No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEngineering Design and Operations PlanENGINEERING DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PLAN PHASE 6 ADDENDUM 3 SOUTH CANYON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE Prepared For: City of Glenwood Springs l0l W. 8'h Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Prepared by: American Environmental Consulting, LLC 8191 Southpark Lane, Suite 107 Littleton, CO 80120 March 2016 PHASE 6, ADDENDUM #3 DISPOSAL CELL DESIGN SOUTH CANYON LANDFILL GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO I hereby certify that the design of the Phase 6 disposal cell for the South Canyon Landfill in Garfield County, Colorado including the liner and leachate collection system was conducted under my supervision, and that I am a registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Colorado. I further certify that the design of the Phase 6 landfill disposal area was performed in substantial compliance with appropriate specifications and Colorado Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Sites and Facilities as discussed in the Phase 6 Addendum 3 to the South Canyon Landfill Engineering Design and Operations Plan. Michael H. Stewart, P.E. Registration No. 23004 / TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pages 1.0 Introduction............... ................ 1 2.0 Site Selection............ ........'......' 3 2.1 Site Restriction Demonstrations ....................... 3 2.1.2 Wetlands ...........3 2.1.3 Fault Areas ................ .......... 3 2.1.4 Seismic Impact Z;one......... .....'..."""""' 4 2.1.5 Unstable Areas ....................4 2.1.6 Wind and Precipitation .""" 4 2.1.7 Floodplains................ """"" 4 2.1.8 Isolation of Waste ...............4 2.1.9 Waste Deposition into Surface Water or Groundwater .............................. 5 3.0 srrE CONDITIONS. ................ 6 3.1 Geological Data......... ..................... 6 3.2 Hydrologic Data.......... .................... 6 3.3 Supplemental Groundwater Information......... ................... 6 4.0 PHASE 5 DESIGN COMPONENTS ......... 8 4.1 Design Criteria .............. 8 4.2 Soil Liner System...... .'.................... 8 4.3 Soil Liner Groundwater Trench Drains .......... 10 4.4 Leachate Collection and Removal System ""' 10 4.4.1 Leachate Generation Rate.......... ......... 10 4.4.2 Leachate Collection Pipe ......... """"" 11 4.4.3 Leachate Collection Pipe Slope ......."' 12 4.4.4 Leachate Drainage Layer ----..-.......""" 12 4.5 Slope Stability Analysis ...............12 4.6 Storm Water Management.............. .............." 13 5.0 LANDFILL OPERATIONS ..................... 15 5.1 General Information............... ....... 15 5.1.1 Site Location ............. ........ 15 5 .l .2 Site Acreage ............... ... " " 1 5 5.1.3 Site Classification ...'........' 15 5.1.4 Site Service Area....... .'...... 16 5.2 Operational Data ...'.'... 16 5.2.I Operator Information............... ........... 16 5.2.2 Site Hours. ....... 16 5.2.3 Incoming Waste Volumes... ............"" 16 5.2.4 Phase 6 Addition Waste Disposal Area......... -.-....17 5.2.5 Types of Waste Accepted ................." 18 5.2.6 Security ........... 18 5.2.7 Nuisance Conditions ......... 18 5.2.8 Fire Protection........... ........ 18 5.2.9 Litter Control ............'....... 18 5.2.10 Surface Water or Groundwater Contamination Conceptual Plans ............... 19 5.2.11 Water Volume and Sources ............... ................'.. 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.3 Cover Material Requirements............ ............. 19 5.3.1 Daily Cover Material ........ 19 5.3.2 Intermediate Cover Material .....-.........20 5.3.3 Final Cover Material ......20 5.4 Groundwater Monitori.rg............ ......-.............21 5.5 Surface Water Monitoring ...'........22 5.6 Landfill Gas Monitoring........ .-.....22 5.7 Record Keeping ..........23 6.0 CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE PLAN ......24 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Help Modeling Scenarios and Results................ ........'...'.....'. I 1 Table 2: Currently Permitted, Phase 6 Addition, and Total Landfill Capacities .......17 Table 3: Currently Permitted, Phase 6 Addition, and Revised Soil Quantities .........21 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - Test Pit Logs and Groundwater Contour Drawing Appendix B - Construction Quality Assurance Plan Appendix C - HELP Modeling Results Appendix D - Pipe Load Calculations (from SCS Phase 5 document) Appendix E - Leachate Travel Time Calculations Appendix F - Slope Stability Analysis Appendix G - Storm Water Management Calculations DESIGN DRAWINGS Sheet 1- Cover Sheet and Index Sheet 2- Existing Conditions Sheet 3- SRK Historical Permitted Phasing Sequence Sheet 4- SCS Historical Proposed Phasing Sequence Sheet 5- Phase 6 Phasing Sheet 6- Phase 6 Subgrade Plan Sheet 7-Phase 6 Top of Clay Elevations Sheet 8-Top of Leachate Collection System Plan Sheet 9-SRK Historic Final Cover Plan Sheet 10- SCS Historic Final Cover Plan Sheet 11- Proposed Final Closure Plan Sheet 12 A and B- Operational Cross Sections Sheet 13-Liner, Leachate Collection, and Final Closure Systems Details EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page I South Canlron Solid Waste Disposal Site. Glenwood Springs. Colorado March 2016 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Glenwood Springs is submitting the necessary documents to revise the approved Engineering Design and Operations Plan (EDOP) and increase the existing South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site (South Canyon) waste disposal limits to the west of the historical waste limit. The location of the expansion, termed Phase 6, is shown on Sheet 2 of the EDOP Modification drawings and is approximately 8.91 acres. This includes an expansion area (Phase 6) of 6.91 acres and additional areas that will also be constructed and were previously permitted including portions of Phase 3 and Phase 4 that is approximately 2.0 acres in area. South Canyon currently consists of five phases, Phase 1 through Phase 5. Two factors originally prevented South Canyon from constructing the site in accordance with the intended phasing sequence originally developed by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.) in September 1994. The two main factors are the following: o A portion of Phase 4 was not on the City of Glenwood Springs's property, but on the Bureau of Land Management's property. This problem was rectified in September 2012 when the City purchased the property from the BLM. o The Certif,rcate of Designation (CD) boundary was incorrectly identified, which limits the permitted phase development since portions of the permitted landfrll are outside the boundaries of the CD. This is expected to be rectified by preparing an overall landfill vertical and horizontal expansion coupled with a CD boundary change. This proposed EDOP Phase 6 Addendum will not vary the basic specifications for building the approved bottom soil liner and final cover systems constructed for the approved Phase 5 area. The liner will consist of 3 feet of recompacted clay overlain by a leachate collection system (See Section 4). The purpose of the proposed Phase 6 Addendum is to accomplish the following: Provide immediate short-term airspace while the CD boundary is being resolved. This is anticipated to be done through an overall expansion of the landfill both horizontally and vertically. Extend the leachate collection system in Phase 6 to tie into the Phase 5 system and, ultimately, direct leachate to the South Canyon leachate lagoon. Extend one groundwater interceptor trench by tying into the Phase 5 system to collect any potentially shallow groundwater and release it to the Leachate Lagoon. Provide revised final closure elevations and grades, and storm water control structures according to CDPHE regulations, to be consistent with the overall landfill permitted boundary. EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 2 n Solid Waste Di The design and operations plan for the Phase 6 Addition is based on the following documents and are considered an integral part of this submittal. o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. . Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. (Commonly referred to as Addendum 1) o Phase 5 Addition Submittal, Aquaterra, Inc., 2009 and Aquaterra, Inc., Engineering Design and Operations Plan, Phase 5 Addition Addendum 2, Decembet 2012. The Phase 6 Addendum will add approximately 323,485 cubic yards of additional airspace available for waste disposal which is an increase of l6 percent (although it includes approximately 2.0 acres of previously permitted area in Phases 3 and 4). EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 3 South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site. Glenwood Springs. Colorado March 2016 2.0 SITE SELECTION In accordance with 6 CCR 7007-2, Part I, Section 3.1, site selection and utilization must comply with local zoning requirements. This includes an evaluation and study that addresses geologic and hydrologic conditions, soils, and the environmental effect upon the projected use of the completed sanitary landfill. Owners/operators are required to document compliance with all applicable siting restrictions and submit this documentation to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). The additional 6.91-acre flll area is adjacent to and abuts the current landfill so the site selection information is unchanged from the original landfill and the Phase 5 addition. 2.1 SiteRestrictionDemonstrations Colorado regulation 6 CCR 1007-2, Part 1 specifies location restrictions for solid waste disposal areas. These restrictions are discussed below. 2.1.1 Airport Safety Refer to the following documents: Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. 2.1.2 Wetlands Refer to the following documents: Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfleld County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. 2.1.3 Fault Areas Refer to the following documents: Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 4 South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site. Glenwood Springs. Colorado March 2016 2.1.4 Seismic Impact Zone Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. o Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting,Inc. dated December 1996. 2.1.5 Unstable Areas Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. o Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. 2.1.6 Wind and Precipitation Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. o Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996 2.1.7 Floodplains Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. o Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting,Inc. dated December 1996. 2.1.8 Isolation of Waste Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. o Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. 3.1 EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 6 South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site. Glenwood Springs" Colorado March 2016 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS Geological Data Refer to the following documents: Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. Hydrologic Data Refer to the following documents for historical information regarding the site hydrology: Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. Phase 5 Addition Submittal, Aquaterra, Inc., 2009 and Aquaterra, Inc. Engineering Design and Operations Plan, Phase 5 Addition Addendum 2, December 2012. Supplemental Groundwater Information Additional groundwater depth information was gathered to prepare the excavation subgrade elevations in Phase 6. Four test pits were excavated on the southern and western edges of the area to determine the depth to groundwater. This infbrmation was used in conjunction with recent groundwater depth infbrmation to prepare a potentiometric drawing (Figure 1, Appendix A) used to develop the Phase 6 excavation subgrade design. Test pits TP6-1, TP6-2, TP6-3, and TP6-4 were excavated to target depths beneath what was expected to be the maximum cut elevation of the subgrade. These test pits were located along the southem and western edges of the anticipated boundary of Phase 6. Figure 1, Appendix A shows the approximate locations of the test pits. Once the pits were excavated, they were allowed to remain open for five days and water levels were checked during this time to determine if they had equilibrated. TP6-1 is located in the southwestern comer of this anticipated boundary and was excavated to a total depth of 17 feet. Water in the pit equilibrated at a depth of approximately 14 feet. The material to the base of the hole is a sandy clay. Bedrock was not encountered. A test pit log is included in Appendix A. TP6-2 is located on the western edge of this anticipated boundary, approximately halfway up the slope toward the northern edge. It was excavated to a total depth of 12 feet. Water was not encountered and the pit remained dry throughout the five day period it was open. The material 3.2 J.J EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 7 South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site. Glenwood Springs. Colorado March 2016 from near the top down to the base of the hole is a sandy clay. Bedrock was not encountered. A test pit log is included in Appendix A. TP6-3 is located in the northwestern corner of this anticipated boundary and was excavated to a total depth of 4 feet. Water in the pit equilibrated at a depth of approximately 2 feet. Shale was encountered at a depth of approximately 1 foot and groundwater could be observed seeping from the fractures. A test pit log is included in Appendix A. TP6-4 is located near the westem edge of the Phase 5 boundary and was excavated to a total depth of 10 feet. Water was observed seeping into the pit at a depth of 8 feet and equilibrated at that depth. The material to the base of the hole is a sandy clay. Bedrock was not encountered. A test pit log is included in Appendix A. The test pit groundwater depth data was used with the most recent groundwater depth data from the October 2015 sampling event to prepare the potentiometric surfbce under the Phase 6 area. The top of the excavation subgrade was then designed to remain a minimum of 6 f-eet above the water surface. Shallower water appears on the southwestem area of the potentially useable land for Phase 6 and the fill boundary was developed to remain out of this shallower zone of water. A contour map is included in Appendix A with the test pit logs. EDOP Modilication Phase 6 Addition Page 8 South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site. Glenwood Springs. Colorado March 2016 4.0 PHASE 5 DESIGN COMPONENTS 4.1 Design Criteria The development of Phase 6 was based on the following design criteria and on the previously approved Phase 5 addition: . Compliance with Subtitle D requirements and applicable CDPHE regulations.. Remaining a minimum of 6 feet from the base of the clay liner to the groundwater surf-ace. It should be noted that Phase 5 was designed to be 5 feet from the top of the subgrade to groundwater. . Barrier layer of 3 feet of recompacted clay.. Design of Phase 6 final slopes at a maximum 4:l slope. The slope of the top of the landfill (crown) will be 5 percent. . Tying into the Phase 5 leachate pipe and groundwater trench (southemmost trench only). Capability of the storm water components to handle: (a) A run-on control system to prevent flow onto the active facility during the peak discharge fiom a 25-year,24-hour storm, and (b) A run-off control system to: (1) collect the water volume resulting from a 25-year,24-hour storm event and (2) control the water volume resulting from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. 4.2 Soil Liner System The liner system has been designed based on the approved EDOP, addendums, and the Phase 5 expansion document, which include the following documents: Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. Phase 5 Addition Submittal, Aquaterra, Inc., 2009 and Aquaterra, Inc.Engineering Design and Operations Plan, Phase 5 Addition Addendum 2, December 2012. The approved soil liner system for Phases I - 4 of South Canyon was an alternative liner design that consists of the natural lithologic barrier with an overlying recompacted 12-inch thick soil liner possessing a hydraulic conductivity of less than or equal to I x l0-7 centimeters per second (cm/sec). The Phase 5 area was designed with a soil liner system consisting of a 36-inch thick soil liner possessing a hydraulic conductivity of less than or equal to 1x l0-7 cm/sec instead of the approved alternative soil liner system because of the estimated and observed separation distance between the groundwater and the bottom of the soil liner for Phase 5 being less than 20 f-eet and this criteria is followed for the Phase 6 expansion. The proposed base of the Phase 6 cell has grades ranging from approximately 7 %o to a maximum of 33%o. The subgrade will be excavated, and some areas filled, to remain a minimum of 6 fbet EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 9 South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site" Glenwood Springs" Colorado March 2016 from the groundwater surface discussed in Section 3.3. Any subgrade filling that is required will be completed according to the General Fill procedures outlined in the Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP, Appendix B). The material will be placed to a minimum density of 95Yo of Standard Proctor and will be installed in approximate 6-inch lifts. Preconstruction samples will be analyzed to develop field moisture and density standards. Once the subgrade is excavated, filled (where necessary) and surveyed to ensure it meets the design, the soil liner for Phase 6 will be constructed. The liner fbr Phase 6 will have a 36-inch recompacted clay thickness just as the Phase 5 liner. A CQAP similar to the one used for the Phase 5 construction will be used and is attached as Appendix B. The soil liner will be installed in 6-inch compacted lifts and, prior to placing each subsequent soil lift;the receiving surface shall be scarified as needed to promote bonding of the soil. This will generally be accomplished by one or more passes of a sheep's-fbot type compactor. Should the surface not be sutficiently roughened to the satisfbction of the certifying engineer, the lift will be disked to scarify the surface. The soil liner will be compacted in a moisture content and density condition consistent with that necessary to produce a competent liner with a permeability less than or equal to 1x10-7 cm/sec. Definition of the appropriate moisture content-density condition will be performed prior to construction for each type of material to be used. Generally, densities greater than 95 percent of Standard Proctor maximum dry density and moisture contents exceeding the optimum moisture content are necessary to achieve a hydraulic conductivity of 1x10-7 cm/sec. The specifications and CQAP are designed to ensure the recompacted clay meets these characteristics. Compaction will be completed utilizing an appropriately heavy, properly ballasted, penetrating-fbot compactor (such as a CAT 815 or equivalent) . Dozer or scraper equipment will not be used for primary compaction efforts. One of the goals of compaction is to allow thorough remolding of the clay by kneading action. The soils used in the construction of the compacted soil liner will meet the following minimum specifications: . Classified under the Unified Soil Classification Systems as CL, CH, SC, or ML material o Possess a coefficient of permeability less than or equal to 1x10-7 cm/sec. Specific information pertaining to quality assurance and quality control during construction of the soil liner system is included in the Construction Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan located in Appendix B. If the entire cell is not constructed at one time, the edge of liner (defined as any portion of the liner that will be tied into in the future, will be protected with a termination berm. This berm will also protect the leachate drainage layer and minimize runon to the cell from unlined areas. The berm will be approximately three feet high, will extend onto the finished liner/leachate system, and out onto the unlined portion of Phase 6. Sheet 13 includes a detail showing the berm. EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 10 South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site. Glenwood Springs" Colorado March 2016 4.3 Soil Liner Groundwater Trench Drain In addition to the 36-inch soil liner system, one groundwater trench drain will be constructed to extend the groundwater intercept pipe to the west side of Phase 6 from the southern pipe in the Phase 5 horizontal expansion area and transport it via gravity to the existing leachate lagoon located east of Phase 5. The depth of the groundwater trench drain will be approximately 6-feet deep from the top of the subgrade layer (base of the clay) and 4 feet wide (Sheet 13, Detail Sheet). The trench drain will contain a 6-inch, perforated high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe surrounded by gravel that will be wrapped by geotextile fabric. The pipe will be constructed to daylight at the west side of Phase 6 to access it as a cleanout. The location of the groundwater trench drain is illustrated on Sheet 6 and will be placed in the approximate alignment of the leachate collection pipe chevron, which is the shallowest depth to groundwater in the southem end of Phase 6. The northern trench drain from Phase 5 will be extended to install a cleanout in the southern wall of Phase 6 in the event it must be accessed. Sheet 6 shows the approximate location of the cleanout. 4.4 Leachate Collection and Removal System The LCRS for Phase 6 will be the same as that used in Phase 5 replacing the permitted 1994 LCRS. The new LCRS in Phase 5 and 6 will improve leachate management due to the following factors: . Addition of a leachate drainage layer tying into the Phase 5 layer to allow flow to the leachate lagoon . Slopes to a focal low-point and drain pipe in the Phase 6 chevron.. Constant alignment of the leachate pipe Phase 6 will extend the 6-inch, perforated leachate collection drain pipe and tie into the Phase 5 pipe. The Phase 6 leachate pipe and the existing Phase 5 pipe will be connected via a standard coupling and tees placed in the Phase 6 horizontal expansion area. The leachate pipe will extend to the west edge of Phase 6 in the chevron and will daylight as a cleanout. During the construction of Phase 6, the Phase 5 pipe will be uncovered but capped and protected until tied together with the Phase 6 pipe so as to remain in operation until Phase 6 has been constructed. 4.4.1 Leachate Generation Rate As with Phase 5, the effectiveness of the LCRS in Phase 6 has been evaluated using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model (Version 3.07). Design details of the landf,rll and weather data for the Glenwood Springs, Colorado area were used to determine leachate volumes produced during the life of the landfill as well as the maximum hydraulic head created on the liner system. EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 1 1 South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site. Glenwood Springs. Colorado March 2016 The HELP model was run using three operating scenarios to model Phase 6 at various stages of its development. The three conditions (Open, Intermediate, and Closed) were modeled fbr 5, 10, and 30 year periods, respectively. These three scenarios simulate all stages of activity within Phase 6. The table below summarizes the modeling scenarios. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF HELP MODELING SCENARIOS AND RESULTS Modeling indicates that the design will not result in a leachate head greater than 72 inches on the Phase 6 liner system at any point during operation of the cell. HELP model results are included in Appendix C. To account for the horizontal and vertical expansion associated with Phase 6, an area of approximately 10 acres was used as the basis for calculating the leachate generation quantities to be applied to various operating stages of the cell. A summary of leachate generation quantities for the various conditions of Phase 6 is included with the HELP Model runs in Appendix C. 4.4.2 Leachate Collection Pipe A perforated 6-inch leachate collection pipe of approximately 585 feet in length will be strategically placed on top of the soil liner system on the chevron drainage alignment of the phase to direct leachate flow to the Phase 5 pipe. The Phase 6 and Phase 5 collection pipes will be connected to direct leachate flow to the leachate lagoon. The Phase 6 leachate collection pipe will be identical to the pipe in Phase 5. The 6-inch collection pipe will be constructed of HDI)E material with a Standard Dimension Ratio (SDR) of 17 or lower. Pipe perforations will consist of two rows of approximately 0.5-inch diameter holes drilled at a 60-degree angle from vertical on the bottom of each side of the pipe. Holes will be spaced in 4-inch increments. The collection pipe will be bedded in a washed aggregate material (clean gravel) and protected by an 8 ounce per square yard (ozlsy) non-woven geotextile to serve as a filtering mechanism to keep silt and other fines fiom clogging the pipe. Design calculations were completed for Phase 5 to evaluate the structural strength imposed by the overlying waste and potential equipment loads. The load in Phase 6 will be less since Phase 6 will have a maximum column of refuse of 50 feet whereas Phase 5 was modeled with a 110 foot column of refuse on the pipe (see Appendix D). No additional analysis was completed fbr the Phase 6 leachate collection pipe. Typical details for collection pipes, pipe perforations. and surrounding granular material are shown on Sheet 13. HELP Model Scenario Modeling Period (vears) Maximum Leachate Head (in) Open - 10 feet of in-place waste 5 7.16 Intermediate - 30 feet of in-place waste t0 7.08 Closed - 50 feet of in-place waste 30 11.73 EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 12 South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site. Glenwood Springs. Colorado March 2016 4.4.3 Leachate Collection Pipe Slope The leachate collection pipe will be sloped approximately 11 percent along the drainage chevron of the liner system. 4.4.4 Leachate Drainage Layer A leachate drainage layer will cover portions of the soil liner system in the Phase 6 horizontal expansion area and will tie into the system in Phase 5. The Phase 6 leachate drainage layer specifications are identical to those in Phase 5. Any liner slopes with a 3 to I grade will not be covered with a drainage layer but will be protected with a minimum of 12 inches of unspecified soil. All other portions of the liner slope will be covered with the l6-inch layer of shredded-tire, leachate drainage material. The leachate drainage layer will consist of a 16-inch thick, permeable, shredded-tire material that has been disposed of onsite. The shredded tire leachate drainage layer in Phase 5 had a hydraulic conductivity of 2 cm,/sec or more. As notedpreviously, on Phase 6 slopes with 3 to 1 slopes, instead of the shredded tires, a 12-inch thick protective soil cover layer will be placed. The unspecified protective soil layer will consist of on-site, clean soil material typically used for everyday operations at South Canyon. Therefore the controlling hydraulic conductivity of the leachate will be that of the MSW on slopes of 3 to 1 or greater. Typical MSW hydraulic conductivity is in the range of I x l0-3 cmlsec (Reddy, et.al., July 2009). The travel time for leachate traveling from the northernmost point in Phase 6 to the Phase 5 leachate collection pipe is 0.12 years as a result of the relatively high permeability of the tires. This is much less than the regulatory requirement for leachate to travel the length of the landfill in less than one year. Once the leachate is in the Phase 6/5 pipe, it flows quickly to reach the leachate lagoon. Travel time calculations, a drawing showing the longest path, and reference information are included in Appendix E. 4.5 Slope Stability Analysis A slope stability analysis was performed fbr the changes incorporated to Phase 6. An analysis of stability of an alignment plane, including foundation soils, liner, drainage layer, waste mass, and cover soils was performed. The analysis indicated Phase 6 is above the requisite Factor of Safety (FOS) levels stipulated by the CDPHE requirement of 1.5. The calculated FOS for the stability analysis performed is a minimum of 1.7. Details of the analysis and results are included in Appendix F. EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 13 South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site. Glenwood Springs" Colorado March 2016 4.6 Storm Water Management This section outlines the stormwater runon and runoff controls for the addition of the Phase 6 filling area. The design assumptions, modeling results and construction requirements are included in Appendix G. The design was based upon the final closure conditions shown on Plate 1 1. The surface water control design was completed for the final cover system shown on Sheet 1, Appendix G (Sheet G-l). There are four separate areas that require control as shown on Sheet G-1. 1. Runoff control for the main filling area (Main Filling Area). This area includes the majority of the filling area. The drainage from the final cover is routed to the west via terraces to a westem perimeter ditch. That water is then routed to a detention basin in the southwest corner of the filling area as shown on Sheet G-1. The water then flows beneath the access road via a new culvert and discharges to the ditch on the south side of the road. 2. Runoff control for the filling areathat drains to elevations below the retention basin (South Filling Area). Part of the drainage would be discharged to a second culvert that passes beneath the site. A very limited area surrounding the leachate collection pond would be routed to the existing drainage that is between the leachate collection pond and the north side ofthe access road. 3. Runon control for the area between the existing surface water control ditch and the top of the final cover as depicted on Plate 11 and Plate G-l (North Runon Area). This water would be routed to the east and discharge to the east of the facility buildings. 4. Runon control for the area west of the filling area (West Runon Area). Runon control has already been established for most of this area. This design assumes extending the existing control ditches southward and then through a third culvert to the south of the access road. The above four areas were individually evaluated using the Hydrocad Program. The results and construction requirements are included in the Appendix G discussion, and they can be summarized as follows: o The terrace ditches would in the Main Filling Area can be sufficiently protected by establishing grass-lined flow areas. The entire western reach must be protected with a cobble armoring or equivalent, and two of the reaches will require more substantial (Type VL) riprap. Further details are in Appendix G. o The ditches that are routed to the culvert in the South Filling Area can all be armored using grass-lined channels. The model assumed a35"x24" % Arch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with a surface inlet. The water would pond to an approximate 1.7-foot depth on the upstream side for a very brief (-15 minute) time, and it would be contained within the design drainage ditch. The two remaining areas that discharge below the culvert inlet to the existing drainage ditch south of the leachate pond can be sufficiently armored with grass-lined channels. EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 14 South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site. Glenwood Springs. Colorado March 2016 The ditch to be constructed for the North Filling Area can be adequately protected with a grass lining. The unconstructed reach of the West Runon Area would have to be armored with a cobble bottom or equivalent protection to dissipate energy. The water would discharge through a 57"x38" Yz arch CMP culvert. The water would pond to an approximate 3.0 -foot depth on the upstream side for a very brief (-30 minute) time, and it would be contained within the design drainage ditch. The retention basin for the Main Filling Area will control the 24-hour 10O-year storm with 1.2 feet of freeboard. The contained water will remain outside of the limit of cover. EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 15 5.0 5.1 South Canyon Solid Waste Di wood S LANDFILL OPERATIONS General Information 5.1.1 Site Location South Canyon is owned by the City of Glenwood Springs. The contact information and mailing address for South Canyon is the following: Mr. King Lloyd 101 W. 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (e70) 94s-s37s South Canyon is located in Sections 2,3, lO, and I 1, Township 6 South, Range 90 West in Garfield County, Colorado. South Canyon is located at 1205 County Road 134 approximately one mile south of U.S. Interstate 70 near Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The site is bounded on the east by County Road 134 right-of-way, to the north by the Bureau of Land Management property, and to the west and south by undeveloped land owned by the City of Glenwood Springs. Drawings I and2 illustrate the existing site layout. 