Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-05 Packet - Part 4-pgs-1500-1999 The City of Ukiah Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Air Quality leads to a vacuum blower. The vacuum blower creates a vacuum in the header pipe that draws the LFG from the soil through the extraction wells and subsequently to the blower. Discharge from the current system is vented directly to the atmosphere via a 4-foot tall, 4-inch diameter stack. It should be noted that once the flare station is installed and operational, the need to operate the existing partial perimeter gas collection system may no longer be necessary and would either be abandoned or maintained for emergency use only. Table 3.2-4 shows estimated annual operational emissions from the proposed flare station and compares them to the applicable MCAQMD significance thresholds. As shown in Table 3.2-4,operational emissions would be below the applicable MCAQMD significance thresholds. Appendix D provides details on the emission calculations. Table 3.2-4 Estimated Annual Operational i i Condition ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Flare Station 0.18 1.62 0.03 0.03 5.26 Significance Threshold 40 40 15 10 125 Significant(Yes or No)? No No No No No 1)Flare emissions assume the maximum LEG flow rate of 210 scfm,aflare operating temperature of 1600 degrees Fahrenheit,and a destruction efficiency of 98%.See Appendix D for detailed flare emissions calculations. Source:Authority to Construct Permit Emission Calculations(May 2016)and USEPA AP-42. Operational emissions would be below the applicable MCAQMD significance thresholds and the Proposed Project would require the acquisition of an Authority to Construct(ATC)/Permit to Operate (PTO)from the MCAQMD. Therefore,the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Significance Determination: Less-Than-Significant. Impact 3.2-4: Would Construction and/or Operation of the Proposed Project Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations? BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines indicates a minimum buffer zone of 300 meters (1,000 feet) between construction activities and sensitive receptors in order to reduce pollutant exposure.16 Studies of health risk have found the highest impacts on sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet." The California Air Toxics Program establishes the process for the identification and control of toxic air contaminants (TAC) and includes provisions to make the public aware of significant toxic exposures and for reducing risk. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA)is responsible for the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. OEHHA has adopted the Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk 16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District,CEQA Air Quality Guidelines,May 2017 htitl // , , „ „ ,'ta ;; n rc c<1rc h/c c y<l/c c 0 „ai,alc lmc !y2(}I T 17a1f pall>I<t„en 7 California Air Resources Board,Air Quality and Land Use Handbook:A Community Health Perspective,April 2005, httl7�:// :.<trE November 2019 3.2-17 Page 1500 of 4165 The City of Ukiah Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Air Quality Assessments. OEHHA recommends assessing cancer risk for projects where the maximally-exposed individual resident or sensitive receptor is exposed for two months or longer." Diesel-powered equipment and vehicles such as haul trucks, excavators, backhoes, and loaders would be used during construction of the Proposed Project. Grading and ground-disturbing activities would occur during construction activities. The operation of diesel-powered equipment would generate diesel exhaust emissions. The Proposed Project grading would be performed with equipment operating within the site and haul trucks on nearby roadways throughout the duration of construction.Diesel-powered grading equipment and haul trucks would emit TAC and PM2.5 in the form of diesel exhaust emissions. Construction-related emissions would be short term in duration(approximately 6 months). Due to the nature of the Proposed Project described previously, sensitive receptors at any one location would not be exposed to TAC and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities for greater than two continuous months, falling outside the time period for which OEHHA recommends a health risk assessment. Most sensitive receptors are well beyond 1,000 feet from construction areas. The closest construction activities (minor grading and road construction) would occur as close as approximately 600 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor, but work would not be expected to occur for greater than two continuous months at that location. The majority of construction would occur approximately 1,500 feet or greater from the nearest sensitive receptor. Lastly,the intensity of the construction activities and thus,the amount of TAC and PM2.5 emissions would be expected to be minimal. Therefore, the impact of construction TAC and PM2.5 emissions on sensitive receptors would be less than significant. The proposed flare station would be greater than 1,000 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. Operations of the proposed flare could emit some TAC,however,as noted previously,the landfill is currently equipped with a partial perimeter gas collection system that vents LFG to the atmosphere.LFG contains non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) such as TACs and ROGNOCs, and other non-organic compounds such as hydrogen sulfide. The proposed flare would destroy NMOC and other non-organic compounds sent to the flare (which are currently vented to the atmosphere) at a 98 percent destruction efficiency. Thus, operation of the proposed flare station would be expected to result in a reduction in TAC exposure. The Proposed Project would require the acquisition of an ATC/PTO from the MCAQMD prior to constructing the proposed flare station. Air toxics and impacts to sensitive receptors would be analyzed during air quality permitting for the proposed flare station by the MCAQMD. Therefore, the impact of operational TAC emissions on sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would generate ROG and NOx, which are precursor compounds to ozone formation. Ozone is produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx(See 3.2.2 Environmental Setting for more information on ROG,NOx and Ozone including potential impacts to human health).Due to the complex photochemistry of ozone production, it is not feasible to estimate ozone emissions attributable to the construction or operation of the Proposed Project. As indicated in Impact 3.2-2 and 3.2-3, construction and operational emissions would be well below significance thresholds for all pollutants including ROG and NOx. The NCAB including Mendocino County is in attainment for state and federal standards for ozone. Local air quality monitoring data shows no exceedances of the state or federal ozone standard in Mendocino i s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments,February 2015,1 spot /hot gip. 2015 11t1ill November 2019 3.2-18 Page 1501 of 4165 The City of Ukiah Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Air Quality County (See Table 3.2-2). State and federal ambient air quality standards are set by CARB and EPA to protect human health.No single project is sufficient in size to,itself,result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards.19 Construction emissions of ROG and NOx would well below MCAQMD significance thresholds and are a one-time release.After construction is complete,operations would emit very low levels of ROG and NOx from the proposed flare. As indicated previously LFG contains ROGNOC and the ROGNOC in the LFG sent to the flare (which is currently vented to the atmosphere) would be destroyed at a 98 percent destruction efficiency. Thus, operation of the Proposed Project could reduce ROGNOC emissions at the landfill and subsequent ozone formation in the region. Therefore, impacts to public health from ozone formation would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Significance Determination: Less-Than-Significant. Impact 3.2-5: Would Construction and/or Operation of the Proposed Project Result in Other Emissions (Such as Those Leading to Odors)Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People? Though offensive odors from stationary and mobile sources rarely cause any physical harm, they still remain unpleasant and can lead to public distress,generating citizen complaints to local governments. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency,and intensity of the source;wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors. The Proposed Project is designed to minimize local odor risk by insuring long-term landfill cover integrity. No substantial quantities of buried refuse would be disturbed by construction of the Proposed Project and any refuse that is required to be excavated and relocated would be subject to procedures in the Proposed Project's Construction Quality Assurance Plan 20, such as removing refuse from the site within 48 hours of being excavated and covering relocated refuse lifts with a minimum 6 inches of soil at the end of each working day. Furthermore,the nearest sensitive receptors are approximately 600 feet from the landfill site entrance and are approximately 1,000 feet from buried refuse, and any required refuse excavation would likely occur much farther than 1,000 feet from a sensitive receptor.Any odors generated by excavation and relocation of buried refuse would be minimally perceptible and would cease after the grading/excavation phase of construction is complete (approximately one month). Operation of the Proposed Project would reduce odors at the project site by insuring long-term landfill cover integrity and through the proposed flare station.Flaring destroys the odor-causing gases in LFG,which would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere without the Proposed Project.21 Therefore, a substantial number of people would not be affected due to Proposed Project construction and operation. Therefore, odor impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Significance Determination: Less-Than-Significant. 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District,CEQA Air Quality Guidelines,May 2017 htitl // :. , , , „ „ ,'tm ;; n rc c<trc h/c c W /c„0 A'Lai ej c� m,<ty2(}I T patl pall>} „c n zo EBA Engineering,Construction Quality Assurance Plan for the City of Ukiah Department of Public Works City of Ukiah Landfill Final Closure Construction,April 2019. "Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,Landfill Gas Primer,Chapter 5:Landfill Gas Control Measures,November 2001. httl7s_//vvvvvv �t atr,,c atc:.:.;,;,a;v/Tf G;/I,<tna.j!M/htmUintro..htm,1, November 2019 3.2-19 Page 1502 of 4165 The City of Ukiah Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Air Quality Impact 3.2-6: Would Construction of the Proposed Project Result in Other Emissions (Such as Naturally Occurring Asbestos)Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People? As discussed in the Environmental and Regulatory Setting sections,NOA is a health hazard when airborne. Construction in areas of rock formations that contain NOA could release asbestos into the air and pose a health hazard. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research published a memorandum on August 1, 2007 entitled Addressing Naturally Occurring Asbestos in CEQA Documents. The memorandum indicates that the CEQA process provides an opportunity for Lead Agencies to identify whether serpentinite or ultramafic rocks will be disturbed by the Proposed Project and to investigate ways to avoid, control, or otherwise mitigate the impacts of NOA. The screening criterion for determining if a project has the potential to disturb naturally occurring asbestos is to identify if the project location is in an area likely to contain such a substance. The regional geological map generated by the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology does indicate that the project site is located in a geographic area designated as an ultramafic or ultrabasic rock unit.zz 23The MCAQMD has produced a series of maps of areas likely to contain NOA in Mendocino County. These maps show areas where NOA is more likely and displays the area of concern for NOA in the Ukiah Valley, which includes the project Site.24 The aforementioned maps are not parcel specific and only show areas where NOA is more likely,the actual presence of NOA can only be determined by an expert. For projects in areas identified as potentially containing NOA, the MCAQMD requires an evaluation and report by a State registered geologist to determine that any observed NOA is below levels or regulatory concern in the areas being disturbed. The MCAQMD Air Pollution Control Officer may, upon being provided a report detailing the geologic evaluation,grant an exemption from other requirements in Title 17 California Code of Regulations §93105 (Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations).ZS With the implementation of the following mitigation measure, any impacts would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.2-6: Develop and Submit NOA Dust Mitigation Plan. Prior to construction of the Proposed Project(if an exemption is not granted because it is determined that NOA is not found on the project site), the City shall submit a NOA Dust Mitigation Plan to the MCAQMD and comply with NOA requirements of the MCAQMD and Title 17 California Code of Regulations §93105. Specifically, the MCAQMD requires that the following control measures are implemented at the start and maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity(one acre or greater),in accordance with Title 17 California Code of Regulations §93105: • Submittal of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan in accordance with Section 93105(e)(4) zz U.S.Geological Survey and California Geological Survey,Reported Historic Asbestos Mines,Historic Asbestos Prospects,and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California,2011,http�//g,ab�c r u g�,;ov/p ablcc Icon/ fr20111_1,8.8, "Department of Conservation,A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California—Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos,August 2000,ftp//itP,c,on�ry �gov/pub/fm, pubs/ fr/ofr 2600 019,,,24., 24 Mendocino County Air Quality Management District,Areas that may Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos in the Ukiah Valley,May 24, 2005,http//www co mendocmoc, hics/l d ch N1A pa,1'u/ m ...15 Mendocino County Air Quality Management District,Advisory:Policies for Areas Containing Naturally Occurring Asbestos(NOA), December 2013 http//yvlvw c cr me nd..mcr,,a u /..gm,al/pdf h1c s/NOA_Pohc y AI1VIS( Y pail: November 2019 3.2-20 Page 1503 of 4165 The City of Ukiah Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Air Quality • All Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan requirements must be implemented and maintained throughout project. • Stabilize disturbed areas after construction. • Report and record all geologic survey and sampling analysis results • All fill removed from areas containing NOA must be disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. • Approved dust suppressants are to be used on all unpaved surfaces annually. • Construction within 1/4 mile of a school, hospital, or other sensitive receptors can occur only with a District permit. • Discovery of NOA after start of a project requires stoppage of work, notification to the District and implementation of NOA requirements for the project size prior to restarting of work. • All on-site workers must be notified of the presence or possible presence of NOA per OSHA requirements. With implementation of the above mitigation, any NOA impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be less-than-significant. Significance Determination: Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation. 3.2.5 Cumulative Effects There are no known projects that would be constructed at the same time and within the same vicinity of the Proposed Projectthat would or could create any additional or cumulative construction related impacts. Once constructed the Proposed Project would not have any significant impacts. As a result,the Proposed Project would not have any direct, indirect, short-term and/or long-term cumulative impacts to air quality. Significance:Less-than-Significant. 3.2.6 References Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,Landfill Gas Primer, Chapter S:Landfill Gas Control Measures, November 2001.httpp i.//www.atsdr.cdc.yov/➢�1AQ.'/land�dilllhtml/intro html California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, California Emissions Estimator Model User's Guide November 2017 htdi�://www.caleemod.com/ California Air Resources Board.Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. httR//www.arb.ca.,ov/diesel/documents/m� l pdf California Air Resources Board,EMFAC2014 User's Guide,April 30, 2014, ht;d�://www.ab.ca. ov/nisei/downloads/emd�c2G114/emd�c201 4 voll users wide 0520 5.p�l&` November 2019 3.2-21 Page 1504 of 4165 The City of Ukiah Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2 Air Quality California Air Resources Board, OFFROAD Instructions, ht;dp://www.arb.ca.gov/ms"ro)&mL �gjznn_do Q9 /o�iwrite :_ ...................................... California Code of Regulations, §93105. Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations. ht;a s://2y .,.wesIJ M c.om.&. lrcgs/l:)ocument/Q2E3l FB'701:)608 Q Q D1 88A1 1:�1�1 29f l Q 1.)(..'0A`�vnew l,y;; e Full."l"c�t�zori�nnatnonQ::"ont�;�t docupnentdoc�ztr�xnsntnon l �,==Q::°ate nor l�a�eQtem�zcontextl:�at a::::::::%2 sc.l.)e.ult%29 ...................................................................................................................................... Department of Conservation,A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos,August 2000, a.//ftp.consrv.ca.,2y/pub/dm,/pubs/ofr/ofr 2000 0 Q 9. df EBA Engineering, Construction Quality Assurance Plan for the City of Ukiah Department ofPublic Works City of Ukiah Landfill Final Closure Construction,April 2019. Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Areas that may Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos in the Ukiah Valley, May 24, 2005, ht;a i�://www.co.mendocnno.ca.us/aa�mrn�/ d riles/l.lki�xh [�:�A.pdd` Mendocino County Air Quality Management District, Particulate Matter Attainment Plan, January 2005, ht;ai�://www.co.mendocnno.ca.us/aa mu / ` &riles/Atf�nnanent%20P1an DRAT T.pdf Mendocino County Air Quality Management District,Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance—June 2, 2010. ht;a�://www.co.mendocnno.ca.us/a muds ` &riles/MQ::"A��MI�Q::"E��ARecomendatnons.pdf Mendocino County Air Quality Management District,Advisory: Policies for Areas Containing Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA), December 2013. ht[a://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/�:tqmd/ ` &riles/ 0A�l�olncy�ADVlSO RY.pdf Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation ofHealth Risk Assessments,February 2015, htta.//ochha.c�,.,ov/�iir/hot sipots/hotspots20 Q 5.html Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program, December 6, 1995, htta://www.cityoFukiah.com/documents and maps/ United States Environmental Protection Agency,AP-42 Compilation of Air Emission Factors Section 13.5 Industrial Flares, December 2016, htd s://www3.e a.Gov/tin/chned/a 42/ch Q 3/dnnal/Q::"Q 3SG�5 Q 2.p 3 .Q 6. dd` United States Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California, 2011, htd s:// ubs.er.us Ls.Lov/ ublicatnon/oFr20 p Q Q Q99 November 2019 3.2-22 Page 1505 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources 3.3 Biological Resources This section describes the existing environmental and regulatory setting, the biological resources in the Project Area, and evaluates how construction and operation of the Proposed Project would impact biological resources. 3.3.1 Introduction This evaluation of biological resources includes a review of vegetation and wildlife habitat, special-status species, and jurisdictional "waters of the United States" that occur or potentially occur at or in the vicinity of the Planning Area. The results of this assessment are based upon field reconnaissance of the Planning Area, literature searches, and database queries. The sources of reference data reviewed include the following: • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information on Planning and Conservation(IPaC 2019) • USFWS list of special status animals for Sonoma County(USFWS 2019) • California Natural Diversity Database records (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2019) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) Special Animals List(CDFW 2019), • State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California(CDFW 2019) • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory records (CNPS 2019) • CDFG publication "California's Wildlife,Volumes I-III" (Zemer et al., 1990) The literature search also included a review of the CalFish IMAPS Viewer (www.calfish.org), developed by CDFW Biogeographic Branch for analysis of steelhead Critical Habitat along tributaries to the Russian River(CNDDB 2019). Additionally,A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988)was reviewed for characterizing wildlife habitats. Other sources of information regarding reported occurrences included locations previously reported to the U.C. Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and the California Academy of Sciences that were not included in the CNDDB. 3.3.2 Environmental Setting The Ukiah Landfill occupies approximately 40-acres of a 283.5-acre parcel having a maximum width of approximately 1,000-feet in the north-south direction and a maximum length of about 3,500-feet in the east-west direction. Existing ground surface elevations at the landfill range from approximately 710- feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the western footprint, to about 970-feet MSL along the southeast footprint. The Ukiah Landfill has a very steep (2:1) slope and has been graded to form a series of flat terraces stepping down from south to north. The Landfill surface is covered with seasonal grasses. The Project Area is located within the headwaters of an ephemeral tributary to the Russian River. It is located north of Sulphur Creek, a perennial creek,which supports steelhead(Onchorhynchus mykiss)and foothill yellow legged frog (Rana boylii). There is no hydrologic connection between Sulphur Creek and the November 2019 3.3-1 Page 1506 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources ephemeral tributary located on the northern boundary of the site. Although the ephemeral tributary is hydrologically connected to the Russian River, an 8-foot tall cement fish barrier occurs at the Redeemer Road crossing, located approximately 1.25 miles west of the project area. Zoning for the Project site is designated as Public Facilities by the Mendocino County General Plan. The rest of this section provides a summary of the vegetation communities, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, and waters of the U.S. that occur within and immediately round the vicinity of the Project Study Area. 3.3.2.1 Vegetation Communities Nomenclature for vegetation types follows The Manual of California Vegetation Second Edition (Sawyer, et. al. 2009)where applicable. Nine vegetation communities occur within the project study area. Each of these are discussed below. Avena(barbata,fatua) Semi-natural Herbaceous Stands or Wild Oats Grassland.This is the dominant vegetation type within the project study area as this type covers most of the landfill area, borrow area and roadsides. The wild oats grassland is mixed in with the ruderal forbs type. The revegetated portions of the landfill have a mixture of non-native grasses and in some areas non-native forbs (ruderal forbs) are dominant. Plant species commonly found in the wild oats grasslands include wild oats (Avena barbata, A. fatua), rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordaceus),hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum),Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), ryegrass (Festuca perennis),tall fescue(Festuca arundinacea)and rattail fescue(Festuca myuros). A few native grass species were also noted in this type including purple needle grass(Nasella pulchra),California oatgass (Danthonia californica) and six weeks fescue (Festuca microstachys). A variety of non-native forb species also occur in this type including hairy vetch(Vicia villosa),cut-leaf plantain(Plantago coronopus),yellow star thistle (Centaurea solsititalis), European umbrella milkwort (Tolpis barbata), yellow glandweed (Parentucellia viscosa), Mediterranean linseed (Bellardia trixago), rose clover (Trifolium hirtum), filarees (Erodium cicutarium, E. botrys), and rough cat's-ear (Hypochaeris radicata). Native forb species included blow wives (Achyrachaena mollis), erect plantain (Plantago erecta), suncups (Taraxia ovata), blue-eyed grass (Sisrynchium bellum), soaproot(Chloragalum pomeridianum),Pacific sanicle (Sanicula crassicaulis), and California buttercup (Ranunculus californicus). Ruderal Community.Ruderal forbs dominate the area on northeastern portion of the project study area in the flat area of the former borrow pit. This area is dominated primarily by non-native forb species such as European umbrella milkwort, lesser hawbit(Leontodon taraxacoides ssp. taraxacoides), cut-leaf plantain, hairy vetch,yellow star thistle, and rough cat's-ear. Nasella pulchra herbaceous alliance or Purple Needle Grass Grassland. This community was mapped in several locations near the borrow pit area. Small areas of purple needle grass occur in other locations on the site but are not large enough to map separately as a stand along grassland community. The areas adjacent to the borrow site were large enough to map and identify as a separate plant community. Quercus douglasii woodland alliance or Blue Oak Woodland. This woodland occurs along the southern portion of the project study area and also occurs along the northern bank of the unnamed creek that forms the northern boundary of the study area. Blue oak (Quercus douglasii) are the dominant species. Other trees and shrubs noted include interior live oak (Quercus wislenzi var. wislizeni), coast live oak (Quercus November 2019 3.3-2 Page 1507 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources agrifolia), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), Shreve oak (Quercus parvula var. shrevei), buckeye (Aesculus californica), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. glaucescens),toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia),buckbrush(Ceanothus cuneatus),mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). A diversity of native grasses is found in this type include onion grass (Melica geyeri, M. torreyana), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus),Nevada bluegrass (Poa secunda)and native fescues(Festuca rubra, F. idahoensis). Native forbs include blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum),fork-toothed ookow (Dichelstemma congestum), Ithuriel's spear (Triteleia laxa), phacelia (Phacelia sp.), Pacific sanicle, soaproot, Diogene's lantern (Calochortus amabilis),farewell to spring (Clarkia gracilis)and fringed checkerbloom (Sidalcea diploscypha). Arctostaphylos manzanita provisional shrubland alliance or Manzanita Chaparral. This shrubland occurs primarily on the northern portion of the study area along the north bank of the unnamed creek. Whiteleaf manzanita(Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp.glaucescens)is dominant and includes other chaparral shrub species such as toyon, buckbrush, coyote brush, mountain mahogany, chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus). A variety of native and non-native grasses and forbs occur as understory species including blue-eyed grass, Douglas iris (Iris douglasiana), phacelia, hound's tongue (Cynoglossum grande), blue dicks, farewell to spring, and Ithuriel's spear. Salix exigua shrubland alliance or Sandbar Willow Thickets. This community occurs along unnamed creek that forms the northern boundary of the study area. Sandbar willow (Salix exigua), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis)and red willow(Salix laevigata)are dominant. Other tree and shrub species include valley oak (Quercus lobata), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), madrone, manzanita, coyote brush, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and poison oak. Herbaceous wetland plants noted within the creek bed include scouring rush (Equisetum hymale), rushes (Juncus patens, J mexicanus, J. balticus ssp. ater), foothill sedge (Carex tumulicola), pale spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya) and cattails (Typha angustifolia). Eleocharis macrostachya herbaceous alliance or Pale Spike Rush Marshes. This community occurs along the pond margins along with the cattail marsh types and also within vegetated sections of the unnamed creek channel in the eastern portion of the study area. The dominant species is pale spike rush. Other wetland plants noted include penneyroyal(Mentha pulegium),curly dock(Rumex crispus),umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), rushes and water plantain(Alisma sp.). Typha angustifolia herbaceous alliance or Cattail Marshes.This community occurs in conjunction with the pale spike rush vegetation type and include the same species. Narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) is dominant and can be a monotypic community type. Seasonal wetlands. In 2015,this community was mapped in four areas in the eastern portion of the Project Study Area. In 2019, two small wetlands were added along the access road in the northern portion of the site. Three seasonal wetlands were mapped in the borrow area and one occurs along the entrance road on the southeastern side of the Project Study Area. Seasonal wetlands occur as relatively small depressions in the flatter areas of the borrow area. The one along the road appears to have developed as a result of water flowing along the inside portion of the roadway. Plant species noted in these areas include penneyroyal, cocklebur(Xanthium strumarium),rabbitsfoot grass(Polypogon monspeliensis),small quaking grass(Briza November 2019 3.3-3 Page 1508 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources minor), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolium)and cut-leaf plantain. 3.3.2.2 Wildlife Habitat The following is a discussion of existing wildlife habitats found on and around the Project Site and the wildlife species they support. Non-native Grassland. Grassland habitat, including native and non-native grasslands, provides both primary habitat, such as nesting and foraging, and secondary habitat, such as a movement corridor. Small species using this habitat as primary habitat include reptiles and amphibians, such as southern alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentahs), and Pacific slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), which feed on invertebrates found within and beneath vegetation and boulders within the vegetation community. This habitat also attracts seed-eating and insect-eating species of birds and mammals. California quail (Lophortyx californicus), mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura), and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), are a few seed-eaters that nest and forage in grasslands.Insect-eaters such as scrub jays(Aphelocoma coerulescens)use the habitat forforaging only. Grasslands are important foraging grounds for aerial and ground foraging insect-eating bat species such as myotis (Myotis spp.) and pallid bat(Antrozous pallidus).A large number of other mammal species such as California vole (Microtus californicus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), Botta's pocket gopher(Thomomys bottae),and brush rabbit(Sylvilagus bachmani)also forage and nest within grasslands. Small rodents attract raptors (birds of prey) such as owls, as well as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), among others. Black-tailed deer (Odoicoileus hemionus californicus)use grassland for grazing and,if the grass is tall enough,for nesting at night. Coyotes (Canis latrans) and striped skunk(Mephitis mephitis) also inhabit the grassland. Valley-Foothill Riparian.This habitat occurs along the ephemeral tributary on the northern boundary.The tributary supports insect diversity attractive to a variety of migratory birds and provides nesting habitat. Typically, diverse foraging substrates, such as foliage, bark and ground substrates, increase feeding availability. Birds that forage for insects in the leaves of plants include Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii), and bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus). Bark-insect foraging species, such as oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) and white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carohnensis) forage for insects in the bark. There are a few species that are adapted to foraging for insects in flight, such as black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans),and western wood pewee (Contopus sordidulus). Generalist omnivores are species such as the scrub jay (Aphelocoma caerulescens)that eat a variety of different foods, from insects to seeds to fruits. Although insects are the primary food source for most species in the riparian habitat, ground dwelling species, such as California quail (Callipepla californica) and California towhee (Melozone crissahs), are also present in the riparian habitat feeding on seeds. The reduced vegetation along the north bank within the project area reduces the occupancy of the project area by these species but habitat still exists on the south bank to support many of these species. The aquatic habitat of the tributary to the Russian River is comprised of pools up to 2-feet deep on either end of the proposed project area with varying degrees of canopy cover.Along the project area,the majority of the streambed structure is riffles with shallow flows,between 2-to 6-inches of water, at the time of the survey. November 2019 3.3-4 Page 1509 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources The ephemeral drainage located on the north side of the project area does no support steelhead habitat. There is no perennial water and the pools are not deep enough for the water to last for the entire summer period. In addition,there is an eight-foot high cement fish barrier at the creek crossing of Redeemer Road. This barrier is part of the culvert system that runs under the roadway. Mixed Chaparral. Chaparral habitat, often interspersed with other habitats,provides foraging and nesting habitat for species that are attracted to edges of communities. These edge community species include California quail, California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura), and spotted towhee (Pipilo crissalis),that forage among the leaf litter for invertebrates. Avian species that use the canopy of the chaparral for catching insects include blue-gray gnatcatcher (Pohoptila caerulea), and wrentit(Chamaea fasciata). Besides insects,flowers of the manzanita and ceonothus attract nectar drinkers such as Anna's hummingbird(Calypte anna). If nesting cliffs are nearby prairie flacons(Falco mexicanus) will use chaparral for foraging grounds,as well as sharp-shinned hawks, if water is nearby. Mammals use this habitat for protection and foraging grounds, feeding off new shoots of plants. Black-tailed deer (Odoicoileus hemionius) often feed in chaparral but this habitat supports a lower density than in oak savannah. Other species include brush rabbits(Sylvilagus audubonii),gophers,and deer mice(Peromyscus maniculatus). Small mammals attract predators such as long-tailed weasel(Mustela frenata),gray fox,and bobcat(Felis rufous). Western rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis)inhabit the warm, dry chaparral community, as well as western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis). Montane Hardwood.The woodlands provide habitat for a variety of species,including refugia for reptiles, such as ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus), amphibians, such as the Pacific slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) and arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris), foraging and nesting habitat for passerines, and roosting habitat for bats. Smaller passerines, such as black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus),lazuli bunting(Passerina amoena), bushtit(Psaltriparus minimus),oak titmouse(Baeolophus inornatus) and acorn woodpecker(Melanerpes formicivorus) observed on the site may nest and forage in the woodlands, feeding on insects on the bark. No large cavities that may support the larger raptors, such as great horned owl(Bubo virginianus),were observed in any of the trees in the mixed oak woodland. Other species observed foraging on the site include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), dark eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) and California towhee (Pipilo crissalis). Oak trees on the lower west-facing slopes provide potential nesting habitat for tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) and Coopers hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Mammals such as mule deer utilize the understory of this community,i.e.poison oak,and black berry bushes,in the form of shelter and food from the berries. The gray fox also utilizes the poison oak and black berry bushes for food and shelter, foraging on small birds and mammals, insects, fungi and berries. Several of the trees were of a diameter large enough to support roosting bats species,such as long-eared myotis(Myotis evotis),long-legged myotis (Myotis volans),Yuma myotis(Myotis yumanensis), California myotis(Myotis californicus),big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a California Species of Special Concern(SSC) species. Lacustrine. Lacustrine habitat(pond or lake habitat) contains standing water, from either a dammed river channel or an inland depression. Sizes may vary from pond size, less than one hectare, to reservoir size, comprising several square miles. Most permanent lacustrine systems support fish,while intermittent forms do not. Lacustrine habitats provide a source of water, and cover within riparian areas. The diversity of November 2019 3.3-5 Page 1510 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources habitats typically found around lacustrine habitats provide a higher ratio of edge communities and therefore higher wildlife diversity. Wildlife species typically found in this habitat include amphibians and reptiles, such as Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla),aquatic garter snake (Thamnophis couchii)and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), among others. American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) was observed and heard in the ponds. High diversity of invertebrate species provides foraging opportunities for a variety of avian species, including red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and American coot (Fulica americana). Snowy egret (Leocophoyx thula), black crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) may also forage and nest in this habitat. Mammals common in this habitat are meadow vole (Microtus californicus) along the edges of the pond area, raccoon (Procyon lotor) that may forage on eggs and invertebrates, with striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) using the pond as a source of water. This habitat provides important foraging and drinking areas for aerial and ground feeding insectivorous bats, such as Myotis species and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). 3.3.2.3 Wildlife Movement Corridors Wildlife movement includes migration (i.e.,usually one way per season), inter-population movement(i.e., long-term genetic flow) and small travel pathways (i.e., daily movement corridors within an animal's territory).While small travel pathways usually facilitate movement for daily home range activities such as foraging or escape from predators,they also provide connection between outlying populations and the main corridor,permitting an increase in gene flow between populations. These linkages between habitat types can extend for miles between primary habitat areas and occur on a large scale throughout California. Habitat linkages facilitate movement between populations located in discrete areas and populations located within larger habitat areas. The mosaic of habitats found within a large-scale landscape results in wildlife populations that consist of discrete sub-populations comprising a large single population, often referred to as a meta-population. Even where patches of pristine habitat are fragmented, such as occurs with coastal scrub, the movement between wildlife populations is facilitated through habitat linkages, migration corridors and movement corridors. Depending on the condition of the corridor,genetic flow between populations may be high in frequency,thus allowing high genetic diversity within the population, or may be low in frequency. Low frequency genetic flow can potentially lead to complete isolation, and if pressures are strong,potential extinction(McCullough 1996;Whittaker 1998). As described in the California Essential Connectivity Project(Spencer,et al.2010),the study area is located in North Coast Ecoregion(Fig. 3.2, Spencer,et al.2010). The natural drainages in the immediate area(e.g., Sulphur Creek)flow west into the Russian River which then flows south and west into Pacific Ocean. The Study Area is considered to be within the 4615 Natural Landscape Block (defined as relatively natural habitat blocks that support native biodiversity) that occurs within the Cache Creek and Russian River watersheds. The study area is located in the 436 Essential Connectivity Area (defined as areas that are essential for ecological connectivity between blocks) (Fig. 3.4, Spencer, et al. 2010). The ephemeral tributary to the Russian River is not considered a movement corridor for fish, such as steelhead, due to the road barrier at Redeemer Road. See under special status species for a specific description of the barrier. Amphibians, such as foothill yellow-legged frog, and mammals, such as striped skunk may use the creek as a movement corridor. Movements by these wildlife species occur between November 2019 3.3-6 Page 1511 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources habitats in the Russian River,located downstream,and the ponds located upstream at the headwaters of the creek. The creek provides cover from predators while these movements are being made. 3.3.2.4 Waters of the U.S.,Including Wetlands A formal delineation of waters of the U.S. and state, including wetlands, was conducted for the project study area on April 29 and May 22, 2015,which was updated on August 8, 2019. There are two unnamed creek drainages within the Project Study Area. These creek drainages are mapped as blue-line drainages on the Ukiah USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and eventually flow into the Russian River west of the landfill. The eastern tributary drainage is an ephemeral drainage that has areas of wetland vegetation and areas that are dry with no wetland vegetation. The upper portion of the main drainage that forms the northern boundary of the study area is dry with mostly no wetland vegetation in the creek channel, although this creek has a well-developed riparian canopy cover of mostly willows and does include some valley oak and cottonwood. The eastern tributary lacks any tree or shrub cover with the exception of a few isolated valley oaks. The lower portion of the northern creek channel from the bridge to the western end of the study area has wetland vegetation within the creek bed and within the ordinary high-water mark. The northern creek channel varies in width but has an average width of between 15-to 20-feet within the ordinary high-water mark. The eastern tributary channel is narrower and more incised and varies from 5-to 10-feet in width, with an average of about 8-feet wide at the ordinary high-water mark. Areas mapped as jurisdictional wetlands include the three former sediment ponds that occur within the study area. A fourth pond,identified as the leachate pond,has not been identified as jurisdictional because this pond is part of the treatment system for the Landfill,even though it supports wetland vegetation. Seven small seasonal wetlands were also mapped in 2015 and two were added in 2019. Six of these are in the borrow pit area in the northeastern portion of the study area, and one occurs along the entrance road (W 1) at the southeastern portion of the study area. The two new added wetlands occur along the access road in the north near the main creek channel. Table 3.3-1 provides a summary of the calculations for potential wetlands and other waters within the Project Area. Figure 3.3.-1 provides a visual location for these potential wetlands and other waters. CalculationsTable 3.3-1 Area i Potential Wetlands and Other Type Area in Square Feet Acres Seasonal Wetlands W 1 1,117 0.026 W2 340 0.008 W3 1,417 0.033 W4 466 0.011 W5 226 0.005 W6 2,279 0.052 W7 285 0.006 W8(added in 2019) 90 0.002 W9(added in 2019) 90 0.002 Subtotal for Seasonal Wetlands 6,310 0.145 Ponds Pond A 37,154 0.85 Pond B 60,966 1.40 November 2019 3.3-7 Page 1512 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table CalculationsArea i Potential Wetlands and Other Type Area in Square Feet Acres Pond C 20,890 0.48 Subtotal or Ponds 119,010 2.73 Vegetated Other Waters 15'wide 34,881 0.80 10'wide 11,004 0.25 8'wide 5,805 0.13 Subtotal for Vegetated Other Waters 44,383 1.02 Other Waters—Not Vegetated 20'wide 30,665 0.70 8'wide 1,958 0.04 Subtotal for Other Waters—Not Vegetated 32,623 0.75 TOTAL FOR ALL AREAS 202,146 4.645 3.3.3 Regulatory Setting Relevant federal, state, and local guidelines specific to biological resource issues are discussed in this section. 3.3.3.1 Federal Regulations The relevant federal regulations are discussed below. Clean Water Act — Section 404. Wetlands and other waters of the U.S. (as defined above) are subject to jurisdiction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Wet areas that are not regulated by this act would include stock watering ponds, agricultural ditches created in upland areas, and isolated wetlands that do not have a hydrologic link to other waters of the U.S., either through surface or subsurface flow. The discharge of fill into a jurisdictional feature requires a permit from the Corps. The Corps has the option to issue a permit on a case-by-case basis (individual permit) or at a program level (general permit). Nationwide permits (NWPs) are an example of general permits; they cover specific activities that generally have minimal environmental effects. Activities covered under a particular NWP must fulfill several general and specific conditions, as defined by the NWP. If a proposed project cannot meet these conditions, an individual permit may be required. Federal Endangered Species Act. The USFWS administers the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC Section 153 et seq.) and thereby has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species. Projects that may result in "take" of a listed species must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Federal agencies that propose a project that may affect a listed species are required to consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. If it is determined that a federally listed species may be adversely affected by the Federal action,the USFWS will issue a Biological Opinion to the Federal agency that describes minimization and avoidance measures that must be implemented as part of the Federal action. Projects that do not have a Federal nexus must apply for a take permit under Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act requires that the project November 2019 3.3-8 Page 1513 of 4165 v nl w i° a a � n k e r co M,w .I / It co Lu 4p flf1 p �4 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources applicant prepare a habitat conservation plan as part of the permit application. Under the Federal Endangered Species Act the USFWS designates critical habitat, areas that are essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and which may require special management considerations. A designation only applies to projects with a Federal nexus; it has no specific regulatory impact on landowners who take actions on their land that do not involve Federal funding.However,Federal agencies must consult with the USFWS before taking actions that could harm or kill protected species or destroy their habitat. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA, 16 USC Section 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act(16 USC Section 668) protect certain species of birds from direct take. The MBTA protects migrant bird species from take through the establishment of hunting limits and seasons and protecting occupied nests and eggs. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits the take or commerce of any part of these species. The USFWS administers both acts, and reviews Federal agency actions that may affect species protected by the acts. 3.3.3.2 State Regulations The relevant state regulations are discussed below. California Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 1600 — 1616. The CDFW regulates the modification of streams, rivers, and lakes under Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. Modification includes diverting, obstructing, or changing the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of a regulated feature. While most of the features regulated by the Fish and Wildlife Code meet the definition of other waters of the U.S., the Code may regulate some ephemeral features that do not have all the criteria to qualify as other waters of the U.S. A project proponent, including both private parties and public agencies, proposing an activity that may modify a feature regulated by the Fish and Wildlife Code must notify the CDFW before project construction. The CDFW will then decide whether to enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the project proponent. California Endangered Species Act. The CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (Fish and Game Code Section 2080), which regulates the listing and "take" of endangered and threatened species. A "take" may be permitted by CDFW through implementing a management agreement. Under the State laws, the CDFW is empowered to review projects for their potential impacts to listed species and their habitats. CDFW maintains lists for Candidate-Endangered Species (SCE) and Candidate-Threatened Species (SCT). California candidate species are afforded the same level of protection as listed species. California also designates Species of Special Concern (CSC), which are species of limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. These species do not have the same legal protection as listed species,but may be added to official lists in the future. The CSC list is intended by CDFW as a management tool for consideration in future land use decisions. 3.3.3.3 Local Regulations The relevant local regulations are discussed below. November 2019 3.3-10 Page 1515 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources City of Ukiah General Plan. The combined Open Space and Conservation Element of the City's existing General Plan contains several Natural Resources policies pertinent to biological resources. Mendocino County 2009 General Plan. Currently, there are no ordinances or codes that provide mitigation or measures for the protection of special status species. 3.3.4 Impact Analysis This section includes a discussion of the relevant significance criteria, the approach and methodology to the analyses,and any identified impacts and mitigation measures. 3.3.4.1 Significance Criteria Significance thresholds below are based on Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA Guidelines,which indicates that a potentially significant impact on biological resources would occur if the Proposed Project would: • Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations adopted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected waters of the U.S. as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act or protected waters of the state as defined by Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, and coastal wetlands)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means; • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or • wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; and/or • Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan. November 2019 3.3-11 Page 1516 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources 3.3.4.2 Approach to Analysis This EIR used the best available scientific and commercial data to evaluate the potential effects to biological resources from the proposed project. Literature review, aerial imagery and field surveys informed the descriptions of the vegetation communities, identification of present and past occurrences of special status species in the vicinity of the proposed project,the assessment of habitats for special status animal species. Each are discussed below. Literature Review Information on special status plant species was compiled through a review of the literature and database search(See Appendix E).Database searches for known occurrences of special status species focused on the Ukiah, Cow Mountain, Purdys Gardens and Elledge Peak U.S. Geologic Service 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,which provided a 4.8 km(3 mi)radius around the proposed project area.The following sources were reviewed to determine which special status plant and wildlife species have been documented in the vicinity of the project site: • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information on Planning and Conservation(IPaC 2019) • USFWS list of special status animals for Sonoma County(USFWS 2019) • California Natural Diversity Database records (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2019) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) Special Animals List(CDFW 2019), • State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California(CDFW 2019) • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory records (CNPS 2019) • CDFG publication "California's Wildlife,Volumes 1-111" (Zemer et al., 1990) The literature search also included a review of the CalFish IMAPS Viewer (www.calfish.org), developed by CDFW Biogeographic Branch for analysis of steelhead Critical Habitat along tributaries to the Russian River(CNDDB 2019). Additionally,A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988)was reviewed for characterizing wildlife habitats. Other sources of information regarding reported occurrences included locations previously reported to the U.C. Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and the California Academy of Sciences that were not included in the CNDDB. Site Surveys Wildlife biologists,botanists,and wetland specialists conducted surveys of the Project Study Area on April 15,21 and 29,May 19 and 22,and June 30, 2015 and on August 8,2019. Specifically, an evaluation of the on-site vegetation communities was conducted for their potential to support special status plants and/or wetland communities. The potential for special status plants and animals to occur on the site or use the site for migratory purposes was assessed.All trees were evaluated for suitable bird nesting and bat roosting habitat,noting presence of cavities, and old bird nests. The reconnaissance-level site visit was intended only as an evaluation of on- site and adjacent habitat types,and no special status species wildlife surveys were conducted as part of this November 2019 3.3-12 Page 1517 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources survey. Species opportunistically observed in the field were recorded. Analysis of aerial photographs was also conducted of adjacent habitat that could provide terrestrial habitat for California red-legged frog,and ponds and water bodies that could provide potential breeding habitat for California red-legged frog but from which have not been reported in the CNDDB. Habitats within 1.6 km were evaluated for their potential to provide connectivity between sites for California red-legged frog. These methods were also used for foothill yellow-legged frog and western pond turtle. Jane evaluated the on-site vegetation communities for their potential to support special status plants and/or wetland communities. A delineation of waters of the U.S. was conducted on April 29, 2015 and updated in August 2019, This report will be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for their verification as part of the permit application for work to be conducted in wetlands associated with the Ukiah Landfill and in the tributary to the Russian River. 3.3.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures What follows is an impact analysis for the specific significance criteria for biological resources in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Impact 3.3-1: Would the Proposed Project have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? As shown in Appendix E,a record search of CDFW's California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB)and USFWS' Species List was conducted for the area within a five-mile radius of the Project area to identify previously reported occurrences of state and federal special-status plants and animals. In addition, field visits for the Proposed Project/Action were conducted on April 15, 21, and 29, May 19 and 20, and June 30, 2015 and again on August 8, 2019 to determine the potential for special-status plant species to occur within the general vicinity of the Proposed Project Study Area (i.e. Construction Area) as described in Chapter 2 — Project Description. These field visits were conducted to determine the potential for special- status species to occur within the Proposed Project Area. During the field visits, no specific special status species were observed in the Project Study Area. The Project Area does not support state or federally listed or proposed plant and/or wildlife species.No designated critical habitat is found in or adjacent to the Project Area. However, Table 3.3-2 provides a summary of the potential for state and federal special status species to occur within the Proposed Project Study Area. Construction of the Proposed Project could have a temporary,but substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications, on several species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by CDFW and USFWS. Table 3.3-2 provides a summary of the potential for state and federal special status species to occur within the Proposed Project Study Area. As a result, the following mitigation measures and procedures are proposed to reduce any impacts to less-than-significant levels: Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a: Conduct A Preconstruction Survey for Special Status Wildlife Species.A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for state and federal special November 2019 3.3-13 Page 1518 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources status wildlife species no more than 10-days prior to construction. A combination of visual and trapping surveys may be performed with authorization from CDFW and/or USFWS. If a wildlife special species such as the western pond turtle, and/or the yellow-legged frog is found near any proposed construction areas,impacts on individuals and their habitat shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If occupied habitat can be avoided, an exclusion zone shall be established around the habitat and temporary suitable/authorized fencing shall be installed around the buffer area with "Sensitive Habitat Area"signs posted and clearly visible on the outside of the fence. If avoidance is not possible and the species is determined to be present in work areas, the biologist with approval and permits from CDFW may capture the wildlife special status species prior to construction activities and relocate them to nearby, suitable habitat a minimum of 300-feet from the work area.Exclusion fencing shall then be installed if feasible to prevent them from reentering the work area. For the duration of work in these areas,the biologist shall conduct regular follow- up visits during and throughout construction activities to monitor effectiveness. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1b: Conduct Bird Breeding and Nesting Surveys. For construction activities that occur between February 1 and August 31,preconstruction breeding and nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to and within 3-days of any initial ground- disturbance activities to prevent birds from nesting between the survey and the start of construction. Typically, nesting birds can build a nest in approximately 4 days. Surveys shall be conducted within all suitable nesting habitat within 250-feet of the activity. All active,non-status passerine nests identified at that time shall be protected by a 75-100-foot radius minimum exclusion zone. Active raptor or special-status species nests shall be protected by a buffer with a minimum radius of 200-feet. CDFW and USFWS recommend that a minimum 500-foot exclusion buffer be established around active special-status species nests. The following considerations apply to this mitigation measure: • Survey results are valid for 7-days from the survey date. Should ground disturbance commence later than 7-days from the survey date, surveys should be repeated. If no breeding birds are encountered,then work may proceed as planned. Table 3.3-2 Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat 7occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s Plants Arctostaphylos -/-/lB Chaparral,lower Unlikely.Potential No further actions stanfordiana ssp. raichei montane coniferous chaparral habitat for this are recommended Raiche's manzanita forest species is present but this for this species. (openings)/rocky, species was not found in often serpentinite. the Study Area. Blooms February to April.Elevation: 450- 1000m. Carex comosa -/-/2B Coastal prairie, Unlikely.Potential No further actions Bristly sedge marshes and swamps wetland habitat for this are recommended (lake margins),valley species is present but this for this species. and foothill grassland. species was not found in Blooms May to the Study Area. September.Elevation: 0-625m. November 2019 3.3-14 Page 1519 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s Ceanothus confusus -/-/lB Closed-cone Unlikely.Potential No further actions Rincon Ridge canothus coniferous forest, chaparral and oak are recommended chaparral,cismontane woodland habitat for this for this species. woodland/volcanic or species is present but this serpentinite.Blooms species was not found in February to June. the Study Area. Elevation:75-1065m. Cypripedium californicum -l-14 Bogs and fens,lower Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions California lady's slipper montane coniferous for this species does not are recommended forest in seeps and occur in the Study Area. for this species. streambanks,usually serpentinite.Blooms April to September. Elevation:30-2750m. Cypripedium montanum -l-14 Broadleafed upland Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Mountain lady's-slipper forest,cismontane for this species does not are recommended woodland,lower occur in the Study Area. for this species. montane coniferous forest,North Coast coniferous forest. Blooms March to August.Elevation: 185-225m. Entosthodon kochii -/-/lB Cismontane woodland Unlikely.Potential No further actions Koch's cord moss (soil).Elevation: 180- woodland habitat for this are recommended 1000m. species is present but this for this species. species was not found in the Study Area. Gratiola heterosepala -/CE/lB Marshes and swamps Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop (lake margins),vernal for this species does not are recommended pools in clay soils. occur in the Study Area. for this species. Blooms April to August.Elevation: 10- 2375m. Grimmia torenii -/-/lB Chaparral,cismontane Unlikely.Potential No further actions Toren's grimmia woodland,lower chaparral and woodland are recommended montane coniferous habitat for this species is for this species. forest/openings,rocky, present but this species boulder and rock was not found in the walls,carbonate, Study Area. volcanic.Elevation: 320-1160m. Hesperohnon -/-/lB Chaparral,cismontane Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions adenophyllum woodland,valley and for this species does not are recommended glandular western flax foothill occur in the Study Area. for this species. grassland/usually serpentinite.Blooms May-Aug.Elevation: November 2019 3.3-15 Page 1520 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s 150-1315 m. Horkelia bolanderi -/-/lB Chaparral,lower Unlikely.Potential No further actions Bolander's horkelia montane coniferous grassland and mesic area are recommended forest,meadows and habitat for this species is for this species. seeps,valley and present but this species foothill was not found in the grassland/edges, Study Area. vernally mesic areas. Blooms June-Aug. Elevation: 450-1100 In. Kopsiopsis hookeri -/-/2B North Coast coniferous Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Small groundcone forest. April-Aug. for this species does not are recommended Elevation: 90-885 m. occur in the Study Area. for this species. Lasthenia burkei FE/CE/lB Meadows and seeps Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Burke's goldfields (mesic),vernal pools. for this species does not are recommended Blooms April to June. occur in the Study Area. for this species. Elevation: 15-600m. Lasthenia conjugens FE/-/lB Cismontane woodland, Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Contra Costa goldfields playas(alkaline), for this species does not are recommended valley and foothill occur in the Study Area. for this species. grassland,vernal pools/mesic.Blooms March-June. Elevation: 0-470m. Layia septentrionalis -/-/lB Chaparral,cismontane Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Colusa layia woodland,valley and for this species does not are recommended foothill occur in the Study Area. for this species. grassland/sandy, serpentinite.Blooms April to May. Elevation: 100-1098m. Lilium rubescens 444 Broadleafed upland Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Redwood lily forest,chaparral,lower for this species does not are recommended montane coniferous occur in the Study Area. for this species. forest,North Coast coniferous forest,upper montane coniferous forest,sometimes serpentinite,sometimes roadsides.Blooms April to September. Elevation:30-1910m. Limnanthes bakeri -/CR/1B Meadows and seeps, Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Baker's meadowfoam freshwater marshes for this species does not are recommended and swamps,vernally occur in the Study Area. I for this species. November 2019 3.3-16 Page 1521 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s mesic valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools.Blooms April to May. Elevation: 175-910m. Malacothamnus -/-/lA Cismontane woodland. Unlikely.Potential No further actions mendocinensis Blooms May to June. woodland habitat for this are recommended Mendocino bush-mallow Elevation: 425-575m. species is present but this for this species. species was not found in the Study Area. Monardella viridis 44 Broadleafed upland Unlikely.Potential No further actions Green monardella forest,chaparral, chaparral and woodland are recommended cismontane woodland. habitat for this species is for this species. June-September. present but this species Elevation: 100-1010m. was not found in the Study Area. Navarretia leucocephala -/-/lB Cismontane woodland, Unlikely.Potential No further actions ssp. bakeri lower montane wetland and grassland are recommended Baker's navarretia coniferous forest, habitat for this species is for this species. meadows and seeps, present but this species valley and foothill was not found in the grassland,vernal Study Area. pools/mesic.Blooms April to June. Elevation: 5-1740m. Perideridia gairdneri ssp. -/-/4 Broadleafed upland Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions gairdneri forest,chaparral, for this species does not are recommended Gairdner's yampah coastal prairie,valley occur in the Study Area. for this species. and foothill grassland, vernal pools/vernally mesic.Blooms June to October.Elevation:0- 610m. Pleuropogon hooverianus -/CT/lB Broadleafed upland Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions North Coast semaphore forest,meadows and for this species does not are recommended grass seeps,North Coast occur in the Study Area. for this species. coniferous forest/open areas,mesic.Blooms April-June.Elevation: 10-671m. Ranunculus lobbii -/-/4 Cismontane woodland, Unlikely.Potential No further actions Lobb's aquatic buttercup North Coast coniferous wetland habitat for this are recommended forest,valley and species is present but this for this species. foothill grassland, species was not found in vernal pools/mesic. the Study Area. Blooms February to May.Elevation: 15- 470m. November 2019 3.3-17 Page 1522 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s Sanguisorba officinalis -l-l2B Bogs and fens, Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Great burnet broadleafed upland for this species does not are recommended forest,meadows and occur in the Study Area. for this species. seeps,marshes and swamps,North Coast coniferous forest, riparian forest/often serpentinite.Blooms July-October. Elevation: 60-1400m. Strepthanthus glandulosus -/-/lB Chaparral,cismontane Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions ssp.hoffmanii woodland,valley and for this species does not are recommended Hoffman's bristly foothill grassland occur in the Study Area. for this species. jewelflower (often serpentinite). Prefers rocky soils. Blooms March to July. Elevation: 120-476m. Traycina rostrata -/-/lB Cismontane woodland, Unlikely.Potential No further actions Beaked tracyina valley and foothill woodland and grassland are recommended grassland.Blooms habitat for this species is for this species. May to June. present but this species Elevation: 90-790m. was not found in the Study Area. Trifolium amoenum FE/-/lB Coastal bluff scrub, Unlikely.Potential No further actions Two-fork clover valley and foothill grassland habitat for this are recommended grassland,sometimes species is present but this for this species. on serpentinite.Blooms species was not found in April to June. the Study Area. Elevation: 5-415m. Viburnum ellipticum -/-/2B Chaparral,cismontane Unlikely.Potential No further actions Oval-leaved viburnum woodland,lower chaparral and woodland are recommended montane coniferous habitat for this species is for this species. forest.Blooms May to present but this species June.Elevation: 215- was not found in the 1400m. Study Area. Fish Onchorhynchus kisutch FUSE Occurs from Punta Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Coho salmon-Central Gorda,in northern for this species does not are recommended California Coast ESU California,to the San occur in the Study Area. for this species. Lorenzo River,in Santa Cruz County, and includes coho salmon populations from several tributaries of San Francisco Bay. Project located outside species range (CNDDB 2019). November 2019 3.3-18 Page 1523 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s Onchorhynchus mykiss FT/SSC Requires beds of loose, Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Steelhead-Central silt-free,coarse gravel for this species does not are recommended California Coast ESU for spawning. Also occur in the Stu dy Area. for this species. needs cover,cool water and sufficient dissolved oxygen. Russian River is occupied habitat CNDDB 2019). Oncorhynchus FT Requires gravel Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions tshawytscha diameter of 2 to 3 for this species does not are recommended Chinook salmon inches,with depths occur in the Study Area. for this species. generally less than 36 inches but more than 20 inches and a velocity of more than 3 ft/sec.Requires water temperatures from 42°F to 5 FF.Russian River is occupied habitat(CNDDB 2019). Amphibians Rana boylii -/SCT Prefers permanent Moderate: Suitable If water present, Foothill yellow-legged stream pools,and habitat within Project conduct Pre- frog creeks with emergent Study Area. construction and/or riparian Survey. If FYF vegetation. present consult with CDFW. If no water present,no further action is required. Rana draytonii FT/SSC Prefers semi- Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions California red-legged frog permanent and for this species does not are recommended permanent stream occur in the Study Area. for this species. pools,ponds and creeks with emergent and/or riparian vegetation.Occupies upland habitat especially during the wet winter months. Outside species range (USFWS 2009). Red-bellied newt -/SSC Spends dry season Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Taricha rivularis underground within for this species does not are recommended root channels. occur in the Study Area. for this species. Requires ra id streams November 2019 3.3-19 Page 1524 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s with temps between 15°C and 26'Cand rocky substrate for breeding and egg- laying. Birds Accipiter cooperii MB/SSC Nests primarily in Moderate: Suitable Cooper's hawk deciduous riparian nesting habitat within Conduct pre- forests.May also Project Study Area. construction occupy dense canopied breeding surveys forests from gray pine- for any activities oak woodland to occurring between ponderosa pine. February Pt and Forages in open August 3 L' woodlands. Accipiter striatus MB/SSC Dense canopy pine or Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Sharp-shined hawk mixed conifer forest for this species does not are recommended and riparian habitats. occur in the Study Area. for this species. Water within one mile required. Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Breeds in colonies on Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Clack's grebe large bodied for this species does not are recommended freshwater lakes and occur in the Study Area. for this species. marshes with emergent vegetation.Nest is built on floating plants or submerged snag, among emergent vegetation. Agelaius tricolor BCC/ST, Nests primarily in Moderate: Suitable Conduct pre- tricolored blackbird SSC dense freshwater nesting habitat within construction marshes with cattail or Project Study Area. breeding surveys tules,but also known for any activities to nest in upland occurring between thistles.Forages in February Pt and grasslands. August 3 L' Ammodramus MB/SSC Typically found in tall, Moderate: Suitable Conduct pre- savannarum dense grass,nesting on nesting habitat within construction Gasshopper sparrow the ground at the base Project Study Area. breeding surveys of grass tuft. for any activities occurring between February Pt and August 3 L' Baeolophus inornatus MB/SSC Breeds in cavities in Moderate: Suitable Conduct pre- Oak titmouse oak woodlands, nesting habitat within construction gleaning insects from Project Study Area. breeding surveys the bark. Occurs from for any activities southern Oregon to occurring between November 2019 3.3-20 Page 1525 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s northern Mexico along February I"and the Central Valley and August 3 L' xeric coastal foothills. Buteo lineatus MB Nests in trees along Moderate: Suitable Conduct pre- Red-shouldered hawk riparian corridors and nesting habitat within construction open fields. Project Study Area. breeding surveys for any activities occurring between February Pt and August 3 L' Calypte anna MB/- Nests in individual Moderate: Suitable Conduct pre- Anna's hummingbird trees or shrubs or in nesting habitat within construction copses.Nest placement Project Study Area. breeding surveys height varies between for any activities 4 feet and 40 feet. occurring between February Pt and August 3 L' Calypte costae BCC/- Resident of the Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Costa's hummingbird Sonoran and Mojave for this species does not are recommended Deserts occur in the Study Area. for this species. Carduelis lawrencei BCC/ Nests in open Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Lawrence's goldfinch woodlands,chaparral for this species does not are recommended and weedy fields in occur in the Study Area. for this species. trees Chamaea fasciata Wrentit BCC Nests in coastal scrub Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions and chaparral. for this species does not are recommended occur in the Study Area. for this species. Charadrius alexandrinus FT/- Nests on sandy, Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions nivosus gravelly or friable soils for this species does not are recommended Western snowy plover on beaches, salt pond occur in the Study Area. for this species. levees and shores of large alkaline lakes. Coccyzus americanus FUSE Nests in riparian Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions occidentalis jungles of willow, for this species does not are recommended Yellow-billed cuckoo often mixed with occur in the Study Area. for this species. cottonwoods,with lower story of blackberry,nettles or wild grape. Geothylpis trichas sinuosa BCC/SSC Nests in fresh and salt Moderate: Suitable Conduct pre- Common yellowthroat marshes in tall grasses, nesting habitat within construction tule patches and Project Study Area. breeding surveys willows and forages in for any activities thick,continuous cover occurring between down to the water February Pt and surface. August 3 L'. Haliaeetus leucocephalus BCC/ Nests in tall snags near Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Bald eagle I water and forages on I for this species does not I are recommended November 2019 3.3-21 Page 1526 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s fish.This species occur in the Study Area. for this species. winters near large bodies of waters with fish. Melospiza melodia BCC/- Primarily breeds in Moderate: Suitable Conduct pre- Song sparrow riparian habitat or nesting habitat within construction wetlands,or coastal Project Study Area. breeding surveys scrub along the fog belt where the lack of for airy activities standing or running occurring between February Pt and water is compensated b moisture from fog. August 31.' Melanerpes lewis BCC/SSC Found in open forest Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Lewis's woodpecker and woodland,often for this species does not are recommended logged or burned, occur in the Study Area. for this species. including oak, coniferous forest, riparian woodland, orchards,less often pinyon juniper. Closely associated with open ponderosa pine forest in western North America.Most commonly uses pre- made or natural cavities. Wintering areas must provide storage sites for grain or mast. Pandion haliaetus -/SSC Nests in large trees Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Osprey within 15 miles of for this species does not are recommended good fish-producing occur in the Study Area. for this species. water body. Picoides nuttalhi BCC/- Found primarily in oak Moderate: Suitable Conduct pre- Nuttall's woodpecker woodlands and nesting habitat within construction riparian woods. Cavity Project Study Area. breeding surveys nester. for any activities occurring between February Pt and August 3 L' Pipilo maculatus BCC Nests in shrubs and Moderate: Suitable Conduct pre- clementae trees. nesting habitat within construction Spotted towhee Project Study Area. breeding surveys for any activities occurring between February Pt and August 3 L' November 2019 3.3-22 Page 1527 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s Selasphorus rufus BCC/- Nests in chaparral, Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Rufous hummingbird coniferous forest, for this species does not are recommended scrub habitats and occur in the Study Area. for this species. riparian habitats in Canada and winters in Mexico.Nests are placed on a downward drooping structure. Selasphorus sasin BCC/- Nests in wooded areas, Moderate: Suitable Conduct pre- Allen's hummingbird meadows,or thickets nesting habitat within construction along shaded streams, Project Study Area. on a branch low down breeding surveys for a activities on stem,although iry placement height occurring between February Pt and varies between 10 inches and 90 feet. August 3 L'. Strix occidentalis caurina FT,MB/- Dense coniferous and Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Northern spotted owl hardwood forest, for this species does not are recommended shaded, steep sided occur in the Study Area. for this species. canyons. Toxostoma redivivum BCC Nests in Lowland and Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions California thrasher coastal chaparral,and for this species does not are recommended riparian woodland occur in the Study Area. for this species. thickets. Mammals Antrozous pallidus -/SSC Day roosts include Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Pallid bat rock outcrops,mines, for this species does not are recommended caves,buildings, occur in the Study Area. for this species. bridges,and hollows and cavities in a wide variety of treespecies Corynorhinus townsendii -/SSC Day roosts in cave Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Townsend's big-eared bat analogs;mines, for this species does not are recommended buildings,bridges, occur in the Study Area. for this species. sometimes large tree hollows.Females form maternity colonies, males roost singly,and all disperse widely after maternity season. During winter,roosts in cold,but non- freezing roosts,which may include man- made structures. Erethizon dorsatum -l- Occurs in forests, Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions North American mountains,chaparral, for this species does not are recommended porcupine and sagebrush.During occur in the Study Area. I for this species. November 2019 3.3-23 Page 1528 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s the winter porcupines eat evergreen needles and the inner bark of trees.During the spring and summer they eat flowers, berries,tender twigs, and leaves from deciduous pIants. Myotis thysanodes -/SSC Roosts in colonies in Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Fringed myotis caves,cliffs and attics for this species does not are recommended of old buildings. Will occur in the Study Area. for this species. also use trees as day roosts. Western red bat -/SSC, Solitary roosting, Moderate: Suitable Conduct a bat Lasiurus blossevilhi WBWG:H except when females habitat present in habitat assessment are with young(from 2 unnamed tributary. of trees to be to 6 are born).Roosts removed and almost exclusively in within 250 feet of foliage,under disturbance area. overhanging leaves,in If suitable woodland borders, potential habitat rivers,agricultural present and being areas including removed,conduct orchards,and urban two-step tree areas with mature removal during trees.Typically found seasonal periods in large cottonwoods, of bat activity. sycamores,walnuts and willows associated with riparian habitats. Hoary bat -/-, Roosts singly except Moderate: Suitable Conduct a bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M when females are with habitat present in habitat assessment young(from 2 to 4 are unnamed tributary. of trees to be born)in dense foliage removed and of medium to large within 250 feet of coniferous and disturbance area. deciduous trees. If suitable Highly migratory, potential habitat occurs from sea level present and being to tree line in Sierra removed,conduct Nevada.Forages along two-step tree stream and river removal during corridors,open water seasonal periods bodies,meadows,and of bat activity. open forest above canopy. November 2019 3.3-24 Page 1529 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s Pekania pennanti FPT/SCT Intermediate to large- Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Pacific fisher tree stages of for this species does not are recommended coniferous forests& occur in the Study Area. for this species. deciduous riparian areas with high percentage of canopy closure. This species uses cavities, snags, logs&rocky area for cover and denning. Needs large areas of mature,dense forest. Invertebrates Bombus calignosus -l- Food plants include Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Obscure bumble bee Baccharis, Circium, for this species does not are recommended Lupinus, Lotus, occur in the Study Area. for this species. Grindelia and Phacelia. Occurs in Coastal areas from northern Washington to southern California. Bombus occidentalis -/SSC Generalist foragers. Unlikely. Suitable habitat No further actions Western bumble bee They do not depend on for this species does not are recommended any one flower type occur in the Study Area. for this species. but they favor Mehlotus, Cirsium, Trifolium, Centaurea, Chrysothamnus, Eriogonum. Historically from the Pacific coast to the Colorado Rocky Mountains; severe population decline west of the Sierra- Cascade Crest. Reptiles Emys marmorata -/SSC Prefers permanent, Moderate: Suitable If water is present, Western pond turtle slow-moving creeks, nesting habitat within conduct Pre- streams,ponds,rivers, Project Study Area. Construction marshes and irrigation Surveys. If WPT ditches with basking is present,consult sites and a vegetated with CDFW. If no shoreline.Requires water is present, upland sites for egg- no further action is laying. Species required. reported in Russian River in Ukiah November 2019 3.3-25 Page 1530 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Table Potential fori Occur in the ProposedProject Potential for Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Disturbance Recommendation s CNDDB 2019). Key to status codes: FE Federal Endangered FT Federal Threatened FC Federal Candidate FD Federal De-listed FPD Federal Proposed for De-listing FPT Federal Proposed Threatened NMFS Species under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern MB Migratory Bird treaty Act Protected RP Sensitive species included in a USFWS Recovery Plan or Draft Recovery Plan SE State Endangered ST State Threatened SR State Rare SSC CDFW Species of Special Concern Draft CSC 4 April 2000 Draft CDFG Species of Special Concern CFP CDFW Fully Protected Animal WBWG Western Bat Working Group High Priority species SLC Species of Local Concern List 1A CNPS List 1A:Plants presumed extinct in California List 1B CNPS List 1B:Plants rare,threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere List 2 CNPS List 2:Plants rare,threatened,or endangered in California,but more common elsewhere List 3 CNPS List 3:Plants about which CNPS needs more information(a review list) • Exclusion zone sizes may vary, depending on habitat characteristics and species, and are generally larger for raptors and colonial nesting birds. Each exclusion zone would remain in place until the nest is abandoned or all young have fledged. • The non-breeding season is defined as September 1 to January 31. During this period, breeding is not occurring and surveys are not required. However, if nesting birds are encountered during work activities in the non-breeding season, disturbance activities within a minimum of 50-feet of the nest should be postponed until the nest is abandoned or young birds have fledged. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1c: Conduct a Bat Habitat Assessment of Trees: Removal of trees containing suitable bat roosting habitat comprised of cavities, crevices, and/or exfoliating bark, may cause direct mortality of roosting bats if removed during maternity season(April 15 to August 31)prior to self-sufficient volancy of pups, or in winter during torpor or hibernation (October 16 to February 28). Removal of larger mature trees has the potential of causing direct mortality of solitary tree-roosting species such as western red bat or hoary bat. Minimization Measures identified in Sections 1.3.7, and 1.3.8 will reduce these impacts to less than significant. However, if the construction timing is changed and construction must occur between April 15 and August 31 or October 15 and February 29, a bat habitat assessment will be conducted. For those trees with suitable potential habitat,presume presence of roosting bats,then conduct two- step tree removal during seasonal periods of bat activity, so that bats can safely abandon the tree prior to removal. These dates are: A)between March 1 (or after evening temperatures rise above 45F and 72 hours after rains fall to less than 0.5-inches in 24 hours) and April 15 (maternity season), after which time non- November 2019 3.3-26 Page 1531 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources volant pups are present in maternity roosts, and; B) between September 1, after young are self-sufficiently volant, and October 15 (winter hibernation), or before evening temperatures fall below 45F, and 72 hours prior to onset of rains greater than 0.5-inches in 24 hours. A qualified bat biologist experienced with two-step removal procedures is required to instruct and provide initial supervision of tree cutting crews on Day 1 so that they do not accidentally remove potential habitat features,which could result in direct mortality of bats.On Day 2,the day following trimming and removal of non-habitat roost features on habitat trees,the tree is removed. Any new tree cutting crew members added to the crew will require instruction and initial supervision by a qualified bat biologist. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1d: Environmental Awareness Training. All construction personnel shall be given environmental awareness training by the Proposed Project's environmental inspector or biological monitor before the start of construction. The training will familiarize all construction personnel with the federally listed species that may occur in the Action Area,their habitats,general provisions and protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act,measures to be implemented to protect these species, and the project boundaries. This training will be provided to any new worker before they are authorized to perform project work.As part of the environmental awareness training, construction personnel will be notified that no dogs or any other pets under control of construction personnel will be allowed in the Project Area, and that no firearms will be permitted in the Project Area,unless carried by authorized security personnel or law enforcement. Mitigation Measure 3.3-le: Biological Monitor.A CDFW-approved Biological Monitor will be present on site for all construction activities that occur within 100-feet of suitable habitats for state and/or federally listed species that maybe present during the Proposed Project.The City will submit the Biological Monitor's qualifications to the CDFW for approval 30-days prior to project construction. The Biological Monitor will ensure that all applicable avoidance and minimization measures are implemented during project construction. Specifically, the Biological Monitor will also ensure that: • All vehicles entering the site are free of debris that may harbor organisms that could be introduced to the site, such as vegetation or mud from other areas. • Turbidity, sedimentation, and the release of materials such as dust or construction runoff are controlled, and that spill control measures are enacted properly. • No state or federally listed species and/or their habitats experience unintended effects. The Biological Monitor will have the authority to stop any work activities that could result in unintended adverse effects to covered species and/or their habitats. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1f: Staging Areas and Access Routes. Placement of all staging areas, access roads,and other facilities will avoid and limit disturbance-sensitive habitats(e.g.,riparian habitat, suitable habitats) as much as possible. All staging and material storage areas, including the locations where equipment and vehicles are parked overnight, will be placed outside of the flood zone of a watercourse, away from riparian habitat or wetland habitat, and away from any other sensitive habitats.When possible, staging and access areas will be situated in areas that are previously disturbed, such as developed areas,paved areas,parking lots, areas with bare ground or gravel,and areas clear of vegetation. The implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with the Proposed November 2019 3.3-27 Page 1532 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Project/Action to a level of less-than-significant. Significance:Less than Significant with Mitigation. Impact 3.3-2 Would the Proposed Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations adopted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? As discussed, the Project includes the removal and replacement of six storm drain outlets, installation of six new outlets and abandonment of six outfalls that discharge to the unnamed tributary to Sulfur Creek located directly adjacent to the landfill footprint. The work associated with these structures is subject to permitting by the California Department of Fish &Wildlife, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Due to the fact that no federally listed species present at the Project Site, it is not expected that a Section 7 consultation will be required with the US Fish&Wildlife Service. The work related to the storm drain outfalls is to occur within the bed and bank of the on-site unnamed ephemeral creek. While this work is relatively minor with a total of approximately 30 cubic yards of fill materials within the bed of the waterway,there will be disturbance to the bed and bank of the waterway during construction activities. Construction work within the bed and bank of the waterway could render soils and sediments more susceptible to erosion and result in increased sediment and turbidity, resulting in the degradation of aquatic habitat on-site and downstream. As described in detail in Section 3.7,Hydrology and Water Quality (see Impact 3.7-1), all construction activities would be required to comply with NPDES regulations and obtain coverage under the State Construction General Permit (CGP). Under the CGP, the City of Ukiah or their contractor(s) would be required to implement construction BMPs as set forth in a detailed SWPPP. The BMPs are designed to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with stormwater and to keep all products of erosion, such as sediment, and stormwater pollutants from moving offsite into receiving waters. Typical BMPs to be implemented at construction sites include placement of fiber rolls or gravel barriers to detain sediment from disturbed areas, and temporary or permanent covering of stockpiles to prevent rainfall from contacting the stockpiled material. In addition to erosion control BMPs required under the CGP, as described under Section 3.3.3.2, work within the bed and bank of the waterway would require adherence to the conditions of a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) under Section 1601 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. BMPS required under the LSAA typically include avoidance of construction activities during inclement weather;limitation of construction access routes and stabilization of access points; stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips,providing plastic coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of adjacent properties by installing sediment barriers or filters,or vegetative buffer strips; stabilization and prevention of sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm drain outlets; use of sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering; and returning all drainage patterns to pre- construction conditions. Compliance with the requirements of the CGP and Section 1601 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code, November 2019 3.3-28 Page 1533 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources including the implementation of associated BMPs as part of the SWPPP and LSAA, would ensure that adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities from construction work related to storm drain outfalls within the bed and bank of the ephemeral creek would be less than significant. Significance:Less-than-Significant Impact 3.3-3: Would the Proposed Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected waters of the U.S. as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act or protected waters of the state as defined by Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (including, but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools, and coastal wetlands)through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? In 2015,a Wetlands Delineation Report was prepared for the Proposed Project. However,the Corps has not verified the information as of this date. The eastern tributary drainage is an ephemeral drainage and is mapped as vegetated other waters.The upper portion of the main drainage that forms the northern boundary of the study area is dry with no wetland vegetation in the creek channel.The lower portion of the northern creek channel from the bridge to the western end of the study area has wetland vegetation within the creek bed and within the ordinary high-water mark. The northern creek channel varies in width but has an average width of between 15-to 20-feet within the ordinary high-water mark. The eastern tributary channel is narrower and more incised and varies from 8-to 10-feet in width. Areas mapped as potential jurisdictional wetlands also include the three former sediment ponds that occur within the study area. A fourth pond, identified as the leachate pond, has not been identified as jurisdictional because this pond is part of the treatment system for the landfill, even though it supports wetland vegetation. Seven small seasonal wetlands were also mapped. Existing drainage facilities consist of a network of benches, ditches and eight(8) storm drains that drain to 18- and 24-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) discharge culverts into the top of bank of the ephemeral tributary. Under the proposed project, six (6) of these eight(8) will be removed, and a total of six(6)new drainages will be discharging into the ephemeral creek.To prevent soil erosion in the ephemeral tributary the culverts will be installed with energy dissipaters that measure four(4)feet wide by six(6)feet in length around the pipe outlet. These CMP culverts discharge to the unnamed ephemeral creek channel at various locations along the length of the Ukiah Landfill's northern boundary. In general, the drainage system is designed to intercept run-off at intervals along the inside edge of berms,benches or access roads. Riparian vegetation clearing will be required at each of these seven locations.It is expected that the clearing will be approximately 10-feet in width for the machinery to access all areas of the storm drain area. Approximately 3,006-square feet (sf) of disturbance will occur from installation of the drainage pipes. Proposed access improvements that include placing aggregate base over portion of the existing perimeter road and along benches to provide all-weather access will also impact seasonal wetland areas W1,W3 and W5. During the 2019 site visit two small+/-90 sf wetlands for a total of 180 sf were added along the access road adjacent to the northern main creek channel. Approximately 2,950 sf or 0.07 acres of ruderal, seasonal wetlands will be impacted by the project. This includes impacts to W 1 (1,117 sf) along the access road near the gate entrance, potential impacts to W5 November 2019 3.3-29 Page 1534 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources (226 sf),two small wetlands (W8 and W9)that were added in 2019 that occur along the north access road totaling approximately 180 sf, plus W3 which is 1,417 sf. The unnamed creek is identified as vegetated other waters and other waters which lack wetland vegetation. Isolated seasonal wetlands are also present in several areas located off the landfill footprint. The work related to the replacement of old storm drains and installation of new drains will work within limited areas of the bed and bank of the channel of the seasonal creek. This work will require permitting and mitigation from applicable agencies.The following avoidance and mitigation measures will be implemented to protect jurisdictional waters and sensitive habitat areas. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3a: Protect Jurisdictional Waters and Sensitive Habitat Areas. The City shall implement the following measures to protect jurisdictional waters and sensitive habitats. • Request a verification of the pre-construction delineated boundaries from the Corps. Following verification of the delineation boundaries from the Corps,the City shall develop measures to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. • After final design, quantify impacts to wetlands and other waters. Submit to the Corps a permit application for discharge of fill material into waters of her United States, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. • Install and maintain appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls during and following construction. • Obtain a streambed alteration agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, pursuant to Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code, before initiating construction within the 100-year floodplain of any stream crossing. • Develop and implement mitigation plans for impacts to wetlands. Replace eliminated wetlands at a 1:1 ratio so there is no net loss of wetlands. Temporarily impacted wetlands should be restored onsite. Stockpile topsoil removed from wetlands and store in upland landscape positions. Following construction disturbance, restore the land surface contours and backfill the top 6-to 12-inches with stockpiled topsoil. • Following Project completion, monitor the site to assess mitigation success. Success criteria should be clearly defined for all measures implemented to mitigate for project impacts to wetlands.Yearly reports should be submitted to the Corps until implementation has been determined to be successful. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts to jurisdictional waters to a less than significant level. Significance:Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. Impact 3.3-4: Would the Proposed Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? November 2019 3.3-30 Page 1535 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources The project site footprint for the landfill is approximately 40-acres. With the exception of temporary, construction-related activities that would occur during the closure construction activities, the project implementation would not result in any significant changes to the landfill or physical environment beyond the limits of the landfill footprint. The area surrounding the project site encompasses open space and rangelands on all sides with some residential development to the south. The project as proposed would not result in any direct long-term impacts to wildlife movement in the area. With the final cover of the landfill surface being a geosynthetic material that is ballasted with sand is not expected to produce sediment that would impact the creek and associated aquatic processes. In addition,the proposed drainage system would be expected to reduce the amount of sedimentation that may enter the creek. No significant impacts are anticipated either to wildlife movement and project implementation would not adversely affect any native wildlife nursery sites. Measures to prevent take of nesting birds and roosting bats have been addressed above.No mitigation measures are required. Significance:Less-than-Significant. Impact 3.3-5: Would the Proposed Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? The Proposed Project is located in an area that is comprised generally of grasslands and oak woodlands with some chaparral. There are no trees that exist within the refuse footprint of the active portion of he Ukiah Landfill. The Proposed Project will include earthwork and grading that will occur almost exclusively within the limits of the existing landfill footprint. Project implementation will include the replacement and abandonment of several storm drain outlets located on the bed of the unnamed tributary stream that does include limited riparian vegetation. The wetland delineation and biological survey indicated no presence of listed and protected plant and animal species within the area of the proposed project. Potential impacts to trees located along the periphery of the landfill footprint that may be affected by the Project activities within the Ukiah Landfill or any of the environmental control systems such as the Landfill gas flare compound would not be significant because they do not support sensitive species and are not otherwise protected.Therefore,potential impacts are less-than-significant;no mitigation measures are required. Significance:Less-than-Significant. Impact 3.3-6: Would the Proposed Project conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? There are no known Habitat Conservation Plans in effect for the Project Site property or surrounding area. As a result,there would be no impacts and no mitigation measures are necessary. November 2019 3.3-31 Page 1536 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Significance:No Impact. 3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts There are no known projects that would be constructed at the same time and within the same vicinity of the Proposed Projectthat would or could create any additional or cumulative construction related impacts. Once constructed the Proposed Project would not have any significant impacts. As a result,the Proposed Project would not have any direct,indirect,short-term and/or long-term cumulative impacts to biological resources. Significance:Less-than-Significant. 3.3.6 References Baicich, P. and C.Harrison. 1997.A Guide to Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Second Edition.Natural World Academic Press. San Diego. 347 pp. Behnke, R. 2002. Trout and Salmon of North America. The Free Press,New York. 360 pp. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. Special Animals.Natural Diversity Data Base,Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. August. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List.Natural Diversity Data Base,Habitat Conservation Division. August. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California.Natural Diversity Data Base,Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. August. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. August. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. Considerations for Conserving the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog.Northern Region and Habitat Conservation Branch. May 14. 47pp. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015. California State Wildlife Action Plan, 2015 Update: A Conservation Legacy for Californians. Chapter 5.1 North Coast and Klamath Province. Edited by Armand G. Gonzales and Junko Hoshi, PhD. Prepared with assistance from Ascent Environmental, Inc., Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society. 2015. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. November 2019 3.3-32 Page 1537 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2019. RareFind 5 Ukiah, Cow Mountain,Purdy's Garden and Elledge Peak 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. August. City of Ukiah. 1995. Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program, IV.1 Open Space and Conservation. Adopted by the city Council December 6. City of Ukiah. 2014. Tree Management guidelines. Adopted 12-01-10 &Revised 11-19-14. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory,Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS. Fahrig, L., J.H. Pedlar, S.E. Pope, P.D. Taylor and J.F.Wegner. 1995. Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73:177-182. Fellers, G. and P. Kleeman. 2007. California red-legged frog (Rana draytomi)Movement and Habitat Use: Implications for Conservation. J. of Herpetology Vol. 41 (2): 271-281. Glista,D., T. DeVault and A. DeWoody. 2008. Vertebrate Road Mortality Predominantly Impacts Amphibians. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(1):77-87. Grinnell, J. and A. Miller. 1944. The Distribution of the Birds of California. Artemesia Press, Lee Vining, California. Hayes, M. P., C. A.Wheeler,A. J. Lind,G.A. Green and D. C. Macfarlane (Technical Coordinators). 2016. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation Assessment in California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR- 248. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 193 p. Hayes, M. P. and M. M. Miyamoto. 1984. Biochemical,behavioral, and body size differences between Rana aurora and Rana aurora draytonii. Copeia 10181022. Hickman, J.C. (ed.) 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press. Holland, D.C. 1992.A Synopsis of the Distribution and Current Status of the Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata) in Oregon. Report prepared for Non-game Division Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Jane Valerius Environmental Consulting. 2015a. Special status plant survey report, Ukiah landfill closure, City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California. Prepared for City of Ukiah. July. Jane Valerius Environmental Consulting. 2015Ab. Delineation of Waters of the United States,Including Wetlands for the Ukiah Landfill Closure 3100 Vichy Springs Rd, Ukiah, Mendocino County, California. Prepared for the City of Ukiah. June. Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Prepared for the Calif Dept. of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries Div. Rancho Cordova, Calif.November 1. 255 pp. November 2019 3.3-33 Page 1538 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources Mayer, K.E. and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento. 166 pp. McCullough, D. 1996. Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation. Island Press. 429pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). 2005. Designation of Critical habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in California. Federal Register Vol. 70(170): 52488-52626. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). 1999. Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESA Map. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019.Web Soil Survey for Sonoma County, California. Remsen,H.V. 1988. Bird Species of Special Concern in California: an Annotated List of Declining or Vulnerable Bird Species. California Department of Fish and Game,The Resources Agency. Sawyer,John O., Todd Keeler-Wolf, Julie M Evens. 2009.A manual of California vegetation. Second edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, CA. 1300 pages. Shuford,W. D., and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1.Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Spencer,W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K.Winters, C. Paulman,H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt,M. Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd Ed.,Houghton Mifflin Company. Storer, T. 1. 1925. A synopsis of the amphibia of California. University of California Publications in Zoology 27:1-342. Tatarian,P. 2008. Movement Patterns of California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytomi)in an Inland California Environment. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2):155-169. Thomson, R.C.,A.W.Wright and H. B. Shaffer. 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and University of California Press. xv+390 PP Tobin,D.P. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Special Publication No. 1, sixth ed. 384 pp U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Jurisdictional determination handbook. May. November 2019 3.3-34 Page 1539 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3 Biological Resources U. S.Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Final Report. December. Vicksburg, MS. U. S. Army Engineers Research and Development Center. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)2019. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)2010. California Red-legged Frog Critical habitat Units Sonoma. www.f vs.gov/sacrafnento/es/maps/CRF_2010_Final_Revised_Critical_Habitat_Designation/Sonoma_20 10_CRLF fCH.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii).Federal Register Vol. 73( 180): 53492— 53680. September 16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management,Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at<http://www.fNvs.gov/migratorybirds/>]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Recovery plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora Draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon. viii+ 173 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Programmatic Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on Issuance of Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Authorizations under the Nationwide Permit Program for Project that May Affect the California Red-legged Frog. January 26. Whittaker, R. 1998. Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution and Conservation. Oxford University Press. 285pp. Williams, D.F. 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game.Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report 86-1. 112 pp. Zeiner, D.,W. Laudenslayer, K. Mayer, and M.White. 1990. California's Wildlife. Volume IL Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. State of California, The Resources Agency, Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, Calif. November 2019 3.3-35 Page 1540 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources 3.4 Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Resources This chapter describes the existing visual character of the Proposed Project areas and evaluates how components of the Proposed Project would impact cultural,paleontological, and tribal resources. 3.4.1 Introduction This section describes the existing environmental and regulatory setting, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources in Project Area, and evaluates how construction and operation of the Proposed Project would impact identified and unanticipated cultural and tribal resources. A cultural resource is any physical evidence or specific location of past human activity,occupation,or use,identifiable through archaeological investigation,historical research,or oral history. Cultural resources can be separated into four categories: archaeological resources (the physical traces of human activity), built environment resources (buildings and structures), traditional cultural resources (places associated with cultural practices of a community),and tribal cultural resources. • Archaeological Resources. Archeological resources are material remains of human life or activities that can provide information about past human behavior. Prehistoric archaeological resources include a variety of artifactual and non-artifactual remains of human activity. Typical prehistoric artifacts include flaked stone tools(arrowheads,scrapers),ground stone tools(mortars,pestles, milling slabs,net weights),bone tools(fishhooks,awls),and decorative or social items(bone flutes,bone gaming sticks,shell beads,shell or stone pendants,obsidian tinklers).Non-artifactual remains may include human remains;architectural remnants such as house pits;evidence of cooking such as fire-affected rock,ash, animal bone or shell;midden soil,which is dark brown to black with a high organic content and typically contains charcoal,animal bone;or shell middens,which are deposits of shell or shell mixed with midden soil and artifacts.Historic-era archaeological resources may include filled hollow features such as privies,trash pits,or wells; architectural features such as foundations, concrete pads, adobe brick, or fence posts; diffuse or concentrated trash scatters containing glass bottles, domestic ceramics,or metal; and trash dumps containing food debris such as animal bone, shellfish, seeds, or pits. • Built Environment Resources.This term includes architectural evidence from the past,including buildings, building complexes (such as homesteads or farms), roads and trails, bridges, cemeteries, infrastructure (such as canals, dams, pipelines, power lines, or electrical stations), and other structures. • Traditional Cultural Resources.Traditional cultural resources include sites of special importance to a living community. These may include gathering places, sacred sites, landscape features, or other locations that help to maintain the cultural practices,traditions,beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social institutions of a living community. • Tribal Cultural Resources. A Tribal Cultural Resource is a geographically-defined site, feature, place,object or cultural landscape that with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. It may include any of the above categories of cultural resource. November 2019 3.4-1 Page 1541 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources 3.4.2 Key Concepts and Terminology The term "cultural resources" encompasses historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, and burial sites. Below is a brief summary of each component: • Archaeology. The study of human activity in history or prehistory through study of artifacts, architecture, and other physical remains. • Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of prehistoric human activities and cultures. Archaeological resources are generally associated with indigenous cultures. • Burial Sites:Burial sites are formal or informal locations where human remains,usually associated with indigenous cultures, are interred. • Ethnography. The scientific study of contemporary human cultures. • Complex. A patterned grouping of similar artifact assemblages from two or more sites,presumed to represent an archaeological culture. • Historic Preservation District. An area of the City having historic, architectural, cultural or aesthetic significance and designated as a Historic Preservation District under the provisions of the City's Planning and Zoning Code. • Historic Resource. A property, site, or district listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in,the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), Ventura County Historical Landmarks, or City of Oxnard Points of Interest. • Isolate. Archaeological artifacts or features found apart from recognized archaeological sites. Generally, isolates cannot provide enough information to make them eligible to be historic resources. • Landmark. Any structure or natural feature designated as a Cultural or Historic Monument under the provisions of the City's Planning and Zoning Code or as listed in California Historical Landmarks. • Midden. Soils produced by dumping of human domestic waste,which may contain artifacts, bone, shell fragments, charcoal, ash, rock, human remains, structural remnants, or other traces of human activity. • Paleontological Resources.Paleontological resources are the fossilized evidence of past life found in the geologic record. Despite the tremendous volume of sedimentary rock deposits preserved worldwide, and the enormous number of organisms that have lived through time, preservation of plant or animal remains as fossils is an extremely rare occurrence. Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils — particularly vertebrate fossils — are considered to be nonrenewable resources.Because of their rarity,and the scientific information they can provide,fossils are highly significant records of ancient life. • State Historical Landmark.Historic structure or site of local or statewide interest. • State Point of Historical Interest. Historic structure or site of local or countywide interest. 3.4.3 Environmental Setting What follows is a discussion of the regional environmental setting for cultural resources in Ukiah,Ukiah Valley and portions of Mendocino County. November 2019 3.4-2 Page 1542 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources 3.4.3.1 Archeology and Prehistory Generally, the prehistory of the Ukiah Valley within Mendocino County is not well known. No peer- reviewed documents have been published since the seminal study presented by Fredrickson in 1984. The Northwest Information Center at California State University, Sonoma indicated that approximately 4,320 archaeological sites from both prehistoric and historic eras have been catalogued or listed. The most frequent form of cultural resource study is the surface inspection and these vary widely with respect to project methodology. The coastal region of Mendocino County exhibits two, perhaps three, different forms of cultural adaptations. The Coast Yuki north of Fort Bragg lived on the coast year-round,with their major villages set back from the coast within sheltered areas. The Northern Pomo were a riverine-adapted people who made seasonal treks to the coast, set up seasonal camps, harvested their seafood, and returned home. Large, complex village sites have not been found often on the coast between Fort Bragg and the Navarro River, unless they pre-date Northern Pomo habitation. The Central Pomo south of the Navarro lived in permanent villages and seasonal camps on the coast. The redwood belt in central Mendocino County was used for short-term purposes by individuals or groups passing through the region;however,no prehistorical Mendocino County groups lived permanently or even seasonally in this zone. The Central and Northern Pomo maintained large villages along the Russian River and its larger tributaries. These peoples made seasonal encampments in upland areas but were primarily a riverine adapted people. The Yuki were also a riverine group, but with a substantial mountain adaptation living along the Middle and South Forks of the Eel and Black Butte Rivers.They made extensive use of the mountainous lands surrounding them. Their linguistic relatives, the Huchnom, lived along the South Eel. The Huchnom's territory was limited.It appears that all of their major villages were located along the South Eel, with the mountainous regions used for short trips to gather specific resources. Of all the Yuki groups, they were most similar to the Pomo, and interacted with the Potter and Redwood Valley Pomo group extensively. Much the same can be said for Cahto groups living along Ten Mile Creek. Separate from the Yuki,theCahto integrated well with their Pomo neighbors,living along those major watercourses within their territory with a highly variable food base. The North Fork Wailaki were a riverine people with an adaptation different from their more southerly neighbors.Theirs was a largely salmon oriented economy,supplemented by local resources such as acorn harvesting,gathering,and hunting. Large villages were established along the major watercourses, with seasonal camps and special use sites located in the upland regions of their territory. Remaining Athapaskan-speaking groups along the northern boundary of the County are more aptly discussed within the context of Humboldt County. Their material culture and economic adaptations are similar to the North Fork Wailaki. The time depth of human occupation of Mendocino County is uncertain. Human occupation is reported in the Clear Lake Basin and in Sonoma County around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.5 In Humboldt County,the time depth of human occupation along the coast is not more than a few thousand years;however,prehistoric occupation on the interior ridges separating Shasta County may have occurred perhaps 8,000 years ago. Similar time depth is reported for the Eel River region. The oldest occupation in Round Valley is about 3,000 years ago,but occupation in the surrounding hills and drainages extends back to approximately 8,000 years ago. Although the Russian River was very heavily used, occupation has not been reported before 5,000 years ago. November 2019 3.4-3 Page 1543 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources Human occupation along the coast,in both Northern and Central Pomo controlled territory,appears roughly contemporaneous with that of the Russian River. It has been suggested that the lack of antiquity for human occupation along the coast may be in part a result of rising sea levels that inundated older archaeological sites.While there is no evidence for this, it does offer a plausible explanation for why the coast of northern California lacks significant time depth of human occupation. 3.4.3.2 European History of Mendocino County The European history of Mendocino County began many decades before the Bear Flag Revolt of 1848. The earliest known incursions into the County by Europeans were in the 1820s. Several pre-Eighteenth Century Spanish coastal explorations were undertaken, including one by Cabrillo,but there is no evidence that any of these landed on the coast of Mendocino County to establish permanent settlements. In the early decades of the Nineteenth Century,the Russian Empire established a number of settlements in northwestern Sonoma County centered on Fort Ross. The Russians were not satisfied to merely exploit their immediate surroundings and they conducted extensive explorations of the interior. A qualified scientist accompanied each exploration and, as a result, the National Academy of Sciences in Leningrad has near unparalleled collections of Coastal California ethnographic and botanical materials. One of these explorations, circa 1828,traveled up the Russian River into Mendocino County and then east to Clear Lake, describing either Mt.Lassen or Mt. Shasta to the north.Very little of this information has been translated.Working with new translated information,Werner(1977)prepared a short summary and bibliography of these explorations. In the 1820s and 1830s,the County was visited, perhaps annually,by bands of English, French Canadian, and American fur trappers.Never staying long in one place,these men were hunters and trappers and only incidentally explorers. Spain, and subsequently Mexico, had many settlements in what was known as Alta California—an area roughly corresponding to the coastal strip of modern California as far north as central Sonoma County, where a mission and small presidio were established. By the 1840s, Sonoma and Napa counties were carved into large land grants and,late in that decade,two ranchos were established in southern Mendocino County: Rancho de Sanel at Hopland and Yokaya in the Ukiah Valley(Marschner 2000:195). Neither Spanish nor Mexican influence extended into Mendocino County beyond establishing the two land grants.Neither grant was developed or confirmed by the U.S.government(Marschner 2000:196).However, Fernando Feliz did receive a patent for some 17,000 acres in Sanel Valley after receiving the Rancho de Sanel land grant from the Mexican government(Hoover,et al. 1966:196). There were no established cities or towns until 1859,and,owing to an extremely sparse population,the County was administered by Sonoma County. In the 1840s, Rafael Garcia was using Point Arena for cattle grazing and claimed to have a rancho but it was never named or confirmed. The first region in Mendocino County to develop was the coast. In the 1850s, the County's fishing and lumber industries were established. Harbors were established at the mouths of the Noyo, Navarro, and Albion Rivers,with the Noyo an early center for fishing. The ports on the Navarro and Albion Rivers were developed to serve a burgeoning lumber industry(Gille 1980:331). Other coastal areas were also subject to intensive activities associated with this industry; Point Arena was reputedly the busiest town between San Francisco and Eureka. By the 1880s, the California Lumber Company had established 20 mills along the coast connected by narrow gauge railroads to each other and the numerous small towns (Usal, Rockport, Hardy Creek,Westport, Cleone, Fort Bragg, Noyo, Caspar, Mendocino City, Little River, Albion, Navarro, November 2019 3.4-4 Page 1544 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources Greenwood,Elk River,and Gualala). Some of these towns have completely disappeared,while others have managed to survive as small rural communities. The Town of Mendocino has been designated by the State of California as a"special community"pursuant to the Coastal Act in recognition of an existing balance of residential,commercial and visitor serving facilities. The Town of Mendocino remains a visitor destination for its historic significance and natural beauty. The U. S. government originally established Fort Bragg, named after General Braxton Bragg of Mexican War fame, as an Army fort on what was to be the Mendocino Indian Reservation. The fort was established within the City limits of a thriving community. In the 1850s,the Union Lumber Company had established lumber mills within in the City of Fort Bragg and in 1922 established the first private nursery in California, the first private venture of its type in the State(Hoover,et al 1966:199).In the 1850s,the California Western Railroad connected the City to Willits;this railroad survives to this day as the popular"Skunk Train." Inland towns were established at Ukiah, Hopland (called Sanel as late as 1859), and the town of Willits, established circa 1865.Kirk Brier first settled Willits in Little Lake Valley in 1865,but the town was named after Hiram Willits who bought Brier out and then helped with incorporation in 1888. The first settler in the Ukiah area was S. Lowry,who established himself there by 1856.He sold his land to A. T. Perkins,and in 1859 the tiny hamlet of some 100 people was selected as the County seat. In 1894, the State Fish and Game Commission took over a fish hatchery begun in 1894 by the Northwestern Pacific Railway. In 1898, the International Geodetic Association established one of four International Latitude Observatories in the Ukiah area. In 1900, C. A. Purdy established a preserve for native western wildflowers, bulbs, shrubs, and trees. This area east of Ukiah is known as Purdy's Garden;the internationally known facility was gone by the 1960s (Hoover, et al. 1966:196-197). The Ukiah area is also the location of Vichy Springs, one of the oldest continuously operating hot springs resorts in the country(Hoover,et al. 1999),beginning as a resort circa 1888 as Doolan Ukiah Vichy. Vichy Springs is recognized as a State historical landmark (Number 980). Other mineral spring resorts in the County include Orr's Springs west of Ukiah and Duncan Springs south of Hopland. The Sun House in Ukiah is also a State listed historical landmark(Number 926). These inland interior areas were very remote; in the Boonville locality a unique dialect of English was begun called Boontling, one of the very few recognized dialects of English. The rugged interior of the County within the Redwood belt remains a sparsely settled region to this day. Population centers in the region are small, with Boonville, Navarro, and Comptche in the south, and Branscomb in the north. Boonville was founded in 1864 as Kendall City. Navarro or'Navarra' appears on a Rancho Diseno map of 1844, but after statehood the post office in this location was called Wendling, until 1914 when it was changed to Navarro. Branscomb was settled relatively late, in 1895 when the post office was established. The major industry of the interior was logging and supporting facilities with light retailing in the small towns. The industry led to the establishment of Philo, Yorkville, and other towns in this portion of the County. Agricultural activities were undertaken in the larger valleys,for example Anderson Valley around Boonville and Yorkville. More recently, in the southern end of the County vineyards in some areas have replaced fruit trees. The first major crop in the Hopland area,planted by Stephen Warren Knowles in 1858, was hops and by the early 1900s, hops were replaced by pears and later vineyards. The Potter, Redwood, and Coyote Valleys north,northeast, and east of Ukiah were heavily agricultural with some logging in the first two. Coyote Valley, flooded in 1958 by Lake Mendocino behind Coyote Dam, was also heavily agricultural and the first vineyard in Mendocino County was begun here in the 1880s (Patterson, et al. November 2019 3.4-5 Page 1545 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources 1977). The Ukiah Valley remains primarily an agricultural area although light industry and commercial development has increased since the Second World War.Round Valley,about 30 miles northeast of Willits, is also heavily agricultural with some logging in the northern end.Local tradition has the last fast draw duel in California occurring in the streets of Covelo circa 1908. 3.4.3.3 Ethnography The entire southern third of Mendocino County was the home of groups of Central Pomo. To the north of the Central groups lie the Northern Pomo,who controlled a strip of land extending from the coast to Clear Lake in Lake County. The northern groups controlled the coast from the Navarro River north to Cleone and from just north of Anderson Valley to Sherwood Valley. Coyote, Yokayo, Redwood, and Potter Valleys were within their territory. The Northern Pomo were the most populous native linguistic groups in the County. The Pomo were a Hokan language group,judged one of the oldest linguistic families in the State (McLendon and Oswalt 1977). The Coast Yuki claimed a portion of the coast from Ft. Bragg north to an area slightly north of Rockport. The Coast Yuki was one of the few native groups in California with a true coastal adaptation;they had little access to interior resources. The Coast Yuki were linguistically related to a small group living along the South Eel River north of Potter Valley called the Huchnom. Both of these smaller groups were related to the Yuki who were centered in Round Valley. The Round Valley Indian Reservation at the northern end of the valley is the largest contiguous enclave of Indian land in the County and one of the largest in California. These three groups represent a linguistic isolate language known as Yuki, which has no known linguistic relatives (Miller 1977). At the far northern end of the County, above the Coast Yuki, Northern Pomo, and Yuki, several groups extend south from Humboldt County. These groups are interesting in that they represent the southern extension of a different cultural area than their southerly neighbors. Pomoan-Yukian groups are representative of the California Culture as defined by Kroeber(1925). These groups had a mixed economy based primarily on harvesting acorns and hunting, fishing, and other gathering. The northerly groups represent an extension of the Northwest Culture Area;the most well-known groups in this Culture Area lie far to the north in Washington and British Columbia and include groups such as the Klingat and Tillamook, to name two. Only one of the northerly groups lies entirely within Mendocino County, the Cahto; their territory was bounded by Branscomb, Laytonville, and Cummings (Miller 1977). Three other groups, all Athapaskans peaking like the Cahto, extended just south of the County boundary. These are the Shelter Cove Sinkyone, the Eel River,and Pitch Wailaki. The North Fork Wailaki were almost entirely in Mendocino County along the North Fork of the Eel River. Of the five southern Athapaskan groups,the Cahto were the most closely related from a cultural perspective to the Pomo and are judged primarily a California Culture Area group; the remaining four are included among the Northwestern California groups, which were culturally part of the Northwest Culture Area. In truth, Northwestern California is more of an agglomeration of California and Northwestern cultural characteristics, but their material culture is sufficiently distinct from the Pomo that they are included in a distinct culture area. Nearly all of these native groups have living representatives in the County today. The Central Pomo are represented by Rancherias in Hopland, Manchester, and Point Arena. Northern Pomo groups have Rancherias in Potter,Redwood,Pinoleville(Ukiah),Guideville (Coyote Valley),and Sherwood.The Yuki, November 2019 3.4-6 Page 1546 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources Huchnom, Coast Yuki, and North Fork Wailaki were placed on the Round Valley Reservation. The Cahto have a Rancheria at Laytonville. The remaining Athapaskan groups have land set aside for them in Humboldt County. 3.4.3.4 Status of Reservations and Rancherias Many Rancherias represent the composite remnants of once populous native villages when the U. S. Government restricted movement and confiscated their lands in the 1850s.For example,nine separate tribes at Round Valley including Pomo and Wintu groups were forced to settle there in the Nineteenth Century; Central Pomo and Northern Pomo live on each other's Rancherias, often through intermarriage. Thus, in land use planning it is often necessary to consult tribal members at several Rancherias and those living at the Rancheria closest to a proposed project may not be the most appropriate group(s)to consult. Established in 1856,Round Valley Reservation is the largest in Mendocino County. The Reservation is a discontinuous assemblage of at least 15 parcels, some of which extend into Humboldt County. Before the establishment of Round Valley, the Department of Indian Affairs had established a farm called Nome Cult. The total acreage of Native American land is subject to change. Since the advent of Indian Gaming, investment groups may form partnerships with tribal units for the purpose of acquiring property in locations advantageous for resort-casino operations. Rancheria acreages may also increase as the result of local action to place lands that were historically in a Rancheria back under trust status. Land sales within a Rancheria require Bureau of Indian Affairs approval. Not all land within the boundaries of reservations, are Federal trust lands. Today, Reservations and Rancherias in the County strive to restore, maintain, and protect their histories. Cultural history is stressed through preservation of tribal language and ceremonies. Cultural and sacred aspects of the land are also important. Round Valley Indian Tribes, for example, may consider peaks and high places within the area to be spiritually significant. Likewise, the acts of hunting, fishing, and gathering are not merely a means of gathering food or materials; they represent cultural traditions. Tribes are also striving to ensure that necessary social services are available. Employment opportunities at or near their places of residence continue to be a priority for many tribes in Mendocino County. Employment rates of 43 percent on the Redwood Valley Rancheria and 84 percent on the Round Valley Reservation were identified in 2000. Many of those who are employed work off their Rancheria or Reservation lands. Further, local tribes remain concerned about educational opportunities for Rancheria and Reservation residents along with health and safety issues. 3.4.3.5 Status of Reservations and Rancherias The process of identifying and mitigating impacts to cultural resources incrementally increases man's understanding of human and natural environments through time. The largest blocks of land studied in the County are within Mendocino National Forest. The Bureau of Land Management has conducted extensive cultural resources surveys in the Cow Mountain Planning Unit and the Geysers Known Geothermal Resources Area. The Round Valley Reservation was inspected for prehistoric cultural resources in the 1970s. Several other Reservations or Rancherias have been studied recently as the result of housing or economic development projects.The California Department of Parks and Recreation has conducted cultural resources surveys on most if not all of their properties in the County.Many sections of State highway rights- of-way have been inspected. Large tracts of land under private ownership in the redwood belt have been inspected in association with November 2019 3.4-7 Page 1547 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources timber harvest plans administered by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Some State agencies routinely require cultural resources investigations, such as the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights and the State Land Commission. Prehistoric archaeological sites subject to intensive study are spread throughout the County. Many archaeological sites along the Russian River in Coyote Valley were examined in the 1970s(Stoddard,et al. 1978). A few prehistoric sites in Round Valley and vicinity have been studied. The California Department of Transportation has excavated prehistoric sites along the State Route 101 right-of-way. A few prehistoric sites along the coast in MacKerricher State Park presumed associated with the Coast Yuki were studied in the early 1990s. Isolated prehistoric sites have been examined within the limits of lands under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Act; most of these are to define site boundaries. Unless exempted, cultural resources investigations are required on lands subject to disturbance by public and private `projects' under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).However,agricultural cultivation and many other uses are "permitted"and not subject to CEQA requirements.Very few prehistoric or historic archaeological sites under the County's CEQA jurisdiction have been subject to systematic scientific study. With so few cultural resources carefully studied,the prehistory of the County generally remains not well understood. 3.4.3.6 Project Site Setting The Proposed Project Site encompasses approximately 40-acres of the 283.5-acre City-owned property which was utilized as a Class III municipal landfill between 1955 and 2001. The landfill activities that occurred at the property extensively altered the property as a result of the landfilling and related activities necessary to maintain the project site property. On July 5, 2019 the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University (KWIC) returned record search NWIC No.: 19-0004.We requested information about known cultural resources and previous studies within the project parcel and surrounding area. No cultural resources are known within this search radius. Two previous studies have examined the project area in part. In 1975, the Bureau of Land Management prepared a high-level overview of archaeological sites in its Cow Mountain Planning Unit (Keesling and French 1975).A small portion of the project area was also surveyed on foot in 1994(Roybal 1994).Neither study identified cultural resources in the project area. Just outside of the Project Area is Vichy Springs Resort, established in 1857. Vichy Springs Resort (P-23-001793) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places(National Park Service 1985). The Proposed Project is not located on Vichy Springs Resort property and would not involve any activities that would affect this historic place and/or buildings. Given this information it appears that the project area is not sensitive for prehistoric or historic-era cultural resources. 3.4.3.7 AB 52 Native American Consultation As documented in Appendix F, on February 3, 2017, a letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC), requesting a listing of local Native American tribes in the area and any information regarding sacred lands within the area in order to be compliant with Assembly Bill 52(AB52). On February 7, 2019 NAHC sent the City a list of the Native American Tribes to request a government-to-government consultation to determine the potential of the Proposed Project to affect Tribal Cultural Resources. On Feb, 2019 the City then sent a government-to-government letter to each Native American Tribe requesting consultation regarding how the Proposed Project could potentially affect any known tribal cultural resources. To date,none of the tribes have provided any information regarding tribal cultural resources or November 2019 3.4-8 Page 1548 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources issues with the Proposed Project. Further none of the tribes have not requested government-to-government consultation and the 30-day AB-52 consultation period and requirements have been completed. 3.4.4 Regulatory Context The project is subject to specific state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards for visual resources. There are no specific federal regulations that apply to the visual resources associated with the Project. 3.4.4.1 Federal Regulations Summarized below are the relevant federal regulations related to cultural resources that are applicable to the Proposed Project. National Historic Preservation Act. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),which contains an inventory of the nation's significant prehistoric and historic properties.Under 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60,a property is recommended for possible inclusion on the NRHP if it is at least 50 years old, has integrity, and meets one of the following criteria: It is associated with significant events in history, or broad patterns of events. • It is associated with significant people in the past. • It embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type, period, or method of construction; or it is the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or it represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. • It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory. • Certain types of properties are usually excluded from consideration for listing in the NRHP, but they can be considered if they meet special requirements in addition to meeting the criteria listed above. Such properties include religious sites, relocated properties, graves and cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years. National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA's concern is with the "human environment," defined as including the natural and physical (e.g. built) environment and the relationships of people to that environment. A thorough environmental analysis under NEPA should systematically address the "human" -- social and cultural -- aspects of the environment as well as those that are more "natural," and should address the relationships between natural and cultural. Culturally valued aspects of the environment generally include historic properties, other culturally valued pieces of real property, cultural use of the biophysical environment, and such "intangible" sociocultural attributes as social cohesion, social institutions,lifeways, religious practices, and other cultural institutions. 3.4.4.2 State Regulations Summarized below are the relevant state regulations related to cultural resources that are applicable to the Proposed Project. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires that lead agencies determine whether their projects may cause a substantial adverse change to a historical resource or unique archaeological November 2019 3.4-9 Page 1549 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources resource, which is considered to be a significant effect on the environment (Public Resources Code §21084.1). CEQA defines "historical resource"as a property determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or local registers by a lead agency (14 Code of California Regulations §15064.5). The CRHR eligibility criteria are modeled on those for the NRHP and include: 1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; 2. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past; 3. Embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. 4. Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. Resources determined eligible for the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR. In addition, historic landmark designations by cities and counties are also presumptively eligible for the CRHR.A property that has been determined eligible to the CRHR or NRHP is considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA,whether or not it has been formally listed on the CRHR. A "unique archaeological resource"is defined in CEQA statute §15064.5(g) as an archaeological artifact, object,or site that"without merely adding to the current body of knowledge,there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. 2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. 3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person." These eligibility criteria mirror that of the CRHR, so that practically speaking any resource meeting the definition of a unique archaeological resource will also meet the eligibility criteria of the CRHR. A "substantial adverse change" under CEQA can include physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a historical resource or its immediate surroundings in a way that "materially impairs" its significance in such a way as to make it ineligible for the CRHR. CEQA emphasizes avoidance of archaeological and historical resources as the preferred means of reducing potential significant environmental effects resulting from projects. If avoidance is not feasible, an excavation program or some other form of mitigation must be developed to mitigate the impacts. In most cases,whenever a project adversely impacts historic resources, a mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR is required under CEQA. The following are steps typically taken to assess and mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources for the purposes of CEQA: • Identify cultural resources, • Evaluate the significance of the cultural resources found, • Evaluate the effects of the project on cultural resources, and • Develop and implement measures to mitigate the effects of the project on cultural resources that would be significantly affected. November 2019 3.4-10 Page 1550 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources California PRC Section 5097.5. California PRC Section 5097.5 prohibits excavation or removal of any "vertebrate paleontological site...or any other archaeological,paleontological or historical feature,situated on public lands,except with express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands." Public lands are defined to include lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city,county, district,authority or public corporation,or any agency thereof. Section 5097.5 states that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological,historical,or paleontological materials or sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor. State Laws Pertaining to Human Remains. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the California Native American Heritage Commission. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5) specify the procedures to be followed in case of the discovery of human remains on non-Federal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission. Native American Consultation. Prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan, Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4 require a city or county to consult with local Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The purpose is to preserve or mitigate impacts to places, features, and objects described in PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 (Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine located on public property)that are located within a city or county's jurisdiction. In addition,Assembly Bill 52 (e.g. 2014) (AB 52), as codified in PRC Sections 5097, 21073, 21074, 21080, 21082,21083,and 21084,will: • Establish a new classification of resources called Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs)which considers the value of a resource to tribal cultural traditions,heritages,and identifies; • Establish potential mitigation options for TCRs;and • Recognize that California Native American tribes have expertise concerning their tribal history and practices. AB 52 is intended to help identify impacts to TCRs as early as possible during the CEQA process so that appropriate mitigation measures may be developed.Under this legislation,when a proj ect is initiated,the lead agency must formally notify interested tribes that have requested to be on the agency's consultation list.AB 52 consultation should inform the need for a ND,MND,or EIR and must be initiated prior to the release of an ND,MND,or EIR, so it is important to build AB 52 consultation into project schedules. Tribes must be given written notification by the lead agency within 14 days ofthe decision by the lead agency themselves to undertake a project or the lead agency's determination that a project application is complete for a private project.If a tribe does not respond to a request within a 30-day timeframe,the agency may move forward with the project having made a good faith effort to open consultation. However, if the tribe(s) responds after 30 days, the lead agency may elect to begin consultation with the tribe(s),despite the passing of the legal deadline.The lead agency can and should make follow-up calls after the consultation letters are sent to try to get responses as soon as possible.Note,however,that if the tribes do not respond to follow-up telephone calls,they must still be afforded the 30-day window to respond. November 2019 3.4-11 Page 1551 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources 3.4.4.3 Local Summarized below are the relevant established goals and polices related to cultural resources in the City of Ukiah and the County of Mendocino that are applicable to the Proposed Project/Action. City of Ukiah General Plan.The City of Ukiah has adopted policies and ordinances for the protection and preservation of cultural resources. The City's preservation of cultural resources is accomplished through education, cooperation, and commitment to a program that make sense to the community. The City's commitment is to maintain cultural resources as a link to past populations—those whose ancestors called the Ukiah Valley home from time immemorial and those who adopted the Ukiah Valley as part of the growth of the United States. Over the years, the importance of preserving cultural resources has been viewed as critical to maintaining history and the quality of life as well as hindering development. However, the City has adopted measures to protect cultural resources and preserving the past as well as accommodating the future. The City's approach is to consider cultural resources as part of the permitting process. With early planning, the protection of cultural resources can usually be integrated into project designs in such a way as to avoid or minimize impacts. The City has developed a cultural resources inventory of known and likely known areas where cultural resources are or likely to be found. A review of this map,the Proposed Project/Action area would not conflict with, impact or be near any known cultural resources identified by the City. Prior to any proposed development, project proponents are required to identify areas of potential conflicts with known cultural resources. County of Mendocino General Plan. The Mendocino County Archeological Ordinance adopted in 1976 (Mendocino County Code,Title 21)recognized Native American sites as"unique,irreplaceable phenomena of significance in the history of the County and in the understanding of the cultural heritage of our land...". The County Archeological Commission conducts CEQA review and recommends mitigation regarding archaeological resources, taking into account the records search performed by the Northwest Information Center.The Archaeological Ordinance also implements the Public Resources Code with regard to discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. 3.4.5 Impact Analysis This section includes a discussion of the relevant significance criteria, the approach and methodology to the analyses, and any identified impacts and mitigation measures. 3.4.5.1 Significance Criteria Significance thresholds below are based on Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA Guidelines which indicates that a potentially significant impact on cultural or tribal cultural resources would occur if the Proposed Project should: • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5; • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5; • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; • Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries; and/or November 2019 3.4-12 Page 1552 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe. As noted above, a"historical resource"under CEQA is a property, site, or district listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), Mendocino County Historical Landmarks, or City of Ukiah Points of Interest. A "unique archaeological resource"is one that meets the criteria in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(g),which are substantively similarto those of the CRHR. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 defines"substantial adverse change"as: • Physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. • Demolition or material alteration in an adverse manner of those physical characteristics of an historical resource which convey its historical significance and justify its inclusion in or eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR inclusion in a local register, or identification in a historical resources survey. 3.4.5.2 Approach to Analysis This section provides an overview of the approach and methodology used in evaluations of historic properties, identifies potential impacts, and proposes mitigation measures to mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The analysis in the following sections has been developed based on record search information and archaeological sensitivity analysis to determine if any known cultural and/or tribal resources would be affected by the Proposed Project. Specifically, On July 5,2019,a records search was conducted by staff at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California (KWIC File 4 19-0004). The record search included the project Area of Potential Effect(APE) and a 0.25-mile radius outside the project boundaries. The record search included reviewing pertinent NWIC base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports,historic period maps, and literature for Mendocino County including current inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHP),the California Inventory of Historical Resources, California State Historic Landmarks, and the California Points of Historical Interest. No cultural resources are known within this search radius. Two previous studies have examined the project area in part. In 1975,the Bureau of Land Management prepared a high- level overview of archaeological sites in its Cow Mountain Planning Unit(Keesling and French 1975). A small portion of the project area was also surveyed on foot in 1994(Roybal 1994).Neither study identified cultural resources in the project area. Just outside of the 1/8-mile search radius is Vichy Springs Resort, established in 1857. Vichy Springs Resort (P-23-001793) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Park Service 1985). Given this information it appears that the project area is not sensitive for prehistoric or historical cultural resources In addition,and as documented in Appendix F,on February 3,2019,a letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), requesting a listing of local Native American tribes in the area and any information regarding sacred lands within the area in order to be compliant with Assembly Bill 52 (AB52). On February 7, 2019,NAHC sent the City a list of the Native American Tribes to request a government- November 2019 3.4-13 Page 1553 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources to-government consultation to determine the potential of the Proposed Project to affect Tribal Cultural Resources. On June 7,2019 the City then sent a government-to-government letter to each Native American Tribe requesting consultation regarding how the Proposed Project could potentially affect any known tribal cultural resources. To date, none of the Tribes have come forward requesting government-to-government consultation and/or provided any documentation regarding any known tribal resources that could be affected by the Proposed Project. 3.4.5.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Based on the review of the cultural and tribal record search information noted above, there are no known cultural and/or tribal resources in the Project Area. However, all projects (including the Proposed Project) that require ground disturbance (such as grading,trenching, and filling)have the potential to inadvertently discover previously unknown cultural and/or tribal resources during construction. What follows is further analysis for the specific significance criteria for cultural and/or tribal resources in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Impact 3.4-1: Would the Proposed Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? The Project Site is a closed landfill that has been significantly altered as a result of grading and excavation and the deposition of refuse into the Class III landfill. There are no identified historical structures and/or other historical resources currently known to exist either on the site or within the project area, which is characterized by grassland and devoid of any development. Project implementation will include grading and site alteration in order to implement the proposed final closure plan, including environmental control systems. No historical resources, including Vichy Springs Resort will be affected, either directly or indirectly as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, no impacts to historical resources will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Significance:Less-than-Significant. Impact 3-4.2: Would the Proposed Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines§15064.5? The subject property was utilized as a Class III municipal landfill between 1955 and 2001. Approximately 40-acres of the 283.5-acre City-owned property encompasses the Project Area. The landfill activities that occurred at the property extensively altered the property as a result of the landfilling and related activities necessary to maintain the project site property. The Proposed Project includes the construction of the final cover for the landfill as well as associated activities such as groundwater quality monitoring and site maintenance. Cover materials for the final cover will consist of a geosynthetic membrane that is ballasted with sand. Some excavation of the existing borrow site located within the limits of the site will occur as necessary which would result in additional site disturbance. However, it is important to note that these areas have been previously altered by past grading activities conducting at the project site. As a result, it is not likely that significant archaeological resources would be encountered during the proposed final closure and post closure activities. Therefore, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Nevertheless, and as with all construction activities, there is a slight chance November 2019 3.4-14 Page 1554 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources that construction activities of the Proposed Project could result in accidentally discovering unknown unique archaeological resources during construction. However,to further reduce this less-than-significant impact, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Halt work if cultural resources are discovered. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100-feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification,the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant(CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code),representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources,the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find,project design,costs,and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted.Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. Significance:Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. Impact 3.4-3: Would the proposed Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? As previously indicated,the subject property has been significantly altered as a result of prior grading and landfill activities that have occurred on the site between 1955 and 2001. Implementation of the final closure plan, which includes some additional excavation within the project site property and placement of final cover over the landfill as well as installation/modification of the environmental control systems will not result in any potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources because the areas that will be altered by the proposed project have already been altered;no paleontological resources are known to exist within the affected areas.Also,because the Proposed Project/would result in minimal excavation in bedrock conditions, significant paleontological discovery would be unlikely. However, fossil discoveries can be made even in areas of supposed low sensitivity.In the event a paleontological resource is encountered during project activities, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Stop Work if Paleontological Remains are Discovered. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone,teeth, shell,tracks,trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100-feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the District. With the implementation of the above mitigation measure,the Proposed Project would not result in impacts to unique paleontological or geological resources. Significance:Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. November 2019 3.4-15 Page 1555 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources Impact 3.4-4: Would the Proposed Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The Proposed Project will not encompass any sites or properties that possess known cultural values. Specifically, no formal cemeteries are located either on the project site in the vicinity of the project area, and no human remains are known to exist within the project site area. Although project implementation will require grading and limited excavation to implement the proposed project, the discovery of human remains is not anticipated. Nonetheless, the possibility exists that subsurface construction activities may encounter undiscovered human remains. Accordingly,this is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is proposed to reduce this potentially significant impact to a level of less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Halt Work if Human Remains are Found. If human remains are encountered during excavation activities conducted for the Proposed Project, all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the Mendocino County Coroner's office shall be notified. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified and will identify the Most Likely Descendent, who will be consulted for recommendations for treatment of the discovered human remains and any associated burial goods. Significance:Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Impact 3.4-5: Would implementation of the Proposed Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource? Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,feature,place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is either; (1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); and/or (2) is a resource determined by the City or its archeological consultant, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision(c)of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. As noted above, consultation with the NAHC and with local tribes under AB52 did not identify any Tribal Cultural Resources within the Project area. Therefore,the Proposed Project/Action is not likely to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, there is a slight chance that construction activities of the Proposed Project could result in accidentally discovering unique tribal cultural resources. To further reduce this less-than-significant impact, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Halt Work if Tribal Cultural Resources are Discovered. In the event that any tribal cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100-feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and local tribes to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant as a unique tribal cultural resource,the City shall treat the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values November 2019 3.4-16 Page 1556 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources and meaning of the resource,including to,but not limited to,the following: • Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; • Protecting the traditional use of the resource; and • Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist and/or the appropriate tribe in order to mitigate impacts to any tribal cultural resources find,the City shall determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find,project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g.,data recovery)shall be instituted and coordinated with the appropriate tribe(s).Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources or other unique archaeological resources are carried out. With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, any remaining impacts would be considered less-than-significant. Significance: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. 3.4.6 Cumulative Effects There are no known projects that would be constructed at the same time and within the same vicinity of the Proposed Projectthat would or could create any additional or cumulative construction related impacts. Once constructed the Proposed Project would not have any significant impacts. As a result,the Proposed Project would not have any direct, indirect, short-term and/or long-term cumulative impacts to cultural, paleontological, and/or tribal resources. Significance:Less-than-Significant. 3.4.7 References In addition to the archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System,the following literature was reviewed and/or referenced: Bailey, E. H., editor 1966 Geology of Northern California. California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 190. Sacramento. Barrett, Samuel A. 1908 The Ethnogeography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 6(1):1-332. Berkeley. Beck,Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase 1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press,Norman. November 2019 3.4-17 Page 1557 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources California Department of Transportation 2009 State Route 222, Route Relinquishment Project, Historic Property Survey Repport, Post Miles R 0.27/2.15,Mendocino County,EA 03-OR0040. California Department of Transportation, Marysville, California. California Office of Historic Preservation 1998 California Register of Historical Resources. State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Carpenter,Aurelius O. 1914 History ofMendocino and Lake Counties. Historic Records Company,Los Angeles. Chestnut,V. K. 1902 Plants Used by the Indians ofMendocino County, California. U.S.D.A. Division of Botany,Washington,DC. Elmendorf,William W. 1964 Linguistic Expansions and Contractions in Northwestern California. Paper presented at the Conference on Central and Southern California Areal Prehistory, University of California,Berkeley. Essig, E.O. 1933 The Russian Settlement at Ross. California Historical Quarterly 12:191-216. Fredrickson,David A. 1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges,California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. 1984 The North Coast Region. In California Archaeology by Michael J. Moratto, pp. 471- 527. Academic Press, Orlando. Gifford, Edward W. 1939 The Coast Yuki.Anthropos 34:292-375. Halpern,Abraham M. 1964 A Report on a Survey of Pomo Languages, edited by William Bright. University of California Publications in Linguistics 34. Berkeley. Harrington, M. R. 1948 An Ancient Site at Borax Lake, California. Southwest Museum Papers 16:1-126. Hildebrandt,W. R., and L. K. Swenson 1982 Prehistoric Archaeology. In Cultural Resources Overview for the Mendocino National Forest and East Lake Planning Units, BLM, California Volume I: Ethnography and Prehistory by H. McCarthy, W. R. Hildebrandt, and L. K. Swenson. Mendocino National Forest,Willows, CA. Jones and Stokes Associates 2000 Volumes I, II, and III: Final Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Williams Communications Inc. Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, Point Arena to Robbins and Point Arena to Sacramento, California. On File, Northwest November 2019 3.4-18 Page 1558 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Rohnert Park, California. Kroeber,Alfred A. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, DC. Kuchler,A.W. 1977 The Map of the Natural Vegetation of California. Department of Geography, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Layton, Thomas N. 1990 Western Pomo Prehistory: Excavations at Albion Head,Nightbird's Retreat,and Three Chop Village,Mendocino County.Institute ofArchaeologyMonograph 32,University of California, Los Angeles. McLendon, Sally, and Robert L. Oswalt 1978 Pomo: Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, edited by Robert F. Heizer,pp. 274-288. Smithsonian Institution,Washington, DC. Meighan, Clement W. 1955 Archaeology of the North Coast Ranges. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 30:1-39. Berkeley. Meighan, Clement W., and C.V. Haynes 1970 The Borax Lake Site Revisited. Science 167(3922):1213-1221. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando. Munz,Phillip A.,and David D. Keck 1959 A California Flora. University of California Press, Berkeley Origer, Thomas 1987 Temporal Control in the Southern North Coast Ranges of California: The Application of Obsidian Hydration Analysis. Papers in Northern California Anthrolopology 1. University of California, Berkeley. 1991 An Archaeological Survey of the Redwood Business Park south of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California. On File, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System,Rohnert Park, California. Oswalt, Robert L. 1964 The Internal Relationships of the Pomo Family of Languages.Proceedings of the 35th International Congress ofAmericanists 2:413-427. Mexico City. Palmer, Lyman L. 1880 History ofMendocino County. Alley, Bowen and Company, San Francisco. Pastron,Allen G.,and Jonathon Goodrich 2003 Phase I Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project Area Located in the City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, November 2019 3.4-19 Page 1559 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 Cultural,Paleontological,and Tribal Resources California. Prepared for the City of Ukiah, Ukiah, California. Porter, S. C., and G. H. Denton 1967 Chronology of Neoglaciation in the North American Cordillera. American Journal of Science 265:177-210. Roop,William 1976 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of Despina Drive Extension Request No. 15100. On File, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Rohnert Park, California. Simons, Dwight D.,Thomas N. Layton, and Ruthann Knudson 1985 A Fluted Point from the Mendocino County Coast, California. Report on file, Northwestern Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Soule,W. 1975 Archaeological Investigations atMEN-584, Mendocino County, California. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Sacramento State University, Sacramento. Stewart, Omer C. 1943 Notes on Pomo Ethnogeography. University of California Publications in American Ethnology and Archaeology 40(2):29-62. Berkeley. Van Bueren, Thad M., Shannon Carmack, and Francesca Smith 2010 Draft Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Fort Bragg Coastal Restoration and Trail Project, City of Fort Bragg,Mendocino County, California. Submitted to the City of Fort Bragg, CA. White, Greg 1989 A Report of Archaeological Investigations at Eleven Native American Coastal Sites, MacKerricher State Park, Mendocino County, California. Submitted to California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. Wills,Wesley 2009a A Cultural Resources Study for the Recycled Water and Stormwater Development Project in the City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California. Prepared for the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Rosa, California. 2009b A Cultural Resources Study for the Groundwater Capacity Restoration Project, City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California. Prepared for the City of Ukiah, Ukiah, California. November 2019 3.4-20 Page 1560 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity 3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 3.5.1 Introduction This section identifies and evaluates the changes in conditions related to geology, soils, and seismic conditions associated with implementation of the Proposed Project. The analysis addresses potentially significant effects relating to geological and soil resources and seismic hazards. 3.5.2 Environmental Setting Regional Geology The Project site lies within the geologic region of California referred to as the Coast Ranges geomorphic province.' The Coast Ranges province lies between the Pacific Ocean and the Great Valley (Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys) provinces and stretches from the Oregon border to the Santa Ynez Mountains near Santa Barbara. Much of the Coast Range province is composed of marine sedimentary deposits and volcanic rocks that form northwest trending mountain ridges and valleys, running subparallel to the San Andreas Fault Zone. The Coast Ranges can be further divided into the northern and southern ranges,which are separated by the San Francisco Bay.The Northern Coast Ranges are comprised largely of the Franciscan Complex basement bedrock, which consists primarily of graywacke, shale, greenstone (altered volcanic rocks), basalt, chert (ancient silica-rich ocean deposits), and sandstone that originated as ancient sea floor sediments. In some locations,especially to the east of Ukiah,Franciscan rocks are overlain by volcanic cones and flows of the Quien Sabe,Sonoma and Clear Lake volcanic fields(CGS,2002).The inner Northern Coast Ranges include the Mayacamas Mountains east of the Ukiah Valley. The Mayacamas Mountains extend in a northwesterly-southeasterly direction and are about 50 miles in length. Ukiah and the Proposed Project site are located near the boundary of the Coastal and Central belts of the Franciscan Complex. The Central belt is largely composed of a tectonic melange composed of numerous large,discontinuous bodies of graywacke sandstone,metagraywacke,greenstone,chert,and serpentinite in a highly sheared and deformed shale matrix. During Miocene time (approximately 23 million years before present; m.y.b.p) a relatively large elongate basin began subsiding in the vicinity of Ukiah in response to extensional stresses associated with displacement along the north-northwest trending Maacama Fault and less obvious sub-parallel strike-slip faults to the west. Erosion of the surrounding Franciscan Complex bedrock,and continued basin subsidence throughout Pliocene-Pleistocene time(from—5 m.y.b.p.to 10,000 years ago),resulted in the accumulation of a thick section of alluvial deposits(sediments deposited by rivers and streams) and lacustrine deposits (sediments formed at the bottom of ancient lakes) referred to as Continental Basin Deposits. The maximum thickness of the Continental Basin Deposits is estimated to be more than 2,000 feet(Cardwell in EBA, 1994).Younger Holocene alluvial deposits overlie the Continental Basin Deposits that were deposited along active stream channels and flood plains during the last 10,000 years. The alluvial deposits are present in all major valleys and many of the minor stream courses. sA geomorphic province is an area that possesses similar bedrock,structure,history,and age.California has 11 geomorphic provinces(CGS, 2002). November 2019 3.5-1 Page 1561 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity Project Site Geology The Ukiah Landfill is situated in the lower rolling foothills of the Mayacamas Mountains, east of downtown Ukiah, at ground surface elevations ranging from approximately 710 feet above mean sea level (MSL)near the western edge to about 970 feet MSL along the southeast edge of the landfill property. The landfill occupies the southern slope of an unnamed ephemeral stream valley, which is tributary to the Russian River.While the topography of the landfill's waste management unit(WMU)is a consistent slope of about 25 percent,the surrounding topography is hilly with slopes ranging from 30-50 percent. Soils on the hillslopes south of the landfill consist primarily of Yorktree-Yorkville loams and Yorkville loams on 30 to 50 percent slopes. Slopes (30 to 75 percent)immediately north of the landfill are composed of bedrock overlain by up to 12-inches of sandy loams belonging to the Maymen-Etsel-Snook complex and gravelly loams of the Xerochrepts-Haploxeralfs-Argixerolls on 9 to 30 percent slopes (MRCS, 2019). Yorktree-Yorkville loams also occupy slopes northeast of the landfill. The WMU is composed of reworked soil cover underlain by refuse and other soil and debris mixtures,which are classified as "Pits and Dumps" under the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils survey. The western half of the WMU is classified as Yorkville-Hopland loams and clays. No soils on the project site are considered by the NRCS as Prime Farmland soils. Three major geologic units are represented in the vicinity of the landfill site (EBA, 1994). These include rocks from the coastal belt of the Franciscan Complex, Continental Basin Deposits, and recent Holocene alluvial deposits. The Franciscan Complex outcrops in the Sulphur Creek drainage to the south of the landfill site, near Vichy Springs Resort and predominantly consists of the tectonic melange. The Continental Basin Deposits are represented by lenticular bodies of orange-brown to brown clayey and silty sands and gravels and thick blue-gray claystone and siltstone units that contain occasional sand and gravel lenses. The Holocene alluvial deposits consist of unconsolidated sand,gravel, silt, and clay units Regional Seismicity The Project site is located in a seismically active area with the Maacama fault located less than a mile away (Hart, 1997). The Maacama Fault Zone(MFZ)extends 114 miles northward from east of Healdsburg to north central Mendocino County. The MFZ is identified by the California Geological Survey as active under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act(Alquist-Priolo)z on the basis of historic and on-going tectonic creep along the fault and geomorphologic evidence of fault rupture. Recent evidence of moderate earthquakes on the MFZ includes moment magnitude (mw) 4.3 and 4.4 events in December 2001.3 The east boundary of the MFZ is located approximately 0.6 miles south-southwest of the Project site at its closest distance and the closest"approximately located" fault trace is 0.65 miles south-southwest. The closest "accurately located" fault trace to the landfill is 0.88 miles southeast. The Maacama fault has not generated a known historic earthquake capable of triggering surface fault rupture. However, on the basis of the length of the fault, creep rates, and evidence of displacement in the last 11,000 years,the fault is 2 The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,signed into law in December of 1972,requires the delineation of zones along active faults. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to regulate development on or near active fault traces to reduce the hazard of fault rupture. 3 Moment magnitude is a measure of the size of an earthquake calculated by the seismic moment.Moment is a physical quantity proportional to the slip on the fault multiplied by the area of the fault surface that slips;it is related to the total energy released in the earthquake. November 2019 3.5-2 Page 1562 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity considered active and capable of generating a up to a moment magnitude 7.1 earthquake. This is referred to as its Maximum Credible Earthquake or MCE.4 Seismic Hazards Surface Fault Rupture Seismically-induced ground rupture is defined as the physical displacement of surface deposits in response to an earthquake's seismic waves.The magnitude and nature of fault rupture can vary for different faults, or even along different strands of the same fault. Ground rupture is considered more likely along active faults,which are referenced in Table 3.5-1,and development near these faults is regulated under Alquist-Priolo. The Project site is not located on a known active fault and is not within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Rupture Zone as defined by Alqust-Priolo(Hart, 1997).While surface fault rupture is not necessarily bound to occur within the rupture zone, the likelihood of it occurring outside of the zone established by Alquist-Priolo is considered far less probable. Other active faults that could be capable of generating surface fault rupture within their respective earthquake fault zones are the Bartlett Springs fault, located about 20 miles northeast of the Project site, and the San Andreas Fault,located 30 miles to the southwest. These two faults would not generate surface fault rupture at the Project site but could cause ground shaking. Table 3.5-1 Regional Faults theVicinityof the Proposed i Fault Approximate Fault Historical Maximum Distance' Classificationb Seismicity` Ma nituded Maacama 0.65 miles northeast Active Mw 4.4 2001 Mw 7.1 San Andreas 30 miles southwest Historic-Active M 7.1, 1989 M 7.9 M 8.25, 1906 M 7.0, 1838 Many<M 6 Bartlett Springs 22 miles northwest Active Evidence of M 7.1 displacement between 300 and 1,000 years ago. a Distance from approximate center point of the Project site. b Recency of faulting from Jennings(1994).Historic:displacement during historic time(within last 200 years),including areas of known fault creep;Holocene:evidence of displacement during the last 10,000 years. c Richter magnitude(M)and year for recent and/or large events. d This is the maximum earthquake magnitude which could occur within the specified fault zone. NA=Not applicable and/or not available. SOURCES:Jennings(1994),Hart(1997),Peterson et al.(1996) Ground Shaking Strong ground motion is described as motion of sufficient strength to affect people and their environment or ground movement recorded on a strong-motion instrument or seismograph. Ground shaking intensity is partly related to the size of an earthquake,the distance to the site,and the response of the geologic materials that underlie a site.As a rule,the greater the earthquake magnitude and the closer the fault rupture to a site,the greater the intensity of ground shaking.Violent ground shaking is generally expected at and near the epicenter of a large earthquake; however, different types of geologic materials respond differently to earthquake 4 The MCE is defined in the California Code of Regulations(CCR)Title 27 as the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the presently known geologic framework and is considered the upper bound earthquake for a given seismic source. November 2019 3.5-3 Page 1563 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity waves. For instance,deep unconsolidated materials can amplify earthquake waves and cause longer periods of ground shaking. While the magnitude is a measure of the energy released in an earthquake, intensity is a measure of the observed ground shaking effects at a particular location. The Modified Mercalli (MM) scale is commonly used to measure earthquake intensity due to ground shaking. Table 3.5-2 presents a description of the Modified Mercalli scale. The MM values for intensity range from I (earthquake not felt) to XII (damage nearly total). MM intensities ranging from IV to X can cause moderate to significant structural damage, although the damage will not be uniform. Some structures experience substantially more damage than others. The age, material,type,method of construction, size, and shape of a structure affect its performance in an earthquake. Ground motion during an earthquake is described with the parameters of acceleration, velocity and the duration of the shaking.A common measure of ground motion is the peak ground acceleration(PGA),which is the largest value of horizontal acceleration obtained from a seismograph. PGA is expressed as the percentage of the acceleration due to gravity (g), which is approximately 980 centimeters per second squared. In terms of automobile accelerations, one "g" of acceleration is a rate of increase in speed equivalent to a car traveling 328 feet from rest in 4.5 seconds. For comparison purposes,the maximum peak acceleration value recorded during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was close to the epicenter, near Santa Cruz, at 0.64 g. A Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment(PSHA) for California was completed by the California Geological Survey to describe the statewide distribution of estimated ground motion throughout the state. This assessment provides a conservative estimate,through probabilistic analysis, of the peak ground acceleration for all regions of California. Based on estimates of the PSHA, PGA in the region of the Project site could range between 0.6g and 0.7g (CGS, 2019). A PGA value of this magnitude roughly relates to a MMI values of VIII to IX, which could cause moderate damage in specially designed structures and considerable damage in ordinary structures. Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Liquefaction is the sudden temporary loss of shear strength in saturated, loose to medium dense, granular sediments subjected to ground shaking. Liquefaction generally occurs when seismically-induced ground shaking causes pore water pressure to increase to a point equal to the overburden pressure. Liquefaction can cause foundation failure of buildings and other facilities due to the reduction of foundation bearing strength. The potential for liquefaction depends on the duration and intensity of earthquake shaking, particle size distribution of the soil,density of the soil,and elevation of the groundwater.Areas at risk due to the effects of liquefaction are typified by a high groundwater table and underlying loose to medium-dense, granular sediments, particularly younger alluvium and artificial fill. Lateral spreading is the horizontal, downslope movement of materials in a slope that have undergone liquefaction. Groundwater at the Project site is not shallow, and the soils are reworked, fine-grained alluvial soils with refuse mixtures without extensive areas of poorly graded, granular materials. These subsurface conditions are not typically conducive to liquefaction or lateral spreading. November 2019 3.5-4 Page 1564 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity Table Modified Intensity Average Peak Value Intensity Description Acceleration (.ga) I Not felt except by a very few persons under especially favorable circumstances. <0.0017 ga II Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors on buildings. <0.014 Delicately suspended objects may swing. g III Felt noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings,but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly, <0.014 g vibration similar to a passing truck. IV During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like 0.014-0.04 g heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. V Felt by nearly everyone,many awakened.Some dishes and windows broken;a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, 0.04-0.09 g poles may be noticed.Pendulum clocks may stop. VI Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; and fallen plaster or damaged chimneys.Damage slight. 0.09-0.18 g VIl Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in 0.18-0.34 g poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by ersons in g. Vill Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, 0.34-0.65 g monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water.Persons driving motor cars disturbed. IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings 0.65-1.24 g shifted off foundations.Ground cracked.Underground pipes broken. X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations;ground badly cracked.Rails bent.Landslides considerable > 1.24 g from riverbanks and steep slopes.Shifted sand and mud.Water splashed over banks. XI Few,if any,masonry structures remain standing.Bridges destroyed.Broad fissures in ground.Underground pipelines completely out of service.Earth slumps and land > 1.24 g slips in soft ground.Rails bent greatly. XII Damage total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level are distorted. > 1.24 Objects are thrown upward into the air. a g(gravity)=980 centimeters per second squared. 1.0 g of acceleration is a rate of increase in speed equivalent to a car traveling 328 feet from rest in 4.5 seconds. SOURCE:ABAG,2003; CGS,2003. Earthquake-Induced Landslides Earthquake motions can induce significant horizontal and vertical stresses in slopes that produce dynamic normal and shear stresses along potential failure surfaces within a slope. The susceptibility for native and engineered slopes to fail depends on the gradient and localized geology, as well as the amount of rainfall, excavation, or seismic activities. During a slope failure, a mass of rock, soil, and debris is displaced down slope by sliding, flowing, or falling. Steep slopes and down-slope creep of surface materials characterize November 2019 3.5-5 Page 1565 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity areas most susceptible to failure. Engineered slopes have a tendency to fail during an earthquake if not properly designed, constructed, or compacted.A primary element of the Proposed Project is the stabilization of the landfill slope,and thus,post closure slope failure is considered in the impact analysis. Earthquake-Induced Settlement Settlement of the ground surface can be accelerated and accentuated by earthquakes. During an earthquake, settlement can occur as a result of the relatively rapid compaction and settling of subsurface materials (particularly loose, non-compacted, and variable sandy sediments) due to the rearrangement of soil particles during prolonged ground shaking. Settlement can occur both uniformly and differentially(i.e., where adjoining areas settle at different rates). Typically, areas underlain by artificial fills, unconsolidated alluvial sediments, slope wash,and areas with improperly engineered construction fills are susceptible to this type of settlement. Settlement of soils could occur at the project site could occur during an earthquake. Other Non-Seismic Geologic Hazards Soil Erosion Soil erosion is the process whereby soil materials are worn away and transported to another area either by wind or water. Rates of erosion can vary depending on the soil material and structure, placement, and human activity. Soil containing high amounts of sand or silt can be easily eroded while clayey soils are less susceptible. The soils on the Project site have a moderate to high susceptibility to erosion(MRCS,2019). Subsidence and Settlement Subsidence is the gradual lowering of the land surface due to loss or compaction of underlying materials. Subsidence can occur as the result of hydro-compaction, groundwater, gas and oil extraction, or the decomposition of highly organic soils. Hydro-compaction is the process where volume decreases and density increases upon saturation of a soil or alluvial deposit. Settlement is the depression of the bearing soil when a load, such as that of a building or new fill material, is placed upon it. Soils tend to settle at different rates and by varying amounts depending on the load weight. Differential settlement can be a greater hazard than total settlement if there are variations in the thickness of previous and new fills or natural variations in the thickness and compressibility of soils across an area. Settlement commonly occurs as a result of building construction or other large projects that require soil stockpiles. Slope Instability and Landslides Slope failures, commonly referred to as landslides, include many phenomena that involve the downslope displacement and movement of material, either triggered by static (i.e., gravity) forces. Rock slopes exposed to either air or water can undergo rockfalls, rockslides, or rock avalanches, while soil slopes experience shallow soil slides,rapid debris flows, and deep-seated rotational slides. November 2019 3.5-6 Page 1566 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity 3.5.3 Regulatory Context FEDERAL Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) Subtitle D (258) RCRA Subtitle D regulations (40 CPR Part 258) went into effect October 9, 1993 and are applicable to landfills receiving municipal solid waste (MSW) and establish minimum Federal criteria for the siting, design, operation, and closure of MSW landfills. These regulations apply to the entire waste containment system, including liners, leachate collection systems, and surface water control systems. Section 258.13 of the regulations requires that new or lateral expansions of existing landfills cannot be sited within 200-feet of a fault that has been active during the Holocene Epoch(past 11,000 years)unless it can be demonstrated that a lesser setback is safe. STATE Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act(formerly the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act), signed into law December 1972, requires the delineation of zones along active faults in California. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to regulate development on or near fault traces to reduce the hazard of fault rupture and to prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across these traces. Cities and counties must regulate certain development projects within the zones, which includes withholding permits until geologic investigations demonstrate that development sites are not threatened by future surface displacement(Hart, 1997). Surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to the area within an Alquist- Priolo Zone. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was developed to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and from other hazards caused by earthquakes. This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities,counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. Before a development permit is granted for a site within a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted,and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project design. The area surrounding the Project site has not yet been evaluated under this Act. California Code of Regulations Title 27 Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations(27 CCR),Division 2, Subdivision 1,contains the regulations of the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) — now the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery(CalRecycle)—and the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB) pertaining to closure and post-closure maintenance standards for landfills. The requirements listed here pertain to geology,grading,slope stability and seismic design. • 27 CCR, § 20370 requires that Class III waste management units be designed to withstand the Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE) without damage to the foundation or to the structures which November 2019 3.5-7 Page 1567 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity control leachate,surface drainage,erosion,or landfill gas.The MPE is defined in 27 CCR 20164 as the maximum earthquake that is likely to occur during a 100-year interval. • 27CCR, §21090-Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Requirements for Solid Waste Landfills. sets forth requirements for: 1) Final Cover Requirements, which includes the foundation layer, low- hydraulic-conductivity layer, and erosion-resistant layer, 2) Cover Maintenance Plan & Annual Cost Estimate, 3) Periodic Leak Search, and 4) Stability Analysis, 5) Grading requirements, 6) General post-closure duties,and final cover surveys. 0 27CCR§21090(a)(6), requires that a stability analysis be performed for the proposed final cover system to demonstrate conformance with 27CCR, §21750(f)(5).27CCR 21750 outlines requirements for the preparation of a slope stability report for a Class III landfill,which includes the use of the MPE to determine the maximum expected horizontal acceleration in rock at the site. • 27 CCR§21145 - Slope Stability. (a)The operator shall ensure the integrity of final slopes under both static and dynamic conditions to protect public health and safety and prevent damage to post-closure land uses,roads,structures,utilities,gas monitoring and control systems,leachate collection and control systems to prevent public contact with leachate,and prevent exposure of waste. Slope stability analyses shall be conducted and reported pursuant to the requirements of Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 3,Article 4 Section 21750(f)(5). The operator shall notify the EA, CIWMB,and RWQCB in the event of any slope failure. • 27 CCR§21150-Drainage and Erosion Control. (a)The drainage and erosion control system shall be designed and maintained to ensure integrity of post-closure land uses,roads,and structures;to prevent public contact with waste and leachate; to ensure integrity of gas monitoring and control systems; to prevent safety hazards; and to prevent exposure of waste. Slopes not underlain by waste shall be stabilized to prevent soil erosion. Methods used to protect slopes and control erosion shall include,but are not limited to,terracing,contour furrows,and trenches. LOCAL Mendocino County Environmental Health The Mendocino County Environmental Health Department(MCEHD) acts as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)for the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery(CalRecycle)and,in adherence to Title 27, conducts regular monthly inspections of the Ukiah Landfill and will continue inspections until the landfill is officially closed. Inspections are documented in monthly progress reports submitted by the MCEHD. 3.5.4 Impact Analysis This section discusses the significance criteria used to evaluate potential impacts, the approach to analyzing impacts on geological resources, seismic response, and related seismic hazards, and the potential impacts related to the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. 3.5.4.1 Significance Criteria According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,the Project would result in a significant impact to air quality November 2019 3.5-8 Page 1568 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity if it would: • Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? iv)Landslides? • Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? • Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? • Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Criteria Items Considered,But Not Analyzed Further Significance criteria regarding expansive soils, capability of soils for septic tanks and paleontological resources were considered but were found not to be impacts of the Proposed Project and are therefore focused-out of this impact analysis. A brief discussion of each criterion is provided below. The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. The Project site,namely the WMU,is underlain by various mixtures of fill and cover soils containing silts, sand, and clay. Considering the heterogeneity and distribution of the existing cover soils, there is a possibility that some of these soils are expansive (tending to swell in volume when wet and shrink when desiccated) and could exhibit expansive behavior in localized areas. However, under the proposed alternative cover system, existing cover soils would be graded and covered with a minimum two-foot thick foundation layer of engineered, non-expansive fill compacted to 90 percent overlain by a tufted geotextile and covered with a 50-millimeter linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane liner. These components would significantly reduce or eliminate infiltration of water into the WMU and diminish the potential to activate shrink-swell behavior in expansive soils,if they are present. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are not components of the Proposed Project and thus, determining the capability of onsite soils to support these systems is not necessary. November 2019 3.5-9 Page 1569 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity The scope of the Proposed Project involves grading,applying a cover to the WMU,and the eventual closure of the Landfill.Alternative wastewater systems,septic tanks,or leachfields are not proposed. Surface water would be collected and routed to discharge points at the ephemeral drainage along the northern boundary of the site or into sedimentation ponds. Leachate would be collected and eventually routed to the municipal sewer.No component of the Proposed Project requires discharge of wastewater to the ground or subsurface. The Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The Proposed Project involves covering and closing a municipal landfill that had received household and construction refuse between 1955 and 2001. The WMU and surrounding areas,including the borrow areas, have been disturbed by excavation and grading for many years. The Proposed Project would involve grading on the WMU and installation a final cover system. These activities would take place on previously disturbed portions of the property and would not require grading or excavation on native,undisturbed areas. As these areas are previously disturbed, activities associated with the Proposed Project would not disturb a paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 3.5.4.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.5-1: Would the Proposed Project expose people to injury or structures to damage from potential rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides? The Project site is located in a seismically active region of California with the Maacama Fault Zone located about 0.6 miles to the south-southeast. In the event of an earthquake on the Maacama fault or on other regional faults such as the San Andreas fault(30 miles to the southeast)or Bartlett Creek fault(20 miles to the northwest),the site would experience some degree of ground shaking. Considering its proximity to the Maacama Fault, the PSHA projected that that the Project site could experience peak ground accelerations ranging between 0.6g and 0.7g. However,as the landfill site is not directly overlying a known,active fault trace,the potential for surface fault rupture is remote. Ground shaking at the project site could cause slope failure, liquefaction, and/or densification of the site soils. California Code of Regulations Title 27 [§21090(a)(6)] requires that a slope stability analysis be completed for the proposed landfill closure. In accordance with 27CCR, §21090(a)(6), a stability analysis was performed for the proposed final cover system to demonstrate conformance with 27CCR, §21750(f)(5). The Seismic Hazard Assessment and Stability Analysis (Stability Analysis)prepared by EBA Engineering is provided as Appendix E of the Final Closure and Post Closure Maintenance Plan. Seismic Assessment Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (27 CCR), Section 20370 requires that Class III waste management units be designed to withstand the Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE)without damage to the foundation or to the structures which control leachate, surface drainage, erosion, or landfill gas. The MPE is defined in 27 CCR Section 20164 as the maximum earthquake that is likely to occur during a 100- year interval. Using a 70%chance of non-exceedance as the definition of"likely",the recurrence interval for the MPE is approximately 280 years (City of Ukiah, 2019). Federal Regulations contained in 40 CFR Part 258.14 (Subtitle D)require landfill operators located within seismic hazard zones to design the unit to November 2019 3.5-10 Page 1570 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity resist the maximum horizontal acceleration in lithified (i.e. consolidated sediments) material for the site. The Project site is located less than a mile from the active Maacama Fault and is within a seismic hazard zone, which, as defined by Subtitle D, is a 10 percent or greater probability of maximum horizontal acceleration of 0.10 g in 250 years. The NICE is defined by Title 27 as the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the geologic framework and is referred to as the upper bound earthquake for a given seismic source. Although Class III landfills must be designed to withstand strong ground motions associated with the MPE,the final closure configuration for the Project site has been designed using the higher bedrock acceleration (0.66g) associated with the larger NICE determined for the Maacama Fault.The use of the NICE could be considered more conservative because the estimated recurrence interval for the Maacama fault and other potential seismic sources in the region is approximately 220 years while the recurrence interval for the MPE is 280 years. Since earthquakes comparable in size to the NICE are absent from the historic seismic record for the region, the use of the more stringent NICE as the design earthquake provides a more realistic and conservative estimate of the maximum expected horizontal bedrock acceleration at the site (City of Ukiah, 2019). Final Cover Stability Analysis The factor of safety (FOS) can be defined as the forces that resist movement divided by the forces that trigger it. Therefore, when the resisting forces are greater than the those that may trigger failure,the FOS is 1.0 or greater and the slope is considered stable. Slope stability analyses determine the FOS for slopes to evaluate whether they will withstand both static forces, such as gravity (no earthquake ground motion) or pseudo-static forces,which are those generated during an earthquake. The slope stability analysis evaluated the strength of the various interfaces comprising the proposed landfill cover system and analyzed the resulting static and pseudo-static slope stability. The design characteristics of the current proposed alternative final cover system includes the following components (in descending order): • Minimum 5/8-inch thick sand infill layer; • 50-millimeter linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE)geomembrane liner; • Specialized tufted geotextile; and • A minimum two-foot thick foundation layer. The interfaces between the geosynthetic layers making up the landfill cover system, such as the interface between two geosynthetic materials or between a geosynthetic and native or compacted soil material, are typically the weakest interfaces in a final cover system. These represent the weakest areas and are susceptible to block-type or wedge failures. Slope stability of the proposed final cover system was modeled using the conservative "infinite slope method", which evaluates the stability of shallow failures of constant thickness along a defined interface. This method assumes the failure block is infinitely long and neglects forces that would resist failure present along the toe of the slope or along the sides. The slope stability analysis considered a LLDPE geomembrane/artificial turf with sand infill ballast cover system using a critical slope angle of 26.5 degrees (2H: 1V). Results of the infinite slope stability analysis indicate a minimum static FOS of 2.8 for failure at November 2019 3.5-11 Page 1571 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity the LLDPE/subgrade interface and a minimum static FOS of 3.3 for failure above the LLDPE geomembrane. A pseudo-static slope analysis, or an analysis of the slope stability under earthquake ground shaking conditions, was performed to determine the yield acceleration for the cover. The yield acceleration is the average horizontal ground acceleration at the point slope movement occurs. The yield acceleration was determined using a trial and error procedure in which the seismic coefficient was varied until a FOS of 1.0 was obtained. The lowest yield acceleration calculated for the LLDPE geomembrane/artificial turf cover system was 0.70 g. This is greater than the maximum horizontal acceleration determined for an earthquake with an MCE of 0.66 g on the Maacama fault,the highest acceleration predicted for the site. Because the maximum horizontal acceleration of 0.66g predicted by the site response analysis does not exceed the calculated yield acceleration, it can be concluded that permanent seismic displacements of the LLDPE geomembrane/artificial turf cover system are highly unlikely(City of Ukiah, 2019). Further analysis using the Newmark Method (1965) evaluated the stability of slopes subject to seismic loading conditions in terms of permanent displacements (deformations) that are expected to occur. This method is commonly used for slopes under seismic loading conditions and evaluates the stability of slopes in terms of permanent deformations that result when the acceleration of seismically-induced ground motion exceed the yield acceleration of the slope mass. The total amount of slope deformation is estimated by down-slope displacements that occur during each brief period of time when the yield acceleration of the slope mass is exceeded. As stated above, a pseudo-static analysis of the Project site determined that the yield acceleration is not exceeded by seismically-induced strong ground motions,therefore no permanent displacements of the final cover system are predicted by the Newmark Method(City of Ukiah, 2019) Conclusions of the Seismic Hazard and Slope Stability Analyses • The seismic analysis considered the potential ground motion generated by nearby Maacama fault and the other regional faults (i.e. the San Andreas, Bartlett Springs and Rodgers Creek) and determined that the Maacama fault represented the most significant seismic source to impact the Project site. • For purposes of the pseudo-static slope stability calculations, using the MCE with a recurrence interval of 220 years was a more conservative design earthquake than the MPE with the recurrence interval of 280 years. • The minimum static conditions FOS of 2.8 for the proposed geomembrane/artificial turf engineered alternative cover system constructed on maximum 2H:1V slopes. These results suggest that the final landfill configuration would be stable throughout the post-closure maintenance period following closure (City of Ukiah, 2019). • Under pseudo-static(earthquake conditions),even if the maximum horizontal ground accelerations were generated from the Maacama fault, permanent seismic displacements of the proposed geomembrane/artificial turf cap would not likely occur. Based on these conclusions,the potential for failure of slopes at the landfill after completion of the proposed final cover is low. If subjected to earthquake ground shaking, it is unlikely that the landfill slopes would permanently fail. These findings, in addition to the absence of active known active fault traces underlying November 2019 3.5-12 Page 1572 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity the Project site,the potential is low that the Proposed Project would expose people to injury or structures to damage from potential rupture of a known earthquake fault,strong ground shaking,seismic-related ground failure, or landslides.This impact would be less-than-significant,and no mitigation is required. Significance:Less-than-Significant. Impact 3.5-2: Would construction grading and long-term closure conditions at the Landfill expose soils to erosion and result in the loss of topsoil? Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would require demolition, backfilling, earthmoving, grading, and compaction, and could expose areas of bare soil susceptible to temporary erosion by wind or water. Given that the construction is a short-term operation, substantial and permanent downslope soil erosion and gullying on the surfaces of WMU would not be expected. As described in the Section 3.6 Hydrology and Water Quality, the construction contractor and the City of Ukiah would be required, as the discharger, to obtain coverage under California's Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) (General Construction NPDES Permit or CGP). The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the permit requirements set forth to control stormwater discharges from the construction sites. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, Monitoring and corrective action under the CGP is described in the required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)that is prepared by a California Certified Qualified SWPPP Developer(QSD)and is implemented in the field by a State-certified Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). The SWPPP identifies BMPs that must be implemented to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality based on potential pollutants. The BMPs identified are directed at implementing both sediment and erosion control measures and other measures to control potential chemical contaminants.In addition,the SWPPP is required to contain a visual monitoring program and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Examples of typical construction BMPs include scheduling or limiting certain activities to dry periods, installing sediment barriers such as silt fence and fiber rolls, and maintaining equipment and vehicles used for construction. The Proposed Project would integrate several erosion controls into the overall design of the final cover. These features and provisions are intended to minimize the potential for erosion and are required by required by 27CCR, §21150. Erosion control features are summarized below: • The geosynthetic final cover system (ClosureTurfrm) would greatly reduce or eliminate the discharge of sediment from the WMU surface as no soil component will be utilized in the final cover design. • The final surface of the soil borrow area, as well as other areas disturbed by the construction operations,would be repaired/graded as necessary and then hydroseeded.The aforementioned areas with surface slopes steeper than 10 percent would also be covered with 1.5 inches of straw and secured with erosion control netting. November 2019 3.5-13 Page 1573 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity • Drainage channels outside the WMU footprint that could be subjected to high flow velocities would be lined with rock rip-rap to protect against erosion. • Drainage outfalls will be lined with rock rip-rap. • Aggregate base placed on perimeter access roads to allow for all-weather access would also serve to reduce the potential for sediment-laden run-off from these areas. The proposed post-closure Inspection/Maintenance and Monitoring Programs, as required by 27CCR §21830 (b)(5), would be implemented and would provide a mechanism to identify and correct excessive erosion following the placement of the final cover. The final cover areas would be visually inspected on a monthly or quarterly basis and evaluated for breaches in the liner system, exposed refuse, slope failure, leachate seeps and sand migration. Considering the requirement to comply with the CGP over the short-term construction period and the stormwater/erosion management features proposed following placement of the final cover,the potential for excessive,damaging erosion or loss of topsoil attributable to the Proposed Project is low. The post-closure inspection requirements and schedules reduces the potential for undetected erosional features to worsen. Construction grading and long-term closure conditions at the landfill would not expose soils to substantial erosion or result in the loss of topsoil. This impact is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required Significance: Less-than-Significant. Impact 3.5-3: Would the Proposed Project be located on a unit or soils that are potentially unstable, or that could become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction,or collapse? Under existing conditions, the landfill WMU consists of a mass of refuse overlying Holocene and Plio- Pleistocene-aged sediments. Slopes at the WMU range from approximately 2:1 to 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). A slope stability analysis of the waste mass was completed in 2008 and presented in the Joint Technical Document— Final Closure Plan. The results indicated that the slope stability of the waste mass had a FOS greater than 1.7 for a failure through the base of the landfill(City of Ukiah,2019).Additionally, a pseudo-static (earthquake ground motion) analysis determined that the yield acceleration for the waste mass was 0.13 g. As discussed in Impact 3.5-1, a seismic hazard assessment was conducted to evaluate of the final cover system for the Proposed Project and determined that the minimum FOS was 2.8 and the yield acceleration was greater than the projected peak horizontal ground acceleration generated from the NICE on the Maacama fault.The proposed final cover system would strengthen the existing WMU by developing a more stable/consistent 2:1 slope,adding an engineered foundation fill layer that is compacted to 90-percent, and installing a geomembrane cover that would reduce surface water infiltration and increase overall slope stability. This evidence,therefore, supports a conclusion that the Proposed Project would increase both the static and pseudo-static stability of the landfill thereby greatly reducing the potential for slope failure, earthquake-induced landslides,liquefaction-related failures,and/or soil subsidence or collapse. This impact is less-than-significant, and no mitigation is required November 2019 3.5-14 Page 1574 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity Significance:Less-than-Significant. Impact 3.5-4. Would the Proposed Project make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative effects associated with increased seismic risk, landsliding, erosion, topsoil loss or increased exposure to seismic or other risks? The Ukiah Landfill is located in the foothills of the Mayacamas Mountains,east of the city of Ukiah within a sparsely populated rural setting. The geographic scope for assessing cumulative impact to geologic resources, seismic risk and erosion or loss of topsoil consists of the area within the permitted property boundary. The Proposed Project would grade and cover the existing WMU with engineered cover system that would increase static and pseudo-static slope stability within the landfill property,reduce surface water infiltration, improve drainage, reduce erosion (at the WMU and borrow areas), and eventually add acreage to available open within the region. For these reasons, when viewed in context with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects, the incremental effects of the Proposed Project are beneficial, and thus, the Proposed Project does not contribute to a cumulative adverse impact and is not cumulatively considerable. This impact is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required Significance:Less-than-Significant. 3.5.5 Cumulative Effects There are no known projects that would be constructed at the same time and within the same vicinity of the Proposed Project that would or could create any additional or cumulative construction related impacts. Once constructed the Proposed Project would not have any significant impacts. As a result,the Proposed Project would not have any direct, indirect, short-term and/or long-term cumulative impacts to geology, soils, and/or seismicity. 3.5.6 References Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2003. ABAG Shaking Intensity Maps and Information, excerpts from ABAG's 1995 "On Shaky Ground"report and 1998 "On Shaky Ground- Supplement", available http://www.abag.ca.gov/bEarea/egmaps/doc/contents.html, 2003. California Geologic Survey(CGS). 2010. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page. Available at http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshafnap/pshamap.asp. Accessed June 21, 2010. California Geological Survey(CGS). 2019. Ukiah Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map. 1 X 2 Degree Sheet htdp�s://www.ccnsemvatncn.ca. cv/cis/ aes/ SQ BA/ SQ B map nu�lc /psha nndc .asp Accessed: August 2019. California Geologic Survey(CGS). 2003. Faults and Earthquakes in California,Note 31. California Geologic Survey(CGS). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces,Note 36. December 2002. November 2019 3.5-15 Page 1575 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity City of Ukiah, 2019. Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan for City of Ukiah Landfill. Appendix E - Stability Analysis. Prepared by EBA Engineering (EBA Project No. 02-907). Mendocino County, California. April, 2019. EBA Engineering (EBA), 1994. Ukiah Landfill Site Monitoring Wells and Vichy Springs Resort. Letter to Mr. Rick Kennedy, Director, Department of Public Works, City of Ukiah.August 31, 1994. Hart,Earl W. and William A. Bryant. 1997. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California. Special Publication 42. Jennings,C.W. 1994. 1994.Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas,California Division of Mines and Geologic Data Map No. 6, 1:750,000, 1994. Mendocino County Air Quality Management District(MCAQMD). 2005. Areas that May Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos in the Ukiah Valley. May 24, 2005. Available at ht[a://www.co.mendocino.c�,i.us/�,i(md/NOA.htm. NRCS, 2019 Soil Survey Staff,Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.Web Soil Survey. Custom Soil Resource Report for Mendocino County, Eastern Part and Southwestern Part of Trinity County, California—Ukiah Landfill Available online at the following link: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed [July 2019]. Peterson, M.D.,W.A. Bryant, and C.H. Cramer. 1996.Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report issued jointly with U.S. Geological Survey, CDMG 96-08 and USGS 96-706, 1996. November 2019 3.5-16 Page 1576 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Greenhouse Gases 3.6 Greenhouse Gases 3.6.1 Introduction This section characterizes and discusses the potential effects of the Proposed Project on greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions. This section also includes a review of the current regulatory framework relevant to greenhouse gases (GHGs). The supporting methodology and assumptions used in the GHG emissions analysis are provided in Appendix D. 3.6.2 Environmental Setting "Global warming" and "global climate change" are the terms used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Warming of the climate system is now considered to be unequivocal, with global surface temperature increasing approximately 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit ff) over the last 100 years. Continued warming is projected to increase global average temperature between 2 and 11°F over the next 100 years. Natural processes and human actions have been identified as the causes of this warming. The International Panel on Climate Change concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. After 1950, however, increasing GHG concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation have been responsible for most of the observed temperature increase. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Increases in GHG concentrations in the earth's atmosphere are thought to be the main cause of human- induced climate change. GHGs naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that has hit the earth and is reflected back into space. Some GHGs occur naturally and are necessary for keeping the earth's surface inhabitable. However, increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have decreased the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and resulting in the increase of global average temperature. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change. The primary GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2),methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20), ozone, and water vapor. While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring,COz, CH4,and N20 are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth's atmosphere. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes. GHGs are typically reported in "carbon dioxide-equivalent"measures (CO2e).' There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will continue to 'Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHG,GHG emissions are frequently measured in"carbon dioxide-equivalents," which present a weighted average based on each gas's heat absorption(or"global warming")potential. November 2019 3.6-1 Page 1577 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Greenhouse Gases contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts may include,but are not limited to,loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year,more high ozone days,more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture,changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.2 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 defined GHGs to include CO2, CH4, N20, hydrofluorocarbons,perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. CO2 is an odorless and colorless GHG. Outdoor levels of carbon dioxide are not high enough to result in negative health effects. CO2 is emitted from natural and manmade sources. Natural sources include: the decomposition of dead organic matter;respiration of bacteria,plants,animals and fungus;evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources include: the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. CO2 is naturally removed from the air by photosynthesis, dissolution into ocean water, transfer to soils and ice caps, and chemical weathering of carbonate rocks. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid-1700s, the sort of human activity that increases GHG emissions has increased dramatically in scale and distribution. Data from the past 50 years suggests a corollary increase in levels and concentrations. As an example, prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were fairly stable at 280 ppm. Today,they are around 370 ppm (or higher), an increase of more than 30 percent. Left unchecked,the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is projected to increase to a minimum of 540 ppm by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources. CH4 is an extremely effective absorber of radiation,though its atmospheric concentration is less than carbon dioxide and its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief(10 to 12 years), compared to other GHGs. No health effects are known to occur from exposure to CH4. CH4 has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production(at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years,human activities such as growing rice,raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other anthropogenic sources include fossil-fuel combustion and biomass burning. CH4 is a major constituent of landfill gas, typically about 50 percent. The additional 50 percent of landfill gas is primarily CO2, also a GHG. N20, also known as laughing gas, is a colorless GHG.N20 can cause dizziness, euphoria, and sometimes slight hallucinations.In small doses,it is considered harmless.However,in some cases,heavy and extended use can cause Olney's Lesions (brain damage). Concentrations of N20 also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998,the global concentration was 314 parts per billion (ppb). N20 is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. It is used as an aerosol spray propellant, i.e., in whipped cream bottles. It is also used in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh. It is used in rocket engines Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers, 2014. htitp //�v�vv c 17�,;csv/c lam at ch n„c/Ire,Ouc ntly t lcc aI 0uc tan �I clef c laMte:,c h M.x November 2019 3.6-2 Page 1578 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Greenhouse Gases and in race cars. N20 can be transported into the stratosphere, be deposited on the earth's surface, and be converted to other compounds by chemical reaction. 3.6.3 Regulatory Setting Climate change and GHG emissions are governed by an increasingly evolving body of treaties, laws, regulations, and case law. The following are some of the key climate change regulations. Federal Regulation and the Clean Air Act Previously the USEPA had not regulated GHGs under the Clean Air Act because it asserted that the Act did not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change and that such regulation would be unwise without an unequivocally established causal link between GHGs and the increase in global surface air temperatures. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007)), however, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and directed the USEPA to decide whether the gases endangered public health or welfare. On December 7, 2009,the USEPA issued an Endangerment Finding under Section 202(a)of the Clean Air Act,opening the door to federal regulation of GHGs.The Endangerment Finding notes that GHGs threaten public health and welfare and are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. To date, the USEPA has not promulgated major regulations on GHG emissions,but it has begun to develop them. The USEPA had also not moved aggressively to regulate GHGs because it expected Congress to make progress on GHG legislation,primarily from the standpoint of a cap-and-trade system.However,proposals circulated in both the House of Representative and Senate have been controversial and it may be some time before Congress adopts major climate change legislation. The USEPA's Endangerment Finding paves the way for federal regulation of GHGs with or without Congress. To date, Congress, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (HR 2764), has established mandatory GHG reporting requirements for some emitters of GHG.On September 22,2009,the USEPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. The rule requires annual reporting to the USEPA of GHG emissions from large sources and suppliers of GHGs, including facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more a year of CO2e. Executive Order S-3-05 Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05 in 2005, in recognition of California's vulnerability to the effects of climate change. Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which statewide GHG emissions would be progressively reduced, as follows: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The executive order directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The Secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and California Legislature describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate change on California's resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the executive order, the secretary of CaIEPA created the California Climate Action Team, made up of members from various state agencies and November 2019 3.6-3 Page 1579 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Greenhouse Gases commissions. The team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities and through state incentive and regulatory programs. AB 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG emissions.AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.This reduction will be accomplished by enforcing a statewide cap on GHG emissions that was phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles.However,AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented,then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrived at the cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and develop tracking, reporting,and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state reduces GHG emissions enough to meet the cap.AB 32 also includes guidance on instituting emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner, along with conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions. Using these criteria to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 would represent an approximate 25 to 30 percent reduction in current emissions levels. However, CARB has discretionary authority to seek greater reductions in more significant and growing GHG sectors, such as transportation, as compared to other sectors that are not anticipated to significantly increase emissions. Under AB 32, CARB must adopt regulations to achieve reductions in GHG to meet the 1990 emissions cap by 2020. The Landfill Methane Control Measure(Landfill Methane Rule or LMR)is one of the early action measures adopted by CARB to reduce GHG emissions. The rule became effective June 17, 2010 and required increased monitoring and earlier installation of LFG collection and destruction systems at landfills with the goal of reducing methane emissions. In September of 2016, the AB 32 was extended to achieve reductions in GHG of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The new plan, outlined in SB 32, involves increasing renewable energy use, putting more electric cars on the road, improving energy efficiency, and curbing emissions from key industries. Climate Change Scoping Plan In October of 2013,the CARB submitted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan for public review and comment. The First Update to the Scoping Plan was approved by the CARB on May 22, 2014, and builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations. The First Update identifies opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to further drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted low carbon investments. The First Update defines CARB's climate change priorities for the next five years, and also sets the groundwork to reach long-term goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012. The Update highlights California's progress toward meeting the "near-term" 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the initial Scoping Plan. It also evaluates how November 2019 3.6-4 Page 1580 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Greenhouse Gases to align the State's "longer-term" GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities for water, waste,natural resources, clean energy,transportation, and land use. In the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, nine key focus areas were identified (energy, transportation, agriculture, water, waste management, and natural and working lands), along with short- lived climate pollutants, green buildings, and the cap-and-trade program. These key focus areas have overlapping and complementary interests that will require careful coordination in California's future climate and energy policies.These focus areas were selected to address issues that underlie multiple sectors of the economy.As such,each focus area is not contained to a single economic sector,but has far-reaching impacts within many economic sectors. Executive Order No. B-30-15 On April 29,2015,Executive Order No. B-30-15 was issued to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Executive Order No. B-30-15 sets anew,interim,2030 reduction goal intended to provide a smooth transition to the existing ultimate 2050 reduction goal set by Executive Order No. S-3-05 (signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in June 2005). It is designed so State agencies do not fall behind the pace of reductions necessary to reach the existing 2050 reduction goal. Executive Order No. B-30-15 orders "All State agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions shall implement measures, pursuant to statutory authority, to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets."The Executive Order also states that"CARB shall update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent." The CARB is currently moving forward with a second update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 reduction target. The updated Scoping Plan will provide a framework for achieving the 2030 target. Greenhouse Gas Regional Emission Estimates Worldwide emissions of GHG in 2014 were 45.7 billion tons of CO2e per year.'This value includes ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources,but excludes emissions from land use changes. In 2016, the United States emitted about 6,511 million metric tons of CO2e. Total U.S. emissions have increased by 2.4 percent from 1990 to 2016, and emissions decreased from 2015 to 2016 by 1.9 percent(126.8 million metric tons of CO2e).The decrease in total GHG emissions between 2015 and 2016 was driven in large part by a decrease in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The decrease in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion was a result of multiple factors, including substitution from coal to natural gas and other non-fossil energy sources in the electric power sector; and warmer winter conditions in 2016 resulting in a decreased demand for heating fuel in the residential and commercial sectors. Of the five major sectors nationwide — residential and commercial, industrial, agriculture, transportation, and electricity— electricity accounts for the highest fraction of GHG emissions(approximately 28 percent),closely followed by transportation(approximately 28 percent) and by industry (approximately 22 percent).4 In 2016, California emitted approximately 429.4 million tons of CO2e. This represents approximately 6.6 percent of total U.S. emissions. This large number is due primarily to the sheer size of California compared to other states. California's gross emissions of GHGs decreased by 9.26 percent from 466.3 million metric s Climate Analysis Indicator Tool,ligps//vvww wrn a�r�/a� ; war ! ray°ccd/cant climate dadQa cx lager 4 United States Environmental Protections Agency,Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990- 2016,April 2018,lnttps//Www.,c a nary/ llggEiissioris/inverito�:.: us nra;clnlnarusa;::::gQ�s e11iissions,and sinks l�.90 2 01 ......................... November 2019 3.6-5 Page 1581 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Greenhouse Gases tons of CO2e in 2000,with a maximum of 492.7 million metric tons in 2004.5 In 2016,the composition of GHG emissions in California(expressed as CO2e)were as follows: • CO2 accounted for 83 percent; • CH4 accounted for 9 percent; • N20 accounted for 3 percent; and • Fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)) accounted for 5 percent. Of these gases, the transportation sector is the source of approximately 41 percent of the State's GHG emissions,followed by industrial sources at 23 percent and electricity generation(both in-State and out-of- State) at 16 percent. Agriculture is the source of approximately 8 percent, and residential activity is the source of about 7 percent, followed by commercial activities at 5 percent. The recycling and waste sector accounted for approximately 2 percent of the State's emissions.6 The baseline 2005 GHG inventory for the community of Ukiah totals 155,480 metric tons of CO2e.In 2005, On-road Transportation accounted for of the largest portion of overall community-wide emissions, constituting 47.9 percent of total emissions. Contributions from other sectors, in order of magnitude, include: Ukiah Landfill (23.8 percent), Residential Energy (electricity and natural gas, 10.4 percent), Commercial/Industrial Energy (electricity and natural gas, 9.0 percent), Solid Waste Generation (3.0 percent), Agriculture (2.8 percent), Off-road Transportation (2.7 percent), Wastewater Treatment (0.2 percent),Water Conveyance Electricity(0.1 percent), and Stationary Sources (<O.1 percent).' Between 2005 and 2010 the community-wide emissions decreased by approximately 7 percent to 144,625 metric tons of CO2e. The 44 percent reduction in emissions from Solid Waste Generation is due to a large increase in waste diversion between 2005 and 2010 (i.e., increased recycling). The decrease at the Ukiah Landfill is due to the natural attenuation of CH4 emissions as the waste in place decomposes and releases less LFG over time. Electricity-related reductions (Residential, Commercial, and Water Conveyance) can be attributed to lower power consumption resulting from the economic downturn, and an increase in the amount of low-carbon renewable energy sources in the City's electricity portfolio from 2005 to 2010. Overall, the percent that each sector contributed to total emissions did not change significantly between 2005 and 2010, with On-road Transportation continuing to comprise the largest sector (51.1 percent), followed by the Ukiah Landfill (21.1 percent), and Residential Energy (electricity and natural gas, 11.2 percent).' City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan The following goals and strategies of the City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan(March 12, 2014 Final Draft)9 relate to the Proposed Project(although as of June 2019,the Climate Action Plan has not been adopted by 5 California Air Resources Board,Emissions Trends Report 2000-2016,July 11,2018, httll //www arb c „a;v/c c/anvc ntary/l7 ab /rc parts/2(}(}(} 2(}I fi/„he t ventary tre ds (}(} I fi l7r f ..... ........ 