The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20203533CfPHE COLORADO Department of Public Health Fr Environment January 29, 2020 Jerry Hamel Pawnee Waste 47368 County Rd 118 Grover, CO, 80729 Re: Approval - Engineering Design and Operations Plan, Rev. 7 Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill File SW/WLD/PEP 2.2 Dear Mr. Hamel, The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (the "Department") Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the "Division") received modified versions of the Engineering Design and Operations Plan and appendices C, D and F, referred to as Engineering Design and Operations Plan, Revision 7. The modified documents were initially submitted November 25, 2019. Minor edits were made to these documents and were re -submitted January 27th and 28th of 2020. This revision to the facility's EDOP was completed primarily to include acceptance of certain non-E&P, non -hazardous waste types including non-E&P oil and gas wastes, water and wastewater treatment residuals, and non- putrescible industrial and construction/demolition wastes. Based on the review, the Division approves the revised EDOP, Operations Plan (appendix C), Waste Acceptance Plan (appendix D) and Solidification Unit Design and Operations Plan (appendix F) as submitted on January 27 and 28, 2020. The Division has not consulted with the Weld County Department of Health and Environment regarding the modifications referenced in this letter, and this letter does not preclude additional comment or non -approval by the WCDHE. The Department is authorized to bill for its review of technical submittals pursuant to Section 1.7 of the Regulations. An invoice for the Division's review of the above referenced document will be transmitted under separate cover. Should you have questions, please contact Andy Todd at 303-691-4049, Andrew.Todd@state.co.us. 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe Jared Polls, Governor I Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, Executive Director Sincerely, Andy Todd Solid Waste Permitting Unit Solid Waste and Materials Management Program Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division ec: Ben Frissell -- Weld County Department of Health and Environment Jeff Rusch -- Golder Associates Page 2 of 2 TETRA TECH • August 21, 2020 Pawnee Waste USR Detailed Description of the Proposed Operation and Use A. Explain proposed use. The proposed use of the property is to expand the type of waste that can be accepted at the Pawnee Waste landfill facility. The facility is currently permitted under USR15-0048, as follows: "A solid waste disposal site and facility (a designated commercial exploration and production waste management facility) that will receive exploration wastes which are non -hazardous and may contain very low concentrations of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) and technically -enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials (TENORM), pursuant to the Colorado State Statute and as defined and regulated by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. In light of the slow down in the oil and gas industry, Pawnee Waste is requesting to modify the USR to allow them to accept other waste at the facility. Below is a revised description of the uses they would like to have covered under a new USR permit. We are showing the existing USR description in strikeout/redline format for ease of comparison. A solid waste disposal site and facility (a designated commercial exploration and production waste management facility) that will receive non -hazardous wastes and that may contain very low concentrations of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) and technically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials (TENORM), pursuant to the Colorado State Statute and as defined and regulated by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste, and Industrial Waste. In addtion Pawnee Waste would like to add two (2) new storage buildings and a heavy equipment parking area. There will be no changes to the design of the landfill itself. The facility was designed and constructed with a multiple liner system, and utilizes a solidification process in order to ensure only wastes without free liquids are landfilled. With this new USR, Pawnee Waste is also proposing to accept both C&D and Industrial waste at the facility. Pawnee Waste has had conversations with the CDPHE about plans to take in these additional waste streams and they have not expressed any concerns because of the engineering design of the Pawnee Waste facility. At the time of the initial USR application, a risk assessment was conducted to ensure the safety of Pawnee's workers and the public. Installation and testing of liners, strategically located monitoring wells, and the routine application of cover materials have been incorporated into the design of the facility as was required by the EDOP. As part of the changes to the USR, Pawnee has updated the Waste Acceptance Plan (WAP) which is found in Appendix D of the EDOP. The WAP is in place to ensure that only wastes approved by the County and CDPHE will be received by Pawnee. In accordance with the WAP, loads received by Pawnee for disposal will continue to be prescreened to ensure the wastes comply with applicable regulations and approvals ("Acceptable Wastes"). The screening process includes generator certifications, analytical requirements, detection equipment and camera systems, and on -site evaluations to verify that only acceptable wastes are disposed of at the facility. Routine site inspections and maintenance programs, surface and groundwater monitoring, and the posting of a financial assurance instrument to cover costs associated with closure and post -closure care are the CDPHE requirements which Pawnee Waste will follow. Customers will be responsible for delivering acceptable wastes to the Pawnee Waste Facility. When customers arrive at the facility, they will be directed to a load scale so that the trucks can be weighed, and the contents evaluated to ensure they match the required paperwork and pass the screening controls. Any E&P waste, including cuttings, muds, treated tank bottoms, and wastewater sludge from injection wells will be considered Acceptable Waste only if they pass the screening controls and meet the criteria specified in the EDOP submitted to CDPHE and approved by Weld County. Once a load of waste is accepted, the truck will be directed to a designated location within the certified lined disposal area to unload the waste from the truck. Waste material that contains free liquids will be treated with adsorbent material to be solidified within the confines of the landfill cell to prevent liquids from entering the landfill. All Tetra Tech 1900 South Sunset Street, Suite 1-E, Longmont, CO 80501 Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 www.tetratech.com a TETRA TECH Pawnee Waste USR Detailed Description of the Proposed Operation and Use August 21, 2020 Acceptable Waste will be placed in lifts within the designated lined cell, and covered in accordance with the EDOP, to ensure the safe and environmentally secure management of the waste. After the materials are unloaded by the waste hauler, the truck drivers will leave the facility. The lined landfill operation will continue to be divided into phases to control and track the placement of waste. Each phase will be subdivided so that the operations are confined, and cells can be lined in increments. All controls associated with the construction and installation of liners and detection systems will be performed under the strict supervision of a licensed professional engineer. A construction report signed by an independent professional engineer is and will continue to be submitted for review by the CDPHE prior to placing waste in that area. The waste location is and will continue to be identified on a grid which forms part of the permanent operating record. Pawnee Waste would also like to add a heavy equipment parking area and two equipment storage buildings to the site plan. While it is not anticipated that the storage buildings will be needed soon, Pawnee Waste anticipates they could be needed to store equipment, files and solidifying agents. Included on the site plan are a 13,000 square foot equipment and file storage building and a 2,500 square foot solidifying agent storage building. No on -site chemicals or hazardous materials will be stored in these buildings. B. Explain Need for use. Pawnee Waste is already permitted as an E&P Waste Landfill in Weld County. Adding C&D and Industrial Waste to the list of allowed materials that can be accepted at the facility will benefit the many commercial and industrial businesses located in the rapidly growing Weld County region. Most importantly, Pawnee Waste will be able to accept and dispose of industrial non -hazardous semi -solid materials containing free liquids, also referred to as wet wastes, from local businesses. This is a waste type that can not be accepted at other landfills in Weld County. Further, due to the recent reduction in oil and gas production, there is an imminent need for Pawnee Waste to diversify its market and customer base by expanding its permit to be able to accept other forms of waste streams. There is already a growing list of prospective customers who have expressed a need for alternative waste disposal options in Weld County, thereby decreasing the time and distance traveled to haul waste to other landfill facilities outside of the County. C. Explain the types of Existing Uses on Surrounding Properties. The current landfill site and surrounding areas are non -irrigated rangeland that are generally used for cattle grazing and oil and gas facilities. Despite the fact that there are very few residences in the area, the closest one being about a mile and a half to the west, it has always been important to Pawnee Waste that they design and operate the facility in a manner that is respectful to the neighbors. Pawnee Waste has reached out to surrounding property owners within one (1) square mile of the the facility with a letter explaining the proposed changes (Neighbor Communications Information included in USR application materials). If Pawnee Waste hears any concerns or feedback from these neighbors, they will respond and information regading the comment received and how Pawnee Waste responded will be shared with the County. In addition, Pawnee Waste maintains regular communication with the Town Board for the Town of Grover, the nearest municipality to the site. The Board is aware of the proposed changes to the USR permit for the facility and does not have any concerns. Going forward, Pawnee Waste will continue to work with the Town of Grover regarding any questions or concerns they may have related to the facility. D. Distance of the proposed use to residential structures in each direction. The nearest residential structures to the proposed facility are as follows: - Approximately 1 mile north of the facility. - Approximately 1.5 miles west of the facility off County Road 118. - Approximately 2 miles southwest of the facility off WCR 114, between WCR 390 and WCR 95. - Approximately 3 miles south of the facility off WCR 112, east of WCR 95. - Approximately 4.25 miles east of the facility off WCR 118, east of WCR 105. Page 215 TETRA TECH Pawnee Waste USR Detailed Description of the Proposed Operation and Use August 21, 2020 E. Maximum number of users, patrons, members and buyers. In addition to the up to 20 Pawnee Waste employees who may be on -site during a 24 -hour period, the table below provides a summary of other people who are expected to visit the facility: People who may use this site in addition to employees 1) Truck drivers delivering waste to the facility represent the largest number of people expected to visit the facility. Drivers will be required to stay in their vehicles except when delivering/receiving paperwork, facilitating load inspections/waste screening, and/or preparing the vehicle for off-loading. Number of people expected and frequency of visits Up to 137 per day (dependent upon market conditions) 2) Customer representatives may visit the site to inspect it for their internal procedures. These customers will be provided a tour of the facility and the appropriate permits, under the direction of the Site Manager. 1-2 per week 3) Third -party consultants may visit the facility to enhance training, provide environmental testing and reporting, and other work as may be needed at the facility. 1-2 per week 4) Regulators may visit the site to perform independent inspections. Pawnee welcomes their participation to ensure the safe and compliant operation of its facility. 1-2 per month 5) Third -party contractors will be required for heavy equipment maintenance and fueling. Contractors related to equipment maintenance may frequent the site on a weekly basis. 1-2 per week 6) There will also be other miscellaneous visits to the site each day for things like mail deliveries, package/office supply deliveries, and trash collection. 3-5 per day 7) During the construction of new landfill cells, third -party contractor construction crews will need to be on -site. In addition, third -party consultants overseeing the proper construction of the landfill may also be on -site. 10-15 per day, about once every 2 years for 60-90 days F. Number of employees, number of shifts, and hours of operation. Pawnee Waste will employ up to 20 full-time employees working two around -the -clock shifts; therefore, there will be up to 10 full-time employees on -site at any given time. To respond to market demands, Pawnee Waste will adjust staffing. The site will continue to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 day a year. G. Type of water source for the proposed use. If using a well, please complete the attached Water Supply Information Summary. Pawnee Waste has a permitted potable water well on -site (Permit #301910). A copy of this permit is included in this Exhibit. This well will continue to be used for the restroom and shower facilities on -site. Bottled water is also provided to employees and visitors of the facility. For dust mitigation and washout purposes, Pawnee Waste purchases water from Grassland's existing water load out facility, which is on the adjacent property to the west of the site (USR- 1787). The water is loaded into a truck and then taken to the Pawnee Waste site and applied to the ground as needed for dust suppression and washout purposes. Please also see Exhibit A: Water Supply and Septic Information Summary. H. Explain the access route(s) to be utilized for the proposed use. The main access point will continue to be located on the north edge of the W1/2 of the NW1/4 of Section 13, Township 10 North, Range 61 West within the County Road 118 right-of-way. The access permit number is AP15- 00123. In the meantime, Pawnee Waste has been working with Weld County Public Works on a revised Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement. The plan is to redirect some of the truck traffic to begin using Page 315 TETRA TECH Pawnee Waste USR Detailed Description of the Proposed Operation and Use August 21, 2020 WCR 118 to access the site, which connects to WCR 390. It is anticipated that roughly 60 percent of the traffic will be northbound and 40 percent will be southbound. I. Explain type, size, weight and frequency of vehicular traffic associated with the proposed use. The existing USR15-0048 for Pawnee Waste allows a maximum of 324 vehicular trips per day. The new USR will not make any changes that will modify this maximum number of vehicular trips per day. The estimated maximum number of trips per day by vehicle type is listed below. Type/Size of Vehicles Estimated Maximum Trips per Day Large trucks (could be tandem dump trucks, end dumps, roll -offs, belly- dumps or side -dump trucks) 274 Employee vehicles (passenger vehicles) 40 Miscellaneous visitor vehicles (mail, delivery, trash, maintenance) 10 J. Type of sewage facilities for the proposed use. Pawnee Waste has a commercial septic system on -site (Permit #SP -1700327). A copy of this permit is included in this application package (See Exhibit A). This 1,500 -gallon septic system has a 324 -square foot absorption trench and is used for the restroom and shower facilities in the Maintenance/Operator Facility. K. Description of the proposed fire protection measures associated with the proposed use. Pawnee Waste currently has an approved Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for the facility. In coordination with the Fire Protection District, an updated EAP has been provided herein. L. Types and maximum number of animals to be concentrated on the Use by Special Review area at any one time. No animals will be kept or contained on this site. M. Type and size of any waste, stockpile or storage areas associated with the proposed use. The USR application is for expanding the types of waste that can be accepted at this existing designated waste landfill. A detailed description of acceptable wastes is provided under Section A of this document. A Waste Handling Plan (see Exhibit G) is included in this application to address how wastes will be handled. Pumps, filters and other spare parts will be stored in the maintenance building or one of the storage buildings on -site. N. Type of stormwater retention facilities associated with the proposed use. A combination of a perimeter berm and ditching will be constructed around the landfill area to manage stormwater in accordance with the CDPHE and Weld County criteria. Water that has not been in contact with waste will be routed to a surface water pond located on the southwest side of the proposed landfill. Water that has been in contact with waste is considered leachate and will be managed through collection lines, sumps, and storage in tanks on the west side of the landfill. Stormwater run-on from topographically upgradient areas will be diverted around the north and east sides of the landfill area via an existing channel adjacent to the perimeter berm. The run-on channel flow will be converted to overland sheet flow via energy dissipation structures located south of the entrance road crossing as well as within the landfill area to minimize sediment from entering the contact pond. A stormwater catchment basin currently exists (and will be expanded) west of the scale house, scales, and maintenance shed in order to capture run-off from this area. For a detailed explanation of the proposed stormwater drainage plan and the proposed improvements, please see the Drainage Report included as Exhibit E of this application package. Page 415 TETRA TECH Pawnee Waste USR Detailed Description of the Proposed Operation and Use August 21, 2020 O. Time schedule and method of removal and disposal of debris, junk and other wastes associated with the proposed use. See Exhibit G: Waste Handling Plan included in this application. P. Explain proposed landscaping plans and erosion control measures associated with the proposed use. Through the CDPHE process required for permitting this landfill facility, a detailed Engineering Design and Operations Plan (EDOP) was prepared (see Exhibit K). Proposed mulching and seeding information are included in the EDOP in Section 8 of Appendix G: Construction Quality Assurance Plan. In addition, information on post - closure maintenance of the vegetation is explained in the EDOP in Section 3.6 of Appendix F: Closure and Post - Closure Plan. Q. Reclamation procedures to be employed upon cessation of the Use by Special Review activity. A Closure/Post-Closure Plan which addresses the procedures when landfill termination occurs is included in the EDOP. All closure activities will be performed in accordance with applicable CDPHE regulations. For more detailed information (see Appendix F and Appendix G of the EDOP which is included in Exhibit K of this USR Application package). R. Timetable showing the periods of time required for construction and start-up of the proposed use. Following approval of USR application by the County, no changes are needed to the landfill itself for the facility to be able to begin to accept C&D Waste and Industrial Waste; therefore, this type of waste may be accepted immediately following formal approval. When Pawnee Waste is ready to build the storage buildings, it will likely take about 3 months to construct each building. S. Additonal Questions from Weld County Health Department per Pre -Application Meeting Notes. 1. Additonal details regarding diesel tank. Pawnee Waste has a fuel storage tank on the property that is just under 12,100 gallons. It sits on skids, is tied down with a steel cable and rebar, and is located inside a secondary containment area (HDPE liner) equivalent to 150 percent of fuel capacity. 2. Additonal details regarding the leachate storage tanks. The leachate storage tank area is a contained concrete area (concrete floor with containment walls) that is large enough to hold up to 8 self-contained tanks. The tanks in this storage area all sit on skids and they are tied down using steel cable and rebar. There are no pumps associated with these tanks; therefore, there is no need for power to these tanks. Page 515 EXHIBIT K: PAWNEE WASTE FACILITY UPDATED ENGINEERING DESIGN & OPERATIONS PLAN (EDOP) APPLICATION We are providing Weld County with a complete copy of the EDOP, revision dated July 20, 2020. The file is very large and the content of the pdf of the report is locked so it cannot be integrated into the rest of the submittal and is therefore a standalone pdf. GOLDER ENGINEERING DESIGN & OPERATIONS PLAN Pawnee Waste Landfill Weld County, Colorado Submitted to: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246 Submitted by: Golder Associates Inc. 7245 W Alaska Drive, Suite 200, Lakewood, Colorado 80226 On Behalf of: Pawnee Waste LLC 3003 E Harmony Road, Suite 300. Fort Collins. Colorado 80528 +1 303 980-0540 1407882B Revision 7 July 20, 2020 July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 Revision History This document has been revised as indicated below: Revision Number i Revision Date 'Description of Revision - 0 July 23, 2015 Initial EDOP submittal 1 February 19, 2016 Revised January pursuant 28, 2016 to CDPHE technical evaluation comments dated 2 April 22, 2016 Revised dated April pursuant 13, 2016 to CDPHE follow-up technical evaluation comments 3 June 1, 2017 Revised permeability to include soil liner CQA requirements for use of off -site soils in low - 4 July 3, 2017 Revised basins to allow tanker trucks and variable size solidification mixing 5 November 16, 2017 Revised to include baseline statistical analysis of radionuclides 6 August 2, 2019 Revised to allow acceptance of tracer materials 7 July 20, 2020 Revised demolition to allow (C&D) acceptance waste of industrial wastes and construction and GOLDER July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope 1 1.2 Facility Location 1 2.0 GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2 2.1 Regional Conditions 2 2.1.1 Regional Geology 2 2.1.2 Regional Hydrogeology 2 2.1.3 Regional Groundwater Quality 2 2.2 Site Conditions 3 2.2.1 Soils and Geologic Units 3 2.2.2 Hydrogeology 3 2.2.2.1 Hydraulic Characteristics 4 2.2.2.2 Direction and Rate of Groundwater Flow 4 2.2.3 Groundwater Chemistry 4 3.0 LOCATION RESTRICTIONS AND SITE STANDARDS 4 3.1 Airport Safety 4 3.2 Wetlands 4 3.3 Faults 5 3.4 Seismic Impact Zone ...5 3.5 Unstable Areas 5 3.6 Topography 5 3.7 Floodplains 6 3.8 Isolation of Wastes 6 3.9 Surface and Groundwater Waste Placement 6 4.0 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 6 4.1 Engineered Containment Systems 6 4.1.1 Enhanced Composite Liner System 6 ' GOLDER ii July 20. 2020 1407882B Revision 7 4.1.1.1 Foundation Settlement Calculations 8 4.1.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses 8 4.1.1.2.1 Global Stability 8 4.1.1.2.2 Liner Translational Veneer Stability 9 4.1.1.3 Anchor Trench Analysis 9 4.1.2 Leachate Collection Sump Secondary Liner 9 4.1.3 Leachate Storage Tank Area Liner System 10 4.2 Leachate Collection and Recovery System (LRCS) Design and Management 10 4.2.1 Leachate Collection and Recovery System Description 10 4.2.2 Leachate Collection and Recovery System Design Calculations 11 4.2.2.1 Leachate Head on Liner 11 4.2.2.2 Leachate Collection Header Pipe Flow Capacity 12 4.2.2.3 Leachate Collection Header Pipe Strength 12 4.3 Final Cover 12 4.4 Landfill Capacity, Projected Site Life. and Soil Requirements 13 4.5 Surplus Soil Uses 13 5.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 14 5.1.1 Temporary Surface Water Management 14 5.1.2 Final Stormwater Management System 14 5.1.2.1 Run-on Diversion 15 5.1.2.2 Runoff Control 15 5.1.3 Erosion Potential Evaluation 16 6.0 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION 16 7.0 OPERATIONS 16 8.0 REFERENCES 17 ' GOLDER iii July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 TABLES Table 1 FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 DRAWINGS Drawing 1 Drawing 2 Drawing 3 Drawing 4 Drawing 5 Drawing 6 Drawing 7 Drawing 8 Drawing 9 Drawing 10 Drawing 11 Drawing 12 Drawing 13 Drawing 14 Drawing 15 Drawing 16 Summary of Permitted Wells within One Mile of the Facility Facility Location Airport Proximity Map USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map USGS Quaternary Faults Map Permitted Wells within One Mile of the Facility Cover Sheet Existing Conditions Subgrade Plan Final Cover Plan Stormwater Controls Plan Cross -Sections Sheet 1 of 5 Cross -Sections Sheet 2 of 5 Cross -Sections Sheet 3 of 5 Cross -Sections Sheet 4 of 5 Cross -Sections Sheet 5 of 5 Landfill Details Sheet 1 of 3 Landfill Details Sheet 2 of 3 Landfill Details Sheet 3 of 3 Surface Water Details Sheet 1 of 3 Surface Water Details Sheet 2 of 3 Surface Water Details Sheet 2 of 3 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 USGS Seismic Design Maps Classification APPENDICES APPENDIX A Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Characterization Report APPENDIX B Engineering Calculations APPENDIX B-1 Landfill Capacity, Projected Site Life, and Soil Requirements Calculations GOLDER iv July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 APPENDIX B-2 Leachate Collection and Recovery System Calculations APPENDIX B-2-1 Leachate Head on Liner Calculations APPENDIX B-2-2 Leachate Travel Time Calculations APPENDIX B-2-3 Leachate Collection Header Pipe Sizing Calculations APPENDIX B-2-4 Leachate Collection Header Pipe Structural Integrity Calculations APPENDIX B-2-5 Leachate Storage Tank Area Containment Sizing Calculations APPENDIX B-3 Drainage Report APPENDIX B-4 Foundation Settlement Calculations APPENDIX B-5 Slope Stability Analysis APPENDIX B-5-1 Global Stability Analysis APPENDIX B-5-2 Finite Slope Analysis APPENDIX B-6 Anchor Trench Calculations APPENDIX B-7 Soil Erosion Potential Calculations APPENDIX B-8 Water Balance Cover Demonstration APPENDIX C Operations Plan APPENDIX D Waste Acceptance Plan APPENDIX E Environmental Monitoring Plan APPENDIX F Closure/Post-closure Plan GOLDER v July 20. 2020 1407882B Revision 7 APPENDIX G Construction Quality Assurance Plan APPENDIX H Solidification Unit Design and Operations Plan APPENDIX I-1 Radiation Risk Assessment APPENDIX 1-2 NRC Technical Evaluation of Protechnics Tracer Material Alternate Waste Disposal Method APPENDIX J Worker Health and Safety Plan Outline GOLDER vi July 20. 2020 1407882B Revision 7 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Engineering Design & Operations Plan (EDOP) has been prepared by Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) for the Pawnee Waste LLC (Pawnee) Landfill (Landfill or Facility) located in Weld County, Colorado. The Facility proposes to accept non -hazardous wastes generally categorized as oil and gas -related wastes (from exploration and production [E&P] and treatment activities), municipal water and wastewater treatment residuals, other non- putrescible industrial waste streams, and construction and demolition (C&D) wastes. The Landfill will be regulated u nder Sections 2 and 3 of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) "Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Sites and Facilities" (6 CCR 1007-2. Part 1) (Regulations), as further described herein. In accordance with Sections 1.3 and 1.6 of the Regulations, a Certificate of Designation is being concurrently sought from the local governing body having jurisdiction, Weld County, along with a Use by Special Review (USR) permit per Weld County Code. 1.1 Purpose and Scope This EDOP contains the information necessary to demonstrate that the location restrictions/site standards, e ngineering design, waste acceptance and operations procedures, environmental monitoring program, and closure/post-closure activities for the Landfill will be in accordance with current applicable CDPHE Regulations. Contained in this document are discussions of location standards. design, waste characterization/acceptance, o perations, radiation risk assessment. groundwater monitoring, recordkeeping, and closure/post-closure requirements for the Landfill. This report contains 16 engineering plan sheets (Drawings 1 through 16) including: an existing conditions plan, subgrade plan and leachate collection layout, final cover grading plan and stormwater control system, cross sections depicting the landfill and underlying geology, and details of the Landfill and stormwater control features. The groundwater monitoring network is shown in multiple plan sheets. A summary of the hydrogeologic and geotechnical site characterization from the field investigation conducted in 2014, including laboratory soil testing results, is presented in Appendix A. Engineering calculations to support the design are provided in Appendix B. The Operations Plan is presented in Appendix C. The wastes that may be accepted at the Landfill, as well as the characterization and screening activities required, are described in the Waste Acceptance Plan, Appendix D. Appendix E contains the Environmental Monitoring Plan. The Closure/Post- closure Plan, including a description of the final cover system and an estimate of the largest area of the Landfill ever requiring a final cover during the active life. is presented in Appendix F. Appendix G contains the Construction Quality Assurance Plan. A Design and Operations Plan specific to the Solidification Unit is provided in Appendix H. Appendix I-1 contains the risk assessment and RESRAD modeling associated with the receipt of E&P wastes which may contain naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM)/technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM) waste. Appendix 1-2 contains the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) technical evaluation of an alternate waste disposal method for Protechnics radioactive tracer material. A general overview and outline for the Worker Health and Safety Plan (HASP) is provided in Appendix J. Cost estimates for hiring a third party to close the Landfill and to conduct post -closure care will be provided under separate cover upon approval of the EDOP by CDPHE and Weld County. The financial assurance mechanism sufficient to ensure payment of such costs will be established within 60 days prior to initial receipt of waste. 1.2 Facility Location The Pawnee Waste Landfill is located on a 240 -acre contiguous property owned by Pawnee Waste LLC (Site). The Landfill is located approximately four miles southeast of Grover, Colorado, near the intersection of County Road 118 ' GOLDER 1 July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 and County Road 95 in Weld County (see Figure 1 and Drawing 1), specifically in the northeast quarter and east half of the northwest quarter of Section 13, Township 10 North, Range 61 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. 2.0 GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS This section provides an overview of regional and site -specific geologic and hydrogeologic conditions of the Landfill facility area, based on the information and references included in Appendix A (Hydrogeologic and Geologic Site Characterization). Appendix A-2 presents a detailed description of the field investigation conducted for the Facility to characterize the site -specific geology, hydrogeology, and soil conditions, and also includes tables, figures, and attachments documenting the field investigation conducted in 2014. Cross sections of the site - specific geologic and hydrogeologic conditions, based on the results of the field investigation, are presented in Appendix A and Drawings 6 through 10. 2.1 Regional Conditions This subsection summarizes geologic and hydrogeologic conditions in the region. A more detailed discussion of the site -specific geology and hydrogeology, along with applicable figures and reference citations, can be found in Appendix A. _2___1.1 Regional Geology The Facility is located within the Denver-Julesburg (DJ) Basin in northeastern Colorado. The DJ Basin is a north - south structural basin that covers 70,000 square miles of northeast Colorado, southeast Wyoming, and northwest Nebraska. The basin formed during the Laramide Orogeny and is characterized by its asymmetry with gentle east flank and faulted, steeply dipping west flank. The basin contains sedimentary units dating from the Cambrian Period (oldest) to the Tertiary Period (youngest). The thickest part of the DJ Basin occurs north of Denver, where it is approximately 13.000 feet thick. Approximately 70% of the sedimentary rock in the DJ Basin is composed of sandstone, shale, and limestone units of Cretaceous age (Higley and Cox 2002). 2.1.2 Regional Hydrogeology The Facility is underlain by the Tertiary -aged White River Formation consisting primarily of claystone, siltstone, and sandstones commonly containing volcanic ash (Tweto 1979). The primary aquifer in the vicinity is the High Plains Aquifer system including the Ogallala, the Arikaree, and the Brule formations. These formations of the High Plains Aquifer are not well defined in the vicinity of the Facility. However the surficial aquifer along the South Platte River Valley directly overlies the High Plains Aquifer system and is commonly used for irrigation, stock and domestic use in the immediate vicinity of the Facility (Robson and Banta 1995). The Tertiary -age Ogallala, Arikaree, and Brule formations are overlain by Quaternary -age alluvial deposits where the South Platte River Valley surficial aquifer can be found. The surficial aquifer is often present in confined or semi -confined conditions. Regionally, silt and clay deposits provide some level of groundwater protection to the surficial aquifer. The local and regional groundwater flow is to the west and southwest toward Jackson Draw and the South Platte River. The piezometric level is about 5,020 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), or 50 feet below the existing ground surface at the Facility. 2.1.3 Regional Groundwater Quality A regional groundwater quality study (USGS 1985) of the High Plains Aquifer states that there are large quantities of groundwater of quality suitable for irrigation, with concentrations of dissolved solids generally less than 500 milligrams per liter. Groundwater in this area can contain more than 1,000 milligrams per liter of dissolved GOLDER 2 July 20. 2020 1407882B Revision 7 sulfate. The study indicated that groundwater in this aquifer is predominantly a calcium -magnesium -bicarbonate ty p e 2.2 Site Conditions Site geologic and hydrogeologic conditions were evaluated during the hydrogeologic and geotechnical site investigation performed by Golder between September 2 and October 27, 2014. A detailed description of the site investigation is presented in Appendix A-2 — Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Field Investigation Report. 2.2.1 Soils and Geologic Units A custom soil resource report was generated for the Facility area using the United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Web Soil Survey and can be found in Appendix A-1. The surface soils at the Facility include Kim -Mitchell Complex and Stoneham fine sandy loam, composed primarily of silt and fine sandy loams. The parent materials for soils within this soil association are calcareous loamy alluvial deposits. Based on the October 2014 field investigation, the geology at the Site was divided into three simplified and mappable strata. These strata were distinguished based on grain size and color differences. The subsurface soil conditions found in the boreholes have been categorized into the following three strata: Stratum 1 — Eolian silt, overlying; Stratum 2 — Sandy silt, silty clay. and residuum weathered from siltstone/claystone; and Stratum 3 — Localized lenses of sand and silty sand. Descriptions and index properties of these strata are detailed in Appendix A. Four cross sections depicting the landfill overlaid with the underlying geology and one additional geology -only cross section, have been prepared and are presented in Drawings 6 through 10. No evidence of structural features (e.g., faults) was observed during the field investigation. Review of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Interactive Fault Map (USGS and Colorado Geological Survey 2014) (see Figure 4) also did not identify any known faults having displacement in Holocene time at or within 200 feet of the Facility. 2.2.2 Hydrogeology The hydrogeology beneath the Landfill has been simplified into two hydrogeologic zones: the vadose zone/confining unit and the uppermost saturated unit. The near -surface unsaturated deposits (i.e., the vadose zone/confining unit) range from 49 to more than 70 feet thick. The vadose zone/confining unit is composed of eolian silt overlying sandy silt, silty clay. discontinuous sand lenses, and residuum from siltstone and claystone. The uppermost saturated zone consists of the first saturated interval found below the vadose zone/confining unit. The uppermost saturated zone is composed primarily of fissured silty clay with three instances of saturated sand observed at BH-2014-01, BH-2014-03, and MW -2014-03. Groundwater movement through the saturated zone is dominated by the fissured nature of the clayey material and thin saturated sand lenses. This uppermost saturated zone is continuous across the Site with a potentiometric surface at an elevation of approximately 5.020 feet AMSL The uppermost saturated zone is considered confined because water levels in each borehole stabilized at an elevation above the first occurrence of water observed during the drilling program. Stabilized water levels ranged from approximately 1 foot to approximately 14 feet above the first occurrence of water. Water level contours have been prepared for the Site and are presented in Appendix Al Figure A-5. ' GOLDER 3 July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 2.2.2.1 Hydraulic Characteristics Golder performed variable -head "slug" hydraulic testing in each of the four groundwater monitoring wells initially installed at the Facility. Slug testing was performed to estimate the in situ saturated horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the geologic materials isolated by the screened intervals and was used for calculation of groundwater flow velocity, as discussed in the next section. The horizontal hydraulic conductivity (K) estimated from the hydraulic (slug) testing ranged from 1.5 x 10 2 cm/sec (43 feet/day) to 6.0 x 10-5 cm/sec (0.17 feet/day) with a geometric mean of 1.8 x 10-3 cm/sec (5.1 feet/day). A summary of the slug test results is presented in Table A-2-4 in Appendix A-2. 2.2.2.2 Direction and Rate of Groundwater Flow Based on the groundwater levels measured in October 2014, groundwater generally flows to the west at a gradient of 0.0004 ft/ft. Hydraulic conductivity of the upper portion of the saturated zone ranges from 0.17 to 43 feet/day. The effective porosity of the sediment was estimated at 20%. The following modified Darcy equation was used to estimate groundwater velocity: Kt V= Ile where: V = True velocity (ft/day) K = Hydraulic conductivity (ft/day) i = Hydraulic gradient (ft/ft) ne = Porosity (% / 100) Based on the highest hydraulic conductivity obtained from the hydraulic testing, the maximum groundwater velocity is estimated at 0.086 feet/day. 2.2.3 Groundwater Chemistry Background groundwater quality data collection commenced in January 2015. A baseline groundwater monitoring report was prepared and submitted to CDPHE and Weld County in June 2017 upon completion of the requisite number of background sampling and analysis events. 3.0 LOCATION RESTRICTIONS AND SITE STANDARDS This section describes the Landfill setting relative to the location restrictions and site standards found in Section 3.1 of the Colorado Solid Waste Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2, Part 1. 3.1 Airport Safety The Landfill is not located within a five -mile radius of any airport runways; therefore, notification of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or providing evidence regarding mitigation of a potential bird hazard is not required. The Pine Bluffs Municipal Airport is the nearest public airport to the Facility and is located approximately 21.4 miles to the north, as shown in Figure 2. 3.2 Wetlands The Landfill is not located in a swamp. marsh, bog, or similar area that could be defined as a wetland according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2014), as shown in Figure 3. No wetlands or wet areas were identified within the Facility on the USGS GOLDER 4 July 20. 2020 1407882B Revision 7 7.5 -minute quadrangle topographic map. Site reconnaissance by Golder personnel also confirmed that there is no vegetation on site that would typically be adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 3.3 Faults There are no known faults that have had a displacement in Holocene time present at or within 200 feet of the Landfill, according to the USGS Interactive Fault Map (USGS and Colorado Geological Survey 2014), as shown in Figure 4. 3.4 Seismic Impact Zone The Landfill is marginally located in a "seismic impact zone," defined in the Colorado Solid Waste Regulations as an area with a 10% or greater probability that the maximum horizontal acceleration in lithified earth material (expressed as a percentage of the earth's gravitational pull) will exceed 0.10g in 250 years. Based on the USGS Seismic Design Maps tool (USGS 2014a), the peak horizontal acceleration with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (equivalent to 10% in 250 years) for the location of the Landfill is 0.10g. Using the Landfill location and a Seismic Class C under International Building Code (IBC) classification, an SDd1 value of 0.053g was generated by the Design Maps tool and is shown in Attachment 1. A peak acceleration of 0.053g indicates a low risk of seismic activity. Slope stability calculations were performed to demonstrate that the Landfill is capable of resisting the design seismic acceleration and are included in Appendix B-5. 3.5 Unstable Areas No geologic unstable areas, such as underground mines or landslide deposits. are located on or beneath the Landfill. There are no on -site or local man-made features or events (surface or subsurface), such as underground excavations or karst features, that would cause the Facility to be unstable, based on review of the USGS Geologic Map of the Site location (USGS 2013), as shown in Figure 1. The gentle slopes that characterize the Site property pose a negligible slope stability risk. A previous soils study performed by GROUND Engineering (GROUND Engineering 2012) on an adjacent property to the west of the Landfill identified native windblown (eolian) silty soil to depths of typically 11 to 13 feet below the ground surface (bgs), underlain by interbedded sandstones and siltstones to the explored depths of 60 feet. The geotechnical investigation performed by Golder in 2014 found conditions similar to those reported in the GROUND Engineering report. Eolian silts (loess) are prone to settlement when submerged and a load is applied. The GROUND Engineering report indicated that consolidations of up to 7% were measured in lab tests. A laboratory consolidation test performed by Golder on an undisturbed sample collected between 15 to 17 feet bgs indicated consolidation up to 10%. This potential settlement of the near -surface soils has been taken into account as part of the engineering design of the Landfill and is not predicted to adversely impact the operation or integrity of the containment systems. 3.6 Topography Based on the topographic survey for the Facility, the topography is characterized by a relatively uniform slope of approximately 0.5 to 1%. Drainage across the Facility generally flows southwestward from a topographic high in the northeastern corner of the Facility to a topographic low in the southwestern corner of the Facility. Surface water generally flows toward an intermittent waterway, Jackson Draw, roughly 4,000 feet southwest of the Landfill boundary. The Site topography and location of Jackson Draw are shown in Figure 1. ' GOLDER 5 July 20. 2020 1407882B Revision 7 Due to the relatively minimal topographic relief, significant natural protection from prevailing winds is not available. Windy conditions are not expected to cause a significant operational challenge for the waste types and operational methods for this Landfill. Operational requirements and nuisance controls will be implemented to provide suitable protection from prevailing winds to the extent necessary. 3.7 Floodplains The Landfill is within a "Zone D" undetermined area per the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which means a flood study has not been performed. Based on review of the topographic survey for the Facility, it does not lie within a floodplain. The nearest intermittent waterway from the Landfill, Jackson Draw, is located hydraulically down -gradient approximately 4,000 feet to the southwest, as shown in Figure 1. The elevation drop between the southwest corner of the Landfill boundary and Jackson Draw is approximately 20 feet, indicating that the flood risk is negligible. 3.8 Isolation of Wastes The Landfill will isolate wastes from the public and environment through the use of an enhanced composite liner system, described in Section 4.0 and detailed in Drawing 11. The Environmental Monitoring Plan for the Facility is presented as Appendix E. Groundwater quality analytical results for samples collected from monitoring wells around the Facility will be provided to the CDPHE on an ongoing basis via annual reports, and are not included herein. 