5.1.2 Site Acreage The City owns approximately 3,000 acres, of which, approximately 193 acres have been zoned by Garfield County for waste disposal and composting operations. South Canyon consists of approximately 30 acres for permitted waste disposal and approximately eight acres of historical waste. Approximately 22 acres of the 3O-acre Subtitle D landfill have been developed. The Phase 5 Addition increased South Canyon's waste disposal footprint by 1.8 acres and this Phase 6 addition will increase the permitted footprint by an additional 6.91acres. 5.1.3 Site Classif,rcation Refer to the following documents: Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 16 lid Waste Disposal Si Col 5.1.4 Site Service Area Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. o Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. 5.2 Operational Data 5.2.1 Operator Information South Canyon is currently operated by Heartland under a contract between the City of Glenwood Springs and the operator. The contact information is as follows: Mr. Larry Giroux Chief Executive Officer Heartland Environmental Services, Inc. 12433 Highway 82 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 P: 618-407-2280 F: 303-484-7768 Email: lgiroux@hes-usa.com 5.2.2 Site Hours Refer to the following documents: Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfreld County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. 5.2.3 Incoming Waste Volumes Refer to the following documents: . Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. . Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 17 n Solid Waste Di 5.2.4 Phase 6 Addition Waste Disposal Area Phase 6 will be operated using the area fill method with approximately 8 to l5-foot high lifts. Under this method, the working cell is built next to the previous day's working daily cell until an established row length is reached. Then, another row is started parallel to the previously constructed row. After a number of rows have been constructed, a second lift is constructed over the first lift. Daily cell row construction will alternate between various lifts of refuse and will allow landfill traffic to discharge waste at various levels. This addition results in an approximate 323,485 cubic yards of additional airspace available for waste disposal (a 16 percent increase in total landfill waste disposal capacity), as summarized in Table 2 below: TABLE 2 CURRENTLY PERMITTED, PHASE 6 ADDITION, AND TOTAL LANDFILL CAPACITIES Notes: 1. These volumes are referenced fiom the SCS Aquatera expansion docutnent dated December 2012. 2. Intermediate and Daily cover is estirnated based on a ratio of 8 parts refuse to I part soil of the total airspace. SCLF is also approved to use an Alternative Daily Cover. 3. Airspace reflected is between the bottom of final cover and top of the leachate drainage layer. 4. It should be noted that the Phase 6 Addendum includes approximately 2 acres (portions of Phase 3 and 4) of previously permitted airspace that was not specifically calculated for volume alone. The excavation plan and final cover over this area has changed so it is included as a Phase 6 volume although it may have some volume included as previously permitted airspace also. Cur,rs ly F$firlieed Vclumes'(in*l*dirrg Phase 5i'Volume (cubic meter$)Yolume (cubic yards) F nal Cover 99.700 13 r.403 Intermediate/Da ly Cover'161,000 210"580 Refuse Airspace 1,350,900 1,766,970 Total Airspace'1,51 1,900 1,977,490 Phase'6 Yolurnesa Final Cover 21.981 28,750 Intermediate/Daily Cover 25,038 32,749 Refuse A rspace 200,303 261.986 Total A rspace 247.322 323,485 ?ofal"Vol eso Final Cover 122,446 1 60,1 53 Intermediate/Daily Cover 186.038 243,329 Refuse Airspace 1,557,202 2,028,896 Total Airspace 1,759,222 2,300,975 EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 18 Solid Waste Di Col 1 5.2.5 Types of Waste Accepted Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (US.), Inc. dated September 1994. o Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. 5.2.6 Security Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. . Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. 5.2.7 Nuisance Conditions Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. o Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. 5.2.8 Fire Protection Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. o Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. 5.2.9 Litter Control Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. o Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 19 South Can)ron Solid Waste Disposal Site. Glenwood Springs. Colorado March 2016 5.2.10 Surface Water or Groundwater Contamination Conceptual Plans Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. . Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. 5.2.11 Water Volume and Sources Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. o Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. 5.3 Cover Material Requirements Cover will be applied to minimize fu:ehazards, infiltration, odors, and blowing litter; to control vectors; to discourage scavenging; and to provide a pleasing appearance. 5.3.1 Daily Cover Material South Canyon will use an alternative daily cover (ADC). The ADC will consist of Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste that has been processed through a grinder located on site. The main benefits of using the ADC are the following: o Reduces the volume of soil used at South Canyon o Decreases the amount of airspace consumed at South Canyon o Discourages scavenging from vectors, specifically bears The following is a list of items that may be processed through the grinder, but will not require asbestos sampling or CDPHE approval: o Certified demolition projects o Clean wood material o Rocks, boulders, etc. o Fumiture o Yard waste South Canyon is also in the process of obtaining approval to use waste tires as an ADC. This would include tire shreds and tire pieces. EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Six inches of soil cover will be placed on the ground C&D material once a week regardless of the amount of ADC available for use. 5.3.2 Intermediate Cover Material Intermediate cover will be applied to areas which are not used for waste disposal for more than 30 days. Intermediate cover will consist of at least a total of one-foot of nominally compacted soil over refuse. Proper surface grades and side slopes will be maintained to promote runoff and minimize infiltration without excessive erosion. Soil materials used for intermediate cover will consist ofon-site borrow sources. 5.3.3 Final Cover Material The final cover consists of 12 inches of daily and/or intermediate cover, overlain by 18 inches of recompacted clay (1 x 10-s cm/sec) and 6 inches of topsoil. The soil volume required to construct the final cover will increase in order to take into account the needs for closing Phase 6. As shown in Table 3 below, the currently permitted final cover requires approximately 134,200 cubic yards (cy) of soil, and with Phase 6, the proposed final cover will require approximately 762,950 cy of soil for final cover construction. Below is a summary of the soil requirements for South Canyon's development. The soil volumes are based on a soil liner thickness of one fbot (Phases 1-4) and three feet (Phases 5 and 6), 8:1 refuse to soil ratio, and a final cover system thickness of two feet. The soil requirement for daily cover listed in Table 3 does not account for using the previously mentioned ADC discussed in Section 5.3.1. It presumes only soil will be used for daily cover. Additionally, as previously noted, the SCLF has access to approximately 3,000 acres of land that it can use as a borrow source for liner material, daily and intermediate cover and final cover. Soil is readily available onsite for the landfill development. Page 20 EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page2l id Waste Di TABLE 3 CURRENTLY PERMITTED, PHASE 6 ADDITION, NTITIESAND REVISED SOIL QUA Currently Permitted Soil Requirements'Volume (CY) Final Cover 134,200 Daily/lntermediate Cover'192.000 Cell Construction'9.680 Permitted Total 315.100 Phase 6 Addition Soil Requirements Final Cover 28,750 Dai lyllntermed iate Cover'32,749 Cell Construction 46,015 Phase 6 Total 107,514 Revised Soil Requirements Final Cover 162,950 Daily/lntermediate Cover 224,749 Cell Construction 55,695 Revised Total 422,614 Phase 6 Soil Excavated'141.011 Soil Needed fiom Borrow Source 281,603 Notes: l. The currently permitted soil requirements are taken from the Phase 5 expansion document dated December 2012. 2. The daily/intermediate cover volurne is based on a refuse to soil ratio of 8 to I and a relnaining airspace volume in the landfill of I ,54 I ,000 cy. A portion of this volurne has been used since the December 2Ol2 document so the soil requirement is likely less. Additionally, SCLF is approved to use ADC, further reducing the volume needs. 3. The cell construction volume does not include Phase 5 since it has been constructed' 4. The 3-foot cohesive soil liner volume will borrowed fiom a source on the west side of the landfill where the Phase 5 material was excavated. 5. The soil excavated fiom the Phase 6 area will be sufficient to conduct operations assuming the liner material will be excavated Irom a borrow source. 5.4 GroundwaterMonitoring The Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for South Canyon is in the process of being modified and will be implernented upon its approval. The SAP is a groundwater sampling and statistical analysis piun p."pured in "o-pliar." with the Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Sites and Facilities, Part 1, Appendix 83 through 85 (6 CCR 1007-2,Part 1) for the South Canyon Landfill. The preparation of this document and implementation of a statistical analysis program for groundwater atthe facility is required by the Colorado Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Sites and Facilities, 6 CCR lO07-2, Part 1, Appendix B (the Regulations) and was requested by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) in letters addressed to the SCLF manager dated August 15,2013 and Novembet 27,2014. EDOP Modification Phase 6 Addition Page 22 South Can),on Solid Waste Disposal Site" Glenwood Springs" Colorado March 2016 In accordance with the request by the CDPHE, the SCLF has initiated a statistical monitoring program. The SCLF uses the commercially-available software SanitasrM fbr Groundwater for the statistical evaluation. This software was developed specifically for compliance with RCRA groundwater statistical requirements fbr hazardous and municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills and is in common use in Colorado. The software is set to conduct statistical analysis based on the methods and procedures from the Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Unified Guidance E.P.A. March 2009 (Unified Guidance). The groundwater monitoring network at the SCLF comprises one background well which is being determined, five compliance wells (SCLM-5, SCLM-7R, SCLM-1 l, SCLM-A and SCLM- B), two wet/dry wells (SCLM-C and SCLM-D), and 12 water level elevation wells. Compliance wells SCLM-A and SCLM-B have not yet been sampled fbr eight consecutive monitoring events and thus have not yet been incorporated into the statistical analysis portion of the detection monitoring program. Once a minimum of eight consecutive quafiers of observations have been made, SCLM-B and SCLM-A will serve as compliance wells with SCLM-A serving as the Point of Compliance well near the downgradient-most edge of the Certificate of Designation (CD) boundary. Wet/Dry wells SCLM-C and SCLM-D were intended to be integrated into the detection monitoring program as compliance wells fbr the septage ponds and composting area respectively, but no water has been detected in either well since their installation. Although both SCLM-C and SCLM-D have been historically dry, they will continue to be monitored as part of the facility's detection monitoring program. If and when water is encountered in either of these wells, they will be developed, sampled and analyzed. This network is sufficient to monitor the Phase 6 expansion in addition to the remaining landflll facilities. 5.5 Surface Water Monitoring Refer to the following documents: Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting, Inc. dated December 1996. Landfill Gas Monitoring Refer to the following documents: o Facility Design and Operations Plan, South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared by Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (U.S.), Inc. dated September 1994. o Landfill Plan Addendum for the South Canyon Landfill, Garfield County, Colorado prepared by KRW Consulting,Inc. dated December 1996. 5.6 GROLIND WATE,R C ON S IDERATI ON S F OR LINER CON STRU CTION This section describes the activities that were completed to ensure that the Phase 6 design complies with the groundwater separation requirements. The first section includes brief review of ttre existing hydrogeologic conditions and the groundwater separation design requirements. The second section reviews the Phase 6 characterrzatron activities and describes the design measures that were used to comply with the separation requirements. BACKGROUND REVIEW The site-specific hydrogeologic conditions were investigated several times as the facility was expanded. The Decemier26,1996 South Canyon Landfill, Landfill Plan Addendum prepared byKRW included a hydrogeologic summary. The important factors in this summary that are relevant to the Phase 6 design include: o The uppermost soils are described as unconsolidated clay-rich materials that range in thickness from 1 to 40 feet; o The site is underlain by an extensive thickness of the Mancos Shale aquitard, estimated to be approximately 3,000-feet thick, that isolates all of the underlying bedrock from landfill operations; . Groundwater is present at the contact between the unconsolidated sediments and the Mancos Shale as well as within fractures of the weathered zone of the Mancos Shale. . Slug tests indicated that the saturated materials possess hydraulic conductivity values from mid--10-s to mid-10-a centimeters per second (cm/sec); o The groundwater under some of the arcamay be confined; o The groundwater system consists of discontinuous perched zones rather than in a regionally- continuous state. SCS completed additional investigations as part of the Phase 5 expansion to comply with the design requirement that the groundwater be separated from the base of the liner by a minimum of 5 feet. SCS stated that it completed its design by assuming a continuous groundwater system and ensuring that the base of the liner was at least 5-feet lower than the October 2011 potentiometiic surface map. The Phase 5 design included a groundwater collection system that ian roughly east west at the bottom of the cell. That system was installed and it seasonally discharges groundwater to the existing Leachate Collection Pond. PHASE 6 CHARACTERIZATION ACTIVITIES AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Four test pits were excavated along the outside of the proposed Phase 6 filling area to evaluate groundwater conditions. The resulting test pit logs are also included in this Appendix A of the Phase 6 Addendum 3, Engineering Design and Operations Plan (EDOP). Figure A-1 below shows the resulting estimated groundwater elevations in the three test pits containing water combined with the October 2015 potentiometric surface map. The figure also includes key Phase 6 design details, the alignment of the Phase 5 groundwater drain system and the target subgrade elevations to ensure compliance with the 5-foot separation requirement. Note that a 6-foot design separation was used to provide addition separation. A-1 m@6il6rxxxrcxPSqqqBEEt4;;8888 EEfrH4I[9 EEEE-!EE lH' frf =fih 16*; ifiEfri-.T; d2 EE =e F rll itf Eif;idE ;iEggE dd8 sG ffi afilE 5*EE .,-er'..>.tiiil EEEnEE * aEE'H'i"EE iE it 9Nzr,r= 166 a o: l-{ P 3:= lE =4*Pi i 9=i i eII 4 !g tm 6 B2 ;mA A2U E H! z! d !Y @,uz l ri = Yp 65 ,e :-5 R.OJECT NAME: Phase 6 lOJECT LOCA'l'lON: South COMPLETED BY: CJA/MHS Landfill I.OG OF TEST PIT NUMBER: TP6-l SHEETNUMBER. I of I AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTTLTING. LLC 8I9I SOTITHPARK LANE. STIITE I07 LITTLETON. COLORADO 80I20 Phone: 303-948-7733 Fax: 303-948-7739 t,OCATION DIAGRAM CLIENT: Citv of Glenwood DRILI-ING METHOD: SAMPLING METI.IODS BORING LOCATION: SW Corner of Phase 6 Area GRD.SURFACE ELEV: ^6340 START DATE: 3/9/2016 FINISH DATE: 3/912016 SURVEYED or ES'I'IMA'I'ED (in ART TIME: 3:30 FINISH .fIME. 4:OO SOIL DESCRIPTION AND DRILLINC CONDITIONS Topsoil layerof- I ft Sandy Clay Grading to a darker clay, Dry Sandy Clay Grading to a darkcr clay, Dry Sandy Clay darker clay, Dry Sandy Clay darker clay, Dry Sandy Clay darker clay, Dry Sandy Clay darker clay, Dry Sandy Clay darker clay, Dry Sandy Clay darker clay, Dry Sandy Clay darker clay Dry at the time of excavation Sandy Clay Grading to a darker olay, Dry at the time ofexcavation Water at 14 ft on 3/10/2016 8:15 am rechecked 11.20 @ll4 ft Checked 311ll20l6 @ l4 ft Sandy Ctay Grading to a darker clay Dry at the time of excavation Sandy C--lay Crading 1o a darker clay Dry at the time of excavation Sandy Clay Crading to a darker clay Dry at the time of excavation TOTAL DEPTH 17 FT WATER LEVELS: DATE TIME DEPTH TO WATER DATUM w o r H/o r ms / ge ne ra l/ b o r i ng I o g*b I an k CHECKED BY, R.OJECT NAME 6 Expansion IOJECT LOCATION: South Can Landfill COMPLETED BY: CJA/MHS CHECKED BY AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTILTING, LLC 8I9I SOT]THPARK LANE, STIITE I07 LITTLETON, COLORADO 80I20 Phone: 303-948-7733 Fax: 303-9,18-7739 LOG OF TEST PIT NUMBER: TP6-2 SHEET NUMBER: I of I CLTENT: City of Glenwood DRILLING METHOD: LOCATION. West side of Phase 6 Area GRD.SURFACE ELEV: .-6370 TOP OF CSG EI,EV START DATE: 3110/2016 FTNISH DATE: 3/10/2016 SURVEYED or ES'I'IMATED (in bold START TIME. 9:30 am INISH TIME: l0:00 am SOIL DESCRIPTION AND DRILLING CONDITIONS Topsoil layer of-. I ft Sandy Clay Bm, Harder Clay, Dry Sandy Clay Brn, Harder Clay, Dry Sandy Clay Grading to a darker clay, Dry Sandy Cilay darker clay, Dry Sandy Clay darker clay, Dry Sandy CIay darker clay, Dry Sandy Clay darker clay, Dry Sandy CIay darker clay, Dry Sandy Clay darker clay, Dry Sandy Clay darker clay, Dry at time ofexcavation Dry rechecked I 1.20 when checked 3lll12016,I'O'TAI, I)EPTH I2 I,"I' WATER LEVELS: DATE TIME DEP'I'H TO WATER DATUM DRILLING CON'IRACTOR. SCLF' w orlr/forms/ gene ral/ b or ing log b I ank LOCATION DIAGRAM AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAT, CONSTILUNC, I-rc 8I9I SOTITHPARK LANE. ST]IT'E I07 LITT'LETON, COLORADO 80I 20 Phone: 303-948-7733 Fax: 30J-948-77J9 I-OG OF TEST PIT NUMBER: TP6-3 SHEET NUMBER; I of I CLIENT: City of Glenwood DRIt,LINC METHOD: BORI]HOLE SIZE, BORING NUMBER: TP6-3 SAMPLINC METHODS: BORING LOCATION: Northwest sitle of phase 6 Area In the area oftire GRD,SURFACE ELEV, ^{398 TOP OF CSG ELEV: ST'ART DATE: 3/10/2016 FINISH D ATF, - 3 I IO /2016 SURVEYED or ESTIMATED (in botd START TIME. 9:00 AM FINISII TIME: 9:20 am SOIL DESCRIPTION AND DRILLING CONDITIONS Gray granular Mtl, Gray Shale, Fractured Warcr (42 ft @l l:25 am Gray Shale, Fractured Encountered water in fractures at 3 ft, Water filling hole, Filled to 3 ft @ 9:40 un TOTAI, DEPTII 4,5 FT WATERLEVELS: DATB TIME DEPTHTOWATER DATUMDRILLING CONTRACTOR: SCI,F NAME: Phase 6 Ex I.OJECT ATION: South ,OMPLETED BY: CJA/MHS -ROJ Landfill w or Hforms/general/ b or i ng I og b lank CHECKED BY LOCATION aROJECT NAME: Phase 6 AT South Landfill COMPLETED BY: CJA/MHS ?ILLING CON IRACTOR: SCt.l' ..OTES, AMERICAN Er-VIRONMENTAL CONStTLTING, t.l,C 8I9I SOTITHPARK I,ANE, STIITE I07 LITTI,ETON, COLORA.DO 80I 20 Phone: 303-948-7733 l'ax: 303-948-7739 LOG OF TEST Pll'NUMBER: TP6-4 SHEETNUMBER: I of I DRILLINC METHOD, BORINGNIIMBER: TP6-4 BORING LOCATION: Western side of Phase 5 Area GRD SURFACE ELEV: ^6280 START DATE: 311012016 FINISH DATE, 3/1012016 SURVEYED or ESTIMATED (in StAR'f llME: l0:00 am FINISH TIME l0:30 am SOII- DESCRIPTION AND DRILLING CONDITIONS Topsoil layerof- I ft Sandy Clay Lt Brn, Dry Sandy Clay Lt Brn. Dry Sandy Clay Dk Brn. Harder Mtl, Dry Sandy Clay Dk Brn, Harder Mtl, Dry Sandy Clay Dk Brn, Harder Mtl, Dry Sandy Clay Dk Brn, Harder Mtl, Dry Sandy Clay Dk Brn, Harder Mtl, Encountered water seeping into hole at 8 ft Sandy Clay Dk Bm, Harder Mtl, Dry Sandy Clay Dk Bm, Harder Mtt, Dry Water seep at 8 fl on 3l10/2016 I0:30 am rechecked I l:20 caved to 8 ft, no water above cave, Checked 3lll12016 caved to 8 ft and TOTAL DEPTH I() FT w or lc/forms/ ge neral/b o r ing log b lan k CHECKED BY ATION DIAGRAM PHASE6-ADDENDUM3 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN SOUTH CANYON SOLD WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO PREPARED FOR: CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS IOI WEST 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8I60I PREPARED BY: AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 819I SOUTHPARK LANE, SUITE I07 LITTLETON, CO 80120 MARCH 2016 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTR'DUCTI.N P GENERAL CONDITIONS ........... ....._.............2 2.1 Responsibility and Authority .................2 2.2 Construction Meetings .........2 2.2.lPreconstruction Meeting .............. 3 2.2.2Daily Progress Meetings .............. 3 2.2.3 Other Meetings... ........ 3 SOIL LINER CONSTRUCTION ..................... 4 3.1 Subgrade Preparation ..........4 3.2 Construction Quality Assurance for Cohesive Soil Liner........................... 5 3.2.1 Preconstruction Materials Testing ............... ................. 5 3.2.2 Cohesive Soil Liner Construction............... .................. 6 3.2.3 CQA Testing ............. .............-..7 3.2.4 CQA Construction Sampling ..................... 8 3.2.5 Thickness Verification............... ................. 9 3.3 CQA for the Protective Layer ............... 9 3.4 CQA for the Termination Berms ............... ............. 9 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR THE GRAVEL DRAIN.... 10 4.1 Gravel Drain Line Construction...... .... 10 4.2 Geotextile Fabric....... ........ 10 4.3 Leachate Collection Gravel Drain Material QA Sampling ...................... 10 GEOTEXTrLE........... ................... 1 I 5.1 Materials Conformance Testing. ......... 11 5.2 Material Delivery .............. 13 5.3 Geotextile Installation ....... 13 5.3.1 Surface Preparation ................. 13 5.3.2 Panel Placement .... 13 5.3.3 Field Seaming............ ............. 14 5.3.4 Repairs .................. 14 5.4 Deficiencies................ ....... 15 LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM.. .......16 6.1 Leachate Drainage Layer ..................... 16 6.1.1 Leachate Drainage Layer Installation ..... 16 6.1.2 Thickness Verification............... ............... 16 6.1.3 Quality Assurance Testing ...... 17 6.0 Projects/Glenwood/2|15 trlest Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLF AEC 17 l87.0 6.2 Leachate Collection Piping 17 6.2.1 Quality Assurance Testing GROTINDWATER TRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM.. 8.0 R8PORTING.............. .................. 19 8.1 Daily Reports .................... 19 8.2 Design Change Documentation........... ................... 19 8.3 Deviation from CQA P1an.......... ..........20 8.4 Final Certification Report .................... 20 TABLES Table 1: Phase 6 Cohesive Soil Liner Preconstruction Testing and Frequency................ 5 Table 2: Phase 6 Soil Liner Construction Testing and Frequency........... ....... 8 Table 3 - Leachate and Trench Gravel Drain Material Testing and Frequency ............... 10 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Construction Quality Assurance Example Forms - Soil Liner Appendix B: Construction Quality Assurance Example Forms - Geosynthetics Projects/Glenwood/2015 West Sliver/CQAP/CQl Plan Phase 6 SCI-l' AEC Phase 6 CQAP South Canyon Landhll Page 1 March 2016 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan outlines the documentation activities associated with the construction of the Phase 6 Addition (Phase 6) at the South Canyon which includes the 6.91-acre Phase 6 expansion area and the approximately 2.}-acre area of Phase 3 and 4. Solid Waste Disposal Site (South Canyon). The activities outlined in this document will serve as the basis for the preparation of a construction certilication report documenting the work performed as part of the Phase 6 construction, which include the following: o Installation of a 3-foot thick cohesive soil liner o Installation of a 16-inch shredded tire leachate drainage layer over the liner base and side slopes o Installation of a leachate collection pipe for Phase 6o Construction of a groundwater trench drain as indicated on the construction drawings Projects/Glenwood/2015 West SliveriCQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCt,F' AEC Phase 6 CQAP South Canyon Landfill Page 2 March 2016 2.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Responsibility and Authority The City of Glenwood Springs will be responsible for the implementation of this CQA Plan. The following is a list of responsible personnel: Owner The Owner (which can also be a representative of the Owner) shall be responsible for coordination between the Owner, the construction crew, and the third-party CQA Engineer. The Owner shall delegate authority, and correspondingly, shall be responsible to see that the CQA Plan is followed. CQA Engineer A professional engineer licensed to practice in Colorado shall be retained by the Owner to provide on-site construction oversight, quality assurance testing, and a final report demonstrating that the requirements of this CQA Plan are met. In addition, the CQA Engineer or his/her designee shall coordinate with the contractor(s) andlor installer(s) and their personnel for the purposes of sharing information. Should it become apparent to the CQA Engineer or his/ her designee that construction quality is substandard, the CQA Engineer shall inform the Owner's Representative of the apparent deficiencies such that adjustments can be made. The CQA Engineer must be employed by an organrzatron that operates independently of the landfill contract operator, construction contractor, Owner, and permit holder. The CQA Engineer will be responsible for certifying that construction was completed in accordance with the approved engineering design plans and specifications of the construction permit COA Monitor If the CQA Engineer cannot serve to provide on-site inspection of all liner andlor cover construction activities and reporting, the CQA Engineer shall designate a CQA Monitor to perform those duties. The CQA Monitor shall be an individual that represents the CQA Engineer and provides on-site construction oversight, quality assurance testing, and general observance and documentation of construction. The CQA Monitor will document on-site construction activities on a Daily Field Activities Report. An example of this report is included in Appendix A. 2.2 Construction Meetings Under all circumstances, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) will be given seven calendar days advance notification prior to the initiation of landfill construction proj ects. Projects/Glenwood/2}15 llest Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCI,F AEC Phase 6 CQAP South Canyon Landfill Page 3 March 2016 2.2.1 Preconstruction Meeting A meeting involving the Owner/operator, CQA personnel, and the contractor(s) shall take place prior to the start of construction. This meeting should include discussion of:o Each party's responsibilities o Lines or means of communication o Procedures for changes or problems o QA/QC procedures and requirements o Level of the CDPHE's involvement o Safety Issues on during construction o Other issues as they pertain to the construction project 2.2.2 Daily Progress Meetings Regularly scheduled, daily meetings between CQA personnel and the contractor(s) shall take place to review and discuss such topics as the following: o Previous work o Future work o Construction problems o Specification or CQAP Revisionso Schedule revisions o Other issues that require attention 2.2.3 Other Meetings Unscheduled meetings shall take place as required to address issues such as construction progress and changed conditions as circumstances dictate. Projects/Glenwood/2}15 West Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLI,' AEC Phase 6 CQAP Soulh Canyon Landfill Page 4 March 2016 3.0 SOIL LINER CONSTRUCTION This section covers material conformance testing, general construction procedures, and testing requirements for the compacted soil liner system for Phase 6 construction. 3.1 Subgrade Preparation Construction Quality Assurance for subgrade preparation involves monitoring grade control as stated in the survey requirements in Section ##. In addition, the subgrade area is monitored for unstable areas using sufficiently heavy equipment to conduct proof rolling. There shall be no more than2 inches of deflection allowed, based on visual observation. The observations shall be documented in the construction logs and shall be performed by the CQA Monitor or another experienced observer. Unstable areas that fail the proof rolling and are excavated and other over-excavated areas may require controlled fill to bring the area to subgrade elevations and grades. This includes the compaction of the upper lifts of the groundwater trench. This lill shall be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches. Field density testing shall be performed on this filI on an approximate 100-foot grid pattem for each 12-inch lift placed to assure a minimum density of 95 percent of Standard Proctor at -2 to +4 above optimum moisture. A representative sample of the subgrade fill soils will be used to determine a Standard Proctor value for maximum density and optimum moisture content of the soils. A testing program consisting of density testing with a nuclear density gauge (ASTM D6938) will be completed at a frequency of one test per 10,000 square feet per lift to verify that the subgrade soils meet the density requirements. If testing the compaction in the trench, tests will be taken a minimum of every 100 feet per lift along the trench alignment. In addition, the CQA Monitor will identify unexpected conditions encountered during subgrade construction/preparation and record all minor changes (agreed to by the CDPHE without formal modification) to the plans and construction procedures on the as-built drawings. At a minimum, the assigned personnel will complete the following: Observe and record the placement of subgrade fill on a regular basis. Confirm that there are no moisture seeps or groundwater inflow from the subgrade. Verify that soft, organic or other undesirable materials (e.g., large particle sizes that cannot be filled and compacted prior to liner placement) are removed fiom the subgrade prior to subgrade construction. Verify subgrade construction in accordance with the applicable sampling, testing, and survey program. Prior to soil liner placement, inspect the subgrade for soft spots, pumping, or deleterious materials and verify recompaction or removal and replacement of identified areas. The Contractor will conduct proof rolling. There shall be no more than2 inches of deflection allowed, based on visual observation. Projects/Glenwood/2115 West Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLF' AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 5 South Canyon Landfill March 2016 Verify that all debris, including plant materials such as trees, stumps, and roots, and rocks of size large enough to interfere with proper placement/compaction are removed prior to subgrade construction and preparation. Prevent the placement of frozen material or the placement of material on frozen ground. Record the types of compaction equipment utilized fbr subgrade construction. Periodically photograph the subgrade construction and finished subgrade surface. Verify that prior to compacted soil liner component placement, the surf-ace of the subgrade is roughed (by disk or sheepsfoot) and graded to provide a workable surf-ace on which to construct and bond the compacted soil liner component. Survey the finished subgrade on a maximum of 50-foot intervals and along each line where a change in grade occurs to assure that the subgrade has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The survey shall be completed by a Colorado-registered surveyor to confirm and document subgrade elevations and to establish project coordinates. At the conclusion of the subgrade preparation, a survey will be completed at 50-foot grid point locations as well as the toes and crests of slopes and grade changes to verify the required grades and elevations of the subgrade was achieved. Acceptable tolerances fbr surveying shall be -0.01 foot for elevations (as opposed to +0.01 for the top of the clay liner) and +0.1 foot for horizontal coordinates. The upper soil portion of the subgrade will be placed to form a solid base on which to construct the compacted soil liner. Placement of the subgrade soils will be in 10-inch to 12-inch loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the Standard Proctor's maximum dry density 3.2 Construction Quality Assurance fbr Cohesive Soil Liner Field density testing and clay sampling for quality assurance will be performed during cohesive soil liner construction as discussed in this section. 