.643 0.685 2.102 2.693
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1980
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
43.70 158630.984 100.00
4.927 17886.080 11.28
28.911 104946.109 66.16
5.1919 18846.764 11.88
5.334950 19365.871 12.21
5.2556
5.320364 19312.922 12.17
-0.650 -2360.907 -1.49
6.497 23582.699
5.846 21221.791
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.0000 0.021 0.00
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1981
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
Page 10
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
PRECIPITATION
0.63 6.40 1.05 3.85 3.41 1.55
5.62 0.37 3.33 7.66 2.25 6.18
RUNOFF 0.053 2.773 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.155
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 2
1.236 1.150 1.547 2.652 3.112 3.709
5.406 0.358 2.843 2.648 1.687 1.149
0.3134 0.2244 0.3651 0.4702 0.4018 0.2760
0.1704 0.0000 0.0054 0.1778 0.6343 1.2330
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.3018 0.1657 0.3954 0.5487 0.4455 0.2745
LAYER 3 0.1773 0.0000 0.0051 0.2111 0.7930 1.2084
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.3112 0.2459 0.2290 0.4966 0.5091 0.4056
LAYER 4 0.2657 0.1471 0.0651 0.0272 0.4294 1.0970
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 3.476 1.966 4.665 6.815 5.311 3.259
LAYER 3 2.059 0.000 0.041 2.418 9.816 14.030
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 1.357 0.326 2.242 1.004 0.411 1.422
HEAD ON LAYER 3 2.347 0.000 0.t34 4.289 0.811 2.697
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
2
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
42.30 153549.016 100.00
2.983 10826.776 7.05
27.496 99811.836 65.00
4.2719 15506.906 10.10
4.526566 16431.434 10.70
Page 11
OU4,.g2=.OU~
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
4
4.4880
4.229104 15351.646 10.00
3.320 12051.847 7.85
5.846 21221.791
9.166 33273.637
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.0000 -0.002 0.00
AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
PRECIPITATION
TOTALS
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
5.72 2.87 5.39 4.49 4.34 2.69
3.88 3.03 3.97 4.76 3.87 4.70
STD. DEVIATIONS 6.11 2.11 3.53 1.82 2.08 1.47
2.89 2.12 1.66 2.16 1.71 2.35
RUNOFF
TOTALS
3.210 0.773 1.011 0.726 0.000 0.000
0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 1.119
STD. DEVIATIONS 4.750 1.166 0.877 1.064 0.000 0.000
0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.049 1.234
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
TOTALS
1.388 1.245 1.938 2.456 3.500 4.732
3.840 2.620 2.746 2.932 1.470 0.918
Page 12
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sou4ng2t.cu5
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.231 0.139 0.566 0,398 0.643 0.873
1.509 1.289 0.585 0.221 0.246 0.189
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2
TOTALS 0.8221 0.4447
0.0734 0.1526
0.8709 0.8992 0.7832 0.4341
0.1989 0.3778 0.4882 0.8318
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.5354 0.2539 0.3690 0.3454 0.2415 0.1410
0.0568 0.1904 0.1202 0.3638 0.5003 0.6257
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
TOTALS 0.7676 0.4733
0.0715 0.1568
0.8711 0.9640 0.8986 0.5001
0.1805 0.4292 0.5316 0.8038
STD. DEVIATIONS
0.5276 0.3391 0.3648 0.2896 0.2640 0.1922
0.0614 0.2228 0.1160 0.4390 0.5071 0.5147
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
TOTALS 0.7372 0.5703
0.2867 0.1229
0.6894 0.9785 0.9278 0.6895
0.1288 0.3473 0.4724 0.6997
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.5284 0.3788 0.4614 0.3296 0.2436 0.1979
0.0700 0.0847 0.1373 0.2863 0.4433 0.5870
AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3
AVERAGES 8.8046 6.1039
0.8036 1.8252
10.1200 11.6977 10.6192 6.1334
2.0821 5.0291 6.4753 9.3237
STD. DEVIATIONS
6.1715 4.5509 4.2367 3.3510 3.0743 2.4141
0.7299 2.6841 1.3951 5.2692 6.1277 5.8138
AVERAGE ANNUAL T. OTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
Page 13
Sou4ng2t.out
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 2
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH
FROM LAYER 3
AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP
OF LAYER 3
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH
FROM LAYER 4
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
49.71 6.473)
6.872 4.1549)
29.785 1.6972)
6.37704 2.11925)
6.64811 2.18635)
6.585 ( 2.179)
6.65057 2.24493)
0.022 1.9509)
180432.7 100.00
2~944.56 13.825
108118.27 59.922
23148.645 12.82951
24132.623 13.37486
24141.561 13.37981
79.74 0.044
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
I
I
I
I
I
PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
SNOW WATER
3
4
(INCHES) (CU. FT.)
5.20 18876.000
3.643 13224.8584
0.06194 224.85172
0.051395 186.56509
18.000
0.071314 258.87003
3.68 13344.2305
MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL)
MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL)
0.4370
0.0162
Page 14
Sou4ng2Z.out
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
i
il
I
I
I
FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1981
LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL)
1 1.8550 0.3092
2 5.2440 0.4370
3 0.0000 0.0000
4 1.8812 0.1568
SNOW WATER 0.000
Page 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!1
I
I
I
I
4 PERCENT SLOPE - 2 INSTALLATION DEFECTS PER ACRE
· 1314~F0518801 .DOC(R01 )
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE
** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.01 (14 OCTOBER 1994) **
** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY **
** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION **
** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY **
PRECIPITATION DATA FILE:
TEMPERATURE DATA FILE:
SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE:
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA:
SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE:
OUTPUT DATA FILE:
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D4
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D7
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D13
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.Dll
C:\HEZP3\SOU4NGI2.D10
C:\HELP3\SOU4NGI2.OUT
TIME: 17:14 DATE: 8/14/1998
TITLE: SOUTHOLD LANDFILL, 4% SL, NO GEO, BPL MTN #2,TOPSOIL MTN #2
NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE
COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM.
THICKNESS
POROSITY
LAYER 1
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2
= 6.00 INCHES
= 0.4370 VOL/VOL
Page 1
Sou4ngi2.out
FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0620 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT = 0.0240 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.3038 VOL/VOL
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC
NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00
FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE.
LAYER 2
TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2
THICKNESS
POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY
WILTING POINT
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
SLOPE
DRAINAGE LENGTH
12.00 INCHES
0.4370 VOL/VOL
0.0620 VOL/VOL
0.0240 VOL/VOL
0.4370 VOL/VOL
0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC
4.00 PERCENT
300.0 FEET
LAYER 3
TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35
THICKNESS
POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY
WILTING POINT
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
FML PINHOLE DENSITY
FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS
FML PLACEMENT QUALITY
= 0.06 INCHES
= 0.0000 VOL/VOL
= 0.0000 VOL/VOL
= 0.0000 VOL/VOL
= 0.0000 VOL/VOL
= 0.199999996000E-12 CM/SEC
= 1.00 HOLES/ACRE
= 2.00 HOLES/ACRE
= 3 - GOOD
THICKNESS
LAYER 4
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2
12.00 INCHES
Page 2
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sou4ngi2.out
POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY
WILTING POINT
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
0.4370 VOL/VOL
0.0620 VOL/VOL
0.0240 VOL/VOL
0.1511 VOL/VOL
0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC
GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA
NOTE:
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT
SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 2 WITH A
FAIR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 4.%
AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 300. FEET.
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 56.90
FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF 100.0 PERCENT
AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE 1.000 ACRES
EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH 18.0 INCHES
INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE 7.067 INCHES
UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 7.866 INCHES
LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.432 INCHES
INITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHES
INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 8.879 INCHES
TOTAL INITIAL WATER = 8.879 INCHES
TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR
NOTE:
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM
NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT
MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.00
START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 83
END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 296
AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 12.00 MPH
AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 65.00 %
AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 69.00 %
AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 74.00 %
AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 70.00 %
NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA FOR NEW HAVEN
CONNECTICUT
Page 3
Sou4ngi2.out
WAS ENTERED FROM THE DEFAULT DATA FILE.
NOTE:
JAN / JUL
35.20
78.30
TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT
NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
32.60 42.20 49.50 63.10 69.00
78.50 69.80 55.30 44.80 32.00
NOTE:
SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT
STATION LATITUDE = 41.30 DEGREES
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1977
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
2.44 2.89 6.35 4.89 3.92 5.02
1.26 4.01 6.23 6.25 6.14 6.58
RUNOFF 0.000 0.000 0.993 1.439 0.136 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.523 3.478
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
1.604 1.121 2.712 2.287 2.640 5.750
3.600 3.260 2.723 3.051 1.717 1.017
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 2
1.2972 0.6475 1.4219 1.2040 1.0812 0.6080
0.1096 0.0021 0.2004 0.9747 1.4227 1.7771
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.8498 0.5471 0.8930 0.8053 0.7753 0.5054
LAYER 3 0.0712 0.0017 0.1309 0.7054 0.8806 1.0158
PERCOLATION THROUGH
0.8997 0.5975 0.8125 0.8352 0.7996 0.6115
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
Sou4ngi2.out
LAYER 4 0.3346 0.1107 0.0163 0.3104 0.8327 1.0206
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 14.730 10.789 15.386 14.442 13.543 9.326
LAYER 3 1.211 0.015 2.230 12.388 15.633 17.256
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 1.140 0.951 1.502 1.584 1.697 2.099
HEAD ON LAYER 3 1.759 0.042 2.716 2.430 1.905 0.496
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1977
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTPJkNSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
55.98 203207.344 100.00
6.569 23845.977 11.73
31.483 114284.336 56.24
10.7465 39009.883 19.20
7.181418 26068.547 12.83
10.5791
7.181420 26068.555 12.83
0.000 -1.312 0.00
9.065 32907.527
9.065 32906.215
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.0000 -0.092 0.00
Page 5
Sou4ngi2.out
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1978
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
9.61 1.34 3.90 1.76 7.65 1.35
4.69 4.18 4.02 2.57 3.72 6.05
RUNOFF 5.387 0.817 0.842 0.000 0.347 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.497
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
1.067 1.343 1.285 1.886 4.250 4.632
5.329 3.502 3.700 3.081 1.160 0.790
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 2
1.5307 0.3879 0.6867 0.9613 1.1257 0.6249
0.0758 0.1386 0.2113 0.1056 0.0078 0.3987
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.9303 0.2222 0.4337 0.7208 0.7797 0.4956
LAYER 3 0.0402 0.0650 0.1003 0.0513 0.0044 0.2954
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.9217 0.5441 0.1661 0.7483 0.7299 0.6810
LAYER 4 0.2913 0.0606 0.0742 0.1192 0.0795 0.0428
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 15.959 4.122 7.421 13.073 13.589 9.092
LAYER 3 0.630 1.021 1.609 0.778 0.059 5.233
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 1.377 4.622 6.500 1.104 2.283 3.183
HEAD ON LAYER 3 0.936 0.920 0.421 0.864 0.213 1.957
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1978
Page 6
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
Sou4ngi2.out
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
2
INCHES
50.84
8.890
32.026
6.2550
4.138776
6.0490
4.458821
-0.790
9.065
8.011
0.000
0.264
0.0000
CU. FEET
184549.234
32272.301
116253.109
22705.508
15023.756
PERCENT
100 00
17 49
62 99
12 30
8.14
16185.520 8.77
-2867.294 -1.55
32906.215
29081.729
0.000 0.00
957.192 0.52
0.085 0.00
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1979
JAN/JUL FEE/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION 14.58 2.57 4.99 5.35 4.67 2.95
0.55 5.35 4.55 4.25 2.25 3.65
RUNOFF 11.068 0.000 2.206 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.926
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.589 1.433 1.898 2.953 3.945 5.476
Page 7
Sou4ngi2.out
2.162 3.161 2.297 3.155 1.477 0.679
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.9264 0.8779 1.2747 0.7470 0.8644 0.5237
FROM LAYER 2 0.0644 0.1593 0.3181 0.6707 0.5377 0.3958
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.5428 0.6593 0.8417 0.6047 0.6926 0.4220
LAYER 3 0.0374 0.0997 0.2071 0.5642 0.4327 0.2943
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2376 0.7116 0.8468 0.5969 0.6959 0.5782
LAYER 4 0.2792 0.0520 0.0652 0.4223 0.4533 0.4266
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 9.221 12.824 14.579 11.096 12.229 7.782
LAYER 3 0.608 1.674 3.686 10.074 8.044 5.203
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 7.199 1.471 1.951 1.444 1.003 2.606
HEAD ON LAYER 3 1.075 1.405 2.249 1.387 0.464 2.270
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1979
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
2
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
55.71 202227.234 100.00
14.200 51547.469 25.49
30.225 109716.617 54.25
7.3601 26717.051 13.21
5.398536 19596.686 9.69
8.0851
5.365385 19476.346 9.63
-1.441 -5230.167 -2.59
8.011 29081.729
Page 8
i
I
I
I
Ii
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
i
I
I
$ou4ngi2.out
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
6.834 24808.754
0.264 957.192 0.47
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.0000 -0.080 0.00
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1980
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
1.35 1.15 10.65 6.60 2.05 2.60
7.30 1.22 1.70 3.06 4.98 1.04
RUNOFF 0.253 0.295 2.613 2.487 0.000 0.000
0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
1.440 1.166 2.246 2.503 3.553 4.501
3.834 2.803 2.203 2.893 1.461 1.018
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 2
0.2531 0.2631 0.9637 1.3744 0.8807 0.3578
0.0407 0.4834 0.3022 0.1290 0.1235 0.4380
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.1237 0.1806 0.6370 0.8639 0.6805 0.?688
LAYER 3 0.0332 0.3772 0.2065 0.0659 0.0766 0.3346
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2147 0.0838 0.3706 0.8858 0.7564 0.4777
LAYER 4 0.1803 0.1422 0.2763 0.2130 0.0729 0.1751
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 1.909 3.438 11.090 15.375 12.010 4.922
LAYER 3 0.594 6.765 3.697 1.018 1.206 5.944
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY
0.319 2.681 4.789 1.754 1.777 2.929
Page 9
Sou4ngi2.out
HEAD ON LAYER 3 2.267 1.328 0.714 0.940 1.775 2.547
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1980
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
INCHES
43.70
5.702
29.620
5 6095
3 848463
5 6638
3 848726
-1 081
6 834
5.753
0.000
0.000
0.0000
CU. FEET PERCENT
158630.984 100.00
20699.701 13.05
107521.648 67.78
20362.641 12.84
13969.921 8.81
13970.875 8.81
-3923.881 -2.47
24808.754
20884.873
0.000 0.00
0.000 0.00
0.005 0.00
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1981
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sou4ngi2.out
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 2
PERCOLATION THROUGH
LAYER 3
PERCOLATION THROUGH
LAYER 4
0.63 6.40 1.05 3.85 3.41 1.55
5.62 0.37 3.33 7~66 2.25 6.18
0.051 2.780 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.503
1.250 1.153 1.562 2.674 3.139 3.704
5.746 0.341 2.906 2.510 1.683 1.148
0.3129 0.2322 0.3946 0.5017 0.4423 0.3243
0.1836 0.0000 0.0592 0.1662 0.6693 1.3363
0.2066 0.1176 0.2891 0.3977 0.3371 0.2242
0.1282 0.0000 0.0346 0.1362 0.5668 0.8515
0.2192 0.1830 0.1434 0.3410 0.3876 0.3210
0.2243 0.1333 0.0424 0.0467 0.2180 0.7531
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 3.563 2.105 5.116 7.385 6.039 4.046
LAYER 3 2.217 0.000 0.451 2.347 10.455 14.715
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 1.368 0.294 2.410 1.032 0.491 1.435
HEAD ON LAYER 3 2.404 0.000 0.272 4.385 0.630 2.349
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
PRECIPITATION 42.30 153549.016 100.00
RUNOFF 3.335 12107.289 7.88
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
27.814 100966.469 65.76
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2
4.6226 16780.113 10.93
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
3.289573 11941.149 7.78
Page 11
Sou4ngi2.out
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
4.8699
3.013104 10937.568 7.12
3.514 12757.554 8.31
5.753 20884.873
9.268 33642.426
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.0000 0.016 0.00
AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
PRECIPITATION
TOTALS
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
5.72 2.87 5.39 4.49 4.34 2.69
3.88 3.03 3.97 4.76 3.87 4.70
STD. DEVIATIONS 6.11 2.11 3.53 1.82 2.08 1.47
2.89 2.12 1.66 2.16 1.71 2.35
RUNOFF
TOTALS
3.352 0.778 1.331 0.785 0.097 0.000
0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.105 1.281
STD. DEVIATIONS
4.884 1.168 1.064 1.137 0.152 0.000
0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.234 1.346
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
TOTALS
1.390 1.243 1.940 2.461 3.505 4.813
4.134 2.613 2.766 2.938 1.500 0.930
Page 12
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sou4ngi2.out
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.230 0.137 0.562 0.403 0.639 0.818
1.440 1.295 0.598 0.258 0.223 0.191
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2
TOTALS 0.8641 0.4817
0.0948 0.1567
0.9483 0.9577 0.8789 0.4877
0.2182 0.4092 0.5522 0.8692
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.5729 0.2754 0.4202 0.3488 0.2705 0.1398
0.0555 0.1972 0.1033 0.3930 0.5595 0.6469
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
TOTALS 0.5306 0.3454
0.0620 0.1087
0.6189 0.6785 0.6530 0.3832
0.1359 0.3046 0.3922 0.5583
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.3648 0.2416 0.2589 0.1848 0.1824 0.1298
0.0399 0.1560 0.0735 0.3072 0.3608 0.3479
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
TOTALS 0.4986 0.4240
0.2619 0.0998
STD. DEVIATIONS
0.4679 0.6814 0.6739 0.5339
0.0949 0.2223 0.3313 0.4837
0.3764 0.2743 0.3421 0.2196 0.1645 0.1398
0.0603 0.0414 0.1038 0.1494 0.3199 0.4043
AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3
AVERAGES 9.0764 6.6556
1.0520 1.8950
10.7185 12.2743 11.4819 7.0336
2.3345 5.3210 7.0795 9.6700
STD. DEVIATIONS 6.3468 4.8118 4.4466 3.1718 3.1284 2.4207
0.7014 2.8129 1.3933 5.4893 6.5051 5.8419
AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
Page 13
Sou4ngi2.out
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIP~ATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 2
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH
FROM LAYER 3
AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP
OF LAYER 3
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH
FROM LAYER 4
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
49.71 6.473)
7.740 4.1226)
30.234 1.6585)
6.91874 2.35974)
4.77135 1.55317)
7.049 ( 2.302)
4.77349 1.59700)
0.040 2.0132)
180432.7 100.00
28094.55 15.571
109748.44 60.825
25115.037 13.91933
17320.012 9.59915
17327.771 9.60345
146.98 0.081
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
SNOW WATER
3
4
(INCHES) (CU. FT.)
5.20 18876.000
3.783 13732.2705
0.06171 223.99017
0.034314 124.56013
17.962
0.050064 181.73196
3.68 13344.2305
MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL)
MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL)
0.4370
0.0163
Page 14
Sou4ngi2.out
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
I
I
!
I
i
I
I
!
I
!
I
I
FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1981
LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL)
1 2.0358 0.3393
2 5.2440 0.4370
3 0.0000 0.0000
4 1.8021 0.1502
SNOW WATER 0.000
Page 15
i
I
I
I
!
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· 1314'd~051880 I.DOC(R01 )
22 PERCENT SLOPE
** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE
** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.01 (14 OCTOBER 1994) **
** DEVELOPED BY ENW'IRONMENTAL LABOR~TORY **
** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION
** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY **
PRECIPITATION DATA FILE:
TEMPERATURE DATA FILE:
SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE:
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA:
SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE:
OUTPUT DATA FILE:
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D4
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D7
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D13
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.Dll
C:\HELP3\s22222.D10
C:\HELP3\s22222.OUT
TIME: 10: 0 DATE: 8/17/1998
TITLE: SOUTHOLD LANDFILL, 22% SLOPE, GEOCOMPOSITE, BPL MTN #2, 2D
NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE
COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM.
THICKNESS
POROSITY
LAYER 1
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2
= 6.00 INCHES
= 0.4370 VOL/VOL
Page 1
S22222.out
FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0620 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT = 0.0240 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0350 VOL/VOL
EFFECTIXrE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC
NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00
FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE.
LAYER 2
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2
THICKNESS
POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY
WILTING POINT
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
= 12.00 INCHES
= 0.4370 VOL/VOL
= 0.0620 VOL/VOL
= 0.0240 VOL/VOL
= 0.0409 VOL/VOL
= 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC
LAYER 3
TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 34
THICKNESS
POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY
WILTING POINT
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
SLOPE
DRAINAGE LENGTH
0.24 INCHES
0.8500 VOL/VOL
0.0100 VOL/VOL
0.0050 VOL/VOL
0.0100 VOL/VOL
33.0000000000
22.00 PERCENT
220.0 FEET
CM/SEC
LAYER 4
TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35
THICKNESS = 0.06 INCHES
POROSITY = 0.0000 VOL/VOL
FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0000 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT = 0.0000 VOL/VOL
Page 2
S22222.out
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
FML PINHOLE DENSITY
FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS
FML PLACEMENT QUALITY
= 0.0000 VOL/VOL
= 0.199999996000E-12 CM/SEC
= 1.00 HOLES/ACRE
= 2.00 HOLES/ACRE
= 3 - GOOD
LAYER 5
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2
THICKNESS
POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY
WILTING POINT
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
12.00 INCHES
0.4370 VOL/VOL
0.0620 VOL/VOL
0.0240 VOL/VOL
0.0618 VOL/VOL
0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC
GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA
NOTE:
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT
SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 2 WITH A
FAIR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 22.%
AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 220. FEET.
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER =
FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF =
AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE =
EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH =
INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE =
UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE =
LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE =
INITIAL SNOW WATER =
INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS =
TOTAL INITIAL WATER =
TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW =
60.50
100.0
1.000
18.0
0.701
7 866
0 432
0 000
1 445
1 445
0 00
PERCENT
ACRES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES/YEAR
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA
Page 3
S22222.out
NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIP~ATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM
NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT
MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX 2.00
START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) 83
END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) 296
AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED 12.00 MPH
AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY 65.00 %
AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY 69.00 %
AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 74.00 %
AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY 70.00 %
NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA FOR NEW HAVEN
WAS ENTERED FROM THE DEFAULT DATA FILE.