6Ibid. City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan,March 12,2014,11g2//www ctyofahi h com/lfie wWcb/w �one n/ 6 / sI n l Draft Ghmatc,,, llatii an...Pl<�n.l7r f ....................................................... 'Ibid. 'Ibid. November 2019 3.6-6 Page 1582 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Greenhouse Gases the City): • Goal SW.2: Reduce Release of Landfill Methane • Strategy SW.2.1: Explore Potential of Flaring Landfill Gas Mendocino County General Plan The following policies of the Mendocino County General Plan (Adopted 2009)10 relate to the Proposed Project: • Policy RM-50: Mendocino County acknowledges the real challenge of climate change and will implement existing strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and incorporate future measures that the State adopts in the coming years. o Action Item RM-50.1: Inventory existing and historical sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Mendocino County. Coordinate those efforts with other jurisdictions to ensure completeness and avoid unnecessary duplication. o Action Item RM-50.2: Create a greenhouse gas reduction plan for the unincorporated areas of the county that sets specific reduction strategies and targets to meet. o Action Item RM-50.3: Reduce Mendocino County's greenhouse gas emissions by adopting measures that reduce the consumption of fossil fuel energy resources. 3.6.4 Impact Analysis 3.6.4.1 Significance Criteria Significance thresholds are used to determine whether impacts associated with a project are significant. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000) lists the following criteria for determining significance of air quality impacts from a project: • Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or • Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. In June 2010,the MCAQMD adopted the BAAQMD thresholds of significance in the MCAQMD's Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance June 21 2010." Specifically,Proposed Project GHG emissions would be considered potentially significant if they exceed the following: Construction GHG Emissions — 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year (The MCAQMD nor the BAAQMD have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related emissions, therefore, this analysis uses the adopted operational-related significance threshold). • Operational GHG Emissions— 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year(stationary sources). 10 Mendocino County General Plan,2009.http�//www mendocino�ounty,orp./ Iv2rnm�nt/g,l�.nnan,;b�acldan,;�2rvcC plans/mendo ino c o�anty,,,, �::x2n2ra1:::1.>..1an ii Mendocino County Air Quality Management District,Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance—June 2,2010. http://www c o„me ndoc i (.),ca us/agmd/pdf,file s/MG G1MDG B 1AP� m�nd tcons.p ff; November 2019 3.6-7 Page 1583 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Greenhouse Gases 3.6.4.2 Approach to Analysis The Proposed Project's construction-related(temporary,short-term)and operation-related(long-term)GHG emissions and whether they would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change are described below. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c), this EIR employs both quantitative and qualitative thresholds of significance. The quantitative threshold is used to answer the first question of the OPR revisions to the CEQA Guidelines identified above (i.e., will the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment). For purposes of this EIR,the threshold is based upon BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (adopted by the MCAQMD). With respect to construction-related GHG impacts, BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, as recommended in BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, this EIR has quantified and disclosed GHG emissions that would occur during construction. This EIR makes a determination on the significance of these construction-generated GHG emission impacts by comparing them to the BAAQMD adopted operational-related significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons of COze per year. With respect to operational-related GHG impacts, in accordance with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines,this Proposed Project would be considered to have a significant impact if the project would emit GHG greater than 10,000 metric tons per year COze from its permitted stationary sources (flare). The Proposed Project is closing the landfill to control methane emissions (LFG is currently being vented to the atmosphere) and the Proposed Project would be expected to be beneficial in reducing GHG emissions. The qualitative threshold is used to answer the second of the OPR revisions to the CEQA Guidelines identified above (Le.,will the project conflict with an applicable plan,policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG). Ukiah has not adopted its own GHG reduction plan.However, if a project implements reduction strategies identified in AB 32, the Governor's Executive Order S-3-05, or other strategies to help reduce GHG to the level proposed by the governor, it could reasonably follow that the project would not conflict with an applicable plan,policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG.That said,BAAQMD's approach to developing a threshold of significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. Consequently, the quantifiable threshold (in this case, 10,000 metric tons COze per year for operations)was formulated based on AB 32 reduction strategies. For this reason, if a project exceeds the quantifiable threshold after mitigation, then for purposes of this EIR, the project is assumed to conflict with the second criteria of the OPR revisions; that is, the project is considered to conflict with an applicable plan,policy,or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. In summary, two criteria are used in this analysis to determine significance: the significance thresholds recommended by BAAQMD (adopted by MCAQMD) requiring construction to generate less than 1,100 metric tons of COze per year and operation of permitted stationary sources to generate less than 10,000 metric tons of COze per year,and a determination of whether the project promotes attainment of California's goals of reducing GHG emissions as stated in applicable plans,policies or regulations, including AB 32. November 2019 3.6-8 Page 1584 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Greenhouse Gases The analysis presented within this section is based on both qualitative and quantitative approaches for determining GHG emissions impacts associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Regulatory models used to estimate GHG emissions impacts include: • California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)Version 2016.3.212. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies,land use planners,and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California Air Districts. Default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) have been provided by the various California Air Districts to account for local requirements and conditions. • California Air Resources Board(CARB)EMFAC201413 emissions inventory model.EMFAC2014 is the latest emission inventory model that calculates emission inventories and emission rates for motor vehicles operating on roads in California.This model reflects CARB's current understanding of how vehicles travel and how much they emit. EMFAC2014 can be used to show how California motor vehicle emissions have changed overtime and are projected to change in the future. • CARB OFFROAD14 emissions inventory model.OFFROAD is the latest emission inventory model that calculates emission inventories and emission rates for off-road equipment such as loaders, excavators, and off-road haul trucks operating in California. This model reflects CARB's current understanding of how equipment operates and how much they emit. OFFROAD can be used to show how California off-road equipment emissions have changed over time and are projected to change in the future. • AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, has been published since 1972 as the primary compilation of USEPA's emission factor information. It contains emission factors and process information for more than 200 air pollution source categories. A source category is a specific industry sector or group of similar emitting sources. The emission factors have been developed and compiled from source test data,material balance studies,and engineering estimates. AP-42 contains emission factors flare activities within Section 13.515 3.6.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation measures Impact 3.6-1: Would Implementation of the Proposed Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? Construction-related emissions arise from a variety of activities including(1)grading,excavation,and other earth moving activities; (2)travel by construction equipment and worker vehicles, especially on unpaved surfaces; and (3) exhaust from construction equipment. Construction of the Proposed Project would temporarily generate ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The Proposed Project would require the importation of materials for the final cover and related infrastructure,which would result in approximately 12 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association,California Emissions Estimator Model User's Guide,November 2017, hqn://www.calcemo(.1.com/ c mo(.1..c om/ 13 California Air Resources Board,EMFAC2014 User's Guide,April 30,2014,http//www,arb. ,;2v/m�2 c/downlo ufs/emf a 2014/c mf a 26,14-,. yal I..:users.::guide 052(}15.17rff ........................................................... 14 California Air Resources Board,OFFROAD Instructions http//www,arb ,; v/mspro, rdc�s�I/i lfo 1085/ac i write,,,,up p ff 15 United States Environmental Protection Agency,AR42 Compilation ofAir Emission Factors Section 13.5 Industrial Flares,December 2016, httl7s://www3,c 2�„crv/ttn/chic 1/i1i l2/c h I3/(;in it/G 13S0 12 13„16 pail' November 2019 3.6-9 Page 1585 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Greenhouse Gases 723 haul truck round trips (1,446 haul truck one way trips). Soil material required for construction of the foundation layer of the final cover would be obtained from the borrow area on the project site, the same borrow area used during prior landfill operations. Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to begin in 2020 and would consist of eight construction phases: demolition, site preparation, grading/excavation,well drilling,final cover,utilities,LFG flare station,and roads.The construction would be completed over approximately six months. Table 3.6-1 shows the GHG emissions generated from Proposed Project construction and compares them to the applicable significance threshold.As shown in Table 3.6-1,construction emissions would be below the applicable significance threshold.Appendix D provides details on the GHG emissions calculations. Table 3.6-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Construction Condition Metric Tons of CO2e 2020 Construction 221 Significance Threshold 1,100 Significant(Yes or No)? No Source:CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.2 Operation of the Proposed Project would consist of a totally-enclosed vertical ground flare (flare station) utilized for the thermal destruction of collected LFG. The landfill is currently equipped with a partial perimeter gas collection system consisting of 17 vertical extraction wells connected to a header pipe that leads to a vacuum blower. The vacuum blower creates a vacuum in the header pipe that draws the LFG from the soil through the extraction wells and subsequently to the blower. Discharge from the current system is vented directly to the atmosphere via a 4-foot tall, 4-inch diameter stack. It should be noted that once the flare station is installed and operational, the need to operate the existing partial perimeter gas collection system may no longer be necessary and would either be abandoned or maintained for emergency use only. Table 3.6-2 shows estimated annual operational GHG emissions from the proposed flare station and compares them to the applicable MCAQMD significance threshold.As shown in Table 3.6-2,the proposed flare station would emit approximately 3,435 metric tons of CO2e, well below the stationary source significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Appendix D provides details on the GHG emission calculations. GreenhouseTable 3.6-2 Estimated i From 9perations Condition Metric Tons of CO2e Flare Station 3,435 Significance Threshold 10,000 Significant(Yes or No)? No Source:CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.2 Furthermore,while the proposed flare would emit GHG emissions,it is important to note that the Proposed Project would result in an overall reduction in GHG emissions emitted by the landfill.As noted previously, the landfill is currently equipped with a partial perimeter gas collection system that vents LFG (primarily methane) to the atmosphere. The proposed flare would destroy methane sent to the flare at a 99 percent November 2019 3.6-10 Page 1586 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Greenhouse Gases destruction efficiency,producing CO2 and water vapor.16 Methane has a global warming potential 21 to 28 times that of CO2 (Releasing one metric ton of methane is equivalent to releasing 21 to 28 metric tons of CO2).17 Thus, destroying methane in the proposed flare would create a significant GHG emissions reduction. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. Significance Determination: Less-Than-Significant. Impact 3.6-2: Would the Proposed Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG? The City of Ukiah developed a Draft Climate Action Plan regarding the reduction of GHG emissions,but the Climate Action Plan was never adopted.18 The Proposed Project would help the City achieve their proposed Goal SW.2: Reduce Release of Landfill Methane and implement their proposed Strategy SW.2.1: Explore Potential of Flaring Landfill Gas in the Draft Climate Action Plan. Although the Draft Climate Action Plan was never adopted, the aforementioned goal and strategy was included because they would lead to a significant reduction in the City of Ukiah's GHG emissions. The principal State plan and policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is AB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles and the low carbon fuel standard are being implemented at the statewide level, and compliance at the specific plan or project level is not addressed. The assumption is that AB 32 and other statewide regulations will be successful in reducing the cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020 and beyond. The State has taken these measures, because no project individually could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHGs. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact if it would be in conflict with AB 32 State goals. The Proposed Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32 measures and it has been determined that the proposed project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32. The Proposed Project would put the landfill in compliance with the Landfill Methane Control Measure (Landfill Methane Rule), which is one of the early actions measures adopted by CARB to reduce GHG emissions. The Landfill Methane Rule requires LFG collection and destruction systems at landfills with the goal of reducing methane emissions. Furthermore, as noted earlier,the Proposed Project would result in an overall reduction in GHG emissions emitted by the landfill by flaring methane emissions that are currently vented to the atmosphere.Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. Significance Determination: Less-Than-Significant. 16In California,flares are required to have minimum methane destruction efficiencies of 99%(CCR,Article 4,Subarticle 6,Section 95464(b)(2)(A)(1)). 7IPCC,Global Warming Potential Values,http� , hp/ lrl iPi -,.r fes/ Wrg,„ al V L2u 1 r2(}('/crLi c bf'/cr2(}..:6:6f'/cr20201,6'V/cr 9 8 City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan,March 12,2014 11g2//tvww ctyafuct h cQIm/l,� wWcb/w � ntc n/ 6sI n 1„Lr t Ghmatc:.. , November 2019 3.6-11 Page 1587 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Greenhouse Gases 3.6.5 Cumulative Effects There are no known projects that would be constructed at the same time and within the same vicinity of the Proposed Project that would or could create any additional or cumulative construction related impacts. Once constructed the Proposed Project would not have any significant impacts. As a result,the Proposed Project would not have any direct, indirect, short-term and/or long-term cumulative greenhouse gas impacts. 3.6.6 References California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, California Emissions Estimator Model User's Guide,November 2017l;dp://www.caleemod.com/ California Air Resources Board,Emissions Trends Report 2000-2016,July 11, 2018, ht;dps://www.aa 5.ca.gov/cc/Inventory ubs/repomds/2000 20 Q 6/plug .inYentoly br >r& 00:::.p f2.:. California Air Resources Board,EMFAC2014 User's Guide,April 30, 2014, ht;a�://www.aa5.ca. ov/msen/downloads/emd�c2G114/emd�c2014...:vol 1 users....�wide...0 5201 5 pal, California Air Resources Board, OFFROAD Instructions, ht;ai�://www.aab.ca. ov/ms�pao /ordnesel/nnfo 1G18 /oen write aA, dt` City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan, March 12, 2014,htd ://www.cit oFukiah.comiNewWeb/w cone nt/u 1oads/2G1 p 3/G)Xinal l:�ra t 1mate Action Plan.pdF Climate Analysis Indicator Tool htp�s://www.wrn.or /oaAr work/�propect/cant clnpnate data c� gora;r Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Global Warming Potential Values, htd s://www.�h� rotocol.or�/sates/det��ult/dales/�h� /�:ulobal:Warpnnn�.Potential. V�:tlues%20%281"eb%20 Q 6%202016%29 1. dt` Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers, 2014. estnons about climate::: ..................................................................................... Mendocino County General Plan, 2009 htdp�s://www.mendocnnocounty.orb/�ova;rnment/ lannnnp buifdi � services/Mans/mendocnno county �a,nar�l plan Mendocino County Air Quality Management District,Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance—June 2, 2010. ht;a�://www.co.mendocnno.ca.us/aa aund� ` tales/Ma::"A��M1�Q::"1 ��ARecomendatnons.Ddf United States Environmental Protections Agency,Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016,Apri12018p�s://www.cp�a�ov�ryepnnssnons/inventory aAsrcenhoua ��s emissions and sinks 1990 2016 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... United States Environmental Protection Agency,AP-42 Compilation of Air Emission Factors Section 13.5 Industrial Flares, December 2016, htd s://www3.e a.�ov/tin/chned/a 42/ch13/dnnal/Q::"13SG�� 12.p3 .16. dd` November 2019 3.6-12 Page 1588 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality This section describes the existing conditions relating to surface and groundwater hydrology and water quality in the Project area, presents laws and regulatory requirements relating to hydrology and water quality applicable to the Proposed Project, and presents an assessment of the potential water resources related impacts from Project implementation. 3.7.1 Introduction The physical setting and existing conditions relevant to the Project provide the basis for the impact analyses, which include assessment of whether the Project would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, contribute to or create runoff that would result in erosion or hydromodification, degrade water quality, or expose people or structures to significant risk due to flooding or inundation. 3.7.2 Environmental Setting A discussion of the environmental setting is discussed below. 3.7.2.1 Regional Hydrology The Project area is located in the Russian River watershed which encompasses 1,485 square miles in Mendocino and Sonoma counties (RWQCB, 2019). The mainstem of the Russian River is approximately 110 miles long and flows southward from Redwood and Potter valleys (north of Ukiah)to its confluence with Mark West Creek,where it turns west to cut through the coast range and meet the Pacific Ocean at Jenner. The principal tributaries from the headwaters downstream are the East Fork Russian River,Feliz,Pieta,Big Sulfur,Dry,Mark West,Green Valley,and Austin creeks. The summer climate is moist and cool near the coast with temperatures increasing in the upper valley areas that are more isolated from the coastal influence. The majority of flow in the Russian River and its tributaries occurs during the winter season,when average rainfall ranges from 30-80 inches,depending on locale (RWQCB, 2019). The Russian River is a major source of water for regional supply and distribution (City of Ukiah, 2004). The Russian River is also a major flood control channel. Two reservoirs provide flood protection and water supply storage within the watershed: 1) Coyote Dam and Lake Mendocino on the East Fork Russian River near Ukiah, and 2) Warm Springs Dam and Lake Sonoma on Dry Creek west of Healdsburg. The river traverses the entire length of the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin (discussed below) and is a major source of recharge for the underlying aquifer (City of Ukiah, 2004). 3.7.2.2 Project Site Hydrology The Project Site (landfill) is approximately three miles east of Ukiah in Mendocino County, California. The landfill occupies approximately 40 acres of permitted landfill area on a 284-acre parcel. The landfill area has a maximum width of approximately 1,000-feet in the north-south November 2019 3.7-1 Page 1589 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality direction and a maximum length of about 3,500-feet in the east-west direction. The site is located on a topographic saddle 1, with Sulphur Creek located off-site to the south, and an unnamed ephemeral creek, tributary to the Russian River, located on-site along the northern boundary of the landfill (See Figure 3.7-1) and approximately 1.4-miles east of the Russian River main stem. Existing ground surface elevations at the landfill range from approximately 710-feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the western edge, to about 970-feet MSL along the southeast edge of the property. Land adjacent to the landfill is zoned primarily as rangeland and is used for grazing. The site receives approximately 35-inches of precipitation per year(RWQCB, 2002a). The Ukiah Landfill ceased operations in September 2001 (RWQCB, 2002a). Waste disposal operations at the landfill began in 1955 at the eastern end of the landfill footprint and progressed upslope and westward. The landfill operated as a nonhazardous Class III solid waste disposal site servicing Ukiah and the surrounding area and employed a fill and cover approach in a canyon/gully terrain. During the 1970's, the unnamed ephemeral creek was realigned northward to maximize the available fill area, thus the northern edge of the landfill overlies portions of the original streambed. As part of the realignment, a soil berm was constructed along the toe of the slope to separate the waste from the realigned creek channel (City of Ukiah, 2019). The landfill surface is covered with a combination of native and non-native grasses (Wildlife Research Associates, 2015) and slopes range from approximately 2:1 to 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) (City of Ukiah, 2019). The landfill site drains to the unnamed ephemeral creek along the northern property boundary, which leaves the site below the landfill toe at the north-eastern edge of the site adjacent to the former leachate pond and sediment pond (See Figure 3.7-1). The existing landfill cover has been graded to form a series of terraces stepping down from south to north. Storm water run-on and run-off from the site is controlled in a series of perimeter drainage ditches, stormdrain pipes, down chutes and sedimentation ponds located throughout the facility. The stormwater conveyance system routes off-site stormwater around the site and collects surface runoff from on- site (i.e. the landfill cover and additional slopes) for discharge to the unnamed ephemeral creek (RWQCB, 2002a). A perimeter ditch exists along the head of the landfill to divert water from running onto the site that is then directed around the existing landfill site. Existing drainage ditches have been in place for many years and have been constructed as the landfill filling operation proceeded. Benches and culverts direct stormwater runoff from slopes and drainage ditches to interior drains and then finally to outfalls located at the toe of the landfill slope that drain to the unnamed tributary. There are 11 existing stormwater outfalls that discharge stormwater runoff from the landfill stormwater system to the unnamed ephemeral creek. The outfalls are generally located above and outside of the bed of the ephemeral creek, are of poor design (EBA, 2015), and have no energy dissipation devices or other features to control or dissipate the energy of stormwater discharges. Due to the location of the existing stormwater outlets, stormwater discharges "shotgun" into the ephemeral creek channel from 5-to 6-feet above the channel bottom (EBA, 2015). As a result, 1 A low point on a ridge between two peaks. November 2019 3.7-2 Page 1590 of 4165 i i } o, 02 fv PI -91 fi I I � I ( W'^ Wx ryr✓,myrNaw¢wwvw w �v a: 6 `r ( rt j J ( r I it t � /� ✓ % 1 z, l x r ti o A r F r M a :y U r a , n„ I .......... 7 f s A l m, o a 6 0 "pro 54 � u'Wj"9u N tl �/ s + -k t a V o co LAI ...� 6 Al The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality the existing discharges are causing erosion and sedimentation within the ephemeral creek and downstream, and localized channel incision has occurred. Three sedimentation ponds are located on the landfill site (Figure 3.7-1). The purpose of the sedimentation basins is to retain runoff, allowing for settling of sediments, evaporation, the retention of stormwater and management of peak stormwater discharges into the ephemeral creek. The central northernmost pond has been at the landfill for several decades and was constructed to capture sediment from the borrow pit located on the upland area on the eastern side of the basin (City of Ukiah, 2012). The sediment pond at the western edge of the landfill (adjacent to the leachate management facility) has a riser outlet structure for managing detention volumes and discharges and is coupled with an additional overflow pipe in the embankment which ensures overfilling (and thus overtopping the pond) does not occur. The riser outlet structure is currently not functioning, and the pond fills up to maximum retention capacity, then spills unmanaged through the overflow pipe in the embankment to the ephemeral creek(EBA, 2016). Leachate is formed when rainwater infiltrates the existing vegetated soil cover and percolates through the degrading waste. Landfill leachate, especially from mature and stabilized landfills, contains high concentrations of organic and inorganic pollutants that would cause severe water quality impacts (such as toxicity and eutrophication) to receiving waters if discharged (Science Direct, 2019). As described in detail in Section 2.2.1, leachate from the landfill is collected and treated via a leachate control system that captures leachate and conveys it to leachate management facilities located at the western toe of the landfill for storage and conveyance to the municipal sewer system. Additionally, runoff from any surface seep occurring along the landfill slope faces is collected and managed as leachate (City of Ukiah, 2019). 3.7.2.3 Surface Water Quality The quality of surface water is primarily a function of land uses in the project area. Local land uses influence the quality of the surface water through point source discharges (i.e., discrete discharges from discharge pipes) and nonpoint source discharges (e.g., direct storm runoff from slopes). Surface water runoff is generated by precipitation that cannot be absorbed into the ground in the period following a storm. Pollutants and sediments are transported in watersheds by stormwater runoff that reaches streams, rivers, and storm drains. As described above, stormwater runoff from the landfill slopes and drainage ditches is conveyed into the landfill stormwater system and is subsequently discharged into the ephemeral creek, and ultimately flows to the Russian River. The amount of surface water runoff is a factor of precipitation, ground saturation, and available permeable or pervious ground surfaces. Permeability is a measure of how quickly water can penetrate a surface area. In accordance with Section 303(d), the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has identified impaired water bodies within its jurisdiction, including the Project area, and the pollutant or stressor responsible for impairing the water quality and defined beneficial uses (discussed further in Section 3.7.3). The Russian River and its tributaries in the Project area November 2019 3.7-4 Page 1592 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality are listed as impaired for sedimentation/siltation and temperature. As described above, the existing landfill cover and stormwater outfall structures discharging to the ephemeral creek are a potential source of sediment as a result of erosion on the landfill slopes and within the ephemeral creek channel. Sources listed for the impairment are as follows (RWQCB, 2019): • Sedimentation/ Siltation: Agriculture, Silviculture, Construction/Land Development, Resource Extraction, Habitat Modification, Removal of Riparian Vegetation, Streambank Modification/ Destabilization, Drainage/Filling of Wetlands, Channel Erosion, Erosion/Siltation,Highway Maintenance and Runoff, and Natural Resources • Temperature: Hydromodification, Upstream Impoundment, Flow Regulation/Modification, Habitat Modification, Removal of Riparian Vegetation, Streambank Modification/Destabilization, and Nonpoint Source. Consistent with the landfill's Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs; see Section 7.3.3), a Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) was implemented in 2002 (RWQCB, 2002b) and is ongoing. Under the MRP, leachate, groundwater, and surface water monitoring activities are conducted quarterly to monitor potential landfill impacts on surface water and groundwater quality and to inform the implementation of additional monitoring or corrective actions, as necessary. The following provides a summary of the leachate and surface water monitoring and reporting program, parameters and constituents monitored, and historic water quality trends (see below for discussion of groundwater monitoring and existing groundwater quality). Leachate is sampled via the leachate wet well associated with the Leachate Collection and Removal System (LCRS). Additionally, under the MRP, if leachate is observed to surface and be discharged to surface waters, immediate sampling is conducted. As discussed above,runoff from surface seeps occurring along the landfill slopes is collected and managed as leachate to maximize protection to local water quality. The following provides a summary of the constituents and parameters monitored as part of leachate monitoring as well as the associated monitoring and reporting frequencies: • Field Parameters (Quarterly): Specific Conductance,pH, Turbidity and Temperature. • Quarterly Monitoring Parameters (Quarterly): Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Chloride, Nitrate-Nitrogen, Total Ammonia, Sulfate, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Magnesium, Sodium, Calcium, Potassium, Manganese, Boron, Carbonate, Bicarbonate, Total Alkalinity, Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA Method 8260B with Methyl tert-Butyl Ether [MtBE]) and Total Purgeable/Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons. • Constituents of Concern (Annual): Appendix 11 Metals (Dissolved) and Extractable Oil and Grease. • Constituents of Concern (Every Five Years): Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Organochlorine Pesticides, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Organophosphorus Compounds, Chlorophenoxy Herbicides. November 2019 3.7-5 Page 1593 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Surface water monitoring is conducted within the ephemeral creek with sample stations established upstream and downstream of the landfill site. Surface water samples are collected after the first storm event of the rainy season that produces significant flow and quarterly thereafter when water is present in the ephemeral creek. The following provides a summary of the constituents and parameters monitored as part of surface water monitoring as well as the associated monitoring and reporting frequencies: • Field Parameters (Quarterly): Specific Conductance, pH, Turbidity, Dissolved Oxygen, and Temperature. • Quarterly Monitoring Parameters (Quarterly): Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Settleable Solids, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Turbidity, Chloride, Total Nitrogen, Total Ammonia,Unionized Ammonia, Sulfate, Chemical Oxygen Demand(COD). • Constituents of Concern (Annual): Appendix II Metals (Dissolved) and Extractable Oil and Grease. • Constituents of Concern (Every Five Years): Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Organochlorine Pesticides, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Organophosphorus Compounds, Chlorophenoxy Herbicides. The Landfill MRP (RWQCB, 2002b) specifies Water Quality Protection Standards (WQPS) for all monitored parameters and constituents outlined above. If a WQPS is exceeded (i.e., a release is discovered),the impacted monitoring point becomes subject to a Corrective Action Monitoring Program (CAMP) and the landfill begins a Compliance Period determined by the RWQCB. If corrective actions do not achieve compliance with the WQPS by the scheduled end of the Compliance Period,the Compliance Period is automatically extended until the landfill has been in continuous compliance for at least three consecutive years. Upon confirmation that levels in a previously impacted monitoring point have been reduced below concentration limits specified in the WQPS, and following RWQCB approval, standard monitoring under the MRP is resumed. Based on analysis of the MRP monitoring results and comparison to historical conditions and trends, no appreciable changes in surface water quality has occurred in the ephemeral creek over time as a result of landfill operations (EBA, 2019a). Although concentration spikes have occurred on occasion over the course of the monitoring program for various parameters (such as turbidity), such spikes have been limited to one or several parameters during individual events and concentrations have typically declined to within the historical ranges the following quarter. To date, based on quarterly and annual reporting under the MRP, no exceedances of the WQPS associated with surface water quality have occurred, and no CAMP or other evaluation monitoring has been required by the RWQCB (EBA, 2019b). 3.7.2.4 Groundwater Within the Russian River hydrologic unit,the Project site is underlain by the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin, which is the northernmost basin in the Russian River water system. The 22-mile long, 3- mile wide groundwater basin underlies an area of approximately 60 square miles. Groundwater- bearing units of primary importance within the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin include recent November 2019 3.7-6 Page 1594 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality (Holocene) alluvium, as well as the older (Plio-Pleistocene) Continental Basin Deposits. Underlying these deposits is fractured basement rock of the Franciscan Complex. Even when highly fractured, these formations have limited permeability and are considered to yield only small quantities of water locally. Alluvium within the basin is considered a principal source of groundwater and consists of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and minor amounts of clay deposited in channels and on floodplains of the Russian River watershed and as colluvium on alluvial fan slopes. Based on hydrographs from wells monitored by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), groundwater levels in the past 30 years have remained relatively stable. The groundwater basin surface elevation varies from approximately 1,000-feet in the upper portions of the Redwood Valley, to approximately 500-feet in the lower, southern areas of the Ukiah Valley. In the Holocene alluvium, groundwater depths vary from 15-feet to over 600-feet below ground surface (bgs)2 (DWR, 2004). Bedrock of the Franciscan Complex underlies the majority of the Mayacamas Mountains east of the Maacama fault. The Franciscan bedrock outcrops in the Sulphur Creek drainage to the south-southeast of the landfill site, near the Vichy Springs Resort. The tectonic m6lange that makes up the Franciscan Complex in this area contains a mixture of sandstone and altered volcanic rocks within a fractured shale matrix and has undergone intensive, complex structural deformation for millions of years. Water often percolates into large upland areas underlain by the Franciscan Complex bedrock and later discharges from springs and/or provides base flow for tributaries to the Russian River (EBA, 1994). Discharge of thermal water, such as Vichy Springs, is also quite common throughout the area. Historical records indicate that groundwater yield to wells within Franciscan bedrock is generally unpredictable and typically volumetrically insignificant(Cardwell, 1965; Farrar 1986, in EBE, 1994). Vichy Springs flows from fractured Franciscan Complex bedrock along the southern edge of the Sulphur Creek drainage basin. The Landfill site is situated on younger Holocene alluvial deposits that overlie the Continental Basin Deposits. Lithologic logs show that the Holocene deposits consist of medium dense mixtures of clayey silt, sand, and gravel that extend to the maximum depth explored of 35-feet bgs. The Continental Basin Deposits consist of poorly sorted conglomerates, sands and clays, which unconformably overlie an irregular surface of Franciscan bedrock. The maximum thickness of these deposits are estimated to be more than 2,000-feet (Cardwell in EBE, 1994). The lowermost contact of the Continental Basin Deposits overlying the Franciscan bedrock has not been encountered in any of the test borings or monitoring wells drilled at the site to date including the abandoned well, TB-904, which reached the depth of 265-feet below the surface (EBA, 1994). Lithologic boring logs of monitoring wells 90-8 and 92-4 indicate they are drilled through a continuous section of Continental Basin Deposits consisting of low permeability silty clays and clayey silts (City of Ukiah, 2019). If encountered, groundwater was typically present in the silty and sandy gravels lenses of the Continental Basin Deposits and in the Holocene alluvial layers. No perched groundwater, aquitards or Franciscan Complex bedrock were encountered while drilling the wells at the Landfill (EBA, 1994). This suggests that the monitoring wells are 2 Groundwater levels in domestic wells(15-600-feet)and municipal/irrigation wells(36-115-feet). November 2019 3.7-7 Page 1595 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality completed in a distinctive and separate geologic formation, consisting of significantly different hydrogeologic properties from the Franciscan Complex bedrock. Groundwater Elevation and Flow Groundwater elevation data collected on October 22, 2018 was used to determine the groundwater depth, flow direction and the gradient within the respective water-bearing zones. Groundwater elevations within the Holocene alluvial deposits ranged from approximately 665 to 699-feet MSL and 674 to 758-feet MSL in the Continental Basin Deposits. Since the Holocene alluvial deposits are confined to the unnamed ephemeral creek's depositional channel, the direction of groundwater flow within these deposits generally coincides with the axis of the creek. This translates to an overall westerly groundwater flow component with a hydraulic gradient of approximately 0.03 feet/foot. Groundwater flow conditions within the Continental Basin Deposits exhibit a northwesterly groundwater flow south of the creek (i.e., beneath the Landfill), and a south-southwesterly groundwater flow component north of the creek. These two components join near the creek, and result in a westerly flow direction down the axis of the canyon. These potentiometric surface conditions generally mimic the topography, which is common in mountainous terrain. The hydraulic gradients along the flanks of the creek range from approximately 0.08-feet/foot on the north flank to approximately 0.04 to 0.07-feet/foot on the south flank, whereas the gradient along the axis of the creek is approximately 0.02-feet/foot(City of Ukiah, 2016). Groundwater Quality Over a 9-year period from 1987 through 1996, several detection and corrective action monitoring wells were installed in the Continental Basin Deposits and Holocene alluvial deposits.3 The groundwater monitoring wells were installed to characterize groundwater impacts at the site and to upgrade the Landfill's detection monitoring network (EBA, 2019a). A release of waste constituents from the landfill to groundwater was discovered in 1989 and since then, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and petroleum hydrocarbons have continually been detected in groundwater at the northern toe of the landfill footprint. As discussed above, consistent with the Landfill's WDR's a Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP), also referred to the Detection Monitoring Program (DMP), is currently implemented at the Landfill in accordance with 27 CCR, §20420 and Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R1-2002-0061, issued by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. This program is in effect currently and is anticipated to continue, with certain adjustments (discussed below) through the post closure maintenance period. Regarding groundwater, the scope of the DMP includes the following monitoring and sampling activities: • Quarterly monitoring and recording groundwater elevations and groundwater flow directions. 3 Groundwater monitoring well 87-1 was installed in 1987 and was subsequently used as part of the Water Quality Solid Waste Assessment Test(SWAT)conducted at the Landfill during the late 1980's. November 2019 3.7-8 Page 1596 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality • Quarterly sampling and analysis of groundwater samples from detection monitoring wells and points of compliance monitoring wells. • Performance of quarterly statistical analyses of groundwater chemistry data to identify exceedances of applicable concentration limits. Results and findings from the MRP are presented in the Annual Detection Monitoring Report and are then submitted to the RWQCB on a quarterly basis. Standard quarterly report submittals include a presentation of the sampling and monitoring procedures (including Standard Operating Procedures), tabulated summaries of groundwater, and laboratory data, statistical analysis results and supporting calculations, groundwater potentiometric surface map, results of standard observations, and copies of Certified Analytical Reports (CARS) and associated chain-of-custody documentation. Annual reports are also prepared that include graphical summaries of monitoring data, an evaluation of the findings (City of Ukiah,2016). The existing groundwater monitoring network at the Landfill site consists of 18 monitoring wells located primarily along its northern and western margins. In accordance with the criteria specified in Section D(3)(b) of M&RP R1-2002-0061,the individual groundwater monitoring wells have the following use designations shown in Table 3.7-1. Groundwater monitoring wells 87-1, 90-1, 90-3, 90-4, 92-1 and 94-1 were completed within the Holocene alluvial deposits and range in depth from approximately 12 to 35-feet bgs. The remaining groundwater monitoring wells are completed in the Continental Basin Deposits and range in depth from approximately 23 to 160-feet bgs. Table 3.7-1 Monitming Well type and Designation Type of Monitoring Well Well Designation Detection Monitoring Wells 87-1, 90-1,90-2,90-5, 90-6, 90-7, 90-8, 92-2,92- 3,94-1, 94-2, 96-1, 96-2 and 96-3 Corrective Action Monitoring Wells: 90-3, 90-4, 92-1 and 92-4 Points of Compliance Wells: 87-1, 90-2, 90-3,90-4,90-5,90-7 and 90-8 Data used to represent the existing groundwater quality conditions were obtained from the 2018 Annual Detection Monitoring Report, which was submitted to the RWQCB by the City of Ukiah in January 2019 (EBA, 2019a). The Landfill wells were sampled in October 2018. Information presented in Table 3.7-2, below, summarizes the pertinent detections and exceedances of constituents of concern found in the detection/corrective action monitoring wells that intersect the two water bearing units beneath the Landfill. Summary of Groundwater Data Table 3.7-2 lists the constituents, well number, reported concentration, and notes, if any, regarding the nature or evaluation of the measured concentration in the monitoring well. In most cases, the reported constituents are detected in the groundwater, but the concentrations reflect historic trends or are representative of background or naturally occurring conditions. Such is the November 2019 3.7-9 Page 1597 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality case for the annual constituents of concern (COCs), which include aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium iron, selenium, and nickel. Sulfate and chloride were shown to increase but only negligibly. The volatile organic compounds (VOCs), namely acetone, benzene, naphthalene, toluene, and miscellaneous xylenes, found in detection well 90-8 and corrective action well 92-4 are generally consistent with historical conditions and do not appear to be related to the Landfill. Table 3.7-2 Summary of Detections Detection irrective Action Monitoring Monitoring Parameter Well Concentrations Evaluation Number DETECTION MONITORING WELLS Sulfate 90-7 12 Negligible Exceedance Sulfate( ) 96-1 27 Negligible Exceedance Chloride( /L) 96-2 18 Negligible Exceedance Volatile Organic Compounds ( /L) Acetone 94-2 14 Benzene 90-7, 90-8, 0.5,280,0.61(') 94-2 Generally Consistent with m,p X lens 90-8 0.55 0) Historical Conditions Naphthalene 90-8 1.90) Toluene 90-8 0.440) X lens Total 90-8 0.550) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Detection primarily associated as Gasoline( /L) 90-8 480 with substantial benzene peak. Annual Constituents of Concern(COcs)(m /L) Aluminum,dissolved 87-1, 90-6 0.080,0.34 Concentrations detected for the Arsenic dissolved (2) 0.014 to 0.20 compounds are naturally Barium,dissolved (3) 0.060 to 5.1 occurring. Conditions are Chromium(hexavalent), generally consistent with dissolved 90-5, 90-8 0.017,0.010 historical annual observations Iron,dissolved (5) 0.12 to 19 Below Primary Maximum Nickel,dissolved 90-5 0.017 Contaminant Level(PMCL) Oil and Grease 90-8 75 Second Detection since 2015. CORRECTIVE ACTION MONITORING WELLS Volatile Organic Compounds ( /L) Acetone 90-3, 90-4 14,22 (1) Generally Consistent with Benzene 92-4(1) 120 Historical Conditions m,p X lens 92-4(1) 0.88 Naphthalene 92-4 1.5 X lens Total 92-4(1) 0.88 November 2019 3.7-10 Page 1598 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Table Summary of Detections Detection irrective Action Monitoring Monitoring Parameter Well Concentrations Evaluation Number Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Detection primarily associated as Gasoline /L 92-4 210 with substantial benzene peak. Annual Constituents of Concern COcs m /L Aluminum,dissolved 92-1 0.26 Concentrations detected for the Arsenic dissolved 5 0.0059 to 0.31 compounds are naturally Barium,dissolved 5 0.93 to 3.8 occurring. Conditions are Iron,dissolved (5) 0.72 to 8.7 generally consistent with historical annual observations. bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 90-4 21 ( ) Nickel,dissolved 91-2 0.036 Below Primary Maximum Selenium,dissolved 92-1 0.0092 Contaminant Level (1)Previous site characterization suggests that the Benzene,Toluene,Ethylbenzene and/or Xylenes detections in this groundwater monitoring well do not appear to be related to the landfill and may either be naturally occurring or derived from an alternate source (2)Detected Monitoring Wells 90-2,90-5,90-7,90-8,92-2,92-3,94-2,and 96-2. (3)Detected in 87-1,90-2,90-5,90-6,90-7,90-8,92-2,92-3,94-2,96-1,96-2,and 96-3. (4)Detected in 87-1,90-5,90-6,90-8,92-2,92-3,94-2,and 96-2 (5)Detected in 90-3,90-4,92-1,and 92-4. pg/L:micrograms per liter(equivalent to parts per billion). These VOC's were detected in upgradient wells on the east end of the Landfill property and may either be derived from an alternate, possibly upgradient source (Lawrence and Associates, 1998 in EBA 2019a). The RWQCB concurred with this finding in a letter dated July 29, 1998, which stated that the presence of VOC's in the eastern wells is not considered a violation of the WDRs. Consistent detections of benzene have been observed at similar concentrations in monitoring well 90-8 since 1991 (EBA, 2019a). Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline (TPH-g) were detected in wells 90-8 and 92-4 at 480 micrograms per liter(µg/L) and 210 µg/L, respectively. As gasoline contains benzene,toluene, xylenes, and other VOCs,the gasoline detected in monitoring wells 90-8 and 92-4 is the likely source of the benzene concentrations. Hydrogeologic Influence of Landfill on Vichy Springs Resort In 1994, Vichy Springs Resort, located one-quarter mile southeast of the Landfill, reported that the temperature in the spring water at the resort had decreased by 12 degrees and the flow rate decreased by 19.5 gallons per minute (gpm) immediately after the Landfill installed corrective action monitoring well 92-4 on March 15, 1994. Monitoring well 92-4 and the next closest well, detection monitoring well 90-8, are located at the southeast end, near the entrance of the Landfill property, about 1,100-feet from Vichy Springs Resort. Detection monitoring well 90-8 and monitoring well 92-4, were drilled to a depth of 140-feet bgs and 135-bgs, respectively and completed in the Continental Basin Deposits. November 2019 3.7-11 Page 1599 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality The City of Ukiah commissioned a study (EBA, 1994) of Vichy Spring's claims and in August 1994, submitted the final report to the North Coast RWQCB. The study focused on the underlying geology, the potential for heat loss due to a release of carbon dioxide, flow reduction, and water chemistry. In general,the study found that the water in the well and the water at Vichy Springs originate from two different formations and are chemically distinct. The groundwater found in monitoring wells 92-4 and 90-8 come from water bearing sediments in the Continental Basin Deposits and the water at Vichy Springs comes from groundwater deep in the Franciscan Complex bedrock. This was evident by comparing the organic and inorganic chemical composition of groundwater in the Franciscan bedrock and Continental Basin Deposits. These findings were then verified by the stable isotope analysis conducted on water samples from the Landfill monitoring wells and local springs, including Harmon Springs, City Range Spring, Ardeche Spring and Vichy Springs. Furthermore, the study found that the small diameter and comparatively shallow monitoring wells installed at the Landfill and the amount of water that is extracted from them, could not account for the volume of heat loss and reduction of spring flow rate reported by Vichy Springs. The study concluded that it was highly improbable that drilling and constructing two monitoring wells could have influenced or adversely impacted the spring water temperature and flow rate at Vichy Springs. The SWRCB reviewed the study and completed an independent review of the available supporting documentation; its findings supported the City of Ukiah's position. In its letter dated October 31, 1994 (SWRCB, 1994),the SWRCB stated: " . . . (1) the monitoring well was drilled into a different geological formation from the formation underlying the hot springs; (2) apparently no pressure effects were noted during drilling; (3)the temperature of the water in the monitoring well apparently ranges between 59°-77°F, in contrast to the 90°F temperature of the hot spring; and ( 4) data from Lawrence Livermore Lab shows that the water in the monitoring well and the hot spring have different oxygen isotope values and therefore are from separate water sources and have no apparent mixing relationship. One would expect waters which are in the same hydrothermal regime to have similar oxygen isotope values and elevated temperatures. Furthermore, if the monitoring well were in fact responsible for the drop in temperature of the spring, one would not have expected the temperature in the spring to have recovered almost to its pre-drilling temperature without a subsequent change in the condition of the well, e.g., plugging. In summary, we have not seen convincing evidence to support the conclusion that the drilling of this monitoring well could have impacted the temperature and flow rate of the hot spring." 3.7.2.5 Flooding and Flood Hazards Flooding is the inundation of normally dry land as a result of a rise in the level of surface waters or the rapid accumulation of stormwater runoff Flooding can occur when excessive precipitation generates stormwater runoff that exceeds the carrying capacity of the drainage system. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delineates regional flooding hazard areas in the area as part of the National Flood Insurance Program. Official Flood Insurance Rate Maps November 2019 3.7-12 Page 1600 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality (FIRMS) for the Project Area indicate areas that have a 1 percent chance of flooding in any given year (100-year flood hazard zone). The FIRM map indicates the landfill is located outside the 500-year flood hazard area and outside the 100-year flood hazards area. (Figure 3.7-2). Flooding as a result of a seiche or inundation due to dam failure can also be a consideration for assessing flood hazards. A seiche is a rhythmic motion of water in a partially or completely enclosed (landlocked) large water body caused by landslides, earthquake-induced ground accelerations,or ground offset. Seiches can result in long-period waves that cause run-up or overtopping of adjacent landmasses, similar to tsunami runup. The landfill is not located in close proximity to a large enclosed body of water capable of producing seiche waves. Flooding from dam failure can result from both natural and human causes, including earthquakes, erosion, improper siting and/or design, and rapidly rising floodwater during heavy storms. The type of failure, ranging from instantaneous to gradual, is dependent on the building material of the dam. Dam failure can potentially cause loss of life and property damage, displacement of persons residing in the inundation path, and damage to infrastructure. The Ukiah Valley and the area around the Russian River is within the mapped dam inundation hazard area for Coyote Dam at Lake Mendocino (City of Ukiah, 2011). The gentle topography of the Ukiah Valley along the Russian River provides a wide dam inundation area. According to the dam inundation area map (City of Ukiah, 2011), the main channel of flooding would likely follow Highway 101. Inundation is predicted to occur along most creek channels from the river nearly to the base of the foothills on the west side of the Valley. The California DWR, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) oversees the construction of dams that are over 25-feet high and impound over 15 acre- feet of water, or over 6-feet high and impound over 50 acre-feet of water, which includes the Coyote Dam. The Ukiah Landfill is not located within an area at risk of inundation from dam failure. 3.7.3 Regulatory Setting A discussion of the relevant federal, state and local regulations is provided below. 3.7.3.1 Federal Regulations Clean Water Act Under the Clean Water Act(CWA) of 1977, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) seeks to restore and maintain the chemical,physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff.The CWA authorizes the USEPA to implement water quality regulations.The relevant sections of the CWA are summarized below. November 2019 3.7-13 Page 1601 of 4165 N E E ui uj z Mw ,�yb U. uN C3 C eN w, g o �.. 18, m' ---------------- p a �LL w 18 is (.� r lIn 1f/r�J r, IN, ,r1 fy f�1 0 )! 77 Q w L U a:] �*+ LAI 0LIJ .1 M.d The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality CWA Section 303: Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans Section 303 of the CWA requires states to designate beneficial uses for water bodies or segments of water bodies and to establish water quality standards to protect those uses for all waters of the U.S. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. Impaired waters are waters that do not meet water quality standards established by the state, even after point sources of pollution have been equipped with the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish a priority ranking for listed waters and develop action plans to improve water quality. Inclusion of a water body on the Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies triggers development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for that water body and a plan to control the associated pollutant/stressor on the list. The TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant/stressor that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the water quality standards. Typically, a TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. In accordance with Section 303(d), the RWQCB has identified impaired water bodies within its jurisdiction, and the pollutant or stressor responsible for impairing the water quality. The Upper Russian River and its tributaries are listed as being impaired due to sedimentation/siltation and temperature. Detailed discussion of impaired water bodies relevant to the Project, including the pollutants that cause the impairments, and the potential sources of the pollutants are discussed under Section 3.7.2, above. To control sediment in discharges and restore sediment impaired water bodies, the RWQCB has adopted the Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Policy Statement for Sediment Impaired Receiving Waters in the North Coast Region, which is also known as the Sediment TMDL Implementation Policy, on November 29, 2004. This Policy was adopted through Resolution R1-2004-0087. The goals of the Policy are to control sediment waste discharges to impaired water bodies so that the TMDLs are met, sediment water quality objectives are attained, and beneficial uses are no longer adversely affected or impaired as a result of sediment. Under the Sediment TMDL Implementation Policy, RWQCB staff control sediment pollution through existing permitting and enforcement tools. Prior to issuance of any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for construction activities, operational discharges, or licenses (discussed below), a review and authorization process by the applicable RWQCB is required to ensure such permits and licenses are protective of designated beneficial uses and water quality and that TMDL requirements are incorporated as permit conditions in a manner consistent with relevant plans, policies, and guidelines. CWA Section 401: Water Quality Certification Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. §1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into navigable waters to obtain a certification from the State in which the discharge originates. The certification ensures that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards November 2019 3.7-15 Page 1603 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality (see Section 3.3 Biological resources for additional details). [,The RWQCB is responsible for implementing section 401 of the CWA in California. CWA Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System The NPDES permit program under section 402 of the CWA is one of the primary mechanisms for controlling water pollution through the regulation of sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The USEPA has delegated authority of issuing NPDES permits in California to the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which has nine regional boards. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)regulates water quality in the Project area. The NPDES permit program is discussed in detail under State Regulations, below. California Toxics Rule,40 CFR 131.38 On May 18, 2000, the USEPA promulgated numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants and other provisions for water quality standards to be applied to waters within California. USEPA promulgated this rule based on the Administrator's determination that the numeric criteria are necessary in California to protect human health and the environment. The rule fills a gap in California water quality standards that was created in 1994 when a state court overturned the state's water quality control plans containing water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants. Thus, the state of California has been without numeric water quality criteria for many priority toxic pollutants as required by the CWA, necessitating this action by USEPA. These federal criteria are legally applicable in the state of California for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries for all purposes and programs under the CWA. The USEPA and the SWRCB have the authority to enforce these standards, which are incorporated into the NPDES permits that regulate existing discharges in the project area. 3.7.3.2 State Regulations Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code) provides the basis for water quality regulation within California. This Act establishes the authority of the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs. The SWRCB administers water rights, sets State policy for water pollution control, and implements various water quality functions throughout the State, while the RWQCBs conduct planning, permitting, and most enforcement activities. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires the SWRCB and/or the RWQCBs to adopt statewide and/or regional water quality control plans, the purpose of which is to establish water quality objectives for specific water bodies. The RWQCB has prepared the North Coast Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) that establishes water quality objectives and implementation programs to meet the stated objectives and to protect the beneficial uses of the water bodies. The act also authorizes the NPDES program under the CWA, which establishes November 2019 3.7-16 Page 1604 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality effluent limitations and water quality requirements for discharges to waters of the state. Most of the implementation of SWRCB's responsibilities is delegated to the nine regional boards. Under the NPDES program,the North Coast RWQCB has established permit requirements for stormwater runoff in the Project area(see below). North Coast Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The RWQCB prepared the Basin Plan (2006) for the North Coast region that contains descriptions of the legal,technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the region. The goal of the Basin Plan is to provide a definitive program of actions designed to preserve and enhance water quality and to protect beneficial uses of water in the North Coast Region. The beneficial uses listed for the Russian River and its tributaries include: municipal and domestic supply,agricultural supply, industrial service supply, industrial process supply, groundwater recharge, navigation, hydropower generation, water contact and noncontact recreation, commercial and sport fishing, warm and cold freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat, fish migration, fish spawning, reproduction, and/or early development, estuarine habitat, and aquaculture (RWQCB, 2006). The Basin Plan provides water quality objectives for inland surface waters such as the Upper Russian River segment located in the Project vicinity, that are incorporated into NPDES permits, discussed below. NPDES Waste Discharge Program The federal Clean Water Act established the NPDES program to protect the water quality of receiving waters of the United States. Under the Clean Water Act, Section 402, discharging pollutants to receiving waters of the United States is prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. Effluent limitations serve as the primary mechanism in NPDES permits for controlling discharges of pollutants to receiving waters both from construction activities and from discharges from operation of municipal or industrial facilities. When developing effluent limitations for an NPDES permit, a permit applicant must consider limits based on both the technology available to control the pollutants (i.e., technology-based effluent limits) and limits that are protective of the water quality standards of the receiving water (i.e., water quality-based effluent limits4 if technology-based limits are not sufficient to protect the water body.). For inland surface waters and enclosed bays and estuaries, the water-quality-based effluent limitations are based on criteria in the National Toxics Rule and the California Toxics Rule, and objectives and beneficial uses defined in the applicable Basin Plan. There are two types of NPDES permits: individual permits tailored to an individual facility and general permits that cover multiple facilities or activities within a specific category. The NPDES permits relevant to construction and post-closure maintenance of the Project are described below. NPDES Construction General Permit The State of California adopted a Construction General Permit on September 2, 2009 (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) (General Construction November 2019 3.7-17 Page 1605 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality NPDES Permit or CGP). The General Construction NPDES Permit regulates construction site stormwater management. Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil, or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the general permit for discharges of stormwater associated with construction activity. The Project would be required to comply with the permit requirements to control stormwater discharges from the construction sites. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, as well as construction of buildings and linear underground projects (LUP), including installation of water pipelines and other utility lines. Portions of the Project would fall under the Type 1 LUP category if the following conditions are met: • Construction occurs on unpaved improved roads, including their shoulders or land adjacent to them; • The areas disturbed during a single construction day are returned to their preconstruction condition, or to an equivalent condition (i.e., disturbed soils such as those from trench excavation are hauled away, backfilled into the trench, and/or placed in spoils piles and covered with plastic), at the end of that same day; • Vegetated areas disturbed by construction activities are stabilized and revegetated at the end of the construction period; and • When required, adequate temporary soil stabilization best management practices (BMPs) are installed and maintained until vegetation has reestablished to meet the permit's minimum cover requirements for final stabilization. In the Project Area, the Construction General Permit is implemented and enforced by the RWQCB, which administers the stormwater permitting program. To obtain coverage under this permit, project operators must electronically file Permit Registration Documents, which include a Notice of Intent, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other compliance-related documents. An appropriate permit fee must also be mailed to SWRCB. The SWPPP identifies BMPs that must be implemented to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality based on potential pollutants. The BMPs identified are directed at implementing both sediment and erosion control measures and other measures to control potential chemical contaminants. In addition, the SWPPP is required to contain a visual monitoring program and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Examples of typical construction BMPs include scheduling or limiting certain activities to dry periods, installing sediment barriers such as silt fence and fiber rolls, and maintaining equipment and vehicles used for construction. Non-stormwater management measures include installing specific discharge controls during certain activities, such as paving operations, vehicle and equipment washing and fueling. The SWPPP also includes descriptions of the BMPs to 4 Water quality-based effluent limits specify the level of pollutant(or pollutant parameter),generally expressed as a concentration, November 2019 3.7-18 Page 1606 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges after all construction phases have been completed at the site (post-construction BMPs). Dischargers are responsible for notifying the RWQCB of violations or incidents of non-compliance, as well as for submitting annual reports identifying deficiencies of the BMPs and how the deficiencies were corrected. The Construction General permit includes several new requirements (as compared to the previous Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ), including risk-level assessments for construction sites, an active stormwater effluent monitoring and reporting program during construction (for Risk Level II and III sites), rain event action plans for certain higher risk site s6, and numeric effluent limitations (NELs) for pH and turbidity as well as requirements for qualified professionals that prepare and implement the plan. The risk assessment and SWPPP must be prepared by a State-qualified SWPPP Developer and implementation of the SWPPP must be overseen by a State-qualified SWPPP Practitioner. Project construction activities would be consistent with the Construction general Permit; compliance is required by law and the provisions of the permit and BMPs for construction and post-construction phases have proven effective in protecting water quality at construction sites and downgradient receiving waters. Landfill Discharge Requirements Storm water discharges associated with the landfill site have been regulated under the General Industrial NPDES Storm Water Permit. The General Permit, (Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ, No. CAS000001), was issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The permit regulated direct storm water discharges and storm water discharges from the sedimentation basins. In 2015, the RWQCB approved a Notice of Termination (NOT), ending coverage under the Industrial Stormwater Permit. As described below,monitoring and control systems for surface water discharges, leachate management, groundwater, and gas are in place and will continue as part of post-closure maintenance program regulatory requirements under RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). Additionally, direct stormwater discharges to the unnamed ephemeral creek (see Section 3.7.2, above) and discharges from sediment capture ponds are required to conform to Basin Plan water quality objectives protective of the designated beneficial uses for the Russian River and its tributaries (discussed above). Landfill discharges associated with the landfill closure are regulated as WDRs by the RWQCB, which include surface water, groundwater, and leachate monitoring requirements and discharge prohibitions. Environmental monitoring at the landfill was originally regulated under Order 75-43 in conformance with Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (23 CCR). In September 1993, Order 75-43 was amended by Order 93-83 as a mechanism to implement State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 93-62 and federal municipal solid waste regulations (i.e., "Subtitle D") per Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR), Parts 257 and 258. Concurrent with this amendment was the preparation of a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) that is allowable 5 The Construction General Permit defines three levels of risk(Risk Level I,II,and II1)that may be assessed for a construction site. Risk is calculated based on the"project sediment risk",which determines the relative amount of sediment that can be discharged given the project and location details,and the"receiving water risk"(the risk sediment discharges pose to the receiving waters). 6 Those sites that have a high potential for mobilizing sediment in stormwater and drain to a sediment-sensitive waterbody. November 2019 3.7-19 Page 1607 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality for the purpose of formally updating the landfill's WDRs and to address groundwater impacts previously identified at the site. The combination of these two documents was subsequently used by the RWQCB to issue new WDRs (Order 94-123)for the site in October 1994. In 1995, an Engineering Feasibility Study (EFS) was conducted to evaluate corrective action alternatives for the mitigation of groundwater impacts identified at the site and to assess potential leachate management options (EBA, 2019a). Findings from the EFS included recommendations to upgrade the groundwater monitoring network, performance of a health-based risk assessment, and modification of the leachate collection/management facilities (see Section 2.2 for detailed description of the landfill environmental control systems for leachate and groundwater). The monitoring system upgrades and health-based risk assessment were subsequently completed in the Fall of 1996. Modifications to the leachate collection/management facilities, which included the diversion of collected leachate to an aboveground storage tank (AST) and pumping to the City's sewer piping system via a combination force main/gravity drain, were also completed in the Fall of 1996. Following completion of the respective corrective action measures, monitoring and reporting of the environmental control systems was implemented on a quarterly basis in accordance with Order 94-123. On June 27, 2002,the RWQCB adopted the current WDRs (Order R1-2002-0061) for the site to address interim closure, corrective action needs, and submittal of plans to complete cap construction in accordance with 27 CCR. Landfill discharges conducted in accordance with the prohibitions and requirements specified under Order R1-2002-0061 are consistent with the provisions of SWRCB Order No. 68-16, Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted by the City of Ukiah on July 19, 2000, to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Regional Water Board considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and determined that closure and post-closure maintenance activities conducted in accordance with Order R1-2002-0061 will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Required mitigations include continued surface water quality monitoring upstream and downstream of the landfill property in the ephemeral creek, monitoring of VOC impacts in groundwater, and landfill gas extraction and venting rates. Additional mitigations include operating the gas extraction system and initiating corrective action as necessary to mitigate any impacts. Anti-Degradation Policy The SWRCB Anti-Degradation Policy, formally known as the Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Water in California (SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16), restricts degradation of surface and ground waters. Specifically, this policy protects water bodies where existing quality is higher than necessary for the protection of beneficial uses and requires that existing high quality be maintained to the maximum extent possible. November 2019 3.7-20 Page 1608 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Under the Anti-Degradation Policy, any actions that can adversely affect water quality in all surface and groundwaters must: (1) be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of California; (2) not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of the water; and (3)not result in water quality less than that prescribed in water quality plans and policies. Furthermore, any actions that can adversely affect surface waters are also subject to the federal Anti-Degradation Policy (40 CFR Section 131.12) developed under the CWA. Discharges from the Project that could affect surface water quality would be required to comply with the Anti- Degradation Policy, which is included as part of the NPDES permit requirements for point discharges (discussed below). 3.7.4 Impact Analysis This section discusses the significance criteria used to evaluate potential impacts, the approach to analyzing water resources related impacts, and the potential impacts related to the construction and post-closure maintenance of the Project. 3.7.4.1 Significance Criteria Based on the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would result in a significant impact if it would: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. • Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: o result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site; o substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or offsite; o Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or o Impede or redirect flood flows. • In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. November 2019 3.7-21 Page 1609 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Due to the location and characteristics of the Project site, certain hydrologic conditions are not associated with the Project and therefore, are not considered potential impacts. These hydrologic conditions are addressed briefly below and are not discussed further in this document. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation The Project site is not located within the 100-year flood hazard zone designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is not in a tsunami hazard inundation zone, and is located at approximately 700-feet above mean sea level in an area not subject to current or projected future coastal flooding that may result due to sea level rise. A seiche is caused by oscillation of the surface of a large enclosed or semi-enclosed body of water due to an earthquake or large wind event. The Project site is not located near a large enclosed or semi-enclosed body of water. Therefore, no impact would occur related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation. 