3.2.1 Preconstruction Materials Testing Prior to construction of the compacted soil liner system lbr Phase 6, representative samples of the materials proposed for use will be collected and tested to verify that the soils to be used for construction meet the project specifications. The following tests outlined in Table 1 will be performed for this project prior to placing any cohesive soil liner. Table 1: Phase 6 Cohesive Soil Liner Preconstruction Testing and Frequency Test Method Frequency Atterberg Limits I test per 6,540 cubic yards of material placed Grain Size I test per 6,540 cubic yards of material placed Standard Proctor I test per 6,540 cubic yards of material placed Hydraulic Conductivity (Remolded)I test per 13,080 cubic yards of material placed Projects/Glenwood/2)15 llest Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLF AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 6 South Canyon Landfill March 2016 In order for a material to qualify for use as soil liner material, it must have a group symbol of CL, CH, SC or ML according to the Unified Soil Classification System. In addition, each soil used for construction must also meet the following criteria: o Allow more than 30 percent passage through a No. 200 sieve o Have a liquid limit equal to or greater than20 o Have a plasticity index equal to or greater than l0 o Have a coefficient of permeability of I x 10-7 centimeters per second (cm/ sec) or less for soil liner construction when compacted to a density and moisture content specification outlined in this document. 3-2.2 Cohesive Soil Liner Construction Prior to construction of the cohesive soil liner, the subgrade will meet the elevations specified on the construction drawings and be approved by the CQA Engineer. Construction progress will be monitored by use of the initial subgrade survey in combination with grade stakes or intermediate surveying during construction, as necessary. The cohesive soil liner shall be constructed in accordance with design criteria of the South Canyon Landfill Phase 6 Design Plan. This section of the CQAP outlines the procedures to be followed during placement of the cohesive soil liner 1. The minimum thickness of the cohesive soil liner at all locations shall be at least 3.0 feet, measured perpendicular to the liner surface on slopes greater than 4:1. 2. The cohesive soil-lined base and sidewall at all locations shall be constructed in lift heights no greater than approximately 6 inches after compaction and no greater than the depth of the compactor teeth, whichever is less. The cohesive soil liner will be constructed in 8-inch thick loose lifts compacted to 6 inches. A 24-inch diameter disc (or similar equipment approved by the CQA Engineer) will be used to break up the clay clods, expose stones in clay to allow for removal and to assist in raising the moisture content to 0 to-f4 percent above optimum moisture content as determined by Standard Proctor test (ASTM-D698). The soils will be compacted with equipment that kneads, compacts, and inter-bonds the soil from the bottom of the lift up, such as a sheep's foot compactor or high profile pad foot compactor. Compaction will be performed using a Caterpillar 815 tamping foot compactor or equivalent. As compaction is achieved and the feet of the compactor walk out of the lift, the uppermost surface (except the final lift) will be lefl in a rough condition, or will be scarified by disking, to promote bonding of the soil. Material conditioning procedures and compaction equipment rolling patterns may be evaluated and modified as necessary to yield a workable, consistent, and suitable liner material. Projects/Glenwood/2015 llest Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLF AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 7 South Can),on Landfill March 2016 3.2.3 CQA Testing A CQA Monitor, under the supervision of the CQA Engineer, is to be present on-site to monitor the placement and compaction of the soil liner. Density testing of cohesive soil liner shall be performed randomly but on a frequency of four density tests per acre per compacted lift of cohesive soil liner placed and spaced to provide complete coverage over the constructed area including the floor and side slopes. This frequency is approximately equivalent to testing on 1O0-foot centers. The nuclear density gauge shall be calibrated in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Unstable or erratic gauges shall not be used for quality assurance testing. The testing shall be offset on each subsequent lift. Additional density tests shall be obtained in confined areas where equipment movement is hindered or hand compaction is necessary. The number of density tests in confined areas shall be recommended by the CQA Engineer based on the size of the area. If areas are encountered which do not meet the specified moisture content or percent compaction, the area will be reworked; moisture conditioned, and recompacted as necessary. The area to be reworked shall be bounded by the additional passing moisture/density test locations and the material shall be reworked from the failing test location halfivay to the passing test locations. Drying, wetting, additional compaction, or a combination there of shall be used to bring the nonconforming area to an acceptable level. Retests will be performed following the rework activities. Each penetration made into the cohesive soil liner fbr moisture/density testing purposes shall be repaired after testing. The test hole shall be repaired by backfilling the test hole with bentonite and hydrated or other material approved by the CQA Resident Engineer. Density tests will be reported on the Field Moisture/Density Test Report. Completed Field Moisture/Density Test Reports shall be included in an appendix to the report. Prior to the preconstruction meeting, the CQA Consultant shall provide the Owner with a sample of the field moisture/density form for review and approval. Projects/Glenwood/2115 West Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLF AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 8 South Canyon Landfill March 2016 3.2.4 CQA Construction Sampling The material used to construct this liner shall conform to the following specifications: Classification:CL, CH, SC or ML under the Unified Soil Classification System Grain Size:>30oA passins a #200 sieve Permeability:Less than or equal to I x 1 0-' cm/sec Density:Greater than or equal to 95 percent (ASTM D 698) Liquid Limit:Greater than2} percent Plasticity Index:Greater than 10 percent Moisture Content:0 to +4 percent (inclusive) of Optimum (ASTM D 698) Cohesive soil samples shall be obtained during cohesive soil liner construction for the following tests: 1. Grain Size [ASTM D422lll40 (excludes hydrometer)] 2. Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) 3. Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) 4. Permeability (ASTM D5084) The ASTM designations and sampling frequencies for the above tests are shown on Table 2. Table 2: Phase 6 Soil Liner Construction Testing and Frequency Test Method Frequency Anerberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)test per 3,000 cubic yards of material placed Grain Size (ASTM D 422)test per 3,000 cubic yards of material placed Standard Proctor (ASTM D 698)test per 3,000 cubic yards of material placed Hydraulic Conductivity (Remolded) (ASTM D 5084)test per 3,000 cubic yards of material placed Field Density (ASTM D 6938) lacrellift or 1/10,000 sf per ft Field Moisture (ASTM D 6938)4lacrellift: or l/10,000 sf per ft Each Shelby tube must collect at least 4 inches of cohesive soil liner to provide sufficient material for permeability testing in accordance with these specifications. Each void remaining after extracting the undisturbed sample will be backfilled with bentonite and hydrated. Shelby tube sample locations will be included on the as-built drawing in the construction certification report (Section 8.4). A soil sample inventory log will be maintained as samples are acquired. Prior to the preconstruction meeting, the CQA Consultant shall provide the Owner with a sample of this inventory log for review and approval. All completed inventory logs shall be included in an appendix to the fina; construction certification repoft. Projects/Glent,ood/2015 llest Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCI,F AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 9 South Canvon Landfill March 2016 Prior to the leachate drainage layer installation above the compacted soil liner, the moisture content of the compacted soil shall be maintained to control desiccation cracking. If any desiccation cracks are observed in excess of 1-inch deep, the surface shall be lightly scarified, moisture conditioned, recompacted, and regraded. The final compacted cohesive soil liner surface will be smooth and free of large angular particles or foreign objects. 3.2.5 ThicknessVerification The thickness of the compacted cohesive soil liner shall be verified by a surveyor licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. The surveyor may be employed by the CQA Engineer. Prior to construction of the compacted soil liner, a survey shall be completed on a minimum of 50-foot grid system to document the top of subgrade elevations. Additional survey points shall be taken at the toes and crests of slopes and grade changes. At the conclusion of placement of the compacted soil liner, a survey will be completed at the same 50-foot grid point locations as well as the toes and crests of slopes and grade changes to verify the required soil component thickness was achieved. Acceptable tolerances for surveying the top of the cohesive soil liner shall be +0.01 foot for elevations and +0.1 foot for horizontal coordinates. (The elevations of the subgrade have a tolerance of -0.01 foot so the thickness specification of the liner can be met). 3.3 CQA for the Protective Layer A minimum 12-inch soil protective layer shall be placed over the cohesive soil-lined slopes with grades of 3 to 1 or greater. The material shall consist of unspecified soil material and shall be compacted by wheel-rolling to provide a firm slope. Compaction operations shall consist of at least three passes with suitable equipment or until the CQA Engineer or CQA Monitor is satisfied with the compaction. The CQA Consultant shall observe and report on the appropriate CQA test results and observe/report on placement operations to verify placement was completed in accordance with these specifications. 3.4 CQA for the Termination Berms Unspecified soil materials shall be used to construct termination berms. The material shall be placed and compacted in individual lifts no thicker than 12 inches after compaction. Compaction will be completed using a minimum of three passes with suitably heavy equipment. Berm material, located above the permanent liner, which will be removed during future construction, has no permeability requirements and will not be subjected to permeability testing. Projects/Glenwood,20l5 West Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCl,l.- AEC Test ASTM Designation Construction Frequency Preconstruction Frequency Grain Size *c 136 I per 1,000 lf or fiaction thereofor Minimurn of 2 Samples in trench/drain I per source Permeability *D 2434 1 per I ,000 lf or fraction thereof in trench/drain I per source 4.0 4.1 Phase 6 CQAP Page l0 South Canvon Landfill March 2016 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR THE GRAVEL DRAIN Gravel Drain Line Construction When the 3.0-foot cohesive soil liner is completed, the gravel drain for the leachate conveyance will then follow as discussed in this section. Additionally, this gravel specification will also be used to construct the trench drain in Phase 6. 4.2 Geotextile Fabric The geotextile fabric used to wrap the gravel drain shall be an 8 oz. non-woven geotextile. Placement shall be performed as shown on the plans and shall conform and be installed according to Section 5. Leachate Collection Gravel Drain Material QA Sampling The gravel material used in backfilling the gravel drains shall meet the following: 1.The gravel material will be classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System as GP poorly graded gravel. 112 inchto 1.5 inch gravel material with no more than 5 percent smaller than 112 inch and less than2 percent fines (minus No. 200 sieve). A permeability of 1 cm/sec or greater. The material shall be free of foreign matter, lumps or excessive amounts of cohesive soil and other objectionable or foreign substances. The types of testing, ASTM designations and sampling frequencies for the leachate gravel drain material are shown on Table 3. Table 3 - Leachate and Trench Gravel Drain Material Testing and Frequency * The prescribed test frequencies will be performed at a rate that yields the greater number of tests 2. Projects/Glenu,ooil20l5 West Sliver/CQAP|CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLF AEC 4.3 Phase 6 CQAP South Canyon Landfill March 2016 5.0 GEOTEXTILE Non-woven geotextiles shall be used the construction of Phase 6 for the following: o An 8-ounce geotextile to encapsulate the gravel material surrounding the leachate collection pipe o A 6-ounce geotextile to separate the leachate drainage layer and the select waste fill layer located above the leachate drainage layer o An 8-ounce geotextile enfold the gravel material located in the groundwater trench drain The geotextile will have the average weight per area required by the design and the specific gravel to be used for the Phase 6 construction. During deployment, the geotextiles will be observed to completely encapsulate the granular materials surrounding the leachate collection pipes and groundwater trench drains. The geotextiles shall either be sown, heat bonded, or overlapped. Geotextile fabric that is required for the project is to be tested and installed in accordance with the approved construction documents. Care shall be used during construction to ensure that geotextile materials are not damaged. Geotextile filter fabric panels that are placed will be overlapped and stitched or wedge welded together to maintain placement. Geotextile fabric will be installed by a qualified third-party Geosynthetics Contractor or by the Owner. 5.1 Materials Storage and Review The CQA Engineer or his/her CQA Monitor shall log in all rolls of geotextile material that arrives on-site and review the manufacturer's Quality Control certification documentation. Each roll shall be documented on a Material Inventory Log. Storage of geotextile material shall be done in a manner that reasonably protects the material from puncture, denting, defbrmation of rolls, and other damaging situations prior to its deployment. Ultraviolet sensitive geosynthetics should be stored in undamaged opaque coverings and protected from standing water during storage. Photo documentation of geotextile installation and repair procedures will be included in the final CQA certification report. Prior to installation of the geotextile, the geotextile manufacturer shall provide the Owner andlor CQA Engineer the test results for the geotextile material to be installed. The following tests shall be reviewed to verify that the geomembrane conforms to the project specifications: . Mass per unit area (ASTM D 5261/ASTM D 3776) . Thickness (ASTM D 5199). Grab Tensile (ASTM D 4632). Permittivity (ASTM D 4491) (if material is to be used as a filter layer) Page 1 I Projects/Glenwood/2)15 West Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLF AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 12 South Canyon Landfill March 2016 . Apparent Opening Size (ASTM D 4751) (if material is to be used as a filter layer) For each of the properties listed below, the material shall meet the listed standards for the geotextile material type. Deviations from this testing protocol due to changes in test methods or industry standards shall be approved by the CQA Engineer. Geotextile Requirements 1. Furnish non-woven 6 and 8-ounce geotextile materials that meet or exceed the criteria as follows: Tested Property Test Method 6 oz. Geotextile Properties Grab Tensile Strensth" lb ASTM D4632 160 Grab Elonsation.oh ASTM D4632 50 CBR Puncture Strensth. lb ASTM D4833 435 Trapezoidal Tear Strength, lb ASTM D4533 65 Apparent Opening Size, Sieve No.ASTM D4751 70 Water Flow Rate. spml ft2 ASTM D4491 110 Tested Property Test Method 8 oz. Geotextile Properties Grab Tensile Strength, lb ASTM D4632 205 Grab Elongatron,Yo ASTM D4632 50 CBR Puncture Strensth. lb ASTM D4833 475 Trapezoidal Tear Streneth. lb ASTM D4533 90 Apparent Opening Size, Sieve No.ASTM D4751 80 Water Flow Rate. spm/ ft2 ASTM D4491 95 Geotextile shall be stock products. The supplier shall not furnish products specifically manufactured to meet the requirements. Geotextile shall be comprised of polymeric yarns. or fibers, oriented into a stable network which retains its structure during handling and placement. The geotextile shall be stored in the original, unopened wrapping in a dry area and protected from precipitation and the direct light of the sun. The material shall be stored above the ground surface and beneath a roofor other protective covering. The Contractor shall submit a material certification signed by the geotextile manufacturer stating the product performance data and the product specifications to the Engineer for approval before installation. 2. J. 4. 5. Projects/Glenwood/2015 West Sliver/CQAP|CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLF AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 13 South Canvon Landfill March 2016 5.2 Material Delivery Prior to ordering the material and delivery to the site, the Contractor shall provide the CQA Engineer with manufacturer's documentation that the Geotextile meets the requirements and specifications shown in the above tables. The CQA Monitor shall verify the following: Equipment used to unload the rolls will not damage the geotextile Care is used to unload the rolls o All documentation required by the specification has been received Any damaged rolls shall be rejected and removed from the site. All rolls that do not have proper manufacturer's documentation shall be stored at a separate location until all documentation has been received and approved. 5.3 Geotextile Installation 5.3.1 Surface Preparation Prior to geotextile installation, the CQA Monitor shall verify that the drainage material has been placed in accordance with the specifications and the earthwork portion of the CQA Manual, including all required documentation and necessary testing has been completed and approved by the CQA Engineer. 5.3.2 Panel Placement During panel placement, the CQA Monitor shall: . Observe the geotextile as it is deployed and record all defects and disposition of the defects (e.g., panel rejected or patch installed). All repairs are to be made in accordance with the specifications. . Verify that equipment used does not damage the geotextile by handling, trafficking, leakage of hydrocarbons, or by other means. . Verify that people working on the geotextile do not smoke, wear shoes that could damage the geotextile, or engage in activities that could damage the geotextile. o Verify that the geotextile is anchored to prevent movement by the wind (the Geosynthetics Contractor is responsible for any damage resulting to or resulting from windblown Projects/Glenwood/2015 l|'est Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLF AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 14 South Canvon Landfill March 2016 geotextiles). o Verify that all geotextile is covered prior to 500 hours of exposure to ultraviolet radiation (sunlight). The CQA Monitor shall inform both the Geosynthetics Contractor and the Project Manager if the above conditions are not met. 5.3.3 Field Seaming Seaming is not required however, if seamed, seaming shall be by sewing, heat fusion, or other approved bonds. The overlap is dependent upon the method of seaming. During geotextile placement, the CQA Monitor shall verify: o The seams are overlapped a minimum of 6 inches if sewn, 12 inches if fusion (heat) bonded, or 24 inches if simply overlapped. o Overlaps are oriented in the direction of subsequent earth filling-i.e.; the direction of earth filling should be in the direction of the se€uns, not perpendicular to the seams. o Thread used to sew the panels together shall be polymeric thread. o The panels are being joined in accordance with the plans and specifications. 5.3.4 Repairs Allowable repair procedures include: Patching - used to repair holes, tears, and defbcts. Removal - used to replace areas with large defects where the preceding method is not appropriate. On slopes steeper than l0H:1V, a fabric patch shall be sewn into place using a double sewn lock stitch no closer than one inch to the edge of the patch with the patch extending a minimum 6 inches beyond the perimeter of the tear or damaged section. On slopes flatter than 10H:1V, the patch may be spot seamed using fusion methods with a minimum of 36 inches overlap past the perimeter of the tear or damaged section. Projects/Glenwood/2l15 West Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLF AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 15 South Canyon Landfill March 2016 5.4 Deficiencies When deficiencies are discovered, the CQA Monitor shall immediately determine the nature and extent of the problem, notify the Geosynthetics Contractor, and complete required documentation. In all cases, the CQA Monitor will notify the Geosynthetics Contractor within l12hour of discovering the deficiency. If the deficiency will cause construction delays of more than 4 hours or will necessitate substantial rework, the CQA Monitor shall also notify the Project Manager. The Geosynthetics Contractor shall correct the deficiency to the satisfaction of the CQA Engineer. If the Geosynthetics, Contractor is unable to correct the problem, the CQA Engineer will develop and present to the Project Manager suggested solutions for approval. If the solution requires a design revision, the Design Engineer shall also be contacted. The corrected deficiency shall be retested before additional work is performed if necessary to ensure compliance with these requirements. All retests and the steps taken to correct the problem shall be documented by the CQA Monitor. Projects/Glenvtood/2}15 West Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLF AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 16 South Canvon Landfill March 2016 6.0 LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM This section covers the material conformance testing and general construction oversight necessary to verify the leachate collection system is constructed in accordance with the construction documents. 6.1 Leachate Drainage Lay er The leachate drainage (shredded tire) layer for Phase 6 will consist of a minimum 16-inch thick layer of tire shreds on the floor. The shredded tire layer shall possess a hydraulic conductivity greater than or equal to I x 10-r cm/sec and be in accordance with the following size criteria: . 90 percent passing through the 6 inch sieve. Less than 5 percent passing through the No. 4 sieve The Owner and CQA Engineer may modify the shred size criteria. 6.1 .1 Leachate Drainage Layer Installation The shredded tire layer shall be placed to the lines and grades shown on the construction drawings or as directed by the CQA Engineer. In addition, the shredded tire layer shall be placed in one or two lifts and compacted. Since the tire shreds with metal wires tend to clump together, the consistent placement of those tire shreds in lifts less than 12 inches may be difticult. Tire shreds used for the leachate drainage layer shall be compacted with a sheep's foot roller, tracked bulldozer, or equivalent equipment. Since sheep's foot rollers tend to fluff up the surface, this type of equipment will not be used to compact the uppermost lift of tire shreds. If a sheep's foot roller equipment is used to compact the leachate drainage layer, a minimum of two passeswith a tracked bulldozer will follow. The purpose of compaction is to rearrange and densify the shreds thereby creating a stable leachate drainage layer as a working surf'ace. Techniques that minimize the potential for damage to the underlying compacted soil liner must be used when placing and spreading the shredded tire layer. Specifically, the tire shreds will be placed by advancing it in fingers across the underlying compacted soil liner. When placing the shredded tire layer, sharp turning motions by vehicles or equipment shall not be made in order to prevent grinding of material into the compacted soil liner. 6.1.2 Thickness Verification The thickness of the shredded tire layer shall be verifled by a surveyor licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. The surveyor must be employed by an organization that operates independently of the landfill contract operator, construction contractor, Owner, and permit holder. Projects/Glenwoodt2}l5 West Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase (t SCLF AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 17 South Canvon Landfill March 2016 The surveyor may be employed by the CQA Engineer. Following construction of the leachate drainage layer, a final survey shall be completed on a minimum 50-foot grid system to document the elevations. These survey points shall be coincident (stack) with those of the cell excavation and compacted soil liner surveys to allow calculation of the leachate drainage layer thickness. Acceptable tolerances for surveying shall be 0.1 foot or greater for elevations and +0.1 foot for horizontal coordinates. 6.1.3 Quality Assurance Testing The CQA Monitor will perform continuous monitoring of the shredded tire layer placement. Laboratory testing, consisting of grain size distribution and hydraulic conductivity will be performed on the shredded tire material at a frequency of at least one test per 3,000 cubic yards of material placed. 6.2 Leachate Collection Piping The leachate collection, conveyance, and clean out pipes will be constructed per the design drawings. Pipe material will be high density polyethylene (HDPE) standard dimension ratio (SDR) 17 as shown on the design drawings. The leachate collection pipes shall be encapsulated in coarse granular materials consisting of poorly-graded gravel with a gradation of one to six inches. The gravel surrounding the pipe will have a hydraulic conductivity, as determined from laboratory testing (ASTM D2434) of 1 cm/sec or greater. The gravel surrounding the pipe will be wrapped in a geotextile to prevent disposition of the fine particles to the porous space of the gravel. 6.2.1 Quality Assurance Testing The CQA Monitor shall observe the placement of the piping to verify that the appropriate slope on the piping has been achieved. Additionally, visual observation of piping connections shall be completed to document proper connection of pipe segments and orientation of perforated pipe, where applicable. Care will be taken to verify that the leachate drainage layer material does not mix with the gravel surrounding the pipe. The CQA certification report will document the elevations of all leachate pipes to the nearest 0.01 foot at least every 100 feet along the top of the pipe and at grade breaks. Additionally, the pipe will be surveyed at the tie in to the Phase 5 pipe, at the western end, and the location of the cleanout wye will be surveyed. Additional pertinent components or junctions will also be recorded. Projects/Glenwood/2015 Vttest Sliver/CQAPiCQA Plan Phase 6 S('t,F- AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 1 8 South Canyon Landfill March 2016 7.0 GROUNDWATER TRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM This section describes the CQA activities associated with the installation of the groundwater trench drain system. The groundwater trench drains will consist of 4-foot wide by 6-foot deep trench containing a 6-inch diameter HDPE SDR l7 pipe and aggregate material wrapped with geotextile. It will be connected to the pipe installed during the construction of Phase 5 to provide continuous draining to the leachate lagoon. The aggregate for the trench drain will be the same as that for the leachate chevron drain. It will meet a permeability specification of 1 cm/se or greater. The CQA Monitor will complete the following for the construction of the groundwater trench drains: . Observe the construction of the drain trenches, including granular material, and geotextile wrap placement, . Log in material rolls and confirming material properties meet the construction specifications and drawings pipe Projects/Glenwood/2)1 5 ll/est Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SC LF AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 19 South Canyon Landfill March 2016 8.0 REPORTING Proper documentation of the construction process is an important aspect of construction documentation. In addition to the completion of the forms mentioned previously, the following reports shall be completed. 8.1 Daily Reports The CQA Monitor is to prepare daily written reports which should be made available to the CQA Engineer as required. These reports will include information about the work accomplished each day, tests and observations that were made, and descriptions of the adequacy of the work performed. At a minimum, the reports should include the following: o Date, project name, location, area involved in construction, equipment utilized, and personnel involved in major activities . Description of weather conditions, including temperature, cloud cover, and precipitation o Description of the type of construction, inspection, and testing activity fbr the day o Location of construction activity for the day o Location of tests completed o Discussion of construction methods (i.e., equipment make/model, number of compactor passes, etc.) as they relate to previous cell or final cover construction o Results of construction activity (i.e., first lift completed, sump completed, etc.) o Description of construction materials used including reference to certifications, test results, etc. o Location of observation activity or location from which the sample(s) were obtained o Results of testing performed (passing or failing) o Construction or testing problems and required actions o Photographic documentation of construction progress including date, location, an d name of photographer o Signature of the CQA Monitor Appendix A includes example CQA forms including the Daily Activities Field Report and the Nuclear Moisture/Density Gauge Test Record. Appendix B includes geosynthetics forms. 8.2 Design Change Documentation On occasion it may be necessary to modify the design during construction activities. Changes to the design or deviation from the permit documents must be approved by the Owner and the CDPHE. Projecrs/Glenwood/2}15 West Sliver/CQAP/CQA Plan Phase 6 SCLI"' AEC Phase 6 CQAP Page 20 South Canyon Landfill March 2016 8.3 Deviation from CQA Plan During the course of construction, deviations from the approved CQA Plan may be necessary due to various construction issues, permit modifications, regulatory changes, new technology, or changes to accepted standards. Deviations from this CQA Plan must be documented and approved by the Owner and the CDPHE prior to their implementation. 8.4 Final Certification Report At the completion of the construction, the CQA Engineer will prepare the final CQA certification report for submittal to the CDPHE. This report will include the CQA Engineer's Colorado Professional Engineer's seal and date. The certification report will contain the following: o A certification (signed, sealed, and dated) by the CQA Engineer stating that the landfill construction has been completed in accordance with the engineering design and CQA Plan. o As-built drawings (signed, sealed, and dated) and survey certification (signed, sealed, and dated) by a Colorado-registered land surveyor or a Colorado-licensed Professional Engineer. o Field data and laboratory test results. o Inspection reports, certifications, and photographs Projects/Glenwood/20 I 5 West Sliler/CQAP/CQA P lan Phase 6 SC Ll' AEC SCLF PHASE 6A MOISTURE/DENSITY RESU LTS SUBGRADE BACKFILL MATERIAL TESTING DATE Page I of 1 iOUTH CANYON LANDFILL.PHASE 6 CONSTRUCTION :NGINEERED FILL MOISTURE DENSIry TESTING Max Densily Spec > 95Yo Optimum Moisture Spec 0.0 Minimum iamDle GF-1 Max Densilv Optimum Moisture LiftThickness: 12-INCH Sample GF-2 Max Densitv Optimum Moisture Area/TYoe: Subqrade BacKill SamDle GF-3 NIax Densitv Ootimum Moisture iamole GF.4 Max Densitv Optimum Moisture Sample GF-5 Max Densitv Ootimum Moisture Samole GF.6 Max Densitv Ootimum Moisture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 AEC ?mr8m 8Affi TilEffidffiS :uffi,lrlfi: tffiffiiffiffiti .qr"rl;ltaFi}(t BBYIffilfs.XHl{:j :i0$ i ilfimr@ Y*ffiF F F$i&?i!n i**s ;;.rffl-,ctllip.::FflIfuit6lSfi wr*b* .qK*L'*i* ::: I :::!ir6lttt ffi:iEL ffi : o./* iLIF 11 SCLF PHASE 6A MOISTURE/DENSITY RESULTS COHESIVE SOIL LINER MATERIAL TESTING DATE Page I of I iOUTH CANYON LANDFILL-PHASE 6 CONSTRUCTION )OHESIVE SOIL LINER MOISTURE DENSITY TESTING Max Density Spec > 95%Optimum Moisture Spec o - +4ok MinimUm iample 3F-1 Max Density Optimum Moisture Litt Thickness: 6-INCH iample 3F-2 N/ax Density Optimum Moisture Area./Tvoe: Soil Liner Placement lample 3F-3 Nilax Density Optimum Moisture lample 3F-4 Mlax Density Optimum Moisture jample 3F-5 Max Density Optimum Moisture !ample 3F-6 Max Density Optimum Moisture 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1'l 12 '13 14 '15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 AEC :iffiElE ffiffi ulET t{s.wffit$'IF,#t#,rffilllffitfl*'rPr*J,i*tdilJ*it:ffiXi:ffit$g#f ';r :" PCF.:,=. {q.l,s_r,{rre:::=% =: lEgWoF rf*#?i5R",;1ffi(ffi ::f*Il*Ofilf:r ,ffrll; iiiolst: rffilt*t&l'r teffiffifr E&tiiitr ffi 1#X* pcF :+/o 21 Tr l# Geotextile Roll Log and Conformance Testing Summary SOUTH CANYON LANDFILL GEOTEXTILE ROLI AND TEST DATA TRACKING area(10), grab tensile(10), puncture resistance(10) AOS (10), Permittivity (10), Flow Rate (10) textile-UV resistance (1) (Not standard test-Certification Letter OK) #NAME? #NAME? #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?Total sf ordered: Rolls not partially or entirely used in Phase 5 shaded HELP Model Calculations South Canyon Landfill Phase 6 Addition Curt Ahrendsen February 20,2016 purpose: Calculate the maximum amount of leachate generated form the construction of Phase O AJdition to veriff that the leachate head is a depth less than 12 inches. Calculations: The layers of the landfill are modeled as shown in Table 1' Table I - Summary of Landfill Condition Layers The HELp Model was set up as it was for the Phase 5 Addition. It uses three scenarios to model leachate generation in the landfill at three stages of development. Condition 1: Open condition with 10 feet of waste in the base of the landfill with 6 inches of daily cover over the entire 10 acre Phase 6 area. This is conservative since Phase 6 will probably not te opened all at once but may be constructed in 5 acre increments. The open condition is modeled for 5 years. Condition 2: Intermediate condition with 30 feet of waste in the base of the landfill with 6 inches of daily cover over the entire 10 acre Phase 6 area. The intermediate condition is modeled for 5 years. Condition 3: Closed condition with 50 feet of waste in the base of the landfill with an approved final cover over the entire 10-acre Phase 6 area. The closed condition is modeled for 30 years. Model Results Open Condition Layer No. Intermediate Condition Laver No. Closed Conditions Layer No. Layer Description HELP Model LaYer TYPe NA NA I 6" Vegqlalive Soil Layer Vertical Percolation LaYer NA NA 2 18" Compacted Barrier LaYer Barrier Soil Layer I I J 6" Dailv Cover Vertical Percolation Layer 2 2 4 MSW Vertical Percolation LaYer )J 5 l2" Drainage Layer Lateral Drainage LaYer 4 4 6 36" Compacted Clay Liner Barrier Soil Layer Scenario Average Head on the Liner (inches) Peak Daily Head on the Liner (inches) Average Annual Leachate Disposal (ft3) Ooen with 10 ft MSW 3.6 1.2 t4,059 lntermediate with 30 ft MSW 3.6 1.1 I 1,490 Closed with 50 ft of MSW 6.0 tt.7 108,889 The average annual and peak daily leachate head on the liner is all below 12 inches in depth' PRECIPITATION DATA EILE: TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: SOLAR RADIAT]ON DATA EILE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA : SOIL AND DESTGN DATA EILE: OUTPUT DATA EILE: HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDEILL PERFORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997 DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGTNEERING LABORATORY C: \HELP3\SCLFPRE. D4 C : \HELP3 \SCLFTEM. D7 C : \HELP3 \SCLFSOL . D1 3 C : \HELP3 \SCLFEVAP . D11 C : \HELP3\SCLFDESN. D10 C: \HELP3\SCLE 1.OUT TIME: L4: 1 DATE: 2/22/2076 TITLE: SOUTH CANYON LF _ PHASE 6 ADDITION - OPEN CONDITION NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY_STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM. LAYER TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERTAL TEXTURE NUMBER 11 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INTTTAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. 