CONNECTICUT
NOTE:
TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT
NORPLAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
35.20 32.60 42.20 49.50 63.10 69.00
78.30 78.50 69.80 55.30 44.80 32.00
NOTE:
SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT
STATION LATITUDE = 41.30 DEGREES
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1977
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION 2.44 2.89 6.35 4.89 3.92 5.02
Page 4
S22222.out
I 1.26 4.01 6.23 6.25 6.14 6.58
RUNOFF 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0~000 0.000 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
0.619 0.333 1.148 0.350 0.946 1.011
0.134 0.486 0.611 0.790 0.612 0.923
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 2.0901 2.4863 5.2716 4.5475 2.9664 3.9479
FROM LAYER 3 1.1864 3.5217 5.6261 5.4563 5.4480 4.7746
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002
LAYER 4 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
LAYER 5 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
I AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
LAYER 4 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
I STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001
HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.001 0.001 0.003 0,003 0.002 0.002
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1977
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
PRECIPITATION 55.98 203207.344 100.00
RUNOFF 0.000 0.000 0.00
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
7.963 28906.457 14.23
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3
47.3231 171782.703 84.54
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
0.001955 7.096 0.00
I
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4
0.0008
Page 5
S22222.out
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
0.004708 17
0.689 2501
2.189 7945
2.878 10446
0.000 0
0.000
0.0000
091
240
271
512
000
0 000
-0.148
0.01
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1978
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
9.61 1.34 3.90 1.76 7.65 1.35
4.69 4.18 4.02 2.57 3.72 6.05
RUNOFF 0.000 0.345 0.176 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.076
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
1.164 1.396 1.606 0.590 0.654 0.071
0.524 1.078 0.788 0.282 0.297 0.682
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 3
8.1402 0.2140 2.3092 1.6344 6.9992 1.2707
4.0904 3.1772 3.2398 2.2800 3.3401 2.5633
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0004 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001
LAYER 4 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
LAYER 5 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
Page 6
S22222.out
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
LAYER 4 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001
HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1978
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
PRECIPITATION 50.84 184549.234 100.00
RUNOFF 1.597 5797.402 3.14
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 9.133 33151.641 17.96
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 39.2585 142508.344 77.22
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.001714 6.220 0.00
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.0006
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0.004709 17.093 0.01
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.847 3074.767 1.67
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 2.878 10446.512
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 3.461 12564.087
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.264 957.192 0.52
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 -0.013 0.00
Page 7
S22222.out
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1979
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
14.58 2.57 4.99 5.35 4.67 2.95
0.55 5.35 4.55 4.25 2.25 3.65
RUNOFF 4.202 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.665
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
1.643 1.458 1.263 0.799 0.713 0.217
0.244 1.833 0.742 0.546 0.237 0.565
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 3
8.7929 2.1395 4.4526 4.3787 4.1279 2.6460
0.3949 3.5157 3.7269 3.7857 2.0171 1.0268
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0003 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001
LAYER 4 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0003 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0004
LAYER 5 0.0005 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
LAYER 4 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001
HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1979
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
PRECIPITATION 55.71 202227.234 100.00
RUNOFF 4.867 17665.705 8.74
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S22222.out
EVA?OTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
10.259
41 0048
0 001803
0 0007
0 004422
-0 425
3 461
3 300
0.264
0.000
0.0000
37239.730 18.41
148847.484 73.60
6.544 0.00
16.052 0.01
-1541.662 -0.76
12564.087
11979.616
957.192 0.47
0.000 0.00
-0.072 0.00
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1980
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
1.35 1.15 10.65 6.60 2.05 2.60
7.30 1.22 1.70 3.06 4.98 1.04
RUNOFF 0.139 0.224 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.141 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
1.224 0.991 2.347 2.614 0.475 0.168
1.026 1.927 0.123 0.378 0.610 1.150
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.0000 0.3630 7.0926 5.9133 1.8120 2.3225
FROM LAYER 3 4.2580 1.2707 1.5768 2.6816 3.7141 0.2880
PERCOLATION THROUGH
0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001
Page 9
S22222.out
LAYER 4 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0002 0.0004 0.0004
LAYER 5 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001
LAYER 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002
HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.000
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1980
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
43.70 158630.984 100.00
0.504 1829.711 1.15
13.034 47312.008 29.83
31.2925 113591.758 71.61
0.001421 5.158 0.00
0.0005
0.004352 15.797 0.01
-1.135 -4118.238 -2.60
3.300 11979.616
2.166 7861.378
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.000 0.000 0.00
Page 10
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
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
S22222.out
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 -0.050 0.00
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1981
PRECIPITATION
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
0.63 6.40 1.05 3.85 3.41 1.55
5.62 0.37 3.33 7.66 2.25 6.18
RUNOFF 0.030 2.599 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
EVAPOTRA_NSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 3
0.790 0.896 1.339 2.191 0.631 0.091
1.305 0.014 0.281 0.700 1.046 0.604
0.0723 0.0000 1.0162 3.1787 2.8538 1.4590
4.3158 0.3552 3.0504 6.3275 1.8355 5.5445
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001
LAYER 4 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0002 0.0004 0.0003
LAYER 5 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0004
MONTHLY S~RIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000
LAYER 4 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001
HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.003
Page 11
$22222.out
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
42.30 153549.016 100.00
2.629 9543.973 6.22
9.887 35889.344 23.37
30.0089 108932.461 70.94
0.001342 4.872 0.00
0.0005
0.004252 15.436 0.01
-0.229 -832.220 -0.54
2.166 7861.378
1.936 7029.159
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.0000 0.022 0.00
AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
PRECIPITATION
TOTALS
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
5.72 2.87 5.39 4.49 4.34 2.69
3.88 3.03 3.97 4.76 3.87 4.70
Page 12
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
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
S22222.out
STD. DEVIATIONS 6.11 2.11 3.53 1.82 2.08 1.47
2.89 2.12 1.66 2.16 1.71 2.35
RUNOFF
TOTALS
0.874 0.634 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.348
STD. DEVIATIONS 1.861 1.109 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.498
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
TOTALS
1.088 1.015 1.540 1.309 0.684 0.312
0.646 1.068 0.509 0.539 0.560 0.785
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.400 0.453 0.481 1.022 0.171 0.395
0.504 0.833 0.293 0.212 0.322 0.247
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3
TOTALS 3.8191 1.0406
2.8491 2.3681
4.0284 3.9305 3.7519 2.3292
3.4440 4.1062 3.2710 2.8394
STD. DEVIATIONS 4.3308 1.1751 2.4054 1.6086 1.9920 1.0722
1.9016 1.4628 1.4599 1.7482 1.4640 2.2877
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
TOTALS 0.0002 0.0001
0.0001 0.0001
0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001
0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5
TOTALS 0.0004 0.0004
0.0004 0.0004
0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004
0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000
0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 4
Page 13
S22222.out
AVERAGES 0.0007 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0007 0.0005
0.0005 0.0005 0.0007 0.0008 0.0007 0.0006
STD. DEVIATIONS
0.0008 0.0002 0.0005 0.0003 0.0004 0.0002
0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0005
AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 3
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH
FROM LAYER 4
AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP
OF LAYER 4
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH
FROM LAYER 5
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
49.71 6.473)
1.919 1.9353)
10.055 1.8820)
37.77757 7.17865)
0.00165 0.00026)
0.001 ( 0.000)
0.00449 0.00021)
-0.050 0.8215)
180432.7 100.00
6967.36 3.861
36499.84 20.229
137132.562 76.00203
5.978 0.00331
16.294 0.00903
-183.22 -0.102
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
I
I
I
PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
(INCHES) (CU. FT.)
PRECIPITATION 5.20 18876.000
RUNOFF 1.309 4752.4810
Page 14
S22222.ou~
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 4
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
SNOW WATER
2.65325 9631.28223
4 0.000078 0.28151
0.016
5 0.000017 0.06095
3.68 13344.2305
MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.2608
MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.0161
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1981
LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL)
1 0.1692 0.0282
2 0.2938 0.0245
3 0.0024 0.0100
4 0.0000 0.0000
5 0.7270 0.0606
SNOW WATER 0.000
Page 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
· 1314~F0518801 .DOC(R01 )
28 PERCENT SLOPE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE
** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.01 (14 OCTOBER 1994) **
** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY **
** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION **
** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY **
PRECIPITATION DATA FILE:
TEMPERATURE DATA FILE:
SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE:
EVAPOTRA_NSPIRATION DATA:
SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE:
OUTPUT DATA FILE:
c:\help3\SOUTHOLD.D4
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D7
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D13
C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.Dll
C:\HELP3\s28222.D10
C:\HELP3\s28222.OUT
TIME: 10: 6 DATE: 8/17/1998
TITLE: SOUTHOLD LANDFILL, 28% SLOPE, GEOCOMPOSITE, BPL MTN #2, 2D
NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE
COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM.
THICKNESS
POROSITY
LAYER 1
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2
= 6.00 INCHES
= 0.4370 VOL/VOL
Page 1
S28222.out
FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0620 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT = 0.0240 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0350 VOL/VOL
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC
NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00
FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE.
LAYER 2
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2
THICKNESS
POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY
WILTING POINT
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
= 12.00 INCHES
= 0.4370 VOL/VOL
= 0.0620 VOL/VOL
= 0.0240 VOL/VOL
= 0.0409 VOL/VOL
= 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC
LAYER 3
TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 34
THICKNESS =
POROSITY =
FIELD CAPACITY =
WILTING POINT =
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT =
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
SLOPE
DRAINAGE LENGTH
0.24 INCHES
0.8500 VOL/VOL
0.0100 VOL/VOL
0.0050 VOL/VOL
0.0100 VOL/VOL
33.0000000000
28.00 PERCENT
114.0 FEET
CM/SEC
LAYER 4
TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35
THICKNESS = 0.06 INCHES
POROSITY = 0.0000 VOL/VOL
FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0000 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT = 0.0000 VOL/VOL
Page 2
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S28222.out
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
FML PINHOLE DENSITY
FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS
FML PLACEMENT QUALITY
= 0.0000 VOL/VOL
= 0.199999996000E-12 CM/SEC
= 1.00 HOLES/ACRE
= 2.00 HOLES/ACRE
= 3 - GOOD
LAYER 5
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2
THICKNESS
POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY
WILTING POINT
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
12.00 INCHES
0.4370 VOL/VOL
0.0620 VOL/VOL
0.0240 VOL/VOL
0.0616 VOL/VOL
0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC
GENEKAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA
NOTE:
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT
SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 2 WITH A
FAIR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 28.%
AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 114. FEET.
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 62.70
FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENT
AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRES
EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 18.0 INCHES
INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 0.701 INCHES
UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 7.866 INCHES
LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.432 INCHES
INITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHES
INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 1.443 INCHES
TOTAL INITIAL WATER = 1.443 INCHES
TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA
Page 3
S28222.out
NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM
NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT
MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.00
START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 83
END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 296
AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 12.00 MPH
AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY 65.00 %
AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY 69.00 %
AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 74.00 %
AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 70.00 %
NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA FOR NEW HAVEN
WAS ENTERED FROM THE DEFAULT DATA FILE.
CONNECTICUT
NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT
NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
35.20 32.60 42.20 49.50 63.10 69.00
78.30 78.50 69.80 55.30 44.80 32.00
NOTE:
SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT
STATION LATITUDE 41.30 DEGREES
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1977
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION 2.44 2.89 6.35 4.89 3.92 5.02
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S28222.out
1.26 4.01 6.23 6.25 6.14 6.58
RUNOFF 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0;000 0.000 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 0.619 0.333 1.148 0.350 0.946 1.011
0.134 0.486 0.611 0.790 0.612 0.923
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 2.0901 2.4862 5.2724 4.5471 2.9665 3.9480
FROM LAYER 3 1.1865 3.5218 5.6262 5.4565 5.4481 4.7747
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001
LAYER 4 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0005 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0005 0.0004
LAYER 5 0.0005 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
LAYER 4 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001
HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1977
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
55.98 203207.344 100.00
0.000 0.000 0.00
7.963 28906.457 14.23
47.3242 171786.687 84.54
0.000795 2.885 0.00
0.0007
Page 5
S28222.out
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
0.005061 18.371 0.0t
0.688 2495.849 1.23
2.187 7938.801
2.875 10434.650
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.0000 -0.025 0.00
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1978
PRECIPITATION
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
9.61 1.34 3.90 1.76 7.65 1.35
4.69 4.18 4.02 2.57 3.72 6.05
RUNOFF 0.000 0.372 0.181 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.076
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 3
1.164 1.396 1.871 1.054 0.669 0.133
0.532 0.947 1.531 0.441 0.255 0.681
7.3274 0.2359 2.4281 1.5447 6.9841 1.2095
4.0835 3.3079 2.5229 2.0956 3.3837 2.5627
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000
LAYER 4 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
LAYER 5 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
Page 6
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S28222.out
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
LAYER 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.000
HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.001 0.001 0.00t 0.001 0.001 0.001
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1978
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
PRECIPITATION 50.84 184549.234 100.00
RUNOFF 1.630 5917.001 3.21
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 10.673 38744.352 20.99
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 37.6859 136799.844 74.13
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.000678 2.462 0.00
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.0004
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0.004849 17.601 0.01
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.846 3070.399 1.66
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 2.875 10434.650
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 3.457 12547.857
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.264 957.192 0.52
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.039 0.00
Page 7
S28222.out
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1979
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
14.58 2.57 4.99 5.35 4.67 2.95
0.55 5.35 4.55 4.25 2.25 3.65
RUNOFF 4.313 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.665
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
1.634 1.453 1.181 0.793 0.995 0.294
0.053 2.360 0.270 0.543 0.239 0.565
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 3
8.6882 2.1463 4.5345 4.2654 3.9024 2.7169
0.5000 2.9902 4.2775 3.7095 2.0153 1.0270
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
LAYER 4 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
LAYER 5 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000
LAYER 4 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1979
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
PRECIPITATION 55.71 202227.234 100.00
RUNOFF 4.978 18071.402 8.94
Page 8
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S28222.out
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
10.380 37678.535 18.63
40.7732 148006.656 73.19
0.000723 2.624 0.00
0.0005
0.004543 16.492 0.01
-0.426 -1545.751 -0.76
3.457 12547.857
3.295 11959.299
0.264 957.192 0.47
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.0000 -0.088 0.00
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1980
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION 1,35 1.15 10.65 6.60 2.05 2.60
7.30 1.22 1.70 3.06 4.98 1.04
RUNOFF 0.139 0.224 0.009 0.005 0.000 0.000
0.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
1.223 0.990 2.345 2.612 1.018 0.175
1.027 1.940 0.133 0.369 0.402 0.987
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 3
0.0000 0.3650 6.7195 5.3104 2.2358 2.3230
4.0958 1.3372 1.5667 2.6898 4.2664 0.1044
PERCOLATION THROUGH
0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000
Page 9
S28222.out
LAYER 4 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004
LAYER 5 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0~0004 0.0003 0.0004
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000
LAYER 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1980
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
43.70 158630.984 100.00
0.592 2150.192 1.36
13.221 47992.883 30.25
31.0141 112581.141 70.97
0.000587 2.131 0.00
0.0004
0.004382 15.907 0.01
-1.132 -4109.137 -2.59
3.295 11959.299
2.163 7850.162
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.000 0.000 0.00
Page 10
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
i
S28222.out
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.004 0.00
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1981
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
0.63 6.40 1.05 3.85 3.41 1.55
5.62 0.37 3.33 7.66 2.25 6.18
RUNOFF 0.030 2.600 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
0.789 0.894 1.335 2.260 0.434 0.272
2.171 0.026 0.704 0.788 0.798 0.611
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 3
0.0740 0.0000 0.9772 3.2308 2.9758 1.2661
3.4623 0.3432 2.6251 6.1788 2.1456 5.5377
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
LAYER 4 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001
PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0004
LAYER 5 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
LAYER 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001
HEAD ON LAYER 4 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002
Page 11
S28222.out
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981
3
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
42.30 153549.016 100.00
2.630 9546.899 6.22
11.083 40229.598 26.20
28.8165 104603.930 68.12
0.000528 1.917 0.00
0.0004
0.004173 15.147 0.01
-0.233 -846.557 -0.55
2.163 7850.162
1.929 7003.605
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.0000 -0.006 0.00
AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP
APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
TOTALS 5.72 2.87 5.39 4.49 4.34 2.69
3.88 3.03 3.97 4.76 3.87 4.70
Page 12
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S28222.out
STD. DEVIATIONS 6.11 2.11 3.53 1.82 2.08 1.47
2.89 2.12 1.66 2.16 1,71 2.35
RUNOFF
TOTALS
0.897 0.639 0.038 0.001 0.000 0.000
0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.348
STD. DEVIATIONS 1.911 1.107 0.080 0.002 0.000 0.000
0.096 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.498
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
TOTALS
1.086 1.013 1.576 1.414 0.812 0.377
0.783 1.152 0.650 0.586 0.461 0.753
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.397 0.452 0.519 0.974 0.254 0.361
0.866 0.979 0.546 0.195 0.241 0.190
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3
TOTALS 3.6359 1.0467
2.6656 2.3000
3.9863 3.7797 3.8129 2.2927
3.3237 4.0260 3.4518 2.8013
STD. DEVIATIONS 4.1064 1.1725 2.2863 1.4547 1.8688 1.1345
1.7006 1.3912 1.6146 1.7530 1.4511 2.3377
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4
TOTALS 0.0001 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5
TOTALS 0.0004 0.0004
0.0004 0.0004
STD. DEVIATIONS
0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000
0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 4
Page 13
S28222.out
AVERAGES 0.0005 0.0001 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0004
0.0004 0.0003 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0005 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002
0.0002 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004
AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 3
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH
FROM LAYER 4
AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP
OF LAYER 4
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH
FROM LAYER 5
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
INCHES
49.71 6.473)
1.966 1.9609)
10.664 1.8768)
37.12277 7.48366)
CU. FEET PERCENT
180432.7 100.00
7137.10 3.956
38710.36 21.454
134755.656 74.68469
0.00066 0.00011)
2.404 0.00133
0.000 ( 0.000)
0.00460 0.00036)
16.704 0.00926
-0.052 0.8204) -187.04 -0.104
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981
(INCHES) (CU. FT.)
PRECIPITATION 5.20 18876.000
RUNOFF 1.310 4753.8716
Page 14
S28222.out
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 4
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
SNOW WATER
2.58378 9379.11133
4 0.000030 0.11050
0.015
5 0.000016 0.05948
3.68 13344.2305
MAXIMUM V EG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.2601
MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.0141
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1981
LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL)
1 0.1695 0.0283
2 0.2937 0.0245
3 0.0024 0.0100
4 0.0000 0.0000
5 0.7197 0.0600
SNOW WATER 0.000
Page 15
Appendix
· 1314kF0518801.DOC(R01 )
APPENDIX E
HYDROCAD STORM WATER ANALYSIS
lata ~or SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
rydroCAD 4,.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 ApPlied Microcomputer
Systems
Page i
18 Aug 98
mWATERSHED ROUTING .............................................................
m
[~ LINK
mSUBCATCHMENT i
SUBCATCHMENT 2
mSUBCATCHMENT 3
j _SUBCATCHMENT 4
,m
POND I
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
POND 1
POND 2
POND 3
POND 4
mPOND 2
POND 3
mPOND 4
= SOUTHOLD L4%NDFILL - POND %2
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND %4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND %3
m
m
m
m
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24--HOUR RAINF~?.~= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer
Page 2 I
18 Aug 98
Systems ;
RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD: TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFa?.?~ 6.0 IN, SCS U.H.
10-20 NRS,
RUNOFF SPAN =
dt= .10 HRS, 101 POINTS
WGT'D PEAK Tpeak VOL
CN C (CFSI ~HRS~ (AFl.
72 - 44.5 12.14 3.77
73 - 11.3 12.21 1.06
73 - 36.1 12.15 3.21
73 - 15.3 12.05 1.17
SUBCAT AREA Tc
NUMBER iACREI IMIN) --GROUND COVERS I%CN/--
1 16.40 12.9 93%71 4%85 3%98 -
2 4.50 18.2 87%71 5%98 8%85 -
3 13.57 14.1 88%71 6%85 6%98 -
4 4.95 6.5 4%98 20%85 49%71 22%56
4%98 - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
IData for SOUTHOLD LAI~DFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.T,: 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 ADDlied Microcomputer Svstem$
REACH ROUTING BY STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD
IREACH BOTTOM SIDE PEAK TRAVEL
NO. DIAM WIDTH DEPTH SLOPES n LENGTH SLOPE VEL. TIME
fIN~ [FT~ fFT~ (FT/FT) [FT~ [FT./FT~ ~FPS) ~MIN~
!
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
Page 3
18 Aug 98
PEAK
Qout
¢CFS~
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~TM 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4,00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
18 Aug 98
POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND METHOD
POND START FLOOD PEAK PEAK
NO. ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. STORAGE Qin Qout
(~T) ~FT~ ~FT~ fAF~ (CFS) (CFS)
1 26.0 42.0 35.3 3.69 44.5 .1
2 40,0 48.0 44.6 1.05 11.3 0.0
3 12.0 20.0 17.0 3.10 36.1 .1
4 30.0 40.0 35.1 1.16 15.3 0.0
...... PEAK FLOW .......... Qout---
Qpri Qsec
~CFS~ fCFS~
!
ATTEN. LAG
¢%~ ~MIN~ I
100 0.0
100 0.0 I
100 0.0 ~
100 0.0
ata for SOGTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR I~AINF~TM 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
ydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 ADDlied Microcomputer Systems
rINK
NO. NAME
SOURCE
Page 5
18 Aug 98
Qout
(cFs)
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFIT.~.
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFB?.T.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c/ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Svstems
SUBCATCHMENT I SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
PEAK= 44.5 CFS @ 12.14 HRS, VOLUME= 3.77 AF
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD
15.25 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR
.70 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL=
· 45 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
16.40 72
Page 6 i
18 Aug 9%
I
6.0 IN
dt=.1 HRS,i
TC (mini-
S.9 j
Method Comment
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment A-B
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=80' P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment B-C 2.3
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq~ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527' I
s=.02 ,/, n=.05 V=5.57 fps L=760 Capacity=128.2 cfs
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment C-D 1.5
W=10' ,/D=2'. SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1'527' ~i
s=.01 n=.05 V=3.94 fps L=350' Capacity=90.6 cfs
CIRCULAR CHANNEL Segment D-E .2
24" Diameter a=3.14 sq-ft Pw=6.3' r=.5'
s=.01 ,/, n=.013 V=7.2 fps L=80' Capacity=22.6 cfs
Total Length= 1270 ft
45
35
38
15
~0
5
SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
AREA: I6 4 AC
To= 12 9 MIN
CN= 72
Total Tc= 12.9
SC5 TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
PEAK: 44 5 CFS
~ 12.14 HRS
UOLUME= 3 77 AF
I
I
/
!
I
TIME (hours) I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAXNFALL= 6.0 XN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
jHydroCAD 4.00 000636 ~c) 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer Systems
Page 7
18 Aug
98
HOUR 0.00
10.00 .7 7
11.00 1.9 2 0
12.00 26.8 43 3
13.00 6.3 5 7
14.00 4.0 3 8
15.00 3.0 2 9
16.00 2.2 2 1
17.00 1.7 1 7
18.00 1.3 .3
19.00 1.2 1.
20.00 1.1
SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 44.5 CFS @ 12.14 HOURS
.20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90
.8
2.3 2
40.7 30
5.4 5
3.7 3
2.8 2
2.0 2
1.6 1
1.3 1
1.1 1
9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4
7 3.1 3.6 4.6 7.0
9 23.9 17.7 12.4 9.3
1 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.5
6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.3
8 2.7 2,6 2.5 2.4
0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8
6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4
3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
1
10
7
4
6
8
9
3
3 2
2 3
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.1
1 7
15 8
7 0
4 1
3 1
2 2
1 7
1 4
1 2
1 1
,!
,!
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAINFA?.T.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 fc~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 8 i
18 Aug 98~
SUBCATCHMENT 2
SOUTMOLD LANDFILL - SL2
PEAK= 11.3 CFS @ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME= 1.06 AF
ACRES CN
3.92 71
.23 98
· 35 85
4.50 73
HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN
POND AREA (WET)
GRAVEL ROAD
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
SPAin= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS
Method
TR-55 SHEET FLOW
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=lS0'
RECT/VEE/ RAP CHANNEL
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 */'
s=.02 '/' n=.05 V=5.57 fps
CIRCULAR CHANNEL
24" Diameter a=3.14 sq-ft Pw=6.3'
s=.01 '/' n=.013 V=7.2 fps L=80'
Comment
Segment ID:A-B
P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
Segment ID:B-C
a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
L=325' Capacity=128.2 cfs
Segment ID:C-D
Capacity=22.6 cfs
Total Length= 585 ft
SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF
Total Tc=
Tc (minM
17.0 I,
1.0
.2
18.2
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
11
10[ ~ ARER= 4 5 ~C
9~ ~ Tm= lB 2 MIN
~ 7[ I N SCS TR-20 METHOD
¢ sE I/ TYPE 24-HOUR
~[ ~ RRINFALL: 6.0 IN
~ qL / \ PERK= 11 3 CFS
~/ / \ e 12,21 HR5
TINE
I
ata for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
IHydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
HOUR
10 00
11 00
12 O0
13 O0
14 O0
15 O0
16 00
17 O0
18 00
19 00
20 00
SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF PEAK= 11.3 CFS @ 12.21 HOURS
0.00 .10 .20
.2 2 .2
.5 6 .6
5.5 9 1 11.2
2.0 18 1.6
11 11 1.1
9 8 .8
6 6 .6
5 .5 .5
4 .4 .4
3 .3 .3
3
.30 .40 .50 .60
.3 .3 .3 .4
.7 .8 1.0 1.1
10.1 8.1 6.4 4.7
1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
.8 .8 .7 .7
.6 .6 .5 .5
.5 .4 .4 .4
.4 .3 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3
.70
4
1 6
3 5
1 3
9
7
5
4
3
3
Page 9
18 Aug 98
· 80 .90
.4 .5
2.4 3.5
2.7 23
1.2 12
.9 9
.7 6
.5 5
.4 4
.3 3
.3 3
I
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 10 ·
TYPE III 24-HOUR ~AINF~T.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 ApPlied MicrocomDuter Svstems I
SUBCATCHMENT 3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
PEAK= 36.1 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= 3.21 AF ' · --
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD i
11.97 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR II
· 80 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
· 80 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS·
13.57 73
Method Comment Tc fmin~.
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 10.6 ·
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=100' P2=3.3 in s=[0~ ,/, i
RECT/VEE/T~AP CHANNEL Segment ID.B C , 2.7
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq~ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527 ·
s=.02 '/' n=.05 V=5.57 fps L=900 Capacity=128.2 cfs I
~ECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:C-D , .8
W-10'- D-2'- SS-- 1 & 2 '/'_ a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1'. r=1.527 ·
s=.07 '/' n=.05 V=10.43 fps L=520' Capacity=239.8 cfs
Total Length= 1520 ft Total Tc= 14.1 I
SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 ·
36
30~ H To= 14 1 MIN
~ 24F
~ 22~ I / 5C5 TR-20 METHOD
~ 20 TYPE III 24-HOUR
= l~b / / PEAK: 36.1 CFS
TIME
I
t
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR I~AINFAL!.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iH~droCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Svstems
I
I
I
i
!