3.7.4.2 Methodology The impact analysis for the proposed Project is based on a review of the existing conditions in Section 3.7.2 above and assessment of the changes that would occur due to construction and ongoing post-closure maintenance of the Project. The impact analyses determine if, and to what degree, the Project could change the existing hydrology, water quality, and flooding conditions described in Section 3.7.2. Construction and post-closure maintenance of the Project would be regulated by the various laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies summarized in Section 3.7.3. Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations is assumed in the analysis of impacts because these regulatory requirements are mandatory and the application of the associated protective measures (such as BMPs, Monitoring and Reporting Plans, and the application of corrective actions) are non-discretionary, and are proven to minimize and/or avoid hydrologic or water quality impacts. Further, regulatory agencies with technical jurisdiction and authority for oversight would require adherence to regulatory requirements as a condition of Project or permit approval and would continue to enforce applicable requirements throughout Project construction and operation phases. Mandatory compliance with regulations would ensure that Project construction and operation is consistent with the governing regulatory requirements, plans, and policies described in Section 7.3.3. 3.7.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.7-1: Would the Proposed Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? November 2019 3.7-22 Page 1610 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Construction of the project would include earthwork activities (i.e., grading, excavation, and other soil-disturbing activities) and the placement of imported engineered soils. Stormwater runoff from disturbed soils associated with construction activities is a common source of pollutants (mainly sediment) to receiving waters. Earthwork activities can render soils and sediments more susceptible to erosion from stormwater runoff and result in the migration of soil and sediment in stormwater runoff to storm drains and downstream water bodies, such as the ephemeral creek, which is tributary to the Russian River and is listed on the 303(d) list as impaired for sediment. In addition, construction would likely involve the use of various materials typically associated with construction activities such as paint, solvents, oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, concrete and associated concrete wash-out areas. If improperly handled, these materials could result in pollutants being mobilized and transported offsite by stormwater runoff (nonpoint source pollution) and degrade receiving water quality. Because the Project exceeds one acre in size, all construction activities would be required to comply with NPDES regulations and obtain coverage under the State Construction General Permit (CGP). Under the CGP, the City of Ukiah or their contractor(s) would be required to implement construction BMPs as set forth in a detailed SWPPP. SWPPPs are a required component of the CGP and must be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). SWPPPs must describe the specific erosion control and stormwater quality BMPs being implemented to minimize pollutants in stormwater runoff, and detail their placement and proper installation. The BMPs are designed to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with stormwater and to keep all products of erosion and stormwater pollutants from moving offsite into receiving waters. Typical BMPs to be implemented at construction sites include placement of fiber rolls or gravel barriers to detain small amounts of sediment from disturbed areas, and temporary or permanent covering of stockpiles to prevent rainfall from contacting the stockpiled material. In addition to erosion control BMPs, SWPPPs also include BMPs for preventing the discharge of pollutants other than sediment (e.g. paint, solvents, concrete, petroleum products) to downstream waters. BMPs for pollutants include conducting routine inspections of equipment for leaks, maintaining containers of supplies such that the contents are clearly labeled, the integrity of the containers is not compromised, and ensuring that construction materials are disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Under the provisions of the CGP, the State-certified QSD is responsible for determining site risk level for sediment transport, developing the SWPPP, and managing its implementation. Site risk level is determined using a combination of the sediment risk of the project and the receiving water quality risk. Projects can be characterized as Risk Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3, and the minimum best management practices (stormwater controls) and monitoring that must be implemented during construction are based on the risk level. Under the direction of the QSD,the QSP is required to conduct routine inspections of all BMPs, conduct surface water sampling, when necessary, and report site conditions to the State and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of CGP compliance monitoring and reporting using the Stormwater Multi- Application Reporting and Tracking System (SMARTS). Compliance with the CGP is required by law and has proven effective in protecting water quality at construction sites. November 2019 3.7-23 Page 1611 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Project construction would mainly involve grading for topographic contouring related to the proposed cover and shallow subsurface excavation. If shallow groundwater were encountered during excavation activities, it would have to be pumped out of the construction trench to create a dry work area. It is unlikely that such excavations would intercept shallow groundwater. If excavations intersect unanticipated shallow groundwater and dewatering activities are required, dewatering would be temporary, highly localized, and would typically involve the extraction of low volumes of shallow groundwater from excavation trenches. Additionally, given the known issue of contaminants in groundwater at the site, any construction related excavation dewatering effluent would be collected in mobile storage tanks (e.g., Baker TanksTM) or conveyed in pipes for treatment and disposal either via the LCRS or hauled off-site to an appropriate licensed treatment and disposal location. Following completion of construction, consistent with the landfill's WDRs (Order R1-2002-0061; see Section 7.3.3),the leachate,groundwater, and surface water monitoring program required under the MRP (RWQCB, 2002b) would continue to be conducted to ensure the landfill is in compliance with all water quality standards. Monitoring under the MRP would minimize or avoid potential impacts on surface water and groundwater quality through the required implementation of additional monitoring or corrective actions, if a WQPS exceedance is determined to have occurred. As discussed in detail in Section 7.3.3, landfill discharges conducted in accordance with the prohibitions and requirements specified under Order R1-2002-0061 are consistent with the provisions of SWRCB Order No. 68-16, Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California. Further, the RWQCB has determined that closure and post- closure maintenance activities conducted in accordance with Order R1-2002-0061 will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts with implementation of continued surface water quality monitoring upstream and downstream of the landfill property in the ephemeral creek, monitoring of VOC impacts in groundwater, and initiating corrective action as necessary. Additionally, as described in Section 2.3 as well as discussed in detail below under Impact 3.7-3, drainage, stormwater detention, erosion, and sediment reduction improvements (such as the proposed cover) will be completed as part of the proposed Project which further reduce the potential for water quality impacts related to erosion and sedimentation to occur following completion of construction. Compliance with the requirements of the CGP, including the implementation of associated BMPs as part of the SWPPP, as well as WDR requirements specified under Order R1-2002-0061, including discharge prohibitions, monitoring, and corrective actions under the MRP, would prevent the discharge of pollutants to surface waters or groundwater and minimize or eliminate potential degradation of surface water or groundwater quality during construction of the Project. Water quality impacts related to violation of water quality standards or degradation of water quality due to discharge of construction-related stormwater runoff from implementation of the Project would be less-than-significant. Significance: Less-than-Significant. November 2019 3.7-24 Page 1612 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.7-2: Would the Proposed Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The proposed impermeable landfill cover, by design, could reduce some, if not all surface infiltration that would otherwise percolate to the shallow water bearing sediments in the Holocene deposits or the Continental Basin Deposits beneath the Waste Management Unit (WMU). However, the majority of recharge to these alluvial deposits is provided by the ephemeral stream and surface infiltration elsewhere throughout in the watershed. Considering the area of landfill coverage compared to the entire recharge area occupied of the Holocene and Continental Basin Deposits, the reduction of infiltrated surface water caused by the Proposed Project would be negligible and would not substantially change existing (pre-Project) shallow groundwater conditions. As there is no nearby domestic or industrial groundwater pumping from the Holocene alluvium or the Continental Basin Deposits, any reduction in shallow groundwater infiltration caused by the proposed landfill cover would not diminish the supply or hinder the use of groundwater by local users or neighboring groundwater supply wells. Given that the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin covers 60 square miles, the reduction in surface water infiltration attributable to the proposed landfill cover accounts for 0.1 percent of the recharge area; hence, the Proposed Project would not significantly reduce the groundwater inflow to the basin or impede sustainable groundwater management. Groundwater monitoring would continue during the post-closure maintenance period although certain parameters would be eliminated from the monitoring program, monitoring frequency would be reduced, and certain wells would be decommissioned. Analyses for calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium, bicarbonate, carbonate, and fluoride would be eliminated because, while informative during site characterization, these parameters would not be useful for post-closure characterization for health and toxicity issue. Quarterly monitoring would be limited to certain existing wells along the western boundary (87-1, 90-2, 94-2, 96-1, and 96-3) because they are located between the waste management unit and downgradient, off-site receptors that could possibly be impacted by a potential future release from the closed landfill. Monitoring of remaining wells would be reduced to a semi-annual schedule. Monitoring wells 90-8 and 92-4 would be removed from the monitoring network since these wells are located outside the watershed of the WMU and do not appear to be in hydraulic connection with groundwater underlying the landfill footprint. The proposed adjustments to the groundwater monitoring for post-closure maintenance appears adequate to identify future potential impacts to groundwater quality within and downgradient of the closed WMU. As presented in the Environmental Setting section above, there is substantial evidence to conclude that the 1994 drilling and construction of monitoring wells in the units of the Continental Basin Deposits did not influence or adversely impact the spring water temperature and flow rate at Vichy Springs. The groundwater that feeds Vichy Springs originates in the Franciscan Complex bedrock and the groundwater that is present in the Holocene and Continental November 2019 3.7-25 Page 1613 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Basin Deposits sediments overlying the Franciscan Complex bedrock are distinctly different in origin and water chemistry. Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the grading, cover installation, and the post-closure maintenance condition expected under the Proposed Project would not influence or adversely impact spring temperature or discharge rate at the Vichy Springs Resort. In summary, while the proposed Project could reduce infiltration to the sediments underlying the Landfill WMU, the reduction would be negligible and would not adversely impact local or regional groundwater management. By reducing infiltration, the addition of the proposed landfill cover would not exacerbate existing groundwater degradation, nor would it generate new sources of groundwater contamination. The post-closure groundwater management strategy would be adequate to detect substantial changes in groundwater flow, levels or quality if they were to occur during the post closure maintenance period. Based on these findings, impacts to groundwater resources would be less-than-significant Significance:Less-than-Significant. Impact 3.7-3: Would the Proposed Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, polluted runoff or flooding on- or off-site? The Proposed Project would replace the existing landfill cover with an impermeable geomembrane and synthetic turf cover system that would reduce stormwater infiltration into the Waste Management Unit and reduce erosion/sediment transport from the landfill cover. The proposed cover system will be installed over approximately 40 acres (comprising the Waste Management Unit) of the 284-acre site. As described in Section 2, Project Description, in addition to the new cover, other miscellaneous improvements are proposed, including drainage and erosion control measures, sediment basin improvements, access roads, leachate control system improvements, and installation of a landfill gas collection system. The drainage improvements are designed to route off-site drainage and runoff around the landfill while having on-site runoff sheet flow to shallow swales and drainage ditches which will convey stormwater into an underground drainage system that discharges into the ephemeral creek via new and/or upgraded stormwater outfall structures. The proposed Project would not involve the direct alteration of a stream or river course (the unnamed ephemeral creek channel will not be substantially altered or re-aligned) and would not substantially alter on-site drainage patterns; on- site stormwater runoff would continue to flow downgradient and be discharged to the unnamed ephemeral creek bounding the Project site, as occurs under existing conditions. The proposed impermeable landfill cover will increase the volume of stormwater leaving the site. The addition of impervious surfaces decreases rainfall infiltration into soils and increases runoff flow rates and volumes. Increased runoff can erode downgradient slopes and surface water November 2019 3.7-26 Page 1614 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality channels as well as increase the transport of sediment and other pollutants downgradient. Additionally, increased peak stormwater discharges can overwhelm stormwater conveyance systems and cause flooding on-site or downgradient. The following assessment focuses on hydrologic and water quality related impacts that could result from the proposed addition of the impermeable landfill cover and implementation of a stormwater management system associated with the Project. Hydrologic Analysis The City's civil engineer completed a series of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses (hydrologic study) for the Proposed Project (EBA, 2015, 2016, 2019c, 2019d, 2019e). The hydrology study was conducted in accordance with 27CCR, §21150 for determining design parameters for the final closure drainage facilities. The hydrologic analysis was peer-reviewed by the City's environmental consultant for accuracy and to verify that methodologies and assumptions employed were defensible and appropriate and that the results were valid. Where applicable, the results and findings of the hydrologic study are incorporated into the analysis of the Project's potential environmental impacts presented here. Discussed below is a summary of the model analysis methodology and results, followed by an assessment of the Project's potential environmental impacts related to erosion, siltation, polluted runoff and flooding from the proposed Project. Methodology The Project site is located within an undeveloped 1.4 square mile tributary sub-watershed within the larger Russian River watershed. All surface drainage from the sub-watershed flows downgradient via ephemeral channels to a confluence point at the western property boundary of the landfill, and from there to the Russian River main stem. The hydrologic study included a detailed review of the pre- and post-project hydrologic characteristics of the 1.4 square mile sub- watershed and 40-acre Project site. Model-based analyses were conducted to quantify changes to runoff rates and volumes resulting from implementation of the Project and to determine drainage patterns and flood risks. The hydrologic study assessed potential hydromodification impacts to the unnamed ephemeral creek from increased runoff and altered drainage patterns and the model results were incorporated into the engineering design for a stormwater management system to ensure adequate conveyance capacity and stability for 100-year storm events. The 1.4 square mile sub-watershed that contains the Project site was divided into sub-drainages and peak runoff flow rates and volumes were calculated using the rational method as outlined in the County of Mendocino Road and Development Standards (County of Mendocino, 2008). A runoff coefficient of 0.90 was used for areas of the landfill receiving closure and 0.45 was used for areas outside of the landfill as average slopes at the site exceed 25% (Standard D12; County of Mendocino, 2008). Watershed areas, hydraulic distances, and slopes were determined from design drawings and site maps (EBA, 2019c, 2019d, 2019e). Hydrographs were created for the pre-closure and post-closure conditions for the 2, 10, 25, and 100-year, 24-hour storm events using the computer program, "HydroCAD". The pre-closure and post-closure hydrographs were then compared to determine how the closure improvements (i.e. new cover and storm drainage November 2019 3.7-27 Page 1615 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality system) affected the storm water volumes and rates downstream of the Project site at the western edge of the property boundary. Discharges and channel velocities were calculated using the computer program "Hydraflow Extensions". Accurate hydrologic modelling requires rainfall characteristics that are representative of the study area. Rainfall intensity for design of the drainage facilities was calculated from the 100-year recurrence interval rainfall intensity-duration chart for Mendocino County, Ukiah-Lake Mendocino Dam (EBA, 2015, 2019c). The storm duration and intensity for stormwater system design included consideration of the rainfall depths and associated runoff from the 2-year 24-hour storm (3.57 inches), the 10-year 24-hour storm (5.27 inches) the 25-year 24-hour storm (6.23 inches), and the 100-year 24-hour storm (7.62 inches) to determine peak runoff rates and total volume generated during design storms. The hydrology of the sub-watershed area was modelled in the pre- and post-project condition for the design storms to ensure that the stormwater management system was designed and sized appropriately for the proposed and foreseeable level of development at the Project site and to assess potential hydromodification related impacts. Results Hydrologic study results for the 1.4 square mile sub-watershed area under the pre- and post- project condition show that the proposed Project would not increase peak discharge rates and stormwater volumes discharged from the Project site to an extent that would cause a significant impact related to hydromodification, erosion, or flooding (EBA, 2019e). The proposed cover system would increase the peak discharge rate for the sub-watershed area (Table 3.7-3, but the proposed stormwater system improvements would minimize or avoid impacts related to erosion, hydromodification, and flooding. The proposed design elements for stormwater capture, treatment, storage, conveyance and drainage routing are sized appropriately for calculated peak discharges associated with the required design storms for the post-closure condition. The results of the hydrologic study demonstrate that the proposed Project would comply with the applicable stormwater management requirements specified in: 27CCR, §21150 for final closure drainage facilities design parameters and 27CCR, §20320(e)/ §20365 for on-site drainage control facilities designed to prevent inundation from a 100-year 24-hour storm event(EBA, 2016). Additionally, as assessed in detail below for each topic, the stormwater system has been designed, based on engineering and model analysis, to ensure hillside, channel, and culvert stability for the 100- year/24-hour design storm and to reduce turbidity,erosion, and sedimentation. Table 3.7-3 Summary of i igModel Project Site Condition Sub-Watershed Discharge Summary by Design Storm 2-year 10- ear 25- ear 100- ear Sub-watershed Volume(cf) Pre-closure Volume 3,462,444 7,255,008 9,636,688 13,277,958 Post-Closure Volume 3,645,000 7,520,897 9,940,282 13,626,923 Difference in Volume 182,556 265,889 303,594 348,965 Percent Volume Increase 5.0% 3.5% 3.1% 2.6% Sub-watershed Discharge(cfs) November 2019 3.7-28 Page 1616 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Table Summary of i igModel Project Site Condition Sub-Watershed Discharge Summary by Design Storm 2-year 10- ear 25- ear 100- ear Pre-closure Flow Rate 369.68 530.73 636.88 796.10 Post-Closure Flow Rate 388.08 557.14 668.57 835.71 Difference in Flow Rate 18.4 26.4 31.7 39.6 Percent Flow Rate Increase 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Channel Stage Pre-closure Depth of Flow 3.52 4.11 4.43 4.87 Post-Closure Depth of Flow 3.60 4.19 4.52 4.96 Difference in Depth of Flow 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 Percent Depth of Flow 2.2% 1.9% 1.6% 1.8% Increase Source:EBA,2019e Erosion and Siltation As described under 3.7-1, above, during construction of the proposed Project, the City would be required to comply with the NPDES regulations and apply for coverage under the CGP because ground disturbance at the Project site would exceed one acre. Under the CGP, the Project applicant would be required to prepare a SWPPP. The SWPPP must include site-specific erosion and sedimentation control practices and would limit the amount of runoff that may be directed offsite during construction. Compliance with the requirements of the CGP, SWPPP, and the implementation of associated BMPs would prevent erosion and siltation on- and off-site during construction. Impacts related to erosion and/or siltation due to altered drainage patterns during construction would be less-than-significant. Following construction, the proposed landfill cover will provide an impermeable surface protecting the Waste Management Unit from stormwater infiltration. The cover will increase the volume and rate of stormwater being discharged from the site (Table 3.7-3). However, as assessed by EBA (2015) the potential for hydromodification related impacts to occur within the ephemeral channel or downstream are minimal. The hydrologic analysis conducted by EBA (2015, 2016, 2019e) assessed the pre- and post-project condition which, when compared, demonstrates that for a 2-year 24-hour storm, an additional 182,577 cubic feet of stormwater would be discharged from the 1.4 square mile watershed, representing a 5.3% increase. EBA (2015, 2019e) assessed this increase (and those associated with other design storms)to determine if such an increase would result in hydromodification impacts. Calculations show that time of concentrations changed from 38.8 minutes to 38.7 minutes (0.3% change), resulting in flows associated with the 2-year storm event to increase from 369.68 cfs to 388.08 cfs (5% increase). Hydraulic calculations were performed to determine the hydraulic capacity of the existing channel, which demonstrate that, for the 2-year storm event, flow depth (creek stage) increases from 3.52 feet to 3.660 feet (2.2%increase) and corresponding velocities increase from 8.90 feet per second to 8.98 feet per second(0.9%increase). Similar increases were determined for the 10-1 25-, and 100-year storm events (Table 3.7-1). Such increases were not determined to be significant increases in the context of the 1.4 square mile watershed and were not determined to cause hydromodification related impacts, such as erosion or channel incision and subsequent November 2019 3.7-29 Page 1617 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality sedimentation of surface waters on-site or downstream (EBA 2015, 2016, 2019e). Additionally, as discussed below, drainage, stormwater detention, erosion, and sediment reduction improvements will be completed as part of the Project which further reduce the potential for hydromodification impacts. Stormwater outfall structures The proposed drainage facilities consist of a network of benches, channels/swales, and storm drains that collect and convey stormwater run-off to a series of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) discharge culverts. These CMP culverts discharge to the unnamed ephemeral creek channel at various locations along the length of the landfills' northern boundary. In general, the drainage system is designed to intercept run-off at intervals along the inside edges of berms, benches, or access roads. The proposed project includes the removal and/or replacement of fourteen stormwater outfalls that currently or will discharge stormwater to the unnamed ephemeral creek. Seven existing outfalls will be removed, four will be replaced with upgraded structures and three will be installed as new outfalls. As discussed in Section 3.7.2, the existing outfalls are of poor design and are causing erosion and sedimentation within the creek channel. The disturbed area of each new outfall location is minimal in size with an estimated width of 6-feet and extending up 10-feet from the top of bank into the bed of the tributary stream. Fill quantities have been calculated to be approximately three cubic yards of engineered fill and durable rock for each outfall location. Work in the creek channel will not occur when flows are present and erosion control measures will be employed at each location upon completion stabilize disturbed soils, minimize erosion, and provide protection to the disturbed area in accordance with the Closure Plans (City of Ukiah, 2019). The existing outfalls that are proposed for removal are all located above and outside of the bed of the channel and therefore will result in minimal disturbance to the ephemeral creek below the top of bank. Each of the proposed new or upgraded outfall structures will be excavated into the bed and bank of the creek and will include energy dissipating rock aprons located within the flow line of ephemeral creek that will direct stormwater to the existing channel. The changes to the drainage outfalls therefore result in a net improvement to the existing drainage system components regarding potential erosion and sedimentation. The volume of discharge, velocity and normal depth of flow for the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events for each outlet discharging directly to the creek was assessed by EBA (2016). The hydraulic calculations were incorporated into the proposed design of the outfall structures, including the rip rap energy dissipation components, to ensure erosion and scour does not occur for the worst-case discharge conditions related to the 100-year storm event at each outlet. Additionally, the outfall structure calculations and design incorporated information and requirements from Table 865.2 - Permissible Shear and Velocity for Selected Lining Materials of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and excerpts from the California Stormwater BMP November 2019 3.7-30 Page 1618 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Handbook for Construction for "Velocity Dissipation Devices" to ensure regulatory consistency and minimization of potential erosion and sedimentation within the creek channel. Sediment Ponds A sedimentation pond is located at the western end of the landfill to control sediment run-off from slope areas along the western and portions of the southern fill boundaries. Two additional sedimentation ponds are located at the northeastern end of the landfill to contain sediment run-off from the eastern portion of the landfill site and the soil borrow area. The sediment ponds will continue to collect sediment as part of the proposed Project, reducing sediment and turbidity in downstream receiving waters from landfill stormwater runoff Additionally, as described in Section 3.7.2, the sediment pond at western edge of the property boundary, discharging to the ephemeral creek at the downstream edge of the landfill property, has a riser outlet structure and an additional overflow pipe in the embankment. The riser outlet structure is currently not functioning, and the pond fills up, then spills through the overflow pipe in the embankment. As part of the proposed Project the riser outlet structure would be replaced, and the sediment pond would function as a detention structure for metered outflow. (Calculations completed by EBA (2015, 2016) analyzed the pre- and post-project detention capacity for the 2 year 24-hour storm event. Using the program Hydroflow Hydrographs, hydrographs were created for the pre- and post-project conditions of the tributary watershed to the sediment pond and then routed through the pond to determine capacity and the potential for reducing peak flows, and thus potential erosion and/or hydromodification within the creek channel. Pre-project discharges from the pond associated with the 2-year 24-hour storm event are 2.08 cfs. With modifications to the outlet structure, the sediment pond will have a storage capacity sufficient to reduce flows leaving the pond by 1.51 cfs to 0.57 cfs (EBA, 2015),thereby reducing peak discharges and potential erosion and sedimentation in the ephemeral creek channel as compared to baseline conditions. Erosion Control Features The proposed Project includes features and provisions to minimize the potential for erosion as required by 27CCR, §21150. The following erosion control features and provisions would reduce erosion from stormwater runoff on the landfill site and, subsequently, reduce sedimentation and turbidity in downstream receiving waters (City of Ukiah, 2019). The geosynthetic final cover system will substantially eliminate the potential for stormwater erosion and the discharge of sediment from the landfill surface as no soil component will be utilized in the final cover design. The final surface of the soil borrow area, as well as other areas disturbed by the construction operations, will be repaired/graded as necessary and then hydroseeded. Areas with surface slopes steeper than ten percent will also be covered with 1.5 inches of straw and secured with erosion control netting. Drainage channels outside the landfill footprint that will potentially be subjected to high flow velocities will be lined with rock rip-rap to protect against erosion. All drainage outfalls will be lined with rock rip-rap. Aggregate base will be placed on perimeter access roads to allow for all-weather access and will also reduce the potential for sediment-laden run-off from these areas. November 2019 3.7-31 Page 1619 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Conclusion Compliance with the requirements of the WDRs specified under Order R1-2002-0061, including discharge prohibitions, monitoring, and corrective actions under the MRP, would prevent the discharge of pollutants, including sediment, to surface waters or groundwater. Increases to stormwater discharge rates and volumes from the landfill would not cause hydromodification impacts on-site or downstream as such increases are not significant in the context of the 1.4 square mile contributing watershed the Project site is within(EBA, 2015, 2016, 2019e). Also, any such increases to discharge rates and volumes will be offset by the proposed improvements to the stormwater system, the outfall structures, the sediment ponds, and the site-wide erosion control features. Further, the proposed drainage system has been designed consistent with the requirements of 27CCR, §21150. The proposed improvements to the stormwater outfall structures located within the ephemeral creek will adhere to the requirements of a Streambed Alteration Agreement (1602 Permit) from the California Department of Fish and Game, a Water Quality Certification (401 Permit) from the RWQCB, and a Clean Water Action Section 404 Permit(404 Permit) from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Adherence to the provisions of regulatory requirements and permits,which would require source controls of stormwater volumes and implementation of BMPs for stormwater quality management, such as through the proposed stormwater management system, would ensure impacts related to erosion and/or siltation due to altered drainage patterns following completion of construction would be less-than-significant. Flooding as a Result of Increased Runoff The Project area is not located within a flood hazard risk area associated with a 100-year flood (Figure 3.7-2 above) and, as discussed in detail under "Erosion and Siltation, above, the Project would not result in substantially altered on-site drainage patterns (i.e., only minor changes to drainage patterns). Implementing the proposed Project would create an additional 40 acres of impervious surfaces within the 1.4 square mile sub-watershed area, which is largely undeveloped. As described above, the proposed Project will result in a 2.6% increase in stormwater volume associated with the 100-year 24-hour storm event for the sub-watershed (Table 3.7-3), which would not result in overtopping of channel banks on-site or downstream (EBA 2015, 2019e). The proposed design elements for stormwater capture, treatment, storage, conveyance and drainage routing are sized appropriately for calculated peak discharges associated with the required design storms. Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (27CCR), §20260(c) requires that the Project be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent inundation or washout due to floods with a 100-year return frequency. As required, the drainage system components are designed to accommodate 100-year, 24-hour precipitation conditions with sizing and capacity to safely convey storm flows associated with 100-year storm (EBA, 2019c, 2015, 2016). The results of the hydrologic study demonstrate that the proposed Project would comply with the applicable stormwater management requirements for on-site drainage control facilities designed to prevent inundation from a 100-year 24-hour storm event (EBA, 2016). Impacts related to flooding due to November 2019 3.7-32 Page 1620 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality altered drainage patterns or the addition of impervious surfaces following completion of construction would be less-than-significant. Stormwater System Capacity and Polluted Runoff As described above under "Flooding as a Result of Increased Runoff', above, the Project's proposed stormwater management system has been designed consistent with regulatory requirements, including those related to conveyance capacity for peak discharges associated with the 100-year/24-hour storm. Stormwater treatment measures, such as the use of erosion control features and sediment ponds for sediment capture, are incorporated into the design of the stormwater management system to ensure pollutants are not mobilized and transported to downgradient waters. As described in detail under HY-1, above, the proposed Project would not result in new sources of pollutants as a result of construction or post-closure maintenance that could be transported via storm runoff Impacts related to exceeding stormwater conveyance infrastructure or creating additional sources of polluted runoff would be less-than-significant. Impeding or Redirecting Flood Flows The Project site is not located within the 100-year flood hazard zone designated by FEMA (Figure 3.7-2 above). The FIRM prepared for the Mendocino County, Map Number 06045C1516F, 2011, indicates the landfill is located within "Other Areas" (outside the 500-year flood boundary) and outside the 100-year flood hazards area. As described above,the stormwater management system proposed as part of the Project is sized appropriately for the calculated peak discharges associated with the 100-year/24-hour design storm. The design of the stormwater management system considered upslope runoff contributions which flow onto the Project site and is consistent with the requirements of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (27CCR), §20260(c) which requires that the Project be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent inundation or washout due to floods with a 100-year return frequency. As required, the drainage system components are designed to accommodate 100-year, 24-hour precipitation conditions with sizing and capacity to safely convey storm flows associated with 100-year storm. Impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less-than-significant. Significance:Less-than-Significant. Impact 3.7-4: Would the Proposed Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? As discussed above under Impacts 3.7-1, 3.7-2, and 3.7-3, no water quality degradation would occur as a result of the proposed project as compared to baseline conditions. As described under topic Impact 3.7-1, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on surface water and groundwater quality on-site and off-site. This includes the Russian River and its November 2019 3.7-33 Page 1621 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality tributaries, which are subject to the RWQCB Basin Plan water quality objectives. Basin Plan water quality objectives include parameters such as turbidity/sediment. The Basin Plan water quality objectives are designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional terrestrial surface water bodies (e.g., creeks, rivers, streams, and lakes) and groundwaters within the RWQCB's jurisdictional area. As discussed in Section 3.7.3,the Russian River is currently classified as impaired for sediment/turbidity and temperature. As discussed under Impact 3.7-3, the Proposed Project would result in a reduction of sediment in stormwater runoff through improved discharge and erosion structures and the new cover system for the Waste Management Unit. The Project would comply with the requirements of the CGP under the NPDES Permit program, including implementation of BMPs and other requirements of a SWPPP, as well as the WDR requirements of Order R1-2002-0061 and the associated MRP, all of which are designed to ensure stormwater discharges associated with construction and post-closure maintenance of the Project site comply with applicable water quality standards. The Project would not require ongoing substantial groundwater withdrawals or reduce groundwater recharge, as discussed under Impact 3.7-2, and therefore would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts relating to conflict or obstruction of implementing a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less-than- significant. Significance:Less-than-Significant. 3.7.5 Cumulative Effects The geographic scope for assessing potential cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts consists of the Project site and surrounding lands within the 1.4 square mile sub-watershed. The analysis of cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality considers those cumulative projects that would be constructed at the same time as the Proposed Project. There are no known projects that would be constructed at the same time and within the same vicinity of the Proposed Project that would or could create any additional or cumulative construction related impacts. Once constructed the Proposed Project would not have any significant impacts. As a result, the Proposed Project would not have any direct, indirect, short-term and/or long-term cumulative impacts to hydrology or water quality. As described below,the Proposed Project would not result in or contribute to cumulative impacts; cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality would be mitigated on a project-by-project level in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, and through the established regulatory review process. The analysis of cumulative impacts considers that all future development with the potential to impact hydrology and water quality would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable federal and state regulatory requirements, which are intended to reduce and/or avoid potential adverse environmental effects on surface and groundwater resources as a result of multiple November 2019 3.7-34 Page 1622 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality actions, such as development projects within a watershed. Through implementing regulatory stormwater management requirements, surface water, groundwater, and aquatic habitats are protected from potential sources of degraded water quality, increased flow rates and runoff volumes, which can result in downstream erosion, sedimentation, and other water quality and quantity impacts to a watershed system. Construction of the proposed Project would include preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs required under the CGP. Once construction is completed, the Project would be required to adhere to provisions of the RWQCB WDRs and associated MRP for the landfill site. The Project includes a stormwater management system which includes a series of drains, swales, conveyance pipes, and sediment ponds to treat stormwater (i.e. capture sediment) and new and upgraded outfall structures that reduce erosion and sedimentation as compared to baseline conditions, and control an anticipated increase in stormwater runoff from the increase in impervious area associated with the proposed cover system. Implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of peak runoff in a manner that would result in hydromodification impacts, increase flooding or flood risks, erosion, and/or sedimentation on- or off-site, or reduce groundwater recharge. The cumulative projects identified in Table 3.7-3 could involve excavation and use of heavy equipment during construction. Therefore, the cumulative projects have the potential to degrade surface water quality as a result of construction-related soil erosion or accidental discharges of hazardous construction chemicals. As discussed in Section 3.7.3, the Russian River and its tributaries is currently listed on the 303(d) list as impaired for sediment. The Russian River Sediment TMDL Implementation Policy implements controls on sediment waste discharges to impaired water bodies so that the TMDLs are met, sediment water quality objectives are attained, and beneficial uses are no longer adversely affected or impaired as a result of sediment. Under the Sediment TMDL Implementation Policy, RWQCB staff control sediment pollution through existing permitting and enforcement tools. Prior to issuance of any NPDES permits for construction activities, operational discharges, or licenses, a review and authorization process by the RWQCB is required to ensure such permits and licenses are protective of designated beneficial uses and water quality and that TMDL requirements are incorporated as permit conditions in a manner consistent with relevant plans,policies, and guidelines. Compliance with the CGP and WDR requirements for the proposed Project and compliance with NPDES requirements, including those relating to the Sediment TMDL Implementation Policy, for future projects would protect surface water quality from impacts resulting from cumulative development in the watershed. With adherence to the described regulatory requirements, the effects of the Project, combined with those of cumulative projects, would not cause a cumulatively significant effect to surface water or groundwater resources and the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative effect. Significance:Less-than-Significant. November 2019 3.7-35 Page 1623 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.7.6 References City of Ukiah, 2004. General Plan. Accessed online July 10, 2019 at: htdp:// .ci yoFukiah.c m//doc meents.and maps/ City of Ukiah, 2011. Ukiah Valley Area Plan (Draft), Section 8: Health and Safety. City of Ukiah, 2016. Initial Study Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Proposed Final Closure/Post Closure Maintenance Plan, Ukiah Landfill. Prepared by EBA Engineering. January 2016. City of Ukiah, 2019. Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan for City of Ukiah landfill. Prepared by EBA Engineering (EBA Project No. 02-907). Mendocino County, California. April, 2019. Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2004. Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin. California's Groundwater Bulletin 118.Accessed online August 14,2019 at: �bdp� �� �t�,r���.:.Gov/l:.,e sac �'nles/ ubs/groundwater/5ull�,bnn Q Q 8/basnndescrn �nons/Q ,52. dd` EBA Engineering (EBA), 1994. Ukiah Landfill Site Monitoring Wells and Vichy Springs Resort. Letter to Mr. Rick Kennedy,Director, Department of Public Works, City of Ukiah. August 31, 1994. EBA Engineering (EBA), 2015. Technical Memorandum: Final Closure Construction Hydromodification Impacts and Final Closure Best Management Practices. Job No. 02-907, City of Ukiah Final Closure Construction.August, 2015. EBA Engineering, 2016. Technical Memorandum: Supplemental Drainage Report. Job No. 02- 907, City of Ukiah Final Closure Construction. August, 2016. EBA Engineering, 2019a. 2018 Annual Detection Monitoring Report for City of Ukiah landfill. Mendocino County, California. January 2019. EBA Engineering, 2019b. Personal Communication with Mike Delmanowski, Senior Hydrogeologist at EBA Engineering, regarding Ukiah landfill MRP water quality monitoring results, exceedances, and reporting details. August 2, 2019. EBA Engineering, 2019c. Drainage Analysis, City of Ukiah landfill Final Closure Construction. Appendix F of Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan for City of Ukiah landfill. Prepared by EBA Engineering (EBA Project No. 02-907). Mendocino County, California. April, 2019. EBA Engineering, 2019d. Hydrograph Comparison for 2-year, 25-year, and 100-year Storm Events. City of Ukiah landfill Final Closure Construction. July 9, 2019. November 2019 3.7-36 Page 1624 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality EBA Engineering, 2019e. Technical Memorandum: Supplemental Information— Hydromodification Impacts Report. City of Ukiah landfill Final Closure Construction. July 29, 2019. State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB), 1994. Review of Ukiah Landfill Monitoring Well Information. Memorandum. Prepared by Harry Schueller, Chief, Division of Clean Water Programs for Benjamin Kor,North Coast RWQCB, October 31, 1994. Regional Water Quality Control Board,North Coast Region (RWQCB), 2002a. Order No. Rl- 2002-0061, ID No. 11375043OMEN.Waste Discharge Requirements for Interim Closure of City of Ukiah Class III landfill. Mendocino County, California. RWQCB, 2002b. Monitoring and Reporting Program Order No. R1-2002-0061 for Interim Closure of City of Ukiah Class III landfill. Mendocino County, California. RWQCB,2012. Application for 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirements (Dredge/Fill). Revised March 16, 2012. RWQCB,2019.Watershed Information: Russian River. Accessed online July 10, 2019 at: hUp.//www ��terbo rds.c�t.:gov/nomdhcoas�/water nssues/progrxpns/watershed nnfo/russnan river/ Science Direct,2019. landfill Leachate. Accessed online August 14, 2019 at: htd s://www.sciencednrect.com/to ics/earth xnd l xnetar scnences/ll xndfill leachate Wildlife Research Associates and Jane Valerius Environmental Consulting, 2015. Biological Resource Assessment,Ukiah landfill Closure (APN: 027-020-069). City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California. May, 2015. November 2019 3.7-37 Page 1625 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Noise 3.8 Noise 3.8.1 Introduction This chapter evaluates the potential noise impacts of the Proposed Project. This chapter provides a brief technical background on "sound", as well as, existing noise sources and levels in the Project vicinity. This evaluation reviews applicable State and local noise regulations, followed by analysis of potential noise impacts of construction and operation of the Proposed Project. 3.8.2 Environmental Setting 3.8.2.1 Noise Descriptors Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air.Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the "loudness" of an ambient sound level. Sound pressure level is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing,and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Decibels are measured using different scales, and it has been found that A-weighting of sound levels best reflects the human ear's reduced sensitivity to low frequencies, and correlates well with human perceptions of the annoying aspects of noise. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA)is cited in most noise criteria. All references to decibels (dB)in this report will be A-weighted unless noted otherwise. Several time-averaged scales represent noise environments and consequences of human activities.The most commonly used noise descriptors are the equivalent A—weighted sound level over a given time period (Leq)';average day—night 24-hour average sound level(Ldn)Z with a nighttime increase of 10 dB to account for sensitivity to noise during the nighttime;and community noise equivalent level(CNEL)3,also a 24-hour average that includes both an evening and a nighttime sensitivity weighting. Table 3.8-1 identifies decibel levels for common sounds heard in the environment. 3.8.2.2 Noise Attenuation Stationary point sources of noise, including construction equipment, attenuate (lessen) at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on ground absorption. Soft sites attenuate at 7.5 dB per doubling because they have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt,grass,or scattered bushes and trees. Hard sites have reflective surfaces (e.g., parking lots or smooth bodies of water) and therefore have less attenuation (6.0 dB per doubling). A street or roadway with moving vehicles (known as a"line" source),would typically attenuate at a lower rate,approximately 3 to 4.5 dB each time the distance doubles from the source,that also depends on ground absorption(Caltrans, 1998).Physical barriers located between a noise source and the noise receptor, such as berms or sound walls, would increase the attenuation that occurs by distance alone. `The Equivalent Sound Level(Leq)is a single value of a constant sound level for the same measurement period duration,which has sound energy equal to the time varying sound energy in the measurement period. 'Ldn is the day night average sound level that is equal to the 24-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level with a 10-decibel penalty applied to night between 10:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m. 'CNEL is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day,obtained by addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m., and an addition of a 10—decibel penalty in the night between 10:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m. November 2019 3.8-1 Page 1626 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Noise Table NoiseTypical Noise Level dB Outdoor Activity Indoor Activity 90+ Gas lawn mower at 3 feet,jet flyover at Rock Band 1,000 feet 80-90 Diesel truck at 50 feet Loud television at 3 feet 70-80 Gas lawn mower at 100 feet,noisy Garbage disposal at 3 feet,vacuum cleaner urban area at 10 feet 60-70 Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet 40-60 Quiet urban daytime,traffic at 300 feet Large business office,dishwasher next room 20-40 Quiet rural,suburban nighttime Concert hall(background),library,bedroom at ru ht 10-20 Broadcast/recording studio 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Lowest threshold of human hearin Source: modified from Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement 1998 3.8.2.3 Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others due to the amount of noise exposure,in terms of both duration and insulation from noise,and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, parks and outdoor recreation areas are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. The Project site is mostly surrounded by open space. The nearest sensitive receptor is the Vichy Springs Resort and Spa, located approximately 600 feet south of the site entrance. The northwest corner of the site (sediment pond)is at least 1,000 feet from rural residences on Fawnwood Drive (single family dwellings). There are also several residential dwellings south of the landfill adjacent to Vichy Springs Road. Construction noise from the proposed project would be impeded from reaching these homes by the southern ridge of the landfill. However,Vichy Springs Road would be used to transport construction equipment and materials to the site, and noise from passing construction traffic would temporarily increase existing noise levels at these homes. Existing Noise Sources To quantify existing ambient noise levels,three short-term (10-minute)noise measurements were taken at the Project site. Measurements were made using Metrosonics db308 Sound Level Meters calibrated before and after the measurements. These measurements were taken in the middle of a private road to the old gun club,next to the pond(Site 1),at the landfill locked gate (Site 2),and 40 feet from road centerline of Vichy Springs Road at Medicine Way (Site 3). The noise measurements are summarized in Table 3.8-2 below. In general, the Project site is a very quiet location. The predominant sources of noise in the vicinity of the Project site were birds,water, distant gun shots, and traffic from Vichy Springs Road. November 2019 3.8-2 Page 1627 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Noise Table Existing Noise Measurements Location Time Period— Noise Levels(dB) Noise Sources Wednesday December 14,2016 Noises included dripping water in pond, small bird noises (including Site 1:Middle of a 5-minute Leq's: ducks on the pond), a few shots private road to the old 1:28 p.m.to 1:38 p.m. 42,43 from a distant gun range (less than gun club,next to pond 42 dB), and a distant overhead plane. Truck on Vichy Springs was 43 dB. Quieter noises included mechanical Site 2: At the landfill 5-minute Leq's: noise (saw or drill) from the locked gate 1:44 p.m.to 1:54 p.m. 47,52 direction of Vichy Springs, birds, frogs, distant people talking, and distant gun shots(all<41.4 dB). 14 cars passed, four vehicles measured at: 76 dB, 75 dB, 74 dB, Site 3: 40 feet from and 71 dB. A bus was 71 dB and a road centerline of 5-minute Leq's: truck was 70 dB. Quieter noises Vichy Springs Road at 2:04 p.m.to 2:14 p.m. 59,63 included a background spring (46 Medicine Way dB), light rain (>41.4 dB), and backyard creek. Source: RCH Group,2017 3.8.3 Regulatory Context Pertinent local noise regulations are discussed within the following section. There are no applicable state or federal noise requirements. 3.8.3.1 Local Regulations and Plans Mendocino County General Plan Noise Element The Noise Element identifies noise levels acceptable for various land uses(see Figure 3.8-1). These levels are designed to achieve acceptable interior noise levels with standard building practice while maintaining an outdoor environment that can be considered reasonably pleasant. Mendocino County Noise Ordinance Noise sources that are controlled by local regulation are generally considered stationary sources. These sources include noise from a variety of sources such as mechanical equipment, amplified music, public events,barking dogs,etc. are most typically regulated by ordinance.In Mendocino County,these standards are found in Appendix C of Title 20 of the County Code Zoning Ordinance. Based on the County's noise regulations,the stationary noise standards for light and heavy industrial uses are established at 70 and 75 dBA. These levels are not to be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour throughout an entire day. For Vichy Springs Resort(600 feet south of the site),the receiving land use category is Limited November 2019 3.8-3 Page 1628 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Noise Figure 3.8-1 November 2019 3.8-4 Page 1629 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Noise Commercial, Some Multifamily. For this land use category, Appendix C of Mendocino County Code of Ordinance establishes the daytime noise level standard at 60 dB (level not to be exceeded more than 30 minutes in any hour between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) and the nighttime noise level standard at 55 dB (level not to be exceeded more than 30 minutes in any hour between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). City of Ukiah Municipal Code §6054 Construction of Buildings and Projects states"it shall be unlawful for any person within a residential zone,or within a radius of five hundred feet(500')therefrom,to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects or to operate any pile driver,power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist or any other construction type device (between the hours of 7:00 P.M. of one day and 7:00 A.M. of the next day) in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless beforehand a permit therefore has been duly obtained from the Director of Public works. No permit shall be required to perform emergency work as defined in §6046 of this Article." (Ord. 748,Article 1, adopted 1980). 3.8.4 Impact Analysis This section discusses the significance criteria used to evaluate the potential impacts from construction and operation of the Proposed Project. 3.8.4.1 Significance Criteria Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines(CEQA Statute&Guidelines,2019)states the project would result in a significant impact to noise if it would: • Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies; • Generate excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels; or • For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. For long-term noise increases, noise levels from Proposed Project operations that would be incompatible with Mendocino County General Plan land use guidelines would result in potentially significant noise impacts. Noise levels exceeding the Normally Acceptable standards for a land use category would be potentially significant(see Figure 3.8-1). For residential uses this would be 60 dB, Ldn and for Transient Lodging—Motels,Hotels this would be 65 dB, Ldn. For temporary noise increases, Proposed Project construction noise occurring outside of the acceptable hours of construction established in Ukiah Municipal Code would result in a potentially significant impact. Since Mendocino County currently does not include established construction hours in the Noise Ordinance, this analysis uses the construction hours established in the City of Ukiah Noise Ordinance to assess the impact of construction activity. Construction activity, repairs, and operation of equipment is generally prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of one day to 7:00 a.m. of the next day(Ukiah City Code,2019), thus,acceptable hours for construction are 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. November 2019 3.8-5 Page 1630 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Noise For vibration, a peak particle velocity (ppv) threshold of 0.5 inch per second or greater can cause architectural damage and minor structural damage.The Federal Transit Administration(FTA)recommends a threshold of 0.5 ppv for residential and commercial structures, 0.25 ppv for historic buildings and archaeological sites,and 0.2 ppv for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (FTA,2006).Vibration generated from Proposed Project construction in excess of the FTA's recommended thresholds would result in a potentially significant vibration impact. Airport noise could be potentially be significant if there were an airport or private airstrip within two miles of the Project site. 3.8.4.2 Approach to Analysis The following discussions provide specific guidance as to how the significant levels for noise were determined. • Review of historic noise levels reported in other documents for the Ukiah Landfill. Previous environmental reports, acoustic analyses, city provisions and contracts, and legal information was analyzed and considered for this analysis. • Review of public comments submitted. A letter that previously stated concern about adverse noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors resulting from truck and construction noise was reviewed and considered for this analysis. • Noise Measurements and estimates. Existing noise measurements were gathered from three representative locations around the Ukiah Landfill, including Vichy Springs Road. The noise analysis uses a federal agency publication (FHWA, 2006) as the best sources of information to estimate noise levels from construction equipment. • Standard attenuation formulas. The analysis uses accepted standardized attenuation formulas when reviewing potential ambient noise and groundbome vibration impacts to sensitive receptors. 3.8.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.8-1: Would the Proposed Project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Proposed Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Related Noise Impacts The Proposed Project would introduce temporary construction traffic and increases in ambient noise levels. On-road trucking construction activities would be a source of noise generation. This may potentially affect sensitive receptors along Vichy Springs Road. The Proposed Project would limit construction truck traffic to the hours of 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. Construction would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. Temporary heavy equipment operations such as grading and excavation and work-related construction of the final cover would be a source of noise. Construction activities would require the use of numerous pieces of noise-generating equipment,such as excavating machinery(e.g.,loaders,etc.)and other construction equipment(e.g., scrapers, dozers, compactors,trucks, etc.). November 2019 3.8-6 Page 1631 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Noise The noise levels generated by construction equipment would vary greatly depending upon factors such as the type and specific model of the equipment,the operation being performed,the condition of the equipment and the prevailing wind direction. The maximum noise levels for various types of construction equipment that could be used during project construction are provided in Table 3.8-3 below. Maximum noise levels generated by construction equipment used for the Proposed Project would range from 74 to 85 dB, Lmax at a distance of 50-feet and 49 to 58 dB,Lmax at 600-feet(the distance to the nearest off-site sensitive receptor). The nearest sensitive receptor would be approximately 600-feet from the closest construction activities. Construction noise levels would be less than this estimate most of the time and would fluctuate throughout the day depending on the equipment use, construction schedules, and location of construction during extended periods of time. Furthermore, the majority of construction activities would occur greater than 1,000-feet from the northernmost cabin of Vichy Springs Resort. At this distance, maximum noise levels from construction (as shown in Table 3.8-3) would be below the Appendix C County noise standards (60 dB, Ldn for limited commercial) and below the land use noise compatibility standards in Figure 3.8-1 (65 dB, Ldn for motels and hotels). As a result, any temporary construction related noise would be considered less-than-significant. Noise from the operation of off-road equipment is controllable by ordinance. However, most jurisdictions in California exempt temporary construction equipment operations noise from numerical standards compliance as long as a number of specified conditions are met. Project construction would comply with the City of Ukiah construction noise guidelines set forth in the Noise Ordinance that allow use of construction equipment from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Construction activities and vehicles use would occur within the allowable hours contained in the City of Ukiah construction noise guidelines. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would occur as close as 600-feet (minor grading and road construction); however, the majority of construction activities would occur greater than 1,000-feet from Vichy Springs Resort. At this distance, construction activity and off-road equipment noise would also be impeded from reaching any nearby sensitive receptors by an intervening ridge on the south side of the project site. Table 3.8-3 shows that the noise levels with an intervening ridge would be approximately 39 to 48 dB,Lmax at 1,000-feet. Because of the low background levels in the project vicinity,these noise levels might be audible,but they would not interfere with off-site normal conversations or be a substantial increase over other ambient noise from daily activities. Since construction activities would comply with the acceptable hours for construction in the City of Ukiah Noise Ordinance (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) and would not exceed the normally accepted compatibility standards for Vichy Springs Resort (65 dB, Ldn), or be a substantial increase above ambient levels, the Proposed Project would not result in any significant effects relating to construction noise. Table 3.8-3 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment(L...) Construction Noise Level(dB,L„ax at Noise Level(dB,L„ax at Noise Level(dB,L„ax at Equipment 50 feet) 600 feet) 1,000 feet) Dump Truck 76 49 39 Air Compressor 78 51 41 Backhoe 78 51 41 Dozer 82 55 45 November 2019 3.8-7 Page 1632 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Noise Table NoiseTypical i Construction Construction Noise Level(dB,Lmax at Noise Level(dB,Lmax at Noise Level(dB,Lmax at Equipment 50 feet) 600 feet) 1,000 feet) Compactor round 83 56 46 Crane 81 54 44 Excavator 81 54 44 Flat Bed Truck 74 47 37 Paver 77 50 40 Grader 85 58 48 Compressor Air 78 51 41 Generator 81 54 44 Roller 80 53 43 Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 53 43 Concrete Mixer Truck 79 52 42 Front End Loader 79 52 42 Notes:L _=maximum sound level An attenuation rate of 7.5 per doubling distance was used to convert the FHWA noise levels at 50-feet to the noise levels at 600-feet. A deduction of 5 dB was applied to the estimated noise levels at 1,000 feet)to account for the ridgeline that would act as a noise barrier and attenuate noise levels reaching sensitive receptors south of the ridgeline. Source: Federal Highway Administration FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide,2006. Operational Noise Impacts Noise from post-construction operations would be minimal and compatible with the surrounding land uses. Post-construction noise would include post-closure maintenance, periodic vehicle traffic from applicable agencies when conducting maintenance and monitoring procedures, and landfill gas monitoring. None of these sources would result in a substantial increase in noise levels in the site vicinity or along Vichy Springs Road.Any permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the site vicinity would not be substantially greater than existing levels without the Proposed Project, and the Proposed Project would not result in any significant effects relating to operational noise and no mitigation measures are required. Significance Determination: Less-Than-Significant. Impact 3.8-2:Would the Proposed Project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction operations have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. The ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 3.8-4. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes rapidly in magnitude with increases in distance. The effects of ground vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage to nearby structures at the highest levels. At the highest levels of vibration, damage to structures is primarily architectural (e.g., loosening and cracking of plaster or stucco coatings) and rarely results in structural damage. For most structures, a peak particle velocity(ppv)threshold of 0.5 inch per second or less is sufficient to avoid structural damage. The November 2019 3.8-8 Page 1633 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Noise Federal Transit Administration recommends a threshold of 0.5 ppv for residential and commercial structures, 0.25 ppv for historic buildings and archaeological sites, and 0.2 ppv for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (FTA, 2006).The Office of Historic Preservation(OHP)listed Ukiah Vichy Springs Resort as a historical landmark in 1988 (OHP, 2019). Vichy Springs Resort would follow the standard of 0.25 ppv for vibration threshold recommendations. The Proposed Project would not involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration (i.e., pile drivers). Vibrational effects from typical construction activities are only a concern when conducted within 25-feet of existing structures (Caltrans, 2002). As shown in Table 3.8-4,the predicted vibration levels from dozers and trucks at a distance of just 25-feet would not exceed the 0.5 ppv threshold for residential and commercial structures or the 0.25 ppv threshold for historic buildings and archaeological sites. Residential dwellings along Vichy Springs Road are not within 25-feet of the centerline of the road and would not be affected by vibration from nearby use of Vichy Springs Road for construction truck traffic activity at this distance. Table 3.8-4 Representative Vibration i for i i Equipment Peak Particle Velocity at 25-Feet(in/sec) Large Bulldozer 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 Source: Federal Transit Administration,2006. In addition,the Proposed Project is located in an area characterized by open space and rangeland and the nearest sensitive receptor structure is approximately 600-feet away from the nearest proposed construction activity at the landfill.The potential vibration levels caused by the equipment at the landfill would be much less than the threshold of perceptibility. As a result,potential vibration effects associated with construction truck traffic or the use of construction equipment at the landfill would not result in any potentially significant groundbome vibration impacts to structures or people. Therefore,vibration impacts would be a less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Significance Determination: Less-Than-Significant. Impact 3.8-3: Would the Proposed Project be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and/or expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an area covered by an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or public use airport. Temporary construction activity at the site would not expose people working at the site to excessive noise levels and no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Significance Determination: No Impact. November 2019 3.8-9 Page 1634 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8 Noise 3.8.5 Cumulative Effects There are no known projects that would be constructed at the same time and within the same vicinity of the Proposed Project that would or could create any additional or cumulative construction related impacts. Once constructed the Proposed Project would not have any significant impacts. As a result,the Proposed Project would not have any direct, indirect, short-term and/or long-term cumulative noise impacts. Significance:Less-than-Significant. 3.8.6 References California Department of Transportation(Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement, 1998. California Department of Transportation(Caltrans), Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects, October 1998. California Department of Transportation(Caltrans), Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations, February, 2002. California Environmental Quality Act,Statute and Guidelines, 2019. hl:dp://resources.ca.gov/cep x/docs/2G Q 9 Q p �)A S�atub ....._and Guidelines nod` City of Ukiah, Ukiah City Code, §6054 Construction of Buildings and Projects,April 2019. htdp //www cods.pubin. in g.com/Q::"A/l.1ki an/?11ki xhG 9/1.1kn xhG 9G 2 l BG G .himf County of Mendocino, General Plan Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report, 4.10 Noise, September 2008 t;d s://www.pnendocnnocount .or /home/showdocument id .:.64.16 County of Mendocino, The County ofMendocino General Plan,Adopted August 2009, h ;dips://www.mendocnnocounty rg[ overnment/ 1a 5unldnn sewnces/plans/Mendocino g2unty Federal Highway Administration(FHWA),Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (FHWA- HEP-05-054-DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01), 2006. htd s:// s cventcenter.copn/l:�ra0 S� 1R ed rences/2006 0l Roadway (.'onstruction Noise Mod ......... of[Jser Guide�F1 BWA.pdd` Federal Transit Administration(FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment(FTA-VA-90- 1003-06), 2006. ht;d s://www.trxnsnt.dot.Gov/sites/0a.dot.Gov/dales/docs/ TA Noise and Vibration M�,mual,pddl` Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Ukiah Vichy Springs Resort(listed 812311988), 2019. ht[ ://oh arks.ca.,ov/l:.,istedResources/[)etiil/980 Office of Planning and Research(OPR), General Plan Guideline, Appendix D, 2017. ht[R.//oRr.ca.,ov/docs/()PR Appendix 1:) final.pff November 2019 3.8-10 Page 1635 of 4165 Chapter 4 Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... This chapter describes the alternatives to the Proposed Project and includes a discussion of the CEQA requirements for alternatives,alternatives evaluated in this EIR,alternatives considered and eliminated,and the selection of the environmentally superior alternative. 4.1 CEQA Requirements for Alternatives CEQA requires that a reasonable range of feasible alternatives be evaluated in an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines,Section 15126.6,Consideration and Discussion ofAlternatives to the Proposed Project,specify the following: "(a) Alternatives to the Proposed Project. An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,or to the location of the project,which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project,and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather,it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision- making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting (and eliminating)those alternatives.There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California(1988) 47 Cal.3d 376)." With respect to the feasibility of alternatives,the CEQA Guidelines state, "among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether an applicant can reasonably acquire,control or otherwise have access to the alternative site."The CEQA Guidelines also state that the alternatives discussion should not be remote or speculative, and need not be presented in the same level of detail as the assessment of the Proposed Project. 4.1.1 Factors in the Selection of Alternatives CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(c) recommends that an EIR briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed.A reasonable range of alternatives is considered for this analysis. The following factors were considered in identifying a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project: • Does the alternative accomplish all or most of the primary Project objectives? • Is the alternative feasible, from an economic, environmental, legal, social and technological standpoint? • Does the alternative avoid or lessen any significant environmental effects of the Project? November 2019 4-1 Page 1636 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Alternatives 4.2 Alternatives Evaluated in this PEIR As described in Chapter I — Introduction and Chapter 2— Project Description,the overall purpose of the Proposed Project is to close the Ukiah Landfill in accordance with the applicable regulatory standards. Specifically,the components and systems required for closure of the landfill include the final cover and grading design to control stormwater, potential infiltration and accommodate future settlement, landfill slope stability, construction quality assurance, drainage and erosion control systems, landfill gas (LFG) control and monitoring systems, groundwater/surface water monitoring systems, and site security. The Final CPMP for the Ukiah Landfill has been prepared for and conditionally approved by the following agencies: • California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery(CalRecycle) • Mendocino County Department of Public Health • North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board • Mendocino County Air Quality Management District The Final CPMP has been prepared in accordance with Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (27 CCR), and Chapters 3 and 4 and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40, Subpart F. The objectives of the plan are identified below. • To provide a detailed plan and schedule for closure implementation. • To provide a plan and schedule for the inspection, maintenance and monitoring procedures to be implemented during the post-closure maintenance period. • To allow the applicable agencies to monitor closure and post-closure activities to determine that all landfill closure and post-closure maintenance and monitoring requirements are being followed in accordance with the approved plan. • To provide a basis for the establishment of an accurate detailed cost estimate for closure and post-closure maintenance. As detailed in Chapter 3 — Environmental Analysis, the Proposed Project would have several potentially significant impacts to the environment. However,with the implementation of the identified and corresponding mitigation measures,all of the potentially significant impacts can be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, in the selection of alternatives, there is no need to identify alternatives to avoid or less any environmental effects of the Project, because no unavoidable significant impacts have been identified. Also, as explained in more detail in 4.3 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated,only the Proposed Project is determined to be potentially feasible. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative (CEQA, 15126.6 (f)(3)). As a result, for this Proposed Project, the only alternative that needs to be evaluated in this Draft EIR is the CEQA required No Project Alternative (Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center v. County of Siskiyou, 2012). CEQA does not require the analysis of the other considered alternatives that are not potentially feasible. The No Project Alternative is discussed below. In addition, below we have also provided a discussion of the other alternatives that were considered and eliminated-along with the rationale. November 2019 4-2 Page 1637 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Alternatives 4.2.1 No Project Alternative CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e) provides that a No Project Alternative shall also be evaluated along with its impact. According to the CEQA Guidelines,the No Project Alternative shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved,based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Under the No Project Alternative, the City would not close the Ukiah Landfill in accordance with the applicable regulatory standards. Specifically, none of the new components and systems required for closure of the landfill would be implemented. This includes,but is not limited to the final cover and grading design to control stormwater, potential infiltration and accommodate future settlement, and landfill slope stability as well as drainage and erosion control systems, landfill gas (LFG) control and monitoring systems, and groundwater/surface water monitoring systems. The on-going maintenance of the landfill, would probably continue in a manner similar to existing maintenance of the landfill, since it ceased receiving waste. The No Project Alternative would result in less significant temporary construction related impacts than the Proposed Project. All of the potentially significant impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project would not occur under this alternative. However, the No Project Alternative would fail to meet any and/or all of the objectives of the Project. Under the No Project Alternative,the Ukiah Landfill would not be properly closed according to state and local regulations and would be susceptible to slope instability, potential water quality impacts to surface water and groundwater resources due to inadequate cover leading to drainage and erosion issues during inclement weather/stormwater, and the potential for inadequate LFG control and monitoring leading to air quality issues and impacts. Under the No Project Alternative,the City would be potentially susceptible for a variety of water quality and air quality violations and fines. 