3.9 Surface and Groundwater Waste Placement No waste will be placed below or into surface water or groundwater. The cross sections presented in Drawings 6 through 10 illustrate the groundwater potentiometric surface relative to the base of the landfill liner. The uppermost saturated zone was found to exist at a depth of approximately 50 feet below natural ground surface, and, given the excavation grades, the lowest points in the Landfill liner (sumps) will be separated from the uppermost saturated zone by a minimum of 20 vertical feet. Surface water run-on and runoff controls are described in Section 5.0 and Appendix B-3. Facility operations will be performed as described in Appendix C. 4.0 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 41 Engineered Containment Systems This section describes the engineering design of the Landfill, per Sections 3.2 and 3.5 of the Colorado Solid Waste Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2, Part 1. The Landfill will be designed, constructed, and maintained with state -of -the - practice engineered containment systems designed to meet or exceed current CDPHE regulations. Engineered containment systems will include an enhanced composite liner system, a leachate collection and recovery system, double -lined leachate collection sumps, and a water balance final cover. Each engineered containment system is discussed in detail in the following subsections. Enhanced Composite Liner System The Landfill will be constructed with an enhanced composite liner system, which will act as the primary barrier between the waste and the subsurface environment. A detail of the enhanced composite liner is shown in Drawing 11. The enhanced composite liner system will consist of the following components, listed from top of liner down to existing foundation material: GOLDER 6 July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 A protective cover layer (3 -foot minimum thickness) composed of select waste material installed over the entire liner area as part of initial waste ("fluff') layer, except where indicated and unless otherwise approved by CDPHE; An 8 oz./sq. yd. non -woven geotextile; A 12 -inch -thick sand drainage layer installed over the entire liner area and composed of soils exhibiting a hydraulic conductivity equal to or greater than 1 x 10-2 cm/sec; A 60 -mil HDPE textured (both sides) geomembrane liner; A geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) liner; A 24 -inch -thick compacted low -permeability soil liner composed of on -site soils with a minimum 3% bentonite admixture, exhibiting a hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1 x 10-' cm/sec. or off -site soils with a hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1 x 10 7 cm/sec; and Prepared subgrade material composed of conditioned and compacted existing subsurface material. The bottom grades of the liner system (referred to as the subgrade) are shown in Drawing 3. Excavation sideslopes were designed not to exceed 3H:1 V, and liner floor grades were designed to slope toward the centerline (header) of each phase in a herringbone pattern at approximately 2%. The liner grades were designed to maintain a minimum vertical separation distance of 20 feet from the interpreted potentiometric surface contours within the Landfill footprint to the top of subgrade. as illustrated in the cross sections presented in Drawings 6 through 10. These cross sections also depict the existing ground surface elevation, borehole information, geologic strata. the maximum surface of the waste and final cover system, the excavation sideslopes and floor of the subgrade, and the potentiometric surface contours. generated from the water level measurements collected in October 2014. The enhanced composite liner system will be installed under a comprehensive construction quality assurance (CQA) program, including electrical liner integrity surveys, to verify that both the soil materials and the geosynthetic components of the liner system are procured and installed as intended in the design. Electrical liner integrity survey methods are an effective and proven quality assurance measure to locate defects in HDPE geomembranes and have been used successfully in the waste and mining industries Electrical liner integrity testing will be performed as part of the construction process for the Landfill on both the exposed geomembrane (immediately after liner installation and completion of traditional geomembrane CQA), and after the geomembrane is covered with the leachate collection (sand) drainage layer material. Using this approach, both installation -related defects (e.g., due to improper seaming, penetration from rocks in the subgrade, cuts, or worker -caused damage) and defects caused by heavy equipment damage during drainage material placement can be detected and repaired prior to placing the liner into service. The methods used for exposed geomembrane liner integrity surveys can detect defects down to pinhole size; the sensitivity of surveys performed on soil -covered geomembrane is approximately 1/4 inch. The addition of electrical liner integrity surveys to a CQA program has been demonstrated through extensive industry research to dramatically reduce the potential for measurable leakage through the geomembrane. Pawnee is voluntarily incorporating the use of electrical liner integrity surveys into the CQA program for the Landfill liner system as a means of providing the `best -available technology" to ensure a superior level of environmental protection at the Facility. ' GOLDER 7 July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 4.1.1.1 Foundation Settlement Calculations Potential settlement of the foundation soils beneath the Landfill was estimated using consolidation properties of the on - site material. Consolidation properties (i.e., the compression index [Cc] and recompression index [Cr]) were determined by a consolidation test of one undisturbed soil sample collected during the field program. The test was conducted on soil that will remain below the Landfill after excavation to reach subgrade grades. Results of the consolidation test, along with the estimated loading from the maximum waste and cover soil profile, were used as input in the liner foundation settlement calculations. It was assumed that consolidation will take place throughout the upper 25 feet below existing ground surface based on field investigation data (i.e., standard penetration test results) correlated with visual observations from the continuous split barrel samples. Total predicted settlement under the maximum waste and soil cover was conservatively estimated to be 1.3 feet, with the maximum predicted differential settlement resulting in a calculated decrease in the slope of the leachate collection header drain from the designed 1.2% to a minimum of 1% and the subgrade floor grades from the designed 2% to 1.5%. The foundation settlement calculations are provided in Appendix B -A. The leachate head on liner calculations (Appendix B-2-1), leachate travel time calculations (Appendix B-2-2). and leachate collection system header pipe sizing calculations (Appendix B-2-3) were performed using a conservative minimum header pipe post -settlement slope of 1.0% and floor post -settlement slope of 1.5% to allow for maximum potential future settlement while maintaining the necessary drainage characteristics. 4.1.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses Slope stability analyses were performed based on liner and final cover grades for the Landfill. A detailed discussion of the slope stability analyses is included in Appendix B-5-1. 4.1.1.2.1 Global Stability Several critical intermediate/operational conditions were analyzed at various geometries throughout the development of the Landfill, including initial excavation of the Landfill, intermediate waste filling, and final cover conditions, under both static and pseudo -static (seismic) loading conditions. The global stability analyses were performed to evaluate the minimum factor of safety (FOS) for global and translational veneer failure. Three critical cross sections were identified for the slope stability analyses, as presented in Figure B-5-1-1 and summarized below: Section A -A': Final Conditions — Cross section through the lowest perimeter berm height (i.e., minimum resisting force) and the highest depth of waste (i.e., maximum driving force): Section B -B': Final Conditions — Cross section through the Landfill and stormwater detention pond; and Section C -C': Intermediate Excavation and Waste Filling Conditions and Final Conditions — Cross section through the maximum excavated slope constructed for the subgrade (i.e., interim conditions during the construction of Phases 1A, 1 B, 2A and 2B). Limit -equilibrium global slope stability analyses (2-D) were performed using Spencer's method in SLIDE 6.0 (RocScience 2012) slope stability modeling software. Seismic stability was evaluated using a pseudo -static analysis procedure generally following the Hynes -Griffin and Franklin method. A horizontal seismic load coefficient of 0.05 was used for the pseudo -static analyses, corresponding to 1/2 of the maximum considered peak ground acceleration for the 2,475 -year event (0.10g). GOLDER 8 July 20. 2020 1407882B Revision 7 The minimum targeted factors of safety for static and pseudo -static analyses were 1.6 and 1.2, respectively. Factors of safety for the Landfill were calculated to be acceptable for all cross sections evaluated (i.e., equal to or greater than the minimum targeted factors of safety values); therefore, the liner system is predicted to be stable under both static and seismic loading conditions. 4.1.1.2.2 Liner Translational Veneer Stability Relatively thin layers of soils and/or geosynthetics, such as the Landfill liner system, can translate gravitationally or in response to external loading, such as vertical surcharges from Landfill operational equipment. The veneer stability of the liner was evaluated along Section C -C', which was cut perpendicular to the maximum -depth 3H:1V liner excavation slope. The interface between the compacted low -permeability soil liner and the GCL was determined to be the most critical interface (i.e., exhibiting the minimum interface friction angle among the Landfill liner system components), based on a review of several peak interface friction angles between various geosynthetic and natural earth materials as published in the literature (Koerner and Narejo 2005). The internal (veneer) stability of the Landfill liner system was evaluated assuming short-term static loading conditions, seismic loading conditions, and short-term construction conditions assuming a bulldozer load on the liner. Veneer stability was evaluated using the finite -slope analysis methods established by Koerner and Soong (2005). Given the short-term durations of these anticipated loading conditions (i.e., only during initial cell construction and placement of protective cover), the minimum targeted factors of safety against a veneer failure in the Landfill liner are 1.2 and 1.0 for static and seismic loading, respectively. The factors of safety calculated against translational veneer failure were found to be above these minimum targeted factors of safety; therefore, the liner is considered stable during the short-term construction conditions evaluated. The translational veneer stability calculations are presented in Appendix B-5-2. 4.1.1.3 Anchor Trench Analysis Anchor trench calculations were performed to verify the capacity of the anchor trench dimensions to resist the maximum anticipated loads that will be applied to the geosynthetic liners on the sideslopes during construction of the liner system and to identify the mode of failure (pull out or tear) in the geomembrane and GCL liner system in the event of a failure. Using a run -out length of two feet and an anchor trench depth of two feet, the geomembrane and GCL liner system is predicted to withstand the maximum expected stresses from the weight of the operations/protective cover layer and the live construction loads during liner placement. The resisting forces acting on the geomembrane and GCL within the anchor trench are less than the tensile yield strength of the geomembrane and GCL, indicating that. in the event of a failure, the geomembrane and GCL would pull out of the anchor trench rather than tear. Anchor trench calculations are provided in Appendix B-6. 4.1.2 Leachate Collection Sump Secondary Liner A secondary geomembrane and GCL will be installed within the leachate collection sump areas to create a redundant liner system where leachate head may accumulate, and will be extended up the leachate collection riser pipe corridor on the sideslope for added protection. Details and cross sections of the double liner system for the sump areas are shown in Drawing 13. GOLDER g July 20. 2020 1407882B Revision 7 The double liner system, including the sump profile, will consist of the following components, listed from top of the liner system down to existing foundation material: Protective cover layer (12 -inch minimum thickness) installed over the entire liner area and composed of either on -site soils or select waste material; A 16 oz./sq. yd. non -woven geotextile; A leachate collection sump backfilled with two feet (minimum) of drainage gravel, housing the leachate collection header and riser pipes: A protective 16 oz./sq. yd. non -woven geotextile; A primary 60 -mil HDPE textured (both sides) geomembrane liner; A primary GCL liner; A secondary 60 -mil HDPE textured (both sides) geomembrane liner; A secondary GCL liner; A 24 -inch -thick compacted low -permeability soil liner composed of on -site soils with a minimum 3% bentonite admixture, exhibiting a hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1 x 10-' cm/sec. or off -site soils with a hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1 x 10-' cm/sec; and Prepared subgrade material composed of conditioned and compacted existing subsurface material The secondary geomembrane and GCL will be installed over the top of and will be welded to the liner that lines the remainder of the Landfill to ensure continuity in the bottom -most liner material. In this way. the liner that underlies the remainder of the Landfill will serve as the secondary liner within the sumps and riser pipe corridors, and the upper geomembrane and GCL will serve as the primary liner in the sump areas and riser pipe corridors. 4 1.3 Leachate Storage Tank Area Liner System The proposed leachate storage tank area will be composed of a concrete basin to hold up to eight frac tanks for temporary storage of leachate. The concrete basin will have construction joints sealed with PVC waterstops and silicone caulking (or engineer -approved alternative). The concrete basin will be sloped to a sump area where stormwater will collect. An outlet pipe will allow stormwater to be drained from the containment area, as needed. The design of the secondary containment for the leachate storage tank storage area is discussed in Appendix B-2-5. Additional information on the sizing and operation of the leachate storage tank area is included in Section 6.1 of the Operations Plan (Appendix C). 4.2 4.2.1 Leachate Collection and Recovery System (ERGS) Design and Management Leachate Collection and Recovery System Description The leachate collection and recovery system (LRCS) is designed to collect leachate and contact surface water runoff from the waste mass and provide for an efficient means of removal. The LRCS will consist of a 12 -inch sand drainage layer with hydraulic conductivity equal to or greater than 1 x 10-2 cm/sec overlain by an 8 oz./sq. yd. non -woven geotextile. Waste placement will be limited near the crest of the Landfill perimeter berms and along ' GOLDER 10 July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 the cell termination berms as shown in Drawings 11 and 12 to provide contact water runoff unimpeded access to the leachate collection drainage layer. Drainage from the sand drainage layer will flow down the Landfill sideslopes and across the sloping floor of the Landfill into leachate collection header drains installed along the lowest point (centerline) of each phase Each header drain will be installed at a design 1.2% slope towards one of four leachate collection sumps constructed at the east and west ends of the Landfill and will consist of an 8 -inch - diameter SDR 11 HDPE perforated header pipe surrounded with gravel and encapsulated by a non -woven geotextile. Solid -wall cleanout riser pipes will be connected to the ends of the perforated header pipes in the leachate collection sumps and will extend up the east and west sideslopes (see detail in Drawing 13) of the Landfill to allow for cleaning of the leachate collection header pipes. if needed. The layout of the leachate collection header drains and sumps is illustrated in Drawing 3, with details provided in Drawings 11 through 13. As indicated above, the leachate collection header drains will be placed on the lowest points of the liner floor, along the centerline of each of the four designed phases. The gravel material around the header pipe will provide for proper bedding and structural support of the leachate collection header pipes and will also convey leachate towards the leachate removal sumps. The gravel will be used as pipe bedding and will also be mounded over the header pipes to provide adequate structural support and protection. The gravel will be encapsulated by a 16 oz/sq. yd non -woven geotextile to limit the potential for clogging of the leachate collection pipe/gravel by migration of fines. The leachate collection gravel will have a minimum specified hydraulic conductivity of 1 cm/sec. which will provide system redundancy as the header pipes were designed to convey the maximum anticipated leachate generation rate. The leachate collection sumps were designed to be recessed approximately two feet below the surrounding liner grades to allow for accumulation of leachate and efficiency of pumping. The leachate removal system will be contained completely within the Landfill liner system to eliminate the need for liner penetrations. Sumps will be double -lined with secondary HDPE geomembrane and GCL liners (as described in Section 4.1.2 of this EDOP and shown in Drawing 13). After construction of the primary liner system, a geotextile cushion will be placed in the sump excavation, and the sump will be backfilled with clean gravel to allow leachate to be easily conveyed to the sump riser pipes. Leachate will be removed from the sump via 18 -inch -diameter SDR 11 HDPE sump riser pipes. Two sump riser pipes will be installed in each sump for system redundancy in the event of riser pipe blockage or the need for additional pumping capacity. A perforated section of sump pipe will extend horizontally onto the floor of the sump area to allow leachate to enter the riser pipe. Solid sections of sump riser pipe will extend from the floor of the sumps to approximately two feet above the crest of the perimeter berm. The top of the solid riser sections will be fitted with blind flanges. The riser pipes will be used to remove leachate and to measure leachate levels. Submersible pumps will be installed within the riser pipes to pump accumulated leachate from the sumps up the Landfill sideslope to a dedicated water truck for management by one of the methods detailed in Section 6.1 of the Operations Plan (Appendix C). 4.2.2 Leachate Collection and Recovery System Design Calculations 4.2.2.1 Leachate Head on Liner An analysis was performed to conservatively predict leachate head on the liner throughout the life of the Landfill, assuming various waste depths and cover configurations. This analysis is described in detail in Appendix B-2-1. The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model, version 3.07, developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers was used for this analysis. The HELP model analysis was performed for the following scenarios, assumed to represent the most critical operational scenarios from a leachate-generation standpoint: Scenario 1: 6 feet of waste with 6 -inch daily cover (assumed to consist of native clean fill ML material). GOLDER 11 July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 Scenario 2: 80 feet of waste with 6 -inch daily cover (assumed to consist of native clean fill ML material); Scenario 3: 80 feet of waste with 12 -inch intermediate cover (assumed to consist of native clean fill ML material); and Scenario 4: 160 feet of waste with 3 -foot water balance final cover (assumed to consist of native clean fill ML material). Stormwater runoff that has contacted exposed waste or waste having only daily cover (contact water) will be treated as leachate and managed as described in Section 6.1 of the Operations Plan (Appendix C). Under intermediate and final cover conditions, runoff will be considered stormwater and will be conveyed to the stormwater detention pond. Under all open daily, intermediate, and closed conditions for leachate generation. the HELP model simulation predicts that the peak head on the liner with the designed leachate collection system to be less than 12 inches (considering potential reductions in the slope of the Landfill floor and header pipes due to foundation settlement), as required by USEPA Subtitle D regulations. 4.2.2.2 Leachate Collection Header Pipe Flow Capacity The required flow capacity of the leachate collection header pipe was calculated using Manning's equation. assuming uniform flow conditions. The peak daily flow generated from the HELP model (applying Scenario 3 waste and cover configurations over the largest sump area to model active waste placement over the entire constructed area) were used as the maximum estimated flow to be conveyed within the leachate collection header pipe. This calculation is described in detail in Appendix B-2-3. The 8 -inch -diameter SDR 11 pipe can adequately convey the maximum anticipated leachate generation rate and without reliance on the additional flow capacity of the surrounding drainage gravel. 4.2.2.3 Leachate Collection Header Pipe Strength Pipe strength calculations were completed to verify the structural integrity of the leachate collection header pipes (8 -inch -diameter SDR 11 HDPE) under the overburden pressure of the maximum height of waste and cover soils. The calculations obtained factors of safety for wall crushing, wall buckling, and ring deflection. The ability of the leachate collection pipes to withstand the loads anticipated to be imposed by the overlying waste is discussed further in Appendix B-2-4. All factors of safety exceeded the minimums recommended by the Plastic Pipes Institute (PPI) for thermoplastic pipe applications. In addition, to provide protection against damage from overlying waste and waste placement equipment, the leachate collection pipes will be flagged during construction and caution will be used during placement of the initial 3 -foot protective cover "fluff' layer of select waste. Truck or wheeled vehicle traffic will not be allowed access to any area of the cell until the 3 -foot "fluff' layer has been placed over the liner and leachate collection pipes. 4.3 Final Cover The final cover design includes 4H:1V side slopes on all sides of the Landfill with a top deck (crown) slope of 5 to 10%. The final cover system will be constructed in phases after the waste reaches final design grades. Drawings 4 and 5 show the top of final cover contours and stormwater controls. A water balance final cover system has been designed in accordance with the CDPHE's Final Guidance Document: Water Balance Covers in Colorado (2013) (WBC Guidance). A detail of the final cover system is shown in Drawing 11. GOLDER 12 July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 The final cover system will consist of the following components listed, from top to bottom: 6 -inch -thick topsoil layer; and 30 -inch -thick water storage layer. Water balance covers in Colorado are based on the Ecozone location of the Site and the predominant USDA soil type of on -site soils to be used in the final cover. A demonstration that on -site soils meet the requirements for a water balance cover per the WBC Guidance is provided in Appendix B-8. Final cover soils will be obtained from select areas of the landfill excavation that are demonstrated through borrow source characterization testing to yield soils falling within the acceptable zone for use as a water storage layer in Ecozone 3 (per "Final Guidance Document: Water Balance Covers in Colorado" [CDPHE 2013]). Final cover stormwater controls will be constructed on the completed final cover, as discussed in Section 5.0 and Appendix B-3. Final cover will not be applied to the interim sideslope of a closed fill area that has not been filled to final grade until the adjacent fill area is filled. Intermediate cover will be applied to those slopes of the fill areas that are adjacent to future fill areas and have not reached final elevation in accordance with CDPHE regulations. Final cover installation will be performed in accordance with the Closure/Post-closure Plan (Appendix F) and the Construction Quality Assurance Plan (Appendix G). The Closure/Post-closure Plan describes the final cover system, the phased placement of final cover, and the largest area (acres) allowed to be open (i.e., not certified closed) at any time during the active life of the landfill as per the financial assurance criteria for closure. 4.4 Landfill Capacity, Projected Site Life, and Soil Requirements Based on the liner and final cover grading plans and an estimated waste intake rate of 1,000 tons/day, the estimated life of the 74 -acre lined disposal area is approximately 42-45 years (assuming 5% and 10% daily/intermediate cover, respectively). The actual life of the landfill will depend on a number of factors, including tonnage of waste actually received, compaction factors, cover usage. etc. The effective airspace capacity for the landfill is approximately 11,478.000 million cubic yards. This effective airspace capacity includes the volume consumed by waste and daily/intermediate cover, as detailed in Appendix B-1. Calculations of the landfill airspace volume and soil requirements, including components of the liner and final cover system, are presented in Appendix B-1. Soil needed for cell construction and cover will be obtained from the landfill excavation. The sand for the leachate drainage layer, and all drainage gravel material, will be obtained from off -site sources. 4.5 Surplus Soil Uses Surplus soil resulting from Landfill excavation and that is not projected to be needed for intermediate or final cover may be utilized for a number of purposes, as listed below, but will remain inside the boundaries of the USR obtained from Weld County, unless otherwise approved by CDPHE. Such uses may include, but are not limited to: Access road grade fill Earthen berms, including but not limited to: Temporary stormwater control berms or sediment traps Screening berms (aesthetic enhancement, wind protection, or other) Stockpile for future cover and/or road repairs Soil additive to limit and/or restore the loss of soil through wind and water erosion GOLDER 13 July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 5.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM This section describes the Landfill stormwater management system, in accordance with Sections 2.1.6 and 3.2.6 of the Colorado Solid Waste Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2, Part 1. An overview of the design of the surface water control components at the Facility is presented, including a description of each component, summary of the design parameters, and a discussion of the analyses performed. Temporary and permanent surface water structures and erosion control measures will be constructed over the life of the Landfill to manage surface water and contact water runoff. Design objectives for the surface water controls include: Provide trafficable roads; Prevent contact water runoff from leaving the active areas of the Landfill; Divert surface water run-on from areas upgradient of the Landfill around the site; Prevent run-on to the active area of the Landfill; and Prevent discharge of contaminated stormwater from the Site. The basis of stormwater control design for the Facility is to replicate historic drainage patterns as closely as possible. Components of the surface water control system include: Run-on diversion channels; A culvert crossing under the entrance road with a dissipation basin; Landfill perimeter and access road channels: A culvert crossing under the Landfill perimeter road discharging to the detention pond; Terrace channels: Downchute channels with stilling basins; and A detention pond with an outlet pipe. In addition, there will be a small stormwater catchment basin southwest of the scalehouse to capture and release runoff from the entrance/infrastructure area. Drawing 5 shows the locations of permanent surface water control structures. Drawings 14 and 16 provide the details for these structures. 5.1.1 Temporary Surface Water Management Surface water will be managed through a series of temporary berms and/or channels that will divert run-on away from the active area and direct runoff toward temporary surface water ponds or the permanent stormwater detention pond. Surface water runoff that is not contact water will be managed via gravity drainage or pumping to the stormwater detention pond prior to release from the Site. Details for the temporary stormwater control structures will be provided to the CDPHE for informational purposes with the construction packages for each cell prior to construction. Any temporary surface water controls will be designed to handle a 25 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Final Stormwater Management System Permanent drainage improvements for the Facility were designed in conformance with the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum and the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals, Volumes 1, 2, and 3. ' GOLDER 14 July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 5.1.2.1 Run-on Diversion Run-on diversion channels were evaluated for the Facility and include five trapezoidal open channels (Channels 0 through 4) along the north and east perimeter of the Landfill. The diversion channels will flow to the west and south to route stormwater run-on around the Landfill. These channels are designed to control the 100 -year frequency, 24 -hour duration storm event and include a minimum 1 -foot freeboard. A culvert crossing consisting of either four concrete box culverts or an equivalent single -span box culvert structure will be installed northwest of the scalehouse to convey stormwater from the north diversion channel (Channels 0, 1, and 2) beneath the entrance road and into a dissipation basin. The dissipation basin, which will be lined with riprap, will be placed directly downstream of the culverts to spread and dissipate the flow prior to discharge as sheet flow onto natural topography. The dissipation basin has been designed to control the runoff from a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event and reduce the discharge flow velocity to no greater than 4 feet per second. An equivalent dissipation basin will also be placed at the discharge point of the east run-on diversion channel. The run-on channels. entrance road culvert crossing, and dissipation basin will be constructed as shown in Drawing 16. Detailed design information is presented in Appendix B-3. 5.1.2.2 Runoff Control Perimeter channels adjacent to the waste footprint (embedded within the perimeter berm), as well as downchute channels. terrace channels, and an access road channel, will be used to control runoff from intermediate- and final -covered areas of the Landfill. The locations of these features are shown in Drawing 5 and details are provided in Drawings 14 through 16. All runoff control channels with design flow velocity greater than five feet per second will be lined with either turf reinforcement mat (TRM) or riprap. All surface water runoff from disturbed areas is designed to be collected and report to the stormwater detention pond located directly west of the Landfill. The perimeter channels will be constructed in segments as the phased development of the Landfill advances and the perimeter berm is constructed. Perimeter channels will be grass -lined trapezoidal channels with 3H:1V side slopes, 10 -foot bottom widths, and 3.0 -foot depths. Perimeter channel reaches immediately adjacent to the west culvert crossing are designed to be lined with riprap due to larger peak flow velocities and base -shear stresses. The terrace channels will be grass -lined "V" channels formed by the construction of a 15 -foot wide terrace situated at the approximate mid -point of the landfill sideslopes (approximately 50 feet vertically from the top and bottom of the approximately 100 -foot -high Landfill sideslope). Across its width. the terrace will slope at 10H:1 V inward toward the landfill, resulting in a channel depth of 1.5 feet; the opposite side of each terrace channel will slope at 4H:1V coincident with the final Landfill sideslope. The terrace channels will slope longitudinally at 1% across the final cover surface and converge at selected points on the final cover, where they will discharge into one of three reinforced downchute channels to carry the flow down the Landfill sideslopes. The access road channel will parallel the permanent access road that extends from the northwest corner of the Landfill to the top deck, and will consist of TRM-lined "V" -notch channels with sideslopes of 3H:1V and a depth of 1 foot. The downchute channels will be trapezoidal with 3H:1V sideslopes, 10- to 25 -foot bottom widths, and 1.5 -foot depths. At the base of the downchute channels, where the flow enters the perimeter channel, hydraulic stilling (jump) basins will be installed to dissipate hydraulic energy. The downchute channels and hydraulic stilling basins were designed to be constructed with riprap; however, articulated concrete block (or alternative material as approved by the Engineer) may be substituted at the time of construction to reduce future maintenance requirements. The perimeter channels will convey the stormwater around the perimeter of the Landfill to the stormwater detention pond. ' GOLDER 15 July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 Supporting calculations. which demonstrate that the access road channels, terrace channels, perimeter channels, and downchutes have been designed to control runoff from the Landfill from a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event, are presented in Appendix B-3. Stormwater will ultimately report to the stormwater detention pond via three 42 -inch diameter culverts, or equivalent box culvert structure, to be installed beneath the perimeter road on the west side of the Landfill, as detailed in Drawing 15. There will be approximately three feet of cover over the culverts to provide load -bearing capacity for the vehicular loads on the perimeter road. Perimeter channels and run-on diversion controls will be constructed as described in the Operations Plan (Appendix C). Stormwater will be managed in accordance with the Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) General Permit for "Stormwater Discharges Associated With Non -Extractive Industrial Activities" (COR900000) (application for permit coverage to be submitted prior to commencing Landfill operations). 5.1.3 Erosion Potential Evaluation An evaluation of the effects of erosion due to rainfall on the final cover was performed. The analysis involved using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, Version 2 (RUSLE2) erosion modeling software (USDA 2010) to estimate the amount of soil loss caused by sheet and rill erosion of the final cover immediately after closure construction and after a five-year period of vegetative growth on the final cover. RUSLE2 calculations are presented in Appendix B-7 of this report. Annual soil loss due to erosion in the first year of closure and long-term (i.e., after vegetative growth on the final cover) was predicted to be 2.8 tons/acre/year and 1.8 tons/acre/year, respectively, and less than the regulatory soil loss tolerance of 5 tons/acre/year for Landfill final cover slopes in surrounding states. 6.0 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION This section introduces the requirements for construction documentation of the various engineered components of the Landfill, per Section 3.2.7 and 3.3.3 of the Colorado Solid Waste Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2, Part 1. A comprehensive CQA Plan has been prepared for the Landfill, and is included in Appendix G. The CQA Plan contains details on sampling, testing, observation, documentation, reporting and certification of applicable portions of the subgrade, structural fill, liner and leachate collection and recovery system components, as well as the final cover and seeding activities. Pawnee will prepare and submit a CQA report to CDPHE and Weld County for each phase of liner and final cover construction at the Landfill, documenting that the designed construction was completed in accordance with this EDOP, including the CQA Plan. CQA reports will be signed by a Colorado registered professional engineer. For each new constructed cell or phase, approval of the CQA report will be obtained from CDPHE prior to acceptance of waste in that area. 7.0 OPERATIONS The Operations Plan presented in Appendix C provides operational information specific to the Landfill to satisfy Section 2 and Section 3.3 of the Regulations. The Waste Acceptance Plan, contained in Appendix D, includes details regarding waste type restrictions, waste evaluation and profiling procedures, screening and random inspections. management of unacceptable wastes, employee training, and associated documentation and reporting requirements. ' GOLDER 16 July 20, 2020 1407882B Revision 7 8.0 REFERENCES Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2014. 900 -Series Rules. Golder Associates Inc. 2014. Pawnee Waste Project: Borehole Data. GROUND Engineering. 2012. Subsurface Exploration Program & Geotechnical Recommendations, Pawnee Project Improvements. Grover, CO. Koerner, G.R. and D. Narejo. 2005. -Direct Shear Database of Geosynthetic-to-Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic- to-Soil Interfaces," GRI Report #30, Geosynthetic Research Institute, Folsom, PA. Koerner, R.M. and T -Y. Soong. 2005. `Analysis and Design of Veneer Cover Soils," Geosynthetics International, Vol. 12, No. 1. pp. 28-49. Higley. D.K., R.R. Charpentier, T.A. Cook, T.R. Klett, R.M. Pollastro, and J.W. Schmoker. 2002. Petroleum Systems and Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas in the Denver Basin Province, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming-USGS Province 29: US Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS - 69 -P. Chapter 2, 1 p. Hynes -Griffin, M.E and A.G. Franklin. 1984. "Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient Method," Miscellaneous Paper GL -84-13, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg. MS. Robson, S.G. and E R. Banta. 1995. Groundwater Atlas of the United States. Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah. HA730-C. Available online: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch c/ Accessed July 23, 2015. RocScience. 2012. SLIDE — Version 6.017, Software for 2D Limiting Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis. Available online: http://www.rocscience.com Accessed July 23, 2015. Spencer. E. 1967. A Method of Analysis of the Stability of Embankments Assuming Parallel Inter -Slice Forces. Geotechnique. Vol. XVII, No. 1, pp. 11-26. U nited States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. National Wetlands Inventory: Wetlands Mapper. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1985. National Water Summary 1984 — Hydrologic Events, Selected Water -Quality Trends, and Ground -water Resources: USGS Water -Supply Paper 2275, 467 p. U nited States Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. Grover South Quadrangle. Colorado -Weld Co. 7.5 -Minute Series. U SGS. 2014a. Earthquake Hazards Program: US Seismic Design Maps. U SGS. 2014b. The National Geologic Map Database: MapView. U SGS and Colorado Geological Survey. 2014 Earthquake Hazards Program: Interactive Fault Map. Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation https //golderassociates sharepoint com/sites/123380/project files/6 deliverables/1407882b/0400/0410 edop rev?/minor changes made 20jul20 - use for rev8/1407882b rpt Pawnee waste edop rev7 20jul20 docx 4 GOLDER 17 July 2017 Table 1: Summary of Permitted Wells within One Mile of the Use by Special Review USR Boundary 1407882B Rev 4 Permit Number Receipt Number Location Information Depth of _ Well Top of Screen Bottom of Screen Designated Basin Aquifer Name Primary Use Well Status Quarter Quarter Quarter Section Township Range _ Owner 11484 9060743 NE NE 14 10 N 61 W Dietzler Daniel P ' ' 54 N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek i White River Irrigation Well Constructed • 13859 9061767 SW SE 14 10 N 61 W Dietzler Ranch and Cattle Company, LLC 20 N/A N/A N/A All Unnamed Aquifers Stock Well Constructed 213044 434797 NE NE 12 10 N 61 _ W Hayes Ralph L 280 220 280 Upper Crow Creek White River Domestic Well Constructed 256845 523967 SW SW 12 _ 10 N 61 W Weisbrook Harold & Elaine N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek All Unnamed Aquifers Stock Permit Issued; Completion Status Unknown 274167 3618082B SE SE 12 10 N 61 W , Weisbrook Harold 110 60 _ 110 Upper Crow Creek All Unnamed Aquifers Stock Well Constructed 286687 3652227 NE NW 19 10 N 60 — W Dietzler Dan (1) N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek Laramie Monitoring Well Permit Issued; Completion Status Unknown 286692 3652176 NE NW 19 10 N 60 W Dietzler Dann) 800 460 700 Upper Crow Creek Laramie Fox Hills Monitoring Well Well Constructed 294803 3665412C NW NW 13 10 N 61 W Grassland Water Solutions LLC 425 140 400 Upper Crow Creek Laramie Monitoring Well Well Constructed 50791 9064679 NE SE 7 10 N 60 W US America 85 N/A N/A N/A All Unnamed Aquifers Stock Well Constructed 52896 52896 NW NE 13 10 N 61 W Pawnee Waste LLC N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek All Unnamed Aquifers Monitoring Well Permit Issued; Completion Status Unknown 52897 52897 NE NE 13 10 N �N 61 W 4 Pawnee Waste LLC N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek All Unnamed Aquifers Monitoring Well Permit Issued; Completion Status Unknown 52898 52898 SW NE 13 10 61 W Pawnee Waste LLC N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek All Unnamed Aquifers Monitoring Well Permit Issued; Completion Status Unknown 52899 52899 SE NE 13 10 N 'N 61 W Pawnee Waste LLC N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek All Unnamed Aquifers Monitoring Well Permit Issued. Completion Status Unknown 52913 52913 NE NW 13 10 61 W _Pawnee Waste LLC N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek All Unnamed Aquifers +Monitoring Well Permit Issued, Completion Status Unknown 56472 40004 SE NE 24 10 N 61 1 W Dietzler Ranch and Cattle Company, LLC N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek Quaternary Alluvium Stock Well Constructed 56473 40003 NW SW 13 10 N . 61 W Dietzler Ranch and Cattle Company, LLC N/A N/A , N/A Upper Crow Creek Quaternary Alluvium Stock Well Constructed 76769 3656623C NW NW 13 10 N 61 W . Grassland Water Solutions LLC 415 N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek Laramie Industrial Well Constructed 76771 3656623E I NE NW 19 10 N 60 W Grassland Water Solutions LLC 800 460 700 Upper Crow Creek Laramie Fox Hills Industrial Well Constructed 76773 3656623G NW NW 13 10 N 61 W Grassland Water Solutions LLC 700 N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek Laramie Fox Hills Industrial Well Constructed 77890 3662648G NE NW 18 10 N 60 W Grassland Water Solutions LLC N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek Laramie Fox Hills Municipal Permit Issued; Completion Status Unknown 77891 `' 3662648H SW SE 13 10 N 61 W Grassland Water Solutions LLC N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek Laramie Fox Hills Municipal Permit Issued; Completion Status Unknown 77893 3662648J NE NE 11 10 N 61 W Grassland Water Solutions LLC 850 522 830 Upper Crow Creek Laramie Fox Hills Municipal Well Constructed 78412 3664626K NW NW 13 10 N 61 W Grassland Water Solutions LLC N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek Laramie Industrial Well Constructed 78413 3664626E SW SE 13 10 N 61 W Grassland Water Solutions LLC N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek Laramie Industrial Permit Issued; Completion Status Unknown 78415 ` 3664626N NE NE 11 10 N 61 W Grassland Water Solutions LLC N/A N/A N/A Upper Crow Creek Laramie Industrial Permit Issued, Completion Status Unknown 91966 9065936 NW SW 18 10 N 60 W Dietzler Ranch and Cattle Company, LLC _ 40 47 70 � N/A White River Well Constructed AI ..$n _Stock 1) Wells shown in the Colorado Division of Water Resources database as owned by Dan Dietzler and Daniel P. Dietzler are now owned by Dietzler Ranch and Cattle Company, LLC 2) Wells in italics are within one mile of the USR boundary and outside the one mile boundary from the E&P Landfill boundary 11411407EE28k340O0403 EDOP REV 11Tates114078U28 Tate 1 Way wtM 7µy Rav1 19F E821318 ais,dnset1 Golder Associates CO ROAD 118 SECTION I I T 10N R 61W SECTION 1 a T ION. R 61W SECTION 12 T 10N, R 61W SECTION T ION, R 6 PAWNEE WASTE LLC PROPOSED EMP LANDFILL• (APPROXIMATELY 74 ACRES) PROPOSED USR BOUNDARY - LEGEND I _ NOTES PROPOSED USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) BOUNDARY PROPOSED E&P LANDFILL LOCATION LOCATION OF JACKSON DRAW LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE LINES TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONTOUR BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGIC SURVEY (USGS) SOUTH GROVER QUAD MAP, COLORADO -WELD CO, 7 5 -MINUTE SERIES (USGS. 2013) 2 REFERENCES TO COUNTY ROADS THAT HAVE BEEN FIELD VERIFIED TO BE NOT PRESENT HAVE BEEN REMOVED CONSULTANT its YYYY.MM-(X) 2015-07.18 PREPARED CETB DESIGN CETH REVIEW JdP •PPROVED MAY u 500 1000 1500 FEET PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO FACILITY LOCATION ••ROJECT No CONTROL 1407882B M001 Re A FIGURI 1 S rear • iii a ,n. •A }.t Pnnt Map'"* •t • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory s si • % % I • got_. PROPOSED E&P LANDFILL (APPROXIMATELY 74 ACRES) • I i *y/Lai ,"IIMMrips) - 7r Zoom to: Available Layers • ed Wetlands S fl Riparian Ripanan Mapping Areas • Data Source O Source Type • Image Scale • Image Year MI Areas of Interest 0 © FW S Refuges D FM • Histonc Wetland Data a • FEET NOTES NO WETLANDS EXIST WTHIN THE PROPOSED E&P LANDFILL FACILITY USR BOUNDARY PAWNEE WASTE LLC (:UN:,.IANI IYYY-WW-DD 2015-07-16 PREPARED CETB DESIGN CETB REVIEW .AMP APPROVED DLO r -k PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO USFWS NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP PROJECT 1407882B M003 A 3 4 _ 7777 r• AV O C Grover • 1G-18 ni PROPOSED FACILITY LOCATION r Keott V P Y 'Quaternary Faults (Age) ----'" c 150 years < 15,000 yeas 130.000 Wirt c 730.000 years ----�� 4 1.6 million years Location %Mgt COnstralnt'd igitilat1'Iy Cc'rl jtr allrlf:(1 11fPFRPtl Pa leo si tes A 71 NOTES 1 NO FAULTS EXIST WITHIN OR NEAR THE PROPOSED E&P LANDFILL FACILITY USR BOUNDARY 0 6000 16000 24000 FEET CUE PAWNEE WASTE LLC PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO CONSULTANT rVYY-MM-DO 2015-07-16 PREPARED GETS DESIGN GETS REVIEW MAY APPROVED DLO TITLE USGS QUATERNARY FAULTS MAP PROJECT N., CONTROL 1407882B M004 R. A FICt1RE 4 LEGEND L^XAb ryn egici k 11484 76769 USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) BOUNDARY E&P LANDFILL BOUNDARY 1 -MILE FROM USR BOUNDARY 1 -MILE FROM E&P LANDFILL BOUNDARY WATER WELLS WITHIN 1 MILE OF FACILITY BOUNDARY WELL CONSTRUCTED PERMIT ISSUED: COMPLETION STATUS UNKNOWN PAWNEE WASTE LLC PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL (LOCATIONS BASED ON WATER WELL PERMIT DATA AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL FIELD LOCATIONS) REFERENCE 1 AERIAL IMAGERY ESRI BASEMAP SERVICES, BING MAPS. MICROSOFT CORPORATION. 