Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DRAFT Final Closure Plan 1998
' j )�Li jj� S1FF0l,��!� TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINAL CLOSURE PLAN Southold Landfill Cutchogue, New York i .e. 1 1 Ovirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers AUGUST 1998 dLDvirka and 0 Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 Crossways Park Drive,Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-3649890 ■ 718-460-3634 • Fax:516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng®worldnet.att.net August 17, 1998 Anthony J. Cava,P.E. Regional Solid Waste Engineer New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SUNY - Building 40 Stony Brook,NY 11794 Re: Southold Landfill Final Closure Plan D&B 1314 Dear Mr. Cava: On behalf of the Town of Southold,please find enclosed two (2) copies of the draft Final Closure Plan for the Southold Landfill. As a result of discussions with Mr. Ernie Lampro of your office, a copy of the Closure Plan also is being directly transmitted to Ms. Melissa Treers of the Albany office. During the site visit with Ms. Treers, Mr. John Vana and Mr. Lampro on June 23, 1998, because of the substantial amount of off-site fill material required to attain a 4% slope on the western portion of the landfill (approximately 46,000 cy), we discussed the concept of submitting both a 2% and 4% grading plan for the western portion of the landfill. (The eastern portion of the landfill will be only at 4% slope.) The Department was agreeable to this concept which would require provision of technical justification in the Closure Plan regarding a possible variance to allow for a 2% slope. This draft Final Closure Plan contains Subgrade Grading Plans for both 2% and 4% slopes in the western portion of the landfill, and an evaluation of cap hydraulic efficiency, settlement and drainage pertaining to the 2% slope concept. Although the 2% slope does not appear viable based upon evaluation of settlement and drainage, since approval of the grading plan is contingent upon review of this draft plan, we have not prepared Final Grading Plans for closure at this time. After selection/approval of either a 2% or 4% slope for the western area by NYSDEC, a Final Grading Plan will be prepared and submitted to your office. Submittal of only the Subgrade Plans in the enclosure was discussed with and approved by Ms. Treers. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F.COSULICH ASSOCIATES,P.C. OVIAKA AND BARTILUCCI jAnthony J. Cava, P.E. Page Two Regional Solid Waste Engineer New York State Department of Environmental Conservation August 17, 1998 If you have any questions with regard to the draft Final Closure Plan or require additional information, or would like to meet to discuss your comments,please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, Thomas F. Maher P.E. Vice President TFM/tam Enclosures cc: Jean Cochran, Supervisor, Town of Southold Alice Hussie, Councilwoman, Town of Southold William Moore, Councilman, Town of Southold Louisa Evans, Councilwoman, Town of Southold John Romanelli, Councilman, Town of Southold Brian Murphy, Councilman, Town of Southold James Bunchuck, Solid Waste Coordinator, Town of Southold Ernie Lampro,NYSDEC - Region 1 cc/encl.: Gregory Yakaboski, Esq., Town Attorney, Town of Southold Melissa Treers,NYSDEC -Albany 01314/TFM98-25.LTR(R02) FINAL CLOSURE PLAN SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CUTCHOGUE,NEW YORK PREPARED FOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD iBY DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS WOODBURY, NEW YORK 1 AUGUST 1998 ♦1114T0803801.doc(R01I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD LANDFILL 1 FINAL CLOSURE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 General.................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Site Location ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Site History.............................................................................................. 1-4 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..............................................................................2-1 2.1 Site Description.......................................................................................2-1 2.2 Limits of Waste.......................................................................................2-2 2.3 Hydrogeology..........................................................................................2-2 2.4 Surface Leachate .....................................................................................2-4 2.5 Explosive Gas..........................................................................................2-4 2.6 Vectors ....................................................................................................2-6 2.7 Wetlands..................................................................................................2-6 3.0 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.......................................................................................3-9 3.5 Geotextile................................................................................................3-12 3.6 Gas Venting Layer...................................................................................3-14 3.7 Geomembrane.........................................................................................3-17 3.8 Geocomposite Drainage Layer................................................................3-22 3.9 Barrier Protection Layer..........................................................................3-25 3.10 Topsoil and Vegetation ...........................................................................3-27 3.11 Erosion Control.......................................................................................3-30 4.0 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\F0518801.DOC(R03) i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Title Pa¢e 5.0 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS............................................................................5-1 6.0 HYDRAULIC EFFICIENCY ..........................................................................6-1 7.0 SITE DRAINAGE.............................................................................................7-1 8.0 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 9.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING ...............................................................9-1 10.0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE.......................................................... 10-1 11.0TRUCTI N N CO LE CHED S O SCHEDULE ..................................................................... 11-1 List of Figures 1-1 Site Location Map................................................................................... 1-2 1-2 Site Plan .................................................................................................. 1-3 2-1 Existing Topography and Limits of Waste..............................................2-3 3-1 Cap Cross-Section...................................................................................3-3 3-2 Estimated Landfill Settlement Cross Section Location Plan...................3-7 3-3 Estimated Landfill Settlement Cross Section..........................................3-8 3-4 Average Depth of Frost Penetration........................................................3-16 3-5 Rainfall Intensity "R" Factors.................................................................3-33 4-1 Cross Section Locations..........................................................................4-3 4-2 Geometry of Profiles...............................................................................4-4 11-1 Construction Schedule............................................................................. 11-2 ♦1314T0518801.DOC(R03) it TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Tables 3-1 Geotextile................................................................................................3-13 3-2 60-mil HDPE Textured Geomembrane...................................................3-19 3-3 Geocomposite Property Values...............................................................3-23 3-4 Geotextile................................................................................................3-24 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, 2% Slope, Average Annual Totals for Years 1977 Through 1981.......................................................................6-4 6-2 HELP Model,4% Slope, Average Annual Totals for Years 1977 Through 1981.......................................................................6-5 10-1 Construction Cost Estimate..................................................................... 10-2 List of Appendices NYSDEC August 1, 1996 Response to Variance Requests................................A StabilityAnalysis ................................................................................................B SettlementAnalysis.............................................................................................C HELPModel .......................................................................................................D • 2 Percent Slope - 3 Installation Defects Per Acre • 4 Percent Slope- 3 Installation Defects Per Acre • 2 Percent Slope - 2 Installation Defects Per Acre • 4 Percent Slope - 2 Installation Defects Per Acre • 22 Percent Slope • 28 Percent Slope HydroCAD Storm Water Analysis......................................................................E ♦1314\F0518801.DOC(R03) 111 i Attachments/Drawings 1 • Title Sheet • Symbols, Abbreviations and Index of Drawings............................................................. 1 • 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 • Alternate Subgrade Grading Plan and Limit of Cap (West Side at 2% Slope)...............3A • Drainage Plan..................................................................................................................4 • Gas Monitoring, Venting and Control Plan ....................................................................5 • Miscellaneous Details .....................................................................................................6 • Erosion Control Details...................................................................................................7 i 1 ♦1314TO511101.DOC(R03) iv 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. 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 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 ♦1314/S0617804.D0QR03) 1-1 O +�.•�6! P 9 t .b. "' 60 . �a " NEW YORK ! \ �.. \ \ N. .'•.fit �, ,' \ QUADRANGLE LOCATI • • -41 � \ � • �. �.; ss . •... 80UTHOLD r,5 ) S ` LANDFILL , o • :iii��lti \ a 11� • . 'slt?t'3t•iit":i:.ii•�t::?ii:ips�j.ti:�:T Q<•, �!� �..a� V `,\\\F + •\'• ,•�� �' 1G��' •�F 36.E "�•��� �;• �� .• D' •y , Cutcbo a to •'�. •° / •..� '1� sacred eert\' a Cu ►o a PC �• .o � �\.•. . 1 • �N. � by � �' .�Y,' •'•� firr.'' !3 V 8132, ?O, '\ •F'' ... ,•�, . rt ..\' /li 1�, : •�.tl1Ch0(itl j 1 \ O� � I •' �.> i NoaFo h BM \ \ ` ►� ....` �.. ,\O „j_ \ AICoFntrY Club =: , 4 LL 0 2000 n ' s Source: USGS MATTITUCK HILLS, N.Y. & SOUTHOLD, N.Y. QUADRANGLE SCALE IN FEET TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — SOUTHOLD LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN ' Dvirka and Bartifucci SITE LOCATION MAP OConsulting Engineers A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C. FIGURE 1 —1 r i t �r rr ■r r r rl r � r �r II �] ROAD I I II I I I I II Q I I , I I O10 (I I FORMER BORROW \\ I) AREA ED FORMER LANDFILL AREA D SCAVENGER WASTEGOO LAGOONS II � I I I ii II � I � I II ii COMMERCIAL BI—LEVEL DROP—OFF iSTATION FOR RECYCLABLES OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILITY ' \ WASTE OIL I STORAGE TANKS � I'`— II 1' COLLECTION CENTER STORAG I� SII a° GARAGES o � (I a I I (WEIGHING SCALE HO STATION L� I U (COfa C3 UNTY ROAD 48) D _ n 1 NORTH ROAD LEGEND: *—^— EXISTING FENCE LINE 0 300 600 DIRECTORY: 1314 II --� PROPERTY LINE FILE NAME: 1314SITE DATE: RH/8-12-98 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN Dvirka and Bartilucci SITE PLANO Consulting Engineers FIGURE 1-2 A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C. 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. 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. ' ♦1314/S0617804.D0QR03) 1-4 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 II ' were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) +30 parameters, Target Analyte List (TAL) 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 I ' 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 ♦1314/S0617804.D0QR03) 1-5 ' 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 ' 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 corner of the landfill, inconsistent results were obtained with respect to the 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 ♦1314/S0617804.D0QR03) 1-6 former scavenger waste lagoons in order to locate a planned storm water recharge basin in this area in support of closure efforts. Based on the construction of these test pits, the following conclusions were made: 1. In most areas along the northern, eastern and western landfill boundaries, waste extends essentially to the property line. 2. Except for the southeast quadrant and northwest corner of the landfill, buried waste ' comprises a combination of MSW and C&D material. The southeast quadrant comprises essentially all MSW. The northwest corner comprised predominantly large ' metal debris. A high percentage of yard waste was buried on the northwestern portion of the landfill. 3. For the most part, buried waste is present in both the floors and eastern side walls of ' the scavenger waste lagoons. ' 4. The area of buried waste comprises 34 acres. ' 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. ' • 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 1,100,000 cubic yards. ♦1314/S0617804.DOC(R03) 1-7 ' 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS rIn 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 art of the site are used for a municipal solid waste Y P P P (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 corner 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 corner, 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 corner. 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 ♦1114/S0611801 DOCIR061 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 corner 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 corner 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 x104 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.DOCIR061 2-2 f . f, c"� / / [v�` / . / 'V, / I . / / � // _�� \ / �� / , - , l __—___—__-__.-.-.---- —___ \\\ -- ----__—___-,___ _ - —_ �� 3 � �a.� � L __5 4'4 '-401"E_.. _ _ ---- -- ---- ---- --- p _ . _-- a—e----- --------- I - -. � / i� i ' -� � � — / - {'; I I ,I J . n ri i now or �orr,=r�_ r,ly PrI-nc_, !-'}.;rveyors l •-,` ,c i t I� ;'' � ' no'w or for y j � r ,'� `" � ! C = �, J 8 John G. Droskoski & ` ---_ - J �� Susan Groskos I _'-_- .��...,�: _ - . .. _.- -- 0. l r ' r o� s ;. , T.. - ! -G - �; t _ f - . , `�` _ _- I o� 1� _ - ��� > - t f' � - - --- - '- ---— - �� ' 3�4 t 507 �9 r c ``- /�' i I _ �w-5s _. I„ e l C s Q , -' - - T/GASlNG � o C EL.6fi24 K, { - ``�, MW-5D a now or former4y Bayberry Enterprises o ° / o` -� 1'/CAS NG ' . EL.67.76 - .rte _- , - , Q- - / U � �, ��` - L_ ,! cr w rRAM�E a x C1 d �� e t 't '+ t SIJ � 4-R- w : 3' Cb _i t- � 4 - E JILDIING _ '�. ,Y ^ K'4'u ) i.i._ �' 44Si. 'w I S _{ ; ' % o - e Q) i m (j) - t "s � � _ .h 5 O - {]�j L_ '�a" F ,f o ?'- Q °�.� y 3 ;. ,�, .y .' 43 (WASTE >5') / hC c J� .�/ ��` now lieh i r� y f 0 Or f - r'f �« r o e L o rp, \ I �7;'Y \ ;1 - _ - ^7 3 EFINED UMtT 203,1 _ (D ) 0 7 (DEFINED LIMIT) f ` - 4 • \ „ - (NO WASTE) W, c - �` ' S E a t �' - -, "'L,4 > - - _ 2B DEFINED LIMIT 18 , E �'0� now o r formed I '-' .,._. \ `" ""`' I A:z�, - . " ( ) Y _ - - 1. :,k " Q _ —� 826.23' (WASTE >s ) c - -. :�4 . - , 3. MON 3D W- s - 1 A WASTE >6' l a _, M 3 \ ) yy y j Ro �,. �chE �. - _ i I n & , O C�., . s>, '.':.. i -/ 3 i ,_ 17.0`S. T,/CASING I i .1J .O .-/• x• ,,-, � aL;'� ` ,'_a �, - - - - _ _ _ _- Ti�A51NG , ,R ..3 ., w'' , - ,' c .A,� - ffft*-��IYY - EL.48.5} / - >� _ _ ;.. - - 4 1 C DEFINED LIMIT ! ;. 'w <, r k,� z:wa_. �re�y "3s�.r. w., .:i ; �� rr Li. $.34' . ( ) Joanne Schel,n r ,. a \. 33 yy,,< E /� %i.Y / �. .,v ',JF a• b& ,t:,. ,'�°2 ..3.a '�R*,,�"-.�E a�"' �; u�'-' Vy ..-_._-... ''� I .�r. r. , _. k. +yt. -,a_ ,.z. r fi F� . t ,_.. - �� ' ,r._. 6 (NO WASTE) r 4. .y s' r..n .,�..,. h '�. r` .,^ _ .§� ail 4 U y . -- :r } . fl 4 `• N 40 I ;, . \,\ 22'{I 8'50»W 0 WAS I I , _ Mwz - 8, ' _ 1� (wa,s�, ;� � A , ,,' ,, , -- <` ii,, _� $j ` 5A WASTE >4 ; . �# - � �, 5 ( ) " �r - . 1 J - s5r s EL.b a • BRUSH ;_ 0 .. r1 ' .`�; ,, y o w o _ r fo a - - - _ r rr1 e r 1 5 WASTE >s M �. •*. ' S _ $$ ` M --4s'" ,. _. _ se P, , 1 LL _ _ w ..a aal ` C of ..a T EA6t h ,," �-- 2A 'rrw` �- _�_,mac -" j h (rl :,,, fl_.''>1 :''�A t �; :c w..,....wf..,� - s W.Y',Y - - 7 i - , i e xr '/ rJ - 3M��5ndfA0 r��..-'-0-�.'ii. .'1:3 i N. z - _ n j , ti � • ,.:;" M'' , 4 r 4 ;� - — I ���,� .w NO WASTE 'x,�, - -- —-- N �( ):: ' -. < _ �, .� }a . T ASN 'r N - - C I •=:i >m } �w° ''" 2 WASTE >6 I- 17 „-� _. EL .1 �- '"x - 1`) 6 „ - ti i \ BT, r U Zw+ xv `' ^„•`._. '- r 4 LK; ,K a s F'•' _ .-,. -- _ _ - ';.s&" i,.� - . +' "1:;,, ." 2 W STE >5 -_ BRUS >: : , 7 OtaN r Or fo r T� m .r x _ e t r _-. ING x sr.. z, a Q Y I �. ._,v . .,. 4 - _.. - - - EL $ _ ' _ -. _: _ =r .. _ - r r �,wx \' . A f h U r V. f f _ E? f r. i, 8 TRAC£ OF , ;�.;_ - TANK f _. _ - - '.« ?.a '.f''. g ..� ;L -".; - I / ,'P. . fir.. M':: - ,`.1 _ - - i u ._Y _ ., ( x,, _ . 1 (WASTE >8) . -------- -- - F a � b WASTE TO 6') - ? .. r---.' °_ fir" 1 ___, «. }. -1* • - -- ,• x �rY -� ------ -� - , j. % N 5 - - 46 9. - "%�'��; ' 7 '' r z - [, �--,�^�"�-- - - --- - - - ---I� - `', ,` ,4.�,Qas - f 3, r wAiLs x' y i ♦ `, dry 9 (TRACE OF WASTE) ( - O w o r f > rr e r i > �. _ rw , �y, ,t,.�, , F - �r. ; ' �;' Nathan hl a r r s� �c . _ J nn' r / //fy.�� d.f f 4 S.'.l9 p�.N S<:�\ - '•I'F� - „ Y::, ' ,: '"^__._ *■{ ,� i,+, Il. ! lar r IJ MV .•N',7x'�'t,V,S'M d\i, ._ 1 if,;' .'�"5. 'i'" - ,. ,':n('`,. _ 4 'F`� - i. "'0a�`z x:�i,k,t '•?f•' - , /;r: I sr.+:Sf,r, - - _ / \ 1 . / '/ t x - S',,,� t f P`s f , 'X 'w,;. .--- fr - -. ,—..`;._,,;,;�. .w,. 0 1 L i. N* "`..ht �cA 4 A w ,}' �';s<:' :,:. Y; r{' MEQ G o r f o r m E r I / �'e..;,r k- ". J ,',11:1 y �O}N y ~�_; Md.. ..,,.. ', gc<n t" BU .. w` ;r�}:,hs :.Y.+'i� t, 'i:w`�.E' .`s, r'fi. - :a - o C i _— - � �k� ,�; / N LrMIT) f, . ober Ta yl ., •. 45 (DEFT t - ,7;,.?1•r a,'F i'-'' `- * �' ,i ; i'>b:,. 67.8' _ , �. I f• 45 _ � i'I +_�` _,.�, h• - n ,i`' mf _ 'FRAME O .S; 7 f i '1 s v,'�� SHE4 I(- „ r,r. ��' a r b �pp1� / / �,. , : :,..'7..$L,$'" .� l l /// ! - r` ',i' • .' - .- - ��.•'''if �"^-� it ♦ - 7 X n \ t r. l r f' z. - lT" M I r _ ,:a "°:,- '+,.,, < .. +' _�, �' �:' ... -PIPE •� J , „ z / 4- _ .-- -., ..-.y. pp - _ ,. p '„� �r� �T. _ ._ - - ,;.F . ,.::, ,. o, - ;,? ~- 29A 2' A s I . r - _. ' _. <.of k 1y�1 ,.._„`",•. =Y,�;/`- �+��1 ���t� � \u - _ ����� _, - I� L _ - - .. _ - .. O d . -__'-_ r:, 4 O _ _._ 98 $ - O' / Y '' ;; s:� - J6 (WI�S7E-T0 5.) .�._�,__ . ' _ _. - + •YF - - _ , .�__ �'3 4 Fl , r' 6 E 6�• _ „ _ ALE ._. _..._.. `(D NEt}r�Ldrs�ll` , htW 8 1 ,- __ -• �._ _ _ ti& 1O i b o o i _ _ ~.. ->_ _� __ ..._..-�..,,.__._ _,._...-._.^�......_ ._-"L` "'-._�. W.__.�_ .., .. _. _ ,.. _._ E 1 1: '. -. _ - __ R T'. _ - esu I ._I _ - - - _, ;,, ---- L 5 -. - SCA E g* q -C , 'i '. -. ) - s - O 518 7 '.•`-�� ' < ,. .. r _�.T �„-,�.�--- X60• WASTE >fi Q a ; 1 s8, ;; a r .x _- amu. ,r , p O 1 1 st G ,, z- ��55 p 47 DEFINED ? IMIT 7 55* ( /P`;TE 5 7 p' o i ; 1 i ';+ 1 iff _ "r'' ``��_ --- _._ z`� _ - :,:�-`_ --- - Y". 42 (BURNED- WA -25'= r%,) - " �^ x--.�-,_, 1 t .. . ;4 NO WASTE E, „T�___ `Y - �f } ( ) -�'-._...._..__.__�_._. ..__ __�---- _ --- __� __.. _ 10A {WASTE TO 6) , -_ ,: Q_;4WASI:; T(0 T) 42 �,. �'' - ...~ i ; .'¢i . , m 58* (vm ,4'-11') • _ £, aaE -----•.-�_ ns�I�ALt a`� l t' I 1 o WASTE >7 ,a: OW . , r rtT - �_ 1'1 S ( ) p, " :e; 59* '(DEFIt Efla{ L114 ` " now or t 4 : - 26*:;(WVTE- a B')--1 �47 ' W iiI 409.2 -:- 4 ?;. - orrnerj� Fran k / �� 49'(WAS 2" 4'j r---- £ £ I 1 0 ,, ;'1 } ,.tsride 11 _.,\1 , ,,� , . 54 (WASTE -05�) 58* 56* OcrI � ' ° I �° 0 49, � ' f I3 I 1 11 (DEFINED LIMIT) y, . __ - _ 41 (BURNED 1WASTE >5') • � �_ O J� __._ hi, 'C N e , 28 Q AEE 'OIF BURNED 4 55* j �; �: ? m �, o- o L 1� �Y-, °� +; , t i _ ?� WAS}t AT 5.5') ! ( L ,< t l I �`G s`�'° f .I I � „ N 7 t�� —= �' '-s c o� / I a 53 ( 0 WASTE) _ _ 1 I Rus++ U5.{N,ED �� ~_ - - - 3 - 22„(B WASTE '22 { ` ~'-- - B 1.5'-3. 28 49 - N \` - - 48 (NO WASTIT`) • - 26 �! ---- __ - ' I I «v 50 (No wASTfE) • c,+ i 3 - 12 DEFINED LIMIT I ,a 1 VIrASTE.,TO 5`) _ .. __ ( I ) 11, p o + i . ( ) _ 27 WASTE >,5.5' I o � � I t --,. Z , '. 39 (WASTE 6'"-14') - �,N 1 o i NWRB-1 (NO WASTE) Ir 14 (WASTE >10') .. - ; • 54 �1? �., NWRB-2 (DEFINED LIMIT) �2 Mw-6s 14 I �� - 15 (WASTE >12') - . ' L- 4_r `' -S55,19)50"E MON Y � l , T CASING _ �_ - NWRB-3 (DEFINED LIMIT) EL.52-6 -�__ - roweR 39 _' .. 3.12'9 ob'N r. � 10 _ -- -; ^, - - - 1 _ 16 (WASTE >8') - -- / 27�` ! NWRB-4 (WASTE TO 6) _ - .. _ - - --- -- -_ 53 MW-6D - 1 T CASING _,�_. 7 • (n c o T EL.sz.37 - 52 {NO WASTE: v+ :, _ - _ � : _ '�; 25 (WASTE >7j) � -P � ,,, r i I 25A (WASTI= Y4 .5' 25 --'- - �- " Sw -4 (WA 1N SIDE WAt, ) o I � s a 24 (DEFINED LIM ) K f �`' I Y * Wt< 9 (IN TE TO 1 a') 9,t I - - - - �_ - , - g * a, �3 25C (WASTE >5') s ^� I Mw 'S I - - , z i�` ,`„ a _ 25C !� 52 �� I l T;%CASING , - -' - - '�� � 5 . -1D / - - 51 O B _ __ - f~- �. x-x—x- - I s 7 s. D CASING M �� ' `' _ (N STS- 2 r f �”-ti`_ - - - a xy i¢ / 13 (WASTE >6') `--�`"`'' �`x_, _.!w! I I ;fir - 21 - 2 t, J ._ ,. < mac-.# '�! wa r,,,, a.l, , 23D 51 I NWRB-5 (DEFINED LIMIT) y;ti-3 (WASTE >12') ``'♦--x-`"`�--= �.;,,.� - 23A N �� J ` ` �\ �.EGEND no,�' or swt-1 (WASTE TO s') 965.23' �' �` "'� _ . , eu�d J 00 °- `� •� •� LIMIT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE/ _� . N54'S2 S x CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS �y Johr; p Kru 0"W -- �-r7 m ,0.2'a `� ° � 0 � k r 17 (WASTE >6') 21(WASTE To 7') 20(WASTE >6') �= - ° * TEST PIT LOCATION NOT SURVEYED, LOCATED I ON MIAP BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENTS ----- __ ' / 23D (WASTE >5') 23A (IDEEFINED LIMIT) N', 4'Op"W -{ QQ SURVEYED STAKE LOCATION FOR TEST PIT/TRENCH . / 23C (WASTE >5') 23 (WASTE TO 6') 22.53 l / / 23B (WASTE >5') � $ MONITORING WELL _ n O bti" C)r r fcr nerl�, ma k J. �cRrid ` NOTE: n e 4 SURVEY AND TOiPOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM SURVEY PREPARED BY YOUNG & YgUNG LAND SURVEYORS, DECEMBER 1997 !, 0 100' 200' 300' SCALE: 1"=100' DIR: 1314/LANDFILL . FILE: 131 k'-REPORT-Lw DATE: RH--8/5/98 N�. DATE REJ!SION NT PROJECT NO. DRAWING NC. UNIAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TOWN OIF SOUTHOLD TO THIS DOCUMENT IS A VIOLATION OF i SUFFOLK COIUNTY, NEW YORK 1314 SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. �^ �� aATE: -� SOUTHOLD LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND LIMITS OF WASTE AUGUST 1998 PRQJECT ENGINEER DRAWN BY: _ DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI SCA�e DE51GNEa Bv: c+-IECKED ev: CONSULTING ENGINEERS AS NOTED ' - A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F, COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. I i i. r z $0 80 70 70 60 60 70 P OPOSED FINAL AP / 50 PROPOSED i PROPOSED SUBGR DE PROPOSED FINAL CAP 50 FINAL CAP 60 _ / PR POSED SUBGRA E E IST GRADE PROPOSED SUB RADE / EXIT GRADE EXIST GRADE 40 40 50 30 30 � I � / 40 � i 20 ---- 20 30 — 10 10 20 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 PROF-ILE A- A' 2 PROFILE B- B' 3 PROFILE C- C' F-2 SCALE: 10RiZ: 1"=50' F-2 SCALE: HORIZ: 1"=50' F-2 SCALE: HORIZ: 1"=50' JERT: 1"=10' VERT: 1"=10' VERT: 1"=10' NG TECTONIC CONSUL TAI NTS P.C. P.O. Box 447, 615 Route 32 (914) 928-6531 Highland Mills, N.Y. 10930 Rev Date Revision Approved DRAWING CONTROL PROFILES Designed Drawn Checked by: by: SHW by: FX SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Purpose Released by Date TOWN OF SOUTHOLD For NEW YORK Comment For Approval 0 1 2 3 For Date Work Order Drawing No. Rev Bid 8/7/98 For ORIGINAL SIZE IN INCHES Construction AS SHOWN2142.02 FIGURE 2 0 vertical gradients which may indicate that the landfill is situated in an area of predominantly horizontal groundwater flow. 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 H 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 rportion of the landfill in the northeast area. Probes were advanced to a depth of approximately 31/z 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 concentrations 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 ands aced 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 fenceline. In addition, in the southwest corner 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.D0QR06) 2-5 r 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. 1 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. 1 r r r ♦1314/S0617803.DOC(R06) 2_6 1 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, a 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.D0QR06) 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 31, 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 percent. • 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 northeast .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 ♦1314W0701802.DOC(R06) 3-2 rr rr rr rr rr rr Ir rr rr, r� �r �r rr r rr �r s r rr M a LL 6" VEGETATIVE GROWTH MEDIUM M NOTE: PROPOSED SLOPES AT 33% ARE 4% SLOPE (MIN.) LIMITED TO SELECT AREAS OF SITE s 10' S39 SAO 12" ARRIER jO PROTECTION LAYER F �M,�, GRAVEL PAD AT PIPE OUTLET GEOCOMPOSITE--m- 4" PERFORATED HDPE 60 MIL HDPE 12" GAS VENTING LAYER DRAIN PIPE WITH INTEGRAL TEXTURED GEOTEXTILE WRAP GEOMEMBRANE 6"(MIN.) GENERAL FILL GEOTEXTILE TO DRAINAGE SYSTEM WASTE =•1 r� ANCHOR TRENCH BACKFILL WITH TAMPED BARRIER PROTECTION LAYER MATERIAL SOUTHOLD LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN CAP CROSS-SECTION Dvirka and Bartilucci O Consulting Engineers - FIGURE 3-1 A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C. 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 corner 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 1 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, and as discussed further below, ' 2 percent slopes are evaluated on the western portion of the landfill as an alternate grading plan for the purpose of reducing the amount of fill needed to promote storm water drainage off the cap and thereby reducing the cost of closure. 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 corner where grades approach approximately 40 percent for up to 20 vertical feet in order to tie into ♦1314\A0701802.DOC(R06) 3-4 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 fora 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. (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 4 percent grading plan is presented on ' Drawing 3, and the alternate grading plan for the western portion of the landfill, which is designed for minimum placement of fill to achieve 2 percent slopes, is shown on Drawing 3A. A discussion on slope stability analysis is presented in Section 4.0. A review of the existing topography and the limited opportunities for disposal of surface runoff indicates that the general approaches for shaping the landfill for closure are very limited. ' For the alternate 2 percent slope on the west side of the landfill, significant cutting (approximately 11,000 cubic yards) and filling (approximately 110,000 cubic yards which includes filling the former scavenger waste lagoons [37,000 cubic yards]) is required to achieve a prepared subgrade surface suitable for receipt of the proposed capping system. For the 4 percent slope for this area, a significantly greater amount of filling is necessary. It is estimated that the incremental quantity of general fill necessary to steepen the proposed slope from 2 percent to 4 percent on the western side of the landfill is 22,000 cubic yards. Adding the amount of fill required to achieve a 4% slope on the eastern half of the site, the total quantity of fill required to ' achieve a minimum slope of 4 percent throughout the site is approximately 101,000 cubic yards, while the total amount of fill to achieve 4 percent on the eastern portion of the landfill and 2 percent on the western portion would require 79,000 cubic yards. (It should be noted that these quantities include filling in of the former scavenger waste lagoons.) The 2 percent slope was evaluated in detail to assess impacts on drainage considering landfill settlement and the hydraulic efficiency of the cap in Sections 5.0 and 6.0, respectively. 1 With regard to hydraulic efficiency, assuming adequate drainage of storm water off the cap, there is very little difference in efficiency between the 4 percent and 2 percent slopes (1.2% ♦1314\A0701102,DOC(RO6) 3-5 considering two defects per acre in the cap and 1.5% considering three defects per acre in the cap). With regard to drainage, projected settlement of the landfill considered the age, nature rand depth of the waste. Since, based on discussions with Town personnel and results of the test pit programs, a significant amount of yard waste was buried in the northern portion of the western area of the landfill, settlement was evaluated for both waste consisting of MSW and C&D, which is representative of the southern portion of the western area and yard waste to a depth of 15 feet in the northern area. The results of this analysis indicate that considering the burial of MSW and C&D in the southern portion of the western area, burial of 15 feet of yard waste in the northern portion and a total depth of waste of 40 feet, it is projected that the 2 percent slope would be reduced to approximately 1.5 percent in areas containing MSW and C&D and to about 0.5 percent in areas containing yard waste, which is marginal with regard to providing adequate drainage off the cap. The location of the section used to develop the above analysis and an illustration of the settlement are provided in Figures 3-2 and 3-3, respectively. The section selected represents the longest 2 percent slope which would exist after construction of the landfill cap. The potential for lesser depths of waste at the perimeter of the cap, and therefore less potential for settlement at the 1 perimeter, would reduce the slope further. (It should be noted that since the landfill was a former sand and gravel mining operation, it is assumed that the slopes of the pit were steep, similar to the former borrow area, and waste becomes deep rapidly proceeding inward from the perimeter.) A reduction of 1.5% slope for the 4% grading plan would result in a slope of 2.5% after settlement, which would be adequate for drainage. In addition to resultant small slopes after settlement for the 2 percent slope, there is potential for excessive soil erosion over the cap based on the minimum fill grading plan shown t on Drawing3A. Based on this grading plan, storm water runoff in the southwestern portion of �' g the landfill would travel a distance of over 600 feet before entering the Swale along the southern boundary of the landfill, which has the potential of causing excessive erosion of the cap. If this ♦1314W0701802.DOC(R06) 3-6 III ' � � �� r�fF.' �,�.""�. ��®��\L ®��►s�a.. ®' 'a►�►v��as�a �� a h +�■. � �3 y it( off 2 • i f dhA. LOCATIONCROSS I A A' 528' 70 _...._ 70 I �; ...... _--- -__-_ - - .... .. .... _-_ � _--- - . ...._.___. - rvSUBGPADE. .URF CE 2"LOP- __� � 60 EXISTf1 +G GRADE._...... _.........._... __.. ......................_____—_...___.. —.: .. . _ .._._...___.... PROJEC',TED- -MSW- Q -C............ ]NIS _ _ _ _.... . SEl'I'LEMENT LINE __L�,�% _S'LOPE:_..__ W 50:.. _ _......_ ---._-.---- _ ----- ----- _— _ — ... -...._ .... ... _. ASSUMES MSW AN C&D.AT POINTS >> 9, & D�......_... N _ _ -.. -- - - - ... s= ..... .._.. ... ..... Z40 .... .. c ..___._..� - -_„_ ...-._.__ _....._.. _.._.__ _ ___._.�---_._._.. _._. W _... .......... ...�.,_ __...... .:.._ .... ..._.._ _. _ .............. ......,........ _ :.:...... ...... ___..._._ .....__._ ................... . ._ .......__'._._.__ ._ ........_...___..'.._...___.._........__. - �J Q . --- �---------- .__:_�: — _.._ .__._.__: _ ._. _:.:_ - _.:»__ _ PROJECTED-.COMB INATION..._.MSW_A. ..... _ YARD „WASTE SETTLEMENT.: LINE 30 _ _ SETTLEMENT 0.54% SLOPE BETWEEN' POINTS B & C 30 _. _ _ ____ _.. _ SETTLEMENT -= 1":52% SLOPE BETWEEI�T-POINTS C" & D__ _ (ASSIUMES-YARD-_WASTE-AT - .....:.: ._ ---...__ _�_� __. _..:...._..._ :.---------.____.:..... __ AND MSW-AND _ 20 10 -....... ...._._____..............___ __....._._...__._.___._.Y .....-.__ _: _... .........__. ... _........ ............._..___. __ ._.......... ..................._.......--- ..._... ......... ............................ ................_. ...._.... ...........................__:_..... .... 10 -1+ 0 3 10+00 FILE: 1314-F2 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=100' DATE: RH-8/20/98 VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=10' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN Dvirka and Bartilucci ESTIMATED LANDFILL SETTLEMENT dh Consulting Engineers CROSS SECTION FIGURE 3-3 A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C. ' area was graded to promote runoff more quickly to the swales, in particular, along the western boundary of the landfill, approximately 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be required, thereby substantially reducing the benefit of a 2 percent subgrade in the western area of the landfill. A reduction of only about 7,000 cubic yards or a cost savings of$84,000 is estimated based on $12 iper cubic yard for furnishing and installing contour grading material. As a result of the settlement analysis and concern for excessive erosion, a minimum 4 percent slope is proposed for the entire landfill, as shown on the subgrade grading plan ' (Drawing 3). ' 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. Brush 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 grubbing 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 excavations will be relandfilled on site in areas requiring fill. Relandfilled waste will be spread in ♦1314W0701802.DOC(R06) 3_9 ' 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. 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. 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 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. ♦1314W0701802.D0QR06) 3-10 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.D0QR06) 3-11 ' 3.5 Geotextile II 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. I! ' 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. 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 ♦11 MA0101802.DOC(R06) 3-12 ' Table 3-1 ' GEOTEXTILE Fabric Property Test Method Unit Specified Value Qualifier(') Fabric Weight ASTM D3776 oz/sq yd 7.9 MARV ' Thickness, t ASTM D 1777 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 100 MARV ' Mullen Burst ASTM D3786 psi 320 MARV Strength ' Water Flow Rate ASTM D4491 gpm/sq ft 100 MARV Permitivity ASTM D4491 sec 1 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 (')MARV - Minim average 1 value. Minimum a er ge rol e ' (2)Values in the weakest principal direction. ♦1314\A0701802.DOC(R06) 3-13 ' 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 isystem, 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. • 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 ♦1314\A0701102,DOCIR061 3-14 1 ' 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 3-4). 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 gas venting layer will utilize non-intrusive methods such as laser, stanchions, ' traffic cones, etc. The in-place layer will have a compacted lift thickness of 6 inches. The layer will be compacted to achieve a minimum of 95 percent 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. 1 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(R06) 3-15 2 10 3 1s 6 13 303540 1 2 36 21 rIsN 30 7Z / 82.4 1A�• 60 54 66 4g 13 67 8 4A 66 64A 4A A 3660 4 S4 36 13. 53 i4 60 42 60 54 •518441 6 9 12 4g IS 24 - 4 48 36 � P '� 1 6 4A ��- 41 7? A 35 36 426 36 -\ ,� +�O 2 s'` 6 21 6 3p 1A 1 S4 ?6 15 40 04A a 24 {.Y 6 45 54 20 ? 4 ?a 1? 16 A 4A 25 3g 24 1242 30 A — 42 40 IA 4 5 2 17 20 2�4 24 364A 30 34'� - 35 42 37 %0 12 114 21 1? 21 /6 1A 3p 6p ' 6 6 ? - ?5 10 S 1 — 20 ? 6 27 r6/A ' 30 1 1s 3 12 10 IQ g'�--0 i 6 1 3 20 24 21 17 - - - 3 13 1S 6 6 � 1 36 1A 4 1 _ - 0 12 9 0 #0 3• 24 ? A 3 r 3 I _ � v~i 1 0 1 I v n 4i J M s Source: U.S. DEPT. OF COMMERCE WEATHER BUREAU TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE PLAN Dvirka and Bartilucci AVERAGE DEPTH OF FROST PENETRATION (IN.) O Consulting Engineers FIGURE 3-4 A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C. ' 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 of the lift. The average thickness of the compacted lift will be no less than 6 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 ipressure 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 ♦1314W0701802.DOC(R06) 3-17 II 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 roverlying 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 furnished in standard roll widths and standard roll lengths. There will be no special requirements for extra long or custom roll lengths. Geomembrane panels j 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 destructive) tested at a frequency no less than once per 500 feet of seam length. Y q Y 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\AO701802.DOC(RO6) 3-18 Table 3-2 60-MIL TEXTURED HDPE GEOMEMBRANE Property Test Method Units Specified Value Qualifiers(l) 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-1, A-2, B-1 Dispersion 1 Tensile Properties ASTM D638 Type IV, 2" gauge length Dumb-bell @ 2 ipm . Strength at Yield PPI 140 MARV(2) . Strength at Break PPI 75 MARV(2) . Elongation at Yield % 13 MARV . Elongation at Break % 150 MARV Tear Resistance ASTM D 1004 Die C Pounds 45 MARV rPuncture Resistance FTMS 101B Pounds 80 MARV Method 2065 Environmental Stress ASTM D 1693 Hours 1500 Minimum Crack 10% Igepal, 50°C Dimensional Stability ASTM D1204 100°C, % change ±2 Maximum 1 hour Thermal Stability OIT ASTM D3895 130°C, Minutes 2000 Minimum 800 PSI 02 Low Temperature ASTM D746 Degree F -107 Maximum Brittleness Procedure B Coefficient of Linear ASTM D696 x 10-4 cm/ 2.0 Maximum Thermal Expansion cm°C Volatile Loss ASTM D1203 I % 0.3 Maximum ♦1314W0701802.DOC(R06) 3-19 Table 3-2 (continued) 60-MIL TEXTURED HDPE GEOMEMBRANE Property Test Method Units Specified Value Qualifiers(1) Water Absorption ASTM D570 % 0.1 Maximum �i 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 (1) MARV =Minimum average roll values. (2) 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 ♦1314W0701802.DOC(RO6) 3_20 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 ianchor 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. � i ♦1314W0701802.DOC(R06) 3-21 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 barrier 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(R06) 3-22 Table 3-3 ' GEOCOMPOSITE PROPERTY VALUES Fabric Property Test Method Unit Specified Value Qualifier Geonet Component: Polymer Composition % 95 polyethylene Minimum by weight Polymer Specific ASTM D792 0.94 MARV Gravity Polymer Melt Index ASTM D 123 8 g/10 min 0.3 MARV Carbon Black Content ASTM D1603 % 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 Note: All values represent minimum average roll values (i.e., any roll in a lot should meet or exceed the values in this table). ♦1314W0701802.D0QR06) 3-23 Table 3-4 GEOTEXTILE Fabric Property Test Method Unit Specked Value Qualifier(l) Fabric Weight ASTM D3776 oz/sq yd 7.9 MARV Thickness, t ASTM D 1777 mils 90 MARV Grab Strength(21 ASTM D4632 lbs 210 MARV Grab Elongation(2) ASTM D4632 % 50 MARV Trapezoid Tear ASTM D4533 lbs 85 MARV Strength(21 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 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 • 929.0 PSI gpm/ft 0.04 UV Resistance ASTM D4355 % strength 70 MARV retained pH Resistance 2-13 Range Notes: 1. MARV -Minimum average roll value. 2. Values in the weakest principal direction. ♦1114\A0701102.DOCIR061 3-24 rterminal 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 will 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 ♦11MA0101802.DOC(R06) 3-25 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 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 well be placed as a loose left 12 Inches 1n 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 (2 to 4 percent) areas may proceed either upslope or ♦1314W0701802.DOC(RO6) 3-26 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\AO?01802.DOC(R06) 3-27 rA 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 sources 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. MThe 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 tdemolition 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. j 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 I � ♦1114\A0701102.DOC(RO61 3-28 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. tThe 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 Ifertilizer, 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; 9 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(R06) 3-29 jl 3.11 Erosion Control Erosion control will be implemented during construction of the capping system and L r 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 Ibe 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. II vide h the inclusion of erosionit will r for erosion control through The final capping system provide g 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 ivegetation 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 •1114\A0701802.DOC(R06) 3-30 r r r5/8-inch mesh size. The bottom surface of the mat will be a lightweight, photodegradable netting with approximately 1/2 by 1/2-inch mesh size. The components of the blanket will be factory rsewn 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 rappropriate 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 reinforcement 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 polypropylene 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 rthe 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 1 ' ♦1314W0701802.DOC(R06) 3-31 additional areas while accessingthe area of concern thereby further setting back the overall Y g establishment of vegetation. In addition, landfill capping construction projects typically near Icompletion 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. IThe 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 Ito 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 3-5; ' • Slope Gradient - 28 Percent (the steepest slope of over 100 feet in length in the cap design); I • 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 ' I ' ♦1314W0701802.DOC(R06) 3-32 �5 � a C� b �!