4.3 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated Summarized below are the alternatives that were considered and eliminated from further consideration — along with the rationale for elimination. Compacted Clay and/or Geo Synthetic Clay Layers with Natural Vegetation Closure Alternative. The Natural or Clay Layer closure option was a 1974 standard that was officially adopted in 1985 as part of then Subchapter 15 of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (27 CCR). However, over the last 35- plus years, the waste industry, along with the regulatory agencies and surrounding communities has recognized that there are serious short-falls with compacted clay layers from both a performance and cost perspective — especially on sites with slope stability issues. The Ukiah Landfill is located on steep, 2:1 plus, slope and the potential for a clay and/or geosynthetic clay layer alternative failure is unreasonably quite high. Such a failure would result in significant water quality issues to the unnamed creek alongside the Ukiah Landfill, which drains into Sulfur Creek and then the Russian River. Further, forensic analyses of a number of natural landfill cover slope failures over the last 20-plus years has shown that both Compacted Clay and Geosynthetic Clay Liners fail due to pore water pressure rise in saturated cover soils building up beneath the clay layers;particularly on steep slopes such as the conditions of the Ukiah Landfill. In short,the heavy clay layers assist in the probability in slope instability.Further,CalRecycle has approved November 2019 4-3 Page 1638 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Alternatives numerous alternative landfill covers that are similar to the Proposed Project throughout the State of California and they have proven to be a viable alternative, especially on landfills with steep slopes. From an environmental perspective, this compacted clay and/or geo synthetic clay layer alternative would also cause a substantial increase in temporary construction impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic issues over the Proposed Project as it would require the need to excavate and/or import (transport) significant quantities of clay sources and natural vegetation cover soils of to the site and spread them over the 40-acre Ukiah Landfill.Also,from an operational standpoint,this alternative would result in increased maintenance impacts and costs to maintain the natural grass/vegetation to prevent fires and keep rodents from compromising the clay layer structure, which would then contribute to a substantial increase in traffic, air quality,noise, and other potential environmental impacts. The City has proposed the Proposed Project and artificial cover alternative because it has many beneficial advantages over the compacted clay and/or geo synthetic clay layer alternative as the Proposed Project provides: 1) A proven stable cover on steep slopes due to the elimination of low interface strength pore water pressure and gas relief layers, 2) Decreased exposure to construction-related air quality, noise, and traffic impacts and potential long-term water quality impacts to surface and groundwater resources which could lead to significant fines, and 3) significant lower capital and on-going/perpetual maintenance costs. As a result, this compacted clay and/or geo synthetic clay layer alternative has been considered, but is eliminated from further consideration as it does not perform as well as the Proposed Project.This alternative is not considered feasible because it is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,taking into account environmental, economic and technological factors (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15364). Relocation of the Ukiah Landfill. Moving all the waste from one landfill to another is often referred to as a Clean Closure. It is typically only done on small unpermitted landfills or dumping areas.The relocation of the solid waste in the Ukiah Landfill is considered to be a technically unfeasible alternative. In addition to being cost prohibitive, it would require countless truck trips causing significant and unavoidable traffic and noise impacts. In addition, there is no nearby approved or permitted place to relocate the solid waste material. Further, there are countless unknown hazards and hazardous waste risks that could affect the health and safety of the construction workers, Vichy Springs Resort and nearby residents. As a result,this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration. This alternative is not considered feasible because it is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account environmental,economic and technological factors(CEQA Guidelines,Section 15364). Alternative/Synthetic Specialized Tufted Geotextile Landfill Turf Cover Color. The Proposed Project's alternative/synthetic specialized tufted geotextile turf landfill cover of the Proposed Project was selected to provide a natural shade of color in order to help mimic the existing natural color and blend into the surrounding environment. Artificial or synthetic specialized tufted geotextile covers generally come in three (3)natural colors—olive-green,tan, and a blend of olive-green and tan. For the Proposed Project the olive-green color was selected as the preferred color as it provides arguably the best color option to blend into the natural and surrounding environment. With the required minimum of a 5/8 thick sand infill layer on top, the cover will look like a blend of olive-green and tan. No other colors such as black, blue, red, orange, grey, white or various color pallets of those or other color options are available in alternative/synthetic specialized tufted geotextiles for landfills and would not provide any better ability to blend into the surrounding environment. Further, the 40-acre Ukiah Landfill is not accessible and visible November 2019 4-4 Page 1639 of 4165 The City of Ukiah's Landfill Closure Project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Alternatives from anywhere on the Vichy Springs Resort Property and/or the general public. The 40-acrte Ukiah Landfill is and will remain inaccessible to the general public and is and will not be visible anywhere from a public access point as well as anywhere on the Vichy Springs Resort Property.As a result,this alternative has been duly considered but eliminated from further consideration because it would not avoid any significant environmental (aesthetic) impacts. 4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative. Of the two alternatives considered in this section (Proposed Project and the No Project Alternative),the Proposed Project would be the environmentally superiorto the No Project Alternative.The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the goals and objectives of-the Proposed Project.Under the No Project Alternative, the Ukiah Landfill would not be properly closed according to state and local regulations and would be susceptible to slope instability,potential water quality impacts to surface water and groundwater resources due to inadequate cover leading to drainage and erosion issues during inclement weather/stormwater, and the potential for inadequate LFG control and monitoring leading to air quality issues and impacts.Under the No Action Alternative,the City would be potentially susceptible for a variety of water quality and air quality violations and fines. As a result, the Proposed Project is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. November 2019 4-5 Page 1640 of 4165 Chapter 5 Growth Inducement Effects ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... This section presents potential growth inducement effects of the Proposed Project.The scope of the analysis and key attributes of the analytical approach are presented below to assist readers in understanding the manner in which the impact analyses have been conducted in this Draft EIR. 5.1 Determination of Growth Inducement Effects Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss "the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth,or the construction of additional housing,either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. This discussion should include an analysis of how the proposed project might remove barriers to population growth and characteristics of the project that might encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. (CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d)).In discussing potential growth,it should not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial,detrimental,or of little significance to the environment. Case law interpreting section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines suggests that a program EIR is not required to make a detailed analysis of the project's impacts on growth. (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 369.) "Nothing in the Guidelines,or in the cases,requires more than a general analysis of projected growth." (Id.)Nonetheless,a general discussion and analysis is important to fully informing the decision makers and the public regarding the potential impacts of a project(Laurel Heights II(1993)6 Cal.4th. 1112.). Growth can potentially impact the environment in a variety of ways. These impacts may include the following: • Increasing pressure to convert agricultural resources to residential and commercial uses; • Reducing air quality due to increased traffic,use of fireplaces etc.; • Harm to biological resources due to increasing pressure to develop habitat; • Hydrology/water quality impacts due to increases in impervious surface and sources of pollutants • Land use planning impacts; • Population/housing; • Public services impacts due to increased demand; • Transportation/traffic impacts; and/or • Utilities/service systems impacts However,many of these potential impacts of growth can be avoided or minimized by through good land use planning practices. 5.2 Assessment Methods The overall purpose of the Proposed Project is to close the Ukiah Landfill in accordance with the applicable regulatory standards. Specifically,the components and systems required for closure of the landfill include November 2019 5-1 Page 1641 of 4165 The City of Ukiah Landfill Closure project Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Growth inducement the final cover and grading design to control stormwater, potential infiltration and accommodate future settlement, landfill slope stability, construction quality assurance, drainage and erosion control systems, landfill gas (LFG) control and monitoring systems, groundwater/surface water monitoring systems, and site security. Project implementation includes the final closure of the Ukiah landfill in accordance with local, regional, state and federal requirements. No residential or other development is proposed that would result in additional population growth. No infrastructure is required to be extended to the site that would induce population growth in the area. 5.3 Conclusions on Growth Inducement The Proposed Project or the official and proper closing of the Ukiah Landfill will not indirectly or directly remove barriers to population growth and/or encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment,either individually or cumulatively. September 2019 -2 Page 1642 of 4165 Chapter 6 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... This section presents potential cumulative environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The scope of the analysis and key attributes of the analytical approach are presented below to assist readers in understanding the manner in which the impact analyses have been conducted in this Draft EIR. 6.1 Determination of Cumulative Effects The CEQA guidelines(Section 15355)define cumulative impacts as"two or more individual effects which, when considered together,are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." This section of the Guidelines further notes that: a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which results in the incremental impacts of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probably future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. A cumulative impact is significant if,when considered collectively with the impacts of the other projects,it exceeds the threshold of significance for a particular individual environmental resource area,as described in Chapter 3 -Environmental Analysis. 6.2 Assessment Methods For the purposes of this analysis,potentially significant cumulative effects are addressed in terms of short- term cumulative impacts (i.e.,those impacts that would be cumulatively considerable during construction) and long-term cumulative impacts (i.e., those impacts that would be cumulatively considerable during operation). As described in Chapter 3 — Environmental Analysis, the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would have less-than-significant effects to the environment with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. There are no known projects that would be constructed at the same time and within the same vicinity of the Proposed Project that would or could create any additional or cumulative construction related impacts. Once constructed the Proposed Project would not have any significant impacts. As a result,the Proposed Project would not have any direct,indirect, short-term and/or long-term cumulative impacts. 6.3 Conclusion on Cumulative Effects The Proposed Project would not have any direct, indirect, short-term and/or long-term cumulative impacts on the environment. November 2019 &1 Page 1643 of 4165 Chapter 7 EIR Preparers ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... This section presents preparers and reviewers of the Final CPMP and the Draft EIR. City of Ukiah Public Works 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482-5400 • Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works/City Engineer • Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works • Jarod Thiele, Management Analyst Office of the City Manager and City Attorney 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482-5400 • Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager • David Rapport, City Attorney EBA Engineers Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan 825 Sonoma Avenue, Suite C Santa Rosa,California 95404 • David Noren,Vice President Environmental Services • Mike Delmanowski, Senior Hydrogeologist SMB Environmental, Inc. Team Draft EIR Preparers P.O. Box 381 Roseville, CA 95661 • Steve Brown, Project Manager, Principal Preparer, and Aesthetics/Visual Resources • Paul Miller,Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases/Noise • Dan Jones,Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases/Noise • Jane Valerius, Biological Resources • Trish Tatarian, Biological Resources • Daniel Shoup, Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Resources • Pete Hudson, Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Hydrology • Justin Taplin,Hydrology and Water Quality November 2019 7-1 Page 1644 of 4165 Chapter 8 References ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Presented below are the major references used in the preparation in of Chapter 1 —Introduction, Chapter 2 —Project Description,and throughout this EIR. In addition,additional references are provided at the end of each individual environmental resources subchapter as presented in Chapter 3.0—Environmental Analysis. • California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000et seq.) of 1970 (as amended) • California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14) • City of Ukiah, Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan,April 2019 November 2019 8-1 Page 1645 of 4165 Appendix A Final Closure and PostClosure Maintenance Plan Page 1646 of 4165 FINAL CLOSURE AND POSTCLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR Prepared for City of Ukiah Department of Public Work 30�i O Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Prepared 6 : I BA Engineering I 825 Sonoma Avenue Santa boss, CA 95404. BA Project No. 02- 07 1q �A Mike rolrnanowski, .L.G,., .H : Damon F Br own, � � n �w Senior Hy rogoolo i t Principal Geologist vn< Page 1647 of 4165 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Landfill History and Development ........................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose of Plan ...................................................................................... 1-2 2 FINAL CLOSURE PLAN................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Site Maps................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Location Maps, 27CCR, §21790(b)(2) ............................................ 2-1 2.1.2 Topographic Maps, 27CCR, §21769(c)(2)(D)..................................2-2 2.1.3 Current Monitoring and Control Systems Maps, 27CCR, §21790(b)(4) ..................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Proposed Postclosure Land Uses, 27CCR, §21769(c)(2)(H) and 21790(b)(5) ...................................................2-2 2.3 Estimate of the Maximum Extent Requiring Closure 27CCR, §21790(b)(6)...................................................2-2 2.4 Closure Date, 27CCR, §21790(b)(7) .........................................................2-3 2.5 Site Security and Structure Removal, 27CCR, §21790(b)(8)(A) ................2-3 2.5.1 Site Security.................................................................................2-3 2.5.2 Structure Removal ....................................................................... 2-4 2.6 Final Cover and Grading.........................................................................2-4 2.6.1 Final Cover Requirements, 27CCR, §21090(a) and§21800(b)(8)(8) ....................................................................... 2-4 2.6.2 Grading Requirements, 27CCR, §21090(b) and§21800(b)(8)(8)..... 2-7 2.6.3 Final Cover Surveys, 27CCR, §21090(e) ....................................... 2-8 2.7 Construction Quality Assurance (CQA), 27CCR, 21790(b)(8)(C) ..............2-8 2.7.1 CQA Plan ....................................................................................2-8 2.7.2 Closure Construction Documentation........................................... 2-9 2.7.3 Documentation Archive Storage................................................. 2-10 2.8 Drainage and Erosion Control, 27CCR, 21790(b)(8)(D) .......................... 2-10 2.8.1 Drainage System........................................................................ 2-10 2.8.2 Erosion Control .......................................................................... 2-11 2.9 Gas Monitoring and Control Systems, 27CCR, 21790(b)(8)(E) ............... 2-12 2.9.1 Gas Monitoring System.............................................................. 2-12 2.9.2 Gas Control Systems ................................................................. 2-12 2.10 Leachate Monitoring and Control Systems, 27CCR, 21790(b)(8)(F) ....... 2-13 2.11 Groundwater Monitoring System .......................................................... 2-14 2.12 Surface Water Monitoring System ........................................................ 2-15 2.13 Closure of Surface Impoundment ......................................................... 2-15 2.14 Sequence of Closure Stages, 27CCR, §21800(c)................................... 2-16 3 FINAL POSTCLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN.............................................. 3-1 3.1 Emergency Response Plan, 27CCR, §21830(b)(1)................................... 3-1 Final CPMP- Table of Contents 1 Page 1648 of 4165 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 FINAL POSTCLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN (Continued) 3.2 Responsible Parties and Resources, 27CCR, §21830(b)(2) ..................... 3-1 3.2.1 Responsible Parties ..................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Resources.................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Postclosure Land Uses, 27CCR, §21830(b)(3) ......................................... 3-3 3.4 As-Builts for Monitoring and Control Systems, 27CCR, §21830(b)(4) ....... 3-3 3.5 Inspection/Maintenance and Monitoring Programs, 27CCR, §21830(b)(5) ................................................................................ 3-4 3.5.1 Inspection/Maintenance Program................................................. 3-4 3.5.2 Monitoring Program...................................................................... 3-8 3.6 Operations and Maintenance Plan for Gas Control System, 27CCR, §21830(b)(6) .............................................................................. 3-10 3.7 Reporting, 27CCR, §21830(b)(7)............................................................. 3-11 4 CLOSURE AND POSTCLOSURE MAINTENANCE COSTESTIMATES...........................................................................................4-1 5 FUND DISBERSEMENT SCHEDULE .............................................................. 5-1 6 REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 6-1 LIST OF FIGURES (APPENDIX A) Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Existing Site Features Figure 4 Gas Monitoring/Control Systems Figure 5 Leachate Monitoring/Control Systems Figure 6 Groundwater Monitoring System Figure 7 Surface Water Monitoring System LIST OF TABLES (APPENDIX B) Table B-1 Perimeter Gas Monitoring Point Construction Information Table B-2 Perimeter Gas Extraction Well Construction Information Table B-3 Leachate Well Construction Information Table B-4 Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction Information Table B-5 Summary of Leachate Monitoring Parameters Table B-6 Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Parameters Table B-7 Summary of Surface Water Monitoring Parameters Final CPMP- Table of Contents 11 Page 1649 of 4165 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Figures Appendix B Tables Appendix C Exploratory Boring Logs Appendix D Engineered Alternative Analysis Appendix E Stability Analysis Appendix F Drainage Analysis Appendix G April 2019 Updated Design Plan for Landfill Gas Collection and Control System (EBA, 2019) Appendix H Final Closure Technical Specifications Appendix I Final Closure Construction Quality Assurance Plan Appendix J Final Closure Construction Drawings Appendix K Emergency Response Plan Appendix L Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Cost Estimates Appendix M Fund Disbursement Schedule Final CPMP- Table of Contents 111 Page 1650 of 4165 CITY OF UKIAH LANDFILL MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION EBA Engineering (EBA) has prepared this Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan (Final CPMP), City of Ukiah Landfill, Mendocino County, California (herein after referred to as the "Landfill"), for the City of Ukiah (City) in accordance with Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 2, Subdivision 1. The Landfill is a Class III disposal site that occupies approximately 40 acres of the 283.5-acre site. This Final CPMP was developed to address closure and postclosure maintenance for the entire landfill. In general, the intent of this Final CPMP is to identify and describe the tasks for closing and maintaining the Landfill in a manner that will protect the public health and safety and the environment. Details of the respective programs are presented herein under Section 2 (Final Closure Plan) and Section 3 (Final Postclosure Maintenance Plan). This plan also serves as the basis for developing a reasonable estimate of maximum expected costs to close the entire landfill and maintain the landfill during the postclosure maintenance period (30 years). The estimated costs for each of the programs are presented in Section 4 (Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Cost Estimates). Finally, Section 5(Disbursement Schedule for Closure) presents a preliminary fund disbursement schedule during implementation the final closure construction activities. As an aid to the reader, references to Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations throughout this report are cited as 27CCR followed by the corresponding section number(s). A copy of this Final CPMP will be maintained at the City's Department of Public Works office (300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California 95482) throughout the closure and postclosure maintenance period. 1.1 LANDFILL HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT The Landfill, which is owned and operated by the City, is located at 3100 Vichy Springs Road, approximately three miles east of Ukiah in Mendocino County, California. Waste disposal operations at the Landfill began in 1955 at the eastern end of the waste management unit (WMU) footprint and progressed upslope and westward. During the 1970's, the unnamed ephemeral creek was realigned northward to maximize the available fill area, and a soil berm was constructed along the toe of the WMU to separate the waste from the realigned creek channel. The method of operation during the Landfill's development was a fill and cover approach in a canyon/gully terrain. The Landfill operated as a nonhazardous Class III solid waste disposal site servicing Ukiah and the surrounding area. The Landfill ceased operations in September 2001. Final CPMP-Section 1 1-1 Page 1651 of 4165 Environmental monitoring at the Landfill was originally regulated under Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. 75-43 in conformance with Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (23CCR). In September 1993, WDR Order No. 75-43 was amended by WDR Order No.93-83 as a mechanism to implement State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 93-62 and federal municipal solid waste regulations (i.e., "Subtitle D") per Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR), Parts 257 and 258. Concurrent with this amendment was the preparation of a Report of Waste Discharge (RoWD) (EBA, 1993) for the purpose of formally updating the Landfill's WDRs and to address groundwater impacts previously identified at the site. The combination of these two documents was subsequently used by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (RWQCB) to issue a new WDR (WDR Order No.94-123) for the site in October 1994. In August 1999, the initial Final CPMP (EBA, 1999) was submitted for the Landfill which resulted in the eventual issuance of interim closure WDRs (WDR Order No. R1- 2002-0061) by the RWQCB in June 2002. WDR Order No. R1-2002-0061 represents the current WDR regulating environmental monitoring at the Landfill. 1.2 PURPOSE OF PLAN The purpose of this Final CPMP is to identify, describe and provide cost estimates for the tasks necessary to close and maintain the Landfill in a manner which will protect the public health and safety and the environment. The Final CPMP for a Class III facility must meet the requirements of 27CCR, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 4. Accordingly, this Final CPMP provides the various information and describes the tasks that will be employed to comply with the said regulations. The following provides a synopsis of the information included herein as they pertain to the proposed final closure and postclosure maintenance activities: Final Closure • Various site maps showing the site location, physical and topographic features, and current monitoring and control systems. • Proposed postclosure land use and an estimate of the maximum extent requiring closure. • Details regarding site security and structure removal. • Final cover design and grading characteristics, including presentation of an engineered alternative final cover system and supporting documentation (i.e., engineered alternative analysis, Technical Specifications and Construction Drawings). • Final cover survey information. Final CPMP-Section 1 1-2 Page 1652 of 4165 • A construction quality assurance (CQA) program for the final cover construction project. • Drainage and erosion control provisions. • Descriptions of the current environmental monitoring and control systems. • Closure provisions for a former leachate surface impoundment. • Sequence of closure stages. • Closure cost estimate and disbursement schedule. Final Postclosure Maintenance • Emergency Response Plan. • Details of responsible parties and resources during the postclosure maintenance period. • Presentation of the inspection and maintenance program that will be employed as part of postclosure maintenance, including the final cover and grading, drainage system, various monitoring and control systems, and site security. • Reporting provisions for the various inspection and monitoring/control systems. • Postclosure maintenance cost estimate. Please note that this Final CPMP supersedes all previous closure/postclosure maintenance documents submitted to date. The original Final CPMP was submitted in August 1999 (EBA, 1999)that proposed a prescriptive standard final cover system (i.e., compacted clay liner[CCL]for the low-hydraulic conductivity layer[LHCL]). In March 2003, an engineered alternative analysis (EBA, 2003) was submitted to the RWQCB for approval that incorporated a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) to replace the CCL as the LHCL due to the significantly higher cost associated with the CCL final cover system. This alternative was proposed again as part of a Joint Technical Document (JTD) dated January 2008 (EBA, 2008) and subsequent addendum dated June 2013 (EBA, 2013a). In August 2015, a second addendum (Addendum No. 2) to the JTD (EBA, 2015) was submitted for approval that incorporated a new engineered alternative design ("ClosureTurfTM") to replace the previously proposed GCL final cover system. The alternative design was pursued due to the significant cost savings over the associated GCL final cover system scenario, as well as an increase in cover system stability. Whereas the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery(CalRecycle)and Mendocino County Health & Human Services Agency (i.e., Local Enforcement Agency [LEA]) conditionally approved the proposed alternative design (separate letters dated October 21 and November 9, 2015, respectively), both agencies requested that the design and Final CPMP-Section 1 1-3 Page 1653 of 4165 associated provisions be summarized in a new stand-alone Final CPMP. A new stand- alone Final CPMP (EBA, 2016a)was subsequently submitted on March 8, 2016. Following its submittal, miscellaneous comments were issued by the respective regulatory agencies. The various issues were addressed in an updated Final CPMP dated May 2016 (EBA, 2016b). As part of the regulatory review of the May 2016 Final CPMP, several unresolved issues remained pertaining to the final cover design and maintenance provisions. The most prominent of these issues corresponded to the proposed thicknesses of the foundation layer (i.e., one foot versus two feet ) and geomembrane thickness (50-mil versus 60-mil). After multiple deliberations, an agreement was reached to adhere to the 2-foot thick foundation layer standard, while the 50-mil geomembrane thickness was conditionally approved with provisions for increased postclosure maintenance funding. These items, along with the other previous regulatory comments, have been incorporated into this latest version of the Final CPMP. Final CPMP-Section 1 1-4 Page 1654 of 4165 CITY OF UKIAH LANDFILL MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECTION 2 FINAL CLOSURE PLAN This Final Closure Plan has been prepared to meet the following primary objectives: develop a detailed plan and schedule for the City to implement upon closure of the WMU; allow for monitoring of closure activities to determine that the requirements of landfill closure have been implemented in accordance with the appropriate plan; provide a basis for the City to establish an accurate detailed estimate of closure costs; and enable CalRecycle and the LEA to assess the reasonableness of the cost estimate for non-water quality aspects of closure. The contents of this Final Closure Plan have developed to comply with the requirements set forth in 27CCR, §21769(c)(2) and §21800. 2.1 SITE MAPS 2.1.1 Location Maps 27CCR, §21790(b)(2) The Landfill is located at 3100 Vichy Springs Road, approximately three miles east of Ukiah in Mendocino County, California. A site location map showing the location of the Landfill is presented as Figure 1 (Appendix A). The Landfill's WMU occupies approximately 40 acres of permitted landfill area on a 283.5-acre parcel having a maximum width of approximately 1,000 feet in the north-south direction and a maximum length of about 3,500 feet in the east-west direction. A City-owned shooting range is situated on the Landfill property approximately 2,000 feet southeast of the WMU footprint. Land adjacent to the Landfill property is zoned primarily as rangeland and is used for grazing. Dwellings within 1,000 feet of the landfill property include a group of structures owned by Gilbert and Marjorie Ashjoff that are located within 500 feet of the Landfill's south property line and a single-family residence located approximately 900 feet west of the Landfill's western property boundary. A rural residential development is located approximately Y4-mile west of the Landfill property boundary. A housing development is also located along the south side of Vichy Springs Road and westward of the Vichy Springs Resort. The entire development is approximately 1,000 feet southward of the Landfill property boundary and is separated from the Landfill by an intervening ridge. It should be noted that the City owns an approximate 97-acre parcel (Assessor's Parcel No. 178-210-01) that adjoins a portion of the Landfill's southern property boundary. This property, which has been previously identified as the"Gun Club Parcel", was purchased as Final CPMP-Section 2 2-1 Page 1655 of 4165 a buffer zone to limit future development adjacent to the Landfill. The Gun Club Parcel is a separate parcel and is not considered part of the Landfill property. Site plans showing the general site configuration (i.e., property boundary, limit of waste, entry road, etc.) and existing site features are presented as Figures 2 and 3 (Appendix A). Also shown on Figure 2 are the locations of dwellings and structures located within 1,000 feet of the Landfill property boundary. 2.1.2 Topographic Maps 27CCR, §21769(c)(2)(D) Existing ground surface elevations at the Landfill range from approximately 710 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the western footprint, to about 970 feet MSL along the southeast footprint. The WMU has been graded to form a series of terraces stepping down from south to north. Slopes on the WMU range from approximately 2:1 to 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). The final cover system elevations and slope configurations will generally coincide with the existing surfaces described above. Please refer to Sheets 100 and 101 of the Construction Drawings (Appendix J) for maps illustrating the existing and proposed final grades, respectively. 2.1.3 Current Monitoring and Control Systems Maps 27CCR, §21790(b)(4) Enclosed in Appendix A are a series of site maps illustrating the various current monitoring and control systems at the Landfill. The types of monitoring and control systems include: landfill gas (LFG)(Figure 4); leachate (Figure 5); groundwater(Figure 6); and surface water (Figure 7). The Landfill is also currently equipped with drainage and erosion control features that include benches, ditches and down drains on the slope areas, as well as four sedimentation ponds. Please refer to Sheet 100 of the Construction Drawings (Appendix J) for the locations of these features. 2.2 PROPOSED POSTCLOSURE LAND USES 27CCR, §21769(c)(2)(H) and §21790(b)(5) Postclosure land use for the Landfill will be non-irrigated open space. 2.3 ESTIMATE OF MAXIMUM EXTENT REQUIRING CLOSURE 27CCR, §21790(b)(6) The WMU covers approximately 40 acres of the 283.5-acre site. The limits of waste are based on City survey records and historical topographical maps of the site. Exploratory trenching to verify the waste limits will not be necessary as the waste limits are well established. The limit of existing waste is shown on Figures 2 and 3 (Appendix A). Final CPMP-Section 2 2-2 Page 1656 of 4165 2.4 CLOSURE DATE 27CCR, §21790(b)(7) The Landfill discontinued waste disposal operations in September 2001. At the time the waste disposal operations ceased, intermediate cover soil had been placed over the entire WMU footprint. In October and November, 2001, a drilling program was implemented by Rau and Associates, Inc. for the City to verify the thickness of the in-place intermediate cover over the entire WMU surface. The survey consisted of a series of shallow borings drilled at a spacing of approximately 50 feet apart on the roads and benches and approximately 100-foot spacing on the slopes. A total of 433 borings were drilled using a hydraulic drill motor (mounted on a backhoe boom) equipped with 4-inch diameter solid- stem augers. A hand-operated post-hole digger was used in areas not accessible by the backhoe-mounted drill. Findings from this investigation revealed that the thickness of the intermediate cover is equal to or greater than 2 feet for approximately 81 percent of the WMU surface, whereas approximately 93 percent of the WMU surface contains at least one foot of intermediate cover. The average thickness of the intermediate cover for the remaining seven percent is approximately 8 inches. These areas are primarily concentrated along the toe near the northern sedimentation pond and within the southern high point of the WMU. The intermediate cover has been maintained by the City since its placement, pending implementation of the final closure construction project. 2.5 SITE SECURITY AND STRUCTURE REMOVAL 27CCR, §21790(b)(8)(A) 2.5.1 Site Security Access to the Landfill is via Vichy Springs Road only. Unauthorized access is currently prevented by perimeter barbed-wire fencing and a locked gate located at the site access road. "No Trespassing" signs are also posted at the east and west boundaries of the site. Site security upon closure will be provided by the City and will conform with the requirements of 27CCR, §21135. Site security components will include: • A lockable gate at the Landfill entrance from the site access road (existing). • "No Trespassing" signs (existing). "Methane Hazard" signs will also be posted at the site entrance and every 1,000 feet along the perimeter barbed-wire fencing. • At least one sign posted in a visible location at the site access road indicating where the Final CPMP is located. The sign will also include a telephone number for emergency notification. A sign of this nature will remain posted throughout the postclosure maintenance period. Final CPMP-Section 2 2-3 Page 1657 of 4165 • Lockable utility boxes, or gates, or both, enclosing the environmental control systems (existing). • Security fencing and lockable gate around the gas control system's flare station and equipment complex. • Perimeter barbed-wire fencing (existing). 2.5.2 Structure Removal As required under 27CCR, §21137, all site structures will be removed as part of the final closure construction project. These structures include the gatehouse and truck scale. The gatehouse debris will be transported and disposed of at a permitted solid waste disposal facility. The truck scale, in turn, will be dismantled and either re-assigned/sold for use at an alternate location or transported and disposed of at a permitted solid waste disposal facility. 2.6 FINAL COVER AND GRADING 2.6.1 Final Cover Requirements 27CCR, §21090(a) and§21800(b)(8)(B) The following subsections provide the necessary information to address the various final cover requirements stipulated in 27CCR, §21090(a)(1 through 6). Specific topics include: final cover design; discharge of leachate, condensate and/or other liquids to the final cover; and stability of the final cover. Final Cover Design The proposed final cover system will consist of a patented geosynthetic product identified as "ClosureTurfTM". ClosureTurfTM is a three-component system comprised of a structured geomembrane, a specialized tufted geotextile, and a sand infill layer. The structured geomembrane component serves as the LHCL, whereas the specialized tufted geotextile and sand infill layer represent the erosion-resistant layer as defined in 27CCR. This proposed final cover system represents an engineered alternative design to the prescriptive standard (i.e., CCL) and therefore requires regulatory approval. As such, an engineered alternative analysis was prepared that demonstrated its viability as a final cover alternative. A copy of the engineered alternative analysis, which includes literature for the ClosureTurfTM product, is enclosed in Appendix D. Please note that product literature pertaining to ultra-violet (UV) longevity and supporting infiltration equivalency calculations that were included in EBA's May 26, 2017 Response to Comments (EBA, 2017) to supplement the engineered alternative analysis have been incorporated into Appendix D. Final CPMP-Section 2 2-4 Page 1658 of 4165 Overall, the proposed final cover system design can be summarized as follows (in ascending order): • Minimum 2-foot thick soil foundation layer. • 50 mil linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE)geomembrane liner(Super Gripnet° with Spike Down). • Specialized tufted geotextile (Engineered Turf). • Minimum 5/8-inch thick sand infill layer. As noted above, the erosion-resistant layer for the proposed final cover system is comprised of the Engineered Turf and sand infill layer. As presented in the engineered alternative analysis (Appendix D), the combination of these components are designed to provide weathering resistance and geomembrane protection when subjected to the most extreme conditions, including rain, wind, heat, and UV exposure. Based on the absence of a traditional erosion-resistant layer constructed of soil, the proposed system is not subject to erosional channeling that can lead to exposure of the geomembrane component. As a result of the aforementioned characteristics, the proposed system meets the performance criteria specified in 27CCR with regard to resisting the foreseeable erosion effects by wind- scour, raindrop impact, and run-off. In addition to the above features, the final cover system will also be equipped with a gas relief component. This component will consist of a series of 3.5-foot wide collection strips placed parallel to the slopes on the outer edges of the respective benches. The collection strips, which will be constructed of the same Super Gripnet° with Spike Down material described above for the geomembrane liner component, will be connected to the gas control system to prevent the build-up of gas pressures beneath the final cover system. Pressure release valves will also be installed at regular intervals between the collection strips as an additional precautionary measure. Please refer to the Technical Specifications (Appendix H), Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan (Appendix 1), and Construction Drawings (Appendix J) for details regarding material and installation specifications for the respective final cover system components described above. Discharges of Liquids to Covers (Leachate and Condensate) The discharge of Ieachate, LFG condensate or other waste liquids onto the final cover is not proposed at the Landfill. Instead, these liquids will be processed through the facility's existing Ieachate collection and pumping system as described in Subsection 2.10 (Leachate Monitoring and Control Systems) of this Section. Discharges of Liquids to Covers (Other Liquids) The discharge of other liquids onto the final cover is also not proposed at the Landfill. Postclosure land use will be non-irrigated open space. As a result, monitoring of potential liquid through flow to the underlying waste will not be necessary. Final CPMP-Section 2 2-5 Page 1659 of 4165 Please note that the need for dust control provisions (other than during final closure construction) as outlined in CalRecycle citations 27CCR, §20800 and §21600(b)(8)(D) during the postclosure maintenance period is not anticipated since the access areas will be covered with aggregate base rock (perimeter access road) and engineered turf(benches) at the time of closure. In regards to final closure construction, the Technical Specifications (Appendix H) for construction stipulate that dust control provisions must be such as to protect against excess water application that could result in potential through flow into underlying waste or run-off into surface water drainages. Stability Analysis In accordance with 27CCR, §21090(a)(6), a stability analysis was performed for the proposed final cover system to demonstrate conformance with 27CCR, §21750(f)(5). In this regard, an infinite-slope stability analysis for the ClosureTurfTM final cover system is presented in Appendix E. This represents the same analysis included in the May 2016 Final CPMP (EBA, 2016b). The analysis also summarizes the results of an earlier stability and seismic hazard analysis performed for the Landfill that is referenced in the Landfill's January 2008 JTD (EBA, 2008). The earlier study includes critical cross sections used in the stability analysis and the results of a two-dimensional limit equilibrium analysis for a sliding block failure through the base of the waste mass. The study also presents the results of a seismic response analysis and seismic displacement analysis using the procedures outlined in Bray et al., 1995; Matasovic, 1995; and Matasovic, 1997. Findings from the stability analysis are summarized as follows: • A deterministic seismic hazards assessment performed for the site concluded that the Maacama Fault, with an estimated Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) of 7.1 Mw is located 0.6 miles (1.0 kilometers) west of the site and is expected to generate the highest average peak bedrock acceleration of 0.66g. • The static factor of safety of the entire waste mass was modeled by evaluating failure mechanisms passing through refuse and the base of the WMU and indicate a static factor of safety greater than 1.7 for failure through the base of the WMU at critical cross section B. • The yield acceleration (Ky) of the waste mass under seismic conditions is 0.13g. • Seismic displacement analyses using the program YSLIP PM (Matasovic, 1997) indicate that permanent seismically induced displacements will be less than 8 inches for failure through the base of the WMU. As the final waste mass grades have not been increased with the ClosureTurfTM final cover system design, EBA does not believe additional global stability analyses are warranted and the corresponding findings from the previous analysis remain valid for the final closure design presented in this current version of the Final CPMP. Final CPMP-Section 2 2-6 Page 1660 of 4165 Please note that a probabilistic analysis predicts a peak ground acceleration of 0.52g at the Landfill with a 475-year return period (10 percent exceedance in 50 years) and a shear- wave velocity of 270 meters per second (California Geologic Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Ground Motion Interpolator). Given the deterministic nature of EBA's evaluation, it is our opinion that the seismic hazard analysis is appropriate for the Landfill final closure design. 2.6.2 Grading Requirements 27CCR, §21090(b) and§21800(b)(8)(B) Grading plans for the WMU are shown on Sheet 101 and Sheets 300 through 302 of the Construction Drawings (Appendix J). As shown on the grading plans, the final cover slopes on the WMU will range from approximately 2.1 to 3.1 (horizontal to vertical). These slope inclinations are sufficient to prevent ponding on the WMU surface. In addition, as previously outlined in Subsection 2.6.1 (Final Cover Requirements), the physical characteristics of the Engineered Turf and sand infill layer (i.e., erosion-resistant layer) meet the performance criteria specified in 27CCR with regard to resisting the foreseeable erosion effects by wind-scour, raindrop impact, and run-off. Finally, the WMU is designed with a perimeter drainage system that will serve to protect against potential run-on from adjoining surfaces. Grading plan design considerations included provisions to ensure compliance with prescribed clearance specifications beneath a set of high power transmission lines that extend over the WMU (see Sheets 301 and 302 of the Construction Drawings[Appendix J] for location). Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) states that the minimum required ground clearance is 28 feet. As a means of integrating this specification into the design, a survey of the transmission lines was performed by PG&E in the Summer of 2018. Results from this survey determined that existing refuse will need to be excavated from beneath portions of the transmission lines in order to attain the prescribed clearance. The excavated refuse will be relocated to other areas within the WMU. Please refer to Sheet 102 of the Construction Drawings (Appendix J) for the corresponding refuse re-location areas. As part of the final closure construction project, borrow soil material will be required for construction of the foundation layer and placement of engineered fill and trench backfill. The borrow area for this soil will correspond to an on-site area located northeast of the WMU. This area corresponds to the same borrow area used during landfill operations. Excavation within this borrow area will conform to the grading plan shown on Sheet 303 of the Construction Drawings (Appendix J). 27CCR, §21800(b)(8)(B) requires information regarding the types and estimated quantities of materials needed for construction of the final cover system. In this regard, the majority of the final cover system will be comprised of geosynthetic products associated with the ClosureTurfTM system. The estimated quantity of these materials is approximately 1.9 million square feet. As for the soil components, on-site materials will be used for the foundation layer, engineered fill, and trench backfill as outlined in the previous paragraph. Final CPMP-Section 2 2-7 Page 1661 of 4165 The estimated quantity of borrow soil material for this purpose is approximately 100,000 cubic yards. 2.6.3 Final Cover Surveys 27CCR, §21090(e) A topographic map of the completed final cover grades will be produced at a minimum scale of 1 inch to 100 feet and accompany the CQA Certification Report. In addition, iso- settlement maps will be produced every five(5)years thereafter to calculate any differential settlement. The iso-settlement maps will be prepared with a maximum contour interval of 2 feet and a scale of 1 inch equals 60 feet. As required by 27CCR, §21090(e)(4), each iso- settlement map will highlight areas of repeated or severe differential settlement. The delineation of such areas will be made by, or under the supervision of, a registered civil engineer or registered geologist. 2.7 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE (CQA) 27CCR, §21790(b)(8)(C) A CQA program will be implemented for closure of the WMU to verify that materials, construction methods, and testing procedures are in accordance with the intent and purpose of the Technical Specifications. Implementation of the CQA program will be administered by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist in accordance with 27CCR, §20324(b)(1) and (2). The results of the CQA program will be summarized in a "CQA Certification Report" containing all reports associated with the construction activities. This document will provide evidence that the CQA program was implemented as proposed and that the construction proceeded in accordance with design criteria, plans and specifications. 2.7.1 CQA Plan A CQA Plan for the Landfill is enclosed in Appendix I. As required by 27CCR, §20324(c), the contents of the CQA Plan include the following: • A description of the CQA management organization and reporting protocol; and • A description of CQA testing protocols for preconstruction, construction and post- construction testing including: o Procedures and equipment to be utilized for field testing and sampling; o Location, method, and frequency of sampling; o Laboratory testing procedures to be used during construction; o Pass/fail criteria for sampling and testing methods; o Frequency of performance audits; and o Inspection frequencies. Final CPMP-Section 2 2-8 Page 1662 of 4165 Closure construction will be administered by a qualified consultant or a City registered civil engineer, acting as the CQA Officer. The CQA Officer will supervise the execution and overall progress of the project. He will be assisted by a CQA Certifying Engineer, CQA Monitors, a CQA Surveyor, independent soil and geosynthetic testing laboratories, and a consulting design and construction management firm, if necessary. The construction work will be done by a licensed construction contractor who will be selected through a public bidding process. 2.7.2 Closure Construction Documentation The closure operations will be conducted under the supervision of the CQA Officer. Inspection, field and laboratory data sheets, and other relevant closure activity documentation will include the following: • Daily summary reports; • Daily field logs (Inspection Data Sheet); • Construction monitoring forms; • Laboratory testing reports; • Non-conformance/corrective action forms; • Acceptance reports; • Meeting/discussion summary reports; • Photograph logs; • Document control; and • As-built record drawings. Please refer to Section 01400 of the Technical Specifications (Appendix H) for further details regarding the nature and content of the respective documentation listed above. At the completion of the project, a CQA Certification Report prepared and certified by the CQA Officer will be submitted to the RWQCB, CalRecycle, and the LEA. The CQA Certification Report will consist of information and data generated by the CQA program and will document that the final closure construction is in compliance with the design intent of the Construction Drawings and Technical Specifications. At a minimum, the CQA Certification Report will contain the following information: • Summary of construction methods for each unit of construction completed; • Summary of the CQA program implemented during construction and specific CQA activities (monitoring and testing) performed for each unit of construction completed; • Results of conformance testing and construction testing; • Revisions made to the Construction Drawings and variances from Technical Specifications allowed; and Final CPMP-Section 2 2-9 Page 1663 of 4165 • Final as-built record documents. The CQA Certification Report shall be a self-standing document and contain all subordinate reports. The CQA Certification Report will also contain a statement of compliance with the design intent of the Construction Drawings and Technical Specifications, signed and stamped by the CQA Certifying Engineer, a professional engineer or certified engineering geologist registered in the State of California. The certificate of closure will include a statement by the Operator, under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 27CCR, §21880(a), that with the exception of deviations due to reasonably unforeseeable circumstances, the Landfill was closed in accordance with the approved Final Closure Plan. 2.7.3 Documentation Archive Storage A copy of the CQA Certification Report, as well as all original closure construction documents, will be stored and maintained throughout the postclosure maintenance period in a protected location that is accessible to RWQCB, CalRecycle, and LEA personnel during normal business hours. At the present time, the City offices at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah are proposed as the storage location for the CQA Certification Report. 2.8 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL 27CCR, §21790(b)(8)(D) 2.8.1 Drainage System The proposed drainage system for the WMU and borrow area have been designed to comply with the requirements of 27CCR, §21150. Overall, the proposed drainage facilities consist of a network of benches, channels/swales, and storm drains that collect and convey stormwater run-off to a series of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) discharge culverts. These CMP culverts discharge to the unnamed ephemeral creek channel at various locations along the length of the WMU's northern boundary. In general, the drainage system is designed to intercept run-off at intervals along the inside edges of berms, benches, or access roads. A sedimentation pond is located at the western end of the WMU to control sediment run-off from slope areas along the western and portions of the southern fill boundaries. Two (2) additional sedimentation ponds are located at the northeastern end of the WMU to contain sediment run-off from the eastern portion of the WMU and the soil borrow area. Please refer to the 200 Series and 300 Series sheets of the Construction Drawings (Appendix J) for plan views and details of the various drainage system components. The supporting drainage calculations for sizing the various drainage system components are enclosed in Appendix F. As required by 27CCR, §21150, the drainage system components are designed to accommodate 100-year, 24-hour precipitation conditions. As noted above, a portion of the stormwater run-off from the WMU is discharged via CMP culverts to the unnamed ephemeral creek channel. While such provisions are currently employed at the Landfill, the design of the new drainage outfalls into the creek have been Final CPMP-Section 2 2-10 Page 1664 of 4165 modified to reduce the potential for erosion. Since this provision will require accessing the creek to install the new drainage outfalls, a series of permits must be obtained before implementing the improvements. These permits include: StreambedAlteration Agreement (1602 Permit) from the California Department of Fish and Game; Water Quality Certification (401 Permit)from the RWQCB; and a Clean WaterAction Section 404 Permit (404 Permit) from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. As outlined later in Subsection 2.14 (Sequence of Closure Stages) of this Section, provisions are currently being made to acquire these permits. 2.8.2 Erosion Control The overall design includes features and provisions to minimize the potential for erosion as required by 27CCR, §21150. The following bullet items provide a summary of the erosion control features and provisions: • The selected contractor will be required to prepare a construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) before the commencement of work and to implement the provisions of the SWPPP for the duration of the construction project. • The geosynthetic final cover system (ClosureTurfTM) will essentially eliminate the discharge of sediment from the WMU surface as no soil component will be utilized in the final cover design. • The final surface of the soil borrow area, as well as other areas disturbed by the construction operations, will be repaired/graded as necessary and then hydroseeded. The aforementioned areas with surface slopes steeper than ten percent will also be covered with 1.5 inches of straw and secured with erosion control netting. • Drainage channels outside the WMU footprint that will potentially be subjected to high flow velocities will be lined with rock rip-rap to protect against erosion. • Drainage outfalls will be lined with rock rip-rap. • Aggregate base placed on perimeter access roads to allow for all-weather access will also serve to reduce the potential for sediment-laden run-off from these areas. Please refer to Sheet 308 of the Construction Drawings (Appendix J)for additional details regarding straw wattle, drainage inlet, and check dam provisions. Final CPMP-Section 2 2-11 Page 1665 of 4165 2.9 GAS MONITORING AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 27CCR, §21790(b)(8)(E) 2.9.1 Gas Monitoring System The gas monitoring system consists of ten gas monitoring points (GAS-1 through GAS-10) located at various locations along the Landfill property boundary. The locations of the gas monitoring points are shown on Figure 4 (Appendix A). No changes to the monitoring system components are proposed as part of closure. Each of the gas monitoring points are equipped with one to four individual monitoring probes constructed of 3/-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing and capped with labcock valves. The monitoring probes range in depth from approximately 9 to 250 feet below ground surface (BGS). The number and depth of monitoring probes at each location are based on site lithology(i.e., permeable zones) and the maximum depth of refuse as measured within 1,000 feet of the monitoring point in question. Table B-1 in Appendix B of this document provides a summary of the gas monitoring point construction characteristics. Copies of exploratory boring logs for the respective gas monitoring points are enclosed in Appendix C. 2.9.2 Gas Control Systems The Landfill is currently equipped with a partial perimeter gas collection system that was installed between the southwestern edge of the WMU and the property line in 1997 as a mitigation measure against subsurface gas migration. The system consists of 17 vertical extraction wells installed in native geologic materials and completed at depths ranging from 35 to 133 feet BGS. The wells are connected to a 6-inch diameter, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) header pipe that leads to a vacuum blower located at the western end of the WMU. The vacuum blower creates a vacuum in the header pipe that draws the gas from the soil through the extraction wells and subsequently to the blower. Discharge from the system is vented directly to the atmosphere via a 4-foot tall, 4-inch diameter stack. This system continues to operate on an intermittent basis. Please refer to Table B-2 in Appendix B of this document for individual gas extraction well construction characteristics. A full-scale gas control system for the entire WMU is planned for installation as part of the final closure construction project. This system as currently proposed will consist of 18 extraction wells (EW-1 through EW-18), aboveground conveyance piping, and a flare station that will include a totally-enclosed vertical ground flare (flare)for combustion of the collected gas. Information pertaining to this system, including design criteria/rationale and details for the various system components, are presented in the Updated Design Plan for Landfill Gas Collection and Control System(Updated Design Plan) dated April 2019(EBA, 2019). A copy of the Updated Design Plan is enclosed in Appendix G. The corresponding Technical Specifications and Construction Drawings for the system are enclosed in Appendices H and J, respectively. It should be noted that once the full-scale gas control system is installed and operational, the need to operate the partial perimeter gas collection system may no longer be Final CPMP-Section 2 2-12 Page 1666 of 4165 necessary. Under this scenario, the partial perimeter gas collection system will either be abandoned or maintained for emergency use only. 2.10 LEACHATE MONITORING AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 27CCR, §21790(b)(8)(F) The WMU is unlined and is not equipped with an engineered or blanket leachate collection and removal system (LCRS). Instead, leachate collection for the WMU currently consists of a series of PVC piping and French drain systems installed to collect leachate from seeps occurring along existing WMU slope faces. Leachate collected by these components is then conveyed by gravity flow to a primary buried pipeline located along the northern toe of the WMU. The buried pipeline, in turn, drains the leachate westward and ultimately discharges to the leachate management facilities located at the western toe of the WMU. A description of the leachate management facilities is as follows: • Discharge from the primary buried pipeline is diverted to a subsurface concrete sedimentation chamber equipped with a valved sediment drain at its base. The clarified leachate within the chamber is then discharged (by gravity flow) to an adjacent pump station wet well (identified herein as the"leachate wet well")via a 10- inch diameter overflow line. • Clarified leachate discharged to the leachate wet well is then pumped to a 63,500- gallon leachate aboveground storage tank (AST) for temporary storage. The leachate wet well is equipped with two (2) 25-gallon per minute (gpm), low-head, submersible pumps that are actuated by high/low water level controls. If the clarified leachate discharge rate exceeds the leachate wet well's pumping capacity(50 gpm), the excess leachate is currently diverted to an emergency leachate pond via a 10- inch diameter overflow line. • As noted above, leachate from the leachate wet well is diverted to the leachate AST. The leachate AST is constructed of AWWA factory epoxy lined and coated bolted steel. As was the case for the leachate wet well, the AST is also equipped with a 10-inch diameter overflow line that diverts leachate to the emergency leachate pond in the case of an emergency. • Leachate stored in the leachate AST is subsequently pumped to a sewer line connection located on Vichy Springs Road via a force main/gravity drain. The force main/gravity drain is constructed of 4-inch diameter PVC and is approximately 5,200 feet in length. The pump lift station for the leachate AST is equipped with two(2)45- gpm pumps (one duty, one standby), thereby giving the system a total pumping capacity of 90 gpm. In addition to the aforementioned features, three leachate level monitoring wells (LW-1, LW-2, and LW-3) have been installed at the Landfill as part of a previous study. However, these leachate wells have not been used historically for monitoring as they are not identified in the Landfill's existing Monitoring and Reporting Program (M&RP). The Final CPMP-Section 2 2-13 Page 1667 of 4165 locations of these monitoring wells, as well as the other leachate management facilities described above, are shown on Figure 5 (Appendix A). In addition, a summary of the Ieachate well construction characteristics and copies of exploratory boring logs are presented in Table B-3 (Appendix B) and Appendix C, respectively. Several upgrades to the Ieachate control system as described above will be implemented as part of the final closure construction project. These upgrades will include lining the existing Ieachate wet well and sedimentation chamber to provide a higher degree of containment. In addition, the emergency Ieachate pond will be backfilled and an underground storage tank (UST) system installed to provide new overflow protection provisions. Finally, the Ieachate wet well and Ieachate storage tank will be retrofitted with communication telemetry to enhance emergency capabilities. 2.11 GROUNDWATER MONITORING SYSTEM The groundwater monitoring network currently consists of 18 groundwater monitoring wells primarily concentrated along the northern and western margins of the WMU. No changes to the monitoring system components are proposed as part of closure. The locations of the groundwater monitoring wells are shown on Figure 6 (Appendix A). Groundwater monitoring well 87-1 was installed in 1987 and was subsequently used as part of the Water Quality Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) conducted at the Landfill during the late 1980s. The remaining groundwater monitoring wells were installed over the period of 1990 through 1996 as a mechanism to characterize groundwater impacts at the site and to upgrade the Landfill's detection monitoring network. In accordance with the criteria specified in Section D(3)(b)of M&RP Order No. R1-2002-0061, the respective groundwater monitoring wells have the following use designations: Detection Monitorinq Wells: • 87-1, 90-1, 90-2, 90-5, 90-6, 90-7, 90-8, 92-2, 92-3, 94-1, 94-2, 96-1, 96-2, and 96-3 Corrective Action Monitorinq Wells: • 90-3, 90-4, 92-1, and 92-4 Point of Compliance Wells: • 87-1, 90-2, 90-3, 90-4, 90-5, 90-7, and 90-8 The two (2) primary water-bearing formation deposits underlying the site correspond to Quaternary alluvial deposits and Plio-Pleistocene upper/lower continental basin deposits. Groundwater monitoring wells completed within the Quaternary alluvial deposits include 87- 1, 90-1, 90-3, 90-4, 92-1, and 94-1. These groundwater monitoring wells range in depth from approximately 12 to 35 feet BGS. The remaining groundwater monitoring wells are completed in the Plio-Pleistocene upper or lower continental basin deposits and range in depth from approximately 23 to 160 feet BGS. Final CPMP-Section 2 2-14 Page 1668 of 4165 Table B-4 in Appendix B of this document provides a summary of the groundwater monitoring well construction characteristics. Copies of exploratory boring logs for the respective groundwater monitoring wells are enclosed in Appendix C. 2.12 SURFCE WATER MONITORING SYSTEM The surface water monitoring system for the Landfill is comprised of two (2) surface water sampling stations (S-1 and S-2) located along the unnamed ephemeral creek that flows along the northern margin of the WMU from east to west. The surface water sampling stations are shown on Figure 7 (Appendix A). As illustrated on Figure 7, S-1 and S-2 are located upstream and downstream of the WMU, respectively. It should be noted that a Notice of Termination (NOT) for the Landfill's former stormwater permit (WDID Number 1231001656)was approved by the RWQCB on July 30, 2015 on the basis that industrial activity no longer occurs at the site, nor will it occur in the future as the end use of the Landfill during the postclosure maintenance period will be non-irrigated open space. Surface water monitoring and inspection at the Landfill will continue to be performed as part of the Landfill's postclosure maintenance program (see Section 3), thereby providing long-term provisions for monitoring surface water quality. 2.13 CLOSURE OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT As part of the January 2008 JTD (EBA, 2008), recommendations were provided for assessing the unlined Ieachate surface impoundment for potential environmental impacts. Authorization to proceed with the assessment was issued by the RWQCB in their letter dated April 24, 2013. The work was subsequently implemented by EBA on August 6, 2013. The scope of work entailed the advancement of four (4) soil borings within the footprint of the surface impoundment to depths ranging from 11.5 to 16.5 feet BGS and the collection of four (4) soil samples from each borehole for chemical analysis. All soil samples from each borehole were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), arsenic, and barium. In addition, one (1) soil sample from each borehole was analyzed for organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, organophosphorus pesticides, chlorinated herbicides, and oil and grease. Findings from the aforementioned investigation were summarized in a technical report dated October 3, 2013 (EBA, 2013b) and submitted to the RWQCB, CalRecycle, and LEA. Results from the soil sampling activities did not reveal any evidence of appreciable residual contamination associated with the former Ieachate surface impoundment operations. Based on these results, it was concluded by EBA that no further assessment or remedial actions were necessary. Furthermore, it was recommended that the Ieachate surface impoundment be backfilled with "clean" engineered fill and the final ground surface graded to promote positive drainage and prevent ponding. These provisions, which are included in the Technical Specifications (Appendix H) and Construction Drawings (Appendix J), meet the closure requirements for surface impoundments as outlined in 27CCR, §21400. Final CPMP-Section 2 2-15 Page 1669 of 4165 2.14 SEQUENCE OF CLOSURE STAGES 27CCR, §21800(c) As previously described, the Landfill discontinued waste disposal operations in September 2001 and has been inactive since that time. Thus, the actual implementation of the final closure construction project represents the final sequence of the closure stages. In this regard, the remaining sequence of events that are required to complete the project are as follows.. • Solicitation of competitive bids from qualified contractors to implement the final closure project. The competitive bid process will commence in August 2019 and the contract awarded to the successful bidder by December 2019. • Completion of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, which is currently in progress. The estimated completion date for the CEQA process is August 2019. • Acquisition of 1602, 401, and 404 permits to allow for streambed alteration associated with the installation of new drainage outfalls in the unnamed ephemeral creek channel. As with the CEQA process, this task is currently in progress with an estimated completion date of December 2019. • Commence the construction operations by May 2020. Based on an estimated construction period of six months, the corresponding completion date for the construction operations is October 2020. • Completion of the CQA Certification Report by January 2021. Please note that a definitive construction schedule for the various tasks associated with the final closure construction project will become available upon selection of a qualified contractor. Such a schedule will be provided to the applicable regulatory agencies at that time. Final CPMP-Section 2 2-16 Page 1670 of 4165 CITY OF UKIAH LANDFILL MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECTION 3 FINAL POSTCLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN This section describes the responsibilities, resources, and inspection frequencies for implementing postclosure maintenance for the Landfill upon closure. Specific inspection and maintenance activities are detailed in the subsequent subsections. The contents of this Final Postclosure Maintenance Plan (Final PMP) have been developed to comply with the requirements set forth in 27CCR, §21769(c)(2) and §21830. 3.1 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 27CCR, §21830(b)(1) An Emergency Response Plan (ERP) has been prepared for the Landfill in accordance with 27CCR, §21130 and is presented in Appendix K. The ERP identifies steps to be taken in the event of a failure or breakdown of the WMU under potential contingency situations. Appropriate agency and business points of contact are also included in the ERP. 3.2 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES AND RESOURCES 27CCR, §21830(b)(2) 3.2.1 Responsible Parties The Landfill is wholly owned by the City. Maintenance responsibilities following Landfill final closure will be assigned to the City of Ukiah Public Works Department (Public Works Department). The Public Works Department will be responsible for all inspection, maintenance and monitoring activities related to the final cover system, drainage systems, final grading, environment monitoring and control systems, and emergency response. The person at the Public Works Department responsible for managing the postclosure mainte- nance activities and the corresponding emergency phone numbers are as follows: Emergency Name Position Phone Numbers Tim Eriksen Director of Public Works / City Engineer (707) 463-6280 Tim Eriksen Off-hour Emergencies (707) 972-0839 Final CPMP-Section 3 3-1 Page 1671 of 4165 The work address for Mr. Eriksen and the City office is: • City of Ukiah Public Works Department 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 3.2.2 Resources Current resources of the Public Works Department for inspection, maintenance, and monitoring of the Landfill are as follows: • Technical Services Staff. o Public Works Director/City Engineer (Registered Civil Engineer) o Deputy Director of Public Works (Registered Civil Engineer) o Senior Civil Engineer (Registered Civil Engineer)(position currently vacant) o Water, Sewer, and Street Maintenance Supervisor o Street Maintenance Leadman • Annual Maintenance Contracts. o Gas control system • Annual Consultant Agreement for Environmental Monitoring and Consultinq Services. o Detection and corrective action monitoring systems o Gas monitoring system Routine and periodic inspection will be conducted by the Street Maintenance Leadman. At least twice a year and immediately after any special events such as major earthquakes, storms, and fires, a thorough and comprehensive inspection will be conducted by one of the three Registered Civil Engineers. Inspection frequency will be as shown in the following table: Final CPMP-Section 3 3-2 Page 1672 of 4165 INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITIES AND FREQUENCIES Activities Immediately Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annually Special Events RCE Security SMLM SML(2,3) RCE Final Cover SMLM SML(2) RCE Final Grading SMLM SML(2) RCE Drainage System SMLM SML(2) RCE Leachate Control System SMLM SML(2) RCE Detection and Corrective Action C(4) C(4) Monitoring System Gas Monitoring System C Gas Control System C RCE: Registered Civil Engineer SML: Street Maintenance Leadman C: Consultant (1) During the wet season (October 1 through April 30) (2) During the dry season (May 1 through September 30) (3) Assumes consultant will check security monthly between quarterly inspections as part of gas control system monitoring. (4) Combination of quarterly and semi-annual sampling frequencies as described in Subsection 3.5.2 (Monitoring Program). 3.3 POSTCLOSURE PLANNED USES 27CCR, §21830(b)(3) The end use of the Landfill will be non-irrigated open space. The area will be returned to a natural setting with the exception that all necessary access roads, monitoring wells and drainage structures will remain. 3.4 AS-BUILTS FOR MONITORING AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 27CCR, §21830(b)(4) Descriptions of the current monitoring and control systems at the Landfill were previously presented in Section 2 (Final Closure Plan). Please refer to the following subsections and appendices for details and as-built information: Gas Monitorinq System • Subsection 2.9.1, Figure 4 (Appendix A), Table B-1 (Appendix B), Appendix C Final CPMP-Section 3 3-3 Page 1673 of 4165 Gas Control Systems • Subsection 2.9.2, Figure 4 (Appendix A), Table B-2 (Appendix B) Leachate Monitoring and Control Systems • Subsection 2.10, Figure 5 (Appendix A), Table B-3 (Appendix B), Appendix C Groundwater Monitoring System • Subsection 2.11, Figure 6 (Appendix A), Table B-4 (Appendix B), Appendix C Surface Water Monitoring System • Subsection 2.12, Figure 7 (Appendix A) Other than the full-scale gas control system to be installed during the final closure construction project (see Subsection 2.9.2 and Appendix G for further details), no other changes to the current monitoring and control systems will be implemented as part of final closure. 3.5 INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 27CCR, §21830(b)(5) The following subsections provide a summary of the inspection/maintenance and monitoring programs that will be employed as part of postclosure maintenance. Specific features and components to be targeted by the inspection/maintenance program include the final cover, final grading, drainage system, leachate control system, detection and corrective action monitoring system, gas monitoring system, and security. The monitoring program, in turn, will focus on implementing monitoring and sampling tasks to comply with applicable regulations and facility permits. 