I
I
i
i
I
/
I
I
i
I
i
Page 11
18 Aug 98
SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK= 36.1 CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50
.6
1.6
21.3
5.5
3.4
2 6
1 8
1 4
1 1
1 0
9
.7 .8 .9 1.0
1.8 2.0 2.3 2.7
34.8 35.2 27.5 21.3
4.9 4.6 4.4 4.2
3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0
2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3
1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6
1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3
1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 .9
1 1
3 1
16 0
4 1
2 9
2 2
1 6
1 3
1 0
9
.60 .70
1.2 1.3
3.9 5.7
11.3 8.4
3.9 3.8
2.8 2.8
2.1 2.1
1.6 1.5
1.3 1.2
1.0 1.0
.9 .9
.80 .90
1.4 15
8.8 12 9
7.0 61
3.7 35
2.7 26
2.0 19
1.5 15
1.2 12
1.0 1 0
.9 9
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?,= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (cl 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 12 i
18 Aug 98
SUBCATCHMENT 4
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.05 HRS, VOLUME= 1.17 AF
R S C SCS TR-20 METHOD ·
· 20 98 BUILDING/PAVEMENT TYPE III 24-HOUR
1.00 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
2.45 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS m
1.10 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR
.20 98 POND AREA (WET)
4.95 73 TC (mini~I
Method Comment
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-E 4.7
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=70' P2=3.3 in s=.15 '/' ·
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C 1,7
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
s=.013 /' n=.05 V=4.49 fps L=450' Capacity=103.3 cfs I
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:C-D .1
W=10' D=2' SS= i & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
s=.25 '/' n=.05 V=19.7 fps L=70' Capacity=453.2 cfs
Total Length= 590 ft Total Tc=- .... ~T;-I
14
13
12
SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
4
2
1
AREA= 4 95 AC
Tm= 6.5 MIN
CN: 73
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 6 0 IN
PEAK= 15 3 CFS
@ 12.05 HR5
UOLUME= 1 17 AF
TIME (hour~)
I
i
I
i
!
I
i
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE IIX 24-HOUR RAINFALLc 6.0 XN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
wHvdroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.05 HOURS
0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40
.3
.7
14.7
1.6
1.1
.9
.6
.5
.4
.4
.3
9
9 4
1 6
1 1
8
6
5
4
3
.4
1.0
7.2
1.5
1.1
.8
.6
.5
.4
.3
4
1 2
5 4
1 5
1 1
8
6
5
4
3
.50 .60
.4 .5
1.4 2.1
3.6 2.6
1.4 1.4
1.0 1.0
.8 .7
.6 .6
.5 .4
.4 .4
.3 .3
HOU
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
.3
.7
14.5
1.8
1.2
.9
.6
.5
.4
.4
.3
.70
5
3 3
2 3
1 3
1 0
7
5
4
4
3
Page 13
18 Aug 98
.80 .90
.6 6
4.8 71
2.1 19
1.3 12
1.0 9
.7 7
.5 5
.4 4
.4 4
.3 3
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TTPE III 24-HOUR I~tlNF~?~.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00
POND 1
Qin =
Qout=
ELEVATION
26.0
42.0
ROUTE
P
FEET
26.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
40.0
42.0
Page 14
18 Aug 98
000636 Icl 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Svstems
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~l
44.5 CFS @ 12.14 HRS, VOLUME- 3.77 AF '·
· 1 CFS @ 10.90 HRS, VOLUME= .07 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0.0 MIN _
AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR STOR-IND METHOD
(AC~ (AF) (AFl PEAK STORAGE = 3.69 AF
· 16 0.00 0.00 PEAK ELEVATION= 35.3 FT
· 63 6.32 6.32 FLOOD ELEVATION= 42.0 FT ·
START ELEVATION= 26.0 FT
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRSI
INVERT OUTLET DEVICES
26.0' EXFILTI~TION
Q= .09 CFS at and above 26.2'
POND 1 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS~ vs ELEVATION
o
09 .09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09 .09 ·
09 .09 .09 .09 ~
09 .09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09 .09m
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09
09 .09
09 .09
09 .09
09 .09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
POND 1 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
42
40
39
38
37
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
2~ ~ FILTRATI_OM
2 m~mm ~ ~ EX
DISCHARGE
!
I'
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?,= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
I HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
POND 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND 41
45
40
35
30
25
20
10
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 3 69 AF
PEAK ELEU= 35 3 FT
445 CFS
Oou±= 1 CF5
LAG= 0 MIN
TIME (hourm)
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
INFLOW PEAK= 44.5 CFS @ 12.14 HOURS
0.00
7
1 9
26 8
6 3
4 0
3 0
2 2
1 7
1 3
1 2
1 1
.10
.7
2.0
43.3
5.7
3.8
2.9
2.1
1.7
1.3
1.2
.20
8
2 3
40 7
5 4
3 7
2 8
2 0
1 6
1 3
1 1
.30 .4
.9 1 0
2.7 31
30.9 23 9
5.1 50
3.6 35
2.8 27
2.0 19
1.6 16
1.3 12
1.1 1 1
.50 .60
1.2 1.3
3.6 4.6
17.7 12.4
4.8 4.6
3.4 3.3
2.6 2.5
1.9 1.9
1.5 1.5
1.2 1.2
1.1 1.1
.7O
1 4
7 0
9 3
4 5
3 3
2 4
1 8
1 4
1 2
1.1
!
HOUR
10.00
I 11.00
12.00
13 O0
I14 00
15 00
16 00
I 17 00
18 00
19 00
i20 O0
POND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= .1
O.OO
0.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.10
0 0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.20
0.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.30
0.0
.1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.40
0.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
CFS @ 10.90 HOURS
.50 .60 .70
00 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
I 1 .1
1 1 .1
1 1 .1
1 1 .1
1 1 .1
1 1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
Page 15
18 Aug 98
.80 .90
1.6 17
10.8 15 8
7.9 70
4.3 41
3.2 31
2.3 22
1.8 17
1.4 14
1.2 12
1.1 11
.80 .90
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~T.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
Hy~roCAD 4.00 000636 tc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer
POND 2
Systems
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2
Qin = 11.3 CFS @ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME= 1.06 AF
Qout= 0.0 CFS @ 10.90 HRS, VOLUME= .02 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG=
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
(FT) (AC~ tAF) CAF~
40.0 .12 0.00 0.00
48.0 .34 1.84 1.84
# ROUTE INVERT
1 P 40.0'
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILTI{ATION
Q= .02 CFS at and above 40.1'
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
Page 16 m
18 Aug 98
I
0.0 MIN
I
1.05 AF
44.6 FT I
!
48.0 FT
40.0 FT
dt=. 1 HRS ~
m
I
FEET
40.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
45.0
46.0
47.0
48.0
POND 2 TOTAL DISCHARGE
0.0
0.00
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02 02 .02
.02 02 .02
.02 02 .02
.02 02 .02
.02 02 .02
.02 02 .02
.02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02
(CFS) vs ELEVATION
· 4 ,5 ,6
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02
· 02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02
· 7 .8 .9I
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02I
02 .02 02
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02~
02 .02 .02m
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .021
POND 2 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
DISCHRRGE
!
I
I
i
1
I
I
m
IData for SvUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
IHvdroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 ApPlied Microcomputer Systems
Page 17
18 Aug 98
8
7
6
5
4
1
POND 2 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~2
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 1 85 AF
PEAK ELEU= 44 6 FT
Din= I~ ] CF5
HOUR
10.00
11,00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
pOND 2 INFLOW PEAK= 11.3
0.00
.2
.5
5.5
2 0
I 1
9
6
.10
.2
.6
9.1
1.8
1.1
.8
.6
5 .5
4 .4
3 .3
3
.2
.6
11.2
1.6
1 1
8
6
5
4
3
CFS 9 12.21 HOURS
,30 ,40 .90 .60
.3 .3 .3 .4
.7 .8 1.0 1.1
10.1 8.1 6.4 4.7
1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
.8 .8 .7 .7
· 6 .6 .5 .5
.5 .4 .4 .4
.4 .3 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3
,70
.4
1.6
3.5
1.3
9
7
5
4
3
3
,80 .90
.4 .5
2.4 3.5
2.7 2.3
1.2 1.2
.9 .9
.7 .6
,5 .5
.4 .4
.3 .3
.3 .3
I
I
t
i
I
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND
2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0.0 CFS ~
o.oo ,10
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
.30 .40
0.0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
10.90 HOURS
· 50 .60 .70 .80 .90
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
m
Data for SOUTNOLD LANDFILL
TYPE II! 24-HOUR ~INF~TM 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydrQCAD 4.00 0QQ636 (c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 18 i
18 Aug 98
POND 3
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4
Qin = 36.1 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= 3.21AF
QoutTM .1 CFS @ 10.80 HRS, VOLUME= .11AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG=
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
(FT) (A~ (AFl ~AF%
12.0 .39 0.00 0.00
20.0 .85 4.96 4.96
# ROUTE INVERT
1 P 12.0'
0.0 MIN
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILT~ATION
Q= .14 CFS at and above 12.1'
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HAS,
3.10 ~
17.0 FTi
20.0 FT
12.0 FT
dt=.l HRSI
I
FEET
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
POND 3 TOTAL DISCHARGE
0.00
.14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
.14 14 14
.14 14 14
.14 14 14
.14 14 14
.14 14 14
.14 14 14
.14 14 14
.14 .14 14
¢CFS~ vs ELEVATION
,4 ,5 .6
· 14 .14 .14
· 14 .14 .14
· 14 .14 .14
· 14 .14 .14
· 14 .14 .14
· 14 .14 .14
· 14 .14 .14
· 14 .14 .14
I
,7 .8 .9
14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14I
14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14I
14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14I
POND 3 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ¢4
19
190
185
17.5
17.0
165
16.0
15.5
150
~3
2]5 ..........
DISCHARGE
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE XI! 24-HOUR RAINFA?.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
I HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
POND 3 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
I SOUTHOLD LANOFILL - POND 44
36
I 38[ M PEAK STOR= 3 18 AF
~I h PEAK ELEU= 17 FT
3 ,si I/ Oo. : 1CFS
I TIME (hours)
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.oo
19.00
20.00
POND 3 INFLOW PEAK= 36.1 CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
o.00 .~o ,go
.6 .7 .8
1.6 1.8 2.0
21.3 34.8 35.2
5.5 4.9 4.6
3.4 3.2 3.1
2.6 2.5 2.4
1.8 1.8 1.7
1.4 1,4 1.4
1.1 1.1 1.1
1.0 1.0 1.0
.9
.30
.9
2.3
27.5
4.4
3 0
2 3
1
1
1
1
.40 .50 .60 .70
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
2.7 3.1 3.9 5.7
21.3 16.0 11.3 8.4
4.2 4.1 3.9 3.8
3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8
2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5
1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
.9 .9 .9 .9
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14 O0
15 00
16 00
17 00
18 00
19 00
20 00
POND 3 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= .1
0.00
0.0
.1
.1
.10
0.0
.1
1
.1 1
.1 1
.1 1
.1 1
.1 1
.1 1
.1 1
.1
CFS @ 10.80 HOURS
· 20 .30 .40 .50 .60 ,70
0.0 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
Page 19
18 Aug 98
.80 .90
1.4 1.5
8 8 12.9
70 6.1
37 3.5
27 2.6
20 1.9
15 1.5
1 2 1.2
1.0 1.0
.9 .9
.80 ,90
.1 .1
.1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
I
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFZLL
TYPE ZZZ 24-HOUR RAZNF~TM 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c% 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
Page 20 I
18 Aug 98
POND 4
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3
Qin = 15.3 CFS @ 12.05 HRS, VOLUME= 1.17 AF
Qout= 0.0 CFS @ 10.70 HRS, VOLUME= .01 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0.0 MIN
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
CFT~ {AC~ (AF% (AF)
30.0 .09 0.00 0.00
40.0 .37 2.30 2.30
ROUTE INVERT
P 30.0'
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILTItATION
Q= .01 CFS at and above 30.1'
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE = 1.16 AF
PEAK ELEVATION= 35.1 FTm
FLOOD ELEVATION= 40.0 FT
START ELEVATION= 30.0 FT
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS
!
FEET
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0
36.0
37.0
38.0
39.0
40.0
POND 4 TOTAL DISCHARGE
0.Q .~ .~ ,$
0.00 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01
.01
(CFS~ vs ELEVATION
· 4 .5 ,6
· 01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 .01
01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01
,7
.01
.0!
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
POND 4 DISCHARGE
$OUTHOLO LANDFILL - PONO ~3
DISCHARGE
.8
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.91
.01~
· 01I
.01~
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAINFBT.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i~YdroCAD 4.00 000636 fc~ 1986-1995 ApPlied Microcomputer Syste~
HOUR 0.00
10.00 3
11.00 7
12.00 14 5
13.00 1 8
14.00 1 2
15.00 9
16.00 6
17.00 5
18.00 4
19.00 4
20.00 3
POND q INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
15
14
~2
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= I ~6 AF
PEAK ELEU= 35 1 FT
Bin= 15 3 CFS
Bout= 0 2 CF5
LAG= 0 MIN
TIME
POND 4 INFLOW PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.05 HOURS
.10
.3
.7
14.7
1.6
1.1
.9
.6
.5
.4
.4
· 2O .3O
3 .4
9 1.0
9 4 7.2
1 6 1.5
1 1 1.1
8 .8
6 .6
.5 .5
.4 .4
.3 .3
.40 ,50
.4 .4
12 1.4
54 3.6
15 1.4
1t 1.0
8 .8
6 .6
5 .5
4 .4
.3 .3
.60
.5
2.1
2.6
1.4
1.0
.7
.6
.4
.4
.3
.70
5
3 3
2 3
1 3
1 0
7
5
4
4
3
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
PONQ 4 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0.0 CFS ~ 10.70 HOURS
o.0o .lO ,2o
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
,3o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
.40 ,SQ
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
· 60 ,7~
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
O0 0.0
O0 0.0
O0 0.0
O0 0.0
O0 0.0
O0 0.0
Page 21
18 Aug 98
.80 .90
.6 .6
4.8 7.1
2.1 1.9
1.3 1.2
1.0 .9
.7 .7
.5 .5
.4 .4
.4 .4
.3 .3
,8o .90
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
mData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 1
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98
iHydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
iJWATERSHED ROUTING
[~ LINK
ISUBCATCHMENT 1
SUBCATCHMENT 2
ISUBCATCHMENT 3
SUBCATCHMENT 4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
= SOUTHOLD I2~NDFILL - SL2
= SOUTHOLD L~=NDFILL - SL4
= SOUTHOLD LkNDFILL - SL3
= SOUTHOLD I~DFILL - POND
POND 1
POND 2
POND 3
POND 4
tPOND 2
POND 3
IPOND 4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND 92
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND 94
= SOUTHOLD L/LNDFILL - POND 93
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~T.?~ 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD: TYPE
SUBCAT AREA Tc
NUMBER (ACRE) {MINI
1 16.40 12.9
2 4.50 18.2
3 13.57 14.1
4 4.95 6.5
III 24-HOUR RAINF~T.?.= 7.3 IN,
RUNOFF SPAN = 10-20 HRS, dr= .10 HRS, 10! POINTS
WGT'D PEAK
--GROUND COVERS (%CN%-- CN C ¢CFS%
93%71 4%85 3%98 - 72 - 61.1
87%71 5%98 8%85 - 73 - 15.3
88%71 6%85 6%98 - 73 - 50.0
4%98 20%85 49%71 22%56 73 - 21.1
4%98 - - -
Page 2 I
18 Aug 98
SCS U.H.
Tpeak VOL
(HRS)
12.13 5.12
12.21 1.44
12.15 4.34
12.05 1.58
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fata for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.T:= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Svstems
REACH ROUTING BY STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD
~REACH BOTTOM SIDE PEAK TRAVEL
NO. DIAM WIDTH DEPTH SLOPES n LENGTH SLOPE VEL. TIME
fiN) [FT) [FT~ [FT/FT) [FT) [FT/FT) iFpS) [MIN)
Page 3
18 Aug 98
PEAK
Qout
{CF$)
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24-MOUR RAINF~?.?.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 ApPlied Microcomputer
Systems
Page
18 Aug 98
POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND METHOD
POND START FLOOD PEAK PEAK
NO. ELEV. ELEVo ELEV. STORAGE Qin Qout
~FT~ ~FT~ (FT) (AFl (CFS~ (CFS~
1 26.0 42.0 38.8 5.04 61.1 .1
2 40.0 48.0 46.2 1.42 15.3 0.0
3 12.0 20.0 18.8 4.23 50.0 .1
4 30.0 40.0 36.8 1.58 21.1 0.0
...... PEAK FLOW .......... Qout---
Qpri Qsec
¢CFS~ (CFS~
ATTEN. LAG
(MINI
100 0.0
100 0.0
100 0.0
100 0.0
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAINF~T.T.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
mHvdroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c% 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 5
18 Aug 98
LINK
INO. NAME
Qout
SOURCE (CFS)
I
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 6 I
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAINF~TM 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98
HydroCAD 4.00 0'00636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
I
·
SUBCATCHMENT I SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
PEAK= 61.1 CFS @ 12.13 HAS, VOLUME= 5.12 AF
I
SCS TR-20 METHOD ·
ACRES
CN
15.25 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR
.70 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
.45 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRSI
16.40 72
Method Comment
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment A-B
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=80' P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
Tc Cmin)--
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment B-C 2.3
SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq~ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527' I
W=10'
s=.02 ,/ n=.05 V=5.57 fps L=760 Capacity=128.2 cfs
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment C-D 1.5
W=10' ,/D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1'527' I ·
s=.01 , n=.05 V=3.94 fps L=350' Capacity=90.6 cfs
CIRCULAR CHANNEL Segment I)--E .2
24" Diameter a=3.14 sq-ft Pw=6.3' r=.5' I
s=.01 '/' n=.013 V=7.2 fps L=80' Capacity=22.6 cfs
60
55
50
45
40
30
25
20
15
~0
5
Total Length= 1270 ft Total Tc= 12.9
5UBC~TCHMENT ~ RUNOFF
$OUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1 I
AREA= 16.4 AC
To= 129 MIN I
CN= 72
5C5 TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR I
RAINFALL= 7 3 IN
,,.._____.___uoP AK= 61.i CFS
~ 12.13 HRS I
LUME= 5.i2 AF
TIME (~ourm) I
l
I
I
Data [or $~UTHOLD Y,~,IqDFILL
TYP~ II! 24-HOUR ~INF~?,~.~ ?.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i~ydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-~995 Applied Microcomputer
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 61.1
0.00 .10 .20 .30
1.3 1.4 1.6
3.0 3.3 3.7
37.7 59.6 55.2
8.3 7.5 7.0
5.2 4.9 4.8
3.9 3.8 3.7
2.8 2.7 2.6
2.2 2.2 2.1
1.7 1.7 1.6
1.5 1.5 1.5
1.4
1 7
4 2
41 6
6 7
4 7
3 6
2 6
2 1
1 6
1 5
Systems
CFS @ 12.13 HOURS
.40 .50 .60 .70 .80
1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
4.9 5.5 6.9 10.4 15.8
31.8 23.4 16.3 12.3 10.4
6.5 6.3 6.0 5.8 5.6
4.6 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1
3.5 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.0
2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3
2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Page 7
18 Aug 98
.90
2.8
22.8
9.2
5.4
4 0
2 9
2 3
1 8
1 5
1 4
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TTPE ZZI 24-HOUR ~AZNFATM 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer
Systems
Page 8 I
18 Aug 98
SUBCATCHMENT 2
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -- SL2
PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME= 1.44 AF
ACRES CN
3.92 71
· 23 98
· 35 85
4.50 73
HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN
POND AREA (WET)
GP~AVEL ROAD
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l
I
I
HRS I
Metho~
TR-55 SHEET FLOW
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=180'
REC /VEE/TRAP CHAHNEL
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 */'
s=.02 '/' n=.05 V=5.57 fps
CIRCULAR CHANNEL
24" Diameter a=3.14 sq-ft Pw=6.3'
s=.01 '/' n=.013 V=7.2 fps L=80'
Comment
Segment ZD:A-B
P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
Segment ZD:B-C
a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
L=325' Capacity=128.2 cfs
Segment ID:C-D
Capacity=22.6 cfs
TC (min~--
17'0 I
1.0
.2
~4
13
4
2
Total Length= 585 ft Total Tc=
SUBCATCHHENT 2 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
AREA= 4.5 AC
To= 18.2 MIN
CN= 73
SCS TR-2B METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 73 IN
PEAK= 15.3 CFS
~ 1221 HRS
UOLUME= 1 44 AF
18.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
TIME (hour~)
I;
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILI~
TYPE II! 2&-HOUR RAINF~T.T.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i~ydroCAD 4.00 000636 (C) ~86-1999 Applied Microcomputer Systems
HOUR
SUBCATCHMENT ~ RUNOFF PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.21 HOURS
0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70
Page 9
18 Aug 98
.80 .90
10.00
11.00
12.00
13 O0
14 00
15 00
16 00
17 00
18 O0
19 O0
20 00
.4 .4
.8 .9
7.7 12.6
2.6 2.3
1.5 1.4
1.i 1.1
.8 .8
.6 .6
.5 .5
.4 .4
.4
1
15
2
1
1
4 .5 .5
0 1.1 1.3
3 13.6 10.9
1 2.0 1.9
4 1.3 1.3
1 1.0 1.0
7 .7 .7
6 .6 .6
5 .5 .4
.4 .4 .4
.6
1.4
8.4
1.8
1 3
1 0
7
6
4
4
.6
1.7
6.3
1.7
1.2
.9
.7
.5
.4
.4
7 .7
23 3.5
46 3.6
17 1.6
12 1.2
9 .9
7 .7
5 .5
4 .4
.4 .4
.8
5.0
3.0
1.5
1.1
.8
.6
.5
.4
.4
I
Page
10
Data for SOUTHOL~ LANDFILL ·
TYPK III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
~repared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems I
SUBCATCHMENT 3
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
PEAK= 50.0 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= 4.34 AF
CR SCS TR-20 METHOD
11.97 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR
.80 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
,80 9~ POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HAS, dt=.l HASI
13.57 73
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=100' P2=3.3 in s=]04 '/'
RECT/VEE/T~AP CHANNEL , , Segment ID.B-C . ,
W=10, , D=2' SS= 1 & 2 / a=23 sqTft Pw=15.1 r=1.527
s=.02 /, n=.05 v=5.57 fps L=900 Capacity=128.2 cfs
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:C-D
' /' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=l 527' ·
, ' SS= 1 & 2 / ·
W=10 ,/?=2 n=.05 V=10.43 fps L=520' Capacity=239.8 cfs
s=.07 ! .........
Total Length= 1520 ft Total Tc= 14..1
SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
AREA= 1357 AC
Tc= 14 1 MIN
CN: 73
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 73 IN
PEAK= 50 ~ CFS
~ 1215 HRS
UOLUME= 4 34 AF
I
I
I
I
!
!
!
TIME (hour~)
I
I
I
I
I!
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i~ydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer
SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK=
Systems
Page 11
50.0 CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
0.00 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70
1 2
2 6
29 7
7 1
4 4
3 3
2 4
1 9
1 4
1 3
1 1
.10
1.3
2.8
47.8
6.5
4.2
3.2
2.3
1.8
1.4
1.3
1 4
3 2
47 7
6 0
4 0
3 1
2 2
1 8
1 4
1.2
1.5
3.6
36.8
5.7
3.9
3.0
2.1
1.7
1.4
1.2
1 6
4 1
28 3
5 5
3 8
2 9
2 1
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.8 1.9
4.7 5.8
21.1 14.9
5.3 5.1
3.8 3.7
2.8 2.7
2.1 2.0
1.6 1.6
1.3 1.3
1.2 1.2
2.1
8.5
11.0
4.9
3 6
2 6
2 0
1 6
1 3
1 2
.80
2.3
12.8
9.1
4.7
3.5
2.5
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.2
.90
2.4
18.5
8.0
4.6
3.4
2.5
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.2
18 Aug 98
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
~ydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c% 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer
Systems
Page 12 I
18 Aug 98
SUBCATCHMENT 4
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
PEAK= 21.1 CFS @ 12.05 HRS, VOLUME= 1.58 AF
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD
· 20 98 BUILDING/PAVEMENT TYPE III 24-HOUR
1.00 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
2.45 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
1.10 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR
· 20 98 POND AREA (WET)
4.95 73
Method Comment
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=70' P2=3.3 in s=.15 '/'
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL '/' Segment ID:B-C
W=10, D=2' SS= 1 & 2 a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1-527'
s=.013 ,/, n=.05 V=4.49 fps L=450' Capacity=103.3 cfs
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL '/' Segment ID:C-D
W=10, D=2' SS= 1 & 2 a=23 sq-ft Pw=lS.l' r=1.527'
s=.25 ,/, n=.05 V=19.7 fps L=70' Capacity=453.2 cfs
Total Length= 590 ft
20
~8
~6
14
o,._ 12
D
8
(D
b-
5UBEATEHMENT 4 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
6
4
AREA= 495 AC
To= 65 MIN
CN= 73
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
PERK= 21 1 CFS
@ 1205 HR5
UOLUME= 1 58 AF
TIME
!