• p � Asa its .0 SOUTHOLD- lip, OUTHOLD-lip, ISO '" LANDFILL iso >20 <20 ns ,00 !f0 �4" SJD 10j0 fop n 19D 250 w x. n I Nae A Z o Z ofI d WM �� J d M s Source: NORTH AMERICAN GREEN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE PLAN Dvirka and Bartilucci RAINFALL INTENSITY "R" FACTORS 411 O Consulting Engineers A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C. FIGURE 3-5 ' 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. I I , I , i� ♦1314\A0701802.DOC(R06) 3-34 i4.0 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 ermitted. The maximum prescribed slope angle may be considered to be ' 1 vertical to 3 horizontal (1 V: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(R02) 4-1 slope stability is an area of concern, as well as the effects of seismic loading conditions on stability. I ' 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) sloe stability. The locations of the cross-sections are indicated on Figure 4-1. The ( ) Y g g P 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(R02) 4-2 • 111 fAI /� w `' Q*WIMP Ali mm Mimi y ; _ ��i ti ( ,) lol� TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINAL CLOSURE PLAN Dvirka • • Bartilucci LOCATION. OF PROFILES • Cor.sullting Engineers FIGURE 4-1 Ec ,, A D"vision of William F. Cosui;ch Associcies, so 60 70 70 so / 60 7p / P OPOSED FIN kL A PR OSED FIN CAP ___ P OSED SU GR DE 50 PR(POSED FIN CAP / 50 / PR)POSED SU60 B ADE —�/ E ST GRADE PR(POSED SUB ADE EX T GRADE EXIT GRADE so ' 30 // 30 / 40 ` 20 20 30 ` ' 10 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+G0 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 t0 0+00 0+50 1+DO 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 20 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 m ' o PROFILE A—A' PROFILE B—B' PROFILE C—C' N Z D_ t0 N I v M J M s SOURCE: TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINAL CLOSURE PLAN dhADvirka and Bartilucci GEOMETRY OF PROFILES Consulting Engineers FIGURE 4-2 Division of William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C. ' Shear Strength Parameters Shear strength parameters used in the analyses were based on the subsurface exploration, ' laboratory test results on similar materials, published data and professional judgment. A summary of the shear strength data is presented in the following table. 1 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS Moist Unit Saturated Friction Cohesion Slope Material Unit Weight Angle Weight(pcf) (psf) (pcf) (degrees) Landfill Cap Soils 105 115 31 130 General Fill (Glass Sand Material) 110 120 30 0 Landfill Solid Waste Materials 65 75 20 200 Native Sand Soils 110 1 120 32 1 0 Slope Stability Design Considerations The pseudo-static subroutine of the PCSTABL 5M program and a coefficient of ' horizontal acceleration of 0.10 g were used to evaluate the static slope stability, the effect of seismic effect on the gross stability of the subject slopes and the surficial stability of the landfill ' cap material and underlying waste. The following table summarizes the results of the static and pseudo-static slope stability analyses. In addition, plots of the slope stability analyses are provided in Appendix B. ' 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 2.2 1.6 B-B' Northeastern Corner of 1.5 1.2 ' Landfill Slope C-C' Southeastern Landfill Slope 1.8 1.3 ' ♦1314\G0818804.D0QR02) 4-5 Veneer Slope Stability Anal 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 I ' 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 analysesses 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. I 1 ♦1314\G0818804.DOC(R02) 4-6 Section 5 5.0 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS Settlement of the capping system will occur over time as a result of compression and decomposition of the waste. Therefore, the impact of settlement on the capping system, in particular the alternate 2 percent grading plan for the western portion of the landfill, 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 Ncompressibility of the waste. _ tSecondary 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. (For the 2 percent grading plan in the ♦1314\GO819801.DOC(ROl) 5-1 western portion of the landfill, the fill will be placed up to 8 feet.) Additional settlement within the landfill material will therefore be due to the added weight of the fill soils and cap soils. To model the anticipated settlement of the landfill materials, the following assumptions were made: • The final ca will be 2.5 feet thick and has a moist unit weight of 110 pounds per P g P 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 rapproximately 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 g 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(ROl) 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 and 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)l (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)3 (ft) (ft) (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 placed for at least 5 years. 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\GO819801.DOC(ROl) 5_3 Table 5-2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS OF YARD WASTE LANDFILL MATERIALS Landfill Primary Settlement with Cap and 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)l (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\GO819801.DOC(ROl) 5-4 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 g P , � , 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. 1 The level of hydraulic efficiency for a single hydraulic barrier landfill cap was characterized by the NYSDEC in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement I (DEIS) for revisions to 6 NYCRR Part 360 - Solid Waste Management Facilities, dated April I1988. The NYSDEC found that the proposed capping system would provide an acceptable hydraulic efficiency of 94.40 percent in terms of inhibiting the vertical percolation 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 1x10"7 cm/sec) as the hydraulic barrier. The NYSDEC further notes that a synthetic geomembrane, which is proposed as the low permeability barrier as part of the cap for ' the Southold Landfill, may be substituted for the low permeability soil liner. ♦1314\F0814803.D0QR03) C-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 icapping 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 (CQA/CQC) 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 CQA/CQC. 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\F0814803.D0QR03) 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, as well as a 2 percent slope consistent with the proposed alternate grading plan for the western onion of the landfill as P P P g gP P discussed in Section 3.3. (The complete output for each HELP model analysis is presented in Appendix D.) For theiP u ose of comparing a 2 percent and 4 percent slope, the results of the HELP P model output presented under the section titled "Average Annual Totals for Years 1977 through 1981" have been excerpted and are presented as Tables 6-1 and 6-2, respectively. The hydraulic efficiencies shown on Tables 6-1 and 6-2 are 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 x 100 P where: P =total inches of precipitation per year. I � L=percolation/leakage through the hydraulic barrier(measured in inches of precipitation). is calculate to be w 1 6 1 for a two percent slope, the hydraulic efficient d As shown 1n Table y P P Y 85.1 percent assuming a good installation with 3 defects per acre. For an installation with 2 defects per acre, the hydraulic efficiency improves to 89.2 percent. As shown in Table 6-2, 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 acre, the hydraulic efficiency improves to 90.4 percent. Based on these results, there is only a nominal improvement in the system efficiency if a 4 percent slope is utilized. However, and more importantly, either 4 1314\F0814803.DOC(R03) 6-3 Table 6-1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL HELP MODEL 2% SLOPE AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 rInstallation Defects Two Per Acre Three Per Acre in Geomembrane rInches Percent Inches Percent Precipitation 49.71 100 49.71 100 Runoff 9.48 19.1 8.24 16.6 Evapotranspiration 30.78 61.9 30.41 61.2 Lateral Drainage Collected 3.98 8.0 3.58 7.2 from Layer 2 Percolation/Leakage 5.39 10.8 7.42 14.9 Through from Layer 3 (Geomembrane) Average Head Across Top 7.95 N.A. 7.34 N.A. of Layer 3 (Geomembrane) Hydraulic Efficiency 89.2 N.A. 85.1 N.A. r r r . ' r ♦1314\F01114803.D0QR031 6_4 r rTable 6-2 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 Percolation/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) IHydraulic Efficiency 90.4 N.A. 86.6 N.A. r r - r � r ♦1314T0814803.DOC(R03) 6.5 r scenario will provide an overall system efficiency which approaches the efficiency of 94.4 percent suggested by NYSDEC if an installation resulting in 2 defects per acre can be achieved. 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.) Clearly, the benefits of 4 percent slope over a 2 percent slope with respect to hydraulic efficiency are overshadowed by the significant improvement realized by improving liner installation quality. It is on this basis that either the 2 or 4 percent slope should be considered acceptable based on hydraulic efficiency. To complete the discussion on system hydraulic efficiency, HELP model runs for slopes of 22 percent 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 fdetails 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: Slove -Hydraulic Efficiency 22% 99.997% 28% 99.999% These values exceed the criteria suggested by NYSDEC and should be considered acceptable. ♦1314\F0814803.DOC(R03) 6.6 7.0 SITE DRAINAGE ' At the present time, site drainage for the Southold Landfill is managed through infiltration and percolation 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 I ' 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 i ' 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 regrading), and a system of newly constructed drainage swales, culverts and irecharge basins. In order to establish the needed capacity for on-site recharge basins and to I ' 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 III 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 III - 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) 1 ♦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. I 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 corner 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 corner 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 fill as necessary to eliminate waste from the recharge basin side walls. ♦1314\G0804802.DOC(R06) 7-3 I Basin 2 will be constructed in the northwest corner 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 construct Basin 2 as indicated on the Subgrade ' n win Gradin Plan (Drawing 3 . Excavated waste will be cut back and replaced with clean ' Grading ( g ) p fell as necessary to eliminate waste from beneath the recharge basin side walls. Since the buried waste in the northwest corner 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 remainingwaste and soil excavated during construction of Basin 2 will be used as g ' general fill/contour grading material for achieving subgrade elevations. ' Basin 3 will be constructed 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 corner of the landfill. II 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 corner 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\G0804802.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. Maximum(High Estimated Peak Freeboard at Basin Number Bottom Elevation Water)Elevation Water Elevation' Estimated Peak Water (feet amsl) (feet amsl) (feet amsl) Elevation(feet) 1 (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 'Peak 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. In addition to the analysis for a 25-year 24-hour storm event required by 6 NYCRR 360 II ' an analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of a 100 year 24-hour storm event. The results of this analysis are presented below. 4 1314\G0804802.DOC(R06) 7-5 ' Bottom Elevation Maximum(High Estimated Peak Freeboard at Peak Basin Number 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 during 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 was analysis also performed to determine the effects on storm water runoff of Y ' 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 corner) as shown below for a 25-year and 100-year 24-hour storm. Analysis of Effects I ' of Constructing Bottom Elevation Maximum(High Estimated PeakFreeboard at Peak Proposed Transfer (feet amsl) Water)Elevation Water Elevation Elevation(feet) Station on Basin 1 (feet amsl) (feet amsl) ' 25-year 24-hour 26.0 42.0 37.4 4.6 Storm ' 100-year 24 hour Storm 26.0 42.0 41.5 0.5 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. 1 ♦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 corner 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(ft) 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 i ♦1314\G0804802.DOC(R06) 7-7 ' 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 1 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. 1 i t ♦1314\GO804802.DOC(RO6) 7-8 ' 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 potions 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 Iperimeter, 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. 1 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 as vents will be located at a frequency of one per Y g g 4 Y ♦1314\S0806802.D0QR07) 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 I ' 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 1 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, there are no structures located within 1,000 feet of the northern and western property boundaries. 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(R07) 8-2 ' 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, and that screens may begin at shallow depths (<5'), the ability to convert the existing monitoring wells to active collection wells, 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 10 feet below the ground surface and extend to within 5 feet of the water table. By beginning the screened interval at 10 feet deep, if future conversion to an active collection system is necessary, the potential for air intrusion from the surface which would result from a more shallow screen depth will be minimized. 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 3 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 rcompression 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 are designed for conversion to collection wells and connection to header piping, if necessary. ♦1314\S0806802.DOC(R07) S-3 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 borehole annulus in the screened i ' 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. This connection will be backpitched to the wellhead to allow condensate to drain to the well. 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 eomembrane to allow future access for service or repairs g p 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. 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.DOC(R07) 8-4 rat 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. Nn ren 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, 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 run parallel to and within 20 feet of the property fence lines. The trenches are filled with P P P Y concrete, asphalt and other bulky wastes 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 nc and determine whether to determine the effectiveness of the as migration control trenches he g g additional perimeter controls are needed. i ♦1314\S0806802.DOC(R07) 8-5 ' 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 existingmonitoring wells are constructed with 2-inch diameter PVC casing and g g 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.) rAs 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 71); and S-68831 and S-68916. Well abandonment ' will be in accordance with Part 360 procedures contained in 3 60-2.11(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 ♦1314\G0820801.D0QR02) 9-1 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 21/2 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. 1 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. SII ♦1314\G0820801.DOC(R02) 9-2 ' 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. in material for general fill/contour grading material Planned use of alternate contour grading g g g ' as described in Section 3.3, manufacture of topsoil as described in Section 3.10 and local purchase 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. ' ♦1314\F0818803.D0C(R02) 10-1 ' Table 10-1 ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE Budget ry Estimate Item+ 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. bearing and Grubbing 34 acres $2,800.00 $95,200 4. 'Unclassified Excavation and Relandfilling 70,000 cu yd $6.00 $420,000 5. !General Fill/Contour Grading Material 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. X60 Mil Textured HDPE Geomembrane 165,000 sq yd $6.75 $1,113,750 9. 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 $52,800 15. 'Silt Fence 5,000 If $1.25 ,250 16. Hydroseeding 165,000 sq yd $1.00 $1$6$6,000 17. 18" dia. HDPE Drain Pipe 250 If $45.00 $11,250 18a. Perimeter Roads, 20' 4,300 If $32.25 $138,675 18b. Perimeter 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 21 a. (Abandon Existing Groundwater Monitoring ' Wells, 50' 5 ea $500.00 $2,500 21 b. 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' 1 3 ea 15,000.00 $15,000 ' Total Amount of Estimate $6,838,875 Note: Unit price for perimeter roads includes furnishing and installing stone, goetextile and barrier 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 11.0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE A schedule for construction of the Southold Landfill capping system has been prepared Iand 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. IThe proposed schedule is predicated on an aggressive approach providing for multiple operations to be performed concurrently. This approach is not uncommon for landfill Iconstruction 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. I I 1 1 � I 1 l ♦1114T0804815.DOC(R02) 1 1-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD �•,,1 � �0•� SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - FINAL CLOSURE PLAN FIGURE 11-1 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ' 1999 ' JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC PREMOBILIZATION .. ........ . ... ...... ........... . .... ...... ...... ...... .... I MOBILIZATION .. ... ... ....................................... .... ...... ............. ...... .... i ' .............................................. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ................. i EROSION CONTROL � I�I EXCAVATION AND RELANDFILLING OF WASTE, UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION . ..... .... i CONTOUR GRADING MATERIAL .... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ....__.... ...... .... LFGMONITORING WELLS ... ... . ..... ....... .... _ ..__ ----. ...... ..... ...... ....... .... ...... ...... _ . . ...... .... . ..... ....... ... GEOTEXTILE .... ... ... ...... .... ... ............. ........ . ... . .......... ...... ...... ...... .... ........... ..... .. .. j GAS VENTING LAYER ._. ... ..... ............. _ ..... ...._ ..... .. ...._.. ..... ...... ..... . . .. . .-.. ... .......... _.. ' GEOMEMBRANE . . . .. ...... ...... .......... ... _.__. ' GEOCOMPOSITE .... ... ............................... ............ ..... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ...... ..... ....... .... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ... . .... BARRIER PROTECTION LAYER .. ... ... ............. ...... ...... ..... .... ...... ............ ...... . ... ...... ..... ...... ...... .... . .... .... ..... ...... ..... TOPSOIL ......... ... ...............................- ................. ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ............ . .... ...... .... . ...... ...... ..... ...... .................. ..... ...... . ..... ...... .... ' HYDROSEEDING .. ... ... ... ......... .. .. ...... .... ...... ..... ...... ...... . .. ...... ...... ...... . ... ...... ... . . ... ... .- ... . ..... ...... ...... ... ........ ..... ..... EROSIONCONTROL MATERIALS .. ........ ........ ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ............ . .... ...... ...... .... . ..... ...... ...... ................... ..... ...... ..... ' Dvift and b0ONSULTING Bar ilucci ENGINEERS - A DAIISMI OF VALLIAM F.OOSUICH ASSOCIATES.P.C. ,, ' RWSH1814(81BIH8) � r APPENDIX A NYSDEC AUGUST 1, 1998 RESPONSE TO VARIANCE REQUESTS i �I •1114T0518801.DOC(R01I ,.,r0+ r1OR .a+•♦a +ta uv�.w. P.2 NEW YMK STATE DLpARTRMN I*V4VIRONWNTAL CONSERVATIOt,_, tM A, Budding M -AM, Stoa7 Brook, NY i 1790-M6 Phone (516) 414.0.375 Fax (316) 444 0373 FILE IMkked D. Z"" August 1, 19 9 5 Canw#dsskww Supervisor Thomas H. Wickham Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Supervisor Wickham: The Department has reviewed the four Applications for Variance From 6 NYC" Part 360, dated March 2, 1995, relating to the capping/closure and post-closure monitoring of the Southold (Cutchogue) Landfill. Our review was concluded a follows: 1 . variance Request No. i - Sas venting Layer This variance requests authorization to increase the fines content of the gas venting layer of the final cover from five percent by weight to 10 percent by weight. This variance request is approved. 2 . variance Request No. 2 - Harrier Protection Layer This variance requests authorization to reduce the thickness of the barrier protection layer from 24 inches to 12 inches over a geomembrane barrier layer. This variance request is approved. 3 . variance Request No. 3 - 7?opsoil Layer This variance requests authorization to replace the six-inch topsoil layer with a six(6) -inch thick layer of equivalent vegetative growth medium. This variance is approved 4 . variance Request No. 4 - groundwater Monitoring This variance requests mucification of the groundwater frequency to semi-annual for routine parameters and every three years for baseline ;arameters. This variance cannot be approved at this time, as the tests specified in the "Stipulation of Settlement" have not been met. The jqR 09 '96 10=28 M'S ?N.CONS. P.3 'a Supervisor Thomas H. Wickham 2_ Town of Southold's "Stipulation -of Settlement" outlines the three conditions whereby a groundwater monitoring variance may be requested (Page 9 of Attachment I of the settlement) as follows: Condition No. 1 is "upon implementation of the DEC-approved Closure Investigation Report. . . " A final Closure Investigation Report (CIR) has not been submitted to the DEC. Thea submitted CIR must be approvable to DEC and must include as initial round of baseline monitoring results as out.Lined in Section 3.2. 1. Ground,water Sampling and Analvail of :he Landfill Closure Investigation Workplan for the Town of :3outhold Landfill, dated March, 1995. Condition No. 2 is "upon :implementation of complete baseline parameter monitoring one ;1) year from the date of initial baseline monitoring in performance of the approved hydrogeologic workplan and approved CIR. . . " This condition requires that a second round of baseline parameter monitoring must be completed (for comparison to the first round) before a variance request can be considered. Condition No. 3 is "upon implementation of quarterly routine monitoring for two (2) years from the date of initial baseline monitoring in accordance with the approved Work Plans and CIR. . ." This condition requires that two (2) years of routine monitoring must be perforred quarterly, three (3) rounds after the initial baseline monitoring is completed (Condition No. 1) and three (3) rounds atter the second round of baseline monitoring (Condition No. 2) is completed. A variance for authorization to reduce the post-closure monitoring frequency should be submitted at that time. The "Stipulation of Settlement" further states that "the Town may them*fter monitor ground and surface water semi- annualor routine parameters and every three (3) years for bastIne parameters, unless monitoring reports reveal a contravention of applicable ground and\or surface water standards deemed material :oy the DEC. " In summary, variance requests Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are approved, and action on variance request 140. 4 is deferred until the conditions in the stipulated ag;-eement are fulfilled. JAN 03 196 10:21 M`rS SN.CCtVS. P.4 u ' Supervisor Thomas H. Wickham 3 . iIf you have any questions, please contact Mr. Stanley Farkas, P.E. , of my staff, at (516) 444-0375. sincerely, 4Anon�y . ava, P.E. Regional Solid waste Engineer AJC:ek cc: Stanley Farkas, P.E. , Req:.on 1 Appendix B APPENDIX B STABILITY ANALYSIS II j 1 ♦1314\F0518801.DOC(ROl) i r SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ' PREPARED FOR: ' DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 CROSSWAYS PARK DRIVE WOODBURY, NEW YORK 11797-2015 PREPARED BY: TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, P.C. 615 ROUTE 32, P.O. BOX 447 HIGHLAND MILLS, N.Y. 10930 AUGU 1998 (�F r1Etw y, g�P 5�CHN ti.;9, c THomAs ! 071384 40FESS�� W.O. 2142.02 FILE 6\214202.COV TECTONIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE SOUTHOLD, NEW-YORK TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 t3.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION 2 4.0 GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING 2 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 5.1 Waste and Refuse Materials 3 5.2 Native Materials 4 5.3 Groundwater 5 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING 5 7.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 6 8.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS 7 8.1 Shear Strength Parameters 8 8.2 Slope Stability Design Considerations 8 8.3 Veneer Slope Stability Analysis 9 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 10.0 LIMITATIONS 10 FIGURE 1 SITE PLAN ' FIGURE 2 PROFILES FIGURE 3 TYPICAL CAP CROSS SECTION APPENDIX I LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS APPENDIX 11 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES COMPUTER OUTPUT ' TECTONIC 1.0 INTRODUCTION A slope stability analysis was performed for the proposed landfill closure at Southold, 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 rInvestigation 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. 1 ' TECTONIC r • 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. t3.0 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. r 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 ralong 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 r 2 1 ' 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 North Fork glacial iclay. The overlying recent soil deposits include stream, shore, beach and salt- marsh sediments, and some fill materials. rThe 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 Bartillucci 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 1 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 mining 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 "Hydrogeologic 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 soil 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 overlain 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 overlain 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. 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 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 1 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 flat 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 TLCTO141 ' 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 1 7 TECTONIC 1 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 gl-ass 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 1 110 1 120 32 0 8.2 Slope Stability Design Considerations ' 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 ' 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 II. 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' sloe 1.9 1.3 Northeastern Corner B-B' Landfill Sloe 1.5 1.2 Southeastern landfill C-C' sloe 1.6 1.2 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 TECTONIC 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. 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. ' 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 1 TECTONIC is based on good judgment and experience. However, no matter how qualified the geotechnical engineer or detailed the investigation, subsurface conditions cannot II ' 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\2142_02rep.doc 11 PROPERTY LINE "�o APPROX LIMIT '000 OF WASTE v\L r 1ARI, ......... -------------- IL 7L SU to LEGEN D c c APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROFILES NOTES � - ,, / 1 ` r I I t, '!• 1 11`\';i\ r , �l ✓�iY V � , ,+o \ \\` \��`` 1 1 'i 1. TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE FEATURES TAKEN FROM DRAWING ENTITLED "SUBGRADE GRADING PLAN DATED AUGUST, 1998 BY DARKA AND BARTILUCCI, PC `a 1 � 111 ! xa � � \\y ,�,\\ '�•. 1i j a', \ \, �'!'i 1 \,\ _ ENGINEERING \ � i '1 \, jll;. lits 'ty � I \� :` I — TECTONIC CONSULTANTS P.C. P.O. Box 447, 615 Route 32 (914) 928-6531 Highland Mills, N.Y. 10930 SITE PLAN SOUTHOLD LANDFILL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD i ti — - - _; NEW YORK Date Work Order Drawing No. Rev 8/4/ga Scale 2142.02 FIGURE 1 0 t - GENERAL 4 FILL LAYER VEGETATION AND BARRIER PROTECTION LAYER (LANDFILL CAP) 0 60 MIL HDPE O O GEOMEMBRANE LINER O O C � 00000000000 ■ X00000 n \ 000 LANDFILL WASTE �j MATERIAL GEOTEXTILE SAND GAS VENTING LAYER TECTONIC EONSU�,ANTS P.C. . P.O. Box 447, 615 Route 32 (914) 928-6531 Myhkand Mille, N.Y. 10930 TYPICAL CAP CROSS SECTION SOUTHOLD LANDFILL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NEW YORK Data Work Order Drawing No. Rev 8/0.0/90 Scots yrs 2142.02 FIGURE 3 0 r t r � APPENDIX 1 i 1 1 E r r PROJECT No.2142.01 DATE: 7/1/98 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TECTONIC PROJECT: Southold Landfill ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. LOCATION: Southold, N.Y. SOURCE:Import Golf Course Mat./S. Boundr. U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 100 12 6 4 3 2 1.5 13/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100140 200 90 \Ifl-I-FIT 1111111 11111 1 111 80 ► I E ► I C 70 E N T 60 I 1 F I N R so ( ► ► Y I I i 40 w G 30 I I T II 20 I I 10071 - ► ► ► ► I I ► ► II 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND� I SILT OR CLAY' coarse fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu • BS-1 Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trace Silt 4 0.77 6.5 I Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay 0 BS-1 50.00 1.23 0.422 0.1880 19.0 79.4 1.6 I I PROJECT No.2142.01 DATE: 7/1/98 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TECTONIC PROJECT: Southold Landfill ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. LOCATION: Southold, N.Y. SOURCE:Import Golf Course Mat./Sand Pit U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 100 12 6 4 3 2L5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 ► I ► ( 90 I 80 I ► P R70 C N T 60 F N E so R B Y 40 W r iI E I i H30 T f� I 20 10 ° ► ► ► ► � i ► 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAV"finecoarse SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I medium fine Specimen Identification Classification MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu • BS-2 Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trace Silt 4 0.98 5.8 Specimen Identification D100 D60 I D30 D10 %Gravel I %Sand %Silt i %Clay 0 BS-2 37.50 1.29 I 0.528 0.2208 15.2 83.7 1.1 PROTECT No.2142.01 DATE: 7/1/98 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS PROJECT: Southold Landfill ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. LOCATION: Southold, N.Y. SOURCE:Dredged Mat. From Plum Island U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 100 12 6 4 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 810 141620 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 90 J I I so E I R 70 C ' E i N T 60 F I N E so R B Y 40 W E I H30 T 20 i 10 o 1 J I f 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAN COBBLES coarse GRAVELfine coarse medium D fine SILT OR CLAY Specimen Identification Classification MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu • BS-3 Bwn c-f SAND, some c-f Gravel, little Silt 11 .I Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay • BS-3 75.00 1.85 0.413 30.5 55.9 13.6 PROJECT No.2142.01 1 DATE: 7/1/98 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TE'CTOW PROJECT: Southold Landfill ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. LOCATION: Southold, N.Y. SOURCE:Glass Mat. From Waste blanagemen U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. S1EVE.NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 12 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 314 1/2 3i8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 100 i 90 I I 1 80 R 70 C II I E N T 60 F I I I I 1 N R ,o I I I Y 40 W I I G 30 I 1 HI II T 20TF I I, tI I N I IIII i 11111 10 I I I 1 � Il IIS 0 -E I -T -4--T 1 41 - -H-.-.4, 11�-�--F 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine Icoarse I medium I fine Specimen Identification Classification MC% LL ( PL PI Cc Cu • BS-4 Gy c-f GLASS, trace Silt 11 I 1.09 10.9 ' Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel I ,Sand cSilt ! FcClay 0 BS-4 19.00 1.86 0.589 0.1703 9.7 86.1 4.2 PROJECT No.2142.01 DATE: 7/1/98 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TECTONIC PROJECT: Southold Landfill ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. LOCATION: Southold, N.Y. SOURCE:Native Sand From Sand Pit U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE.NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200 100 12 6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 70 140 90 80 R 70 C N I I T 60 F I N R 50 B Y 40 I W E G 30 H T 20 111 N 10 0I I I F1 I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse__L fine 1coarse I medium fine :1 Specimen Identification Classification MC`Io LL PL PI Cc 1 Cu • BS-5 Tn c-f SAND,little c-f Gravel,trace Silt 6 0.95 ! 5.5 I Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand /Silt j %Clay 0 BS-5 50.00 1.51 0.624 0.2712 17.8 81.9 0.3 PROJECT No.2142.01 1 DATE: 7/1/98 COMPACTION TEST ' TECTONIC PROJECT: Southold Landfill ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. LOCATION: Southold, N.Y. SOURCE:lmport Golf Course Mat./S. Boundr 150 145 I � Specimen Identification BS-1 140 I Description of Material Tn c-f SAND;little c-f Gravel. trace Silt, Test Method ASTM D698/A 135 D R TEST RESULTS y I \ D 130 Maximum Dry Density 110.0 PCF N Optimum Water Content 13.5 % S T y 125 ATTERBERG LIMITS P LL PL PI 0 U I % % n d 120 S CURVES OF 100% SATURATION P FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL TO: r I 2.80 115 ---------- 2.70 u i 2.60 C F 110 O 0 E 105 I 100 95 I 90I I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 WATER CONTENT (Percent Dry Weight) MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT No.2142.01 1 DATE: 7/1/98 COMPACTION TEST .TECTONIC PROJECT: Southold Landfill ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. LOCATION: Southold, N.Y. SOURCE:Import Golf Course Mat./Sand Pit 150 145 Specimen Identification BS-2 140 Description of Material Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trace Silt Test Method ASTM D698/A 135 D R TEST RESULTS Y D 130 Maximum Dry Density 109.0 PCF NOptimum Water Content 14.0 % t T y 125 ATTERBERG LIMITS P 0 LL PL PI U % % % n a 120 S CURVES OF 100% SATURATION P FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL TO: r 2.80 C ---------- 2.70 u b 2.60 c F 110 c r 105IN 100 -4 11 95 1 N x 90 14� I I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 WATER CONTENT(Percent Dry Weight) MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT No.2142.01 IDATE: 7/1/98 COMPACTION TEST TECTONIC PROJECT: Southold Landfill O ENGINEERING CSULTANTS P.C.N LocATtoN: Southold, N.Y. soURCE:Dredged Mat. From Plum Island 150 145 Specimen Identification BS-3 140 Al . Description of Material Bwn c-f SAND, some c-f Gravel, little Silt Test Method ASTM D698/C 135 D R TEST RESULTS � I D 130 I Maximum Dry Density 127.0 PCF NOptimum Water Content 8.5 % S y 125 ATTERBERG LIMITS P 0 LL PL PI U % % % n :# d 120 S CURVES OF 100% SATURATION P FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL TO: r I I115 4-4+\ 2.80 C ---------- 2.70 U i 2.60 c F 110 IKo 0 t 105 100 95 �I 90 I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 WATER CONTENT(Percent Dry Weight) MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT No.2142.01 DATE: 7/1/98 COMPACTION TEST TECTONIC PROJECT: Southold Landfill ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. LOCATION: Southold, N.Y. SOURCE:Glass Niat. From Waste Nianageme 150 145 I I Specimen Identification BS-4 140 Description of Material Gy c-f GLASS, trace Silt Test Method ethod ASTM D 698/A 1 135 I I D \HA R TEST RESULTS Y I I D 130 Maximum Dry Density 112.0 PCF N Optimum Water Content 12.0 S I \ T 125 I ATTERBERG LIMITS P LL PL PI U I % % % d 120 S sI 'd X CURVES OF 100% SATURATION P T FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL TO: 1 e r I 2.80 115 I C ---------- 2.70 u n 2.60 i F 110 0 0 t 105 100 I 95 I I 77N i I I I I I 900 5 10 15 20 25 30 WATER CONTENT(Percent Dry Weight) MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT No.2142.01 1 DATE: 7/1/98 COMPACTION TEST TECTONIC PROJECT: Southold Landfill ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. LOCATION: Southold, N.Y. SOURCE:Native Sand From Sand Pit 150 � I 1 145 Specimen Identification BS-5 140 Description of Material Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trace ( I Silt I Test Method ASTM D698/A I 135 I D R TEST RESULTS y D 130 I Maximum Dr} Density 105.0 PCF NOptimum Water Content 12.5 S T y 125 ATTERBERG LIMITS r P 0 LL PL PI U 1 N % % % n d 120 S CURVES OF 100% SATURATION P FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL TO: rI 2.80 115 C ------ 2.70 U b i 2.60 F 110 o 0 t 105 I ' 100 95 . I I I 900 5 10 15 20 25 30 WATER CONTENT(Percent Dry Weight) MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT No.2142.01 DATE: 6/29/98 COMPACTION TEST TECTONIC PROJECT: Southold Landfill ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. LOCATION: Southold, N.Y. SOURCE:Import Golf Course Mat./S. Boundr 150 I 145 I I Specimen Identification BS-1A 140 Description of Material Tn c-f SAND,-little c-f Gravel, trace Silt Test Method ASTM D1557/A 135 D R TEST RESULTS y D 130 Maximum Dry Density 115.3 PCF N Optimum Water Content 13.5 % S T Y 125 I I ATTERBERG LIMITS P 0 1 LL PL PI U I % % % n ## d 120 S CURVES OF 100% SATURATION P FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL TO: r 2.80 115 c ( I �--------- 2.70 u i I 2.60 c 110 I I F I t I 105 I I I 100 I I I I 95 I I 90 I I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 WATER CONTENT(Percent Dry Weight) MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT No.2142.01 1 DATE: 6/29/98 COMPACTION TEST TECTONIC PROJECT: Southold Landfill ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. LOCATION: Southold, N.Y. SOURCE:Native Sand From Sand Pit 150 4 15 I I Specimen Identification BS-5A 140 Description of Material Tn c-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trace Silt Test Method ASTM D1557/A 135 N +A D R TEST RESULTS Y D 130 Maximutu Dry Density 111.0 PCF N Optimum Water Content 12.0 I T y 125 ATTERBERG LIMITS ' P 0 LL PL PI % % % n d 120 S CURVES OF 100 90 SATURATION P FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL TO: e r 2.80 115 ' C ---------- 2.70 U i 2.60 F 110 o 0 105 100 95 1 90 + 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 WATER CONTENT(Percent Dry Weight) MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP -0. 0607 qI Z 2400 .:. .. ) � PEAK RESIDUAL .....:...;..:. ..:..:........ ....... ........ ' C. psf 145 131 E : ,..:. -0.040 deg 40. 7 31 .2 •c .. ....... J G TAN 0 -86 0.61 � -0.020 1600 E :...:...:.. . ; ;.. . 4) .....:.:..: L Dilotion �. .....;.....i.. i 41 0 Consol. : : : • : C) .............. ..:..:.. .. .. L U . . .. .. 0.020 V) 800 ., :..:..:.... .....:..:..:.. ..:...:.. .. .. _ o1 i :..:..:. ..<..:..:..:.. .....:..:..:.. ..:.. a� :..:...:..... .........:.. . o . ..;..:..<..:.. > :..:...:..... .....:..:..... ..:...:........ ..:. :.. .:..:...:.. {{ 0.040 �jC' .. ...:.. ...:........:.. ..,..:...:..:.. .. ..;.....:.. N a ..:..... .. 0.060 0 O 0. 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 O 800 1600 2=C0 Horiz . Deform. , in Normal Stress 1200AMPLE NO 1 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WATER CONTENT, % 13.5 13.5 13.5 1000 -J DRY DENSITY, pcf 103 .9 103.9 103.9 ,, .. . ..:. ..<.. ..:..:.. .. ....<..:.. .. .. ..;..;. SATURATION, % 62. 4 62.4 62.4 1 800 z VOID RATIO 0.562 0.562 0.562 N SIDE LENGTH, in 4.00 4.00 4.00 HEIGHT, in 1 .60 1 .60 1 .60 600 WATER CONTENT, % 21.6 20.0 19.4 DRY DENSITY, pcf 103.9 105.0 105.8 a°i 400 w SATURATION, % 100.0 100.0 100.0 � v0 I D RAT I 0 0.562 0.520 0.504 Q SIDE LENGTH, i n 4.00 4.00 4.00 0 HEIGHT, in 1.60 1.60 1.60 O ` . . . . . . " NORMAL STRESS, psf 150 300 600 0 0. 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 MAXIMUM SHEAR, psf 267 413 657 Horiz . Deform. , in RESIDUAL SHEAR, psf 211 329 489 SAMPLE DATA Strain rate, in/min 0.010 0.010 0.010 SAMPLE TYPE. COMPACTED CLIENT: TECTONIC ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION : BS-1 PROJECT: SOUTHOLD LANDFILL LL= PL= P1 = SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2. 60 SAMPLE LOCATION: SOUTHOLD, NY REMARKS: SATURATED PROJ . NO. : 98S2307-01 DATE: 7-7-98 PRIOR TO TESTING DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT FIG. NO. TECT1 I J & L TESTING CO . , INC . �r � s � � r �■r � � r a� � � � �r �r .r � � Southold LF Cross-section A-A Slope Stab ility _ Analsis - deepp Ten Most Critical . C: SHAI . PLT By : Tectonic Engineering B0-17-98 4: 55pM 400 # FS Soil TotWt SatWt C Phi Ru Pore Piez . 1 2 .32 No . (pcf ) tpcf ) ( psf } (deg) Parana Press Surf# 2 2 .37 1 105 115 130 31 O O W1 2 110 120 O 30 O O W1 3 2 .39 3 65 75 200 20 O O WI 4 2 .42 4 110 120 0 32 0 0 W1 5 2 .43 6 2 .46 7 2 .47 8 2 .52 300 9 2 .55 10 2 .56 Y-Axis (ft) 200 9-P,6 5 34 y 3 2 Y -------- ti;•F --- -� ---- ------ 100 " ::: : ::, '". 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 PCSTABL5M FSMin=2 . 32 M-Axis (ft) �r rr �r rr rr r� rr r� ■r r �r r� r� r r r r �■ r Southold LF Cross-section A-A Slope Stab ility Analysis - shallow Ten Most Critical . C: SHA_S1 . PLT By : Tectonic Engineering 08-17-98 4: 56pm 400 # FS Soil TotWt SatWt C Phi Ru Pore Piez . 