3.5.1 Inspection/Maintenance Program Final Cover The final cover is designed to limit water infiltration, minimize leachate generation, prevent exposure of waste to people and animals, limit gas emissions, minimize odor, control fires, and provide for a pleasant appearance. As such, the postclosure maintenance program will be instituted to ensure that the final cover continues to meet these objectives. The final cover areas will be visually inspected on a monthly or quarterly basis as previously outlined in Subsection 3.2.2 (Resources) and evaluated for: • Breaches in the liner system • Odors • Exposed refuse • Slope failure • Leachate seeps • Sand migration Final CPMP-Section 3 3-4 Page 1674 of 4165 Based on the nature of the final cover system and the absence of a vegetative soil layer, erosional damage does represent a potential concern at the Landfill. Thus, from an integrity perspective, a physical breach in the final cover's liner system would be the most probable cause prompting the need for final cover maintenance. In this regard, the detection of odors, exposed refuse, and/or Ieachate seeps would be indicative of a potential breach. In the event a breach is identified, the damaged portion of the liner will be repaired as soon as practical depending upon contractor availability and liner material delivery, as well as weather. With that being said, every effort will be made to implement the repairs as soon as practical. In the interim, provisions will be employed to temporarily tarp and secure the area to prevent water infiltration into the refuse. All repairs to the liner will be to design conditions and in accordance with the Technical Specifications for the respective final cover components. Any underlying subgrade improvements will also be repaired in accordance with the foundation layer Technical Specifications. Since the sand infill layer is an integral part of the final cover system, the surface of the final cover will be inspected for evidence of bare patches and/or excessive sand accumulation. Bare patches will be repaired by either manually redistributing the sand in the immediate area or adding new sand material. The resulting sand thickness for either approach shall be 5/8-inch minimum. In the case of excessive sand, the accumulated sand will be manually spread around the immediate area to achieve a uniform thickness of at least 5/8-inch. If excess sand remains after such provisions, the excess sand will be physically removed and stockpiled at a location off of the WMU surface. Any areas of displacement or migration that are 1/8-acre in size or larger will be repaired upon their discovery as soon as weather and access conditions permit. Any discernable smaller areas that are identified during the annual facility inspection will be prepared as part of annual winterization maintenance activities in preparation for the wet season. In addition to the monthly and quarterly inspections as previously outlined in Subsection 3.2.2 (Resources), inspection of the sand fill layer will also be performed after major storm events. Final Gradinq Surface grading of a closed WMU, when properly designed and constructed, can be an economical method of controlling infiltration and promoting surface water run-off. The final grading configuration is designed to compensate for the effects of settlement, thereby preventing the need for difficult and costly maintenance and repair. Thus, the postclosure maintenance program will be implemented to ensure that the WMU final grades are maintained properly to ensure final cover integrity and effectiveness. The final cover areas will be visually inspected on a monthly or quarterly basis as previously outlined in Subsection 3.2.2 (Resources) and evaluated for: • Visible depressions • Ponded water • Settlement and subsidence Based on the steep slopes that exist throughout the WMU, any settlement that might occur that could potentially compromise drainage or induce ponding would likely be limited to bench areas. If such deficiencies are identified, or in the unlikely scenario that an area(s) Final CPMP-Section 3 3-5 Page 1675 of 4165 requiring repair occurs on a slope between benches, the ClosureTurfTM material will be removed from the area in question, additional foundation layer soil will be placed and compacted within the depressed area to restore positive drainage, and the exposed area recovered with either the existing (if condition is suitable) or new ClosureTurfTM material. Foundation layer placement and liner repairs will be in accordance with the CQA Plan for the respective final cover components. As an additional means of monitoring settlement and subsidence, the entire site will be aerially photographed every five years during the postclosure maintenance period and iso- settlement maps prepared to calculate any differential settlement. The iso-settlement maps will be generated with a maximum contour interval of 2 feet and a scale of 1 inch equal to 60 feet. Drainage System Drainage control problems can result in accelerated erosion of a particular area. In addition, differential settlement of drainage control structures can limit their usefulness and may result in failure to direct stormwater properly off of the site. Therefore, the postclosure maintenance program will be implemented to ensure that the integrity and effectiveness of the final drainage system are maintained throughout the postclosure maintenance period. The final drainage system will be inspected on a monthly or quarterly basis as previously outlined in Subsection 3.2.2 (Resources) and evaluated for: • Evidence of erosion • Standing water • Formation of gullies • Settlement, blockage of and damage to drainage channels, structures, swales, and culverts Deficiencies, damage to, and failure of the drainage system will be repaired and restored within two weeks, weather permitting, to design conditions and in accordance with construction specifications. Temporary repairs may be made until permanent repairs can be scheduled. Culverts and drainage basins will be cleaned of sediments before they are no longer able to function properly. Drainage inlet grates will be kept free of debris. Drainage channels will be maintained to permit free flow and sealed or repaired to maintain structural integrity of the system. Leachate Control System The Ieachate control system will be inspected on a monthly or quarterly basis as previously outlined in Subsection 3.2.2 (Resources). In addition, preventive maintenance will be carried out on all components of the system at regular intervals to ensure proper operations. This consists of performing manufacturer's recommended maintenance on the pump system and monthly/quarterly (depending upon frequency shown in Subsection 3.2.2) inspection of the collection and storage system. This inspection includes assessing the condition of system components for possible leakage, failure, or damage, and adjusting individual pump controls or liquid levels for optimum performance. Any potential or existing Final CPMP-Section 3 3-6 Page 1676 of 4165 failure points will be noted and repairs implemented promptly. The leachate collection lines will be flushed as needed to remove any sediment buildup in the piping system. Detection and Corrective Action Monitorinq System The leachate wet well will be inspected on a monthly or quarterly basis in conjunction with the leachate control system inspection as described in the previous subsection. The surface water monitoring system, in turn, requires no maintenance since there is no dedicated equipment or features. Finally, the groundwater and leachate monitoring wells will be inspected regularly in conjunction with the scheduled monitoring tasks (quarterly)for signs of failure or deterioration. If damage is discovered, the nature and extent of the problem will be recorded. A decision will be made to replace or repair the monitoring well. Possible repairs include redevelopment, chemical treatment, partial casing replacement or repair, resealing the annulus, pumping, and testing. If a monitoring well needs to be replaced, it will be properly decommissioned. Damaged monitoring wells will be scheduled for repair or replacement within one (1) month after identifying the problem. As for general maintenance, the following provisions will be performed on a quarterly basis: • Cut weeds in 2-foot radius around each well, as needed. • Replace locking well caps, as needed. • Lubricate enclosure locks and hinges, as needed. Gas Monitorinq System The gas monitoring system will be inspected quarterly in conjunction with scheduled monitoring tasks. System components will be repaired and replaced as required to maintain full system capabilities as intended at initial installation. Quarterly maintenance provisions will include the following: • Cut weeds in 2-foot radius around each point, as needed. • Replace probe parts, as needed. • Lubricate enclosure locks and hinges, as needed. Site Security Site security upon closure will conform with the requirements of 27CCR, §21135. Perimeter fencing will be maintained to exclude cattle from the site. Other security provisions will include: • Lockable gate at the site entrance. • Lockable utility boxes, or gates, or both, enclosing the environmental control systems. At least one sign will be posted in a visible location at the site access road indicating where the Final CPMP is located. The sign will also include a telephone number for emergency notification and will remain throughout the postclosure maintenance period. Final CPMP-Section 3 3-7 Page 1677 of 4165 3.5.2 Monitoring Program The monitoring program applies to the environmental monitoring and control systems during the postclosure maintenance period and will coincide with applicable regulations and facility permits. The following subsections present the nature and scope of the respective monitoring components. Please note that in the case of detection and corrective monitoring for leachate, groundwater, and surface water, the scope and frequencies specified herein are proposed and will ultimately be dictated by the postclosure maintenance M&RP to be adopted by the RWQCB. Detection and Corrective Action Monitorinq For the purpose of this Final PMP, it is assumed that detection and corrective action monitoring for leachate, groundwater, and surface water during the postclosure maintenance period will be similar to what is currently required under existing M&RP Order No. R1-2002-0061, with several modifications. The proposed modifications are outlined below. Please note that the current monitoring frequency required under existing M&RP Order No. R1-2002-0061 is quarterly for each of the aforementioned media. • Eliminate the analyses for calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium, bicarbonate, carbonate, and fluoride. Whereas these selected metals and general chemistry parameters were meaningful during previous site characterization work (i.e., definition of water types), they do not represent useful indicator parameters for potential releases, nor do they represent parameters of concern with respect to health and toxicity issues. • Limit the quarterly monitoring frequency to selected groundwater monitoring wells located along the western property boundary, while reducing the monitoring frequency in the remaining groundwater monitoring wells to semi-annual. The western property boundary groundwater monitoring wells, which include 87-1, 90-2, 94-2, 96-1, and 96-3, are recommended for continued quarterly monitoring since they are situated between the WMU and downgradient off-site receptors that could possibly be influenced by a potential release. • Remove groundwater monitoring wells 90-8 and 92-4 from the groundwater monitoring network since these monitoring wells are located outside the WMU's watershed and do not appear to be in hydraulic communication with groundwater underlying the WMU. • Add semi-annual water level monitoring of leachate monitoring wells LW-1 through LW-3. The monitoring should be performed during the first and third quarters to allow for evaluation of seasonal variations. • Reduce the quarterly monitoring frequency for surface water to semi-annual. The basis for this modification is that surface water flow in the ephemeral creek has historically occurred only between November and April, and sometimes intermittently during this time frame depending upon rainfall totals. Based on this Final CPMP-Section 3 3-8 Page 1678 of 4165 limited flow period, quarterly monitoring is not appropriate for the site. The semi- annual monitoring should be performed during the first and fourth quarters to provide the best odds for surface water flow being present. Summaries of the scope and frequency of monitoring/testing proposed herein are presented in Table B-5 (Leachate), Table B-6 (Groundwater), and Table B-7 (Surface Water) of Appendix B. The monitoring and testing activities will be performed using industry standard protocols. Provisions will include: use of dedicated pumps, sanitized portable pumps, and/or sanitized bailers; measurement of field parameters during purging and sampling; collection of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples; sample preservation during transport; chain- of-custody documentation; and laboratory QA/QC testing. Field procedures, field data, and laboratory test results will be summarized in the report submittals as described in Subsection 3.7 (Reporting). Perimeter Gas Monitorinq The perimeter gas monitoring system will be monitored on a quarterly basis as required by 27CCR7 §20921. The scope of monitoring at each probe will include: measuring static pressure conditions using a Magnehelic pressure gauge; purging the equivalent of one (1) probe volume using an air pump; and measuring methane, oxygen, and carbon dioxide concentrations initially, during and upon completion of the purging operations using a calibrated portable gas detector. The regulatory compliance level for methane along the landfill property boundary is 5 percent by volume. Gas Emissions Monitorinq The gas control system and WMU surface will be monitored to comply with Assembly Bill 32 requirements in accordance with 17CCR, §95469. The scope of monitoring will include the following: • Instantaneous surface monitoring will be conducted on a quarterly basis to determine if surface emissions of 500 parts per million by volume(ppmv)or greater, other than non-repeatable, momentary readings, are present at any location on the WMU surface. The monitoring will be accomplished using a calibrated portable gas detector. • Integrated surface monitoring will be conducted on a quarterly basis to determine if the average methane concentration within designated grid areas exceed 25 ppmv. The monitoring will be accomplished using a calibrated portable gas detector. • Any components of the gas control system that are under positive pressure will be monitored on a quarterly basis to determine if any leaks are present at methane concentrations exceeding 500 ppmv. The monitoring will be accomplished using a calibrated portable gas detector. Final CPMP-Section 3 3-9 Page 1679 of 4165 • The wellhead for each extraction well will be monitored on a monthly basis to determine whether the extraction well is being operated under vacuum conditions (i.e., negative pressure). The monitoring will be performed using a Magnehelic pressure gauge. • The flare will be monitored for temperature and flow rate using dedicated instrumentation and the corresponding data documented using a continuous recorder. In addition, the flare will be source tested on an annual basis to verify compliance with emissions and destruction efficiency criteria. The test methods and procedures employed to perform the respective monitoring provisions outlined above will be in accordance with the applicable subsections of 17CCR, §95471. This includes portable gas detector instrumentation and calibration, emissions monitoring procedures, wind speed data collection, and precipitation documentation. In addition, in the event that an emissions and/or operating threshold is identified, corresponding corrective actions will be implemented within the time frames specified in 17CCR, §95469. Please refer to the gas control system's Updated Design Plan (Appendix G) for further details regarding the methods and procedures. Source Testinq In accordance with 17CCR, §95464(b)(4), an initial source test of the flare will be performed within 180 days of initial start-up of the gas control system. This will be followed by annual source testing thereafter during the postclosure maintenance period, or at an alternate frequency if approved by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD). The source testing will be performed by a qualified contractor experienced in this type of testing. 3.6 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR GAS CONTROL SYSTEM 27CCR, §21830(b)(6) Preventive maintenance for the existing partial perimeter gas collection system will be carried out on all mechanical equipment at manufacturer's recommended intervals. This includes cleaning, lubrication, and replacement of worn parts. The accessible portions of gas collection piping will be thoroughly inspected on a regular basis for detection of poten- tial failure points and necessary repairs will be noted and implemented. System failures, such as pipe leaks or breaks that reduce gas collection efficiency and control effectiveness will be addressed to operating permit conditions. As previously noted, this system may become obsolete upon installation and operation of the full-scale gas control system. If that is the case, the maintenance provisions described above will be suspended accordingly. In regards to the proposed full-scale gas control system, please refer to the corresponding Updated Design Plan (Appendix G)for details regarding operation and maintenance of the system. Please note that the totally-enclosed vertical ground flare has yet to be fabricated, Final CPMP-Section 3 3-10 Page 1680 of 4165 nor has the MCAQMD formally approved the system through the issuance of an Authority to Construct Permit. Any operation and/or maintenance provisions provided by the flare manufacturer or mandated by the MCAQMD through the permitting process will be incorporated into the operations and maintenance program accordingly. 3.7 REPORTING 27CCR, §21830(b)(7) With the exception for the gas monitoring system (see below), the reporting requirements for the leachate control system, detection and corrective action monitoring system, and gas control system are permit specific. Under the current WDR/M&RP (Order No. R1-2002- 0061), the leachate, groundwater, and surface monitoring and/or control data are reported to the RWQCB on a quarterly basis. However, a semi-annual reporting frequency is being requested as part of the new WDR to be issued for postclosure maintenance. As for gas control, documentation as to operation of the existing partial perimeter gas collection system is included as part of the perimeter gas monitoring reports prepared for 27CCR. As for the proposed full-scale gas control system, reporting will be dictated by the Permit to Operate to be issued by the MCAQMD. The reporting frequency recommended in the Updated Design Plan (EBA, 2019) is annually. In regards to the gas monitoring system, the scope and frequency of reporting is dictated by 27CCR, §20934, which requires quarterly report submittals within a time period specified by the LEA but no more than within 90 days of sampling. Each report shall include methane concentrations, documentation of sampling conditions (i.e., barometric pressure, atmospheric temperatures, general weather conditions, and probe pressures), instrumentation utilized, monitoring personnel, and a brief description of methods. Final CPMP-Section 3 3-11 Page 1681 of 4165 CITY OF UKIAH LANDFILL MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECTION 4 CLOSURE AND POSTCLOSURE MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES In accordance with 27CCR, §21769(c)(2)(A), §21800(c) and§21830(b)(8), engineer's cost estimates for closure of the Landfill and associated postclosure maintenance have been prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist and are presented in Appendix L. As presented in Appendix L, the estimated cost for closure of the Landfill is$10,987,856. This cost includes a 20 percent contingency factor. The estimated cost for postclosure maintenance of the Landfill is $7,191,931 for the 30-year postclosure maintenance period. This cost was calculated by multiplying the annual cost for maintenance and monitoring by 30 years (duration of postclosure maintenance period). The aforementioned information represents the cost of closing the Landfill at the point in its active life (i.e., current site conditions) when the extent and manner of operation would make closure the most expensive. The closure and postclosure maintenance costs will be updated annually to incorporate changes resulting from increased or decreased site activities or monitoring. Any modifications to these costs will be submitted to CalRecycle for approval. As required by 27CCR, Chapter 6, the operator of a disposal facility is responsible for establishing a "demonstration of financial responsibility" to provide funding for site closure and postclosure maintenance costs. Financial mechanisms to provide for such funding have been established by the City. Final CPMP-Section 4 4-1 Page 1682 of 4165 CITY OF UKIAH LANDFILL MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECTION 5 FUND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE In accordance with 27CCR, §21790(b)(8)(F), a preliminary fund disbursement schedule for the final closure construction project has been prepared and is enclosed in Appendix N. Please note that the fund disbursement schedule presented in Appendix M is preliminary in nature as it is based on engineer's estimates for both construction sequencing and associated costs. Both of these variables as presented are subject to change based on the contractor selected from the competitive bid process. It should be further noted that the closure costs, which are based on the engineer's cost estimate presented in Section 4 (Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Cost Estimates), exclude the 20 percent contingency. An updated fund disbursement schedule will be provided to the applicable regulatory agencies upon selection of a qualified contractor. Final CPMP-Section 5 5-1 Page 1683 of 4165 CITY OF UKIAH LANDFILL MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECTION 6 REFERENCES Bray, J.D., Augello, A.J., Leanards, G.A., Repetto, P.C., Byrne, R.J., 1995, Seismic Stability Procedures for Solid Waste Landfills, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 121, No. 2, PP. 139-151, February. EBA Wastechnologies, May 1993, Report of Waste Discharge, Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Site, Mendocino County, California, Volumes 1 and 11, EBA Project No. 92-385(3); Prepared for City of Ukiah Department of Public Works by EBA Wastechnologies, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Wastechnologies, August 1999, Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan, Ukiah Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Site, Mendocino County, California, EBA Project No. 99-691; Prepared for City of Ukiah, Public Works Department by EBA Wastechnologies, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering, March 11, 2003, Engineered Alternative Analysis, City of Ukiah Landfill, Mendocino County, CA, EBA Project No. 02-907 (Task 5), Prepared for City of Ukiah Department of Public Works by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering, January 2008, Joint Technical Document for City of Ukiah Landfill, Mendocino County, California (Volumes 1 through 111), EBA Project No. 02-907; Prepared for City of Ukiah Department of Public Works by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering, June 20, 2013a, January 2008 Joint Technical Document Addendum, Response to Regulatory Comments, Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans, City of Ukiah Landfill, Mendocino County, California, EBA Job No. 02-907; Prepared for the City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering, October 3, 2013b, Leachate Surface Impoundment Assessment, City of Ukiah Landfill, 3100 Vichy Springs Road, Ukiah, California, EBA Job No. 13-1952(Task 3), Prepared for the City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering, August 14, 2015, Joint Technical Document (JTD) Addendum No. 2, Final Closure Construction Submittal, City of Ukiah Landfill, Mendocino County, California, EBA Job No. 02-907; Prepared for the City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. Final CPMP-Section 6 6-1 Page 1684 of 4165 EBA Engineering, March 2016a, Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan for City of Ukiah Landfill, Mendocino County, California, EBA Project No. 02-907; Prepared for City of Ukiah, Public Works Department by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering, May 2016b, Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan forCityof Ukiah Landfill, Mendocino County, California, EBA Project No. 02-907; Prepared for City of Ukiah, Public Works Department by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering, May 26, 2017, May 2016 Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan Response to Regulatory Comments, City of Ukiah Landfill, Mendocino County, California, EBA Project No. 02-907; Prepared for City of Ukiah, Public Works Department by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering, April 2019, Updated Design Plan for Landfill Gas Collection and Control System, City of Ukiah Landfill, Mendocino County, California, EBA Job No. 02-907 (Task 8); Prepared for the City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. Matasovic, N., 1995, D-MOD_2, A computer program for Seismic Response Analyses of Horizontally Layered Soil Deposits, Earthfill Dams and Solid Waste Landfills, December 1995. Matasovic, N., 1997, YSLIP_PM, A computer program for simulation of dynamic behavior of a rigid block on an inclined plane and calculation of permanent displacement of the block, April 1997. Final CPMP-Section 6 6-2 Page 1685 of 4165 APPENDIX A FIGURES Page 1686 of 4165 Q:\02-907\Location Map Phase-Task 10.dwg,4/10/2019 3 31:17 AM f� e+ 1 " p r d t. ny " A N �441 ey» �I G i F r " w c;, r i r' l a Yid d , p 4 / y v 1 r , r� f " f 9 yd t pd P$tq x,d, I, rig [ �9��W� �� ✓ xw.1: 011 w n �ry f TnCVWPIIN� ry� 1 / �.. tx Ww rP I/"•w� ' ✓✓ 16f d h f! IIGM f nl I rr I ✓ar,,.. � xr a u rw ! r r n y" t d,✓G v"fl"wa LGG s ' 4 I Xr r wn 1 1 r �✓ WAY Do .»� ✓ f . r i 0 � Iti:, / y SBA SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 825 SONOMA AVE: UE CITY OF UKIAH LANDFILL WTE C, SANTA OwOSA CA 5404 UKIAH, CALIFORNIA (7()7) 54.�&---()784. 02-907 165 Lo J 1Nfl0O ONIOOON3W n o--o-ns«o a r:a oo LOfi—ZO '1,—vi.— oo Y IO a s��.ins co sinrv::�nv v nrvn ��ru anon � VIN2JOJI�VO 'Hvi>in 32Jf1OI3 3R34NV� HVi>in 30 ),1I3 EL n u3 .ve w ,tiM u dl "'ram y � l I H u � � z 'o IhDa rc r o 0 w� Wd eb OlE64QL1�410 P'Anay)u'Ad�.51 m Id Wd�i 640ZLL06 ZND 10 10 1,500 ON10000H LOfi—ZO 7uMV3J ''nD/7 nnnccr v:s'vssa v.i.rvvs o� sinrv::anv vurnrc. anon YN2JMMO 'HV1 n 3snoi3 3R34NV� HVi>in 30 xic ✓; : ,.�. at)i rq r rt p g a a 5,ser� ` �r4r ' itl / 1 ✓ yys'� If 1 Ilij� ��ji N,r I��( Il Mkk a lot (° � I NI"'ri ram.IT }, 4 (f � {/ ,�4rrJj �ifr i �J1a 1 ( ✓ ✓r r yg�� k yy r'M �� *L' � � ''�4,!I i �r 1�7)t r r / � r rlr /r✓�4 ,�� as �'�> sS"?urns��i (✓ 7 l �� 3 t r h ( 14� �� ✓ l� W, S r}}r ;� � .:u rG ��� I �f��tlJ � i4�i£r P+ � rY '�a td✓`���� ��r Lr NV�. I 1 (71 � ,��i 7s ��s r r y��Zh " ,r✓ '�� � ��?k1 �j 1 � r ,1 A �Pr�ti ^ce r a � � � a i s , ft g i ��/ � ✓ i OPT C`1 na +r✓ rd 4 w 1 id d I / � � l N ✓ x rq r� i P�yr��!✓ a" { � ,� �i �1� � y ✓ � � �"�u�u`��'� f�h � ,� bleb r�✓j t+ !q i ✓r 4i arylx, 1j c r � r ( 1 {{ l �d .lifts d/ v?Xrlf���� � I ri � ", �� t, ✓ l�� ��1 , �r rai 'r Y � ,'�Y� wtf?Pr�Z�,��a ,;,rilk' a ���i ���� .Ilia ` t ift t �'3F rY a'^ '� �y' i�'W 11. I > r i ��i�s1;Y�n�3 ��ty�i f�; ;,ra (Tya— co �� ��,;- '•� ±±JJ J'��' 6 ✓.,I"',PF'`�'grad `Y�� O gI/f' `� �,✓� 1 i Sri' f r�" � � t uI4„rJrt F , �7 1'41r�" �, 1 �1(' r� 519r g tr3 } 'Ir' �?t �d r � �'g� �, y tyk �y. bk 1)f' � I�Y �I� I v 1 t hr x � �� >' p} al r +ryu° �� if 1 ✓ ,<zp�o-uu,4s If If- �0�i, � r �L T h w ` Wd BSElT 64QLI�4/0'6rnP'coney)u'Ad a�ISfi,,,OWeld Wd�i 640ZLLOGZND Lo [Ofi—ZO J1Nfl0O ONIOOGN3W w �/�u'�,' ^/� u w �./� nonce SYSISAS IOUINOO VN�HOANON S V V u o :anrv::v-,v vvaONc�rv�ns szra VIN2JOJI�VO 'Hvi>inEL 32Jf1OI3 -RJGNV� HVDin 3O xio h r j ' � '� l / �� 1 ✓� �`�'� �,; �� " '" Iz `U` *qy 41, �`� N " I r �i�lli��e7�J)t r ✓ r� �r`¢ , lr+✓ r rW , ! ?,' yy(( ¢J�,i ,�v��T I ✓r/ / ��� � Y 9� �/ `" 5 rmt �� ��� rt , :"If ]]��� r "'�� r����� " �� ���:¢d(�i}�r4 �I i+ 1¢���fd�{ I �tI� ✓j.. `� rr + /tI t[� +I ilr li t (r jJtr/i°f�, i f}} f � :u I1 �� � 'k � y� �d l�(��y Y tY 1xrr ,r\ l l r„, 1 r t to � rti � 1 ( " �'"i ✓ d fi (Vl}nr +rf vs 4�(° W r1 tis 1 ',r `� �1' t'�`�✓n� "a y R 1 N �xr��lF / ✓ de f ` �'s sr 1 �i��i91 i {�¢r� l / 11 1 �Ifyl VIA l fJ r r k .� PP s �S�I �i�; ■ ✓ it �� y �W�� ! )�" ", .J: *, t r a to �'� � ,� ��+t ' a dr��� ��"r �t ✓� � ' i� ��� � i ✓ s )). o J � �(r "�7 rJ§ �'. ,.�,r rl n "fieiVl r" /�(' 'f Dayr �, J i;l rt ili r v IT Ir( ¢�s I o v ��� t l �� �'�'',� ¢�� ��¢al��!r1 3���I/ ✓ It I,IIIIIIIVY 0 onZ +r„ —1<— LLI �¢ (7 ¢uetlIl ¢, LLI Wd ZLBlT 64QLIn4l0'6rnP'coney)u'Ad a�ISfi,,,p�ueld Wd�i 640ZLLOGZND Lo J1Nfl0O ONIOOON3W a--iris Qa t :rai ° cos-zo SW31SAS 10UMOOMNIHOIINOW ELMOVEn IIIN `ZO ° :,'.iillfiS CO '.:ifiN'.:it\V VNtl9Nlff:.Sz6.i JC VIN2JOJI�VO 'HVI11f1 a 32Jf10I3 3�I34NV� HVDin 30 xiio r rt p � 'f V � ff 51ter �'�f OF 1 �� 1W �i�Mf +ri rr' `�.� �� I v� �9 k w +� 4 jJ,f�Sq .' w'A ..• ,v���rY,.�p� ,.1 '% ZZ 3 t f tl f In I �r NV�. I 1 (71 � ,�If 7s ��s , f y��Zh " ,r✓ '�� � ��?k1 mr G�vr "'tt,r'✓NP�l', `',. f'�P 4 bk'1 ;A' X y t�1 +,f 4 r 3' Pl rt a� s fr a f r m I r �N ✓ x fq '* a j� ) j��� 10, r r ������� Ill \� sf / •~ ��� 1 I✓r � J fi I n� N / �(v "i �"�F� %11�J l f ra �f�J�(( /1 �� 1 �4 10�� �r�fEh �?ILL ��If�l A si�µyl i3 ��0 +' 1,X, sw�1by , § y Yk ��bk Rh f s�; a'r�4 � ��� I( I�I��rV ��I � / t'✓� �� �A J '. f2a� {,� yjnr� �1A T A,R! v^ §1 1 , i 1 i � �vv->C- Q, Vk 4 -pf� �p� a�EYV�y f,�y ff 1l 1.U11, ), } ti h f ] N to LLILLI f'�f"'t Wd Bb��lT 64QLI�4/0'6rnP'coney)u'Ad a�ISfi,��OWeld Wd�i 640ZLLOGZND Lo cos-zo J1Nfl0O ONIOOGN3W W31S.kS ONIHOANOW H31`dMdNf10&0 o, 9 VIN2JOJI�VO 'Hvi>in t0 EL 32Jf10I3 3�I34NV� HVi>in 30 xio � '+ 11 / +Oih+ q'4++� .-, i,+ ,�1 N,s + , 01111, A, t A� v / i,lll �,1�J t¢1 r ✓1 /++✓ � h ` ✓ v eq ! ; ✓ Cs 1 �l f ! a h 1 7 "711 �1�l d° is+ f;,� "�'�( Y� "� r � � y4�/'�lr ✓ ��:(/1����4 �,�' �15�����d�l �� +' �F`, 1 / v ✓t! � {� S SJ � i'���4 s�v ��(l J ,�s 4� mr G�,r t / fld , �ra pg f ,r I ✓j ✓ 4 i l N ✓ q r� i PIy���!✓ a" { � ,+ �i +1� � y ✓ � � �"�u�u`��'� f�h � ,� bleb r� t+ ( !!q s ✓r ,i rylx, 1��t">ii,�y+�+� 4Ii $ ( is I� � 1,����� ✓� 1 +1� a +1$� {�, ��� �J � J � i l '1 fi J✓YP' �l+ Cry s t ">a� � 1+n{t ���r'ir" �'3F ,D � 1 s ���,✓ + yyr�t+�� i� +I /� ', ' � -`��' +���� ��t � �` � ,," ssjNfi`kN� +����°����k�S�+S+I I ���(�y��i+�i✓���� ',✓ 1 10 �0�� r a ace ova /r � �iS, y,�� �aLr "� ✓,J�, s� + l l 71N✓1 �J � � � � �' � � � �✓ s 13lI� +�ll � I I �+ rn rn rn a of} `✓�r"� N �� �. v �1flA ° i /�� ✓.. co I j IItII fl1i z ✓ el �j` rn a ) r +,,. 7cG rM J� �i ✓�✓ it�� a �J,,�� J F �� ++w✓ ,� ��J ' o I t, , , Q J f j+w W U W LLI K t J p U r r m k+ Wd Bl�64T 64QLI�4/0'6rnP'coney)u'Ad a�ISfi,��OWeld Wd�i 640ZLLOGZND Lo J 1Nfl0O ONIOOGN3W e ,....,. LOfi—ZO i,rinl! v.IAvs W31SAS JNIHOMOw uaivM 3o`d�:janS :arimane vurnrvnx;�zn VIN2JOJI�VO 'Hvi>in 32Jf1OI3 —RJGNV� HVDin 3O ),113 ✓r : ,.�. t l i r r rt p Y 11 6 b r y; e !I ✓ / � +f Lr NV�. I 1 (+ i �i 7 fl s : ��s A , y��Zh " ,r✓ ' ?k1 1, ,1 l ,".''fit}'�Rtv` ) �11 er +r✓ r/ 4 w 1 l N ✓ x +q '* r� i lI���!✓ a" { � ,� �i +1� � y ✓ � � �"�u�u`��'� f�h � ,� bleb r�Fj t+ !q i /r ,i ftrylx, '1 fi �k .has d/ v?Xrlf���� � I�i � ", �� / ✓ /�� ��1 �Wk, .."✓ �� s uilikN ' ' �l Sill U5�11�ie'��,' LL, All � 1lmit;� O 3 �t1 ti wl^y` ur;1lli .Ill z � s 1 I 7+j S�i f t 11 tN iJl vJ i�1� 1 nP ij (� M ib 4 � 2 l f 1 1 i�e��p�J{1 J ✓ IPI z LLI fW ¢. i6L K� is. Wd e.E�ZT 64QLI�4/0'6rnP'coney)u'Ad a�ISfi,��OWeld Wd�i 640ZLLOGZND APPENDIX B TABLES Page 1694 of 4165 Table B-1 Perimeter Gas Monitoring Point Construction Information City of Ukiah Landfill Point Total Top of Casing Elevation Gravel Pack Screened No. Depth Probe Interval Interval P (Feet Mean Sea Level) GAS-1 11' 686.59 4.5'-9' 5'-9' GAS-2 126' 839.65 Shallow 5'- 10' 5'- 10' Intermediate 13'-60' 30'-60' Deep 65'- 1051, 110'- 126' 80'- 1001,110'- 125' GAS-3 135' 861.42 Shallow 4'- 15' 5'- 15' Intermediate 20'-66.5' 35'-65' Deep 83.5'- 135' 85'- 135' GAS-4 145' 919.33 Shallow 5'- 11' 5'- 10' Intermediate 15'-75' 52.5'-72.5' Deep 85'- 145' 113'- 143' GAS-5 250' 1,032.24 Shallow 5'- 10' 5'- 10' Intermediate 1 15'- 113' 73'- 113' Intermediate 2 118'- 166.5' 126'- 166' -F Deep 171.5' -250' 210'-250' GAS-6 144.5' 865.60 Shallow 6.5'- 14.5' 7.5'- 12' Intermediate 19'-69' 20'-68.5' Deep 74'- 144.5' 78'- 144' GAS-7 84.5' 771.52 Shallow 5'- 11' 5.5'- 10.5' Intermediate 16'-42.5' 16.5'-42' Deep 47.5'-84.5' 47.5'-82.5' GAS-8 174.5' 920.47 Shallow 6.5'- 12.5' 7.5'- 11' Intermediate 17'-84' 18'- 84' Deep 89.5'- 171.5' 90'- 165' GAS-9 30' 763.85 Shallow 4.5'-9.5' 5'-9' Intermediate 14.5'-20' 15'- 19.5' Deep 25'-30' 25.5' GAS-10 59' 788.54 Shallow 4.5'- 10' 5'-9.5' Intermediate 14.5'-28' 15'-27.5' Deep 33'-59' 33'-55 L:Iproject19071 Updated FCPM Plans l4pril 2019 FCPM Plan l4ppendix B-Tables7able B-I.doc Page 1695 of 4165 Table B-2 Perimeter Gas Extraction Well Construction Information City of Ukiah Landfill Well No. Well Depth Screened Plate Elevation Interval (Feet MSL) PG-1 80' 27' -76' 824.75 PG-lA 35' 15' -35' 829.60 PG-2 90' 35.5' -88' 838.09 PG-2A 40' 20' -40' 852.19 PG-3 101' 44.5' -99' 857.51 PG-3A 52' 24.5' -47' 859.52 PG-4 107' 39' -80' 868.00 PG-4A 50' 25' -50' 873.24 PG-5 85' 44' -83' 874.88 PG-5A 50' 24' -50' 879.12 PG-6 93' 43' -93' 889.07 PG-6A 51' 16' -50' 899.90 PG-7 133' 45' - 120' 913.36 PG-7A 45' 15' -42' 922.24 PG-8 117' 47' - 117' 927.50 PG-8A 50' 15' -47' 931.22 PG-9 117' 47' - 114' 936.69 MSL = Mean Sea Level L:Iproject19071 Updated FCPM Plansl4pril 2019 FCPM Planl4ppendix B-Tables Table B-2.doe Page 1696 of 4165 Table B-3 Leachate Well Construction Information City of Ukiah Landfill Well Well Well Top of'Casing Well Screen Filter Pack Filter Pack Casing Completion Screened Elevation(1) No. Dia. Depth Interval (Feet MSL) Size Interval Material LW-1 4" 55.0' 35.0'-55.0' 762 0.020" 30.0'-55.5' #3 Monterey LW-2 4" 29.0' 9.0'-29.0' 777 0.020" 5.0'-29.5' #3 Monterey LW-3 4" 15.0' 5.0'- 15.0' 772 0.020" 4.0'- 17.0' #3 Monterey Dia. = Diameter MSL = Mean Sea Level (1): Approximate L:Iproject19071 Updated FCPM Plansl4pril 2019 FCPM Planl4ppendix B-Tables lTable B-3.doe Page 1697 of 4165 Table B-4 Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction Information City of Ukiah Landfill Well Well Well Top of'Casing Well Screen Filter Pack Filter Pack Casing Completion Screened Elevation No. Dia. Depth Interval (Feet MSL) Size Interval Material 87-1 2" 16.0' 6.0'- 16.0' 684.95 0.020" 5.0'- 16.0' #3 Monterey 90-1 2" 14.0' 5.5'- 14.0' 679.52 0.020" 5.0'- 14.0' #3 Monterey 90-2 2" 49.0 19.0-49.0' 686.00 0.020" 18.0'-50.0' #3 Monterey 90-3 2" 35.0' 25.0'-35.0' 722.39 0.020" 24.5'-35.0' #3 Monterey 90-4 2" 34.0' 19.0'-34.0' 720.90 0.020" 18.0'-35.0' #3 Monterey 90-5 2" 34.0' 19.0'-34.0' 746.37 0.020" 18.0'-35.0' #3 Monterey 90-6 2" 37.5' 17.5'-37.5' 758.94 0.020" 16.5'-39.25' #2/16 Monterey 90-7 2" 159.0' 135.0- 159.0' 832.85 0.020" 135.0'- 160.0' #3 Monterey 90-8 2" 138.5' 110.0'- 138.5' 839.03 0.020" 97.0'- 140.0' #3 Monterey 92-1 2" 28.0' 15.0'-28.0' 707.89 0.010" 13.0'-28.0' #2/12 Monterey 92-2 2" 40.0' 20.0'-40.0' 711.67 0.010" 18.0'-40.0' #2/12 Monterey 92-3 2" 49.5' 29.5'-49.5' 745.50 0.010" 28.0'-49.5' #2/12 Monterey 92-4 2" 130.0' 90.0'- 130.0' 805.81 0.020" 86.0'- 130.0' #3 Monterey 94-1 2" 12.0' 6.0'- 12.0' 796.97 0.020" 4.0'- 12.0' #12/14 Monterey 94-2 2" 75.0' 55.0'-75.0' 708.35 0.020" 52.0'-75.0' #2/12 Monterey 96-1 4" 23.5' 8.0'-23.0' 702.34 0.010" 7.0'-23.0' #2/12 Lone Star 96-2 4" 28.5' 13.5'-28.5' 702.09 0.010" 11.5'-23.0' #2/12 Lone Star 96-3 4" 26.5' 11/5'-26.5' 701.74 0.010" 11.0'-23.0' #2/12 Lone Star Dia. = Diameter MSL = Mean Sea Level L:Iproject19071 Updated FCPM Plansl4pril 2019 FCPM Planl4ppendix B-Tables Table B-4.doe Page 1698 of 4165 Table B-5 Summary of Leachate Monitoring Parameters City of Ukiah Landfill Parameter Units Frequency Field Parameters Total Flow gallons Monthly Flow Rate gallons per day Monthly Specific Conductance µmhos/cm Quarterly pH pH units Quarterly Temperature degrees F Quarterly Monitoring Parameters Total Dissolved Solids mg/L Quarterly Chloride mg/L Quarterly Nitrate-Nitrogen mg/L Quarterly Total Ammonia mg/L Quarterly Sulfate mg/L Quarterly Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L Quarterly Biological Oxygen Demand mg/L Quarterly Total Ammonia mg/L Quarterly Total Alkalinity mg/L Quarterly Volatile Organic Compounds(EPA Method 8260 with MtBE) µg/L Quarterly Total Purgeable/Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/L Quarterly 1-Year Constituents of Concern Inorganics(Dissolved Metals)' mg/L Annually Extractable Oil and Grease mg/L Annually 5-Year Constituents of Concern Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds(EPA Method 8270) µg/L Every 5 Years Organochlorine Pesticides(EPA Method 8081) µg/L Every 5 Years Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs)(EPA Method 8082) µg/L Every 5 Years Organophosphorus Compounds(EPA Method 8141) µg/L Every 5 Years Chlorophenoxy Herbicides(EPA Method 8150) µg/L Every 5 Years µmhos/cm: Micromhos per Centimeter degrees F: Degrees Fahrenheit mg/L: Milligrams per Liter µg/L: Micrograms per Liter MtBE: Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (1): Per Appendix II, Subtitle D,40 Code of Federal Regulations(40 CFR). L:I project19071 Updated FCPM Plans l4pri12019 FCPMPlanl4ppendix B-Tables7able B-5.doc Page 1699 of 4165 Table B-6 Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Parameters City of Ukiah Landfill Parameter Units Frequency Field Parameters Temperature degrees F Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' Groundwater Elevation Feet Above MSL Quarterly' Specific Conductance µmhos/cm Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' pH pH units Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' Turbidity NTUs Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' Monitoring Parameters Total Dissolved Solids mg/L Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' Chloride mg/L Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' Sulfate mg/L Quarterly'/Semi-Annually Nitrate-Nitrogen mg/L Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' Manganese mg/L Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' Boron mg/L Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' Un-Ionized and Total Ammonia mg/L Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' Total Alkalinity mg/L Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' Volatile Organic Compounds(EPA Method 8260 with MtBE) µg/L Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' Total Purgeable/Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/L Quarterly'/Semi-Annually' 1-Year Constituents of Concern Inorganics(Dissolved Metals)' mg/L Annually Extractable Oil and Grease mg/L Annually 5-Year Constituents of Concern Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds(EPA Method 8270) µg/L Every 5 Years Organochlorine Pesticides(EPA Method 8081) µg/L Every 5 Years Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs)(EPA Method 8082) µg/L Every 5 Years Organophosphorus Compounds(EPA Method 8141) µg/L Every 5 Years Chlorophenoxy Herbicides(EPA Method 8150) 1 µg/L I Every 5 Years degrees F: Degrees Fahrenheit MSL: Mean Sea Level µmhos/cm: Micromhos per Centimeter NTUs: Nephelometric Turbidity Units mg/L: Milligrams per Liter µg/L: Micrograms per Liter MtBE: Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (1): Per Appendix II, Subtitle D,40 Code of Federal Regulations(40 CFR). (2): Corresponds to groundwater monitoring wells 87-1, 90-2, 94-2, 96-1 and 96-3. (3): Corresponds to groundwater monitoring wells 90-1, 90-3, 90-4, 90-5, 90-6, 90-7, 92-1, 92-2, 92-3, 94-1 and 96-2. (4): Corresponds to all groundwater monitoring wells listed above in Footnotes 2 and 3. L:I projectM71 Updated FCPM Plansl4pril 2019 FCPM Planl4ppendix B-Tables)Table B-6.doe Page 1700 of 4165 Table B-7 Summary of Surface Water Monitoring Parameters City of Ukiah Landfill Parameter Units Frequency Field Parameters Temperature degrees F Quarterly Specific Conductance µmhos/cm Quarterly pH pH units Quarterly Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Quarterly Turbidity NTUs Quarterly Monitoring Parameters Total Suspended Solids mg/L Quarterly Total Settleable Solids mg/L Quarterly Total Dissolved Solids mg/L Quarterly Chloride mg/L Quarterly Total-Nitrogen mg/L Quarterly Un-Ionized and Total Ammonia mg/L Quarterly Sulfate mg/L Quarterly Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L Quarterly 1-Year Constituents of Concern Inorganics(Dissolved Metals)' mg/L Annually Extractable Oil and Grease mg/L Annually 5-Year Constituents of Concern Volatile Organic Compounds(EPA Method 8260 with MtBE) µg/L Every 5 Years Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds(EPA Method 8270) µg/L Every 5 Years Organochlorine Pesticides(EPA Method 8081) µg/L Every 5 Years Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs)(EPA Method 8082) µg/L Every 5 Years Organophosphorus Compounds(EPA Method 8141) µg/L Every 5 Years Chlorophenoxy Herbicides(EPA Method 8150) µg/L Every 5 Years degrees F: Degrees Fahrenheit µmhos/cm: Micromhos per Centimeter NTUs: Nephelometric Turbidity Units mg/L: Milligrams per Liter µg/L: Micrograms per Liter MtBE: Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (1): Per Appendix 11, Subtitle D,40 Code of Federal Regulations(40 CFR). L:I projectM71 Updated FCPM Plansl4pril 2019 FCPM Planl4ppendix B-Tables)Table B-7.doe Page 1701 of 4165 APPENDIX C EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS Page 1702 of 4165 PERIMETER GAS MONITORING POINTS Page 1703 of 4165 .... ..�...� �P"�V fllf wW�WmgW�m*Mp ffiq 1,.. �� "„,d""yam %W �a �4mIMl, IFwM4W W¢WiA'WW � � MwA aW fl,n� B� � " ��, � M�q�""�PrW�r�.��tl. m,�� r d'• �w N8 "M' °0ZI .. 94 R ... ...-- _.� �......... .... .- FIELD LOCATION OF BDRING' "'LOGGED Y CTI DRULER UMR EFURf CONSMU, m) LOf, 4aff OM �. eee.... � -,. WATER �� � � 54- DATE W N' - — � -- _..a._� � �_...... SILTY. SMAD 1� CIO), ) M I � 9 A 95 ., . a L � �. 0 22 4, 4 _ 0�51 �i m � ( 'ru s a GM 6 . m cm W :� .. � ar o u� ry f r 1c _. I �I.A'M I �'Il 11 II l DSlCK�bJE � :, uGS 5a .�... ----------- . .. w ...ee�. SILT gray (2 �1,� �� tiY��r� Y d L .'�(C�) un�r: ��r��d iL� n�rc���9, ���m���Mft��i� �� Nm u° :"suos� d:aN'uhw ' ... 4 mu d Depth = 10' A N � SmmmpRa D°qven to 11. ' I 1 ""-f""I El 2tl 23 ,....... L.00.....W „_ Pagel 4 of 41 5 ._. � uuuum uu r,�uuwnmm 1��� � �, � 4,A"mN U'."n��. 'a��w�wmmwwu�wwan wrvmure�amuwmaww uwa�ww�mr�rvw�w�nr��� .v�iu�+amm� aiw�rolw �W.." .T � TAT �.. ..._.: � :. .�..,.� SORING, G FIELD LOCATION OF BORING.- LOGGEI) BY, DR3��.., I (; I ,�� : P �..__m..... ....,�_.. �.. ...... DATE ' au t � Silty r1a y (CLj, olive a 05Y, 1 5% uncid, mm plastic fines, < 5% line send and five gra7ell, a . � k ...�, yaw az:m,. d a _.. .. C Silty C' . olive brown a,.5 "a as �4 , s ba v y �� f:.N N 4" C 0 a 7 Ca . Silt,... � k�� � a �® µ � �a L Sandyfines, � a plasticity lighty a.. Silty Clan CL), olive, (5Y /4)` 0% do 11rriod� plastic lines, re a91- 0 very fine sand, hmn, �,...' .d'N� / ! tl Clay (CH), dark gray (5Y, 4/1), high pladicity ,. .a pp &" Zari i..; C 0 C ma• C 0 �f)0C .f. gin �aa�t � � u � a� a ( �n �/��), 5 o C 3 � ...m plasticity fines, 5 fin and, saga't aa. a°; C) a CD 0 C' slightly � a a c ) 0� �a C. 0 0 0 C0C ... C 0 )00 F Cla as above, j C. 0 �°�C o r 0 GC C ��.•.�� e 0 0<, C, 0 a. .a 0 .. .p . As 24 above, alive ma own ( .5 / a 0 �ra aa¢. w .. w AS �., yr �... � .._ r--'-- , 9 � E 2 �h" O ° A.. ...... �...�.. .�..... IE'LD LOCA"PON OF WfflOJUNG X DAB UI aaS a C� ROTARY AIR ROTAa .�.._. m �. . _,. .. �„�.......... _ C� AN FEC I ONS won 13. mw�,auC,C�,.a.t .... ,.� ... '", Q'���aavaal 1W� ,.,.. M�°o CCaraar.�n;�; ACM ..... ���,�. WATER DEPTH as C _TIME iu"��'' ...... ro as COMTZ �..170 DA aaa . . . .. .. .. ..... .. ._ _ . �.....� _....._ ......�. �. _.__... , a , C' �C 0 _....., I Sandy � yyaa yiarra (101T, 21 JL 0 w CCC)1 75 . y . ax a as aaw . Tw e� dsand, well aher an C slightlyw C) 5%'' low ly it� tAnes, 2% line ed. 0 " 0 C0 W Isand i.. , C C 0 C. @ 34' bighei- sand content, 0 low plastic 6f 0:� o aC�aA C _.. firaaas, �0% hne sand, slightly m:ak firi�n C �rC a,:', . .., c "ca r C 0'< a. o C 7 � CI C �,. ? ' y �✓� aa6 yaaaayaal ataxma aa �. 00J .C ryt C a to . ¢ X �4- a � d Ca a0C� p 0 " '1 ,0 C C D u 2 CC "C 0 C C a ' light, Ya (KM C/ ), 95% a� o& bih ° C. a C y . 4 aCC, CC C) & C°.b C C C „" C C) a C k C�a= a 0 C. C 0 C� ". ° < 0 C C' 0 C 0. 0 4 (p . ' a dark � .y � 3/ w w C CD — C: aC a �. awa Caa� aaC: yar� 57. y.a aaaa C C, .maa a4 5 WwwWwW,pry LOG WPo IA,WV,Nnmw'm�WdUua IWHWMtlIrypWW I. �MIIWWWWWWWWWWIU"W!WtlbNW IWI 01010101 WWIWWWWWWdN�WWWmN 56 A. MIT r� LLD LOCATION OF ORI � � BY �� �� �� ��� U XS JUI AIR OTAR mm �._a. __..... m... 1, CASING 11. VATION. . �:� 83� ��." .._ 4.5 RKMO .................. _ .., m. 7 �. �a cl, � g "y 4; 0 DC j S ,." ..... pC 5 0 0P c cl 1)4. " J 0 " hh �� NW _... __,..wa ) ) c i :_ ) a 61 �. Silty Clay(stone), as above. no gravel, Soft C 0- '�o ✓, d6 r i '✓ `° d' s 4: C (1 0 o o 5 . ,: "a D c u.... 0 o �... �Po 911 pla's icit roes, A very °itiff, S.�j C" a o C � 5 dem c, .�d� � C 0 ' C G „) W) �. �. " o ., 0 D C' ;m.• M .. o c,I as bove" Mack ( !'. /1) 1VOK N1 � '-7TT M � AIXT _..... BORTWG� GAS- ��. .. ...__....Po.__ .. �..u. r� .m.�... , WEII 837 _._ _..._�a �._ ,�... e ...�, � ... .�........m.._.__.. _.. w. . .._w, IrWr uIMIM: IICCwwd� 0-2 aI SAND WATER DEPTH i s i ;j 7 ' C74� a w x m mma m u �w p � c mm------AA._..-- � . 0 � .� C)au° 7 ,,.q.M...,.. d mx r 7. :, "d 0 0 OL— 00 w f a 0 silty lay(st ne) .... flay Si ), � 0� 0 reenish 95% mod lastic mm� �00" � awe �tima�n �mm� ��� � �� m ... �„ C S 0 0+, C) � r ,a 0 � JI 7 C, > SQL m.. illligh �abrown, s Sandy°8542t(st� e� ^(ML.-. ) CD � plasbcl�y fines, 50,' fine sead, well rounded, 0 o 0c ), 0 _u "0 r� ....� c 0 �u c) �,„ P. wp W c' V Cc u ' �. r vel, 10%, up to .. u �u,� well rounded ���0 00�s c o c' o 0 101 0 „' mm ) o r c 0 0 c) m i� nt W � �plai t 55% �ae— me zzd' � � �0 7 00C) 0c) ~ .. ._ 01 0 Q " ) a ..... .� 461 M-ti 1 f 5 RATORY . ( � ` DACE. _ 22- 14 ....... ,... .. .. _..m.. .. .. VG, AM ROTARY FIELD LOCATION OF' BOREN(," IM(IED BY, DFB DEEM wyixs DRI I.I. G-.. WATER DEPM TIME DAM c am „ .aDESCRIPTION Cj Sandy Clay(stone) (CL), dark, blue grity, roes 2 0 fine Y�ned, send, as rya C>� m•, . .... I� a a . a...: UDC C ¢ ¢ .. a a:u��kt gv aaa�a:.aai t ace r a s ¢D Ca 04 Clay(stone) (CL dark gmenish gray, fine and, oaf daaaa l ow famJaa.r„ ssfx i°.1 � a QYaa )„ s° l'a sUcit* �°��'es, 5% r s hIgb PlasticIty fiaaaeC•s 4 w CL SAY Clfty` toa"aa ) (CL. as above at P'3 5' .• 105s 5' _.. ��• < C ¢ C Ca CC Ca ., Cr C'a ....i.... ,w„, 0 0¢ ¢ . �.... ..,9 Ca . d� �14 ... 6 ¢¢ C) 4 ( t2ana 4), as a�aaa aa, big h plastic,d: . fiaa a„ 0 ' < C:7 0 dab d ao.C"d �¢ C;�C a� 0 C�¢�¢.�Ca C C.)d ,a C 118 0 C) 0 C. ar�aa , (5G. /1), ,05 .° to .... a'aaaraGa�•. pla he �� C�C"0¢�CaCk 1C rounded. loose — med. dense, slighty damp C) - C). 0 C.) _. E Silt Saan („a�o�a, e), as above, low- plaa �:ici hncas, )G 00 C) 1 a C"b ¢ . ... and fine sand, �a� ed...... a�Pa�nse, ��C h" dam �C 2aC) C..a C C� � C•� C GC.)0 it fl & Cdba ¢ � � n%I711171 . w r Ob a LFC; ow PORING ... .....__ ... _. _ . ...................................�m,... � _ �... _......,............... . — WMER wuKS �_. ' G 'TIN EST- ; 0.'. SAND WATERrx } TIM.... 'w��_.....,. .._.. .... ., ,� rz ELI i ��^ D?13 a ay Du w ar m tocn�a m", .> �, J1CN --- _ -.-.-.-. __.. _ .................._.__ _—_— .. .w 26 SW Cz-avelly Sand (SW). dark greenish gray, 16%, fine grave., well rounded moist veryvery moist Wr��t, first encowitered g aLer 0 ". "dap 2 5 131 134 135 r k' P I� 3 w31 ... .�.. 139 40 Q I� 1 4 . 44 �45- 1 . �. d 1r -4- ... ..._. . __ "� s �w���•caa..uR�ge 1710 of 41 5 17 . a OF EXPLORATORY X bda & Y F WEIJ, ^ . �BORING .......w..w...�,.m... 26 -94 ................ IELD LOCATION ..... auvaa�aaM ua .._ ... � a�aa �.� ,� � 01 D � � 'C "� N �. ..�... _�. . .._F. NO 'yy ago. ""�.��.� ' t �. ��°>����.. . Pea Grave), CGbaaCa:°V`E k MottaaiPn, 5 .... 16`b Gravel ... 15', Ba.. R.avite 15 .. 20' a I)ENIN _.............m........ ........ . .. . CONMIRUMON AIT a's ) � � � � � � as zra �.N.�.... .�,. �� ������ C B A '11 2 w� 4 Silty Clay (ML), brown 0 fa 0 jai Sandy Silt (SU), grayish ish a~aara°a silty .lay ( )'m dark r ra iih Hai,, aau n .. (IOYT " "/2)" a .araa,p (weathered laao,; st � . ;) a �a . a.. 0 M decreasing S'aa.aa content, '�a 1 r gray, , ' �a � ° a��; �aau 0 — 20% vary, fine Sand Go coarse Sand,a baangular, � a s 1 0 0 a . a06C a : a. t 0�C . . GAg^. Hk_., ;u". �o�r�wA.ww«,ro�:�.��� �, �,,.�,��m �" ��u�� I AmR "M1 vYu 6�PoPOIW`� tl�l .. I � N MIAXk.... IN Nb'WN6'-nM�P M LOG Of' RING GAS a .. .. JOBS" ?.. ..._ �� .' _em_..... net .. b s p q ryW,� r�qq pp�� .� EVA _ .�. ,"....,.� .,.E _.:.. .. ��.... ___ _.._...._.. .ta..�@.a� A..n�s�W✓ ire. UN non" Slotted .� _. s ..., .�_...� _._ ...M _ _._� �. _ - s s � nl � e , rc y s C ONS7R C TIC"h F p"s7 s �.gat C �. Qa s, ' &. lkvey SM ( IJ, g ._.... ...._... h _q__ mdy 0 ~fi damp, dycoarse Sand, s damp,2 4— -2% volarse" Sand (2 Ivan 0), 10% very fine r° .) . 0� �e . j up wing jbecorning dark grayisb brawn " C"C")d ca :. 0 0 r 0 C r 34' �p C 41 () s » increasing sing 'lay e.oritey,-.it 9) 34�5'„ very dark �� c.) )0",-) C-'n �3 .. m 5P.' T finen 3- w IA } > 5o 4 C S ,� C (: u 40— C- °N �C g wn C& •� ... 'I Cw r —01 0 0 0 Y C :: my p� r Sandy 5lsn Silt (MI), dark gray ( r1 , / �I�re � C 4W ..' fine C C '� �..,� C" 0 r� 0Cd o '- c 0=o s 4 n C 0 0,0 ��.., Sandy Clapey , m _.�.�..... ' ..�.,�� nnnnnnrul ., ssQlnnwn�nW 5 P 5 �I OF BORING EXPLORATORY LIKIAR LFG WELLS_. . .._.w _. ,.. .nw � . ._. ..�... m ... . .. .° .gym ....m._.............._ ., m_. ...w.d.._. AND SPECUKATIOM& »..,_.�.d.w^ ... G-3 WAFER I-71 W TIME CASJ VATE — AN IQ C DESCRIM ON u � # C C 0 Al fl.' I 0 0 aw 2 _d C` Silty Gravelly Sand (SM), dark greenish gray, C 0 (�:� 0% Gravel 5 7 aae b "Mri ,,() � C a a SIM C k �� - � YC �5 0 C . C: C C:b C)C SandyClayey Silt JI moat r gray � �0 � C)C�C� _ ,.. (d 0 fine Sag "a brown, zri lay ticity flne uC � 0(' 0 C° ro s p C: 60 C CaC�C C. �,�R:•� C: C)W a C : C: C C'� G� `C� _ o C: Sandy MI aalaC aaaNaH as x Sand, eu C' 0 Co rseC C. 0 C. C� �• Sandy ( .,) area. aC 0 CC) C. A ... _ .., ,. r , 71Inolst, —60% coarse Sand and. Gravel (I nm.-t r, r to 1" 0), subangular with ��-� 5 n � I Sand SM), r* gyp' (2.5Y. A dry tO S aar:w� --,150 Se Gravel u to a s Pag �a4 �.ro.._..._��. .. __ �imimw�mw�v�wrw�mu� w. uwpn'm�m�� am�pwn�mnxmww�wwrvwwxp �uww� mimw ufi,.n �� „ wmmi rvia�w�wwmmw�wuir� euma -;r���iwam pow wmm,.mw mi LOG Of" EXPLORATORY NCIIS _....... ...uw. �� �, .._.. w. .... .. ....... ......... ....... e �._.... _.�.,. ....�..�..__ .M.m�.�. .. .� . .-._—_—. ._� ED BY- GIB WEEKS DIVIIING� MR ROTARY FIELD LnC^p ,I .":eo OF BW. NG, Nt O "G 1. G' EUVA71W ES WATER DITTH . ��e�a _ vwEwrvaa.. .. CASING 7 ...... . O DAIT 3UMION u a M ° pa ' _....._ n.,. � 5 Clay 7 ✓ 7 - � rr w^ 'nil becominj,.!, clry x C C)� CD 0 �.AIs J 7... V 0 Q Y, C 0 b 0���#0000 0 0 . am, w a � 'd s ' d �� m p I)D0O0 92 � � 0 4� . 0 0 0 ..,b0 0 c t. R r,as ti 0�r��, 5 w 0« 'Silty Sand (SM), gray, clamp 0 0(1) s , (N 0 0 ,0 r 0 ,0 ._.._. 3 00 , o c) � (1 rxaw — 100, 5 ups LO G X � PROM BORING� GAS ING _ —. ._ . . FIELD LOCATION O BORING.- �aX� Trj B CUB DRIUIRE DRIIIING, Ella POTARY �y EST, °G 8 1P ..... ........... ..,.� ....... G_3 �" )aWAMR DE1177.1 ¢ ;° TIME CASIN'" grro (AMSTAUAMON � � S I mIO , _.. , .,. � .. _..... . .�.�.m Clays-tone as above, drunp 1C11 r , a� �)2 ". �.... o co � 0 d "' a ) D G . umml . 4 C) C a, ., )� v b o C's Cr N 1 c .. EhIly Sant! a )n dark. gray, damp, — "!Z fine �..,0 0 010 " a t a i C) C i er in Sand �.��m�Ntent 11 5% fine � �.� 0a C>n,0 o 0 �P Q 114 .. .. .... r r h 0 0C D r 1 CC, 0N, N�D 016 k7 . ......... .... �.. 0 u a 0 . .� 0 C 0ND C 119 - gy 0 0 1 C) r0 _.._ ._ 0 d �... 1 , " 0 23— C 0 Nis -5% subrourided r 0 0 Gravel 2 cm 0, inoirt MALF c �" .. UKIAH F � . ri . ... n .a A.fsf f:. :)CATION OF BORING'. G m AFC PUAR F 6( am m " r 0 DATE OR DESCRIPTiON rw a� LI pa .� F y 0 U, � r .. < <f.':F F' , 0 a�0 becoming moist to wet 128' C) 9 , p '� (.ry C; N I C) qqq ,0 d��. �0� to if Cl � F b� � � � Silt, Gravel up t ICen a �I: � coarse ST F 1 � m �.. C.) 136 'I .m... r� FFF ."... F1 .. 1 ...... 1 3ff�.. �14� . �1 5 �1 6 7. 1FF ,.m a OC '' _..... kIotto d 52 'Y2. fl �/2 :b„ Sw)t i1tw rn 11 �-15" Flea rov �a� �Baa4toaa� ,z—�b�b"e �am�V t aw a 4: naattaa — r.?.b........ ulhxR 1,157 ..,..'d �.5" „ G n .�... . n � . k) ._,..�,. meµ, DATE ownvcnm . ... �......,,,_„ ..u _ ....... Q, r` "I 11 ^"" Ir n°; Ir2 r m"Y fi n min C✓gib "k "�, ud�`�".' A ��° µu ,. 2 aRt.y Scrod (SM); p�" knn 2'.5 7 )„ 30,... gyp% 8o rnktr k ....��.. p: v, fnvrc snnd, dry, nrnen3. rCt.rnsr.v rc �7 � c .�a an�'r ="; E� �- �� r�rnd.>��nrtna� o°r�uvrr�^4 .�- �°a,if -•- r7rwr�n�Wwr7rwr, a kr�rn� -- �� � .r -a As obove, no groveL 13 I kinkrrry �' .roSondy .Raty R. � gRil 'ow �v own (1 a7av a"Y 5 n G� u �wrolcd" yN fines, y, 17 �. �W. " knT'rt'ncRy fines, < v fin~I,rn sond, sc.n ttered ngrovc„ c'lnrirrn , Med. dense stiff. .... . 4 W...lcv �" LOG OF EXPLOR-Al'ORY �. BORING G ,� ti RING., M1 CASING 1 EV.�, C � _. . 1 N � ,d Nested s. n% C mm n nC $ W ' DEPTH H fl ®. e ....... _ w...� _ _.. w�• ...,. nub ,. .... ..w.... •_..... �a��www . ..... _... •m.. .. �mm n r ona µ"w' aan ern Ca �. .6.. 9 .. D. ...! W. s 29 X y � C�aNuC�&�nty �n•ucno"�nCm stiff, nocc�v8. m 1 32 3 W 3 � �.. Sandy w�e� c C uv� 5'Y, a/y „ 6 5 75�r mcwfl N yh 0ukucCyCarea 0ore rxnncn ' ovEd tf1 1/2 n Ffwmcocrrc mnny. .io�n c k weU wonrcflcd® clamp, bflif, d less grave www/ depth. C fl y(stcuche) ((CH) Gerry Green (2,5 " N5/ )A mod, s4Stiff, �n�ff, cnC.uc;"s� fines, w.�flcxiruw � n WW° back ck to y How saindy O y nm�ol,:nt.. Wa:y n L 45 .. sub to found, Dry, stiff —every�rsflfy��r�� bKMa.�w��.u�:u �, la sR.u<.,oC J�nne-�„ arusnncn 5 CH W.y nr wnn. •µ .. 8' coVon° change Dark greenish ... Sony 0ay (CL.) — 757. rned. pflosyll'cRy ficne&, y 5 LOG .IX JIC.,d�fi'"W A w » .' ��'�'x &Aur�daCT: u.�V�"4.N^"H q,A.q"�q.�Im�q.,q,,.,,«,� � ��.. w.waw• , �.�abnW, &.U. Q,:��"4 m..„gvP 1.0RINGIXTF ...m. � � � .. .... ,.�ti� �, ,,,nn..m,.� . ��m, .... „m„ � �� ...... .. ...��.�. .TION $' ,E?)TI) Ott" E E DR11.111k WEEKS E L[qw [ r ryRIRA ND qg E & for pm"" N 1 7"�p d z� q'b �.p �"��.��^� lv�a�� d �D grvv el �% �/ s� vra��vuit�w N y�~s '�° 9a . gkaaw' - Air W5°. I�'i+ ,wn f, +�: � 112 n CASING a l :p DAM tt' tEEtJ` 5% E¢cca . urwarU and sc c.uEta.cerd groveY to E 1/2 D. _ IF. 1 �u " r 0 ., 6 " gym . a . W g " 6 ° @ 65' 60% low to rnoc. q� �EcU� E4�� �, �C � "a� " �y 0 End chatter (EtQ — gra vex one, . .,30% fine � r raveC .. ai!mUV c'avucndu;^d. CL � 71 . . " 7 r 7 _ mm w { .„.. . � m PROJECT 4 : rcX ) n �27 LOGGED �� Nffi ffi E t ttU N �' . . a . - W6 G- s CASING t EQUIPMENT QUIPME T D " t I �It 5 Nested /4 ...S H 80 h k wC@teQ a 1 � grar8 nnC� henwaRa . 11 B12 -I" rq T75 n. � a w n� . C�5�m,' � aa � C% !Aottd - 141 —1113, ("avel � 145 84 1�2BeuCsifte 157 94,5 .. w ° u � s n ,oma qp, w 77, corny silt(stone) SiRy Scinc,l(stone) (Mu_._SM), earn ✓' 55 sand, r p"rnr,7 st, dense, N..Ccard test. chastter. a ttt trVsuc: rrry (tb �t 10 .:w low ���¢n at city tu ;^ b.m. o X t 85- Sc Silty, CIls ym, ;a uwnt(a tc n (Sc ap aftrtS btiirsq a�unro a� :� 9omod. ww mod. Ocn tecmt.y tsrnn, .. Nc ott.r,r +d s rc v 11 (°; . , dry, 1.38 tt y' 90 ae 9 " �w Cncndc !Vito Vcn st nne) (ta t) Ocrk onR ve troy (5y 3/2), t. tisgh Aasticlity fines, tnacce fine sand, dry .... s6gttly crnn.n veiry stiff. 99- ." t/ ncswsc:A �cnes, ado atuwse4,„ aw�� n�aa�n�c� aa„�� b it crr to nnsnct ictn�t. �nsr �� "" d BORING � ! - �,6 t �w N t Ne stec 3 3/ " SIC &... 0 PVC; W1 0,0 � w C" ��wo0tied � 1w;�1`n113'. Ga�OY61.g1 5 �84, 11�11 R:1ercutwilv',ro.� 1 —. 7_w'" "" w a " WAITEIR MIMI � 1 CL " �.,. _.._ . _. .. (1ayey Sond(stone) (S 1 gray, 40% high .�1�gk u��ce ,. rna,aual, � nd, 10 3. �. Chi41 1� b 109. — � dew°nw9 C"Vc ztaroa Q 0 '. or7 bhie � m"a � o $.e, N�C k1 iaiCy 11dea CGx � � " , 7 F arr�elx CL. > 112 11� ' w . ,. I 1 1 . "u�✓e �, rou t1ro' C L 7 120 L�� CAL." 1 121 12 C. ; 24--—.. �.... by Su�roro (w��tone) (13C) C ork �aNt�ue w.c��1 0 0% mO .rc�. pow sc 11B1111C,cI7 ne's, 60% fine mso a m � ar - AS 4 .. „ �a�° � .. . ,...._... m _ ..a... 7 O To"Y" . DATE, ,ro �" 10 �A W .. A II m +' °°n q�w. ..,�...m ,... .,..pW R k'Sa6N CS Y 5 UW'N .h-„ --`-"t, u AC a d ' , Pea araasI u r- aa * = � /2 5•p 9e 1taTRe 1 11 1/2 85 SeAte "l 1/7 7� k/� p�a��0 75 ��", l��� c & 1/" ... /5" z- rV C., "aattcd 153 11S, Gravel 145 54 1/2, Bent fitc 157 ... 145' WATER, Df�'PTH C � 5 IN TIME VONCAMW a as as aas ura mC" � 1�4 a a aa7 _��a.� . ..m...._._._ .._.. �_.. .. _ . ". 01 �"s.�'� "��wNt� Sandy �:nw!"����.R (Q'���� 3Q:1 ' N���a� �G�� �H��a� _. SIC N2CaC � .... fines, /C 2,.N% fine ,ro d 5--waC.% Cane C u� vO Caa 34 4 � ,� m, x Q7 J C� , weh minded, poorN'y a.aaurosaaHdaaroCed, clay„ saandsi'one & � G N 2N . C� x 130 :�caaroa Y� clay(stone) —x . R CGN fines,Sand(stone)araa (Cl. ^"�Ca Dark b �� Y �. ._. .., a blueafro cy, !n d IC""Jo,.A. y fine sac d, no aCa�cvea , C C G . Dry, de nse e soC V p •..•• 43 32 l�2" 3 CC"�a a. � �rcNra � , 135— 13 �,... " f S �weN rounded, a"•� as � . a Yaab .... .�.. .140 a , G . W r, X N 41 � . . 4u �-.F �4N. ' . . 'wIravf-Noy zone. � 1i fl.. C ._. CSC �.•��C, 1 4C, r I N�a vkaau a� 0' Q caw W< 8711�a Cana / ," 41_ 40 Vow _.. mod �aNamaa�� a,e�.y fines, C.a „__60% fine and, "�C� 20 fin grove Cap n/?." NN rounded KJf a;Naaa ts, ��` ,Z, aaos4 very uMuaaasfl:, poorly caaaueknmroNudaated. 49 461 BORING: GAS 4 BORING LOGGED Y DFB DRJUSRI WEEKS, DM LUNG r kat � N $ G de ",r�� a iN / �� a �� �a � B�t15 v ra N� rWATER DEPTIf _. �... ., ' n � r 141 DA TE Im r N c f . .�m'�...�,�.� mm�. w'": •- �trrru¢t � � rrp� f._ .... t,t atta�PBca.�tkcfk�. .� afrrt f<� str l t ° W ... $C, fines. d 5 _ ✓ # vewy rot slop for Rtft �rra t �a rt check. No to-ee watei, 6 wet trrrrsferV6 on. �trM trft.Vvery m s o sattvat rt wet t bt; ..ry f` 15 2 /2 / — Acid P:rentonite to t t's" �64, f65 � 6 � 116 9-1 10 172- 173 . of 4165 k'dIIN&wdanlMMW ^.c,p W w NRWIMdi¢' ... dN WNN'MW �d � 'd+ WWu �.$i,'MwpflmNl� uN.Wm " Nmervdlnqu �" ..I MmmtXN old I'�mfa�, OWJumrv�,'IW utWNANN ,G � .... _.. LOG, " � II 0 I � � ���� � ' �..I � �.r��� �� � ������.L � .-30R HELD LOCATION OF' BORING., Nt, JAX3GED BY" CJH I)RILUR WEEKS DMING, R ROTARY �..mm,. .. w .... _... � .I .. I UKUH 1AND1711, > d L : tales t 45 W 10 Gravel 171.5 _ 5 "" .. .� �:'.ON('mR�:°r E ,AS- �� t o _ 1 " (' vel t - 166 5, , -14T �.. �..�, a i._ . ... .. CASWC ��. ._ . fir. �.� .... m �.. „ : ,. ....mm�..._.,... .. .....�.....ti �. _�.. . �. ....m.. . �._.. __�_.... CONS .. ° hp8 r .. ._ DESCRIPTION . " .. ._.�.. &Ity 5and (M), pale olive ( � ,14), dly to dame, -Hr% alit, Ime. t~ roll �20 ° dw ) w l 00 i C b Y ravid � ... dam to ,e.� �cMi ' ...m l LOG Of' EWPLORAITTY SHE rTTY OF IWAII LANDFILL 5- DATE FIELD LOCATION �) ' ORING. I � ) JB RIMER. F S DRILUN ROTA R' �N C 6 E we Is �6 � ��) w..n . . _.._w_.. .... _. .. „ WATER DETIH UG r NCORTFRUC 7°70N DATE DESCRIPTION ' 9 1 Gm o 21 r .. ' .and 00, m 2 , a .... . 0 c 30- ..1P.��.- 0 ( � r 0 cSUty Sand (IN), as abom with 152 grave), damp 0 a ' p c), " . , 0 5- aid D <") „.... t dr �ka. above,� �, � Ip, . g .w. µ�� °° r;i 4 - " �increa an (.ay cantent to 2Y 0 Lo 44' X 4 " Cry A CID 0 . 0 .. . Sandy Grave) (GM), olive (C a 5/(� dame -80 Grawg up to � .0 ) 0 emu 4 ' � " 5 ��W � mummmiiu�m� wwli+�, ro imim�mw'�wmw ��w�� �ow,�. i way :.� x f' .. ., BRING: ..v .., ro PRO JET �� Al _... BORING . ._�.. ,. ..M„ GAS-5 TER DEP '11 , s DESCRIPTION W m Ow ).a��I DATE 0 ����1 (:) . 11h"� Cl,c t�) �w „ SandyGraved eels brownJ 5 5 .����.m,� Gravel of P 5 0 C 0 0 �mm � . �. r " > ��.�.. .a a� )0 � � r) Epp Gravel u�&�r d ) W ry ) 6 11,57. Cllkly� .-MA Gravel I,RP to I" diameter, loose 4. . �) 0 ry 0, p 6 < 0 � St Seed ( ), as alms o 7 " q.� <) V ( ) C)C)q �) u w /I� F' EXPLORATORY �}�$� ���p'4M " �m imw�Nu�wMwu�MMmUA�w9000!WWOwpwuwNOwmmrr�u're,�wP ,up�,mi�.www�r��91�1m �wr+w pew � MY OF UNIAH ILL BORI CAS-5 ORI _ . _. ...... .... _. ..... �.......�. �,�.. ..... .�.� . ......� �r� _ .... .._. .�.�. . _. . - �... _.: HELD LCICA770N OF' BORING: LOGGED BY: UP DRUI.ER: WYMKS DRRIANG, All? ROTARY 14 11M �. �... ......_..,. ,-.-. .�.� '3 UMAR FUL AS-5 ..,.,a M, ..,.. WATER DEIPM CASING w,. &"Ol DATA �� r� U� . _.. _ ...r _�_....._.. ��. _ ....�, .w_.. . ., .. � . .� .._m. _. . ..� ...�.... 0 76 � Cy D 0 `s "77- o m 4 4.. <r Uty c > R . sm <� 1 > VSilty Gravel (GY), gray (10YRI, !Vl), damp, '15% Grovel, ?J)% o 0zt::: ) - ) I <r 9 y4 � w ' / ), mosR,A -UM Grovel, 4.0% 0o l�) 'ill, loose 41 o �8 ��.. 0 > 'Cc> d:: � � 9 0 I 3 ' PROIECT OF "[717 � p %p ^ I Y O ( . l O)FIL� BD� s-i � �� 6 ) 9 7 �"' R" CATION � �. DO T CJ DR r �ROTARY ING -V 1 ( IJXIAA LANDFILL %AS --5 WATER DET1771 71ME � _. CONSTRUCTION TA ... ,�. w, . ww. .. „��.r".. .. D� DDDD e ...... �. .._ 4 ,) ` D= c C 10 . � � +{ � f: C f 0 7 C C 04. 4. c Gli f. . � 5 0P { c 06 }0 D� w C, 6� .a � a" 'cs c ¢ C b In d � c C Cl c 0 c Sam d"�ravel ��:ri� �� Sul lme, �6% Gravel ��� it m v t c `C)O c Cl C c 0 O C e � 21 0 0 0 2 ° C , .D ' 2 a : .:� ... �mrvww m�aN w LOG Of' TAPLORATORYIECT: W rvwMMW Y SHE u.d..'MING. � a 0 Ic mme.Wi��W wl� CITY BORING W ...... _ � . 4 CATION F PRW p . b'N �.� " �_ Po _... �.. WEE IS W & d _ . M (01) _.. m ...._ ... ... ._ " AND �� Yo KIAH LAND ���.... W CAS--5 TWE .' G DAIT Ec C� pldra „S WIw m �M f_ RDCD;' � D D C . c Im e #) U 0 IC �132- ..��V m �< d9 . 1,m ,3 C)�) :b t.D�. mm r U� 'U. 4 CD . _�...1 Cam l) �� D C.) � rm. CD 5�C � 138 C1 CC .D& �4,° C,3CDC"C` 142. p p `_X �M fill. 0 � D�iD '° Q�� T Dc� c .� ... N o 5 ) C.' UUU C C �.. CDCCdC � Icl U ,.....� CCcCC C"C z q II U C D C"A "D U C)C <)c c U9Umm c 9 0D fir. 0C I T m �� ILL � �� CAW... mm � u . _._.�...an. .� ...._.me_.��� �WN .m _...... �_.. ..._.. DATE,, � �... . ... _.. ....... e �... FIELD LOCATION OP' 130RJNG�, LOGGED BY, UB DRRIER� WEEKS DRUNG, AR WARY-11-- ND GAS- w _... WAIT WAITIR DE1117f CL TIME ... . ...._� n �. � _ ' u . ..n...mm_...._. ..VVE �� DESCRUMON 151 0 0 .�.� a rable c.aaaaoma.nidw d 0 1 2' a p 0 c C 0 �154 �")� � � �w�aCNM&W Geavel cmWit to PIM t 154' �0 0 C)0 0 , + .— o. ..��. 9 0, r 00C.) . C � 157 � C 1 C 0 1 F� a_r r:.a� , c 5 0 b a" Dm0 11 G* p, x 0 "c �Ca �1�<.w. C 63- decreasing, Grow l.. caaag aat b -117. 0 163', Gravel, < 2 eaves 0 D C."0 0 C �d 0 c � ���� ���� M"C 65 a0 r 167 rJoys.one (CM), gray (Ion, 5f 1)A a aaa a � u r 17 , ,. 1 71 17 C) 0 . 17 - ��a two y C:) �0 �� �_ ...� Silty (� k (1 d /1), m z' end, 1 ary y � � , �a � D � � 0 4 fine aa�„ , aas as �aa ��" a a�aaammete 'aa a seam! { ._ .uu u ro mm Lin v"� .":._ ." norms riww �iaarrmumuuwmuun uww imxwr „rouORY x wa � � �.... ;v mPROJECTro �w xrr ITY OF UMAR ...�. ... .a'..� � '� ' .. n ...,_� ., ��. ...".�....., ..w"... _ � " RT A,. FIELD .0(—A ` 0. C OF BORING LOGGED GED By: CITE RCI . M C RUI IBC ROTARY _----- ... � � �&( 7 ) EQUIPMENT AND o 9:3 DATE CONSTRUCTION .m I i i .4 _W.. )0 Cb�",c C C 6 � < �:�0 C)0cl .. V 0 C) 17 0 0 C)Cb�.)C)C pp" Cb 0000 a� C C 0 0 0c C C C uu C.) 0 . 0 . Ao C:) C)C:)0c C. C 0).�)0 C Y c C I. ¢u0 :� �� C 0 C)0 0 C� C. Gravelincreatftg 1.�9C")0C CC C 0() '�0 C C' )dC0 ( C C C C�C,q hC 8 5 C 0 C 3()C� C:) " 9 00 0 � 7 ,u ...... r C) C 0 � . � C)C)CC.IC>C C, C ..91 ))�()C''oc'c C p 00 11) C )C"r 0 0 0 c. & C�(::: C) (.) ) �) (.))0 C ). 0C Cl' m .. Chr 'a (C7.), 7,yih brawr (10Y 5/2), damp, CCy, beld ( C):` OC.� ,' C "W „ P dD � IT .. �� C b C 0 0 E 0K") �.���C A r� " )�� 5 .w b � .. . .. ��_ �.m......_ _. .BORING ti — .-.—.. �.�..... ��.. FIELD LOCATION OF BORING- IAGGET BY: UP DRIIIIR FETES DRULLM, Al dffi MAR [ANDFUL GAS-5 a, �A ry .M. _ ... ........ _._.w. I WAITT DEPTH Po ° ¢R vr � ;a � , DATE F." � ` �..- 0 �D 201 " � C S c d:) "�0 100 jT 9� Qm d�.�,: o 9 0 ID 0 Interkdded' Cl %ton C%, gray 101 , 1 and ra i ) �� �� , � c �awn (1�D < /2) Mr vary < W µ' any z ry graosh :� � ' 'S ... qffi ° c) C> 4� 0 � 01e grafis 11 _. ki brown 10° )c D 0 C r _ ) p v , C) C 0 C m ' 9 70 0 , t sh brown bed (0 21 . " 0 r C 1) ' Z" C, 0 IT. Inottled prayish brown to gray N!"j, from 9,17 - 18% njoist � C 4)� .. .. .. q�.. 0 0 , C — 0 0 C) . c mottled, as above from 210 _ w r 2e� c) C) 4"o c,�,o 0 1."Z, ic C) �. 4 0 0 0 0 `w >0000C �mwwu. mw a u ��d" ���.� i u . _�.. . .mm... IT Off" VK ^ BORING „ ...�.� 8 .. �_. �.. .m................ .... .. .. �..�. ��.. LOCATIONFIELD^.�.^..,m....._ ... ..,...,,, ,,,• ��..�.. ,pyp�Wp„� ,pp p vp„ry,grw _ .. .. .... � �p � 4 _.. . ..� .... `,�.,,.. `^.,�,„,.� ,u �l�'�Po'U;u�Amll k' R.M.,...."�u�IX'�A':� 0."dGA.^�°'� #.U.U'F'W a ,.,_....... ......... ... ., AS—5 w. ,w.. .. _. . �� WATER DEPM ^ ww xrd DATE' !co cCAIUNG _....a.w . .. .gL _._ _... � b DESI s o. _..... _w _...._. ._.._.._.... �� '� r a a 26 cy 0 �. err ,.. bc)�c) C� " 0 m D C) 30 ma : ....... 0 ems^ 1) I &m 0 a C) 0 Z, fYd..)P y ., a) •) s 23 a"k Mau ti C) �) 0 1• d o 1 N a� r0 C)As� � ��. � ���rwa d��CaLf !K r o C`H Apr239 P )I )C) m , Cl (CL)x gray V" CI C r 0 J 0 ...._.. � ��., & a� yea �,s�r ' ^e�a�:aaa ��«� a�aa�a�aters �� to i��m �`m�"r r � 1 I . G D 0my ..... 0 ^' .. 0 114, i ..._ w m.aa�. � G � 1 5 a�aa as m„ A Sand, 2m a �, () �� �0 r� ri� rY lea 0�0��p "d pp 0 �O 0 I.J 243 � e 0 ) m � ) ry 5 [LAII dad" ��'�m RM. w w moose DATE- 9/_.23 *mg jk 6 1 CAS-10 WEll CASING EMWIM APFIROMMNIELY 86Cv N"UhU. D .........., m .. Ur-MLOW SIB „M STU.3„ WIM EMI °1 Cj&A.j R,m„ w ° ' �„ T „ &m„ m SCM 0 w CLAW"Y ELT p �M 1 �w i pSTIFF' n n If:'�MD�OV� P „"ADC "„1 16-..20'. ML,7'Y MAY. ERAS'. u1,,0W9i iD RO (10 VDT /4)k rq:r, MLAP MC15r. PLSM 20 25 27-- 0 D UTY MAY, WW. UGH UGHT OUVE CRAY (5 Y 512..) UMMY c pill MCMST 10 NEARI Y D AT D „ABC D DDT yDVM ° . CMS PRO "D'" ( "IW D'N & W3733 � mm Page 1734 of 4165 IIIII �I L � IIIIwIm � I. � � IIIII� �hlhm�„ mT,T�om CA FAX fT1 , mo• m . . ... Ra ., IV 02 ,A,"�."��• 71 m m�m;� m A T O mmmm Y 860' EMS CAS I " r " PWIL , A ,„ ••mewl d -155 OF41I.I.ING RIG •"�Inlmll �pulwuu�lb&WMNUNIWWd� .wnoil....wmlfll�INImpPoM'Imlmluuawun.... aww�mu'uwrlA�ldl nn :wlu uu�w4N�prygms na�ppnlund mlmm'II a. I cr 1m. w �,57 U m w �, I� —35 , 3&....4&-. T TA ',m,m,Y. .T"Y SANID. m 4;T 0A&m� IAT.m1m T^�m LIGHTa�U 40 _.._ . . 4C)--42m, CLAY, m95mRD, Y (55 Y 4/1)m MUST P mmTmC sm 42.,,,4.V. SLTY, CLAWY 4SAND m� µ .5 4 .,,,ZIA%` „�A"m'm IFF m6m15' m9'ma mwAy, 5), ,m'm'm�T°nL Imm m m µM Np II' PLAm 6C µµ 50, �M µ , w.� y CT•"TOEWS,T m ,A°°�",I E A,r "m�.5 "m � m«k..w' " _.." m 55 S:a "-fi'Tmo U Sm"s� 5,,mmFm""m flmmE;mmmAmM DARK GRAY (m'S4ry m„mT"m9,."m° '^ " mu6A.. a�:m�m`mG8T T S133T E AX °-55 T`T�m .Lfiw .I'TY tlW m I �.. m�� mod' mTT m GAIT FIR �.. m mTwT„ /4-94 m5 PVC S TTTmNT, Q I Pm MEWTE GAS mm'mT'OB 4 9..0T° (TTWTm4Gm.-mN mm SLOTS) WALLOW GATT FROBE 3/5-4NCH GRAVU., WI4m D.-CnOENT" SIX.W. m1�Nry MNV�mnN14BIN IIIIIIIIIImMmtltltl WIN®WW,A.IN ' " .10AA 0119"e 1735 of 4165 IXAIpIWiMNN HIiWY ,ry�N�dYVtlp �11�7 q� q ILA�u a"�IEAC', , �A�,A'��omsKE!iPHONE (916) a a"aaw�. �a^LO s.comm[2 1 5 E � lOff" GAS ..,. r ug as eaWE- UN WC .,.� ...,,,• 10'�—HMLDW STEW Aga ..R F 44 ., ( mm�. mUum a. � a n N L 1 62!U"Ump ;k�U '�',; ""gym a:,, N I�, a W�UM �U' uG� AY M i w 65 a 6 • 7.1*» ri D, aV�ED U,U A DENSE, DARK AY (U 4). DULY � a"• jr.. ILL' MO L �� 7�� A� i. w SUGHTLY MUD MEDIUM a!l,,,AS71C4 UJ II.: AND DRY Wni L FROM .n DRY, WELL, 7 ,.97aa r � � � ST77 � GRAY' NEARLY � � �w M� � I �� a ,,E G WELL. C71QN AB �� VN TE eumr: a) - ', GAS ��a� ',a m.. —M %CX S3/4—INCH P . SCffl14. SIENTCHTEAL uu WM„ SANf.1--CEUFZNT SEA Page 1736 of 4165 ownwnwwnnwwm�wnwmrmwmaw� I001 K T 4 °ua R . 52 HIE C"A a' ,°� , 6 "4 �' (91 1 244-50 3 NSE 6. xu� uo I�w4a �• ��. w , ,,.7 n s R� o �assmNaNu av� �a`I LOCATI .... E aPMENT D EOFICAlI , awn, � . OF GAS WELL <Z,__...LANOFMl CUE-55 GRILING RIG aid-1 % 5—41 DR,m,,,a OMW ROM OT uinui�nnuwa�tu,wnummnmim�mn� mnl�m uan �a wm�Lmwwnw i. ww��i nln �.. m iw�ww�uM�nu mom^. - w� nWlml m�uw�wrunnxwm�Inm IIIII� mrwunww� I wwanw'w»��a�wuu m�,anxr� ulr�n m�niuwwwwu.�mu�wiwwrmmw �Iuxwmol �uwnmwm . Fli, n ';@ L m ;;"' wamORIPTION � N' I b.nw li Er 5 ` rc gym.. f 51, DRY, ,. GRADEDs s � 100 _.I IWL 4 Rip w EM me'µ SMOY GRAVEL.„ DENSE. MEOW SUMUB GRAY, DRY, am m 105 10 . l06,. a 1p " LY, SLIY " %, ME"DaW, DENSE MEDIUM Sa UMI GRAY,, M 4 SX.:TY. SMOY CRAVEL MEOW DOM,' MEDUld 'UAS-1 CriAY, SJOHLY MOST —110 n SM .. m W. 1124'47°., LTY, GRAVELLY�4�� (SAME ' ABOVE,' tla�I>RVAI... ) [NOTES- m 4 „� , T. MEMUM IFF. L.1917' ,R GRAB"( Y 5 )m ML OST. WKIERAM.—Y PLASMIC °I 21 LONSTR �4,R w �:� �� .mmmm.. � m ....... wwwlSMALL.OW CAS PFWOE /8-4Ws D_ EMI:R4T SEAL, NANwinM�iwNAl'dpNWIWW'ArolQuiR]'Mr�"IIIXIWWI',kw.t OW��I�IINbMIfi�Y,m,ImIXpIMWMn��MA'm nw .EMI u �W1 I IIIIItltltllllltlltlltllllllllll�I�/�Pw��ww'Ww'm���� ANN=M P6 1737 of 4165 �tl umrvwnlµa�dMwunN �n�IIII�Ig4Ww�ld�u'Iumwm�ndrwlwmma'wun �IW li I�ppnm Gw'auunm® bm,'ppMM4�irmrNll�l ulnmwm I. a�waM� .. rvwnuw�mm uw qm�w I� LAMENCE OCLATM � .M. » MAN LANOFN...A,,. SHEET 1 a5 5 2001 ET' SME II. II . 52 M-4 ( 1 ) 24 ,,. °fir'" a A4o~m , GAS a Q k", q alb l EMI FAX w � R6� p�°,. �� DATE: 9/23 2u5/96 LOG SY� AID 'R A �_a,.�.. , .�. .., . �as.UMa, av 4.34^ 14 g ..� .� OF GAS WELL " n MI- OW V. -4/fl 11 RAFT Y A T„ II nw u w uwml IOMFN��AIAPo .IMFpWIW wMnu'IpAwIImWWluw�ll�i Iwmmm.. IY�Ip�muWNWWYtlA4WIGIMNAmw%A'NI�na11w19�L��UYNxumpntlnw0�gp. 5. CL c AMU ae CONc) 1 AL, , ...` alp',„1,,OW 121' mt.. " �� ,'��'� h '"am dKK"T'� aw�,. ANm MIF°�TT'AG,WM DEE,"°`� GRAY h� _. (5 Y "A). SLIGHTLY MUS7. MEDR AWQ PV,A"�° G'T"a°' III •5�„ a E° :. µ 130 'AN � w 129-132"'v Ell TY C1,,,AT' " Alp°"" UG*W"A" OUVr BROW (5 Y 5/" )m � n MiTLY M0.5T, IPA AMIC M . ,. m 15 AAA, 13 1.5-r142. ClAYLY. SANDY Y 90°m MEDIL AWfl, ST07"& M�'MUM SMISH �µ a,J 1�4 MCAST'111 PLASM ..._w . �..W�. �,�, 15 1'5 Al �ONSTRU 5 a _..., .�. . ° ��5w 0 MA E GAS FIR CUE ° � , A KM"HMEDIATE ACAS PROBE � 40 "« OT(0.044 NMI Sums) Page 1738 of 4165 RLMSANCL 96001 FAX (tiV 0 Jan . " Oil uV� /11 m / mV M Off'' GAS WLEJ...I„ m inim " „�V " AtRI—ROTARY RCM WT I V LL m 0 V " „., ICA V Vm " °V" dr l.-.F5 0 1 r. SX.VY rl..AY SM-7, m jAy C 41" u,mmLo "W MCHST, P LAS11C -'15 �.. m — '". SILTY VdNr3,, MMIUM DENSE, MODERATL 'YV"J.JLMMM6 OROWN (m 'M " V 50 'M " FROM V . 17 5% WAM 4mV 11 VV M " VV."V' MaST w 5-"27. ". GRAVEL. %V°' Y DOME. MVVM'VN m°'VVmV Cm"m '.V.." POSSM,,,Y M IMTED 2M�.-3 % GRAVE.1 LY ��V"Ve. Y SOIND" MEDU w& DENS& MCDERKM. Yr'V..m...OWSH sw u; E-1I UM mm Ul m V v DEEP GAS PVC V, �. ,.. V m~ W"TERMU,VOJUE GAS PROBE :: 40 VDT (QG 0V VV FA C VVV..VV V"ONT TE M."I.W_ �� " `739 of 4165 LAWRENCE A A.aSOCIATESPI N.L. . IMAH UI �u�ILL �1*. 1 9/11 1 /96 .�.E- w.�.EVATm .ROMM L 0 FIELD I,,,,,OCATION � GAS I q1'a VIVENT MD SPEMICA"11 . F' GAS Wrll,,,, <""�°° ,.A h �°6tl.& CME-5 R'��„t,,,QN RIG Q. "�,s... 1 L orcq111s1 T �I a .,,,,C „ 1 ,1 dr. a En Aso 30 d BROW �1Q1 ��9 ..11 1�"FLY WWI` 1CWOOMY MAD w 1"11'E - y 5 GRAINED .... ,�......... r rr..A:. � CAW 5/._ . °a �.�Y° a�a�A '1,a�,.°� �.11`�". FIRM, ��EI°11L,1ft� �'1L1119�8°�V ���� '5 9 1)„ ML 45 V: HARDER, S '::1TW DRMLING MOM 49' "1.. V : (LARGER 111'1A �L) 5 a m10"' IR I Y. 55 d1.5.1".a. CE..mt4ISE �I.M.T. �1 d° UM If:10n&.PV, GRAY ( IB /1) "1"tri 57J:V, GRA�1 M � CL 60 S, Ilk NO' 0;5a 1ow1 A GAS 0t 911. 3 . ._. vnrrt S 1� 1L1�1� '�L1eYTa�1'+911�: �,���_ W/ e 1740 of 4165 LAWRENCE & ASSOCIMES MMM'. UN00M U AU40 DUE. UEHE.LT 'N OF "U REDIMNG .�.�. . 96 ,.. . . � . �w._...._.,.._....�N, ,M �...... M� ....�. �. ...... «�� ���� .�, .a .... .ti.- WW__ .. ..�m.._�._ .. /9 E.�E BY- 8., w 1 MILLER: . �U:::U'�EaDn N GAS �A •—��E a CA"NAG UUf'" A"n PR MAU'�AY 70" ,.� FIELD OCATION C� i ,.,..• m.. M ..'U � n AUU„, MEASURED R 76' CNN NE AU°' .'R PULUNG ROD a_ ce Cw uL ul rX C in)�a r K a MA CL 57w5-64,V: sm..."ry CLAY, WCHTLY M 'N"^ PE..AS'E'aC4 DARK GRAMS1°9 GI-CEN �ry 8FLOW 6V 5 GY w HARD 0 63.5 SRN 64S � 64,5-74% FQAYLY ROM T ti "1 1 RE A, S�.V�u�U°&TLY WON%'" "UaU." GRA ' a ~M"�U 1N �a Y � � 'AA "AA"- 9L.TY SAND, MEDIUM DENSE,. MEMUM SLUM GRAY (5 EN 5/E)^ : .Nt;,HM.Y Ma.S7. VIC QUAY AND NAVE.NM., BE OW 75"Say 77... m- SANDY. M 17, NAM-1. MEMUM r"4SE^ VMY MOMT ( U Cpi E'NMM"R THAT ABC' .° a 'U�JI VALS), MC-,,X)UU W BLUUM-1 MAY (,,, EU ,E LARGEA, CLEW"R. VERY M05-N EEA ', BY mm FR E WA WMER AT GM §1 4 s µ 85 „ 0 . ...... NOTES: 0 &�a:N"Ua GAS D""ROC.3 7U.EA� '�.... U.a U C4C M 3/4----INCH PW SCREEN BE N"IrON ICE SEAL U — INIIIDVUAMATE GAS PROBE --,S4 (0.040 MCH 51,OTS) SHALLOW IANa Urq am° .,,,.ugci MIMI. 'M87,..•(,EMENT SEAL D^\, AOP\P PkCrY� �- c FBI rv� 41 of 4165 LAW :�d R CE. '��a�r;�S 6� � a•� PHONE � ro � HOLE" Off. " ��oG�"6""�� u� a�a �u� � auau�a, Neu T a OiF S N, ING. DNA N FAX (916) 2.. -' 3 N . . ��.. � �' ice C96.06.068 aNAT Q/N3 0/2 LOGGED BY NNm RTWO-"R DFULLER. 0. J84SE74 ••� E wa N CAWNNG SIVA7101t APPROYEWMIX 02 FIELD LOCAVON EICUPMEWT ANO VEOFEAMONSk V GAS 11,,,. .. DF uLL (Wue.-55 MUlING Ri 0 s t N;N Cr � a a a" a�9^ ,� •.� ML —,aa': 0,,,,AN 'Y W'N, SUa '9VWY WET. W' N: I 'a BROW NN °CNN 5/4.). WEINUM PLASM GRAM, LAWR Kr 7. NNd•NmN,; sANo .1 a- ,N . LTV. G IfY nm4Nan'4a. NNN"�D NNENS WT)ER 'M,L SH � �µ 15 11 9 N+ SLTY SANDY. NNM WIUM DENscE, MN „,A,N'E YUJ',... 'N Gm BROWN. SUGHILY UOMT SST uN AND NA m WINUM DENNN!, ,m MaN ° ` YFIJ a all u WELL. G N,P,N; GRAVELLY 7. E 9 25 AND Num fl f sm .Gm . W ,,.n„mti N� U a d 21 I!N p 3 I N H P '� �n NII 541.". .. ( aN SHALLOW GAS &'.wRCME 3/9--Na-4 GRAVU, '° D..ECE'-1kN NT , r mrv— � ww�wm��a„�rvw�nrua , wmw,wxa w �wuvn�unnuwwm -�«�nwwnxn �� muu�n .,�� ��wdlws�n�w,.r ��� 1742 of 4165 ................................. , m L o N �� PRPJECT LNGN4 LAND, L IEE.N I .. � 2001 !f m N", HM. 523 N6oN� mi REMUNINN® NON Lia. N.m l DAB 9/13— 0/96 ......, _�w "��, " �un „ � . . „ M . . L002M. St . � T .„„„„„m„ „„„„„ �„GAS-6 am „„„„".. Nam - I Cr.,,,44 r AUGFR j:: I&CW "; —N " $N—ROTARYR(XK ENT imuaixaw,mmum imam wrmurm mw xwwivaaimamivaai uaaivanr i iurvrnmuim iunuwwunuwwunuw,nnmuwwunuwwunum iwmwa �w urminininxmini mnrmwiwiumwm ���:.. �rv� anawmxraxiamaanmiv�wrvrori w�awmur wwwwwaww„w wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwawuwwrvrea�i n, w�w NN�'N,..N... m 0 ��re CON,NSNN�'4NC'N ONE TION n „,,. ,,,,,,, .��. m„ . ........... „ ".. „„„„„.„„„„„„„„„„„„,„,„,., .„„„„„„.. �R „ ",,... 2W-37 - TY SAND m D i . (SANE �k a u,., 4'I „. � W. iM4S AT ...... f 4rw 45 a. „pIrEUXTUN BROW , ua W W4'W dC. .. GRAVEL, SN.N Y U nQ N ENO 9.40NAL CLAY N NTE° . CLA 55 60 N" „ .... .._.�............. . � .. .WMI N L .. q a , N� CAS N�N�. li .� BEN NNE'' NbNN N N �, ,,,, 1.0MSLOT 3/4-11 ,.NNN i,W.W V RE 0 X BENT 0 94ALLOW * Ni: 3/8—INCH GRAVEL SAND—CEWNT SEAR. ......� � � m � �� a � � VAX WIC 743 of 4165 'mu ,.- N NNmiWlmcunB,WUYINmd nmmrvrvmmmwm�mmrvmmnn m�'uNNmmmmmN.w@ NmN nuv'... rvanwmmNnl �m zom aar ',�'n RM. 52.E NNE " GAS Z 0. m �.,,. AI m Stu w20 . . .�..�....w�....��� �.,��.�„ ,""�.� .�. .... . �...�.... ,..,,,. . 8 SE", L N aaN Na C q"100 ac '° ......min llllwmuw N WN mmmmmmnmwuum p mrcreudmm mu.mNwWWmINNm rvnl �.. PoXNIUN Mmnmrmamm�us�mwwANINIIIIgw.mmrc�WWMm'imnmwmupNM 'glmllww'ulm omirvlm ME rvrvrvrvml i NNllnrroam .N urem Inwn�mlwu� �rmamwrsmmmlllllll �mmN umuuwrvwnwx�waaxw�rxmaumnNnmw�uw�muNmmm�mm� mmuxrvrwmwuwlwc"nw�lmnnn m.mummn &.. NON " VfflL En N„ . UCM ' RIF d 1 . N c No, m " I O ,,,,.Ch C&An-�' Q /C !sOSAL. AM.II� a; � w„ aNNN� SC DkON NNN N� ORNO»E (10 'YR 6/ )m SUGHILY MOST. SU01ILY PLATS=Na 5 — 65--70'. SILK SAND AND GRAVEL DARK „@,,0MSH ORANGE „,70 �� . E 75 70-7 N'a 'H N 'N'k N'N�a. :1. NNE p,,, SJUC "N�'NK HARD. NARY U � I so ry 1 ........ ......... ......... .11,. siR uc N D Dom..CXS""PRUSENM U�, u � a Nlllln N U OW GAN"i FROO: gip/ .....NNNN NIA'T D,,,,,. ° AL �mmnvrvrvrvn�mmiwnNNNmmmmmm rvrvry nNm�m� nN���rv� � rv�ry � �� mmlmmm �m �ry MINI mrvrv� 14 of 4165 nn utlBnl tltltltl �1 M1Xpp�N'mulNw ,rvrvpuulil�pllWN nf�l V/II U�fl A�,�wl MA M4mmmmmPo iximMMd'Milw� RL14 9�USSOC TES Pq� JII MST UWA-1 q 'RWMDFU MIN 4 oM 6 001 iM..M` SM EE-i--T. NAM„ p�NgM�N� 'a �^�M ... � NM�MME Goa:µ m . uNm� M m (916) 2.4 .�..� ,.a M kll.": 9/13:...2MM/ MM . m„ _..W. w.... ..„ .��. _—...... ..... q r 113y. . 'air M 0 JEMSrN . EMAlCM6 ., � .� . ..� _"" � .W LOCAMON .........., .n OF" CMS WELL, q'�q'',Mgi"��..M_ ,�,a. ME-,,,55 DRM'q„M„MM'M q ' s :aM &. a s L) 5 WLL R'1, N sm--cm LESS MMENTED BELOW 92! FINE SAND AM qM.,,"q"m SM'IGHTI-Y CRAW-3..M..Y � M 00 Mt. w IM-107d5: 51...TY, SANOY GRAVEX.. DENM,, DUSKY GRE0 (5 /s..1 15 sm-1 GM 111 y � v � 107M5.,,,,.174, EMET) GRAVEL IN A SAND NYE) MUr UNNMM VERY MM CAM L " 110 1 � q� U _ S: ��M Nµw _ fl401E D DEEP G � „�.q3r-..M N . S Mq M u MN TFUMq EDIA"ME GAS PROSE M- .,.MGM` (0.0 WMMOTS) ��w � MMM I NI I ��, I AAI nnMIWIi�IWm IU U, XA MN6IM'WWMRMIpIXI wl A MAMIp'dINgNMMWpMHMIANiYMNdA 'N MM1Q.,T MaRrEr. RM. 523 N'N NE m ( 46) 244„4703 111 :11,,,. � 1 F,. GAS WELL .._.� ". " .,,....a Gm CRUJIN 0-0 ltr ,,,,1 "° All-ROTARY ROCK 097 I, ,, �=) >_ C) U „. mil DESCRIP11 � gym„ N u w 120 . 1 5 M' 9 '130 DEN SF. (RISICY GREEN, , �� ZONE; AT 199 „YN BN,N.. 139' N..A... .xi DES .1.1"R GRAM.—I,, SMU. NO CLAY u. 15sm, Gm 140 9� .N m 150 1 CONSTRUCMCM SWIMS NOTES: B DEMP GAS PRICK 504 90, /4—,.uN04 PVC SCREE.N. B!ENl 0IE. m 0N�7 ;N NdAN B,i: GA6 PROBE4 "aN N (d.040 N��N�N^N MOTS) XW GAS PROBE .,,,,u04 GRAVEL SAND-.4MMENT SE ,,. Ofil. 46 of 4165 ° w,uunre�ww�wrvunwwuur .w°numwm wuurww rvu�mww�wnmmm. . imw urrvwmnmiw m m a� ....uno °°°iuw�mww srv�wrvw�uwn nmannmrr mm° �arvnn °°° mro d�'°,,A oa 'T- UKIP44 DF 4EE 6 Off;. 5 90 „ "°,. .....�.�.. .��,,,.,.mmm ,.".���"��"�.. � ..............."".....�. ..... �.�..... .. �....� ��,,." m , momCA.11-7 CAS-9 ,„�� u� � aaf " .....w .� � � . .....� . ,,, -- ... ,. _� FIELD LOCATION UI TAM EN L °a4 .1 " FROM TO : ., � a 'reti° .10CaIr q! e .. 9, ., `1 5 'are i ,rq " A .Jl a°Cn.. ° Gm i a .. „� ., WET AT 174—W ....1.,7' 180 �."..-----. ........ D — DEEP CAS PROBE @ — WERMEDIATE. GAS PROBE ,,, ( ) °r MIX.LDW GAS PR(XgE " r—a a CRAVU. ND—CE, 0'4T SF am - �°� 4?WV 1747 of 4165 � �nuuw �aumrwmnm�mwu�w�uuuwwmmwwmw�nvw mui uiim �nm. „um« in;�w�mmm�ww ob. wum, wmwuw uum�mam'. munnm nnxi�mmmarn , 1 a '�ES OX-C N"NN N On-it iN N N I i MA aSoT MARKET" 'Tm Rain„ 52- PJgLW".° (916) 244-47M ja N Wha m" " OIF GAS N all, u „„„,,.•. _..," .mow~' tj " OWN. N MLOW„SlEM AUGER WdtCCKJNG LAID .......... CONTATRUCIIGN iF .mN fin... N, °� F W a T K , " Aga * di 0 ul .. 4X in �';; NON d „ :": N o „ aka_ 0..." "N,,,a,..Y 0a aNa.NV;gQom PALE •lL0W,9'R 5130*4 5 1 � (� N,,�'Y a ,° ' aX '�@a"�`n, �'��4',�; c NON Y 4�f a'"�"m an'"N„ STN � TNITER WIT av N4mm Nu0 N. LAYER FROM 1415 TO 17- (CLUE' GE—MR,OWN SLrA-TnNE) HARD AGAJN 0 Nam =XY PWGS r,-.A LY a NON N m^ LFSS-20 25 " 111SI, WO n I N CONSPIUC'nON SYMBOLS NOM-3: 0 - D CAS FIRt, �N; � � �, 0 314 N NdV"Ntt:NPR a N' aPo;; NaaCH P &MEEN . SO17NIC, N_ N Off"f 0. O ww0AX W ge 1748 of 4165 A I�NdAprtpAlWdmpl AWIN1HfNINYM�APMrv. I WIWIIIIIIM �W... AY YMYIM�Itl,,WIIfMNUV#I �dml NIM�N. AAN APMA&MYX Yd�rvIAIMMNMM9K.. SS F w9Y V"v U fl M � LANDFILL A PP l 7 1 2 Joe f. car �.������M.w... � ....... ..... ... W�W � ,,,,,, � ����.� ....., . ...� � �n ....... F�2 OF" GALS WEU ... ., 13L, 0 9'. 6.,,,,.IA" R,,,,,,RUNTY III MT UMM1N Nmi iIM'u�TM�MWwpxn gAWnxd�p�INMM�ry rvquhn... lu M rvrvry w IpuIXMMMRp.W�tlllmRll9N � M �� „rvrvrv� � IIlllllllllll�l �� rvry �I� � �„�� ,� ��ry CL dunCONSMUCnCH C3 Pi Lm 9 1) n,,,mewSCRIP., "A 0 ,. clorj� aG �. N " 10, Is I-IARD, SCROW0 NE:D AA G SAY (N-5) 0 AA—IX, 1„1 G°P' OUVE GRAY (5 Y / )M HARD ' AX3 BOUNCNG 01 14, w 1� 5 G_„ GIA" QAYLY 9L.1' W/nNE SM0, sivr To A9 . IW-XIIIWJ AY (IDS) � NSA_ TO a,,.O WHY ..A CRAP. a'�lASTIC. NO ID BF-1 0 �°CRl�0l T 2EW �m NOTE'& I) DEEP CAS PROBE pqq n� r� WMA P Ism As41 G"s, GADIATE GOQI Fqi ,.Aa , T (Q 4 -AA A .OIS) mrvrvrv � 49 of 4165 ���� I��I� �W,� E 0 I�E P..... a X3. w1 A w w�AawW1 w1,N,, �w1'�Z7 2 F ,w ___ u �d111 11,/96 jr ar Cj OF GAS WE,.1 L „ „ BEII,,, Ewa„ 5,'°,,,,,1 0' flip,,,,,. T R MT uwmwmmnwur,��a �� udw n��w wmumuw� �� wngamwmxmmn Nwwl�i. �luuanwmoa�,m�rrxcmnlum�iwiuu I a. i. wwmwnwwd p a�wwmw Wwnwm ual mwM�.bnwmu�aMYMIpNHWII�W,NNI1AtlIIr�INNIYri �duw umwrvrvN � fl :3., d:1 1 D n ST , p, RUCMN m 1a =4 ir ov) Ip u — f S o^" �„ �k,.�&"#�. ,x����RBw1C �a � � 11�1 ,N�fl1,fl0�6�4aI'�Gw�l:m &:w�w � TOw ur �° LIGHT ,J �ro61 "� 111awILJ�flw„fl U"fl,,,, '1'N1�m �1�'1''� ,GH°lifl,.°w" MaST 55 k; Jul.. --4,0 U1.33 STUT 9 4.1Ar I 45 1Iu°TY 47 AY, SIFr, M!EX)RAM DARK GRAY ). MOST, PI 1X .. NS w 1 E.R IGBY I 'Y 1mY, HARDER M0 k"Wp4I,. —50 CL ty 5 ". �"�Ia, ..� w,�. A � �wL1° (u�1„) Wu 'a A u,..u1.1°: Gw�A ,w,,.�, u,..ua", '� o 55 f HASO FROM M,° a sham. 56 °�,...,. 1 1" Y�"1°' Ow,Y $AND, UGHT QJVE? 11�h�' (SANDS w'"U N ' w sc 60 � uwou S NOTES:1 IIIII Dal°, AS P ..�.p. .µygy� .��.�pp M1Upp��pp,.I^pp... �.., . .. ._ F''yg re wlw� 1 �w�uM II III 91�W�'® W".�AN / °III11400 II'9°'�M1 OMM. Iltl'.MV 1 ull INTU1NIIw'ETMA E GXS 1uw1ME: wanumauaamwun,uaiu��uwni�w�rwrv�wwro�x�a�u mnuwm Iw.ow�,n�mrwmwrvlwuwx� � mmwuwxmmrvwnmllln unrewxlrelvuoiwu� �waw» rn. uo�wwwanlwru�w mww*���n i ��mm�urmnm QAx IOPMb 1750 of 4165 LEA CHA TE 'WELLS Page 1751 of 4165 . w ew Cu _ HOD Aff HO M..A STEMAM�f�p., A 1p. A " AALf��ICA IA SA PM ER ��n Df 11/ 5 Aj m G II 1EVAf H) Q IIV OF C AAJINA) as DIESMUPTION aSYM fD L �p�'MII p Onlc lllluo a ova gray, silty cMay,danp, 50ft, ..._. M i C 2 ✓� � t ��M V N" 4 I, MBA r�rr�a"��Iuw� a"unu�lY�uM ��,�p��� I� iraul�h� u���a��b��u �k �su �a s �'R iIday,May 0, p�Uf 0 of �retV� or�.o pieces of ne s�uaplu� 6�rrrpA A M. founds E OrpBM pplil'ru 40 l�A OV''M p MrAm f � aas In vz�1 rr.:: n ' I died e,u., �AEpr , d cove,,.A.a.r_r gray r y p�. .,. ._ � � > Yrd�¢ � � dAy, m CA C'frpVM M pAm' � . ..... .. ��. .w. ..o.... �._. _ ,.... �:A �, r'� GAR GARBAGE 1 2 u DII'iMM p prfrrra A Apt wm ie��'uuorw u � 30- AsaMll G IpVrm r GARBAGE, B'nsgANy An�"�.