!
dt=. 1 HRS I
Tc {min%I
4.7
Total Tc= 6.5
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?,= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4.00 000636 {c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
i SUBCATCHMENT 4 KUNOFF PEAK= 21.1 CFS @ 12,05 HOURS
HOUR 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70
10
I11
12
13
14
16
17
I18
19
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
00 .5
00 1.0
00 19.9
00 2.3
00 1.5
00 1.2
00 .8
00 .7
00 .5
00 .5
00 .4
1
19
2
1
1
5 .6
2 1.3
8 12.6
1 2.1
5 1.4
1 1.1
8 .8
6 .6
.5 .5
.5 .4
.6 .7
1.5 1.7
9.6 7.1
2.0 1.9
1.4 1.4
1.1 1.0
.8 .7
.6 .6
.5 .5
.4 .4
Page 13
18 Aug 98
.80 .9~
7 .8 .8 .9 1.0
0 3.0 4.8 6.9 9.9
8 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.5
9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6
3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2
0 1.0 .9 .9 .9
7 .7 .7 .7 .7
6 .6 .6 .5 .5
5 .5 .5 .5 .5
4 .4 .4 .4 .4
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFY?.?.
TYPE IiZ R4-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 {c) 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer Svstems
Page 14 I
18 Aug 98
POND !
Qin = 61.1 CFS @
Qout= .1 CFS @
ELEVATION AREA
(FT~ fAC)
26.0 .16
42.0 .63
ROUTE INVERT
P 26.0'
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1
12.13 HRS, VOLUME= 5.12 AF
10.60 HRS, VOLUME= .07 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG=
0 · 0 MIN
INC.STOR CUM.STOR
(AFl {AFl
0.00 0.00
6.32 6.32
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFZLT~ATION
Q= .09 CFS at and above 26.2'
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
I
!
5.04 AF
38.8 FT I
42.0 FT
26.0 FT
dt=.l HRS I
FEET
26.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
40.0
42.0
POND 1 TOTAL DISCHARGE
0.0
0.00
.09
.09
09
09
09
09
09
09
· 2 .4 .~
.09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09
.09 .09 09
.09 .09 09
.09 .09 09
.09 .09 09
.09 .09 09
.09 .09 09
tCFS) vs ELEVATION
.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09
I
.09
.09
.09
· 091
.09
· °9w
POND 1 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!1
I
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LA~IDFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Svstems
POND 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~1
Page 15
18 Aug 98
55
50
~5
40
35
30
25
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 5 84 AF
PEAK ELEU= 38 8 FT
Din= 61 1 CFS
Dour= 1 CFS
LAG= 0 MIN
TIME
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND 1 INFLOW PEAK= 61.1 CFS @ 12.13 HOURS
0.00
1 3
3 0
37 7
8 3
5 2
3 9
2 8
2 2
1 7
1 5
1 4
.10
1.4
3.3
59.6
7.5
4.9
3.8
2.7
2.2
1.7
1.5
.20
1 6
3 7
55 2
7 0
4 8
3 7
2 6
2 1
1 6
1 5
.30 .4
1.7 19
4.2 49
41.6 31 8
6.7 65
4.7 46
3.6 35
2.6 25
2.1 20
1.6 16
1.5 14
.50 .60
2.0 2.2
5.5 6.9
23.4 16.3
6.3 6.0
4.4 4.3
3.4 3.2
2.5 2.4
2.0 1.9
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
.7O
2 4
10 4
12 3
5 8
4 2
3 1
2 4
1 9
1 6
1 4
.8O
2.6
15.8
10.4
5.6
4.1
3.0
2.3
1.8
1.5
1.4
.90
2 8
22 8
9 2
5 4
4 0
2 9
2 3
1 8
1 5
1.4
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND
0.00
0 0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= .1
.10
0.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
· 20 .30 .40
0.0 .1 .1
· 1 .1 .1
· 1 .1 .1
· 1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
· 1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
CFS @ 10.60 HOURS
.6O
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
.70 80 .90
· 1 1 .1
· 1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
· 1 1 .1
· 1 1 .1
.1 .1 .1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 ApPlied Microcomputer
POND 2
Qin =
Qout=
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2
15.3 CFS @ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME= 1.44 AF
0.0 CFS @ 10.60 HRS, VOLUME= .02 AF, ATTEN=100%,
Page 16 I
18 Aug 98
Systems I
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
(FT) (AC) (AF) {AFl
40.0 .12 0.00 0.00
48.0 .34 1.84 1.84
ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES
P 40.0' EXFILTRATION
Q= .02 CFS at and above 40.1'
LAG= 0.0 MIN
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
1.42 AF
46.2 FT
48.0 FT
40.0 FT
dt--. 1 HRS
I
I
I
I
I
FEET
40.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
45.0
46.0
47.0
48.0
POND 2 TOTAL DISCHARGE
0.0 .1
0.00 .02
.02 .02
.02 .02
.02 .02
.02 .02
.02 .02
.02 .02
.02 .02
.02
fCFS~ vs ELEVATION
· ~ .9 .4 ,5 ,6
02 .02 .02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02
,7
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02 1
.O2
· °2I
.02
.02
.02
!
4~0r
47 5~
47o~
46.5~
44
~3
4310
41 0
40.6
40E~
POND 2 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
DISCHARGE
I
I
I
I
I
I
IData for SOU~HOLD LANDF~v.~.
· YPE XI! 24-HOUR RAINF~?~?.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i HydroCAQ 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer
POND 2 ~NFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~2
15
14
13
12
11
1
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 1 42 AF
PEAK ELEU= 46 2 FT
Qin= 15 3 CFS
Qout= 0 8 CF5
LAG= 0 MIN
TIME (hours)
Svstems
Page 17
18 Aug 98
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
I8.00
19.00
20.00
POND 2 INFLOW PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.21 HOURS
Q,OO
4
8
77
26
15
11
8
6
5
4
4
.10
.4
.9
12.6
2.3
1.4
1.1
.S
.6
.5
.4
.20
4
1 0
15 3
2 1
1 4
1 1
7
6
5
4
.30
.5
1.1
13.6
2.0
1.3
1.0
.7
.6
.5
.4
.40
5
1 3
10 9
1 9
1 3
1 0
7
6
4
4
.50
.6
1.4
8.4
1.8
1 3
1 0
7
6
4
4
.60
.6
1.7
6.3
1.7
1.2
.9
.7
.5
.4
.4
.70
.7
2.3
4.6
1.7
1.2
.9
.7
.5
.4
.4
.80
.7
3.5
3 6
1 6
1 2
9
7
5
4
4
.90
.8
5.0
3.0
1.5
1.1
.8
.6
.5
.4
.4
I HOUR
10.00
I ii.00
12 O0
13 O0
I14 00
15 00
16 00
17 00
18 O0
19 O0
20 O0
POND 2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0.0 CFS @
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
,10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,20 ,40 .5o
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10.60 HOURS
.60 .70
0.0 0.0
0 0 0.0
00 0.0
00 0.0
00 0.0
00 0.0
00 0.0
00 0.0
0 0 0.0
00 0.0
.80
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.90
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE IZ! 24-HOUR RAINFALLc 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 18 I
18 Aug 98
POND 3
Qin = 50.0 CFS @
Qout= .1 CFS @
ELEVATION AREA
(FT) (AC~
12.0 .39
20.0 .85
ROUTE INVERT
P 12.0'
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4
12.15 HRS, VOLUME= 4.34 AF
10.50 HRS, VOLUME= .11 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG=
0.0 MIN
INC.STOR CUM.STOR
CAF) fAF)
0.00 0.00
4.96 4.96
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILT~TION
Q= .14 CFS at and above 12.1'
I
!
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOKAGE = 4.23 AF
PEAK ELEVATION= 18.8 FT ·
FLOOD ELEVATION= 20.0 FT
START ELEVATION= 12.0 FT
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS i i
FEET
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
POND 3 TOTAL DISCHARGE
0.0
0 0O
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
.14
.2 .3
.14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14
fCFS~ VS ELEVATION
I
· 4 .5 .6 .7 .~ .9--
.14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14
· 14 .14 .14 .14 .14 14
.14 .14 .14 .14 .14 14
.14 .14 .14 .14 .14 14
· 14 .14 .14 .14 .14 14
.14 .14 .14 .14 .14 14
z 6
POND 3 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ¢4
5
4
DISCHARGE
............ _E_X_F I
I
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYP~ III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.T.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c% 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer
PONO 3 INFLOW & OUTFLOU
SOUTHOLB LANDFILL - POND %4
58
I
I
I
I
45
.35
25
15
10
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 4 23 AF
PEAK ELEU= 18 8 FT
Din= 500 CFS
Qmut= 1 CFS
LAG= 0 MIN
Systems
Page 19
18 Aug 98
I TIME (hourm)
I POND 3 INFLOW PEAK= 50.0 CFS 9 12.15 HOURS
HOUR
I 10 O0
11 O0
12 O0
I 13 O0
14 O0
i 15 00
16.00
I17.00
18.00
19.00
I 20.00
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
I 14.00
15 00
16 00
17 00
I 18 O0
19 O0
20 00
o.oo ,~0 .20
1,2 1.3 1.4
2.6 2.8 3.2
29.7 47.8 47.7
7.1 6.5 6.0
4.4 4.2 4.0
3.3 3.2 3.1
2.4 2.3 2.2
1.9 1.8 1.8
1.4 1.4 1.4
1.3 1.3 1.2
1.1
.30
1.5
3.6
36.8
5 7
3 9
3 0
2 1
1 7
1 4
i 2
.40
1.6
4.1
28.3
5.5
3.8
2.9
2.1
1.7
1.3
1.2
POND 3 tOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= .1
O.OO .10 .20
0.0 0.0 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 1 .1
1 1 .1
1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1
,30
.1
.1
.1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.4O
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
· 50 .60 .70
1.8 1.9 2.1
4.7 5.8 8.5
21.1 149 11.0
5.3 51 4.9
3.8 37 3.6
2.8 27 2.6
2.1 20 2.0
1.6 16 1.6
1.3 1.3 1.3
1.2 1.2 1.2
CFS ~ 10.50 HOURS
.50 ,60 .70
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.$0 .90
2.3 2.4
12.8 18.5
9.1 8.0
4.7 4.6
3.5 3.4
2.5 2.5
1.9 1.9
1.5 1.5
1.3 1.3
1.2 1.2
.80 .90
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TYPE ZZZ 24-HOUR RAZNP~?.?.~ 7.3 ZN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 20 I
18 Aug 98
POND 4
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
Qin = 21.1 CFS @ 12.05 HRS, VOLUME= 1.58 AF
Qout= 0.0 CFS @ 10.50 HRS, VOLUME= .01 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG=
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOA
fFT) (AC) CAF) CAF~
30.0 .09 0.00 0.00
40.0 .37 2.30 2.30
0.0 MIN
# ROUTE INVERT
1 P 30.0'
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILTRATION
Q= .01 CFS at and above 30.1'
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l
1.58 AF
36.8 FT I
40.0 FT
30.0 FT
HAS
FEET
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0
36.0
37.0
38.0
39.0
40.0
POND 4 TOTAL DISCHARGE
0.0 .1 .2 .3
00 .01 .01
01 .01 .01
01 .01 .01
01 .01 .01
01 .01 .01
01 .01 .01
01 .01 .01
01 .01 .01
01 .01 .01
01 .01 .01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
0t
01
fCFS) vs ELEVATION
· 4 ,5 .6
.01 01 .01
.01 01 .01
.01 01 .01
.01 01 .01
.01 01 .01
.01 01 .01
.01 01 .01
.01 01 .01
.01 01 .01
.01 01 .01
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
POND 4 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~3
DISCHARGE
.7
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.8
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
· 01I
.01
.01
· 01I
.01
.01
'01I
.01
.01
I
I
I
I
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFIL~ EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iH_~_~roCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 1
20 Aug 98
iWATERSHED ROUTING .............................................................
I
I
I
I
!
!
[~ LINK
I S
UBCATCHMENT 1
SUBCATCHMENT 2
I SUBCATCHMENT 3
SUBCATCHMENT 4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - $L2
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5
POND 1
POND 2
POND 3
POND 4
REACH 1
I REACH 1
POND 1
I POND 2
POND 3
I pOND 4
= SOUTHOLD L~DFILL - REACH 1
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1
= $OUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2
= $OUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3
POND 1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ ~986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD:
RUNOFF SPAN = 10-20 HRS,
SUBCAT AREA Tc
NUMBER (ACRE) (MIN) --GROUND COVERS (%CN%--
1 16.40 12.9 93%71 4%85 3%98 -
2 4.50 18.2 87%71 5%98 8%85 -
3 13.57 14.1 88%71 6%85 6%98 -
4 4.95 6.5 4%98 20%85 49%71 22%56
4%98 - - -
5 3.50 13.5 9%98 17%85 74%56 -
TYPE Ill 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN,
dt= .10 HRS, 101 POINTS
WGT'D PEAK
CN C (CF$)
72 - 44.5
73 - 11.3
73 - 36.1
73 - 15.3
65 - 7.0
Page 2 I
20 Aug 98
SCS U.H.
I
Tpeak VOL ·
(HRS) (AF~I
12.14 3,77I
12.21 1.06
12.15 3.21 I
12.05 1.17
12.15 .63
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ata for SOUTMOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS.
TTPE III 24-HOUR RAINFB?.T.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
IHydroCAD 4.00
STATION DUP1
000636 (c) 1986-1995 AoDlied Microcomputer Systems
REACH ROUTING B~ STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD
IREACH BOTTOM SIDE PEAK
NO. DIAM WIDTH DEPTH SLOPES n LENGTH SLOPE VEL.
I (IN) (FT) ~FT~ (FT./FT~ (~T) (FT/FT~ ~FPS~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 3
20 Aug 98
TRAVEL PEAK
TIME Qout
CMIN~ (CFS)
1 24.0 .... .013 620 .0050 5.1 2.0 6.8
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE Ill 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
~ydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer
POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND METHOD
POND START FLOOD PEAK PEAK
NO. ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. STORAGE Qin Qout
fFT% [FT) fFT~ (AF~ ~CFS% (CFS)
1 26.0 42.0 36.9 4.32 50.4 .1
2 40.0 48.0 44.6 1.05 11.3 0.0
3 12.0 20.0 17.0 3.10 36.1 .1
4 30.0 40.0 35.1 1.16 15.3 0,0
SysteMs
...... PEAK FLOW .......... Qout---
Qpri Qsec
(CFS) ¢CFS)
Page 4 I
20 Aug 98
ATTEN. LAG
(%) (MIN)
100 0.0
100 0.0
100 0.0
100 0.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP!
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer Systems
Page 5
20 Aug 98
LINK
NO. NAME
SOURCE
Qout
(CFS~
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTINO TRANS. STATION DUP!
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000656 lc) ~986-1995 Applied Microcomputer
SUBCATCHMENT 1
SOUTMOLD LANDFILL - SL1
PEAK= 44.5 CFS @ 12.14 HRS, VOLUME= 3.77 AF
ACRES CN
15.25 71
· 70 85
· 45 98
16.40 72
HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN
GRAVEL ROAD
POND AREA (WET)
Method
TR-55 SHEET FLOW
Grass: Dense n=.24
L=80,
CoI%~2t
Segment A-B
P2=3.3 in s=.04
Segment B-C
,/,
Page 6 I
20 Aug 98I
Svstems
!
SCS TR-20 METHOD ·
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
SP/~q'~ 10-20 HRSt dt~. HRS
Tc Cmin~_
8o9I
2.3
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/'
s=.02 '/' n=.05 V=5.57 fps
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL
W=10' D=2' SS= i & 2 '/'
s=.01 '/' n=.05 V=3.94 fps
CIRCULAR CHANNEL
24" Diameter a=3.14 sq-ft Pw=6.3'
s=.01 '/' n=.013 V=7.2 fps L=80'
a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
L=760' Capacity=128.2 cfs
Segment C-D
a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
L=350' Capacity=90.6 cfs
Segment D-E
Capacity=22.6 cfs
Total Length= 1270 ft
SUBCATCHNENT 1 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
45
30
25
20
15
i0
cq
AREA= 16 4 AC
To= 12 9 MIN
CN= 72
SCS TR-2B METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 60 IN
PEAK= 44 5 CFS
e 12 14 HR5
UOLUME= 3 77 AF
Total Tc=
1.5
.2
12.9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TIME Chour~)
I
I
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTINO TRANS. STATION DUP1
T~PE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 44.5 CFS @ 12.14 HOURS
HOUR 0.00
10 00 .7
1.9
26.8
6.3
4.0
3.0
2.2
1.7
18 00 1.3
19.00 1.2
20.00 1.1
I11 00
12 00
13 00
14 00
15 00
16 00
17 00
Page 7
20 Aug 98
.10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70
2
43
5
3 8
2 9
2 1
1.7
1.3
1.2
7 .8
0 2.3 2
3 40.7 30
7 5.4 5
3.7 3
2.8 2
2.0 2
1.6 1
1.3 1
1.1 1
9 1.0 1.2
7 3.1 3.6
9 23.9 17.7
1 5.0 4.8
6 3.5 3.4
8 2.7 2.6
0 1.9 1.9
6 1.6 1.5
3 1.2 1.2
1 1.1 1.1
1 3
4 6
12 4
4 6
3 3
2 5
1 9
1 5
1 2
1 1
1.4
7.0
9.3
4.5
3.3
2.4
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.1
.8O
1.6
10.8
7.9
4.3
3.2
2.3
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.1
.90
1.7
15.8
7.0
4.1
3 1
2 2
1 7
1 4
1 2
1 1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFA?.?.= S.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 8 I
20 Aug 98
SUBCATCHMENT 2
PEAK= 11.3 CF8
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
@ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME= 1.06 AF
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD
3.92 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR
· 23 98 POND AREA (WET) RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
· 35 85 GRAVEL ROAD SPAN= 10-20 HAS,
4.50 73
dt=.l HRS
I
I
I
Method
TR-55 SHEET FLOW
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=180'
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/'
S=.02 '/' n=.05 V=5.57 fps
CIRCULAR CHANNEL
24" Diameter a=3.14 sq-ft Pw=6.3'
s=.01 '/' n=.013 V=7.2 fps L=80'
Commen~
Segment ID :A-B
P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
Segment ID :B-C
a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
L=325 ' Capacity=128.2 cfs
Segment ID:C-D
Capacity=22.6 cfs
Total Length= 585 ft Total Tc=
11
10
9
SUBCATCHNENT 2 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
7~
5
4
3
AREA= 45 AC
To= 182 MIN
CN= 73
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 6 0 IN
PEAK= 11 3 CF5
~ 12 21HR5
UOLUME= 1 B6 AF
Tc (mini--
17.0 I
1.0
.2
18.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
TINE (hour~)
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.T,= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF PEAK= 11.3 CFS @ 12.21 HOURS
I HOUR 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70
Page 9
20 Aug 98
.80 .90
10 00
O0
00
13 00
O0
0O
0O
17 00
18.00
19.00
20.00
I11
12
14
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.2
.5
5.5 9
2.0 1
1.1 1
.9
.6
.5
.4
.3
.3
2 .2
6 .6
1 11.2
8 1.6
1 1.1
8 .8
6 .6
5 .5
4 .4
3 .3
.3
.7
10.1
1.5
1 0
8
6
5
4
3
.3
.8
8.1
1.4
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.3
.3
3
1 0
6 4
1 4
1 0
7
5
4
3
3
.4 .4
1.1 1.6
4.7 3.5
1.3 1.3
1.0 .9
.7 .7
.5 .5
.4 .4
.3 .3
.3 .3
.4
2.4
2 7
1 2
9
7
5
4
3
3
.5
3.5
2.3
1.2
.9
.6
.5
.4
.3
.3
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TXPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 0006~ (C) 1986-1995 ApPlied Microcomputer Svstems
SUBCATCHMENT 3
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
PEAK= 36.1 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= 3.21 AF
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD
11.97 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR
· 80 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
· 80 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
13.57 73
Method
TR-55 SHEET FLOW
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=100'
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/'
s=.02 '/' n=.05 V=5.57 fps
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/'
s=.07 '/' n=.05 V=10.43
Commen~
Segment XD:A-B
P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
Segment ID:B-C
a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
L=900' Capacity=128.2 cfs
Segment ID:C-D
a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
fps L=520' Capacity=239.8 cfs
Total Length= 1520 ft Total Tc=
34
32
30
28
26
~' 22~
u 20
SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
AREA= 13.57 AC
To= 141 MIN
CN= 73
SCS TR-2B METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 6 0 IN
PEAK= 36 1 CFS
~ ~2 15 HRS
UOLUME= 3.2I AF
TIME
Page 10
20 Aug 98
!
I
dt=. 1 HRS
Tc Cmin~
io.6 I
2.7
.8
14,1
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING T~ANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-NOUN RAINFg?.?= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
IHydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Svstems
HOUR
SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK= 36.1 CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
.6 .7
1.6 1.8
21.3 34.8
5,5 4.9
3.4 3.2
2.6 2.5
1.8 1.8
1.4 1.4
1.1 1.1
1.0 1.0
.9
.8
2.0
35.2
4 6
3 1
2 4
1 7
1 4
1 1
1 0
.9
2.3
27.5
4.4
3.0
2.3
1.7
1.3
1.1
1.0
1 0
2 7
21 3
4 2
3 0
2 3
1 6
1 3
1 0
9
1.1 1.2
3.1 3.9
16.0 11.3
4.1 3.9
2.9 2.8
2.2 2.1
1.6 1.6
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
· 9 .9
1 3
5 7
8 4
3 8
2 8
2 1
1 5
1 2
1 0
9
Page 11
20 Aug 98
.80 .90
1.4 1.5
8.8 12.9
7.0 6.1
3.7 3.5
2.7 2.6
2.0 1.9
1.5 1.5
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
.9 .9
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~TM 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroC~p 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer
SUBCATCHMENT 4 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.05 HRS, VOLUME= 1.17 AF
Systems
Page 12 I
20 Aug 98
i
ACRES CN
.20 98
1.00 85
2.45 71
1.10 56
.20 98
4.95 73
BUILDING/PAVEMENT
GRAVEL ROAD
HELP MODEL RUNOFF
FOR RCN
BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR
POND AREA (WET)
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l
Method Comment
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-E
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=70' P2=3.3 in s=.15 '/'
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
s=.013 '/' n=.05 V=4.49 fps L=450' Capacity=103.3 cfs
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:C-D
W=10' D=2' SS= i & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
s=.25 '/' n=.05 V=19.7 fps L=70' Capacity=453.2 cfs
Total Length= 590 ft Total Tc=
!
HRS I
Tc (mini
4.7
1.7I
6.51
SUBCATCHHENT 4 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
15
14
13
~2
11
1
AREA= 495 AC
To= 65 MIN
CN= 73
5C5 TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 60 IN
PEAK= 15.3 CFS
8 12.05 HR5
UOLUME= 1 17 AF
TIME (hourm]
I
I
I
I
I
tara for SOUTHOLD LANDFI~ EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer systems
@ 12.05 HOURS
I
SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF PEAK= 15.3 CFS
HOUR 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70
3 .3
7 .7
5 14.7
8 1.6
2 1.1
9 .9
6 .6
5 .5
4 .4
4 .4
3
3 .4
9 1.0
4 7.2
6 1.5
1 1.1
8 .8
6 .6
5 .5
4 .4
3 .3
4
1 2
5 4
1 5
1 1
8
6
5
4
3
.4
1.4
3.6
1.4
1.0
.8
.6
.5
.4
.3
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
14
1
1
.5 5
2.1 33
2.6 23
1.4 13
1.0 1 0
.7 7
.6 .5
.4 .4
.4 .4
.3 .3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 13
20 Aug 98
.80 .90
· 6 .6
4.8 7.1
2.1 1.9
1.3 1.2
1.0 .9
· 7 .7
.5 .5
.4 .4
· 4 .4
.3 .3
I
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR ~AINF~?~= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer Systems
Page 14 I
20 Aug 98
SUBCATCHMENT 5
PEAK= 7.0 CFS
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5
@ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= .63 AF
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD
.30 98 EXISTING BUILDING/PAVEMENT TYPE III 24-HOUR
.60 85 GRAVEL RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
2.60 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
3.50 65
dt=.l HRS
I
I
I
Method Comment
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=140' P2=3.3 in s=.05 '/'
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C
W=4' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=ll sq-ft Pw=9.1' r=1.214'
s=.02 '/' n=.05 V=4.78 fps L=170' Capacity=52.6 cfs
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:C-D
W=4' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=ll sq-ft Pw=9.1' r=1.214'
s=.03 '/' n=.05 V=5.86 fps L=70' Capacity=64.4 cfs
Total Length= 380 ft
Total Tc=
7 0
6 5
55
%
SUBCRTCHMENT 5 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5
AREA= 3.5 AC
To= 135 MIN
CN= 65
5C5 TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL: 6 0 IN
PEAK= 7 0 CF5
e HAS
~ VOLUME= 63 AF
Tc {mini.
i2.? I
.6
.2
13.5 I
TIME (hour~)
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~.?= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
IHydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer
Systems
Page 15
20 Aug 98
!