1 1 .87 No . (pcf ) (pcf ) (psf ) (deg) Param Press Surf# 2 1 .91 1 105 115 130 31 O O W1 2 110 120 0 30 0 O W1 3 2 .07 3 65 75 200 20 0 0 W1 4 2 .08 4 110 120 O 32 O O W1 5 2 .25 6 2 .27 7 2 .37 8 2 .38 300 9 2.40 10 2 .33 Y-Axis (ft) 200 A 3 3 3 100 4 ------- ------- ------- 4 ------- -----W i 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 PCSTABL5M FSMin-1 . 87 W-Axis (ft) r� ■r r� rr rr rr rr rr �■r r err �r ■r �r rr �r rr ■r r Southola LF Cross-section A-A Seismic Slope Stability Analysis - deepp Ten Most Critical . C: SHAEi . PLT By : Tectonic Engineering 08-17-98 4: 57pm 400 # gg Soil TotWt SatWt C Phi Ru Pore Piez . 1 1 .57 No . (pcf ) (pcf ) (psf ) (deg) Paran Press Surf# 2 1 .57 1 105 115 130 31 O O Wi 2 110 120 O 30 O 0 W1 3 1 .60 3 65 75 200 20 O O Wi 4 1 .61 4 110 120 0 32 O O W1 5 1 .62 6 1 .63 7 1 .66 8 1 .66 300 9 1 .67 10 1 .67 Y-Axis (ft) 200 9 10 67 3 �.•'..• ,1,. 100 .:::a^.....:•• . 4 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 PCSTABL5M FSmin=1 . 57 X-Axis (ft) Southold LF Cross-section A-A Seismic Slope Stability _ Anal sis - shallow Ten Most Critical . C: SHA-SEI . PLT By : Tectonic Engineering 38-17-98 4: 58pM 400 # F3 Soil TotWt SatWt C Phi Ru Pore Piez . 1 1 .27 No . (Pcf ) (Pcf ) (Psf ) (deg) Paran Press Surf# 2 1 .32 1 105 115 130 31 O O W1 2 110 120 0 30 O 0 W1 3 1 .40 3 65 75 200 20 0 O W1 4 1 .43 4 110 120 O 32 0 O W1 5 1 .49 6 1 .50 7 1 .51 S 1 .53 300 9 1 .54 10 1 .54 Y-Axis (ft) 200 3 3 3 100 4 -- ------- ------- 4 ------- -------------W 1 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 PCSTABL5M FSMin=1 . 27 W-Axis (ft) Southold LF Cross-section B-B Stability Analysis _ - static loading Ten Most Critical . C: SHB. PLT By : Tectonic Engineering 08-10-98 2 : 01pm 200 H FS Soil TotWt SatWt C Phi Ru Pore Piez . .1 1 .52 No . (pcf ) (pcf ) (psf) (deg) Param Press Surf 11 1 105 115 130 31 0 0 WI * 1 .55 2 65 75 200 20 0 0 WI * 1 .59 3 110 .120 0 32 0 0 W1 * 1 .64 * 1 .64 160 6 1 .64 * 1 .65 * 1 .66 9 1.72 10 1.74 JLO 12 745 6 2 1 Y-Axis (ft) y ................ ......................", W1--------- ---------------------------------------------W1 40 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 PCSTABLSM FSmin=1. 52 X-Axis (ft) Southold LF Cross-section B-B Stabilitu AnalqsiS 7 SeiS"ic loading Ten Most Critical . C: SH—BE. PLT By : Tectonic Engineering 08-10-98 2 : 07pm 200 0 FS SOi I Totwt Satwt C Phi Ru Pore Piez . I 1.21 No . (pcf ) (pcf ) (psf ) (deg) Param Press Surf 11 1 105 115 130 31 0 0 WI * 1 .23 2 65 75 200 20 0 0 W1 * 1 .27 3 lia 120 0 32 0 0 W1 * 1 .29 * 1 .30 160 6 1 .31 7 1 .31 a 1 .31 1 .35 10 1 .36 JLO 120 65 4 2 Y-Axis 80 W1--------- ---------------------------------------------W1 40 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 PCSTABLSM FSmin=1. 21 X-Axis (ft) Southold LF Cross-section C-C Slope Stability Analysis-static loading Ten Most Critical . C:SH_C2 . PLT By : Tectonic Engineering 08-18-98 11 : 25am 240 # FS Soil TotWt SatWt C Phi Ru Pore Piez . 1 1 .64 No . (pcf ) (pcf ) (psf ) (deg) Param Press Surf# 2 1 .65 1 105 115 130 31 O O W 2 110 120 O 30 O O W1 3 1 .68 3 65 75 200 20 0 O W1 4 1 .69 4 110 120 0 32 O O W1 200 5 1 .69 6 1 .71 7 1 .72 8 1.72 9 IL , 3 10 1 .74 160 Y-Axis (ft) 10 9 7 8 120 4 3 80 � ',•• y 40 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 PCSTABL5M FSMin=1 . 64 M-Axis (ft) �r rr rr rr rr rr r r rr r a■ r rr r it �r r r� rr Southold LF Crass-section C-C Slope Stability Analysis-seismic loadin Ten Most Critical . C: SH_CEI . PLT By : Tectonic Engineering 08-18-98 11: 2gy 7am 240 # FS Soil TotWt SatWt C Phi Ru Pore Piez . 1 1 . 16 Mo • (pcf ) (pcf ) (psf ) (deg) Param Press Surf# 2 1 . 19 1 105 115 130 31 O O W1 2 110 120 0 30 O 0 W1 3 1 . 19 3 65 75 200 20 0 0 W1 4 1 .20 4 110 120 O 32 O 0 W1 200 5 1 .21 6 1 .21 7 1 .21 8 1 .21 9 1 .22 10 1 .23 160 Y-Axis (ft) 6 120 2 3 W1----------------------- Be 40 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 PCSTABL5M FSMin=1 . 16 W-Axis (ft) Veneer Analysis - Static Loading Southold LF. Specified Surface . C: SH_V . PLT By : Tectonic Engineering 08-10-98 3 : 50pM 80 Soil TotWt SatWt C Pl,i Ru Pore Pi ez . No . Cpcf ) (pcf > Cpsf ) Weg) Param Press Surf 11 1 105 115 65 31 O O W1 60 Y-Axis (ft) 40 1 J_. r- r _1 20 .f 1� 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 PCSTABL5M FS=2 . 22 M-Axis (ft) Veneer Anal vis - Seismic Loading Southold LF. Specified Surf ace . C: SH_U . PLT By : Tectonic Engineering 08-10-98 3 : 53pM 80 Soil TotWt Sat-Wt- C Phi Ru Pore Piez . No . Cpcf ) CPcf ) Cpsf > (deg) Paran Press Surf it 1 105 115 65 31 O O W1 60 Y-Axis (ft) 40 =r------------ r- r 20 �f l f Ii- - 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 PCSTABL5M FS=1 . 71 X-Axis (ft) 1 1 1 APPENDIX C SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS 1 r r 1 r 1 1 r 1 r ♦1314\F0518801.DOC(ROl) r REGIONAL OFFICES TECT® p ge� ENGINEERING Latham,New York 518-783-1630 �1� Auburn,Massachusetts 508-832-7148 CONSULTANTS PC. west Chester,Ohio 513-759-9500 P.O.Box 447,615 Route 32 Fax No. 914-928-9211 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. August 20, 1998 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 and Depot Lane to the west, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The landfill "footprint" is comprised of approximately 34 acres. 2.0 Site Background and Operating History The Southold Landfill is owned and was formerly 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 ENGNEERIN G 1 TECTONICCONSUL TS Dvirka and Bartilucci Page 2 August 20, 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. 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. 4.0 Settlement Analysis Based on the above profile and age of the landfill, we have assumed that the majority of primary 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 TECTONIC CONSULTANG,P Dvirka and Bartilucci Page 3 August 20, 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 (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. o The thickness of waste material in the landfill varies between 5 and 40 feet. o The landfill material consists of MSW and/or C & D debris 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 debris landfill material is shown as attachment "B." ENGINEEIN TECTONIC CONSULTuGSP Dvirka and Bartilucci Page 4 August 20, 1998 5.0 Conclusion Based on the results of our 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. 6.0 Limitations nal services have been performed using that degree of care and skill Our professional p 9 9 ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar situations. The interpretation of the field data is based on good judgement and experience. However, no matter how qualified the geotechnical engineer or detailed the investigation, subsurface conditions cannot always be predicted 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 planned, or if any additional subsurface or laboratory test data inconsistent with that presented herein becomes available, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this letter-report shall not be considered valid unless reviewed and verified in writing by Tectonic Engineering Consultants P.C. We trust this letter- ill allow you to proceed with design and construction of the proposed Sou re. y Sincerely, gOw Tectonic E i at C. UJW Thom Chief Geotec ��� TJC/MAS/FX File 6\214203settlement.doc Attachments: Table - imated Settlements of MSW and C&D Debris Materials Table 2 — Estimated Settlements of"Yard Waste" Materials Attachment "A" —Test Pit Location Plan and Test Pit Logs Attachment "B" - Settlement Calculation TABLE 1 ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS OF MSW AND C&D DEBRIS LANDFILL MATERIALS Landfill Primary Settlement Secondary Total Settlement Material With Cap and Settlement With Cap And Thickness (ft)3 0 Feet 5 Feet 10 Feet 0 Feet 5 Feet 10 Feet Fill (ft) Fill (ft) Fill (ft) Fill (ft) Fill (ft) Fill (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 m ' Landfill material assumed to be comprised of MSW and C&D debris placed for at least 5 years (� 2 Primary settlement anticipated to occur within 1 year of cap and fill placement ~O 3 Secondary settlement anticipated to occur between 1 year and 50 years after fill and cap placement Z n �Z z� Nz �m m n v WSW, 1 TABLE 2 ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS OF "YARD WASTE" "LANDFILL MATERIALS Landfill Primary Settlement Secondary Total Settlement Material With Cap and Settlement With Cap And Thickness (ft)3 (ft), 0 Feet 5 Feet 10 Feet O Feet 5 Feet 10 Feet Fill ft Fill ft Fill ft Fill ftFill ft Fill 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 m Landfill material assumed to be comprised of "yard waste" for upper 15 feet and MSW or C&D debris n material for bottom 15-40 feet. `i 2 Primary settlement anticipated to occur within 1 year of fill and cap placement 0 3 Secondary settlement anticipated to occur between 1 and 50 years after fill and cap placement 0 m NZ m m 2� ti a l R 3 v )d s dl M)LLv15 ] I-.-j � 3lrll10LS 1 °y�}Q s a 1 1 111 11 E 11 )� �� p (T 5 I Q Lt�'• 301YOIf 11lMt30 n �s-s go ansiw IIo1L�3noo i t tc-s� 1 1 --�-• I y � I A 0°Z i f, oma•• �r�� / �\ 1 1 1 I � 1 L 1 a Na t sT1w allr �'i J \ jj i 8wv \9 ; 11>ARl110O C— `\ 1T46M 01 3M Kr` .cx)xi MAMM S<) .g \V� 3 .1� J'3 S Val \ aro �X019-43►NnY . 1 61� / 00 sm 1 E " 0� \ \ o W6 0 a IL <) I � I ` r, 11� & 5* 06 ' UP , %.a • w �14w � u ]— i \ � a(,fwJrtO .191 ro 1)0 1 Tri (incl AtO , 3Na113n 1iEI'3L3Y � it' ...._ 1` vz VMV n. t 1331 s a+v 0 AU LW43NX31NL 1 1 1AaNV1 tl (Msll "330170 MSn l0 1101%3-waw � 1 —141- a31b'A3-13 3"n A1103doad----1 ' SaAia"� 1 sited" 1`101110100 911V NOWnwSN07 0VO (vtvO 031"1 AM3n 4wTM15) vsc 11` , , 1 ` NILS OW01"00 V3Mr) Ss3waNi 133j s v MA t "OHM (1Asn .9<) 14rsn r1+�Y •[+0 (w . /) i 31SYLL cows rdo"MMI to U71 3111IM(Mddr -+--•- 1 i �� VM (vivo u11en La3e luu a3M11D11MYJ v3av) tM1 I 1 � Elm t• Ql / 1 31svM avrs rdA311MA/1 to LMMI 3&w111oM�Iv —�— / • ( / / 1 (03 MUM 303MM 0311Sv0) L331 9 JO E 557"07011 v 1V 31Svw own W430MM AD 1"1 -- ` 14 WIWI"3wvw 034M Lt 4JASM 14 31. A 315vw 01MX -Nd4NI11 w5n 113AO 90 SVM 7 MOM UKII JV NJ71N111 Ol N1d30(MSM.9) 1 Ct `_-'...••..•_,_ (M L) �/ AN'I t t Ud ISM l0 NOIIVN9630 OW NDILMI / 1 ( ••' IL Li 9 L 30NN7Vp � D 06T3'37i 1 3sv11MK 0311074 y _ __ __ —— —-- 1 n awn 9111 ND a3111363N311 LON O OW MWOMd LM 1S3t 3111 9NI1M10 031MUZ"L00111 SMA 37VAN OMMHp WM 1333 Llai A 3WOMV My INDIA AlA13" 7M11901M Ld 1S31 IOU!O 31ML 311&IV 7 NOUVA7l3 33VAM14 N4311 3111 01 M YON M 3w ) ) 1 0111 am W.) *.%M 3MV.s ora 0M).0 SYIwmw c M111MXON&V 9(S7N[1" Jd37M3) e� L. 711, " an 0.1I111VYf7 dM/ 7!R 7111 'M'J' 0 DVIRKA �) AND YP-t BARTILUCCId bo i/p��{ TEST PIT LOG A PIT NO. E:::�pJ) LOCATION' rr PROJECTNO./NAME �O(44 -wt.s� -Ct,�/�{ �,�+ an o{ 4-61 �{ SOUt�a1� L.Aa/tFtl� 131Y EXCAVATOR/EQUpMENT/OPERA,TOR K hn STAWIRNISH DATE T-p IrscTcnloct: e �h 11 U n CITION Of Pl ELEVATION OF: GROUND SURFACE/BOTTOM OF PIT ONDMON A b le {FT.ABOVE MSW IV REMARKS: SAMPLE OVA REMIARKS DEPTH INTERVAL SCREEN DESCRIPTION OF MATERIA4S i wDu L 3 {nW w�^ Snarl{ 4 � dawn te�reS � ' �e1."" s —If4G2 Ptk��/L cOt1�5J �4 f sir, Msw ccnsry�►� ° AtJ j Sol,��w4sf 9 ltd J�� " ff (tee >f��Pf (µS w� �•o+A �k C4, k� to Sa�� news p ��ss sr•kll tc�•+(� ����� �� is `f.) 1ack}-Gr'`ysr.�t�Jjy�+� is S fin/►¢ TES7 P ITO7 /8� NJDEVrM i nvu-A . -.fib IOy 45 C--" A - LOCATION SKETCHc1no AND - . tBARTILUCd project J .jovtk o td L4,J Fi i Semple Crew K' 1 f h -4 Ins Sample(s) Location(s) N 7 Sunpie(s) and/or Well Number(s) W i,.z X ��S+ dP�I k 4 wide Location of sample points,wells,borings,etc.,with reference to duee pemnanent reference points. Measure all distances,cleariy label roads,wells and permanent features. O M t, L e ave s , P lksIt, p're'l �k�s • f l�k,rQf r,o h/ M Iv-C+ �, }� rfk�a 'k yraaQ , �r toys I'f' Sol c"er( 1 iv �S�! wt e fG� t..�� fj 14t.��r•y It� S4•a. 4d a..� ala C Sit M+1Le� v►{ I off ! { Or LS ARM 1� AND- r "J JQUO SAAIILUCCI 1Q_Z Crq_ I PNO. 'fFST PIT LOG TE R w� — 77 ! PROJECT NO./NAME LOCATION S0 �`�.o( J Lk"t�Fi�l/131'l /ltur-�� wtt l—c[�trol Porl�on u [ p(CAVATOR/EpUIFfv�M/OPEi7ATOR ItWECTCR/CFF'.CE STARTJFINISH DATE r KeA 6k 114) Y111/4 � B.EVATKJN OF: GROUND SURFACE/BOTTOM OF PIT CONDITION OF PIT t A b j4 (FT.ABOVE MSU ^9 A /. REJAARI(S. 2, gre'i 0 /+ Sv rctCt�! �US�fe� CA; kni� �2tt✓e S O rl 4not., SAMPLE OVA REMARKS DgnH INTERVAL SMEN DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS p 141 ) ��rsi i pok 7�+ru C"flai � n ! trrc S•�'^`rl) roWA deconrdSFt�( le4JSr Smkit 1S''lo t6r""Cl,fi, ado}S j�,r ye tA.oY afn/ �jrH"}c�,t1,1'''11 2 �iir. S j�— S I / t riuiti1 wJk wQ�lt f4,enc ! P <<sttC r s 3 ds k&tl{r rI Pei) � - 444 J'a I vx* t 11141t sq�� CaM1�k��i"Ij 6 irALc ,Sr / 4'( • 7rs.c{ p"o.a os'? yews 7 /� de" � 1 ( It IectS o f CeKcre fe ��(�� f u,�d�. C�*' of 8 j4'`1'!e Ci!OA/ plisdlr, Dk�s 0� 'fm f s aliK� t r.Ice� 9 of �d�� seee�ana( w/Vrj i''A to --► � /����K crw�ty sss 11 ntWsrkp�r tr�.(e w•ovi�, (v�6er'1 12 �pp 1 l �!cow�ll cif CiGhra� S m4 •�C.. (4 t �4�5 13 A S Ire C• �J -CPei<�f) P oil Ck 6 Mt SS✓, e.0� M /t c M S 14 s'Al � � (tsS i parer rlcS�+c� �lr�«� C�� �tr dooW c4r�el / Evb OF 7ESt iS SCr� rota raft 4 Ar It' ro S�� i..t firer ,r iAdM,� S 4.,� Nn)E VM CILQ AND BAR11Ll1CC1 LOCATION SKETCH Project l 1+�..'�F� Sample Crew Ke•i►•R 6 ,,s' Sample(s) Location(s) We— T Sample(s) and/or Well Number(s) t� ' �.�� x Ire ' Jute x 't Location of sample points,wells,borings,etc.,with reference to three permanent reference points. Measure all distances,cleariy label roads,wells and permanent features• EAST le,,v 1 �(k�C�tS, ry(f r ��tL�I 44 11 htwsrtpl' cO— r S-0%,lj c.wcr j{ V110 A, pill, Q Joys ru�l Su. I%f D5 g � dt c v+�(►0 5 t r � 1 La C1 DO AND ILUCCi sae + 7P- 3 Lc, 6 ' TEST PIT LOG i R'�`' TEST PR NO. Nwc - TP-3 PROJECT NO./NAME r LOCATION cCaT J / t Lf,a� l(\ !•�(`i�.weJ 1 r, 1 P�4W A if L&ANf t ll EXCAVATOR/EQUIPMENT/OPEMTOR ul+nS bc,t��uQ, ' ff1snCTCq/CFpCESTAPT/1"tNISH PATE 19,�k 89 ELEVATION OF: GROUND SURFACE/BOTTOM OF PIT CONDITION OF PIT (FT.ABOVE MSU W 1 sl J? 6 to REMARKS: TA 1,r4a ' SAMPLE OVA DEPTH INTERVAL SCREEN OE5CRIPTION OF MATERIALS REMARKS 0 f0: -11 t) �O 11 — CU p � CLnst�1' ( Id! of Plc► tc .is, w - t 1 L 1 p� DGtrK (�tv A R � 2o{)� V 2 c0.,pu >�. Plas�ut 6k S � s,�.t,li — N►t�Iv*^ MM�ertki 6�k�r.heS ��.111 S / �r�t S`�+^`rs Irl° jr"^c�c S'v^"(1S l 4j (4S, r`r le 9 s je4ptS, repek k-1 c(olQ�j "'�► t.� �krvbs rvbtfjrk 04 fAJ a"4 t�k� f• jT aJ4,rt 4&Sej Prf/ r j1a1 perCti I-r4W a frv«f't c.wcre�Q +4 sIjf '-'. i Cc��^' 0✓i 9 a� �tfruxlR4tCl�j ��� IU 11CPAW,r s,ti�1 Sty/f cEJ^coi^�jtin �s� 12 Opo � ,JA 3,,r6a}( lekas 14 C 15 Gritl r'.1 a,11)014 NJDFPfPL dO AND LOCATION SIETCH BARMUCCI project - cJ o v t�+ �k•�l Fe (� _ _ Sample Crew Sample(s) Location(s) /trt r ' Satnple(s) and/or Weil Number(s) 'JP M f n S!on l Location of sample points,wells,borings,etc.,with reference to thm peMment reference points. Measure all distances,clearly label roads,welts and permanent features• �1 ll i 4r4U rjV—P;, 1 1 JJ J t\ M S tn1 , �,,,►�1+ p,,�4 It tser Ls ANDODO . . BA]tMUCC! v L TEST PIT LOG TE Pff NO. w c -TP-Y PROJECT NO./NAME l t.00AnON1 fe•fit'� •j j a^� l NyrA—t w a Ce,,4ry( `Y(l On d 11 EKCAVATOR/ECQUI "*'ff TOR I!WECTCRICFFICE 1 START/AMSH D TE ELEVATION OF GROUND SMACE/BOTTOM OF PIT PIT (FT.ABOVE MSL? /V R V nS f a il l e ra AARKso Rc�►„d qr4k o� J�f ck P1 k) ' SAS OVA DOTH fNTMAL sCREgN DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS MAAM 0 t4 J l ��yyys• 1 SC 2 )Pav?S r 11w,rl u�( rQJt 3 .lI tv �4ry( S $Ili r,J StI ,,,�S 4i I r� IS 4 �7�'� S�V � buotd Wilk d�`„�fri S lyn c '3 rvw� j'�"►�l f k- D c,il . 6 Pcrclyd �,afc� thcow�� — 70L �Cfew3r'� AT SFT r�.0 c�'ct,�lt wn7r(t 8 .. TPS 7l^tnL4 ar'{ 9 10 1 ]1 12 0 14 1s ' N7DEFM DViRKA ' do AND LOCATION SKETCH BARTILUCC! Project — TP-Y A 1611A Sample(s) Location(s) AO—IP-7Y Samples) and/or Well Number(s) D? WAt 1,1,s )5— FT Iv" f Location of sample pains,welts.borings,etc.,with reference to three permanent reference points. Measure all distances,clearly label roads, wells and permanent features. 7 � c C rvt A + pr cG n ,* S 4�J� lvuo� l ,ten 6 r��C � 1 � + kr y r s v+ ( i k�� ,�,,jl w�t� dp4Y�nYbs�� S� 1 Gl� ,, ��� wt`t� leMQ 13 tA � f Un s f4i H.g I i 5 D uA-. f 1, L✓n Thr R ..?e_ rc 4f) wA TE/l AT s' 09 LS 1 Cuo BARTELUCCI TEST PIT LOG N-s S;",m ' TEST PIT NO ® I Nwc — Tr—� PROJECT NO./NAME LOCATION f0UtL%o,A G.., Fill- CAVATOR DUIPMEM/OPFJtATOR EX h paneCTOR/OFFICE 5TAt7T/PINI TE DA ELEVATION OF: GROUND SWACE/BOTTOM OF PIT CONDITION OF PIT (M ABOVE MSU ff A :2A t 1Q vAJ Re,AAR KS: c b� `Y vii h J,�/1F�S Re 4,^a SfockP� �� Grea e SAMPLE OVA DEPTH INTERVAL SCREEN DESORPTION OF MATERIALS I REMARKS ' o No �0 --f ) C°"'Y'�t 1 n�� r�Mr 56 �1tM('oji f"•Ir �"" l e�►�/I,se+Q L/ le a � sA� �e��l Cons/S71•� /1 � I ° 2 leKvf)� r.o+s Jil 3 f l�if l� ►�, '►Pro- frkct )no l c t 4 afS (1 to oj�� �rk� ) A1sco.1-e-10d �d � to 1 A,,a f, l fA Atf. 6 d -r �-T le��b � �•,xi. 7 11 13ryl,,,n js1.c.K si' � QcC1+f� �.af� rw►nin a �'rt;�c lcs�ic. c��fi«+enf 6b-�fleS. r to 1! QQ � ) MSW Atrt� M✓��cr• j��+ Nt 12 ra — R rtiwn I� l�� 13 saw^ , C[.7 -�(M�rCr+"" � 1 14 �SSw C-094;lt D� �r►us2 ti.�)�Qb�y�. 15y+t�e.� fM kl( S�r� �t G I/p I ^ .•II�� 1v�r1, 1 CJOOA� LOCATION SKETCH 13AFtT1LUCd project - Sb u o ct l�^^ �� Sample Crew Samples) Location(s) WW c Sample(s) and/or We11 Numberia) �P���s�y�c � 1S F1' t►�� ,t K F7 da2f x Y F7 1111e Location of sample points, wells.borings,etc.,with reference to three pemsaaent reference points. ' Mewum all distances,clearly label roads.wells and permanent features. i 1 1 II pori Go M 0S� bowvw Pere 1,A IA'a +01iid TIS w 4ofe 1k IZAIt Me(� 1'bMlZ J�Ay — Grswl% 51C(`7 S h•Wt (ins fa 6 k s.�,t� +,.•c 11s d vt Io p�rcM� l�,r,¢tr (S LS 1 AND(JDo I H BARTULUCCI f �lev4f e( tee-►c� �wrlhl� TEST PIT LOG 71-6 Are" c- zP- PQCUECT NO./NAME LOCATION DCCAVATOR/EQUIPMENi/OPERATOR Tbyns• I�kCkl,►( I(ISPECTGR/C>=SCE START/KNISH ATE 1�t sb ELEVATION OF: GROUND WWACE/BOTTOM OF PIT CONDITI? OF PIT ' (FT.ABOVE MSL) AfA + a e REIv AR(S: Zn r4 c S 4rfk be 4(4 &ruS A a�� le a k f)14 ' SAMPLE OVA De7M INTERVAL SCREEN DESCT2IPTION OF MAIERiAL4 ► o Na �� — 6 � coMpa s� , ���� �• ^des f M,.�e�a L SG arr3 D -o1^-^ ! -decops"I 15`(D S 2 ry �l �jfanC�r'� 1 A `Qpv2I1 rI ,{,"' 1SMa1.I � V s� Mei i��co•-� � �` 3 rbdf.},s, I���tQ— stillJ I< ' i 4 L✓L►oc( C I�ir1� (-6Apr (j Ayk$v ^04,1-f , A qel wtl1 f(b,c{ s �Iksftc , 4 6141e SkA 7 CSO �asTE 9 ' 10 /t/?A( 1 L dot,�R, q A��� p lf 4 + it Ca nl 5 A S S� c �^.6Rr ( cps 12 I�4 t r r lq ( S rc,o M.4 13 f�r�si Ckr T/+ j enle(,/ C✓�ttil 14 !s �noi uFres�` r°�f ,r rs �1' bel, 1 ' N)DWM CI Q AND LOCATION SKETCH - BAFMLUCCt - - I Project - S v f 1!bl d L-unyL i 1 Sample Clew �n•t�` �o�►mss Sample(s)Location(s) ' Sample(s) and/or Well Number(s) me,f ro,s Location of sample points.wells,borings,etc.,with reference to three permanent reference points. ' Measure ail distances,cleady label roads.wells and pennarunt features. w rST J LQST aC � I Sate �s� 1 1 i is i i 1 ENGINEEPING TECTONIC CONSULTAN S P.C. J0B I `� 0 3 1 Highland ew York 10930 SHEET NO. ( of 3 9 Mills,, Albany, New York 12205 CALCULATED BY r r X DATE 1 Auburn, Massachusetts 01501 (800) 829-6531 CHECKED BY /" DATE / SCALE 1 ��c�.�l �00Y-111�11/1 z�'�,; w c 1 crosw ��ff� s� 017 � ■ d.3 s eo ) ■ 1 1 1 1 T E C T O N I C ENGINEERING S P.C. JOB 0 3 1 Highland Mills, New York 10930 SHEET NO. OF 3 Albany, New York 12205 CALCULATED BY n DATEy w 1 Auburn, Massachusetts 01501 �/%.; DATE (800) 829-6531 CHECKED BY SCALE 1 � a l0i o n colkj CC i . � EI t 4 c,k �rn9,kefn ow�al a.5 — C,l SO we l 1 (as (awl + UoSD (� 5� 1 ENGINEERING TECTONIC CONSULTANTS P.C. JOB a 14 ),03 ' Highland Mills, New York 10930 SHEET NO OF Albany, New York 12205 CALCULATED BY �� DATE S-4 ' Auburn, Massachusetts 01501 (800) 829-6531 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE i 1 � I Gt SSS- Dwt ,3 1 At�e d^ Arta i S fit vL 1 n_ r po pp p t C'm 'l9�"J��wMQ.A 1 �^ ' 1 1 1 ' Existing Landfill Po S_dP0 S_dP5 S dP10 Ss S_total Thickness(ft) (psf) (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 1 0.969 2.387 3.397 2.379 ' 40.0 1 1000.0 0.985 1 2.472 1 3.557 2.718 Assumptions: Porosity 0.67 Void Ratio 2 ' Compressive 0.7 Index Coefficient of secondary 0.04 ' compression M S TECTONICENGINEERING c p J Existing Landfill Po S_dP0 S_dP5 S_dP10 Ss S_total Thickness(ft) (Ps9 (ft) (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 1 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 1 1 f � 4, a 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 2 PERCENT SLOPE -3 INSTALLATION DEFECTS PER ACRE ♦1114T0511101.DOC(R01I 1 ' 2 PERCENT SLOPE . 3 INSTALLATION DEFECTS PER ACRE 1 1 i 1 1 ♦1314T0518801.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: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D4 TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D7 SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D13 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C: \HELPS\SOUTHOLD.Dll SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\SO2223.D10 OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\SO2223.OUT TIME: 9: 52 DATE: 8/17/1998 ****************************************************************************** TITLE: SOUTHOLD LANDFILL, 2% SLP, NO GEO, BPL MTN #2, GV2, 3D ****************************************************************************** NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM. LAYER 1 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS = 6. 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0. 4370 VOL/VOL Page 1 So2223.out FIELD CAPACITY = 0. 0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = • 0.3130 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 = 12.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.4370 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0. 4370 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC SLOPE = 2.00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 300.0 FEET LAYER--3 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 INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0. 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC FML PINHOLE DENSITY = 1.00 HOLES/ACRE FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS = 3. 00 HOLES/ACRE FML PLACEMENT QUALITY = 3 - GOOD LAYER 4 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHES Page 2 So2223 .out POROSITY = 0. 4370 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0. 0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT _ 0. 0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0. 1581 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. - 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC rGENERAL 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 2 .% AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 300. FEET. SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 55. 80 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 . 122 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 9.020 INCHES TOTAL INITIAL WATER 9. 020 INCHES TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0. 00 INCHES/YEAR EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA ----------------------------------- 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 CONNECTICUT Page 3 i So2223 .out WAS ENTERED FROM 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 1.260 1.531 0.246 0. 000 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0.000 0.770 3.767 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1 . 602 1. 121 2.711 2 .286 2. 640 5.750 3.736 3.229 2.723 3.049 1.712 1.016 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.7126 0.3415 0.7964 0. 6463 0.5769 0.3044 FROM LAYER 2 0. 0500 0.0042 0. 0922 0.5198 0.7944 0. 9656 PERCOLATION THROUGH 1.3017 0. 8616 1.3759 1.2207 1. 1785 0.7815 LAYER 3 0. 1209 0.0080 0.2131 1. 0874 1.3520 1.5258 PERCOLATION THROUGH 1.3508 0. 8986 1.3108 1.2456 1.2092 0. 9000 Page 4 ' So2223 .out ' LAYER 4 0 . 4327 0. 1168 0. 0072 0. 7162 1 .3047 1 . 5346 r __________________________________ MONT_HLY___SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) __________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- r AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 15. 061 11.338 15. 813 14 . 635 13.759 9. 639 LAYER 3 1. 385 0. 062 2 . 434 12 .760 16. 015 17 .335 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 1. 162 0. 931 1. 495 1. 500 1 . 634 2 . 156 HEAD ON LAYER 3 1. 915 0 . 144 2 . 619 2 .278 1. 898 0. 461 --------------------------ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1977 - - - ---------------- - - -------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT r ----- -------------------- ------ PRECIPITATION _ 55. 98 203207 .344 100.00 RUNOFF 7 .574 27495. 107 13 .53 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 31.575 114616.195 56. 40 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 5.8042 21069.387 10.37 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 11.027050 40028 . 191 19.70 jAVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 10.8529 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 11. 027060 40028.227 19.70 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.000 -1.527 0. 00 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 9.206 33416. 828 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 9.205 33415.301 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0. 000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0. 00 1 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0. 0000 -0. 045 0.00 r Page 5 r So2223 .out , 1 r 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. 612 0 . 843 1.013 0.000 0 .521 0 .000 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0. 000 0.000 1.486 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 066 1.342 1.285 1. 886 4 .250 4 . 632 5 . 419 3. 523 3. 697 3.097 1.276 0.807 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.8379 0. 1784 0.3496 0.5111 0. 6057 0.3101 FROM LAYER 2 0. 0304 0.0443 0.0753 0. 0495 0.0040 0. 1789 PERCOLATION THROUGH 1. 4128 0.3426 0. 6686 1. 0981 1.1927 0.7577 LAYER 3 0.0682 0. 0980 0. 1675 0. 1075 0. 0076 0. 4530 PERCOLATION THROUGH 1.4008 0.7023 0.3353 1.1596 1.1404 0. 9642 LAYER 4 0.3635 0.0594 0.1107 0. 1891 0. 1122 0. 1309 ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY ----------------- ---------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 16.194 4.260 7 . 655 13.308 13.887 9.302 LAYER 3 0.728 1.035 1.836 1. 100 0.074 5.378 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 1.246 4 . 669 6.502 1.092 2.224 3.145 HEAD ON LAYER 3 1.033 0. 943 0.381 0. 936 0.253 1. 929 ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1978 Page 6 So2223 .out ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 50.84 184549.234 100.00 RUNOFF 9. 476 34396. 184 18 . 64 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 32 .281 117180. 117 63 . 50 ' DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 3. 1751 11525. 697 6.25 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 6.374241 23138 . 494 12 .54 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 6.2295 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 6. 668524 24206.742 13. 12 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.760 -2759.565 -1 .50 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 9.205 33415.301 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 8 . 181 29698 .545 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. 052 0. 00 r ******************************************************************************* 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 11.209 0. 000 2 .359 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. 000 0 .000 0.000 0.000 0. 000 0. 934 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1 . 627 1 . 409 1.834 2 . 949 3.783 5 .474 Page 7 5o2223 .out 2 . 452 3 .204 2 .282 3. 140 1 . 462 0. 678 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0. 4777 0. 4686 0 . 6970 0. 3910 0. 4959 0.2705 FROM LAYER 2 0 . 0329 0.0659 0. 1313 0.3336 0.2653 0. 1819 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0. 8161 1. 0101 1. 2869 0. 9475 1. 1032 0. 6987 LAYER 3 0. 0768 0 . 1581 0.3230 0. 8654 0. 6875 0. 4605 , PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.5231 1. 0664 1.3008 0. 9217 1 . 1105 0. 8736 LAYER 4 0.3734 0.0619 0. 1310 0.7680 0.7004 0 . 6249 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 9.275 13. 124 14 . 890 11 . 604 12. 970 8 . 624 LAYER 3 0.851 1 .794 3. 861 10.330 8.547 5. 458 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 7 . 187 1.439 1.773 1. 459 1 .062 2 .531 HEAD ON LAYER 3 1.312 1. 551 2 .305 1.360 0. 639 2 . 439 ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1979 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 55.71 202227 .234 100.00 RUNOFF 14 .502 52640.477 26.03 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 30.295 109971. 977 54 .38 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 3.8116 13836.208 6. 84 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 8 . 433970 30615.312 15. 14 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 8 . 4442 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 8 . 455665 30694 .062 15. 18 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1.354 -4915.388 -2 . 43 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 8 . 181 29698 .545 Page 8 So2223 .out SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 7 . 091 25740. 350 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.264 957 . 192 0. 47 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0 . 000 0. 00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0. 0000 -0. 097 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 0.266 0.302 2 . 929 2 . 610 0. 000 0. 000 0. 035 0.000 0.000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 001 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 436 1. 064 2.318 2 .501 3.552 4 . 638 ' 3 . 868 2 .848 2 .292 2 . 927 1. 418 0. 998 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0. 0884 0.1307 0.5281 0.7403 0.4693 0. 1712 FROM LAYER 2 0.0217 0.2238 0.1289 0.0451 0.03Q7 0.2059 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2018 0.3219 1.0219 1.3043 1.0553 0.4342 LAYER 3 0.0563 0.5755 0.3176 0.0986 0.0738 0.5252 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2802 0. 1457 0.8117 1.3251 1.1387 0. 6787 LAYER 4 0.2160 0.2960 0. 4030 0.2842 0.0977 0.3014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 2 .116 4.141 11. 910 15.521 12 . 433 5.326 LAYER 3 0. 671 6. 906 3. 817 1.025 0. 861 6.249 ISTD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.245 3. 110 4 .317 1. 683 1.711 2 . 985 1 Page 9 So2223 .out HEAD ON LAYER 3 2 . 602 1 . 503 0.710 0. 921 2 . 015 2 .727 ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -INCHES- -CU_-FEET- PERCENT ' PRECIPITATION 43.70 158630. 984 100. 00 RUNOFF 6. 143 22299. 963 14 .06 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 29. 859 108389. 094 68 .33 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 2 .7842 10106.548 6.37 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 5. 986548 21731. 170 13.70 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 5. 9148 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 5. 978339 21701.371 13.68 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1 . 065 -3865. 997 -2 .44 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 7 . 091 25740.350 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 6.026 21874 .352 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0. 000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0.000 0.00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0. 009 0.00 ------------------MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------ JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC Page 10 So2223 .out ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 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. 054 2 . 808 0.001 0.000 0.000 0. 000 0. 000 0 . 000 0. 000 0. 000 0.000 0. 664 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1 .235 1. 150 1.557 2 . 667 3.130 3.706 6. 008 0.310 2 . 845 2 . 652 1. 631 1. 133 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0. 1353 0.0811 0.2019 0.2606 0.2287 0 .1509 FROM LAYER 2 0.0991 0. 0000 0.0024 0 . 0880 0.3330 0.7256 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.3334 0. 1875 0.5136 0. 6749 0. 5894 0.3779 LAYER 3 0.2416 0. 0000 0. 0045 0.2144 0.8646 1.2966 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.3379 0.2566 0.3133 0. 6463 0. 6340 0. 4996 LAYER 4 0.3596 0. 1671 0. 0699 0. 0284 0.4847 1 .1972 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 3. 872 2 .270 6.109 8 .386 7 . 096 4. 607 LAYER 3 2 .797 0 .000 0. 036 2. 454 10. 665 14 . 968 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 1. 690 0.225 2 .867 1. 042 0.390 1.390 ' HEAD ON LAYER 3 2 .735 0. 000 0. 119 4 .357 0.503 2 .323 ' ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981 --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- -INCHES- -CU_-FEET- PERCENT PRECIPITATION 42 .30 153549.016 100.00 RUNOFF 3.527 12802.700 8 .34 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 28 .023 101722 . 422 66.25 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 2 .3066 8372 . 959 5.45 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 5.298377 19233. 109 12 .53 1 Page 11 So2223 .out AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 5.2716 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 4 . 994593 18130.371 11. 81 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 3. 449 12520.539 8 . 15 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 6. 026 21874 .352 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 9. 475 34394 . 891 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0. 00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0.00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0. 021 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 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. 428 0.791 1.513 0. 828 0. 153 0. 000 0. 007 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0. 154 1.370 STD. DEVIATIONS 4 . 961 1. 179 1. 153 1. 197 0.231 0. 000 0. 016 0. 000 0.000 0.000 0.344 1. 442 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION , ------------------ TOTALS 1.393 1.217 1. 941 2.458 3. 471 4 . 840 4 .296 2 . 623 2 .768 2 . 973 1.500 0. 927 Page 12 So2223.out STD. DEVIATIONS 0.241 0 . 150 0 .575 0. 401 0. 616 0. 806 1 . 422 1.315 0 . 577 0. 196 0. 174 0. 181 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 ---------------------------------------- TOTALS 0. 4504 0.2401 0.5146 0.5099 0. 4753 0.2414 0 . 0468 0 .0676 0 .0860 0.2072 0.2855 0. 4516 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.3354 0. 1609 0.2439 0.1923 0. 1488 0.0753 0 . 0310 0. 0916 0.0525 0.2116 0.3185 0.3697 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 TOTALS 0.8131 0.5447 0. 9734 1.0491 1. 0238 0. 6100 0. 1128 0.1679 0.2051 0. 4747 0.5971 0.8522 tSTD. DEVIATIONS 0.5482 0.3658 0.3765 0.2487 0.2492 0.1897 0. 0761 0.2371 0.1306 0. 4669 0.5637 0.5174 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 ------------------------------------ TOTALS 0.7786 0 . 6139 0. 8144 1.0597 1. 0465 0.7832 ' 0.3490 0.1403 0. 1443 0.3972 0.5399 0.7578 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.5528 0.4002 0.4908 0.2761 0.2335 0. 1910 ' 0. 0800 0.0977 0. 1521 0.3284 0. 4980 0.5948 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) --------------------------------------------------------------- DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3 ------------------------------------- AVERAGES 9.3038 7 .0265 11.2753 12 . 6907 12.0290 7 . 4996 1.2864 1. 9592 2 .3967 5.5338 7 .2322 9.8777 STD, DEVIATIONS 6.3595 4 . 8571 4 .2971 2 .8233 2. 8210 2 .3548 0.8903 2 .8633 1.5851 5.5833 6.7544 5.7981 AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ----=-------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT Page 13 So2223 .out ------------------- -------- ------_-- r PRECIPITATION 49.71 ( 6. 473) 180432 . 7 100. 00 RUNOFF 8 .244 ( 4 . 1166) 29926. 88 16.586 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 30. 407 ( 1. 6487) 110375. 96 61 . 173 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 3.57635 ( 1.36195) 12982 . 160 7 . 19501 r FROM LAYER 2 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 7 . 42404 ( 2. 32854) 26949.258 14 . 93590 FROM LAYER 3 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP 7. 343 ( 2 .297) , OF LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 7 . 42484 ( 2.37745) 26952. 156 14 . 93751 FROM LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0. 054 ( 1. 9639) 195. 61 0 . 108 r r r r r r r r r r r 1 i 1 1 t I 1 ' PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - (INCHES) - (CU. FT. ) PRECIPITATION 5.20 18876.000 ' RUNOFF 3.879 14082.2041 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 0.03350 121. 62058 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 0.051284 186. 16240 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3 17 . 966 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.068768 249. 62698 SNOW WATER 3. 68 13344.2305 MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.4370 MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.0181 Page 14 So2223.out i r i 1 FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1981 LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) 1 2 . 1516 0.3586 r2 5 .2440 0. 4370 3 0.0000 0. 0000 4 1. 8936 0 . 1578 SNOW WATER 0. 000 r r r r r r Page 15 4 PERCENT SLOPE - 3 INSTALLATION DEFECTS PER ACRE ♦13141F0518801.DOC(ROl) ****************************************************************************** ** ** ** ** ** 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: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D4 TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D7 SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D13 ' EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C: \HEL23\SOUTHOLD.Dll SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\SOU4NG2T.D10 OUTPUT DATA FILE: 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. LAYER--1 ' TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS = 6. 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0. 4370 VOL/VOL Page 1 Souing2t.out 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 = 12 . 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0. 4370 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 . 4370 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0 .579999993000E-02 CM/SEC , SLOPE = 4 .00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 300 . 0 FEET LAYER--3 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 INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0. 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC ' FML PINHOLE DENSITY = 1.00 HOLES/ACRE FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS = 3.00 HOLES/ACRE FML PLACEMENT QUALITY = 3 - GOOD , LAYER 4 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER , MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHES , Page 2 Scu4ng2t. out ' POROSITY _ 0 . 4370 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY 0 . 0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 . 0240 VOL/VOL ' INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0. 1578 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. 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 = 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 ' EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA ----------------------------------- 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 CONNECTICUT Page 3 Sou4ag2� .cut WAS ENTERED FROM 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 1 . 1721 0.5816 1 .2275 1. 1384 0. 9777 0. 5518 ' FROM LAYER 2 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 i Page 4 Scu4ng2t.out ' 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 -------------------------- - - INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 55. 98 203207 . 344 100 .00 RUNOFF 4 . 958 17998 . 396 8 . 86 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 31 . 153 113083 .727 55 . 65 ' DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 9.7968 35562 .516 17 . 50 FERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 10.072868 36564 .512 17 . 99 ' AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 9. 9659 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 10 .072877 36564 .543 17 . 99 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0 .000 -1.779 0.00 ' SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 9. 056 32874. 937 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 9. 056 32873.156 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0 .000 0.000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0 .000 0.000 0. 00 ' ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0. 0000 -0 .059 0.00 . Page 5 5ou4ng2t.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 Sou4ng2z .ouo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 50. 84 184549. 234 100.00 RUNOFF 7 . 875 28587 . 150 15. 49 ' EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 31 . 692 115041 . 594 62 .34 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 5 . 8511 21239. 354 11.51 ' PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 5 .889451 21378 .705 11 . 58 ' AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 5 .7704 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 6. 199028 22502 . 473 12 . 19 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.777 -2821 .376 -1 . 53 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 9. 056 32873 . 156 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 8 . 015 29094 . 590 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. 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 1 Page 7 5ou4ng2t .out ' 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 ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- INCHES CU FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 55.71 202227 .234 100.00 ' RUNOFF 13 . 616 49424 .383 24 . 44 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 29. 672 107708 . 133 53 .26 ' DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 6.7735 24587 . 682 12. 16 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 7. 416692 26922 .594 13. 31 , AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 7 . 4442 ' PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 7 . 431464 26976.215 13. 34 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1.782 -6469. 083 -3. 20 ' SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 8 . 015 29094 .590 Page 8 -ou4^g2* .out ' SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 6. 497 23582 . 699 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0 :264 957 . 192 0. 47 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0 . 000 0 . 000 0 . 00 ' ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0 . 0000 -0. 085 0. 00 1 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 . 241 0 . 287 1. 994 2 .351 0. 000 0. 000 0. 053 0 . 000 0. 000 0. 000 0.000 0. 001 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 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 0.2398 0. 2174 0. 9175 1. 