6. OO INCHES 0.4640 VOL/VOL 0.3100 voT,/vo], 0.1870 VOL/VOL 0.3385 VOL/VOL 0 . 639999998000E-04 CM/SEC 2 12O. OO INCHES 0.6710 VOL/VOL 0.2920 vollvo], o.017 0 vollvoI, 0.2852 VOL/VOL 0. 100000005000E-02 cMlsEC 3 1.2 . OO INCHES 0.4170 VOL/VOL 0.0450 voI,/vol, 0.0180 vo],/vor 0.0450 voI,/vo], o.999999978000E-02 15.00 PERCENT 950.0 EEET LAYER TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATTON LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 18 THICKNESS POROSITY EIELD CAPACITY WlLTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY V{ILTING POINT INTTIAL SOTL VfATER CONTENT EFEECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. SLOPE DRAINAGE LENGTH LAYER TYPE 2 - LATERAI, DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 1 CM/SEC LAYER TYPE 3 - BARRIER SO]L LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 76 THTCKNESS POROSlTY FIELD CAPACITY WILTlNG POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EEFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND SCS RUNOEE CURVE NUMBER FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFE AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE INITIAL SNOW WATER INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS : TOTAL INITIAL WATER TOTAL SUBSURFACE INE'LOW 87.00 95.0 PERCENT 1O. OOO ACRES 18.0 INCHES 4.179 INCHES 10.836 INCHES 2.046 ]NCHES O. OOO INCHES 52.761 INCHES 52.761 INCHES O. OO INCHES/YEAR 36.00 INCHES 0.4210 VOL/VOL 0.4180 VOL/VOL 0.3670 VOL/VOL 0.4210 VOL/VOL 0.100000001000E-06 CM/ SEC GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS USER_SPECIFIED. EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED EROM GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO STATION LATITUDE 39.07 DEGREES MAX]MUM LEAF AREA INDEX O. OO START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) 109 END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) 293 EVAPORATfVE ZONE DEPTH 18.0 INCHES AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED B.1O MPH AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER REIATfVE HUMTDITY 60. OO Z AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY 36.00 Z AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY 36.00 Z AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY 57.00 ? NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS EOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO 2 NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) JAN/JUL EEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 7.49 7.14 1.42 7.52 L.19 L.0"7 1.07 1.21 1. 9s 1. 85 r.34 1.28 NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USTNG COEFFIC]ENTS FOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES E'AHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL EEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 25.00 30.00 40.00 46.00 ss.00 64.00 70.00 69.00 60. O0 49. 00 36.00 25.00 NOTE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFEICIENTS FOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO AND STATION LATITUDE 39.07 DEGREES ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER 3 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOTL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE INCHES 15.55 0.053 15.184 0.0063 0.108043 0.0020 n 100 52 - 761 52.365 0.000 0.000 0.0000 CU. FEET 564465.062 7931 .41 4 55L769.125 221.033 3921, .961 1209.208 18 936s7 . 370 1 9008 66 .620 0.000 0.000 n ,20V.'JJ PERCENT 100. 00 0.34 9'7 .64 0.04 0.69 L. ZO 0.00 0.00 0.00 ANNUAL TOTALS EOR YEAR PRECIPITATlON RUNOEF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BA],ANCE INCHES 27 .39 0.830 t8 .97 2 L.L912 0.39s0s6 0.3750 -0.004 52.355 tr 1 .7E O 0.000 0 .602 0.0000 CU. FEET '71 6451 .062 30117.582 688699.375 43459.301 14340.530 -159 . 61 5 1900866.620 1878850.370 0.000 2l"856.506 -0.081 PERCENT 100.00 3.88 88.70 5. 60 1.85 -o .02 0.00 2 .81 0.00 *********r(*,k**rr***)k*****-k*****)k*r(****)k**:k*)k***********)k*)k******,(J<****rk**'<)k**'(*'< ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR PRECTPITATION RUNOE F EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 PERC./T,TAXACS THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL ViATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE INCHES l8 .29 0.785 16.788 0.3970 0 .451021 0 . L23l -o -132 s1.759 52 .229 0 .602 0. 000 0.0000 4 CU. FEET 663926 .937 28572.258 609472.625 74471 .641 t6312.211, -4-t87.BgL 1878850.370 1895925.000 21856.506 0.000 0.034 PERCENT 100.00 4 .29 97."79 2.17 2.41 -0.12 3 .29 0.00 0. 00 ***** ******** *r(*r.*** ** **** *r<** ** ANNUAL **i(**-k********)k* TOTALS EOR YEAR *********** 4 * * * *r( J<* ** * * ** * ** * * ** TNCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATTON DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW V{ATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL VIATER BUDGET BALANCE 1B.16 0.20L 17.301 0.0413 0.180053 0.0128 0.436 qu ,)q 57 .97 B 0.000 O.68B 0.0000 659208.000 1 303 .021 628027.750 ]-499 .690 6535.916 15840.854 189592s.000 1886191.l-20 0.000 24968."752 0.731 100.00 1.11 oq 27 i a') 0.99 2.40 0.00 3 .19 0.00 ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COILECTED FROM LAYER PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE aa - A L.692 20.L41 o .294'l o.339842 0.0918 0 .213 51. 978 51. 96i 0.588 0-919 0.0000 5 825462.725 61403 .101 731100.375 10699.25'7 12336 .280 9922 .23"7 188679-t.L20 1886166. s00 24958 .152 35521. s98 0.254 100.00 7 .44 88.57 1.30 t.49 I .20 3 .02 4.30 0.00 *rr****************************************)k**r.********)k**************)t**,(****** AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC PRECI PITATION TOTALS STD. DEVTATIONS RUNOFF TOTAIS STD. DEVIATIONS EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 0.203 0.000 n atra 0.000 1.01 0 .19 0.58 0.68 o 7a 1.54 0 .41 0 .46 1 1Ca. aJ 2.38 0.53 0.85 0. 000 0. 068 0.000 0.118 L .846 2.41L 0.505 0.879 0. 0033 0 . 0011 0. 0035 0.0025 0 .0421 0 .0721 0.0263 0.0205 2.50 2.'7t 0.75 1.55 )oq a )a L.41 0 .67 0.051 0.055 0 .012 o.122 o .92 1.13 0 .97 0.63 TOTALS 0 .637 1. 143 0.854 0.919 STD. DEVTATIONS 0.221 0.531 0.899 0.533 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM ],AYER 3 0.0318 0.0000 0.0532 0.0000 0.0043 0.0000 0.0058 0. 0000 4 0.0004 0.1795 0.0008 0.3034 0.0107 0.0511 0.0157 0.0463 1_ . 062 0.833 0. s00 0.357 0.0000 0.1431 0.0000 0.1501 0.0015 0.0649 0 .0024 0.0590 0.126 0.000 0.742 0.000 0.007 0.156 0.008 0.218 2.L61 1.814 0.503 0.854 0.0003 0.0235 0.0003 0.0524 0.0143 0.0178 0.0096 0.0285 0.014 0.033 0 .024 0.071 2 .469 7.402 1.234 0.498 TOTALS STD. DEVIATIONS PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER TOTALS STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0397 0.0013 0.054s 0.0012 0. 0307 0.0008 0.0332 0.0010 6 AVERAGES OE MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER AVERAGES 0.1L12 0.017 4 0.0L20 0.0000 0.0000 0.0043 srD. DEVTATTONS 0.1958 0.0236 0 .0729 0.0000 0.0000 0.0094 *******************************************,(*******l,r* 0. oo13 0.0014 0.0000 0.0866 0.6836 0.5212 0.0010 0.0029 0.0000 0.1931 1.1553 0.5s32 ** ** * * * **** ** **,(** Jr** ***** ,(** **** r(* *)k)k*** * * ** * **-k* **i( AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS )k****rr**)trr*)k**J<)krrrr**)k***)k'r**.,(**'(**)k***********'(**'r** & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 5 INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION RUNOEF EVAPOTRANSPIRATTON LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 19.23 ( 0.112 ( ]-7.671 ( 0.3873r_ ( 2.853) 0.6458 ) 1 0ro.7 \L. JL) t I 0 .48206) 691 903 .9 258s4.81 641681.81 14059.386 10701.391- 100.00 3.705 9L.944 2.01452 1. s33360.29480 ( 0.74531 ) LAYER 4 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 0.127 ( 0.151) OE LAYER 4 CHANGE ]N WATER STORAGE 0.154 ( O. 225L) 5505.15 O ' 803 ****r.**)k***)k*******)k********rk**)kr<**ik*********r()k)t)k)k**xr(***r(***.,(*'k*'(**'(********)k* * * * * * * * )k r< * * * )k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * )k *'r * * * )k * * * * *'( *.,( * * * PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS ** ***)k** ** **)k ****** **'(*'(* * ***** 1 THROUGH 5 ( INCHES )(cu. FT. ) PRECIPlTATION RUNOEF DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 4 MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 LOCATION OE MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER (DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) SNOW WATER MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) MINIMUM VEG. SolL WATER (VOL/VOL) L .69 0.320 0.03194 0.003746 3.649 7.158 FEET 6L341.004 tt67'7 .6465 1159. 49854 1-35 .98912 64118 .55 4-l 3832 1313 0.0 1.78 0. 0. *** Maximum heads are computed using McEnroe's equations. *** Reference:MaximumsaturatedDepthoverLandfillliner by Bruce M. McEnroe, University of Kansas ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering VoI. l7g, No. 2, March 1993, pp' 262-210' ,.*)k**********,(***********,(********************)k******************************* EINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 5 LAYER ( INCHES )(vol,/vol,) 1 2 3 I .10L4 34 .227 6 0.659s 75.3120 o .919 *******'k***)k **********r(* 0.2836 0.2852 0.0550 0 . 42-t04 SNOW WATER * * * * * * r< ** * * ** * * * * *r(* * J< ** * * * * * * * ******************************i( ****rr*r<**r<***)k *)k************ * )k r( r. * * r( * r( * * * * * *'( * ** * * ********************* 8 ************************************************************r(***************** *************J<**************************************************************** PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: TEMPERATURE DATA EILE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA EILE: EVAPOTRANSP]RATJON DATA : SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FIIE: OUTPUT DATA EI],E: HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PEREORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERTMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY C: \HELP3\SCLEPREl. D4 C : \HELP3 \SCLFTEM1 . D7 C: \HELP3 \SCLFSOLl . D13 C : \HELP3 \SCLFEVA1 . D11 C: \HELP3 \SCLEDES2 . D1O C:\HELP3\SCLE 2.OUT ************)k*r(*)k**********************************************:krk****)k**,(***** *************r(rr***)k******)k)k****)k*r(r(*********-k****)k******)k******)k*)k***,.**'r***** TIME: 13:30 DATE: 2/23/2076 **************r(**********************************************,k*)k***)k*****rk***'k TITLE: SOUTH CANYON LF - PHASE 6 ADDITION _ TNTERMEDIATE CONDITION *******r(***rr)k-k*****r(*******rr******)k**r(**rk**r(*r(****r(*r<*******,r**)k,r)k****)k*)k***'r* NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OE THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-S?ATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM. LAYER TYPE 1 _ VERTICAL PERCOLAT]ON LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 11 THICKNESS POROSITY FIEID CAPAC]TY WIITING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFEECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. 6. OO INCHES 0.4640 vol,/vol, 0.3100 vol,/voI, 0.1870 VOL/VOL o.3260 vol,/vol, 0.639999998000E-04 CMlSEC LAYER TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 18 THICKNESS POROSITY F]ELD CAPACITY WILTING POfNT INITTAL SOTL WATER CONTENT EFEECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. 360. OO INCHES 0.6710 VOL/VOL 0.2920 VOL/VOL o.017 0 vol,/vor o.2907 VOLIVOL 0. 100000005000E-02 cM/sEC LAYER TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 1 THICKNESS POROSlTY EIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT fNITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. SLOPE DRAINAGE LENGTH 12.00 INCHES 0.417C VOL/VOL 0.0450 vol,/vo], 0.0180 vo],/vo], c.0450 vol/vor 0.999999978000E-02 15.00 PERCENT 950.0 EEET 4 CMlSEC 36.00 INCHES 0.4210 VOL/VOL 0.4180 VOL/VOL 0.361 0 VOL/VOL 0.4270 VOLIVOL 0. 100000001000E-06 cM/sEC THICKNESS POROSITY ETELD CAPACITY WILTTNG POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. LAYER CONTENT COND. TYPE 3 _ BARRIER SOIL L]NER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 16 GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA NOTE: SCS RUNOEE CURVE NUMBER WAS SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFE AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH INITIAL WATER TN EVAPORATIVE ZONE UPPER LIMIT OE EVAPORATIVE STORAGE LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE ]NITIAL SNOW WATER TNITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS TOTAL INITIAL WATER TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW USER-SPECIFIED. 87.00 95.0 PERCENT 1O. OOO ACRES 18.0 INCHES 4.994 INCHES 10.836 ]NCHES 2.046 INCHES O. OOO INCHES I22.522 INCHES T22.522 INCHES O. OO INCHES/YEAR EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM GLENVIOOD SPRINGS COLORADO STATION LATITUDE 39.07 DEGREES MAXIMUM LEAF AREA TNDEX O.OO START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) 109 END OF GROW]NG SEASON (JULIAN DATE) 293 EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH 18.0 INCHES AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED 8.10 MPH AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUM]DITY 60. OO 9O AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATTVE HUMIDITY 36.00 Z AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDfTY 36.00 Z AVEBAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY 57.00 ? NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFEICIENTS FOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPTTATION (INCHES) JAN/JUL EEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 7.49 1.14 1.42 L.52 r.19 L.01 t.o1 1.27 1.95 1.85 1.34 L.28 NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 2s.oo 30.00 40.00 46.00 ss.00 54.00 70. 00 69.00 60.00 49. 00 36. 00 25 . 00 NOTE: SOLAR RADIATTON DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USfNG COEFEICIENTS EOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO AND STAT]ON LATITUDE 39.55 DEGREES *********************************** ANNUAL **** * ** ** *r( ** **** **** TOTALS EOR YEAR 1 ** ** * ** *)k ** ** r(* * * *)k **** INCHES PRECIPITATION 15 ' 55 RUNOFF 0.165 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 15.297 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 0.0119 PERC. /T,NAKAES THROUGH LAYER 4 O .228358 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE IAYER 4 O.OO58 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE _0.752 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR L22.522 SOIL WATER AT END OI' YEAR 722.369 SNOI,'T WATER AT START OF YEAR O. OOO SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR O. OOO ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE O. OOOO )k**)krr***r()k**)k*****)krk)k*,()k,(*J.'('(*****'r**"*'(*rk'(*'(****li('krk* CU. FEET PERCENT 564465 .062 5982.]-01 55501 2 .250 648.L'70 8289.388 -5521.032 444153'7 . OO0 4442010.000 0.000 0.000 0.164 **r(******Jrr(*Jrr(* 100.00 1,06 98.34 0.11 1 .41 -0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 )krk***)krr*r.** * * * * * * * * * * * * )k * * * * * * * * * r( * * * * * * * * r( * * * * * * * * * * rr )k )k r( * * * * *,( * * * * )k ANNUAL TOTALS EOR YEAR 2 * * * ** * r(** ** * r(*** * ** * ** INCHES a1 ?o 0 .829 18.883 L.2004 0.380031 0.3750 0.098 1)) "AO 17 6457 .062 30097.432 685448.125 43513.824 ]-37 95 .122 3542.209 4442010.000 100.00 J. UU 88 .28 5. 61 L.18 CU. EEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSP]RATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH T,AYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 4 CHANGE TN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OE YEAR 4 0.46 SOIL WATER AT END OI' YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE ,r * J< * r( * rr * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * )k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * )k * * * rk * * * * * * * * * * * * * *'< *'( * J' * ANNUAL TOTALS r2t.855 4423694.500 0.000 0.000 0.602 2L851 .210 0.0000 0.360 ** * * * ** r(**** ** r( * ** * * * *** * ** ** U. ) 0. 00 82 00 *********** )k*)k*********r(*****r(** *)k**)k ** * ***** ** ** FOR YEAR 3 PRECIPITATION RUNOEE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COILECTED FROM LAYER PERC. /T,NATAES THROUGH LAYER AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE *r(* *** * **** ** r(* * *** * *,(***)k ** * *** * *)k INCHES T O 'OLA . ' J 0 .115 16 . 810 N ZT ?'1 0 .448343 o.1282 -0.157 721 .865 722 - 3L0 0 .602 0.000 0.0000 ',( * * * ** * * )k r< * * r(* r(,(* * * CU. EEET PERCENT 663926.931 100.00 28L46.992 4.24 610216.000 91.91 1499'7 .069 2.26 1-6214.835 2.45 -0.86-5707.935 4423694 .500 4439844.000 2L851 .2"70 0.000 0.005 * * * * r( r( *,k * r( r( * * r( rr r< 3 .29 0. 00 0.00 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * )k * * * r( * * * * * * * * * * * * * )k * * * * * * * )k * ANNUAL TOTALS ** * Jr * * * * rr * * * * * * ** ** * * ** ** * ** 4 ********** FOR YEAR INCHES PREC]PITATION 18 ' 16 RUNOFE A.791 EVAPOTRANSPIRATfON L].284 DRAINAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER 3 0.0565 PERC./T,SAKAEU THROUGH LAYER 4 0.205292 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 4 O.O7'71 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.476 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 122.370 SOIL WATER AT END OE YEAR L22.038 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR O. OOO SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.688 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE O. OOOO ***rr-kr.r(**rrrr*r<)k*r(*)k*r(**,(,(********'k**'k***************./('(* UU.PERCENT 6s9208.000 7765.418 62-t 424 . 431 2051.905 1 452 .084 15113.964 4439844 .000 4429992.000 0.000 24966 . 01 B 0.118 **rk**r(*****r.* 100.00 1.09 95.18 0.31 1.13 2 .29 0.00 " '70J.IJ 0.00 *,k******r(*** :k*r(rr)k-/r**r(rk*)k****r.****)k**)k************r(*****J.****)k**)k****)t**)k**'(*lr'<**'(********** ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 5 INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPTTATION RUNOFF EVAPOTBANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COILECTED FROM LAYER 3 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 22.14 L.692 20.L05 0.3051 0.337168 0.0951 0.301 L22 .038 825462.L25 67421.756 129807.250 710'16.328 1 )r?o 1 aa L0924.0L6 4429992 .000 100.00 7 .44 88.41 7.34 1A9' 1 )) 6 SOIL WATER AT SNOI/{ WATER AT SNOW WATER AT ANNUAL WATER )k )k r( ** * r( )k ir * * )k* * * END OF YEAR START OE YEAR END OE YEAR BUDGET BALANCE * * * )k * )k * * * * rr * r( * r( * * * r( )k 122.049 0.588 0 .919 0.0000 )k * ** * r( * * *,k rr* ** * r( 4430361.000 24966 .01 8 35521.199 0.212 * * )k * rr r( *,k * * * * * * )k r( * * 3 .02 4.30 0.00 *,t)k*r(*r(*** ** * * r(** r(* *,k * *** *)k *)k** * * * * * * * * * r( * * * * * ik )k -k,k r< * * )k * * * * )k *,k * r< * * ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 6 ,r* * * * * * r(-k * *)k* ** r(* ** *,(ik * INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATfON RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COILECTED FROM LAYER PERC. /T,SAKACS THROUGH LAYER AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE ********* ***********rk* ** ************** * 3 L5 .64 0.346 16.324 0.0328 o.100129 0.0101 -1.163 L22 .049 721.864 0 .919 0.000 0.0000 *******)k**:kr( 56'7132.000 12541.851- 592559.181 tL92.796 3656.453 -42217.711 4430361.000 4423664 .500 35521.799 0.000 0.08s *************rr* 100.00 2.2L r04.31 o .27 0.54 -7 .44 6 .26 0.00 0.00 *********** 7 * r(* * * * * ** * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** J"r * * ** ** * * * )k * * * * rk * * * ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR ***************************** 1 INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECI PITATION RUNOEE EVAPOTRANSPTRATlON DRAINAGE COLLECTED I'ROM LAYER 3 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL VIATER BUDGET BALANCE * * * * * rr tk r< r( * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * J<'( * * * * * * * *'('( * ,( * * -k * * * * * * * * r( * * )k * * *,r,( * * )k * * * * * )k'( * )k )k * * -k * * * * ANNUAL TOTALS * r( )k r( )k * * * * * ir rk r( Jr )k r( *,r )k * * *'( * *'( * * * )k * -k * * * *'( * EOR YEAR B L1.6L 1.785 \4.354 0.0919 0.L88243 0.0286 1.191 1,21 .864 1a) 10) 0.000 o.163 0.0000 * r< * x r( * )k r( * rr r< * *,k * 639243.062 54190 .336 52].042.931 3336.03s 6833 .228 43240 .648 4423664.500 4439217.500 0.000 21 681 .518 -0.085 *)k*****r(*rkr(**** 100.00 10.14 8r_.51 0.52 1.07 6 .15 0.00 4 .33 0.00 ****rki(****r(* INCHES CU. EEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION RUNOFE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER PERC./T,EAXACU THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OT LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOII WATER AT START OF YEAR 15.70 0. 915 14.058 0.6406 a . 471 962 0.1998 _n "oT 722 .292 s69910.000 33276.324 5L0294.062 23255.352 17350.031 -L4205 .666 4439217.500 100.00 s.83 89 .54 4.08 3.04 -2.49 l 8 SO]L WATER AT SNOW WATER AT SNOW WATER AT ANNUAL WATER **)k***'r(**:k***** END OE YEAR START OE YEAR END OE YEAR BUDGET BALANCE )k * ** r( Jr * * r( ** * * * r( ** )k r( * * * )k * 120.121 0 .'7 63 7 .931 0.0000 *r(r<*r(*-k***** 4382394.500 21681.518 70304.516 -0.114 ** *** * r()k r( ** r(*,k,( ** * 4 .86 L2.34 0.00 ********r(* * ** **** ***** *** ** *****rk* **** ** ** ** r()krr* *** ** * ANNUAL TOTALS EOR ***'r(***)k****** YEAR 9 ** *rk* * r(* * *)k* * ** *** * ** INCHES CU. FEET 449394.000 41741.699 431344.406 18.648 1360.347 -3047 I .230 4382394.500 4393398.000 70304.516 28830.180 0.119 **)k****rr***rr** PERCENT 100.00 9.15 91.32 0.00 0.30 -6.18 15 .64 6.42 0.00 *i<r(********rr PRECIPITATION RUNOFE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL VIATER AT END OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE ******* r(******* **** * **** *:k ** ** *,r 1a ?oLL. )A 1.133 12 .048 3 0.0005 0.037475 0.0002 -0.839 120.72'/ 121.030 L .931 0 .194 0.0000 ** r( * * * * * * * * ** *,(* * )k./(-k * 9 *******************)k************** ANNUAL * * * rk * * * * * * * * * )k * * * * * * * :k * :k rk * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * )k * * * * TOTALS FOR YEAR 10 PRECI PITATION RUNOFE EVAPOTRANSPIRATlON DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER PERC. /T,EEKAEN THROUGH LAYER 4 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 CHANGE IN T,]ATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE * J. * )k * * * * * )k * * * * r( r( r( * * * r( r( r( * * * * * rr )k * * * * * * **rk rr)k * *,k r( * r( ** J.)k )k * r( * r< rk r( r( ,( )k * * * rk *,( AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN * * )k )k r(* * * * r( * r( )k * r( * )k r. )k INCHES EOR YEARS * ** *)k**)k ** Jr* ******* *)k,.*)k* 1 THROUGH 10 INCHES L5 .64 1.126 73.156 3 0 .4064 0 .423318 0.1213 -0.012 121.030 121.449 o .'7 94 0.304 0.0000 * * * r< r(* * rr )k )k * * * rr * >k r( * * * * CU. FEET 561732.O00 4089\.627 499337. S06 147 52 .226 15368.609 -2612.274 4393398.000 4408584.000 28830.180 11031.854 0.341 'rr*******)k*r(*** PERCENT 100.00 '7 .20 87.95 2.60 2.11 -0.46 5.08 L .94 0.00 ***r(*J.*****r( JAN/JUL E'EB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC PRECI PlTAT]ON TOTALS STD. DEVIATIONS RUNOEE 1. 0. 0. 0. 03 91 53 10 n 02 1.50 0 .64 0. 68 1 aa L.6l 0.59 1 aa 0.078 0.037 1.13 ) 1) 0.95 1.34 1.77 7 .99 L.24 1.10 0.037 0.130 L .26 1 .20 1.53 0.68 0.063 0.019 0.211 0.016 0 .2L0 0.003 0.010 0.082 TOTALS 10 STD. DEVIATIONS EVAPOTRANSPIRATION TOTALS STD. DEVIATIONS 0.296 0.051 a 114 0.005 0.241 0.086 I .9'7 5 1.705 0.686 7 .237 0.0388 0.0009 0.]-742 0 .0029 0.0436 0.0071 0.0312 0.0188 n n?? 0.170 1.719 1.511 0 .162 0.867 0 .0111 0.0158 0.0554 0.0339 0.0189 0.0157 0.0315 0.0239 0.054 A 1)') 2.091 t.234 1.066 0 .46L 0.0037 o.71,64 0.0117 0.2242 0.0137 0.0421 0.0281 0.0465 0 .146 0.050 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER TOTALS 0.0208 0.0107 0.0030 0.0000 STD. DEVIATIONS O.0421 0.0191 0.0095 0.0000 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.686 0.886 0.255 0.843 1.048 1. 151 0 .424 0.882 1.\92 0.694 1.040 i a)a 0.001s 0.0871 0.0047 0.L210 0.0061 0.0s45 0.0134 0.0558 TOTALS STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0337 0.0724 0.0441 0.0328 0.0333 0. 0010 0.0393 0.0013 AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 4 AVERAGES STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0765 0.0421 0. 1430 0 .061 4 0.0138 0. 0056 o .ott2 0,0000 0. 0036 0.058 4 0 .4432 0 .3209 0.1574 0 .0154 0.4201 0.2108 0.0432 0.0717 0.03s2 0.0000 o.ot72 0.1250 0.8535 0.4619 *******)kr(****i(******)k*r()k)k*)k***r()k**)k**)k*****r(*r(r<r(***)k*******)k*'(**'(************** 11 ********************************* VALUES EOR YEARS ,.* * ** ** **** ** *** ****** *** 1 THROUGH 10 **************r(****** PEAK DAILY ( TNCHES )(cu. ET. ) PRECIPITATION RUNOEF DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 4 MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OE IAYER 4 LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER (DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) SNOW WATER MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0. 0. 2. 1. ) '7. 0.0 ,a? 08 014 03160 003743 609 oB2 FEET 75504 36823 Ll47 135 .000 .0430 .01331 . 85 491 0. 0. 102364.5940 3833 1388 :k** Maximum heads are computed using McEnroe's equations. *** Reference: Maximum Saturated Depth over Landfill Liner by Bruce M. McEnroe, Universlty of Kansas ASCE Journaf of Environmental Engineering Vof. lL9, No. 2, March 7993, pp' 262-210' 'L*)k*****)k**r(*r.r(*********'(***./(********)t**********'r************i(l,(* FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 10 **r(**r(***ik LAYER ( INCHES ) L.4369 704.0829 0.5569 L5.3120 SNOW WATER 0.304 ******************************* * ***** ** ** ** ** ****** ** ** * *'< **)k* ( voL/voL ) 0.2395 0.289L 0.0464 0 .421 0 ***rr***:k****** ************** ******** ******** ********)k***)k* '****)kr(***)k**J'* ********* *****)k*** 13 ************)k***********************************************,1*********,.******)k ****************************************************************************** PRECIPITATION DATA EILE: TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: SOLAR RADTATION DATA FILE: EVAPOTRANS PIRATION DATA : SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: OUTPUT,DATA FILE: HYDROLOGIC EVALUAT]ON OE LANDFILL PERFORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY C: \HELP3\SCLFPRE2.D4 C: \HELP3 \SCLFTEM2 . D7 C: \HELP3\SCLFSOL2 . D13 C: \HELP3\SCLFEVA2 . D11 C: \HELP3\SCLFDES3 . D1O C:\HELP3\SCLE 3.OUT *************************************r(*********rr***Jrr(********************)k**)k* *********************************************************r(**-r***************** TIME: 75:28 DATE: 2/22/20L6 *******rk*****r.******rr*****r(*rk************r()k***-k****rkr(**)k*****Jr*,r*'(****'(*rk**)k*rk TITLE: SOUTH CANYON IF - PHASE 6 ADDITION - CLOSED CONDITION * * * * * * * ** ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ** * * )k * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * )k * * * * * )k * * * " * * * * * /r NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OE THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM. LAYER TYPE 1 _ VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THTCKNESS POROSITY FIEI,D CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOlL WATER CONTENT EEFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. THICKNESS POROSlTY FIELD CAPACITY WI],TING PO]NT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTTVE SAT. HYD. COND. LAYER TYPE 3 . BARRIER SOIL LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER O 6. OO INCHES 0.5010 vollvoI, 0.2840 voI,/vo1, 0.1350 VOLIVOL 0.2895 vOL/vOL 0. 190000006000E-03 cMlsEC 2 18.00 INCHES 0.4640 VOL/VOL 0.3100 vo],/voI, 0.1870 voT,/vol 0.4640 VOLIVOL 0.989999990000E-05 CMlSEC LAYER 3 TYPE 1 _ VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS POROSITY EIELD CAPACITY WI],TING POINT TNITIAL SOIL WATER EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD CONTENT COND. 6. OO TNCHES 0.5010 vol,/vol, 0.2840 VOL/VOL 0.1350 vollvol 0.3240 VOLIVOL o. 190000006000E-03 cMlsEC 4LAYER TYPE 1 _ VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 18 THlCKNESS POROSITY EIELD CAPACITY WILTfNG POINT INITfAL SOfL WATER CONTENT EFFECTfVE SAT. HYD. COND. 600. OO ]NCHES 0.6710 VOL/VOL 0.2920 VOL/VOL 0.01'10 vol,/vo], o.2921 VOL/VOL 0.100000005000E-02 CMlSEC LAYER TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATER]AL TEXTURE NUMBER 1 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WTLTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EEFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. SLOPE DRAfNAGE LENGTH LAYER 6 TYPE 3 - BARRIER MATERIAL TEXTURE THlCKNESS POROSfTY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITlAL SOI], WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND 12.OO INCHES a.411 0 VOL/VOL 0.0450 voI,/vo], 0.0180 vollvo], 0.0121 VOL/VO], o . 999999978000E-02 CMlSEC 15.00 PERCENT 950.0 FEET SOIL LINER NUMBER 16 36.00 INCHES 0.427 0 VOL/VOL 0.4180 VOL/VOL 0.3670 VOL/VOL 0.4210 VOLIVOL 0.100000001000E-06 CMlSEC 2 GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA NoTE:SCSRUNOFFCURVENUMBERWASUSER-SPECIFIED. SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF AREA PROJECTED ON HOR]ZONTAL PLANE EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE INITIAL SNOW WATER INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = TOTAL INITIAL WATER TOTAL SUBSUREACE INFLOW EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA NOTE:EVAPOTRANSPIRATIONDATAWASOBTAINEDFROM GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO STATION LATITUDE MAXIMUM LEAE AREA INDEX START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) END OE GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH AVERAGE ANNUAL WTND SPEED AVEBAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDTTY 87.00 95.0 PERCENT 1O. OOO ACRES 6.0 INCHES 1.73'I INCHES 3.005 INCHES O. B1O INCHES O. OOO INCHES 2O3.5OB INCHES 203.508 INCHES O. OO INCHES/YEAR 39.01 DEGREES 0.00 109 293 6. O INCHES 8.10 MPH 60.00 z 36.00 z 36.00 z 57.00 % NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATfON (INCHES) JAN/JUL EEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC L.49 1.07 NOTE: 7.14 t.21 7 .42 1.95 L .52 1.85 7 .19 L.34 1.07 t.28 TEMPERATURE DATA WAS COEFEICIENTS FOR SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USfNG GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 25.00 70.00 NOTE: 30.00 69.00 40.00 60.00 46.00 49.00 55.00 36.00 64.00 25.00 SOLAR BADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETfCALLY GENERATED US]NG COEEFICIENTS FOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO AND STATION LATITUDE 39.07 DEGREES *************r.******)k***********************)k********************************** ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1 lNCHES (-tJ .. r [I! r PERCENT PRECIPITATlON RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER 5 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE * rr :k r( * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *'( * * * )k * * * * * * ANNUAL TOTALS 15.55 0.041 \2.468 3 .0406L4 0 . 