HOUR
10 O0
I 11 O0
12 O0
13 O0
I14 00
15 00
16.00
i 17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
!
SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF PEAK= 7.0 CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
0.00
0.0
.2
3.9
1.2
.7
.6
.4
.3
.2
.2
.2
.lO
0.0
.2
6.8
1.0
.7
.5
.4
.3
.2
.2
.20 .30 .60 .70 .80
0.0 0 0
.2 3
6.8 54
1.0 9
.7 7
.5 5
.4 4
.3 3
.2 2
.2 2
.40 .50
.1 .1
.4 .4
4.2 3.2
.9 .9
.6 .6
.5 .5
.4 .4
.3 .3
.2 .2
.2 .2
1 .1 .1
6 .9 1.4
2 3 1.7 1.4
8 8 .8
6 6 .6
5 5 .4
3 3 .3
.3 3 .3
.2 2 .2
.2 2 .2
.90
.2
2.2
1.3
.8
.6
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 16 I
20 Aug 98
REACH i
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH I
Qin = 7.0 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= .63 AF
Qout= 6.8 CFS @ 12.23 HRS, VOLUME= .63 AF,
DEPTH END AREA
(FT~ (SO-FT)
0.0 0 0
.2 2
.4 4
.6 8
1.4 23
1.6 27
1.8 30
1.9 31
1.9 31
2.0 31
DISCH
(CFS%
00
3
14
31
134
156
170
172
170
160
24" PIPE
n= .013
LENGTH= 620 FT
SLOPE= .005 FT/FT
ATTEN= 3%, LAG= 4.4 MIN
STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD
PEAK DEPTH= .91 FT
PEAK VELOCITY= 5.1 FPS
TRAVEL TIME = 2.0 MIN
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l
2¸0
REACH I DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH
6 ~" 24" P[PE
~ n= 013 L=620' S= 005
.4
DISCHARGE (cfa)
I
I
I
H~Sli
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP!
TYPE III 24--HOUR ~AINF~T.T.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
IHydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c% 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
REACH 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH
6 5:
5 5
5 0
m 4 5
~30
u. 20
1.0
.5
24" PIPE
013 L=620' S= 005
STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD
UELOCITY= 5 1 FPS
TRAUEL= 2 MIN
Oin= 78 CF5
gout= 6 8 CFS
LAG= 4 4 MIN
TIME (hour~)
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
REACH 1 INFLOW PEAK= 7.0 CFS 0 12.15 HOURS
O.OQ
0.0
.2
3.9
1.2
.7
.6
.4
.3
.2
.2
.2
0 0
2
6 8
1 0
7
5
4
3
2
2
,2o .3Q .40
0.0 0.0 .1
.2 .3 .4
6.8 5.4 4.2
1.0 .9 .9
.7 .7 .6
.5 .5 .5
.4 .4 .4
.3 .3 .3
· 2 .2 .2
.2 .2 .2
· 5O .~O
32 23
9 8
6 6
5 5
.4 3
.3 3
· 2 2
.2 2
.70
.1
.9
1.7
.8
.6
.5
.3
.3
.2
.2
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
REACH 1 OUTFLOW PEAK= 6.8 CFS @ 12.23 HOURS
0.00
0.0
.1
2.8
1.3
.8
.6
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
0.0
.2
5.1
1.1
.7
.6
.4
.3
.3
.2
.29
0.0
.2
6 7
1 0
7
5
4
3
2
2
.30
0.0
.2
6.2
1.0
.7
.5
.4
.3
.2
.2
.4O
0 0
3
4 9
9
7
5
4
3
2
.2
.50 .6Q .70
.1 .1 .1
· 4 .5 .7
3.8 2.9 2.1
· 9 .9 .8
· 6 .6 .6
.5 .5 .5
.4 .4 .3
.3 .3 .3
· 2 .2 .2
.2 .2 .2
Page 17
20 Aug 98
,80 .90
.1 2
1.4 2 2
1.4 13
.8 8
.6 6
.4 4
.3 3
.3 3
.2 .2
.2 .2
.80 .90
1 .1
1 0 1.7
16 1.4
8 .8
6 .6
4 .4
3 .3
3 .3
.2 .2
.2 .2
Data for SOUTMOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~TM 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 18 I
20 Aug 98
POND
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
Qin = 50.4 CFS @ 12.14 HRS,
Qout= .1 CFS @ 10.90 HRS,
VOLUME= 4.39 AF
VOLUME= .07 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG=
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR STOR-IND METHOD
(FT) (AC% (AFl (AFl PEAK STORAGE =
26.0 .16 0.00 0.00 PEAK ELEVATION=
42.0 .63 6.32 6.32 FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
~ ROUTE INVERT
1 P 26.0'
0.0 MIN
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFXLTRATION
Q= .09 CFS at and above 26.2'
4.32 AF
I
I
42. FT
26.0 FT
dt=. 1 HRS
t
I
FEET
26.0
28.0
30.0
32 0
34 0
36 0
38 0
4O 0
42 0
POND 1 TOTAL DISCHARGE ¢CFS) vs
0.0 .2 .4 .6
0.00
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
.09
O9
09
O9
O9
09
09
.09
ELEVATION
.09 09
.09 09
.09 09
.09 09
.09 09
.09 09
.09 09
.09 .09
1,4 1.6 1.8I.
.09 .09 .0~
. il
.09 .09
.09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09i
.09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .091
42
40
39
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
3{
2~
2~
POND 1 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
, ~ ~E X F ~ L TR ~_T. _~ Ni
DISCHARGE
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
mData for SOUTHOLD LANDFI?.r, EXISTING TRANS.
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~T.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4.00
STATION DUP1
000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Svstems
40
35
30
25
20
FOND 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 4 32 AF
PEAK ELEU= 36 9 FT
Oin= 50 4 CFS
LAG= 0 MIN
Pase 19
20 Aug 98
TIME (hour~)
HOUR
i 10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
I 14.00
15.00
16.00
I17.00
18.00
19.00
I20.00
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13 00
14 O0
15 00
16 00
17 00
i8 00
19 00
20.00
PQND 1 INFLOW PEAK= 50.4 CFS 8 12.14 HOURS
O,OO .10 .20 .30 .40 ,50
.7 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2
2.0 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.4 4.0
29.7 48.4 47.4 37.2 28.8 21.5
7.6 6.9 6.4 6.1 5.9 5.7
4.7 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1
3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1
2.6 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3
2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8
1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3
1.3
.(50 .70
1.4 1.5
5.1 7.7
15.2 11 4
5.5 53
4.0 39
3.0 29
2.2 22
1.8 17
1.4 14
1.3 1.3
.80
1,7
11.8
9.6
5.1
3.8
2.8
2.1
1.7
1.4
1.3
.90
1.8
17.5
8.4
4.9
3.7
2.7
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.3
pOND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= .1 CFS @ 10.90 HOURS
0.00 .10 .20
0.0 0.0 0.0
.1 .1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
· 1 1 .1
· 1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1
.30
0.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.40 .50
0.0 0.0
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.6Q .70 .80 .90
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 ,1 .1
1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TTPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.T.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Svstems
Page 20 I
20 Aug 98
POND
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2
Qin = 11.3 CFS @ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME= 1.06 AF
Qout= 0.0 CFS @ 10.90 HRS, VOLUME= .02 AF, ATTEN=100%,
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
(FT) CAC~ fAF) fAF~
40.0 .12 0.00 0.00
48.0 .34 1.84 1.84
ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES
P 40.0' EXFILTRATION
Q= .02 CFS at and above 40.1'
0.0 MIN
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
!
I'
1.05 AF
44.6 FT I
48.0 FT
40.0 FT
dt=.l HRS I
FEET
40.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
45.0
46.0
47.0
48.0
POND 2 TOTAL DISCHARGE [CFS) vs ELEVATION
0.0 .1 .2 ,3 .4 ,5 .~ .7 .~ ,9
0.00 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02m
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
!
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 ·
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02W '
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02m
.02
480
47.5
470
46 5
46
45.
45
44.
448
435
430
425
42.0
~3
POND 2 DISCHAR6E
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
DISCHAR6E
I
I
I
I
i
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFI~ EXISTING TRANS.
TYPE III 24-HOUR ~INF~?.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4.00
10 A STOR-IND METHOD
9 ~ PEAK STOA= ~ 05 AF
8 ~ PEAK ELEU= 44 6 FY
7 ~ ~in= 11 3 CFS
~ 6 ~ Oou%= 0 B CF5
STATION DUP!
000636 lc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
POND 2 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2
U
TIME
POND 2 INFLOW PEAK= 11.3 CFS @ 12.21 HOURS
HOUR 0.00 .10 .20
i lO oo
11 oo
12 00
13 O0
14 O0
15 O0
16.00
17.oo
18.00
19.00
20.00
.2 2 .2
.5 6 .6
5.5 9 1 11.2
2.0 18 1.6
1.1 11 1.1
.9 8 .8
.6 6 .6
.5 .5 .5
.4 .4 .4
.3 .3 .3
.3
· 90 .40 ,90
.3 .3 .3
.7 .8 1.0
10.1 8.1 6.4
1.5 1.4 1.4
1.0 1.0 1.0
.8 .8 .7
.6 .6 .5
.5 .4 .4
.4 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3
,6o
.4
1 1
4 7
1 3
1 0
7
5
4
3
3
Page 21
20 Aug 98
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND
2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0.0 ~FS @ lQ,90 HOURS
0.00
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
.70 .80 .90
.4 .4 .5
1.6 2.4 3.5
3.5 2.7 2.3
1.3 1.2 1.2
.9 .9 .9
.7 .7 .6
.5 .5 .5
.4 .4 .4
.3 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3
.10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0.0 0 0
0.0 0 0
0.0 0 0
0.0 0 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP!
TYPE III 24-HOUR I~AINFALL= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
POND 3
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4
Qin = 36.1CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= 3.21 AF
Qout= .1 CFS @ 10.80 HRS, VOLUME= .11 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG=
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR STOR-IND METHOD
(~T) fAC~ fAF) fAF~ PEAK STORAGE =
12.0 .39 0.00 0.00 PEAK ELEVATION=
20.0 .85 4.96 4.96 FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
ROUTE INVERT
P 12.0'
FEET
12 0
13 0
14 0
15 0
16 0
17 0
18 0
19 0
20.0
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILTRATION
Page 22 I
20 Aug 98
I
3.10 AF
17.0 FT
FT
20.0 I
12.0 FT
dt=. 1 HRS I
· 14~
.14
· 141
.148
.14
'14I
!
!
!
I
I
0.0 MIN
Q= .14 CFS at and above 12.1'
POND 3 TOTAL DISCHARGE fCFS~ vs ELEVATION
Q.O .1
0.00 .14
.14 .14
.14 14
.14 14
.14 14
.14 14
.14 14
.14 14
.14
20 0
I95
19.0
185
<~ 15B
--I
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
.3 .4
· 14 14
.14 14
.14 14
.14 14
.14 14
.14 14
.14 14
· 14 14
.5
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14
POND 3 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~4
I III
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR ~AINF~T.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 986-199.:
POND 3
I souTHo _o
24
12F
1986-1995 ADDlied Microcomputer Systems
~NFLOW & OUTFLOW
LANDFILL - POND ~4
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 3 113 AF
PEAK ELEU= 17 FT
Page 23
20 Aug 98
gin= 36 1 CF5
Oou±= I CFS
LAG= 0 MIN
TIME
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND 3 INFLOW PEAK= 36.1 CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
0.00 .10
.6 .7
1.6 1.8
21.3 34.8
5.5 4.9
3.4 3.2
2.6 2.5
1.8 1.8
1.4 1.4
1.1 1.1
1.0 1.0
.9
.20
.8
2.0
35.2
4 6
3 1
2 4
1 7
1 4
1 1
1 0
· 3O .40 .50
.9 1.0 1.1
2.3 2.7 3.1
27.5 21.3 16.0
4.4 4.2 4.1
3.0 3.0 2.9
2.3 2.3 2.2
1.7 1.6 1.6
1.3 1.3 1.3
1.1 1.0 1.0
1.0 .9 .9
,6Q .70
1.2 13
3.9 57
11.3 8 4
3.9 38
2.8 28
2.1 21
1.6 15
1.3 12
1.0 10
.9 9
.80
1.4
8.8
7.0
3.7
2.7
2.0
1.5
1.2
1.0
.9
.90
1 5
12 9
6 1
3 5
2 6
1 9
1 5
1 2
1.0
.9
I
HOUR
10.00
i11.00
12.00
13.00
I 14.00
15 00
16 O0
I 17 00
18 00
19 00
I20 O0
POND 3 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= .1 CFS @ 10.80 HOURS
0.00
0.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.10 .20
0.0 0.0
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
.1 .1
.30
.1
.1
.1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.40 .50
.1 1
.1 1
.1 1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
.1 1
.1 1
.1 1
.1 1
.70 .80 .90
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 24 I
TXPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98
~ydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 ApPlied Microcomputer Systems
POND 4
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
Qin = 15.3 CFS @ 12.05 HRS, VOLUME= 1.17 AF
Qout= 0.0 CFS @ 10.70 HRS, VOLUME= .01 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0.0 MIN
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR STOR-IND METHOD
(FT) (AC) fAF~ fAF% PEAK STORAGE = 1.16 AF
30.0 .09 0.00 0.00 PEAK ELEVATION= 35.1 FT ·
40.0 .37 2.30 2.30 FLOOD ELEVATION= 40.0 FT.
START ELEVATION= 30.0 FT
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILTRATION
Q= .01 CFS at and above 30.1'
ROUTE INVERT
P 30.0'
FEET
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0
36.0
37.0
38.0
39.0
40.0
PQND 4 TOTAL DISCHARGE
{CFS) VS ELEVATION
0.0 .1 .2 .3 ,4 .$ .6 ,7 .$
.00 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01
39
38
37
35
34
33
32
31
POND 4 DISCHAR6E
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ¢3
· 01I
.01~
.01
'01I
.01
.01
.01__
· 01!
.01
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFI,'.z. EXISTINO TRANS.
STATION
DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~T.?= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
IHydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POND 4 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
14
13
11
7
3
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 1 16 AF
PEAK ELEU= 35 1 FT
Oin= 15 3 CFS
Oout= 0 0 CF5
LAG= 0 MIN
TIME (¼our~)
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND 4 INFLOW PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.05 Hours
0.0O
.3
.7
14.5
1.8
1.2
.9
.6
.5
.4
.4
.3
.10
.3
.7
14.7
1.6
1.1
.9
.6
.5
.4
.4
3
9
9 4
1 6
1 1
8
6
5
4
3
· 30 .40 .50
.4 .4 .4 .5
1.0 1.2 1.4 2.1
7.2 5.4 3.6 2.6
1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4
1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0
.8 .8 .8 .7
.6 .6 .6 .6
.5 .5 .5 .4
.4 .4 .4 .4
.3 .3 .3 .3
.70
5
3 3
2 3
1 3
1 0
7
5
4
4
3
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0.0 CFS @ 10.70 HOURS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.20 .50 .60 .70
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.4O
0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0 0.0 O0
0.0 0.0 O0
0.0 0.0 O0
0.0 0.0 O0
0.0 0.0 O0
0.0 0.0 O0
0.0 0.0 O0
0.0 0.0 O0
0.0 0.0 O0
0.0 0.0 O0
Page 25
20 Aug 98
.80 .90
.6 .6
4.8 7.1
2.1 1.9
1.3 1.2
1.0 .9
.7 .7
.5 .5
.4 .4
.4 .4
.3 .3
.80 .90
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
I)ata for SOUTHOLD LANDFI,3. EXISTINO TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
mHvdroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Sys%ems
Page 1
20 Aug 98
iWATERSHED ROUTING
I
ISUBCATC~MENT i
SUBCATCHMENT 2
I SUBCATCHMENT 3
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
-> POND 1
-> POND 2
-> POND 3
SUBCATCHMENT ~,
I SUBCATCHMENT 5
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5
-> POND 4
-> REACH 1
REACH 1
POND 1
POND 2
POND 3
POND 4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
= $OUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~2
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND %4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
POND 1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP!
TYPE III 24--HOUR RAXNF~TM 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ~c~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Svstems
RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD:
SUBCAT
NI/MBER
1
2
3
4
5
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~!.?~= 7.3 IN,
RUNOFF SPAN = 10-20 HRS, dr= .10 HRS, 10i POINTS
AREA Tc WGT'D PEAK
~ACRE~ ~MIN~ --GROUND COVERS ~%CN~-- CN ~ ~CFS~
16.40 12.9 93%71 4%85 3%98 - 72 - 61.1
4.50 18.2 87%71 5%98 8%85 - 73 - 15.3
13.57 14.1 88%71 6%85 6%98 - 73 - 50.0
4.95 6.5 4%98 20%85 49%71 22%56 73 - 21.1
4%98 - - -
3.50 13.5 9%98 17%85 74%56 - 65 - 10.3
Page 2' I
20 Aug 9~
SCS U.H.
VOF~ ;
Tpeak
CHRS%
12.13 5.12
12.15 4.34m
12.05 1.58
12.15 .9~
l
!
I,
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING Tl~u~. STATION DUP1
T~PE III 24--HOUR I~INF~T.?.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4,00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
REACH ROUTINO BY STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD
Page 3
20 Aug 9~
I REACH BOTTOM SIDE PEAK TRAVEL PEAK
NO. DIAM WIDTH DEPTH SLOPES n LENGTH SLOPE VEL. TIME Qout
fIN~ (FT~ (FT~ CFT/FT~ (FT~ ~FT/FT~ ~FPS~ (MINI ~CFS~
1 24.0 .... .013 620 .0050 5.5 1.9 9.8
Dat~ [or SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXXSTING TRANS. STATION DUP!
T~PE III 24--HOUR RAXNFAT~.~ 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ ~986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND METHOD
POND START FLOOD PEAK PEAK ...... PEAK FLOW
NO. ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. STORAGE Qin Qout Qpri
(FT~ (FT~ ~FT~ ~AF~ (CFS~ ~CFS~ ~CFS~
1 26.0 42.0 41.0 5.94 69.6 .1
2 40.0 48.0 46.2 1.42 15.3 0.0
3 12.0 20.0 18.8 4.23 50.0 .1
4 30.0 40.0 36.8 1.58 21.1 0.0
Qsec
~CFS~
Page 4 i i
20 Aug 9E
Qout---
ATTEN. LAG
(MINI
100 0.0
100 0.0
100 0.0
100 0.0
IData for SOUTHOLD L,%NDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUPk
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.T,= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
LINK
IMO. NAME SOURCE
Page 5
20 Aug
9[
Qout
~CFS%
Data for SOUTHOLD LZ~DFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 6 I
TYPE Ill =4-HOUR I~ZNF~TM 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98
~ydroCAD 4.00 000636 (cl 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems :
SUBCATCHMENT i SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
PEAK= 61.1 CFS @ 12.13 HRS, VOLUME= 5.12 AF
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD
15.25 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR
.70 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
.45 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
16.40 72
Method
TR-55 SHEET FLOW
Comment
Segment A-E
I
I
dt=· 1 HRS I
TG {min~
8.9 ·
Grass: Dense n= 24 L=80' P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
' 2.3
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment B-C
SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sqTft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
W=10's=.02 ,/?=2'n=.05 V=5.57 fps L=760 Capacity=128.2 cfs
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment C-D 1.5
W=10' ,/D=2'. SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1'527'
s=.01 n=.05 V=3.94 fps L=350' Capacity=90.6 cfs
CIRCULAR CHANNEL Segment D-E .2
24" Diameter a=3.14 sq-ft Pw=6.3' r=.5'
s=.01 ,/, n=.013 V=7.2 fps L=80' Capacity=22.6 cfs
Total Length= 1270 ft Total Tc= 12.9
60
55
50
45
SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -
40
35
25
20
~5
AREA= 164 AC
Tm: 12.9 MIN
CN= 72
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
uRAINFALL= 7.3 IN
PEAK= 61 1 CFS
~ 1~.13 HR5
OLUNE= 5 12 ~F
i
I
I
I
I
I
TIME (hour~)
mData for SO~O~.n IJ~Flht EXISTING TI~S. STATION
'· TYPE III 24-HOUR )~INF~?.?.= ?.3 IN
DUP!
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 198~-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
HOUR
10 00
11 O0
12 O0
13 O0
14 O0
15 00
16 00
17 00
18 O0
19.00
20.00
SUBCATCH~ENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 61.1 CFS @ 12.13 HOURS
0.00 .10 .60 .70
1.3 1.4
3.0 3.3
37.7 59 6
8.3 75
5.2 49
3.9 38
2.8 27
2.2 22
1.7 17
1.5 1.5
1.4
· 20 .~0 .40 .50
1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4
3.7 4.2 4.9 5.5 6.9 10.4
55.2 41.6 31.8 23.4 16.3 12.3
7.0 6.7 6.5 6.3 6.0 5.8
4.8 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.2
3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.1
2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4
2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Page 7
20 Aug 98
· ~0 .90
2.6 2.8
15.8 22.8
10.4 9.2
5.6 5.4
4.1 40
3.0 29
2.3 23
1.8 18
1.5 15
1.4 1 4
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDF~?~. EXISTING ~RANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?~ ?.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc% 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHlqENT 2
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME= 1.44 AF
ACRES CN
3.92 71
.23 98
· 95 85
4.50 73
HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN
POND AREA (WET)
GRAVEL ROAD
~ethQ~
TR--55 SHEET FLOW
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=lS0'
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/'
s=.02 '/' n=.05 V=5.57 fps
CIRCUlAR CHANNEL
24" Diameter a=3.14 sq-ft Pw=6.3'
s=.01 '/' n=.013 V=7.2 fps L=80'
Copment
Segment ID:A--B
P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
Segment ID:B-C
a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1'
L=325' Capacity=128.2 cfs
Segment ID:C-D
Capacity=22.6 cfs
Total Length= 585 ft
Page 8
20 Aug 98
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS
Tc Cmin!
17.0
15
1,4
1,3
12
4
2
SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF
$OUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
Total Tc=
r=1.527'
1.0
18.2
AREA= 4.5 AC
Tc= ~B.2 MIN t
CN= 73
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 7 3 IN
PEAK= 15 3 CFS
~ ~2.21HRS
OLUME= 1 44 AF
I
I
I
TIME (hours)
mData for SOUTHOLD LANDFI?.?. EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
T~PE III 24-HOUR I~AINFATM 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.21 HOURS
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
0.00 .10
.4 .4
8 .9
7 7 12.6
26 2.3
1 5 1.4
1 1 1.1
8 .8
6 .6
.5 .5
.4 .4
.4
.20 .30 .40
.4 .5 .5
1.0 1.1 1.3
15.3 13.6 10.9
2.1 2.0 1.9
1.4 1.3 1.3
1.1 1.0 1.0
.7 .7 .7
.6 .6 .6
.5 .5 .4
.4 .4 .4
.50
6
1 4
8 4
1 8
1 3
1 0
7
.6
.4
.4
Page 9
20 Aug 98
.60 .70 .8o .9o
.6 .7 .7 .8
1.7 2.3 3.5 5.0
6.3 4.6 3.6 3.0
1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1
.9 .9 .9 .8
.7 .7 .7 .6
.5 .5 .5 .5
· 4 .4 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4 .4
EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 10 I
Data
for
SOUTHOLD
T~PE III 24-HOUR ~AZNF~TM 7.3 IN
I
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98
~ydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Svstems I
SUBCATCHMENT 3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 i
PEAK= 50.0 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= 4.34 AF
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD I
11.97 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR
.80 85 GRAVEL ROAD ~AINFALL= 7.3 IN dt=.l HRS I
· 80 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
13.57 73
Me%hod Comment Tcfmin]
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 10.6 ·
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=100' P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C , , 2.7
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq~ft Pw=lE.1 r=l~527 I ,
s=.02 '/' n=.05 v=5.57 fps L=900 Cap c ty=12 .