2. WATER WELL PERMIT DATA COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES AND COLORADO STATE ENGINEER'S OFFICE PERMIT DATA DOWNLOADED 12/11/2014 3 COORDINATE SYSTEM NAD83 STATE PLANE COLORADO NORTH, US FEET KEY MAP 390 Site 0 0.25 0.5 1 Vies PAWNEE WASTE LLC D[7n 'rr-- PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY. COLORADO PERMITTED WELLS WITHIN 1 MILE OF FACILITY CONSULTANT PROJECT 1407882B Golder Associates YYYY-MM-DL PREPARED DESIGN REVIEW APPROVED 2016-02-09 KJC KJC JAR CKB FIGURE 5 PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PLAN DRAWINGS PAWNEE WASTE LLC WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 4 i 1 0 1 2 APPROX SCALE MILES 0 1500 3000 APPROX SCALE FEET C 2018-04-22 ADDRESS CDPHE TECHNICAL EDOP FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS DATED APRIL 13, 2016 NKR JAR JAR B 2016-02-19 ADDRESS COPHE TECHNICAL EDOP COMMENTS DATED JANUARY 28, 2018 NKR CAJ A 2015-07.23 ISSUED FOR COPHE EDOP SUBMITTAL NKR JMP JAR JMP DLO REV, YYYY-PAPA •DO DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED Prepared by: Golder Associates Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, CO USA 80228 SEAL DRAWING INDEX Sheet Number Sheet Title 1 COVER SHEET 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 SUBGRADE PLAN 4 FINAL COVER PLAN S STORMWATER CONTROLS PLAN 6 CROSS -SECTIONS (SHEET 1 Of 5) 7 CROSS -SECTIONS (SHEET 2 OF 5) 8 CROSS -SECTIONS (SHEET 3 OF 5) 9 CROSS -SECTIONS (SHEET 4 OF 5) 10 CROSS -SECTIONS (SHEET 5 OF 5) 11 LANDFILL DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 3) 12 LANDFILL DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 3) 13 LANDFILL DETAILS (SHEET 3 OF 3) 14 SURFACE WATER DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 3) 15 SURFACE WATER DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 3) r 16 SURFACE WATER DETAILS (SHEET 3 OF 3) PAWNEE WASTE LLC OP Golder Associates DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD STE 300 LAKEWOOD COLORADO UNITED STATES (• 1I (303) 980 0540 www, g040er corn PROJECT PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Till F COVER SHEET PROJECT NO 1407882B CONTROL L001 REV 1 of 16 DRAWING C 1 N.1 553 000 N 1 562 000 N 1 548 000 m R� m '0 m w v Ii IK r WELD COUNTY ROAD 95 - PROPOSED ENTRANCE ROAD (EXTENSION OF WELD COUNTY ROAD 118) t 4 r it II WELD COUNTY ROAD 95 4 XY i F\ •• m w • REV B PROPOSED STORMWATER DETENTION POND MW -2014-04 r- WATER LINE NATURAL GAS PIPE LINE -' REVS ---\ MW-20t4.02A -� PROPOSED-M1(11.OS $ • • . -- . .S. .S.. C.. 30 i PROPOSED ESP LANDFILL AREA (APPROXIMATELY 74 ACRES) -1 MW -2014-03 $ UNDERGROUND CABLE I1 - MW -20 .-:fiTl.S..S-S-...•=1...-.. S.. ••...S.. 5.. en wv gN O • • • • ' B 2018.02-19 ADDRESS COPSE TECHNICAL EDOP COMMENTS DATED JANUARY 28. 2018 A 2015-07-23 ISSUED FOR CDPHE EDOP SUBMITTAL CM NKR JAR NKR SAP SAP CKB DLO REV YYYY-MM-DO DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED t� \ • 4. N. m w 8a O SEAL 01 't: In • m m w V N 1 554 000 N 1 553 000 N 1 552 000 N 1 551 000 N 1 550 000 N 'AC)(:)0Q N 1 548 000 CLIENT PAWNEE WASTE LLC CONSULTANT 'test DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD. STE. 900 LAKEIAOOD. COLORADO UNITED STATES (.11 (303) 900 0540 wive poklatoom LEGEND 5070 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY (SEE NOTE 1) USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) BOUNDARY (240 ACRES) PROPOSED WASTE OMIT OF ESP LANDFILL PROPOSED STORMWATER DETENTION POND MW -2014.03 EXISTING MONITORING WELL PROPOSED ENTRANCE ROAD (EXTENSION OF WELD COUNTY ROAD 1181 -� EXISTING OVERHEAD POWERUNE * -- -*- EXISTING FENCE EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EXISTING WATER UNE EXISTING ROADS NOTES 1 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IS A COMPOSITE OF A SURVEY PROVIDED BY CLARK LAND SURVEYING. INC OF PUEBLO. COLORADO FROM A GROUND SURVEY PERFORMED OCTOBER 14.15 2014 AND THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) SOUTH GROVER QUAD MAP. COLORADO -WELD CO. 7 5 -MINUTE SERIES (USGS. 2013) 2 COORDINATE SYSTEM IS COLORADO STATE PLANE ZONE 0501 CO N. VERTICAL DATUM t` NAVD 88 3 EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 FOOT • 0 400 800 SCALE FEET PROJECT PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT NO CONTROL 14078828 L002 REV 2 of 18 DRAW NG s 2 / .T 11 a a N 1 552 500 N t 552 000 N 1 551 500 N 1 550 000 N 1 549 500 I I I I I I I I I I I I !•! I I I I I I I m u w I DISSIPATION BASIN PLAN SEE DETAIL - Na•. a.. S•• S•••11111111.•• r••• ENTRANCE FACILITY SEE DETAIL LEACHATE STORAGE TANK AREA 12 SEE DETAIL REV B PROPOSED -MW -06 61-4-2014-06 E 10 MW.2014.04 ACCESS F{AMP 75. MAX SCOPE PROPOSED STORMWATFR TFNTI[;t. POND '0 •. MIME, ••INNEN••• • •••••• • • ap • limn • • S • • m w w • gyp. . S . • I • REV 8 Fr) 2014-02 3 BH-2014-12 REV B ••-ass • PROPOSED-. 'm w .w NORTH PERIMETI R SEE DETAIL ••a••I•.—p-eS••a.. as..all ••••S••a— . . re•�� •• •••••• ••r•••• Ole •• r••• MEM •• OM` a.-- -r. �F- .' - ,._--�1--;----- 1( k V M Y K - lad 61i-2014-07 4 'ACHATE COLLECTION HEADER DRAIN SEE DETAIL CHATE COLLECTION HEADER SUMP (TYP.) SEE DETAIL ..-.••- • • •.-••.-••II= • ••- •• ti m w w 4- 6H-2014-11 PHASE 2A 20.7 ACRES CHATS COLLECT HEADER DRAIN � 5060 mot. SEE DETAIL - 41)- 43H-2014-03 Y\ •� PHASE 1B .2% 144 ACRES • BH-2014.13 5070 5080 15 FT PERIMETER ROAD (SEE NOTE 41 PERIMETER DE 1 AIL 1 BH-2014-09 ..awl . •al=m . • . . 4BM ..—. . I • as .. 8 2016.02.19 ADDRESS CDPHE TECHNICAL EDOP COMMENTS DATED JANUARY 28 2016 A 2015-07.23 ISSUED FOR CDPHE EDOP SUBMITTAL NKR NKR CAJ JMP JAR CKB JMP 010 RFV YYYV-MM•OD DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED • 1 PHASE 25 ' 19. ACRES I c BH-2014-1 5-4)90—_.-_BH-2014-15 u _a. r r �zr r TTS r r tB14-201 14 - - - - • - - -- ,...7.-2- ( ( 5090 5100 (f 5080 GROUNDWATER CONTOURS (SEE NOTE 8) SEAL BK-2014-04 m w v i I I 1 i I • r.•_•• ••=• • • LEGEND N 1 552 S00 5070 — PROPOSED TOP OF SUBGRADE GRADES ••••rr.•a-••mm N 1 552 000 EAST PERIMETER SEE DETAIL a 15 FT PERIMETER ROAD (SEE NOTE 4) a A N 1 551 500 N 1 551 300 N 1 550 500 -- REV B N 1 550 000 N 1549 500 PAWNEE WASTE LLC CONSULTANI DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD STE 300 LAKEWOOD COLORADO UNITED STATES (.11 (303) 980 0540 *vow polder com MW -2014-03 BH-2014-01 PZ-4 • O _ a 4 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY ISEE NOTE 1) USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) BOUNDARY (240 ACRES) PROPOSED WASTE LIMIT OF E&P LANDFILL PROPOSED ROADS PROPOSED EXTENSION OF WELD COUNTY ROAD 118 PROPOSED PHASE LIMIT PROPOSED CULVERTS PROPOSED PERIMETER ROAD (SEE NOTE 4) MONITORING WELL BOREHOLE LOCATION (FROM OCTOBER 2014 FIELD INVESTIGATION) PIEZOMETER LOCATION (FROM OCTOBER 2014 FIELD INVESTIGATION) EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE PROPOSED LEACHATE COLLECTION HEADER DRAIN PROPOSED PERIMETER CHANNEL PROPOSED 20 FT X 20 FT LEACHATE COLLECTION SUMP PROPOSED DETENTION POND OUTLET PROPOSED RIPRAP AREA DETAIL DRAWING 5020.8 GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE CONTOUR (SEE NOTE o; fs PROPOSED RUN-ON DIVERSION CHANNEL NOTES 1 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROVIDED BY CLARK LAND SURVEYING. INC OF PUEBLO. COLORADO FROM A GROUND SURVEY PERFORMED OCTOBER 14-15 2014 3 4 5 6 COORDINATE SYSTEM IS COLORADO STATE PLANE ZONE 0501 CO N. VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 88 EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 FOOT PERIMETER ROADS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES AS FACILITY IS DEVELOPED SEE DRAWING 5 FOR SURFACE WATER CONTROL. COMPONENTS GROUNDWATER CONTOURS WERE INTERPRETED FROM MONITORING WELL. PIEZOMETER AND BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS COLLECTED IN OCTOBER 2014 4O0 SCALE FEET PROjEC' PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO SUBGRADE PLAN PROJECT NO 1407882B REV Sot 18 B DRAV,". 3 m w -- PROPOSED EXTENSION OF WELD COUNTY ROAD 118 A -•.••MINMSMnania. bee nThfls•• •• IE..•�•• SI••IS• N 1 552 000 N 1 551 500 N 1 551 000 N 1 550 500 N 1 550 OCC' N 1 549 500 I I I I I ENTRANCE FACILITY SEE DETAIL • I I I I I I I I I i I i I I I i • l•_••_.••_••_••_••-••_.••_.••,_••.•_••_••__.•__•• NEST PERIMETER ) SEE DETAIL LEACHATE STORAGE TANK AREA SEE DETAIL iti-f PROPOSED -MW REV 8- - MW -2014.04 c MW -2014.02A 4 - 1 • 1, -' '• m W V JI - REV B I MW -2014.03 . • - •• • • •••••• •• m W w rr! 4PROPOSE REV B -06 _ 18 14 m w ' W W NORTH PERIMETER SEE DETAIL Ns•IeninlitN ism • OI• smi•••••••1••S.•liSiS • JU FF I PERIR•-3Ett ROAD [SEE NOTC I; a 6120 5130 5140 - - I 5170 5180 -5190 - 5200 TLL ACCESS ROAD NEL SEE DETAIL 15 FT PERIMETER ROAD (SEE NOTE 4) 5 FINAL COVER TIE-IN 11 SEE DETAIL 5180 5170 5160 5150 — 5140 5130 5120 5110 Si 5 11 m •w -4 si FINAL COVER TIE-IN SEE DETAIL m w V •IMOD •I S• •a•■ •• Inn •• OM►• a.• SO• •�` 4)f- MW -2014-01 TapaAPP tI4ANNEL SGE DE1Mi. SOUTH PERIMETER SCE DETAIL •• •• =MIME •• ••• ••H• •• •••••M••••••••••••M/.Mini•••• all•••SI••Sine ••s••s•• so•• s••mom •• • ISIS ■ IMP •• M1 B 201602.19 ADDRESS COPHE TECHNICAL EDOP COMMENTS DATED JANUARY 28, 2018 NKR CAJ A 201'8-07-23 ISSUED FOR COPHE EDOP suaaarraL NKR JMP JAR CKB JMP DLO REV YYYV-MM-DO DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED m to Wy SU- OOS PIE £ 3 a a N 1552 500 N 1 552 000 EAST PERIMETER SEE DETAIL - 15 FT PERIMETER ROAD (SEE NOTE 4) R N 1551500 N 1 S51 000 N 1 550 500 REV B LEGEND 5070 PROPCSFD FINAL COVER GRADES -•• )k--< MVK201403 84.2014-01 PZ-4 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY (SEE NOTE 1) USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) BOUNDARY (240 ACRES) PROPOSED WASTE LIMIT OF ESP LANDFILL PROPOSED ROADS PROPOSED CULVERT PROPOSED PERIMETER ROAD (SEE NOTE 4) MONITORING WELL BOREHOLE LOCATION (FROM OCTOBER 2014 FIELD INVESTIGATION) PIEZOMETER LOCATION (FROM OCTOBER 2014 FIELD INVESTIGATION) EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EXISTING WATER LINE PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD CHANNEL PROPOSED PERIMETER CHANNEL PROPOSED TERRACE CHANNEL PROPOSED RUN-ON DIVERSION CHANNEL EXISTING FENCE EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE PROPOSED DOVtNCHUTE CHANNEL PROPOSED RIPRAP AREA PROPOSED TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT (TRM) PROPOSED DETENTION POND OUTLET DETAIL DRAWING • NOTES 1 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROVIDED BY CLARK LAND SURVEYING INC Of PUEBLO COLORADO FROM A GROUND SURVEY PERFORMED OCTOBER 14-15, 2014 2 COORDINATE SYSTEM IS COLORADO STATE PLANE ZONE 0501 CO N. VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 88 N 1 550 000 3 EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 FOOT 4 PERIMETER ROADS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES AS FACILITY IS DEVELOPED 5 SEE DRAWING 5 FOR SURFACE WATER CONTROL COMPONENTS N 1 549 500 PAWNEE WASTE LLC CONSUL 1 ,•' ti GYAssociatesGelder 0 200 400 SCALE FEET PROJECT PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO -- !VT L DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD. STE 300 LAKEWOOD COLORADO UNITED STATES 1.11 (303) 880 0540 www udder corn FINAL COVER PLAN •TROJECT NO 1407882B REV B 4 of 16 DRAWING 4 N 1 552 500 rn V DISSIPATION BASIN PLAN SEE DETAIL N 1 552 000 N 1 551 500 N 1 551 000 N 1 549 500 aijorinetra I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m w ca I I I I I I I I .-0"-a-d.I DISCHARGE AS SHEET FLOW TO NATURAL GROUND 1.-1\ ENTRANCE {- -- FACILITY SEE DETAIL LEACHATE STORAGE TANK AREA SEE DETAIL REV WEST PERIMETER - / 18 SEE DETAIL STILLING BASIN -- SEE DETAIL STORM WATER DETENTION POND OUTLET SEE DETAIL t MW -2014.04 POND CREST - ELEV. 5076 FT AMSL POND BOTTOM ELEV 5068 FT AMSL I' CULVERT CROSSING PROPOSED STORMWATER .ETENTION POND 15 SEE DETAIL nREV S m w to RUN-ON DIVERSION / CHANNEL - TRM LINED SEE DETAIL • Imo R 2-1\ PERIMETER CHANNEL - 5 / RIPRAP LINED SEE DETAIL HA1911r1 1 •• 5130 5120 5110 5100 — REV B NORTH PERIME TER SEE DisTAIL ..INN.._..'a ...INNIP•.M.. /.. . a.. la.. a I lawn X v -06 �MCIIAUNEL-2-- DcWNC LITE C EL MW -2014-03 TERRAC CHAN SEE DETAIL \ STILLING BASIN SEE DETAIL 30 FT PERIM rrER ROAD (St RD'tr 22 5170- i. 5190 5180 _ 517Q 5160 f i 115 FT PERIMETER ROAD 1SEE NOTE 4) FINAL COVER TIE4N SEE DETAIL • ..SP•• -..-..-.•S • • DIMS •.IS . . I • .-•. MS . . IIIIM.. S . • S• . . M . . IS . . 1 .. DOC La C 3 m w wg b B 2018-02.19 A 2015-07.23 ADDRESS CDPHE TECHNICAL EDOP COMMENTS DATED JANUARY 28. 2016 ISSUED FOR CDPHE EDOP suamirrou. NKR NKR CAJ JMP JAR JMP CKB DLO REV YYYn -MM-DO DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED 15 m w w a 3 \ii PERIMETER CHANNEL GRASS LINED SE DETAIL X t w -s a 1` E MW -2014.01 1' - PERIMETER CHANNEL - 23 GRASS LINED 15 SEE DETAIL 19`1 14 J SOUTH PERIMETER SEE DETAIL DISCHARGE AS SHEET FLOW/ TO NATURAL GROUND % m w w < I y • I m w 8w O • 1 R a N 1 552 500 N 1 552 000 EAST PERIMETER SEE DETAIL 15 FT PERIMETER 010 (SEE NOTE 4) A A N 1 551 500 N 1 551 000 N 1 550 500 - REVS N 1 550 000 N i 549 500 PAWNEE WASTE LLC CONSULTANT DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD. STE 300 LAKEWOOD. COLORADO UNITED STATES I.11' 3031980 0540 www Qolow Can LEGEND 5070 - PROPOSED FINAL COVER GRADES OMOSOMMOSOMMWOOMa EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY (SEE NOTE 1) USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IUSR) BOUNDARY (240 ACRES) PROPOSED WASTE LIMIT OF E&P LANDFILL PROPOSED ROADS :Tarr PROPOSED PERIMETER ROAD (SEE NOTE 4) IMPIMPV4IIPKWIPIP4at, PROPOSED RIPRAP PROPOSED PERIMETER CHANNEL PROPOSED TERRACE CHANNEL PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD CHANNEL PROPOSED RUN-ON DIVERSION CHANNEL PROPOSED CULVERTS AND INLET PIPES MONITORING WELL f� >-< MW -2014-03 I EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE I CHANNEL AND DOWNCHUTE REACH IDENTIFICATION PROPOSED DOWNCHUTE CHANNEL PROPOSED STILLING BASIN PROPOSED TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT (TRM) 4) -< PROPOSED DETENTION POND OUTLET NOTES I EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROVIDED BY CLARK LAND SURVEYING INC OF PUEBLO. COLORADO FROM A GROUND SURVEY PERFORMED OCTOBER 14-15,2014 2 COORDINATE SYSTEM IS COLORADO STATE PLANE ZONE 0501 CO N VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 88 3 EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 FOOT 4 PERIMETER ROADS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES AS FACILITY IS DEVELOPED 230 400 SCAIF FEET PROJECT PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY. COLORADO TITLE' STORMWATER CONTROLS PLAN PROJECT NC' 1407882B REV B 50116 DRAWING 5 WEST 5170- 5180 5150 5140 5130 5120 5110 5100 5090 p 5080 F 5070. w 5080 5050 5040 5030 5020-Y, M W 2014-02A (8H9014-06) - GROUND SURFACE ELEV = 5070.9 FT 5010, 4990 4980 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 8+00 WEST PERIMETER SEE DETAIL GROUND SURFACE BH-2014- ELEV. a 5072.5FT PROJECTED 13 FT I t r 7+00 8+00 LEGEND it WELL GRADED SAND POORLY GRADED SAND SILTY SAND SILT CLAYEY SILT LOW PLASTICITY CLAY STRATUM 1: EOLIAN SILT STRATUM 2 SANDY SILT, SILTY CLAY. AND RESIDUUM STRATUM 3 SAND AND SILTY SAND = POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE (SEE NOTES 5AND 6) FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER LEVEL (DASHED WHERE INFERRED) MONITORING WELL r PIEZOMETER COMPLETION M I SAND PACK WELL SCREEN BASE PLUG 9+0C 10+00 UNER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL PHASE 1A 11+00 12+00 DOWNCHUTE CHANNEL SEE DETAIL , GROUND SURFACE BH "2014-07 -' ELEV. a 5077.1 FT P' f PROJECTED 24 FT 13+00 14+00 15.00 18+00 scALE r - 100'/ A '\ CROSS-SECTION A -A' VERT SCALE 5X\ 3 17+00 NOTES 1 DATA CONCERNING THE VARIOUS STRATA HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AT LOCATIONS OF BOREHOLE. PIEZOMETER, AND GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS. THE STRATIGRAPHY BETWEEN BOREHOLES AND WELLS HAS BEEN INFERRED AND GEOLOGIC UNIT BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE AS INDICATED BY DASHED LINES. ACTUAL UNIT BOUNDARIES MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN PARTICULARLY IN THE VICINITY OF BOREHOLES AND WELLS THAT HAVE BEEN PROJECTED ONTO THE CROSS-SECTION LINES 2 TOTAL DEPTHS (TD) ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET BELOW GROUND SURFACE. 3. GROUNDWATER SURFACE INFERRED FROM DEPTH TO WATER MEASURED IN THE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS, PIEZOMETERS, AND BOREHOLES. 4. THE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K) VALUES SHOWN ON THE CROSS-SECTION REPRESENT THE AVERAGE K OF THE FORMATION ISOLATED BY THE SCREENED INTERVALS ONLY THE K VALUE HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM THE HVORSLEV ANALYSIS OF SLUG TEST DATA COLLECTED IN OCTOBER 2014. 5 THE APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE SHOWN ON THE CROSS-SECTION IS BASED ON THE SITE -WIDE GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND MAY NOT AUGN WITH THE MEASURED WATER LEVELS DUE TO PROJECTION FROM THE SECTION LINE. 8. GROUNDWATER SURFACE INTERPRETED FROM MONITORING WELL, PIEZOMETER AND BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS COLLECTED IN OCTOBER 2014. A 2015-07-23 ISSUED FOR COPHE EDOP SUBMITTAL NKR JMP JMP DLO REV YYVv-MM-DO DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED SEAL pP!D;..... Leib. 00047182 ,• 5 ,_ ?Jim, i K, / ° /ONAI- *- 18+00 19+00 TOP OF FINAL COVER GROUND SURFACE / ELEV-=50823 FT 8H-2014.03 / PROJECTED 35 Fl L j �.50 - 20+00 PHASE 18 21+00 RUN-ON DIVERSION CHANNEL SEE DETAIL 22+00 CLIENT PAWNEE WASTE LLC CONSULTANT • MGolder Associates DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD. STE. 300 LAKEWOOD, COLORADO UNITED STATES (+1) (303) 980 0540 www.goWer.com 23+00 24+00 25+0C EAST EAST PERIMETER SEE DETAIL GROUND SURFACE ELEV. = 50911.3 FT PROJECTED 174 FT 26+00 MW -2014-01 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 80 5070 .50 5040 +30 X20 X10 990 980 27+00 27+87 0 100 200 1" = 100' FEET O 4 w PROJECT PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO CROSS -SECTIONS (SHEET 1 OF 5) PROJECT NO 1407882B REV A 6 or 18 DRAWING 6 WEST 5090 5070 F 5050 LL p 5040 w 5030 5020;,,..__ 5010 4990- 0+00 1+00 2+00 K=1 3E-2 CM/S (SEE NOTE 41 3+00 4+00 5+00 LEGEND WELL GRADED SAND POORLY GRADED SAND SILTY SAND SILT CLAYEY SILT LOW PLASTICITY CLAY y STRATUM 1: EOUAN SILT STRATUM 2: SANDY SILT. SILTY CLAY, AND RESIDUUM STRATUM 3. SAND AND SILTY SAND POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE (SEE NOTES 5 AND 8) FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER LEVEL (DASHED WHERE INFERRED) MONITORING WELL / PIEZOMETER COMPLETION N I SAND PACK WELL SCREEN BASE PLUG r V(J 9+00 10+00 11+00 SCALE 1" ■ 100' VERT. SCALE 5X 12+00 13+00 BH-2O14-OS 14+00 CROSS-SECTION B -B' NOTES 1 DATA CONCERNING THE VARIOUS STRATA HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AT LOCATIONS OF BOREHOLE. PIEZOMETER. AND GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS THE STRATIGRAPHY BETWEEN BOREHOLES AND WELLS HAS BEEN INFERRED AND GEOLOGIC UNIT BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE AS INDICATED BY DASHED UNES. ACTUAL UNIT BOUNDARIES MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN. PARTICULARLY IN THE VICINITY OF BOREHOLES AND WELLS THAT HAVE BEEN PROJECTED ONTO THE CROSS-SECTION LINES 2. TOTAL DEPTHS (TD) ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET BELOW GROUND SURFACE 3 GROUNDWATER SURFACE INFERRED FROM DEPTH TO WATER MEASURED IN THE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS, PIEZOMETERS. AND BOREHOLES. 4 THE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K) VALUES SHOWN ON THE CROSS-SECTION REPRESENT THE AVERAGE K OF THE FORMATION ISOLATED BY THE SCREENED INTERVALS ONLY THE K VALUE HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM THE HVORSLEV ANALYSIS OF SLUG TEST DATA COLLECTED IN OCTOBER 2014 5 THE APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE SHOWN ON THE CROSS-SECTION IS BASED ON THE SITE -WOE GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND MAY NOT AUGN WITH THE MEASURED WATER LEVELS DUE TO PROJECTION FROM THE SECTION LINE 8 GROUNDWATER SURFACE INTERPRETED FROM MONITORING WELL, PIEZOMETER. AND BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS COLLECTED IN OCTOBER 2014 A 2015-07-23 ISSUED FOR CDPHE EDOP SUBMITTAL NKR JMP JMP DLO REV YYYY•MM.DD DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED SEAL ... fret' >J!Rl�a •. s 4 CLI4ri147182 ' CONSULTANT 1-'; (S l4- �— G$OUNQ SURFACE GROUND SURFACE ELEV 2 6074 1 FT ELEV = 5076 2 FT PROJECTED 5 FT PROJECTED 2 FT 15+00 10+00 11+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 PAWNEE WASTE LLC Golder Associates DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD, STE 300 LAKEWO0D, COLORADO UNITED STATES 1+11(303) 980 0540 www polder corn BH-*014.04 21+00 22+0D 23+00 0 tASI -5070 O .5040 F 5030 5020 5010 5000 4990 24+00 24+85 100 200 1'• = 100' FEET PROJECT PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO TITLE CROSS -SECTIONS (SHEET 2 OF 5) PROJECT NO 1407882B REV A 7 o 18 DRAIMNG 7 NORTH 5150 5140 5130 5126 5116 5100 5090 - 5080 gc FO 50701 is/ 5080 5050 5040 5030 5020 5010 RUN-ON DIVERSION CHANNEL SEE DETAIL NORTH PERIMETER SEE DETAIL BH•2014-02 r - GROUND SURFACE ELEV a 9072 5 FT rot — TOP OF SUBGRADE 1 DOWNCHUTE CHANNEL ( 14 SEE DETAIL 11 FINAL COVER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL 88.2014.12 rs- GROUND SURFACE PZ-3 / ELEV = 6070 3 FT PROJECTED 3 FT 2 11 LINER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL PHASE to IT • 50 CO PHASE 2A TOP OF FINAL COVER C- 81.2014-08,, - � SOUTH PERIMETER 14 SEE DETAIL GROUND SURFACE ELEV ■ wets FT PROJECTED 5 FT K■1 3E•2 CMIS --- (SEE NOTE 4) MCC TD"!0Q: MVV 2014 09 /- GROUND SURFACE ELEV •50650FT f PROJECTED 14 FT SOUTH 3150 5140 •5130 .5120 5110 '5100 .5090 k tt0B0 F '5070 w 5080 3050 5040 5030 5020 5010 0+00 1.00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 8+00 7+00 LEGEND WELL GRADED SAND POORLY GRADED SAND SILTY SAND SILT CLAYEY SILT LOW PLASTICITY CLAY STRATUM 1 EOLIAN SILT STRATUM 2 SANDY SILT, SILTY CLAY AND RESIDUUM STRATUM 3 SAND AND SILTY SAND POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE (SEE NOTES 5 AND 81 FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER LEVEL (DASHED WHERE INFERRED) MONITORING WELL / PIEZOMETER COMPLETION is 1 SAND PACK WELL SCREEN BASE PLUG 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 t4t00 15+00 18.00 SCALE 1" -10a C CROSS-SECTION C -C' VERT SCALE 5X NOTES 1 DATA CONCERNING THE VARIOUS STRATA HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AT LOCATIONS OF BOREHOLE, PIEZOMETER, AND GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS. THE STRATIGRAPHY BETWEEN BOREHOLES AND WELLS HAS BEEN INFERRED AND GEOLOGIC UNIT BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE AS INDICATED BY DASHED LINES ACTUAL UNIT BOUNDARIES MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN. PARTICULARLY IN THE VICINITY OF BOREHOLES AND WELLS THAT HAVE BEEN PROJECTED ONTO THE CROSS-SECTION LINES. 2 TOTAL DEPTHS (TO) ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET BELOW GROUND SURFACE 3 GROUNDWATER SURFACE INFERRED FROM DEPTH TO WATER MEASURED IN THE. GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS PIEZOMETERS. AND BOREHOLES 4 THE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K) VALUES SHOWN ON THE CROSS-SECTION REPRESENT THE AVERAGE K OF THE FORMATION ISOLATED BY THE SCREENED INTERVALS ONLY THE K VALUE HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM THE HVORSLEV ANALYSIS OF SLUG TEST DATA COLLECTED IN OCTOBER 2014. 5 THE APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE SHOWN ON THE CROSS-SECTION IS BASED ON THE SITE-VWOE GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND MAY NOT ALIGN WITH THE MEASURED WATER LEVELS DUE TO PROJECTION FROM THE SECTION LINE 8 GROUNDWATER SURFACE INTERPRETED FROM MONITORING WELL PIEZOMETER AND BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS COLLECTED IN OCTOBER 2014 A 2015-07-23 ISSUED FOR CDPHE EDOP SUBMITTAL NKR SAP JMP D1.0 REV YYYY-MM DD DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED ,,,, c‘:112.4or (ft 7182 tetwAt 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 28+00 PAWNEE WASTE LLC CONSULTANT Golder Associates DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD, STE 300 LAKEWOOD. COLORADO UNITED STATES (+11 (3031 9800540 www gads can 0 100 200 1" ■ 100 FEET PROJFC PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY. COLORADO TITLE CROSS -SECTIONS (SHEET 3 OF 5) PROJECT NO 1407882B 8 o1 16 DRAWING A 8 NORTH 5180• 5150 5140 5130 5120 5110 5100 5090 z5080 0 t 5050 5040 5030 5020 5010 5000 4 MW -2014.01 _-- GROUND SURFACE ELEV a 5091 3 FT rD -•70 RUN-ON DIVERSION CHANNEL SEE DETAIL - TOP OF FINAL COVER to -No NORTH PERIMETER SEE DETAIL GROUND SURFACE BH.2014.10% ELEV. = 5083 8 F PROJECTED 54 FT TOP OF SUBGRADE \C-\\ 11 LINER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL 8H•2014 -1S PZ-4 FINAL COVER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL - GROUND SURFACE ELEV * 5081 5 FT ROJECTED 38 FT SOUTH PERIMETER SEE DETAIL GROUND SURFACE -- ELEV u 5019.2 FT PROJECTED 8 FT --t 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 8+00 LEGEND WELL GRADED SAND POORLY GRADED SAND SILTY SAND SILT CLAYEY SILT LOW PLASTICITY CLAY STRATUM 1 EOUAN SILT STRATUM 2 SANDY SILT SILTY CLAY, AND RESIDUUM STRATUM 3 SAND AND SILTY SAND POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE (SEE NOTES S AND 8) FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER LEVEL (DASHED WHERE INFERRED) MONITORING WELL ( PIEZOMETER COMPLETION 1 SAND PACK WELL SCREEN BASE PLUG 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12.00 13+00 14.00 15+00 SCALE 1" = 100' D \ CROSS-SECTION D -D' VERT SCALE SX 3 NOTES DATA CONCERNING THE VARIOUS STRATA HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AT LOCATIONS OF BOREHOLE PIEZOMETER. AND GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS THE STRATIGRAPHY BETWEEN BOREHOLES AND WELLS HAS BEEN INFERRED AND GEOLOGIC UNIT BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE AS INDICATED BY DASHED LINES ACTUAL UNIT BOUNDARIES MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN PARTICULARLY IN THE VICINITY OF BOREHOLES AND WELLS THAT HAVE BEEN PROJECTED ONTO THE CROSS-SECTION LINES 2 TOTAL DEPTHS (TO) ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET BELOW GROUND SURFACE 3 GROUNDWATER SURFACE INFERRED FROM DEPTH TO WATER MEASURED IN THE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS PIEZOMETERS. AND BOREHOLES 4 THE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K) VALUES SHOWN ON THE CROSS-SECTION REPRESENT THE AVERAGE K OF THE FORMATION ISOLATED BY THE SCREENED INTERVALS ONLY THE K VALUE HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM THE HVORSLEV ANALYSIS OF SLUG TEST DATA COLLECTED IN OCTOBER 2014 5. THE APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE SHOWN ON THE CROSS-SECTION IS BASED ON THE SITE -WIDE GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND MAY NOT ALIGN V1ITH THE MEASURED WATER LEVELS DUE TO PROJECTION FROM THE SECTION LINE 8 GROUNDWATER SURFACE INTERPRETED FROM MONITORING WELL. PIEZOMETER AND BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS COLLECTED IN OCTOBER 2014 A 2015.07.23 ISSUED FOR COPHE EDOP SUBMITTAL NKR JMP JMP DLO REV YYYY•MM-D0 DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED SEA.. 18+00 17+00 18+00 19.00 20+00 21+00 CLIENT PAWNEE WASTE LLC CONSULTANT dPs DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD STE 300 LAKEWOOD. COLORADO UNITED STATES (+11(303) 980 0540 www goicloT corn SOUTH 5180 -201404 1p• b0 150 140 5130 120 110 100 70 > Lu w 30 20 10 990 22+00 23+00 23+77 100 200 1" a 100' FEET PROJEC? PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO CROSS -SECTIONS (SHEET 4 OF 5) PROJECT NO 1407882B REV 901 16 A ORA'1 9f WEST 5200 5190 5180 5170 5160 ',150 5140 5130 5120 5110 5100 5090 fie 507r 5060 f • 5040 1,4 5020 501 EAST GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION a 5068 6 FT PROJECTED 256 FT BH-201405 4590 04 00 WEST PERIMETER SEE DETAIL ST ORMWA TER DETENTION POND 3 1( 14 C - 5V. n7 TERRACE CHANNEL t4 SEE DETAIL C4 B!•(-201412 (PZ-3) UNER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL IT •Cie0 PHASE 2A / -GROUND SURFACE BH-201411 y 1ELEVATION n 60738 FT PROJECTED 284 FT TO.5J0 - TOP OF FINAL COVER GROUND SURFACE BH 2014-13 ,7 ELEVATION • 5077 FT PROJECTED 291 FT It; . ODU 1•nr 2+00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6+00 7+00 LEGEND 1111111 WELL GRADED SAND POORLY GRADED SAND SILTY SAND SILT CLAYEY SILT LOW PLASTICITY CLAY E - I y S'. STRATUM 1 EOLIAN SILT STRATUM 2 SANDY SILT SILTY CLAY AND RESIDUUM STRATUM 3 SAND AND SILTY SAND POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE (SEE NOTES 5. 6. AND 7) (DASHED WHERE INFERRED) FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER LEVEL (DASHED WHERE INFERRED% MONITORING WELL I PIEZOMETER COMPLETION SAND PACK WELL SCREEN BASE PLUG SCALE 1' • 100' VERT SCALE 5X CROSS SECTION E -E' NOTES DATA CONCERNING THE VARIOUS STRATA HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AT LOCATIONS OF BOREHOLE. PIEZOMETER. AND GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS THE STRATIGRAPHY BETWEEN BOREHOLES AND WELLS HAS BEEN INFERRED AND GEOLOGIC UNIT BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE AS INDICATED BY DASHED LINES ACTUAL UNIT BOUNDARIES MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN PARTICULARLY IN THE VICINITY OF BOREHOLES AND WELLS THAT HAVE BEEN PROJECTED ONTO THE CROSS-SECTION LINES 2 TOTAL DEPTHS (TD) ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET BELOW GROUND SURFACE 3. GROUNDWATER SURFACE INFERRED FROM DEPTH TO WATER MEASURED IN THE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS, PIEZOMETERS. AND BOREHOLES 4 THE HYDRAUUC CONDUCTIVITY (K) VALUES SHOWN ON THE CROSS-SECTION REPRESENT THE AVERAGE K OF THE FORMATION ISOLATED BY THE SCREENED INTERVALS ONLY THE K VALUE HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM THE HVORSLEV ANALYSIS OF SLUG TEST DATA COLLECTED IN OCTOBER 2014 5 THE APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE SHOWN ON THE CROSS-SECTION IS BASED ON THE SITE -WOE GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND MAY NOT ALIGN WITH THE MEASURED WATER LEVELS DUE TO PROJECTION FROM THE SECTION LINE 8 GROUNDWATER SURFACE INTERPRETED FROM MONITORING WELL. PIEZOMETER, AND BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS COLLECTED IN OCTOBER 2014 7 GROUNDWATER SURFACE OFFSET FROM GROUNDWATER LEVEL INDICATORS DUE TO PROJECTED DISTANCES BETWEEN BOREHOLES AND SECTION A 2015-07.23 ISSUED FOR EDOP SUBMITTAL NKR NKR JMP MAY REV YYYY-MM-DO DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED B+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12•(x) 13+00 14.00 15+00 18+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20.00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29.00 30+00 71+00 PHASE 2B SEA. CLIEN1- PAWNEE WASTE LLC CONSUL TAN' -+ VGolder Associates DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD STE 300 LAKEWOOD COLORADO UNITED STATES (+ 1) (303) 980 0540 www polder com EAST PERIMETER SEE DETAIL GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION • 50838 FT PROJECTED 285 FT BH-2014-10 13.8+0 0 TERRACE CHANNEL SEE DETAIL 100 200 1" r 100' FEET PRO.,:E PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO CROSS -SECTIONS (SHEET 5 OF 5) PROJECT NO 14078828 L010 REV 10 of 16 A FIGURE 10 WATER BALANCE FINAL COVER SYSTEM (SEE NOTE 2) SCALE N.T.S. 17 (MIN ) LEACIIATE COLLECTION DRAINAGE LAYER 30- WATER STORAGE LAYER - 8' TOPSOIL 4 (MAX.) It r-- WASTE S_ t2 (MIN.) INTERMEDIATE / COVER LAYER 36' (MIN.) `l FINAL COVER SYSTEM DETAIL 11/ GRAVEL Dui • 1.5 INCHES K 2 1 CMSEC PREPARED--' SUBGRADE GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) - 60 -MIL HOPE TEXTURED -/ 24' (MIN.) COMPACTED -j GEOMEMBRANE LINER LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL LINER (Ks 1x10 CM/SEC) / / 16 OZJS.Y. NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE SCALE N.T.S. 8' DIA. SDR 11 HOPE PERFORATED HEADER PIPE DESIGN PIPE SLOPE : 1 2% SEE DETAIL 4LEACHATE COLLECTION HEADER DRAIN DETAIL 11` SCALE N.T.S 5 11 PREPARED - SUBGRADE FINAL COVER SYSTEM( 1 SEE DETAIL . 11 LINER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL FINAL COVER TIE-IN DETAIL PROTECTIVE COVERl1NITLAL WASTE LAYER (SEE NOTE 3) 12' (MIN ) LEACHATE COLLECTION DRAINAGE LAYER GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL1 24' (MIN ;COMPACTED LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL LINER (K S 1X10 CM/SEC) 60 -MIL HDPE TEXTURED GEOMEMBRANE - SCALE N,T S. / 2 3 (TYP.) C - PREPARED - 3 �� SUBGRADE -- 8 OZJS.Y NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE LINER SYSTEM DETAIL LINER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL EXTRUSION WELD HDPE GEOMEMBRANE RAIN FLAP ON UPGRADIENT SIDE OF BERM SPACIN SCALE N.T.S. { 6 112 2 K81 TEMPORARY TERMINATION BERM SEE DETAIL 12' (MIN.) LEACIIATE. COLLECTION —•� DRAINAGE LAYER 24' (MIN.) COMPACTED LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL LINER (Ks 1x10'CMISECi STORMWATER PARTITION BERM (TYP SOIL, EEO, WASTE. STRAW BALE BERM FILL (OR ENGINEER APPROVED ALTERNATIVE) STORMWATER PARTITION BERM DETAIL NOTES 1 THE GEOSYNTHETIC LAYERS SHOWN IN CROSS SECTIONS ARE GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS AND ARE NOT TO SCALE IN THE VERTICAL DIMENSION (THICKNESS). 2. A -WATER BALANCE FINAL COVER SYSTEM FOR THE LANDFILL HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 'FINAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT WATER BALANCE COVERS IN COLORADO- (CDPHE, JANUARY 2013) USING A WATER STORAGE LAYER MEETING THE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ANO THICKNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR ECOZONE 3 MAXIMUM FINAL SLOPES WILL BE 411 IV (25%). AND THE MINIMUM SLOPE WILL BE 5% FINAL COVER CONSTRUCTION WILL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLOSURE AND POST -CLOSURE PLAN (APPENDIX F) AND CQA PLAN (APPENDIX CI FOR PHASED AND FINAL CLOSURE WATER STORAGE LAYER SOILS WILL BE OBTAINED FROM SELECT AREAS OF THE LANDFILL EXCAVATION THAT ARE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH BORROW SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION TESTING TO YIELD SOILS FALLING WITHIN THE DEFINED ACCEPTABLE ZONE. TOPSOIL WILL BE STRIPPED AND STOCKPILED PRIOR TO PHASE DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZED IN THE UPPER 6 INCHES OF THE FINAL COVER SYSTEM FINAL COVER SOIL WILL BE TESTED PRIOR TO SEEDING TO ASSESS PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS AFFECTING VEGETATIVE HEALTH. 3. PROTECTIVE COVER MODELED AS A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES OF SOIL OR EdP WASTE IN LANDFILL DESIGN CALCULATIONS PER OPERATIONS PLAN A MINIMUM 3 -FOOT THICKNESS OF INITIAL SELECT WASTE MATERIAL WILL ACT AS TIIE PROTECTIVE COVER LAYER C 2016 0122 ADDRESS CDPHE TECHNICAL EDOP FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS DATED APRIL 13, 201E NKR JAR B 2016-02-19 ADDRESS CDPHE TECHNICAL EDOP COMMENTS DATED JANUARY 28, 2016 NKR CAJ JAR JAR CKB OW A 2015-0T-23 ISSUED FOR CDPHE EDOP SUBMITTAL NM JMP JMP DLO REV. YYYY-MM-DO DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED SCALE H.T_$. 4,4 _I 1 3 (TYP_) 17 IMIN.) PROTECTIVE COVER ' LON-SITE SOIL) 7 (MIN.) 2'MIN I k"- 7 (MIN.) 80 -MIL HDPE TEXTURED GEOMEMBRANE GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) 8 OZJS.Y. NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ANCHOR TRENCH DETAIL 11y SCALEHOUSE TRAILER (DOUBLE -WIDE) SCALE (10X50') SEPTIC FIELD (LOCATION MAY VARY) STORAGE SHED (32' X 32') (STORAGE OF ABSORBENT MATERIAL) FUEL TANK(S) WITH _ SECONDARY ri CONTAINMENT (UP TO 10.000 GALLONS) (LOCATION MAY VARY) REV B 0 80 S 180 1'= 80' FEET F'Q EMPLOYEE PARKING (9 REGULAR AND 1 ADA PARKING SPOTS MAX ) COMPACTED FILL g'. - SCALE (10' X 50') (OPTIONAL) ..c - ACCESS ROAD - TO LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD TO LEACHATE STORAGE TANK AREA /- SEE DETAIL { 13' SCALE r =80' %7� ENTRANCE FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE Cl SEAL °LIEN'' PAWNEE WASTE LLC CONSULTANT ItssoGokieciartes DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD, STE. 300 LAKEWOOD. COLORADO UNITED STATES I.1) (303) 980 0540 www guides can PROJECT PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO LANDFILL DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 3) PROJECT NO 1407882B 11 of 16 DRAWING 11 4 J 4 FUTURE CELL 60 -MIL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE RAIN FLAP EXTRUSION WELD RAIN FLAP AS SHOWN - -• TEMPORARY STORMWATER DIVERSION CHANNEL SIZED FOR 25 -YEAR • 24 -HOUR STORM 8O2/SY NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE rFA4PGRARv STORMWATER ir'.E. <' d t- Crew ,• L SVEP FOR 25 -YEAR Zs-t4CUR STORM .e 3 (TYP.) 1( - EXISTING a CELL 6' (TYP.) - 17 (TVP.) - GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) --/ 24' (MIN.) COMPACTED LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL LINER --� (K s 1x10•' CM/SEC) SCALE N T S REVB-i 60 -MIL HDPE TEXTURED GEOMEMBRANE LINER i 8 TEMPORARY TERMINATION BERM DETAIL 1, f-UTLJRE f.AISrINC CELL (.1 LI LINER TIE-IN r 12 SEE DETAIL 12 1 STRUCTURAL FILL LINER SYSTEM(/ 2 / / { SEE DETAIL \ 11 / r LINER SYSTEM / 2 SEE DETAIL it , \ REVB- 24" (MIN.) COMPACTED LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL LINER (K s 1x10•' CM/SEC) / GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) SCALE N T s ,/ 17).) TIE-IN TYPICAL TEMPORARY TERMINATION BERM DETAIL t2 1 ELBOW AND PIPE EXTENSION - TO BE REMOVED LINER TIE-IN if 12) SEE DETAIL t. 12 - STRUCTURAL FILL / E,_14 8" DIA SDR 11 HOPE PERFORATED HEADER PIPE �', 4 DESIGN PIPE SLOPE a 1 2% 12 j SEE DETAIL `— -' FUTURE CELL EXISTING CELL ( INITIAL 1 "FLUFF' LAYER 60 -MIL HOPE TEXTURED GEOMEMBRANE LINER LEACHATE COLLECTION - REV B -HEADER DRAIN\\SEE DETAIL ;!TYP1 4 11 \ REV C -•r 1r 1�� •S (MIN)) - ti -M:,"• -1`r• 60 -MIL HOPE TEXTURED GEOMEMBRANE LINER GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) 24" (MIN-) COMPACTED LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL LINER (K s 1x1(1' CM/SEC) SCALE N.T S- /(111 TIE-IN TO TEMPORARY TERMINATION BERM AT LEACHATE COLLECTION HEADER PIPE DETAIL 12 / C 2018-04.22 ADDRESS CDPHE TECHNICAL EDOP FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS DATED APRIL 13.2016 B 2018-02-19 ADDRESS CDPHE TECHNICAL EDOP COMMENTS DATED JANUARY 28. 2018 A 2015-07.23 ISSUED FOR CDPHE EDOP SUBMITTAL NKR NKR NKR a a CKB CKB JMP SAP DLO REV YYYY-MM-DO DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED REVC INITIAL 3 "FLUFF' LAYER,/ BOZJSY NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE 1f 3 FUTURE I EXISTING CELL CELL he - 60 -MIL HOPE GEOMEMBRANE RAIN FLAP EXTRUSION WELD RAIN FLAP AS SHOWN -\ TEMPORARY STORMWATER DIVERSION CHANNEL SIZED FOR 25 -YEAR. 24 -HOUR STORM 3 (TYP ) 1( - 17 (TYP.) L LEACHATE COLLECTION , 4 \ HEADER DRAIN 11 J \( REV C SEE DETAIL 5' (TYP ) 1 3(TYP ) 1 FLOW -4 3 5' (TYfI 5' (MIN) He— , e b 0 0 0 0 INITIAL "FLUFF" LAYER 4 (TYP ) r ---WASTE 0 7 (TYP.) vb_exf 8" DIA SDR 11 HOPE PERFORATED PIPE( 14� DESIGN PIPE SLOPE = 1 2% 12 / SEE DETAIL J/ 24" (MIN ) COMPACTED LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL LINER (K s 1x10-7 CM/SEC) 60 MIL HDPE TEXTURED GEOMEMBRANE LINER GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) �f SCALE NT S , 9� TEMPORARY TERMINATION BERM AT LEACHATE COLLECTION HEADER PIPE DETAIL `12 FUTURE GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) --, CELL TEXTURED / (TYP ) 80 -MIL HOPE GEOMEMBRANE EXISTING CELL •- DOUBLE FUSION WELD 8"(MAX ) - J -a 1' (MAX ) f+ - +l 1' (MAX.) pe _ 24" (MIN.) COMPACTED LOW --- PERMEABILITY SOIL LINER (K S 1x10 CM/SEC) PREPARED SUBGRADE SCALEN.7.S /1-.12-\\ LINER TIE-IN DETAIL 12 / 1/2 IN DIA HOLES 4 IN O C (OR ENGINEER -APPROVED EQUIVALENT) 120'-- 6 IN. PIA SDR 11 HDIAltAaLATE PIPE PERFORATION LEACHATE FRAC TANK STORAGE WITH UP TO 8 FRAC TANKS (CONCRETE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT) 0 80 160 I" It 80' FEET LOADING/UNLOADING AREA 802JSY - NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ACCESS ROAD TO ENTRANCE FACILITY AND LANDFILL N. N 121 ft IMMO I SCALE N.T.S (-131 LEACHATE STORAGE TANK AREA 2 SCALE N.T.S. 14`) LEACHATE COLLECTION HEADER PIPE PERFORATION DETAIL 12 � SE/•, CLIENT PAWNEE WASTE LLC CONSULTANT Of Golder Associates DEN VER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD. STE. 300 LAKEWOOD, COLORADO UNITED STATES (+11(303) 980 0540 www °eider. can NOTE(S) I THE GEOSYNTHETIC LAYERS SHOWN IN CROSS SECTIONS ARE GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS AND ARE NOT TO SCALE IN THE VERTICAL DIMENSION (THICKNESS) 2 TEMPORARY TERMINATION BERM AND TIE-IN DETAILS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE SUBGRADE PLAN (DRAWING 3) CELL LIMITS WILL BE DETERMINED DURING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO LANDFILL DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 3) PROJECT NO. 14078826 REV C 12 of 16 DRAWING 12 12- (MIN ) GRANULAR FILL AROUND CLEANOUT AND LEACHATE COLLECTION RISER PIPES ON SIDESLOPES (SEE NOTE 1) INCLUDE EXTRA E0•MIL HDPE TEXTURED RUB SHEET --- BELOW RISER PIPES ON SUMP FLOOR 18' DIA SOR 11 HDPE PERFORATED LEACHATE COLLECTION RISER PIPE -•-• 8' (MIN EXTRUSION WELD SECONDARY GEOMEMBRANE TO PRIMARY GEOMEMBRANE 2(TYP) 1' (MIN )? 2' (MIN 1 1B" DIA SDR 1 I HOPE PERFORATED LEACHATE COLLECTION RISER PIPES if (MIN ) 16OZlSY NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE 7 (MIN ) 24' (MIN ) COMPACTED LOW —� PERMEABILITY SOIL LINER (K s 1 xlt' CM/SEC) B- DIA SDR 11 HOPE SOLID HEADER PIPE --, 8' (MIN► EXTRUSION WELD SECONDARY GEOMEMBRANE TO PRIMARY GEOMEMBRANE SEA: 18" DIA SDR I I HOPE SOLID - LEACHATF COLLECTION RISER PIPES SCALENTS SCALE N T S 12" LEACHATE COLLECTION DRAINAGE LAYER GRAVEL Dx, a 1 5 INCHES -� K 2 1 CM/SEC �.- ,j1 PERFORATED END CAP :�,• • t r,1.., t(.- a SECONDARY 60 -MIL HOPE ': TEXTURED GEOMEMBRANE EXTRUSION WELD SECONDARY GEOMEMBRANE TO PRIMARY GEOMEMBRANE - SECONDARY GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) PRIMARY 90 -MIL HDPE TEXTURED GEOMEMBRANE - 18 OZ!S Y NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE �- 24' (MIN ) COMPACTED LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL LINER SUMP SECTION (K S lx10'' CM/SEC) 2(TYP) - SECONDARY 00 -MIL HOPE TEXTURED GEOMEMBRANE SECONDARY GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) EXTRUSION WELD SECONDARY GEOMEMBRANE -- TO PRIMARY GEOMEMBRANE t1' )MIN PRIMAR1 o0 -MIL HOPE TEXTURED GEOMEMBRANE PRIMARY GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) `— INCLUDE EXTRA 60 -MIL HOPE TEXTURED RUB SHEET BELOW RISER PIPES ON SUMP FLOOR SUMP SECTION - 17' (MIN ) GRANULAR FILL AROUND / CLEANOUT AND LEACHATE COLLECTION RISER PIPES ON SIDESLOPES (SEE NOTE 1) 3' (MIN) 3 5' (MIN 2C (MIN ) COMPACTED LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL LINER (Ks1x10 CM/SEC) H \RISER PIPES ON SLOPE SECTION 13 B 2016-02.19 2015-07.23 ADDRESS CDPHE TECHNICAL EDOP COMMENTS DATED JANUARY 28.2016 NKR CAJ JAR CKB ISSUED FOR CDPHE EDOP SUBMITTAL REV rYYY•MM OD DESCRIPTION NKR JMP JMP DID EXTRUSION WELD SECONDARY GEOMEMBRANE -� TO PRIMARY GEOMEMBRANE 3 1 (TYP ) I8 DIA SDR 11 HOPE - LEACHATE COLLECTION RISER PIPES (SOLID ON SIDESLOPES) B' DIA SOR 11 HDPE HEADER PIPE --/ (SOLID ON SIDESLOPE AND PERFORATED ON FLOOR) -- SECONDARY 60 -MU. HOPE TEXTURED GEOMEMBRANE - SECONDARY GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) PRIMARY 80 -MIL HOPE TEXTURED GEOMEMBRANE PRIMARY GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) PAWNEE WASTE LLC - 18' DIA SDR II HDPE LEACHATE COLLECTION RISER PIPES - 0' )MIN ) PERFORATED SECTION IN THE SUMPS o 000 000060000 0410000*0 X00 00000, 20' (MIN 20' (MIN ) EXTENT OF SECONDARY 80 -MIL HOPE TEXTURED - GEOMEMBRANE AND GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCl) LEACHATE COLLECTION SUMP PLAN VIEW DETAIL CONSULTANT DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED Golder Associates DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD STE 300 LAKEWOOD COLORADO UNITED STATES (.1) (303) 980 0540 www golds can NOTE(S) 1 GRANULAR FILL SHALL BE PLACED AROUND CLEANOUT RISER PIPE ON SIDESLOPES AND SHALL BE ANGULAR SEMI -ANGULAR SAND WITH 100% PASSING THE 308 -INCH SIEVE AND LESS THAN 5% FINES (MINUS THE NO 200 SIEVE) OR ENGINEER -APPROVED EQUIVALENT 2 THE GEOSYNTHETIC LAYERS SHOWN IN CROSS SECTIONS ARE GRAPHICAL REPRESENTAT IONS AND ARE NOT TO SCALE. IN THE VERTICAL DIMENSION (THICKNESS) PROJECT PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO TIT). LANDFILL DETAILS (SHEET 3 OF 3) PROJECT NO 14078828 REV B 13 0l 16 DRAWING 13 W TOP OF FINAL COVER 7 (MIN ) a- 12 OZ .S Y NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE - WASTE c WASTE — SCALE N.TS C 18 DOWNCHUTE CHANNEL DETAIL 14 ( SEE DOWNCHUTE CHANNEL SCHEDULE ON THIS DRAWING I B DOWNCHUTE TO BE LINED PER THE DOWNCHUTE CHANNEL SCHEDULE ON THIS DRAWING (SEE NOTE 4) Z(MIN) FINAL COVER SYSTEM 7 1\ SEE DETAIL \_119 12" (MIN ) GRAVEL BEDDING LAYER (SEE NOTE 51 DOWNCHUTE CHANNEL SCHEDULE DOWNCHUTE SIDESLOPE (SS) (H.1/) MINIMUM BOTTOM WIDTH (B) (FT) MINIMUM CHANNEL DEPTH (0) (FT) DOWNCHUTE LINING DC N ,ett Nein 1 •'W 2, 3H 1V 10 1 5 RIPRAP TYPE 810,049') OR EQUIVALENT AS APPROVED BY ENGINEER DC S,6fE Cts+ARID rt 314 IV 15 1 5 DC W BEE Ions 1 *, 2+ 3H 1V 25 1 5 { 1 FINAL COVER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL 11 EDGE OF SUBGRADE TO EDGE OF LINER - 3 LINER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL REV B FINAL COVER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL 11 11 3 UNER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL 4 ANCHOR TRENCH 11/ SEE DETAIL EDGE OF SUBGRADE TO EDGE OF LINER r-- ANCHOR TRENCH SEE DETAIL - EDGE OF UNER TO EDGE OF FINAL COVER 8.1' EDGE OF LINER TO EDGE OF FINAL COVER PERIMETER CHANNEL ALIGNMENT SHOWN ON DRAWING 5 (SEE SCHEDULE ON DRAWING 15) SCALE N T S. PERIMETER CHANNEL AUGNMENT SHOWN ON DRAWING 5 15' PERIMETER ROAD (SEE SCHEDULE ON DRAWING 15) { GRADE TO DRAIN J FINAL COVER SYSTEM 1 SEE DETAIL (--- 11 GRASS -LINED TERRACE CHANNEL 15' (MIN.) 10% 1.5 SCALE N T . (1O TERRACE CHANNEL DETAIL I 14 I. WASTE -S GALVANIZED WELDED WIRE OR REBAR TRASH RACK (Z X 7 X 1) WITH ANTI -VORTEX PLATE (SUBJECT TO ENGINEER APPROVAL) 12" DIA CMP (12 GA ) SPILLWAY RISER - - TOP OF OUTLET RISER --- EL 5071 F7 17 DIA CMP TEE CLEAN COARSE GRAVEL POND BOTTOM EL 5088 FT 1" DIA DRAINAGE HOLES STAGGERED -- / AT 4" SPACING ALONG ROWS WITH 4" SPACING BETWEEN ROWS (8 TOTAL ROWS) (NO DRAINAGE HOLES ON BOTTOM 1 5' OF PIPE) 4 EMBED RISER PIPE 1' INTO CONCRETE BASE. FILL PIPE WITH CONCRETE TO INVERT OF OUTLET PIPE ---- PROVIDE MINIMUM OF 5' HORIZONTALLY BETWEEN VERTICAL PIPE AND TOE OF BERM 15' (MIN ) .