0141 2 .25L4 0.716810 0.1022 0.073 203.508 203.581 0.000 0.000 0.0000 **r(****r(r(*)k*** FOR YEAR 2 2660.901 7387336.500 7389997.500 0.000 0.000 0.084 0.41 * * r( rk )k * * * * * r( * * )k,r * *'k )k * * * * * 564465.062 7413.54L 452586.279 11037 4.273 81124.086 26020.186 100.00 0 .26 80.18 10 qq 14 .48 4 .61 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF INCHES CU. FEET '71 6457 .052 33480.539 PERCENT 100.00 4.31 2l .39 0 .922 4 2L4L .155 0 .28 7389997.500 7310282.500 ************)k,(**]k******,()k**********,(******-k*********:k.,(**j(****:k******** ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 3 0.00 a 01 0.00 ********* INCHES CU. FEET DE.D-trI\I.T EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 2 DBAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC. /T,TAXACT THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOII, WATER AT END OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE PREC]PITAT]ON RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATlON PERC./T,EAXAET THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER 5 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SO]L WATER AT START OE YEAR SOI], WATER AT END OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR t6 .332 4 .064619 0.0438 2.98'71 1.089089 0. 9370 0.059 203.581 203.038 0.000 0 .602 0.0000 592869 .125 16.36 1,41545 .672 19.00 108431.445 13.96 39s33. 937 s.09 0.000 218s6.506 0.225 t8 .29 1.011 14 .439 3 .2921 56 0 . 0269 a 22 4tr, 1.153403 0.1281 -0 .649 203.038 202.992 0 .602 0.000 663926 .937 36105 .127 5241"53.125 719521.031 841 40.541 41868.531 -23540.896 737 0282 .500 7368598.000 21856 .506 0.000 100.00 c q? 78.95 18.00 76 31 _? qq 72 6 3 0 29 00 ANNUAL WATER *************** BUDGET BALANCE ****r(************ ANNUAL 0.0000 *************************** TOTALS EOR YEAR 4 -0.061 0.00 ******************** INCHES CU. EEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION RUNOEF EVAPOTRANSPIRATlON PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER PERC./IEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 CHANGE fN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOTL WATER AT END OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOVI WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE **r()k*** ** ***r(*)k**** r(*r(** * * ** ** *** ANNUAL )k * * * * r( r( * * )k * * * * * r( r( * rr * * )k r( * * TOTALS EOR YEAR 5 18.16 n r)1 t5 .236 I .223969 0.0034 0.'7881 0 .161365 0 .2448 I . L4'7 202 .992 203 - 451 0.000 0.588 0.0000 65 92 0B . 000 8237.100 553068.687 44430,086 28628.L31 21631.54L 41636.531 7368598.000 '7385266.000 0.000 24968.152 100.00 1 OtrL. LJ 83. 90 6.'74 A?A 4.19 0.019 ***)k***r.*)k* A?) 0.00 3.79 0.00 )k**rr)k***** INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECTPITATION RUNOEE EVAPOTRANSPlRATION PERC. /I,EAXAEU THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 a 1-c Ll.715 4 . 01 4824 0.0451 2.6268 t .217291 825462.725 18961 .158 623443.625 747 9]-6 .709 95351.609 43970.086 100.00 o tr? ? E. E.2 11 0' 5511 5 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOI], WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR 0.8226 -0 .448 203.457 202.112 0.688 o.979 -76217. 1 385266 . 1 358442 . , AqG9, 35527. -l .9'7 1^, 4.30 0.00 **r(rk******* 135 000 000 '7 52 598 799ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE O ' OOOO O ' ****,(**,(***************Jr***,r*************************,<****)k**)k* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 6 lNCHES CU. FEET PERCENT ) PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC. /T,SEKAET THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC. /T,EEXACT THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF I,AYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 1tr cArJ. UA 0.345 1A 12) 1.804116 0.0089 7 .0266 0 .920285 0.3187 -a .11 5 202.112 202.9L5 0 .919 0.000 0.0000 561732.O00 12563.276 5L2643.O62 65489 .406 3'7 266 .319 33406.348 -28147 .053 73584 42.000 7365816.500 35521.598 0.000 0.o22 100.00 ,21 90.30 11.54 6.s6 5.88 -4.96 6.26 0.00 0.00 rk * rk r( * * r( * rk,! * * *,. * *'( *./(''r( )k * *.,< ** * * * -k * * * * i( rr * rr'/r * )k,('('r * * :k *'( * * * * ,. * * ANNUAL TOTALS EOR YEAR 7 * * ** *** * ** rrr(** )k*)k* *** *./r PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPfRATION PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER 5 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OE YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE INCHES 71 .61 11.563 3 . L45929 0.0397 '1 E,OQ 1L. J )V L 0 .9'7 9ll1 0.4953 L .276 2A2 .915 203.369 0.000 o ."7 63 0.0000 CU. EEET PERCENT 639243.O62 87'7 95 .219 419139 .1,25 tT4l91 .21"1 58010.656 35541.965 44755 .951 1365816.500 1382285.000 0.000 21681 -518 0.1s6 100.00 12. B0 65 .66 L't.86 6 .9L 0.00 4.33 0.00 ***:k****:kr(rr*:k 9 .07 5.56 ********r<rk*r(***)kr(Jr,r***'r'(*,.**'(*****'('(*'r'<*,.'(;k)kir****)k)k********'<**'(*** ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 8 PREClPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATTON PERC. /T,TAXAES THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC./T,EAKAEE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 INCHES 15.70 1.095 10.348 3.548851 0.0170 2 .9124 L .21 6390 0. 9104 CU. FEET 569910.000 391 48 .7 23 37 5648 .187 L28823.289 105718.328 46332.941 PERCENT 100.00 6.91 65.91 22.60 18.55 8.13 CLANGE ]N WATER STORAGE SOIL VIATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.068 203.369 202.262 0.763 L .931 0.0000 2461.748 7382285.000 1342128.000 2'7 68'l .578 7 0305 . 492 0.43 4 .86 72.34 0.00 ****)k:k***** 0.061 ******* * * * )k * * * * * r( * * *'( * * * * * * * * :k *'('r * * )k'( * * rk * * * * * * * * * * )k * * * * *'r * *'r * * * Jr * * * * ANNUAI TOTALS EOR YEAR 9 PERCENT PRECIPITATION RUNOEF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER 5 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SO]L WATER AT START OF' YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE INCHES t2 .38 L.566 9 .156 L.806221 0.0098 1.1556 0.815954 0.3603 _n a1 a 202 .262 202.49L L .931 0.194 0.0000 449394.000 56832.020 354158.781 6s56s.828 47941 .941. 296L9.504 -33L64 .684 1342128.000 73s0438.500 1 0305 . 492 28830.180 0 .444 100.00 L2 .6s 78.81 14.59 o ?? 5 .59 -7.38 15 .64 6.42 0. 00 9 ******************************************************************************* ANNUAL TOTA],S EOR YEAR 10 INCHES CU. FEET PRECIPITATION 75.64 561132.000 RUNOFF L.252 45439 -984 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 12.209 443183.094 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 2.198430 101583.023 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE TAYER 2 O.OTB2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER 5 1.7303 628T0.234 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 0.981846 35641..023 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 0.542'I CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.533 _79342.584 SOIL WATER AT START OE YEAR 202.491 7350438.500 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 202.449 1348894.500 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.194 28B3O.1BO SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR 0.304 11031.854 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE O.OOOO 0.234 *******)k************r()k****rk****r(r(********)k)k*r(**:k*******)k***rr******* ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 11 PERCENT 100.00 8.00 78.06 17.89 11.06 6.28 -3 . 41, 5.08 L .94 0.00 ******rk***r.* INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION RUNOEF EVAPOTRANSPIRATlON PERC. /T,SAKACS THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLT,ECTED EROM LAYER 5 PERC. /T,NAXACE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 18.15 I .201 1a a A^ 2.453891 0.0085 1,.4450 0.897535 0.4543 658845.125 43591.258 4981 44.281 8901 6 . 453 52454.883 32580.520 100.00 6 .62 15.70 L3.52 1 .96 4 .95 10 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL V{ATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE ***********,(*** ** *** **** *'(** ** *'(* ANNUAL 0.867 202.449 203 . Oll 0.304 0. 603 0.0000 *******r(* EOR YEAR 3747 4.566 7348894.500 7369506.000 11031.854 2L894 .9L4 -0.368 *r( *r< r(** * * ** )k * * * -k* ** ** l2 4.78 1.61 0.00 *************r(r()k TOTALS INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC./T,UEKACN THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC./T,TETAET THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OE YEAR SOfL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOVI WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE t'7 .22 1 011 t3 .288 2.146162 0.0186 1.5624 1.078411 0 .4846 -0.585 203 .011 202 .827 0. 603 0 .2t3 0.0000 625086.r25 68149.547 482357.625 99685.687 56176.361 39]-46.328 -2\284.504 7369506.000 7362391.000 21894.9r4 1725.780 0.753 100.00 10.90 77 .71 15.95 9 .01 6.26 -3.41 3.50 't ,a 0.00 11 *************************************** ANNUAL TOTALS **)k******* FOR YEAR **************** 13 ************** PRECIPITATION RUNOFE EVAPOTRANSPlRATION PERC./T,SEKACN THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRA]NAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER PERC. /T,SAKACC THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIT WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE * * * * * * r< * * * r. * )k )k * * * * * * )k'( * )k *'( )k * * )k'('( ANNUAL TNCHES 1'1 ) 1, \.136 t2 .7 52 2.259961 0.0141 L.JJJJ o .909329 0.4958 a 2?7 202 . B2t 203 .2'7 0 0 .273 0.000 0.0000 ***r(*r(**,k***** EOR YEAR 1.4 CU. FEET PERCENT 625449.062 63027.898 462898 .625 82036 .197 57 929 . 470 33008.656 8s90.877 1362391.000 7378'7 07.000 17 25 .1,80 0.000 -0 .426 *)k*:kr(********)k 100.00 10.08 14.0r 73.72 9 .26 5.28 1.3'7 \.24 0.00 0.00 ***r(********:k)k*)k*** TOTALS PRECIPTTATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC./T,UAXACB THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 6 INCHES L2.61 0.814 10.183 1- .992512 0.0111 L . L469 0 .846459 0.3s7s CU. FEET PERCENT 4571 43.062 29546.662 369659 .469 '72330.352 47632.246 307 26 . 463 100.00 6.45 80.76 15. B0 9.10 6.11, 12 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -O ' 381 -L3822 '054 _3.02 SOIL WATER AT START OE YEAR 203'210 1378707'OOO SOIL WATER AT END OE YEAR 202 '818 1364481 'OOO SNOW VIATER AT START OE YEAR O. OOO O ' OOO O ' OO SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.011 398'058 O'09 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE O'OOOO 0'210 O'OO ***j(,(******************)k*)k********,k*********,(****J<)k)k*,(,(**)k,()kJ<**,()k****)k**,k****** ANNUAL TOTALS EOR YEAR 15 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPlRATION PERC./T,CAKAEN THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COILECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC./T,SAKACN THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OE YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE INCHES t4 .04 \.489 10.349 2 .19t581 0 . 0113 1.2835 0.965011 0.4000 -0 .041 202 .8-l I 202.11-5 0. 011 0.121 0.0000 CU. FEET PERCENT 509652.062 54055.676 315666.594 '7 9554 .611 46590.918 35029.902 -1691.993 7364487.000 7358569.500 398.058 4623.819 0.916 100.00 10.61 73.'lL 15.61 o 11 6.8'7 -0.33 0.08 0.91 0.00 13 *****r(*****)k**** TOTALS FOR YEAR ********* t6 ********************* ***** ** ************ * ** ***)k *'r* * *'(* ANNUAL -fI LTE'ET TFuv. s76081.000 100.00 11067.633 2.96 41L44I.931 81.84 714951.711 19. 95 PERCENT PRECI PITATION RUNOFE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC. /T,TEXAES THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM I,AYER 5 PERC./T,UAXAEN THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OE YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE PRECIPITATION RUNOEE EVAPOTRANSPlRATlON PERC./T,EAXAES THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER 5 PERC./ITAXACS THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 INCHES 1 tr O''1 0.470 12 .981 3.1661L4 0 .025'7 7 .9881 I .04241 6 0 .6212 -0.619 aAa ?1tr,LWL. I LJ 202.224 0.121 0.000 0.0000 14.L6 0.501 LO .281 1.668080 0 .0]_41 7 . O9L2 0.588597 0.3388 '72788.906 37841.891 72 .53 6 .51 -2)a\R ?13 -3.90 7358569.500 1340'7 34.500 4623.819 0.80 0.000 0.00 -0.614 0.00 ****)k * * * * *-k )k * *./('('( * * * *)k* * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * )k * * * * * * * * * * *'( * * * * *'k'( * * *'( * * * * * )k * )k * * *'('( * )k ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR I7 INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT 514007.969 2L820 .514 373408.500 60551 .372 39609 .61 6 21369.77]- 100.00 4.25 '72.65 11.78 7.11, 4.16 14 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOV{ WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BAIANCE * ********J.)k *** * *)k)kr(*****)krr* ***** ANNUAL )k*r(**)lr* TOTALS L .592 202 .224 202.180 0.000 1.037 0.0000 * * * -k rr rr * * * rr * * r< * rr FOR YEAR 18 511 99 .301 13401 34.500 7360898.500 0.000 31635 .344 0.191 )k )k *,k *rk * -k r( * * ;k )k * * LL .24 0. 00 114I . J- 0.00 *)k**)k***Jr* PRECf PITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC./T,UAKAEN THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF IAYER 2 DRA]NAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SO]L WATER AT END OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE INCHES 13. 99 1.988 11.148 2.2]-8409 0. 0143 1.1536 o . 940'7 2l 0.3578 -t .240 202.180 202.471 1.037 0. 165 0. 0000 arl ErLrEr.T'9V. 507837.031 12163.203 404664 .594 80528.242 4187 4 .5L2 34148.180 -45013.320 13608 98.500 7347511.000 31635 .344 6009 .644 -0.151 PERCENT 100.00 74.27 19.68 15.86 -8.86 1 .47 1.18 0.00 B .25 6.12 15 **************rc***************r(r(************)k*********rr******rk******J<*J')k******* ANNUAL TOTALS EOR YEAR 19 INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPTTATTON 15.42 5597 46 '062 100 ' 00 RUNOFE 7'2-16 46326',602 B'28 EVAPOTRANSPTRATION 11 ' 10 9 403255 ' 594 12 '04 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 2.16L454 LOOZAO ' 789 L] '97 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 0.0232 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 1.9093 69301 '203 L2 '38 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 I.1OOO54 39931 ' 955 1 'I3 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 0.5916 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.025 924 'OO2 O ' 17 SolLWATERATSTARToFYEAR2o2.4Ll7347511.000 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 202.602 1354444'500 SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR 0.166 6009'644 L'O'I SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR O.OOO O'OOO O'OO ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE O.OOOO 0'666 O'OO *** rr* r(* ** *r(r(* ** r<* *rk *)k* ** * r(*)k r(r< )k* r<* **rk)r( * ** *)k .,(* Jk* * *)k * * * '(.i()k-k * * * * )k* * ** * * ** * * * * )k* * * * ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 20 INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECI PITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC./ITATAEN THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC./],EAXEEE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 7-7 .65 0.589 1,2.823 3.982382 o.0234 1.5975 0.812910 0 .4945 640695.000 21382 .88l- 465418 .469 144560.453 57990.918 31688.818 100.00 3 .34 12.65 22 .56 9.05 i4 Otr t6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OE YEAR SO]L WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOVI WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 1.16'l 202 .602 204.369 0.000 0.000 0.0000 64L54.223 1354444.500 1 4185 98 .500 0.000 0.000 -0.320 10.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 ****r(** ************,r,r**********-k******)k***,(>k*,(*,(*****)k********,(*,(*)k,(********,(** ANNUAL TOTAIS EOR YEAR 2I PRECIPITATION RUNOEF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC./T,SAKAEC THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER 5 PERC./T,SEKAEN THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OE YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE INCHES 1) )0 1.848 7.221 3.571517 o .0417 3.1968 0.794923 n qqqt -0.11'l 204.369 203.105 0.000 0.488 0.0000 CU. FEET PERCENT 446727.O00 6708 9 . 508 262328 .469 129646.O78 116042 288s5 .750 .699 -28189.01-0 1 4L85 98 .500 1372'708.500 0.000 7'7107.7]-L -0 .428 100.00 15.04 58.80 29.06 26 .07 6 .41 -6.32 0.00 3 .9't 0.00 t7 *** **** ** ** ** **** *** **** ** *******)k ** *** ANNUAL TOTALS ** ** * * * * ** * * * * ** * * r( * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * EOR YEAR 22 TNCHES t8.11 0 .646 14.109 3 . 9804 94 0.0230 3.1068 1 102?O?L. lUJ I JJ 0 .9681 -o .27 5 203.10s 202 .8L4 0.488 0.504 0.0000 68135L.t25 23452.715 5t2140.031 744491 .922 11,21'75.820 429'7]- . 687 _ooQo qa2 13127 08.500 7362138. s00 7"77 0l . LLL 18281.488 0.489 ***** r(* * *,k* r(* r< ** * a') 100.00 3.44 15.71 27.21 16.55 6.31 -t Lt 2.60 2.68 0.00 *****rk*/r**** CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITAT]ON RUNOEF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC. /T,NATAES THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC. /T,SAKAEU THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE *************)k***,(****)k****,(*******)k***)k*j(,.***,r**,< ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR PRECIPlTATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATlON PERC. /T,NAXACU THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC./T,EAXAES THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 6 INCHES aa 1A 3.510 15.052 3. 935100 0.0346 3.1350 7.017251 0 .91 99 CU. EEET 825462.062 121471.971 546402.1.25 142844.]-09 L131 99 .359 39]-04.223 PERCENT 100.00 1q AA 66 .79 17.30 12 ?O 4.7 4 18 CFANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.035 -1267'433 SOII, WATER AT START OF YEAR 202.81-4 1362L38'5OO SOII WATER AT END OF YEAR 203.283 1379158'500 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.504 18281 ' 488 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR O.OOO O'OOO ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE O.OOOO _0'203 **************,(********,(****.,<**,<****)k****]k**.,r*************,(****,.*)k**** ANNUAL TOTALS EOR YEAR 24 -0.15 ) )1 0.00 0.00 ******)k** INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATlON RUNOTF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 15.85 0 .923 7L.726 3.314843 0 .021 4 2 )\1 q 1.068793 0 .1020 0.490 203 .283 203 .21 0 0.000 0. s03 0.0000 5157l.8.062 33494.504 403888.156 t20328.789 BLl 42 .930 3819'7 .L'|2 177 95 . 330 73791s8. s00 7378705.500 0.000 18248 .4]-6 -0.026 100.00 s.82 70.15 20 .90 74 .20 6.7 4 ? no 0.00 3 .77 0.00 t9 *** **** ********** rr****** ** ** **** ANNUAI ,(* *)k ******* ** ** ** * *** TOTAI,S FOR YEAR 25 * *-k* *** * * ** * *rk* *)k** **** * * * INCHES CU. EEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION RUNOEE EVAPOTRANSPlRATION PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OE YEAR SOII, WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE ********************************* ANNUAL 23.L5 2.639 76.484 4 . 4137 5l 0.0350 1 124n,J. JJLV 7.2115L8 1.0398 -0.583 203 .27 0 202 .287 0.503 0.909 0.0000 * * * )k* )k * * * * * * * * * * * )k )k )k * -k TOTALS FOR YEAR 26 840345.725 95809.L]2 598370.062 \60279.L12 120952.180 46373.910 100.00 11.40 7L.27 79 .01 74 .39 tr tra a tra 2.1'7 2 0? 0.00 ,k**)k**** * -27160. 1318105. 13421 93. L8248. 33000. 0. **)k***:k* 662 s00 000 4L6 582 NE A **)k**** INCHES 77 .48 0.813 73.291 3. 910788 o .0229 2.6930 1.184101 0.8413 634524.OO0 29502.162 482463.725 741961.609 9-1151 .5l.6 42982.852 100.00 4 .65 16.04 22.31 15.41 6.11 CU. FEET PERCENT PRECI PITATION RUNOFE EVAPOTRANSP]RATION PERC./T,UAXAEE THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE IAYER 2 DRA]NAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 6 20 CHANGE fN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE -0.501 202.28t 202.689 0.909 0.000 0.0000 -18181.699 13421 93.000 7357611.500 33000.582 0.000 0.017 *****)k***)k***** -) R1 5 .20 0.00 0.00 **)kr(rr****Jr * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * rk )k * * * *)k * * Jr * '(* 'r* Jr * * * '( * * ./( * '< * * * * * * * * Jr )k* * )k ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 21 PRECI PITATION RUNOFE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC. /INAXACU THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED EROM LAYER 5 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OP YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OE YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE INCHES 16.11 n 17) 1a oroLL. VLJ 3 .482840 0 . 0197 2 .01 09 1.714912 0 .641,9 -0.011 202 - 589 202.612 0.000 0.000 0.0000 CU. FEET 584793.000 6259.208 465695.500 L26427 .094 75173.000 40473.500 -2808.243 7357611.500 7354803.500 0.000 0.000 0.06s PERCENT 100.00 1.07 19 .63 21,.62 72.85 b. YZ -0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 ******* ******** ***)k **,(** **'('(**** ANNUAL ****r<********)k**** TOTALS FOR YEAR * * r. * * *r( rr ** * * * * ** * * ** * * * *** * ** 28 TNCHES CU. EEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION L4.12 53433 6.125 lOO ' OO RUNOEE 1.288 46'711'978 8 ' 75 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 10.899 3 95641 .062 1 4 '04 PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 7. 4 69358 53331 .699 9 ' 98 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 2 O.OO41 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 1.1'I]8 42535.859 1 '96 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 0.803372 29762.4:.0 5'46 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 5 0.3664 CHANGE fN WATER STORAGE 0.557 20218 .566 3 ' 78 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 202.612 7354803.500 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 2O2.BIB 1362283.000 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR O.OOO O.OOO O'OO SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.351 72738.782 2'38 ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE O. OOOO 0.290 O ' OO ,( * r( * * r.* )k * * r. * )k * r< * r( * * * * r( * * * * )k rk * -k rr * * r( *,k r( * * * )k r( * )k * * * )k * * * )k r( )k * *,( )k 'r * 'r )k )k '( * * * * * '( )k * * * * * * *'k ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 29 INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATTON RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 20 .60 1.104 \4 .044 3.189182 0.0362 2 .5L9'l 0 .98 4254 0.7850 7 4711 9 .937 61850 .207 509-180.279 137569.078 v-465 .411 357 28 . 422 100.00 a)7 68 .11 18.40 t2 .23 4.18 22 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OE YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE *** ** ** **** *********** *)k ** ** ** ** ANNUAL L .349 202 .878 203.746 0.351 7 .371 0.0000 ** * * * * r( r(* * * * * * * ** rr* TOTALS FOR YEAR 48955.805 1362283.000 731 4204.000 12138.182 491'7 3 . 680 -0.188 *rr * * ** ** ***)k* **,k* *'( * 30 6.55 L.70 6 .66 0. 00 ,(,k-k*)k rr** PRECTPITATION RUNOEE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION PERC. /T,TAXAEN THROUGH LAYER 2 AVG, HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COT,LECTED EROM LAYER 5 PERC./T,NEXECC THROUGH LAYER 6 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 5 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE INCHES L9 -54 1.693 1,5 .362 3.880704 0.0146 1.7358 0.966390 0.5407 -0 .2L7 203.146 20 4 .300 7 .311 0.000 0.0000 CU. FEET 1 09302 .062 61439 .166 5s7 6s0 . 250 l-40869.54't 53010.523 35079. 96s -1878.243 731 4204.OOO 1 4L60 99.500 49773.680 0.000 -0.22L PERCENT 100.00 8.66 78.62 19.86 8.88 4 .95 -1. 11 1 .02 0.00 0.00 23 ****r<*** * ** * * **** ** **r.**)k*,(* * * *'( AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES ************r( IN fNCHES FOR YEARS ** ** ** * ** ***r(** ** ****** ***** 1 THROUGH 30 JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC PRECIPTTATION TOTALS STD. DEVTATIONS RUNOEF TOTALS STD. DEVIATIONS EVAPOTRANSPIRATlON TOTALS STD. DEVIATIONS 7.34 o .99 0 .62 0 .'14 7 .01 t .28 0.68 0 .62 0 .499 0.002 0.581 0.008 1.36 L.64 n ?tr 1 a) 0. 165 0.069 0.372 0.150 L.618 1.316 0.730 0. 950 1. 68 2.76 0.75 7.43 0.011 n 1aEV.IZJ 0 .023 0.339 1.66 L.14 L.34 1.04 0.061 0.082 0.115 o .28L 1.01 1.10 1 n E 0 .62 0.700 0 .647 0.179 0.311 0. 0. 0. 0. 7'7 4 0t'7 zt3 049 0 .611 0 .194 0.213 0.691 0.031 0.036 0 .723 0.083 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 0.845 1.015 c .325 0.659 Z I .317 1, .202 0.720 0.639 0. r_409 0 .7 082 o.2468 0.8513 0.L277 0.L929 0.7283 0.2038 0.0761 0.0832 0.0375 0.0385 1.469 1.043 0.993 0.552 0.319s 0 .4206 0 .4062 0.5319 0.1087 0.3295 0.1063 0 .2695 0.0'126 0.0941 0.0418 0.0301- TOTALS STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0908 0 .01 44 0.0344 0.0449 0.0686 0.0839 0.0378 0 . 0297 0.1117 0.1013 0 .2221 0 .2225 0.1s35 0 .377 3 0. 1630 0 .21 B0 0 .0'7 32 0.1057 0.0436 0.0173 0.0496 0.1"207 o.1464 0.2285 0 .1,996 0 .2071 0.2234 0.2043 o.2442 o.3823 0 . 3118 0.4751- 0 .7326 0.1057 0. 1023 0 .091 6 0.0869 0 .011 4 0.0358 0.0386 LATERAL DRA]NAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 TOTALS STD. DEVIATIONS o . )-'7 3'7 0.1094 0 .111 6 0 .11,23 0.0802 0.0949 0.0860 0.0866 6PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER TOTALS STD. DEVIATIONS 24 AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER AVERAGES O. OO39 0.0099 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0173 0.0262 DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER AVERAGES 0.6400 0 .4029 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.6546 0.4136 * * r( )k * * * * * * * r( )k * * * r( r( * r( * )k * r( * * * * * *'< * )k )k * o.3247 0.488'7 0.4634 0.4006 0.5844 0.3495 0.4025 0.7109 7.2546 1.3901 o.3416 0.3171 0.4884 0.3911 0-6208 0.3193 0.31L6 0.7510 7.0262 L.0243 * *,k r( ik -k * * rk * rr * )k * rr * * * * * * * *,( * * * Jr * *'r * *'r * * " * * * * * * * 0.01s6 0.0089 0 .0252 o.0126 o 0 .01-41 0.0410 0.0248 0 .0652 0.0092 0.0766 0 .0202 0.1375 0.0299 0.0407 0.0s16 0.0787 0.0089 0.0037 0 .021 3 0.0093 * * r( rr** r( ** * * ** *rk ** * * * ** * * * * * * AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & * * * * * * )k -k * :k * rk * * * * * * * * * * * *,( )k,( * * * * * * )k * * )k * * * * * )k * * * * * * * * (STD. DEVIATIONS) EOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 30 INCHES CU. EEET PERCENT 100.00 1.413 1 4 .944 77.62705 11. 63088 5 .19641 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATlON PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERCOLAT ION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 77 .02 1, .212 72.158 2.99969 0.022 ( 2.984) 0.7873) 2.2842\ 0 .90644) 0.0l.2) 0 .15"7 39) 0.16881) 0 .231 ) 0.7813) 671941 .7 46181.89 463714 .41 108888.781 77812.664 35819.148 I .91 996 ( 0.9857s ( 0. 618 ( 0.026 25 958.77 0.155 ***************************************r(***********************)k************** PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 30 7.494 54214.3320 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 0.436629 15849.6L120 PRECIPITATTON RUNOFE AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OE LAYER 6 MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 LOCATTON OE MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 5 (DISTANCE EROM DRAIN) SNOW WATER MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) MINTMUM VEG. SOII WATER (VOL/VOL) (TNCHES) (CU. ET. ) 2.91 105633.000 5.339 0.0s280 791,6.73584 6 .032 77.'725 5.8 FEET 2.82 102366.4060 0.5010 0.13s0 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0.003971 144.16263 *** Maximum heads are computed using McEnroe's equations. *** Reference: Maximum Saturated Depth over Landfill Liner by Bruce M. McEnroe/ University of Kansas ASCE Journal of Environmentaf Engineering Vol. 779, No. 2, March 1993, pp. 262-210. ***************************************r(r(*)k*****)k************)k**************** 26 Monthly Averages for Gtenwood Springs' CO - weather'corn rl,fliilil Weather Local ru High Pollon Lev€l r!bt! DbtlaY GfrPt DitF"J m.rn |f;",, fiff" l:i-o 6fF t-4sir orr 11!231 -38'F (1013) i.ilF 1 14 ic' c7'F {1841) €O'f Oss} Gi.ilood sPrines' Co Wt'lBr F cti .- on NBg'' m' &rast hs{b ls JdlY' . Trc hlgl*l r!@'dedcFp€t'luew 1E2fF if, 1s69 dd'6e 4oli6t (o'tr i"":::- .... Thc Io€d Ecodef, tdp€ldure wag _rD ' r ' - ' ,negf.at' r"m"' n"tot $r9r 6 No A&'strn tlc'l a0'F 1.95ih 1so'P 1tc:a1 ?dF (10c7I &'r I 85 in' ge't Ieat) lo'F {10?0) :6'F I tr4 'o Bt'6 f19?5) -1?'f (?0s) zVF t'28 in' Bs'F (r9C!) -22'F (1s0) , PGATourlibW"k . ToP lO 6olf0'66n6lhn! . IoilI htLd L"rdt . S!rto'd(€n6 News fluricare Cenlral srgd I v*rrdi6fnv . IF{lino? edYour FlSh F I@Br " 6.tlldeOdolYd'Tit8 . Fid $B TFIsb SlY Fil , Strnshg Sc6nia Cru! . Tot 10f'dy_ErBilly vtcttb6' . Hd tiottth lslgtr Fifr' Ft$'r ' €rP&ts &0 G'eJ Ou66r dh lcdr . PhneGrealFeb , Si 516.000 rF &m RaFt' i . o*,our",*rn't",'n , , Reip4l Fbhtt*s s$rch zl9 oY 6 Placc (DtsnBY Woldl Saiely & Preparedne$s Farming cFARCll l- 1(.11n1 1 Page 1 of2 Add I Locelion Lifestyle Natsal Forscatst Sccial MaPs 59ver€ Weather TV Video Ale,1s W€tlis Monthly woaltd lor G|6nwod Springs !ffi![]ilE[I&'*"""* ' I;ly,'tl,$l;l'f; 'Sql4i*I bd " I L;**r.iiTs:l'-E Avo avg' Month HiCn Low J.n sS'F ln'F Mrr 5?'f AY StfF ?i? 4€E s4'F 1-4Zin. 79'r {1s3} '14'r {r01 r) 1.52In. E 'F {10#} :'F (1s6} t.I9 ir 95'F (?042) 1?'F (t016) ri, in. lofp (t!t4) 2?"F (rl?3) to?h. lOrF{lcen) $'Flle03} 1 r, is tw'F i2oos) za'f{1912} Jun 81'F Jul 87'r- A{9 85'f S.P 7e'f oit 64'F Nd :*t 7''F D.. 35'F lE'F I ii P rd3ilJhwxdhv r{dFd&[@6_ t;r Hdd Sr93 e" ;"r.;"4;"'a**" @ t ttp,if*l* "iveather'com/weather/wxcl imatolosvlmonthlv/l ISCO0 1 62- The mst vceipilalhn o' s@6se o@rs l::t:Er.r-*-:"-- 17 *ts{" I rwYs'* \1il 1 i 1 1 i \ l I i I I I I I t i I I I I t i i t I lt I 1 l I 1"" 1$rup- \i1/En APR 1t 9/8' gn'ril a@W* ChannelRePort -::i.I l bY Autodesk' lnc il*orv, FPt 162012 Leachate PiPe FIow Circular = 0.50 oiameter (ft) Highlighted pspth (ft) Q (cfs) Area (sqft) Velocity (fUs) Wetted Perim (tq. Crit DePth, Yc (tt; ToP Width (ft) EGL (ft) = 0.03 = 0.010 = 0.00 = 2.08 = 0.25 = 0.05 = O.24 = 0.10 lnvert Elev (ft) Slope (%) N-Value Galculations Compute bY: Known Q (cfs) = 6464.00 = 7.00 = 0.012 Known Q = 0.01 Elev (ft) Section Reach (ft) 6465.00 ..-...-.*.***l j. LEACHATE FLOW CALCULATIONS SOUTH CANYON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE MANNING'S EQUATION Q = (1.486/n) [P(2rs) 5{trzt Where: Q = Flow (cfs) n = Manning's roughness coefficient "n" (unitless measure of material roughness) A = Cross sectional flow areas of the solid pipe (ft') R = Hydraulic radius (fl)'. %lhe diameter for full-flowing pipes" S = Pipe slope (feet/foot) 6" SDR-17, N-12 pipe manufactured by ADS Where: n= l.D'= A= rrf = ft= U- Therefore:o- Qr.,rrl-= 0.012 6 0.20 0.13 0.065000 1.55 695.58 347.79 in or 0.5 ft ft2 cfs gpm gpm hssumes 6" HDPE half-flowing Leachate Generation Based on Average Disposal based on sRK',s and Phase 5 Addition volumes pipe e1rz1= The 6" HDPE SDR 1 1 condition. 347.79 pipe is adequatelY sized gpm >> 5.38 to support the average annual gpm leachate generation for each Client: CitY of Glenwood SPrings Site: South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site Pro.ject: Phase 5 Addition Date: APr-12 Buried pipe Design Based on chevron Phillips chemical company LP, Engineering Manual' 2003 Pipe Dimensions Do (in) D, (in) SDR t (in) Di(in) Calculate the Dead load Waste Soil Other Average SPeciflc Weight (Pcfl Total height (ft) Live Load Pr (ps0 Pe (psi) Desiqn bv Wall Crushinq: Calculate the ComPressive Stress S (psi) Outside piPe diameter Mean diameter Do/t Pipe thickness lnside dimeter 61.4 114 Negligable for a 114 ft waste column' 7003 Vertical soil Pressure 48.6 Vertical soil Pressure 0.353 Horizontal deflection 5.8% Delta-X / Di 2.2% Yes see http://www. ads-PiPe.com SDR = Standard Dimension Ratio "Jansen reports that high performance polyethylene material at an 8%o strain level has a life expectancy of at least 50 years " (PG 1 12, CH 7 of design manual) /sS<800Psl? Yes SafetyFactor- 3'6 SF=1500/5 Rttowabte Compressive Yield Sirength of HDPE pipe = 1500psi Desiqn bv Wall Bucklinq: 41 3.4 ComPressive stress Allowable constrained buckling pressure Factor of safetY Buoyancy reduction factor = 1 for above groundwater level Elastic suPPort factor Soil reduction modulus Table 1 from Technical Note 814-TN with T = 100'F Pwc (psi) N R B' E'(psi) E (psi) lsPwc>PE? Desiqn bv Rinq Deflection: Delta-X (in) % Deflection Ring Bending Strain ts Ring Bending Strain < B 0 % ? Thickness Soecific Weiqht (Pcr) 110 q,o ? 4 124 c V (ft/sec) Distance 1 Year (ft, Regulatory Critical Length (ft) Travel time to SumP davs Travel time to SumP Yeans Drainaqe Media Design K (cm/sec) Travel Slope i (m/m) o ,m3/min-ft 0.0464 6.10E-08 3.05E-03 96,050 280 1 0.00 Path 1 6.10E-08 3.22E-O5 1,O17 116 42 0.11 Path 2 3.00E-03 0.00 0.1829 6.10E-08 120E-O2 378,288 175 U Path 3 Z.UUE+UU 245,587 497 1 0.00 Path 4 2.99f+00 0.1187 6.10E-08 7.79E-O3 0.12 SOUTH CANYON PHASE 6 Leachate Travel Time Calculations Q = Flow Rate K = Permeability A = Cross-Sectional Area i= Slope = (h2lh1)/L L = Drainage Length Q=VA=KiA=KA(h2-h1)/L V=Ki=K(h2-h1YL Path 1 Longest Distance Traveled (ft) 280 Highest Elevation 6453 Lowest Elevation 6440 SloPe = 0 0464 SumP = Path 2 1'16 6440 6402 0.3276 2508 Path 3 175 6402 6370 0.1 829 Path 4 497 6370 631 1 0.1187 Gonversions: 1 year = 31,536,000 seconds 1 foot = 30.48 cm 1 inch = 0.0254 meters lmeter = 3.28 ft 1 cm = 0.01 meters 1 gal/min = 2.08E-04 m3/sec-m Notes: Distances and elevations from design plate' paths 1,3, and 4 have Design K based on shredded tireswith aKof 2cmlsec (as pertesting during Phase 5 coA) PathZisbasedonaDesignKoF.oo3fromtrashsinceitwillonlyhaveprotectivesoilscoveringtheliner Reference: Hydraulic conductivity of MSW in landfills: July 20'09; Krishna R. Reddy, Hiroshan Hettiarachchi' Naveen parakalla, Janardhanan Gangathulasi, Jean Bogner, and Thomas Lagier .L rtE+Dfr-'!>Y6I Ea*i>, #E*HT E;IEzd32 8=6#Za'azi6d;8ffi"- e o) -,.|m nm e 0)t, I I I ,ub 6{o 4.I- =r- T m E o z 2 2 o ! za + m ug; e =E c =g m I o 4l o -ln+o7o r ss a--lfia >In>mu)>mi' ! € Ct,-tm vm b q vm o) to 0)t, =Ea= ^i= =oyI =* -= i =4or 6, zo i3 Eft 5; =Str= Qq;fr 6,1 \ e \ N \ :-'\ _12 fril.A E x-o..o.