3261 0.7984 0 .3003 ' FROM LAYER 2 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 11.264 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 Sou4ng2t.out HEAD ON LAYER 3 2 . 179 1 . 439 0. 643 0 . 685 2 . 102 2 . 693 ' ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1980 ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -INCHES- -CU_-FEET- PERCENT ' PRECIPITATION 43.70 158630 . 984 100. 00 RUNOFF 4 . 927 17886. 080 11.28 , EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 28 . 911 104946. 109 66. 16 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 5 . 1919 18846.764 11. 88 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 5 . 334950 19365. 871 12 .21 ' AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 5.2556 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 5 .320364 19312 . 922 12 . 17 , CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0. 650 -2360 . 907 -1. 49 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 6. 497 23582 . 699 , SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 5. 846 21221 .791 ' SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0. 00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0. 000 0.00 ' ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 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 ' Sou4ng2t .out ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 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 1 . 236 1 . 150 1 . 547 2 . 652 3 . 112 3 .709 5. 406 0. 358 2 . 843 2 . 648 1. 687 1 . 149 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.3134 0 .2244 0.3651 0. 4702 0. 4018 0 . 2760 FROM LAYER 2 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. 134 4 .289 0. 811 2 . 697 ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' -INCHES- -CU_-FEET- PERCENT PRECIPITATION 42 .30 153549. 016 100.00 ' RUNOFF 2 . 983 10826.776 7 .05 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 27 . 496 99811. 836 65.00 ' DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 4 .2719 15506. 906 10.10 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 4 .526566 16431. 434 10.70 Page 11 Sou4ng2t .cut ' AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 4 . 4880 , PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 4 . 229104 15351 . 646 10. 00 t CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 3. 320 12051 . 847 7 . 85 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 5 . 846 21221.791 ' SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 9. 166 33273. 637 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0. 000 0 . 000 0 . 00 ' SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0 .000 0 . 00 ' ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0. 0000 -0.002 0 . 00 AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 1 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 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 ' Sou4ng2t .out ' 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. 8709 0. 8992 0 . 7832 0. 4341 0.0734 0 . 1526 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 0.8711 0. 9640 0 . 8986 0.5001 0 .0715 0. 1568 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 . 6894 0. 9785 0 . 9278 0 . 6895 ' 0 . 2867 0. 1229 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 10. 1200 11. 6977 10. 6192 6. 1334 0. 8036 1.8252 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 TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT ' Page 13 Sou4ng2t.out ' ------------------- ------------- --------- PRECIPITATION 49. 71 ( 6. 473) 180432 .7 100. 00 RUNOFF 6. 872 ( 4 . 1549) 24944 .56 13 .825 ' EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 29.785 ( 1 . 6972) 108118 .27 59. 922 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 6. 37704 ( 2 . 11925) 23148 . 645 12 . 82951 FROM LAYER 2 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 6. 64811 ( 2 . 18635) 24132 . 623 13 .37486 ' FROM LAYER 3 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP 6.585 ( 2 . 179) ' OF LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 6. 65057 ( 2 .24493) 24141. 561 13 . 37981 ' FROM LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0 . 022 ( 1 . 9509) 79.74 0 . 044 1 1 1 1 PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' - (INCHES) - -- (CU.FT. ) PRECIPITATION 5.20 18876. 000 RUNOFF 3. 643 13224 . 8584 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 0. 06194 224. 85172 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 0. 051395 186.56509 ' AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3 18 . 000 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.071314 258 .87003 ' SNOW WATER 3. 68 13344 .2305 ' MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0. 4370 MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.0162 1 ' Page 14 Sou4ng2t .out ' 1 1 1 r r FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1981 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) 1 1 . 8550 0.3092 r2 5 . 2440 0. 4370 3 0. 0000 0 . 0000 4 1 . 8812 0 . 1568 SNOW WATER 0 . 000 1 r r r r r Page 15 1 2 PERCENT SLOPE - 2 INSTALLATION DEFECTS PER ACRE i i 1 . ♦1314\F0518801.D0C(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: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D4 TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D7 SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELPS\SOUTHOLD.D13 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C: \HELPS\SOUTHOLD.Dll SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C. \HELP3\5O2222 .D10 OUTPUT DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\5O2222 .OUT TIME: 17 : 44 DATE: 8/14/1998 TITLE: SOUTHOLD LANDFILL, 2% SLP, NO GEO, BPL MTN #2, GV2, 2D ****************************************************************************** NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM. LAYER 1 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS = 6. 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.4370 VOL/VOL Page 1 So2222 .out FIELD CAPACITY = 0. 0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = ' 0.3284 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 = 12 . 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.4370 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0. 0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT _ 0. 4370 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC SLOPE 2 . 00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 300. 0 FEET LAYER 3 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 INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0. 0000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.199999996000E-12 CM/SEC FML PINHOLE DENSITY 1.00 HOLES/ACRE FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS = 2 .00 HOLES/ACRE FML PLACEMENT QUALITY = 3 - GOOD LAYER 4 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS = 12 .00 INCHES Page 2 So2222 .out rPOROSITY = 0 . 4370 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 . 0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT 0.0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0. 1514 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. 0. 579999993000E-02 CM/SEC �j 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 2 .% AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 300. FEET. SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 55.80 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 .215 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 _ 9. 031 INCHES TOTAL INITIAL WATER 9.031 INCHES TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0. 00 INCHES/YEAR EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA ----------------------------------- 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 CONNECTICUT Page 3 So2222 .out WAS ENTERED FROM 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/JULFEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- I 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 2 .019 1.702 0.720 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.447 4 .214 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.599 1 .121 2 .707 2 .285 2. 639 5.585 4.238 3.150 2 .721 3. 043 1. 698 1.012 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.7884 0. 4321 0.8670 0. 6894 0. 6069 0.3524 , FROM LAYER 2 0.0682 0 .0047 0.0976 0.5817 0. 8459 0 . 9779 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0. 9163 0. 6552 0. 9629 0. 8429 0. 8077 0.5815 LAYER 3 0. 1124 0.0060 0. 1521 0 .7696 0. 9356 1 .0284 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0. 9498 0. 6834 0. 9169 0. 8648 0.8396 0. 6679 Page 4 rSo2222 .out rLAYER 4 0. 3819 0. 1188 0. 0150 0.3951 0 . 9026 1 . 0347 ------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 15.752 12 .764 16. 457 15. 053 14 . 064 10. 669 LAYER 3 1. 958 0. 069 2 . 610 13. 420 16.505 17 .442 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 1. 167 0. 976 1. 097 1 .354 1. 450 2.156 HEAD ON LAYER 3 2 .355 0 . 157 2 . 817 2 . 465 1 .549 0.398 r r --------------------------ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1977 ----------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION 55. 98 203207 .344 100. 00 rRUNOFF 10. 101 36667 . 676 18 . 04 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 31.796 115420.508 56. 80 rDRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 6.3121 22913. 053 11.28 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 7 .770619 28207 . 348 13. 88 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 11.3969 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 7 .770624 28207 .363 13. 88 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.000 -1. 191 0.00 rSOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 9.217 33457 . 473 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 9.217 33456.281 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0.000 0.00 - ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.068 0. 00 r Page 5 So2222 .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 6.032 0 .886 1.310 0.000 1.060 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0.000 0.000 1 .519 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 064 1.293 1.274 1.885 4 .249 4 . 632 5 .703 3 .501 3. 690 3.094 1.273 0.808 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0 .8869 0 . 1832 0.3758 0.5683 0. 6666 0.3364 FROM LAYER 2 0. 0401 0. 0451 0.0802 0.0616 0.0102 0. 1897 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0. 9747 0. 2346 0. 4672 0.7706 0.8421 0 .5380 LAYER 3 0. 0626 0.0672 0. 1216 0.0891 0. 0153 0.3226 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0. 9664 0.5519 0. 1934 0.7954 0. 8043 0.7084 LAYER 4 0. 3191 0.0676 0. 0756 0.1334 0. 1000 0.0733 -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 16. 638 4 .365 7 . 982 13.896 14.584 9.857 LAYER 3 1.032 1.064 2.019 1.374 0.179 5.735 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0. 926 4 .711 6. 623 0. 920 1. 990 3. 061 HEAD ON LAYER 3 1.340 0. 972 0.343 0. 926 0.300 2.077 ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1978 Page 6 ' So2222 .out ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 50. 84 184549.234 100.00 RUNOFF 10. 807 39230. 195 21.26 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 32 . 466 117853 .211 63.86 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 3. 4441 12502 .243 6.77 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 4 .505754 16355. 887 8 .86 ' AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 6.5605 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 4 .788820 17383. 418 9. 42 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0. 667 -2419. 845 -1. 31 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 9.217 33456.281 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 8 .286 30079.244 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 0.003 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 11.519 0. 000 2 .734 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. 992 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1 . 629 1.410 1. 835 2 . 950 3.783 5.473 Page 7 5o2222 .out 3. 086 3. 117 2 .303 3 . 109 1. 433 0. 678 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0. 4929 0.5268 0.7551 0. 4641 0. 6455 0.3512 FROM LAYER 2 0. 0542 0.0676 0. 1380 0.3814 0.3118 0.2005 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0. 5572 0.7168 0.8963 0.7045 0. 8312 0.5596 LAYER 3 0. 0882 0. 1090 0.2285 0. 6309 0.5417 0.3414 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2848 0.7511 0. 9046 0. 6857 0. 8273 0.7009 LAYER 4 0. 3539 0.0676 0.0815 0.5007 0.5375 0.5059 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 9. 452 13. 845 15.438 12 .789 14 . 442 10.263 LAYER 3 1.517 1. 855 4 .097 11 . 195 10.010 6. 051 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 7 .246 1.328 1.520 1.561 1 . 042 2. 640 HEAD ON LAYER 3 1 . 991 1. 606 2.392 1.555 0.830 2 . 912 ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1979 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 55.71 202227 .234 100.00 RUNOFF 15.245 55338 . 410 27 .36 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 30.806 111826.578 55.30 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 4.3891 15932 . 608 7 .88 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 6.205356 22525. 443 11. 14 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 9.2462 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 6.201352 22510. 906 11. 13 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0. 931 -3381 .214 -1. 67 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 8 .286 30079.244 Page 8 1 So2222 .out iSOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 7 . 619 27655 . 221 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.264 957 . 192 0. 47 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0.000 0.00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 -0. 047 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 0.300 0 . 322 3.779 2 .768 0. 000 0. 000 0.035 0.000 0. 000 0. 000 0.000 0. 001 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1. 427 1. 061 2 .255 2. 495 3.550 4.704 4 .264 2 .840 2 .282 2 . 919 1. 435 1. 010 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0. 0932 0. 1585 0. 6120 0.7669 0.5499 0.2067 FROM LAYER 2 0.0338 0.2319 0. 1441 0.0717 0.0574 0.2243 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0. 1444 0.2650 0.7628 0.8888 0.7686 0.3533 LAYER 3 0.0522 0.3997 0.2409 0.1059 0.0855 0.3840 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2238 0. 1016 0.5745 0. 9082 0. 8284 0.5403 LAYER 4 0.2223 0. 1768 0.3044 0.2317 0.0980 0.2368 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ----------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 2 . 288 5. 111 13.228 15.775 13.442 6. 494 LAYER 3 0 . 864 7 . 172 4 .376 1. 678 1.391 6.819 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.204 3 . 965 3.820 1.557 1.522 2.881 Page 9 So2222 .out HEAD ON LAYER 3 2 .578 1 . 410 0.769 0. 969 2 . 151 3. 155 , ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 43 .70 158630. 984 100. 00 RUNOFF 7 .206 26155. 975 16. 49 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 30.241 109774 .797 69.20 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 3. 1503 11435.735 7 .21 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 4 . 451085 16157 .438 10. 19 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 6.5532 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 4 . 446762 16141 .745 10.18 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1.344 -4877 .297 -3. 07 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 7 . 619 27655.221 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 6.275 22777 . 926 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0. 000 0 . 000 0. 00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0.000 0.00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0. 033 0. 00 ------------------MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------ JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC Page 10 So2222 .out ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 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 .057 2. 873 0.002 0.000 0.000 0. 000 0. 000 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0. 000 1. 107 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.244 1. 151 1.560 2 . 671 3. 135 3.705 6.565 0.321 2 . 864 2.629 1. 611 1 .127 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0. 1499 0. 0847 0.2281 0.3014 0.2716 0. 1970 FROM LAYER 2 0. 1418 0. 0000 0.0033 0. 0882 0.3557 0 .7899 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2496 0. 1323 0. 3906 0.5234 0. 4712 0.3371 LAYER 3 0. 2372 0. 0000 0. 0043 0. 1442 0. 6123 0. 9112 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2549 0.2010 0. 1997 0. 4930 0. 4934 0. 4346 LAYER 4 0. 3310 0. 1769 0.0721 0. 0320 0.2307 0. 8217 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) _____________________________________________________________________ AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 4 .360 2 . 413 6. 941 9. 678 8 . 475 6.228 LAYER 3 4 . 155 0. 000 0. 051 2. 466 11.246 15. 644 STD, DEVIATION OF DAILY 2 .224 0. 184 3.272 1.132 0.271 1. 618 HEAD ON LAYER 3 3. 024 0.000 0. 150 4 . 400 0.599 2.123 ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -INCHES_ -CU_-FEET- PERCENT PRECIPITATION 42.30 153549.016 100.00 RUNOFF 4 .039 14660.715 9.55 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 28 .583 103756.203 67 .57 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 2 . 6117 9480.371 6. 17 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 4 . 013409 14568 . 674 9. 49 ' Page 11 So2222 .out AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 5 . 9714 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 3 .741037 13579. 966 8 . 84 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 3.326 12071.752 7 . 86 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 6.275 22777 . 926 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 9. 600 34849. 676 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0. 00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0. 00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.007 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 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 3.582 0.816 1. 969 0.894 0.356 0.000 0. 007 0. 000 0.000 0.000 0.289 1.567 STD. DEVIATIONS 5.124 1.206 1.429 1.281 0.502 0. 000 , 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. 647 1.581 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ------------------ TOTALS 1.392 1. 207 1. 926 2.457 3.471 4 .820 4 .771 2 .586 2.772 2. 959 1. 490 0. 927 Page 12 So2222 .out ISTD. DEVIATIONS 0.239 0. 142 0.567 0 . 402 0. 615 0.759 1 . 366 1 .288 0.573 0. 199 0. 167 0. 181 1 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 ---------------------------------------- TOTALS 0. 4823 0.2771 0.5676 0.5580 0.5481 0.2887 0 .0676 0. 0699 0. 0927 0.2369 0.3162 0. 4764 1 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.3603 0. 1912 0.2640 0. 1842 0. 1608 0. 0797 0. 0436 0. 0949 0. 0567 0.2345 0.3327 0. 3780 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 TOTALS 0. 5684 0. 4008 0. 6960 0.7460 0.7442 0. 4739 0. 1105 0. 1164 0.1495 0. 3479 0. 4381 0. 5975 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.3767 0.2659 0.2556 0. 1429 0. 1552 0. 1186 0 .0746 0. 1647 0.0955 0.3259 0.3846 0. 3431 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 ------------------------------------ TOTALS 0.5359 0. 4578 0. 5578 0.7494 0.7586 0. 6104 0.3216 0 . 1215 0. 1097 0.2586 0.3738 0.5345 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.3860 0.2909 0.3573 0. 1662 0. 1488 0. 1193 0. 0605 0. 0547 0. 1121 0. 1904 0.3457 0.3984 ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGES---------------AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) --------------------------------------------------------------- rDAILY AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3 ------------------------------------- AVERAGES 9. 6980 7 . 6996 12.0091 13.4382 13.0013 8 .7019 1. 9053 2 .0321 2. 6307 6.0268 7.8664 10.3382 STD. DEVIATIONS 6.4862 5.2244 4 .3280 2 .3895 2 .5686 2 . 1585 1.3286 2 . 9738 1.7481 5. 8011 6. 9223 5.7134 AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ----=-------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT ' Page 13 So2222 .out ' ------------------- ------------- --------- I PRECIPITATION 49.71 ( 6. 473) 180432 .7 100.00 RUNOFF 9. 480 ( 4 . 1881) 34410. 59 19.071 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 30.779 ( 1. 4996) 111726.26 61. 921 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 3. 98149 ( 1 . 45379) 14452 .802 8 . 01008 FROM LAYER 2 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 5.38925 ( 1.57247) 19562 . 959 10.84224 FROM LAYER 3 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP 7 . 946 ( 2 .311) OF LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 5.38972 ( 1 . 60436) 19564 . 680 10. 84320 FROM LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.077 ( 1. 8806) 278 . 44 0.154 r r r r r r �r r r i i 1 1 i i PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - (INCHES) - (CU. FT. ) PRECIPITATION 5.20 18876. 000 iRUNOFF 4 .062 14746.2139 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 0.03363 122 . 08163 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 0.034398 124.86558 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3 18 . 000 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0. 048672 176. 68050 SNOW WATER 3. 68 13344 .2305 MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0. 4370 MINIMUM VEG, SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.0177 ' Page 14 So2222 .out ' 1 1 1 r 1 r r 1 1 1 r r 1 1 1 FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1981 LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) ----- -------- --------- 1 2 . 3565 0.3928 2 5.2440 0. 4370 3 0. 0000 0.0000 4 1 . 8140 0. 1512 SNOW WATER 0.000 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Page 15 r4 PERCENT SLOPE - 2 INSTALLATION DEFECTS PER ACRE ♦1114\F'0511101.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: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D4 TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D7 SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD. D13 ' EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D11 SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\SOU4NGI2 .D10 OUTPUT DATA FILE: 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. LAYER 1 ' TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHES ' POROSITY = 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 = 12.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0. 4370 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0. 0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0. 0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0. 4370 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC , SLOPE = 4 . 00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 300. 0 FEET LAYER--3 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 INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0. 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC , FML PINHOLE DENSITY = 1. 00 HOLES/ACRE FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS = 2 .00 HOLES/ACRE FML PLACEMENT QUALITY = 3 - GOOD , LAYER 4 ' TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS = 12 . 00 INCHES ' Page 2 ' Sou4ngi2 .out POROSITY = 0. 4370 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0. 0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT 0 . 0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0 . 1511 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. 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 ' EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA ----------------------------------- 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 CONNECTICUT ' Page 3 5ou4ngi2 .out , WAS ENTERED FROM 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. 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 1.2972 0. 6475 1.4219 1.2040 1. 0812 0. 6080 , FROM LAYER 2 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 ' 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 --------------------- ----------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION 55. 98 203207 .344 100 . 00 ' RUNOFF 6.569 23845. 977 11 .73 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 31.483 114284 .336 56.24 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 10.7465 39009.883 19.20 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 7 . 181418 26068.547 12 .83 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 10.5791 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 7 . 181420 26068 .555 12 .83 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0. 000 -1.312 0. 00 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 9. 065 32907.527 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 9. 065 32906.215 ' SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0. 000 0.000 0.00 ' SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0.000 0. 00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0. 0000 -0.092 0 . 00 ' Page 5 5ou4ngi2 .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 1.5307 0 .3879 0. 6867 0. 9613 1 . 1257 0. 6249 ' FROM LAYER 2 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) , ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ' ' Sou4ngi2 .out ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 50 . 84 184549.234 100. 00 RUNOFF 8 . 890 32272 .301 17. 49 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 32 . 026 116253 . 109 62 . 99 ' DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 6.2550 22705 .508 12. 30 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 4 . 138776 15023.756 8 . 14 ' AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 6. 0490 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 4 . 458821 16185.520 8 .77 ' CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.790 -2867 .294 -1 .55 ' SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 9.065 32906.215 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 8 .011 29081.729 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. 085 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 iRUNOFF 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 5ou4ngi2 .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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 55.71 202227 .234 100. 00 RUNOFF 14 .200 51547 .469 25. 49 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 30.225 109716. 617 54 .25 ' DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 7 .3601 26717.051 13.21 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 5.398536 19596. 686 9. 69 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 8 . 0851 ' PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 5.365385 19476.346 9. 63 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1. 441 -5230. 167 -2.59 ' SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 8 . 011 29081.729 Page 8 ' 5ou4ngi2 .out ' SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 6. 834 24808 .754 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0 .264 957 . 192 0. 47 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0. 00 ' ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 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 0.2531 0.2631 0. 9637 1.3744 0.8807 0.3578 ' FROM LAYER 2 0. 0407 0. 4834 0.3022 0. 1290 0.1235 0. 4380 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.1237 0. 1806 0.6370 0.8639 0. 6805 0.2688 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -INCHES- -CU_-FEET- PERCENT PRECIPITATION 43.70 158630. 984 100. 00 RUNOFF 5.702 20699.701 13. 05 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 29. 620 107521. 648 67 .78 ' DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 5. 6095 20362 . 641 12 . 84 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 3. 848463 13969. 921 8 . 81 ' AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 5. 6638 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 3.848726 13970. 875 8 .81 ' CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1 .081 -3923. 881 -2 . 47 ' SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 6.834 24808 .754 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 5 .753 20884 .873 ' SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0. 00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0. 00 , ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 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 ' Sou4ngi2 .out ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 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. 051 2 .780 0. 001 0. 000 0.000 0. 000 ' 0. 000 0. 000 0.000 0. 001 0. 000 0.503 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.250 1. 153 1.562 2 . 674 3.139 3.704 5.746 0.341 2 . 906 2 .510 1. 683 1.148 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.3129 0.2322 0.3946 0.5017 0. 4423 0.3243 FROM LAYER 2 0. 1836 0.0000 0.0592 0. 1662 0. 6693 1.3363 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2066 0. 1176 0.2891 0. 3977 0.3371 0.2242 LAYER 3 0 . 1282 0. 0000 0.0346 0. 1362 0.5668 0.8515 PERCOLATION THROUGH 0.2192 0. 1830 0. 1434 0.3410 0.3876 0.3210 LAYER 4 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 4 . 8699 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 3. 013104 10937 .568 7 . 12 , CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 3.514 12757 .554 8 .31 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 5.753 20884 . 873 , SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 9.268 33642 . 426 ' SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0. 00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0. 00 ' ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0. 0000 0. 016 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 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 ' ' 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. 9483 0. 9577 0. 8789 0. 4877 0 . 0948 0. 1567 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. 6189 0. 6785 0. 6530 0.3832 0 . 0620 0 . 1087 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. 4679 0. 6814 0. 6739 0 .5339 ' 0.2619 0 .0998 0. 0949 0.2223 0.3313 0. 4837 STD. DEVIATIONS 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 10.7185 12 .2743 11. 4819 7 . 0336 ' 1.0520 1.8950 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 49.71 ( 6. 473) 180432 .7 100. 00 RUNOFF 7 . 740 ( 4 . 1226) 28094 .55 15.571 ' EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 30. 234 ( 1. 6585) 109748 .44 60. 825 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 6. 91874 ( 2 . 35974) 25115. 037 13. 91933 ' FROM LAYER 2 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 4 .77135 ( 1 .55317) 17320.012 9. 59915 ' FROM LAYER 3 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP 7 . 049 ( 2 .302) ' OF LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 4 .77349 ( 1.59700) 17327.771 9. 60345 ' FROM LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0. 040 ( 2 . 0132) 146. 98 0. 081 PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - (INCHES) - (CU. FT. ) PRECIPITATION 5.20 18876. 000 ' RUNOFF 3.783 13732 .2705 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 0.06171 223. 99017 ' PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 0.034314 124.56013 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3 17 . 962 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0. 050064 181.73196 ' SNOW WATER 3. 68 13344 .2305 MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.4370 MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.0163 Page 14 Sou4ngi2 .out , 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 22 PERCENT SLOPE ♦1114TO511101.DOC(ROl) ** ** ** ** ** 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: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D4 TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D7 ' SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELPS\SOUTHOLD.D13 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.Dll SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C. \HELP3\s22222.D10 OUTPUT DATA FILE: 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. ' LAYER 1 ' TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHES ' POROSITY = 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 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 t MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0.4370 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0. 0409 VOL/VOL ' EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC LAYER 3 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER ' MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 34 THICKNESS = 0.24 INCHES POROSITY = 0. 8500 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0100 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0050 VOL/VOL , INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0100 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 33.0000000000 CM/SEC SLOPE = 22.00 PERCENT , DRAINAGE LENGTH = 220.0 FEET 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 = 0. 0000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0. 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC FML PINHOLE DENSITY = • 1 . 00 HOLES/ACRE FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS 2 . 00 HOLES/ACRE FML PLACEMENT QUALITY 3 - GOOD LAYER--5 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS 12 . 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0. 4370 VOL/VOL ' FIELD CAPACITY 0. 0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT 0 . 0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0618 VOL/VOL ' EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA t ---------------------------------------- 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. E AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 220. FEET. SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER 60.50 FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF 100.0 PERCENT AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRES t 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. 445 INCHES TOTAL INITIAL WATER = 1. 445 INCHES TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR V E APOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA ----------------------------------- Page 3 522222 .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 CONNECTICUT WAS ENTERED FROM THE DEFAULT DATA FILE. t 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 ' 522222 .out r1 .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 r ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES) ----------------------------------------------------- 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 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 r 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 AVG, HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0 .0008 Page 5 S22222 .out PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0. 004708 17 . 091 0. 01 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.1689 2501. 240 1 . 23 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 2 . 189 7945 .271 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 2 . 878 10446.512 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0. 00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0.000 0. 00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 -0. 148 0. 00 1 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 8 . 1402 0.2140 2.3092 1. 6344 6. 9992 1.2707 FROM LAYER 3 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) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Page 6 S22222 .out r AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0. 001 O. ODO 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 rDRAINAGE 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 522222 .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 8 .7929 2 . 1395 4 . 4526 4 .3787 4 . 1279 2 . 6460 FROM LAYER 3 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 522222 .out EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PIRATION 10 .259 37239.730 18 . 41 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 41. 0048 148847 . 484 73. 60 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0. 001803 6. 544 0. 00 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.0007 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0. 004422 16. 052 0. 01 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0. 425 -1541. 662 -0.76 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 3. 461 12564 . 087 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 3.300 11979. 616 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.264 957 . 192 0. 47 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0. 00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0. 0000 -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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION 43.70 158630. 984 100.00 RUNOFF 0.504 1829.711 1 . 15 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 13.034 47312.008 29. 83 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 31.2925 113591.758 71 . 61 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.001421 5.158 0.00 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.0005 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0.004352 15.797 0.01 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1. 135 -4118 .238 -2 . 60 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 3.300 11979. 616 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 2.166 7861.378 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 Page 10 ' 522222 .out ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0. 0000 -0 . 050 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 .599 0.000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0.000 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0.000 0. 000 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 0.790 0. 896 1.339 2 . 191 0. 631 0.091 1.305 0.014 0.281 0.700 1 . 046 0. 604 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.0723 0.0000 1. 0162 3. 1787 2 .8538 1. 4590 FROM LAYER 3 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 ILAYER 5 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0. 0003 0. 0003 0. 0004 -------------------MONTHLY-SUMMARIES-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 522222 .out ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 42 .30 153549. 016 100. 00 RUNOFF 2 . 629 9543. 973 6.22 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 9. 887 35889.344 23.37 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 30.0089 108932. 461 70. 94 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.001342 4 . 872 0.00 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0. 0005 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0. 004252 15. 436 0.01 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.229 -832 .220 -0.54 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 2 . 166 7861.378 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 1. 936 7029.159 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0. 00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 - 0.022 0.00 i AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 4� ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 4 . 0284 3. 9305 3.7519 2 .3292 2 . 8491 2 .3681 3. 4440 4 . 1062 3. 2710 2 .8394 jSTD. 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. 0002 0.0002 0. 0002 0. 0001 0. 0001 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 0.0003 0. 0004 0.0004 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 ------------------- ------------- --------- PRECIPITATION 49.71 ( 6. 473) 180432 .7 100. 00 RUNOFF 1 . 919 ( 1 . 9353) 6967 .36 3. 861 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 10.055 ( 1 . 8820) 36499. 84 20.229 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 37 .77757 ( 7.17865) 137132 .562 76. 00203 FROM LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0 .00165 ( 0.00026) 5. 978 0. 00331 FROM LAYER 4 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP 0. 001 ( 0.000) OF LAYER 4 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0. 00449 ( 0.00021) 16.294 0.00903 FROM LAYER 5 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0 .050 ( 0. 8215) -183.22 -0. 102 1 I s -------------PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1981 -------------------------------------------------------- (INCHES) (CU. FT. ) ---------- ------------- PRECIPITATION 5.20 18876. 000 RUNOFF 1.309 4752 .4810 1 Page 14 S22222 .out DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 2 . 65325 9631 . 28223 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0 . 000078 0. 28151 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 4 0. 016 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0. 000017 0.06095 SNOW WATER 3 . 68 13344 .2305 MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.2608 MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 . 0161 ****************************************************************************** --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 r r 28 PERCENT SLOPE 1' r r r r _ r r r r r ♦1114\F0518801.DOC(ROl) r ****************************************************************************** ** 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: c: \help3\SOUTHOLD.D4 TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D7 SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\SOUTHOLD.D13 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C: \HELP3\SOUTHOLD.Dll SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C.\HELP3\s28222 .D10 OUTPUT DATA FILE: 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. LAYER 1 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHES 1 POROSITY = 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 = 12.00 INCHES POROSITY = 0. 4370 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0. 0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0. 0409 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.579999993000E-02 CM/SEC LAYER 3 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 34 THICKNESS = 0. 24 INCHES POROSITY = 0 .8500 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0. 0100 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0.0050 VOL/VOL , INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0. 0100 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 33. 0000000000 CM/SEC SLOPE = 28 . 00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 114 .0 FEET 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 ' ' 528222 .out rINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 . 0000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0. 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC FML PINHOLE DENSITY = ' 1 . 00 HOLES/ACRE FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS 2 . 00 HOLES/ACRE FML PLACEMENT QUALITY 3 - GOOD LAYER--5 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 2 THICKNESS 12 . 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0. 4370 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY 0. 