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL , , Segment ID:C-D
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 / a=23 sq-~t Pw=15.1 r=1.527
s=.07 '/' n=.05 V=10.43 fps L=520 Capacity=239.8
25
20
~0
Total Length= 1520 ft
SUBCRTCHMENT 3 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LRNDFILL - SL4
AREA= ~3.57 AC
To= 14 I MIN
CN= 73
5C5 TR-2B METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 7 3 IN
PEAK= 50.0 CFS
8 12.15 HRS
UOLUME= 4 34 AF
Total Tc= 14.1
TIME (hour~)
I
I
I
I
I
IData f~u SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TEANS. STATION DUP1
TTPE III 24-HOUR ~AiNF~?.?.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
jHydroCAD 4.00 000636 ~c% 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
Page 11
20 Aug 98
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
S~,I~CATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK= 50.0 CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
0.00 .],O .20 .30 ,40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4
2.6 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.1 4.7 5.8 8.5 12.8 18.5
29.7 47.8 47.7 36.8 28.3 21.1 14.9 11.0 9.1 8.0
7.1 6.5 6.0 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.6
4.4 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4
3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5
2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9
1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
1.1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TTPE III 24-HOUH RAINF~?~.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 fc~ 1986-1995 AoDlied Microcomputer Systems
Page 12 I
20 Aug 9~
SUBCATCHMENT 4
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
PEAK= 21.1 CFS @ 12.05 HRS, VOLUME= 1.58 AF
ACRES CN
.20 98
1.00 85
2.45 71
1.10 56
.20 98
4.95 73
BUILDING/PAVEMENT
GRAVEL ROAD
HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN
BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR
POND AREA (WET)
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
M~thod Comment
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=70 P2=3.3 in s=.15 '/'
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=lS.1' r=1.527'
s=.013 '/' n=.05 V=4.49 fps L=450' Capacity=103.3 cfs
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ZD:C-D
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=lS.l' r=1.527'
s=.25 ,/, n=.05 V=19.7 fps L=70' Capacity=453.2 cfs
Total Length=
dt =. 1 HRSi
Tc (miJ
4.7
~6
14
12
8
6
SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
4
AREA= 495 AC
Tm= 65 MIN
CN= 73
5C5 TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 7 3 IN
PEAK= 21.1 CF5
@ 12.05 HR5
UOLUME= ~ 58 AF
TIME (hour~)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m:Data
m
for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
T~PE IXX 24-HOURRAXNF~TM 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c) 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer Systems
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF PEAK= 21.1 CFS @ 12.05 HOURS
0.00 .%0 .20 .30
.5 .5 .6 .6
1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5
19.9 19.8 12.6 9.6
2.3 2.1 2.1 2.0
1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4
1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1
· 8 .8 .8 .8
.7 .6 .6 .6
.5 .5 .5 .5
.5 .5 .4 .4
.4
· 40 .50
7 .7
17 2.0
71 4.8
19 1.9
14 1.3
1 0 1.0
7 .7
6 .6
· 5 .5
.4 .4
.60
.8
3.0
3.5
1.8
1.3
1.0
.7
.6
.5
.4
.70
.8
4 8
3 1
1 7
1 3
9
7
.6
.5
.4
Page 13
20 Aug 9E
.80 .90
.9 1.0
6.9 9.9
2.8 2.5
1.6 1.6
1.2 1.2
.9 .9
.7 .7
.5 .5
.5 .5
.4 .4
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~TM 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer
Svstems
SUBCATCHMENT 5
SOUTHOLD I~LNDFIT'T' - SL5
PEAK= 10.3 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= .90 AF
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD
.30 98 EXISTING BUILDING/PAVEMENT TYPE III 24-HOUR
.60 85 GRAVEL RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
2.60 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
3.50 65
Method Comment
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=140' P2=3.3 in s=.05 '/'
RECT/VEE/TP4tP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C
W=4' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=ll sq-ft Pw=9.1' r=1.214'
s=.02 ,/, n=.05 V=4.78 fps L=lT0' Capacity=52.6 cfs
RECT/VEE/T~AP CHANNEL Segment ID:C-D
W=4, D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=ll sq-ft Pw=9.1' r=1.214'
s=.03 '/' n=.05 V=5.86 fps L=70' Capacity=64.4 cfs
Total Length= 380 ft
Total Tc=
101
SUBC~TCHMENT 5 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5
AREA= 3.5 AC
To= 13.5 MIN
CN= 65
5CS TR-Z0 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 7 3 IN
PEAK= 10.3 CFS
@ 12.15 HRS
TIME
Page 14 I
20 Aug 96
Tc f minl-
12.7
.6
.2
13.5
Data for $OUTHOLD L~.~DFILL EXISTING TRA~S. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24--HOURR~INF~TM 7.3 IN
prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
~HvdroCAD 4,00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Svstems
SUBCATCHMENT
5 RUNOFF PEAK= 10.3 CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
Page 15
20 Aug 98
m
m
m
m
0.00 ,10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 ,80 .90
.1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .3 .3
.4 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 1.0 1.5 2.3 3.5
5.9 9.9 9.8 7.6 5.9 4.4 3.1 2.3 2.0 1.7
1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0
1.0 .9 .9 .9 .9 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8
.7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6
.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
.3
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 16 I
20 Aug 98
I
REACH i
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH i
Qin = 10.3 CFS @ 12.15 HAS, VOLUME=
Qout= 9.8 CFS @ 12.22 HAS, VOLUME=
.90 AF
.89 AF,
DEPTH END AREA DISCH
(FT~ (S0-FT) fCFS)
0.0 0.0 0.0
.2 .2 .3
.4 .4 1.4
.6 .8 3.1
1.4 2.3 13.4
1.6 2.7 15.6
1.8 3.0 17.0
1.9 3.1 17.2
1.9 3.1 17.0
2.0 3.1 16.0
24" PIPE
n= .013
LENGTH= 620 FT
SLOPE= .005 FT/FT
20
8
6
4
~- 0
n
4
0~
REACH 1 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1
ATTEN= 5%, LAG= 4.4 MIN
STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD
PEAK DEPTH= 1.15 FT
PEAK VELOCITY= 5.5 FPS
TRAVEL TIME =
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
24" PIPE
013 L=620' S= 005
I
I
1.9 MIN
dt=. 1 HRS
I
DISCHARGE
I
I
I
I
I
I
lata Eot SOUTHOT~D L~klIDFIL~ EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP~
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= ?.3 IN
prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
ydroCAD 4.00 000636 fcl 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Svstems
REACH 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
24" PIPE
n= 813 L=620' S= 885
5TOR-IND+TRANS METHOD
UELOCITY= 5 5 FPS
TRAUEL= 1 9 MIN
Oin= 18 3 CFS
Qout= 9.8 CF5
LAG= 4 4 MIN
TIME
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
REACH 1 INFLOW PEAK= 10.3
CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
Page 17
20 Aug 98
REACH 1 OUTFLOW PEAK= 9.8 CFS @ 12.22 HOURS
0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 ,60 .70 .80 .90
0.0 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .3 .~
.3 .4 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 1.1 1.8 2.7
4.5 7.6 9.7 8.8 6.9 5.3 3.9 2.8 2.2 1.9
1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1
1.0 1.0 .9 .9 .9 .9 .8 .8 .8 .8
.8 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .6 .6 .6 .6
.6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4
.4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
.3
Q,QQ .lO .20 .30 .40 .50 ,~Q .70 .~0 .90
.1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3
.4 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 1.0 1.5 2.3 3.5
5.9 9.9 9.8 7.6 5.9 4.4 3.1 2.3 2.0 1.7
1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0
1.0 .9 .9 .9 .9 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8
.7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6
.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
.3
Data for SOUTHOv.n LANDFILL EXISTING TI~,N5. STATION DUP1
T~PE III 24--HOUR RAINFALL= ?.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 fc~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Svstems
POND
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1
Qin = 69.6 CFS @ 12.14 HRS, VOLUME= 6.01 AF
Qout= .1CFS @ 10.50 HRS, VOLUME= .07 AF,
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
fFT~ CACI fAFI (AFl
26.0 .16 0.00 0.00
42.0 .63 6.32 6.32
ROUTE INVERT
P 26.0'
ATTEN=100%, LAG=
STOR-INDMETHOD
PEAK STORAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILTRATION
Q= .09 CFS at and above 26.2'
FEET
26.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
40.0
42.0
PQND 1 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFSI vs ELEVATION
.4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2
0.0 .2
0.00 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09
POND 1 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
41
39
38
37
34
33
32
30
2g
27 EXFI LTR~_T.I ONl
DISCHARGE
Page 18 I
20 Aug 98
I
0.0 MIN
I
5.94 AF
41.0 FT I
42.0 FT
26.0 FT
dt=.l HRS
!
I
1.4 1.6 1.81
.09 .09 .0~
-!
.09 .09 .09
.09 .09 09
.09 ;09 .09
.09 .09 .o9I
.09 .09 .09I
.09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09
!
!
!
!
!
!
I
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTINO TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~TM 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
I HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer Systems
POND 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~1
70
60
55
50
40
35
30
25
20
15~_, ,~
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK 5TOR= 5 94 AF
PEAK ELEU= 41 FT
Oin= 69 6 CFS
Oout= 1 CPS
LAG= 0 MIN
TIME (hour~)
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19,00
20.00
pOND 1 INFLOW PEAK= 69.6 CPS 8 12.14 HOURS
Page 19
20 Aug 98
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
Q,QQ ,lO .20 .30 ,40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90
1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.1
3.4 3.7 4.1 4.7 5.4 6.2 7.8 11.6 17.6 25.5
42.3 67.2 64.9 50.4 38.7 28.7 20.2 15.1 12.6 11.1
10.0 9.0 8.4 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.2 7.0 6.7 6.4
6.2 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.8
4.7 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.5
3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7
2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1
2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6
1.6
POND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= .1 CFS 8 10.50 HOURS
.10 .20 .30
0.0 0.0 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.40
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
.1
.1
,50 .60 .70
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
0.O0
0.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.80 .90
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFI~.~. EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFATM 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c) 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer
Systems
Page 20 I
20 Aug 98
POND 2
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2
Qin = 15.3 CFS @ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME= 1.44 AF
Qout= 0.0 CFS @ 10.60 HRS, VOLUME= .02 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG=
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
(FTI CAC) (AFl (AFl
40.0 .12 0.00 0.00
48.0 .34 1.84 1.84
ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES
P 40.0' EXFILTRATION
Q= .02 CFS at and above
0.0 MIN
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 ERS,
I
I
1.42 AF
46.2 FT I
48.0 FT
40.0 FT
40.1'
dt=. 1 HRS
!
I
FEET
40.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
45.0
46.0
47.0
48.0
POND 2 TOTAL DISCHARGE
0,0 .1 .2 .3
0.00 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02
.02
¢CFSI vs ELEVATION ·
,4 .5 ,6 .7 .8 .9
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .0z
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 ~1
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 ·
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02I
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02·
.O2 .02 .O2 .O2 .O2 .02--
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
!
POND 2 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~2
I
47 0'
46.5
45°
445
43
41 ~5
4~ 5
4~ ~
EXFI LTRA.,T.I ON~,
DISCHARGE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tara for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING T~U~NS. STATION DUP1
T~PE III 2&-HOUR RAINF~TM 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i HydroCAD 4.00 000636 {c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
POND 2 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND %2
1,3:
11
1
$TOR-IND METHOD
PEAK 5TOR= 1 42 AF
PEAK ELEU= 46 2 FT
Oin= 15 3 CFS
Oout: 0.0 CFS
LRGz 0 MIN
TIME (hour~)
HOUR
10.00
11 O0
12 00
13 O0
14 O0
15 O0
16 O0
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND 2 INFLOW PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.21 HOURS
Page 21
20 Aug 98
PQ~D 2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0.0 CFS @ 10.60 HOURS
0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.u
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0Q ,10 .20 .30 .40 .50 ,6Q .70 .80 .90
.4 .4 .4 .5 .5 .6 .6 .7 .7
.8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.7 2.3 3.5 5.0
7.7 12.6 15.3 13.6 10.9 8.4 6.3 4.6 3.6 3.0
2.6 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5
1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1
1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 .9 .9 .9 .8
.8 .8 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .6
.6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5
.5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
.4
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TNANS.
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~TM 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
Hyd¥oCAD 4.00 000636 (c%
POND 3
Qin = 50.0 CFS
Qout= .1 CFS
STATION DUP1
1986-1995 Aoplied Microcomputer Systems
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4
@ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= 4.34 AF
@ 10.50 HAS, VOLUME= .11 AF,
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOA
(FT~ (AC~ CAF~ (AF~
12.0 .39 0.00 0.00
20.0 .85 4.96 4.96
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILTRATION
Q= .14 CFS at and above
ROUTE INVERT
P 12.0'
Page 22 I
20 Aug 98
ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0.0 MIN
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE = 4.23 AF
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS
18.8 FT
20.0 FTI
12.0 FT
12.1'
FEET
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
POND 3 TOTAL DISCHARGE
0,0 .1 -2 .9
0.00 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14
.14
(CFS) vs ELEVATION
.4 .5 .6
.14 14 .14
.14 14 .14
.14 14 .14
.14 14 .14
.14 14 .14
.14 14 .14
.14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14
.7
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14 .14
14 .14
14
14
.14 14~
20.0
~95
190
13.0'
POND 3 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~4
....... _E_X._F_ILT-R-~-T~-0-N
DISCHARGE
I
I
I
I
I
mData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24--HOUR RAINF~T,T~ 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
IHydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
50
40
35
0
,~ 25
~ 20
POND 3 [NFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ¢4
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 4 23 AF
PEAK ELEU= 18 8 FT
Oin: 50 0 CFS
Oout: 1 CFS
L~G= 0 MIN
TIME
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND 3 INFLOW PEAK= 50.0 CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
Page 23
20 Aug 98
0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 ,80 .90
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4
2.6 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.1 4.7 5.8 8.5 12.8 18.5
29.7 47.8 47.7 36.8 28.3 21.1 14.9 11.0 9.1 8.0
7.1 6.5 6.0 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.6
4.4 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4
3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5
2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9
1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
1.1
POND 3 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= .1 CFS @ 10.50 HOURS
.10 ,20
0.0 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1
.3O .40
ol
ol
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
ol
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
· SQ ,60 .7Q
.1 .1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.80 .90
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
0.00
0.0
.1
.1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDF~T~. EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAZNF~T.?.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
~ydroCAD 4.00 000636 (¢% 1986-1995 ADDlied Microcomputer Systems
Page 24 I
20 Aug 98
POND 4
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3
Qin = 21.1 CFS @ 12.05 HAS, VOLUME= 1.58 AF
Qout= 0.0 CFS @ 10.50 HAS, VOLUME= .01 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG=
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOA
(FT~ (AC~ ~AF% (AF%
30.0 .09 0.00 0.00
40.0 .37 2.30 2.30
~ RQUTE INVERT
1 P 30.0'
0.0 MIN
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFXLT~ATXON
Q= .01 CFS at and above 30.1'
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAR STOKAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HAS,
1.58 AF
36.8 FT I
40.0 FT
30.0 FT
dt=.l HAS
I
FEET
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0
36.0
37.0
38.0
39.0
40.0
0.0
0.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
POND 4 TOTAL DISCHARGE fCFS~ vs ELEVATION ~
,1 .2 .7 .4 .5 ,6 .7 .8 .9
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01!
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01W
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01_~
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 ~11~
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 ~
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 ·
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
,~0
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
POND 4 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ¢3
I
I
I
I
I
I
Oata for $OUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1
TYPE II! 24-HOUR IqAINFB?.?~ 7.3 IN
prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
mHvdroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
POND 4 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~3
20
~8
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK 5TOR= 1.58 AF
PEAK ELEU= 36 8 FT
Bin= 21 ~ CFS
Oout= 0 0 CFS
LAG= 0 MIN
TIME
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND 4 INFLOW PEAK= 21.1 CFS @ 12.05 HOURS
0.OO .~0 .20 .30 .40 .50 ,60
.5 .5 .6 .6 .7 .7 .8
1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 3.0
19.9 19.8 12.6 9.6 7.1 4.8 3.5
2.3 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8
1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3
1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
.8 .8 .8 .8 .7 .7 .7
.7 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6
.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
.5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
.4
.7O
.8
4.8
3 1
1 7
1 3
9
7
6
.5
.4
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND 4 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0.0 CFS ~
0,90 ,~0 .gO
0.0 0o0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0o0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
.30
0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.50 HOURS
Page 25
20 Aug 98
.80 .90
.9 1.0
6.9 9.9
2.8 2.5
1.6 1.6
1.2 1.2
.9 .9
.7 .7
.5 .5
.5 .5
.4 .4
· 40 .50 ,60 ,70 .~0 .90
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFI?,?. PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 1
TXPE III 24--HOUR RAINF~TM 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98
iHvdroCAD 4.00 000636 (c% 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
WATERSHED ROUTING ................................................ === ..........
!
SUBCATCHMENT 1
SUBCATCHMENT 2
SUBCATCHMENT 3
SUBCATC~4ENT 4
SUBCATCHMENT 5
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5
POND 1
POND 2
POND 3
POND 4
REACH 1
REACH 1
POND 1
POND 2
POND 3
POND 4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND %1
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND %2
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND %3
POND 1
Da~a for SOUTHOLD LANDFIT.T- PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFAZ,.I,= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 2 I
20 Aug 98
RUNOFF BY SCS TR--20 METHOD: TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFPTM 6.0 IN, SCS U.H. ·
RUNOFF SPAN = 10-20 HRS, dr= .10 HRS, 101 POINTS
SUBCAT AREA Tc WGT'D PEAK Tpeak VOL,
NUMBER ~ACRE~ (MINI --GROUND COVERS ~%CN~-- CN C ~CFS~ (HRS~ ~AFI
1 15.44 12.9 90%71 7%85 3%98 - 73 - 43.3 12.14 3.661
2 4.50 18.2 87%71 5%98 8%85 - 73 - 11.3 12.21 1.06--
3 14.10 14.1 90%71 6%85 5%98 - 73 - 37.5 12.15 3.34'I
4 5.21 6.5 30%98 8%85 47%71 11%56 80 - 20.0 12.05 1.49
4%98 - - - !
5 4.10 13.5 37%98 63%56 - - 71 - 10.6 12.15 .91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DU~
TYPE III 24--HOUR RAINF~TM 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
w HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Svstems
I REACH BOTTOM
NO. DIAM WIDTH DEPTH
(IN% eFT% ~FT]
1 24.0 - -
REACH ROUTINO BY STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD
Page 3
20 Aug 98
- - .013 620 .0050 5.5 1.9 10.0
SIDE PEAK TRAVEL PEAK
SLOPES n LENGTH SLOPE VEL. TIME Qout
[FT/FT% (FT~ CFT./FT~ fFPS~ (MIN~ fCFS)
Data for SOUTNOLD L,%NDFXLL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUPZ
TTPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.T.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c% 1986-1995 AoDlied Microcomputer Systems
POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND M~THOD
POND START FLOOD PEAK PEAK PEA/{ FLOW
NO. ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. STORAGE Qin Qout Qpri Qsec ATTEN.
(FT) (FT~ CFT~ CAF~ ~CFS~ ~CFS~ ¢CFS~ ~CFS~ ~%~
1 26.0 42,0 37.4 4.49 52.2 .1 100
2 40.0 48.0 44.6 1.05 11.3 0.0 100
3 12.0 20.0 17.2 3.22 37.5 .1 100
4 30.0 40.0 36.4 1.48 20.0 0.0 100
Page 4 I
20 Aug 98
Qout--- I
LAG
CMIN~ I
0.0
0.0 I
0.0
0.0 I
Oata for SOUTHOLD LANDFIT.T. PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE IX! 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
000636 (c~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
ydroCAD 4.00
LINK
INO. NAME
SOURCE
i'age 5
20 Aug 98
Qout
¢CFS)
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRAi~S. STATION DUP2
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAINF~TM 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c) 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT i SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - EL1
PEAK= 43.3 CFS @ 12.14 HRS, VOLUME= 3.66 AF
~ CN SCS TR-20 METHOD
13.97 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR KCN TYPE III 24-HOUR
1.07 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
.40 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
15.44 73
Method
TR-55 SHEET FLOW
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=80
~CT/VEE/TR~ ~m~HEL
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/'
s=.02 ,/, n=.05 V=5.57 fps
RECT/V~E/TRAP CHAPEL
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/'
S=.01 ,/, n=.05 V=3.94 fps
CIRCULAR CHANNEL
24" Diameter a=3.14 sq-ft Pw=6.3' r=.5'
s=.01 ,/, n=.013 V=7.2 fps L=80' Capacity=22.6 cfs
Total Length= 1270 ft
Comment
Segment A-E
P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
Segment B-C
a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
L=760, Capacity=128.2 cfs
Segment C-D
a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
L=350, Capacity=90.6 cfs
Segment D-E
Total Tc=
SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
40
35
30
25
20
~5
AREA= 15 44 AC
To= 12.9 MIN
CN: 73
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
uoRAINFALL= 6.0 IN
PEAK= 43 3 CFS
~ 1214 HR5
LUME= 3.66 AF
TIME (hour~)
Page 6
I
20 Aug 98I
·
I
I
Tc fmin~
8.9 I
2.3
I
I!
12.9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE IX! 24-HOUR RAINFAT.T,= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i HydroCAD 4.00 000636 {c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 43.3 CFS @ 12.14 HOURS
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
0.00 .10
.7 .8
1.9 2.1
26.3 42.2
6.1 5.5
3.8 3.6
2.9 2.8
2.1 2.0
1.6 1.6
1.3 1.2
1.1 1.1
1.0
.9
2.4
39.5
5 2
3 5
2 7
1 9
1 6
1 2
1 1
.3O
1.0
2.7
29.9
4.9
3.4
2.6
1.9
1.5
1.2
1.1
.40
1 1
3 2
23 0
4 8
3 4
2 6
1 9
1 5
1.2
1.1
.50
1.2
3.6
17.0
4.6
3.3
2.5
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.1
.60 .70
1.3 15
4.6 70
11.9 9 0
4.4 43
3.2 31
2.4 23
1.8 1.7
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.1 1.0
Page 7
20 Aug 9E
.80 .90
1.6 1.7
10.7 15.6
7.6 6.8
4.1 4.0
3.0 3.0
2.2 2.2
1.7 1.7
1.3 1.3
1.1 1.1
1.0 1.0
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFIT.T. PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 8 ·
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer Svstems
SUBCATCHMENT 2 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
PEAK= 11.3 CFS @ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME= 1.06 AF ·
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD ·
3.92 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR
.23 98 POND AREA (WET) RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
.35 85 GRAVEL ROAD SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS ·
4.50 73
Method Cor~r~en~ Tc Cminl
TR--55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 17.0 ·
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=lS0' P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C 1.0
W=10' ,/D=2'. SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527' ··
s=.02 n=.05 V=5.57 fps L=325' Capacity=128.2 cfs
CIRCULAR CHANNEL Segment ID:C-D .2
24" Diameter a=3.14 sq-ft Pw=6.3' r=.5'
s=.01 '/' n=.013 V=7.2 fps L=80' Capacity=22.6 cfs
Total Length= 585 ft Total Tc= 18.2
11
18
9
8
7
6
5
SUBCRTCHMENT 2 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
ARER= 4 5 AC
To= 18.2 MIN
CN= 73
SCS TR-20 METHOD
.TYPE III 24-HOUR
RRINFRLL= 6 0 IN
PERK= 11 3 CF5
8 1221 HRS
UOLUME= 1 06 AF
TIME (hourm)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~ata lot SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
ydroCAD 4.00 000636 fc~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer
SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF PEAK= 11.3
HOUR
10 00
11 O0
12 O0
13 O0
14 00
15 00
16 00
17 00
18.00
19.00
20.00
0,00
.2
.5
5.5
2.0
1.1
.9
.6
.5
.4
.3
.3
.10 .20
,2 .2
6 .6
9 1 11.2
18 1.6
1 1 1.1
8 .8
6 .6
5 .5
.4 .4
.3 .3
Systems
CFS @ 12.21 HOURS
Page 9
20 Aug 98
!
!