+1i I 41 3 -GALVANIZED SHEET METAL ANTI SEEP COLLAR NOTES 1 PERIMETER CHANNEL IDENTIFICATIONS SHOWN ON THE STORMWATER CONTROLS PLAN (DRAWING 5) 2 CALCULATIONS WERE PERFORMED USING HEC-HMS (USACE 2010) AND ARE SHOWN IN APPENDIX 8-3 OF THE ENGINEERING DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PLAN 3 EROSION CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PORTIONS OF THE PERIMETER CHANNEL WITH VELOCITIES ABOVE S FTS 4 RIPRAP SHALL BE PLACED TO A THICKNESS OF 1 5 TIMES THE afro DIMENSION 5 GRAVEL BEDDING LAYER SIEVE 3 IN N0 4 NO 200 % PASSING 100 20 TO 50 0 TO 10 d RIPRAP SHALL BE INSTALLED ON APPROPRIATELY-OVEREXCAVATED SUBGRADE SUCH THAT FINISHED TOP SURFACE OF REINFORCING MATERIAL COINCIDES WITH DESIGN GRADES CREST EL 5078 FT 1st_ • -1% 12 OZ./S Y MIN, NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE (ANCHORED) F- 10' (MIN ) i 12" DIA CMP (12 GA) OUTLET PIPE WELD RISER PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE FOR WATERTIGHT SEAL as REBAR it 12" O.C EACH WAY. MIN COVER OVER REBAR 3- SCALE N T S 20 STORMWATER DETENTION POND OUTLET 14 30' PERIMETER ROAD GRADE TO DRAIN NORTH AND WEST PERIMETER DETAIL GRADE TO DRAIN 8" (MIN ) THICK ROAD BASE 3 SCALE N T S 10' SOUTH AND EAST PERIMETER DETAIL 2016-02-19 A 2015-07-23 ADDRESS CDPHE TECHNICAL EDOP COMMENTS DATED JANUARY 28. 20W JMP CAJ JAR CKB ISSUED FOR COPHE EDOP SUBMITTAL NKR JMP REV YYYY MM DO DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED S RIPRAP SCOUR PROTECTION — Da) =9IN THICKNESS = 2 X N DAYUGHT TO EXISTING GROUND (WEST PERIMETER) VARIES (SEE SCHE /- DAYLIGHT TO EXISTING GROUND / (SOUTH PERIMETER) RUN-ON DIVERSION CHANNEL (EAST PERIMETER) LOCATION SHOWN ON DRAWING 5 10' VARIES ISEE SCHEDUL 01TDRA t PAWNEE WASTE LLC CONSULTANT Golder CfrAssociates DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD STE 300 LAKEWOOD COLORADO UNITED STATES (.11(303) 980 0540 WAW udder can N RUN-ON DIVERSION CHANNEL (NORTH PERIMETER) LOCATION SHOWN ON DRAWING 5 REV B EXISTING GROUND EXISTING GROUND 7ROJECT PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO SURFACE WATER DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 3) PROJECT NO 1407882B REv B 14 of 16 DRAWING 14 DOWNCHUTE CHANNEL SEE DETAIL 41 10' (MINI !1%i'i C(i1J' CONTINUE RIPRAP 10' (MIN ) UPSTREAM OF INTERSECTION 15' iAPPROX ) N. ; (TYP ) At. r 15' (APPROX.) L SCALE N T S d'b f STILLING BASIN DETAIL • 1 t N Fit^ �ti"rrHtt • 2� TYPICAL PERIMETER CHANNEL SEE DETAILS TERRACE CHANNEL SEE DETAIL 10' (MIN ) DOWNCHUTE CHANNEL. SEE DETAIL SCALE NTS C22 TERRACE CHANNEL TO DOWNCHUTE INTERSECTION DETAIL 15 ACCESS ROAD 3 SCALE NT S ACCESS -� ROAD 11/4 FINAL COVER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL (SEE CHANNEL SCHEDULE ON THIS DRAVWNGI 1 PREPARED SUBGRADE ke t0' PERIMETER CHANNEL - GRASS -LINED DETAIL 9' THICK RIPRAP (Dei') If ; i 3 12 OZ S Y NON -WOVEN GEOTExTILE (SEE CHANNEL SCHEDULE ON THIS DRAWING • R LCL & A L7L) SCALE N TS 3 10' DOWNCHUTE 16 SEE DETAIL 14 4 1' (MIN ) • H 6' (TYP ) 0% �{ (SEE CHANNEL SCHEDULE BELOW) SCALE N T S ` I \ STILLING BASIN SECTION 15) ��- TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT (TRM}LINED ACCESS ROAD CHANNEL (R L5 RD) j (INSTALLED PER THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS) 6 IN ROAD BASE 4 I GRADE TO DRAIN � MATERIAL CONTINUE RIPRAP 10' (MIN ) UPSTREAM OF INTERSECTION STORM WA TER DETENTION POND FINAL COVER SYSTEM / 1 SEE DETAIL k, 11 7 PREPARED SUBGRADE PERIMETER CHANNEL - RIPRAP-LINED DETAIL 24' LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD (MAX ROAD SLOPE 7 5%) 7 WASTE f SCALE N T S. FINAL COVER SYSTEM SEE DETAIL 26 / LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD AND CHANNEL DETAIL 15 RIPRAP-LINE SLOPE 2' (MIN ) ABOVE TOP OF CULVERT PIPES — EXTEND RIPRAP 5' (MIN ) ONTO POND FLOOR 4 - (3) - 42' DIA CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (CMP) CULVERTS WITH MITERED ENDS 9" THICK RIPRAP (Dso•8") PREPARED SUBGRADE OR STRUCTURAL FILL 1 RIPRAP-LINE SLOPE 2' (MIN.) ABOVE TOP OF N. CULVERT PIPES N Art t5 5' (MIN.) STORMWATER C= DETENTION POND (3) - 42 DIM. CORRUGATED -- METAL PIPE (CAP) CULVERTS WITH MITERED ENDS 0 20 40 1'=20' FEET SCALE 1' a 20' STRUCTURAL FILL 8' (MIN) ROAD BASE PERIMETER ROAD /' MATERIAL �- RIPRAP-LINE SLOPE �� r 7 (MIN 1 ABOVE TOP • OF CULVERT PIPES WEST PERIMETER CHANNEL (R L81 d R L7L) SCALE NTS S (1\ CULVERT CROSSING SECTION 15 / CHANNEL SCHEDULE NI"s- 9' THICK RIPRAP CHANNEL SIDESLOPE (SS) (H. V) MINIMUM CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH (B) (FT) MINIMUM CHANNEL DEPTH (O) (FT) CHANNEL LINING MEW% n RUNOFF CONTROLS R LI (Set pNTE6 1 AND :I 3 1 10 3 GRASS R L3 f6EE NOTES 1 AND 21 3 1 10 3 _J GRASS R L4 ISEE NOTES 1 AND T 3 1 10 3 GRASS R L5 RD (life MOTe6I AN° ii 3.1 0 1 EROSION MAT (TRM) R L8 nu NOrEm , ANo a 3.1 10 3 GRASS -- R Lacier NOTES I ASo 21 3 1 10 -- -- 3 RIPRAP (D% • 6') R L7'MME Nnn6' AND 71 3 1 10 3 GRASS R L7L aeI *JITS I Aagn) 3 1 10 3 RIPRAP (Deo • 6") R T2 RD Asuu Nola 'Am" 3 1 a 1 EROSION MAT (TRM) RUN-ON DIVERSION LEFT SS (H V1 RIGHT SS (H V) REACH 0 3'1 6 1 10 5.3 EROSION MAT (TRM) REACH 1 3.1 8 1 35 3 5 < EROSION MAT (TRM) REACH 2 3 1 6.1 20 3 6 ,) EROSION MAT (TRM) REACH 3 3 1 6 1 0 1 5 GRASS REACH 4 8 1 3 1 10 2 5 GRASS B 2018.02.19 ADDRESS CDPHE TECHNICAL EDOF COMMENTS DATED JANUARY 28. 2016 NKR CAJ JAR CKB A 2015-01.23 ISSUED FOR CDPHE EDOP SUBMITTAL NKR JMP JMP DLO REV YYYY•MM•DD DESCRIPTION DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED - REV B- PAWNEE WASTE LLC CONSULTANT - Golder Associates DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD. STE 300 LAKEWOOD, COLORADO UNITED STATES I.11 (303) 980 0540 www avow corn FINAL COVER GRADES I RIPRAP-LINE SLOPE 2 (MIN. ) ABOVE TOP 1 OF CULVERT PIPES CULVERT CROSSING PLAN VIEW DETAIL NOTE(S) 1 PERIMETER CHANNEL IDENTIFICATIONS SHOWN ON THE STORMWATER CONTROLS PLAN ;DRAWING 5) 2 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS WERE PERFORMED USING HEC-HMS (USACE 2010) AND ARE SHOWN IN APPENDIX B•3 OF THE ENGINEERING DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PLAN 3 EROSION CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PORTIONS OF THE PERIMETER CHANNEL WIT H VELOCITIES ABOVE 5 FT'S 4 RIPRAP SHALL BE PLACED TO A THICKNESS OF 1 5 TIMES THE Dyo DIMENSION 5 GRAVEL. BEDDING LAYER SIEVE % PASSING 31N 100 NO 4 201050 NO 200 0 TO 10 6 EXTEND DOWNCHUTE CHANNEL LINING THROUGH STILLING BASIN AND INTO THE PERIMETER CHANNEL APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM OF THE INTERSECTION 7 RIPRAP SHALL BE INSTALLED ON APPROPRIATELY•OVFREXCAVATED SUBGRADE SUCH THAT FINISHED TOP SURFACE OF REINFORCING MATERIAL COINCIDES WITH DESIGN GRADES PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO rTI SURFACE WATER DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 3) PROJECT NC 1407882B REV 15 of 16 DRAWING B 15 TO DISSIPATION BASIN SEE DETAIL FLOW CULVERT ELEVATION SEE DETAIL 18 APRON TOE WALL SEE DETAIL FINISHED GRADE 4 \-- (4) - 5' X 5' RECTANGULAR BOX CULVERTS (SIDE -BY -SIDE) (SEE NOTE 2) CULVERT WINGWALL SECTION SEE DETAIL • CULVERT WINGWALL SECTION (PROJECTED SEE DETAIL FLAW CULVERT VINGWALL SECTION (PROJECTED) SEE DETAIL CULVERT INVERT L \ DISSIPATION BASIN SECTION SEE DETAIL 4"• SCALE N.T.S. 8" FINISHED GRADE -- 4 .1 - FLOW APRON TOE WALL SEE DETAIL SCALE NT S. (27 18 NORTH BASIN ONLY PAWNEE WASTE ENTRANCE ROAD (4).5•X5• RECTANGULAR BOX CULVERTS (SIDE -BY -SIDE) (SEE NOTE 2) CULVERT CROSSING PLAN VIEW DETAIL TOP OF DISSIPATION BASIN REV 8 -� RIPRAP (PROJECTED) - NORTH BASIN ONLY 80' TOP OF DISSIPATION BASIN -\d/ RIPRAP (PROJECTED) / lam/ NORTH BASIN ONLY CULVERT INVERT CULVERT ELEVATION SECTION REV B DISSIPATOR POOL 80' 12 OZ/SY NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE - NORTH BASIN ONLY SCALE N.T.S. (AA l DISSIPATION BASIN SECTION `\18 (4)-5'X5' RECTANGULAR BOX CULVERTS (SIDE -BY -SIDE) (SEE NOTE 2) FINISHED GRADE CDOT CLASS B CONCRETE (SEE NOTE 1) REVD • • /- FLOW CULVERT WINGWALL SECTION 12' THICK RIPRAP (Dy0 e1 - NORTH BASIN ONLY B 2018.02.19 ADDRESS CDPHE TECHNICAL EDOP COMMENTS DATED JANUARY 28. 2018 A _ 2015-07-23 ISSUED FOR EDOP SUBMITTAL REV YYYY-MM-DD DESCRIPTION • _ NKR CAJ JAR CKB NKR NKR JMP MAY DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED ACCESS ROAD SEE SCHEDULE L a SHEET 15 3 p APRON 20' -- APRON TOE WALL SEE DETAIL CHANNEL FLOW -----a- PERIMETER CHANNEL (SEE SCHEDULE) 12" THICK RIPRAP - (Dm = 6") - NORTH BASIN ONLY GRASS -LINED - EAST BASIN ONLY SOUTH AD EAST PERIMETER • l� EAST BASIN ONLY SEE DETAIL TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT (TRM) (INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS) 11211'- 3 SEAL 10 ft 2ft (MIN ) -I CLIENT PAWNEE WASTE LLC t SCALE N T S CHANNEL DISSIPATION BASIN SECTION SEE DETAIL ?? CULVERT CROSSING PLAN VIEHNV-V SEE DETAIL 28 DISSIPATION BASIN PLAN VIEW DETAIL Qs) SCALE N.T.S. - DAYLIGHT TO EXISTING GROUND 2 ft (MIN ) --I_T 2ft(MNI RUN-ON DIVERSION CHANNEL - TRM LINED CONSULTANT es. DENVER OFFICE 44 UNION BLVD. STE 300 LAKEWDOD, COLORADO UNITED STATES I.1) (303) 980 0540 www guider tom COOT CLASS B CONCRETE (SEE NOTE 1) 8" (MIN) APRON TOE WALL DETAIL REV B NOTES 1 CONCRETE WILL BE CDOT CLASS B WITH A STRENGTH OF 4500 PSI AT 28 DAYS. AIR CONTENT BETWEEN 5% AND 8%, AND A WATER CEMENTITIOUS RATIO OF 0.44. 2 ALTERNATE CULVERT CROSSING DESIGN AND/OR MATERIALS THAT PROVIDE THE EQUIVALENT FLOW CAPACITY TO CONTROL THE RUNOFF FROM THE DESIGN STORM EVENT MAY BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THOSE DEPICTED. SUBJECT TO WELD COUNTY APPROVAL PROJECT PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY. COLORADO SURFACE WATER DETAILS (SHEET 3 OF 3) PROJECT NO 14078828 CONTROL L016 REV B 15 of 18 FIGURE 16 ATTACHMENT 1 USGS Seismic Design Maps Classification Design Maps Summary Report Page 1 of 1 USGS Design Maps Summary Report User -Specified Input Building Code Reference Document 2012 International Building Code (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008) Site Coordinates 40.838°N, 104.148°W Site Soil Classification Site Class C - "Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock" Risk Category I/II/III 1 hni I 000m mapquest USGS-Provided Output Ss = 0.116 g Si = 0.047 g SMS= SMI 0.140 g 0.080 g ®20141 Sos = 0.093 g SDI = 0.053 g For information on how the SS and Si. values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk -targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. MCER Response Spectrum 0.11 - i 0.10 - 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.09 - 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.07 - t _ 0O� 0.05 - .08 U \ 0.05 VI 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 t 0.01 0.00 ! t $ ! 4 1 f $ ! 1 ! 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 Period, T (sec) Design Response Spectrum 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 Period, T (sec) 1.40 1.60 1.90 ! 2.00 Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subject -matter knowledge. file:///J:/ 14JOBS/1407882%20Pawnee%20Buttes/A Land%20Treatment%20Facility/8%... 10/13O014 014 APPENDIX B Engineering Calculations APPENDIX B-1 Landfill Capacity, Projected Site Life, and Soil Requirements Calculations Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Date: February 19, 2016 Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Site Name: Weld County. Colorado Reviewed by: DLO APPENDIX B-1: LANDFILL CAPACITY, PROJECTED SITE LIFE, AND SOIL Subject: REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS Made by: ALB Checked by: JMP OLe0 1.0 OBJECTIVE Calculate the gross airspace. effective airspace, net airspace, and site life for the proposed Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill (Landfill). Estimate the soil volume necessary for construction, operations, and final cover construction. 2.0 DEFINITIONS 2.1 Gross Airspace This quantity represents the total volume from the excavation grades or top of subgrade to the top of the final cover. It includes the volume of the final cover, E&P waste. daily/intermediate cover, leachate sand drainage layer. and low permeability soil liner. 2.2 Effective Airspace This quantity represents the airspace volume from the top of the leachate collection and recovery system to the bottom of the final cover. This includes only the volume of E&P waste and daily/intermediate cover (i.e., the final cover, leachate sand drainage layer, and low permeability soil liner volumes have been subtracted out). 2.3 Net Airspace This represents the waste -only volume in the landfill (i.e.. the final cover, leachate sand drainage layer, low permeability soil liner. and daily/intermediate cover volumes have been subtracted out). 2.4 Site Life This is an approximation of the time it will take to fill the landfill. This is calculated using the effective airspace volume and the estimated average annual airspace consumption rate for E&P waste. r\1a\1407882b\0400\0403 Sop revl\appendix b\app b -1\1407882b app b-1 volume and site life caics 19feb16 docx Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard. Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Tel: (303) 980-0540 Fax (303) 985-2080 www.golder com Golder Associates: Operations inAfrica, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation CALCULATIONS Page 2 of 4 Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: ALB Site Name: Pawnee Waste Landfill Checked by: JMP fve- 1/p Date: February 19, 2016 Reviewed by: DLO I v ,OL O 3.0 METHODOLOGY From the Engineering Design and Operations Plan (EDOP) drawings, use Autodesk AutoCAD software (Civil 3D 2015) to estimate the gross airspace. This gross airspace value includes the volume of the final cover and the volume of the low permeability soil liner. Calculate the effective airspace by subtracting the final cover, leachate sand drainage layer, and low permeability soil liner volumes from the gross airspace. Calculate the net airspace by using an assumed waste-to-daily/intermediate cover soil percentage to subtract the daily/intermediate cover volume. Calculate site life using the estimated average annual airspace consumption rate and estimated waste density. 4.0 ASSUMPTIONS • Calculations were performed in Civil 3D using the existing composite topographic surface provided by Clark Land Surveying, Inc. from a ground survey performed October 14 and October 15. 2014 and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) South Grover Quad Map. Colorado -Weld CO, 7.5 -Minute Series. ■ The final cover is 36 in (3 ft), including a 30 -inch water storage layer and 6 -inch topsoil layer. ■ The low permeability soil liner is 24 in (2 ft). ■ The protective cover layer is 12 in (1 ft) on the floor and sideslopes of the landfill and is composed of select waste (i.e., it does not subtract from the net airspace of the landfill). ■ The estimated waste placement rate is 1,000 tons/day, which is 667 cy/day assuming an estimated waste density of 3,000 lb/cy. ■ Daily/Intermediate cover material is estimated to consist of between 5% and 10% of the effective airspace volume. 5.0 CIVIL 3D RESULTS ■ The gross airspace capacity in the proposed landfill is approximately 12,216,000 cy. ■ The area used to calculate the final cover soil volume is the 3 -dimensional top area of the proposed landfill which will ultimately require capping. This area was calculated using Civil 3D and is approximately 3.378,200 sf. ■ The area used to calculate the low permeability soil liner volume is the 3 -dimensional top of subgrade area, which will ultimately be lined. This area was calculated using Civil 3D as approximately 3270,200 sf. ■ The earthwork volumes for the proposed landfill, perimeter berms and channels, run-on diversion channel and dissipation basin. and stormwater detention basin are approximately 2,200.000 cy of cut and 800.000 cy of structural fill. i 11411407882b10400104C3 edop revllappendix b\app b -111407882b app b-1 volume and site life caics 19feb16_docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Paae3of4 Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: ALB Pawnee Waste Landfill Checked by: JMP - b Site Name: 4!. roP 3si February 19. 2016 Reviewed by: DLO T b i ) i,,,O Date: 6.0 CALCULATIONS Gross Airspace of Landfill Final Cover Soil Volume 3,378.200 sf x 3 ft / (27 cf/cy) = 12,216,000 cy = 375.000 cy Clay Liner Volume 3,270.200 sf 2 ft / (27 cf/cy) = 242.000 cy Leachate Sand Drainage Layer 3,270,200 sf x 1 ft / (27 cf/cy) = 121.000 cy Effective Airspace Volume 12,216,000 cy — 375,000 cy — 242,000 cy — 121.000 cy = 11.478.000 cy Daily/Intermediate Cover Volume (5% and 10%) 11,478, 000 cy x 5% = 573.900 cy 11,478,000 cy x 10% Net Airspace Volume 5% Daily/Intermediate Cover Volume: 11, 478, 000 cy — 573.900 cy 10% Daily/Intermediate Cover Volume: 11,478,000 cy — 1,147,800 cy Estimated Annual Airspace Consumption Rate Site Life 1,000 ton/day X 2,000 lb/ton / (3,000 lb/cy) = 1,147, 800 cy = 10, 904,100 cy = 10,330,200 cy = 667 cy/day 5% Daily/Intermediate Cover Volume: 10,904,100 cy / (667 cy/day 365 days/year) = 45 years 10% Daily/Intermediate Cover Volume: 10.330,200 cy / (667 cy/day 365 days/year) = 42 years i \14\1407882b1040010403 edop revl\appendix b\app b -1\1407882b app b-1 volume and site life calcs 19feb16.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 4 of 4 Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: ALB Pawnee Waste Landfill Checked by: JMP 1' Site Name: Date: February 19, 2016 Reviewed by: DLO r a / c L v 7.0 CONCLUSIONS The volume estimates as presented above are approximations. The actual site life will vary depending on a variety of factors, including rate of waste placement, density of waste, and compaction factors. Given the assumptions, the estimated site life of the facility is between 42 and 45 years. depending on the percentage of daily/intermediate cover placed. If the airspace consumption rate changes over time, this site life will change. The low permeability soil used for both liner and final cover construction will be obtained from on -site soils with a bentonite admix, exhibiting a hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1 x 10 cm/sec. The material used for the dailyiintermediate cover and structural fill will be obtained from on -site soils. The leachate sand drainage layer will be obtained from off -site. To construct the perimeter berms and channels, stormwater detention pond, and low permeability soil liner to the EDOP subgrade plan there will be an estimated 2,200,000 cy of cut and 800,000 cy of structural fill. Final cover will require 375.000 cy of on - site soil, low permeability soil liner will require 242,000 cy of on -site soil. and daily/intermediate cover will require between 573,000 cy of soil and 1,147,800 cy of on -site soil. Therefore, the soil balance is between a surplus of 209,100 cy and a deficit of 364,800 cy. The daily/intermediate cover used at the site may vary depending on the volume of TENORM waste accepted at the site, which requires daily cover for radiation protection. In the event of a soil surplus, the site will stockpile soil within the Use by Special Review (USR) boundary. If there is a soil deficit, a borrow area will be developed within the USR boundary. I \14\1407882b\0400\0403 edop revl\appendix blapp b -1\1407882b app b-1 volume and site life calcs 19feb16 docx Golder Associates APPENDIX B-2 Leachate Collection and Recovery System Calculations APPENDIX B-2-1 Leachate Head on Liner Calculations - Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Date: Project No.: Site Name: Subject: February 19, 2016 1407882B Rev. 1 Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Weld County; Colorado Made by: Checked by: Reviewed by: DVS JMP roil- DLO62,71,\_ U v APPENDIX B-2-1: LEACHATE HEAD ON LINER CALCULATIONS 1.0 OBJECTIVE Perform hydrological analyses of the proposed landfill liner system design for the Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill (Landfill). Confirm the adequacy of the proposed drainage layer and proposed leachate collection header pipe spacing to maintain less than one foot of head on the liner. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Use the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance Model (HELP) version 3.07 (USEPA 1997) to model the hydrologic performance of the proposed landfill liner and leachate collection system throughout the life of the Landfill using climatic data and vegetative cover parameters consistent with anticipated site conditions. The following waste depths and cover configurations were modeled to estimate maximum head on the liner ■ Scenario 1: Six feet of waste with six-inch daily cover (assumed to consist of native clean fill ML material): • Scenario 2: 80 feet of waste with 6 -inch daily cover (assumed to consist of native clean fill ML material): ■ Scenario 3. 80 feet of waste with 12 -inch intermediate cover (assumed to consist of native clean fill ML material); and ■ Scenario 4: 160 feet of waste with 3 -foot water balance final cover (assumed to consist of native clean fill ML material) The approximate waste depths and cover configurations for these scenarios were based on predicted typical operational conditions at the proposed Landfill. Daily cover is referred to as buffer cover in HELP model output. These scenarios are combined to simulate various conditions at the landfill: ■ Open condition — Scenario 1 • Intermediate conditions —Scenarios 2 and 3 ■ Closed conditions — Scenario 4 i 114\1407882b\040C\3403 edop revl\appendix b\app b -2\1407882b app b-2-1 leachate head on liner calc 19feb16.docx Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard. Suite 300 Lakewood. Colorado 80228 Tel: (303) 980-0540 Fax: (303) 985-2080 www golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia. Europe, North America and South America Golder. Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation CALCULATIONS Page 2 of 7 Protect No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: DVS Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: JMP roc. irvLp Date: February 19, 2016 Reviewed by: DLO c Y, pt.., C) 3.0 HELP DESIGN PARAMETERS 3.1 Weather Data Weather data for the Landfill site was synthetically generated using the WGEN synthetic weather generator developed by the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and built into the HELP model. Statistical characteristics for synthetic weather data generation were adopted from Cheyenne, WY, the nearest city to the site with published values in the program's default database. Average monthly precipitation and temperature data were obtained from the NOAA cooperative weather station in Briggsdale, CO. and manually input into the HELP model for synthetic generation of daily data. Daily solar radiation and evapotranspiration data were synthetically generated based on the latitude for Grover, CO (40.83 degrees). 3.2 General Liner System Design Inputs ■ Slope of the landfill floor was modeled at 2.0% based on the proposed subgrade design and at a post -settlement slope of 1.5% assuming the maximum estimated foundation settlement. ■ Drainage distance of 470 feet was based on the design geometry of the leachate collection system. • The proposed leachate collection layer consists of a 12 -inch sand drainage layer. • The proposed liner system consists (from bottom to top) of a 24 -inch low -permeability soil layer (on -site silt material with a bentonite admixture), a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), and a 60 -mil high -density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane. The liner system was modeled as (from bottom to top) a 24 -inch low -permeability soil layer (on -site silt material with a bentonite admixture) and a 60 -mil HDPE geomembrane because the HELP model does not allow for two adjacent flexible membrane liners or barrier soil liners. • The geomembrane in the liner system was assumed to have pinhole densities and installation defects of three per acre indicative of "good" installation parameters as defined in the HELP model 3.3 Scenario 1: Initial Waste Filling (6 Feet of Waste) with Daily Cover 3.3.1 Assumptions • Daily cover will be clean native fill consisting of silty (ML) soil • All the waste material was assumed to have a gravimetric water content of 0.20 (0.30 by volume), based on an estimate of anticipated moisture content conditions of the processed/stabilized exploration and production (E&P) waste. The user -defined initial moisture content was conservatively set greater than the default field capacity of HELP Material Texture Number 9, which results in the prediction of free -draining liquid. • The waste material was assumed to exhibit properties similar to a clayey silt material (ML), HELP Material Texture Number 9. • The waste surface was assumed to be bare ground (i.e., Leaf Area Index of 0). • The waste surface was assumed to have an evaporative zone depth of six inches. i:11411407882b1040010403 edop revllappendix blapp b -211407882b app b-2-1 leachate head on liner calc 19feb16.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: DVS Project No.: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: JMP Ia. r--3 jre4' Site Name: February 19, 2016 Reviewed by: DLO 5 if,. 9 l 0 Date: ■ 0% of the waste area was allowed to have runoff, with an SCS runoff curve number (CN) of 90.9 (SCS runoff curve number was computed from default soil data base using soil texture #8 with bare ground conditions, a surface slope of 25%, and a slope length of 425 feet); contact runoff from daily cover areas will be managed as leachate and pumped to the leachate collection frac tanks. ■ A one-year period was modeled using synthetic weather generation because after that period more than six feet of waste will have been placed in the cell. 3.3.2 HELP Material Layers ■ 6 inches of daily cover material modeled as HELP default soil type 8 (ML) modeled with a permeability of 3.7 x 10-4 cm/s: • 72 inches of waste material, modeled as HELP default soil type 9. with an initial volumetric water content of 0.30: • 12 inches of drainage material (sand), modeled as HELP default soil type 1 (soil) with a permeability of 1 Ox 10-2 cm/s: • 0.06 -inch -thick HDPE liner, modeled as HELP default material texture number 35; and • 24 inches of compacted low -permeability soil liner, modeled as HELP default soil type 29, with a hydraulic conductivity of 1.0 x 10 cm/sec. 3.4 Scenario 2: Waste Filling (80 Feet of Waste) with Daily Cover 3.4.1 Assumptions • Daily cover will be clean native fill consisting of silty (ML) soil • The upper 20 feet of waste material was assumed to have a gravimetric water content of 0.20 (0.30 volumetric). based on an estimate of anticipated moisture content conditions of the processed/stabilized E&P waste. The user -defined initial moisture content was conservatively set greater than the default field capacity of HELP Material Texture Number 9, which results in the prediction of free draining liquid. • The lower 60 feet of waste was assumed to have an initial water content equal to the default field capacity. • The waste material was assumed to exhibit properties similar to a clayey silt material (ML), HELP Material Texture Number 9. • The waste surface was assumed to be bare ground (i e , Leaf Area Index of 0). ■ The waste surface was assumed to have an evaporative zone depth of 18 inches. • 100% of the waste area was allowed to have runoff, with an SCS runoff curve number (CN) of 90.9 (SCS runoff curve number was computed from default soil data base using soil texture #8 with bare ground conditions, a surface slope of 25%, and a slope length of 425 feet): contact runoff from daily cover areas will be managed as leachate and pumped to the leachate collection tanks ■ A 10 -year period was modeled using synthetic weather generation because after that period final cover is anticipated to be placed i 114\1407882b\040010403 edop rev1\appendix b\app b -2\1407882b app b-2-1 leachate head on liner calc 19febl6.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 4 of 7 Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: DVS Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: JMP 4 roe- AMP Date: February 19, 2016 Reviewed by: DLO 1 Onts n is., O 3.4.2 HELP Material Layers • 6 inches of daily cover material modeled as HELP default soil type 8 (ML) modeled with a permeability of 3.7 x 10-4 cm/s: • 240 inches of waste material, modeled as HELP default soil type 9, with an initial volumetric water content of 0.30: ■ 720 inches of waste material, modeled as HELP default soil type 9, with an initial volumetric water content equal to the default field capacity; ■ 12 inches of drainage material (sand). modeled as HELP default soil type 1 (soil) with a permeability of 1.0x 10-2 cm/s; • 0.06 -inch -thick HDPE liner. modeled as HELP default material texture number 35; and ■ 24 inches of compacted low permeability soil liner, modeled as HELP default soil type 29. with a hydraulic conductivity of 1.0 x 10 cm/sec. 3.5 Scenario 3: Waste Filling (80 Feet of Waste) with intermediate Cover 3.5.1 Assumptions • Intermediate cover will be composed of clean native fill consisting of silty (ML) soil. ■ The upper 20 feet of waste material was assumed to have a gravimetric water content of 0.20 (0.30 volumetric). based on an estimate of anticipated moisture content conditions of the processed/stabilized E&P waste. The user -defined initial moisture content was conservatively set greater than the default field capacity of HELP Material Texture Number 9, which results in the prediction of free draining liquid. I The lower 60 feet of waste was assumed to have an initial water content equal to the default field capacity. ■ The waste material was assumed to exhibit properties similar to a clayey silt material (ML), HELP Material Texture Number 9. • The waste surface was assumed to be bare ground (i.e., Leaf Area Index of 0). ■ The waste surface was assumed to have an evaporative zone depth of 18 inches. • 100% of the waste area was allowed to have runoff, with an SCS runoff curve number (CN) of 90.9 (SCS runoff curve number was computed from default soil data base using soil texture #8 with bare ground conditions, a surface slope of 25%, and a slope length of 425 feet); contact runoff from daily cover areas will be managed as leachate and pumped to the leachate collection tanks ■ A 50 -year period was modeled using synthetic weather generation because after that period final cover is anticipated to be placed 3.5.2 HELP Material Layers • 12 inches of intermediate cover material modeled as HELP default soil type 8 (ML) modeled with a permeability of 3.7 x 10-4 cm/s; • 240 inches of waste material, modeled as HELP default soil type 9, with an initial volumetric water content of 0.30; ■ 720 inches of waste material. modeled as HELP default soil type 9, with an initial volumetric water content equal to the default field capacity; i 114\1407882b10400',0403 edop rev11appendix blapp b -211407882b app b-2-1 leachate head on liner calc 19feb16.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Pae 5 of 7 g Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: DVS Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: JMP a p..f Site Name: Date: February 19. 2016 Reviewed by: DLO iJI, v ..%- _ G' ■ 12 inches of drainage material (sand), modeled as HELP default soil type 1 (soil) with a permeability of 1.0x 10-2 cm/s; ■ 0.06 -inch -thick HDPE liner, modeled as HELP default material texture number 35; and ■ 24 inches of compacted low permeability soil liner, modeled as HELP default soil type 29, with a hydraulic conductivity of 1.0 x 10 cm/sec. 3.6 Scenario 4: Waste Filling (160 Feet of Waste) with Final Cover 3.6.1 Assumptions ■ Intermediate cover will be composed of intermediate cover material. • Final cover will be a three-foot water balance cover composed of on -site silty (ML) soil. ■ The upper 20 feet of waste material was assumed to have a gravimetric water content of 0.20 (0.30 volumetric), based on an estimate of anticipated moisture content conditions of the processed/stabilized E&P waste. The user -defined initial moisture content was conservatively set greater than the default field capacity of HELP Material Texture Number 9, which results in the prediction of free draining liquid. ■ The lower 140 feet of waste was assumed to have an initial water content equal to the default field capacity. ■ The waste material was assumed to exhibit properties similar to a clayey silt material (ML). HELP Material Texture Number 9. ■ The waste surface was assumed to be vegetated (i . e. , Leaf Area Index of 1). ■ The waste surface was assumed to have an evaporative zone depth of 18 inches. • 100% of the waste area was allowed to have runoff. with an SCS runoff curve number (CN) of 84 (SCS runoff curve number was computed from default soil data base using soil texture #8 with a stand of grass, a surface slope of 25%. and a slope length of 425 feet); contact runoff from daily cover areas will be managed as leachate and pumped to the leachate collection tanks. ■ A 30 -year period was modeled using synthetic weather generation because that is the length of post -closure care. 3.6.2 HELP Material Layers ■ 36 inches of final cover, modeled as HELP default soil type 8 (ML) modeled with a permeability of 3.7 x 10-4 cm/s; ■ 12 inches of daily and intermediate cover material modeled as HELP default soil type 8 (ML) modeled with a permeability of 3.7 x 10-4 cm/s; ■ 240 inches of waste material. modeled as HELP default soil type 9, with an initial volumetric water content of 0.30: ■ 1,680 inches of waste material, modeled as HELP default soil type 9. with an initial volumetric water content equal to the default field capacity; ■ 12 inches of drainage material (sand), modeled as HELP default soil type 1 (soil) with a permeability of 1 Ox 10-2 cm/s: a 0.06 -inch -thick HDPE liner, modeled as HELP default material texture number 35; and ■ 24 inches of compacted low permeability soil liner, modeled as HELP default soil type 29, with a hydraulic conductivity of 1.0 x 10 cm/sec. i 11411407882b1040010403 edop revllappendix b\app b -211407882b app b-2-1 leachate head on liner caic 19feb16.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 6 of 7 Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: DVS Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: JMP - F, ; ,Mc Date: February 19, 2016 Reviewed by: DLO L la i ft_C 4.0 CONCLUSIONS/RESULTS 4.1 Maximum Daily Head on Liner The maximum daily head on the liner for each operational scenario, as reported by the HELP model, is summarized in Table B-2-1-1 below: Table B-2-1-1: Peak Daily Head on Liner System Scenario Waste and Cover Configuration Peak Liner 2% Floor Daily (inches) Slope Head on Peak Liner Post 1.5% -Settlement Daily (inches) Floor Slope Head on 1 6 feet of waste with daily cover 4.6 5.1 2 80 feet of waste with daily cover 7.9 9.4 3 80 intermediate feet of waste cover with daily and 8.2 9.2 4 160 feet of waste with final cover 7.9 8.9 The calculated maximum daily head on the liner for each operational scenario and model duration are below the maximum allowable head of one foot for leachate collection and removal systems, as defined by USEPA Subtitle D regulations. 5.0 ATTACHMENTS Attachment B-2-1-1: Summary of Monthly Normals Attachment B-2-1-2: HELP Model Outputs Attachment B-2-1-2-1: Scenario 1 HELP Output Attachment B-2-1-2-2: Scenario 1 Post -Settlement HELP Output Attachment B-2-1-2-3: Scenario 2 HELP Output Attachment B-2-1-2-4: Scenario 2 Post -Settlement HELP Output Attachment B-2-1-2-5: Scenario 3 HELP Output Attachment B-2-1-2-6: Scenario 3 Post -Settlement HELP Output Attachment B-2-1-2-7: Scenario 4 HELP Output Attachment B-2-1-2-8: Scenario 4 Post -Settlement HELP Output • i 11411407882b\040010403 edop rev11appendix blapp b -211407882b app b-2-1 leachate head on liner talc 19feb16 docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Paae7of7 Y Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: DVS I Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: JMP row �,,,, Date: February 19. 2016 Reviewed by: DLO ic li., fj c o 6.0 REFERENCES Schroeder, P.R., T.S. Dozier. P.A. Zappi. B.M. McEnroe. J.W. Sjostrom. & R.L. Peyton. (1994). The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model: Engineering Documentation for Version 3. EPA/600/R-94/168b, September 1994. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. i \1411407882b\0400\0403 edop rev1\appendix b\app b -2\1407882b app b-2-1 leachate head on liner calc 19feb16 docx Golder Associates ATTACHMENT B-2-1-1 SUMMARY OF MONTHLY NORMALS 4- C www.wrcc_dri.edu ' ;, ' 'a1N.pl'co0945 BRIGGSDALE, COLORADO NC"DC 1981-2010 Monthly Normals Ian Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Mean Max Temperature (F) Highest Mean Max Temperature (F) Year Highest Occurred Lowest Mean Max Temperature IF) Year Lowest Occurred 40/ 44 53.1 61.5 71.2 81.5 88 7 86.5 77.5 64.5 49.6 39.7 63.3 Mean Temperature (F) 25.2 28.5 37.2 453 55.9 65.6 72.1 70.3 60.1 47.6 33.8 24.3 47.3 Highest Mean Temperature +,F) Year Highest Occurred Lowest Mean Temperature (Fl Year Lowest Occurred Mean It Temperature (F) 9.1I 12.8 2kiej 29.9 40.6 49.7 55.5 54.1 42.8 30.8 18.0, _ 8.8 314 Highest Mean Nlin Temperance ; F) Year Highest Occurred as 0.18 Lowest Mean Min Temperature IF) 2.03 2.23 2.06 Year Lowest Occurred Mean Precipitation (in) 0.19 f-: 0.72 1.18 1.99 H:2hest Precipitation (in_) 1.24 Year Highest Occurred Lowest Precipitation i ui Year Lonvest Occurred IIIIIII Heating Degree Days (F) Cooling Degree Days (F) T 12.34 1022 862 0 0. 0 0 '91. 70 9 88. 8 14 174 53S 936 228 178. 29. 0. 0 1263. 6990. 0. 531. Western Reg:one:I Climate Cenrer .,,cc licl+-i 9II, ATTACHMENT E-2-1-2-1 SCENARIO 1 HELP MODEL OUTPUT VSSCE1 OUT *******************************************j********************************** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSION 3 07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY *** ***********************************************�'."******************* *******a.6.6'. *** *A**** **** *****..........**************** PRECIPITATION DATA FILE C \DVS4 D4 TEMPERATURE DATA FILE C \DVS7 D7 SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE C \DVS13 D13 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA C \DVS1101 D11 SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE C \VSSCE1 D10 OUTPUT DATA FILE C \VSSCE1 OUT TIME 8 41 DATE 6/10/2015 TITLE SCENARIO 1 6' WASTE WITH BUFFER COVER ***�aa***.***************************************.*****************.*****� NOTE INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE SPECIFIED BY THE USER LAYER 1 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 8 THICKNESS = 6 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4630 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2320 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1160 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 1980 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 369999994000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 2 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER Page 1 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND FML PINHOLE DENSITY FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS FML PLACEMENT QUALITY THICKNESS POROSITY = FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT = INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = VSSCE1 OUT MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 72 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 3000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 3 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 1 THICKNESS = 12 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4170 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 0450 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 0180 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 0452 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 999999978000E-02 CM/SEC SLOPE = 2 00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 470 0 FEET LAYER 4 TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35 = 0 06 INCHES 0 0000 VOL/VOL 0 0000 VOL/VOL 0 0000 VOL/VOL 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC 3 00 HOLES/ACRE 3 00 HOLES/ACRE 3 - GOOD LAYER 5 TYPE 3 - BARRIER MATERIAL TEXTURE SOIL LINER NUMBER 0 24 00 INCHES 0 4510 VOL/VOL 0 4190 VOL/VOL 0 3320 VOL/VOL 0 4510 VOL/VOL 0 100000001000E-06 CM/SEC GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA Page 2 VSSCE1 OUT NOTE SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 8 WITH BARE GROUND CONDITIONS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 25 % AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 425 FEET SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE _ EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = INITIAL SNOW WATER = INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS TOTAL INITIAL WATER = TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = NOTE NOTE JAN/JUL 0 19 2 23 90 90 0 0 1 000 6 0 1 188 2 778 0 696 0 000 34 154 34 154 0 00 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM Grover Colorado STATION LATITUDE MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY PERCENT ACRES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES/YEAR = 40 83 DEGREES = 0 00 = 120 = 280 = 6 0 INCHES = 12 40 MPH = 52 00 % = 54 00 % = 50 00 % = 51 00 % PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) FEB/AUG MAR/SEP 0 18 2 06 APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 0 72 1 18 1 24 0 90 1 99 2 03 046 028 NOTE TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 25 20 28 50 72 10 70 30 37 20 45 70 60 10 47 60 Page 3 55 90 65 60 33 80 24 30 VSSCE1 OUT NOTE SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING AND STATION LATITUDE = 40 83 DEGREES ************aaa-'*********************************************** *******A.** AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 1 JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC PRECIPITATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS RUNOFF 0 03 0 03 2 99 1 41 0 81 0 45 1 65 0 93 2 00 1 24 0 35 0 08 000 000 000 000 000 000 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 TOTALS 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 STD DEVIATIONS 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 124 0 195 0 648 0 587 1 307 0 470 2 910 1 128 2 589 0 320 0 483 0 135 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 0351 0 1119 0 1784 0 1467 0 1248 0 1040 0 1409 0 1785 0 1612 0 1458 0 1218 0 1289 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 0000 0 0001 0 0002 0 0002 0 0001 0 0001 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0001 0 0001 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) Page 4 VSSCE1 OUT DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 AVERAGES STD DEVIATIONS 0 4693 1 6571 2 3868 2 0275 1 6692 1 4374 1 8854 2 3881 2 2280 1 9502 1 6840 1 7243 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 *********************�.a�.a. ****a�.*a."""'*J. "a*J.a-.-"*****aa....-.'.*.“* ** AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 1 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE INCHES CU FEET PERCENT 11 97 ( 0 000) 43451 1 100 00 0 000 ( 0 0000) 0 00 0 000 10 897 ( 0 0000) 39554 74 91 033 1 57801 ( 0 00000) 5728 173 13 18303 0 00179 ( 0 00000) 6 485 0 01492 1 792 ( 0 000) -0 506 ( 0 0000) -1838 33 -4 231 ******************************...... *****k**......." * A.4... * "*...'.* * ***********k*******-..********************.Y****....m********kk***************** PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 1 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 3 (DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) SNOW WATER Page 5 (INCHES) 0 75 0 000 0 00618 0 000007 2 564 4 598 48 4 FEET (CU FT ) 2722 500 0 0000 22 44123 0 02472 0 33 1199 0432 VSSCE1 OUT MAXIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 2925 MINIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 1160 * * * 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 Environmental Engineering vol 119, No 2, march 1993, pp 262-270 ******************************************************************* ****** **x*********************************************************x************** FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1 ********** LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) 1 1 1514 2 20 4479 3 1 2245 4 0 0000 5 10 8240 SNOW WATER 0 000 0 1919 0 2840 0 1020 0 0000 0 4510 ********** *a*'.a*x****************************** **** 1 Page 6 *a". ATTACHMENT B-2-1-2-2 SCENARIO 1 POST -SETTLEMENT HELP MODEL OUTPUT VSSCE1PS OUT ***********************************************k******************AAAAAa****** ********x******AA* ** "-.-“ *A****************** ***************** ** ** ** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE ** ** HELP MODEL VERSION 3 07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) ** ** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ** ** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION ** ** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY ** ** ** *********Aa* *AaA*aA*aAAaA********AAAAa*AAAAAAAAaA*a* *AaAAA *****k****aAa-AAAA****AAAAAA************x************************k************ PRECIPITATION DATA FILE C \DVS4 D4 TEMPERATURE DATA FILE C \DVS7 D7 SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE C \DVS13 D13 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA C \DVS1101 Dll SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE C \VSSCE1PS D10 OUTPUT DATA FILE C \VSSCE1PS OUT TIME 17 0 DATE 6/ 9/2015 **AAAaaa*A* ************************aa-- *aa***aaAaa*a*a****A*Aaaa*a**** TITLE SCENARIO 1 6' WASTE WITH BUFFER COVER POST SETTLEMENT ***************************************************x*AAAAA"AAAAA*AAAAA******* NOTE INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE SPECIFIED BY THE USER LAYER 1 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 8 THICKNESS = 6 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4630 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2320 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1160 vOL/vOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 1980 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 369999994000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 2 Page 1 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND FML PINHOLE DENSITY FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS FML PLACEMENT QUALITY VSSCE1PS OUT TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 72 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 3000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 3 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 1 THICKNESS = 12 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4170 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY 0 0450 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 0180 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 0452 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 999999978000E-02 CM/SEC SLOPE = 1 50 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 470 0 FEET LAYER 4 TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35 = 0 06 INCHES = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC = 3 00 HOLES/ACRE = 3 00 HOLES/ACRE = 3 - GOOD LAYER 5 TYPE 3 - BARRIER MATERIAL TEXTURE THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND SOIL LINER NUMBER 0 24 00 INCHES 0 4510 VOL/VOL 0 4190 VOL/VOL 0 3320 VOL/VOL 0 4510 VOL/VOL 0 100000001000E-06 CM/SEC Page 2 VSSCE1PS OUT GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA NOTE SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 8 WITH BARE GROUND CONDITIONS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 25 % AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 425 FEET SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE INITIAL SNOW WATER INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS TOTAL INITIAL WATER TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW NOTE = 90 90 = 0 0 = 1 000 = 6 0 = 1 188 = 2 778 = 0 696 = 0 000 = 34 154 = 34 154 = 0 00 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM Grover Colorado STATION LATITUDE MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY PERCENT ACRES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES/YEAR = 40 83 DEGREES = 0 00 = 120 = 280 = 6 0 INCHES = 12 40 MPH = 52 00 % = 54 00 % = 50 00 % = 51 00 % NOTE PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING JAN/JUL 0 19 2 23 NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 0 18 2 06 0 72 118 1 24 0 90 1 99 2 03 0 46 0 28 NOTE TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 25 20 72 10 28 50 37 20 70 30 60 10 45 70 47 60 Page 3 55 90 65 60 33 80 24 30 VSSCE1PS OUT NOTE SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING AND STATION LATITUDE = 40-83 DEGREES *********************************.