0620 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT 0 .0240 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0616 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 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 28 .E 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 CONNECTICUT WAS ENTERED FROM 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 M 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 528222 .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 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 .3242 171786. 687 84 .54 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0. 000795 2.885 0.00 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0. 0007 Page 5 528222 .out PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0. 005061 18 .371 0. 01 M CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0. 688 2495.849 1.23 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 2 . 187 7938 . 801 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 2 . 875 10434. 650 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0.000 0.00 , ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0. 0000 -0. 025 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 0.372 0. 181 0. 000 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.076 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.164 1.396 1.871 1.054 0. 669 0. 133 0.532 0. 947 1.531 0. 441 0.255 0. 681 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 7 .3274 0.2359 2 .4281 1 .5447 6. 9841 1.2095 FROM LAYER 3 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 S28222 .out AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0 . 001 0. 0'00 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. 001 0. 001 0.001 0 . 001 ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 -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 iDRAINAGE 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 S Page 7 528222 .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 8 . 6882 2 . 1463 4 .5345 4 .2654 3.9024 2 .7169" , FROM LAYER 3 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 ' ' S28222 .out 1 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 10 . 380 37678 .535 18 . 63 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 40.7732 148006. 656 73. 19 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0 .000723 2 . 624 0. 00 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0. 0005 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0. 004543 16. 492 0. 01 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0. 426 -1545.751 -0.76 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 3 . 457 12547 . 857 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 3.295 11959.299 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0 .264 957. 192 0. 47 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0.000 0. 00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 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 0. 0000 0.3650 6.7195 5.3104 2.2358 2 .3230 FROM LAYER 3 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 528222 .out LAYER 4 0. 0001 0. 0000 0 . 0000 0. 0000 0 . 0001 0. 0000 , PERCOLATION THROUGH 0. 0004 0. 0904 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 t ----------------------- --------------------------------------------- INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION 43.70 158630. 984 100. 00 RUNOFF 0. 592 2150. 192 1 .36 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 13.221 47992.883 30 .25 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 31.0141 112581. 141 70.97 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.000587 2 .131 0.00 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0. 0004 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0.004382 15. 907 0. 01 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1.132 -4109. 137 -2.59 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 3.295 11959.299 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 2 . 163 7850. 162 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0. 000 0.000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0 . 00 Page 10 ' S28222 .out rANNUAL 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 0.0740 0.0000 0. 9772 3.2308 2 . 9758 1.2661 FROM LAYER 3 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 1 ' Page 11 528222 .out ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1981 ------__________---_----______________ r INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT -------- ---------- ------- PRECIPITATION 42 .30 153549. 016 100. 00 , RUNOFF 2. 630 9546. 899 6.22 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 11.083 40229.598 26.20 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 28. 8165 104603. 930 68 . 12 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.000528 1. 917 0.00 r AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.0004 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0. 004173 15.147 0. 01 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.233 -846.557 -0.55 , SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 2 .163 7850. 162 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 1. 929 7003. 605 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00 ' SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0. 000 0. 000 0. 00 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 -0.006 0.00 r r 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 1 Page 12 ' 528222 .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- -- FROMLAYER TOTALS 3. 6359---1. 0467 3. 9863 3.7797 3.8129 2 .2927 2 . 6656 2.3000 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. 0001 0. 0001 0. 0001 0.0000 0 . 0000 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 0. 0004 0. 0004 0.0004 0. 0004 0. 0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 ' STD. DEVIATIONS 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 1 ------------------------------------- Page 13 528222 .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 -------------------------------------INCHES ------------CU. FEETPERCENT ------------------- ------------- --------- PRECIPITATION 49.71 ( 6. 473) 180432 .7 100. 00 , RUNOFF 1 . 966 ( 1 . 9609) 7137 . 10 3 . 956 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 10. 664 ( 1. 8768) 38710.36 21 . 454 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 37 . 12277 ( 7. 48366) 134755. 656 74 . 68469 FROM LAYER 3 ' PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0. 00066 ( 0. 00011) 2 . 404 0.00133 FROM LAYER 4 , AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP 0.000 ( 0.000) OF LAYER 4 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0. 00460 ( 0. 00036) 16.704 0. 00926 FROM LAYER 5 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.052 ( 0.8204) -187 . 04 -0. 104 , 1 -------------PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS-1977-THROUGH-1981 ------------------------ -------------- (INCHES) (CU. FT. ) ---------- ------------- PRECIPITATION 5.20 18876.000 RUNOFF 1.310 4753.8716 Page 14 528222 .out DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 2 . 58378 9379. 11133 , PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0. 000030 0. 11050 AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 4 0 . 015 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0 . 000016 0. 05948 SNOW WATER 3. 68 13344 .2305 MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.2601 MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0. 0141 a ' ---------------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 i ' Page 15 APPENDIX E ' HYDROCAD STORM WATER ANALYSIS ' ♦1314\F0518801.DOC(ROl) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 1 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems WATERSHED ROUTING ' 0 A 00 0 �0 0 0 OSUBCATCHMENT F-1 REACH Q POND I ' LINK 'SUBCATCHMENT 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1 -> POND 1 SUBCATCHMENT 2 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SL2 -> POND 2 ' SUBCATCHMENT 3 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 -> POND 3 SUBCATCHMENT 4 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 -> POND 4 ' POND 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 -> POND 2 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 -> POND 3 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 -> ' POND 4 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 -> Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 2 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 ADD-lied Microcomputer Systems RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD: TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN, SCS U.H. RUNOFF SPAN = 10-20 HRS, dt= . 10 HRS, 101 POINTS ' SUBCAT AREA Tc WGT'D PEAK Tpeak VOL NUMBER (ACRE) (MIN) --GROUND COVERS (%CN)-- CN C (CFS) (HRS) (AF) , 1 16 . 40 12 . 9 93%71 4%85 3%98 - 72 - 44 .5 12 . 14 3. 77 2 4 .50 18 .2 87%71 5%98 8%85 - 73 - 11 . 3 12 .21 1 . 06 3 13 . 57 14 . 1 88%71 6%85 6%98 - 73 - 36 . 1 12 . 15 3 . 21 ' 4 4 . 95 6 .5 4%98 20%85 49%71 22%56 73 - 15 . 3 12 . 05 1 . 17 4%98 - - - ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 3 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH ROUTING BY STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD ' REACH BOTTOM SIDE PEAK TRAVEL PEAK NO. DIAM WIDTH DEPTH SLOPES n LENGTH SLOPE VEL. TIME Qout ' ( IN) (FT) (FT) (FT./FT) (FT) (FT/FT) (FPS) (MIN) (CFS) 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 4 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 .00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied microcomputer Systems POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND- METHOD POND START FLOOD PEAK PEAK ------ PEAK FLOW ------- ---Qout--- ' NO. ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. STORAGE Qin Qout Qpri Qsec ATTEN. LAG (FT) (FT) (FT) (AF) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (%) (MIN) , 1 26 . 0 42 . 0 35 . 3 3. 69 44. 5 . 1 100 0 . 0 2 40 . 0 48 .0 44 . 6 1 .05 11 . 3 0 . 0 100 0 . 0 ' 3 12 . 0 20 . 0 17 . 0 3 . 10 36 . 1 . 1 100 0 . 0 4 30 .0 40. 0 35 . 1 1 . 16 15 . 3 0 . 0 100 0 .0 ' 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 5 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems LINK Qout NO. NAME SOURCE (CFS) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 6 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 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= 6.0 IN .45 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 16 .40 72 , Method Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment A-B 8 . 9 ' 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 ' 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 ' 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-� SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1 45 40 AREA= 16. 4 AC 35 Tc= 12. 9 MIN CN= 72 ' 30 - 25 - SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR 29 RAINFALL= 6 . 0 IN ' 15 PEAK= 44 . 5 CFS 18 @ 12 . 14 HRS ' 5 UOLUME= 3. 77 AF 0m cv r� v in w r- ao rn m TIME (hours) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 7 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 44. 5 CFS @ 12 . 14 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 90 10 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 .2 1 . 3 1 .4 1 . 6 1 . 7 11 .00 1 . 9 2 . 0 2 . 3 2 .7 3 . 1 3 . 6 4 . 6 7 . 0 10 . 8 15 . 8 12 .00 26. 8 43 . 3 40 . 7 30 . 9 23 . 9 17 . 7 12 .4 9 . 3 7 . 9 7 . 0 13 . 00 6 . 3 5 . 7 5 . 4 5 . 1 5 . 0 4 . 8 4 . 6 4 .5 4 . 3 4 . 1 14 . 00 4 . 0 3 . 8 3 . 7 3 . 6 3 . 5 3 .4 3 . 3 3 . 3 3 .2 3 . 1 15 . 00 3. 0 2 .9 2 . 8 2 . 8 2 . 7 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .4 2 . 3 2 .2 16 . 00 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 0 2 .0 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 7 17 . 00 1 .7 1 .7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 . 5 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 ' 18 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 19 .00 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 20 . 00 1 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 8 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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=. 1 HRS 4 .50 73 Method Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 17 . 0 t Grass : Dense n=.24 L=180 ' 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 SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2 11 10 AREA= 4 . 5 AC g Tc= 18 . 2 MIN 8 CN= 73 ' 7 SCS TR-20 METHOD 6 TYPE III 24-HOUR ' 3 5 RAINFALL= 6 . 0 IN CD 4 3 PEAK= 11 . 3 CFS 2 @ 12 . 21 HRS , UOLUME= 1 . 06 AF 1 Nrr) NTU) , m TIME (hours) 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 9 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF PEAK= 11.. 3 CFS @ 12 .21 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 2 .2 . 2 . 3 . 3 . 3 .4 .4 .4 .5 11 . 00 .5 . 6 . 6 . 7 . 8 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 6 2 .4 3 .5 12 . 00 5 .5 9 . 1 11 .2 10 . 1 8 . 1 6 .4 4 . 7 3 .5 2 . 7 2 . 3 13 . 00 2 . 0 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 .2 ' 14 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 .0 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 15 . 00 . 9 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 16 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 . 5 . 5 . 5 .5 17 . 00 .5 . 5 .5 .5 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 18 . 00 .4 .4 .4 . 4 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 19 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 20 . 00 . 3 r Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 10 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HVdroCAD 4 . 00. 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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, dt=. 1 HRS 13 . 57 73 Method Comment Tc (min) 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=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 . 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 SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 34 32 AREA= 13 . 57 AC 30 - 26 Tc= 14 . 1 MIN CN= 73 24 - 20 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR 3 14 RAINFALL= 6 . 0 IN 0 10 PEAK= 36 . 1 CFS 6 @ 12 . 15 HRS 4 VOLUME- 3. 21 AF 22 TIME (hours) r r Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 11 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK= 36-. 1 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 .2 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 .5 11 . 00 1 . 6 1 . 8 2 . 0 2 . 3 2 . 7 3 . 1 3 . 9 5 . 7 8. 8 12 . 9 12 . 00 21 . 3 34 . 8 35 .2 27 .5 21 . 3 16 . 0 11 . 3 8 . 4 7 . 0 6 . 1 13 . 00 5 . 5 4 . 9 4 . 6 4. 4 4 .2 4 . 1 3 .9 3 . 8 3 . 7 3 .5 14 . 00 3 .4 3 .2 3 . 1 3 . 0 3 . 0 2 . 9 2 . 8 2 . 8 2 . 7 2 . 6 15 . 00 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .4 2 . 3 2 . 3 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 9 16 . 00 1 .8 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 .7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 5 1 .5 1 .5 17 . 00 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 .2 1 . 2 18 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 .0 19 .00 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 .0 . 9 .9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 20 . 00 . 9 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 12 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 4 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -• SL3 PEAK= 15 . 3 CFS @ 12 . 05 HRS, VOLUME= 1 . 17 AF ACRES CN 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=. 1 HRS 1 . 10 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR . 20 98 POND AREA (WET) 4 . 95 73 Method Comment Tc (mini TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 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 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 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 15 - 14 - = 4 . 95 AC 13c= 6 . 5 MIN 12 - 11 - CN= 73 10 - 9 -20 METHOD 8II 24-HOUR 7LL= 6 . 0 IN 3 6 4 = 15 . 3 CFS 3 12 . 05 HRS 2E= 1 . 17 AF 1 N rr) Cf Ln 0 I- 00 0) m TIME (hours) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 13 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Svstems 18 Aug 98 ,HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-199a Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF PEAK= 15. 3 CFS @ 12 . 05 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 . 50 . 60 . 70 . 80 90 10 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 .4 . 4 .4 .5 .5 . 6 . 6 11 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 9 1 .0 1 . 2 1 . 4 2 . 1 3 . 3 4 . 8 7 . 1 12 . 00 14 . 5 14 . 7 9 .4 7 .2 5 . 4 3 . 6 2 . 6 2 . 3 2 . 1 1 . 9 13 . 00 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 . 5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 2 14 . 00 1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 .0 1 . 0 1 . 0 . 9 15 . 00 . 9 . 9 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 7 . 7 .7 . 7 16.00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 5 .5 .5 17 . 00 .5 . 5 .5 .5 .5 .5 . 4 .4 .4 .4 18. 00 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 . 4 19 . 00 .4 . 4 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 20 . 00 . 3 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 14 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 00 636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 Qin = 44 .5 CFS @ 12 . 14 HRS, VOLUME= 3 . 77 AF Qout= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 90 HRS, ' VOLUME= . 07 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0. 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC L (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 3 . 69 AF 26 . 0 . 16 0. 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 35 . 3 FT 42 . 0 . 63 6 . 32 6 . 32 FLOOD ELEVATION= 42 . 0 FT START ELEVATION= 26 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 26.0 ' ERFILTRATION Q= . 09 CFS at and above 26 . 2 ' POND 1 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0. 0 2 4 6 8 1 .0 1 . 2 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 8 26 . 0 0. 00 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 .09 . 09 28 .0 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 .09 .09091. 30 .0 .09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 32 . 0 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 .09 . 09 .09 34 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 36 . 0 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 38 .0 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 . 09 .09 . 09 .09 .09 .091 40. 0 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 42 . 0 . 09 POND 1 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 42 41 - 40 - 39 - 38 - 37 - 36 14039383736 ' 35 0 34 33 32 � 31 � 30 w 29 2s 27 E FILTRATION; 2-1 -In m LO m Ln m Ln m to CO Ln m Ln m Ln m In m CD m N N M f'1 'T 'T Ln Ln 0 0 I', r M CD M m m m m m m m m m m CS) DISCHARGE (cfs) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 15 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 45 40 STOR-IND METHOD 35 PEAK STOR= 3 . 69 AF PEAK ELEU= 35 . 3 FT r, 30 - '-' 25 Qin= 44 . 5 CFS Gout= . 1 CFS 20 LAG= 0 MIN 3 cJ 15 10 5 i9 N r n T Ln L.0 f- 00 0) m N TIME (hours) POND 1 INFLOW PEAK= 44 . 5 CFS @ 12 . 14 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 80 90 10 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 .2 1 . 3 1 .4 1 . 6 1 . 7 11 . 00 1 . 9 2 . 0 2 . 3 2 . 7 3 . 1 3 . 6 4 . 6 7 . 0 10 . 8 15 . 8 12 . 00 26 . 8 43 . 3 40 . 7 30 . 9 23. 9 17 .7 12 .4 9 . 3 7 . 9 7 . 0 13 . 00 6. 3 5 . 7 5 .4 5 . 1 5 . 0 4 . 8 4 . 6 4.5 4 . 3 4 . 1 14 . 00 4 . 0 3 . 8 3 . 7 3 . 6 3 .5 3 .4 3 . 3 3 . 3 3 .2 3 . 1 15 . 00 3 .0 2 . 9 2 . 8 2 .8 2 . 7 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .4 2 . 3 2 . 2 16 . 00 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 0 2 .0 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 7 17 . 00 1 .7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 18 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1. 3 1 .2 1.2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 19 . 00 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 20 . 00 1 . 1 POND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 90 HOURS HOUR 0 .00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 0 .0 0. 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 11 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 12 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 13 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 14 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 15 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 16 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 17 . 00• . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 18 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 19 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 20 . 00 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 16 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 ed Microcomputer Systems 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 STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 1 . 05 AF 40 . 0 . 12 0. 00 0 .00 PEAK ELEVATION= 44. 6 FT 48 .0 . 34 1 .84 1 . 84 FLOOD ELEVATION= 48 . 0 FT START ELEVATION= 40 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 40 . 0 ' E%FILTRATION Q= . 02 CFS at and above 40. 1 ' POND 2 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 .2 . 3 . 4 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 40.0 0 . 00 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 .02 . 02 41 .0 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 f 42 .0 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 .02. 43 . 0 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 44 .0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 45 .0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 46 . 0 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 47 . 0 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 48 .0 . 02 POND 2 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 47 . 5 - 47 . 0 - 46 . 5 - 46 . 0 - 45 . 5 - 45 . 0 7 . 547 . 0 46 . 5 46 . 045 . 545 . 0 Z 44 . 5 , o 44 . 0 " 43 . 5 - CE 43. 0 � 42 . 5 i J 42 . 0 w 41 . 5 41 . 0 40 . 51 , 40 . 0m _ E FI TR_A ION; N lD OJ m N - 0 M m M m m m m N m m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cfs) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 17 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 2 INFLOW 8 OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 11 10 STOR-IND METHOD g PEAK STOR= 1 . 05 AF 8 PEAK ELEU= 44 . 6 FT 4 7 Qin= 11 . 3 CFS 6 Qout= 0 . 0 CFS 3 5 LAG= 0 MIN 0 4 � 3 2 - 1 0m N M IT L(1 lD I- 00 M m TIME (hours) POND 2 INFLOW PEAK= 11 . 3 CFS @ 12 .21 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 3 . 3 . 3 .4 .4 .4 .5 11 . 00 . 5 . 6 . 6 .7 . 8 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 6 2 . 4 3 .5 12 . 00 5 .5 9 . 1 11 . 2 10 . 1 8 . 1 6 .4 4 .7 3 .5 2 .7 2 . 3 13 . 00 2 . 0 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 14 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 15 . 00 . 9 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 7 . 7 .7 .7 . 6 16 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 17 . 00 .5 .5 .5 . 5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 18 . 00 . 4 .4 . 4 .4 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 19 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 20. 00 . 3 POND 2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0 . 0 CFS @ 10. 90 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 . 50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 11 . 00 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 12 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0. 0 13 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 14 . 00 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 .0 0.0 0. 0 15 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 16 . 00 0 .0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 17 . 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 18 .00 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 19 . 00 0 . 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 20 . 00 0 . 0 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 18 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 Qin = 36 . 1 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS, VOLUME= 3 . 21 AF Qout= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 80 HRS, VOLUME= . 11 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0 .0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (ACL (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 3 . 10 AF 12 . 0 . 39 0 . 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 17 .0 FT 20 . 0 . 85 4 . 96 4 . 96 FLOOD ELEVATION= 20 .0 FT START ELEVATION= 12 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 12 . 0 ' E%FILTRATION Q= . 14 CFS at and above 12 . 1 ' POND 3 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 . 2 . 3 .4 .5 . 6 .7 . 8 . 9 12 .0 0 .00 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 13 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 14 .0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 ; 15 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 16 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 17 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 18 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 19 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 20 . 0 . 14 POND 3 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 20 . 0 19 . 5 - 19 . 0 - 18 . 5 - 4-1 9 . 519 . 018 . 5� 18 . 0 - 17 . 5 - 17 . 0 8 . 017 . 5 17 . 0 Z 16 . 5 0 16 . 0 15 . 5 15 . 0 14 . 5 ' i 14 . 0 w 13 . 5 13 . 0 ' 12 5 _E F I T_R A_T 0 N' 12 N r n V' Ln 0 r- 00 Q) m - N M V M m m m m m m m m m ^ ^ ^ ^ - . . m DISCHARGE (cfs) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 19 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 3 INFLOW & OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 36 34 32 STOR-IND METHOD PEAK STOR= 3 . 10 AF 26 PEAK ELEU= 17 FT 20 gin= 36 . 1 CFS 18 Gout= . 1 CFS 3 14 LAG= 0 MIN 12 18 - 6 - 4 4 - 2 - 3 6 2 0m N M "T Ln 0 r oo rn m TIME (hours) POND 3 INFLOW PEAK= 36 . 1 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 1 .0 1 . 1 1 .2 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 .5 11 . 00 1 . 6 1 . 8 2 . 0 2 . 3 2 . 7 3 . 1 3 .9 5. 7 8 . 8 12 . 9 12 . 00 21 . 3 34 . 8 35 .2 27 .5 21 . 3 16 .0 11 . 3 8 .4 7 . 0 6 . 1 13 .00 5 .5 4 . 9 4 . 6 4.4 4 .2 4 . 1 3 . 9 3.8 3 . 7 3 . 5 14. 00 3 .4 3 .2 3 . 1 3 . 0 3 . 0 2 . 9 2 .8 2 .8 2 . 7 2 . 6 15 . 00 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .4 2 . 3 2 . 3 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 9 16 . 00 1 . 8 1 .8 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 . 5 1 . 5 17 . 00 1 . 4 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1.3 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 2 18 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 . 0 1 .0 19 . 00 1. 0 1 .0 1 . 0 1 .0 . 9 . 9 . 9 .9 . 9 . 9 20 . 00 . 9 POND 3 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 80 HOURS HOUR 0 .00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 . 50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 .00 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 11 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 12 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 13 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 14 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 15 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 16 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 17 . 00• . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 18 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 19 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 20 . 00 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 20 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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 STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) 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=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 30.0 ' E%FILTRATION Q= .01 CFS at and above 30 . 1 ' POND 4 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 .2 . 3 .4 . 5 . 6 .7 . 8 . 9 30. 0 0 . 00 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 .01 31 .0 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 . 01 . O1 32 .0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .O1 33 .0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 34 . 0 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 35 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 36 .0 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 37 .0 .01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 38 . 0 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 . 01 . O1 39 . 0 .01 .01 .01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 . 01 . 01 . O1 40 . 0 . O1 POND 4 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 4a r 39 38 i L+*' 37 ` 36 0 35 ' Q 34 - :> 33 L w 32 31 3 X F I TR_ATI_ON N rr) Ln 0 (- M 0) m m m m m m m m m m m CD m m m m m m m m m m Co DISCHARGE (cfs) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 21 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 �HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 4 INFLOW & OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 15 14 STOR-IND METHOD 13 PEAK STOR= 1 . 16 AF 12 11 PEAK ELEU= 35 . 1 FT 10 - 4- 9 Qin= 15 . 3 CFS 8 Gout= 0 . 0 CFS 7 LAG= 0 MIN 3 6 5 � 4 - 32 3 - 2 1 Om N M v in 0 r- oo rn m TIME (hours) POND 4 INFLOW PEAK= 15 . 3 CFS @ 12 . 05 HOURS HOUR 0. 00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 . 50 . 60 70 80 90 10 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 .4 .4 .4 .5 .5 . 6 . 6 11 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 2 1 .4 2 . 1 3 . 3 4 . 8 7 . 1 12 .00 14 .5 14 . 7 9 .4 7 .2 5 . 4 3 . 6 2 . 6 2 . 3 2 . 1 1 . 9 13 . 00 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 2 14 . 00 1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 .0 1 .0 1 . 0 . 9 15 .00 . 9 . 9 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 .7 . 7 . 7 . 7 16 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 17 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 18 . 00 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 . 4 19 . 00 .4 .4 .3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 20 . 00 . 3 POND 4 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0 .0 CFS @ 10 .70 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 .30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10. 00 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 11 . 00 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 12 . 00 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0 . 0 13 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 1 14. 00 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 15 . 00 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 16 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 17 . 00' 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 18 .00 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0. 0 19 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 20 . 00 0. 0 data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 1 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems WATERSHED ROUTING _____________________________________________________________ o a �r 00 r 2 �0 0 0 OSUBCATCHMENT F� REACH Q POND LINK SUBCATCHMENT 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1 -> POND 1 SUBCATCHMENT 2 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2 -> POND 2 SUBCATCHMENT 3 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 -> POND 3 SUBCATCHMENT 4 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 -> POND 4 POND 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 -> POND 2 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 -> POND 3 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL POND #4 -> POND 4 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 -> Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 2 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 00 636 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD: TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7. 3 IN, SCS U.H. RUNOFF SPAN = 10-20 HRS, dt= . 10 HRS, 101 POINTS SUBCAT AREA Tc WGT'D PEAR Tpeak VOL NUMBER (ACRE) (MIN) --GROUND COVERS (CCN)-- CN C (CFS) (HRS) (AF)l 1 16 .40 12 . 9 93%71 4%85 3%98 - 72 - 61 . 1 12 . 13 5 . 12 2 4 .50 18 .2 87%71 5%98 8%85 - 73 - 15 . 3 12 .21 1 . 44 3 13 .57 14 . 1 88%71 6%85 6$98 - 73 - 50 . 0 12 . 15 4 . 34 4 4 .95 6 .5 4%98 20%85 49%71 22%56 73 - 21 . 1 12 .05 1 . 58 4%98 - - - Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 3 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 ,HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH ROUTING BY STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD REACH BOTTOM SIDE PEAK TRAVEL PEAK NO. DIAM WIDTH DEPTH SLOPES n LENGTH SLOPE VEL. TIME Qout ( IN) (FT) (FT) (FT/FT) (FT) (FT./FT) (FPS) (MIN) (CFS t t Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 4 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND• METHOD POND START FLOOD PEAK PEAK ------ PEAK FLOW ------- ---Qout--- NO. ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. STORAGE Qin Qout Qpri Qsec ATTEN. LAG (FT) (FT) (FT) (AF) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (%) (MIN) 1 26 . 0 42 . 0 38 . 8 5 . 04 61 . 1 . 1 100 0 . 0 2 40 . 0 48 . 0 46 .2 1 . 42 15 . 3 0 .0 100 0 . 0 3 12 . 0 20 . 0 18 .8 4 .23 50 . 0 . 1 100 0 . 0 4 30 . 0 40 . 0 36 . 8 1 .58 21 . 1 0.0 100 0 . 0 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 5 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 ,HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems LINK Qout NO. NAME SOURCE (CFS) r r �r r �r Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 6 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 1986-1995 ed Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 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, dt=. 1 HRS 16 .40 72 1 Method Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment A-B 8 . 9 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 ' 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 ' 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 SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SLI 60 - 55 - AREA= 16 . 4 AC 50 Tc= 12 . 9 MIN 45 CN= 72 j 40 35 SCS TR-20 METHOD 30 TYPE III 24-HOUR 0 25 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN 20 PEAK= 61 . 1 CFS LL 15 @ 12 . 13 HRS 10 UOLUME= 5 . 12 AF 5 "C9 N M 1;3- Ln w I- M Q) m TIME (hours) i Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 7 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 ,,HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 61 . 1 CFS @ 12 . 13 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 . 50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 7 1 . 9 2 . 0 2 . 2 2 . 4 2 . 6 2 . 8 11 . 00 3 . 0 3 . 3 3 . 7 4 .2 4 . 9 5 . 5 6 . 9 10 .4 15 . 8 22 . 8 12 . 00 37 . 7 59 . 6 55 .2 41 . 6 31 . 8 23.4 16 . 3 12 . 3 10. 4 9 .2 13 . 00 8 . 3 7 .5 7 . 0 6 . 7 6 .5 6 . 3 6 .0 5 . 8 5 . 6 5 .4 14 . 00 5 .2 4 . 9 4 . 8 4 . 7 4 . 6 4 .4 4 . 3 4 . 2 4 . 1 4 . 0 15 .00 3 . 9 3 . 8 3 . 7 3 . 6 3 .5 3 .4 3 .2 3 . 1 3 . 0 2 . 9 16 . 00 2 . 8 2 . 7 2 . 6 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .5 2 .4 2 . 4 2 . 3 2 . 3 17 . 00 2 .2 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 .9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 8 18 . 00 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 5 1 .5 19 . 00 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 .4 20 . 00 1 .4 l Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 8 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 .00 000636 1986-1995 Applied 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 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 4 .50 73 Method Comment Tc (min). TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B / 17 . 0 Grass : Dense n=.24 L=180 ' 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 SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2 15 - 14 - AREA= 4 . 5 AC 13 Tc= 18. 2 MIN 12 - 11 - CN= 73 4-Lo 19 SCS TR-20 METHOD 8 TYPE III 24-HOUR 7 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN 3 6 5 4 PEAK= 15 . 3 CFS 3 @ 12 . 21 HRS 2 VOLUME= 1 . 44 AF 1 �9 N lfl w, 1� 00 Cl') m , TIME (hours) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 9 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7. 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 ,HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (cl 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF PEAK= 15-. 3 CFS @ 12 . 21 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 .40 . 50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 4 . 4 . 4 .5 . 5 . 6 . 6 . 7 . 7 . 8 11 . 00 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 3 1 .4 1 . 7 2 . 3 3.5 5 . 0 12 . 00' 7 . 7 12 . 6 15 . 3 13 . 6 10 . 9 8 .4 6 . 3 4 . 6 3 . 6 3 . 0 13 . 00 2 . 6 2 . 3 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 .7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 5 14 . 00 1 . 5 1 .4 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 1 15 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 .0 1 . 0 1 .0 . 9 . 9 . 9 .8 16 . 00 . 8 . 8 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 17 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 18 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 . 4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 . 4 19 . 00 . 4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 .4 20 . 00 .4 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 10 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -- SL4 PEAK= 50 . 0 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS, VOLUME= 4 . 34 AF ACRES CN 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 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 13 .57 73 1 Method Comment Tc (min) 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=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 . 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 SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 50 !' 45 AREA= 13 . 57 AC 40 Tc= 14 . 1 MIN 35 CN= 73 r-, 30 SCS TR-20 METHOD 25 TYPE III 24-HOUR , 30 20 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN 15 PEAK= 50 . 0 CFS 10 a 12 . 15 HRS 55 VOLUME= 4 . 34 AF `19 N M Lfl w I- M M m TIME (hours) 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 11 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 �HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK= 50, 0 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 . 50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 1 . 2 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 .5 1 . 6 1 .8 1 . 9 2 . 1 2 . 3 2 .4 11 .00 2 . 6 2 . 8 3 .2 3 . 6 4 . 1 4 . 7 5 . 8 8 .5 12 . 8 18 .5 12 .00 29 . 7 47 . 8 47 .7 36 . 8 28 . 3 21 . 1 14 . 9 11 . 0 9 . 1 8 .0 13 . 00 7 . 1 6 . 5 6 .0 5 . 7 5 .5 5 . 3 5 . 1 4 . 9 4 . 7 4 . 6 14 . 00 4.4 4 . 2 4 .0 3 . 9 3 . 8 3.8 3 . 7 3 . 6 3 .5 3 .4 15 . 00 3 . 3 3 .2 3 . 1 3. 0 2 . 9 2 . 8 2 .7 2 . 6 2 . 5 2 .5 16 . 00 2 .4 2 . 3 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 . 9 1 .9 17 . 00 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 .7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 18 . 00 1 .4 1 . 4 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 19 .00 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 2 1 .2 20 . 00 1 . 1 r i 1 i Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 12 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7. 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 00063 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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, dt=. 1 HRS , 1 . 10 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR .20 98 POND AREA (WET) 4 . 95 73 Method Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 4 . 7 Grass: Dense n=.24 L=70 ' P2=3. 3 in s=. 15 V, 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 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 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 20 - 18 - AREA= 4 . 95 AC Tc= 6 . 5 MIN 16 CN= 73 14 `1U12 SCS TR-20 METHOD ,� 18 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN 0 6 - 6 - PEAK= 21 . 1 CFS 4 @ 12 . 05 HRS 2 VOLUME= 1 . 58 AF , N M - n 0 r� M M m TIME (hcurs) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 13 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 hvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF PEAK= 21-. 1 CFS @ 12 . 05 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 5 . 5 . 6 . 6 . 7 . 7 . 8 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 11 .00 1 . 0 1 .2 1 . 3 1 . 5 1 . 7 2 . 0 3 . 0 4 . 8 6 .9 9 . 9 12 . 00 19 .9 19 . 8 12 . 6 9 . 6 7 . 1 4 . 8 3 . 5 3. 1 2 . 8 2 . 5 13 . 00 2 . 3 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 9 1 .9 1 . 8 1 .7 1 . 6 1 . 6 14 . 00 1 .5 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 . 2 15 . 00 1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 .9 . 9 . 9 16 . 00 . 8 .8 . 8 . 8 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 .7 . 7 17 . 00 .7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 18 . 00 .5 .5 . 5 .5 .5 .5 . 5 .5 .5 . 5 19 .00 .5 .5 . 4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 20 . 00 .4 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 14 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -- POND #1 Qin = 61 . 1 CFS @ 12 . 13 HRS, VOLUME= 5 . 12 AF Qout= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 60 HRS, VOLUME= . 07 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0 . 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (ACS (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 5 . 04 AF 26 . 0 . 16 0 . 00 0 .00 PEAK ELEVATION= 38 . 8 FT 42 . 0 . 63 6 . 32 6 . 32 FLOOD ELEVATION= 42 . 0 FT START ELEVATION= 26 .0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 26 . 0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 09 CFS at and above 26 .2 ' POND 1 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0. 0 .2 .4 . 6 . 8 1 .0 1 . 2 1 .4 1 . 6 1 . 8 , 26 .0 0 .00 .09 .09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 28 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 30 . 0 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 32 . 0 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 34 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 36 . 0 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 38 . 0 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 .09 . 09 . 09 40 . 0 .09 . 09 .09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 . 09 42 . 0 . 