>.lllilpxix lB l;igeEEEEgSqgBHB EfiEEEgEEiEf;Ef;'= I; ! ; ";f EE 0+ ; ;6 i i6)a Pn:i South Conyon Londfill tnGfsiltrrrffiilI 6.0 LEACHATE DRAINAGE LAYER PL,ACEMENT This section describes the construction and CQA activities associated with the placement of the leachate drainage (shredded tires) layer for Phase 5, 6.1 SHREDDED TIRES LAYER PLACEMENT CQA ACTIVITIES The CQA activities for the placement of the shredded tires layer involved the following: r Observed the placernent of the shredded tires layer material over the cohesive soil liner r Completed shredded tires materials construetion sampling and arranged for laboratory testing r Verified the shredded tires drainagelayer for the appropriate thickness r Documented CQA aotivities 6,2 SI.,IREDDED TIRES LAYER MATERIAL The shredded tiras material used for the leachate drainage layer was procured tires accumulated on sita 6.3 SHREDDED TIRES DRAINAGE LAYER PLA.CEMENT AND TESTING The CQA Engineer was onsite during the shredded tires layer installation to document the placement techniques utilized and to visually observe the shredded tires material remained relatively consistent in gradation. Trucks with side-dump tailers transported the shredded tires material &om the stockpile area ta the placernent area. A low-ground pressure fracked dozer equipped with GPS was utilized to spread the shredded tires material to the required l6-inch thickness. The CQA Plan specified that 1 sample per 3,000 instailed cubic yards of tire shreds was to be collected and tested for permeability. Approxiruately 4,520 cubic yards of shredded tires material was installed in Phase 5; therefore, two construction samples were required for analysis. Table 4located below is a summary of the shredded tires layer laboratory test results. LDL-1 41.3 2.02 LDL.2 45.1 8.07 14August 2013 Phose 5 Liner Construction CQA "f*ble 4 Summary of Conforruance Leachate Drainage Material Testing Phase 5 Liner Coustruction Sample ID Passing 6" Sieve (%) Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/sec) Hydraulic Conductivity of MSW in Landfills Krishna R. Reddyl; Hiroshan Hettiarachchi2; Naveen Parakallas; Janardhanan Gangathulasia; Jean Bogners; and Thomas Lagier6 Abstract: This paper presents a laboratory investigation of hydraulic conductivity of municipal solid waste (MSW) in landfills and provides a comparative assessment of measured hydraulic conductivity values with those reported in the literature based on laboratory and field shrdies. A series of laboratory tests was conducted using shredded fresh and landfilled MSW from the Orchard Hills landfill (Illinois, United States) using two dift'erient small-scale and large-scale rigid-wail permeameters and a small-scale triaxial permeameter. Freslr waste was collected from the working phase, while the landfilled waste was exhumed from a borehole in a landlill cell subjected to leachate recirculation for approximately 1.5 years. The hydraulic conductivity tests conducted on liesh MSW using small-scale rigid-wall per- meameter resulted in a range of hydraulic conductivity 2.8x 10-3-ll.8x l0-r cm/s with dry unit weight varied in a narrow range between 3.9-5.1 kNim3. The landfilled MSW tested using the same perrnearneter produced results between 0.6x 10-r-3.0 X l0-3 cm/s for 4.5-5.5 kN/m3 dry unit weights. The hydraulic conductivity obtained fiom large-scale rigid-wall permeameter tests decreased with the increase in normal stress for both fresh and landfilled waste. The hydraulic conductivity for fresh MSW ranged from 0.2 cm/s for 4.1 kN/m3 dry unit weight (under zero vertical stress) and then decreased to 4.9X 10-s cmls for 13.3 kN/m3 dry unit weight (under the maximum applied normal stress of 276 kPa). The hydraulic conductiviry of the Iandfilled MSW decreased from 0.2 cm-/s to 7.8X l0-5 cm/s when the dry unit weight increased liom 3.2 ro 9.6 kNi m3. The results clearly demonstrated that the hydrauiic coniluctivity of MSW can be significantly influencecl by vertical slress and it is mainly attributed to the increase in density leading to low void ratio. In small-scale triaxial permeameter, when the confining pressure was increased from 69 to 276 h,Pa the hydraulic conductivity decreased from approximately l0-a to 10-6 cm/s, which is much lou,er than those determined frorn rigid-rvalt Penneameter tests. The published fleld MSW hydraulic conductivities ale found to be higher than the laboratory results. Lzurdfilled MSW possesses iower hydraulic conductiviry than fresh MSW due to increased finer particles resulting from degradation. The decreasing hydraulic conductivity with increasing dry unit weight is expressed by an exponenrial decay function. DOI: 10. 1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000031 CE Database subject headings: Solid waste; Hydraulic conductivityl Landfills; Waste management; Municipal rvastesl Waste disposal; Density. lntroduction The hydraulic conductivity of municipal solid waste (MSW) must be estimated for the design of the landfill containment systems IProfessor, Dept. of Civit and Materials Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago, 842 Wesr Taylor St., Chir:ago, lL 60601 (corresponding au- thor). E-rnail: kreddy@uic.edu 2Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering. Lawrence Techno- logical Univ., 21000 West Ten Mile Rd., Southfield, MI 48075. E-rnail: hiroshan @l ltu .edu iGraduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Materials Engineer- ing, Univ. ofIllinois at Chicago, 842 West Taylor St.. Chicago. IL 60607. E-mail: nparak2@uic.edu acraduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Materials Engineer- ing, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago, 842 West Taylor St., Chicago, IL 60607. E-mail : jganga2@uic.edu )President, Landfills+, Inc., 1144 N. kesident St.. Wheaton, IL 60 ttl7. E-mail: jbogner@landfillsplus.com 6l-andfill Team Manager, Veolia Environmental Services Research Center. 291 Ave. Drcyfous Ducas. Limay 78520, France. E-mail: thornas.lagier@ veolia.com Note. This malusclipt was submined on March l, 2008; approved ou November 17, 2008; published online on July 15, 2009. Discussion pe- riod open until January I, 20101 separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. This paper is p'art of rbe Journal of Environmental Engineertng, Vol. l3-5. No. 8. August l, 2009. @ASCE, ISSN 0733- 93'7 2t 2009 t 8 -67 7-6831$25. 00. (Strarma and Reddy 2004). In accordance with the U-S. environ- mental regulations, Ieachate head over the bottom liner must not exceed 0.3 m. Therefore, a leachate collection and removal sys- tem (LCRS) is designed to remove leachate accurnulated over the bottom liner. LCRS consists of a granular drainage layer or equivalent geosynthetic layer and a network of drainage pipes. surnps, and pumps. Hydlaulic anaiysis is pertbrmed for the proper design of the LCRS components and it requires the hydraulic conductivity ol MSW as an input. In bioreactor landfiils, where leachate and other liquids are recirculated to increase the moistute of the waste tor enhanced degradation, the hydraulic conductivity of MSW is of paramount importance because it dictates the flow and distribution of leachate injected in the waste. The hydraulic conductivity of MSW varies significantty depending on the waste composition, compactiou, and overburden pressure. In addition, the hydlaulic conductivity of MSW varies spatially and with time depending on the extent of the degradation of waste, resulting in signif,cant c:hange in the composirion and size distribution of the waste cornponer')ts. In general, the hydraulic collductivity of any porous media is primarily a function of the interconnected void space. In t}re case of soils, correlations have been observ'ed between hydraulic con- ductivity and the void ratio. However, solid mass oi MSW is a functit'rn of time and hence void ratio may not be the best param- eter to explain *re void space in MSW. In many instances, dry JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING O ASCE i AUGUST 2OO9 / 677 Table 1. Variation of the MSW Hydraulic Conductivity with Dry Unit Weight Ba-sed on Laboratory Studies Source Unit weight (klii mi)Hydraulic conductivity (cm./s) Korfiatis et aI. (1984) Column test" refuse of six months old collected from a landfill in New Jersey Blieker et al. (1993) Fixed ring consolidomeler, decomposed MSW samples from Keele Valley landfill in Toronto Brandl (1994) Pretreated MSW collected frorn an abandoned and newly constructed landfill Beaven and Powrie (1995) Large scale compression cell, crude as well a-s processed MSW from the tippirg face of a landiill Gabr and Valero (1995) Constant and talling head tesus, t5-20 year old samples recovered from auger cuttings Powrie rLnd Beaven (1999) Constant head test in Pisea compression cell" unshredded MSW from tipphg face of a landfill Jang et ai. (2002) Constant head test using a modified tempe cell Penmethsa (2007) Constant head test, laboratory generated MSW samples in four different phases of degradation 8.6 5.9-11.8 9.(}-17.0 5.0-13.0 7.4-8.2 3.8 7.1 7.8-l 1.8 6.4-9.3 5.0x 10-3-3.0x 10-3 1.6 X l0-4- 1.0 x 10-6 2.0x 1(13-3.0x 10-6 l.0x l0-2-1.0x l0-5 1.0x l0-3-1.0x lo-s 1.5 x 10.-+-3.4x 10-s 2.7x 10-{-3.7x 10-8 1.1x l0-3-2.9x l0-4 L0x 10-2-8.0x l0-4 unit weight has been preferred over void ratio for MSW (Hettiar- achchi 2005). However, dry unit weight is not only a function of void space but also varies with the specific gravity of the solids. Attention must be paid to this fact before comparing hydraulic conductivity values reported at different dry uuit weights as the specific gravity of MSW may vary widely. Table 2. Variation of the MSW Hydraulic Conductivity with Dry Unit Weight Published literature sho'i's a limited number of laboratory studies on the hydraulic conductivity of MSW as a function of dry unit weight. Results frotn some of these sfudies are sumrnarized in Table L In many of these studies, water was used as a per- meant. Ferv studies on field evaluations of hydraulic conductivity of MSW are reported in the literature and they are summarized in Based on Field Studies Source Unit weight (kNirn3)Hydraulic conductivity (cm./s) Landva and Clark (1986) In situ test pits, Calgary In situ test pits, Edmonton ln situ test pits, Mississauga In situ test pits, Watedoo Ettala (1987) Modified double cylinder infiltrometer and pumping tests Oweis et al. (1990) In situ pump test In situ falling head nest Test pit inliltration Shank (1993) Slug tesi, 20 years old MSW Jain et al. (2006) Borehole permeameter tesl 12.5-14.5 10.0-12.9 10.7-13.6 10.5-t.1. t Heavy compaction Slight compaction 3-6-m depth 6-12-ni depth l2-J8-m depth 2.6X 10-2-1.6x 10-2 1.3x10-2-1.1x10-2 5.0x 10-3-1.0x t0-3 t.3x t0-2-l.tx l0-2 2.5X t0-6-5.9x l0-7 2.5 x l0-5-2.0X l0-s 1.0 x 10-l 1.6x 10r l.3x t0-3 9.8x 10-4-6.7x 10-s 6.1x 10-5-5.4x l0-{ 2.3x10-5-5.6x10-{ t.9x l0-5-7.4x 10-6 678 / JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING O ASCE / AUGUST 2OO9 Table 2. Landva and Clark (1986) reported results obtained from the lield hydraulic conductivity tests conducted in Calgary. Edrn- onton, N{ississauga, and Waterloo in Canada. The dr,v unit rveights varied ftom l0 to 14.5 kN/m3 and the field hyclraulic conductivity varied on the orders of 10-2*i0-3 cm/s, which is noticeably higher compared to the laboratory hydraulic conduc- tivity values presented in Table 1. Other studies have reported lorver hydraulic conductivity values sirnilar to those presented in Tabte 2 (Ettala 1987; Oweis et al. 1990; Shank 1993; Jain et al. 2006)- Horvever, dry unit weight inlbrmation is not reporled to allow for comparison assessment. LCRS design approaches are often simplified by assuming the hydraulic conductivity of MSW to be constant throughout the landnll (e.g., water balance anatysis). However, the lirnited data available suggest otherwise and indicate that the hydraulic con- ductiviry should, in the least, be a function of the dry unit wetght of MSW. The dry unit weight is a t'unction of waste composition, compaction, overburden pressure, and other contributors (Hettiar- achchi 2005). This variation in hydraulic conductivity becomes more important when bioreaclor landfills are designed and imple- mented. During leachate recirculation, the leachate must be dis- tributed uniformly in bioreactor landfitls to avoid the possibility of a variable moisture prolile leading to variable degradation and settlement of waste within the landflll. The obiective of this paper is to present tlre results of a laboratory study and an assessment of published laboratory and field testing results to invest-igate the variation of hydraulic conductiviry with the dry unit weight of MSW. Both tresh and landfilled MSW samples recovered from a bioreactor landfilt were tested and analyzed dtlring this study. Sample Characterization and Preparation \lhste samples were collected from Orchard Hills Landfill in Davis Junction, Illinois, which is owned and operated by Veolia Environmental Services. The incoming waste consisted of ap- proximately 707o MSW. 177a construction and demolition waste (CDW). I 17o soils, and LVc other types of waste. The waste com- ponents included ll.7?o wood, l3.l7o catdboard, 5'87o textiles, 4.8olc sanitary waste, 4.4Vo metals. 1174 plastics, 0. lolc medical w aste, 4.49c glass, 8.2Vo paper, 6.9 Vo cooking/garden w aste, 9 -3 Vo inert waste, and 20.17c fines (<20 mm). The individual compo- nents of the {ines were difficult to characterize visually but it consisted of about 477o organic rnaterials and the remcining may be attributed to soil or soillike materials (Grellier et al' 2007). Even though there was 17Va CDW in the sample, the presence of a higher percentage of other materials still qualifies the samples to be identified as MSW At the Orchard Hills Landfill, leachate recirculation was ac- complished by spraying the leachate on the working face during filling operations and subsequently using a network of multilevel horizontal leachate recirculation lines (LRLs) instailed within the waste. The LRLs consisted ol 1,5-cm diameier perlbrated high- density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes in gravel-filled trenches spaced at 15-20 m between centers. Leachate was recirculated intermittently for 1.5 years depending on thc availabiliry of Ieachate at the site. Collection of MSW SamPles Fresh waste samples were collected at the working phase of the landfill. Landfilled wasle was collected rvhile installing the gas extraction well No. 16 (GEW16). A borehole was dnlled using a 100 \rii I,l ':[:]i-l#I] lt.,tt I I ....tijli lllitl. I i :tiiti -a-- --l* Fresh MSW Landiilled MSW :ffIiITT:J:'-r:::JITji{ \l',i Ll\t:i :l !f-!r *r* l,Yaste Particle Sizs (mm) Fig. 1, Particle-size distribution of f'resh and landfilled waste bucket auger 0.9 rn in diarneter and l.-5 m in length. Sarnples were recovered at 3-m intervals to a tnaximurn depth of 29 m below the ground sutface. Samples recovered at 19.8 m were used in the laboratory evaluation of hydraulic conductivitv in this study. The landfllled MSW recovered at 19.8 m at GEWI6 is believed to be between 15 and 19 monlhs old. T*'o LRLs were found at the close proximity of the sampling location at GEWI6: LRL29 lo- cated ?.5 m south of GEW16 at a depth of 12 m and LRL26 located l2 rn north of GEWI6 at a depth of 22 m. Approximately 530 and 620 rn3 of leachate were recirculated at LRL26 and LRL29, respectively, for approxirnately 1.5 years. Consequently, MSW samples collected at GEWI6 ar'e assumed to lepresent landfilled MSW subjected to low amounts of leachate recircula- tion for a short duration" Preparation of MSW Test SamPles A set of three large sieves with opening diameters of 100, 50, and 20 mrn were used to determine the gradation of the landfilled and fresh waste samples collected from the landfill. The fresh MSW samples had approximately 53, 16. and llVo (by wet weight basis) of the MSW retained on 100, 50, and 20-mm sieves' respect.ively, and 20%,(by wet weight) finer than 20 mm. The landfilled MSW had approximateiy 40. 12, and 13Vc (by wet weight) retained on 100, 50, ancl 20-mm sieves, respectively, and the percent passing 20-mm sieve was -154lo. These results show that greatel amounts of finer rnaterials were present in the landliiled waste, which may be rlue to degradation of waste as well as the presence of daily cover soil. For this study, MSW samples collecred from the field were shredded with a slow-speed, high-torque shredder (Shred Pax Cory., AZ-1H, Wood Dale, Il1.) to suit small-scale laboratory test- ing. The particle-size distribution of MSW after shredding is shown in Fig. 1. These results show that shredding resulted in a sirnilar size distribution tbr both itesh and landfilled MSW samples. Both fresh and landfilled MSW samples had an average in situ moisture content of 45Io (by dry weight). The average organic conient was approximately 78o/a for fresl'r MSW and 61% llor landfilled IvISW. Degradation during the 15-19 month period after disposing at the landfill is believed to be the main reason for the lower organic content ol landfilled MSW. G70 ;Go ii so cE40 t30 0.1 10H= hl0tL 100 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING O ASCE i AUGUST 2OO9 I 679 Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the large-scale rigid-wail permealneter Hydraulic Conductivity Testing The hydraulic conductivity of MSW samples was determined using three different permeameters: small-scale rigid-wall. large- scale rigid-wall, and small-scale triaxial. For all tests, deionized water at constant temperature was allowed to florv through the samples. Small-Scale Rigid-Wall Permeameter A small-scale rigid-wall perrneameter was used to conduct con- stant head hydraulic conductivity tests in accordance with ASTM D 2434 (ASTM 2006). The sample diameter wa-s 6.3 cm, height varied between 10 and 12 cm, and weight varied between 0.15 and 0.24 kg. Four fresh and four landlilled MSW sampies were tested. La rg e-Scale R i gi d-Wa I I Pe r mea meter Fig. 2 shows the schematic diagram of the specially designed large-scale rigid-u'ali pemreameter used in this study. It has an inner diarneter of 30 cm and a height of 95 crn, whiclr can poten- tially be lilled to 60 cm with the waste sa-mples. Shredded fresh MSW (about 7.2-8.2 kg) was compacted in layers of 7-8-cm thickness, applying 15 standard Proctor hamrner blows per layer. This resulted in compacted samples 30 cm in diameter and 30 cm in height. The large-scale rigid-wall peftneameter used in this experiment is capable of applying a variable normal stress on the MSW sample. To simulate the overburden effective stress, the MSW samples were tested for tire hydraulic conductivity under differenr normal stress values. Each sample was f,rst tested under zero normal stress. Then, the normal stress was increased gradu- aily to a specified level (35,69, I38, and276 kPa)' The variation in the sample compression was also recorded. This procedure was repeated to test land{illed MSW samples. S ma I l -Scale Triax i a I Permea mete r Srnall-scale triaxiat hydraulic conductivity testing was performed using a triaxiai laboratory setup in general accordance with the ASTM D5084 (ASTM 2006). Each sample was 5 cm in diameter but length and weight varied bet\r'een 7.5-ll cm and 0.1M.18 kg. Waste samples were first saturated under a norninal confining pressure by flushing deionized water tiom the base upwards under a low hydraulic gradient. After saturation, hydraulic conductivity tests were performed at different et'fective confining pressures (69, 138, and 276 kPa) on four fresh and four landfilled MSW samples. While increasing the confining pressure, the samples were allowed to consolidate and the change iu volutne was re- corded for strain and unit weight calculations. Results and Discussion The four hydraulic conductivity tests carried out on fresh MSW usiug a small-scale rigid-wall penneameter resulted in a range of hydraulic conductivity of 2.8x 10-3-ll.8X 10-3 cm/s" The *y* unit weight of these samples varied in a narrow range between 3.9-5.1 kN/rn3. The landfilled MSW tested using the sarne per- meameter produceci results between 0.6 x I0-3 and 3.0 X l0-j cm/s fbr 4.5-5.5 kNi m3 dry unit weights. No trend was observed between the hyfuaulic conductiviry and either dry unit weight or age of MSW under the tested conditions in this study. The hydrauiic conductivity obtained tiom large-scale rigid- wall permeameter tests are summarized in Figs. 3(a and b). The compression (strain) increased and hydraulic conductivity de- creased with increase in normal stless for both fresh and land- filled waste. The hydraulic conductivity for fresh MSW ranged tiom 0.2 cmls for 4. I kN/m3 dry unit weight (under zero vertical stress) and then decreased to 4.9x 10-s cm/s for 13.3 kN/m3 dry unit weight (under the maximum applied normal stress of 276 kPa). The hydraulic conductivity of the landf,lled MSW de- creased frorn 0.2 to 7.8x l0-5 cm/s when the dry unit increased fiom 3-2 to 9.6 kNi m3. The results clearly demonstrated that the hydrauiic conductivity of MSW can be signilicantly influenced by the vertical stress. This is mainly attributed to the increase in density leading to the low void ratio. Results obtained from the small-scale triaxial permeameter tests are summarized in Fig. 4. When conlining pressure was in- creased frorn 69 to 276kPa, the hydraulic conductivity decreased from approximately l0-a to i0-6 cm/s. These results show no definite coirelation between the dry unit weight and hydraulic conductiviry deterrnined lrotn small-scale flex-wall triaxial per- meameter tests. Laboratory versus Field Hydraulic Conductivity of MSW The hydraulic conductivities obtained using the rigid-walt per- meameter tests and the triaxial penrleameter tests are compared in Fig. 5. It appeam that the results from the large-scale rigid-wall perrneameter iests demonstrate a correlation between the hydrau- lic conductn,ity and dry unit weight of MSW. Interestingly, the average hydraulic conductivity obtained from the small-scale rigid-wall perrueameter tests also fits into ttris trend traced by the tl 580 / JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING O ASCE / AUGUST 2OO9 8ES'XE PTIIET?mliltcE |totEs :s .9odo .- d Eoo aE ,c,o Z ,o,ofIt oo 103 .9EG a 1n4 4 a60 .Eooo 40g Eoo .AE ro'o .z ,^., o l,Eoo 103 33 EE 10{ 4 + Fr6h Vl,ast€femeability (cor/s) --e- Fresh Waste€mpNion (%) lnifd Unit Vlbight= 4.1 kium3 Final Unit\ l€ighF '13.4 kMm3 100 150 200 Normal Pressure (kPa) 2468101214 Ory Unil$roieht{ft{Iln!} r Sam! scate tllilwd, trsh luisw o Sml scd6 rigir-wal, br$filhd IUSW a Ltrge scde li*lwdl f'€h l,6W o LagE 3c€16 rieiJ{al, hndfilled i,!Sw ^ Smd scaie iexiadl, fr€h ir$w a smlsc€b {eriwa{' kd8led ir$w Fig. 5. Variation of hydraulic conductivity of MSW with dry unit weight in rigid-w'all and flexi-wall (triaxial) permearneters fresh MSW. The hydraulic conductivities tiom triarial permeame- ter tests are scattered in a narrow range ol dry unit weights and are consistently lower than the values determined by the rigid- wall permeameter tests, Laboratory detemnined hydraulic conductivities and dry unit weights of MSW obtained from published literature (summarized in Table l) are compared with the resulis from the current study in Fig. 6. The upper-bound trend traced by the results tiom the cur- rent research is in agreernent with the data from the published literature. The upper bound of this decreasing hydraulic conduc- tivity with increasing dry unit weight trend can be quantilied by the following exponential decay function: where "y,=gv1it weight of water. Based on the results shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the validity of triaxial permeameter testing to accurately determine hydraulic conductiviry of MSW is questionable. A landfill is constructed by depositing layers (or lifts) of MSW and the unit weight of a given tr I u' q E-k:o -oo" o^r tt I t t---"x-t o r I ' =- : r )( a -ls'ri. o tr o a r A lto 5 o o 24681012'14 ory Unit weight (kNrmr) E 0ol| { ! 1.00Er{0 1,gqE{l 1.00E{2 1.00E43 1.00E{4 1.@845 r.00E46 1.@E-07 300 (a) 100 + LandfiUed Wat+Pemeabifity (cm./s) --€- Landfued Yvaslecomp6ion (%) ='f Initial Unit \ rEiohF 3.1 kl,J/m! t einal Unit weigits 9.7 ld\um! iO 0 50 100 150 200 2so (b) Normal Pressure (kPa) Fig, 3. (a) Variation of hydraulic conductiviry- and compression of fresh MSW in the large-scale rigid-walt penneameter with normal pressure; 6) variation of hydraulic conductivity and compression of landfilled MSW in the large-scale rigid-wall permeameter u,ith nor- mal pressure results from the large-scale rigid-wall pernleameter tests. This observation is made for both fresh MSW as well as landfilled MSW. Although data are scattered, there is a noticeable decrease in the hydraulic conductivity of the landf,lled MSW compared to t(cm/s) = +.0+ .xt(- , ,rl') e. 1.mEe E '5 € 1.mEs oI I9 r.mrm! Oa ooo 0o ota a l A $ o A A 246a101214 Ory hltwelght(}lum') aFe.hi/tw{mp.) lFBhnSw(138kPa) lFBh[6w(276pa) 0kdlHffi(69k) trhndildBw{1ffia) aLanfi[drew(276kh) Fig. 4. Variation of hydraulic conductivity with dry unit weight of Iandflled MSW under different confining pressures in the small-scale flex.i-wall (triaxial) perrneamercr (confining pressure given in paren- thesis) Fig. 6. Hydraulic conductivity-dry unit weight envelope for MSW based on laboratory studies (age of the MSW is indicated in paren- thesis) 1.00E+00 ^ 1.@E41 e 5. , *.o,a $ r ooeoa)E3 i.ooE{4o = 1.ooE-05!!I 1.0oE46 1.00E-07 a Currcntstudy(rresh) a Powrie & Bea€n, 1999 (f6h) A BeaEn&Powrj6,19s5 (fesh) a Jansetal.2002 X Korfiabsetal.1983 -upp€r-bound tr Curentsurdy(17monlhs) o Gabr &\r'alerc,'1995 (1 t30,rs) A Blieker6t sl. 1993 (d@mposed) o Penmethsa.2007 X Brandla 1994 Triuial -^!^ a A ^pffifE!* r ^^ o a JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING @ ASCE i AUGUST 2OO9 / 681 g . E r Rigid-rvall* I Permelreter o a a I x -+-_ . x+?++ x ox".-tr ,trOAAO ,,.^ o o o + x + 6 E b E F 0 3 ! ! , I i !Coo t? T 1.mE+O0 1.@E{t 1.00E{2 1.00E{3 1.t10844 1.00E{5 1.00E+00 1.00E{'l ,.00E42 1.00843 1.00E44 1.00E-05 1.00E46 1.00E{7810 Dry Untt Wolght {ld'lrm!} Fig. 7. Clomparison of laboratory results by- rigid-wall permeamerer (from current study) with field evaluated hydraulic conductivit), val- ues reported by Landva and Clark (1986) MSW layer is increased by the addition of new MSW layers at rhe top. Therefore the deformation occurs in the direction of loading (vertical) and there will be no deformation in the direcrion ex- tending at a right angle from the deformation (horizonml). This two dimensional stress strain behavior qualifies a landfill to be analyzed by plane-strain conditions and the rigid-wail permeame- ter is a good representation of plane-stain conditir>ns. While a srnall-scale rigid-rvall permeameter simulates conditions near thc surface of a landflll (with low or zero overburden pressure). the Iarge-scale rigid-wall penneameter used in rhis study allowed 1br the simulation of plane-strail deforrnation of Iv{SW at different depths by varying normal pressure. The axisymmetrical defonna- tion caused by the confining pressure in a triaxial permeametcr creates a three dimensionally stressed MSW sample. As the load- ing is three dimensiorral, it also permits MSW particles to move in a three dimensional space. which may not be the case in a layered structure. Therefore, the use of a rigid-wall permeameter (with or without normal pressure) rnay be a better approach than a rriaxial permeameter (or testing with confining pressure) to measure the hydraulic conductivity nf MSW- This argunrent is supporred by the MSW field hydraulic conductivity-dry unit weight data pub- lished by Landva and Ciark (1986). Fig. 7 compales the hydraulic conductivity obrained by the rigid-wall perrneameter from rhe current study for fresh as well as landfilled MSW with rhe field data published by Landva and Clark (1986). The field values arc located above the upper bound identified for iaboratory resulrs. Since rigid-wall permeameter esrimares rhe hydraulic conductiv- ity values close to the laboratory upper bound. a rigid-rvall per- mearneter ma_v be used to simulate fleld conditions. However, more field hydraulic conductivity data are needed ro ascertain rhe differences betrveen the field and laboratory determined hydraulic conductivity values. Dependeney ot Hydraulic Conductivity on Size Distribution ot MSW If hydraulic conductivity of MSW is only a funcrion of void space, theoretically, fresh as well as landfilled MSW should pos- sess the same hydraulic conductivity when tested at the same dry unit weight- Howeveq Fig. 5 suggests otherwise. As clearly shown, hydraulic conductivity obrained by the large-scale rigid- &ytnlttlt lght{kilrm1 -l Cufientstudy(ke6h. 'l0O% passad 40fim, -Gl cumnts&dy(17msths, EEY. pssed 40mm) -a - P€nnethsa,2007 (dogEdatior ph.s6 ,, 380/6 pasEad s0mm) - O PGnmelhBa,2007 (degEdation pha6. ll. 43% paered 50mm) -.*. PenmetBe,2007 (dsg€dafion phase lf, 77% pa56ed s&rft) -.4- Pcnfi eth3a, 2007 (d606daioo phase M 79% passsd 50m m) -o-. Blike. et a|.,1993 (lsndtlled. desmpGcd) -t€bo€bry upper.bowd a LandE & C,a*, 1986 (fold bsl5, lrlhttuo) Fig. 8. Variadon of hydraulic conductivity--dry unit weight relation- ship of MSW with panicle size wall permeameter for landfilled MSW is slightly lower than fiesh MSW tbr a comparable dry unit weight. The difference in hydrau- lic conductivity of fresh and landfilled MSW may be auributed to the diflerence in their particle-size distributions- As shown in Fig. l, shredding reduced the maximurn particle size of samples tested in the cur-rent research to approxirnately 40 rnnl for both fresh and landfilled MSW. Fig. I also indicates that the landfilled MSW had more fine particles than the fresh MSW. For exarnple. the effec- tive size (i.e., cliameter for lOa/c passing) of the fresh MSW dis- tribution is 3 rnrn while it is 0.8 mrn for the landfilled MSW. This provides an indication of higher hydraulic conductivities for NISW with fewer small parl.icles. Tests conducted by Penmethsa (2007) also conf,rm the depen- dency of hydraulic conductivity on size distributitx of MS\Y Results from the current research (large-scale rigid-wall per'- mealneter test results) are compared with data published by Pen- methsa (2007) in Fig. 8. Penmethsa (2007) observed a decrease in particle size of MSW with an increase in degradation and as a result hydraulic conductivify versus dry unit weight curve for Phase I (the lowest level of degradation) is located above the curve for Phase II. Following the same trend, the curve for Phase lV (the highest level of degradation) produces the lowest hydrau- lic conductivities arnong all four phases. To further support this explanation, data published by Blieker et al. ( 1993) and Landva and Clark (1986) are also plotted in Fig. 8. Blieker et al. (1993) conducted tests on heavily decomposed samples recovered from the Keele Valley land{ill in Toronl.o, Canacla. Even though details are nol available, it can be assumed that particles were very small in size due to heavy decomposition. Also their decision ro use a fixed ring consolidometer (with 63-mm diameter zutd l9-mm sample height) infers the lack of large particles in their samples. Data by Blieker et al. (,I993) fbr decomposed MSW traces rhe lo'"vest trend in Fig. 8. Conversely. the field data fiom Calgary (Landva and Clark 1986) provide the highest hydraulic conduc- tivities. It is not surprising to see high hydraulic conductivities + Curentstudy(t6h i\rs]l^, B L$dE & C,8.k,1985 (Cllgarr, A LsdE & Clerk 1986 (Msrissauga) - Lab upper-bound X Cumntsildy0asdfned MSV10 O LsndE & Cla.k, 1986 (Edmsion) O Landw & Cl€*, t986 (l6brl@) Particle size 682 / JOURNAL OF ENVIBONMENTAL ENGINEEBING O ASCE / AUGUST 2OO9 lncrcms o from in situ tests because these tests were conducted on unpr.oc- essed real MSW samples and they should represent the largest particle sizes among all samples. Even though a quanritative analysis is not feasible, Fig. 8 clearly demonstrates the rrend of increasing hydraulic conductivity with increasing particle size. Therefore, the conclusion is that the differences in hydraulic con- ductivity in lresh and lzurdfilled MSW may nor be merely due ro difference in the age of the waste but could also be due to the difference in particle size resulting from degradation. Conclusions The following conclusions can be drawn frorn fhe results of this study: l. The hydraulic conductivity of MSW is primarily a function of interconnected void space and hence void ratio. Assuming a constant specific gravity, dry unit weights can be consid- ered as a more conveniently measurable parameter to replace the void ratio. The resulls fiom the rigid-wall permeameters clearly demonstrated that the hydraulic conductiviry of MSW is significantly influenced by the vertical pressure ancl pro- duces a trend of decreasing hydraulic conductivity with in- creasing dry unit weight. The hydraulic conductivity from the triaxial permeameter (tested under confining pressure) did not exhibit a significant variarion with the dry unit weight; 2. The upper-bound trend traced by the results from this study is in agreement with the data in the published literature. Upper bound of rhis decreasing hydraulic conductivity wirh increasiag dry unit weight trend can be estimated by an ex- ponenrial decay function. The limited lirerarure on field MSW hydraulic conductivities indicated that they are locate<I above the upper bound identified for labor.atory results. Since the rigid-wall perrnearneter estimates the hydraulic con<Iuc- tivity values close to the Iaboratory upper bound, the rigid- wall permeameter may be a conservative but realistic approach to simulate the field conditions; 3. Landf,lled MSW possesses lower hydraulic conductivity than fiesh MSW. The decrease in hydraulic conductivity in land- fllled MSW is attributed to the increase in the finer particles resulting from degradation; and 4. Overall, this study helped to quantify' the variation in hydrau- lic conductivity of MSW due to different laboratory tesr set- ups and the typical range olhydraulic conductivity values for tiesh and landlilled waste. Additional research is warra_nred to systematically evaiuate the influence of factors such as particle size and sarnple size as well as quality of the leachate on the hydraulic conductivity of MSW. A fleld testing tech_ nique with justifiable data analysis method is necessary tcr accurately determine hydraulic conductivity of MSW. tn ad- dition, the spatial and remporal variation of hydraulic con- ductiviry due to the heterogeneous and degradable nature of MSW should be properly characterized. Acknowledgments This project was funded by Veolia Environmental Services Re- search Center, the U.S. National Science Foundation (Grant No. CMMI #0600441), Veolia Environmental Services, and Environ- mental Research and Education Foundation. The writers are grateful to Veolia Environmental Services for providing rhe ac- cess to the landfill and their technical assistance. References ASTM. (2006). Annual book of standards. W'est Conshohocken, Pa. Beaven, R. P., and Powrie, W. (1995). "Hydrogeological and geotechnical propert.ies of refuse using a lalge scale compression cell." Proc., Sar- tlinia 95, Sth Int. Itndfill Symp., S. Margherita di Pula, CISA, Envi- ronrnental Sanitary Engineeri ne Center, Cagli ari, Italy, 7 4 5-:7 60. Blieker, D. E'., McBean. 