.30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90
.3 .3 .3 .4 .4 .4 .5
.7 .8 1.0 1.1 1.6 2.4 3.5
10.1 8.1 6.4 4.7 3.5 2.7 2.3
1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .9 .9 .9
.8 .8 .7 .7 .7 .7 .6
.6 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
.5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
.4 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE ZZ! 24-HOUR RAINFAT.T.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
Hyd~oCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 Apolied MicrocomPuter
Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 3
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
PEAK= 37.5 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLtTME= 3.34 AF
ACRES CN
12.63 71
· 80 85
· 67 98
14.10 73
HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN
GRAVEL ROAD
POND AREA (WET)
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
Method
TR-55 SHEET FLOW
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=100'
~¢T/WE/T~
W=10' 'D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/'
s=.02 '/' n=.05 V=5.57 fps
RECT/VEE/TRAP
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2
s=.07 '/' n=.05
Comment
Segment ID:A-B
P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
Segment ID:B-C
a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
L=900' Capacity=128.2 cfs
Segment ID:C-D
a=23 sq-ft Pw=lS.l' r=1.527'
V=10.43 fps L=520' Capacity=239.8 cfs
Total Length= 1520 ft Total Tc=
SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
36
34
32
20
AREA= 14 1 AC
To= 141 MIN
CN= 73
SCS TR-2B METHOD
..TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 60 IN
PEAK= 37 5 CFS
~ 12,15 MRS
VOLUME= 3 34 AF
TIME (hourm)
Page 10 I
20 Aug 98
I
I
dt=. 1 HRS I
T¢ fmin~,
10.6 I
2.7
14.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~ata for SOUTHOLD LAND~ILL PROP.TR,M~'S. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR I~.AINFATM 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
ydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK= 37.5
Systems
CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
Page 11
20 Aug 98
0.00 .~0 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90
.7 .7 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6
1.7 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.8 3.2 4.0 6.0 9.2 13.4
22.1 36.2 36.6 28.5 22.1 16.6 11.7 8.7 7.2 6.4
5.7 5.1 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.6
3.5 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7
2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0
1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5
1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2
1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0
1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .9 .9
.9
Data for SO%FEHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 12 I
T~PE ZII 24--HO~ ~AINFA~-T.= 6.0 ZN ·
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 4 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 ·
PEAK= 20.0 CFS @ 12.05 HRS, VOLUME= 1.49 AF '
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD ·
1.55 98 BuILDING/PAVEMENT TYPE III 24-HOUR ·
.40 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
2.45 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS ·
.58 56 BRUS /W ED/Gm SS (GROUP B) FAiR ·
· 29 98 POND AREA (WET) --
5.21 80 _
Method CO~t Tc (mini
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-~ , 4.7
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=70' P2=3.3 in s=.15 / ·
RECT/VEE/T~AP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C , 1.7 ·
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.l' r=1.527
s=.013 '/' n=.05 V=4.49 fps L=450' Capacity=103.3 cfs ·
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:C-D , .1 ·
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527
s=.25 '/' n=.05 V=19.7 fps L=70' Capacity=453.2 cfs . _
Total Length= 590 ft Total Tc= 6.5 ·
SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF I
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - $L3 i
~ !¢~ ~ 5CS TR-2B METHOD --
3 i~[ f/ TYPE III 24-HOUR
I
TIME (Hour~)
I
I
I
I
HOUR
10.00
~ata for SO%~HOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. ~ATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~T.?.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
mHvdroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c% 1986-1995 ADDlied Microcomputer Svstems
SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF PEAK= 20.0 CFS 8 12.05 HOURS
0.00 .lQ .20 .30 .40 .50 .60
11.00
12 00
13 00
14 O0
15 O0
16 00
17 00
I 18.00
19.00
20.00
Page 13
20 Aug 98
,70 .80 .90
.5 .6 .6 .7 .7 .8 .8 .9 1.0 1.0
1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 3.1 4.8 6.8 9.6
18.9 18.6 11.7 8.8 6.6 4.4 3.2 2.8 2.6 2.3
2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4
1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1
1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 .9 .9 .9 .8 .8 .8
.7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .6 .6 .6 .6
.6 .6 .6 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
.5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
.4
Da~a for SOUTHOLD LANDFIT.T~ PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~T~= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 fcl 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 5
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -- SL5
PEAK= 10.6 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= .91 AF
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD
1.50 98 BUILDING/PAVEMENT TYPE III 24-HOUR
~,60 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
4.10 71 SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
M~thQ~ comment
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=140' P2=3.3 in s=.05 '/'
RKCT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C
W=4' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=ll sq-ft Pw=9.1' r=1.214'
s=.02 '/' n=.05 V=4.78 fps L=lT0' Capacity=52.6 cfs
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:C-D
W=4' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=ll sq-ft Pw=9.1' r=1.214'
s=.03 '/' n=.05 V=5.86 fps L=70' Capacity=64.4 cfs
Total Length= 380 ft Total Tc=
SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF
$OUTHOLD LANDFILL - $L5
9
8
7
$
AREA: 4.1 AC
To: 135 MIN
CN: 71
SCS TR-28 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
54 / RAINFALL= 6 8 IN
3 \ PEAK= 10.6 CFS
~ @ 12.15 HRS
uoLu =,_ , , , ,
TIME (hour~)
Page 14 I
20 Aug 98
dt=. 1 HRS I
Tc fmin%
12.7
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DU~2
TYPE III 24-HOUR ~AINF~TM 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c% 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
I HOUR
10.00
I 11.00
12.00
13.00
i14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
I 18.00
19.00
20.00
!
Page 15
20 Aug 98
SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF PEAK= 10.6 CFS
0.00
.1
.4
1 6
1 0
7
5
4
3
3
3
.10
.2
.5
10.1
1.4
.9
.7
.5
.4
.3
.3
.20
.2 .2
5 .6
99 7.7
13 1.3
9 .9
7 .7
5 .5
4 .4
3 .3
.3 .3
.2
.7
6.0
1.2
.9
.4O
3
8
4 4
1
.7
.5
.4
.3
.3
@ 12.15 HOURS
.60 .?o
.8O
.3
1.1
3.1
2 1.1
8 8
6 6
5 5
4 4
.3 3
.3 3
.3
1.6
2.3
1.1
.8
.6
.4
.4
.3
.3
.3
2.5
2.0
1.1
.8
.6
.4
.3
.3
.3
.90
.4
3.7
1.7
1.0
8
6
4
3
3
3
m
m
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.T.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c% 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
REACH 1
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH I
Page 16 I
20 Aug 98
Qin = 10.6 CFS @ 12.15 HAS, VOLUME= .91 AF
Qout= 10.0 CFS @ 12.22 HRS, VOLUME= .91 AF, ATTEN= 5%, LAG= 4.4 MIN
24" PIPE
n= .013
LENGTH= 620 FT
SLOPE= .005 FT/FT
STOR-IND+TRAN$ METHOD
PEAK DEPTH= 1.16 FT
PEAK VELOCITY= 5.5 FPS
TRAVEL TIME = 1.9 MIN
SPAN= 10-20 HAS, dt=.l HRS
~.0
1 4
n
4
REACH I DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH
-~ 24" PIPE
/ n: 013 L=620 S: 005
DISCHARGE
DEPTH END AREA DISCH
(FT~ (SO-FT% ¢CFS%
0.0 0.0 0.0
.2 .2 .3
.4 .4 1.4
.6 .8 3.1
1.4 2.3 13.4
1.6 2.7 15.6
1.8 3.0 17.0
1.9 3.1 17.2
1.9 3.1 17.0
2.0 3.1 16.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
!
I
i
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINPAT,T.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
REACH 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
I SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
!
,I
I
I
I
i
~age 17
20 Aug 98
10
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
24" PIPE
013 L=620' 5= 005
STOR-INO+TRAN5 METHOD
VELOCITY= 5.5 FPS
TRAVEL= 1 g MIN
Qin= 10.6 CF5
Oout= 10 0 CF5
LAG= 4.4 MIN
TIME (hour~)
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
REACH 1 INFLOW PEAK= 10.6 CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
0.00 .10 ,20 .30 .40 .50 .~Q .70 ,~O .90
.1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .4
.4 .5 .5 .6 .7 .8 1.1 1.6 2.5 3.7
6.2 10.1 9.9 7.7 6.0 4.4 3.1 2.3 2.0 1.7
1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0
1.0 .9 .9 .9 .9 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8
.7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6
.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
.3
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
REACH 1 OUTFLOW PEAK= 10.0 CFS @ 12.22 HOURS
O.0O .~0 .20
.1 .1 .1
.4 .4 .5
4.7 7.9 9.9
1.7 1.5 1.4
1.0 1.0 .9
.8 .7 .7
.5 .5 .5
.4 .4 .4
.3 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3
.3
.30 .40
.2 .2
.6 6
9.0 70
1.3 13
.9 9
.7 7
.5 5
.4 4
.3 .3
.3 .3
.50 .60 .70 .80 .90
.2 .3 .3 .3 .4
.7 .9 1.2 1.9 2.9
5.3 3.9 2.9 2.2 1.9
1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0
.9 .8 .8 .8 .8
.7 .6 .6 .6 .6
.5 .5 .5 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4 .4 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3 .3
.3 .3 .3 .3 .3
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.T~zNS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24--HOUR RAZNF~TM 6.0 ZN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 18 !
20 Aug 98
POND i SOUTHOLD LANDFIT.T. -- POND #1 ~
Qin = 52.2 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= 4.57 AF
Qout= .1 CFS @ 10.80 HRS, VOLUME= .07 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0.0 MIN
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR STOR-IND METHOD ~
(~T) fAC~ CAF~ ~AF~ PEAK STORAGE = 4.49 AF
26.0 .16 0.00 0.00 PEAR ELEVATION= 37.4 FTI
42.0 .63 6.32 6.32 FLOOD ELEVATION= 42.0 FT
START ELEVATION= 26.0 FT
ROUTE INVERT
P 26.0'
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILTRATION
Q= .09 CFS at and above 26.2'
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS
!
FEET
26.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
40.0
42.0
POND
1 TOTAL DISCHARGE
(CFS~ v$ ELEVATION
Q,0 .~ .4 .6 ,8 %,Q 1.2
0.00 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
.09
1.4 1.6 1.J
.09 .09 .09
.09 .0,
.09 .09
.09 .09 .09
.0, .09
.09 .09
.09 .09 0
.09 .09 .0§I
POND I DISCHRRGE
SOUTHOLD LDNDFILL - POND
42I
41
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
27 EXF I LTR~T I...ONI
OISCHC~RGE
i
I
I
I
i
I
I Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
~HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c) 1986-1995 Applied ~icrocomDuter
POND 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~1
I
i
i
i
I
I
58
,45
35
25
20
15
~0
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 4 49 AF
PEAK ELEU= 37.4 FT
Oin= 52.2 £FS
Oout= 1 CFS
LRG= 0 MIN
TIME (¼our~)
Systems
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14 00
15 00
16 00
17 00
18 00
19 00
20 00
POND 1 INFLOW PEAK= 52.2 CFS ~ 12.15 HOURS
0.00
.8
2.3
31.0
7.8
4.8
3.6
2.6
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.3
.10
.9
2.5
50 1
7 0
4 6
3 5
2 5
2 0
1 6
1 4
,~0 .30 .40 ,$O
1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4
2.9 3.3 3.8 4.4
49.4 38.9 30.0 22.4
6.6 6.3 6.0 5.8
4.5 4.3 4.2 4.1
3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1
2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3
2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3
.60
1.6
5.5
15.8
5 6
4 0
3 0
2 2
1 8
1 5
1.3
.70
1.7
8.2
11.8
5.4
3.9
2.9
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.3
I
I
I
I
I
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= .1 CFS ~ 10.80 HOURS
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
.10
0.0
.1
.1
.1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
.1 .1
.1
· ZQ .~Q
0.0 0.0
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
.1 .1
.1 ol
.1 ol
.4o
0 0
1
1
1
1
1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.50 .60 .70
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 1 .1
i 1 .1
1 1 .1
1 1 .1
1 1 .1
1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
Page 19
20 Aug 98
.80 .90
1.9 2.1
12.6 18.5
9.8 8.7
5.2 50
3.8 37
2.8 27
2.2 21
1.7 17
1.4 14
1.3 13
.80 .90
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDpTT:T~ PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~.,= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer Systems
Page 20
20 Aug 9
POND 2
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2
Qin = 11.3 CFS @ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME= 1.06 AF
Qout= 0.0 CFS @ 10.90 HRS, VOLUME= .02 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0.0 MIN
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
eFT% (AC% fAF% (AFl
40.0 .12 0.00 0.00
48.0 .34 1.84 1.84
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE = 1.05 A2
PEAK ELEVATION= 44.6 F~
FLOOD ELEVATION= 48.0 F]
START ELEVATION= 40.0 Fl
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HR~
ROUTE INVERT
P 40.0'
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILTRATION
Q= .02 CFS at and above
40.1'
FEET
40.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
45.0
46.0
47.0
48.0
POND 2 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS] vs ELEVATION
0.0 .1 ,2 .3 ,4 .5 .6 ,7 .8
0.00 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02
.02
48. E]
475
47 0
46.5
'~ 46.8
45.5
45.0
z 445
o 44.0
~ 43.5
:'-~430}'
~ 42.5[
~ 42. O~-
-J
L~ 41
40 5~
40.0~
m
PDND 2 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
EXFILTRATIONI
DISCHARGE
~ata ~or SOU~HOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE II!~A-24 HOUR RAINF~T.T.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
r ydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
I
I
I
i
I
I
POND 2 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~2
6
5
4
3
2
I.STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 1 B5 AF
PEAK ELEU= 44 6 FT
Qin= 11 3 CFS
TIME
POND 2 INFLOW PEAK= 11.3 CFS @ 12.21 HOURS
I
I
I
I
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
0.00
.2
.5
5.5
2.0
1.1
.9
.6
.5
.4
.3
.3
.10
.2
.6
9.1
1.8
1.1
.8
.6
.5
.4
.3
.20
.2
6
11 2
1 6
1 1
8
6
5
4
.3
.3
.7
10.1
1.5
1.0
.8
.6
.5
.4
.3
,40 .50
3 .3
8 1.0
8 1 6.4
14 14
10 10
8 7
6 5
4 4
.3 3
.3 3
.6O
.4
1.1
4.7
1.3
1.0
.7
.5
.4
.3
.3
.70
.4
1.6
3.5
1.3
.9
.7
.5
.4
.3
.3
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND 2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0.0 CFS @
0.00 .10 .20
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
· '~0 .50
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
10.90 HOURS
.~Q
0.0 0 0
0,0 0 0
0,0 0 0
0.0 0 0
0.0 0 0
0.0 00
0.0 0 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
Page 21
20 Aug 98
.80 .90
.4 .5
2.4 3.5
27 2.3
1 2 1.2
9 .9
7 .6
5 .5
4 .4
3 .3
3 .3
,~Q .~Q
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
Data for SOUTHO~.n LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~T~.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 22 I
20 Aug 98
POND 3
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4
Qin = 37.5 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= 3.34 AF
Qout= .1CFS @ 10.80 HRS, VOLUME= .11 AF,
ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0.0 MIN
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
(PT) (~C~ (AFl (AFl
12.0 .39 0.00 0.00
20.0 .85 4.96 4.96
STOR-INDMETHOD
PEAK STORAGE = 3.22 AF
PEAK ELEVATION= 17.2 FT
FLOOD ELEVATION= 20.0 FT
START ELEVATION= 12.0 FT
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS
ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES
P 12.0' EXFILTRATION
Q= .14 CFS at and above 12.1'
FEET
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
POND 3 TOTAL DISCHARGE
(CFS~ vs ELEVATION
0.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .~ .7 ,$
0.00 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14
.14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14
.14
!
.14I
.14
'14I
.14
.14
'14i
Z0.0
19.5
19.0
18.5
18.0
175
17.0
16.5
16.8
~5
13.0
125.
POND 3 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~4
EXF I LTRA.T..! O~
DISCHARGE
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
IData for SO~THOLD LANDFILL PROP.TR~-NS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 ADDlied Microcomputer
POND 3 INFLO~ & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND %4
36
~t ~ STOR-IND METHOD
~I ~ PEAK STOR= 3 22 AF
28F I~ PEAK ELEU= 17 2 FT
Bin= 375 CFS
TIME (hours)
Systems
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
14 00
15 00
16 00
17 00
18 00
19 00
I20 O0
POND 3 INFLOW PEAK= 37.5 CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
0.00
.7
1.7
22.1
5.7
3.5
2.7
1.9
1.5
1.2
1.0
.9
.10
.7
1.9
36.2
5 1
3 4
2 6
1 8
1 5
1 1
1 0
.20 .30 .40 .50
.8 .9 1.0 1.1
2.1 2.4 2.8 3.2
36.6 28.5 22.1 16.6
4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2
3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0
2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3
1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3
1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
.60
1.2
4 0
11 7
4 1
2 9
2 2
1 6
1.3
1.1
1.0
.70
1.3
6.0
8.7
3.9
2.9
2.1
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.0
I HOUR
10.00
i 11.00
12.00
13.00
I14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
I 18.00
19.00
20.00
!
POND 3 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= .1
0.00
0.0
.1
1
1
1
.10
0.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
.1
.20 .30
00 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.40
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
CFS @ 10.80 HOURS
.50 .60 .70
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
Page 23
20 Aug 98
.80 .90
1.4 1.6
9.2 13.4
7.2 64
3.8 3 6
2.8 27
2.1 20
1.6 15
1.2 12
1.0 10
.9 9
.80 .g0
.1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
i .1
1 .1
1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE II! 24-HOUR RAINF~?.T.= 6.0 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 fc~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
POND 4
Qin = 20.0 CFS
Qout= 0.0 CFS
ELEVATION AREA
(PT) (AC~
30.0 .09
40.0 .37
ROUTE INVERT
P 30.0'
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -- POND
@ 12.05 HRS, VOLUME= 1.49 AF
@ 10.40 HRS, VOLUME= .01 AF,
INC.STOR CUM.STOR
(AF) (AFl
0.00 0.00
2.30 2.30
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILTR~TION
Q= .01 CFS at and above
ATTEN=100%, LAG=
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
Page 24 I
20 Aug 98
0.0 MIN
!
1.48 AF
36.4 FT
40.0 FTi
30.0 FT
dt=.l HRS
30.1'
FEET
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0
36.0
37.0
38.0
39.0
40.0
POND 4 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS] vs ELEVATION
POND 4 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~3
,48
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
3~
~XFIL~TRATION~,
DISCHARGE
~ ~ SOUTHOLD L/tNDFI~ PROP.TRANS. ~TATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR ~I~TM 6.0 ~N
a by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 (c% 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Svstems
POND 4 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
I SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ¢3
5TOR-IND METHOD
I PEAK STOR= I 48 AF
~ PEAK ELEU= 36 4 FT
I ~ Bin= 20 B CFS
~ l Oou%= 0 B CFS
LAG= 0 MIN
TIME (hour~)
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND 4 INFLOW PEAK= 20.0
CFS @ 12.05 HOURS
Page 25
20 Aug 98
POND 4 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0.0 CFS @
0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 ,70 ,80 .90
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.u
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
10.40 HOURS
0.QQ ,10 .20 .30 .40 ,~Q ,60 .TO ,80 .90
.5 .6 .6 .7 .7 .8 .8 .9 1.0 1.0
1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 3.1 4.8 6.8 9.6
18.9 18.6 11.7 8.8 6.6 4.4 3.2 2.8 2.6 2.3
2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4
1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1
1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 .9 .9 .9 .8 .8 .8
.7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .6 .6 .6 .6
.6 .6 .6 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
.5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
.4
ata for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUZ2 Page 1
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98
ydroCAD 4.00 000636 fc~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
ATERSHED ROUTING .............................................................
[~ LTNK
UBCATCHMENT I
SUBCATCHMENT 2
ISUBCATCHMENT 3
SUBCATCI'IMENT 4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5
POND 1
POND 2
POND 3
POND 4
REACH 1
IREACH i
POND 1
IPOND 2
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~1
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND %2
POND
POND 3
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4
= SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3
Data for SOUTHOLDLANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 2 I
20 Aug 98
RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 NETHOD: TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN, SCS U.H.
RUNOFF SPAN = 10-20 HRS, dr= .10 HRS, 101 POINTS
SUBCAT AREA Tc WGT'D PEAK Tpeak VOL
NUMBER ~ACRE~ ~MIN~ --GROUND COVERS (%CN~-- CN C ¢CFS~ ~HRS~ ~AF~
1 15.44 12.9 90%71 7%85 3%98 - 73 - 59.0 12.13 4.94
2 4.50 18.2 87%71 5%98 8%85 - 73 - 15.3 12.21 1.44
3 14.10 14.1 90%71 6%85 5%98 - 73 - 51.9 12.15 4.51
4 5.21 6.5 30%98 8%85 47%71 11%56 80 - 26.1 12.04 1.94
4%98 - - -
5 4.10 13.5 37%98 63%56 - - 71 - 14.6 12.14 1.25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~T,?.= 7.3
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
mHvdroCAD 4.00
DUP2
000636 (c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
REACH ROUTING BY STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD
IREACH BOTTOM SIDE PEAK
NO. DIAM WIDTH DEPTH SLOPES n LENGTH SLOPE VEL.
(~) ~FT~ ~FT~ ~FT/FT~ CFT~ ~FT/FT~ ~FPS~
1 24.0 .... .013 620 .0050 5.7
Page 3
20 Aug 98
TRAVEL PEAK
TIME Qout
fMIN) fCFS)
1.8 13.8
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.T~ANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 ADglied Microcomputer Systems
Page 4 I
20 Aug 98
POND START FLOOD
NO. ELEV. ELEV.
(FT) (FT)
1 26.0 42.0
2 40.0 48.0
3 12.0 20.0
4 30.0 40.0
POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK PEAK
ELEV. STORAGE
(FT) (AFl
...... PEAK FLOW --' ........ Qout---
Qin Qout Qpri Qsec ATTEN. LAG
(CFS~ ¢CFS~ (CFS~ ~CFS~ (%~ CMIN~
41.5 6.11 71.3 .1
100 0.0
46.2 1.42 15.3 0.0
100 0.0
19.1 4.40 51.9 .1
100 0.0
38.4 1.93 26.1 0.0
100 0.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I)ata for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
ydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
Page 5
20 Aug 98
LINK
INO. NAME
SOURCE
Qout
(CFS)
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
Data [or SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAXNF~TM 7,3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HvdroCAD 4,00 000636 lc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 1
SOUTMOLD LANDFILL - SL1
PEAK= 59.0 CFS @ 12.13 HRS, VOLUME= 4.94 AF
~CRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD
13.97 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR
1.07 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
,40 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HAS, dt=.l
15.44 73
Method Comment
TR-55 SHEET F~OW Segment
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=80' P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
Segment
Page 6 8~~
20 Aug 9
HAS I
Tc Cminl
8.9 I
C /WE/T ,P a'.A E
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527' I
s=.02 '/' n=.05 V=5.57 fps L=760' Caplcity=128.2 cfs
RECT/VKE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment C D 1.5
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
s=.01 '/' n=.05 V=3.94 fps L=350' Capacity=90.6 cfs
CIRCULAR CHANNEL Segment D--E
24" Diameter a=3.14 sq-ft Pw=6.3' r=.5'
s=.01 '/' n=.013 V=7.2 fps L=80' Capacity=22.6 cfs
Total Length= 1270 ft
SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1
L
55/ AREA: 15 44 AC
50I Tc: 12 9 MIN
45 CN: 73
35 [ SCS TR-2B METHOD
38 \ TYPE III 24-HOUR
25 \ RAINFALL= 7 3 IN
15 ~, ~ 12 13 HRS
10 LUME= 4 94 AF
Total Tc= 12.9
I
I
I
I
I
I
TIME (koura)
I
I
I
ata for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
T~PE III 24-HOUR RAINFAT.?= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
HOUR
10 00
11 O0
12 O0
13 O0
14 O0
15 00
16 00
17 00
18 00
19 00
20 00
Page 7
20 Aug 98
SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 59.0 CFS @ 12.13 HOURS
0.00 .10 .30 .40 .50 .60
1.4 1.5
3.0 3.3
36.7 57.7
7.9 7.2
4.9 47
3.7 36
2.7 26
2.1 21
1.6 16
1.4 1 4
1.3
1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1
3.7 4.2 4.8 5.5
53.3 40.0 30.6 22.5
6.7 6.4 6.2 6.0
4.6 4.5 4.4 4.2
3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2
2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3
2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9
1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
2.2
6 9
15 7
5 8
4 1
3 1
2 3
1 8
1 5
1 4
.70
2.4
10.3
11.8
5.6
4.0
3.0
2.2
1.8
1.5
1.3
.80
2.6
15.5
10.0
5.4
3.9
2.9
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.3
.90
2 8
22 2
8 8
5 1
3 8
2 8
2 1
1 7
1 5
1 3
Data for SOUTHOLD I~%NDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 8 I
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 ~c) 1986-1995 ADDlied Microcomputer Systems
- ·
!
!