09 POND 1 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 42 41 40 39 � 38 36 Z35 0 34 33 32 31 J 30 w 29 i 28 27E FILTRATION; 21tomLOmtoa nMD0DMD mtoQDQ m m N N M M IT IT D 0 0 0 I- r- M M M m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (c f5 , ata for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 15 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 .3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND i INFLOW 3 .OUTFLOW 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND # 1 68 55 STOR-IND METHOD 50 PEAK STOR= 5 . 04 AF 45 PEAK ELEU= 38 . 8 FT LO 48 `+- 35 Q i n= 61 . 1 CFS U 30 Qout= 1 CFS 3 25 LAG= 0 MIN 20 15 18 5 em N M V Lf� lD I� OD M m TIME (hours) POND 1 INFLOW PEAK= 61 . 1 CFS @ 12 . 13 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 7 1 . 9 2 . 0 2 .2 2 .4 2 . 6 2 . 8 11 .00 3 . 0 3 . 3 3 . 7 4 .2 4 . 9 5. 5 6 . 9 10 .4 15 . 8 22 . 8 12 . 00 37 .7 59 . 6 55 . 2 41 . 6 31 .8 23 .4 16. 3 12 . 3 10.4 9 . 2 13 . 00 8 . 3 7 .5 7 .0 6 . 7 6 .5 6 . 3 6 . 0 5 .8 5 . 6 5 .4 14 .00 5 . 2 4 . 9 4 . 8 4 . 7 4 . 6 4 .4 4 . 3 4 .2 4 . 1 4 . 0 15 . 00 3 . 9 3 . 8 3 .7 3 . 6 3 .5 3 .4 3 .2 3 . 1 3 .0 2 . 9 16 . 00 2 . 8 2 . 7 2 . 6 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .5 2 .4 2 .4 2 . 3 2 . 3 17 .00 2 .2 2 . 2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 .9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 8 18 . 00 1 . 7 1 .7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 19 . 00 1 . 5 1 .5 1 .5 1 . 5 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 20 .00 1 .4 POND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 60 HOURS HOUR _ 0 . 00 10 20 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 .80 . 90 10 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 11 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 12 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 13 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 ' 14 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 15 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 16 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 17 . 00' . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 18 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 19 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 20 . 00 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 16 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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= 0 . 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 1 . 42 AF 40 . 0 . 12 0 .00 0 .00 PEAK ELEVATION= 46 . 2 FT 48 . 0 . 34 1 . 84 1 . 84 FLOOD ELEVATION= 48 . 0 FT START ELEVATION= 40 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 40 . 0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 02 CFS at and above 40 . 1 ' POND 2 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 . 2 . 3 .4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 9 40 .0 0 . 00 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 41 . 0 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 42 .0 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 43 .0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 44 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 45 . 0 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 46 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 47 .0 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 48 .0 . 02 POND 2 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 48. 0 47 . 5 - 47 . 0 - 46 . 5 - 46 . 0 - 4> 7 . 547 . 0 46 . 5 46 . 0 45 . 5 - 45 . 0 5 . 5 45 . 0 Z 44 . 5 0 44 . 0 43 . 5 ' Q 43 . 0 D 42 . 5 i J 42 . 0 w 41 . 5 i 41 . 0 ' i 40 . 5 EXFI T_R_ATION 40 . 0m N NT 0 M mN V 0 M m CS] m m m _m N m m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cfs) , Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 17 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 2 INFLOW & OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 15 14 STOR-IND METHOD 13 PEAK STOR= 1 . 42 AF 12 PEAK ELEU= 46 . 2 FT 11 10 9 Q i n= 1 5 . 3 CFS 8 Qout= 0 . 0 CFS 7 LAG= 0 MIN 3 6 LL 5 LL 4 3 2 (1� rt Ln 0 I- Co Q) m ' TIME (hours) POND 2 INFLOW PEAK= 15 . 3 CFS @ 12 .21 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 _ . 50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 .4 .4 .4 .5 .5 . 6 . 6 . 7 . 7 . 8 11 .00 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 3 1 .4 1 .7 2 . 3 3.5 5 . 0 12 . 00 7 . 7 12 . 6 15 . 3 13. 6 10 . 9 8 .4 6 . 3 4. 6 3 . 6 3 . 0 13. 00 2 . 6 2 . 3 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 .9 1 . 8 1 .7 1 .7 1 . 6 1.5 14 . 00 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1.2 1 .2 1 . 1 15 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 .0 1 . 0 .9 . 9 . 9 . 8 16 . 00 . 8 . 8 . 7 . 7 . 7 .7 .7 . 7 . 7 . 6 17 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 18 . 00 . 5 . 5 .5 .5 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 19 . 00 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 20 . 00 .4 POND 2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0 . 0 CFS @ 10 . 60 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 .80 . 90 10 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 1 11 . 00 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 12 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0. 0 0 . 0 13 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 ' 14 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 15 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 .0 16 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 17 . 00• 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 18 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0 .0 19 .00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 20 . 00 0 .0 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 18 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied microcomputer Systems POND 3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -- POND #4 Qin = 50 . 0 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS, VOLUME= 4 . 34 AF r Qout= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 50 HRS, VOLUME= . 11 AF, ATTEN=100$, LAG= 0 . 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 4 .23 AF 12 . 0 . 39 0 .00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 188 FT 20 . 0 . 85 4 . 96 4 . 96 FLOOD ELEVATION= 20 .. 0 FT START ELEVATION= 12 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES r 1 P 12 . 0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 14 CFS at and above 12 . 1 ' , POND 3 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 .2 . 3 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 , 12 . 0 0 . 00 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 13 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 1414 . 14 .0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 15 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 16 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 17 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 18 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 19 .0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 20 . 0 . 14 POND 3 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 ze. e 19 . 5 19. 0 ' 18 . 5 � � 18. 0 17 . 5 - 17 . 0 7 . 5 17 . 0 z 16 . 5 '-' 15 . 5 ' 15 . 0 � 14 . 5 J 14 . 0 w 13 . 5 13 . 0 - 12 . 5 - 12 . 3 . 0 1z . 5 12 . "� N M, V' Lfl tD (- M 0) m N^ M V M m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cf5) r 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 19 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 3 INFLOW & .OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 50 45 STOR-IND METHOD 40 PEAK STOR= 4 . 20 AF n 35 PEAK ELEU= 18 . 8 FT ' 30 Din= 50 . 0 CFS 25 Qout= . 1 CFS 0 20 LAG= 0 MIN � 15 - 10 - 5 - a CS) 51050m N rr) �T Ln 0 r- M Oi m ' TIME (hours) POND 3 INFLOW PEAK= 50 .0 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 1 .2 1 . 3 1 .4 1 .5 1 . 6 1 .8 1.9 2 . 1 2 . 3 2 .4 11 . 00 2 . 6 2 . 8 3 . 2 3 . 6 4 . 1 4.7 5 .8 8 .5 12 . 8 18 .5 12 .00 29 . 7 47 . 8 47 .7 36 . 8 28 . 3 21 . 1 14 . 9 11 .0 9 . 1 8 . 0 13 . 00 7 . 1 6 . 5 6 . 0 5 .7 5 .5 5 . 3 5. 1 4 . 9 4 . 7 4 . 6 14 . 00 4 .4 4 .2 4 . 0 3 . 9 3 . 8 3 .8 3 .7 3 . 6 3 . 5 3 . 4 15 . 00 3 . 3 3.2 3 . 1 3 . 0 2 . 9 2 .8 2 .7 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .5 16 . 00 2 .4 2 . 3 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 .0 2 .0 1 .9 1 .9 17 . 00 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 .8 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 18 .00 1 . 4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1. 3 1 .3 1. 3 1 .3 1 . 3 1 . 3 19 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 20 . 00 1 . 1 POND 3 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= . 1 CFS @ 10 .50 HOURS ' HOUR 0 .00 10 20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 0 .0 0 .0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 11 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 12 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 13 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 14 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 15 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 16 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 17 . 00, . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 18 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 19 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 20. 00 . 1 Lata for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Page 20 I TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 18 Aug 98 fi droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 4 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -- POND #3 Qin = 21 . 1 CFS @ 12 . 05 HRS, VOLUME= 1 . 58 AF Qout= 0 . 0 CFS @ 10 . 50 HRS, VOLUME= . 01 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0 . 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 1 .58 AF 30 . 0 . 09 0 . 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 36 . 8 FT 40 . 0 . 37 2 . 30 2 . 30 FLOOD ELEVATION= 40 .0 FT , START ELEVATION= 30 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 30. 0 ' ERFILTRATION Q= . 01 CFS at and above 30. 1 ' , POND 4 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 .2 . 3 . 4 .5 . 6 . 7 8 . 9 ' 30 . 0 0 . 00 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 31 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 32 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 33 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 34 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 35 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 36 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 37 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 38 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 39 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 40 . 0 . O1 POND 4 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 40 - 39 - 38 - 37 - 36 0 393837 36 o 35 H � 34 w 33 J w 32 ' i 31 3� X F I TR_ATI_ON N � Ln 0 I- 00 0) C9 C9 C9 m C9 m M m M M C9 CD CS) m m C9 m m m m m m CD DISCHARGE (cfs) i Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 1 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 ,HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems WATERSHED ROUTING t A A O O 5 O A2 �-- OSUBCATCHMENT F-] REACH Q POND I I LINK SUBCATCHMENT 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1 -> POND 1 SUBCATCHMENT 2 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SL2 -> POND 2 SUBCATCHMENT 3 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 -> POND 3 SUBCATCHMENT 4 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 -> POND 4 SUBCATCHMENT 5 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5 -> REACH 1 REACH 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 -> POND 1 POND 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 -> ' POND 2 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 -> POND 3 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 -> rPOND 4 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 -> i Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 2 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD: TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN, SCS U.H. RUNOFF SPAN = 10-20 HRS, dt= . 10 HRS, 101 POINTS I SUBCAT AREA Tc WGT' D PEAK Tpeak VOL NUMBER (ACRE) (MIN) --GROUND COVERS (%CN)-- CN C (CFS) (HRS) (AF)i 1 16 .40 12 . 9 93%71 4%85 3%98 - 72 - 44 .5 12 . 14 3 . 77 2 4 .50 18. 2 87%71 5%98 8%85 - 73 - 11 . 3 12 . 21 1 . 06 , 3 13 .57 14 . 1 88$71 6%85 6%98 - 73 - 36 . 1 12 . 15 3 .21 4 4 . 95 6 . 5 4%98 20%85 49%71 22%56 73 - 15 . 3 12 . 05 1 . 17 4%98 - - - 5 3 .50 13 . 5 9%98 17%85 74%56 - 65 - 7 . 0 12 . 15 . 631 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 3 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH ROUTING BY STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD REACH BOTTOM SIDE PEAK TRAVEL PEAK NO. DIAM WIDTH DEPTH SLOPES n LENGTH SLOPE VEL. TIME Qout ( IN) (FT) (FT) (FT./FT) (FT) (FT,/FT) (FPS) (MIN) (CFS) 1 24 . 0 - - - - . 013 620 . 0050 5 . 1 2 . 0 6 . 8 r Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUPl Page 4 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND. METHOD POND START FLOOD PEAK PEAK ------ PEAK FLOW ------- ---Qout--- NO. ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. STORAGE Qin Qout Qpri Qsec ATTEN. LAG (FT) (FT) (FT) (AF) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (%) (MIN) 1 26 . 0 42 . 0 36 . 9 4 . 32 50 .4 . 1 100 0 . 0 2 40 . 0 48 . 0 44 . 6 1 . 05 11 . 3 0 . 0 100 0 . 0 3 12 . 0 20 . 0 17 . 0 3 . 10 36 . 1 . 1 100 0 . 0 4 30 . 0 40 . 0 35 . 1 1 . 16 15 . 3 0 . 0 100 0 . 0 ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 5 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems LINK Qout NO. NAME SOURCE (CFS) 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 6 , TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 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= 6 . 0 IN . 45 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 16 .40 72 , Method Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment A-B / 8 . 9 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 ' 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 ' 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 SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF , SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1 45 ,48 AREA= 16 . 4 AC 35 Tc-- 12 . 9 MIN CN= 72 ' 30 25 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR ' 20 RAINFALL= 6 . 0 IN 3 of 15 PEAK= 44 . 5 CFS 1e @ 12 . 14 HRS , 55j UOLUME= .3 . 77 AF `ID N rr) Lfl w, Q) m TIME (hours) 1 ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 7 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 ' HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 44. 5 CFS @ 12 . 14 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 .7 . 7 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 2 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 7 ' 11 . 00 1 . 9 2 . 0 2 . 3 2 . 7 3 . 1 3. 6 4 . 6 7 . 0 10.8 15 . 8 12 . 00 26 . 8 43 . 3 40 . 7 30 . 9 23 . 9 17 . 7 12 .4 9 . 3 7 . 9 7 . 0 13 . 00 6 . 3 5 . 7 5 . 4 5 . 1 5 .0 4 . 8 4 . 6 4 .5 4 . 3 4 . 1 ' 14 . 00 4 . 0 3 . 8 3 . 7 3 . 6 3 .5 3 .4 3 . 3 3 . 3 3 .2 3 . 1 15 . 00 3 .0 2 . 9 2 . 8 2 . 8 2 . 7 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .4 2 . 3 2 .2 16 . 00 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 .7 17 . 00 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 4 18 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 2 1 .2 1 .2 19 . 00 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 20 . 00 1 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 8 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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=. 1 HRS 4 . 50 73 ' Method Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B / 17 .0 Grass : Dense n=. 24 L=180 ' 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 SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2 11 10 AREA= 4 . 5 AC 9 Tc= 18 . 2 MIN , 8 CN= 73 C 7 SCS TR-20 METHOD U 6 TYPE III 24-HOUR ' 3 5 RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN 0 4 3 PEAK= 11 . 3 CFS @ 12 . 21 HRS 2 ' UOLUME= 1 . 06 AF 1 0m N r'7 Lfl 0 00 0� CID , TIME (hours) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 9 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF PEAK= 11. 3 CFS @ 12 . 21 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 2 .2 .2 . 3 . 3 . 3 .4 . 4 .4 .5 ' 11 . 00 .5 . 6 . 6 . 7 . 8 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 6 2 .4 3 .5 12 . 00 5 . 5 9 . 1 11 . 2 10 . 1 8 . 1 6 . 4 4 . 7 3 .5 2 . 7 2 . 3 13 . 00 2 . 0 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 14 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 .9 15 . 00 . 9 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 .7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 16 .00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 . 5 17 . 00 .5 .5 . 5 . 5 .4 .4 .4 . 4 . 4 .4 18 . 00 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 19 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 20 . 00 . 3 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 10 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 .00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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, dt=. 1 HRS 13 .57 73 ' Method Comment Tc (min) 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=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 . 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 SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF , SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 36 - .332 AREA= 13 . 57 AC30 - , 28 24 Tc= 14 . 1 MIN CN= 73 ' Cf10 22 20 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR ' 3 14 RAINFALL= 6 . 0 IN 10 PEAK= 36 . 1 CFS 6 VOLU@ 12 . 15 HRS ' 4 ME= 3 . 21 AF 2 em cv M, to 0 co rn m ' TIME (hours) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 11 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 ,HvdroCAD 4 .00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK= 36.. 1 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 3 1 .4 1 . 5 ' 11 . 00 1 . 6 1 . 8 2 . 0 2 . 3 2 . 7 3 . 1 3 . 9 5 . 7 8 . 8 12 . 9 12 . 00 21 . 3 34 . 8 35 .2 27 .5 21 . 3 16 . 0 11 . 3 8 . 4 7 . 0 6 . 1 13 . 00 5 . 5 4 . 9 4 . 6 4 . 4 4 .2 4 . 1 3 . 9 3 . 8 3 . 7 3 .5 14 . 00 3 . 4 3 . 2 3 . 1 3 . 0 3 . 0 2 . 9 2 . 8 2 . 8 2 . 7 2 . 6 ' 15 . 00 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .4 2 . 3 2 . 3 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 9 16 . 00 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 .7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 5 1 .5 1 .5 17 . 00 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 .2 1 . 2 ' 18 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 .0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 19 . 00 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 20. 00 . 9 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 12 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 4 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -. SL3 PEAK= 15 . 3 CFS @ 12 . 05 HRS, VOLUME= 1 . 17 AF ACRES CN 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=. 1 HRS 1 . 10 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR ' .20 98 POND AREA (WET) 4 . 95 73 Method Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 4 .7 w 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 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 ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 15 - 14 - AREA= 4 . 95 AC ' 13 Tc= 6 . 5 MIN 12 - 11 - CN= 73 10 � 9 SCS TR-20 METHOD B TYPE III 24-HOUR 7 RAINFALL= 6 . 0 IN 3 6 LL 4 PEAK- 15 . 3 CFS 3 @ 12 . 05 HRS 2 UOLUME= 1 . 17 AF , �1 N rrl �t Lfl lD I� OD Q) m TIME (hours) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 13 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF PEAK= 15. 3 CFS @ 12 . 05 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 .40 . 50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 .4 .4 .4 .5 .5 . 6 . 6 ' 11 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 2 1 .4 2 . 1 3 . 3 4. 8 7 . 1 12 . 00 14 . 5 14 . 7 9 .4 7 . 2 5 . 4 3 . 6 2 . 6 2 . 3 2 . 1 1 . 9 13 . 00 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 1 . 4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 14 . 00 1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 . 9 15 . 00 . 9 . 9 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 .7 . 7 . 7 . 7 16 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 . 5 . 5 17 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 . 5 .5 .4 . 4 .4 .4 18 .00 . 4 . 4 . 4 . 4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 19 .00 .4 .4 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 20 . 00 . 3 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 14 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 5 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -- SL5 PEAK= 7 . 0 CFS @ 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, dt=. l HRS 3 . 50 65 , Method , Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B / 12 . 7 ' Grass : Dense n=.24 L=140 ' P2=3 . 3 in s=. 05 ' RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C . 6 W=4 ' D=2 ' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=11 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 .2 W=4 ' D=2 ' SS= 1 & 2 ' /' a=11 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= 13 . 5 SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5 7 . 0 ' 6 . 5 AREA= 3 . 5 AC 6 . 0 Tc= 13 . 5 MIN 5 . 5 '5 . 0 CN= 65 4 : 0 SCS TR-20 METHOD 3 . 5 TYPE III 24-HOUR ' 3 3 . 0 RAINFALL= 6 . 0 IN 0 2 . 5 - 2 . 0 PEAK= 7 . 0 CFS 1 . 5 @ 12 . 15 HRS ' 1 . 0 UOLUME= . 63 OF 5 TIME (hours) ' ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 15 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 ' HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF PEAK= 7 . 0 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 . 50 . 60 . 70 .80 . 90 10 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 2 ' 11 . 00 .2 .2 . 2 . 3 .4 .4 . 6 . 9 1 .4 2 . 2 12 . 00 3 . 9 6 . 8 6 . 8 5 .4 4 . 2 3 . 2 2 . 3 1 . 7 1 . 4 1 . 3 13 . 00 1 . 2 1 . 0 1 . 0 . 9 .9 . 9 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 14 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 ' 15 . 00 . 6 . 5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 . 4 . 4 16 . 00 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 17 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 18 . 00 .2 .2 . 2 .2 .2 .2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 19 . 00 .2 .2 . 2 .2 .2 .2 . 2 .2 .2 .2 20. 00 .2 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 16 I TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 Qin = 7 . 0 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS, VOLUME= . 63 AF ' Qout= 6 . 8 CFS @ 12 . 23 HRS, VOLUME= . 63 AF, ATTEN= 3%, LAG= 4 .4 MIN DEPTH END AREA DISCH ' (FT) (SO-FT) (CFS) 24" PIPE STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 PEAK DEPTH= . 91 FT . 2 .2 . 3 n= . 013 PEAK VELOCITY= 5 . 1 FPS , . 4 . 4 1 . 4 LENGTH= 620 FT TRAVEL TIME = 2 . 0 MIN . 6 . 8 3 . 1 SLOPE= .005 FT/FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. l HRS 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 REACH i DISCHARGE ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 2 . 0 - 1 . 0 1 . 4 1 . 2 ' 4- ' 1 . 8 ' o . 6 24'' PIPE 4 /r' n= . 013 L=620' S= . 005 ' 2 � 0 `" D N rr) Ln �D I- OD 0) m N m d' Ln o r,- DISCHARGE (cfs) 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUPl Page 17 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH 1 INFLOW 8 OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 7e 6 . 5 24" PIPE ' S 0 )t I n= . 013 L=620' S= . 305 4 5 . 0 -1ti4 STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD 4 .' 4 . 0 4 VELOCITY= 5 . 1 FPS 3 5 TRAUEL= 2 MIN 3 3 . 0 o 2 . 5 Gin= 7 . 0 CFS ' LL 2 . 0 �� Qout= 6 . 8 CFS 1 . 5 �r `� LAG= 4 . 4 MIN 1 . 0 � ' 5 0 r- oo rn m ' TIME (hours) ' REACH 1 INFLOW PEAK= 7 . 0 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 ' 10 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 2 11 . 00 . 2 .2 .2 . 3 . 4 .4 . 6 . 9 1 . 4 2 . 2 12 . 00 3 . 9 6 . 8 6 . 8 5 .4 4 . 2 3 .2 2 . 3 1 . 7 1 .4 1 . 3 13 . 00 1 .2 1 .0 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 ' 14 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 15 . 00 . 6 .5 .5 .5 . 5 . 5 .5 .5 .4 . 4 16 . 00 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 .4 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 ' 17 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 18 . 00 . 2 .2 .2 . 2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 19 . 00 .2 .2 . 2 .2 . 2 .2 . 2 .2 .2 .2 ' 20 . 00 .2 REACH 1 OUTFLOW PEAK= 6 . 8 CFS @ 12 .23 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 .70 .80 . 90 10 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 ' 11 .00 . 1 . 2 .2 .2 . 3 .4 .5 .7 1 . 0 1 . 7 12 . 00 2 . 8 5 . 1 6 . 7 6 .2 4 . 9 3 . 8 2 . 9 2 . 1 1 . 6 1 .4 13 .00 1 . 3 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 8 . 8 . 8 14 . 00 . 8 . 7 .7 . 7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 ' 15 . 00 . 6 . 6 .5 . 5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 16 . 00 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 3 . 3 . 3 17 . 00• . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 ' 18 .00 . 3 . 3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 19 . 00 .2 .2 .2 .2 . 2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 20 . 00 . 2 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 18 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems t POND 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 Qin = 50 .4 CFS @ 12 . 14 HRS, VOLUME= 4 . 39 AF ' Qout= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 90 HRS, VOLUME= . 07 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0 . 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 4 . 32 AF 26 . 0 . 16 0 . 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 36 . 9 FT 42 . 0 . 63 6 . 32 6 . 32 FLOOD ELEVATION= 42 . 0 FT ' START ELEVATION= 26 .0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES ' 1 P 26 . 0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 09 CFS at and above 26 .2 ' , POND 1 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 2 . 4 . 6 . 8 1 . 0 1 .2 1 .4 1 . 6 1 . 8 26. 0 0 . 00 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 28 .0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 30 . 0 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 ' 32 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 34 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 36.0 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 ' 38. 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 40 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 42 . 0 . 09 ' POND 1 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 ' 42 41 - 40 - 39 - 38 - (4- 1 40 39 38(4- 37 - - 36 � z 35 0 34 33 32 31 LLI 30 w 29 28 ' 27 EXFILTR_ATION; ' 2� Ln m Ln m LO m Ln m In m Ln m Ln m Ln m n m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cfs) ' ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 19 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 1 INFLOW 8 OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 50 45 STOR-IND METHOD ' 40 PEAK STOR= 4 . 32 AF 35PEAK ELEU= 36 . 9 FT c} 30 Qin= 50 . 4 CFS ' U 25 Qout= . 1 CFS 3 20 LAG= 0 MIN 0 __j 15 - 10 5 Om N r'l - Ln lC 1- M C m TIME (hours) POND 1 INFLOW PEAK= 50 .4 CFS @ 12 . 14 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 7 . 8 .9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 .2 1 .4 1 . 5 1 . 7 1 . 8 11 . 00 2 . 0 2 .2 2 . 5 2 . 9 3 .4 4 . 0 5 . 1 7 .7 11 . 8 17 . 5 12 . 00 29 . 7 48 .4 47 .4 37 . 2 28 . 8 21 .5 15 .2 11 .4 9 . 6 8 .4 13 . 00 7 . 6 6 . 9 6 .4 6 . 1 5 . 9 5 . 7 5 .5 5 . 3 5 . 1 4 . 9 ' 14 . 00 4 . 7 4 . 5 4 . 4 4 . 3 4 .2 4. 1 4 .0 3 . 9 3 . 8 3 . 7 15 . 00 3 . 6 3 .5 3 .4 3 . 3 3 .2 3 . 1 3 . 0 2 . 9 2 . 8 2 . 7 16 .00 2 . 6 2 .5 2 . 4 2 . 4 2 . 3 2 . 3 2 .2 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 ' 17 . 00 2 . 0 2 .0 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 .8 1 . 8 1 .7 1 .7 1 . 6 18 . 00 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 4 1 .4 19 . 00 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1.4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 20 .00 1 . 3 POND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 90 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 . 50 . 60 . 70 .80 . 90 10 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 ' 11 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 12 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 13 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 14 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 15 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 16 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 17 .00, . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 18 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 19 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 20 .00 . 1 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 20 I TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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 STOR-IND METHOD , FT (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 1 . 05 AF 40 . 0 . 12 0 . 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 44 . 6 FT 48 . 0 . 34 1 . 84 1 . 84 FLOOD ELEVATION= 48 . 0 FT ' START ELEVATION= 40 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. l HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES ' 1 P 40 . 0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 02 CFS at and above 40 . 1 ' ' POND 2 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 . 2 . 3 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 8 9 ' 40 .0 0 . 00 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 41 .0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 ' 42 .0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 43.0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 44 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 45 .0 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 , 46. 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 47 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 48 . 0 . 02 ' POND 2 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 , 48 . 0 47 . 5 - 47 . 0 - 46 . 5 - 46 . 0 - 45 . 5 - 45 . 0 7 . 547 . 0 46 . 546 . 045 . 545 . 0 z 44 . 5 0 44 . 0 ~' 43 . 5 Q 43 . 0 p 42 . 5 LIJ 42 . 0 - 41 . 5 - 41 . 0 - 40 . 5 - 40 . 2 . 041 . 5 41 . 0 40 . 5 40 . 0m N I co m N--V- 0 M m • m m m m m � � N m m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cfs) ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 21 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 ' HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 2 INFLOW 8 OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 11 10 STOR-IND METHOD ' 9 PEAK STOR= 1 . 05 AF r-, 8 PEAK ELEU= 44 . 6 FT LO(4- 7 Q i n= 1 1 . 3 CFS ' 6 Gout= 0 . 0 CFS 3 5 LAG= 0 MIN ' 0 4 LL 32 ' 1 Bm � ao rn m ' TIME (hours) POND 2 INFLOW PEAK= 11 . 3 CFS @ 12 .21 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 ' 10 . 00 .2 . 2 .2 . 3 . 3 .3 .4 .4 .4 .5 11 .00 .5 . 6 . 6 . 7 . 8 1 .0 1 . 1 1 . 6 2 .4 3 .5 12 . 00 5 .5 9 . 1 11 . 2 10 . 1 8 . 1 6.4 4 .7 3 .5 2 . 7 2 . 3 13 . 00 2 .0 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 .2 ' 14 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1.0 1 . 0 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 15 . 00 .9 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 .7 .7 .7 . 7 . 6 16 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ' 17 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 18 .00 .4 . 4 .4 .4 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 19 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 ' 20 . 00 . 3 POND 2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0 . 0 CFS @ 10 . 90 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 ' 11 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 12 .00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 13 .00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 14 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 ' 15. 00 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 16 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 17 . 00• 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 ' 18 .00 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0. 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 19 . 00 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0. 0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0. 0 20 . 00 0 .0 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 22 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied microcomputer Systems POND 3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -. POND #4 Qin = 36 . 1 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS, VOLUME= 3 .21 AF ' Qout= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 80 HRS, VOLUME= . 11 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0 . 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 3 . 10 AF 12 . 0 . 39 0 . 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 17 . 0 FT 20 . 0 . 85 4 . 96 4 . 96 FLOOD ELEVATION= 20 . 0 FT ' START ELEVATION= 12 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES ' 1 P 12 . 0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 14 CFS at and above 12 . 1 ' POND 3 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 .2 . 3 . 4 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 , 12 . 0 0 . 00 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 13 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 14 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 ' 15 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 16 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 17 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 18 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 19 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 20 . 0 . 14 ' POND 3 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 ' z0 e 19. 5 - 19 . 0 - 18 . 5 - 18. 0 - 17 , 5 - 17 . 0 9. 519 . 0 18 . 5 18. 017 . 517 . 0 Z 16 . 5 0 16 . 0 15 . 5 ' Q 15 . 0 14 . 5 i 14 . 0 - 13 . 5 - 13 . 0 - 12 . 5 - 12 . 4 . 013 . 513 . 0 12 . 5 12 . 0m N M V in 0 r- MM m ^-N M y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m ,DISCHARGE (cfs) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 23 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 3 INFLOW & OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 36 32 STOR-IND METHOD 33 - PEAK STOR= .3 . 10 AF 28 - 26 PEAK ELEU= 17 FT 28 Gin= 36 . 1 CFS Gout= . 1 CFS 3 14 LAG= 0 MIN CD 12 ' 8 6 4 2 N 1`9 "T Ln lD I- 00 Q) m ' TIME (hours) POND 3 INFLOW PEAK= 36. 1 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 . 50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 ' 10 . 00 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 1. 0 1 . 1 1 .2 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 .5 11 . 00 1 . 6 1 . 8 2 . 0 2 . 3 2 . 7 3 . 1 3 . 9 5 . 7 8 . 8 12 . 9 12 . 00 21 . 3 34 . 8 35 .2 27 .5 21 . 3 16 . 0 11 . 3 8 .4 7 . 0 6 . 1 13 . 00 5 .5 4 . 9 4 . 6 4 .4 4 .2 4 . 1 3 .9 3 . 8 3 . 7 3 .5 14. 00 3 . 4 3 .2 3 . 1 3 . 0 3 . 0 2 . 9 2 .8 2 . 8 2 . 7 2 . 6 15 . 00 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .4 2 . 3 2 . 3 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 9 16 .00 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 17 . 00 1 .4 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 18 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 . 0 19 . 00 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 20 .00 . 9 POND 3 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 80 HOURS HOUR 0 .00 . 10 . 20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 11 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 12 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 13 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 14 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 15.00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 16 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 17 .00• . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 18 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 19 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 20 .00 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 24 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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 STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) 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=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 30 . 0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 01 CFS at and above 30 . 1 ' POND 4 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 r 30 . 0 0 . 00 . 01 .01 .01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 31 . 0 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 " 32 . 0 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 33 .0 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 34 . 0 .01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 35 .0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 36 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 37 . 0 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 38 . 0 . 01 .01 .01 .01 . 01 .01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 39 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 40 . 0 . O1 POND 4 DISCHARGE r SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 40 - 39 - 38 - 37 - 36 - z 8 39 38 � 37 i 1 3 6 0 35 Q 34 33 w 32 r LU 31 30m EXFI TR_ATI_ON N M T Ln 0 I- co 0) m m m m m m m m m m m CS) m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cfs) r 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 25 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 4 INFLOW & OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 15 14 STOR-IND METHOD 13 PEAK STOR= 1 . 16 AF 12 PEAK ELEU= 35 . 1 FT 11 10 g Qin= 15 . 3 CFS U 8 Qcut= 8 . 0 CFS 7 LAG= 3 MIN 3 6 0 5 LL 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 321 0m oo rn m TIME (hours) POND 4 INFLOW PEAK= 15 . 3 CFS @ 12 . 05 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 .80 . 90 10 .00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 4 .4 .4 .5 . 5 . 6 . 6 11 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 9 1 . 0 1 .2 1 .4 2 . 1 3 . 3 4. 8 7 . 1 12 .00 14 .5 14 .7 9 .4 7 .2 5 . 4 3 . 6 2 . 6 2 . 3 2 . 1 1 . 9 13 . 00 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1. 3 1 . 3 1 .2 14 . 00 1 . 2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1. 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 .0 .9 15 .00 . 9 .9 . 8 .8 . 8 . 8 . 7 .7 . 7 . 7 16 .00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 17 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 18 . 00 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 19 . 00 .4 .4 . 3 .3 . 3 .3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 20 .00 . 3 POND 4 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0 .0 CFS @ 10 . 70 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 . 50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 .00 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 11 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 12 .00 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 13 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0. 0 0 . 0 0.0 14 .00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 15 .00 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 16 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 17 .00• 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 18 .00 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0. 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 .0 0. 0 19 .00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 20 .00 0 . 0 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 1 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems WATERSHED ROUTING r 3 0 O O 5 O OA24:'� OSUBCATCHMENT [] REACH Q POND LINK SUBCATCHMENT 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1 -> POND 1 SUBCATCHMENT 2 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SL2 -> POND 2 SUBCATCHMENT 3 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 -> POND 3 t SUBCATCHMENT 4 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 -> POND 4 SUBCATCHMENT 5 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5 -> REACH 1 REACH 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 -> POND 1 �. POND 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 -> POND 2 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 -> POND 3 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 -> POND 4 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 -> Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 2 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD: TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN, SCS U.H. RUNOFF SPAN = 10-20 HRS, dt= . 10 HRS, 101 POINTS SUBCAT AREA Tc WGT' D PEAK Tpeak VOL NUMBER (ACRE) (MIN) --GROUND COVERS (CCN)-- CN C (CFS) ('HRS) (AF 1 1 16.40 12 . 9 93%71 4%85 3%98 - 72 - 61 . 1 12. 13 5 . 12 2 4 .50 18 .2 87%71 5%98 8%85 - 73 - 15 . 3 12 .21 1.441 3 13 .57 14 . 1 88%71 6%85 6%98 - 73 - 50 . 0 12 . 15 4.34f 4 4. 95 6 .5 4%98 20%85 49%71 22%56 73 - 21 . 1 12.05 1.58 4%98 - - - 5 3 .50 13 .5 9%98 17$85 74%56 - 65 - 10 . 3 12 . 15 A Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 3 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 .3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9E HvdroCAD 4 .00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH ROUTING BY STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD REACH BOTTOM SIDE PEAK TRAVEL PEAK NO. DIAM WIDTH DEPTH SLOPES n LENGTH SLOPE VEL. TIME Qout ( IN) (FT) (FT) (FT/FT) (FT) (FT./FT) (FPS) (MIN) (CFS) 1 24 .0 - - - - . 013 620 . 0050 . 5.5 1 .9 9 . 8 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 4 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9 H d oCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 A d Microcomputer Systems POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND. METHOD POND START FLOOD PEAK PEAK ------ PEAK FLOW ------- ---Qout--- NO. ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. STORAGE Qin Qout Qpri Qsec ATTEN. LAG (FT) (FT) (FT) (AF) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (%) IN) 1 26 . 0 42 . 0 41 . 0 5 . 94 69 . 6 . 1 100 0 .0 2 40 . 0 48 . 0 46 . 2 1 . 42 15 . 3 0 . 0 100 0 .0 3 12 . 0 20 . 0 18 . 8 4 . 23 50 . 0 . 1 100 0 . 0 4 30 . 0 40 . 0 36 . 8 1 .58 21 . 1 0 . 0 100 0.0 ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 5 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9E HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems LINK Qout NO NAME SOURCE (CFS) i Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 6 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 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, dt=. 1 HRS 16 . 40 72 1 Method Comment Tc (minim TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment A-B 8 . 