8., and Farquhal', G. (1993). "Refuse sampling and permeability testing at ttre Brock West and Keele Valley landfills." Proc., l6th Int. Marlison Woste Conf., Uuiversity of Wisconsin- Madison, Madison, Wis. Brandl, H. (1994). "Vertical barriers for municipal ald hazardous waste conLriment." Proc., Development in Geotechnical Engineering, A. S. Baiasubramanian. S. W. Hong. D. T. Bergado, N. Phien-wej, and P. Nuta.laya. eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 301-320. Etrala, M. (1987). "Infiltration and hydraulic conductivity a[ a sanitary landfill-" Aquo Ferur., 17,231-237. Gabr, M. A., and Valero, S. N. (1995). "Geotechnical properries of mu- nicipal solid waste;' Geotech. Test. J., l8(2),241-751. Grellier, S., Reddy, K. R.. Gangathulasi, J., Adib, R., ald Peters, C. QA07). " U.S. MSW and its biodegradation in a bioreacror landfill." Proc., Sarditia 2007, [|th Int. l,andfill Si,rzp., S. Margherita di hrla, CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Center. Cagliari, Itaty. Heniarachchi, C- H. (2005). "Mechanics of biocell landfilI settlemenr-" Ph.D. dissertation, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J. Jain, P., Powell. J., Torvnsend, T. G., and Reinharr, D. R. (2006)- "Esti- mating the hydraulic couductiviry of landfilled municipa.l solid waste using borehole permeameter test;' J. Er,-iron. EnS., 132(6),645-653. Jang, Y. S., Kim, Y W, and Lee, S. l. (2002). "Hydraulic properties and leachate level analysis of Kimpo metropolitan landfill, Korea." lVaste Manage., 22.261-267. Korfiatis, G.P., I)ernetracopoulos, A.C., Bourodimos, E.L,, and Nawy, E.G. (I984). "Moisrure uansport in a solid waste colunln." J. Etwiron. Ens., 11014\,780-796. Landva, A. O., and Clark, J. I. (1986). "Geotechnical tesring of wasre fill," Prot., 39rh Canadian Geotechnical Conf., Canadian Geotechni- cal Society, Ottawa, Ont., Canada, 371-385. Landva, A. O., and Clark, l. f. (1990). "Georechnics of wasre hll." Geo- tethnics of waste f;ll.r*Theory and pracrice, ASTM STP 1070. A. Landva and G. D. Knorvles. eds., American Sociery for Testing and N{arerials, Philadclphia, 86-l 13. Oweis, L S., Smith. D. A., Ellwood. R. B., andGreene, D. S. (1990). "Hydraulic characteriscs of municipal refuse." J. Geotech. Engrg., 1 l6(4), s39-5s3. Penmethsa. K. K. (2007). "Permeability of municipal solid wasre in tlioreactor landfill with degradation." MS thesis, Univ. of Texas at Arlington. Arlingron. Tex. Powrie. W., and Beaven. R. P. (1999). "Hydraulic properties of household waste and applications for landfills." Proc. Inst. Civ. En.q., Geotech. Enq., 137,135-217. Shank. K. L. ( 1993). "Determinalion of the hydraulic conductivity of the Alachua County southwest landfill." MS thesis. Univ. of Flor.ida. Gainesville, Fla. Sharrna, H. D., ald Reddy, K. R. (2004). Geoenvironmental engineering: Site rentediatktn, wuste L'ontctinnent, and etnerging waste manu.ge- ment tech,tologir.s, Wiley, Hoboken, N.J. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING O ASCE / AUGUST 2OO9 i 683 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION The Phase 6 expansion was evaluated for slope stability considerations. The alignment profiles for the subgrade and the final cover are shown on Figures 1 and2 respectively. The liner system and cap system details are reproduced on Figure 3. Much of the input data was taken from the slope stability analysis complete for the Phase 5 Expansior'. Table 1 summarizes the input information. Table 1 - Summary of Slope Stability Input Type Wet Dry Cohesion Friction 37.8Compacted Cap 1.5106tt7130 Refuse/Cover 65 s8.6 522 35 Varies Geotextile l9904545 Not used, assigned to Drainage layer Drainage Layer l99045 Compacted Liner 106140130 37.8 3.0 Very Weathered Mancos Shale Bedrock 30200135t25 Moderately Weathered Mancos Shale Bedrock 135 25,000t25 Note that the cohesion intercept for the mancos shale was reduced from 250,000 lbs/ft2 used in the SCS Phase 5 evaluation to 25,000 lbs/# to provide a more-conservative evaluation. A0.26 horizontal earthquake loading coefficient was used for these analyses. This value was used in the Phase 5 evaluation, and it was verified for this investigation. The slope stability run output is attached. The ten most critical surfaces are shown on Figure 4. The minimum calculated factor of safety was 3.94. The slope is stable because the final cover was designed on an approximate 3.64:1 slope and the unweathered Mancos Shale bedrock has high strength properties. 1 Aquaterra Environmental Solutions, Inc, Decemb er 2012, Engineering Design And Operations Plan Phase 5 Addition South Canyon Solid Waste Disposal Site Addendum 2, Appendix E - Slope Stability Analysis I FIGURE I - SUBSURFACE PROFILE STABILITY ALIGNMENT ,I l' [,_, li /,/,// './/,/ "t q ' .t 0 Contour interval is 2 feet 500 feet FIGURE 3 _ LINER SYSTEM AND CAP SYSTEM DETAILS (From Phase 6 Expansion Application Drawings) IE' HIN. LEACHATE DRAINAGE I.IEDIA (CHIPPED TIRES) 18' I,ITN. COIIPACTED SOIL LINER (I.{AXIHUI,I HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IXIS cnlsec) 36' I.IIN. COMPACTED SI]IL LINER (MAXII,IUM HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IXIO EROSION AND ATION SUPPORT ** PCSTAPL6 ** by Purdue University modified by Peter 'J. Bosscher University of Wisconsin-Madison - -Slope Stability Analysis- - Simplified,Janbu, Sinplified Bishop or Spencerts Method of Slices PROBLEM DESCR.IPTIOI,I EXISTfNG SI,OPE BOUNDARY COORD]NATES 15 Top Boundaries 92 Total Boundaries Boundary No. 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 I 9 1_0 l-1 1-2 13 L4 15 1,5 t7 1_8 X-Left (fL) 0. 00 2.00 7. 10 28.50 90. 10 95.20 100. 90 10s.20 l_11_ . 90 682.30 59L.20 8s5. 10 917. 80 t027.70 1151. 40 L248.30 123.00 582.30 Y-Left (f r) 33.00 32.00 30.00 30 .00 32 .00 32.00 34.00 35.00 38 .00 195.00 198 .00 205.00 208.00 2l_0.00 2L6.00 220.00 38 .50 193.50 X-Right ( fr) 2 .00 7 .L0 28.50 90.10 95.20 100 .90 105.20 l_l-l_ .90 682 .3 0 591-.20 856.10 917 .80 L027.70 1151 .40 1248.30 r-251_.00 582.30 69L.20 32.00 30.00 30.00 32.00 32.00 34 .00 35.00 38.00 196.00 198.00 205.00 208 .00 210.00 216.00 220.00 220.O7 193.s0 19s.s0 Y-Right Soil Tlrpe(fL) Below Bnd 6 5 6 5 6 6 6 1 1 l_ l_ 1 1 l- 1 l- 2 2 L9 20 2L 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l_ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 55 57 58 59 50 6l- 62 53 64 65 66 67 58 59 70 7t 72 73 74 697.20 856. 10 977 .80 1-027 .70 1l-s 1 . 40 1_248.30 t_19 . 10 L23.00 L24.20 l-40.00 157.00 L94.t0 205.10 437.00 449 . O0 479.10 524.1O s90. 10 590.20 849 .40 869.60 885. 00 932 .40 940 .40 1036.60 1235.10 l_03.78 LO5.57 L24.24 L39.96 1-94 .08 206. 05 436.98 449 .04 479.05 524.08 s90.12 590.18 849 .43 859. 55 886.02 932.45 l_036.58 L235 .09 1-06.70 l_40.00 194. 10 206.1_0 437.00 449 .00 479.L0 524.L0 590.10 690.20 849 .40 869.60 195.50 203.s0 20s.s0 207 .50 213.50 21-7 .50 38.27 38.47 38 .00 38-00 40.00 42.O0 44.O0 115.00 118.00 r-20.00 L26 -00 r_48.00 150.00 152.00 154 .00 156 .00 170 .00 ]-72.00 r_95.00 205.00 34.60 3s.80 37.00 37.00 4l_.00 43.00 1l_5 .00 117.00 119.00 125.00 1_47 -OO t_49.00 l_51_ . 0 0 r-53 .00 l_s5 .00 169.00 195.00 20s.00 34.00 34.00 38.00 40 .00 112.00 L14.00 116.00 1_22.00 ]-44.00 145.00 t_48 .00 1s0 .00 856.10 9r_7 .80 L027.70 1151 .40 L244.30 12s0 .00 123.00 L24.20 t_40.00 157.00 194 . 10 206 .1-O 437 .O0 449.00 479 -]-0 524 -1_0 590. t-0 690 .20 849.40 869.60 885.00 932.40 940 .40 l-035 .50 123s .10 1250.00 ]-06.67 1-24 -24 :j39.96 194.08 206.05 436.98 449 .O4 479 .O5 524 -08 590.12 590.18 849.43 859 .55 885.02 932.45 1035 .58 1-235 -09 1250 .00 140.00 L94.L0 206.10 437 .O0 449 -00 479.LO 524.!0 590.10 690 .20 849 .40 869.50 886.00 203 . s0 20s.s0 207 .so 213 .50 217 .50 2L7 .60 38.47 38.00 38.00 42.O0 42.00 44.OO 1t-6.00 118 .00 120.00 L26.O0 148.00 150.00 152.00 154.00 156.00 170.00 1_72.00 l_95.00 206.00 208 .00 35 .80 37.00 37 .00 41.00 43 .00 115.00 117 .00 1l-9.00 125.00 1,47 .00 149.00 151.00 153.00 155.00 169.00 195.00 205 .00 207 -OO 34.00 38.00 40.00 l_l_2.00 114.00 116.00 1-22.00 L44.OO r_46.00 148.00 150.00 152 .00 75 76 77 78 79 80 8l_ 82 83 84 85 85 87 88 89 90 9t 92 7 T)pe (s) of Soil Total Type Unit Wt. No. (pcf ) 1 1l_7. 0 2 58.5 3 45.0 4 45.0 5 130.0 6 Lzs.O 7 425.0 885.00 932.40 1036.60 123 5 . t_0 194. 10 206.1-0 437.OO 449 .00 479.10 524.LO 590. l_0 690 -20 849 .40 859.50 886.00 932 .40 1035.60 123 5 . t_0 152.00 165 .00 L92.00 202.00 33.00 35 .00 107.00 109.00 111.00 1t-7.00 139.00 l_41_.00 143.00 145.00 L47 .00 l-51_.00 187.00 l-97.00 Cohesion Intercept (psf ) r_06. 0 522.0 90. 0 90. 0 l_05. 0 200.0 25000. 0 932.40 r-035.60 123s. r_0 1250.00 206.L0 437 .00 449.00 479 .1_0 s24.L0 590 . r_0 594.20 849.40 869.60 886.00 932.40 l_036.50 1235.l-0 12s0.00 Friction Angle (degl 37.8 35.0 l-9. 0 19. 0 37.8 30.0 0.0 156.00 ]-92 -00 202 -OO 204.00 35.00 107.00 109.00 11L.00 1l_7.00 r_39.00 141.00 143 .00 145.00 L47 -00 161.00 187.00 L97 -OO 199.00 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS Soil Saturated Unit Wt. (pcf ) 130.0 6s. 0 45.0 4s. 0 140.0 135.0 135.0 Pore Pressure Param. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pressure Constant (Psf ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient OfO.260 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient OfO.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 psf A CriticaL Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circurar surfaces, Has Been specified. 525 Trial Sr-rfaces Have Been GeneraLed. 25 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of Along TLre Grorrnd Surface Between X and x 25 Points Equally Spaced = 100. 00 ft.. = 300. 00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between and Unless Further Limitations Were At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 950.00 =l_245. 00 Imposed, The Minirm-rm ElevaLion = 0. 00 ft. fr.fr.x x 25.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of Tkre TrialFailure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most CriticalFirst. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 30 Coordinate Points Point No. X-Surf(fr) 266 .67 29L.35 316. 03 340.70 355. 36 390.02 41_4.67 439.32 463 - 96 488.60 5]-3.22 537.85 562 .46 587 . 07 6L1-.67 635.27 550. 86 685.44 7t0 .02 734.59 759.15 783.7L Y-Surf (fr ) 80.87 84.84 88.85 92.89 95 .97 101.08 aos -23 to9 .42 113.6s 1_1_7 .90 1,22.20 L26 -s3 130.90 t_35.30 L39.74 t44.22 L48.73 153.28 ]-57.87 162 .49 167.74 1_7 L .84 l_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l_ t_ L2 13 L4 l_5 1_6 L7 18 1-9 20 27 22 Circle Center At X = t7 6 .56 18r_.33 186. l_3 1-90 .96 L95.84 200.75 205 .69 208 .98 ****** i Y = ****** affd RadiUS, ****** 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 808.2s 832.80 857. 33 88r-.85 905.38 930.89 955. 40 971-.58 ***3 .937 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 31 Coordinate Points Point No. l_ 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 l- l_ t2 13 L4 15 15 L7 18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 X-Surf(fr) 283.33 308.03 332.71 357 .40 382.08 405.75 43]- - 42 456 .09 480.76 505 _ 42 s30.07 554.72 57 9 .37 604.01 528 .55 653.28 677 .9L 702.54 727.1-6 75]_-'74 77 6 .39 801. 00 825 .60 850.20 87 4 .80 899.39 923 .98 948 .56 973.t3 997 .77 1000.28 Y-Surf(fr) 85 .49 89.40 93.34 97 -30 1_01_ - 29 105.31 l_09.34 t_13 . 41 1_17 - 49 a2L.6L 425 -74 129 .90 1_34.09 138.30 1,42.53 1-45 .7 9 151.08 155.39 759.72 164.08 ]-68 .46 17 2 .87 477 .30 LgL .7 6 L86.24 1-90.75 ]-95.28 199. 83 204.4L 209 .02 209 -50 CirCl_e Center At X = ****** ; y = ****** and RadiUS, ****** Circ]e Center At. X = 27 .59 22 -LO ]-7.2L L2.93 9.25 6.L9 3.74 l-. 90 o .67 0.07 0. 07 0.70 L.94 3.79 5.25 9.34 t-3. 03 l-7.33 22.23 27.74 33. 84 40.54 47.84 55. 7t 64.L8 73.2L 82.82 93. 00 LO3 -74 1r-5. 02 1-26.86 L39.23 L52.L4 L55.57 L79.5L 193. 95 208.9L 209 . 06 359.3 i Y = l-01-4.6 and Radius, L0L4.6 Y-Surf(fr) 50.85 44.28 38.16 32.50 ***4 .968 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 47 Coordinate Points z 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 l-0 11 L2 l-3 L4 l_5 L6 L7 18 79 20 21- 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 37 38 39 Point No. 1 2 3 4 L24.25 L48 -64 L73.t5 L97 -78 222.sl 247 .32 272.20 297 .14 322.LL 347.10 37 2 .1-0 397.09 422 .05 446 .99 47 L.87 496 .58 52L.40 546. 03 570.55 594 .93 619. 18 643.26 667 .47 690.90 7L4 .42 737 -73 750.8r_ 783 .65 806.23 828.s3 850.55 872.28 893.59 9L4.78 93s.53 955. 93 97 5 .96 976.L6 X-Surf(fr) 158.33 L82.45 205 .69 231. 04 Circle Center At X = 27.3L 22.58 18.31 14.51 11. r_8 8.32 5.94 4.02 2.58 l-.51_ T.L2 l_. 10 l_. 55 2.48 3.88 5.76 8. 10 L0.92 L4.2t L7.97 22.20 26-89 32 .05 37 .67 43.75 50 -29 57 .28 54.73 72.64 80.99 89.78 99 .02 108.69 1l_8.81 L29.35 L40.32 151 - 71 163.53 L75.75 188.40 20L.45 2L4.90 2L9.85 517.3 i Y = 1319.4 and Radius, l-3L8.4 Y-Surf(fr) ***4.978 *** Faj-lure Surface Specified By 37 5 5 7 I 9 10 11 1-2 l_3 L4 15 16 1-7 18 1_9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 37 38 39 40 4L 42 43 44 45 46 47 Point No. 255. 50 280.05 304.58 329.39 354 - 77 379. 00 403.89 428 .81 453.77 478.75 503. 75 s28 .75 553.74 578.73 503.59 628 .62 5s3. 5l- 678.35 703.13 727 -45 752.49 777.04 80 t_. s0 825 .86 85 0 . l_l_ 87 4 .24 898.24 922.LL 945 .83 969.39 992 -79 1016. 02 103 9. 08 LOSL - 94 1084. 51 ]-707.07 1_]-29.32 1l_51_.36 1173.l_6 1-L94 _ 73 ]-21,6 . 05 1_237 . L3 1_244 .56 X-Surf(fr) Coordinate Points Circle Center At X = 36 .94 30.26 24.24 18.88 14. l_8 t_0. 15 6.78 4.09 2 .07 o.73 0. 05 0.05 0.74 2.L0 4 .1_4 6 .84 1,0.22 14.25 L8 .97 24.35 30.38 37 -06 44.40 52.38 50 .99 70 -24 80. 1l- 90. 60 L0l_.70 113.40 425 .7 0 r_38.58 152. 03 L66 - 05 ]-80.52 L95 .7 4 208.52 367.L ; Y = 924.3 Y-Surf(fr) 36.94 30.26 24.24 18.87 arrd Radius, 924.4 ***5.000 *** Failure Surface Specified By 37 Coordinate Points l_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 l_0 11 t2 13 L4 l_5 l-5 77 18 L9 20 2L 22 23 24 25 26 27 2B 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 37 Point No. l- 2 3 4 108.33 ]-32.43 L56 - 69 t_81 . 11 20s .66 230.34 255 -1-L 27 9 .96 304.88 329 .85 354.84 379-84 404.83 429.79 454 .71_ 47 9 .56 504.33 529 .00 553.55 577 -97 502.23 625 .32 6s0.22 673 .9L 697 -38 720 .6\ 743.58 755 .27 788 .67 8]-o.76 832.53 853. 95 875. 03 895.73 9]-6 .04 935.9s 952. 00 X-Surf(fr) 108.33 t32.43 1-56 .69 181. 11 5 6 7 I 9 10 l_1 L2 l-3 L4 15 l_5 L7 l-8 L9 20 27 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 CircIe 20s .66 230.33 255. 1l- 27 9 .96 304. 88 329.84 354.84 37 9 .84 404.83 429.79 454.70 479 -56 504.33 528 .99 553.54 577 -96 602.2L 625.30 650.19 573.88 697.34 720.56 743.52 766.21_ 788.60 810.68 832.43 853.8s 874-90 89s. 59 91s.88 935.78 951_.24 Center At X = X-Surf(fr) 100.00 t24.27 1-48 .67 t73.27 L97.86 222.60 247 .43 272.32 297 .26 74.L7 10. t_4 5.78 4.08 2 .07 o.73 0. o5 0.07 o.76 2.L3 4.L7 5.89 L0.27 l-4.33 l_9. 05 24.44 30.49 37 .19 44.54 52.54 61- - 1-7 70.44 80.33 90. 84 101.95 1r_3.68 l-25. 00 r_38.90 1s2-38 ]-66 .42 181-. 02 ]-96.t6 208 .6L 355.9 ; Y 922.9 and Radius, 923.O ***5 .000 *** Failure Surface Specified By 38 Coordinate Points Point No. l_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Y-Surf (fr ) 33.68 27 .57 22.26 17 .47 t3.28 9.77 6 -76 4.43 2.72 10 l_1 L2 13 L4 t_5 1_5 L7 18 79 20 2L 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Circle 322.23 347 .23 372.23 397.22 422 -1_8 447 .1_0 471_ - 96 496.74 521..44 545.03 570.51 594.8s 5L9 . 04 543.06 566.9L 590. 55 7L4 - 00 737 .22 760 -20 782.93 805.39 827 .57 849 .45 871.03 892 -29 9L3.27 933.79 954.01 954.77 Center At X = 1. 53 1. 1_5 1_. 3 l- 2.09 3 .49 5. 51 8. 15 t-1.41- L5.29 L9.78 24.88 30.59 35.90 43.81 5L.32 59 .43 58.L2 77 -34 87.23 97 .64 t08.62 ]-20.L5 L32.24 744.86 158. 02 777.7 0 185. 90 200 .67 208. 85 353.5 ; Y = l-004.8 and Radius, l-003.5 Y-Surf(fr) 36 .94 31.45 26.40 21_ .7 9 L7.62 1_3. B9 10.60 7.75 5.36 3.40 1. 89 0 .82 0 .20 ***5 .009 *** Failure Surface Specified By 46 Coordinate Points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l_0 11 L2 13 X-Surf(fr) 108.33 t32.72 l-57.27 t_8l_ . 78 206 .43 231_. L5 255 - 93 280.77 305.66 330.58 355. 53 380.51 405.50 SOUTH CANYON LANDFILL PHASE 6 DRAINAGE DESIGN - MARCH 2016 BASIC DESIGN INFORMATION The site drainage characteristics and proposed drainage/retention surface water control structures were reviewed for compliance with regulations. Regulations require the site drainage system to: l. Design, construct, and maintain: (a) A run-on control system to prevent flow onto the active facility during the peak discharge from a 25-year,24-hour storm, and (b) A run-off control system to: (1) collect the water volume resulting from a 25-year,24-hour storm event and 2. Control the water volume resulting from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event (6 CCR 1007-2, Part 1, Section 2.1.6).2. Permanent surface water diversion structures remaining after closure shall control run-on and run-off from the 10O-year, 24-hour storm event (6 CCR 1007'2,Part 1, Section 2.5.7). The 24-hour, 10O-year value was used in all design efforts. General Design Assumptions There are four separate areas that require control as shown on Figure G-I. Sheet G-1 shows all of the system components. Sheet G-2 shows the individual drainage areas and reaches in a more-simplified fashion. The four areas include: l.Runoff control for the majority of the filling area (Main Filling Area). The drainage from the final cover is routed to the west via terraces to the westem perimeter ditch. That water is then routed to a detention basin in the southwest corner of the filling area as shown on Sheet G-l before flowing beneath the access road where it discharges to the ditch on the south side of the road. The routing diagram is shown on Figure G-2. Runoffcontrol for the filling area that drains to elevations below the retention basin (South Filling Area). Part of the drainage would be discharged to a second culvert that passes beneath the site. A very limited area sunounding the leachate collection pond would be routed to the existing drainage that is between the leachate collection pond and the north side of the access road. The routing diagrams for both reaches are shown on Figures G-3 and G-4. Runon control for the area between the existing surface water control ditch and the top of the final cover as depicted on Figure G-l (North Runon Area). This water would be routed to the east and discharge to the east of the facility buildings. The routing diagram is shown on Figure G-5. Runon control for the area west of the filling area (West Runon Area). Runon control has already been established for most of this area. This design assumes extending the existing control ditches southward and then through a third culvert to the south of the access road to minimize surface runon. The routing diagram is shown on Figure G-6. 2. J. 4. SOUTH CANYON LANDFILL PHASE 6 DRAINAGE DESIGN - MARCH2OI6 The input parameters include: o All modeling was completed using the 10O-year,Z4-hour,2.6-inch rainfall event; o SCS Curve Number 84;. Manning's n-value for natural slopes 0.035: o Manning's n-value for channel flow in terrace drainages 0.015 . Manning's n-value of 0.04 for the western perimeter drainage (cobble bottom) . Rip rap design criteria and specifications were taken from the Lake County design manual because it is absent from the Garfield County design requirements. SUMMARY OF MODEL INPUT Modeling was completed using the HydroCad program that uses the TR-55 algorithms. The complete input dataset is summarized below. The modeling results for all scenarios are attached. RTJNON DRAINAGE AREAS DrainageHydraulic Land Time of Area Length Slopel Runoff Concentration Area (ftl (ft) (fl/ft) (cfs) (minutes) ROAI 392,179 2,399 0.70 23.57 5.8 ROA2 I15,198 989 0.70 6.26 aaJ.J ROA3 219.069 1259 0.70 12.04 4.0 ROA4 9,193 213 0.29 0.54 1.0 0.70 11.25ROA5 201,829 750 2.6 ROA6 179,624 600 0.70 9.1I 2.2 ROAT 470532 1969 0.7 23.37 5.7 ROAS 265078 854 0.7 t4.61 2.9 ROA9 764686 1767 0.7 38.56 5.3 Note: Areas ROAT and ROA8 discharge to existing drainages, they provide realistic values to design ROA reach RT.II[OFF DRAINAGE TERRACE AREAS Drainage Hydraulic Land Time of Area Length Slopel RunoffConcentration Area (feetl (feet) (feet/foot) (cfs) (minutes) RFAI 347,452 1,738 0.043 10.27 20.9 RFA2 734,531 2,501 0.095 23.05 18.8 R_FA3 530,948 2,174 0.17 20.44 12.6 RFA4 290.996 1.991 0.29 12.78 9.0 RFA5 216,637 1,532 0.29 10.13 7.3 RFA6 44,169 464 0.29 2.44 2.8 RFAT 136,707 806 0.29 7.13 4.4 RFAS 50,908 702 0.29 2.7 3.9 2 SOUTH CANYON LANDFILL PHASE 6 DRAINAGE DESTGN - MARCH2OI6 RUNON DTVERSION DRAINAGES Inlet Outlet Width/ Mannings Area Elevation Elevation Length Slope Depth Side Slope n (fee0 (feet) (feeO (fl/ft) (feet) (feet/&q!) RONI 6480 6390 2300 0.039 2 5/2:1 0.035 RON3 6620 6451.5 I133 0.149 2 0/2:l 0.035 RONT 6778 6490 1969 0.146 2 0/2:l 0.015 RONS 6489.5 6416 687 0.107 3 012:1 0.015 RON9 6416 6394 645 0.0341 3.5 0/2:l 0.040 WESTERN RLII\OFF DRAINAGES Inlet Outlet Width/ Mannings Area Elevation Elevation Length Slope Depth Side Slope n (feeO (feet) (feet) (fl/ft) (feet) (feet/foot) WRI 6480 6451.5 783 0.036 2 012:1 0.04 WR2 6451.5 6411 160 0.253 2 012:1 0.04 WR3 6411 6363.5 4ll 0.116 2 512:1 0.04 WR4 6363.5 6338 446 0.055 2 512:1 0.04 WR5 6321 6271.5 464 0.106 2 013:1 0.04 RUNOFF DRAINAGE TERRACES Inlet Outlet Width/ Mannings Area Elevation Elevation Length Slope Depth Side Slope n (feet) (feet) (feet) (feeVfoot) (feet) (feet) - (ff/ft) lR 6477.5 6451.5 1561 0.015 2 0/10:1,3:1 0.015 2R 6430 6411 1863 0.010 2 0ll0:1,3:l 0.015 3R 6390 6364.5 2049 0.012 2 013.4:1,3:1 0.015 4R 6338 6321 1837 0.010 2 0/3:l 0.015 5R 6288 6271 1612 0.016 2 0/3:l 0.015 7R 6227.5 6220 612 0.010 2 0/3:l 0.015 DETENTION POND Inlet: 6330' Surface Perimeter Elevation Area (feet) (feet2) (feet) 6330 1004 132-t 6332 t577 163.6 6334 2244 19s.1 6336 3244 260.3 6338 4357 292.4 Note: Discharges to the Main Culvert SOUTH CA}ryON LANDFILL PHASE 6 DRAINAGE DESIGN - MARCH2OI6 CULVERTS Inlet Outlet Culvert Culvert Culvert Elevation Elevation Length Slope Dimensions Manning Ke (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet/foot) (L Main Drainage Area Culvert 6330 6328 96 0.021 35/24 0.025 0.06 South Culvert 6272 6259.5 r08 0.1 l6 3s/24 0.025 0.06 West Culvert 6392 5l 0.0784 57/38 0.025 0.06 SUMMARY OF MODEL OUTPUT WESTERN PERIMETER DITCH Max Average Average Ditch Area Velocity Velocity Depth Depth Freeboard (fps) (fps) (feet) (feet) (feet) Reach WRI 3.73 1.25 0.86 t.l4 Reach WR2 8.75 2.45 0.37 1.63 Reach WR3 6.71 1.86 o.42 1.35 Reach WR4 s.87 t.54 0.62 1.38 Reach WR5 6.13 0.76 1.24 TERRACE REACHESMax Average Average Ditch Area Velocity Velocity Depth Depth Freeboard (fps) (fps) (feet) (feet) (feet) Reach lR 4.99 1.85 0.s4 1.46 Reach 2R 5.23 1.78 0.78 1.22 Reach 3R 6.33 2.09 0.93 1.07 Reach 4R s.t6 1.70 0.80 1.20 Reach 5R 5.93 2.04 0.68 1.32 RUNON CONTROL DITCHES 2.08 Area Max Velocity Average Average Ditch Velocity Depth Depth Freeboard (fps) (fps) (feet) (feet) (feet) RONl 6.s3 1.47 0.5 1.5 RON3 8.33 RON9 7.04 2.39 2.18 3.5 1.32 ed so the results were used to complete a realistic simulation to design RO9 2.91 0.82 1.28 6388 4 2 SOUTH CANYON LANDFILL PHASE 6 DRAINAGE DESIGN - MARCH2OI6 RETENTION POI\D Pond Max Elevation: 6,38.00 feet Pond Peak Elevation: 6,336.48 feet Freeboard: 1.52 feet Culvert Discharge: 41.60 fos Note: Maximum water footprint in pond is below and outside of the limit of liner. CULYERTS lnlet Peak Max Culvert Elevation Elevation Flow(fee| (fee| (cft) Main Drainage Area Culvert South Culvert 6272 6273.71 17.00 West Culvert 6392 6395.14 66.79 CHAI\NEL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS Mean Type Reach Velocity Slope s0 17 v{<so 17 1.50 se wRl 1.25 0.036 0.568 0.710 0.6 Cobble wR2 2.4s 0.2s3 0.792 1.940 1.5 VL wR3 1.86 0.116 0.693 1.290 1.0 Cobble wR4 1.54 0.055 0.61I 0.941 0.7 Cobble wR5 2.08 0.16 0.732 1.523 Grass 1.85 0.0151 0.490 0.907 0.7 Grass 1.78 0.01 0.457 0.814 0.6 Grass 2.09 0.012 0.471 0.985 0.8 Grass RONI RON3 2.91 0.t49 0.724 2.105 1.7 VL RON9 to Provide energY dissiPation. 6330 *",ii,13.0i",0 4t 60 1.2 IR 2R 3R 4R 5R SOUTH CANYON LANDFILL PHASE 6 DRAINAGE DESIGN - MARCH2OI6 SUMMARY The design requirements are reproduced on the table below. This information is included along with the i"rru." and drainage reach sections and construction notes on Sheet G-1. Reach Depth Side Slope Bottom Protection width 1R T ill cover, 2:l on downhill berm Grass 2R Tr ill cover, 2: I on downhill berm Grass 3R Tr ill cover, 2:l on downhill berm q q 9q 0 Grass 4R 5R 8R ? z 2 2 a 1 3.4:1 ill cover, 2:l on downhill berm 3.4:l ill cover, 2:1 on downhill berm 3.4:l ill cover, 2:l on downhill berm Grass Grass Cobble CobblewR12:l both sides wR2 2:l both sides 2:l both sides Tvpe Vl wR3 Cobble2 wR4 2:1 both sides Cobble wR5 3:l both sides Cobble wR7 3:1 both sides Cobble RONI 2: I both sides Cobble RON3 2: I both sides Type VI, RON9 3.5 2:1 both sides Cobble S REACH 3:1 both sides Cobble 12 5 6 q:9 nr{z + A SW Pond Routing Diagram for Phase 6 main FINAL Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC HydroCADtD 1 o.oo-1 5 s/n 04925 @ 201 5 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC@EdAm SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60"Phase 6 main FINAL Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC 15 s/n Solutions Peak Elev=6,336.48' Storage=13,444 cf lnflow=48.16 cfs 5'318 af pipe Arch culvert n=0.025 L=96.0' s=0.0208 '/' Outflow=41.61 cfs 5.318 af Time span=5.00-96.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 9101 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sior-lnd+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-lnd method Reach {R: Reach I Reach 2R: Reach 2 Pond SWP: SW Pond 35.0" x 24.0" , R=17 .9'/55.1 " Avg.FlowDepth=0.54'MaxVel=4.99fpslnflow=10.27cfs0.794af n=0.015 L=',| ,727.o', 5=0.0151 '/ capacity=312.65 cfs outflow=9.29 cfs 0.794 af Avg.FlowDepth=0.78'MaxVel=5.23fpslnflow=23.05cfs1.678af n=0.015 L=1 ,892.0' s=0.0100 '/ capacity=255.35 cfs outflow=20.49 cfs 1 .678 af Reach 3R: Reach 3 Avg. Flow Depth=0.93' Max Vel=6.33 fps lnflow=20.44 cfs 1.213 af n=0.015 L=2,121.o', S=0.0120'/ Capacity=134.77 cfs outflow=17.62cfs 1.213af Subcatchment RFA1: RFAI Runoff Area=347 ,452 sf 0.00% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=1,738' Slope=0.0430 '/' Tc=20.9 min CN=84 Runoff=10.27 cfs 0'794 af subcatchment RFA2: RFA2 Runoff Area=734,531 sf 0.00% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=2,501' Slope=0.0950'/' Tc=18.8 min CN=84 Runoff=23.05 cfs 1'678 af Subcatchment RFA3: RFA3 Runoff Area=530,948 sf 0.00% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=2,174' Slope=0.1700'/' Tc=12.6 min CN=84 Runoff=20.44 cfs 1'213 af subcatchment RoA2: R-ON Area 2 Runoff Area=1 15,192 sf 0.00% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=989' Slope=0.7000'/ Tc=3.3 min CN=84 Runoff=6.26 cfs 0.263 af Subcatchment ROA3: ROA3 RunoffArea=2z7,439 sf 0.00% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=1 ,260' Slope=0.7000 '/ Tc=4.0 min CN=84 Runoff=12.04 cfs 0.520 af Subcatchment ROA4: ROA4 Runoff Area=9,199 sf 0.00% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=213' Slope=0.7000 '/ Tc=1.0 min CN=84 Runoff=O.54 cfs 0.021 af Subcatchment ROAs: ROAS Runoff Area=201,829 sf O.0O% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=7s0' Slope=0.7000 '/' Tc=2.6 min CN=84 Runoff=11.25 cfs 0.461 af Subcatchment ROA6: ROA6 Runoff Area=161,203 sf O.OO% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=600' Slope=0.7000 '/ Tc=2.2 min CN=84 Runoff=9.1 1 cfs 0.368 af Reach RON3: Runon Reach 3 Avg. Flow Depth=0.82' Max Vel=8.38 fps lnflow=12.04 cfs 0.520 af n=0.035 L=1,133.0', s=0.1487'/ Capacity=121.60 cfs outflow=11.24 cfs 0.520 af Reach WRl: West Reach 1 Avg. Flow Depth=0.86' Max Vel=3.73 fps lnflow=6.26 cfs 0.263 af n=0.040 L=785.0' 5=0.0363'/ Capacity=S2.S7 cfs Outflow=5.46 cfs 0.263 af Reach WR2: West Reach 2 Avg. Flow Depth=0.37' Max Vel=8.75 fps lnflow=18.68 cfs 1.597 af n=0.040 L=l60.0' s=0.2531 ',/ Capacity=398.86 cfs outflow=18.63 cfs 1 .597 af Reach WR3: West Reach 3 Avg. Flow Depth=0.42' Max Vel=6.71 fps lnflow=33.50 cfs 3.736 af n=0.040 L=411.o', S=0.1156',/ Capacity=497.40 cfs outflow=33.42c1s 3'736 af Phase 6 main FINAL SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC HvdioCAD@ i 0.oo-15 s/n 04925 O 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 4 Summary for Reach 1R: Reach I 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19"lnflow Area =lnflow =Outflow = 7.976 ac, 10.27 cfs @ 9.29 cfs @ 12.14hrs, Volume= 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.794 af 0.794 af, Atten= 10o/o, Lag= 9.9 min Routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0'01 hrs Max. Velocity= 4.99 fps, Min. TravelTime= 5.8 min Avg. Velocity = 1.85 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 15.6 min Peak Storage= 3,215 cf @ 12.21 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.54' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' Flow Area= 26.0 sf, Capacity= 312.65 cfs 0,00' x 2.00' deepchannel, n= 0.015 Side Slope Z-value= 10.0 3.0 '/' Top Width= 26.00' Length= 1,727.0' Slope= 0.0151 '/' lnlet lnvert= 6,477.50', Outlet lnvert= 6,451.50' Reach 1R: Reach 1 Hydrograph 16 17 1 S 1 9 20 21 22 23 ?4 25 26 27 2e 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Time (hours) 5 6 7 8 91011 ',t213 14 SCLF Main Fill Area 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC HvdioCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paqe 5 Phase 6 main FINAL lnflow Area =lnflow =Outflow = Summary for Reach 2R: Reach 2 16.863 ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1 .19" 23.05 cfs @ 12.12hrs, Volume= 1.678 af 20.49 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 1.678 af , Atten= 11oh, Lag= 10.2 min Routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 5.23 fps, Min. TravelTime= 6.0 min Avg. Velocity = 1.78 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 17.7 min Peak Storage= 7,418 cf @ 12.19 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.78' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' Flow Area= 26.0 sf, Capacity= 255.35 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deepchannel, n= 0.015 Side Slope Z-value= 10.0 3.0'/' Top Width= 26.00' Length= 1 ,892.0' Slope= 0.0100 '/' lnlet lnvert= 6,430.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,41 1.00' Reach 2R: Reach 2 Hydrograph o o !o ll 567891011121314151617ft1920212223242526?7252930313233343536373839404142434445464748 Time (hours) SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60"Phase 6 main FINAL Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC_ HvdioCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 O 2015 HvdroCAD Software Soluti Summary for Reach 3R: Reach 3 lnflow Area = 12.189 ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19" lnflow = 20.44 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 1.213 af Outflow = 17.62 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.213 af , Atten= 14o/o, Lag= 9.0 min Routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 6.33 fps, Min. TravelTime= 5.6 min Avg. Velocity = 2.09 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 16.9 min Peak Storage= 5,905 ct @ 12.11 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.93' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' FlowArea= 12.8 sf, Capacity= 134.77 cfs O.O0' x 2.00' deePchannel, n= 0.015 Side Slope Z-value= 3.4 3.0'/' Top Width= 12.80' Length= 2,121.0' Slope= 0.0120't lnlet lnvert= 6,390.