SUBCATCHMENT 2 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME= 1.44 AF
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD
3.92 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR
.23 98 POND AREA (WET) RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
.35 85 GRAVEL ROAD SPAN=
10-20 HAS, dt=.l HRS
4.50 73
~ethod
TR-55 SHEET FLOW
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=lS0'
Comment
Segment ID:A-B
P2=3.3 in s=.04 '/'
Segment ID:B-C 1.0
RECT/VEE/~RAP CHANNEL '/' m'
W=10' ,/D=2'. SS= 1 & 2 a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1'527' I
s=.02 n=.05 V=5.57 fps L=325' Capacity=128.2 cfs
CIRCULAR CHANNEL Segment ID:C-D .2
24" Diameter a=3.14 sq-ft Pw=6.3' r=.5' I
s=.01 ,/, n=.013 V=7.2 fps L=80' Capacity=22.6 cfs
Total Length= 585 ft Total
15
14
13
12
11
4
2
SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2
Tc= 18.2
I
AREA= 4.5 AC
To= 182 MIN ·
CN= 73
5C5 TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
PEAK: 15.3 CFS
~ 1221 HRS
VOLUME= 1.44 AF
I
TIME (¼our~) I
I
I
I
I
III I II IIIIIII
ata for SOUTHOLD LAI~FILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
ydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
I HOUR
10 00
I 11 00
12 O0
13 O0
14 O0
I15 00
16 00
17 00
I 18 00
19 00
20 00
I
Page 9
20 Aug 98
SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.21 HOURS
0.00 .10 .40 .50 .60 .70
.4 4
.8 9
7.7 12 6
2.6 23
1.5 1 4
1.1 1 1
.8 8
.6 6
.5 5
.4 4
.4
.2O .30
.4 .5 .5 .6
1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4
15.3 13.6 10.9 8.4
2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8
1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3
1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
.7 .7 .7 .7
.6 .6 .6 .6
.5 .5 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4 .4
· 80 .90
.6 .7 .7 .8
7 2.3 3.5 5.0
3 4.6 3.6 3.0
7 1,7 1.6 1.5
2 1.2 1.2 1.1
9 .9 .9 .8
7 .7 .7 .6
5 .5 .5 .5
4 .4 .4 .4
4 .4 .4 .4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALT.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c% 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 3
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
PEAK= 51.9 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= 4.51 AF
ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD
12.63 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR
· 80 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
.67 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
14.10 73
Method
TR-55 SHEET FLOW
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=100'
REC /WE/T ,P CH NE
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/'
s=.02 '/' n=.05 V=5.57 fps
RECT/VEE/T~AP CHANNEL
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '//'
s=.07 '/' n=.05
Comment
Segment ID:A-B
P2=3.3 in s=,04 '/'
Segment ID:B-C
a=23 sq-ft Pw=lS.1' r=1.527'
L=900, Capacity=128.2 cfs
Segment ID:C-D
a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
V=10.43 fps L=520' Capacity=239.8 cfs
Total Length= 1520 ft Total Tc=
50
45
35
30
25
15
10
5
SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4
AREA= 141 AC
To= t4.1 MIN
CN= 73
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 7 3 IN
PEAK= 51.9 CF5
~ 1215 HR5
VOLUME= 4 51 AF
TIME (hours)
Page 10 I
20 Aug 98
dt=. 1 HRS
!
Tc fmin~
10.6 I
2.7
14.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ata for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANZ. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
~HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
I HOUR
10.00
I 11.00
12.00
13.00
i14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
I 18.00
19.00
20.00
!
SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK=
0.00
1.2
2.7
30.9
7.4
4.5
3.4
2.4
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.2
.10
1.3
3.0
49.6
6.7
4.3
3.3
2.4
1.9
1.5
1.3
.20
1.4
3.3
49.5
6.2
4 2
3 2
2 3
1 8
1 4
1 3
· 30 .4
1.6 1
3.8 4
38.2 29
5.9 5
4.1 4
3.1 3
2.2 2
1.8 1
1.4 1
1.3 1
51.9 CFS @
7 1.9
3 4.9
4 21.9
7 5.5
0 3.9
0 2.9
2 2.1
8 1.7
4 1.4
3 1.2
12.15 HOURS
· 60' .70
2.0 22
6.0 88
15.5 11 4
5.3 51
3.8 37
2.8 27
2.1 21
1.7 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 11
20 Aug 98
.80 .90
2.4 2.5
13.3 19.2
9.5 8.3
4.9 4.7
3.6 3.5
2.6 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.6 1.5
1.3 1.3
1.2 1.2
~ata for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?,= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 {c) 1986-1995 APplied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 4 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3
PEAK= 26.1CFS @ 12.04 HAS, VOLUME= 1.94 AF
Page 12 I
20 Aug 98
ACRES CN
1.55 98
.40 85
2.45 71
.58 56
.23 98
5.21 80
BUILDING/PAVEMENT
GRAVEL ROAD
HELP MODEL RUNOFF
BRUSH/WEED/GRASS
POND AREA (WET)
FOR RCN
(GROUP B) FAIR
SCS TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS
Method Comment
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=70' P2=3.3 in s=.15 '/'
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
s=.013 '/' n=.05 V=4.49 fps L=450' Capacity=103.3 cfs
RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:C-D
W=10' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=23 sq-ft Pw=15.1' r=1.527'
s=.25 '/' n=.05 V=19.7 fps L=70' Capacity=453.2 cfs
Total Length= 590 ft Total
I
I
Tc (mini
4.7
1.7 I
Tc= 6.5 I
SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - St3
24
22
20
18
14
12
113
4
2
13~ ' '
AREA= 5 21 AC
Tc= 65 MIN
CN= 8B
5C5 TR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 7 3 IN
PEAK= 26.1 CFS
@ 1204 HRS
UOLUME= 1 94 AF
TIME (hours)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION M~P2
T~PE III 24-HOUR RAINFAT.?.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
iHydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer
SUBCATCHMENT 4 R~QFF PEAK= 26.1
I 11 O0
12 O0
13 00
il 14 oo
15 00
16 00
17 00
18 O0
19 00
20 O0
I HOUR 0.00
10 00 .8
1.6
24.9
2.7
1.7
1.3
.9
.7
.6
.5
.5
1
24
2
1
1
.20 .30 .40
9 .9 1.0 1.1
7 2.0 2.2 2.5
1 15.0 11.3 8.4
5 2.4 2.3 2.2
7 1.6 1.6 1.6
3 1.2 1.2 1.2
9 .9 .9 .9
7 .7 .7 .7
6 .6 .6 .5
5 .5 .5 .5
Systems
Page 13
20 Aug 98
CFS @ 12.04 HOURS
.50 .60 .70
1.2 1 2 1.3
2.9 4 2 6.5
5.6 4 0 3.6
2.1 2 1 2.0
1.5 1 5 1.4
1.1 1 1 1.0
.8 8 .8
.7 6 .6
.5 5 .5
.5 5 .5
.80 .90
1.4 1.5
9.2 12.8
3.3 2.9
1.9 1.8
1.4 14
1.0 1 0
.8 8
.6 6
.5 5
.5 5
m
Data for SOUTHOL~ LANDFILL PROP.T~%NS. STATION DUP2 Page 14
TTPE III 24-HOUR RAINFATM 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 fc~ 1986-1995 ApPlied Microcomputer Svstems i
SUBCATCHMENT 5 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5
PEAK= 14.6 CFS @ 12.14 HRS, VOLUME= 1.25 AF
ACRES CN
1.50 98
2,60 56
4.10 71
BUILDING/PAVEMENT
BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B)
Method
FAIR
SCS TR-20 METHOD ·
TYPE III 24-HOUR
RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS ·
Tc fmin~
TR-S5 SHEET FLOW
Grass: Dense n=.24
R CT/WE/TR P
W=4' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/'
s=.02 '/' n=.05 V=4.78
CT/ E/T P
W=4' D=2' SS= 1 & 2 '/'
s=.03 '/' n=.05 V=5.86
12.7
Segment ID:A-B
' '/' I
L=140 P2=3.3 in s=.05 /
Segment ID:B-C .6
a=ll sq-ft Pw=9.1' r=1.214'
fps L=170' Capacity=52.6 cfs ·
Segment ID:C-D .2
·
a=ll sq-ft Pw=9.1' r=1.214'
fps L=70' Capacity=64.4 cfs
Total Length= 380 ft Total Tc= 13.5
SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5
14
13
12
11
7
4
3
% ,
!
AREA= 4 I AC I
To= 135 MIN
CN= 71 I
5C5 IR-20 METHOD
TYPE III 24-HOWR
RAINFALL= 7 3 IN I
PEAK= 14.6 CFS
UOLUME= I 25 AF
TIME (hour~)
!
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~T.T= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i HydroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF PEAK= 14.6 CFS @ 12.14 HOURS
Page 15
20 Aug 98
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
0.00 .10 .20
.3 .3 .4
.7 .8 .9
8.7 14.1 13.6
2.1 1.9 1.7
1.3 1.2 1.2
1.0 .9 .9
.7 .7 .6
.5 .5 .5
.4 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4
.3
.30
.4
1.0
10.4
1.7
1.2
.40
4
1 1
8 0
1 6
1 1
.9 9
.6 6
.5 5
.4 4
.4 4
.50 .60 .70 .80 .90
.5 .5 .6 .6 .7
1.3 1.6 2.4 3.7 5.3
5.9 4.2 3.1 2.6 2.3
1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3
1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
.8 .8 .8 .7 .7
.6 .6 .6 .6 .6
.5 .5 .5 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4 .4 .4
.4 .4 .3 .3 .3
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFIL?. PROP.~RANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 lc} 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
REACH i
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH i
Page 16 I
20 Aug 98
i
Qin = 14.6 CFS @ 12.14 HRS, VOLUME= 1.25 AF
Qout= 13.8 CFS @ 12.21 HRS, VOLUME= 1.24 AF, ATTEN= 6%, LAG= 4.2 MIN
DEPTH END AREA
[FT} ~ SO-FT~
0.0 0 0
.2 2
.4 4
.6 8
1.4 23
1.6 27
1.8 3.0
1.9 3.1
1.9 3.1
2.0 3.1
DISCH
(CFS)
0.0
.3
1.4
3.1
13.4
15.6
17.0
17.2
17.0
16.0
24" PIPE
n= .013
LENGTH= 620 FT
SLOPE= .005 FT/FT
STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD
PEAK DEPTH= 1.47 FT
PEAK VELOCITY= 5.7 FPS
TRAVEL TIME = 1.8 MIN
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l HRS
2 0
I 4
~ 0
8
6
4
2
REACH I DISCHAR6E
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1
~" 24"
..-- PIPE
,- n= 013 L:6ZO' 5=.885
DISCHARGE
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
I
I
I
I
I
IData for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFA?.T.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
REACH 1 ZNFLO~ & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1
14
12
11
10
¥
24" PIPE
n= 013 L=620' S= 005
STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD
VELOCITY= 5 7 FPS
TRAVEL= I 8 MIN
Qin: 14 6 CFS
Ooutu 13 8 CFS
LAG= 42 HIN
TIME
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
REACH 1 INFLOW PEAK= 14.6 CFS
0.00
.3
.7
8.7
2.1
1.3
1.0
.7
.5
.4
.4
.3
.io
.3
.8
14.1
1.9
1.2
.9
.7
.5
.4
.4
.20
.4
.9
13 6
1 7
1 2
9
6
5
4
4
.4
1.0
10.4
1.7
1.2
.9
.6
.5
.4
.4
.40
.4
1 1
8 0
1 6
1 1
9
6
5
4
4
12.14 HOURS
.50 .~0
.5 .5
1.3 1.6
5.9 4.2
1.5 1.5
1.1 1.1
.8 .8
.6 .6
.5 .5
.4 .4
.4 .4
.70
6
2 4
3 1
1 4
1 0
8
6
5
4
.3
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
~ACH 1 OUTFLOW PEAK= 13.8 CFS @
0.00
1
7
6 9
2 2
1 3
1 0
.7
.6
.4
.4
.3
,10
.2
.7
11.1
2 0
1 3
1 0
7
5
4
4
· 20 .30 .40
.3 .4 .4
.8 .9 1.0
13.7 12.2 9.4
1.8 1.7 1.6
1.2 1.2 1.1
.9 .9 .9
.7 .6 .6
.5 .5 .5
.4 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4
12.21 HOURS
· ~O .60 .70
.4 .5 .5
1.2 1.4 1.9
7.1 5 2 3.7
1.6 1 5 1.5
1.1 1 1 1.1
.9 8 .8
.6 6 .6
.5 5 .5
.4 4 .4
.4 4 .3
Page 17
20 Aug 98
.80 .90
.6 .7
3.7 5.3
2.6 2.3
1.4 1.3
1.0 1.0
.7 .7
.6 .6
.4 .4
.4 .4
.3 .3
.80 .g0
.6 .6
2.9 4.4
2.9 2.5
1.4 1.4
1.0 1.0
.8 .7
,6 .6
.5 .4
.4 .4
.3 .3
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~T.T.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Systems
POND 1
Qin = 71.3
Qout= .1
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1
CFS @ 12.14 HRS, VOLUME= 6.18 AF
CFS @ 10.50 HRS, VOLUME= .07 AF, ATTEN=100%,
Page 18 I
20 Aug 98
i
LAG= 0.0 MIN
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
(FT) (AC) (AF~ (AF)
26.0 .16 0.00 0.00
42.0 .63 6.32 6.32
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
ROUTE INVERT
P 26.0'
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILTRATION
Q= .09 CFS at and above 26.2'
6.11 AF
41.5 FT
42.0 FT I
26.0 FT
dt=.l HRS
m
FEET
26 0
28 0
30 0
32 0
34 0
36 0
38 0
4O 0
42 0
PO~D
0.0
0.00
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
i TOTAL DISCHARGE
.2 .4 .6
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
09 .09 .09
(CFS% vs ELEVATION
,8
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
1.0
.09 .09
· 09 09
.09 09
· 09 09
.09 09
· 09 09
· 09 09
.09 09
1,2 1.4 1.6 1.81
· 09 .09 .09
.o9 .09
.09 .09
· 09 .09 .09
.09 .09 .09.
.o9 .o9 .o,m
· 09 .09 .09--
.09 .09 .09
!
POND 1 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND
432
41
39
37
36
35
33
32
30:
2g
28
27 ~ ,_E X F T L T~R_ n...T.T._O N',
DISCHARGE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ata for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
ydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Svstems
POND 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~I
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
25
10
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 6 11 AF
PEAK ELEU= 41 5 FT
Oin= 71.] CF5
LAG= 0 MIN
TIME
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND 1 INFLOW PEAK= 71.3 CFS @ 12.14 HOURS
0.00
1.5
3.7
43.5
10.2
6.2
4 7
3 4
2 7
2 1
1 8
1 6
.10 .20 .30 .40
1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
4.0 4.5 5.1 5.8
68.8 67.0 52.2 39.9
9.2 8.6 8.1 7.8
6.0 5.8 5.6 5.5
4.6 4.5 4.3 4.2
3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0
2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4
2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7
,50
2.5
6 7
29 6
7 6
5 4
4 0
3 0
2 4
1 9
1.7
POND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= .1 CFS
0.00
0.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.10
0.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
0.0
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.30
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
.1
.1
,~0 .70
2.7 2.9
8.3 12.2
20.8 15.5
7.3 7.0
5.2 5.1
3.9 3.8
2.9 2.8
2.3 2.2
1.9 1.9
1.7 1.7
@ 10.50 HOURS
,50 .60 .70
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
1 .1 .1
Page 19
20 Aug 98
.80 .90
32 3.4
18 4 26.6
12 9 11.3
6 8 6.5
50 48
36 35
2.8 2 7
2.2 2 1
1.8 18
1.7 1 7
· 80 .90
.1 .1
.1 .1
.1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
1 .1
.1 .1
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636 ¢c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer SysteMs
POND 2
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2
Qin = 15.3 CFS @ 12.21HRS, VOLUME= 1.44 AF
Qout= 0.0 CFS @ 10.60 HRS, VOLUME= .02 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG=
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
fFT) CAC) (AF) (AF)
40.0 .12 0.00 0.00
48.0 .34 1.84 1.84
# ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES
1 P 40.0' EXFILTRATION
Q= .02 CFS at and above 40.1'
FEET
40.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
45.0
46.0
47.0
48.0
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
POND 2 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS~ vs ELEVATION
0.0
0.00
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
.02 .02
· 02 .02
.02 .02
· 02 .02
.02 .02
.02 .02
· 02 .02
· 02 .02
.3 .4
02 .02
02 .02
02 .02
02 .02
02 .02
02 .02
02 .02
02 .02
,5 ,~ .7
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02
02 .02 .02
Page 20 I
20 Aug 98
0.0 MIN
m
1.42 AF
46.2 FT
48.0 FT I
40.0 FT
dt=.l HRS
.8 .q I
.02 02
· 02 02 ·
.02 02
· 02 02
.02 02 I
.02 02
· 02 02
.02 02
480
475
470
465
~ 45
~ 45.8
z 445
o 440
435
~ 438
Ld 41.5
41 .0
485
POND 2 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LRNDFILL - POND
DISCHARGE
I
mlData for SOUTHOLD L~JDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
m HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 APPlied Microcomputer Svstems
POND 2 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~2
15
14
13
11
4
2
$TOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOR= 1 42 AF
PEAK ELEU= 46 2 FT
Qin= 15 3 CFS
I
TIME (hour~)
I
HOUR
10 00
ii O0
12 00
13 00
14 00
15 00
16 00
17 00
18 00
19.00
20.00
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
I
POND 2 INFLOW PEAK= 15.3 CFS @ 12.21 HOURS
0.00 .10 .20
.4 .4 .4
.8 .9 1.0
7.7 12.6 15.3
2.6 2.3 2.1
1.5 1.4 1.4
1.1 1.1 1.1
.8 .8 .7
.6 .6 .6
,5 .5 .5
.4 .4 .4
.4
.30
5
1 1
13 6
2 0
1 3
1 0
7
6
.5
.4
· 40 ,50
.5 .6
1.3 1.4
10.9 8.4
1.9 1.8
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
.7 .7
· 6 .6
.4 .4
.4 .4
.60
.6 7
1.7 23
6.3 46
1.7 17
1.2 12
.9 9
.7 7
· 5 5
.4 .4
· 4 .4
POND 2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0.0 CFS @ 10.60 HOURS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
,~0 .30 .40
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
.5O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
,60 .70
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
00 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
00 0.0
00 0.0
Page 21
20 Aug 98
.S0 .90
.7 .8
3.5 5.0
3.6 3.0
1.6 1.5
12 1 1
9 8
7 6
5 5
4 4
4 4
,80 .90
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
I
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~?.?= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HydroCAD 4.00 000636 (c~ 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
POND 3
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4
Qin = 51.9 CFS @ 12.15 HRS, VOLUME= 4.51 AF
Qout= .1 CFS @ 10.50 HRS, VOLUME= .11 AF,
Page 22 I
20 Aug 98
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
(FT/ CAC~ (AFl (AFl
12.0 .39 0.00 0.00
20.0 .85 4.96 4.96
ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0.0 MIN
ROUTE INV~T
P 12.0'
OUTLET DEVICES
EXFILTRATION
Q= .14 CFS at and above 12.1'
STOR-IND METHOD I
PEAK STORAGE = 4.40 AF
PEAK ELEVATION= 19.1 FT I
FLOOD ELEVATION= 20.0 FT
START ELEVATION= 12.0 FT
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.l
HRS i
FEET
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20 . 0~
pOND 3 TOTAL DISCHARGE
0.00
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
(CFS/ vs
ELEVATION
.1 .2 .7 .4 .5
.14 .14 .14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14 .14 .14
14 .14 .14 .14 .14
.6 .7 .8
14 .14 .14
14 14 .14
14 14 .14
14 14 .14
14 14 .14
14 14 .14
14 14 .14
14
14
14
14 .14 .14 .14 .14 14 14 .14 14 I
POND 3 DISCHARGE ·
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND %4
I
[]
D~SCHARGE (c~)
0ata for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRAN~. STATION
TTPE III 24--HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
ydroCAD 4.00
DUP2
000636 lc) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 23
20 Aug 98
50
45
35
30
05
20
15
10
5
POND 3
SOUTHOLD
INFLOW & OUTFLOW
LANDFILL - POND ~4
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOA= 4 40 AF
PEAK ELEU= 19 1 FT
Oin= 51 9 CFS
Oout= 1 CFS
LAG= 0 MIN
TIME (hound)
I
HOUR
10.00
11.00
12.00
I 13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
I17.00
18.00
19.00
I 20.00
POND 3 INFLOW PEAK= 51.9
1.2
2.7
30.9
7.4
4 5
3 4
2 4
i 9
1 5
1 3
i 2
1.3
3.0
49.6
6.7
4.3
3.3
2.4
1.9
1.5
1.3
.20
i 4
3 3
49 5
6 2
4 2
3 2
2.3
1.8
1.4
1.3
.30
1.6
3.8
38.2
5.9
4.1
3.1
2.2
1.8
1.4
1.3
CFS @ 12.15 HOURS
.40 .50
17 1.9
4 3 4.9
29 4 21 9
57 55
40 39
30 29
2.2 2 1
1.8 17
1.4 1 4
1.3 12
.6O
2.0
6.0
15.5
5.3
3.8
2.8
2.1
1.7
1.4
1.2
.7O
2.2
8.8
11.4
5.1
3.7
2.7
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.2
.80
2.4
13.3
9.5
4 9
3 6
2 6
2 0
1 6
1 3
1 2
.90
2.5
19.2
8.3
4.7
3.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.3
1.2
I
HOUR
10 00
11 00
12 O0
13 O0
14 O0
15 00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
POND 3 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= .1 CFS @ 10.50 HOURS
0.00
0.0
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.io ,20 .30
0.0 .1 1
· 1 .1 1
.1 .1 1
.1 .1 1
.1 1 1
.1 1 1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
.1 1 .1
· 40 ,50 .60
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
· 1 .1 .1
· 1 .1 .1
· 1 .1 .1
· 1 .1 .1
· 1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.70
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
.1
.80
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.90
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
I
Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION
TYPE III 24-HOUR I~INFgT.?.= 7.3 IN
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
HvdroCAD 4.00 000636
DUP2
POND 4
1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3
Qin = 26.1 CFS @ 12.04 HRS, VOLUME= 1.94 AF
Qout= 0.0 CFS @ 10.30 HRS, VOLUME= .01 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG=
ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR
(FT~ fAC% fAF~ CAF~
30.0 .09 0.00 0.00
40.0 .37 2.30 2.30
# ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES
1 P 30.0' EXFILTI~TION
Q= .01 CFS at and above
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STORAGE =
PEAK ELEVATION=
FLOOD ELEVATION=
START ELEVATION=
SPAN= 10-20 HRS,
Page 24 I!
20 Aug 98
i
0.0 MIN
1.93 AF
38 4 FTI
4o o FT
30.0 FT
dr=. 1 HRS
!
30.1'
FEET
30 0
31 0
32 0
33 0
34 0
35 0
36 0
37 0
38 0
39 0
40 0
POND 4 TOTAL DISCHARGE
0.0 .1 .2 .3
0.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01 .01
01 .01
01 .01
01 .01
01 .01
01 .01
01 .01
01 .01
01 .01
01 .01
(CFS] vs ELEVATION
.4 .5 .6
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
01 .01 01
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
.33
32
31
POND 4 DISCHARGE
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ¢3
· 7 .8 .9
01 .01 .01
O1 .01 .01'I
O1 .01 .01
O1 .01 .01
O1 .01 .Oll i
O1 .01 .01
O1 .01 .01
O1 .01 .01
01 .01 .0II
01 .01 .01
I Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TIC%NS. STATION
TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINF~L~.= 7.3 IN
.Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems
i~ydroCAD 4.00 0Q0636
I 26
24
I u 14
'~ 12
h
4
I
%
DUP2
1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems
Page 25
20 Aug 98
POND 4 INFLOW & OUTFLOW
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND ~3
STOR-IND METHOD
PEAK STOA= 1 93 AF
PERK ELEU= 38 4 FT
Din: 26 CFS
LAG: 0 MIN
TIME
!
HOUR
i 10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
i 17.00
18.00
19.00
i 20.00
I HOUR
10.00
I 11.00
12.00
13.00
i 14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
I 18.00
19.00
20.00
!
POND 4 INFLOW PEAK= 26.1 CFS ~ 12.04 HOURS
0.00
· 8 .9
16 1.7
24 9 24.1
2 7 2.5
17 17
13 13
9 9
.7 7
.6 6
· 5 5
.5
· 20 ,~0 .40 .50
· 9 1.0 1.1 1.2
2.0 2.2 2.5 2.9
15.0 11.3 8.4 5.6
2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1
· 9 .9 .9 .8
.7 .7 .7 .7
.6 .6 .5 .5
.5 .5 .5 .5
POND
0.00
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
o,0
0.0
4 TQTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0.0 CFS @
.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
,2O
0.0
0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
.30 .40
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
.5O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
.60 .70
12 1.3
42 6.5
40 3.6
2 1 2.0
1 5 1.4
1 1 1.0
8 .8
6 .6
.5 .5
· 5 .5
t0.30 HOURS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.70
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.80
1.4
9.2
3.3
1.9
1.4
1.0
.8
.6
.5
.5
.80
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
.90
1 5
12 8
2 9
1 8
1 4
1 0
.8
.6
.5
.5
.90
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0