********************.*****************.*.a AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 1 JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC PRECIPITATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS RUNOFF TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS EVAPOTRANSPIRATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 03 0 03 0 81 0 45 1 65 0 93 2 99 1 41 2 00 1 24 0 35 0 08 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 124 0 195 0 648 0 587 1 307 0 470 2 910 1 128 2 589 0 320 0 483 0 135 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 0267 0 0866 0 1417 0 1222 0 1092 0 0948 0 1248 0 1560 0 1452 0 1364 0 1184 0 1250 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 0000 0 0001 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0001 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) Page 4 VSSCE1PS OUT DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 AVERAGES STD DEVIATIONS * *A* 0 4769 1 7098 2 5278 2 2514 1 9467 1 7469 2 2253 2 7821 2 6763 2 4322 2 1823 2 2298 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 *********AAA* *A* *-.******************* AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 1 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE INCHES CU FEET PERCENT 11 97 ( 0 000) 43451 1 100 00 0 000 ( 0 0000) 0 00 0 000 10 897 ( 0 0000) 39554 74 91 033 1 38713 ( 0 00000) 5035 294 11 58842 0 00206 ( 0 00000) 2 099 ( 0 000) -0 316 ( 0 0000) 7 491 0 01724 -1146 46 -2 639 *AA* ..... 0.0...4*As...........*AA*AAAA*******AAAA*AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa..,.J..U.A.**AAAAA PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 1 *AAAAAAA*A*AAAAA (INCHES) (CU FT ) PRECIPITATION 0 75 RUNOFF 0 000 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 0 00536 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0 000008 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 2 966 MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 5 132 LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 3 (DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) 63 2 FEET Page 5 2722 500 0 0000 19 47284 0 02824 VSSCE1PS OUT SNOW WATER 0 33 1199 0432 MAXIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 2925 MINIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 1160 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 Environmental Engineering vol 119, No 2, March 1993, pp 262-270 * * * ***********AAAAAAA.*AA*******************************k*****AA*AAAAAAAA******* q. ******k*k***k****AAAAAAAA** * *** **************** FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1 LAYER 1 2 3 4 5 SNOW WATER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) 1 1514 20 4479 1 4151 0 0000 10 8240 0 000 0 1919 0 2840 0 1179 0 0000 0 4510 *********AAAAAAA**AAAU*AAAAAA*AAAAAAA*AAA*AAAAA*AA*AAAAAAAA**** ****** *****************************k***********k********************************kk** Page 6 ATTACHMENT B-2-1-2-3 SCENARIO 2 HELP MODEL OUTPUT VSSCE2 OUT *..............*********************k***********************..************************ `"...."*'•*********************************************k******k***************** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSION 3 07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY *k *****k****************k******************************************************* PRECIPITATION DATA FILE TEMPERATURE DATA FILE SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE OUTPUT DATA FILE TIME 8 31 DATE C \DVS4 D4 C \DVS7 D7 C \DVs13 D13 C \DVS1101 D11 C \VSSCE2 D10 C \VSSCE2 OUT 6/12/2015 ***......'......***............0...............k........ k'*.........**A...*.............“....,A..A.0 TITLE SCENARIO 2 80' WASTE WITH BUFFER COVER ***,.*.u*,-,*--'** ..... ***************. ,.*' .u' -" *-.*-''.."'-. ************************** NOTE INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE SPECIFIED BY THE USER LAYER 1 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 8 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 6 00 INCHES = 0 4630 VOL/VOL = 0 2320 VOL/VOL = 0 1160 VOL/VOL = 0 2067 VOL/VOL = 0 369999994000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 2 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER Page 1 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND FML PINHOLE DENSITY FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS FML PLACEMENT QUALITY VSSCE2 OUT MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 240 00 INCHES POROSITY 0 5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 3000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 3 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 720 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT 0 1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 2840 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 4 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 1 THICKNESS = 12 00 INCHES POROSITY 0 4170 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 0450 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 0180 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 0457 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 999999978000E-02 CM/SEC SLOPE = 2 00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 470 0 FEET LAYER 5 TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35 = 0 06 INCHES 0 0000 VOL/VOL 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC = 3 00 HOLES/ACRE = 3 00 HOLES/ACRE = 3 - GOOD LAYER 6 Page 2 VSSCE2 OUT TYPE 3 - BARRIER MATERIAL TEXTURE THICKNESS POROSITY = FIELD CAPACITY = WILTING POINT = INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = SOIL LINER NUMBER 0 24 00 INCHES 0 4510 VOL/VOL 0 4190 VOL/VOL 0 3320 VOL/VOL 0 4510 VOL/VOL 0 100000001000E-06 CM/SEC GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA NOTE SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 8 WITH BARE GROUND CONDITIONS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 25 % AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 425 FEET SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE INITIAL SNOW WATER INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS TOTAL INITIAL WATER TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW 90 90 100 0 1 000 6 0 1 240 2 778 0 696 0 000 289 093 289 093 0 00 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA NOTE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM Grover Colorado STATION LATITUDE MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY PERCENT ACRES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES/YEAR = 40 83 DEGREES = 0 00 = 120 = 280 6 0 INCHES = 12 40 MPH = 52 00 % = 54 00 % = 50 00 % = 51 00 % NOTE PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC Page 3 JAN/JUL FEB/AUG 25 20 72 10 28 50 70 30 0 19 0 18 2 23 2 06 VSSCE2 OUT 0 72 1 18 1 24 0 90 1 99 2 03 0 46 NOTE TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 0 28 37 20 60 10 45 70 55 90 47 60 33 80 65 60 24 30 NOTE SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING AND STATION LATITUDE = 40 83 DEGREES A.********************. a,.“,—",********x**x*. a“*."'****"-'....-*a**-""......“*..**Jrn..,. AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 PRECIPITATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS RUNOFF TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS EVAPOTRANSPIRATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 0 21 0 17 0 77 1 37 1 80 2 10 1 88 1 58 0 94 0 32 0 18 0 12 0 39 0 70 1 35 075 087 080 055 030 2 02 0 28 1 18 0 20 0 005 0 000 0 017 0 008 0 084 0 068 0 048 0 104 0 056 0 002 0 000 0 000 0 010 0 000 0 038 0 017 0 229 0 091 0 087 0 145 0 089 0 003 0 000 0 000 0 177 0 184 0 446 1 333 1 620 1 727 1 744 1 408 1 411 0 783 0 433 0 287 0 109 0 110 0 160 0 604 0 953 1 060 0 908 0 532 0 604 0 520 0 317 0 137 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 TOTALS 0 1378 0 1298 0 1478 0 1415 0 1404 0 1337 0 1368 0 1407 0 1421 0 1516 0 1491 0 1504 STD DEVIATIONS 0 0857 0 0800 0 0937 0 0905 0 0930 0 0890 Page 4 VSSCE2 OUT 0 0797 0 0751 0 0686 0 0663 0 0586 0 0691 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 0002 0 0001 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0001 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 AVERAGES STD DEVIATIONS 1 8439 1 9030 1 9774 1 9560 1 8783 1 8488 1 8304 1 8826 1 9644 2 0277 2 0614 2 0122 1 1464 1 1691 1 2533 1 2509 1 2442 1 2305 1 0662 1 0045 0 9484 0 8865 0 8099 0 9244 ********�**k*******************.--"* **** * ******k********* **-,--.-"***************k*************k***k Y*************_.........�.a..�..�.***************** AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 INCHES CU FEET PERCENT 13 43 ( 1 679) 48754 5 100 00 0 393 ( 0 3207) 1424 90 2 923 11 553 ( 1 1193) 41937 78 86 018 1 70194 ( 0 83802) 6178 033 12 67171 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0 00190 ( 0 00086) LAYER 6 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 1 932 ( 0 952) OF LAYER 5 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0 218 ( 1 0781) as*aaa.�Aaa**** * *******k************** 6 901 0 01415 -793 09 -1 627 * ...*,.. .A.L..***a.a.aa.aaA.A.*aaA...., g *******k*****************************k*****************k****k************** PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 PRECIPITATION Page 5 (INCHES) (CU FT ) 1 63 5916 900 VSSCE2 OUT RUNOFF 0 655 2379 0671 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 0 01123 40 78278 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 0 000012 0 04271 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 4 659 MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 7 937 LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 4 (DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) 69 5 FEET SNOW WATER 0 46 1662 2109 MAXIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 3660 MINIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 1160 * * * 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 Environmental Engineering vol 119, No 2, march 1993, pp 262-270 ******** ************AA"AAk******A"aa*************************************** g **aa'aa"**********k******************************�Aa"'****'.aa�J.******* FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 10 LAYER 1 2 3 4 5 6 SNOW WATER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) 0 7227 68 7422 205 3079 1 1151 0 0000 10 8240 0 196 0 1204 0 2864 0 2851 0 0929 0 0000 0 4510 *-aaJaA*X************J-************kk********X**kX******AA"Ak**Xaxxaax*k***X** a aaaaaaA* *a*aaa'AA*a*a-'* * * Page 6 ATTACHMENT B-2-1-2-4 SCENARIO 2 POST -SETTLEMENT HELP MODEL OUTPUT VSSCE2PS OUT **-"-****************�aaaa*x*********************************-.-..,.aaa******x** *********aa��aa*-u************************************************************ ** ** ** .... ** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE ** ** HELP MODEL VERSION 3 07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) ** ** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ** ** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION ** ** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY ** ** ** ** ** ** **** *-.-**-,-.--,. ** * *- '.******************AA* ******** ******X**************** ***********x**********ate-u.uaa*aaa*aa-ua"A********* PRECIPITATION DATA FILE TEMPERATURE DATA FILE SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE OUTPUT DATA FILE C \DVS4 D4 C \DVS7 D7 C \DVS13 D13 C \DVS1101 D11 C \VSSCE2PS D10 C \VSSCE2PS OUT TIME 8 34 DATE 6/12/2015 **.'aaa**********************************************************x************ TITLE SCENARIO 2 80' WASTE WITH BUFFER COVER **."""“*-'***********x************X***k*******xk***kk****x*k*****s'************ NOTE INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE SPECIFIED BY THE USER LAYER 1 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 8 THICKNESS = 6 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4630 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2320 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1160 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 2067 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 369999994000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 2 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER Page 1 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND FML PINHOLE DENSITY FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS FML PLACEMENT QUALITY VSSCE2PS OUT MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 240 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY 0 2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT 0 1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 3000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 3 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 720 00 INCHES = 0 5010 VOL/VOL = 0 2840 VOL/VOL = 0 1350 VOL/VOL = 0 2840 VOL/VOL = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 4 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 1 THICKNESS = 12 00 INCHES POROSITY 0 4170 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 0450 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 0180 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 0457 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 999999978000E-02 CM/SEC SLOPE = 1 50 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 470 0 FEET LAYER 5 TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35 = 0 06 INCHES = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC = 3 00 HOLES/ACRE = 3 00 HOLES/ACRE = 3 - GOOD LAYER 6 Page 2 VSSCE2PS OUT TYPE 3 - BARRIER SOIL LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 0 THICKNESS = 24 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4510 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 4190 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 3320 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 4510 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 100000001000E-06 CM/SEC GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA NOTE SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 8 WITH BARE GROUND CONDITIONS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 25 % AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 425 FEET SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 90 90 FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100 0 AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1 000 EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 6 0 INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 1 240 UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 2 778 LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0 696 INITIAL SNOW WATER = 0 000 INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 289 093 TOTAL INITIAL WATER = 289 093 TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0 00 NOTE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM Grover Colorado STATION LATITUDE MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY PERCENT ACRES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES/YEAR = 40 83 DEGREES = 0 00 = 120 = 280 = 6 0 INCHES = 12 40 MPH = 52 00 % = 54 00 % = 50 00 % = 51 00 % NOTE PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC Page 3 0 19 0 18 223 206 VSSCE2PS OUT 0 72 1 18 1 24 0 90 1 99 2 03 0 46 0 28 NOTE TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 25 20 28 50 72 10 70 30 37 20 45 70 60 10 47 60 55 90 65 60 33 80 24 30 NOTE SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING AND STATION LATITUDE = 40 83 DEGREES AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 PRECIPITATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS RUNOFF JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 0 21 0 17 0 77 1 37 1 80 2 02 2 10 1 88 1 58 0 94 0 32 0 28 0 18 0 12 0 39 0 70 1 35 1 18 075 087 080 055 030 020 TOTALS 0 005 0 000 0 017 0 008 0 084 0 068 0 048 0 104 0 056 0 002 0 000 0 000 STD DEVIATIONS 0 010 0 000 0 038 0 017 0 229 0 091 0 087 0 145 0 089 0 003 0 000 0 000 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 177 0 184 0 446 1 333 1 620 1 727 1 744 1 408 1 411 0 783 0 433 0 287 0 109 0 110 0 160 0 604 0 953 1 060 0 908 0 532 0 604 0 520 0 317 0 137 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 TOTALS 0 1368 0 1281 0 1448 0 1394 0 1399 0 1338 0 1372 0 1401 0 1402 0 1488 0 1462 0 1487 STD DEVIATIONS 0 0812 0 0747 0 0845 0 0801 0 0819 0 0789 Page 4 VSSCE2PS OUT 0 0726 0 0687 0 0638 0 0632 0 0572 0 0655 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0002 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 AVERAGES STD DEVIATIONS 2 4399 2 5021 2 5830 2 5688 2 4943 2 4653 2 4460 2 4985 2 5834 2 6531 2 6948 2 6514 1 4487 1 4511 1 5077 1 4756 1 4602 1 4547 1 2955 1 2258 1 1752 1 1270 1 0548 1 1675 *********************************,.a".“* -u* ,-a*Aaaaaa“*aa*A -""" *aa "AA�A*aa.""aaa* AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 INCHES CU FEET PERCENT 13 43 ( 1 679) 48754 5 100 00 0 393 ( 0 3207) 1424 90 2 923 11 553 ( 1 1193) 41937 78 86 018 1 68394 ( 0 78123) 6112 711 12 53773 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0 00245 ( 0 00105) 8 897 0 01825 LAYER 6 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 2 548 ( 1 183) OF LAYER 5 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0 201 ( 1 0414) *********************** -729 76 -1 497 **,.a.. '.a*.'*t**.A." 4**,....aa...0.. *._a.....l.a.......*.A....*_*........, PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 PRECIPITATION Page 5 (INCHES) (CU FT ) 1 63 5916 900 VSSCE2PS OUT RUNOFF 0 655 2379 0671 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 0 01054 38 26448 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 0 000014 0 05249 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 5 827 MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 9 363 LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 4 (DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) 92 3 FEET SNOW WATER 0 46 1662 2109 MAXIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 3660 MINIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 1160 * * * 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 Environmental Engineering vol 119, No 2, march 1993, pp 262-270 J.* * *************....u............*...* FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 10 LAYER (INCHES) 1 2 3 4 5 6 SNOW WATER 0 7227 68 7422 205 3079 1 2896 0 0000 10 8240 0 196 (VOL/voL) 0 1204 0 2864 0 2851 0 1075 0 0000 0 4510 **********.�.**..........'...,*.'........'.....u.“......**.....**....'..'......... *....k.......'.a..,.'..'.*......*.'..'.*...*......***.f* *************k*****k*********k*k*****k****k***********k*******k*******-'.******* Page 6 ATTACHMENT B-2-1-2-5 SCENARIO 3 HELP MODEL OUTPUT VSSCE3 OUT ,.aaaa*aa**********************ua.,*�Aaaaa** aa-a*.,**************u--—******* ******************k***k**********k********************************k*********** ** ** ** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE ** ** HELP MODEL VERSION 3 07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) ** ** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ** k* USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION ** ** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY ** ** ** ** *...... ***k********k*********k*k********************k********** * ******** *kk*********************aaaao-***k********************k*********a*aaaxAa******* PRECIPITATION DATA FILE C \DVS4 D4 TEMPERATURE DATA FILE C \DVS7 D7 SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE C \DVS13 D13 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA C \DVS1102 D11 SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE C \VSSCE3 D10 OUTPUT DATA FILE C \VSSCE3 OUT TIME 8 4 DATE 6/12/2015 ****************************************************k*********,*a."."."******* TITLE SCENARIO 3 80' WASTE WITH INTERMEDIATE COVER *************************************k****k*****k***************************** NOTE INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE SPECIFIED BY THE USER LAYER 1 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 8 THICKNESS = 12 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4630 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2320 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1160 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 1963 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 369999994000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 2 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER Page 1 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND FML PINHOLE DENSITY FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS FML PLACEMENT QUALITY THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 2840 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC VSSCE3 OUT MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 240 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 3000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 3 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 = 720 00 INCHES = 0 5010 VOL/VOL = 0 2840 VOL/VOL = 0 1350 VOL/VOL LAYER 4 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 1 THICKNESS = 12 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4170 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 0450 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 0180 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 0451 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 999999978000E-02 CM/SEC SLOPE = 2 00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 470 0 FEET LAYER 5 TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35 = 0 06 INCHES = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC 3 00 HOLES/ACRE = 3 00 HOLES/ACRE = 3 - GOOD LAYER 6 Page 2 VSSCE3 OUT TYPE 3 - BARRIER MATERIAL TEXTURE THICKNESS = POROSITY = FIELD CAPACITY = WILTING POINT = INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = SOIL LINER NUMBER 0 24 00 INCHES 0 4510 VOL/VOL 0 4190 VOL/VOL 0 3320 VOL/VOL 0 4510 VOL/VOL 0 100000001000E-06 CM/SEC GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA NOTE SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 8 WITH BARE GROUND CONDITIONS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 25 % AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 425 FEET SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE INITIAL SNOW WATER INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS TOTAL INITIAL WATER TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW NOTE NOTE = 90 90 = 100 0 = 1 000 = 12 0 = 2 356 = 5 556 = 1 392 = 0 000 = 290 201 = 290 201 = 0 00 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM Grover Colorado STATION LATITUDE MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY PERCENT ACRES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES/YEAR = 40 83 DEGREES = 0 00 = 120 = 280 = 12 0 INCHES = 12 40 MPH = 52 00 % = 54 00 % = 50 00 % = 51 00 % PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC Page 3 0 19 0 18 2 23 2 06 VSSCE3 OUT 072 118 1 24 0 90 1 99 2 03 0 46 0 28 NOTE TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 25 20 28 50 72 10 70 30 37 20 45 70 60 10 47 60 55 90 65 60 33 80 24 30 NOTE SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING AND STATION LATITUDE = 40 83 DEGREES AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 PRECIPITATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS RUNOFF TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS EVAPOTRANSPIRATION JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 0 21 0 17 0 77 1 37 1 80 2 02 2 10 1 88 1 58 0 94 0 32 0 28 018 012 039 070 135 118 0 75 0 87 0 80 0 55 0 30 0 20 0 004 0 000 0 014 0 007 0 080 0 076 0 052 0 104 0 054 0 001 0 000 0 000 0 009 0 000 0 029 0 015 0 205 0 097 0 091 0 143 0 082 0 002 0 000 0 000 TOTALS 0 177 0 188 0 453 1 300 1 716 2 093 1 813 1 570 1 819 0 924 0 552 0 293 STD DEVIATIONS 0 109 0 116 0 141 0 674 1 234 1 059 0 934 0 707 0 569 0 551 0 314 0 146 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 TOTALS 0 0538 0 0492 0 0525 0 0490 0 0493 0 0454 0 0437 0 0433 0 0440 0 0500 0 0525 0 0565 STD DEVIATIONS 0 0784 0 0778 0 0938 0 0969 0 1052 0 0989 Page 4 VSSCE3 OUT 0 0851 0 0745 0 0657 0 0607 0 0586 0 0680 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 TOTALS 0 0001 0 0001 STD DEVIATIONS 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 ' 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 AVERAGES STD DEVIATIONS 0 7197 0 7280 0 7020 0 6766 0 6589 0 6272 0 5840 0 5792 0 6083 0 6694 0 7262 0 7561 1 0484 1 1526 1 2547 1 3390 1 4075 1 3672 1 1390 0 9964 0 9085 0 8119 0 8100 0 9099 AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 INCHES CU FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION 13 43 ( 1 679) 48754 5 100 00 RUNOFF 0 393 ( 0 2996) 1427 07 2 927 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 12 898 ( 1 5410) 46819 43 96 031 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0 58916 ( 0 89834) 2138 663 4 38659 FROM LAYER 4 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0 00069 ( 0 00095) LAYER 6 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 0 670 ( 1 022) OF LAYER 5 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0 450 ( 1 0446) 2 489 0 00510 -1633 15 -3 350 PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 PRECIPITATION Page 5 (INCHES) (Cu FT ) 1 63 5916 900 VSSCE3 OUT RUNOFF 0 599 2175 5569 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 0 01161 42 15730 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 0 000012 0 04404 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 4 816 MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 8 176 LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 4 (DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) 70 9 FEET SNOW WATER 0 46 1662 2109 MAXIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 3046 MINIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 1160 * * * 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 Environmental Engineering vol 119, No 2, March 1993, pp 262-270 AA,AAAA**U*************AAAAAAAAA*AAAAAA**AAAAA*A*A**AAAAA*A****AAAAAAA***AAAAU ************************************************AA<<A�AAA*AAA***************** FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 10 LAYER 1 2 3 4 5 6 SNOW WATER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) 1 4178 68 1599 204 4800 0 6242 0 0000 10 8240 0 196 0 1182 0 2840 0 2840 0 0520 0 0000 0 4510 ***********************AAAAAA************************************************* ...*******.**AAA* AAAAAA* **AAA*A,AUA*AAAAAAAAAA******..... ****** Page 6 ATTACHMENT B-2-1-2-6 SCENARIO 3 POST -SETTLEMENT HELP MODEL OUTPUT VSSCE3PS OUT ** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSION 3 07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY ** ** tea. .. *********************... * �� --...., a************** PRECIPITATION DATA FILE TEMPERATURE DATA FILE SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE OUTPUT DATA FILE TIME 8 9 DATE C C C C C C \DVS4 D4 \DVS7 D7 \DVS13 D13 \DVS1102 D11 \VSSCE3PS D10 \VSSCE3PS OUT 6/12/2015 TITLE SCENARIO 3 80' WASTE WITH INTERMEDIATE COVER NOTE INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE SPECIFIED BY THE USER LAYER 1 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 8 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 12 00 INCHES = 0 4630 VOL/VOL = 0 2320 VOL/VOL = 0 1160 VOL/VOL = 0 1963 VOL/VOL = 0 369999994000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 2 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER Page 1 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND FML PINHOLE DENSITY FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS FML PLACEMENT QUALITY VSSCE3PS OUT MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 240 00 INCHES POROSITY 0 5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 3000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 3 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 720 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 2840 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 4 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 1 THICKNESS = 12 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4170 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 0450 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 0180 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 0451 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 999999978000E-02 CM/SEC SLOPE = 1 50 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 470 0 FEET LAYER 5 TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35 = 0 06 INCHES 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC 3 00 HOLES/ACRE 3 00 HOLES/ACRE - GOOD = 3 LAYER 6 Page 2 VSSCE3PS OUT TYPE 3 - MATERIAL THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND BARRIER SOIL LINER TEXTURE NUMBER 0 = 24 00 INCHES = 0 4510 VOL/VOL = 0 4190 VOL/VOL = 0 3320 VOL/VOL = 0 4510 VOL/VOL = 0 100000001000E-06 CM/SEC GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA NOTE SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 8 WITH BARE GROUND CONDITIONS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 25 % AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 425 FEET SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER 90 90 FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100 0 AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1 000 EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 12 0 INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 2 356 UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 5 556 LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 1 392 INITIAL SNOW WATER = 0 000 INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS 290 201 TOTAL INITIAL WATER = 290 201 TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0 00 NOTE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM Grover Colorado STATION LATITUDE MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY PERCENT ACRES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES/YEAR = 40 83 DEGREES = 0 00 = 120 = 280 = 12 0 INCHES = 12 40 MPH = 52 00 % = 54 00 % = 50 00 % = 51 00 % NOTE PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC Page 3 019 018 223 206 VSSCE3PS OUT 0 72 1 18 1 24 0 90 1 99 2 03 046 028 NOTE TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 25 20 28 50 72 10 70 30 37 20 45 70 60 10 47 60 55 90 65 60 33 80 24 30 NOTE SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING AND STATION LATITUDE = 40 83 DEGREES ***********-“.,.a."“*-“*** ************************************************* AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 PRECIPITATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS RUNOFF JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 0 21 0 17 0 77 1 37 1 80 2 02 2 10 1 88 1 58 0 94 0 32 0 28 0 18 0 12 0 39 0 70 1 35 1 18 0 75 0 87 0 80 0 55 0 30 0 20 TOTALS 0 004 0 000 0 014 0 007 0 080 0 076 0 052 0 104 0 054 0 001 0 000 0 000 STD DEVIATIONS 0 009 0 000 0 029 0 015 0 205 0 097 0 091 0 143 0 082 0 002 0 000 0 000 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 177 0 188 0 453 1 300 1 716 2 093 1 813 1 570 1 819 0 924 0 552 0 293 0 109 0 116 0 141 0 674 1 234 1 059 0 934 0 707 0 569 0 551 0 314 0 146 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 0526 0 0482 0 0519 0 0489 0 0495 0 0461 0 0451 0 0446 0 0446 0 0495 0 0511 0 0548 0 0683 0 0670 0 0809 0 0842 0 0924 0 0887 Page 4 VSSCE3PS OUT 0 0797 0 0718 0 0645 0 0606 0 0560 0 0610 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 AVERAGES STD DEVIATIONS 0 9380 0 9493 0 9254 0 9009 0 8827 0 8499 0 8036 0 7949 0 8214 0 8824 0 9419 0 9764 1 2178 1 3231 1 4426 1 5515 1 6474 1 6350 1 4219 1 2811 1 1882 1 0806 1 0325 1 0881 * * * * * * * * * * * k * k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***************k**** * *''*-' ,k*******************,,-''--' ** AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 INCHES CU FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION 13 43 ( 1 679) 48754 5 100 00 RUNOFF 0 393 ( 0 2996) 1427 07 2 927 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 12 898 ( 1 5410) 46819 43 96 031 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0 58679 ( 0 82802) 2130 040 4 36891 FROM LAYER 4 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0 00090 ( 0 00114) 3 254 0 00667 LAYER 6 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0 448 ( 0 9675) *Ax.,.......aJ.a.U.,* 0 889 ( 1 255) -1625 29 -3 334 ************************k************************** PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 PRECIPITATION Page 5 (INCHES) (CU FT ) 1 63 5916 900 VSSCE3PS OUT RUNOFF DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 4 (DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) SNOW WATER 0 599 0 01032 0 000014 5 705 9 191 91 3 FEET 0 46 MAXIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 3046 MINIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 1160 * * * 2175 5569 37 45954 0 05147 1662 2109 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 Environmental Engineering vol 119, No 2, march 1993, pp 262-270 **************k*****************************kk***** **********kk***X***************k****************************************** FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 10 LAYER 1 2 3 4 5 6 SNOW WATER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) 1 4178 68 1599 204 4800 0 6458 0 0000 10 8240 0 196 0 1182 0 2840 0 2840 0 0538 0 0000 0 4510 ..**X********'.'L'U*'U'.'.*'-' "A U.A..S.*,-"-'.*'--°'.' U-".*-'.*-.-. °''-A U-.-,.-'.-.*******X*X*******XX**** Page 6 ATTACHMENT B-2-1-2-7 SCENARIO 4 HELP MODEL OUTPUT VSSCE4 OUT ** *************** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSION 3 07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY ** ****************k********************************k**k***�A� *k***********************kk*******k*********************k*k******************* PRECIPITATION DATA FILE TEMPERATURE DATA FILE SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE OUTPUT DATA FILE TIME 9 32 DATE TITLE * NOTE C \DVS4 D4 C \DVS7 D7 C \DVS13 D13 C \DVS1104 D11 C \VSSCE4 D10 C \VSSCE4 OUT 6/12/2015 SCENARIO 4 160' WASTE WITH FINAL COVER *�A�* * - ****************-' k****** ******* INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE SPECIFIED BY THE USER LAYER 1 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 8 THICKNESS = 36 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4630 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY 0 2320 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1160 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 1952 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 369999994000E-03 CM/SEC NOTE SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 1 80 FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE LAYER 2 Page 1 VSSCE4 OUT TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 8 THICKNESS = 12 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4630 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2320 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1160 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 1963 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 369999994000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 3 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 240 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 3000 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 4 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 1680 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 2840 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 5 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 1 THICKNESS = 12 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4170 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 0450 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 0180 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 0451 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 999999978000E-02 CM/SEC SLOPE = 2 00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 470 0 FEET LAYER 6 Page 2 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND FML PINHOLE DENSITY FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS FML PLACEMENT QUALITY THICKNESS POROSITY = FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT = INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = VSSCE4 OUT TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35 0 06 INCHES 0 0000 VOL/VOL 0 0000 VOL/VOL 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC 3 00 HOLES/ACRE 3 00 HOLES/ACRE = 3 - GOOD LAYER 7 TYPE 3 - BARRIER MATERIAL TEXTURE SOIL LINER NUMBER 0 24 00 INCHES 0 4510 VOL/VOL 0 4190 VOL/VOL 0 3320 VOL/VOL 0 4510 VOL/VOL 0 100000001000E-06 CM/SEC GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA NOTE SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 8 WITH A POOR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 25 % AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 425 FEET SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE INITIAL SNOW WATER INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS TOTAL INITIAL WATER TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW 86 40 100 0 1 000 30 0 5 856 = 13 890 3 480 0 000 569 868 569 868 0 00 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA NOTE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM Grover Colorado STATION LATITUDE MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) Page 3 PERCENT ACRES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES/YEAR = 40 83 DEGREES 1 00 120 VSSCE4 OUT END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 280 EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 30 0 INCHES AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 12 40 MPH AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 52 00 % AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 54 00 % AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 50 00 % AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 51 00 % NOTE PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 0 19 0 18 2 23 2 06 0 72 1 18 1 24 0 90 1 99 2 03 0 46 0 28 NOTE TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 25 20 28 50 72 10 70 30 37 20 45 70 60 10 47 60 55 90 65 60 33 80 24 30 NOTE SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING AND STATION LATITUDE = 40 83 DEGREES AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 30 PRECIPITATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS RUNOFF TOTALS JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 0 19 1 97 0 14 0 84 0 17 0 69 1 86 1 32 014 029 096 074 1 25 0 94 0 57 0 65 1 85 2 07 0 47 0 29 0 93 1 04 0 31 018 0 001 0 000 0 012 0 010 0 006 0 006 0 002 0 016 0 004 0 001 0 000 0 000 Page 4 STD DEVIATIONS EVAPOTRANSPIRATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS VSSCE4 OUT 0 004 0 000 0 030 0 049 0 030 0 020 0 007 0 035 0 013 0 005 0 000 0 002 0 189 0 196 0 754 1 267 1 800 2 045 2 204 1 712 1 359 0 807 0 482 0 262 0 102 0 124 0 286 0 545 0 728 0 791 0 924 0 642 0 626 0 415 0 266 0 150 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 0114 0 0114 0 0128 0 0125 0 0130 0 0120 0 0102 0 0084 0 0076 0 0088 0 0094 0 0105 0 0465 0 0461 0 0548 0 0560 0 0607 0 0572 0 0486 0 0397 0 0320 0 0320 0 0347 0 0412 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0001 0 0000 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 AVERAGES STD DEVIATIONS 0 1524 0 1682 0 1707 0 1723 0 1738 0 1655 0 1360 0 1129 0 1051 0 1176 0 1303 0 1406 0 6214 0 6828 0 7324 0 7748 0 8119 0 7909 0 6501 0 5317 0 4430 0 4285 0 4794 0 5507 ***k**********k***k***k********k*************k**************************k****** A..... ....***aa aaaa a**a a .".'.******** * * * k * * * * * * * * AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 30 INCHES CU FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION 13 07 ( 1 939) 47438 1 100 00 RUNOFF 0 059 ( 0 0954) 212 83 0 449 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 13 077 ( 1 7227) 47468 11 100 063 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0 12790 ( 0 51466) 464 265 0 97868 FROM LAYER 5 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0 00014 ( 0 00056) LAYER 7 Page 5 0 521 0 00110 VSSCE4 OUT AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 0 145 ( 0 585) OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0 195 ( 1 1059) -707 69 -1 492 **************************************************XAA*AAAAAAAk**************** ***********X********4k******k*A************* ******************X********** PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 30 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 5 (DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) SNOW WATER (INCHES) 1 63 0 269 0 01124 0 000012 4 660 7 938 69 5 FEET (Cu FT ) 5916 900 976 8489 40 78955 0 04272 0 50 1801 7340 MAXIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 2315 MINIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 1160 *A* 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 Environmental Engineering vol 119, No 2, march 1993, pp 262-270 ********AA"AAAA*AA**AAA*AaAa,.*AXA*AAAAAA************X*********************** FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 30 LAYER 1 2 (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) 4 9985 2 3768 Page 6 0 1388 0 1981 3 4 5 6 7 SNOW WATER VSSCE4 OUT 68 1600 477 1200 0 5400 0 0000 10 8240 0 000 0 2840 0 2840 0 0450 0 0000 0 4510 ****....... *********** *."-..-"*A'.x*********x**************************. Page 7 ATTACHMENT B-2-1-2-8 SCENARIO 4 POST -SETTLEMENT HELP MODEL OUTPUT VSSCE4PS OUT HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSION 3 07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY ** **********************************x*******************.**************** PRECIPITATION DATA FILE TEMPERATURE DATA FILE SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE OUTPUT DATA FILE TIME 9 14 DATE C \DVS4 D4 C \DVS7 D7 C \Dv513 D13 C \DVS1104 D11 C \VSSCE4PS D10 C \VSSCE4PS OUT 6/12/2015 ********'***AAA"A**:******.,***A•AAAA********************.**************A<<AA * TITLE SCENARIO 4 160' WASTE WITH FINAL COVER ,.A A* ***AAAA,.*AAA*AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAA,.A*AA,.AA******** NOTE INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE SPECIFIED BY THE USER LAYER 1 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 8 THICKNESS = 36 00 INCHES POROSITY 0 4630 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2320 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1160 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 1952 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 369999994000E-03 CM/SEC NOTE SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 1 80 FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE LAYER 2 Page 1 ****** VSSCE4PS OUT TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 8 THICKNESS = 12 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4630 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2320 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1160 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 1963 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 369999994000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 3 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 240 00 INCHES = 0 5010 VOL/VOL = 0 2840 VOL/VOL = 0 1350 VOL/VOL = 0 3000 VOL/VOL = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 4 TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 THICKNESS = 1680 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 5010 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = 0 2840 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 1350 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 2840 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 190000006000E-03 CM/SEC LAYER 5 TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 1 THICKNESS = 12 00 INCHES POROSITY = 0 4170 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY 0 0450 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT = 0 0180 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0 0451 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = 0 999999978000E-02 CM/SEC SLOPE = 1 50 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 470 0 FEET LAYER 6 Page 2 THICKNESS POROSITY FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND FML PINHOLE DENSITY FML INSTALLATION DEFECTS FML PLACEMENT QUALITY THICKNESS POROSITY = FIELD CAPACITY = WILTING POINT INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = EFFECTIVE SAT HYD COND = VSSCE4PS OUT TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35 = 0 06 INCHES = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 0000 VOL/VOL = 0 199999996000E-12 CM/SEC = 3 00 HOLES/ACRE = 3 00 HOLES/ACRE = 3 - GOOD LAYER 7 TYPE 3 - BARRIER MATERIAL TEXTURE SOIL LINER NUMBER 0 24 00 INCHES 0 4510 VOL/VOL 0 4190 VOL/VOL 0 3320 VOL/VOL 0 4510 VOL/VOL 0 100000001000E-06 CM/SEC GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA NOTE SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 8 WITH A POOR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 25 % AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 425 FEET SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE INITIAL SNOW WATER INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS TOTAL INITIAL WATER TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW 86 40 100 0 1 000 30 0 5 856 13 890 3 480 0 000 569 868 569 868 0 00 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA NOTE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM Grover Colorado STATION LATITUDE MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) Page 3 PERCENT ACRES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES/YEAR = 40 83 DEGREES = 1 00 = 120 VSSCE4PS OUT END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 280 EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 30 0 INCHES AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 12 40 MPH AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 52 00 % AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 54 00 % AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 50 00 % AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 51 00 % NOTE PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 0 19 0 18 2 23 2 06 0 72 1 18 1 24 0 90 1 99 2 03 0 46 0 28 NOTE TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT) JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 25 20 28 50 72 10 70 30 37 20 45 70 60 10 47 60 55 90 65 60 33 80 24 30 NOTE SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR CHEYENNE WYOMING AND STATION LATITUDE = 40 83 DEGREES ***********.......