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,364.50' Reach 3R: Reach 3 o o ;otr a g rbrr tzlst+lsrclr lBtg202t2229242526272a29303132333435 363738394041 424344454647 48 Time (hours) Phase 6 main FINAL Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" HvdroCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paqe 7 Summary for Subcatchment RFA1: RFA1 Runoff - 10.27 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.794 af , Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Area (sf) CN Description 347,452 84 347,452 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description(min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 20.9 1,738 0.0430 1.38 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment RFA1 : RFA1 9 101112 1314151617181920212223242526272A2930313233343536373839404142434445464748 Time (hours) o ;otr Hydrograph l=n,,*trt Phase 6 main FINAL Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting,LLC SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" 10.00-15 s/n 04925 LLC Summary for Subcatchment RFA2: RFA2 Runoff = 23.05 cfs @ 12.12hrs, Volume=1 .678 af , Depth= 1 .19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Area (sf) CN Description 734,531 84 734,531 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 18.8 2,501 0.0950 2.21 Lag/GN Method, Subcatchment RFA2: RFA2 o o ,o lt Hydrograph g totltz1314.l5.l6 tltstgzo2l 222324252.627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748 Time (hours) Phase 6 main FINAL SCLF Main Fill Area 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC HvdioCAD@ i O.OO-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 9 Summary for Subcatchment RFA3: RFA3 Runoff = 20.44 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume=1 .213 af , Depth= 1 .19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Area (sf) CN Description* 530,948 84 530,948 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description(min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 12.6 2,174 0.1700 56789 2.88 Lag/GN Method, Subcatchment RFA3: RFA3 o o 3otr Hydrograph to lt,tz,ts fl,ts rc I ft @20 ?1 2223 24 2526 272829 3031 32 3334 3536 37 3E39 40 4',142 4344 45 4647 48 Time (hours) SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60"Phase 6 main FINAL Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting,LLC 10.00-15 o20 Summary for Subcatchment ROA2: R-ON Area2 Runoff =6.26 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume=0.263af , DePth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Area (s0 CN DescriPtion 115,192 100.00% Pervious Area Length Slope Velocity Capacity DescriptionTc min) 3.3 989 0.7000 4.99 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Lag/GN Method, Subcatchment ROA2: R-ON Area2 o o ,otr Hydrograph Time (hours) l=n-""trl Phase 6 main FINAL Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" 10.00-15 s/n 04925 O2015 Summary for Subcatchment ROA3: ROA3 Runoff = 12.04 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.520 af, Depth= '1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" 227,439 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description(min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 4.0 1,260 0.7000 5.24 56789 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment ROA3: ROA3 o o ;olr Hydrograph to Il Iz ts M ts ta tt la 1s2o 21 2223 24 2526 27 28 29 3031 32 33 34 35 36 37 3A39 40 41 42 4344 45 4447 4E Time (hours) Area (sfl CN Descriotion SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60"Phase 6 Prepared main FINAL by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC D 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @20@ Summary for Subcatchment ROA4: ROA4 Runoff =0.54 cfs @ 11.91 hrs, Volume=0.021 af , Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type tl 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" 9,1 99 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 1.0 213 0.7000 3.67 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment ROA4: ROA4 d"e'i"B Ui0i'tiitilitiirchrctgzoztz223242s26272a2s3o3i3233343536373B3e4041 42434445464748 0.5 0.45 0.4 o o ;olt o.2 0.'15 0.1 Hydrograph Time (hours) Phase 6 main FINAL SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC HvdiocnD@ i o.oo-t s sln o+gzs O zot s HvdroCRD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Subcatchment ROAS: ROAS Runoff - 11 .25 cfs @ 1 1 .93 hrs, Volume= 0.461 af , Depth= 1 .19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" 201,829 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 2.6 750 0.7000 4.72 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment ROAS: ROAS l=Er""fft 6 7 E 9 tot,ttztgtqlslre,tltarc2o21 zz23242s262z2a29sosi3233343536373839404'l 42434445464748 o o =o I Area (s0 CN Description Hydrograph Time (hours) Phase 6 main FINAL SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" LLCPrepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, HvdioCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 O 2015 HvdroCAD Softt LLC Summary for Subcatchment ROA6: ROA6 Runoff =9.1 1 cfs @ 1 1.93 hrs, Volume=0.368 af, DePth= 1 .19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0'01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" 161.203 84 161,203 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 2.2 600 0.7000 4.51 Lag/GN Method, Subcatchment ROA6: ROA6 HydrograPh 6 6 i 6 g to t t tz 1s 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 2223 24 2s26 27 2E 29 3031 32 33 34 3s 36 3839 40 41 42 4344 45 4647 48 o o =otr Time (hours) Phase 6 Prepared main FINAL by American Enviornmental Consulting,LLC SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" 04925 0 Summary for Reach RON3: Runon Reach 3 O.O0% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19"lnflow Area = 5.221 ac, lnflow = 12.04 cfs @ Outflow - 11.24 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.520 af 0.520 af, Atten= 7o/o, Lag= 3.6 min Routing by stor-lnd+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 8.38 fps, Min. TravelTime= 2.3 min Avg. Velocity = 2.91fps, Avg. Travel Time= 6'5 min Peak Storage= 1,521 cf @ 11.97 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.82' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' Flow Area= 8.0 sf, Capacity= 121.60 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deeP channel, n= 0.035 Side Slope Z-value= 2.0'l' Top Width= 8'00' Length= 1,133.0' Slope= 0.1487 'l lnlet lnvert= 6,620.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,451.50' o o '-9r Reach RON3: Runon Reach 3 Hydrograph "W 5 6 7 8 s1011 121slatstavlsleioztzzdli.qzszazt2azs3o3132333435363738394041 42434445464748 12.04 ct 24 cls rt !)I t I t t -rt t tl I ll IItt(D J t rr.)3 , I IR It I I a , a t It\ t,n p a I ,r ,(T t t Time (hours) Phase 6 main FINAL SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC 15 s/n 04925 Summary for Pond SWP: SW Pond lnflowArea = 53.439 ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19" lnflow = 48.16 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 5.318 af Outflow = 4L61 cfs @ 12.41hrs, Volume= 5'318 af, Atten= 14o/o, Lag= 6'8 min Primary = 41.61 cfs @ 12.41hrs, Volume= 5'318 af Routing by Stor-lnd method, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0'01 hrs Peak E-lev= 6,336.48' @ 12.41hrs Surf.Area= 3,497 sf Storage= 13,444 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 3.8 min calculated for 5.317 at (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 3.8 min ( 865.0 - 861-2 ) Volume lnvert Avail.storage Storaqe Description +f O,33O.OO' 19,392 cf Gustom Stage Data (lrregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim.lnc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area 6,330.00 6,332.00 6,334.00 6,336.00 6,338.00 1,004 1,577 2,244 3,244 4,357 132.1 163.6 195.1 260.3 292.4 0 2,560 3,801 5,457 7,574 0 2,560 6,361 1 1,818 19,392 1,004 1,802 2,770 5,176 6,693 Device Routing lnvert Outlet Devices #1 primary O,ggO.OO' 35.0" W x24.0" H, R=17.9"/55.{" Pipe Arch CMP-ArchJl2 35v24 L= 96.0' Ke= 0.600 lnlet / Outlet lnvert= 6,330.00' / 6,328.00' S= 0'0208 '/' Cc= 0'900 n= 0.025, Flow Area= 4.63 sf Primary OutFIow Max=41.60 cfs @ 12.41 hrs HW=6,336.48' (Free Discharge).Ll=cirtplrchJl2 gsx24 (BarrelControls 41.60 cfs @ 8.98 fps) Phase 6 main FINAL Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting,LLC SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" 04925 0 Pond SWP: SW Pond U:tTilijS;ilii6'i?i'algzb*izisiqis2aztzazgsodtszsagassgogz3s3e4041 42434445464748 Time (hours) SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60"Phase 6 Prepared main FINAL by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC 10.0492s o Summary for Reach WR{: West Reach 1 lnflow Area = 2.644 ac, O.OO% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19" infto* = 6.26 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0'263 al Outflow = 5.46 cts @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.263 af, Atten= 13%, Lag= 5'4 min Routing by stor-lnd+Trans method, Time spa!: 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Vllocity= 3.73 fps, Min. Travel Time= 3'5 min Avg. Velocity = 1.25 fps, Avg. TravelTime= 10'4 min Peak Storage= 1 ,1 51 ct @ 1 1 .97 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.86' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' Flow Area= 8'0 sf, Capacity= 52'57 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deeP channel, n= 0'040 Side Slope Z-value= 2.0'l' Top Width= 8.00' Length= 785.0' SloPe= 0.0363'/' lnleilnvert= 6,480.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,451.50' Reach WR{: West Reach 1 HydrograPh FTT-fifilEiSrXElt"iii'tla'tls";oil ziii iciiiait zads sn.t 32 33 34 3530 37 383e40 4142 4344 4546 47 48 Time (hours) SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60"Phase 6 main FINAL Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC 10.00-04925 @201 ons LLC Summary for Reach WR2: West Reach 2 lnflow Area = 16.053 ac, O.O0% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19" lnflow ' 18.68 cfs @ 12.O2hrs, Volume= 1'597 af Outflow = 18.63 cts @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 1.597 af , Atten= 0%, Lag= 0'5 min Routing by stor-lnd+Trans method, Time span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 8.75 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.3 min Avg. Velocity = 2-45 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 1'1 min Peak Storage= 341cf @ 12.03 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.37' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' Flow Area= 18.0 sf, Capacity= 398.86 cfs 5.00' x 2.00' deeP channel, n= 0.040 Side Slope Z-value= 2.0 'l' Top Width= 13.00' Length= 160.0' SloPe= 0.2531't lnlef lnvert= 6,451 .50', Outlet lnvert= 6,41 1.00' Reach WR2: West Reach 2 HydrograPh flTTT-f 1'o;'i'tSiliiiiii t)siii iilgio zt izisitisiazt za2s3o 31323s 343s 36 37 38 3e 40 41 4243 4445 4647 48 o o ;otr Time (hours) Phase 6 main FINAL Prepared by American Enviornmenta! Co11Y!tfq,LLC SCLF Main FillArea 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" s/n 04925 Sol Summary for Reach WR3: West Reach 3 lnflow Area = 37.549 ac, O.OO% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1 .19" lnflow = 33.50 cfs @ 12.29hrs, Volume= 3'736 af Outflow = 33.42cts @ 12.32hrs, Volume= 3.736 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 1'7 min Routing by stor-lnd+Trans method, Time span= 5-00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0'01 hrs Max. Vllocity= 6.71 fps, Min. TravelTime= 1'0 min Avg. Velocity = 1.86 fps, Avg. TravelTime= 3'7 min Peak Storage= 2,049 cf @ 12.30 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.42' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' Flow Area= 30.0 sf, Capacity= 497'40 cfs 11.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n= 0.040 Side Slope Z-value= 2.0'l' Top Width= 19.00' Length= 411.0' SloPe= 0.1156'/' lnlet lnvert= 6,411.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,363.50' Reach WR3: West Reach 3 HydrograPh "ffi,;;,;:,,;o";\.;;;1iiisiaziiadsaoitezgs3435363738394o4142434445464748 Time (hours) Phase 6 Prepared main FINAL by American Enviornmental Consulting,LLC SCLF Main Fill Area 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" 15 s/n 049 LLC Summary for Reach WR4: West Reach 4 lnflow Area = 53.439 ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1' 19" lnflow = 48.30 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 5.318 af Outflow = 48.16 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 5.318 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 2'2 min Routing by stor-lnd+Trans method, Time span= 5-00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 5.87 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.3 min Avg. Velocity = 1.54 fps, Avg. TravelTime= 5.1 min Peak Storage= 3,834 cf @ 12.28 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.62' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' Flow Area= 32.0 sf, Capacity= 368.51 cfs 12.00' x 2.00' deeP channel, n= 0.040 Side Slope Z-value= 2.0'l' Top Width= 20.00' Length= 467.0' SIoPe= 0.0546 '/' lnlet lnvert= 6,363.50', Outlet lnvert= 6,338.00' Reach WR4: West Reach 4 Hydrograph o o =otr Itiii t'iliiitli lati tatsdoydzzszadszazt2azsso3l323334z53o3t 383e4041 4243444s4647 48 Time (hours) 56789 @ g!tou E #acn s / South Culvert Routing Diagram for Phase 6 south FINAL Prepared by American- Enviionmental Consulting, LLC, Printed 312512016 E O(eacn + West Reach 5 n#n+ + RFAb! ivoioCnfjo 1 o.oo-1 5 s/n 04925 @ 201 5 HydrocAD Software Solutions LLC@@4ru Phase 6 south FINAL SCLF Sourth Filling Area to South Culvert TyPe ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Printed 312512016Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC 10.00-15 s/n Time span=5.00-120.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 11501 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sior-lnd+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-lnd method Subcatchment RFA4: RFA4 Runoff Area=290,996 sf 0.00% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=1,991' Slope=0.2900 '/' Tc=9.0 min CN=84 Runoff=12.78 cfs 0'665 af SubcatchmentRFAS: RFAS Runoff Area=216,637 sf 0.00% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=1,532' Slope=0.2900 '/' Tc=7.3 min CN=84 Runoff=10.13 cfs 0'495 af SubcatchmentRFA6: RFA6 Runoff Area=44,169 sf 0.00% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=464' Slope=0.2900'/' Tc=2.8 min cN=84 Runoff=2.44 cfs 0.101 af Reach 4R: Reach 4 Reach SR: Reach 5 Avg. Flow Depth=0.68' Max Vel=5.93 fps lnflow=10.13 cfs 0.495 af n=0.015 t=1,0t2.0' s=0.0161 '/' Capaci$=156.10 cfs Outflow=8.74 cfs 0.495 af Reach WRS: West Reach S Avg. Flow Depth=0.76' Max Vel=6.1 3 fps lnflow= 1 0.83 cfs 0.766 af n=0.040 L=623.d' S=0.1059'/' Capacity=140.09 cfs Outflow=10'61 cfs 0.766 af Pond SC: South Culvert Peak Elev=6,273'71' lnflow=17'00 cfs 1'261 af 35.0,,x 24.0",R=17.g'/55.1" PipeArchCulvert n=0.025 L=108.0' S=0.1157'/' Outflow=17.00cfs 1.261af Avg.FlowDepth=0.80'MaxVel=5.16fpslnflow=12'78cfs0'665af n=0.015 L=1,837.0' 5=0.0098 7' Capacity=121.67 cfs Outflow=10.52 cfs 0.665 af Phase 6 south FINAL SCLF Sourth Filling Area to South Culvert TYPe ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Printed 312512016Prepared by American Environmental Consulting,LLC Summary for Subcatchment RFA4: RFA4 Runoff = 12.78 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume=0.665 af, DePth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Area (sf) CN DescriPtion 996 290,996 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 9n 1,991 0.2900 3.69 Lag/GN Method, Subcatchment RFA4: RFA4 HydrograPh 5' l 7 B -6 -id t' t tl i t' i r' i i s $ tit fi ts io it 22 23 24 25 26 27 2a 3031 32 3334 3536 37 3839 40 41 42 43 44 45 4647 48 o o i -eI Time (hours) tr-R";"rri Phase 6 south FINAL SCLF Sourth Filling Area to South Culvert TYPe ll 24-hr Rainfall=2'60" Printed 312512016Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC HvdioCAD@ i o.oo-t s s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD software I Summary for Subcatchment RFAS: RFAS Runoff = 10.1 3 cfs @ 1 '1 .99 hrs, Volume=0.495af , DePth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" 216,637 84 216,637 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 7.3 1,532 0.2900 3.50 Lag/GN Method, Subcatchment RFAS: RFAS o o =o II 56789 Hydrograph .!TlW ti,ot'tizt'st"cl.siafifitgzoitdzzlzq2526272a2s3031 3233343s363738394041 42434445464748 Time (hours) SCLF Sourth Filling Area to South Culvert Phase 6 south FINAL Type ll24-hr Rainfall=2'60" Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC- rinted 3/2512016 HydiocAD@ io.oo-1s s/n 04925 o 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paqe 5 Summary for Subcatchment RFA6: RFA6 Runoff = 2.44 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume=0.101 af, Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" 44,169 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 2.8 464 0.2900 2.76 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment RFA6: RFA6 @ a 9 iotr lztsl+tslafi1aj92o212223242s2627 2829303132333435363738394041 42434445464748 Hydrograph Time (hours) Arca /q,f) CN l)escrintion Phase 6 south FINAL SCLF Sourth Filling Area to South Culvert Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC Printed 312512016 HvdioCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paqe 6 Summary for Reach 4R: Reach 4 lnflowArea = 6.680 ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19" lnflow = 12.78 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.665 af Outflow = 10.52cfs@ 12.16hrs, Volume= 0.665af, Atten= 1$o/o, Lag= 9.1 min Routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 5.16 fps, Min. TravelTime= 5.9 min Avg. Velocity = 1.70 fps, Avg. TravelTime= 18.0 min Peak Storage= 3,751cf @ 12.06 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.80' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' FlowArea= 12.8 sf , Capacity= 121.67 cts 0.00' x 2.00' deepchannel, n= 0.015 Side Slope Z-value= 3.4 3.0'l' Top Width= 12.80' Length= 1,837.0' Slope= 0.0098'/' lnlet lnvert= 6,339.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,321.00' Reach 4R: Reach 4 o o ;otr Hydrograph 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637 3839404142434445464744 Time (hours) SCLF Sourth Filling Area to South Culvert Phase 6 south FINAL Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC Printed 312512016 HvdioCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paqe 7 Summary for Reach 5R: Reach 5 lnflow Area = 4.973 ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19" lnflow = 10.1 3 cfs @ 1 1 .99 hrs, Volume= 0.495 af Outflow = 8.74cfs@ 12.11hrs, Volume= 0.495af, Atten= 14o/o, Lag= 7'1 min Routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 5.93 fps, Min. TravelTime= 4.5 min Avg. Velocity = 2.04 fps, Avg. TravelTime= 13.2 min Peak Storage= 2,378 cf @ 12.03 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.68' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' FlowArea= 12.8 sf, Capacity= 156.10 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deepchannel, n= 0.015 Side Slope Z-value= 3.4 3.0'/' Top Width= 12.80' Length= 1,612.0' Slope= 0.0161 '/' Inlet lnvert= 6,298.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,272.00' Reach 5R: Reach 5 Hydrograph o o i -9L tz ts t + t s 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Time (hours) 567891011 SCLF Sourth Filling Area to South Culvert Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC Printed 312512016 HvdroCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 8 Summary for Reach WRS: West Reach 5 [62] Hint: Exceeded Reach 4R OUTLET depth by 17.13' @ 12.25 hrs Phase 6 south FINAL lnflow Area =lnflow =Outflow = 7.694ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflowDepth = 1.19" 10.83 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.766 af 10.61 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.766 af, Atten= 2o/o, Lag= 3.0 min Routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 6.13 fps, Min. TravelTime= 1.7 min Avg. Velocity = 2.08 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.0 min Peak Storage= 1,080 cf @ 12.18 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.76' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' FlowArea= 12.0 sf, Capacity= 140.09 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n= 0.040 Side Slope Z-value= 3.0'/' Top Width= 12.00' Length= 623.0' Slope= 0.1059'/' lnlet lnvert= 6,338.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,272.00' Phase 6 south FINAL SCLF Sourth Filling Area to South Culvert Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC Printed 312512016 HvdroCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paqe 9 Reach WRS: West Reach 5 5 6 7 8 91011121314151617la192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748 Hydrograph Time (hours) Phase 6 south FINAL SCLF Sourth Filling Area to South Culvert Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC Printed 312512016 HvdroCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 10 Summary for Pond SC: South Culvert [57] Hint: Peaked at6,273.71'(Flood elevation advised) [62] Hint: Exceeded Reach 5R OUTLET depth by 1.20' @ 12.18 hrs [62] Hint: Exceeded Reach WRs OUTLET depth by 0.96' @ 12.15 hrs lnflow Area = 12.668 ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19" lnflow = 17.00 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.261 af Outflow = 17.00 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.261 af , Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 17.00 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.261 af Routing by Stor-lnd method, Time Span= 5.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6,273.71'@ 12.16 hrs Device Routinq lnvert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6,272.00' 35.0" W x24.0" H, R=17.9"/55.1" Pipe Arch CMP-Arch-1l2 35x24 L= 108.0' Ke= 0.600 lnlet / Outlet lnvert= 6,272.00' / 6,259.50' S= 0.1 157 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.025 Corrugated metal, Flow Area= 4.63 sf lrimary OutFlow Max=17.00 cfs @ 12.16 hrs H\N=6,273.71' (Free Discharge) t-1=6!ulP_Arch_112 35x24 (lnlet Controls 17.00 cfs @ 3.97 fps) Pond SC: South Culvert a o ;ou Hydrograph 5 6 7 8 9 1011 121314151617 1819202122232425262728293031 32333435363738394041 424344454647 4A Time (hours) Phase 6 to south ditch FINAL SCLF Phase 6 South Filling Area Below Culvert TYPe ll 24-hr Rainfall=2-60" Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC, rinted 312512016 Hvd;oCAD@ i0.00-15 s/n 04925 O 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 2 Time span=5.00-120.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 1 1501 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-lnd method Subcatchment RFAT: RFAT Runoff Area= 136,707 sf 0.00% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=806' Slope=0.2900'/' Tc=4.4 min CN=84 Runoff=7.13 cfs 0.312 af Subcatchment RFAS: RFAS Runoff Area=50,908 sf 0.00% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=7O2' Slope=0.2900 '/' Tc=3.9 min CN=84 Runoff=2.7O cfs 0.116 af Avg. Flow Depth=0.69' Max Vel=4.67 fps lnflow=7.13 cfs 0.312 af n=0.015 L=612.0' 5=0.0098 '/' Capacity=113.65 cfs Outflow=6.69 cfs 0.312 af Avg. Flow Depth=0.34' Max Vel=7.44 fps lnflow=2.7O cfs 0.116 af n=0.0.t5 L=719.0' 5=0.0640'/' capacity=290.32 cfs outflow=2.S9 cfs 0.116 af Avg. Flow Depth=0.53' Max Vel=10.73 fps lnflow=9.2O cfs 0.429 af n=0.015 L=678.0' 5=0.0737 '/', Capacity=31 1.69 cfs Outflow=9.0s cfs 0.429 af Reach 7R: Reach 7R Reach 8R: Reach I Reach SR: South Reach Phase 6 to south ditch FINAL Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC SCLF Phase 6 South Filling Area Below Culvert TYPe ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Printed 312512016 Summary for Subcatchment RFAT: RFAT Runoff =7.'13 cfs @ 1 1.96 hrs, Volume=0.312af , Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Area (sf) CN Description 136,707 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fVft) (fVsec) (cfs) 4.4 806 0.2900 3.08 Lag/GN Method, Subcatchment RFAT: RFAT 56789 6 o '-9lt Hydrograph 1ot1 1213 ti,t tsrc r s fi20212223 242s2627 2829 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4041 4243 4445 4647 48 Phase 6 to south ditch FINAL SCLF Phase 6 South Filling Area Below Culvert TYPe ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC Printed 312512016 HvdioCAD@ io.o0-15 s/n 0492s O 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLc Paoe 4 Summary for Subcatchment RFAS: RFAS Runoff = 2.70 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume=0.1 16 af, Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Area (sf) CN Description 50,908 84 50,908 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description(min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 3.9 702 0.2900 3.00 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment RFAS: RFAS i a gfi11tztsiqtsrcfiftfizozt2223242s26272a2s303i3233343s363738394041 42434445464748 l= n,,*trl o o ;IL Hydrograph Time (hours) t+ I HvdroCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 5 Phase 6 to south ditch FINAL Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC lnflow Area =lnflow =Outflow = SCLF Phase 6 South Filling Area Below Culvert Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Printed 312512016 Summary for Reach 7R: Reach 7R 3.138 ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19" 7.13 cfs @ 1 1 .96 hrs, Volume= 0.312 af 6.69 cfs @ 12.O2hrs, Volume= 0.312 af , Atten= 6%, Lag= 3.6 min Routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 4.67 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.2 min Avg. Velocity = 1.64 fps, Avg. TravelTime= 6.2 min Peak Storage= 879 cf @ 11.98 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.69' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' Flow Area= 12.0 sf , Capacity= 113.65 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deepchannel, n= 0.015 Side Slope Z-value= 3.0'/' Top Width= 12.00' Length= 612.0' Slope= 0.0098'/' lnlet lnvert= 6,228.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,222.00' o o =otr 5 6 7 E 9101',|',t213141516171819202122232425262728293031 3233343536373839404142434445464748 Time (hours) SCLF Phase 6 South Filling Area Below Culvert Phase 6 to south ditch FINAL Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC Printed 312512016 HvdroCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paqe 6 lnflow Area =lnflow =Outflow = Summary for Reach 8R: Reach 8 1.169 ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19" 2.70 cts @ 1 1.95 hrs, Volume= 0.1 16 af 2.59 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.116 af, Atten= 4oh, Lag=2.7 min Routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 7.44 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.6 min Avg. Velocity = 2.74 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 4.4 min Peak Storage= 251 cl @ 1't.97 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.34' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' FlowArea= 12.0 sf, Capacity= 290.32 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deepchannel, n= 0.015 Side Slope Z-value= 3.0'/' Top Width= 12.00' Length= 719.0' Slope= 0.0640'/' lnlet lnvert= 6,268.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,222.00' o o , -9L Reach 8R: Reach 8 9 101',t1213141516171819202122232425262728293031 3233343536373839404142434445464748 Time (hours) Hydrograph I I I I I I I I I I l- I I I I I I I i I I I I I -t- I I I l I I i I ltllrtlttrttlttlitltlt r-t+-lllIllrttltlltlllll r-[rllrtllttttttlttItl IAilltliiiltl i-; lil -f I I I I I I I I +- l I i I I I I I I SCLF Phase 6 South Filling Area Below Culvert Phase 6 to south ditch FINAL Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC Printed 312512016 HvdioCAD@ io.oo-1s s/n 04925 O 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 7 Summary for Reach SR: South Reach [61] Hint: Exceeded Reach 7R outlet invert by 0.53'@ 12.02hrs [62] Hint: Exceeded Reach 8R OUTLET depth by 0.26'@ 12.06 hrs lnflow Area =lnflow =Outflow = 4.30T ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19" 9.20 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.429 af 9.05 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.429 af , Atten= 2o/o, Lag= 1.8 min Routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 10.73 fps, Min. TravelTime= 1.1 min Avg. Velocity = 3.83 fps, Avg. TravelTime= 2.9 min Peak Storage= 573 cf @ 12.02hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.53' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' FlowArea= 12.0 sf, Capacity= 311.69 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n= 0.015 Side Slope Z-value= 3.0'/' Top Width= 12.00' Length= 678.0' Slope= 0.0737't lnlet lnvert= 6,222.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,172.00' SCLF Phase 6 South Filling Area Below Culvert Phase 6 to south ditch FINAL Type ll 24'hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Environmental Consulting, LLC Printed 312512016 HvdioCAD@ i O.0O-15 s/n 04925 O 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe I Reach SR: South Reach Hydrograph o '-9lr 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637 38394041 42434445464748 Time (hours) Phase 6 Runon Control SCLF West Run-On Control 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC HvdroCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 2 Time span=5.00-96.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 9101 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-lnd method Subcatchment ROAS: R-ON Area I Runoff Area=764,686 sf 0.00% lmpervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=1,767' Slope=0.7000 '/ Tc=5.3 min CN=84 Runoff=38.56 cls 1.747 at Reach RONS: Run On 9 Avg. Flow Depth=2.18' Max Vel=7.04 fps Inflow=68.76 cfs 3.427 af n=0.040 L=645.0' 5=0.0372 '/ Capacity=236.69 cfs Outflow=66.83 ds 3.427 al Pond WG: Culvert Peak Elev=6,395.14' lnflow=66.83 cts 3.427 al 57.0" x 38.0", R=28.9"/88.3" Pipe Arch Culvert n=0.025 L=51.0' S=0.0784 '/' Outflow=66.83 cfs 3.427 al Phase 6 Runon Gontrol SCLF West Run-On Control 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC HvdroCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paqe 3 Summary for Subcatchment ROA9: R-ON Area 9 Runoff = 38.56 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume=1.747 af, Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Area (sfl CN Description 764,686 84 764,686 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description(min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec)(cfs) 5.3 1,767 0.7000 5.60 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment ROA9: R-ON Area 9 o o 'o L Hydrograph 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 3233343536373E39404142434445464748 Time {hours) l= n,r""nttJ Phase 6 Runon Gontrol Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC SCLF West Run-On Control 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" HvdroCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paqe 4 Summary for Reach RON9: Run On 9 lnflow Area = 34.442 ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1 .19"lnflow = 68.76 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 3.427 al Outflow = 66.83 cfs @ 12.02hrs, Volume= 3.427 af , Atten= 3o/o, Lag=2.7 min Routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 7.04 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1 .5 min Avg. Velocity = 2.39 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 4.5 min Peak Storage= 6,129 ct @ 11.99 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 2.18' Bank-Full Depth= 3.50' Flow Area= 24.5 sf , Capacity= 236.69 cfs 0.00' x 3.50' deep channel, n= 0.040 Side Slope Z-value= 2.0'l' Top Width= 14.00' Length= 645.0' Slope= 0.0372'l lnlet lnvert= 6,416.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,392.00' Reach RON9: Run On 9 o o , -slt Hydrograph 56789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748 Time (hours) Phase 6 Runon Control SCLF West Run-On Control 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC HvdroCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 5 Summary for Pond WC: Culvert lnflowArea = 34.442ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.19" lnflow = 66.83 cfs @ 12.02hrs, Volume= 3.427 af Outflow = 66.83 cfs @ 12.O2hrs, Volume= 3.427 af , Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 66.83 cfs @ 12.02hrs, Volume= 3.427 af Routing by Stor-lnd method, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6,395.14' @ 12.02hrs Device Routinq lnvert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6,392.00' 57.0" W x 38.0" H, R=28.9"/88.3" Pipe Arch CMP-Arch_l|2 57x38 L= 51.0' Ke= 0.600 lnlet / Outlet lnvert= 6,392.00' / 6,388.00' S= 0.0784 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.025 Corrugated metal, Flow Area= 1 1.89 sf frimary OutFlow Max=66.79 cfs @ 12.02hrs HW=6,395.14' (Free Discharge) H=CMP_Arch_1t2 57x38 (lnlet Controls 66.79 cfs @ 5.62 fps) Pond WC: Culvert Hydrograph o o !Ir 56789 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 32333435363738394041 42434445464748 Time (hours) RO1 SCLF West Run-On Control 100 Year Type Il 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC HvdroCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 3 Summary for Subcatchment ROA{: Run On Area 1 Runoff = 23.57 cfs @ 1 1.97 hrs, Volume=1.101 af , Depth= 1.47" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Area (sf) CN Description 392,179 88 392,179 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description(min) (feet) (fuft) (fVsec) (cfs) s.8 2,399 0.7000 6.88 Lag/GN Method, Subcatchment ROA1: Run On Area I 9 101112 13141516171A1920212223242526272A293A31 323334353637383940414243444546474A Time (hours) o o =otr Hydrograph RO1 SCLF West Run-On Control 100 Year Type ll 24-hr Rainfall=2.60" Prepared by American Enviornmental Consulting, LLC HvdroCAD@ 10.00-15 s/n 04925 @ 2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 4 Summary for Reach RON1: Run One Reach 1 lnflow Area = 9.003 ac, 0.00% lmpervious, lnflow Depth = 1.47"lnflow = 23.57 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 1.101 af Outflow = 18.14 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.101 af , Atten= 23o/o, Lag= 10.7 min Routing by Stor-lnd+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 5.08 fps, Min. Travel Time= 7.5 min Avg. Velocity = 1.12 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 34.4 min Peak Storage= 8,217 cl @ 12.02hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.58' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' FlowArea= 18.0 sf, Capacity= 179.26 cfs 5.00' x 2.00' rleep channel, n= 0.035 Side Slope Z-value= 2.0'l' Top Width= 13.00' Length= 2,299.0' Slope= 0.0391 '/' lnlet lnvert= 6,480.00', Outlet lnvert= 6,390.00' Reach RON1: Run One Reach 1 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404'142434445464748 o o 3IL Hydrograph Time (hours)