9 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 ' 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 ' 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 SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1 60 - 55 - AREA= 16. 4 AC 50 Tc= 12. 9 MIN 45 CN= 72 � 40 + 35 SCS TR-20 METHOD 30 TYPE III 24-HOUR 30 25 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN -i 20 PEAK= 61 . 1 CFS 15 10 @ 12 . 13 HRS VOLUME= 5 . 12 AF �5{ C9 N M 'q Ifl lD I� 00 M m TIME Chours) ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 7 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 61-. 1 CFS @ 12 . 13 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 7 1 . 9 2 . 0 2 . 2 2 .4 2 . 6 2 . 8 I11 . 00 3 . 0 3 . 3 3 .7 4 .2 4 . 9 5 .5 6 . 9 10 .4 15 . 8 22 . 8 12 . 00 37 .7 59 . 6 55 . 2 41 . 6 31 . 8 23 .4 16 . 3 12 . 3 10 .4 9 . 2 13 . 00 8 . 3 7 . 5 7 . 0 6 .7 6 .5 6 . 3 6 . 0 5 .8 5 . 6 5 . 4 14 . 00 5 .2 4 . 9 4 . 8 4 .7 4 . 6 4.4 4. 3 4 .2 4 . 1 4. 0 15 . 00 3 . 9 3 . 8 3 . 7 3 . 6 3 .5 3 . 4 3 . 2 3 . 1 3 . 0 2 . 9 16 . 00 2 . 8 2 .7 2 . 6 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .5 2 . 4 2 .4 2 . 3 2 . 3 17 . 00 2 .2 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 2 . 0 1. 9 1 .9 1 . 8 1 . 8 18 . 00 1.7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 19 . 00 1 .5 1 .5 1. 5 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 4 1 .4 1.4 1 .4 20 . 00 1.4 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 8 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droC D 4. 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied 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 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 4 .50 73 Method Comment Tc (min; TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 17 . 0 Grass : Dense n=. 24 L=180 ' 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 SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2 15 - 14 - AREA= 4 . 5 AC 13 Tc= 18. 2 MIN 12 11 CN= 73 19 SCS TR-20 METHOD 8 TYPE III 24-HOUR 7 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN 3 6 � 4 PEAK= 15 . 3 CFS 3 e 12 .21 HRS 2 VOLUME= 1 . 44 AF 1 N rn d' Ln w M, m TIME (hours) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 9 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF PEAK= 15.. 3 CFS @ 12 .21 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 . 50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 .4 . 4 .4 . 5 . 5 . 6 . 6 .7 . 7 . 8 11 . 00 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 3 1 .4 1 . 7 2 . 3 3 .5 5. 0 12 . 00 7 . 7 12 . 6 15 . 3 13 . 6 10 . 9 8 .4 6 . 3 4 . 6 3. 6 3. 0 13 . 00 2 . 6 2 . 3 2 . 1 2 . 0 1. 9 1 . 8 1.7 1 .7 1. 6 1. 5 14 . 00 1 .5 1.4 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1. 3 1 .2 1 .2 1.2 1 . 1 15 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 .9 . 9 . 9 .8 16 . 00 . 8 . 8 .7 . 7 .7 . 7 . 7 .7 .7 . 6 17 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 . 5 1 18 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 19 . 00 . 4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 20 . 00 .4 l 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 10 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -• SL4 PEAK= 50 . 0 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS, VOLUME= 4 . 34 AF ACRES CN 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 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 13 .57 73 Method Comment Tc (min) 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=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 . 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 SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 50 45 AREA= 13 . 57 AC 40 Tc= 14. 1 MIN 35 CN= 73 30 SCS TR-20 METHOD 25 TYPE III 24-HOUR 3 20 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN 0 15 PEAK= 50. 0 CFS 10 a 12 . 15 HRS 5 UOLUME= 4. 34 AF rYl LCl w, f� OD 0) m TIME (hours) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 11 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 1 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK= 50. 0 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 1 . 2 1 . 3 1 .4 1 .5 1 . 6 1 . 8 1 . 9 2 . 1 2 . 3 2 . 4 11 .00 2 . 6 2 . 8 3.2 3 . 6 4 . 1 4 .7 5 . 8 8 .5 12 .8 18 .5 12 . 00 29 . 7 47 . 8 47 . 7 36 . 8 28 . 3 21 . 1 14 . 9 11 .0 9 . 1 8 . 0 13 . 00 7 . 1 6 .5 6 . 0 5 . 7 5 .5 5 . 3 5 . 1 4 . 9 4 .7 4 . 6 14 . 00 4 .4 4.2 4 . 0 3 . 9 3 . 8 3 .8 3 .7 3 . 6 3.5 3 .4 15 . 00 3 . 3 3 .2 3 . 1 3 .0 2 . 9 2 . 8 2 .7 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .5 16 .00 2 .4 2 . 3 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 .0 2 . 0 1.9 1. 9 17 . 00 1.9 1.8 1. 8 1 . 7 1 . 7 1. 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1.5 1.5 18 . 00 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 4 1.4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1.3 1 . 3 19 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 20 . 00 1 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 12 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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, dt=. 1 HRS 1 . 10 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR .20 98 POND AREA (WET) 4 . 95 73 Method Comment Tc (mi TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 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 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= 6.511 SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 20 18 AREA= 4 . 95 AC Tc= 6 . 5 MIN 16 CN= 73 ^ 14 12 SCS TR-20 METHOD ,U 10 TYPE III 24-HOUR 3 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN 0 8 E' 6 PEAK= 21 . 1 CFS 4 @ 12 .05 HRS q2 UOLUME= 1 . 58 AF `ID N f*l Ln' 0D It M 0) m TIME (hours) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 13 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9E 1 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF PEAK= 21 . 1 CFS @ 12 . 05 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 .5 .5 . 6 . 6 . 7 . 7 . 8 . 8 .9 1. 0 11 . 00 1 . 0 1 . 2 1 . 3 1 .5 1 .7 2 . 0 3 . 0 4 . 8 6. 9 9 . 9 12 . 00 19 . 9 19 . 8 12 . 6 9 . 6 7 . 1 4 . 8 3 . 5 3 . 1 2 . 8 2 .5 13 . 00 2 . 3 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 9 1. 9 1 . 8 1 . 7 1. 6 1. 6 14 . 00 1 .5 1 . 5 1 .4 1 .4 1. 4 1 . 3 1. 3 1 . 3 1.2 1.2 1 15 . 00 1 .2 1 . 1 1. 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 .0 . 9 .9 . 9 16 . 00 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 7 .7 . 7 . 7 .7 . 7 17 . 00 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 18 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 19 . 00 . 5 .5 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 . 4 .4 . 4 20 . 00 .4 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUPI Page 14 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 90 H d oCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 5 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5 PEAK= 10 . 3 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS, VOLUME= . 90 AF i 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, dt=. l HRS 3 . 50 65 , Method Comment Tc (min' TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 12 .7 Grass : Dense n=. 24 L=140 ' P2=3 . 3 in s=.05 ' RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C . 6 W=4 ' D=2 ' SS= 1 & 2 ' /' a=11 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 .2 W=4 ' D=2 ' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=11 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= 13.5 SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5 10 g AREA= 3 . 5 AC 8 Tc= 13. 5 MIN CN= 65 7 - (4- 6 SCS TR-20 METHOD J 5 TYPE III 24-HOUR 3 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN 0 4 E' 3 PEAK= 10 . 3 CFS 2J. I I @ 12 . 15 HRS �1 UOLUME= . 90 OF `ID N �r1 Cf Lfl �D t- M M m TIME (hours) 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 15 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 �HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF PEAK= 10. 3 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS tHOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 . 50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 2 . 2 .2 . 2 . 3 .3 . 3 11 . 00 . 4 . 4 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 1 . 0 1 .5 2.3 3 .5 12 . 00 5 . 9 9 . 9 9 . 8 7 . 6 5 . 9 4 .4 3 . 1 2 . 3 2 .0 1 . 7 13 . 00 1 . 6 1 . 4 1. 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1.2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1. 1 1 . 0 14 . 00 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 8 . 8 . 8 .8 . 8 15 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 .7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 16 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 . 4 17 . 00 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 .3 . 3 18 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 19 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 20 .00 . 3 r r r r r r r r r r r r Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 16 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 .00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied microcomputer Systems REACH 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 Qin = 10 . 3 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS, VOLUME= . 90 AF i Qout= 9 . 8 CFS @ 12 .22 HRS, VOLUME= . 89 AF, ATTEN= 5%, LAG= 4 .4 MIN DEPTH END AREA DISCH I (FT) (SO-FT) (CFS) 24" PIPE STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 PEAR DEPTH= 1. 15 FT . 2 .2 . 3 n= . 013 PEAK VELOCITY= 5.5 FPS . 4 .4 1 .4 LENGTH= 620 FT TRAVEL TIME = 1.9 MIN . 6 . 8 3. 1 SLOPE= .005 FT/FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 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 REACH 1 DISCHARGE , SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 1 . 2 4- ' 1 . 0 ' CL 0 6 24" PIPE 4 n= 013 L=620' 5= . 005 i 2 � i 0 .Om NM, L0, 0, 00, 0) N Ln, LJOr DISCHARGE (cfs) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 17 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HXdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH 1 INFLOW & .OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 10 9 24" PIPE I 8 n= 013 L=620' S= . 005 i � 7STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD 6 VELOCITY= 5 . 5 FPS 5 ��� TRAVEL= 1 . 9 MIN 4 p 4 Qin= 10 . 3 CFS 3 r �� Qout= 9 . 8 CFS 2 �1 �� LAG= 4 . 4 MIN i r 0m N rr) T to LB r- ao rn m 1 TIME (hours) REACH 1 INFLOW PEAK= 10 . 3 CFS @ 12 - 15 HOURS HOUR _ 0 . 00 10 20 30 .40 . 50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 .2 .2 .2 .2 . 3 . 3 . 3 11 . 00 .4 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 1 .0 1 .5 2 . 3 3 .5 12 . 00 5 . 9 9 . 9 9 . 8 7 . 6 5 . 9 4 . 4 3. 1 2. 3 2 .0 1 .7 13 . 00 1 . 6 1 . 4 1 . 3 1. 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 1 1. 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 14 . 00 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 .9 . 8 .8 .8 .8 .8 15 . 00 .7 .7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 16 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 ' 17 . 00 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 . 3 . 3 18 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 19 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 . 3 20 . 00 . 3 REACH 1 OUTFLOW PEAK= 9 .8 CFS @ 12 -22 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 40 50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 0 .0 . 1 . 1 . 1 .2 .2 .2 .2 . 3 . 3 1 11. 00 . 3 .4 .4 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 1 . 1 1.8 2.7 12 . 00 4 .5 7 . 6 9 . 7 8 . 8 6 . 9 5 . 3 3.9 2 .8 2 .2 1.9 13 .00 1 .7 1.5 1.4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1.2 1. 1 1. 1 1 . 1 14 . 00 1 .0 1 . 0 .9 .9 . 9 . 9 .8 .8 .8 .8 15 . 00 . 8 . 7 . 7 .7 . 7 .7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 16 . 00 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 17 . 00 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 3 18 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 19 .00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 .3 . 3 20 . 00 . 3 1 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 18 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroICAD 4 .00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 Qin = 69 . 6 CFS @ 12 . 14 HRS, VOLUME= 6 . 01 AF Qout= . 1 CFS @ 10 .50 HRS, VOLUME= . 07 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0. 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM.STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 5 .94 AF 26 .0 . 16 0 . 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 41 .0 FT 42 . 0 . 63 6 . 32 6 . 32 FLOOD ELEVATION= 42 . 0 FT J START ELEVATION= 26 .0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES , 1 P 26 . 0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 09 CFS at and above 26 .2 ' POND 1 TOTAL DISCHARGE ((FS), vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 2 4 6 . 8 1 .0 1 .2 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 8 26 . 0 0 . 00 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 .09 . 09 28 .0 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 30 . 0 .09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 . 09 .09 .091 32 .0 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 . 09 .09 .09 .09 .09 . 09 34 . 0 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 36 .0 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 0909 38 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 .09 .09 . 09 .09 .0 40 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 42 .0 . 09 POND i DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 42 41 39 i 39 38 37 35 35 0 34 33 - Q 32 - 31 - 30 231 30 w 29 - 28 - 27 - 928 27 _ EXFILTR_ATION 2 E� m to min m m in min m to min m �n m m m N N frI fT7 V V In l!l lD lD I� r- M M M m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cfs) ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 19 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL-- 7 .3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 1 INFLOW 8 OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 1 70 65 STOR-IND METHOD 60 PEAK STOR= 5 . 94 AF 55 PEAK ELEU= 41 FT 50 - 45 - 1- 0454- 40 Qin= 69 . 6 CFS 35 Gout= . 1 CFS 3 30 LAG= 0 MIN o 25 � 20 15 10 5 N � Ln 0 r- N � �' l!1 tD t- M 0) m --- N TIME (hours) POND 1 INFLOW PEAK= 69 . 6 CFS @ 12 . 14 HOURS HOUR 0 .00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 .8 . 90 1 10 . 00 1 .4 1 .5 1 .7 1. 8 2 . 0 2 .2 2 .4 2 . 6 2. 9 3 . 1 11 . 00 3 .4 3 . 7 4 . 1 4.7 5 . 4 6.2 7 .8 11. 6 17 . 6 25 .5 12 . 00 42 . 3 67 .2 64 . 9 50 .4 38 . 7 28 .7 20 .2 15 . 1 12 . 6 11 . 1 13 . 00 10 . 0 9 . 0 8 .4 8.0 7 . 7 7 .5 7 .2 7 . 0 6. 7 6.4 14 . 00 6.2 5. 9 5 . 7 5 . 6 5 .4 5 .3 5 .2 5 . 1 4.9 4 . 8 15 . 00 4 . 7 4 .5 4 .4 4 . 3 4 . 1 4 .0 3.9 3.7 3 . 6 3 .5 16 . 00 3 . 3 3 .2 3 . 1 3 . 1 3 . 0 2 .9 2 .9 2 .8 2.8 2 .7 17 . 00 2 . 6 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .5 2 .4 2 .3 2 . 3 2 .2 2 .2 2 . 1 18 . 00 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 .0 1. 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1.8 1 . 8 19 . 00 1 .8 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 .7 1 . 7 1 .7 1.7 1.7 1 .7 1 . 6 20 . 00 1 . 6 POND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 50 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 .80 . 90 10 .00 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 11 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 12 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 13. 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 14.00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 15 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 16. 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 17 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 18 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 19 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 20 . 00 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 20 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H d oCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied M' c ocom ute Systems 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= 0 . 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM.STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 1 . 42 AF 40 . 0 . 12 0.00 0 .00 PEAK ELEVATION= 46.2 FT 48 . 0 . 34 1 . 84 1. 84 FLOOD ELEVATION= 48 . 0 FT START ELEVATION= 40. 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 40 .0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 02 CFS at and above 40 . 1 ' POND 2 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET _ 0 . 0 1 2 3 .4 .5 . 6 .7 . 8 40 . 0 0 .00 .02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 .02 .02 .02 41 .0 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 .02 .02 42 .0 .02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 .021 43 . 0 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 44 . 0 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 .02 .02 45 .0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 .02 0 46 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 .02 .02 . 02 .0 47 . 0 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 48 .0 .02 POND 2 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 4s . 0 47 . 5 - 47 . 0 - 46. 5 - 46 . 0 - 45 . 5 - 45 . 0 7 . 547 . 046. 5 46 . 045 . 545 . 0 Z 44. 5 0 44 . 0 '-' 43 . 5 Q 43 . 0 p 42 . 5 � J 42 . 0 ED 41 . 5 41 . 0 40 . 5 EXFI TR_ATION 40 . Om N �t tD M m N M m m m m m m N m m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cfs) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 21 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HXdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 2 INFLOW & .OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 15 14 STOR-IND METHOD 13 PEAK STOR= 1 . 42 AF 12 PEAK ELEU= 46 . 2 FT 11 to 10 9 Qin= 15. 3 CFS 8 Gout= 0. 0 CFS 7 LAG= 0 MIN 3 6 5 � 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Ln, 3 2 t9 N In lD I� CO Q) m ' TIME (hours) POND 2 INFLOW PEAK= 15 . 3 CFS @ 12 .21 HOURS HOUR _ 0 .00 10 20 30 40 .50 . 60 .70 .80 .90 10 . 00 .4 .4 .4 .5 .5 . 6 . 6 . 7 .7 .8 11 .00 . 8 . 9 1 .0 1. 1 1 . 3 1 .4 1 . 7 2 . 3 3.5 5 .0 12 . 00 7 .7 12 . 6 15 .3 13 . 6 10 . 9 8 .4 6 . 3 4. 6 3. 6 3.0 13 .00 2 . 6 2 . 3 2 . 1 2.0 1 . 9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1. 6 1.5 14. 00 1 . 5 1 . 4 1 .4 1.3 1 . 3 1 .3 1 .2 1.2 1 .2 1. 1 15 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1. 1 1 .0 1 . 0 1 .0 . 9 . 9 .9 .8 16 . 00 . 8 . 8 . 7 .7 . 7 .7 .7 .7 . 7 . 6 17 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 18 . 00 . 5 .5 .5 .5 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 19 . 00 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 20 . 00 .4 POND 2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0 . 0 CFS @ 10 . 60 HOURS iHOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 0. 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 11. 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 12 .00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 13. 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 14. 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 15 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0. 0 0 .0 0.0 17 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 18 . 00 0. 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 19 .00 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 20 . 00 0 .0 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 22 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droCAD 4. 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 Qin = 50 . 0 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS, VOLUME= 4. 34 AF i Qout= . 1 CFS @ 10 .50 HRS, VOLUME= . 11 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0 . 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM.STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 4.23 AF 12 . 0 . 39 0 . 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 18. 8 FT 20 . 0 . 85 4 . 96 4 . 96 FLOOD ELEVATION= 20 .0 FT START ELEVATION= 12 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES r 1 P 12 . 0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 14 CFS at and above 12 . 1 ' r POND 3 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 1 2 3 . 4 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9r 12 . 0 0 .00 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 13 .0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 14 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14� 15 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 16 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 17 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 1414 18 . 0 18 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 19 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 20 . 0 . 14 POND 3 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 z0 . 0 19 . 5 - 19 . 0 - +) 18 . 5 18 . 0 17 . 5 �- 17 . 0 Z 16 . 5 0 16 . 0 '- 15 . 5 Q 15. 0 14 . 5 i J 14 . 0 w 13 . 5 13 . 0 1 2 . 5{ _EXFILT_RAT ON' 1 2 . `m ^ N rn V_ Ln 0 r� M Q) m ^ N^ '1 v rr m m m m m m m m m m ^ ^ CD DISCHARGE (cfa) r 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 23 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 1 HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 3 INFLOW 8 OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 50 45 STOR-IND METHOD 40 PEAK STOR= 4 . 23 AF 35 PEAK ELEU= 18 . 8 FT 30 Gin= 50. 0 CFS 25 Qout= . 1 CFS 3 20 LAG= 0 MIN 0 1 � 15 - 5 - M 55M IT n 0 I- M Qm TIME (hours) POND 3 INFLOW PEAK= 50 .0 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 .00 10 20 30 40 .50 . 60 .70 .80 .90 10 . 00 1 .2 1. 3 1 .4 1 .5 1 . 6 1 . 8 1.9 2 . 1 2. 3 2 .4 11 . 00 2 . 6 2 . 8 3 .2 3 . 6 4. 1 4 . 7 5 .8 8.5 12 .8 18 . 5 12 .00 29 .7 47 . 8 47 .7 36 . 8 28 . 3 21 . 1 14 . 9 11 .0 9 . 1 8. 0 13 . 00 7 . 1 6 .5 6.0 5 .7 5.5 5 . 3 5. 1 4.9 4. 7 4 . 6 14 . 00 4.4 4.2 4.0 3 .9 3. 8 3. 8 3 .7 3. 6 3.5 3 .4 15 .00 3.3 3 .2 3 . 1 3 . 0 2 .9 2 . 8 2 . 7 2.6 2.5 2 .5 16 . 00 2 .4 2 . 3 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 .0 2 .0 1.9 1 .9 17 . 00 1.9 1. 8 1 . 8 1.7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1. 6 1 . 6 1.5 1 .5 18 . 00 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1.3 1. 3 1 . 3 19 . 00 1 .3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1 .2 1.2 1 .2 20 . 00 1. 1 POND 3 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 1 CFS @ 10 -50 HOURS HOUR 0 .00 10 20 30 . 40 .50 . 60 .70 .80 . 90 10.00 0 .0 0 . 0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 1 11 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 12 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 13 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 14 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 15 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 16 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 17 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 1 18 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 19 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 20 .00 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 24 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 ' IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9 HydroCAD 4.00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 4 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -- POND #3 Qin = 21 . 1 CFS @ 12 . 05 HRS, VOLUME= 1.58 AF , Qout= 0 . 0 CFS @ 10 . 50 HRS, VOLUME= . 01 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0. 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM.STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 1.58 AF 30 . 0 . 09 0 . 00 0 .00 PEAK ELEVATION= 36.8 FT 40 . 0 . 37 2 . 30 2 . 30 FLOOD ELEVATION= 40.0 FT J START ELEVATION= 30. 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 30 .0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= .01 CFS at and above 30 . 1 ' POND 4 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 .2 . 3 . 4 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 91 30. 0 0. 00 .01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 . 01 .01 .01 31 . 0 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 . O1 : 32 .0 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 0 33 . 0 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 . 01 . 01 .O1 34. 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 35.0 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 :0 36 . 0 .01 .01 .01 .01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 . 01 0 37 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 38.0 .01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 .01 :01 39 . 0 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 0 40 . 0 . O1 POND 4 DISCHARGE , SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 40 - 39 - 38 - 37 - 36 8 39383736 0 35 Q 34 :> 33 w 32 - 31 - E 2 31 X F I TR_ATI_ON N rf) V Ln w i- M 0) m m m m m m m m r9 m m CS) m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cfs) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL EXISTING TRANS. STATION DUP1 Page 25 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 4 INFLOW & OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 20 - 18 - STOR-IND METHOD PEAK STOR= 1 . 58 AF 16 PEAK ELEU= 36 . 8 FT 14 - C+- 12 Din= 21 . 1 CFS Gout= 0 . 0 CFS 10 LAG= 0 MIN 3 8 O � 6 4 22 TIME (hours) POND 4 INFLOW PEAR= 21 . 1 CFS @ 12 .05 HOURS HOUR _ 0 .00 10 20 30 40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 .90 10 . 00 .5 .5 . 6 . 6 .7 .7 . 8 .8 .9 1 . 0 11 . 00 1 .0 1 .2 1 . 3 1.5 1.7 2 . 0 3 .0 4.8 6 .9 9 .9 12 . 00 19 . 9 19 . 8 12 . 6 9 . 6 7 . 1 4 . 8 3 .5 3. 1 2 .8 2.5 13 . 00 2 . 3 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 9 1.9 1. 8 1.7 1. 6 1. 6 14 . 00 1.5 1 .5 1 . 4 1. 4 1.4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .3 1.2 1 .2 15 .00 1 .2 1 . 1 1. 1 1 . 1 1.0 1 . 0 1. 0 .9 . 9 . 9 16 .00 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 .7 .7 . 7 .7 .7 . 7 17 . 00 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 18 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 . 5 19 . 00 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 20 . 00 .4 POND 4 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAR= 0 .0 CFS @ 10 .50 HOURS ' HOUR 0 .00 10 20 30 40 50 . 60 .70 . 80 .90 10 .00 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 . 00 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0. 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 12 .00 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 13 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 14 . 00 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 15 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 16 . 00 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 17 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0. 0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 18 .00 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0. 0 19 .00 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 20 .00 0 .0 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 1 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 1 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems WATERSHED ROUTING 33 A O O 5 O �O O 2 OSUBCATCHMENT REACH Q POND I I LINK SUBCATCHMENT 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1 -> POND 1 SUBCATCHMENT 2 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2 -> POND 2 SUBCATCHMENT 3 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 -> POND 3 SUBCATCHMENT 4 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 -> POND 4 ' SUBCATCHMENT 5 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5 -> REACH 1 REACH 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 -> POND 1 POND 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 -> 1 POND 2 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 -> POND 3 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 -> iPOND 4 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 -> Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 2 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 A lied Microcomputer Systems RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD: TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN, SCS U.H. RUNOFF SPAN = 10-20 HRS, dt= . 10 HRS, 101 POINTS SUBCAT AREA Tc WGT'D PEAK Tpeak VOL NUMBER (ACRE) (MIN) --GROUND COVERS (%CN)-- CN C (CFS) (HRS) (AF1 1 15 .44 12 . 9 90%71 7%85 3%98 - 73 - 43 . 3 12 . 14 3 . 66 2 4 .50 18 .2 87%71 5%98 8%85 - 73 - 11. 3 12.21 1 . 061 3 14 . 10 14 . 1 90%71 6%85 5%98 - 73 - 37 .5 12. 15 3 . 341 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 . 911 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 3 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH ROUTING BY STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD REACH BOTTOM SIDE PEAK TRAVEL PEAK NO. DIAM WIDTH DEPTH SLOPES n LENGTH SLOPE VEL. TIME Qout ( IN) (FT) (FT) (FT/FT) (FT) (FT/FT) (FPS) (MIN) (CFS) 1 24 .0 - - - - . 013 620 . 0050 5 .5 1.9 10 .0 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 4 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND METHOD POND START FLOOD PEAK PEAK ------ PEAK FLOW ------- ---Qout--- , NO. ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. STORAGE Qin Qout Qpri Qsec ATTEN. LAG (FT) (FT) (FT) (AF) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (%) (MIN) 1 26 . 0 42 .0 37 . 4 4 . 49 52 .2 . 1 100 0. 0 2 40 .0 48 . 0 44 . 6 1 . 05 11 . 3 0 . 0 100 0 .0 , 3 12.0 20 . 0 17 .2 3 .22 37 .5 . 1 100 0. 0 4 30 . 0 40 . 0 36 .4 1 . 48 20 . 0 0 . 0 100 0 . 0 ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 5 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems LINK Qout NO NAME SOURCE (CFS) i 1 1 1 i 1 1 i Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 6 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -. SL1 PEAK= 43 . 3 CFS @ 12 . 14 HRS, VOLUME= 3 . 66 AF ' ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD , 13 . 97 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR 1 . 07 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 6 . 0 IN .40 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 15 . 44 73 , Method Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment A-B 8 .9 ' 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 ' 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 ' 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 SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SLI 40 AREA= 15 . 44 AC ' 35 Tc= 12 . 9 MIN 30 CN= 73 ' L- 25 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR 20 RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN 0 15 j PEAK= 43. 3 CFS 10 @ 12 . 14 HRS 5 UOLUME= 3. 66 AF N M T Ln 0 (� � � m TIME (hcurs) ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 7 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9E HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 43 . 3 CFS @ 12 . 14 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 .80 . 90 10 . 00 . 7 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 3 1 . 5 1. 6 1 . 7 11 .00 1 . 9 2 . 1 2 .4 2 . 7 3 .2 3 . 6 4 . 6 7 .0 10 .7 15 . 6 12 .00 26 . 3 42 .2 39 .5 29 . 9 23 . 0 17 . 0 11 . 9 9 . 0 7 .6 6 . 8 13 . 00 6 . 1 5 .5 5 . 2 4 . 9 4 . 8 4 . 6 4 .4 4 . 3 4. 1 4. 0 14 . 00 3 . 8 3 . 6 3 .5 3 .4 3 .4 3 .3 3.2 3 . 1 3.0 3 . 0 ' 15 . 00 2 .9 2. 8 2 . 7 2 . 6 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .4 2 . 3 2.2 2.2 16 .00 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 9 1 .9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1 . 7 17 .00 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 1.5 1 .4 1 .4 1. 3 1. 3 18 . 00 1 . 3 1 .2 1.2 1.2 1 . 2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1. 1 1. 1 19 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1.0 1.0 1. 0 20 . 00 1 .0 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 8 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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=. 1 HRS 4.50 73 ' Method Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B / 17 . 0 ' Grass : Dense n=.24 L=180 ' 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 SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2 11 ' 10 AREA= 4 . 5 AC g Tc= 18. 2 MIN r, 8 CN= 73 , 7 SCS TR-20 METHOD 6 TYPE III 24-HOUR ' 3 5 RAINFALL= 6 . 0 IN 0 4 -i 3 PEAK= 11 . 3 CFS @ 12 .21 HRS 2 UOLUME= 1 . 06 AF �1 `ID N rr) Ul 0 I- M 0) m , TIME (hours) 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 9 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 ' HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF PEAK= 11-. 3 CFS @ 12 . 21 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10. 00 .2 .2 .2 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 4 .4 .4 .5 11 .00 .5 . 6 . 6 . 7 . 8 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 6 2 .4 3 .5 12 .00 5 .5 9 . 1 11 . 2 10 . 1 8 . 1 6 .4 4 . 7 3 .5 2 .7 2 . 3 13 . 00 2 . 0 1 . 8 1. 6 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1. 3 1 . 3 1.2 1.2 14.00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1.0 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 ' 15 .00 . 9 .8 . 8 . 8 . 8 .7 .7 . 7 .7 . 6 16 .00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 17 .00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 . 4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 ' 18 .00 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 .3 19 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 20. 00 . 3 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 10 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 PEAK= 37 .5 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS, VOLUME= 3 . 34 AF ' ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD ' 12 . 63 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN TYPE III 24-HOUR . 80 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL= 6. 0 IN . 67 98 POND AREA (WET) SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 14 . 10 73 1 Method Comment Tc (min` 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=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 . 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 SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 34 = 1 ' AREA 4 1 AC 30 Tc= 14 . 1 MIN 28 CN= 73 , c� SCS TR-20 METHOD U 20 TYPE III 24-HOUR ' 3 16 RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN CD 14 - E' 12 PEAK= 37 . 5 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS ' 4 UOLUME= 3 . 34 AF 22 l9 N M IT Ln tD 00 Q) m ' TIME (hours) 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 11 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 'HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK= 37 ; 5 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 40 50 . 60 . 70 .80 . 90 10 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 .2 1 . 3 1.4 1 . 6 ' 11 . 00 1 .7 1 . 9 2 . 1 2 . 4 2 . 8 3 .2 4 . 0 6 . 0 9 .2 13 .4 12 .00 22 . 1 36 .2 36 . 6 28 . 5 22 . 1 16 . 6 11 .7 8 .7 7 .2 6. 4 13 . 00 5 . 7 5 . 1 4 . 8 4 . 6 4 .4 4.2 4 . 1 3 . 9 3 .8 3 . 6 14. 00 3 .5 3 .4 3.2 3.2 3 . 1 3 . 0 2 . 9 2 . 9 2 .8 2.7 ' 15 . 00 2 .7 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .4 2 .4 2 . 3 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 16 . 00 1 .9 1 .8 1 .8 1.7 1.7 1 . 7 1. 6 1 . 6 1. 6 1 .5 17 .00 1 .5 1 .5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1 . 3 1. 3 1 . 3 1.2 1.2 ' 18 . 00 1 . 2 1. 1 1. 1 1. 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1. 1 1. 1 1. 0 1 .0 19 .00 1 . 0 1.0 1 .0 1. 0 1 .0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 .9 .9 20 .00 . 9 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 12 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN 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=. 1 HRS .58 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR , . 23 98 POND AREA (WET) 5 .21 80 Method Comment Tc (min TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 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 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 ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 AREA= 5 . 21 AC j6 Tc= 6. 5 MIN 143 CN= 8LO0 12 SCS TR-20 METHOD ' v j1 TYPE III 24-HOUR 3 RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN CD '� PEAK= 20. 0 CFS @ 12 . 05 HRS VOLUME= 1 . 49 AF , N M Ln ko f- M M m TIME (hours) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 13 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF PEAK= 20..0 CFS @ 12 . 05 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 40 .50 . 60 .70 .80 . 90 10 . 00 .5 . 6 . 6 . 7 . 7 . 8 . 8 .9 1 .0 1 . 0 11 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 .4 1. 6 1 . 8 2 . 1 3 . 1 4 .8 6.8 9 . 6 12 . 00 18 . 9 18 . 6 11 .7 8 . 8 6 . 6 4 .4 3 .2 2 .8 2 . 6 2 . 3 13 . 00 2 . 1 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 .7 1 .7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1.5 1 . 4 14 . 00 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1. 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 1 1. 1 1 . 1 15 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 .0 .9 . 9 . 9 .8 .8 . 8 16 . 00 .7 . 7 .7 . 7 .7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 17 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ' 18 . 00 .5 . 4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 19 .00 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 20 .00 .4 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 14 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9 HydroCAD, 4 .00 000636 c 1986-1995 ied 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 2 . 60 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN 4. 10 71 SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS Method Comment Tc (min TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 12 .7 Grass: Dense n=.24 L=140 ' P2=3. 3 in s=. 05 ' / RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C . 6 , W=4 ' D=2 ' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=11 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 .2 , W=4 ' D=2 ' SS= 1 & 2 '/' a=11 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= -13 .5-1 SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5 10 '9 AREA= 4 . 1 AC Tc= 13 . 5 MIN $ CN= 71 r, 7 6 SCS TR-20 METHOD 5 TYPE III 24-HOUR 3 RAINFALL= 6 .0 IN , 0 4 3 PEAK= 10. 6 CFS 2 @ 12 . 15 HRS i UOLUME= . 91 AF , "l9 N M q- Ln �0 Il- m TIME (hours) ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 15 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF PEAK= 10-. 6 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 1 . 2 . 2 .2 . 2 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 .4 ' 11 . 00 .4 . 5 .5 . 6 . 7 .8 1 . 1 1. 6 2.5 3 .7 12 . 00 6 .2 10 . 1 9 . 9 7 . 7 6 . 0 4 .4 3 . 1 2 . 3 2 .0 1 . 7 13 . 00 1. 6 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 2 1.2 1 . 1 1. 1 1 . 1 1. 0 14 . 00 1. 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 .9 .8 . 8 .8 .8 . 8 ' 15 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 7 .7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 16 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 17 . 00 .4 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 3 . 3 ' 18 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 19 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 20 . 00 . 3 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 16 I TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer S stems REACH 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 Qin = 10 . 6 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS, VOLUME= . 91 AF ' Qout= 10 .0 CFS @ 12 . 22 HRS, VOLUME= . 91 AF, ATTEN= 5%, LAG= 4 . 4 MIN DEPTH END AREA DISCH I (FT) ( SO-FT)_ (CFS) 24" PIPE STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD 0 .0 0.0 0. 0 PEAK DEPTH= 1 . 16 FT .2 .2 . 3 n= . 013 PEAK VELOCITY= 5 .5 FPS ' .4 . 4 1. 4 LENGTH= 620 FT TRAVEL TIME = 1.9 MIN . 6 . 8 3. 1 SLOPE= . 005 FT/FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 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 REACH 1 DISCHARGE ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 1 . 8 � i 1 . 6 � 1 . 4 - +) 1 . 2 �- .8 ' o . 6 24" PIPE 4 n= .013 L=620' S= 005 ' i Z � 0 "I9 N fel D 'D r- m N M T Ltd lD i, DISCHARGE (cfs) 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 17 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 1 REACH i INFLOW & .OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 10 24" PIPE 9 .' 8 n= 01 .3 L=620' S= , 005 i 7 i STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD ' 4VELOCITY= 5 . 5 FPS 5 �y TRAUEL= 1 . 9 MIN 3 4 i Gin= 10 . 6 CFS LL3 r ti� Qout= 10 . 0 CFS 2 LAG= 4 . 4 MIN r 1 `t9 N r'7 C L(1 tD I� CD Q� m TIME (hours) REACH 1 INFLOW PEAK= 10 . 6 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 . 50 . 60 . 70 .80 .90 10 . 00 . 1 .2 .2 .2 .2 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .4 11 . 00 . 4 .5 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 1 . 1 1 . 6 2 .5 3 .7 12 . 00 6 .2 10 . 1 9 . 9 7 .7 6 . 0 4 .4 3 . 1 2 . 3 2 .0 1.7 13.00 1 . 6 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1.2 1 .2 1. 1 1 . 1 1. 1 1 .0 ' 14.00 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 .9 . 9 . 8 .8 .8 .8 . 8 15 . 00 .7 . 7 .7 .7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 16 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 . 4 .4 .4 ' 17 . 00 . 4 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 . 4 . 4 . 3 . 3 18 .00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 19 .00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 .3 ' 20 .00 . 3 REACH 1 OUTFLOW PEAK= 10 .0 CFS @ 12 .22 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 . 70 .80 .90 1000 . 1 . 1 . 1 .2 .2 .2 . 3 .3 .3 .4 ' 11 .. 00 .4 .4 . 5 . 6 . 6 .7 .9 1.2 1.9 2 .9 12 . 00 4.7 7 .9 9 .9 9 .0 7 . 0 5. 3 3 . 9 2 .9 2.2 1.9 13.00 1 .7 1 .5 1 .4 1. 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1. 1 1. 1 1.0 14 .00 1 . 0 1 .0 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 8 . 8 . 8 .8 15 .00 . 8 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 16. 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 . 5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 17 . 00 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 . 3 ' 18 .00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 . 3 . 3 19 .00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 20. 00 . 3 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 18 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - 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 (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 4.49 AF 26 . 0 . 16 0 . 00 0 .00 PEAK ELEVATION= 37 .4 FT 42 . 0 . 63 6 . 32 6 . 32 FLOOD ELEVATION= 42 .0 FT ' START ELEVATION= 26 .0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES , 1 P 26.0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 09 CFS at and above 26 .2 ' , POND 1 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 2 . 4 . 6 . 8 1 . 0 1 .2 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 8' 26 .0 0.00 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 . 09 .09 .09 . 09 .09 28 . 0 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 .09 .09 . 09 30 . 0 . 09 .09 . 