* ************** ***** **..*****..*********..**.......... ***.“."“ AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 30 PRECIPITATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS RUNOFF TOTALS JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC 0 19 1 97 0 14 0 84 017 069 1 86 1 32 014 029 096 074 1 25 0 94 0 57 0 65 1 85 2 07 0 47 0 29 0 93 1 04 0 31 0 18 0 001 0 000 0 012 0 010 0 006 0 006 0 002 0 016 0 004 0 001 0 000 0 000 Page 4 STD DEVIATIONS EVAPOTRANSPIRATION TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS VSSCE4PS OUT 0 004 0 000 0 030 0 049 0 030 0 020 0 007 0 035 0 013 0 005 0 000 0 002 0 189 0 196 0 754 1 267 1 800 2 045 2 204 1 712 1 359 0 807 0 482 0 262 0 102 0 124 0 286 0 545 0 728 0 791 0 924 0 642 0 626 0 415 0 266 0 150 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 0111 0 0109 0 0123 0 0120 0 0126 0 0118 0 0105 0 0091 0 0083 0 0092 0 0096 0 0104 0 0410 0 0404 0 0481 0 0495 0 0541 0 0520 0 0464 0 0399 0 0336 0 0327 0 0329 0 0372 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 TOTALS STD DEVIATIONS 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0001 AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES) DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 AVERAGES STD DEVIATIONS 0 1985 0 2152 0 2190 0 2218 0 2244 0 2171 0 1873 0 1628 0 1530 0 1640 0 1760 0 1862 0 7308 0 7969 0 8571 0 9128 0 9645 0 9585 0 8275 0 7116 0 6184 0 5824 0 6068 0 6630 *.r** '*****�****** ********************.*********x********************x****** .“."a."a**** ******x**."""'" a*'*aa****************.********************k***** AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 30 INCHES CU FEET PERCENT PRECIPITATION 13 07 ( 1 939) 47438 1 100 00 RUNOFF 0 059 ( 0 0954) 212 83 0 449 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 13 077 ( 1 7227) 47468 11 100 063 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0 12785 ( 0 48443) 464 097 0 97832 FROM LAYER 5 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 0 00019 ( 0 00069) 0 688 0 00145 Page 5 VSSCE4PS OUT AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 0 194 ( 0 734) OF LAYER 6 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0 195 ( 1 0849) **************************** ** -707 69 -1 492 PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 30 PRECIPITATION RUNOFF DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 7 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 5 (DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) SNOW WATER (INCHES) (CU FT ) 1 63 0 269 0 00997 0 000014 5 511 8 917 89 6 FEET 0 50 MAXIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 2315 MINIMUM VEG SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0 1160 5916 900 976 8489 36 18573 0 04985 1801 7340 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 Environmental Engineering vol 119, No 2, march 1993, pp 262-270 FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 30 * * * ******* LAYER 1 2 (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) 4 9985 2 3768 Page 6 0 1388 0 1981 3 4 5 6 7 SNOW WATER VSSCE4PS OUT 68 1600 477 1200 0 5400 0 0000 10 8240 0 000 0 2840 0 2840 0 0450 0 0000 0 4510 ****************&**********.****'****Aa..Au***************************** *,...a.....a�....** *��aa*,.�*axaaUaAAa4*�*.“Aa*ate*��aaaaaaa�a�*aaA******** Page 7 APPENDIX B-2-2 Leachate Travel Time Calculations Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Date: Project No.: Site Name: Subject: July 23, 2015 1407882B Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX B-2-2: LEACHATE TRAVEL TIME CALCULATIONS Made by: DVS Checked by: MOW? Reviewed by: DLOPDI° 1.0 OBJECTIVE Estimate the travel time for leachate to report to sump using the longest leachate flow paths in the leachate collection drainage layer and header drain for the Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill (Landfill). Verify that the travel time through the longest flow path is less than 365 days. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Use Darcy's Law to estimate the travel time through the leachate collection drainage layer and header drain. 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS • Flow through the sand drainage layer and header drain follows Darcy's Law. • The hydraulic gradient of the leachate is equivalent to the slope of the landfill floor. • The calculation was performed for a landfill floor slope at 2.0% based on the proposed subgrade design and at a conservative post -settlement slope of 1.5%. • The calculation was performed for a header pipe slope at 1.2% based on the proposed subgrade design and at a conservative post -settlement slope of 1.0%. ■ The leachate collection header drains (8 -inch SDR 11 pipe surrounded by gravel) are conservatively assumed to have a hydraulic conductivity of 10 cm/sec, equal to that of the proposed gravel in the drain. ■ Material Properties are as follows: Table B-2-2-1: Material Properties Material Type Hydraulic Conductivity, k (cm/s) Porosity Drainage Sand 0.01 0.3 Collection Drain Gravel 1 10 0.3 4.0 CALCULATIONS Q= k x A x i(Darcy's Law), Where: Q = Discharge, k = Hydraulic Conductivity, A = Area, and i = Gradient q=Q-A=kxi, Where q = specific discharge c11411407882b\0400\0402 edop fnitappendix blapp b-2lapp b -2-2\1407882b app b-2-2 leachate travel time 231u115.docx Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Tel: (303) 980-0540 Fax: (303) 985-2080 „wn golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation CALCULATIONS Pa 2 of 2 Project No.: 1407882B Made by: DVS Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: JM Date: July 23, 2015 _ Reviewed by: DLO 'O Vs- q/n=(kxi)-n Where VS = Average linear leachate velocity, and n=porosity T=d'V5=(dxn) : (kxi) Where T = Leachate travel time, and d = leachate travel distance Phase 1A and Phase 2A contain the longest leachate drainage flow paths, as shown in Figure B-2-2-1. A travel time calculation was conducted for critical drainage from the hydraulically most distant point to the sump. See Tables B-2-2-2 and B-2-2-3 for calculations. Table B-2-2-2: Leachate Travel Time — Design Slopes Sand Drainage Layer Slope g Sand Drainage Layer Length g Sand Drainage Layer Velocity (ft/sec) y (days) Sand Drainage Layer Travel Time y Y ) Header Drain Slope . Header Drain Length Header Drain Velocity (ft/sec) its Header Drain Travel Time (days) 4 Total Travel Time (days) 2.0% . 469 0.00002 248.0 1.2% 777 I 0.01312 0.7 248.7 Note: Table follows the critical path of drainage from the furthest point from the northeast corner of Phase 2A to the Phase 2A sump and from the southeast corner of Phase 1A to the Phase 1A sump. Table B-2-2-3: Leachate Travel Time — Post -Settlement Slopes Sand Drainage Layer Slope Sand Drainage Layer Length (ft/sec) Sand Drainage Layer Velocity (days) Sand Drainage Layer Travel Time I Header Drain Slope . Header Drain Length Header Drain Velocity (ft/sec) (days) Header Drain Travel Time Time (days) Total Travel 1.5% 1 469 , 0.00002 331.0 1.0% 777 0.01094 0.8 I 331.8 Note: Table follows the critical path of drainage from the furthest point from the northeast corner of Phase 2A to the Phase 2A sump and from the southeast corner of Phase 1A to the Phase 1A sump. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The maximum travel time calculated is approximately 249 days for design slopes and approximately 332 days for post -settlement slopes. All travel times calculated are less than the required 365 -day limit. r\1411407882b\040010402 edop fnl\appendix b'app b-2\app b -2-2\1407882b app b-2-2 leachate travel time 23jul15 docx Golder Associates I n 1/.4.. — ow o b 0 .W V 0 0 0 m lab EXISTING NATURAL GAS PIPELINES (40 TO 45 FT TOTAL EASEMENT - APPROXIMATELY 10 FT ON EACH SIDE OF PIPE) O_0004011.. EXISTING 50' WATER LINE EASEMENT NNN OD OPP . . w V 0 0 m . . S. . 3 000 £L£' E .. 0411400.-5 w 0 0 0 111 3 00S PLC £ CJ EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABCt (16 5 FT EASEMENT) O W aim WO MO I I i i I I► I I J LEGEND 5070 'Oit) SUBGRADE GRADES EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY (SEE NOTE 1) USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) BOUNDARY LIMIT OF E&P LANDFILL ROADS - - - PROPOSED PHASE LIMIT f- slirasma • EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EXISTING WATER LINE SURFACE WATER CHANNEL LEACHATE COLLECTION DRAIN SURFACE WATER DIVERSION CHANNEL LEACHATE COLLECTION SUMP LONGEST LEACHATE COLLECTION FLOW PATH NOTES 1 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROVIDED BY CLARK LAND SURVEYING. INC OF PUEBLO, COLORADO FROM A GROUND SURVEY PERFORMED OCTOBER 14 2014 AND OCTORBER 15, 2014 2 COORDINATE SYSTEM IS COLORADO STATE PLANE ZONE 0501 CO N. VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 88 3 EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 FOOT o 50 300 SCALE EET PAWNEE WASTE LCC •'RUDEi I PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO TITLE LEACHATE TRAVEL TIME FLOW PATH CONSULTANT dPs YYYV.MM-OD 2015.0610 PREPARED DVS DESIGN DVS REVIEW APPROVED MAY PROJECT No CONTROI 1407882B O001 Rev A F (CURE B-2-2-1 APPENDIX B-2-3 Leachate Collection Header Pipe Sizing Calculations Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Date: July 23, 2015 Project No.: 1407882B Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Weld County, Colorado Made by: DVS Checked by: JMg?:551 Reviewed by: DLO Subject APPENDIX B-2-3: LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM HEADER PIPE SIZING CALCULATIONS 1.0 OBJECTIVE Perform hydraulic analysis on proposed leachate collection system header pipe and gravel drain for the Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill (Landfill). Verify leachate collection header drainage system is adequately designed to handle peak daily flow as modeled by HELP. 1.1 METHODOLOGY Determine full pipe flow under gravity for the proposed 8 -inch, SDR 11 smooth HDPE pipe by using Manning's equation. Determine flow through proposed gravel leachate drain by using Darcy's Law. Compare the total combined flow to peak daily flow as modeled by HELP to check if the leachate drainage system can handle landfill leachate production. 1.2 Leachate flow 1.2.1 Full pipe flow under gravity Manning's Equation was used to calculate flow in the proposed leachate pipe. This calculation analyzes full pipe flow to account for conditions where there is head build-up on the liner system and thus the leachate collection header drains may be flowing full. This is a conservative approach as full flowing pipes do not convey maximum flow. Manning's equation and parameters used are as follows: 1.49 2 Q - A*R3*SZ it Where: Q = flow rate A = Flow Area R = Hydraulic Radius = flow area / wetted perimeter S = Pipe Slope = 0.01 ft/ft (post -settlement slope) N = Manning's coefficient = 0.01 for smooth HDPE pipe (CPPA, 2000) i 11411407882b\040010402 edop fni\appendix b\app b-21app b -2-311407882b app b-2-3 leachate call pipe & gravel sizing 23ju115.docx Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard. Suite 300 Lakewood, CO 80228 USA Tel: (303) 980-0540 Fax: (303) 985-2080 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa. Asia, Australasia, Europe. North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation CALCULATIONS Paae2of2 Pro ect No.: 1407882B Made by: DVS Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: JMEtic Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: _ DLO enD 1.2.2 Gravel drainage trench flow Darcy's Law was used to calculate flow in the proposed gravel drainage trench. The flow area of the gravel drain was determined by assuming a half ellipse with long radius of 4 feet (half the proposed trench width) and a short radius of 14 inches (8 -inch pipe plus 6 -inch overlying gravel). The area occupied by the pipe was then subtracted to give a flow area through the gravel. Darcy's Law and parameters used are as follows: Q = kiA Where: k = hydraulic conductivity = 1 x 10-2m/sec i = Slope = 0.01 ft/ft (post -settlement slope) 1.3 Landfill Leachate Production Peak daily flow was determined under multiple scenarios using the HELP model. This calculation will conservatively use the highest peak daily flow of 315 (gal/acre/day) modeled under the scenario with 80 feet of waste placed with an intermediate cover. The largest drainage area is seen in Phase 2A with an area of 20.6 acres. Multiplying the area by the leachate production gives a flow of 4.5 gallons per min (gpm). 2.0 RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS Total flow handled by the leachate collection system header pipe was calculated to be 488 gpm, and the total flow handled by the gravel drain was estimated to be approximately 1 gpm, as calculated in Attachment B-2-3-1. The peak leachate production of 4.5 gpm is two orders of magnitude lower than what can be handled by the pipe alone. Therefore it is concluded that the design can adequately handle predicted leachate production. 3.0 ATTACHMENTS Attachment B-2-3-1: Full Pipe Flow Under Gravity Worksheet 4.0 REFERENCES Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Association. 2000. Hydraulic Considerations for Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe. Cedergren, Harry R. 1989. Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. i:114\1407882b1040010402 edop fnRappendix b'app b-2\app b -2-3\1407882b app b-2-3 leachate colt pipe & gravel sizing 23juI15.docx Golder Associates ATTACHMENT B-2-3-1 FULL PIPE FLOW UNDER GRAVITY WORKSHEET July 2015 ATTACHMENT B-2-3-1 FULL PIPE FLOW UNDER GRAVITY WORKSHEET 1407882B Project: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Date: July 16, 2015 By: DVS Checked: JMP Review: DLO Project #: 1407882B Slope (ft/ft): Mannings "n": Circular Pipe Flow Inside Diameter (inches) Inside Diameter (mm) 6.960 177 Gravel Drain Trench Calculation Leachte collection gravel Permeability, k Trench cross-section area, A Slope, i Drain Flow, Q Manninq's Equation: 1.49 1 C� AR 1 S n 0.01ft/ft 0.01 Area Ft^2 0.26 Hyd. Radius ft. 0.15 1.00E-02 m/sec 7.04 sf 0.01 ft/ft 2.31 E-03 cfs 1.04E+00 gpm Q = Flow rate n = Mannings Coeff. A = Flow Area R = Hyd. Radius S = Pipe Slope Q (gpm) 488 Darcy's Law: Q = Flow rate k = Permeability I = Slope A = Flow Area Q (cfs) 11 Q (cf/day) 93,877 1114\1407882B10400\0402 EDOP FNL\Appendix B\App B-2\App B-2-31Attachment B-2-3-1 Full Pipe Flow Worksheet xlsx (older Associates APPENDIX B-2-4 Leachate Collection Header Pipe Structural Integrity Calculations Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Date: July 23, 2015 Project No.: 1407882B Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Weld County, Colorado Made by: DVS Checked by: Agra Reviewed by: DLO'o Subject APPENDIX B-2-4 LEACHATE COLLECTION PIPE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY CALCULATIONS 1.0 OBJECTIVE Demonstrate that the 8 -inch smooth HDPE SDR11 perforated piping proposed for the leachate collection system header drain at the Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill (Landfill) will have sufficient strength to maintain structural integrity. Evaluate pipe deflection, pipe bucking, and pipe crushing under a short-term, live loading scenario and a long-term, dead loading scenario. Confirm the proposed leachate header pipe will function as designed throughout the life of the Landfill. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Evaluate potential compressive pipe stress and deflection due to (a) short-term, live loading from a Caterpillar DR7 LGP Track Type Tractor operating on the protective cover layer [initial waste layer ("fluff lift")], and (b) long-term, dead loading from in place embankment material, waste, and final cover fill. Pressure from the earth load was calculated by multiplying unit weight by the corresponding layer depth. ■ The short-term, live loading scenario assumed 3 feet of cover on the pipe: • 1 foot of gravel at unit weight of 125 pcf, • 1 foot of protective cover layer [initial waste layer ("fluff lift")] at unit weight of 110 pcf. Pressure from live loading is discussed in Section 2.3 of this write up. ■ The long-term, dead loading scenario assumed the same earth loading as the short-term with an added: • 160 feet of waste at a unit weight of 110 pcf and • 3 feet of final cover at a unit weight of 95. Evaluations were performed in accordance with the Plastic Pipe Institute's (PPI) "Handbook of Polyethylene Pipe" (PPI, 2006) for an 8 -inch SDR 11 smooth HDPE (PE 3408) pipe. Pipe dimensions and physical properties were gathered from Polypipe's "Design and Engineering Guide for Polyethylene Piping" (Polypipe, 2005) and the "Handbook of Polyethylene Pipe" (PPI, 2006). 2.1 Critical Pipe Stress The critical pipe stress was evaluated by analyzing the pipes for both wall crushing and buckling. O1411407882b\040010402 edop fnl\appendix blapp b-2iapp b-2-4\appendix b-2-4 leachate collection pipe integrity 23jul15.docx Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, CO 80228 USA Tel: (303) 980-0540 Fax: (303) 985-2080 www.goider.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation (4 14 • I I 4.2 CALCULATIONS Paae2of6 Project No.: 1407882B Made by: DVS Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: J KV 4r3Z- Date: July 23, 2015 _ Reviewed by: _ DLGtLO 2.1.1 Crushing Wall crushing occurs when the compressive stress in the pipe wall exceeds the compressive yield strength of the pipe material. Equation 1 gives the compressive stress resulting from loading above the pipe (PPI, 2006). Once calculated, the compressive stress was compared to the maximum allowable stress for PE 3408 pipe of 1000 psi (PPI, 2006) to evaluate the factor of safety with respect to pipe wall crushing. S _ (PE+PL)*DR 288 where: ■ S = compressive stress from loading, psi ■ PE = vertical soil pressure due to earth load, psf ■ PL = vertical soil pressure due to live load, psf ■ DR = dimension ratio = 11 (1) 2.1.2 Buckling Excessive compressive stress may cause the pipe wall to become unstable and buckle. Golder assumed a depressurized pipe for this evaluation; therefore the pipe will likely have a net compressive stress. Buckling was evaluated using two separate methods tailored to each loading scenario. ■ For the short-term, live loading scenario the modified Luscher Equation was used as it is suited for live loads with shallow cover. The modified Luscher Equation is provided in Equations 2 and 3. ■ For the long-term, dead loading scenario the Moore -Selig Equation was applied as it is more accurate for deep fill applications. This equation assumes dry soil conditions exist at the pipe. The HELP model runs predicted low values for average head on liner, so the dry soil condition assumption is valid for this scenario. The modified Moore -Selig Equation is provided in Equations 4 through and 6. The calculated critical constrained buckling pressure values were then compared to the applied pressure at pipe to evaluate the factor of safety with respect to pipe buckling. 114\1407882b\0400t0402 edop fnl\appendix b'app b-21app b-2-41appendix b-2-4 leachate collection pipe integrity 23ju115.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 3of6 Protect No.: , 1407882B Made by: DVS Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: JK-tkc . L- Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: _ DLO tLO The modified Luscher Equation, assuming a buoyancy reduction factor of 1 (no groundwater/leachate head): pic = 5.65 B' where: 1 B'E' 1+4e( -0.065H) E 12(DR-1)3 (2) (3) • p.s-0 = critical constrained buckling pressure, psf • H = depth of cover = 3 feet • E' = Embedment soil reaction modulus = 1000 psi (per Table 3-7 PPI, 2006. Assumed dumped crush rock for embedment material.) • E = pipe material apparent modulus of elasticity = 27,000 psi (per Table B.1.1 PPI, 2006. Conservatively assumed 100 year apparent elastic modulus.) The Moore -Selig Equation: 2.4*(p*RH PCR = DM 1 E * 1)7(E1.0. ES = MS (1-+P)(1-2444) (1-µ) where: • PcR = Critical constrained buckling pressure (psi) • RH = Geometry factor (assumed to be one per PPI. 2006.) ■ Cp = Calibration factor (assumed to be 0.55 per PPI, 2006.) ■ Dm = Mean diameter of pipe (in) = DO — t ■ Do = Outside pipe diameter (in) = 8.625 (Polypipe, 2005) • ES = Secant modulus of soil (psi) • 1= Pipe wall moment of inertia = t3/12 ( in4/in) ■ t = Minimum pipe wall thickness (in) = 0.784 (Polypipe, 2005) (4) (5) (6) 1:114\1407882b\0400\0402 edop fnl\appendix b\app b-21app b-2-4\appendix b-2-4 leachate collection pipe integrity 23ju115.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 4 of 6 Project No.: 1407882B Made by: DVS Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: Itt. 4_ Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: DL -D10 ■ Ms = One-dimensional modulus of soil = 3200 psi (per Table 3-12, PPI, 2006. Assumed Gravelly sand/ Gravels at 90% Std. Proctor) ■ p = Poisson's ratio for soil = 0.15 (per Table 3-13, PPI, 2006. Assumed coarse sand - void ratio 0.4-0.7) 12 Critical Pipe Deflection Critical pipe deflection was evaluated using separate methods for each loading scenario. • For the short-term, live loading scenario Spangler's Modified Iowa Formula was used as it is suited for live loads with shallow cover. Spangler's Modified Iowa Formula is provided in Equation 7. • For the long-term. dead loading scenario the Watkins-Gaube Graph Method was applied as it is more accurate for deep fill applications. The Watkins-Gaube Equations are provided as Equations 8 through 10 and the Watkins-Gaube Graph is provided as Figure 1. The calculated deflection (p"�) values are multiplied by 100 and presented as a percent of the pipe M diameter. The recommended maximum allowable deflection is 7.5% (PPI, 2006). Spangler's Modified Iowa Formula: AX 44 1 ZE 1 3+0.061FSE� 1 (KBEDLDLPE+KBEDPL 3 44 2E 1 +0.061F E' S DM 1 (DR-i) 3 where: (7) ■ LiX = horizontal deflection, in • KBED = bedding factor (Assumed to be 0.1 per PPI, 2006) • LDL = deflection lag factor (Assumed to be 1.0 per PPI. 2006) ■ FS = soil support factor (Per Table 3-10, PPI, 2006; Due to large width of embedment material in relation to nominal pipe ID a soil support factor of 1.0 is used.) Watkins-Gaube Equations and Graph: RF ES LiX DM 12*Es(DR-1)3 E PE 144E5 (8) (9) DEES (10) I:\1411407882b1040010402 edop fnllappendix blapp b-2\app b-2-41appendix b-2-4 leachate collection pipe integrity 23ju115.docx at Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 5 of 6 Project No.: 1407882B Made by: DVS Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: J K it; .i .- Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: _ DL no where: ■ RF = Rigidity factor • Es = Soil Strain (psi) ■ DF = Deformation factor `‘‘\1 ;-Pee ‘ \ N.- • fr— • IL a 1 1_ 1 11L 1 1 1. 1 1 il_ 1 11 1111_ Figure 1: Watkins-Gaube Graph (PPI, 2006) 2.3 Live Load Stress Distribution Golder used the Timoshenko Equation (PPI, 2006) to estimate the pressure on the proposed pipes under a single. live track load applied by the assumed Caterpillar DR7 LGP Track Type Tractor: PL if Ww 1 H3 1.� ac (4+H2) where: • If = impact factor • WY.,, = track load, lb • ac = contact area, ft2 • rr = equivalent radius, ft • H = cover depth, ft i:\1411407882b1040010402 edop fnhappendix blapp b-2\app b-2-4\appendix b-2-4 leachate collection pipe integrity 23jui15_docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Pa 6 of 6 Protect No.: 1407882B Made by: DVS Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: JKJ'rr .it Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: DLO DLO To calculate the track load, Golder assumed a fully loaded gross vehicle weight of 60,916 lb (CAT, 2012), and assumed that half of the gross vehicle weight is applied to a single track. This results in a single track load of 30,458 lb. Golder assumed an impact factor of 2.5. Based on specifications from CAT, the contact area of a single track is approximately 31.3 ft2. Based on the assumed cover depth of 3 feet, the calculated live load atop the pipe is 1,639 psf. 3.0 RESULTS Table 1: Results of Pipe Stress and Deflection Calculations Parameter i Long-term, Dead Loading Short-term, Live Loading Load at top of pipe (psi) 13.0 125.8 Compressive loading, S (psi)2 stress from 71.6 692.1 Crushing factor of safety I 14.0 1.4 Critical stress, constrained pv,c (psi) buckling • 219 404 Buckling factor of safety 16.8 3.2 Calculated deflection' 1.7% 3.3 to 6.2% Notes: 1. Wall thicknesses for eight -inch -nominal -diameter pipe: 0.784 inches (DR = 11) 2. Maximum allowable stress for PE 3408 pipe is 1000 psi (PPI, 2006). 3. Recommended allowable deflection is 7.5 % (PPI, 2006). 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Golder evaluated potential stress and deformation of the proposed leachate collection pipe header drain. The proposed leachate header pipe is perforated smooth HDPE assumed to be of material PE3408, with a nominal diameter of 8 inches and SDR of 11. Results of the analysis indicate that the potential stress and deformation in the proposed pipes due to live -loading from operation of a CAT DR7 LGP Track Type Tractor on top of the protective cover layer [initial waste layer ("fluff lift")], and long-term loading from the landfill at capacity with final cover are acceptable to maintain structural integrity of the header pipe. 5.0 REFERENCES 1. Plastic Pipe Institute. Handbook of Polyethylene Pipe, Second Edition. 2006. 2. Polypipe Industries, Inc. Design and Engineering Guide. 2005 3. CAT. D7R Track Type Tractor Specifications. 2012 i:11411407882b1040010402 Sop fnllappendix blapp b-2\app b-2-41appendix b-2-4 leachate collection pipe integrity 23ju115.docx Golder Associates APPENDIX B-2-5 Leachate Storage Tank Area Containment Sizing Calculations , _ Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Date: July 23, 2015 Project No.: 1407882B Site Name: Subject: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Reviewed by: Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX B-2-5: LEACHATE STORAGE TANK AREA SECONDARY CONTAINMENT SIZING Made by: JMP Checked by: ALB Al DLO 'JLO 1.0 OBJECTIVE Estimate the secondary containment volume for the proposed leachate storage tank area at the Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill (Landfill). Verify that the proposed concrete pad will hold the required secondary containment volume. 2.0 METHODOLOGY The secondary containment concrete pad for the proposed leachate storage tank area shall be capable of holding discharge from the leachate storage frac tanks in the unlikely event of a leak or spill. This containment will prevent the unlikely discharge from exiting the containment system before clean-up occurs. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) requires a properly sized berm/curb to contain 150% of the largest single tank [COGCC Rule 604.c(2)]. In addition, secondary containment area will be capable of holding the 25 -year, 24 -hour storm event. This stormwater volume was used to estimate the freeboard capacity for the secondary containment concrete pad (USEPA 2013) 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS • The 25 -year, 24 -hour storm event is 3.3 inches ■ Leachate will be stored in up to four frac tanks with the following specifications: • Storage = 21,000 gallons/tank • Outer Dimensions of each frac tank = 45 ft. x 8.5 ft. x 9.7 ft. (L x W x H), as shown in Figure 5-2-4-1. • There will be 5 feet between each frac tank • There will be 8 feet between the frac tanks and the outer concrete containment curb ■ There will be 10 feet between the back side of the frac tanks and the outer concrete containment curb ■ There will be 10 feet between the front side (loading/unloading) of the frac tanks and the outer concrete containment curb .\14\1407882b\0400\0402 edop fnllappendix b\app b-2\app b -2-5\1407882b app b-2-5 leachate tank containment area 23jul15 docx Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Tel: (303) 980-0540 Fax: (303) 985-2080 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia. Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation CALCULATIONS Page 2 of 3 Project No.: 1407882B Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB Date: July 23, 2015 _ Reviewed by: _ DLO V D Figure 5-2-4-1: Typical Frac Tank Dimensions 4.0 CALCULATIONS Available Volume from the Secondary Containment Concrete Pad Length = 45 ft (length of tank) + 10 ft (buffer at back of tanks) + 10 ft (buffer at front of tanks) Length = 65 ft Width = 4 x 8.5 ft (width of tank) + 3 x 5 ft (space b/w tanks) + 2 x 8 ft (buffer at sides of tanks) Width = 65 ft Curb Height = 2 ft Frac Tank Area = 45 ft (length of tank) x 8.5 ft (width of tank) = 383 ft2 Available Volume = [Area of concrete containment - (4 x frac tank area)] x Curb Height Available Volume = 5,386 ft3 Required Containment Volume Frac Tank Volume= 21,000 gallons = 2,808 ft3 150% of the One Frac Tank = 2,808 ft3 x 1.5 = 4,212 ft3 25 year, 24 -hour storm = 3.3 inches x (1 ft/12 in) x 65 ft x 65 ft = 1,162 ft3 Total Required Containment Volume = 5,374 ft3 i:11411407882b10400‘0402 edcp fnllappendix b‘app b-2\app b -2-511407882b app b-2-5 ieachate tank containment area 23ju115.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 3 of 3 Project No.: 1407882B Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: DLO Z.0 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The available containment volume is approximately 5,386 cubic feet, which is greater than the required containment volume of approximately 5,374 cubic feet. 6.0 REFERENCES Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). 2015. 600 Series — Safety Regulations. April 30, 2015. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. Spill Prevention. Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Guidance for Regional Inspectors. December 16, 2013. ':\1411407882b\040010402 edop `nhappendix b\app b-2'app b -2-511407882b app b-2-5 leachate tank containment area 23ju115.docx Golder Associates APPENDIX B-4 Foundation Settlement Calculations Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Date: Project No.: Site Name: Subject: July 23, 2015 1407882B Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Weld County, Colorado Made by: Checked by: Reviewed by: DLO Getfic)((s& JMP)9 APPENDIX B-4: FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS 1.0 OBJECTIVE Determine maximum settlement and HDPE liner strain on landfill floor. 2.0 ASSUMPTIONS 1. Moisture -sensitive (collapsible) soils exist from 0 to 25 feet bgs. 2. Minimum excavation depth = 15 feet. 3. Maximum thickness of collapsible soils below landfill floor = 10 feet. 4. Consolidation test from BH-14 at 16 feet depth is representative of the collapsible soil. 5. The water table is at least 20 feet below base. Soil Profile/Landfill Geometry So/,L Peo,r/4a /L6,ut/zL CeoflEnzf'. 495, µ(if— I k2zs ice 225,1 $ev,z PC/Cr Sv/G <v, DCQSS) i:11411407882b10400\0402 edop fnRappendix blapp b -4\1407882b app b-4 settlement caic 23ju115.docx Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Tel: (303) 980-0540 Fax: (303) 985-2080 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation CALCULATIONS Page 2 of 6 Y Project No.: 1407882B Made by: DLO Site Name: Pawnee Waste Landfill Checked by: G 'Q -“;t - Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: JM' 3.0 CALCULATE SETTLEMENT Basic equation: — Settleent = H mRef. 1) +e ( 0 3.1 Section 1 (Midway on Sideslope) H = 7.5 feet + 10 feet = 17.5 feet (thickness of collapsible soil) e0 = 1.173 (from consol test) e 1 = Void ratio at full loading (P) at midpoint of collapsible soil: 22.5 P = 7.5 feet (110 pcf) + - feet (110 pcf) + 8.75 feet (95 pcf) P = 2,275 psf From consolidation test (see Figure 1) at axial stress =2.0 ksf: ez.oksr = ��080 A = .037 at axial stress 4.0 ksf: e4oksf = 1.043 e 1 = 1.080 - K27:3.037 2,000 e1=1.075 Settlement at Section 1 = 17.5 feet 2173 - 1.075 1+ 1.173 = 0.8 feet = 9.5 inches Note: This is a conservative estimate because it assumes full inundation has occurred on the sideslope (unlikely) and a maximum initial void ratio (e0) from lab consol test (most likely it is a smaller in -situ void ratio). 3.2 Section 2 (Toe of Inside Slope) Ae Settlement,„, = H 1+e0 H = 10 feet e0 = 1.173 e 1 = Void ratio at midpoint of collapsible layer at full inundated loading: P = 15 feet (110 pcf) + 4s (110 pcf) + 5 feet (95 pcf) 4 P = 3,362 psf is\14\1407882b\040010402 edop fnhappendix b\app b -4\1407882b app b-4 settlement calc 23ju115.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 3of6 Project No.: 1407882B Made by: DLO Site Name: Pawnee Waste Landfill Checked by: GCS', fait Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: JNIei(' e2kSf=1.080 From consol test: A = .037 e4ks f =1.043 ,362 e1 = 1.080 — [(--).0377 2,000 e,=1.055 Settlement at Section 2 = 10 feet (1.173 - l.ossl = 0.5 feet = 6 inches � 1 + 1.173 l 3.3 Section 3 (Floor of Cell under Full Waste Height) H= 10 feet e0 = 1.173 P = 150 feet (110 pcf) + 5 feet (95 pcf) = 16,975 ksf From consolidation test: e16ksf =0.896 }A=.074 esksf=0.970 e, = 0.896 — 975 .074 = 0.891 16,000 Settlement at Section 3 = 10 feet c.173 - 0.8911 = 1.3 feet = 15.5 inches + 1.173 J Summary of Maximum Settlement SZ S' CesaS frioe, resirIf/ME/t t)At7'*Cff) i:11411407882b\040010402 edop fnl\appendix b\app b -411407882b app b-4 settlement calc 23ju115.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Pa 4 of 6 Project No.: 1407882B Made by: DLO Site Name: Pawnee Waste Landfill Checked by: G . Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: JM 4.0 CALCULATE LINER STRAIN CAUSED BY MAXIMUM SETTLEMENT L Strain = L L = (1,525 — 90) [(i1152 + 452) x 2] = 1,530 feet r - Z X Strain between fixed point A and mid -slope (point 1) LA1 = 7.52 + 22.52 = LA1 = 23.72 feet .25 feet StrainA -* 1 = = 1.1% 23.72 feet Strain 1 - 2 Strain 2 -* 3 = 0% (negligible) 0% (negligible) EStrain A 3 = (23.72 feet) + (23.72 feet) + 495 .25feet . 25(2) feet EStrain A --+ A (full width) _ = 0.03% 1,530 feet X2+y2=0.82 3x=y X2 + 9x2 = 0.64 10x2 = 0.64 X2= 0.064 X = 0.25 feet 0.05% Most critical strain is between crest (A) and mid -height slope = 1.1% is\14\1407882b\0400\0402 edop fnilappendix blapp b -4\1407882b app b-4 settlement calc 23ju115.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 5 of 6 Protect No.: 1407882B Made by: DLO Site Name: Pawnee Waste Landfill Checked by: GG t:: •c Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: _ JMR- 5.0 EVALUATE MOST CONSERVATIVE SITUATIONS Case #1: Rainfall occurs during construction, inundates sump area; that causes max. settlement (but nowhere else): zero settlement 10 feet beyond sump. ,o � /o' 20 1O 10 )2 L before settlement = 102 + 3 = 10.5 feet L'after settlement .30 Strain = = 2.9% 10.5 <12% = OK .08 10 2 4102 + ( 3 + 0.5) f = 10.2 eraern , Strainlo feet = 10 feet 0.8% < 12% = OK .17 If strain occurred over 5 feet = 5 feet 3.4% < 12%, therefore OK Since yielding occurs at a strain of 12% for HOPE, these conservative (unlikely) situations will not affect liner performance. L\14\1407882b\0400\0402 edop fnl\appendix b\app b -411407882b app b-4 settlement caic 23ju115.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Pa 6 of 6 Project No.: 1407882B Made by: DLO Site Name: Pawnee Waste Landfill Checked by: G T GC( Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: JMRQ 6.0 EVALUATE IMPACT OF POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT ON FLOOR GRADES Shortest floor length = 470 feet at 2% slope Shortest collection drain length = 625 feet at 1.2% slope If settlement occurred, how would it alter the slope of the floor and collection drain? Floor: 470 feet (.02) = 9.4 -foot drop — 1.3 feet = 8.1 feet _ 1.6% 470 feet 1.6% slope >1.5% minimum acceptable, therefore OK Collector drain: 550 feet (.012) = 7.5 feet, then minus 1.3 feet —* strain = acceptable slope for the collector drain, therefore OK 6.`lfeet 1.0% = minimum 625 feet Note: The leachate generation and head build-up caic and the leachate travel time caic indicate that the minimum post -settlement floor grade needs to be 1.5% or greater, and the minimum post -settlement collector drain slope is acceptable at 1%. is\14\1407882b\040010402 edop fnl\appendix b\app b -4\1407882b app b-4 settlement caic 23ju115.docx Golder Associates APPENDIX B-5 Slope Stability Analysis APPENDIX B-5-1 Global Stability Analysis Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Date: February 19, 2016 Made by: JMP Project No.: 1407882B Rev 1 Checked by: ALB Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Weld County, Colorado Reviewed by: DLO Subject: APPENDIX B-5-1: GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS 1.0 OBJECTIVE Evaluate the global stability of the proposed subgrade and final cover slopes for the Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill (Landfill) at intermediate excavation and waste filling conditions and after the Landfill has been covered. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Slope stability analyses were performed using SLIDE 6.0 (RocScience, 2012). SLIDE is a two-dimensional limit equilibrium slope stability analyses modeling software program. Factors of safety were computed for circular and non -circular slip surfaces using Spencer's method for force and moment equilibrium to evaluate limiting conditions. Non -circular analyses focused on movement along the geosynthetic clay liner (GCL)—high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane interface. Stability analyses assumed materials placed in the landfill are near "field capacity" (i.e., nearly fully -saturated), but that a phreatic surface does not develop in the waste materials during and after placement. 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS 3.1 Geometry Three critical cross -sections were analyzed for global slope stability analyses, as presented in Figure B-5-1-1, and summarized below: ■ Section A -A': Cross-section through the lowest perimeter berm height (i.e., minimum resisting force) and the highest depth of waste (i.e., maximum driving force) at final design grades; • Section B -B': Cross-section through the proposed stormwater pond (modeled with no hydrostatic pressure in pond); and • Section C -C': Cross-section through the maximum excavated slope constructed for the subgrade and at initial interim filling conditions (i.e., where a smaller block of waste is placed along the lined sideslope but does not extend out the full length of the cell and is therefore not buttressed by the temporary termination berm) and interim area fill conditions (where waste mass extends the full length of the open cell to the temporary termination berm). t 11411407882101040010403 edop revl\appendix blapp b -511407882b app b-5-1 global stability 19feb16 docx Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard. Suite 300 Lakewood. Colorado 80228 Tel: (303) 980-0540 Fax: (303) 985-2080 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation CALCULATIONS Paae2of5 Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB ilitDate: February 19; 2016 Reviewed by DLO Ai\ 0 L O The side slopes of the subgrade for the Landfill have 3H:1V slopes and floor grades will have a grade of approximately 2%. Placement of waste proceeds in vertical lifts and the maximum slope of the working face will be 3H:1V. At final construction heights, the Landfill will have maximum side slopes of approximately 4H:1V and a 5 to 10% crown at the top of the Landfill. At maximum heights, the facility will be approximately 144 feet above the surrounding current topography and 160 feet above the geomembrane liner at the base of the facility. 3.2 Seismic Loading In addition to static loading conditions, stability analyses were conducted under seismic loading conditions. The stability of the facility under seismic loading was evaluated using the maximum design earthquake (MDE) in order to evaluate the potential magnitude and impact of permanent slope deformations. A PGArock of 0.10g as presented in Attachment B-5-1-1, was used as the MDE for estimating the potential seismic deformations of the landfill slopes during interim conditions and after the final cover is placed (USGS 2008). The MDE corresponds to the 1 in 2,475 years event, or the event with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Seismic stability was evaluated using the pseudo -static analysis procedure recommended by Hynes -Griffin and Franklin (1984). In an actual seismic event, the peak acceleration would be sustained for only a fraction of a second. Pseudo -static stability analyses employed to evaluate seismic stability conservatively model seismic events as a force with constant acceleration and direction (i.e., an infinitely long pulse). Consequently, it is standard practice to reduce the predicted peak maximum acceleration by applying a seismic reduction coefficient of one half (%) to the predicted peak maximum acceleration when modeling seismic events using pseudo -static analyses. A horizontal seismic load coefficient of 0.05 was utilized for the pseudo -static analyses, corresponding to one half (') of the maximum considered peak ground acceleration. In accordance with the Hynes -Griffin and Franklin method. a 20% reduction was applied to the peak "static" shear strength (i.e., shear strength determined by a one -directional monotonic loading) for materials which may develop excess pore pressure during cyclic loading, and for materials which may experience a drop in shear strength as it is sheared. The undrained shear strength of the waste material was reduced because it is assumed to be a saturated fine-grained material. The other materials in the analysis were assumed to be partially -saturated and/or coarse -grained material and were not reduced. i 11411407882b1040010403 edop revl\appendix blapp b -511407882b app b-5-1 global stability 19feb16 docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 3 of 5 Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 I Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB 44? Date: February 19. 2016 Reviewed by: DLO A 10 L Cr v 3.3 Water Table Groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers at the Landfill were used to estimate groundwater elevations below the facility. Based on these wells. groundwater generally flows from the northeast to west. Water levels vary from about 5,021 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the northeast corner of the landfill footprint to 5,020 feet AMSL at the west side of the landfill footprint. The Landfill is designed to minimize the accumulation of leachate on the floor such that there will be less than 12 inches of hydraulic head buildup on the composite liner system. Therefore, a water surface was not used for this global stability analyses. 3.4 Materials The liner and leachate collection systems for the Landfill are composed of (from top to bottom): ■ 12 inches of drainage material • 60 -mil textured HDPE geomembrane • Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) ■ 24 inches compacted low permeability soil liner The GCL-HDPE geomembrane interface and GCL layer were conservatively modeled as a single 0.8 -foot- thick layer with the lowest residual interface shear strength parameter assigned to the layer, which was the internal shear strength of the GCL layer. Strength parameters for the GCL were based on values for needle -punched GCL at residual strength from the literature (Zornberg et al.. 2005). Material characteristics assumed for the analyses are listed in the table below. Table B-5-1-1: Material Properties Material Unit (Pc Wei 9 ht �� ' Effective Cohesion s ( c') Effective Friction (degrees) An le 9 Native Soil 95 0 28 Compacted Soil Liner 115 0 28 Waste* 110 170 31/24.8* Structural Fill 115 0 28 Cover System 95 0 28 GCL i — Geomembrane N/A 380 7.9 Sand Drainage 125 0 30 * Under seismic (pseudo -static) conditions a 20% reduction was applied to the peak "static" shear strength and effective cohesion was reduced to zero. h11411407882b1040010403 Sop revllappendix blapp b -511407882b app b-5-1 global stability 19feb15.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Pa 4 of 5 Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB 46 Date: February 19, 2016 Reviewed by: DLO c /,,t_ Di, p 4.0 RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS The analysis results are presented in the table below. Table B-5-1-2: SLIDE Model Results Cross -Section Factor of Safety Circular Failure Non -circular Failure Static Condition A -A' (Landfill) 2.8 2.2 A -A' (Perimeter Berm) 2.0 N/A B -B' 2.9 2.8 C -C' (Interim Excavation) 1.5 N/A C -C' (Initial Interim Filling) 1.5 1.4 C -C' (Interim Filling) 2.0 1.7 C -C' (Landfill) 2.9 3.3 C -C' (Perimeter Berm) 1.8 N/A Seismic -static) Condition (Pseudo A -A' 1.5 1.4 B -B' 1.5 , 1.8 C -C' (Interim Excavation) 1.3 N/A C -C' (Initial Interim Filling) 1.3 1.1 C -C' (Interim Filling) 1.1 1.2 C -C' (Landfill) 1.5 2.0 C -C' (Perimeter Berm) 1.5 N/A A factor of safety equal to or greater than 1.5 is desired for long-term static conditions and a factor of safety equal to or greater to 1 3 is desired for seismic (pseudo -static) loading. A factor of safety equal to or greater than 1 3 is desired for temporary structures (interim conditions) for static conditions and a factor of safety equal to or greater to 1.0 is desired for seismic (pseudo -static) loading. Therefore, factors of safety for the Landfill are acceptable according to these analyses. The Landfill stability depends largely on the shear strength parameters of E&P waste materials accepted at the site. Therefore, stability of the facility is controlled by incoming waste materials and variations in these materials. i:11411407882b1040010403 edop revllappendix b\app b -5\1407882b app b-5-1 global stability 19feb16.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 5 of 5 Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB 4 Date: February 19, 2016 Reviewed by DLO Q,L ij` O 5.0 ATTACHMENTS Figure B-5-1-1: Stability Cross -Section Location Map Attachment B-5-1-1: USGS Peak Ground Acceleration Map Attachment B-5-1-2: SLIDE Model Outputs 6.0 REFERENCES Koerner. G.R. and Narejo, D., 2005, "Direct Shear Database of Geosynthetic-to-Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic-to-Soil Interfaces," GRI Report #30, Geosynthetic Research Institute, Folsom, PA. Hynes -Griffin. M.E. and Franklin. A.G., 1984. "Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient Method;" Miscellaneous Paper GL -84-13, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. RocScience. 2012. SLIDE — Version 6.017, Software for 2D Limiting Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis, http://www.rocscience.com Spencer, E., 1967. A Method of Analysis of the Stability of Embankments Assuming Parallel Inter -Slice Forces." Geotechnique, Vol. XVII. No. 1, pp. 11-26. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008, PGA with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. USGS map, May 2008 rev. [Online], <http://earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008/maps/> Zornberg. Jorge G., John S. McCartney, and Robert H. Swan, Jr. "Analysis of a Large Database of GCL Internal Shear Strength Results." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 131.3 (2005): 367-80. Print. c11411407882b1040010403 edop revl\appendix b\app b -5\1407882b app b-5-1 global stability 19feb16 docx Golder Associates FIGURE B-5-1-1 STABILITY CROSS-SECTION LOCATION MAP 1 552 500 N • w w N m • • w w N • •Is • • • - w w N m - • • 1 552 000 N 1 551 500 N- 1 551 000 N 1 550 500 N 5070 5080 • wv m • •• 5100 co 5090 5100 5110 5120 1 5130 5140 5150 5160 5170 5180 5190 1 EXISTING NATURAL GAS PIPELINES (40 TO 45 FT TOTAL EASEMENT - APPROXIMATELY 10 FT ON EACH SIDE OF PIPE) 1 550000 N m 2 5200 ?I 00 52S0 5160 5170 5190 Ca w m 1 552 500 N .. a f■• • 5180 5150 5140 5130 5120 5110 EXISTING UNDERGROUND C (16.5 FT EASEMENT) a I I 52 000 N I I • I I 1 I 1 551 500 N I I 1 I I I 1 551 000 N _et} 5100 5090 -. _ -C_-- -4 ( EXISTING 50' WATER LINE EASEMENT • 41 • a NV_ • - jr§. al S _ a a w w — • • s • • • m w w m ••.rte• - • a a I I 550 500 N • I I 1_550 000 N t a J., I a w• • J w N m LEGEND 5070 FINAL COVER GRADES EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY (SEE NOTE 1) USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) BOUNDARY LIMIT OF HIP LANDFILL ROADS EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EXISTING WATER LINE > > SURFACE WATER CHANNEL aaaa fMM f==. SURFACE WATER DIVERSION CHANNEL STABILITY CROSS-SECTION CALL OUT NOTES 1 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROVIDED BY CLARK LAND SURVEYING, INC OF PUEBLO, COLORADO FROM A GROUND SURVEY PERFORMED OCTOBER 14. 2014 AND OCTORBER 15, 2014 2 COORDINATE SYSTEM IS COLORADO STATE PLANE ZONE 0501 CO N. VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 88 3 EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 FOOT 0 150 300 SCALE FEET Ff:i PAWNEE WASTE LCC ,• K: PAWNEE WASTE ESP LANDFILL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO STABILITY CROSS-SECTION LOCATION MAP CONSULTANT its YYYY-MM-00 2015-07-16 PREPARED ,IMP DESIGN JMP REVIEW ALB APPROVED MAY PROJECT No CONTROL 14078828 O002 B-5-1-1 ATTACHMENT B-5-1-1 USGS PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION MAP 120° 110° 0 0 500 I I 100° 500 1,000 KILOMETERS 1 90- 1,000 MILES 80° Two -percent probability of exceedance in 50 years map of peak ground acceleration 70° - Safety Factor " " ." _ _ 0.000 0.250 o 0.500 0.7 S O • Materials Name Color Unit Weight Strength Cohesion Phi (Ibs/f13) Type (psf) (deg) Water Surface Hu Type Hu O 1 :250 2.875 Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 - _ 1.500 Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 1.750 - 2.000 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 Water Surface Custom 1 ' 2.250 Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 2.500 _ 2.750 Cover System ■ 95 Mohr 0 28 -Coulomb Water Surface Custom 1 3.000 _ GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 3.250 - _, ___ 3.500 p - Sand Drainage ■ 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 - CO 3.750 4.000 4.250 - 4.500 • 4.750 - - --- --. - 5.000 5.250 5.500 - Ti 5.750 6.000+ O Q • 0 — o it _ - - i - ' T T I 100 200 300 ! I 400 500 600 700 1 i iii ? . . , 1 ii ill iii Tri� tT 1T T Z T 800 900 1 1000 I 1100 1200 1300 tilltfra Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section A -A' Circular Failure (Landfill) .6:1 6,4 a.. Drawn By Scale 1:1500 Company Pawnee Waste LLC SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability A -A' LF Failure.slim - Safety Factor - 0.000 0.250 - _ 0.500 0.750 0.05 _ 1.000 fts: p 1.250 _ o_ --_ 1.500 gle 1.750 - 2.000 2 5 0 _ .2 Unit Weight Cohesion Phi - 2 0 0 Material Name Color (lbs/ft3) Strength Type (psf) (deg) Water Surface Hu Type Hu .5 1.565 2.750 .,t - = _ Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 3.000 - _ 3.250 Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 - _ 3.500 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 0 24.8 Water Surface Custom 1 3.750 4.000 Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 p 4.250 W - Cover System 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 4.500 - 4.750 GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 5.000 Sand Drainage ® 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 - 5 . 2 5 0 5.500amotationcaccocracccaamosicarnansagei 5.750 6.000+ J 8 • • la• ClICONIISICIMCIIMINIsmomainLX • • •.. - W ... _ w .� J _...... - --. . • 0 0 — It r T i 1 i i i 1 r 1 i i r ( T T T 1 I 1 1 i 7 t r t r I i . ' r T r r r 1 r T r T i ' r i . r 1 1�- T� r i 1 r i • r I - I I ' i 0 100 200 300 1 400 500 1 600 700 800 900 1000 1 1100 12100 tel �. becol ifr:a 2,. SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section A -A' Circular Failure - Pseudo -Static Drawn By Scale 1:1500 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM F/eName Slope Stability A -A' PS.slim Safety Factor . ... :' ^ " 'A'A/ ... ,• �. - 0.000 0.250 - -•.: 1 . . . - .' 0.500 . 2.225 - .:. ;rs '- 0.750 �` Unit Weight Cohesion Phi 1.000 ••' "' Material Name Color Strength Type Water Surfac» Hu Type Hu .- .. O 1 5 0 ' Native Soil 95 .2 ...,..• Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 O 1.500 1.750 ' Ilk Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 r - . . .,. -4. 2.000 I .4. , Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 Water Surface Custom 1 '.. - 2.250 ..�' .. 2.500• - Structural Fill [ I 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 a 1 2.750 . '1 _ ..' Cover System ■ 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 3.000 • _ 3.250 ', jags GCL and Geomembrane [ 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 ,i. _ ..:. 3.500 •• , . -Alp Sand Drainage 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 3.750 4.000 .: I. O o 4.250 4.500 -' 4.750 5.000 .' 5.250 5.500 t • 411, -` II • •. 6.000+ ._- _ • .; ; - - .. _ -. - _. .:Ilk II o 0- --- CO •I • I. „ • ••" .. . • ••••, _ - _ w --------- __ ___ �- V ice , O O Nr I I 1 1 1 100 200 300 I \ 1 T j j T T T T T \ 1 \ 1 \ T T I I 1 I I \ T 1 1 I 1 I 1 T I I 1 1 r T 1 j 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description �. a Section A -A' Non -circular Failure " 'eli Drawn By Scale 1:1500 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date 6/10/20151 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability A -A' Block.slim SUDEINTERPRET 6.035 - a Safety Factor 0.000 -. ••-- ••IV •.. :; •N • 1� :,;"..;:' - •� d (V • 7 4 `". `_ • �' ' •en _ 0.250 Oill • 0.500 1.436 1:';.4%lists: 0.05 .%0 . _ Ala •••... 1. . ..y II 1.000 _ 1.250 ., .-:' • :;: 1.500 . „v.. •:� 1.750 � % - 2.000 - A tt •, ,.,.. 2.250 .. • . ,. •• ,`‘:- - 2.500• • -. a .• " - C. 2.750 • I r 3.000 3.250 . ' is .: •4. ir 3.500 3.750 - .. . .. Material Name Color U (Ibsnit /ft3 Weight ) Strength Type Cohesion IPA Phi I �1 Water Surface Hu Type Hu _- .► 4 000 • a .:.... Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 4.250 - - 4.500 Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 �Fu.. - 4.750 ' - • , i. Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 0 24.8 Water Surface Custom 1 5.000 ,:: - 5.250 4, Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 _ O 5.500 o° 5.750 ' Cover System ■ 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 _ .. 6.000+ • GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 • - t „ Saind Drainage Layer ■ 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 _ ., .... ••• OAP ••••• • • ••• ii — , • • S. •.l • • s - - _ . . . t - , . �-• ►- �;;. `%• - :. A.. �.... .P - S 4: If: O O- O- - . - .- le.. - V V -- - - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 NI 611:1111iti SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section A -A' Non -circular Failure - Pseudo -Static Drawn By Scale 1:1500 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM Ale Name Slope Stability A -A' Block PS.slim 0 O O 03 O O (O O 0 It Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+ 0 ,. 1. MIS .1S iaC Material Name Color Unit Weight (Ibs/ft3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Hu Type Hu Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 Water Surface Custom 1 Structural Fill I 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 i Cover System 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 Sand Drainage ■ 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 • 100 200 300 T T T U 1 400 , - rr rI r • r T TI T T 1 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 ITTII C,I SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section A -A' Circular Failure (Perimeter Berm) Drawn By Scale 1:1500 ('onidily Pawnee Waste LLC Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability A-A'.slim - _ Safety Factor 0.000 - - 0.250 0.500 0.750 - 1.000 - O 1.250 _ ., - -._ O o ,- 1.500 _ 1.750 - 2.000 - 2.250 - 2.500 - 2.750 - 3.000 Material Name Color Unit Weight Strength Type Cohesion Phi Water Surface Hu Type Hu (Ibs/ft3) (psf) (deg) 3.250 - 3.500 Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 - _ 3.750 ! Compacted Soil Liner 1 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 4.000 it O co 4.250 • • • Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 Water Surface Custom 1 2.919 4.500 - Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 4.750 - 5.000 Cover System ■ 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 - 5.250 GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 — 5.500 - 5.750 Sand Drainage 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 ` 6.000+ _ - o (O • •• • • ••� U � •7��` •)••)cfo�••)• • • • • •• • ••oi1•)1t�)•11�i1 •• a ._. .. _...n ... - . _. . ... O O Nt ---1---I- rn r 7 T r r r r r --T t 1 r • r r 1 r 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 rel alleall blIk Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section B -B' Circular Failure Drawn By Scale 1:1500 Company Pawnee Waste LLC SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability B-B'.slim Safety Factor - 1.5511 0.000 , - 0.250 0.500 t 0.05 - 0.750 - 1.000 1.250 '-'---4-4 1.500 ,I' 0 1.750 O ,- 1 2.000 2.250 " 2.500 . _- 2.750 3.000 3.250 ! Material Name Color Unit Weight Strength Type !Cohesion Phi Water Surface Hu Type Hu (Ibs/ft3) (psf) (deg) " 3.500 Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 3.750 - 4.000 .f Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr 0 _ -Coulomb 28 Water Surface Custom 4.250 cp 4.500 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 0 24.8 Water Surface Custom o Co 4.750 Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 5.000 5.250 Cover System ■ 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 5.500 GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom " 5.750 .' — 6.000+ Sand Drainage ® 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom • • • • - O CD — •" ••• n•• ell •••••�••• I • • I •. _ (0 ela_ w w -. -.. _ _ _ _ _ • • • = Sum T O O N f 1 -r -1-7 T T T T T T T 1 T I \ T I I 1 T 1 I I r r I T ! 1 I I nr T 1-7 t I T- f t T T , i T T T r T TTT 1 T + p - 1100 200 300 400 1 500 6100 700 800 900 1000 11100 1200 1300 tel �.Section ti. �� SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description B -B' Circular Failure - Pseudo -Static Drawn By Scale 1:1500 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability B -B' PS.slim Safety Factor ® ® IV ��.4 • „ �� l;:`. • .�. ; .. 000 630 ® \;.y .-` . -, I� •' : ;: .,. 0 ,. .•. • III illr- 0 500 .. ® 41, ... a. _ : ;.. .. ;-;....Il. ED Ilk I/ .. 4k •1 - $ ...' - ',. 1.000 ® ;;;; ;;► ® _„�;=:.. .,: . ..::�. o �~ .-4---1----;.-41.500 1.250 .....,, -. ® : -►. . .. ® a -. `,* ...Ili ..• ., .` t '`• �== 1.750 ... •1 •• : 2.000 ® .. .I; ...:.�.,s. .,..- ... .,. ,:; -.IP dlk - 2.500 •►... -... g.;..,;%. -= - • - - • • — 2.750 -. . ® ..••,. I,. ./ .....•i. •, .•.. i.,.. �.. .... - 3.000 ,. ,, ,. • - T ® -''�:•` �� :: %% 3.250 ; �- - •., •. -• 2,852 • :' Material Name Color Unit Weight Strength Type Cohesion Phi Water Surface Hu Type Hu - ';:- ;:; !.. (lbs/ft3) (psf) (deg) ,k ..,... 3.500 I. •..:� - 3 7 5 0 ,.,•.•j - , ,., .,.. ... . ��`/i.::: '� Native Soil 95 Mohr Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 - .- .- .-• 4 0 0 0 \/ • O . :�: a:: •a • •.: Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 °O° .-.•,�,, _ :;i. 4 250 _ 4 5 0 0 ' . si '' �� Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 Water Surface Custom 1 -- , . ;'.%� \► . 4 . - .750 Ia• `I. Structural Fill 115 Mohr 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 •" - -Coulomb 5.000 • ''/ 5 2 5 0 \. .. . •• • Cover System ■ 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom I. .. .. •,.i — 5.500 - ; '. • - GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 5.750 Ai 6. 000+ �" ' .- Sand Drainage ■ 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 _ • . -1 .. .:.--4 - ,.•. O O�/� (O - r - - ' - �� ..1p�l • • 01- ? .C5:1104_"� • •• • ••1a1Inn W- ....M.r.. -t O O Nr - -T- -i-T-- - Mill 1 I J 1 I 1 WITT T I-' I TT TWITT I 1 1 1 T T'-' -11TT r � * r T r T T-' T r r r-' i 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Pi42 b,, , allitilliCli Nencr -It SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section B -B' Non -circular Failure Drawn By Scale 1:1500 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability B -B' Block.slim 1 O O 0 - CO Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+ • T • as lewas \/ s ee • • • "ono o 10 eV' Ilk �.�, .:,.1.�• Mr, . ••..--I: •!• •. I1 It:• '16\ .-S /p \/'1 • as P Z' , • •II,•I Ili• /• �� /1.•.• • ILAas lip A. It ►`. "-s ..-••fir •l...44. .7":941.?,- • •• • 01 II7 V ,i I, • --• 'l• ••• I• .►a •► a t•I•r _ ..:' •. r . • •r• • a• -# % . -• ' v. al ,...• 11j . S. An eit • • '1 '•t 41 . ••` •• • •r \/ • 1.872 1/ •- 'a. , • •• .r ••• •" Sc . I/ • ;• • • -. 01:;„, 1i • .'jai V r .� del. •'• • c. t 0.05 los Material Name Color Unit Weight Cohesion Phi Strength Type Water Surface Hu Type Hu (lbs/ft3) (psf) (deg) Nanve Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 0 24.8 Water Surface Custom 1 Structural Fill 1 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 Cover System 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 GCL and Geomembrane L 1 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 Sand Drainage 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 a ft ..... • • • 100 200 300 400 T 500 ' I , 600 , . I T . . . I . 700 T I ' 800 f T -I T 900 1000 • 1100 T I I 1200 I I T 1 1300 T T Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section B -B' Non -circular Failure - Pseudo -Static Drawn By Scale 1:1500 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability B -B' Block PS.slim Safety Factor 0.000 a - i- - 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 •b!: 1 5a r 1 50 _ : --_,,.7� , .2 1.500 1.750 0 2.000 - 2.250 2.500 2.750 Material Name Color Unit Weight (Ibs/ft3) Strength Type Cohesion (ps{) Phi ( %NeterSurface Hu Type Hu 3.000 Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb U 28 Water Surface Custom 1 3.250 _ Structural Fill _ 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 - O 3 .j o — M 3.750 • - 4.000 4.250 _ — 4.500 - 4.750 5.000 - 5.250 o" 0 (N+ _ J 5.500 5.750 6.000+ _ 0 o _ , y - - .may .x, e W ) — I. , . , , , • , i T � . , r . T1 , , L . , 1 . I -1000 -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 til 1„ blitiDrawn �, Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis' Description Section C -C' Interim Conditions Circular Failure By Scale 1:1200 Company Pawnee Waste LLC SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability C -C' Interim.slim Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+ SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ft3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Hu Type Hu Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 ,r4.. Analysis Description Drawn By 1 I T 1 i 1 I T i T 1 I 1 -600 -500 1 Z t TT I T 1 1 1 T 1 -400 -300 Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Section C -C' Interim Conditions Circular Failure - Pseudo -Static 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM 1:1200 Company File Name Pawnee Waste LLC Slope Stability C -C' Interim PS.slim isity: 0.05 W - Safety Factor - 0.000 - - - 0 250 0.500 Material Name Color Unit Weight (Ibs/ft3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Hu Type Hu 0.750 o 1.000 Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 None 1.250 ,,. {--J-- --. 1.500 Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 None - - 1.750 2.000 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 None -_ 2.250 2 500 Structural Fill 115 Mohr 0 28 None . -Coulomb 0 2.750 o _ 3.000 GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 None 3.250 - 3. 500 J Sand Drainage II 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 None - 3.750 - 4.000 4.250 _ 0 o 4.500 N 4.750 _ __________imi- - 5.000 liplow, 5.250 5.500 - _ 5.750 6.000+ 0- 0- 1.523 V 0 " O r L_T T --. , 7 ♦ T - -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 —r -r f i 0 100 Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section C -C' Initial Interim Filling Circular Failure N'al ka . Drawn By 1 scale 1:1200 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date 2/9/2016i 4:55:44 PM File Name Slope Stability C -C' Initial Interim Filling.slim SLIDEINTERPRET 7.011 - Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 t 0.05 ' - 0.750 1.000 Unit Weight Cohesion Phi Ito o wr 1.250 Material Name Color (Ibs/ft3) Strength Type (psf) (deg) Water Surface Hu Type Hu Mil 1 1.500 1 750 Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 _ . 2.000 2.250 Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 _ - 2.500 o - 2.750 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 Water Surface Custom 1 `e) - 3.000 3.250 Structural Fill I 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 - 3.500 3.750 GCL and Geomembrane 1 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 4.000 _ - 4 .250 Sand Drainage 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 o 4.500 0 N 4.750 5.000 _ - 5.250 5.500 z �. ^: - - 5.750 6.000+ o o- 1.342 ix 0 0, 1- • . . T r _ . - _ _ .-. t - - - -.--T r -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 I r r r r T 1- r r r 0 100 tell... - Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Ana/ysis DescriptionSection C -C' Initial Interim Filling Circular Failure - Pseudo -Static Drawn By Scale 1:1200 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date 2/9/2016, 4:55:44 PM File Name Slope Stability C -C' Initial Interim Filling PS.slim SLIDEINTERPRET 7.011 ♦r�• �• �• �� th ;it e - Safety Factor /\. I; ... -IrI\ , - , ..,;r• •. ,� ® ® int ./- • /. U• .., SF • ...:''..el / . • :a /\ - 0.250 t•1 ,•.,-- .•',.-•1\ ..;►l\\••..\ I.; -l.:\•::;./ ED ED ® •• ••.. .... .... ••. I\ :1` /../ 0.500 la 4 PAW III �::',� Ian .. ;� • + •-'=�\./ �• .• o— is 4Il::elk :'-.\ 1 000 ,\ Ilk MPS • IS Iia 44116 (3) r Illk VIP Ali IlkMinn alk .\..• as.---. II ... .. I\ .. . 2 250 •11.4.9' 4 4• •, ® /\ tT7T T air./ 1.• ..sr _ .. ...... I/ `� ./ ./ • 2.500 0 as ® Unit Weight Cohesion Phi co 2.750 3.000 I Material Name Color (lbs/ft3) ) Strength Type (psf) (deg) Water Surface Hu Type Hu ® y 3.250 �: ® Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 3 500 _ ® . at ,.• • /� - 3.750 •- 4.000 ® ••d••4:' •'' Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom $ .,• - 4 o 0 .250 4 `• �•\ er "' I.Ir..,- • ; • . Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 Water Surface Custom CNI .500 ��• - - 4 /\ ,' .750 ��• I\ 41I. 5.000 ..`. •: Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Customr • •.: 5.250 1.451 5.500 I;.. ••GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 gm,, _ 5.750 ® - 6.000+ ■ o o— ®; , ; : -- Sand Drainage 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom ., . III - _ Ts tarn ., /, 1/ :: it• •... • • •• ..1• . • .i-., ... ... •• • • ! `. • 'Ng •: • i •• •• _ a7/ ' • • :. - •- ., ;Ile .r4,!,„ it r , IF ler •'- .•• ' II comm / 1/ ® \•• 1.• \• _ ••I.1••. • ••0 -. •J•• C. _ O. ' - ..ps o v ' ---- - - '- as - _. . ., -a • ♦ - • • •i N 0 r- Ir I i ' 1 • 1 T -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 r i T , 0 100 tel, zit: ir . -Drawn . al lb. enci SLIDEINTERPRET 7.011 Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section C -C' Initial Interim Filling Non -Circular Failure By Scale 1:1200 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date 2/9/2016 I 4:55.44 PM File Name Slope Stability C -C' Block Initial Interim Filling.slim ci LO Safety Factor 0.000 0 250 0.500 0.750 1 • 000 1 ®-lam/{ ` ''"ED --,� .; j,. ,.;.�..,.: ..��►' ED • • 6 • •.. • .. .• .. al g. %gilt .: -. •.. ,_-..;gilt... U . , tilt ;, ,� •• ,. •• , •• •.\ \t AS `':• -'-%: r..,, , \I'•,• /. VOA /. Mil A •,.1/•- -• �.. ..: -. /gilt " .. a'.Ic ' • ..-..:1_:;:.•_NZ: •.::.. fl: :: 0.05 t� 1 '• I ,•. • ' • :•:.:. , = -y...••... /t ..�,ED \kisti:.. ...•• .. tilt I•.. -• -..1, -..• %-: yr" /. `' '::�: it ' '' ''141 �� i%' ii: r. alp., .I it ® llt /U .. tilt .. .. gilt.... ..�, -- I. .: �.•;•.. eat, .. . ':*=- tilt,. .. �..r Ju/ /. \' :!..."%; •.,tat... /� /S /. — - .250 `� .% . 1 ED o . 500 1.750(psf) ® Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ft3) Strength Type Cohesion sf(deg)Water Phi Surface Hu Type Hu 2.000 2 .250 2.500 e es ® Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 2 .750 alik '.' ® ... Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 3.000 gm OED O 3.250 3.500 ® /• ,. ® nears Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 Water Surface Custom 1 M 3 .750 4.000 ® .... I ® V�' /,' las "t' • Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 4 .250 . - 't .•, '� GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 4 .500 ® ® 4 .750 5.000 ® ® :' •- :. - Sand Drainage 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 0 It5 250 5. 500 5.750 6.000+ '' .: •.; .gilt /:.• ..It ��'' tilt•." .:� =. tilt ., . , �;. -On . •.: ® 1.111 • '� '� " - •'• - ..gilt.,. • • ® - ,;;. .1•• 41- :.;;% /.e V'. I• ''' ,1 ..:. .. tilt . • ..:.t►.�` lab e 8 . I'd; lie' ' • Ills. IP ., 4.414'. ® tilt - �,� lie , • `IPS��. %- ,•_ 1 1;•'-+/-••.• ,' ••1•./ • . • •/••.q /1. - QC: 1 . ..' --ear-e— CeSICEICEICr J V 1 - - T r IT T T 1 1 I T 1 f - Pei �• Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section C -C' Initial Interim Filling Non -Circular Failure - Pseudo -Static 6s It Drawn By Scale Company 1:1200 Pawnee Waste LLC SLIDEINTERPRET 7.011 Date 2/9/2016 4:55:44 PM File Name Slope Stability C -C' Block Initial Interim Filling PS.slim vJ Safety Factor 0.000 - 0.250 0.500 0.750 - -_ 1.000 0 1.250 0 r' --i 1.500 1.750 - 2.000 r 2.250 Unit Cohesion Phi 2.500 Material Name Color Strength Type water Surface Hu Type Hu 2.028 2 5 0 .7 _ Native Soil [ , 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 0— 3.000 N - 3.250 Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 _ 3.500 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 Water Surface Custom 1 - 3.750 - _ 4.000 Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 4.250 - Cover System ■ 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 - 4.500 0— GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 4.750 5.000 Sand Drainage ■ 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 5.250 - 5.500 _ 5.750 6.000+ _-. 0 o_. r 0 0— N _ ' -T --- r r T r r i r 1 II TM- T 1 r 'r r I r r r ' I . i r r r r T r 7 f • Tit--. -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 r 0 rel*s.fra 6111:111 a Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section C -C' Interim Filling Circular Failure Drawn By (Scale 1:1200 Company Pawnee Waste LLC SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM file Name Slope Stability C -C' Interim Filling.slim - Safety Factor 1.196 - 0.000 0.250 - 0.500 0.750 0.05 - 1.000,\kom: - 0 1.250 O 1.500 1.750 _ 2.000 _ 2.250 _ 2.500 Material Name Color Unit Wright (thou)Strength type Cohesion ono Phi ida� Water Surlace Hu Type HY _ 2.750 Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 3.000 Compacted Sod liner % 115 Mohr•Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 3.250 Waste it 110 Mohr -Coulomb 0 24.8 Water Surface Custom 1 3.500 Structural Fill 115 Mohr•Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 3.750 Cover System ■ 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 O O- It 4.000 GCl and Geomembrane `'' 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 Icg' 4.250 Sand Drainage ■ 125 Mohr 0 30 Water Surface -Coulomb Custom 1 4.500 - 4.750 5.000 - 5.250 5.500 - 5.750 6.000+ -' 0 0— N O— IID -r_-- -1000 T i t -800 -600 -400 -200 0 r I 20' t a Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill �. Analysis Description Section , C -C Interim Filling Circular Failure - Pseudo - - - -Static No 71I I. I a Drawn By Scale 1:1600 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date 6/10/2015 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability C -C' Interim Filling PS.slim SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 i IC It it ZIP IP Safety Fla.actor lii: �i as. t II lir / 111klill �► • I. �r �►111 4IIs lk �r 1 174 �► de%4.our gen �r 1 500• ii I►II Arab 1 1•• ,► .. arm • .► .r ape% Wr :: 111 :: .II se vf Welk . 8• ir. 1 for . • . ...„, , . r „oh, , .4,-, dr t., :,.., a •il yr. 1 ... .:_ii ii. Ai //II :: • 1 :i a• .rIII 111 /••Cohesion Water Surface Hu Npe Hu / 1 E► • • ••• I ball gni. ..kili : fk; • ... . tag. • If a. Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom e 3.000 Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 di 11 1•• •Mohr-CoulombCustom 111• • 4.. • Cover System ■ 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 1/ •. 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom .1 /at - IM e •:.1.25 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 is ALIO, S. 111 -,,,, • I;- 1: - • •.• , • we - , .,..i. . ,IP ma." ..." 4 • up 11/ Iniver,••••76 • I . . ;% O T. : 4.; i..414,.. 5. 11 wills do: a s. 1II • 111 IF • • se a Om r. CNI •11 —800 11 •11 11 •11 11 11 -100 1 til.>" t:411WA Project PaWaste E&P • . I- i Section• • • Drawn By _Scale 11 Pawnee Waste LLC as=s .a. J 0 CO O1 -4 O O r O 0- (V 1 Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250 2.500 2.750 3.000 3.250 3.500 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 5.500 5.750 6.000+ I, , ' -900 r 1 r -800 1•• •Ilia/ le , I . • • .. 1s alas . itit n•IF •1. .1ii1 :U P •,.. ACV h i\ . • •,iI Ac/: Ir• lip 1\ 1.298 /\ %\ lit;;1'••1 W 11.••.. •*•r/ %\lS\ .II\I •• ...Sir ern • �� •i•�i\ %. ,r . -.. • • • 1. •'• Mir • • -5 .I .\ 1►..\ 11 as • i• an. ►� I\�• i : •111, r �� ... .••�► 1I I.• Mr 0 as /111 it sob 1 %\ I�.I 1'I:~/1 11.1/1 • �/.I •. %\e• 1.•I . 1 /�1\I .I .. ►.:• ......../�,„iv,: • • �•�%• �... `4� �. _ '.. se. :.:wArlk a .4; -.11. �•\. ••.•M/1\ •.��••l i ./ 41.`/.11, • A -•I • 1 _ • ea I. Imp 4114 . \• r• _ I .•• './�. '• '- • i ^ I ,.1.•1 •\► �,I Iii 1••:.�/ • •r•a•.� .• 1.''. ••1\/\• !• i.•1. •1'1I71: ki • '•�/\�: 41.' ' ,• \ a\.�„� • •• flat �:\ •.. ••1. 1/1\` 1•• I•• N \ -\ . • ._k Ili imilik \II• 1/ \4, 1••••.•:1, 1\ mak res 111.1 \� •mot• •I ��' 1 ►- ••I 1\1.•.i�••... •;•1►' .•1\ • ♦a•�•••� .•.•k•.• 1111 \• 1I �a :I/,v • , -. V • .; •'• . - . - � • 1\ C de -••. ••.* •.. r: - •• • /... ..•. . , .... I• —' • •. :. 1/J'.:: grin It IS nil/ I a 41;411.4.1\• �• •• •► 'l • •• • -700 r • • II, 11 • .\ •• •II . •.• IF, • • - _ • - . • • . 1 - • • ▪ •`• �fir . . D. v/,. • ... •r ' • •.; •..� '�•• • • I. , • , • Y.• , • • •' r.•j •,s . ...� -•r,••; `• '• • 1 •► :•. " 1 4O111.1• %Se•a•••••• 1•t / , '•. •.; .,. •. .•. .....,•-.••.. •.. �.. ,, . .1►.. '•... • • ' - ..• a:, •• ! ;•,,:it r at :ail' : ..•',•- '•�...'1..►:!=...�.' �.•i11 .•,.I %•.I . 4 ".-.9 -600 -500 1 as ./ 0 Material Name Color Unit Weight (Ibs/ft3) Strength Type Cohesion Phi 1de81 Water Surface Hu Type Hu Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 j Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 0 24.8 Water Surface Custom 1 1 Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 Cover System 9 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1. Sand Drainage 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom I -400 -300 -200 • •s•• • • -100 WI 0.05 w 6:1,4 SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section C -C' Interim Filling Non -circular Failure - Pseudo -Static Drawn By Scale 1:1200 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability C -C' Block Interim Filling PS.slim - Safety Factor 0.000 - 0.250 0.500 0.750 _ - 1.000 1.250 M� 1.500 Material Name Color Unit Weight Strength Type Cohesion Phi Water Surface Hu Type Hu (Ibs/ft3) (psf) (deg) - 1.750 Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 - 2.000 2.250 Compacted Soil Liner ❑ 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 2.500 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 Water Surface Custom 1 2.750 2.999 Op-- 3.000 Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 N 3.250 Cover System ■ 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 " , 3.500 _ _ 3.750 GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 4.000 Sand Drainage ■ 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 _ 4.250 4.500 , 4 _ 0 . ......�., 4.750 .... 5.000 _ 5.250 •• - _ - 5. 5 0 0 5.750 6.000+ Si .� O - I _: y a raSICS W_.."'_"_ - V 0 O—. 1— O " 0 N _T T 'r T_' r r . T 1 � f T r T r I 1 r r r i T -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 1 -200 -100 0 to -16>a_ 64:1 it i , Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section C -C' Circular Failure (Landfill) Drawn By tIe1:1200 Company Pawnee Waste LLC SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability C -C' LF Failure.slim Safety Factor : 1.554] 0.000 0_-. 0.250 "' 0.500 0.750 0.05 1.000 It; 1.250 Meterai N.m. Color unit Weight Strength Typo Como. PM Water Surface Nu Type Hu -p�/fl) two) la) 1.500 _ Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 0 1.750 ''r - 2.000 Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 2.250 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 0 24.8 Water Surface Custom 1 2.500 Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 2.750 3.000 Cover System ■ 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 - cp 3 2 0 GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 o . 5 co, 3.500 Sand Drainage ■ 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 _ _ 3.750 4.000 4.250 4.500 4.750 o- 5.000 _ - 5.250 5.500 - _ ' 5.750 6.000+ 111, cp .) - -.) t_., x 11 o- - ,E .,�-- 1A/ __ ___ 0- r ^1 r r . r - -T"_-r• t . r ' . . . ♦ ' -1000 -900 , . r . . . . ' r T , r i T . , , - r r - .-T- r , 7 , . 1-1 r , r . -800 1 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 -r-T , . . , . . I . . . r T , . 0 100 oyqrj_t. . IP: Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill AnalysiS Diescription Section C -C' Circular Failure (Landfill) - Pseudo -Static Drawn By Scale 1:1400 Company Pawnee Waste LLC SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Date 6/10/2015 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability C -C' LF Failure PS.slim Safety Factor ••- - .� � � - = - - ��-..: • -,. ,; toot. ,.. •_--- ... 0 0 Ink o 000 Wt. or Alb • .: •toot' • `'�[.► -� . :;'� toot ler O 0.2 5 0 ;�,� ,.. .. '`' :... • .. v7 _ t V, 1 ACP• 0.500 ,�..:-,-', .. ";•_.:. `-Ong'si.• 3.328 .,• ...�.:. t.: '•, ell . - :raj • :_., 11 0.750 Unit Weight Cohesion Phi e: ,.. • 7 • .•. •._ , . ' i� • • •�'; Material Name Color Strength Type Water Surface Hu Type Hu 111 . ► - ' r• . " iii., .I - :j :: .. (Ibs/ft3) . .. (Psf) (deg) - 1 0 0 0 . - 1 Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 :• '•0 ' i� ` • :��' • !� -• ''' ' • .250 .°41.4% ,,,• is e• .,'.. . ,root ...,^ •-.ri• 1 500 �- - •' ow \:: �1•'• Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 -' • 'finer ie ._ _ 1.750 �~ 2 000 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 Water Surface Custom 1 ,_f • ; .\►al ; ,•; \, ,••�.• . ••2:11.1O ,.' ..• AS ... . :,1.,, .. .••• ' , 2 .250 .. . - • NW... •r •S'•Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 It I', .r r.. .•, ... \r .. \, :..._:.•.,., 2 500 2 7 50 Cover System ■ 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 v _'. - ; ;; — . I; . �,, ,1 .�,� ♦ fl... I . . 1 3.000 ;::.:.•.r _ GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 ;b. . 1' . '- •- ' ;; 3 " ' - .250 3.500 Sand Drainage ■ 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 : =`• • •toot toot • . �/ • �; 1 ' �:�. O 'aS , • trot.._ .rr — — 4.000 -.:.: :#;,. .. , .:;err ; •. :. I" ; MA 4.250 ,.,., �. .. - 4.500 alteralterI. 4 50 ;:;„ Vr:.;; ..,:r " mot .411._•• — .7 \r..\. . -.f: 5.000 ®\r •'•- - .. 5. 2 50 lo; ,.. r o O N - 5.500 5.750 6.000+ �1 ,"I llifr d. - -- - - -, • W • • W It MEI ^� --. -1 i -1000 -900 I T- , . r . , T 7 I I I I T , I T r , , , i 1 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 relb>,„„ b*"41 'if ,. Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analsis Descrition, Non -circular Failure Drawn By 5caie 1:1200 Company Pawnee Waste LLC SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Date 6/10/2015 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability C -C' Block.slim "':' • •.., �:..i• -' --•\ :�:..ED Safety Factor .... - _ e e -o - 0.250 0.500 0 750 ®• 2.060 �� - . ...•,• ••; =N r1� ...• -• .,ir 1• • • , • '' .::... • .db .. •:•_. .:.. , . ,• •:••••••• . e ,� /. km: 0.05 0 • L 1 000 ..- . .... _ • �_ IS - 1 ..... ... .500 1 7 50 Name Color Unit Weight Strength Type Cohesion Phi Water Surface Hu Type Hu /4.Material . •' =3k: '2 . .. ..,.. • SI*.. .000 Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 /.• : • ��L, .. ' ,•. ••- 6.111 -; "'-. o -' 2 . .,:• , . . flats :i. .250 ,' ,,1',,., •, CD Compacted Soil 1 4 2500 Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom ] • ��. ; • „::!��. -- .• .. ., it'%t• ..a • • ..... so- 2 750 • ..ii. •;_.., . Waste 110 Mohr Coulomb 0 24.8 Water Surface Custom 1 /►(/ w. • , '7.;" �� /� •.,. ,,.�. .. 3 000 — Structural Fill :: 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 •. , I'-:•..i yr 3 250 3 500 Cover System ■ 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 •. - . • .. 1 ' - • 411.1S O 3 750 - s CD . GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom i •`'. . �� Co 4 .000 Sand Drainage 125 Mohr -Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 -' •• 1' - • �� "' .. /. 4.250 ,. - IP 4 '' .500 4.750 ",/ •' 'Ir.'. " 5.000 -- ••.►,,. .. III - O 5.250 I..., 411 ". O__ "' - 5.500 5.750 6.000+ o . . • . • - -- ---- �_ - - - - • •) ill O- OH.• • • .)•) V O - O 1• 1---7---r r r r r , i , I I I . , , I 1 I 1 r 1— r— r 1 I ri r—, T• 1 I I r T r- . I —T —T r r . 1 I 1 I I I I -1000 -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 T 1 1 MI 1 , -100 I I I 1 I I I r I I I I I 0 100 Pal �. 61:11�, SLIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section C -C' Non -circular Failure - Pseudo -Static Drawn By Scale 1:1400 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date 6/10/2015 i 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability C -C' Block PS.slim Safety Factor 0.000 0.250 - 0.500 0.750 _ 1.000 Material Name Color Unit Weight Strength Type Cohesion Phi Water Surface Hu Type Hu (Ibs/ft3) (psf) (deg) O 1.250 M— Native Soil 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 1.500 1.750 Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 2.000 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 170 31 Water Surface Custom 1 2.250 2.500 Structural Fill 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 2.750 _ Cover System 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 0— 3.000 N 3.250 GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 3.500 - Sand Drainage 125 Mohr -Coulomb - 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 3.750 4.000 4.250 - o— 4.500 4.750 5.000 5.250 _ - 5.500 •;,a,_-- �.... .,�� . _ . 5.750 6.000+ _ _ - _ • • •N •-• VY - _ V O O— y - O O N I . I f , f I 1 1 - I I -900 -800 l T- i I T�i- ' ' T ' I I �' II T'T �_- --1-- -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 Nib>, Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section C -C' Circular Failure (Perimeter Berm 's Or)Cm Drawn By Scale 1:1200 Company Pawnee Waste LLC SLIUEINTERPRET 6.035 Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability C-C'.slim 0 It Safety Factor 0.000 - 0.250 - 0 5 0 0 Unit Weight Cohesion Phi il 0. 5 0.750 Material Name Color (Ibs/ft3) Strength Type (psf) (deg) Water Surface Hu Type Hu 1.000 Native Soil 95 Mohr 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 -Coulomb o 1.250 co Compacted Soil Liner 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 1.500 _ 1.750 Waste 110 Mohr -Coulomb 0 24.8 Water Surface Custom 1 IIIIIP 2.000 ,� Structural Fill - 115 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 2.L.50 2.500 Cover System 95 Mohr -Coulomb 0 28 Water Surface Custom 1 2.750 GCL and Geomembrane 120 Mohr -Coulomb 380 7.9 Water Surface Custom 1 Q 0 3.000 N 3.250 Sand Drainage ® 125 Mohr 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 -Coulomb 3.500 3.750 4.000 -., - 4.250 5 0 ' ;.��;. 1.537 • L O .F _ - 4.500 0 - � .: �- �. • 4.750 -r_ ., _ ,„,e)On •• • 5.000 • , O . • ... .', 5.250 Ob 5.500 5.750 6.000+ t • - '°'- 0_ . o•� W W Dimaammelasma o_ 0 0 N I t t t 1 , -Ir r- r 1 1 �¶ I i t I • It r- t T, r r t I t,,. T f 1 T -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 tial 1.>_ bel lipbsA .. 5LIDEINTERPRET 6.035 Project Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Analysis Description Section C -C' Circular Failure (Perimeter Berm) - Pseudo -Static Drawn By Scale 1:1200 Company Pawnee Waste LLC Date 6/10/2015, 3:12:09 PM File Name Slope Stability C -C' PS.slim APPENDIX B-5-2 Finite Slope Analysis _ Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Date: Project No.: 1407882B Site Name: Subject: July 23, 2015 Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX B-5-2: FINITE SLOPE ANALYSIS Made by: JMP Checked by: ALB /hJ43 Reviewed by: DLO 'PG0 1.0 OBJECTIVE Evaluate the veneer -type stability of the proposed liner system at the Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill (Landfill) under the following loading conditions: ■ Short-term static stability of the slope ■ Stability of the slope during construction with a bulldozer load on the liner system ■ Stability of the slope under seismic loading 2.0 METHODOLOGY Evaluate the stability of the proposed liner slopes using a finite slope analysis method for veneer -type failures under the critical loading conditions anticipated during and after construction. 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS ■ This analysis is limited to veneer -type landfill liner stability analyses, for which the finite slope approach is appropriate. ■ In the unlikely event of a veneer failure, material above the liner system would slide with the underlying geosynthetic(s); thus, only the bottom interface (i.e., between compacted low -permeability soil liner and GCL) contributes to the frictional resistance. The residual interface friction angle between these layers is estimated to be approximately 21°, as shown in Attachment B-5-2-1 (Koerner and Narejo, 2005). ■ The steepest liner slope is 3H:1V with a maximum length of 210 feet. ■ The protective cover layer is composed of select waste (i.e., "fluff lift"). ■ The textured HDPE geomembrane will be overlain by a one -foot -thick sand drainage layer and a one -foot -thick protective cover layer consisting of on -site soil. The protective cover and sand drainage layer was assumed to be a single two -foot layer with a density equivalent to the average density of the protective cover layer (approximately 110 pounds per cubic feet) and the sand drainage layer (approximately 125 pounds per cubic feet), which is approximately 117.5 pounds per cubic feet. ■ The on -site soil was assumed to have an effective friction angle of 28 degrees and no cohesion. ■ A D7R LGP bulldozer was modeled as the equipment used to work on the liner system. This piece of equipment has an operating weight of 60,916 Ib, a track -on -ground length of i:11411407882b'0400\0402 edop fn!\appendix blapp b -Stapp b -5-2\1407882b app b-5-2 veneer stability 23ju115.docx Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Tel: (303) 980-0540 Fax: (303) 985-2080 wvw,v.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation CALCULATIONS Page 2 of 3 Pro'ect No.: 1407882B Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB At- Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: DLO PLO 125 inches, and a shoe width of 36 inches, as shown in Attachment B-5-2-2 (Caterpillar 2003). It is assumed that the bulldozer will push soils up the liner slopes. • No seepage is expected to occur through the liner system, given the placement of the sand drainage layer between the HDPE liner and the protective cover layer. • Seismic loading was modeled using a peak ground acceleration of 0.05g, corresponding to '/2 of the maximum considered peak ground acceleration from the 2,475 -year mean return period earthquake event, defined as having a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years and presented in Attachment B-5-2-3. ■ It was assumed that no part of the liner is saturated and no equipment will be working on the liner during the design seismic event. • Given the short-term durations of the loading conditions evaluated, the minimum targeted factors of safety against a veneer failure in the landfill liner are 1.2 and 1.0 for static and seismic loading, respectively. 4.0 CALCULATIONS The methods and equations used to compute the factors of safety against a veneer failure for the loading conditions analyzed are described by Koerner and Soong (2005). Minor corrections to the equations presented by Koerner and Soong have been made to address the desired geometry and loading conditions. The analysis results for the sand drainage/protective cover layer are summarized in the table below: Scenario Factor of Safety 1.2 Long -Term Static Equipment on Liner Slope i 1.2 Seismic Loading 1.0 5.0 RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS Based on the factors of safety computed using the methods and assumptions described above, the proposed liner is expected to be stable with respect to veneer -type failures under static and pseudo -static loading. Given the short-term durations of the loading conditions evaluated, acceptable factors were defined as 1.2 and 1.0 for static and seismic loading, respectively. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS Attachment B-5-1-1: Residual Interface Friction Reference Attachment B-5-1-2: D7R LGP Bulldozer Specifications Attachment B-5-1-3: USGS Peak Ground Acceleration Map Attachment B-5-1-4: Veneer Stability Calculations i:114\1407882b\0400\0402 edop fnl\appendix b\app b-5\app b -5-2\1407882b app b-5-2 veneer stability 23ju115.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 3 of 3 Protect No.: 1407882B Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: _ DLO DL 7.0 REFERENCES Caterpillar. 2003. Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 34, Peoria, IL. Koerner, G.R. and Narejo, D. 2005. "Direct Shear Database of Geosynthetic-to-Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic-to-Soil Interfaces," GRI Report #30, Geosynthetic Research Institute, Folsom, PA. Koerner, R.M. and Soong, T -Y. 2005. "Analysis and Design of Veneer Cover Soils," Geosynthetics International, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 28 49. Hynes -Griffin, M.E. and Franklin, A.G. 1984. "Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient Method," Miscellaneous Paper GL -84-13, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. PGA with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, USGS map, May 2008 rev. Available online: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008/maps/ [accessed July 10, 2015] i:11411407882b\0400\0402 edop fnllappendix b\app b-51app b -5-211407882b app b-5-2 veneer stability 23ju115.docx Golder Associates ATTACHMENT B-5-2-1 RESIDUAL INTERFACE FRICTION REFERENCE UNIVERSITY Geosynthetic Research Institute 475 Kedron Avenue Folsom, PA 19033-1208 USA TEL (610) 522-8440 FAX (610) 522-8441 Direct Shear Database of Geosynthetic-to-Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic-to-Soil Interfaces by George R. Koerner, Ph.D., P.E. Geosynthetic Research Institute Folsom, PA 19033-1208 gkoerner@dca.net and Dhani Narejo, Ph.D. GSE Lining Technology, Inc. Houston, TX 77073 dnarejo@gseworld.com GRI Report #30 June 14, 2005 Appendix Table 1. (continued) Interface 1* Interface 2* Peak Stren th Residual Strength Fig. No. (deg) S Ca (kPa) Points R2 Fig. No. S (deg) (kPa) Ca Points R2 PVC -F NW -NP GT 6a 27 0.2 26 0.95 6b 23 0 26 0.95 PVC -F NW-HB GT 6c 30 0 8 0.97 6d 27 0 8 0.90 PVC -F Woven GT 6e 15 0 6 0.78 6f 10 0 6 0.76 PVC -F Geonet 6g 25 0 11 1.00 6h 19 0 11 0.99 PVC -F Geocomposite 6i 27 1.1 5 1.00 6j 22 4.7 6 1.00 4 CSPE-R Granular Soil 7a 36 0 3 1.00 7b 16 0 3 1.00 CSPE-R Cohesive Soil 7c 31 5.7 6 0.71 7d 18 0 6 0.99 CSPE-R NW -NP GT 7e 14 0 6 0.97 7f 10 0 6 0.98 CSPE-R 7g 21 0 3 1.00 7h 10 0 3 1.00 NW-HB GT CSPE-R Woven GT 7i 11 0 6 0.92 7j 11 0 3 1.00 CSPE-R Geonet 7k 28 0 9 0.87 71 16 0 9 0.80 NW -NP GT Granular Soil 8a 33 0 290 0.97 8b 33 0 117 0.96 NW-HB GT Granular Soil 8c 28 0 6 0.99 8d 16 0 6 0.91 Woven GT Granular Soil 8e 32 0 81 0.99 8f 29 0 28 0.98 NW -NP GT Cohesive Soil 9a 30 5 79 0.96 9b I 21 41 0 28 0.79 Cohesive Soil 9c 29 0.9 15 0.71 NW-HB GT 9d 10 0 15 0.83 Woven GT Cohesive Soil 9e 29 0 34 0.94 9f 19 0 16 0.86 GCL (internal) Reinforced N/A l0a 16 38 406 0.85 lOb 6 12 182 0.91 11 a 23 8 180 0.95 1 lb 13 0 157 0.90 HDPE-T GCL (NW -NP GT) GCL (W -SF GT) HDPE-T 11 c 18 11 196 0.96 11 d 12 0 153 0.92 Geonet NW -NP GT 12a 23 0 52 0.97 12b 16 0 32 0.97 Geocomposite (NW -NP GT) Granular Soil 13a 27 14 14 0.86 13b 21 8 10 0.92 -47- ATTACHMENT B-5-2-2 D7R LGP BULLDOZER SPECIFICATIONS Track-TypeTractors MODEL Specifications Flywheel Power Operating Weight:" Power Shift Differential Steer Engine Model Rated Engine RPM No. of Ctrl i nders Bore Stroke Displacement Track Rollers (Each Side) Width of Standard Track Shoe Length of Track on Ground Ground Contact Area (w/Std. Shoe) Track Gauge GENERAL DIMENSIONS: Height" (Stripped Top)" " Height" (ToTop of BOPS Canopy) Height" (ToTop of BOPS Cab) Overall Length (without 8l aAde ) with S Blade Width (over Trunnion) Width (wtoTrunnion — Std. Shoe) Ground Clearance Blade Types and Widths: Straight Angle Straight Full 25C Angle Universal Semi -U Fuel Tank Refill Capacity D7R LGP 179 kW 240 hp 27 626 kg 60,916 lb C9 2100 6 112 mm 149 mm 8.5 L 7 914 mm 3.16 m 5.78 m= 2235 mm 2.7 rn 2_ 37 m 3.38 m 4.73 m 521 m 3,37 m 3.15 m 495 mm 4.55m 481L 4.4' 5.9" 537 in' 36" 10'5" 8964 in= 74" 8'10' 111" 11'0" 15'6" 191" 111- 10'4" 17" 14'11" 127 U.S. gal D7R Series 2 179 KW 240 hp 25 455 kg 56,129 lb 3176C SCAC 2100 6 124 mm 140 mm 10.3 L 7 560 mm 2.87 m 3.21 m2 1.98 rn 2.58m 3.29 m 3.28 m 4.73 m 5.81 m 2.88 m 2.54 m 415mm 152 m 4.50 m 4.12 m 198 m 3.69 m 481L 4.92' 5.5" 629 in' 22" 9'5 " 4976 in: 6'6 8'6' 10'9" 10'9" 15'6' 19'1` 9'5- 8'4" 1'4 117' 14'9' 13'6' 13`1" 12'2' 127 U.S. gal D7R Series 2 XR 179 kW 240 hp 27 002 kg 59$40 lb 3176C SCAC 2100 6 124 mm 140 mm 10.3 L S 610 mm 3.05m 3.72 m 1.98 m 2.58m 2.29 m 3.28 m 4.73 m 5.51 m 2.88m 2.59 m 415 mm 3.32 m 4.50 m 4.12 m 3.98m 3.69 m 431 L 4.92" 5.5" 6291W 24" 10'0" 5766 irf 6'6" 8.6.. 10'9" 10'9" 15'6" 19'1" 9'5" 8'6" 1'4" 117" 14'9" 13'6" 13'1" 12°2'" 127 U.S. gal *Operating weight includes cab, operator, lubricants, coolant full fuel tankstandard track hydraulic. controls and fluid, SU blade, drawbar and counterweight — D7G includes ROPS canopy and end track guiding guard **Dimensions measured from wound line. Add grouser height for total dimension on hard surfaces. ***Height 4StrippedTopl — without ROPS canopy, exhaust, seat bad or other easily removed encumbrances_ 1-14 Edition 42 ATTACHMENT B-5-2-3 USGS PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION MAP 45° 10. 4 I 15' 1700 I EXPLANATION Peak acceleration, expressed as a fraction of standard gravity (g) 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.14 0.1 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 110- 100" 90° 800 70`, Areas where suspected nontectonic earthquakes have been deleted 1 1 I ate Facility Location I I I 0 I _ 500 I I 0 I I 1 1 I 500 • lO I \ R ---E\cJ ft )i i /( y 11 i 11 T %f r�/ 4 rJ 1,000 KILOMETERS 1 1,000 MILES Two -percent probability of exceedance in 50 years map of peak ground acceleration ATTACHMENT B-5-2-4 VENEER STABILITY CALCULATIONS July 2015 GRAVITY ONLY Interface Friction Angle, 6 Interface Adhesion, a Soil Friction Angle, 43 Soil Cohesion, c Slope Soil Unit Weight, y Cover Depth, h Slope Length, L FACTOR OF SAFETY = 21 degrees 0 psf 28 degrees 0 psf 3 H:1V 117.5 pcf 2 ft 210 ft 1.2 EQUIPMENT PUSHING SOIL UP COVER SLOPE Weight of Equipment, Wb Length of Equipment Track, w Width of Equipment Track, b Width -to -Thickness Ratio, b/h Influence Factor, I FACTOR OF SAFETY = SEISMIC FORCES Seismic Coefficient, Cs FACTOR OF SAFETY = 60,916 lb 125 in 36 in 1.50 0.98 (from figure to right) 1.2 0.05 1.0 WA = Wp= NA= Ca = C= We Ne PAWNEE WASTE E & P LANDFILL 1407882B VENEER STABILITY 47,862 lb/ft 783 lb/ft 45,406 lb/ft 0 lb/ft 0 lb/ft 9,950 lb/ft 9,439 lb/ft 1.0 sin R = tan a= cos 0= sin 203 = tan 4)' = tan 6'= 0.3162 0.3333 0.9487 0.6000 0.5317 0.3839 05, 5 0.0 o. 3 0.3 - 04 0: _ C Note. Tne variation a-': 'r4,.? -.Cc• of .•. Is;nall Cx oa'is:on :ah 2 W utih of truck b tn'icknoss of coer soil. h 3 Reference Koemer, R.M. and Soong, T -Y. (2005). Analysis and design of veneer cover soils. Geosynthetics International, Special Issue on the Giroud Lectures, 12, No. 1, 28-49. I: ‘14%1407882B14040010402 EDOP FNL Appendix B'App B-5 App B-5-21Attachment 85.2.4 Veneer Stability xis a= b= c= b= c= a= b= c= 4,541 lb/ft -6,165 lb/ft 927 lb/ft 17,343 lb/ft -23,463 lb/ft 3,540 Ib/ft 15,929 lb/ft -18,898 lb/ft 2,780 lb/ft Golder Associates APPENDIX B-6 Anchor Trench Calculations Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Date: Project No.: Site Name: Subject: July 23, 2015 1407882B Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX B-6: ANCHOR TRENCH CALCULATIONS Made by: JMP Checked by: ALB ``ac DLO r-1)Lv Reviewed by: 1.0 OBJECTIVE Check the capacity of the proposed anchor trench to resist the maximum anticipated loads that will be applied to the liner system on the sideslopes for the Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill (Landfill). 2.0 METHODOLOGY Calculate the driving (weight of the sand drainage/protective cover layer and bulldozer live load) and resisting (frictional resistance) forces acting on the proposed liner system to evaluate the remaining tensile stress in the geosynthetics. If the driving force is greater than the frictional resistance, size the anchor trench using the approach modified from Qian, Koerner, and Gray (2002) to counteract the remaining tensile stress. If the frictional resistance force is greater, calculate the resistance capacity of the anchor trench to determine whether the geosynthetic material of interest would pull out of the anchor trench prior to tearing. 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS • The highest tensile stress induced in the liner system geosynthetics will occur prior to waste placement, during the construction of the protective cover layer (initial waste layer ["fluff lift"]) and sand drainage layers on the landfill sideslopes with a bulldozer. • On sideslopes, the liner system consists of (from top to bottom): 1 foot of protective cover material, 1 foot of sand drainage material, a 60 -mil HDPE textured geomembrane (GM), geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), 2 feet of compacted low permeability soil liner, and prepared subgrade. • In the event of pull-out, material above the liner system would slide with the underlying geosynthetic(s); thus, only the bottom interface (i.e., between compacted low -permeability soil liner and GCL) contributes to the frictional resistance. The residual interface friction angle between these layers is estimated to be approximately 21°, as shown in Attachment B-6-1 (Koerner and Narejo, 2005). ■ The interface friction between the textured GM and the GCL is not a critical interface due to the "velcro" effect that holds the two geosynthetics together. ■ The maximum sideslope angle is 3H:1V = 18.43°. • The maximum horizontal slope length is approximately 210 feet. ■ In the event of a yield failure, the entire liner system would yield; thus, the yield strength of the 60 -mil HDPE textured geomembrane (GSE HD Textured Geomembrane or ;.\1411407882b\0400\0402 edop fnllappendix b\app b -6\1407882b app b-6 anchor trench calculation 23jul15 docx Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Tel: (303) 980-0540 Fax: (303) 985-2080 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation CALCULATIONS Page 2of6 Protect No.: 1407882B Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB A_ te_ i3 Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: DLO DLO equivalent), estimated to be 90 lb/in or 1,080 lb/ft width (GSE, 2012), was used for the liner system yield strength as it is the highest strength. GSE product data sheet provided as Attachment B-6-2. ■ The static weight of a Caterpiller D7R LGP bulldozer used to construct the sand drainage layer is 60,916 lbs. This weight is factored by 1.3 to account for braking (USEPA, 1988). The width of each dozer tread is 36 inches or 3 feet. Therefore the force induced by the dozer per unit width is [1.3 x 60,300 lb] / [(2 treads) x (3 ft)] = 13,065 lb/ft. ■ The assumed unit weight of onsite soil is 95 pcf. The angle of internal friction (p) for the onsite soil is assumed to be 28 degrees. ■ The textured HDPE geomembrane will be overlain by a one -foot -thick sand drainage layer and a one -foot -thick protective cover layer consisting of on -site soil. The protective cover and sand drainage layer was assumed to be a single 2 -foot layer with a density equivalent to the average density of the protective cover layer (approximately 110 pounds per cubic feet) and the sand drainage layer (approximately 125 pounds per cubic feet), which is approximately 117.5 pounds per cubic feet. The at -rest earth pressure coefficient (KO) is calculated using Jaky's equation: Ko=1-sin(cp). ■ The anchor trench is two feet deep and two feet wide. One foot of native fine-grained soil will be placed on top of the anchor trench and two -foot run -out length immediately after construction. 4.0 CALCULATIONS 4.1 Part I: Pull-out During Sand Drainage/Protective Cover Layer Placement The stability of the liner system on the sideslope under sand drainage/protective cover layer placement loading conditions must be checked to verify that the geosynthetics will not pull out of the anchor trench during placement. These loading conditions involve placing the two -foot sand drainage/protective cover layer up the entire slope with the bulldozer. where: F2 F4 Figure B-6-1: Sideslope Force Balance Diagram F1 F; F1 = Driving force due to weight of the operations/drainage layer F2= Driving force due to the weight of the bulldozer F; = Resisting force due to weight of the operations/drainage layer F{= Resisting force due to the weight of the bulldozer i:\1411407882bt040010402 edop fnitappendix blapp b -611407882b app b-6 anchor trench calculation 23p15 docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Page 3 of 6 Protect No.: 1407882B Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB frve) Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: DLO DLO Breaking the forces into normal and tangential components: Figure B-6-2: Normal and Tangential Components Diagram The normal force against the slope creates a frictional shear resistance to movement, while the parallel (tangential) force creates a driving force in the downslope direction. The shear resistance is caused by the interface friction between the GCL and the underlying low -permeability soil liner. a operations = ! operations • operations Trernainder F= A n = I` aoperation.s • s i n(fl) (L,,0pe dozer • Sin (fl ) O- operations • cosCB) • tan( SGCL—.4tLSorl )(L510) 4 — Fdozer • cos(fl) • tan(6GCL-MLsoil ) F.S. _ E Resisting Driving F3 + F4 E Driving + FZ Resisting (for Tremainder 0) If the computed factor of safety (F.S.) against displacement is greater than 1.0, then there is no remaining tensile stress (T) in the liner system geosynthetics and the liner system is considered stable under the applied loading. Max. Slope Length (Lsiope) = 210 feet Slope angle (13) = 18.43 degrees yoperations — 117.5 pcf Soil thickness (toperations) = 2 ft Fdozer = 13.198 lb/ft v GCL-MLSoii 21 degrees i:'\14\1407882b1040010402 edop fnl\appendix b\app b -6`1407882b app b-6 anchor trench calculation 23jul15 docx Golder Associates Associates CALCULATIONS Page 4 of 6 Pro'ect No.: 1407882B Made by: JMP Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB 11-4,. V? Site Name: Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: DLO DLv DRIVING Soil = F1 = 15,606 lb/ft Dozer = F2 = 4,174 lb/ft RESISTING Soil = F3 = 17,971 lb/ft Dozer = F4 = 4,806 lb/ft F.S. = 1.2 Tremamder 0 l b/ft The driving forces. F1 and F2, SUM to 19,780 lb/ft, and the resisting forces, F3 and F4 sum to 22,778 lb/ft. This results in a factor of safety against displacement of 1.2 and indicates that no remaining tensile stress exists in the liner system geosynthetics under the anticipated loading conditions and therefore, the liner system is expected to be stable on the sideslope without inducing any tensile forces in the geosynthetics at the anchor trench. Although the anchor trench is not necessary for liner stability, the anchor trench will secure the geosynthetics before waste placement reaches the elevation of the anchor trench. 4.2 PART 2: ANCHOR TRENCH CAPACITY The resisting forces acting on the geosynthetics within the anchor trench are shown in the force diagram, provided as Figure B-6-3. If the total force resisting pull-out from the anchor trench (Ftrench) is less than the tensile yield strength of the geomembrane (Tallow), then the geomembrane will pull out from the anchor trench prior to tearing. 'trench q x LRo x tan + 2 x [KO x 6vave x dAT + aim x LAT] x tan b (Qian (2002), modified) cos/3 — sin/i x tanS av ave Q- YAT X dcs— Ko=1— sin ce= T YAT X (acs + �2) TvB — YAT X (dcs + dAT) — Tallow = Ftrench = 90.0 0.53 190 285 1080 804 psf psf psf lb/ft lb/ft i:\14\1407882b\040010402 edop fnRappendix b\app b -6\1407882b app b-6 anchor trench calculation 23jul15 docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Pape 5 of 6 Pro'ect No.: 1407882B Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: DLO `D11 The anchor trench resistance capacity (Ftrench) is less than the geomembrane tensile yield strength (Tallow); thus, the geomembrane will pull out of the anchor trench before it tears. T t•. L AT -.J �B - -- ----- L RO r -' A •-• Tate t FR41g `` lms nar) and Ve (FAT), .ctioniess pulleys (a) l t FAT)R Cover soda dAT (b) (c) Cover soil dtz °'D dAi (d) • _ 04. . t SAT \at Figure B-6-3: Anchor Trench Force Diagram (Koerner, 2002) 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The anchor trench design is a two -foot -deep by two -foot -wide trench with a runout at the top of the slope of two feet. The trench will be backfilled with compacted soil fill and covered with an additional one foot of soil cover. This trench design is adequate for constructability and geosynthetic protection purposes. but is not necessary for the stability of the slope. Also, no tensile force is anticipated to be exerted into the liner system geosynthetics at the anchor trench. L:114\1407882b1040010402 edop fnl\appendix bkapp b -6\1407882b app b-6 anchor trench calculation 23}u115.docx Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Pa 6 of 6 Pro ect No.: 1407882B Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB (-1A-S Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: _ DLO "DLO The dozer may safely place soil along the full slope length above the level of the waste (i.e., pushing up the slope), or in smaller sections for ease of construction. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS Attachment B-6-1: Residual Interface Friction Reference Attachment B-6-2: GSE Geomembrane Product Data Sheet 7.0 REFERENCES Caterpillar. 2003. Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 34, Peoria, IL. GSE. 2015. Online Products Page. Available online: www.gseworld.com/Products/Geonets-and- Geocomposites/BiPlanar/ [accessed July 10, 2015] Jaky, J. 1944. "The Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest." Journal of the Society of Hungarian Architects and Engineers, Vol. 7, pp. 233-388. Koerner, Robert M. 1999. "Designing With Geosynthetics." Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Koerner, G.R. and Narejo, D. 2005. "Direct Shear Database of Geosynthetic-to-Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic- to -Soil Interfaces." GRI Report #30, Geosynthetic Research Institute, Folsom, PA. Qian, Xuede; Koerner, Robert M.; Gray, Donald H. 2002. "Geotechnical Aspects of Landfill Design and Construction", First Edition, Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. i:t1411407882b1040010402 edop fnllappendix bAapp b -6\1407882b app b-6 anchor trench calculation 23ju115.docx Golder Associates ATTACHMENT B-6-1 RESIDUAL INTERFACE FRICTION REFERENCE UNIVERSITY Geosynthetic Research Institute 475 Kedron Avenue Folsom, PA 19033-1208 USA TEL (610) 522-8440 FAX (610) 522-8441 Direct Shear Database of Geosynthetic-to-Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic-to-Soil Interfaces by George R. Koerner, Ph.D., P.E. Geosynthetic Research Institute Folsom, PA 19033-1208 gkoerner@dca.net and Dhani Narejo, Ph.D. GSE Lining Technology, Inc. Houston, TX 77073 dnarejo@gseworld.com GRI Report #30 June 14, 2005 Appendix Table 1. (continued) Interface 1* Interface 2* Peak Stren th Residual Strength Fig. No. S (deg) Ca (kPa) Points R2 Fig. No. (deg) b (kPa) Ca Points R2 PVC -F NW -NP GT 6a 27 0.2 26 0.95 6b 23 0 26 0.95 PVC -F NW-HB GT 6c 30 0 8 0.97 6d 27 0 8 0.90 PVC -F Woven GT 6e 15 0 6 0.78 6f 10 0 6 0.76 PVC -F Geonet 6g 25 0 11 1.00 6h 19 0 11 0.99 PVC -F Geocomposite 6i 27 1.1 5 1.00 6j 22 4.7 6 1.00 CSPE-R Granular Soil 7a 36 0 3 1.00 7b 16 0 3 1.00 CSPE-R Cohesive Soil 7c 31 5.7 6 0.71 7d 18 0 6 0.99 CSPE-R NW -NP GT 7e 14 0 6 0.97 7f 10 0 6 0.98 CSPE-R 7g 21 0 3 1.00 7h 10 0 3 1.00 NW-HB GT CSPE-R Woven GT 7i 11 0 6 0.92 7j 11 0 3 1.00 CSPE-R Geonet 7k 28 0 9 0.87 71 16 0 9 0.80 NW -NP GT Granular Soil 8a 33 0 290 0.97 8b 33 0 117 0.96 NW-HB GT Granular Soil 8c 28 0 6 0.99 8d 16 0 6 0.91 Woven GT Granular Soil 8e 32 0 81 0.99 8f 29 0 28 0.98 NW -NP GT Cohesive Soil 9a 30 5 79 0.96 9b 21 0 28 0.79 NW-HB GT Cohesive Soil 9c 29 0.9 15 0.71 9d 10 0 15 0.83 Woven GT Cohesive Soil 9e 29 0 34 0.94 9f 19 0 16 0.86 GCL (internal) Reinforced N/A l0a 16 38 406 0.85 IOb 6 12 182 0.91 GCL (NW -NP GT) HDPE-T l la 23 8 180 0.95 lib 13 0 157 0.90 GCL (W -SF GT) HDPE-T 11 c 18 11 196 0.96 11 d 12 0 153 0.92 Geonet NW -NP GT 12a 23 0 52 0.97 12b 16 0 32 0.97 Geocomposite (NW-NPGT) Granular Soil 13a 27 14 14 0.86 13b 21 8 10 0.92 -47- ATTACHMENT B-6-2 GSE GEOMEMBRANE PRODUCT DATA SHEET PRODUCT DATA SHEET OSE ND Textured Geomembrane GSE HD Textured is a co -extruded textured high density polyethylene (HDPE) g eomembrane available on one or both sides. It is manufactured from the highest q uality resin specifically formulated for flexible geomembranes. This product is used in applications that require increased frictional resistance, excellent chemical resistance and endurance properties. Product Specifications Tested Property Thickness, mil Lowest individual reading Density, g/cm3 Tensile Properties (each direction Strength at Break, lb/in-width Strength at Yield, lb/in-width Elongation at Break, % Elongation at Yield, % Tear Resistance, lb Puncture Resistance, lb Carbon Black Content, % (Range) Carbon Black Dispersion Asperity Height, mil Notched Constant Tensile Load(", hr Oxidative Induction Time, mins Roll Length"), ft Roll Width"), ft Roll Area, ft2 Test Method ASTM D 5994 every roll (*) AT THE CORE: An HDPE geomembrane used in applications that require increased frictional resistance, excellent chemical resistance and endurance properties. These product specifications meet GRI GM13 Minimum Average Value ASTM D 1505 200,000 lb ASTM D 6693, Type IV 20,000 lb Dumbell, 2 ipm G.L. 2.0 in G.L. 1.3 in ASTM D 1004 ASTM D 4833 ASTM D 1603/4218 ASTM D 5596 ASTM D 7466 ASTM D 5397, Appendix ASTM D 3895, 200°C; O2,1 atm 45,000 lb 45,000 lb 20,000 lb 45,000 lb second roll 200,000 lb 30 mil 30 27 0.940 0.940 45 63 100 12 21 45 2.0 - 3.0 Note" 16 300 40 mil 40 36 60 84 100 12 28 60 2.0 - 3.0 Note° 18 300 200,000 lb >100 >100 TYPICAL ROLL DIMENSIONS Double -Sided Textured Single -Sided Textured Double -Sided Textured Single -Sided Textured 830 700 1,010 780 22.5 22.5 18,675 15,750 22,725 17,550 60 mil 60 54 0.940 90 100 12 42 90 2.0 - 3.0 Note° 18 300 >100 520 540 22.5 11,700 12,150 80 mil 80 72 0.940 100 mil 100 90 0.940 120 150 168 210 100 100 12 12 56 70 120 150 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 Note" Note° 18 18 300 300 >100 >100 400 330 410 330 22.5 22.5 9,000 7,425 9,225 7,425 NOTES. • °Dispersion only applies to near spherical agglomerates. 9 of 10 views shall be Category 1 or 2. No more than 1 view from Category 3. • (')NCTL for GSE HD Textured is conducted on representative smooth membrane samples. • LoRoll lengths and widths have a tolerance of 11%. • GSE HD Textured is available in rolls weighing approximately 4,000 lb. • All GSE geomembranes have dimensional stability of s2% when tested according to ASTM D 1204 and LTB of <-77°C when tested according to ASTM D 746. • 'Modified. GSE is a leading manufacturer and marketer of geosynthetic lining products and services. We've built a reputation of reliability through our dedication to providing consistency of product, price and protection to our global customers. Our commitment to innovation, our focus on quality and our industry expertise allow us the flexibility to collaborate with our clients to develop a custom, purpose -fit solution. DURABILITY RUNS DEEP For more information on this product and others, please visit us at GSEworld.com. call 800.435.2008 or contact your local sales office. rir S E ENVIRONMENTAL" 1•'• it 1'..'r cil • I i/ Ii ; i, t !I r'I If, r• "•, ti,±(;r.•r(. •i.N'_ - L I I , II ( I, (_.i Ir)tri r, i. �_ r 'I i; I, •1 1E.I• it I , . APPENDIX B-7 Soil Erosion Potential Calculations Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Date: Project No.: Site Name: Subject: July 23, 2015 1407882B Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Reviewed by: JM� Weld County, Colorado ATTACHMENT B-7: EROSION POTENTIAL CALCULATION Made by: MBR Checked by: PDSD5 1.0 OBJECTIVE Estimate the average annual soil loss due to erosion for the final cover configuration of Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill (Landfill). A maximum soil loss tolerance is not specified in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Sites and Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2); However, Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) considers 5.0 tons/acre/year of soil loss due to erosion an acceptable and conservative soil loss rate. This maximum soil loss rate is based on the regulatory soil loss tolerance for landfill final cover slopes in Nebraska. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Erosion was evaluated using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, Version 2 (RUSLE2) erosion modeling software (USDA 2010). Two analyses were performed on a profile of the final cover with the greatest proposed slope length. The first analysis was for the first year and the second analysis was a long-term analysis for a five-year period of vegetation growth following establishment of vegetation on the final cover. The final cover profile analyzed has a 200 -foot -long slope at a 10% grade, and a 200 -foot -long slope at a 4H:1V slope. 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS • The soils on site to be used for the final cover revegetation layer are expected to consist of topsoils stripped and stockpiled from existing ground. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2011) indicates that approximately 56% of the soil in the area of the landfill consists of Kim -Mitchell complex loam, 0 to 6% slopes, and 44% of Stoneham fine sandy loam, 0 to 6% slopes (provided in Attachment A-1). The soil used in the analysis is assumed to be Kim -Mitchell complex, 0 to 6% slopes\Kim loam 45%. ■ Mulch will be applied to the final cover surface at a rate of two tons/acre at the time of seeding. ■ Seeding will take place in September of the first year following construction activities. Construction activities prior to seeding include: bulldozer, filling/leveling; disk, tandem light finishing; and harrow, spike tooth. ■ Weld County is located in Crop Management Zone (CMZ) 05. Vegetation for CMZ 05 is assumed to be modeled as a generic cool season grass mixture with a yield of one ton/acre. 1:114\1407882b\040010402 edop fnl\appendix b\app b -7\1407882b app b-7 erosion potential caic 231ul15.docx Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, CO 80228 USA Tel: (303) 980-0540 Fax: (303) 985-2080 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe. North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation CALCULATIONS Page 2 of 2 Project No.: 1407882B Made by: MBR Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: PDS de-et:7p, Date: July 23, 2015 Reviewed by: JMP-49 4.0 CALCULATIONS RUSLE2 computes average annual soil loss on each ith day as: ai=ri*ki*11*S*ci*pi Where: a; = average annual soil loss for the ith day, tons/acre /year r; = erosivity factor for the ith day k; soil erodibility factor for the ith day li = soil length factor for the ith day S = steepness factor for the ith day ci = cover -management factor for the ith day pi = supporting practice factor for the ith day The average annual soil loss is computed as: A = (Lai)/m Where: a; = average annual soil loss for the ith day, tons/acre/year m = number of years in the analysis A - average annual soil loss, tons/acre/year 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The inputs and outputs from the RUSLE2 software for the first -year analysis are presented in Attachment B-7-1 and the long-term analysis is presented in Attachment B-7-2. The predicted soil loss due to erosion in the first year is 2.8 tons/acre/year and long-term is 1.8 tons/acre/year. This analysis did not consider the placement of terrace channels to limit slope length but the design of the landfill final cover includes terrace channels placed at every 200 feet of slope length on the 4H:1V slopes to reduce the amount of soil loss. Since the predicted soil loss is less than the soil loss tolerance (5.0 tons/acre/year) the design is adequate to prevent excessive erosion. 6.0 REFERENCES Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Web Soil Survey of Converse County, Wyoming. Available online: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2010. RUSLE2 Version 2.0.4.0 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2013. Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Sites and Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2). 14\1407882b1040010402 edop fnllappendix blapp b -711407882b app b-7 erosion potential calc 23ju115.docx Golder Associates ATTACHMENT B-7-1 NRCS SOIL MAP WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 40° 50'38" N 40° 49' 48" N 104° 9'22"W I' - N Ln F vt 8 N O — N In t t N Ln 571200 571300 571400 K Factor, Rock Free Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part 571500 L 571600 571700 571800 I 571900 572000 104° 8' 32" W 572100 572200 572300 I I I I I I I I I I I 571200 571300 571400 571500 571600 571700 571800 571900 572000 572100 572200 572300 N L!1 yr 8 N O N U1 Ln t Map Scale: 1:7,540 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. N 0 100 200 A 400 Meters 600 Feet 0 350 700 1400 2100 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 (V 0 0 40° 50'38" N 40° 49' 48" N USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2015 Page 1 of 3 K Factor. Rock Free Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part Area of Interest (AO!) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons u [1 u U 02 05 10 15 17 .20 24 I 1 .28 .32 .37 L _ .43 I I .49 0 .55 r I .64 U Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines ..;.-s .02 PO # .05 • • .10 • - .15 • • .17 • • .20 MAP LEGEND is r .24 • • .28 • s .32 • • .37 A3 .*' . 49 ,0%0 .55 ,r`o . 64 • • Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points O ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 • ■ • .02 .05 .10 15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 37 .43 .49 55 64 Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Background Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado. Northern Part Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 23, 2014 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 22. 2011 Oct 19, 2011 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2015 Page 2 of 3 K Factor. Rock Free Weld County. Colorado, Northern Part K Factor, Rock Free K Factor, Rock Free , Summary by Map Unit — Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part (CO617) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 31 Kim -Mitchell to 6 percent complex, slopes 0 .32 144.6 54.9% 61 Stoneham loam, slopes fine sandy 0 to 6 percent .24 118.6 45.1% Totals for Area of Interest 263.3 100.0% Description Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand; and organic matter and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. "Erosion factor Kf (rock free)" indicates the erodibility of the fine -earth fraction, or the material less than 2 millimeters in size. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Surface Layer (Not applicable) t sDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/9/2015 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT B-7-2 FIRST -YEAR RUSLE2 EROSION CALCULATION RECORD NRCS Natural krl tftet Con%ecvatro* RUSLE2 Profile Erosion Calculation Record Info: File: profiles\Pawnee Year 1 check 400ft Inputs: Location: USA\Colorado\Weld County\CO_Weld_R_16-18 Soil: Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part\31 Kim -Mitchell complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes\Kim Loam 45% Slope length (horiz): 400 ft Avg. slope steepness: 18 % Management Vegetation Yield units # yield units, #/ac CMZ 05\c.Other Local Mgt Records\Pawnee Landfill Year 1 check 400ft Grass, cool season, fall seeded ton 1.0 Contouring: b. absolute row grade 0.5 percent Strips/barriers: (none) Diversion/terrace, sediment basin: (none) Subsurface drainage: (none) Adjust res. burial level: Normal res. burial Outputs: T value: 5.0 t/ac/yr Soil loss erod. portion: 2.8 t/ac/yr Detachment on slope: 2.8 t/ac/yr Soil loss for cons. plan: 2.8 t/ac/yr Sediment delivery: 2.8 t/ac/yr Crit slope length: 400 ft Surf. cover after planting: 68 % Date Operation Vegetation Surf. res. coy. after op, % 9/5/0 Bulldozer, filling/leveling 0 9/21/0 Disk, tandem light finishing 0 9/21/0 perations\Harrow, spike tooth 0 9/22/0 Drill or airseeder, double disk Grass, cool season, fall seeded 68 9/22/0 perations\Add mulch 68 9/22/0 perations\Mulch crimper 68 ATTACHMENT B-7-3 LONG-TERM RUSLE2 EROSION CALCULATION RECORD U� NRCS hatutal Rncatfp% Consavacscm i.w*. RUSLE2 Profile Erosion Calculation Record Info: File: profiles\Pawnee long term check 400ft Inputs: Location: USA\Colorado\Weld County\CO_Weld_R_16-18 Soil: Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part\31 Kim -Mitchell complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes\Kim Loam 45% Slope length (horiz): 400 ft Avg. slope steepness: 18 % Management Vegetation Yield units # yield units, #/ac CMZ 05\c.Other Local Mgt Records\Pawnee check Grass, cool season, fall seeded ton 1.0 Contouring: a. rows up-and-down hill Strips/barriers: (none) Diversion/terrace, sediment basin: (none) Subsurface drainage: (none) Adjust res. burial level: Normal res. burial Outputs: T value: 5.0 t/ac/yr Soil loss erod. portion: 1.8 t/ac/yr Detachment on slope: 1.8 t/ac/yr Soil loss for cons. plan: 1.8 t/ac/yr Sediment delivery: 1.8 t/ac/yr Crit. slope length: 400 ft Surf. cover after planting: 0.43 % Date Operation Vegetation Surf res. coy. after op, % 9/22/0 Begin growth Grass, cool season, fall seeded 0.43 APPENDIX B-8 Water Balance Cover Demonstration Golder Associates CALCULATIONS Date: Project No.: Site Name: Subject: February 19, 2016 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: JMP Checked by: ALB AL5 Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Reviewed by: DLO Weld County, Colorado �g Dc. O APPENDIX B-8: WATER BALANCE COVER DEMONSTRATION 1.0 OBJECTIVE Demonstrate the on -site soils at the Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill site (Site or Landfill) will meet the requirements for water balance covers specified in the Final Guidance Document - Water Balance Covers in Colorado (CDPHE, 2013). 2.0 METHODOLOGY For water balance covers in Colorado, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) requires the use of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Textural Triangle and USDA definitions for sand and fine-grained soils (i.e., silt and clay). Based on ecozone location and the predominant USDA soil type, the soil thickness for the water storage layer of the water balance cover can be estimated using an acceptable zone. When soil compaction levels are high, there is a threshold soil bulk density beyond which roots have difficulty penetrating due to the high physical resistance of the soil (Goldsmith et al., 2001). This threshold density is called the growth -limiting bulk density and varies depending on soil texture and plant type. The growth -limiting bulk density can be estimated based on the predominant USDA soil type. Typical growth -limiting bulk density values range from about 90 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for predominately clayey soils to approximately 106 pcf for sandy soils (Goldsmith, et al.. 2001: Schenk, 2002). 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS ■ The Site is located in Ecozone 3, as shown in Attachment B-8-1. NI Grain -size analysis testing (ASTM D422 with full hydrometer) was performed for on -site soils. Laboratory results are provided in Attachment B-8-2 and summarized in Table B-8-1. Table B-8-1: Grain -size Analysis Testing Summary Sample Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) Field Classification BH-02 4-20 ft i 21.0 61.5 p 17.5 Eolian Silt BH-10 5-25 ft 14.0 71.5 14.5 w I Eolian Silt BH-09 4-9 ft I ir 31.0 58.0 11.0 Eolian Silt BH-04 5-25 ft 21.0 68.5 10.5 B Eolian Silt BH-08 5-25 ft 41.6 42.0 15 Eolian Silt i \1411407882b\0400\0403 edop revl\appendix b\app b -811407882b app b-8 water balance cover demo revl 19feb2016 docx Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood. CO 80228 USA Tel (303) 980-0540 Fax. (303) 985-2080 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation CALCULATIONS Pa 2 of 2 Project No.: 1407882B Rev. 1 Made by: JMP Site Name: Pawnee Waste E&P Landfill Checked by: ALB Date: I February 19, 2016 Reviewed by: DLO c& jz, p,.._ U 4.0 CALCULATIONS Grain -size analysis test results for on -site soils were plotted on the USDA textural triangle with the water storage layer thickness acceptable zones for Ecozone 3 overlaid on the triangle. Calculations are presented in Attachment B-8-3. Grain -size analysis test results for on -site soils were plotted on the USDA textural triangle with the growth -limiting bulk density iso-density lines overlaid on the triangle. Calculations are presented in Attachment B-8-4. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Three of the five soils tested are within the 2.5 -foot thick acceptable zone. The remaining two tests were located slightly out of the 2.5 -foot thick acceptable zone. A water storage layer thickness of 3 feet will be used for the proposed water balance cover at the Landfill. The growth -limiting bulk density for the soils tested is between 96.3 pounds per cubic feet (pcf) and 88.8 pcf. Soils used in the water balance cover should be compacted to a density within 80 and 90% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D6938.. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS Attachment B-8-1: Ecozone Location Map Attachment B-8-2: Grain -size Analysis Laboratory Testing Results Attachment B-8-3: Water Storage Layer Thickness Calculations Attachment B-8-4: Growth -limiting Bulk Density Calculations 7.0 REFERENCES Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2013. Final Guidance Document — Water Balance Covers in Colorado. Goldsmith, W.; Silva. M.; and Fischenich, C. (2001). "Determining Optimal Degree of Soil Compaction for Balancing Mechanical Stability and Plant Growth Capacity," ERDCTN EMRRP-SR-26), United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, http://acwc. sdp. sirsi. net/client/search/asset/1004296. Schenk. H. J. and Jackson. R. B. (2002). "Rooting depths, lateral root spreads and below ground/aboveground allometries of plants in water -limited ecosystems," Journal of Ecology. Vol. 90, pp. 480-494. i 11411407882b1040010403 edop rev 1 \appendix blapp b -811407882b app b-8 water balance cover demo revl 19feb2016 docx Golder Associates Figure 2.2.1-1 — Colorado Ecozones and Active Municipal Solid Waste Landfills MOFFAT COUNTY REGIONAL LANDFILL WRAY GULCH LANDFILL ST GARFIELD MAIDS LAN s-ROiAD "*. JACKSON COUNTY LANDF L • S€CCWKCK COUNTY LANDFILLIawnee lAbSle. !LOGAN COUNTY LANDFILL) LARIMER COUNTY LANDFILL NORTH WELD SANITARY LANDFILL _IMILNER LANDFILL fsuFFALo RIDGE LANDSL kRliWIMLfIKi LANDFILL] DENVER RSO'IONAL LANDf1L4130U H) Ile EAGLE COUNTY LANDFILL' UTH CANYON SWDS-- N FOOTHILLS LANDFILL SUMMIT COUNTY SWDS LANDFILL CTY SOLID WASTE CENTER ME : - • TY LANDFILL j MONTROSE SWOS `LAKE COUNTY LANDFILL 2* 3 !CHAFFEE COUNTY LANDFILL] SIX MILE LANE LANDFILL SAGUACHE COUNTY LANDFILL BROAD CANYON LANDFILL MINERAL COU SAN LUIS VALLEY REGIONAL LANDFILL ONTEZUMA COUNTY LANDFILL, BONDAD LF ARCHULETA LANDFI i •FRONT RANGE LANDFILL TOWER LANDFILL 'Mc] �F �1► � CONaERVAT10t186RVICE EAST REGIONALNDFILL j DENVER ARAPAHOE DISPOSAL SI LINCOLN COUNTY LANDFILL CO ORADO SPRINGS LANDFILL FOUNTAIN LANDF MIDWAY LANDFII. L 11 cusreR COUNTY I ANT'ON, LANDFILL t�SOUTN lDE sW DISPOSAL BITE ISROADICRE LANDFILL INC.; L NZANOLA LA DFILLl ,fit .ate PHILLIPS COUNTY LANDFILL 'MORGAN COUNTY. LANDFlLL "WASMINGTON COUNTY IANbFIII int" COUNTY SWOS LANDF1Lt BURLINGTON SWDS LANDFILLI 4 FIRSTVIEW SANITARY LANDFILL EADS SWOS LANDFILL ` HASWELL SWDS LANDFILLI , Ro COUNTY adrre 1 (GRANADA SWDS LANOFIL _ r . BEAST LANIAR ttliNClML LAIfLLu f$k BUTTEs Sivas TRINIDA( LANDFILL! 'SPRINGFIELD swcsi (�cHerr SWDS WALSH SWDS lite" 4 ATTACHMENT B-8-2 GRAIN -SIZE ANALYSIS LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS Golder Associates October -14 PARTICLE SIZE ASTM DISTRIBUTION D421, D422, & ATTERBERG D4318 LIMITS 1407882A.002 PROJECT SAMPLE TYPE: 3 -inch 1.5 -inch 1 -inch 3/4 100 4 NAME: ID: -inch 3/S -inch Si PW/PAWNEEBUTTESLANDFARM/CO BH-02 Pail #10 #20 #40 #6i) *100 #200 DEPTH (ft): 4-20 T T T I ' 1 f 90 ,r 80 70 t 1 - 60 �, c N ct Ct z 50 - - - . c v u Z 40 - - -- - - '4 4 30 • - - i 70 . - 10 1 0 - _ - - - 100 10 1 0.1 Particle Size (mm) 0.01 F S1VT - 0.001 4----115illessb > SANO F----- clay AVEL Particle Size 's 60 Sieve (mm) I',i\�tit_ — - • 3 -inch 75.0 100.0 Description Percentage U -Line A -line Sieve Analysis Initial Separation on No. 4 Si:\; , I.5 -inch 37 . 100.0 Plasticity Index I P ► O o O C C 1 • I 1 -inch 25.0 100.0 Coarse Gravel 0.110 ---�-: ;/4 inch 19.0 100.0 CH or OH / 3/8 -inch (a - 100.0 line Gravel / #4 4.^5 100.0 0.00 , • #10 2.0 98.8 Coarse Sand 1.19 ; #20 0.85 97.3 It #40 0.425 96.2 .hunt : itiLt _.66 i MH or OH 0.25 94.7L • %al -#60 or OL #100 0.15 92.1 I -n. cN.,tt.t 10.88 :� , • •#200 0.075 85.3 ,'1 0.032 61.3 -_ CL 4f LorOL 0.021 52.7 ! -L < 0.012 43.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0.009 36.1 Silt or Clay Fines 85.17 liquid Limit (LL) LL) E L 0.006 29.8 4. 0.003 i 21.8 0.001 13.E USCS Description (ASTM D 2487): It PL PI Silt. eery pale brown. moist 40 28 I 12 I As -Received Moisture Content (%) LISCS Group Symbol 1 16.1 1 I ML Notes: Og of particles up to 4.75mm maximum size were removed from particle size analysis sample prior to testing Particle size analysis sample mechanically dispersed using Stirring Apparatus A for about 1 minute TECH Sample prepared for Atterberg Limits testing by the dry method EHILR Material retained on No. 40 sieve removed from Atterberg Limits sample by sieving DATE 10/2/2014 Plastic Limit test performed by hand rolling. Method A Liquid Limit test performed using mechanical device REVIEW NIB Golder Associates October -14 1407882A.002 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION & ATTERBERG LIMITS 100 -inch 1.5 -inch 1-uich 4 4 PROJECT NAME: SAMPLE ID: TYPE: 3/4 -inch 3/8 -inch 4 - #4 + PW/PAWNEEBUTTESLANDFARM/CO BH-10 Pail ;10 ASTM D421, ;20 #40 D422, #60 #100 D4318 #200 DEPTH (ft): 5-25 T T i -I - - -- - - - - 90 , 80 70 - .- . 60 • - 00 c H H a- 50 - - c U U L - U Cw 40 - ` 30 20 r 10 - - - , 1 - - f ' 0 - - -- �- - - 100 10 r€L 1 snase ' 0.1 Particle Size (mm) s - - 0.01 511.7 - - 0 001 Particle Size Sieve (mm) 'X Passing 60 r — - - 3 -inch 75.0 100.0 Description Percentage i /U -Line line Sieve Analysis (Initial Separation on No. 4 Sieve) 1.5 -inch 37.5 100.0 Plasticity Index (PI) N co 4.e L!1 a a a a II l • 1 -inch _ 25.0 100.0 Coarse Gravel 0.00 ; • 3/4 -inch i 19.0 100.0 • • CH or DH 3/8 -inch 9.5 100.0 Fine Gravel ' #4 4.75 100.0 0.00 #10 2.0 99.9 Coarse Sand 0.14 • • re #20 0.85 99.5 • • #40 0.425 99.2 Medium Sand 0.65 , MI -1 orOH #60 0.25 98.4 ; CL or PI #100 0.15 97.0 Fine Sand 6.41 • ;' • • #200 0.075 92.8 • r 0.031 68.1 CL a MI • L or oL 0.020 56.8 0 I 7,4 0.012 42.8 0 10 20 30 T 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 ri 0.009 34.9 Silt or Clay Futes 92.80 Liquid Limit (LL) C -5 0.006 25.3 = 0.003 17.4 0.001 10.7 USCS Description (ASTM D 2487): LL PL PI Silt, very pale brown, moist I 41 I 31 j 10 I As -Received Moisture Content ("r f USCS Group Symbol I 16.7 I ML Notes: Og of particles up to 4.75nun maximum size were removed from particle size analysis sample prior to testing Particle size analysis sample mechanically dispersed using Stirring Apparatus A for about 1 minute Sample prepared for Atterberg Limits testing by the dry method TECH EH/LR Material retained on No. 40 sieve removed from Atterberg Limits sample by sieving DATE 10/2/2014 Plastic Limit test performed by hand rolling. Method A Liquid Limit test performed using mechanical deice REVIEW MB Golder Associates October -14 1407882.A.002 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION & ATTERBERG LIMITS 100 3 -inch 1.5 -inch - 4 ♦ PROJECT NAME: PW/PAWNEEBUTTESLANDFARM/CO SAMPLE ID: BH-09 TYPE: Bag 1 -inch 3/4 -inch 3/8 -inch =1 310 t ♦ ♦ + ASTM #20 ♦ D421, #40 D422, #60 i *100 D4318 #200 DEPTH (ft): 4-9 ` 1 90 - 80 1 . 70 - . 60 0a C y N ezt a. 50 A tu tu ) .' .'` 40 T 30 - 10, , , I0 { i 1 0r ' - 100 10 GRAVEL'. 1 f Particle —Sate— 0.1 Size (mm) 0.01 i 0.001 Particle' ',/:, , 60 so Cr - c tily Sieve r mm , , Passing _ , 3 -inch 75.0 100.0 Description Percentage J' • U -L a -line Sieve Analysis (Initial Separation on No. 4 Sieve) 1.5 -inch 37 100.0 Plasticity Index (PI) N.) L„ LA O O O O , , L • • 1 -inch 25.0 100.0 Coarse Gravel (►.111) • i4 -inch 19.0 100.0 / • CH or OH . 3/8 -inch 9.5 100.0 ; ( ir,c,..l #4 4.75 100.0 in, !►.(111 / #10 2.0 100.0 Coarse Sand 0.02 ; _ #20 0.85 99.7 v1cui,un-, Viand / #40 0.425 98.4 1.(62 • / MH or OH #60 0.25 95.3 ; CL or t_ #100 0.15 899 Fine Sand 22.01 ,1, #200 0.075 76.4 '�. • - 0.033 48.2 CL iMI L or pt .1 0.022 36.03. 0 ! + 0.013 27.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0.009 21.4 Silt or Clay Fines 76.36 Liquid Limit (LL) L 0.007 16.9 -' 0.003 11.8 0.001 10.1 USCS Description (ASTM D 2487): 1.1. PL PI Silt with sand. very pale brown. moist 37 28 1 9 As -Received Moisture Content ('.% ) USCS Group Symbol 12.9 I ML Notes: Og of particles up to 4.75mm maximum size were removed from panicle size analysis sample prior to testing Particle dispersed Stirring size analysis sample mechanically using Apparatus A for about 1 minute "TECH Sample prepared for Atterberg Limits testing by the dry method RU/LR Material retained on No. 40 sieve removed from Atterbcrg Limits sample by sieving DATE 10/1/2014 Plastic Limit test performed by hand rolling. Method A Liquid Limit test performed using mechanical device REVIEW NIB Golder Associates October -14 100 3 -inch 1.5 -inch 1 — 4 PROJECT SAMPLE TYPE: -inch 3/4 4 ID: -inch 3/8 NAME: -inch PARTICLE #4 SIZE ASTN1 PW/PAWNEEBUTTESLANDFARM/CO BH-04 Pail #10 + DISTRIBUTION #20 D421, #40 D422, #60 & ATTERBERG #100 D4318 #200 DEPTH LIMITS 1407882..1)02 (ft): 5-25 I- i - 4 90 80 70 • 60 00 c U, U, a r 50 c 79r u it a. 40 - -. . i 30 10 0 - - - - 100 GRAVEL 10 _ 1 Particle Size (mm) 0.1 0.01 0001 Partick Sieve Size k Passing SIND egasselmilml•IIM4 60• sit,' -----.4 41---) CPI (mm) 3 -inch 75.0 100.0 Description Percentage 'f• ' U Lire A -tine Sieve Analysis (Initial Separation on No. 4 Sieve) 1 5 -inch 37.5 100.0 Plasticity Index (Pt) 0 0 0 LA c 1 -inch 25.0 100.0 Coarse Grasel 0.00 ; 3/4 -inch 19.0 100.0 • CH or OH 3/8 -inch 9.5 I 100.0 Fine /' #4 i 4.75 100.0 (;ravel 0.00 , / #10 2.0 100.0 Coarse Sand 0.00 • ; #20 0.85 99.7 Medium • / #40 0.425 99.2 Sand 0.82 et , MHorOH #60 0.25 97.9 i CL or• _ # 100 0.15 95.3 Fine Sand 9.65 • . #200 0.075 89.5 •' .__ 0.033 52.f1 CL AML AL or L 0.022 38.7 0 I t 0.013 28.2 0 10 20 30 r 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0.009 22.1 l ri, 89.53 Liquid Limit (LL) ,_ 0.007 17.7 = 0.003 12.7 0.001 8.9 USCS Description (ASTM D 2487r LL PL PI Silt, very pale brown, moist 36 1 25 1 11 1 : s-Recei'sed Moisture Content ici ) USCS Group Symbol 11.4 i ML I Notes: Og of particles up to 4.75mm maximum size were removed from particle size analysis sample prior to testing Particle size analysis sample mechanically dispersed using Stirring Apparatus A for about 1 minute Sample prepared for Atterberg Limits testing by the dry method TECH EH./LR Material retained on No. 40 sieve removed from Atterberg Limits sample by sieving DATE 10/2/2014 Plastic Limit test performed by hand rolling. Method A Liquid Limit test performed using mechanical device REVIEW MB Golder Associates October -14 1407882A.002 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION & ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D421, D422, D4318 PROJECT NAME: PW/PAWNEEBUTTESLANDFARM/CO SAMPLE ID: BH-08 DEPTH (ft): 5-25 inn 3 -inch 1.5 -inch 1 a l TYPE: Pail -inch 3/4 -inch 3/8-indi #4 #10 l A 1. 1 #20 #40 + i_ #60 #100 t #200 4 } r 1 - Particle 0.1 Size (mm) 0.01 ,� 0.001 ........-p- - %AND 60 - St1.T--- 4 --- -- Particle Size Sieve col (nun) 9 Passing 3 -inch 75.0 100.0 Description Percentage „fre U-L�e A -line Sieve Analysis (Initial Separation on No. 4 Sieve) l.5 -inch 37.5 100.0 Plasticity Index (P1) NJ 0 0 0 0 1 -inch 25.0 100.0 Coarse Gravel 0.00 •,' ' 3/4 -inch 19.0 100.0S CH or OH 3/8 -inch 9.5 99.4 Fine Gravel #4 4.75 98.6 137 # 10 2.0 95.9 Coarse Sand 2.77 • • #20 0.85 92.1 • • ; #40 0.425 87.1 Medium Sand 8.76//SI ; ; MH or,OH #60 0.25 81.4 CLor#1000.1575.1line Sand 24.79 • #2000.07562.3 0.03-142.0eLorOL 0.02237.9f bt j01 0.013 32.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0.009 25.5 Silt or Clay Fines 62.31 Liquid Limit (LL) .. z 0.007 21.9 23 z 0.003 17.2 0.001 11.8 USCS Description (ASTM D 2487): LL PL Pt Sandy silt. light yellowish brown. moist 42 _ 27 15 1 As -Received Moisture Content (IX ) USCS Group Symbol I 20.8 I I ML Notes: Og of particles up to 19.0mm maximum size were removed from particle size analysis sample prior to testing Particle dispersed Stirring size analysis sample mechanically using Apparatus A for about 1 minute TECH Sample prepared for Atterberg Limits testing by the dry method EH/LR Material retained on No. 40 sieve removed from Atterberg Limits sample by sieving DATE 10/2/2014 Plastic Limit test performed by hand rolling. Method A Liquid Limit test performed using mechanical device REVIEW MB ATTACHMENT B-8-3 WATER STORAGE LAYER THICKNESS CALCULATIONS BH OZ s 20 rt I Figure 2.2.1-4 Water Storage Layer Thicknesses for Ecozone 3 3 3.5 ft _ 4.0 ft /30A oks • VAIrvistrarivitt-I-c-Antrati 17 clay �jY� attstAin. ATMS avt )Aninvvvvaruna, A grey A Ill Al.\. 4v�� _ sandy ,\W•y loA -ATi �A �`�.�%.�� ail ,rind WirrtrvinrirrirvirUV 80 100 90 70A clay 4el 60.41,4"Alk. A tic. 4,(tits() � r vey --- clay loam - ayssss --- clay loam - Qat eVilek tste' r. fe9 tor A 61.5 2.5 ft I �.S san d G 4 Sand Separate, % Q tBN-t0 S-25Pt� Figure 2.2.1-4 Water Storage Layer Thicknesses for Ecozone 3 3.0 ft 3.5 ft 4.0 ft w.s 10 ..A / 30 tett eraglair • ekva sandy Io;imyMika sand 40 send sand Y 9090 • 100 - st 7.0.084mv cav 50 �� c ay loam Attkt.,AAA1A s --- c ay oam VATLT1�iTZ�!._. � ,. I. AYASAYAW#YA Attv.A.A.A.AISAILA A NW • A el IA cr. Je; oc 2.5 fti vrt‘ silty, clay_ S clay am o o o o o ' � 'tea 4 Sand Separate. % 4'. Si' 1 [81403 4-91t, Figure 2.2.1-4 Water Storage Layer Thicknesses for Ecotone 3 3.0 ft 3.5 ft andy 40, clait.--- --- day loam Ak30Aedit Testri,TACI 4.0 ft tislakM Zrin SIAM" V VT X4r4 2.() silt A Ii CASVY sandyASA#7SAIAtSYS WtVAVAYAY/� to i��my sil sanda YVVVPV 8080 90�o 10070 clay :at 50 A 4*0? tp. c j. 4.0 2.5 ft sand Sit g to 4 �O �D • Q �G Sand Separate, % ty clay s 'G I BH-O s_zs-fb I Figure 2.2.1-4 Water Storage Layer Thicknesses for Ecozone 3 � ooh 90 3.0 ft 3.5 ft _ 4.0 ft 1 16.4 It 70 ea 60 a -e 50 40, 80# AkTry • Is AMY A AWAY VAY clay loam AS., VAT IFTYv _a A rirt loam-,RY A AWSVA sandy A%\WAV1°var. ViliNkItAVVATAWAPII A loamy et wIt ft" oft a 2.5 ft sand silty clay �D EGG �D t 4 _ Sand Separate, % 2r 0 t BR _08 s -zsft- Figure 2.2.1-4 Water Storage Layer Thicknesses for Ecozone 3 90 i oo- Atka ,,0 70 ' 3.oft 0 A� ciay80, '' ti)iz," , -‘.?et , __...____F at 60 ,Ne 50 ,...9. 0, 4 . 4. A 4"--t 2.5 ft # Azt?" 4 3.5 ft �# n ..., & 30 d / VAY. ilty: Alt clay loam .- clay yam ,,,/ yar Ay AL 1 IF 1 Pr 11 I c, L.�' assA efile�A silt ��' f4SandY swayss 1t�t L's AC M I g a 1 1 AVAI IN ag rl r. di f A s , 1 A oamy sand .:indwknr V V Yfrlirtirlrinnir vir 4.0 ft 15 10 N ' 0 stiP Sand Separate, % o Summary) Figure 2.2.1-4 Water Storage Layer Thicknesses for Ecozone 3 loo 90 3.0 ft #4\"clay-, e ................ c V AA A A Ate cle; ASTATAA A 0 tSOAY4!AYAVAYAV. 4-I's 2.5 ft v � andy Tr V silty, "" clay \ ��I ale dy :: VAT lay loam A lay . \ 4.Oftj �I�� ITV y��''��11, a r t7tistraraf.yAA,Lv7�qtsrr�.� 1 sand sand ��V V V�AV��Y�-/lr 3.5 ft I0 am S Q r �a �O 0 ' 0 G 4 Sand Separate. % G ATTACHMENT B-8-4 GROWTH -LIMITING BULK DENSITY CALCULATIONS l 5ummary\ 1 Figure 2.2.3-1 Growth -Limiting Bulk Density Iso-Density Lines Shown on the USDA Textural Triangle 0 10 S %Clay 50 40 100 90 10 80 20 • 70 1 • 60 • t SC ♦ • • • 30 • ♦ 90.5 • %% 0.45) • • • • • • 40 • ♦ SiC SICL 30 ♦ l CL % 70 • SCL • t •� ` �96.8 • � 20 t ♦ ‘Cl .55) 80 ``• 109.2 SL�� 103.0 % hMOB i • Sit_ �et110 � ��(1.75) 11.65) %` �t • 87.4 / 90 LS S. S. 1 i � (1.40), Si 50 %Silt 60 • 100 90 80 70 60 %Sand Legend: a - a = Iso-Density Line 87.4 = Pounds per Cubic Foot (1.40) = Grams per Cubic Centimeter 4n Reference: "Determining Optimal Degree of Soil Compaction for Balancing Mechanical Stability and Plant Growth Capacity," by Goldsmith, Silva, and Fischenich (2001). 30 20 10 100 0 Hello