09 .09 . 09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09' 32 .0 .09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 34 . 0 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 36 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09' 38 .0 .09 . 09 .09 . 09 .09 . 09 .09 .09 .09 . 09 40 . 0 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 42 . 0 .09 ' POND 1 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 ' 42 41 - 40 - 39 - 38 - 37 - 36 - 35 - 34 - 33 - <r 140 39383736 353433 31 � 31 � J 30 w 29 28 27 EXFILTRAT z�'m IOU 1 n min m 1s1 m 1n m 1n m 1n m 1n m in m 1.n m CO m N N M rq Q V Ln 111 0 tD 1- r'- M CO M m m m m m m m m m m l9 m m m m m m C9 m CS3 DISCHARGE (cfs) , ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 19 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 1 INFLOW 8 OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL- POND #1 50 45 STOR-IND METHOD ' PEAK STOR= 4 . 49 AF 40 PEAK ELEU= 37 . 4 FT 35 - 1- 30 Qin= 52. 2 CFS U Qout= . 1 CFS 25 LAG= 0 MIN 3 20 - CD 15 - 10 - 5 51055 `ID N M Ul 0 (- M 0) m N ' TIME (hours) POND 1 INFLOW PEAR= 52 . 2 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 . 40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 .90 10. 00 .8 . 9 1 .0 1.2 1 . 3 1.4 1 . 6 1 .7 1 .9 2 . 1 11 .00 2 . 3 2 .5 2 .9 3 .3 3 . 8 4.4 5 . 5 8 .2 12 . 6 18.5 12 .00 31 .0 50 . 1 49 .4 38.9 30.0 22 .4 15 . 8 11 .8 9 . 8 8. 7 13 .00 7 . 8 7 .0 6 . 6 6. 3 6 . 0 5. 8 5 . 6 5 .4 5.2 5.0 ' 14 .00 4 . 8 4. 6 4 .5 4 . 3 4 .2 4. 1 4 . 0 3 .9 3.8 3 . 7 15 . 00 3 . 6 3 .5 3 .4 3 .3 3 .2 3 . 1 3 . 0 2 .9 2. 8 2.7 16 .00 2 . 6 2 .5 2 . 4 2 .4 2 . 3 2 . 3 2 . 2 2 .2 2 .2 2 . 1 ' 17 .00 2 . 1 2 .0 2 . 0 1.9 1 . 9 1. 8 1 . 8 1.7 1.7 1.7 18 .00 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 . 5 1.5 1.4 1.4 19 .00 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .3 1 . 3 20 .00 1.3 - POND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 1 CFS @ 10 .80 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 40 .50 . 60 . 70 .80 . 90 10.00 0.0 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 ' 11 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 12 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 13 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 14.00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 ' 15.00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 16.00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 17 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 ' 18.00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 19 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 20.00 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 20 I TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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 STOR-IND METHOD ' (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 1. 05 AF 40 .0 . 12 0 . 00 0.00 PEAK ELEVATION= 44. 6 FT 48 . 0 . 34 1 .84 1 . 84 FLOOD ELEVATION= 48 .0 FT , START ELEVATION= 40 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS #ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES ' 1 P 40 .0 ' ERFILTRATION Q= .02 CFS at and above 40 . 1 ' ' POND 2 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 .0 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 .8 . 91 40. 0 0. 00 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 41. 0 .02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 42 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 .02 .021 43. 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 44.0 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 .02 45. 0 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02' 46 . 0 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 .02 . 02 .02 .02 .02 .02 47 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 48.0 .02 ' POND 2 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 ' 4a . e 47 . 5 - 47 . 0 - 46. 5 - 46 . 0 - 45 . 5 - 45 . 0 7 . 547 . 0 46. 5 46 . 045 . 545 . 0 ' Z 44 . 5 0 44. 0 '-' 43 . 5 Q 4 . 0 ' D 422. 5 LLI 42 . 0 w 41 . 5 41 . 0 40. 5{ EXFI TRATION; ' 40 . - m m m m m N m m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cfs) ' ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 21 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 2 INFLOW & OUTFLOW ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 11 10 STOR-IND METHOD ' 9 PEAK STOR= 1 . 05 AF r-, B PEAK ELEV= 44 . 6 FT 7 Gin= 11 . 3 CFS U 6 Gout= 0 . 0 CFS 3 5 LAG= 0 MIN 0 4 ' E' 3 - 2 1 N TIME (hours) POND 2 INFLOW PEAK= 11 . 3 CFS @ 12 .21 HOURS HOUR _ 0 . 00 10 20 30 40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 .90 10 . 00 .2 .2 .2 . 3 . 3 . 3 .4 .4 .4 .5 11 . 00 .5 . 6 . 6 . 7 . 8 1. 0 1. 1 1. 6 2 .4 3.5 12 .00 5 .5 9 . 1 11 .2 10 . 1 8 . 1 6. 4 4 .7 3 .5 2 .7 2 . 3 13 . 00 2 . 0 1 . 8 1. 6 1 .5 1 .4 1.4 1.3 1 . 3 1.2 1 .2 ' 14 .00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 .0 1. 0 1.0 .9 .9 .9 15 . 00 .9 .8 . 8 . 8 . 8 .7 .7 .7 . 7 . 6 16 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ' 17 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 . 4 . 4 .4 .4 . 4 18 . 00 .4 .4 .4 . 4 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 19 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 .3 . 3 . 3 20 .00 .3 1 POND 2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0 .0 CFS @ 10 .90 HOURS ' HOUR 0 .00 10 20 30 40 50 60 .70 .80 . 90 10 . 00 0. 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 11 .00 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 12 .00 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 13 .00 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 14 .00 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 ' 15 .00 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0. 0 0. 0 0 .0 0 . 0 16 . 00 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 17 . 00 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 ' 18 .00 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 19 . 00 0. 0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 20 .00 0 . 0 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 22 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 Qin = 37 .5 CFS @ 12 . 15 HRS, VOLUME= 3 . 34 AF ' Qout= . 1 CFS @ 10 . 80 HRS, VOLUME= . 11 AF, ATTEN=100$, LAG= 0 .0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD ' (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAR STORAGE = 3 .22 AF 12 . 0 . 39 0 .00 0.00 PEAR ELEVATION= 17 .2 FT 20 . 0 . 85 4 . 96 4. 96 FLOOD ELEVATION= 20 . 0 FT ' START ELEVATION= 12 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 12 .0 ' ERFILTRATION Q= . 14 CFS at and above 12 . 1 ' POND 3 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 .2 . 3 . 4 .5 . 6 .7 . 8 . 9 ' 12 . 0 0 .00 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 13 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 1414 . 14 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14' 15 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 16.0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 .14 . 14 17 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14' 18.0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 19 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 20 .0 . 14 ' POND 3 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 19 . 5 - 19. 13 18 . 5 - 4_1 8 . 5� 18. 0 - 17 . 5 - 17. 0 - z 8. 017 . 517. 0 Z 16. 5 - 0. 6. 5 0 16 . 0 - 15. 5 - <T_ '- 15 . 0 14 . 5 14 . 0 ED 13 . 5 13 . 0 12 . 5 - _EXFI T_RA_T ON' N M, V Lfl lD f- 00 CD m ^ N M V m m m m m m m m m m . . DISCHARGE (cfs) 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 23 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 3 INFLOW & .OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 36 32 STOR-IND METHOD PEAK STOR= 3 . 22 AF 28 PEAK ELEU= 17 . 2 FT r-, Gin= 37 . 5 CFS u 20 Qout= . 1 CFS 3 14 LAG= 0 MIN d � 12 4 22 M Ln w Il- CO Q) m TIME (hours) POND 3 INFLOW PEAK= 37 .5 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 40 50 . 60 .70 . 80 .90 10 . 00 .7 .7 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1. 1 1 .2 1 . 3 1.4 1. 6 11 . 00 1.7 1.9 2 . 1 2 .4 2 . 8 3.2 4.0 6.0 9 .2 13 .4 12 . 00 22 . 1 36 . 2 36 . 6 28 .5 22 . 1 16 . 6 11 . 7 8 .7 7 .2 6.4 13 .00 5 . 7 5 . 1 4 .8 4. 6 4.4 4 .2 4. 1 3 .9 3 .8 3 . 6 14 . 00 3 .5 3 .4 3 .2 3 .2 3 . 1 3.0 2 .9 2 .9 2 .8 2 .7 15 . 00 2 .7 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .4 2 .4 2 .3 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 .0 16 . 00 1 .9 1 . 8 1. 8 1 .7 1 . 7 1.7 1. 6 1 .6 1. 6 1.5 ' 17 .00 1.5 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .3 1. 3 1. 3 1.2 1.2 18 . 00 1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 .0 1.0 19 . 00 1. 0 1 . 0 1 .0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 .0 1 . 0 1 .0 .9 .9 20 . 00 . 9 POND 3 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 1 CFS @ 10 . 80 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 . 70 . 80 .90 10 .00 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 ' 11 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 12 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 13 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 14 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .� 15 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 16 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 17 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 18 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 19 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 20 .00 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 24 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied microcomputer Systems POND 4 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -. POND #3 Qin = 20 . 0 CFS @ 12 . 05 HRS, VOLUME= 1 .49 AF Qout= 0 . 0 CFS @ 10 .40 HRS, VOLUME= . 01 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0 .0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 1.48 AF 30 . 0 .09 0 . 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 36 .4 FT 40 . 0 .37 2 .30 2. 30 FLOOD ELEVATION= 40.0 FT START ELEVATION= 30.0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 30 .0 ' E%FILTRATION Q= . 01 CFS at and above 30 . 1 ' POND 4 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION I FEET 0 . 0 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 30 . 0 0. 00 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 31 .0 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 .01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 32 . 0 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 . 01 .01 .01 . 01 .01 .01� 33 .0 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 34 . 0 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 35 .0 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01� 36 . 0 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 37 . 0 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 38 .0 .01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 39 .0 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 . 01 .01� 40 . 0 . O1 POND 4 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 40 - 39 - 38 - 37 0 393837 , 36 0 35 Q 34 - :> 33 w , w 32 31 3 EXFI L TR_ATI_ON CD m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cfs) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 25 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 6.0 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems r POND 4 INFLOW 8 OUTFLOW 2 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 1 STOR-IND METHOD r 1 PEAK STOR= 1 . 48 AF 1 PEAK ELEU= 36 . 4 FT r-, gin= 20 . 0 CFS gout= 0 . 0 CFS LAG= 0 MIN 3 O ' J L� 4 I-, m m m N TIME (hours) POND 4 INFLOW PEAK= 20 . 0 CFS @ 12 . 05 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 40 50 . 60 .70 .80 .90 10 . 00 .5 . 6 . 6 .7 .7 .8 .8 .9 1.0 1. 0 11. 00 1 . 1 1.2 1.4 1. 6 1 . 8 2 . 1 3 . 1 4.8 6 .8 9 . 6 12 .00 18 . 9 18. 6 11 . 7 8.8 6 . 6 4 .4 3 .2 2 .8 2 . 6 2 . 3 13. 00 2 . 1 1.9 1 . 9 1. 8 1 . 7 1 .7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1.5 1 .4 14. 00 1.4 1. 3 1 .3 1.3 1 .2 1 .2 1.2 1. 1 1 . 1 1. 1 15 .00 1 . 1 1. 0 1 . 0 1. 0 . 9 . 9 .9 .8 . 8 . 8 16 . 00 .7 . 7 . 7 .7 . 7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 r 17 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 18 . 00 .5 .4 .4 .4 1 . 4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 19 . 00 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 20 . 00 .4 POND 4 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0 . 0 CFS @ 10 .40 HOURS rHOUR 0 .00 10 20 30 40 50 60 .70 . 80 .90 10 . 00 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 11 . 00 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 12 . 00 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 13 . 00 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0. 0 0 .0 14.00 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 15 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 16 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 17 .00 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 18.00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 19 .00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0. 0 20 . 00 0 .0 r r Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 1 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems r WATERSHED ROUTING r 1 0 0 O O r 5 O �O O 1 A 1 r OSUBCATCHMENT E] REACH Q POND LINK I I r --v SUBCATCHMENT 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1 -> POND 1 SUBCATCHMENT 2 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2 -> POND 2 SUBCATCHMENT 3 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 -> POND 3 SUBCATCHMENT 4 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 -> POND 4 rSUBCATCHMENT 5 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5 -> REACH 1 REACH 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 -> POND 1 POND 1 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 -> POND 2 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 -> POND 3 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 -> POND 4 = SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 -> r r r r Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 2 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD: TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7. 3 IN, SCS U.H. RUNOFF SPAN = 10-20 HRS, dt= . 10 HRS, 101 POINTS I SUBCAT AREA Tc WGT'D PEAK Tpeak VOL NUMBER (ACRE) (MIN) --GROUND COVERS (CCN)-- 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 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 3 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 ,H7droQAD 4 , 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH ROUTING BY STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD REACH BOTTOM SIDE PEAK TRAVEL PEAK NO. DIAM WIDTH DEPTH SLOPES n LENGTH SLOPE VEL. TIME Qout ( IN) (FT) (FT) (FT-IFT) (FT) (FTfFT) (FPS) (MIN) (CFS) 1 24 . 0 - - - - . 013 620 . 0050 5 . 7 1 .8 13 . 8 t r Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 4 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND ROUTING BY STOR-IND. METHOD POND START FLOOD PEAK PEAK ------ PEAK FLOW ------- ---Qout--- NO. ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. STORAGE Qin Qout Qpri Qsec ATTEN. LAG (FT) (FT) (FT) (AF) (CFS) (.CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (%) (MIN) 1 26 . 0 42 . 0 41 .5 6 . 11 71 . 3 . 1 100 0 . 0 2 40 . 0 48 . 0 46 .2 1 . 42 15 . 3 0. 0 100 0 . 0 3 12 . 0 20 . 0 19 . 1 4 . 40 51 . 9 . 1 100 0 . 0 4 30 .0 40 . 0 38 .4 1 . 93 26 . 1 0 . 0 100 0 . 0 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 5 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 .3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems LINK Qout NO. NAME SOURCE (CFS) 1 r i 1 t 1 1 1 1 I Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 6 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -• SL1 PEAK= 59 . 0 CFS @ 12 . 13 HRS, VOLUME= 4 . 94 AF , ACRES 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 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 15 .44 73 Method Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment A-B / 8 . 9 ' 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 ' , 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 ' 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 SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL1 55 AREA= 15 . 44 AC 50 Tc= 12 . 9 MIN 45 CN= 73 r, 40 - 35 - 035 SCS TR-20 METHOD ,U 30 TYPE III 24-HOUR 3 25 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN i 20 PEAK= 59 . 0 CFS LL 15 @ 12 . 13 HRS 10 UOLUME= 4. 94 AF , 5 em N M �r Ln 0 I- M 0) m TIME (hours) ata for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 7 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN krepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF PEAK= 59 .0 CFS @ 12 . 13 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 1 . 4 1 . 5 1 . 6 1 . 8 1 . 9 2 . 1 2 .2 2 .4 2 . 6 2 . 8 11 . 00 3 . 0 3 . 3 3. 7 4 .2 4 .8 5 .5 6 . 9 10. 3 15. 5 22 .2 12 . 00 36 . 7 57 . 7 53 . 3 40 . 0 30 . 6 22 .5 15 . 7 11 . 8 10 . 0 8 . 8 13 . 00 7 . 9 7 . 2 6 . 7 6 .4 6 . 2 6 . 0 5 . 8 5 . 6 5 .4 5 . 1 14 . 00 4 . 9 4 . 7 4 . 6 4 .5 4 .4 4 .2 4 . 1 4. 0 3. 9 3 . 8 15 . 00 3 . 7 3 . 6 3 .5 3 .4 3 . 3 3 .2 3 . 1 3 .0 2 . 9 2 . 8 16 . 00 2 . 7 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .4 2 .4 2 . 3 2 . 3 2 .2 2 .2 2 . 1 17 . 00 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 .7 18 . 00 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 1 . 5 1 .5 1 .5 1 . 5 1 .5 19 . 00 1 .4 1 . 4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 20 . 00 1 . 3 r Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 8 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7. 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied 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 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 4 .50 73 Method Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 17 . 0 Grass : Dense n=.24 L=180 ' 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 SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL2 15 - 14 - AREA= 4 . 5 AC 13 Tc= 18. 2 MIN 12 - CN= 73 1e 9 SCS TR-20 METHOD 8 TYPE III 24-HOUR 3 7 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN CD LL 4 PEAK= 15. 3 CFS 3 @ 12 .21 HRS 2 VOLUME= 1 . 44 AF 11 TIME (hours) 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 9 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7. 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF PEAK= 15. 3 CFS @ 12 . 21 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 .4 . 4 .4 .5 . 5 . 6 . 6 . 7 . 7 . 8 11 . 00 . 8 . 9 1 .0 1 . 1 1. 3 1 .4 1 . 7 2 . 3 3 .5 5 .0 12 . 00 7 .7 12 . 6 15 .3 13 . 6 10 . 9 8 .4 6 . 3 4 . 6 3. 6 3 . 0 13 . 00 2 . 6 2 . 3 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 .7 1. 7 1 . 6 1 .5 14 . 00 1 .5 1 . 4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 1 15 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 8 16 . 00 . 8 . 8 .7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 17 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 18 . 00 . 5 .5 .5 .5 . 4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 19 . 00 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 20 . 00 .4 r 1 r r r r r r r r r r Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 10 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 .3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 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, dt=. 1 HRS 14 . 10 73 Method Comment Tc (min) 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=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 . 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 SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL4 50 45 AREA= 14 . 1 AC Tc= 14 . 1 MIN 40 CN= 73 35 4- 30 SCS TR-20 METHOD U TYPE III 24-HOUR 25 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN 0 20 15 PEAK= 51 . 9 CFS 10 @ 12 . 15 HRS , 5 VOLUME= 4 . 51 AF TIME (hours) i 1 I Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 11 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 1 c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF PEAK= 51, 9 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 1 .2 1 . 3 1 .4 1 . 6 1 . 7 1 . 9 2 . 0 2 .2 2 .4 2 .5 11 . 00 2 .7 3 . 0 3 . 3 3 . 8 4 . 3 4 . 9 6 . 0 8 .8 13 . 3 19 .2 12 . 00 30 . 9 49 . 6 49 .5 38 .2 29 .4 21 . 9 15 .5 11 .4 9 .5 8 . 3 13 . 00 7 .4 6 .7 6 . 2 5 . 9 5 . 7 5 .5 5 . 3 5 . 1 4 . 9 4 . 7 14 . 00 4 .5 4 . 3 4 .2 4 . 1 4 . 0 3 . 9 3 .8 3 .7 3 . 6 3 . 5 15 . 00 3 .4 3 . 3 3 . 2 3 . 1 3 . 0 2 . 9 2 . 8 2 .7 2 . 6 2 . 5 16 . 00 2 .4 2 . 4 2 . 3 2 .2 2 . 2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 2 . 0 17 .00 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 .7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 5 18 . 00 1 .5 1 .5 1 . 4 1 .4 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 19 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 2 1 .2 20 . 00 1 .2 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 12 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7. 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 4 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -• SL3 PEAK= 26 . 1 CFS @ 12 . 04 HRS, VOLUME= 1 . 94 AF , ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD , 1 .55 98 BUILDING/PAVEMENT TYPE III 24-HOUR .40 85 GRAVEL ROAD RAINFALL•= 7 . 3 IN 2 .45 71 HELP MODEL RUNOFF FOR RCN SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS .58 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR .23 98 POND AREA (WET) 5 .21 80 Method Comment Tc (min j TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 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 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 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL3 26 - 24 - AREA= 5 . 21 AC , 22 Tc= 6. 5 MIN 20 CN= 80 r-, 18 - CID 14 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE III 24-HOUR 12 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN 0 10 -j 8 PEAK= 26 . 1 CFS 6 - 4 - 2 4 2 "m N M V Ln 0 i- 00 0) m TIME (hours) 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 13 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF PEAK= 26. 1 CFS @ 12 . 04 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 .40 50 60 70 80 90 10 . 00 . 8 . 9 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 5 ' 11 . 00 1 . 6 1 . 7 2 . 0 2 . 2 2 . 5 2 . 9 4 .2 6 .5 9 .2 12 . 8 12 . 00 24 . 9 24 . 1 15 . 0 11 . 3 8 .4 5 . 6 4 . 0 3. 6 3 . 3 2 . 9 13 . 00 2 . 7 2 . 5 2 . 4 2 . 3 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 .0 1 . 9 1 . 8 14 . 00 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 1 . 4 1 .4 1 . 4 15 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 .0 1 . 0 1 . 0 16 . 00 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 8 . 8 .8 . 8 . 8 17 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 18 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 5 .5 .5 .5 . 5 . 5 19 . 00 .5 .5 . 5 .5 .5 .5 . 5 .5 . 5 .5 20 . 00 .5 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 14 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HVdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 5 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -• SL5 PEAK= 14 . 6 CFS @ 12 . 14 HRS, VOLUME= 1.25 AF ' ACRES CN SCS TR-20 METHOD ' 1 .50 98 BUILDING/PAVEMENT TYPE III 24-HOUR 2 . 60 56 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS (GROUP B) FAIR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN 4 . 10 71 SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS Method Comment Tc (min) TR-55 SHEET FLOW Segment ID:A-B 12 . 7 Grass : Dense n=.24 L=140 ' P2=3 . 3 in s=. 05 RECT/VEE/TRAP CHANNEL Segment ID:B-C . 6 W=4 ' D=2 ' SS= 1 & 2 a=11 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 .2 ' W=4 ' D=2 ' SS= 1 & 2 a=11 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= 13 .5 SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF , SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - SL5 14 - 13 - AREA= 4 : 1 AC 12 Tc= 13 . 5 MIN 11 CN= 71 810 - SCS TR-20 METHOD 7 TYPE III 24-HOUR 3 6 RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN 0 , 5 4 PEAK= 14 . 6 CFS tai 3 @ 12 . 14 HRS 2 UOLUME= 1 . 25 AF , 1 TIME (hours) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 15 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7. 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF PEAK= 14. 6 CFS @ 12 . 14 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 .80 . 90 10 . 00 . 3 . 3 .4 .4 .4 .5 .5 . 6 . 6 . 7 ' 11 . 00 . 7 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 3 1 . 6 2 .4 3 . 7 5 . 3 12 . 00 8 .7 14 . 1 13 . 6 10 . 4 8 . 0 5 . 9 4 . 2 3 . 1 2 . 6 2 . 3 13 . 00 2 . 1 1 . 9 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1.5 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 14 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 .0 1 . 0 1 . 0 15 . 00 1 .0 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 7 . 7 16 .00 . 7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 17 . 00 .5 .5 . 5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 18 . 00 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 19 . 00 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 3 . 3 . 3 20 . 00 . 3 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 16 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -. REACH 1 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 DISCH I (FT) (SO-FT) _(CFS) 24" PIPE STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 PEAK DEPTH= 1 . 47 FT .2 .2 . 3 n= . 013 PEAK VELOCITY= 5 . 7 FPS , . 4 .4 1 . 4 LENGTH= 620 FT TRAVEL TIME = 1 . 8 MIN . 6 . 8 3 . 1 SLOPE= .005 FT/FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS 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 REACH 1 DISCHARGE ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 1 . 6 � 1 . 2 v � EL _ 1e ' _ _ 24" PIPE n= . 013 L=620' S= . 005 , 2 � i 0 Om (-\j r n Ct ISS 0 00 Q) m N M qt Ln 0 I, DISCHARGE (cfs) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 17 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - REACH 1 14 13 24'' PIPE ' 12 J+ n= . 013 L=620' S= , 005 11 1 10 - STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD ' 8 VELOCITY= 5 . 7 FPS 7 TRAVEL= 1 . 6 MIN 0 5 Qin= 14 . 6 CFS 1 4 Gout= 13 . 8 CFS 3 LAG= 4 . 2 MIN 2 - 0 o, rn m -- N TIME (hours) REACH 1 INFLOW PEAK= 14 . 6 CFS @ 12 . 14 HOURS HOUR 0 .00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 3 . 3 . 4 .4 .4 .5 .5 . 6 . 6 . 7 11 . 00 . 7 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 3 1 . 6 2 .4 3 . 7 5 . 3 12 . 00 8 . 7 14 . 1 13 . 6 10.4 8 . 0 5 . 9 4 .2 3 . 1 2 . 6 2 . 3 13 . 00 2 . 1 1 . 9 1 .7 1 .7 .1 . 6 1 .5 1 . 5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 ' 14 . 00 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 1 1. 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1.0 1 . 0 15. 00 1 . 0 . 9 .9 . 9 . 9 . 8 . 8 .8 . 7 . 7 16 . 00 .7 .7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 ' 17 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 18 . 00 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 19 . 00 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .3 .3 .3 20 . 00 . 3 REACH 1 OUTFLOW PEAK= 13 .8 CFS @ 12 .21 HOURS HOUR 0 .00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 .00 . 1 .2 . 3 .4 .4 .4 .5 .5 . 6 . 6 ' 11 .00 . 7 . 7 .8 . 9 1 . 0 1 .2 1 .4 1 . 9 2 . 9 4 .4 12 . 00 6 . 9 11 . 1 13 .7 12 .2 9 .4 7 . 1 5 .2 3. 7 2 .9 2 .5 13 .00 2 .2 2 . 0 1 .8 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 14 . 00 1. 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1. 1 1 . 0 1 .0 ' 15 . 00 1 . 0 1 . 0 .9 . 9 . 9 .9 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 7 16.00 . 7 . 7 .7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 17 . 00• . 6 . 5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 18. 00 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 19 .00 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 3 . 3 . 3 20 . 00 . 3 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 18 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 9 H droCAD 4 .00 000636 c 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL -. POND #1 Qin = 71 . 3 CFS @ 12 . 14 HRS, VOLUME= 6 . 18 AF ' Qout= . 1 CFS @ 10 .50 HRS, VOLUME= . 07 AF, ATTEN=100%, LAG= 0 . 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 6 . 11 AF 26 . 0 . 16 0 . 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 41 . 5 FT 42 .0 . 63 6 . 32 6 . 32 FLOOD ELEVATION= 42 . 0 FT START ELEVATION= 26 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 26.0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 09 CFS at and above 26 .2 ' POND l , TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 2 .4 . 6 . 8 1 .0 1 . 2 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 8 ' 26 .0 0 . 00 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 28 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 0909 . 30 . 0 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 , 32 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 34 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 36 . 0 . 09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 38 . 0 . 09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 40 .0 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 .09 .09 .09 . 09 . 09 . 09 42 .0 . 09 ' POND 1 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 , 42 , 41 40 39 � 38 36 Z35 o 34 33 �- 32 Q 31 wi 30 w 29 28 M 2� _ EXFILTR_ATION; , u� in m Ln m Ln m Ln m to (D to m in m in m m m N N M M V V U) In 0 0 h P- M CO a) C9 C9 m m m C9 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cfs) 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 19 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW ' SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #1 70 65 STOR-IND METHOD ' 60 PEAK STOR= 6 . 11 AF 55 PEAK ELEU= 41 . 5 FT 50 - 45 - 048 Qin= 71 . 3 CFS ' 35 Qout= . 1 CFS 3 30 LAG= 0 MIN 25 20 15 10 S 0m cN M Ln 0 r- M rn m N TIME (hours) 1 POND 1 INFLOW PEAK= 71 . 3 CFS @ 12 . 14 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 10 20 30 .40 . 50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10.00 1 . 5 1 . 7 1 . 9 2 . 1 2 . 3 2 .5 2 . 7 2 . 9 3 .2 3 . 4 ' 11 .00 3 . 7 4 . 0 4 .5 5 . 1 5 . 8 6.7 8 . 3 12 .2 18.4 26 . 6 12 .00 43 .5 68 . 8 67 . 0 52 .2 39 . 9 29 . 6 20 . 8 15.5 12 .9 11 . 3 13 .00 10 .2 9 .2 8 . 6 8 . 1 7 . 8 7 . 6 7 . 3 7 .0 6 . 8 6 .5 14 .00 6 . 2 6 . 0 5 . 8 5 . 6 5 . 5 5 .4 5 .2 5 . 1 5 . 0 4 . 8 15 .00 4 . 7 4 . 6 4 .5 4 . 3 4 . 2 4.0 3 . 9 3 .8 3 . 6 3 . 5 16 . 00 3 .4 3 .2 3 .2 3 . 1 3 . 0 3 . 0 2 . 9 2 . 8 2 .8 2 . 7 17 .00 2 .7 2 . 6 2 .5 2 .5 2 . 4 2 .4 2 . 3 2 .2 2 .2 2 . 1 18 .00 2 . 1 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1.9 1 .8 1 .8 19 .00 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 .7 1 . 7 1.7 1 . 7 1 .7 1 .7 20 .00 1 . 6 POND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= . 1 CFS @ 10 .50 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 . 20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 .80 .90 10 .00 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 .1 . 1 ' 11 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 12 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 13 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 14 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 ' 15 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 16 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 17 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 18.00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 19 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 20 .00 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 20 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 .3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 H droCAD 4 . 00 000636 c 986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems 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= 0 . 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD , (FT) (AC _ (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 1 .42 AF 40 . 0 . 12 0 . 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 46 . 2 FT 48 . 0 . 34 1 . 84 1 . 84 FLOOD ELEVATION= 48 .0 FT , START ELEVATION= 40 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 40 .0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= .02 CFS at and above 40 . 1 ' , POND 2 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 .2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ' 40 . 0 0 . 00 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 41 .0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 42 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 ' 43 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 44 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 45 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 , 46 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 .02 .02 .02 . 02 .02 . 02 47 . 0 . 02 . 02 . 02 .02 . 02 .02 . 02 . 02 . 02 . 02 48 . 0 . 02 ' POND 2 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 ' 47 . 5 - 47. 0 - 46. 5 - 46. 0 - 45. 5 - 45. 0 7 . 547. 0 46. 546. 045. 545. 0 Z 44 . 5 ' 0 44 . 0 43. 5 ' Q 43 . 0 D 42. 5 LLI 42 . 0 w 41 . 5 - 41 . 0 - 40. 5 - 40. 1 . 541 . 040. M m m m m - N CD m m m m m m m m m m CS] DISCHARGE (cfs) ' 'Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 21 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 . 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 2 INFLOW 8 QUTFLOW ' 15 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #2 14 STOR-IND METHOD ' 13 PEAK STOR= 1 . 42 AF 12 PEAK ELEU= 46 . 2 FT 11 1e c4- 9 gin= 15 . 3 CFS 8 Qout= 0 . 0 CFS 7 LAG= 0 MIN 3 6 - 0 5 ' LL 4 3 2 am TIME (hours) ' POND 2 INFLOW PEAK= 15 . 3 CFS @ 12 .21 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 . 4 .4 .4 .5 .5 . 6 . 6 . 7 . 7 . 8 11 . 00 . 8 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 .7 2 . 3 3 .5 5.0 12 . 00 7 .7 12 . 6 15 . 3 13 . 6 10 . 9 8 .4 6 . 3 4 . 6 3 . 6 3 . 0 13 . 00 2 . 6 2 . 3 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 .9 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 .7 1. 6 1 .5 ' 14 . 00 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 1 15 . 00 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 1 .0 1 . 0 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 8 16 . 00 . 8 .8 . 7 . 7 . 7 .7 . 7 .7 . 7 . 6 ' 17 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 18 .00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 . 4 19 . 00 .4 .4 . 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 20 . 00 .4 POND 2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0 . 0 CFS @ 10 . 60 HOURS iHOUR 0 . 00 10 .20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 .00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0. 0 0.0 0 .0 0:0 11 . 00 0. 0 0 .0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 12 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 13 . 00 0. 0 0 .0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 14 .00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 ' 15 . 00 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 16 . 00 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 17 . 00 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 ' 18 . 00 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 19 .00 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 20 . 00 0 .0 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 22 ' TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 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, ATTEN=100$, LAG= 0 . 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 4 . 40 AF 12 . 0 . 39 0 . 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 19 . 1 FT 20 . 0 . 85 4 . 96 4 . 96 FLOOD ELEVATION= 20 . 0 FT ' START ELEVATION= 12 . 0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. l HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES ' 1 P 12 . 0 ' EXFILTRATION Q= . 14 CFS at and above 12 . 1 ' POND 3 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 .2 . 3 . 4 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 ' 12 . 0 0 . 00 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 13 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 14 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 ' 15 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 16 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 17 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 ' 18 . 0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 19 .0 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 . 14 20 .0\ . 14 ' POND 3 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 , ze. 0 19. 5 - 19 . 0 - 18 . 5 - 18 . 0 - 17 . 5 - 17. 0 9. 519 . 0 18 . 5 18 . 017 . 517. 0 Z 16. 5 � 0 16 . 0 15 . 5 15 . 0 Q 14 . 5 LLI 14 . 0 w 13 . 5 13 . 0 � 2 0 _EXFI T_RAT ON' ' m N M, Ln 0 (� M 0) m - N^ M M m m m m m m m m m . . m DISCHARGE (cfs) ' Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 23 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7.3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HvdroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 3 INFLOW 8 OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #4 513 - 45 - 045 STOR-IND METHOD ' 40 PEAK STOR= 4 . 40 AF PEAK ELEU= 19 . 1 FT r, 35 - 30 530 Qin= 51 . 9 CFS J Qout= . 1 CFS 25 LAG= 0 MIN 0 20 � 15 10 5 ' em N M Ln 0 il- M 9) m TIME (hours) ' POND 3 INFLOW PEAK= 51 . 9 CFS @ 12 . 15 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 . 70 . 80 .90 10. 00 1 .2 1 . 3 1 .4 1 . 6 1 .7 1 . 9 2 .0 2 . 2 2 .4 2 .5 11 .00 2 . 7 3 . 0 3 . 3 3 .8 4 . 3 4 .9 6 . 0 8 .8 13 . 3 19 .2 12 . 00 30 .9 49 . 6 49 .5 38.2 29 .4 21 .9 15.5 11 .4 9 .5 8. 3 13 .00 7 .4 6 .7 6 .2 5 .9 5 . 7 5 .5 5 . 3 5 . 1 4 . 9 4. 7 ' 14 . 00 4 .5 4 . 3 4 .2 4 . 1 4 .0 3.9 3 . 8 3 . 7 3 . 6 3 .5 15 . 00 3 .4 3 . 3 3 .2 3. 1 3.0 2 . 9 2 .8 2 . 7 2 . 6 2 .5 16 . 00 2 .4 2 . 4 2 . 3 2 .2 2 .2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 .0 2 . 0 ' 17 . 00 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 .8 1 .7 1 .7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1.5 18 .00 1 .5 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 3 1 . 3 19 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 ' 20 .00 1 .2 POND 3 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= . 1 CFS @ 10.50 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 .40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 ' 11 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 12 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 13 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 14.00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 15 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 16 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 17 . 00 • . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 ' 18 .00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 19 . 00 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . . 1 20 . 00 . 1 Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 24 , TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7. 3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 4 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= 0 . 0 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC. STOR CUM. STOR STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AC) (AF) (AF) PEAK STORAGE = 1 . 93 AF 30 . 0 . 09 0 . 00 0 . 00 PEAK ELEVATION= 38 .4 FT 40 . 0 . 37 2 . 30 2 . 30 FLOOD ELEVATION= 40 . 0 FT ' START ELEVATION= 30.0 FT SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=. 1 HRS # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES ' 1 P 30 . 0 ' EBFILTRATION Q= . 01 CFS at and above 30 . 1 ' ' POND 4 TOTAL DISCHARGE (CFS) vs ELEVATION FEET 0 . 0 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 .5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 ' 30 . 0 0 . 00 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 31 .0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 32 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 , 33. 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 34 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 35 .0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 . 01 .01 . 01 . 01 36 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 . 01 . 01 37 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 38 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 .01 .01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 39 . 0 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 . 01 ' 40 . 0 . 01 POND 4 DISCHARGE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 40 - 39 Lf 38 L+' ' 3 7 � ` 36 0 35 34 w 33 w 32 ' 31 38m EXFI TR_ATI_ON N r'i T Ln 0 r- OD M m , CD m m m m m m, m m m CS) m m m m m m m m m m m DISCHARGE (cfs) Data for SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PROP.TRANS. STATION DUP2 Page 25 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 7 .3 IN Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 20 Aug 98 HydroCAD 4 . 00 000636 (c) 1986-1995 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 4 INFLOW 8 OUTFLOW SOUTHOLD LANDFILL - POND #3 26 24 STOR-IND METHOD ' 22 PEAK STOR= 1 . 93 AF 20 PEAK ELEU= 38 . 4 FT '+ 16 Qin= 26 . 1 CFS 14 Qout= 0 . 0 CFS 12 LAG= 0 MIN 0 18 - 8 - 6 - 4 - 2 08642 r� � Ln 0m N, � in �0 r- M rn m N ' TIME (hours) ' POND 4 INFLOW PEAK= 26 . 1 CFS @ 12 .04 HOURS HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 . 30 . 40 .50 . 60 . 70 .80 .90 ' 10 . 00 . 8 .9 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 3 1 .4 1 .5 11 . 00 1 . 6 1 . 7 2 . 0 2 .2 2 .5 2 . 9 4 .2 6 .5 9 .2 12 . 8 12 . 00 24 .9 24 . 1 15 . 0 11 .3 8 .4 5 . 6 4 . 0 3 . 6 3 . 3 2 . 9 13 . 00 2 .7 2 .5 2 .4 2 . 3 2 . 2 2 . 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 1.9 1 . 8 ' 14 . 00 1 . 7 1 .7 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 .5 1 . 5 1 .4 1 .4 1 . 4 15 . 00 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 16 . 00 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 .8 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 ' 17 . 00 . 7 . 7 . 7 .7 . 7 . 7 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 18 . 00 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 19 . 00 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 20 . 00 .5 POND 4 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 0 .0 CFS @ 10. 30 HOURS ' HOUR 0 . 00 . 10 .20 .30 .40 .50 . 60 .70 . 80 . 90 10 .00 0 . 0 0 .0 0. 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 11 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 12 .00 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 13 . 00 0 . 0 0.0 0. 0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 14 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 ' 15 .00 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 16 .00 0 . 0 0 .0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 17 . 00• 0.0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 ' 18 . 00 0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0.0 0 .0 0 . 0 19 .00 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 . 0 0.0 20 . 00 0.0