�r �a�.�n��d„ ��uH�a�, llrekM w4p and Y A ' Aasb . �A® U � V"GPi1 p ).f� r "Aa ..... 35 M LEAD i TE WELL 07JN D W A Tf 0 RRI`!!C Tf' E ACT":N0rNf IfF. EA I L T Y F3 E 0 fA..r iah Dees h Cakfy of p �rnIl 0273fM-..ArAA. A I_W....pPage I of 2 Page 1752 of 4165 M I ING METHOD 2 CALIFORNIA SAIVI. RERDRILLINi METHOD STEM AUGE aMM Cn bD f/fk .. s Cu 01VATION �.�TTDP OF C'44fD�� T13 M ~ SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION dif �_ . _ .w.a� _. �.. ....... � p. _.. ..mw .w w.4T� Lx U GAR, R"DS 4 /4/fD somersome� T"DA RD4R�T� dry,some of(!lot, trace organic Dub���r�� a Dm� ir orange sta0s,with pea giravel. 35 0 D PPP tot � � 0 DR�w r� iUM fl ' Tao fDS p fu�u ��R'D/ ., T'DII�stru�c�Rion b Wad ui er„no� �u4R�c�� overe 0, � �l L AL 25 ���� ��M bst . un Ole d..�auger, r0 niipm p��,�.* pp� �p��pp pp�pp�p ��._. Yi ��'�g.�Vp�tb,��V q "'b!�fD TI ,r�r��'�DRR'�P �QY u�sR9�R"� RR'��''�" o,.. 0 Uri „,,2 P���MNW li�����Ne of the Yi 4aG�l�,��➢L I 54_ 05 1 Dr4ull� -12 50 14/3 4 �x foil .m /D'II sDll°uDRon �n Nead augeil, sWff 6n uram�frller. � 167 fDS A 4puur fuum 14/3 55 4" < �•R4 fD DS D 4pu f 8 / , fD raenieh gray,SILTY SAND,wd~ $Du`aded simd is veir4 � 4 �. pine to c ups DaredocorII�aW fine,donsp, 4r4w �.44 �nN D� � ' L� d.. / T`otai Depth_ 9. fW b s at RTTD4 Pairs nun W/95. I TfD �I °T4 I EACI E WELL LW-1 R3D'fTTD..PDAPI/W T ':DD CORfREC.111IV ': A 1'T R4 D'° ':TT f 'DfLl...,( REP TT,..P... 42 736..-003 D..038 D, ...i Page 2 of Page 1753 of 4165 w SAff p fNgffuMETHOD CALIFORNIA SAMPLER ff DRILL]& w fay ff COW ETED IVB/9 8 area ELEVATION (TOP N"CASING) 3t '��W �� SYqIf4Nll FILL N�pp DESCRIPTION m..�m... dw "�. w aµ q e -- a. I LID 00 GAR GARBAGE, wkh odor,dry,conta00g:Wood,p�asflc, DM 14re � p° as be train thegrnamgaqe of Irp84or milk cartons,sYf�^aaq.' a . i 4f' to. n�Ngp 8 areas a 6 Lfrk911 q papa fwa4ffl441df.. r�,onso.nfs reef:dark gray day and�raareaaq,da.nrlrup. q,r % ana �. � o"I ' ll rc.w 20- GARBAGE f consists a a day af wood, trace of fi I ipm aq fre a are a " va paecr o Increase in ftst re content to nuaf, ro f�m � b�rod � I 2dm 25 i � a 4 a fS ` 4 GARBAGE�5 wet. 1dgd '�, qd eeCLAYEY r i Ufa°w tl4 f2lP f � SC 4arnni gray, u'aeH pfu LAY Y S4V „ ' d, sand Vs f..'30 "r dd f 6 /18 � �, 4aredaaouurnaurfWd4nw grainedl, efw � a ' qq i ftoyekwrsh n d cdor, r r � ! � � �° Grades� to brownish 1��.l4�rea � Increase tn day content, 14 DS f4 0M ffra de 7 to d crea 5e wren day content,sad h sik � 47 i tsf Wafer ddaalfa4f ffaafEfaarf fRfdU11DIN A..p."IC~" CDFIF'fq';'C 4":q'"dfm''°: A f. 4...10 N II"::.•d ASJ' fdq....°'f 'Y R E Pc)Pf "f n 0ty of Gfda .h IDames Moore Page G f 2 q�4f4f�ml�g4f°D._ff4ff�, f�"" f d Page 1754 of 4165 �.., �.wRILLI &11� HQ� �Id�DLf.�� � P MAUGER CL 4 COMPLETED O 2"44R.R40R� 'R4 SAMP LER Os A� �� LV-.R"4URR�G4 (I OP 4F44�wINS) S, ��. ,,,,, ,,,,, „ „a w n /u DESCRIPTION ry m td Deptii—3S S feet bp M 600 hi's on 0/8/94. 40..' �40 i I 4 45 50 44 55- 1 55 5 i 40- A0 i 85- i 44 6 V p 1 t Water Ourinq ndfing 11"ACHATE NEI I. I a (°ROkJI',4D 4,'°1C""R°:m::R'R (.,(;)F R4Rm/CITH"v4R'''''''':', x:,rI 4R R" EAST: ':IICR._.R." PEPOR..f. C 7 of R.R MW�i .. R.WR°i C Rfl4a4rua 4ige 2 of Page 1755 of 4165 . ... n` A ���;.a�lln� IILE CHI I1 �.. .. SIEM AUGER a DA r ��. � dd CALIFORNIA wadp. A E A O?t 0 d2 OF CASING) r vn Ede ns S II1p S 31PHON . FN I a Grades to darn IN own,uncre se on on6sture cointe nk. to �� a a. damp 2- Wit A pspnuan d a 21 ED as ya � Grades+E �' � ,�'P nmaaa content to ao. r� �m to drdarkII"aw IIBaII IX�a.11"liar in wYafl� p wn6"p a a c. d p1II..:� IIDaoRA A 2pumwa 2."�p1,2 becomes u°2 ,' .2 �����2n wwuaRp�. aA aww A0 w a p w u C'L Vdaasdwnsm brown CLAY,Aaa lr^ t, moist, sat1A. �m 1S ^ 2� dR1 r� daea¢ sd gay sandy rRa y, sof t„5a d !is ssraly graded, tn II 11 psur 0l2 pfeWmifently very fins wabed moist, with yeRoMsh red Aaa'mnpnniafioins, zuadeR to.Adaowwnish y How W ys'rHowilslh uiada�Wtied lWl black Siabs, IDS R pnp m IBM � '�� i IIlnraswwrrin dyellow to ye llanwws.waln red, 1AA.AYEY SdN1C,�Wse, sand is 1psuor y graded, saaand'As predoninanUy very fine ,. wwp R p'e'p-i n V2a.' wet. / 2d.., aamana°d aaAata is mot _ � ,� a IIpRmad plr 1 ptppaa A6IIp0 Arras on 9C1„2II�. 2IIA r: �.a i 2d... *25A I 2pp_. -30 I I 35 d aII /s1 d°aalasw allmpg IIIIw'a1IIIIrag �.w.. . -m.....e CaA'1 0 Ud121WA A E:VII A::;IIIIR R II..C.A' !Vpµ ''_F10N p Amy':ASIIp IR ..p.."Y R E,P 0 R..p.. 0d1a of A Wa'l Dames & Moore II.IIRrflamnAmnw IICaRn1Arsn snnamn IL a ,M page 1 o1 9 1a213&a 0030 w 3d IIp2_.d Page 1756 of 4165 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS Page 1757 of 4165 PROJECT: UKIAH Uff LANDFILL, Ukiah, California ,.,1 ., 90-1 DRILI-ING SUPEnVISOR a Lucas,CEO , 1520 I , 2 in. P � � In,—"--, w SEAL- 5 ft.-5",5 RILL,L ER. l ip f� l fit � , (ki ill , � l rifl ERF: 5.5 it.- 14u5 ff. E� ��Ef�W� f; � "75 ff DRILL RIG: A-1 j f WNAIC WFLL DRILLING METHOD: 14. K) Stern er .... ... ..... ....... � r FT 1"I f CE-vxI 15 1 11 71 and Ottwir T Ws DESCRIPTION ". ��� "f01 z Temp of casingO elf ^ "` , - ° .; (2.0 ft. above existing grade) 8 V15 Surface Elevatiom --675 ft. oft medhim brown clayey sandy, silt 'TV N, with rock ragr e nts � .5" M Very darnp Uj ix �°�.Medium� n brown �" thick) b � 5li, San 28 ND LU CIL BAS �„CONTACT L � NEALLUVIUM Very V stiff hard gray d bro,wn edify clay; Very dense ra and brown matrix suppode M clayey.gravel ca ng lorne rates rounded saridstone s ta� wu�rm�amw r m 'TOTAL m, DEPTH 15.75E JOB NO. 5146439. 10 ASSOCIATES FIGURE NO. HA-1 Page 1758 of 4165 momm �o uwd.�waY Ykinunnan, x�mreMwwuu' IpN i FPROJLEIIC'%I"-. 7CrTYILL i ELF ,. OGGI; AI OT SIM. 0.1)2 M. w, SEA1 14.0-18.0 ffw,�,w DRIU,. R: k �0d fly f f f, orni �'��f,wf� F:19.E . f. ELL �' f°C:f�' fxf: ffx Ifs,.a 'mm T.M.-H AJr Rolmy T SIC ° M11 DESIGN 11 LINE METHOD: r f � w�.mxxx 31 off f" IE f 1 7 �w xxw . M rx w xx, gym„ �nco T DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS Ir. mury i uiw a uu � IY L. Top f xm a l t!*O '� n� m .� nnnnxxxx x, rvxxxx ' v x, �� wwwwx (2.5 fix, above existing, grade) w ........................x xxxxry nmuwu XINNwWWdNN PoY I �Il�llnhtl OwA �I� ItlW r wu � , rvmix noon¢ non Medium lff y0ow bmwn gravelly, clayey gift; �w (clasts satin ; CC✓dd.�uwwmuuw AWiIII MW ix � mn w fw wn ...mg.. � .nnnn��n�nnm waaw ®wauwan�umnm.uAuww�irvw�wW mxmwwwww.w�xx�wwww xnwwanw�w ry wmxxxi � x�� wn n Hard ray silty clayn , IIIIIIIIIII1011111 �. x nnnn rvrvrvry ED nfinall ° 8 NO. 5146-8910 HALLENBECK & ASSOCIATES FIGURE ).146AmmINL Mumi Page 1759 of 4165 m womm � '� rv� el °� ,� Comments and Ott*r GFIO FRO °n ° ° Tests „ C 20 H- ard gray silly clay Dense graygravel l 25 1-fard gray silty clay 110 ui ,,,i r° j;ray arid m rs sifty clay L LU cc Dense gray dayey sandygravel; moist to wot Hard gray sft day m� Page 1760 of 4165 w Ukiah., 9. 1 � , WELL DESI GoN I I 2 Wwr MATERIALS DESWUP"TION OF �mm x ub wmux �mn mx�m. m miwmm �mxaw �wim w�awwwwwnxmmi ioim. ww.�sm�¢,mn �m�:�R�rcwew��mrmwrmwm w mxmrwi x s. Hard gray dayey sift I 1".1)enso blue gray silty arid; saturated 60 �rvmw umm.. wmw mwu i ru�mx � m mm��M DOTAL. DEPTH 60.0 FE"ET' w� fimqw�Ji. 1018 NO. 51416-8910 FIALLENBE,"CK, & ASSOCIA I L�I'IEIESFI G U R E 14 0).1 A-J2.c : N Page 1761 of 4165 PROJECT:ECT: H� I ' F 1 Ukiah,, llf r rfl WELL NO. . a ��mwp, uwn �.. � un � �* reunnwimm�wuwwua�m�iun...moo: �wu� II..,. I G '11PLiFIVISO : Stephen ,!,w, 1.5 CO S .: ki. DATE: 1 ,Mw1.1-I Lf "GER: f, en f„ m w � SLOT W w 2 in. SEAL: 21.5 5 k RILL,,,. w Cleaftiul ConWuMn,Guerneville,Caffibmia P°,R ,,. 25.0 f a -55u f, WEI,,,,L DEFT14:35b ft. w WELL DESIGN DESCRIPTION OF MATERIA1.8 ,5 o Wll INN�IYWIullq I.. Ui Diu. u�wur�enwm�reawmra�m a� u�mr W Rmp of casfrigl v W(P.4 it. above existing grade) � V Medium dense gnaybrown sib �.y Medium fi f orange brown clayey siftwith -- rock fiuw ,m 'm t ; plastic she eting, � u refuse r 'ill) Iffu i 0 f7 0.5 Medium stiff ary sifty clay (fill) ,. 5 m" " �m °mr Meclum 1ff orange brownclay with m1nor gravel 0.2 'o-ra-;;ge brown a nnd� silty sandy gravel, . . 1' sandsto,ne, cheil and schistr . � u M 11 11 2 r MMURTMEMMOMMMMMOMMM Page 1762 of 4165 MMIM11IMMONIMMMUM tMah r i lHiSI mw, ��� w d ; DESCRIM014 OF MA"!ERIALS � w �� m� ;w �� uipam�wa�r�iwu�wmuwwm�wmwwunwmamwn ,��� Medlim dense orange brown and gray My 2 0 w, m Dense silty cotblesand gravels; diy 1 tu M ND ° m De U rm 0v graysandy revel; n ,1. wwiwm 1 m 0 001 DEPTHND TOTAL . '7. 45 Page 1763 of 4165 MIMEMOMM PROJECT.- UKIAH CffY I! ANDFILL Ukiah, California, WELL NO. 904 DRILLING IGER: SterAWILA SLOT SUE.0.02In., �vU D1111 .ER: Cllearheaft Con6inicW%, Guemeville, algonik-i PE FIF u 19.0 -34, iU,,,,.DEPTH:o 34.0 DRILL RIG. F'WfingFA-100Tnx*-nWrd GFIAPHIC WELL DESIGN 'f 1 9 fland Qhur Tests 1 f DESCRIPTION MATERIALS F "I"bp casirig elevation: q22.6 ft.; Surface Elti : -- ,2 fm � M °mum dense gray m n sifty sandy gravel l � (road fill) Medium stiff green gray ifflt with minor gravel; 9 Inol fill Stiff arks gnreen gray sifty clayclayey siftt . ra- 111 v and � fry i ent ; damp )"' 1 (fill/ Ili CarbonizedUJ wood fragrnents, leaves and 3 '1 Stiff blue ur (--,','Pn gmy clayey sift with sifty sand � n . a �m �i - - gale �n° � ��� � 4 1 1 �„ ,. De ns gram brown n aridred slit gravel with wu, o Page 1764 of 4165 now rv�a �E f I Df r �� . � dll fur r d Offie , R E VAS fM au ft. `1 1 w Teets DESCRIPI 1ON or,, MATERIALS 20 3 ) [".)ense gray, brown and red My gravel with nor lnter ed ifty sai-x.J; rnoist -- -- --- - 13 I U11Tv 111/27/90 6) p I� a LA Mp fflny" 40 LJOBI INZ. 5,146-8910 FIGUIE NO.. 1 tA,-4b �[-MLI E-N;1E1E,,.C1( & ASSOCIATES mmmm Page 1765 of 4165 PROJECTS- UKIAH CITY LANDFILL, Ukiah, California WELL NO. 90-5 ft DRILL fIG F f GF WNIC I or .... DRILL ING 81 efts arW Other " ICI � � a w � �II 1M 2" Tess t DESCRIP OF w C c Mn Top of caslaV elevation: --747.2 ft.; . above existing Surface Elevation: M l m"m'm deirw gnaym n sifty sandy gravel (imard fill) 00 1) 1 0A Vory sfiff orange and olive brown moftled gravelly l sift tm rt, quartz, siftstone, � and sandstone cleans) 2) 18 m ZE S"Iff orange biown andolive gray mo,ttled slity clay wtth minor gravel lenses 3)Z' 17 0.2 n µ �I I� imww uu m blue green and red brown moffledww sandyW 2 „l " a uw� nmrvwm ir�rnnnuw=� �i wrvnneu ,.. nnin way JOB NO. 514"9 1 Page 1766 of 4165 w � u o�uuouuuuuuuioioio�i��uui v w i , `�"� 2 aryJ Other m DESCRIPTION� �n a Iests i Medium stiff" blue green e and range brown mottled silty ° ,rain; s a m z s Soft 25 al r d , silly finea a at'i CL Medium n lug gray silty sandy gravel ' . 4 3 Page 1767 of 4165 ui_ rl im ioo� I ANDFILL., Uki L DRILLING S1 WERVISOR: Slel-9-ten Lucas, �,Af � �"���� n: m DF111,,,. E"R: Clearheart CkwnstAx.0on,Guierneville,C , m F-IER ,' 17.5 ft. nI,,,L DEF1114.39. DR11.1 RIBFalling 1 00 Tiuck-mount ° DRILL ING METHOO: ' ID Hold rDESCRIPTIO ci GFIOUNDWATER Uh-MATION: 7' 9 Nrv �MATERIALSMMTWO Top of ca- sing elevation: -759.5 ft.; St. ace Elevation, m %'.hiff orange bivwn sift with cobbles and boulde (road fill) cif-gray and r m'T'10#16d "Alit With minor rock fragments r fill) 18 ND Very stiffm„ brown and, orange brown mottled silty clay with m1nor r kim°a menu; dessicE.-Ition cracks; dry (naffive) fle,al arangebrown and grayrnottled cialreysift (damp) .. 3 ' 5 Denser brown and , gray silty gravel Hard oflve graym'm m' clay 7090 aaamm ,,. IG n pannrm u! mi d� �mmr .. Page 1768 of 4165 III 1 L � GRAPHIC V California 90-6 A � � ���� ,�p � DESIGNrep mm", re� w onflnued re 32 t E�I�.flN I d�I 4 7 "� 27 w Po Pop a ll, "Y'111 OF " ' re p rm�pauwwuunmw+ i: wwi waouwn im,remre�u m+ u uu �.. 20 u I-lardfive gray and orange A rovv'iri clayey sift LL APB LU fi lm„Itly moist to MMedium dense �vw wet AY apq m vw.. Poa Pope�rw R. rvu Wro'w nwui vm nn mn woa Poo.. "v. reu wm Rux rvp,wM, u�,� qlr MMM, 3 Ili 6 ND erase sib , . 40 DEG°' 11"p 111140 RO-USAL, 39.25 re� 45 �e JOB NO. 5146 891 1�'� F m I"„ k fill' �f�p�" � '��II �I ��� III ASSOCIATES �p Page 1769 of 4165 �����O��OV� �Uf �MVf IIIIIIIIII�4� � 0� r DRILUNG SUPERVISOR, Mapl,wn Um',CEG# 1520 M. 2 h PVC "�'w 8 1ro teplarl 1.1jCm. St OT fZ'. ': 042 ' 'iw S f' a 130. .ff ff. f RffuIER:Weeks Drillirg,Sebw c4 f„ Caffforrga PER : 139v - '1599.0 1 WELL f; f" "�,,,1.1 w TWELL DE-0)GN E)FULUNG METI f f.- 7 f r Rotary a t U TE "f,��, ' �f""f . 22,ff. f 1 " rvry � wW Other in "' � MATERIALS n M. 7 CO Tops 7 a elevation: -,-835.2 t.; (2-2 ft. above existing grade) ... Surface Elovation: a m 0 -j Stiff kfellow ba mn sifty clay with minor gravel sandstone clash;) 0Iwo � . �. ry 0 mm� v JOB f m °f 6 1° 1,L °N wi I TES FIGURE 1 . f° Page 1770 of 4165 MINOR a ': UKIA CITY LANDFILL H Ukiah California EIR To 1I1° IIION OF' MATERIM., WON 20 Stiff yellow biDwn sift' clad with minor gravel sandstorie chats) 2 I I lard gff..iy clayey slit(stone) I3 j T r � 5 wfibil � .. - rvavuauanwwvau_ Milimm Page 1771 of 4165 mmi . IFIROam. w N � u �. & � �R ELEVATION �m���u � Ci DESCRIPTIONw� u� e Torts � i ra. nwtllpNauainxal�lAlMaN is npxnxdaNW NMI 5 gravelNiurcse gray clayey sift(storie) 6 Dense, bh.ie, gray clayey ssilt(stone); dry to very slightly r-hoist z LU 70 75 Page 1772 of 4165 1w A f w "" DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL.. nse bh.je gray-,cl i (sto n , dry to very slightly m 'l . 1)ense darkgray ( ); dry Dense dari(gray nifty c ( t ri ,n z z Dense 1,mlyrniclic sifty gravel (sandstone and C11011 Cla dry verysIghtly molst, F 11/27/90 uuiImmammewmmmummm on Page 1773 of 4165 ..Imommmme low=0=0101 NNIM ""qua UKIA O-i CITY �N P"IL ,- L DESK3N W a WATI! R El VATION. 72 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL aw rm+wm wmm��mnar�rwru'wan'eaiw�mmrcn�wmm�amm mwu �tamm�reu wire rewwnren� �g q� nwp�uure wa v. wwa � w' y� I� (.)ense blue gray dayey i t M dry Ic very sHol'itlyni 9 W2 z ry 125 w umwW. Eli 13, u+ � ro "rh�w CIA continued »r�ou�wa; ma�ummati�amaywm �w. a ter+. ''.... muu k Page 1774 of 4165 T.- UKIAH CITY L AN :�' W Dui �mm � �..._ °m tlwWall a � .. a ,,. u ts Tests DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS M wui Dense blue gray clapiq w s n ; dry to very� slightly rnolst 45 1,,)ense blue gray clayoy silty sandyrevel; ' Ui tub is d cc c rvw� ry wu �- �iwm�mrre�x� warewm arvwwiruoum �m���mwrv_.. Om' I., DEPT1,1 Page 1775 of 4165 PROJECT: UKIA14 CITY LANDFILL, Ukiah. Callfornle WELL NO. 90-8 IL��,,.I n I�,��� � � StephenI �� 1520 S �: M. PVC DATE: 1 /' 0 F-411, I f (31ER: �', L � � m M. � � 700.5 ft.* I/Q/91 and M '` 12 e Tests I Inn ° 12 5 z a '.5 ftnv atme existing �e Surface Elevation: n,- , " ft. Stiff orange brown clayoy sift with minor gravel; &arnp to dry ' innno z Z 10 ul 1 „M 1 ASSOCIATES E FIGURE N . 1 Page 1776 of 4165 C. Ih l l IWww. ,,,,,,,,,,, w md OtherTests DESiCRIIIIIII014 OF' MATERIALS �awmumrmn iwanluwn� v�arwrwuw �wa+wrv� qu' Stiff 4xango. brown sifty clay With Minor grav,61, '2 0 amg o dry fiard arangob ray rnoftled siftyday, p� 2 n�n Dense gray fine to inedlurn grairied silty sand(stone)) It la lli t interbeds Not StabRized o i� � MwMw�n �n� �w ,:,.. wn�ununnrmren m gimimiiu s 11 Page 1777 of 4165 1 AH CITY LANDFILL m UK h mmmm l aryWO�L DESIGN NIPS ° w 0 Continued I, �" a Comments "� and Oftr ATE E LEF MIC � 0 t�� � � M � bests DESCIII:'UPTION OF MATERIALS w w II� e gray fi �i'n ��lned fll m s done' ILcv L jrater Hard gray, dayey sift to My clay Nq SN ul �w p 7 M" nnx I M JOB i I ww;uaww�i www�wi �ww�w'!e muwa wwwnai wwl �.. a NO. 5148-8910 1 ' l I Illii�ISEC IC & Al"PS i CIA"T„ , REN0. I,,, Page 1778 of 4165 UKIAH �I L,DES MI � �. fall L (,'onfinued LLB ` "I, 700. 1 Tests DESCRII::)TION OF MATERIALS z I lard gray d sift o sifty day; dry 00 ry G Hard gray slid with m1nor fineora ned sifty rvrv, 10 Z Not Stabilized Continued JOB NO. 6146-89,10 HALLENBECK & AsSOCIATES FIGURE NO. fin„ WIN Page 1779 of 4165 mmum mum unn� Oulm %ddb pnni°W IU{v� L. G " �' Illwm d � SG Wints DEESCF11PTION OF' MATERIALS c) �w�� � �rvaw � uwr�rau.�w�imwda maw: � �a emu... ��uw�rvwm,�wiuwarxx�ixrr I mno �i Hard my slit witti minor Ins grained silty 1111 � sand(stone) clasts; dry 2 CO)�, UJI 12, 3 C)ad( g1ray SIR Illll�mi�. JOB NO. 5146-8910 HALL ENBECO"K & ASSOCIATES so Page 1780 of 4165 HOJ ` iiMMMlw.iumYinmpMmwpMpMxnnww i uvmrv�wYM M lY�n rj ff�LING UPEF VISOR.rvrvSteT eri L. as,, '�5 I �m„in. PVC I;� a - ,w��... ff.f..I C f� � �� ; ff) Caw-son, Staff �, . , t MSLOI. f :w g1 in. IS L 16� 1 n r1ffNf„ f m fm� mff mf ow �fm ffo � C�� �mm aff m C,� ERF: 15 .,. & ft. f:f.L DEPT)�; 8 ff �,. u � MM �.. BAH . mm, . . ff g 10 fffg ' . �" w. Cif froffo � , ugh' ,w ,,. f�ffm..f ff�f� mf� f fC��1 .. 5 RC 689. ft, o 2 V �f�C���,f� +�f`I��. f � . . �!"� �f w ff �m �1 ryl,{mqul MIni�MM N ° MMPoI41 VNfM iNNMtl . IHIA�W imryWplpgrv�ttw� imN i ppnw.iuSMMMup Tof.:)of Cf fm ("TOC) ,,,f-, fmon 'g5. � m (above f,u)w -2. It Above Existi�g rad Surface HIV m�w� f 7 � f. � � MM �� MMM�YpANWWwT fe 'ffo m mo m, rk o ffo -, n,amid m . rat ff - brown mottlod siftyf ffminor gravel,thin to rnediumsized � , �,���.g M., ferises of sift sand,upper 1 fL,very moist clue to recerd rarins, off from 1 ff.to 4 ft. ro moist at 5 ft. � mh,,, ND Ll w~ very, off at 10 ff, �1 ..,.. ND m� moderate �ff a � �ff� �f �f ff ofiv kp r �ff� im�mmmna .'�h�II I minor gravef ,fgf°of olive gray and moderate yeff -bmo fed sandy clay with occaskarial thin larnin ffoii of sifty sand �M ��, Nf',;f �M r., 18.7 Moderahi fm ff -f„ r, f.,fmo n--gm fm,and ffgf°if olive gray mofff ,f µ � � f' � „a„ - sandy1III i�"�oW"gravel 1 Moderate yellow-brown, reen urn and ffgtit ooV'f gray �f fff silly clay S g f' Moderate f90 -bitm mn and fight o0 fray rnotff f sift q femme to very coarse-grainedn gravel;gravel is ikang lar to Olive gray gravelly clayey fff,rrinor small pebbles u mff°x, ND AMA muNM1MMMMAAm YNII. INMNM. a w m ow .108 NO. 5145 L.LE IDS M.M , m f"'f f„f'DI f ro -1 11 � L.. NNORMEMM Page 1781 of 4165 uuu ��� w oirimi�mimi�m �mu����mi DESCRIPTION ', �. �. IqD � a 25 1� a° gravelly «l� mgy a°m'aaam aamIIIVmIVm � 5 � o M V CD a Ca C JP ND Mediuin blu ar-grayrx may green mottkxj siftyi:Wy �;. 4 u ND Not " m' ,. m � imn� �uu�nnn uui u Page 1782 of 4165 T., UKIAH CITY I ANDF ILL, Ukiah, California WELL. NO. 92-2 WII�YIrvtl181Wtl�y WdA M �PoNkIIM�dWWnuYlkurvrWMWIILL'A %i �4AN&PII�IIgIp�WNN,N NM�M1YNWMOMAtlA9�N I �AM111YNkNWII �W'NNtl'tlN�IW➢HAAYNO�InI UP f � 1 � ���� Po��� �m Q ti in. PVC T p:m "` 1 17,1992 [)RIL f.p f Relph C n. f ff o f L '� 2 n: spa °f f�'mv E,; �m ff fm.f'l; � nr ff ,rf �°� f 3 p , rnevif e P RF: f 5.4 5 ft. f�f D P` IA: a5 . �Qf.I�fQGw �'� � �'� Q� � f�f ,„ m�� ���... ,,,,,, m: °.. . GRAPHIC 'IIE p�f Sm fffQ p QQf f f f 5 pf45 f f poffo f1 ! ors f UQ" D p Eft ff It oul w EMESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL S Top of Casing (TOG) I ,Q' tiori:720.92 ft. (above fu g..)„ -1.0 it, Above Existing Grade Lockirig o , M coneirete Surf-ace Elevadldri: -719.9 ft. Artesian 12-29-92 'Dark,yellow-brown arid rnoderale yellow-brown sfffd sandy pip � �.... clay wfth ff' ravel w�W. ....:........ .............. 1 "" 11 14D very thin lasninations of sift sa ir ) - 7 ND w f olive �� of m f ir fo �0 fa �m i�° Q' thin f °m� f�o�^1 of��Qp of thinf sarx'f ten pff�gravel(gravel 1 diar'���to � 4 2' 37 14 Light ofive gray andf le ofive mcAleddoff fff gravel l � f *° 5016- NO �Medium blue-gray and green �gray.mm rw lead sa,iwjy clayey sift With 15 ravel, moist tw1' e n I5'fo `f 5,5 ,ff ha to r thin tamin- 381W ND fpoo of 'f fine 1, �' ° m � sand r� siltyZi clay seams between 18 to 20 f ' �aA a ) f 19 w ) �` 37f QC �... confinuedre JOB NO. 5146 1,1ALLENBECK & ASSOCIATE-TES FIGURIDm';;.NO. - Page 1783 of 4165 GRO UNDWATER TE It EVAI„ION. 7 0. ° mom 1 / DESCRIPTION OF MA1 VIIALS Mediu rn blue-gray and green-gray m,offled sarvJy clayey sift tm ° rm� m f m-m�oisl'f�et (..wem°m 15 t 15°5 fmm 1 mm�m toveto„ � °�.µ � tmurm tmm�m� ��•�., .� ttomm f silty,very fin fine,to meK",amraim"mc- m°md searns andsilty ,,,,,,,.. clay w.-�ams between 18 to 251ee4 w i 05 '�M vmmmawrvrvrvww 1 )2" 68 N ..dium bluish gray gravelly clayey sib 35 ... Medium bluish gray arxi greenish pay mottled sarxty gravelly sift t ,,,,,,,, m mttm thin ofi t. and sandy gravel, a rave t lenses saturated, clayey sift tenses � v 11 55 f a ......., m ....a 64 ............ 12 - 1 5- NO my M m-flum bluish gray arxJ M reeWish pray m ten gravelly stay, ry r 13 f,t JIM TOTAL. Dt, „m,1,,t,@ 50.0 °'r. t f Nest Cement ND Not del em1 Page 1784 of 4165 ff m f SUPEII ff- f emLL. 'CEG 1 m,1 5&.16,1992 Flak f n ion, f eo � G � "� m � 1 � 15.ff 1 � , u R H,101 Clear I fead Construction,Guerneville CA PERR 20 0.0 ff DEPTH: 40 ffeof m 10 m GRAFIHI ° m ffffalV f.�'f G OD .f HOD: 8. 5" 01 .2 " flow ��fom � I f�f f f��f�.,,. Lz 48 on ° ry �. DES I ' !16N OF MATERIALS . . , Tqp of Casing ( ,x)Ejewatiorr 744.98 t, (above MS1,.)p -1,4 ff f in e I,,-,."x!sfirvg Grade L.oddng cover in cowrete mum1 c*Elevation: wo ff. M�M I 1. Y�Ww'MM,tIIIMY ON Mc donate - i„ mm sandy day witti-10%gravel,sand increases wiffy depth,abundant tW larTfinations of sifty saryd Ewa o�am�, ��W� rr��ww�x�mwuuwnnmw� �rvmmwowrnmm�,mmwnw,wwwmeuaaawww�wwvrnrw�„,we�nun,�„ ,uwwmwum ,yam 1)2 20 N Dark yellow-Wow n and moderate Wour rTxXff -1 sifty,firme 10 medlurn same ro150 gravel,Wrises of abuWarmf gravel 1flroUgf 2 " 19 N Dark y�efd - mo mm and mm erate brown mm k m�f silt with��m� � � . � f 510% a 'l' vex thin to �mmm�m mmfo ffons of5i .�m to fe, 18 ND "Al FIE )X 15 ND m�� ,rvrvry jDadk yellow-brown, mem m , and l lm o °) " 14 IND sff f°mffy sandy clayey sih.,wilh thin silty clay laininabons " d '1 v��x x 5)2 4 N Medium ffo& m° y sandy clayey iil widh gravel ' V'� several 0.5 fo 1 lermes of sifty fho to mom' fmim mmmm'f betweeri 18-19 feet 1-7 ° 20.5 ft. ) - 23 D 81 0C ,, CQ 12-29-92 ,w Medium blue-gray and gireen-gray mottled angravelly sift to � � � 1Pf" ND gravelly sarxJy sift, sifty clay laninaflons observe.d. around sorne ,,, � & of the larger r�mof �� ��� 26 N CS cointh.mad r , m' kMM� wu�&INWWtl rygnu IIIM.. i nnuuam�wiwu ° 1 ,° 515 , Page 1785 of 4165 PROJECT: KI CITY I NDF11 I Ukiah, "u � m el f is WELI NO. 92-3 Continued ri M sm, rs a m. pmm— Me'x,flurn bhAsh gray,aml greenish gray nvtflsandy �w�� �'0 silt � �� 0 Q1 D to gravefly sandysift, silty clay larninafions observedarms some of the lay°g. ,gr rn i t �1, P °5 feel 1) 10J1 m" ND CZ very thin to fll,fin larninations of silty vinyfie 1A) rnedkim-grWwed sand between 32 to 34 feel 1" 20 51/5m® M) 5 �y w f 4) )" D v ,, 15 4 '" N gn 4r N ,,.Not detecled i 1;,'A NO. 514-6 1I,i l L.1EMBECK & ASSOCIATES FIGURE NO, I,,,,I ,. Nl� �o xwManummmmmumommummmi Page 1786 of 4165 IIIIVI�f� it �N��� T:: UKIAH CITY I.ANDFILL, Ukiah, California WELL NO.9,24, M-Al So F f IL...f ER: Weeks Dd�or a ,, . �tiM f a 6 ft. WE , 4: 130 ff IDEEISCROY'noN OF MATERIALS Top; ol Cass "' (X4,) °lathon: -502 It., ( t.)qv 1 -2 ft. 8 irich comiuctor Above xicst Grade cassfing installed Zdepth of 20 feet arx.-J bacUlled wfth Blow oLd goo Palo ll o fin on to modwf ,�� ifty clay to clayey silt _ on 3-16-92., DeMed fo 130 foe4 wiftut mw� encountedruj free aV Constnided dry well ' on -15- We r understand that free mder was grourxJ rxesent in tt wall ro" by late ] 1993 8 �r M. rnnLst at 12 t, Medium olive)gray clayey Ht to silly sand, mmiented zones of nifty sarxJ,(dry) ,fir Medlurni olive, ra,y clayey, plft to si f ' "(dry to sfightly deep) u continuied 25 NO JOB NOW 5146 HALI,,,E URE 1140. 14 Page 1787 of 4165 u EMAN ir DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS W�X�Nduwq MtltlWIIINII I w m x uXluNx;IWPoW I IIwWMw.IN�x1�IMIM�ImfiM Iwau nn dp4tipXUNwddMWn D4M u 9tltl IOAI N AIWAM.W N�1 � ^�� AImIIIWw�uaw I(fl MediUm U r clayey silt to giftclay( toslightly dw m ) � � Ail. ND sllgOy m i f zone between 34 f . and 42 ft. CL pw f� 14D Rv �. 1qD Not w w� m Dedecled II IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII LM=� = MmwwrAvwmwAm ""' WlNllnlllllll Illlllllllllllf f 14 n liuII' aLLE ASSOCIATES �'IG U I 1 . 1 f b m Page 1788 of 4165 Miami NXIEW1111/011 UKIAH CITYOLD I"IL ,, Ukiah California , , nfm ue wu DESCRIPTION a E pII MaWdNfitlNdtlM XUmwnmuwm xtadmd w WWWVDYNNUUWm;'� @ IIINMIM�m n LLf�IWgW Yf!!PI D Gu u Modium olive gray ' ( m' "to Brightlydamp) • mmw„a D N "oonn .. - ems. - - unwww - nnnnnm w.uuwnu n u d... 1 1P �At Medium In r slit 1 . salty fiiirm ., ir it c)mm , veiry diry 6 r a 15 �l� ���r wu ....... �..... ...� omiwni�� iw��� +awrniv v �����; wu,niiw �� w.w.u� om..... „Dad olive girayto blue r i ih, (dry) a�74 Lem NDwn w �r �„ NDetected I.A. .... IIIIIIIIII IIIIIWWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII�mI111011111111 IIIII IIIIIIWWWWININIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII J I . 5,146, III,I ��� ASSOCIATE S �° � �I � IIII mm a III �� ������ kownwimamwww"Munwomwomm 11=111111014mommill Page 1789 of 4165 IIIIII IIIIIIIIpDIUOU�U �V� I� � °..... FIDIROJECT: �� 1,,I �� L A � '1 , , Ukiah, California WELL � u �f PHI GR OUNDWATER DEPTH. I 26ft. cm 4--29-93 Tm""W' ELL DESIM m tM Dark olive gray m, to blue a la m ( a7 % . P BP bentonfte PoRets m igflly irnoir 1 zone e'en 88 ff.to .5 ff. Medlurn blue. gray irderbedded clayey gift and silty nd(sto w) r �� s� 15 ��...w�. a sUgfly Lsf zone between 94 ff.to 7 ff. �...................� � ��� l M M . figf9y moist l n n '104 f .to 'f 7 ff SIM , w .. � x sligtly rmAst 2.° ne between 110 5, f 11 f f �.. � 1 w "AV .. n.. , V ,,,, f Not ed '-' 7 B NC). 51 5 H ', , RE NO., HA 4d Page 1790 of 4165 NOMMMEMMIN PROJECT: UWAH C17Y11 L, Uldah, CaliforniaL 1140. 924, continues � i Po4bpp mWU4Ni�wN'�WNM�+IXv1��rvb^M�m.i���,M�P�p Y�#'BIIWd WWWNWAmuuM ^.�AMFp�I tlt. 0 GiROUNDWATER IDEPTH: 126 ft. on 4.,.ten. WELL ICAM „„ ,,,,,, ,,,,, .,- ,,,. ,,,,, ,,, Mm„ .... .._.............. ,..,... a (' Medium blue gray interhedded clayey 91N. and M sand(stone) ��7 .... re� M. 2�O NOD Cc , " ��.. . ND mammon uauwwwwww�ao�uua ii �'� iai "u D Not Deteded�� ...... J0F3 NO. 5146 1 1A1 L,,,ENBE-.CK & ASSOCIATES FIGURE E w 14 -4e ON MUMS Page 1791 of 4165 BORINGLOG OF' ENPLORATORY CITY OF' VKIAH LANDFILL F � ° � N R CRAB ONSIMI 7 .. .__ ..__..... _ . . ... . ._.aw . _. SAN D ., ... UfflifEW AND C HEIM �� �aI NG ..... .. . .. IL ut TWE 0 °�A w", DIZICIRIPTION G kS 1.9,9 ......... . ...w it :... �m . ,° a ubrometa ed. . �. 1" &�w h raaekV° „ gray whakcke (1ur�.�p A • R a/ 24 � dw°<)urely crrurncacx�ckiteci �.mywaaaaM'ke claasts > `� di(Mrea,atr. ra�a SA SAL ° ON n h a P CL �w alt g. / ahaar a cwrw4hu gray y :aaaiwrkraflaaar <wr �ii rrawa» la 17 to 3 cr°ar Idaaaraarrh r raim roux root hcairE Some as arWaove, wWwut croy graaveL 13 2 � 7 NO FREE WRIER ENMUNT ED hcatcll D'e"pt 15 Scrivirflev driven to 16.5' 24 I ,. 2; 24..........i:":il- ...� arr�a..aaw� 155! ­ ag a f'7 °0f''4165 m�a�^ rwm.n uuw� uuwrowa.urean +� R �' i�Yp, � n LOG ,�Xg^p L LugCIN tit t''� IVI a��t IA I m .RP tg 71,i � :: a.mDwsN EQIJIPMENT ADD STEC177CATIONS, W jj_rA mit "' "t _ t to t . 11" Reel Canduclor P D Set .tw to obil Depth 11K 0.020 S a 5 D to 715.0' c 9 CL4 � Ix u DAT E cr �a p �m aid ON _._ ... ..w...._. . .,_._ _ .. m ,.. ... _._. .. , ° SILTY SAND (sm)a Reddish y z� 1.15Y, 5,A)',. dry � Sm w _ P � girl _ n w WDY SItD " xt� � p..Reddish n � .._ / D16 ., c is a °b $ 7 GM �D 44 �w F tt D f m OttGRAVELY SILTYWD S m Y61jowLsIz �w r coarso,M Sand, t 5, Gravel, 6; clay ,Sm IN � o 1 .... . _.!LA)qD Brownish yenow (ion, /r�)ry..dry, med-JU.Im to 1,a x 1 1 N5_ fine Gravel, — t , , eas (4min t ) t� � t m � 15 SP a _. .. .._.. . .`__ ,_ ....................... ..._._ M. _.... SMZY CLAY (CI); aa® (y k ), wit, aaa aterate « ,w tit s�tett D Dwa eery a � fewer D & 2 _ B a w G" -. 2 3 ..r .. + 4 dam �m�:INM� PoI IIHh�IN�nm R p�F BORING m , FF C ._ BORINCt'.' CrUENT Z ,: . . SENTOWL dun it ° . WATER DEI'llf Sal �a 'w .. TIV Q ... �..m._ _A_ .� I ' R , p , � ..� .. .. ESCREP'TI a becoming ,I), Moist ! Clay t. �A Gravel (Imm to I ak r increasing � � 5 l s 24 re IY I m increasing Sand co to t" ilecreasing U7 content, moist 5 ID wet, re .�a.� 13 SILTY GRAY ( l)- Mottled dark gray ( .5 ?° 4,°) r.d G gym. .. . consolidated, no Sand or Grvivel, a T WW� re°w re ' ttied gray id olive brown t2.5Y, 14), (Jaixp, v ny� nW� 4. ry roy .* SANDYI" T CLAD L w Dark grfky ,55 m ), dzmp d -20 50% Sand, very fine n�to fine , I6 33 � a f �" drilling &off _.. 1r.In RompNup eaxln&wJ!l0.NwM1i ull ..klreL,.m nIW wan6Hu ww N MAY L� w"'WPW# ll ➢IIIIIIIBNON u .......x I i�� � o 6 �� DATE Tjiiji µ.` � v FIELD a OF GO NG° --- FEUD, USING E w�gm 1 Steel Conductor C ���r, et G � ,. . " rwtGt,a G� 5 GO » tau to 6" SA 3,0° to Total Dep Gn 55 i w ay � .... �� " PVC, 0.02.0 5w n pn t»" � P15.0' on" a a E AID g » t TE ..n. _.. . _ _ z a a IM air 51 5 » . � _. .... ,. .. . .._ . .__ , . .. SILTY" CLAM ' AND (W); Very dark- gray.. 2p5 n m —60T Sand (Yery fine Sand to rnedk= grained Or w.d), 5 . Pd . p 3 r dark Gray,0 ai &NIA e 40 ( .5w 31)m -&M.' d Gravel, up to tw n 50 sub—angular, wet, a dense. gym, becoining dark gray _ff' 1)w t nwr ing Bi el and 21 Gravel content, -5% f 0 Gravels, 60% Sand ond 2 5 ° G rave,,eL awn5 ._ 10 ' Cla"fin very bard, et,u (tree' aN,:ep° izaterbedded San,4 , a15flly Gravel and Silt .�. �5 awn0110 0 50 3 ` ;u 74 u65 � . Pro l C � V fbY � _._ CEMENT 94 - 92-j QUIREW" AND SPEC IFIC Ifni Ur HSA with14 to 1.0` r g ^r ' HSSA T, ,0't,,2/12 SAND to Total De pth f a ` a "f _ _ DATE C.) DESi "q CLAYEY SAND SC)- Dark gmy as above, —51 Qiyi� 5.11 ®,fit � � ouid, Saturated rock caugh! in tim � ...... ..,, end of the sampler, III Depths _.. ff 1. �^ .1 L @_. 85 9,5 , ,_... 9f . �W� �m�..W. „p �.��, mom, mom �mm Sampling � ® " m�°Nite f Cirri leted. 12120/1 Elkavation rop of Casing)- E 0 rem 6 2 cEl CO 0 a5 E (° "), f W� LA CS Description f .. � Www W'fWmW m�WmWmWammmfima2.W¢orfiuWamomw dry �W mfmfii�Wm f.�1 mammal a;Wmam .. .: �mm f�WW"WI.�m°�WWf�mmmmmmmam Wmmamm mmoaaoirff �mmmirmaW �,� � o m w f. err, a CA Red-bro mm o �aaf toW Inch WW m r red f tlam graded, � a ammf�mammmm sand, fae,WmWmWamd 10..... f'OWf WWf ff'amn Wmmmmam Wmmafmfafaomm to Vmm h mfWammmmdeE m m�a � 1 .. m� w Bawrnens uhuk Wam'awmk mdua,WWm f mmWf Wn WW rk black cmmm mm mmmmmW Vfm � mm mmoWdw a umw � m 20 Cc outgo Z m CAW, rewn h gray Wky Cl AY,rnolsL ...� w o, . ... ...... .., � W .. om � m m . _ o � ,we ffir�ammf@m mmWW Wmm�mmmm mmmmiummW f�W ," W'�S �W f WWf ... @ I� mmmammW' Dm mam mf W iWf .W m m mam¢W . M �an. ....... ce f ....� W ...a. .w„,,„ ��mma�m w�vmmmmmmmr � @may@mmmmW �a mmmW ama malU�a mmt4. a M . W W" mo um'mmo sa� mIW ko 26b bet mmmm� Wf u W W. m,af a � Wmmm ?mmfmoiemm a �r mmmoWWWm m� ffaf'W urm¢W W w� mwm WmmmW f�Wma1 fmmma " m mmmmWmm a5Ust 0.._, 2 Roamed fmm W 0-inch dameter Wam 23.5 fed bgs W . YtM WW mmm� WW mmwm W fW4 W' ' a4m n m ma� w mW mmm PVC, #mW 2 feet fmm .� fat „ WWmf w V4"mmomir Wmach eb�mu a hedu mm 4 Wm mm b ff Wfs.Wff Wf•Wmmrh sWed wyew tom 8,fW to 23.0feet f w W ifter faa do condmded wkh r i 09,112 VLm'WSIa°mm said. 35 M0141TORING E mlllIL, II - -1,1 CA'roundwater("'p0rrecfive,Action Report kildah I andfill f ) f f1" m µal mW Ukiah California �� m r�rn�wa���' -)iaw.t °; rc"EQ '' pr2' i �Vn fi�tl9 Page 1 of 1 Page 1797 of 4165 wao Sf NiIPLING m MONITORING ilmim"' l 1I1 - 2 IX �"�rli° � ° WIw� fi �� ��air ��g��,� m IL m B I w ,............................I........... .............................................................. ...................... ..................................................................................... ............m......................... ........ /mbolsl Uscs8 cripti n ff .. lb wmmiemmV UiNthl V hwhmms sm BmwLsbi yalm sk CLAY,imIdst,III, ;x .. mm muum IUw gruy slikyAm SAND ioiwIhst V. ` EWA w„' II'n dy r: �� III _ tlmIII � i W fw CC '3D w m4m mwamiwwim mmwmmmwn,In-Ind Ibll'k�. Guwfth ^mmwm wwwy,h wmwmmw�aw,lmmww mw m\V A 'filth wedith brown shed..__..._ ... . w / chisshn C mµw� 9..°... m CC low mom° ....., CLAY, 7. Oft mobd,phisift. UES: 30 — 1 IIlNud wth 04ch holicim .wmmmm aupr#wm 29 fmA on 12J1 m 3.w mm � Hmmmw k hdhea w er grouy0widerwmmwmri(sw imm wd intalled Rmmww yd m m°mmve w ScImw de V I VC maw�l g tan 2 fe t onto 135 bmsloWd � � w mwwmVm' IUm 471,12 I mwim w w� � Vimd�wmmmwm�Cmmm"� " w 28,15 e SW ,m m �ww 35 _.. - ° mmmmmmmm.. mm.mmmm mmM .. .mmmm mm mm.....mmmm mm mm mm. .mm ,.. mmmmmmmmmm , mm mmmmmmmm,�mmmmmm mmmmmm . mmmmmm� mmmm,� mmmmMmmmmmm MONITORING WEL.L -- ��� _.... ...m ._.. __ ....._�_. �__w_ ._�.._.�_..�.� .mm w. . a � F,77 �,, � �.... California r w ara .. Pf 1 o1 l Page 1798 of 4165 S .,� III'� � �� md� NIAO�a m� mono°� � 1111mm.L MW-96n-3 4.0 Drilling Method. 8" Hollow Stesn Auger Sarnpling Method, Continuous Core (CC) ....... 0evation (Top of Qardng): ,_m :, fro g .. afn a n�wi)row wdy �� GR EI., k ndW W'fir Inch,mobt. F f f.. GreaNgh Vq grawly to Cl A Il r,vent'el f$w1h iron oxide SnWnnA nga flrnnoNL Din fog gravoL r 10— C i al ffnnm n �� .. ��, _e , ... f Redfisfn brown My rJMy GRAW1,suguled pebbWsto 2 Whes, Iron sbAnhg. 0 gg CC IIL. BIWA groy qnmlydazymy SET,wb amni-mu nded of ro* s n 25..... DS Iola p9bWs to 2 h dhYri we '72 M118 Cl g W.. DIS 69 fm . n �.. (3reenLgh grayway f O',wy affl. p DS 63 l8lie Becomes Mull n gmy. 35 w ,a. ... MOW n ' ilING WELL I 6m,3 Ukiah LandfM A tl�a maluifffu�ul Page 1799 of 4165 ' 1'..)HU'Ing W-Aho: 8°° I-Iollow Stern Auger Sainp1hrig Method: Continuous Core (CC) Date Completed 18/ :1/f 8 CL Elevation (I'bp of f 'din& ME � ) ) Description MIS, fewGo m ff 4 .... ,.._�M.... ... ...... ��....... . a MOW with B.kdi 1mmmflbw Own suger 6m 40 IwA b s on 1242(ft uum frmuu m wre emnpflng to 25 feet bp. m4i mdn fcc eudi 2.5 feet all lm4ng to 40 bpt bgs,, Sealedb pllug buk befflummb to fed bgs. - w Remed I Ovh ftnetv lb P.Thmi� M.. 3. Four-hob afiauommetm,gmmdwWNi nwanhotig wd WAAW on9 um Ffa h diameter Brbedulle 40 IPVC cmlvV fa mm 2 fu mf fs to f 1Z fm0ga. `umumm-io-mmfm Setiumafum mmmmr fa f Rr'ff M0104nL4m WaNd screeirkmi 11 S W 26,.5 bgif . Abr pack wmhucloW wdi 211 ne Ifty sand., 50 -1 55 8 ....... i 65 70 Groundwater Corredive fttlon Rr er.mrt Ukiah I M w x✓N.A SA�'B..WR R94�'1Ba n dfl l DAMES O� d&�� � � W4& � ...... _..... i� .. Page 2 of 2Page 1800 of 4165 ' 1'..)HU'Ing W-Aho: 8°° I-Iollow Stern Auger Sainp1hrig Method: Continuous Core (CC) Date Completed 18/ :1/f 8 CL Elevation (I'bp of f 'din& ME � ) ) Description MIS, fewGo m ff 4 .... ,.._�M.... ... ...... ��....... . a MOW with B.kdi 1mmmflbw Own suger 6m 40 IwA b s on 1242(ft uum frmuu m wre emnpflng to 25 feet bp. m4i mdn fcc eudi 2.5 feet all lm4ng to 40 bpt bgs,, Sealedb pllug buk befflummb to fed bgs. - w Remed I Ovh ftnetv lb P.Thmi� M.. 3. Four-hob afiauommetm,gmmdwWNi nwanhotig wd WAAW on9 um Ffa h diameter Brbedulle 40 IPVC cmlvV fa mm 2 fu mf fs to f 1Z fm0ga. `umumm-io-mmfm Setiumafum mmmmr fa f Rr'ff M0104nL4m WaNd screeirkmi 11 S W 26,.5 bgif . Abr pack wmhucloW wdi 211 ne Ifty sand., 50 -1 55 8 ....... i 65 70 Groundwater Corredive fttlon Rr er.mrt Ukiah I M w x✓N.A SA�'B..WR R94�'1Ba n dfl l DAMES O� d&�� � � W4& � ...... _..... i� .. Page 2 of 2Page 1801 of 4165 APPENDIX D ENGINEERED ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Page 1802 of 4165 Project: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM City of UkiahLandfill Mendocino , California Subject:Project No.: 02-907 Engineered AlternativeIFinal Cover System Brown,Date: August 2015 Prepared By: Damon ®, Engineering Mike i, ®, Engineering k, NM Irma yrx.ry,r. f•. Nb� 1847 f FINAL COVER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The proposed final cover system willI I identified as Be Tea® ClosureTurfTM Icomprised specialized tufted geotextile, and a sand infillI a The structured geomembrane component serves as the low-hydraulic condI I (LHCL), whereas the specializedI infilll erosion-resistant layer asI in 27CCR. LiteratureTMproduct I enclosed in Attachment 1 of thisTechnical Overall, the proposed final cover system designl I ascending )® Minimum 1-foot tI Il foundation layer. mil linearI ) geomembrane liner Gripneewith Spike )a Specialized tufted geoI (Engineered Minimum Y2-inch thickinfill layer. EAA Technical Memorandum Page 1803 of 4165 [ui additimi to the above features, the fuui i cover system wHi also be equippedwith a gas r N..,;f coin po uieil. .,I,,,his mpmi&it wH iisist of a series of 3 5 foot wide c0ectioui strips p ,;d p r Hei mid/or p rp ui ucW r to s�opes quid spaced at maximum 220-foot uuit upvM , "I he fl to ui strips, which wHi be miistructedf the seas Super dpu it tOO with Spike Dowii mat ru i described above for the r r r ui Hu ii r mp ui uit,wHi be mmiiected to the Ll::::,'G c0ectioui system to prev&it the H - p of gas pressures b&ieath the fuel per system. F:Iressure r0ease valves wH also be iuista��ed at regW r iuiterva�s betwe&i the c0ectioui strips as Dui additiouiai precautioumiy irrieasure. eases refer to the TecNiicai Sp u u to ui p&idi 11), Couistructioui Quafty Assurmice ) Rmi p&idi �), quid Couistructioui I r uui p&idix )of this RilM C�osure quid PosUosure Maiuit&miice Rmi for detains regar&iig inaterW quid uui t H to ul specificatiouis for the respective uumi cover systern coinpoui&its described above. As outRiied above, the proposed &igiuieeredR rui tove premiled h r uui substitutes the pat&ited geosyuitheticproduct Oosurel,,, iI..Im uui Heu of the ILIII,,,,,ICL prescriptive st ui r Le., L required uuider 27CGIR lf ato ul u r to ul of Dui &igukiieered aft&riiative is �� ui r 27CCIR, , , which stipWates that Dui &igiuieered afteriiativemay be miisidered of miistructioui of the prescriptive t ui r is umr urnaW quid uu�iiecessarHy burd&isorriequid wHi cost substmitiafly more thmi the proposed aR&rilative. F::`u° h rm r , the ui uui r ft rui to rust be miisist&it with the per-f rrn, uice goW addressed by the prescriptive t ui r quid afford a �&it protectioui agaiuist water quafty impairm&it, "I he f0owiuig uuif rm to ui has be&i corripHed to demouistrate urrnpfu a ,; with tease criteria quid uui Udes data regar&iig the properties f the : r l,,, iI..Im, as wefli as coinp ru souis of perforinmice quid costs of the proposed Oosurel,,, iI..Im &igiuieered aft&riiativeto that of the prescriptive t ui r quid the pir u �y proposed geosyuitheticclay kui it CL Rul i cover system, Perfbimance Die theprimary iruaN for deinouistrafiiig equiva�&icyto the prescriptive tmidar is uui ultir to ui through the fuel cover system. tui this ire it , uuftir i to u ai ivW&Icy ia� h ui erform ui th � u�ir Tu�irf""A t ct it u� �ir iripti Subtifle D cover system. The uiW have iuiicUded the use of two rn th � u , 1) the I lydr6ogic lf;;;;°,vaWatioui of Lmidfifl Perforrnmice (11 I �9 quid ) the uir u Method uir u t aL, 1 ), Both rnethods wereinp for a g&ieric � ul full site uul Texas, Rii&iigs from tease miWyses t k the H uul Page 1804 of 4165 INFIL.TRATION 1EQUIVAL,,,IIEN N L,,,YSIS Ill a ue'r" rf"I'm a„ SUBT171,,,I1E I11) FINAL,,, IESYSTIEMS ------------ fri f Cover System fri f Cover System u 611:.:] l oddl fo-� u in Texas - e,age n.nuau Infiftmfoa (Cubic I ee 83 84 Cum,oud Method with iity, andy SoH h6low the 1.8� C�Iloeuuwe" W—f° gagllou�e � uw ',°�a .......................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ C 4oud Method with Sity-Sandy SoH with Some C�Na heb the Noswm %'"o-�u��'r aNNou�a geuw�°�a 0�, 4 4,,5�1 As demonstrated �n the above taWe, the Illo a re-1 urf"I'm product ct exWUts substanfiaHyl lower �nf llltrafion rates for the respective scenailos as comparedto the presciipfive standard. -1 W n be aftiibuted to the �o er hydraWic conductivfty characterisfics of the II,,,,,Ill,,,,, lf,,, ll[;;;; geomembrane (finer as compare t III,,,,,, as weH as the more e cent remo � Of MOi tU re above the III,,,,,H 1 component, thereby ire a 6n the amount of Ilp t nfl'411 infitratlion into the WMU. 11::3ased on these circumstances, the Glosurel uff"I'm product ct meets the reqWred pea orman e goW or an engineered fteurnafi e by 1puwo Un e u 111 to r greater Iprote fion �nst Ilp t nt411 water quafty �'mpairment. Other features or e b �o a relu ff"I' that demonstrate fts suftabflftyn eu gm neere fteurnafi e furolo° lea orman e Iperspe t e can be summmized as fob o , -arhe sVqjpe stabMty characterisficsof �o uurel uff"I'm far exceeds those jprov�ded b other geosynthefic products (lin W&n III,,,,, which I's veryII'mpoftant based on the steep sIlqjpes that eat at the Ill,,,,, n ffi. -arhe bottom spked fiictlion sufface of the Super GdpnetO 1puro � e maximum �ntefface fiic ion and a Ngh factor of safety aga�nst sI16ng at the 'liner/fou ndafion layer soli' �nterf e. -arhe I[;;;;�ngm neere -1 uff component efimm ates the 1potentW for soH reep and veneer faHures iresufting furom saturation of the vegetafive soil cover that �s a required component of the presciiptive Subfifle D finam ll cover and other tuw ffionam ll geosynthetic cover systems. As note �n the Iprevious buMlet ftem, this Ilp t nfl'411 � exac&rbated by the very steep s�qjpes that eat at the Ill,,,,, ndflHl, -arhe drainage aspects of the Glosurel uff"I'm are designed to aflow ira�nfall' to penetrate rapi 111 r through the sand �nfffl layer and into the StWCtUred drain I11iner be�owwhich has a v&T high tur n smo ssivfty for u b e uent conveyance of the ter off of the finer system, -arhe sand �nfflllll has been demonstrated to hands 'e over six �nches per hour of ra�nfaHl �ntensfty Wthout erosion when appfied on three houwli .ontW to one vefticW' 3RI �'ollpe m Such ra�nfaHl energy ondition on traditionam ll vegetative sofll cover wouN Rkeyy re Ulllt In signfficant ero �onam ll damage. -arhe drainage aspects of the l u re-1u ff"I' described above promote very Uc�e n" and �OW ftflrNd ity stormwater run,,,,off, which represents a beneficW feature EAA Terhnaral Memorandum D,,,,3 Page 1805 of 4165 since the mel t r,un- mff is subsequenflydischarged to the he m rai creek that bor'ders the no rtl°m ur i boundary f the 0 h� evNig compar,aWetor, m t ur r,un- mff quality from tr,adffionW vegetative s61 cover,wouild be Oficuft. � m ur Turf"„111 is designedto provide weatherhigmsustance andmm mbf,all protection when exposed to extr,eme 1-mat and uftra-vWet (UV) exposur,e,. Based it insults of independent, makworld weatherhigtests and data from istin ur mj t , � m ur Turf"„111 call provide decades of mHaW rfbrm m n beyond the � m ur Turf"„111 has been tested for,wind upffi msustance andm mnstr, t no upUft when exposed to 120 mfles per, hour, wind. As such, the iI m reTurf""„ll, call withstand most wind conditionsthat couild maHsficaHy be encountered t the site, As presented in the ur m t fteratum data enciosed her, Ni as Attachment 1, CiIosu ur T rf"I'll' has been approved for, use as all ngm Ineer,ed after'nafiveby the t two sites in CaHfonia TI-iese sites aespon to the ur 11,,,,,�or II,,,,, m °mild and PortoiI been successfuHy empiloyedt a number, of iandfii sites throughout the nit States, NicWNig sites in the southeast and east that cure subject to much harsher, weather, conditions than wouild be expe0enced at the II,,,,,andfiL sugnu,ficanfly easier, than for, a CCI,,,,,, TI-ie foHoWng providessummary to support this m ufu mml! In nerar , � m ur Turf"„111 � m m nt is very str,augl-ftforwar'd, both from p�acement and seaming standpoint Furfl-ier,more, heavy equipment mqWr,ements for, � m ur Turf"„111 � m m nt cure flmfted p0marflyto a mbber fim forkffi or, gWvaie t. Convers6y, CCI,,,,, mm stmc on is very Wbor, intensive ith substanfiW mHance oil heavy equipment (Le., scr,apers, dozers, compactors, etc,), 1,,,,,ess CQA is requilred for �osu r Tu r„"1111 due to the consistency of the m to ru it and manufacturing pur m testing for a CCI in turn, is more t n u and occurs t a higher firequency to verify the consistency of borrowsource m tedW and the contractor's ift to achieve moisture meet, compaction, and hydr a iii conductivity during constructiom Instaiiabon of a wailed, douibie-rhig um°mfitur ,mm t ur (SDRI) is lreqWlred to test the fi6 per'meabMty of CCI s, which is costi�y and time consumNig, Such a provision is not ur gWlr for, � m ur Turf"„111, In compar,uson to other, geosyntl-iefic Uner, systems, CiIosureTu r "I'll' is sUghflymore iabor, intensive due to the iace m nt of the n Ni i i � err, I,,,,,� ever,, this Nicr,eased Wbor, i E`AA Technical Memorandum D-4 Page 1806 of 4165 rnore ttia ri offset be ttie eRniriatiori of ttie vegetativeH iayer. ShHar to tti [,,,,, coristructiori, coristructiori of a vegetative soH hyer is Wso very iabor iriterisive with ub tr uritrui i irdiarice ori tieavy equiprnerit. i ri additiori, 6uri ttie case of ttie GCI,,,,, 6uriW cover stern ttiat was l ur iou s� proposed for ttie I,,,,. urid i, ttie gas ur li �ayer rnaterW and Sabo r requhrernerits are sigrifficarifly greater as cornpared to ttie C�osuireTu jITIll. Ttius, tti C�osureTujjTlll uuriW cover systern 6uri t Hatio ri irepreserits ttie feast iriterisive appiroacti frorn on viuri t H tvi uri staridpoirit. Maintenance CiosuireTujITolm offers6 uri6 i urit rnairiteriarice advaritageover a prescriptive ubtifl D 6uriW cover and ariy ottier trur difio r1W geosyrittiefic cover systerns ttiat require vegetative ii cover. i ri esserice, vegetative soH covers ofteri require regWar mairiteriarice ur W d to the ur 1pahr of eirosioriai darnage, 6uri t Hatio ri of eirosiori corifiroi measuires (Le., sHt ferices, tiay baies, watHes, etc.), siope irepahrs, and irevegetatiori. Br sii »uri firorn the vegetative fl cover Wso causes dtatiori of drairiage ditcties and ui d.: that require sub u urit repair. ucti provisioris are riot r u i r d witti ttie MsureTujITolm product, ttieireby l ur vidi r1 sigrifficarit cost savirigs over ttie coursettie l trd uur rnairiteriarice l uru »d. Cost Ttie cost of ttie firiai cover systern usirig MsuireTujITolm was cornpaired to ttie GCI,,,,, uri c subsequerit October 31, 1 final Closure Construction Submittal Package (EBA, 2013), Sirice ttie d6 i° ur orlt Iproducts irifluerice ottier aspects of ttie firiai cover coristructiori Le., fouridatiori �ayer, gas reHef iayer, eirosiori,,,,ur vi tarit �ayer, drairiage, access ur » d , etc.), ttie cost cornparisori 6uri iud d ttiese variaNes6uri ttie ariWysis. url ur � , ttiose uric dosure coristructiori iterns uric irifluericed by ttie firiW cover systern desigri (i.e., mobiRzatii »uri, �eactiate corifird systern 6rnll ur verne rit , I,,,,.F'G coHectiori acrid corifird systern, etc are riot 6uridud d 6uri ttie ariWysis. Ttie corresporidirigtvirnat d coristructiori costs for ttie two firiW cover systerns are preserited 6uri the H 6uri taWe. Page 1807 of 4165 NS III 1RUC III 1011Y COS III COMPAIRISGINS Closure III u irfT111 vs I11, IIf"'' III III,,,,,COVER SYS"'ll"I ---------- Item ClosuraTurff Final Cover System Final Cover System F,oun abon Layer/ Englneere �:1fl _ . 594„580 465„8 N9 0 _ a_e_r___________________________________....__ 86„ 00 90„ 60--- .___ a�FLo Ili ra 8"so oat ofl if a ea°( Il, )(1�) ,084„6 0 1,493,6g0 .. ...... ... I rosion IPeslsfanf La er,R) $3,807,850 $1,866,300 IDrainage System Components_______________. 55 „9 10 6g5„5g0 II ��"oawoa oa�fr'ol 100„800 581„g80 Access Roads $172,580 $374,790 E'EN $7,768,550 L° Geosynthefic Clay Uner T'he LIl ICE.oom oneaf for the losureT' urffgaa�cover,system includes the Super,Gripnet"'with Spike Down,whHe the GCL final cover,system 6ncIl,u es the GCL. ( ) 111 he erosion-resistant layer component for the losure_l" urf final cover, system lay W es the Engineered T urf and sand inflll layer',whHe the GCL,finai cover,system includes a geonef oom oslfe drainage layer,and vegetative soil layer'. s presented in the above table, the cost for the los r T rf", fiord cover system is approximately $419,560 less than the III,,,,, fiord cover system. M addition, as noted in the previous subsection, loin ,,,.tern maintenance associated with los r T rf"I" is substantially less than any final l cover system that requires are erosion-resistant layer comprised of a vegetative soil cover. The estimated cost savings from a maintenance perspective over the ,,,,.year posWosure maintenance period equates to approximately 77, . Thus, the overall cost savings resulting from replacing the previously proposed III,,,,, final cover system with ClosureTurf'I'll is approximately $696,960. ill,,,,,,USIGINS s demonstrated by the om r tii information presented herein, the proposed loser Turf"r" engineered It rn tii meets or exceeds the performance criteria addressed by the prescriptive standard. Furthermore, the cost analysis comparing construction costs for the loser Turf"r" versus the previously proposed GG11,,,,, final cover system reveals that a significant cost savings can be realized through implementation of the loser Turf"r'" option. Based on tease circumstances, it can be concluded that the loser Turf"r" engineered alternative meets the a lio in criteria specified in 27CCR, §20080(b). FAA Technical Memorandum II Page 1808 of 4165 IREIF::EIRENCES EBA Engineering, January r 8, JOil7 " c l7ir. 1 Documel7t for City of Ukiah L..... l7 ifl, Me 17doci/70 C17 , Cfifi (Volumes /through 1 , EBA Proje.ct A/d. 02.... , RirqDared for City of LAiah DqD rtrnent of PuUic Works by EBAEngineering, Beata Rosa, EBA Engineering, October 31, 20,13, Fh7al Closure C' 17struC 017 Submittal Fla.cka.ge, EBA Proje.c / , 02.... � RirqDared for City of LAiah DqDartrnent of PuUic Works by EBA Engineering, Santa I,., s , C aHf rni . luau , JTI., King, T, gym, n&r , T.I., I.....�adj-l....�amou, T. and KHre, Rate. of L iquid Mi O17 'Through to i/7 a Geomembral7e Placed 017 a Semi Pemvable ilium,' Geosynthetics Illn rn i n � '1 off. 4, Nos. 3.... ,m FAA Technical Memorandum 1 7 Page 1809 of 4165 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- A I......... Closure I urf'T'Ll PIIGIII)UGI"' "T"MIE Page 1810 of 4165 Infiltruti n Equivalency Analysis b.tt 0//waters°n. dgeo. or.iil ➢.osiii.r tu:i' ! leas r turf bnn.. Tu ,,,V enefits/... Call Today!770-'N"N"N-0386a ISend Us An Email 411:d fop j, IIIDIIAI:lrlll:ll¢.lnl:.°qP.aIIIPofDII P"WG:y IIDI� °I 08auIm!ISllosuuu'rtu'll"uunfpfdS.:Ilaauuuun�IluuPlfGrl:PMaufaanunaaairrom 6WtuuWGuHr� Is OIInfIIIIGPaatiionlll alluuhnralla!uromyAiru allya7sw WIN it - �� ° �,'�� I Ihe Irrgrdirnuuulrnu Gr,G:Ih rdcall wequuireirnna^IInts as defllrned by the EPA A fagir,Su lbflGllu'II;D li inaall Cover Systeirnna,u are contained in'M S'FR 258, 0,II"'Iflia IreguullaG:o n allllows far an Qallae naaG:ve(pe forir nance based)cover aysteirnn,G:Uu°ne of the e Irequuft'eirnnena:a faalr afa^,a:W,arlrnniinGng a alu walla na,y ua i nCulltr aGuaaln."lyfalilmlllly„this is evaluated u Ming two IrrnaGlh odapl1ogIi.w,a...GPf G:I ne II Ilydlrolla gIc qD „t.n'u'uGF,9.;,n•:aa Evalluoaauaion of II andfllllll PeT Rvirnaance QUIP Il.P)Modell and GOOF the GidI rouud Oa3mrGalrodl WDa��pG:IVn a�:pf�G:I W^ar�,�Irnnaraa apdu»I sanest,Ik��nW„W„Irn uua�ua„a�f G:aa uaalrnnfaWaua G:Ihna,ulrnflillG:IrWaG:6aaru fawn°laanrnnaallna:W,aaf a:lhna,^,�"IlmwWwmwurariPmwa°f'1!If P lilrnaull G tunas^u"nyaG:alrnn G:aa G:Ihna Ppua^aua°uPfaG:6naa^°nuulVnG:iiG:IIW,Ilr G eases,^,u. a,I I, -°rn a A coin nfuaarusoln of WIInfPPI ratee!is shown l n the II al llar,'for both Irnna„alnaudollogIies For a generic ric sGu:e in Il an saH:a u'" �+='„a.rr ",a, �, Illnr^u�r„a,uollua�a�fWlrrna�:ulln.,uu:u�a�au:r.ulVn„eau:u:IVnr�uGllma�wuotiwur��i'Pm�wurEIl�tluna�aPG:auwnru°n,yWau:Wuurnfu�ruwnWdr�u�an,uu��sa�ao�la�:uu�Pao�auaWaa�:GWa�:ulrn„�aya�auunu�au. lunfilltr aaiiaaun uasllna^un coir np:xwed to the Peres:udlm:We Subtitle Ilr Standard IlaundfWllll fiilrnaall closure sy teIrma. . �, Ira t."--„r fi a.ur�q,�'t�✓ a..'Jf��"rVh �:+;poi ',�„rPyG,' -I,k<��:- ,i f,r�r=.e I Modell furn 41ke 4)1exys-. 83 347 ", Average F nlrnuuWall lllrnfulltr au:lluun(Cu lbk G iin¢ouud Method od nra6G:lhn ashy„4laundy 4lauiill 1.33 4.51 G a..„. our f ;4d „„till.., 1 G:IlauauurW;l"'uul1,10(Gallons/ L, day) rot"u`Gratrr ino, „z' ri<,.;,;ap-;� G!Wliroud Method with Slit-Saand s'6cAll Gq.,. j owilRlf naalrnnu^,G::IlaaylVnelll(:naml:I e G a ournGauuffwa(Gallons f day) �...��,,.t nri"y"a.3r'.;,r Summary of Results for Poo�fllltraf ion lEfluivaiencV Ain,Wyses for ar Generic Site luu"reYas Rate Of 111quulW 04 grWatllauu G"Ih rouughn 11I i n y Gueo rrrneIrrrnllbr aliim Placed G,Du y Seirr)ll-Pnrlr eallaIle 041edllaalrrrn„f.P,GuWrouud„ lu.*aufa:° °l,-u�.�"C:�;,C.�„;ff 1".117.VGuu.nPs„'1'.Pl.f�'�au�ohyllr�uWaW:„'1".II-Paua�f�-14fWaurnauuu Wauna�f V41.d.VGIhnWrn„Gur�muaaynGlhnr�GWrc:a,OnGnnrroa�aGllauna�all lflfl'f„ymuP..�„Vfllmu�a..�"f-�. > I',,ahua::b r.W'r Evall u N „G��II}tiP 'd';'"..`„a�7•fl:ii,;,,;�o f / i 1 � / ;lc m,' ✓ � is�1�r� 1 i i T Pd! ClosureTurf Brought to you SoIIIA slopes dmiii,�f`t wmiirk, although they keep You SO erosioin coinflinually i)I a g u es the oingoiing main agerneint of i a in d f i I i s, uincftjstr'uai waste s�tes, CCR stor-age areas, a in d other e in v i r,o in rn e in t a i cointak,uneint aI[.)I[.)Hcafloins requh,- ing coinstaint a ebudcfiing of �Oqi)es weakeined b u aiin aind Mind. Vin ackfiflointooingoiing rna'inte- inaince headaches, tiracfifioinai systerns utHWing sod as their- rna'in corn�[.)oineint it costly to rnaiinta�in, �dow to iinstaH, aind �intiroduce uinwainted slqi)e �instabMties. I heire is in aPteirinafive sok..ifloin avaHaWe foi these chaHeing ing appkcafioins wNch addiress the les soins Peai ned by the iind� ..jstiry s6ince the hmpG erneintafloin of Su..jbflfle IID. The iininovative sok..ifloin is caHed Oosu refi..jr-f"I' wNch rneets aind/oi exceeds the i eq..Arerneints set forth by the IEFIA bin Su..jbfifle �ID. A thiree cornpoine II"tsystern, Closui el U..jirf is i evok..ifloiniziing the way eingiineers, owineirs, gove II'runeint ageincies aind rnainy othei s soWe cointa�inrneint chaNeinges. The Oos�..jireT�..jirf systern offei s excepfloinai d�..j i abMty ain Ipneas.ing aesthetics at a nowei cost thain tiraditioinal Ipiracfices. nr, or Atrr Page 1813 of 4165 s , � 1 l ClosureTurf TM makes fast, cost-ef ficient erosion control so easy—it 's virtually install and that 's all, ClosureTurf is a patentedthree component system comprised of a structured geomembrane, an engineered turf, and a specialized sand infill. The ClosureTurf system provi es many advantages over a typical Subtitle D landfill cover such as.- Reduces construction and long-termProvides for enhanced gas collection maintenance costs (when applicable) > Improves short term and long term slope > Improves stormwater quality stability > Incremental closures for odor control ar Excellent performance in extreme weather and leas ate reduction (close as you go) conditions With several square miles of Installed product, ClosureTurf has proven to be superior i performance when compared to other cover solutions—not only in the laboratory but also in real life applications where it counts. The system has a proven track record to significantly outperform traditional vegetative closure methods with regard to installation, ain enance and environmental compliance. i r I Performance. Prevents common erosion, storm water and siltation problems—even during severe weather events, > Utilizes the highest interface friction goorr embrane available in the market which provides greater stability steeper grades and reduces the needo rebuild slopes® > The lifespan oft the Clos reTurf system extends well beyond the required 30 year past closure maintenance period® It protects against divi g fares, severe weather conditions, heat and wind uplift, Cost l rra i III'; I R e n Savings. > Significantly lowers upfront capital costs. Dramatically reduces maintenance casts, Reduces t the cost associated with the repair of significant failures. ` �1 i Page 1815 of 4165 r P I i ! r Environmental Benef Its. „ Obtain control over gas collection sooner than Inter ("close as you go"). 3"u Reduces environmental carbon footprint by up ' to 75% during construction, Lowers the production of Ieachate by allowing incremental closures. ,. Durable system construction designed to safely convey internal gas pressures, reduce unwanted releases and avoidslope stability issues® xThe ClosureTurfsystem requires no irrigation, fertilizing® seeding or mowing. "pry Provides filtration resulting in clean storm .ter runoff, mmr^�vrr ���� 7Prip rM IyV"N Other BenefIts: y r � Reduces overall surface emissions. Easily adapted during or after construction for solar field development. �o, Rapid low-impact construction, �i III I or � I Page 1816 of 4165 Take a closer look at CIOSU r" eTurr" ClosurpTurfT11. is a patented, three compcnent system vampr sed of a structured geomembrane, sn engineered turf.: and a speciaiiZed sand in ill. `he foundation of the syst rn is an impermeable, highly tl-ansmlssive structured georr em rane. It provides far the hi hest interface friction values avaiiable in the market. i h+r engineered turf component gives the SVStel'O its natural lock and feel of grass while protecting 4w geomem rane from extreme weather condi ices for the long term. The speciaiiza and intill component is placed between the blades of the engineered turf .and allovis the system to be traffi$`k ri While also providing additionAl protec,`lo r, from weathering, When required, Clos reTurf's patented s rfici C gas s ste . is Included with the System 11-0 vent landfill gas omissions. ClosureTurt is fast and easy/ to install fcr are aesthetically pleasing, cost-effective is dfili closure solution. SAND INFILL � u TURF Supports STRUCTURED ' �® �® • Provides additional UV protection G EOM EM BRAN E • Dimensional stability • Lab tested in high rainfall events ®4313 interface friction ®Creates a non-exposed system ®Studs on top provide •Aesthetically pleasing •Superior weathering protection -Quick drainage of •virtually maintenance free ® Reduces heat absorption high intensity rainfall events •Superior resistance to. Spikes on bottom provide j Extreme weather -High friction to sub grade g g 0. -Lon term Utf li ht • Exceeds most regulatory i Heat thickness requirements by ZClR"� o" J r i Y II f� I� N i VP' } l� l 1 , i ClosureTuirf's patented surficial gas collection systern reduces, and in sorne cases, elimilrnates the need for tradltnonal gas wells and plpin . It can fuinctiloin as a standalone systern or lin conpunction wlth a tiradiitional systern. Underneath the ClosureTurf systern, gas is generated and ii to the surface where a vacuum cremm ated by the diifferential pressurc s is vented through the surficial gas collection foot. This method prowiin,ies an efficient method of gas collecton whine ireducling the arriount of condensate that needs to be managed. The unique design of the Closure-Turf Surficial Cir�,s Collectiion Systern resulted in one landfill winning pan lnternational Achleverneint Award for a corns med gas collection and closure systc:rn and the Soliid Waste Association of Forth America ( illy ) Gold (Excellence Award for larndfiil gas collection lin '4Cl a 1 0at '„Vie;' � ' Qv F/ ,> re� i ,ltonagr Q, I�? wnati�nq runf ! rYd(rrlr� o��, � �� al f �3fo I � .. 71/ ii%///. , , 1* ( Y71�,r' 4� 'l am/5!i�i/, i; 3'" 'siis f ,1 f 1/1, 1 e O ,r,,; „ / ► W / /,,,/ / / ,,,;/ ,". «., // /aJ �W,j 1/0 x (// , fe o j1 Ur�,f�r�C<f,6"V11 / a avi a i as ,,, ,, ,,, ..... ai HYDROTURFTm HydroTurf is an economical, environmentally-friendly aI r tiv revetment rock riprap and pipedchannels. It is a patented three component system madeof a structured geomembrane, n engineered turf and a specialized ozzolarni infill ( ro i r ), Created specifically for bench drains, downchutes and perimeter channels on landfill covers,HydroTurf will flex and move with typical ifr i I settlements that occur land- fill v rs. It provides superior hydraulic performance a I of handling large velocity and Ire flows resulting in very high velocities. Delivering the same advantages as ClosureTurfa Flydrd'rurf offers rap ild, low inipact instalpatilon that's significanfly less costly than hard armor and piping, and is projected to last more than 'l00 years when properly maintained. Best of all, unlike hard armor rlprap channels, I-Iy roTurf improves the environment by producing cleaner storm water runoff. a , , / / / r / ,� � / � � / �/ i is � ✓ �/, � /r /i, /j/ ,/� / /, / / �., ,/ f / aaa / rr / / i , / / Page 1819 of 4165 / •°I Illllllli uu ! il,�r Ip� ! iirrr ! JJ. ......................... 1 a / i t w n r u, �i III a.uVV ��III I 11 r- II Page 1820 of 4165 i I i i 4 � a a ^w r as a v a �I IIIIIUIIIIUIIIIIuuui pW Hq wr �b A' .p a a" a a � / 1 �o ij � �+ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII � it " �Bu Closur I eTurf compliancemdriven , The costmefficient , �1iy r, fi environmentally- friendly solution . hrfi or S,;I With sloe erosion and vegetative maintenance an ongoing battle, and compliance issues ever looming, choose the cover solution designed to eliminate the most common problems associated with landfill management. ClosureTurf is specifically designed to solve soil erosion, slope instability,gas emissions, n high costs of installation and maintenance. Discover the solution that makes your job a lest easier, keeps you compliant and makes you look good l� in the process. r For more information on ClosureTurf, visit closureturfacom, email us at info cloy ret rfaco or call 00-373-247 , n ' ALL ClosureTurf COMPONENTS ARE PROUDLYIN THE USA. 1 y ail I "fit Waters1hedUrf T MG" le losyn th le tics wit�,Jjop Closure �Y� U ain ufa ctu fired in Ipmamrtnershljpm Wbi st,;"s wOught to you by a+usyr ur,,Ar+mummm^y'cv ;��ffR�al�.1 T' 1 2 hl„ c"Ic. 'v4,tre ur Ccc')i�rt 'finder. cIc°a sr,jr t u r ff cc::irinj pVamuuirir'll'uuirhf"lGawaduuuJVpIJSIlkd„68maWS and 8,585,hml„paalrmadNNi°aPnIPatert No,2„681,hM;mdpahlI mIImidpprruakinauknairehllrmlpirallaermyah' hafmllrmdhusrmyyimhllrmh8mm„Il.l111'vairidimau:Odolvell}yVNrmimmmdphao AgimkaerkaoAVV 0rdwimmuahNaaur„irimrammmmsmraVuahNrsnrm and m lieesslsuumvall'dll'aeaauMQOiruthbIIeiruaWuiewnamirimMg the uummaafiaaduirllairoduurrN are uasedpuuljimirm tests and data vamVNmw+maphasbeirelllalaVim„Ilraaanmw+ell';hllrNm0orti'duirmmuahNrsiru should not vas wed orrel1ledpupon for any mllperllkaaflllAkaafloirmwhllruauuhhirdmpmuudamW 1piraufessllsurmllmaaannfirmahVaur mid welfflud:aasl011uofiNhsaad:c mmy,whaal[Alllwy mild aaflllAkabNVNhpr.mNuurahllrmactuuaalluummIbypahllreirmhICaayruuudmvdarurhiroll,noquuaaraauuW maairwaairiraaurhprof any II(rid, axll'amassedp or IhiimllAled,Vm emu k b yWvatermllranp h rnngyimWllrahVrs l,V.h as to hllrm d°ffech pa6^vuurllr use paw tlllrm irmsuuVhs W II pall uraair does Watershed Gemsftutlllretrrs I11.11(vamsuuiiima vanrgy IIIaft In raaurimimrhoim Ilrerew Wllr.Any mhvate mmiris imu k ramiOnmmua}y not be all rammllaemfi sksce,nadpoltlounua9Viri@aurora oirmmmua}yummnmamssuairryairdeskableanlhenlGduarmWaanairm mlGahNrsnMrmundNN onmairdrimmmmhuarrmmP.AssdmvumruauuamofplIl'aONruable laws airgmr+miraninenhirimgWafudsurm Notllillim lrmumNun Is has be rmunsl as pdmmrmuruwNrsur an as na ire mmmmmsmraNuahNrsur t hifirksge my pdas"A' V.5.14 I rlrr�li„c ClosureTurf' Brought t®you by 4yru, Amwp %.� U.S.Patent Plus,7,682,105 &8,58 a,322 m Canada Patent No.2,663,170 a Other Patents Fending i IN k r / a r , I �/ J i / I, C a i0 II I i0 " mr �0mfast, cost, I efficlerit arld mr � r r mri l IIIIII firl of n e n e e n tougl'iest . MsureTurlmm �s a three coimporient systeirn coirnprised of an hemp erirneaWe, higWy transiin�sslve structured geoirneirnbr ne, p edaH e engineered turf, and sandki'MIlL The structured geoirneirnb r ne coirnporient � thefoundation of the systeim and poro u e for the highest interfacefricUon vMues avaflaWe in the ina rket.The eng[ neered turf coirnporient is paced on top of the geoirneirnbo°ane glAng the systeirn its natura� l hook and 'fee� of a grass whine protecting the geoirneirnba°ane coirnporientfroirn extreirne weather, condfflons 'for the Ilong ter-urn. IG°un lllly, the sand un,ffilll pllaced in the engkieered turf enaWes the systeirn to be trafficked, hHe Mso pp rovWftrg for addffior4l protection and an additioriM Victor, of safety against weathering. A vlrtuaIkly inakrteri nce free to h� o' ogy de,,, signed to Ilast, MsureTurl has proven to be the most ustai aWe dosure option avaHaWefor the waste ftldu try. See how MsureTurf perforims in soi,ne of the most deirnandkig appHcatlons. t t I I I I t � rr rI I I II I I I)I) IIII,,,, L LE , RANI„ LANDFILL Location:Jena, LA The soil of the LaSalle-Gaol Landfill in Pentral LOUISPMa was highly erodible, had Completed-:2009 a high plasticity index,and had a natural pFl of 0.0,so its characteristics Weren't Owner,Progressive Waste cr,ndu."i ve to side slope maintenance. bi fact,every° spring the existing are etative SoNtions slopes required slope repair,reseeding and liming ii-i order to remain intact. (Pres- ize:g acres sure to find a more stable solution led the operator tr,Implementing Closure Tu,rf's -13 degree intertars? friction technology, which is more than a 3,0 factor of safety am,, Qagainst sliding failure,over 10 acres of the landfill. I�PIII������II IIII I I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, III d Location-Salinas„CA Situated adjacent to the San Andreas Fault in California, the Crazed Horse Landfill omwmpleted:202 m Salinas, CA, required a solution that would enable capping without modio'yIng Owner:Progressive Waste steep slopes of 2.,25H M And,since most available borrow soil was eypensive and Solutions environmentally impacted with agricultural chemicals,the site was especially ch;;l- ize:68 ages lenged in producing surface water quality that met the regulations. The 65®acre landfill is also situated in a residential area that demanded a final cover system that was aesthetically-pleasing and not subjected to on-going errsion and main- tenance noise, �illt� 1„'UMBER RIDGE LANDFILL OUICK STATSPROJECT SCOPE Location:Richwoeds, MO Due to its location in a seismic-area,concerns ever slope stability that could cum- : 2010 promise gas collection and containment was a major concern for this landfill The Owner: Progressive Waste lack of quality borrow soil and the h1911 cost Of procuring it made a ClosureTurf Solutions system an easv choice. Likewise,gas cc4lection using deep wells would drastically Size:10 acres increase installatiori costs and compromise speed of closure. A s,,stem that could perform effectively withOut deep vertical wells was greatly advantageous, Oil= IIII IIII ull RII , Ml..iu�fl IIII1011�" IIIIIIIIN W{'�I IW 1111 L �'I ,rem •IIWII�� P R IV,B, P IV:B,� 11,o i:mn,tla:irtfcord,•g "i" The visa in that the a.owirier had for the liarttord l...a ndlill was ooe where they would Completed:2013 be able support the initiatwes to promote renewable ener v 'that were consistent wneir:Connecticut Resources with both the C' M".."IrF and the Cutts°of llart;ford„CT.C'iosurel`urf enabled them to do Recovery Authority just that,by providing for the beet closure technology available !imd is capable of Size-38 acres incorporatiing tradit anal rid d or fkyiWe sa l:r photcvo t��)ac panels. %Ifllk ���,i Page 1825 of 4165 FRESU11 TS 'O'le'dbrev s..'hdrig C)UrSVVes wt-wking and reww*ing our Operators quickVV learned of Clom.jre Turf's abillty Ito ;provide k,,ng term eroslon control as the system slopes,hut after we mstm',led the controlled rainfall ruinoff in excess of.4 inches per hour-et times dUli it's first year in action,In fact,the Cosure TWPF.sysizrrm we,didn't system has endured mrre than 300 incNes oil,rainfall since 2006 Ancl,three moril,hs allter phase One of have to do or�,thlirig to it agoen, the prnject,was completed,a tornado produclng shear-winds og"70 rnph Nit across the front of the Iandfffl The gposs loots areat,,i.ihe sard wit1holit darnegirlg the turf cap. Flriafly, the I aSailp s.and lnfiiH re.,nairled In place with no erosion when a hosil't momed and"Oleee's nq.:u (evee broke,releasing water over 5 acres of the project area, erosion"I The Closure Turf system requires no mo,,iving, little maintenance, and has remained in tact even un- Delaney i ewis. der the most extreme weather conditions Low maintenance costs Lan relate to signit ica nt savings over Mtrct Lapdffl Manager: the 30vear post closure period Best of all,soil erosion,water infiltration,leachate reduction and fugitive IESI Cu,lp.A Progrens^ve 14'aste, gas emissions were immediately controlled once the ClosureTUrt SyStern was installed, SoWhon Covinpony RESULTS "We've Oeen extilen7ely erri- pressed wilt,trie staepilti.,of our Installation of the ClosureTurf system was successfully achieved with currently developed slopes under slopes and quWlify oF the water earthquake loading,eliminating 10,000 round trip truck loads(equivalent to 660,000 miles) that would runoff Pion.,now Include a 2 have been required for soil borrow.The combination of soil import elimination and reduced heavy equip- rnega-wattsoiat atraysyste- ment needs reduced the project's carbon footprint by 70C/C. down the road, vn;cr,will mean this land Wfil Pioduce reriewat°le Clos-ureTUFf eliminated dirty stored water runoff by replacing�, traditional vegetated cover with a Cover energy source tha!gives Dock to systern that produces very clear E,rid clean water free of fertilizer and rinuddyrunoff In addition,Closure® the ermonrient Turf ehininated slope veneer failures from high seismic loads and reduced veal lyinaintenp.nceactiL.lities for the SVSWA to essentially zero, These would have included rebuilding slopes because of erosion, Dave Me= P•E revegetation,dust control efforts, mewing of weeds and grasses to reduce fire danger,and conti-Ohng Projecir,14anager rodent populations, Eauplas Vdalev.soud Waste Authopltv RESULI S aprurilng 100%of methone iris Drovidea opt;cirls fw creation credits ClosureTurf's patented system precluded the need for gas wells or piping,This resulted in a cost savings and given as rnope fue.1 to burn fop of$15,0nu per acre that-would have been required for installing deep gas wells.ClosureTurf's structured gene�atw�g ever,,,,,� A—,socir os an cnernbrane reduces oyVgen in the system that results in higherqualltV methane gas to be vented for flan area s closer),aft con inn or alternative energy generation 1,e con'rouled which P:;gilea�_44na. a L the structured inerribrane protects Under the ClosureTurf system,the gas rises to the surface due to positive pressure and generates, ]little against cixitgen rhitration,edml- -ondensate to be collected and mariaged The Timber Ridge system is consistentiv venting 500 SUM natmg Inat as a Prepatriway," c L of gas over a ten-acre closure with no vertical wells,,This achievernerit has resulted in Timber Ridge win- ning an International Achievement Award for a.combined ges collection and closure s,-stem and the Solid Mak'e Fretsen, PE, Waste ASSOLi of North America(SW4NA)Gold Award for landfill gas collection in 2_012, Reg'clnal Engineer IESI "oath,A Pi,ogre.:.isive Waste Tohition Cornicany FRESt"Pil I S C osur-O`urrf was s0ected �or use by tr�e owner fim the ioilowiinq reasons::CkALJr"PTUrf'S gec-mernbrane curnponent had a prci-�en to hack record in lzirK.F'lH dosurre appficetions,the engineers.d turf with sarld`infM was durable and strong protecting th-e undeirlying georneiTlbrane from while also emabhrig the systelin to be driven eo,crross by fight rubber bre vehii.,Jes without darriaginq the SGN requwed for normal solar fie W apearatilons.As the best kwi g-terrrn sokition for l4artford,Closure'rurfalsc%pro-Jided for tin aes the'Lically-pleasi rig envilrorlment in a high profille area, Page 1826 of 4165 oil s Othieris successful li�rlstallatloi� Industrial Sludge n h Lagoon I im erl iie Landfill * Ill oo ' iomm I' inoon, GA ll oo ' Iliomm Oakdale, I * Coiimpleted 2013 Completed 2011 Owner,, A Pacif ic Owner,, Progressive Waste SoWtions Size 70 acres - Size 4 acres Weati,lierford Landfill Sauf ley Landf!If Location Weatherford,T Location Pensacola, II=i,,,. Completed 2010 Completed1 Owner, Progressive Waste Solutions Owner,, Esc ambila Count Size 8.5 acres - Size . acres Berkeley County Landfill Sandtown Landfill * Location i oncks Corner, SC Location San to n, DE * Cornpleted 2013 Completed 2013 * Owner,, Berkeley County Owner,, Berkeley County Size 12 acres - Size 4 acres Lanchester Landfill B! County Landfill Location N ar on, PA, - Location Woo lawn, IN Owner Chester County m Owner Montgomery omer County Size T acres Size 5 acres Tanglpa mo F) rlsh Solid Waste Facility B&W I'Dantex Landfill • Location independence, LA Location Amarillo, TX ®Completed 2013ommmimiete20133 • Owner Tangipahoa Fl rlsh GovernMent Owner,, Department of Energy, EPA Region ion Size 22 acres Size 5 acres Contactru Arnerica for information on other successful Closure'r r TM landfill applications acrossthe (�'Aosure'Turlf delivers superior perfonnance. Watershed (.rolosuare ii.ulrl was specifically desoglr)ed to addiress aii-)d solace elroslolrr, � Geosyn hetics,w slope llrrtegrity, gas emissrolr)s, rlrrstallatiolrr aii-)d marlrrtelrralrrce cost colrriarolu EPA rmegu.alatlolrr compllalrrce, alrrml lolrrgevlly of str uctume alrrml Manufactured uti IpartnersNIp rare: appealralrrce. 1Discovelr the solu lolrr that mlellvelrs olrr Its pmolrrrlses. (.roi°aoose (.roiosu.ire'.l...0 irf. ),r11144 '����ru 011�If118+` For moire llr)forma lolrr olrr (.roiosu ire"I a irf, vislt closu.aretu irf.colrro, or° ema l ups I 'JI aI llr)foC6)closu.amelu ii.f.com or call 800.,, 7 ,..2478. v.514 2014 Watershedeo ynthetu r � r �1 i i 1 i i 1 f � rI r I rI I f r I I Ir I 1� f I oom �� nlll�ux d�u;,� Brought to you by ;, ra v";° closure r,u rf,!tll,i ims beein ex° iiii iiii l r "tested Uin Ittie lab iiii iiii i11 "real nur° "i p p i ili ° iiii iiii for per-forr'naince aindr blii fiii° . The goa:ui was to produce a:u system that performs better Closu.ulr'eturf has proven to be erivilrorirnerita:uiiy protective than current "Su.ubtit::ie I1)" requirements and can Ir'esist the and more stable than tr'adiit:ioinai vegetative/soii solu.ut::Porls many common failure modes of today's closure covers. as a cover system. Tr'adit:ionai approaches to laindfiil ciosu.ulr'e have ¢:::u.ust::omalr'iiy involved the use of a vegetative cover® However, many of he engineered turf technology was originally developed these cover systems have failed as a result of excessive for professional sports venues. Over the last decade the erosion® gas pressure buildup, earthquake loads, poor market has expanded greatly and technology has im® ma iriteria rice arid inadequate oversight: procedures after proved dlr'a rna:utica:uliya The ia:utest generation of poiyethyl site ¢:::losulP°'e. erne material now provides exceiieint:: Ir'esidu.uai strength and color du.urabiRy against LJV iight::.. lin response to inu.umelr'ou.us faikir'es of these ciosu.ulr'e sys.. terns and associated rising costs, engineer's have looked By combining the newest technology of engineered at new approaches in estabUshiing a more stable and en- turf with a 50 mil thick geomembrane that has the high® vir'ounmeintaiiy sound sokit:ioin, An old solution to address est interface friction available in the market, and addling coven' failures and the associated errovirorimeint::ai impa¢:::ts approximately a 0.5 inch of sand for infill® the CIosureTurf is the impiemerrotatioin of exposed geomemblr'aines, How°° system is quickly becoming the preferred choice among ever, exposed geomemblr'aine systems are st::ili costly to the engineering community for covering landfills, mines, mairitaiun,are not wind resistant, and do not, plr'ovide for an industrial waste sites, and CCR storage areas, The prod- aestheticaiiy pieasiing soiutioin, For these reasons, many uct is proven to significantly outperform current closure state agencies do not grant fiinai coven' status to exposed methods while allowing engineers to deliver a soured geomemblr'aine coven' systems. After all,, the geomembraune solution with net savings to their clients. is still exposed to the eiernerrot::s for the entire duration of Tl°'roe driving perfolP°'marro¢:::e 2::IP°'PteIP°'Pia folP°' tl°'roe pIP°'odu¢:::t aIP°'e the appik--atioin„ The best approach st::iii iinvoives covering stalrilit:y" t:IP°'arrosmissivit:y au°'rod dulP°'alril°ut:y, Tl°roes, 2::IP°'it:elP°'ia and protecting the u.uinder'iyiing geomernbrarroe, howevelP°' serve to mitigate II..FO emissions au°'rod liquid infiltlP°'atiorro instead of using two feet: of soil to do it, it can be done fora durationthat extends well beyond the post-¢:::IosulP°'e with a speciaii ed tufted geotext,iie ("errogiineered turf"), irro°° period.Tl°'roe gIP°'apl°ros au"'rod ¢:::1°6aIP°'ts represent sU.ummalP°'y of tl°'roe filled with sand that has been engineered to perform bettelP°' perfolP°'marro¢:::e. than the tr'adiitioinai soil cover. Combining an engineered turf iunfiiied with saund and a highiy i,i®S.Patint Nos.7a82u105&85ki,4, ,322 transmissive st:lr'u.u4::Au.ur'ed geomemblr'aine forms a system Cainada Patel t No. 1,6 31,17, known as iosulr'd'Tu.urf. The next generation ciosu.ulr'e system, other Pat a is Fleind'iing ri IlandflHs and m4ie p llesv sllUng of the scull cover a1ori steep slide slopes 6s of prm rnalry concern, particullar" after major storm events. Dud rig a raumm everi',the ur" IlnfMl will penetrate a icM through the sand Infill and drain directly In the drainage s steii-im below avoiding sand erosion and i-inaintaining stability of the sand ummfulllL "Tube InflU �s also held in place by the unique uuw structure f the engineered turf that traps the sand to anchor and ballast the erig6rieered turf to the surface At covers. Note that: suuwnreTuuwnr"f can use placed on very steep slopes Tests Indicate 43 degrees Interface friction value The slope stability safety factor can use calculated fnr" ururlm the chart using the equation: n: Closmilre,ruirif System iiiii ilteiiii-IfaceIlllflll'll I� iiiii iiiii Sheair tmreurogtt: 5 a R? Sloes angle Slope S Ir � Fl i mmmeter (deg) (p^a„f) 34. 1.51,,,,1:1 1.4 a ID � CL 27 m 1m r 3n 220 (Peak 1 � ,,. Linear(Peak) Linear(LD) 0 '160 2,010 300 400 s NormaV Stress (a°sf) CIlosure"Fur " sand ilnfiH rnaterii Q its R Rahlfafl linten i[ty %tablen s�teep slopes under severe � of the sand lnfi V Is c.ontli°H: Hed by the LI I II iransmissivfty Head Le Len h Nib i ' / /��;' Grass irdeirlocki m ire d/011,0111 ,, tos uire-rH.urf mis desIigned with the H;ibr.ve cN.,i irH.,i cteiristics in rrriind. 'I tie s H;ir)d IinfiUI c:;lrr 6 N;irrcfl e over six inches ip lr hour of rainfall RakifaIlf penetrates quIickIly through the sand and Into the structured draIln Iliirier beIlowwffth has a ver hIiigh transmissNIlty. The eneirgy that couDd cause eIrosuon is 2- on the structured geornernbrane and not on the sur- face of: the earn. 11"he tir,ansrnIissMty its presented In "A he gralI at left. 0 HydraWlic Gradient Weathering he illn 1m i sill s n : ' For a II Illll0000r n Illll0000r 1, e 1.20 .. ._. �...... — — _ 7 yr(84%retained strengtEx� _.. I - --- 100 _ „�i.0 gr(83%retained strengths) � .. ... 3"=m7,3145Ln(x)+ 165.87 80At 60 r f � n 15 yr(90%retained strength) i 40 "" f u s 30 yr projection: 75. retuned - _ strength 20 1 3 yr(97%retained strength} 0 --- �- 10000 1.00000 1000000 Weathering'Time(hour) Oosur Turf is designedto provide weathering resistance n geoinneimbrane prmb1: c1:'ion when exposed to the most extreme condItions. Based on independent, rea[­worid weathering tests performed 1: Aflas Mat rW 1C sting i.... bor tori s in New river„ AZ 11he tensiQe strength of the ngium r turf firers is projected to have 75% r 1enflon after 30 years,. 11"his means that with 1:ypic i 1:m ffic ioading forces, the ism at ri i can provide over foam" times time strength required fter thirty years of extreme heat and LIV exposure. Based on the testing data coHected and shown in the graph above, and datafrom many existing Ombstsr llurf projects„ the system can provide provIde decades of reflable performance beyond time standard thlrtyt ,,,year post-closure maintenance period. i n uu Tunnel uuTesting esa Imin o at lim uu l000 III Suu°nCE. lahl E:nnclCnOSEEd gE:MnnWnnbu°ams la`E: Su..ASc:.E:�pUbk� to darn4:gE� from high Mridsa, tf)E� tE:dvidlog u°m.AsT n uThsTau°nd tf)EnSEE 9W.c:.E:S. A sh.jdy was IG)EM"forrnnE:d on tf)En n uu°nd u..AlCnfuTT u`E:ac:.flo ns by GE:nou°g a `I`EECf) RE:SE:nau°c:h Ilu°nsflt.A EE."To c:ornnlCnk tE: tf)En E:Wak.AaTuo n wind Tu..Au°nm I tE:sTuu°ng was IGnEffforrnnE:d. "1111En 00SLA"EC.IF1.Au.f'" Gnrod� ..Act a ndic:.4:tEE d no u..AIC Hft n hE:m E:nnclCnOSEE d to`120 mph n uu°nds. "11...his oar uu°n contrast Mth E:nnclCnOSEE d E:Mu° Wnn- buµau°n yStEArns WhEM`E: E:XtE:Au°sivE: anchoring uS �`EMJuJA`E:d E:WE:m for a,0 mph Mrlds, u"to uu- "Tu rf tectinndlog IGau ova features that � en p ry-iffigate the forces of vwunn a such as a Iporous uu-.. flo ns and tflades b nn kv, and reacTum, QAc;4 kilt the Mrid cau skv,, a resastance to the upHfta ClasureFud Wind Tunnel Test IlR s s ur IIIaMr r mart 4o l a veiix lv-s Ivlrra r.p,l „vm increa Ikruy; i� / OnI ly 4s r�rOu v lan bend i�we M"e .➢ uYiU/a �� ula Ihol,i rc�n a:�o�e9lh�.l I s^'�,,;I snBY °�41 a mums ,. .. YP9 a duw I ma I d Icl ,aC vI vst CWst I U W�w"E 4 Id� 41 6 4 V V U 31 dd 5d $7 N or US M :Y 116 43 ........ .. .,.. .v ',,. E Ifl, J7 tiS � YY ', $:W'YMb Air'.R'•'�'„^�M I ,Al Gas system monitoiring locaflons oir wells in i:he landfill will have io be accessed by pear kons on foot oir�n vehicles The typical exposed geomembirane cloSUire, bey n fUlly exposed, WOUld likely be damaged dUrIng access., F''W"11"wrl, ttw geomembranecan be damaged by biirds oir other, an orals Ali SUch damage to the om embil-an OUld have to be CMIUMjally irepauil- d and ireplaced at add"ul:uo nay costs afteilr constrUCtiOM rhe 00SUire"IFUrf"is ttflckeir, coveired Mth sand �nflll i:hat not only ballast the sysi:em bUt also allows foir access of a 60 ps� Hire pres SUre veNcle on 31 slopes and Ur)to 90 psi thre pireSSUire in flatter aireas Ml:hOLA being SLJscer)i:ible to damage. o � pressure ffwil cover r y of .E S�",m�.�•V'7f0➢A ;a�7}°Dd �d'71 ��� �4 L IbP�., �A�`�0.8 Gn1pnet,wfth h' "saplke I:.°own Prepared Subgrade o%I�))JY�I�I)YI/�,I//„I��WTJI'1.;,,„ ,n{.��l�llr,lfl�J „/ lrII/,,, � ✓Fro,r� N 5/I, • , i Dr41fNr�0N8Vf2y' r.� f 1 4l/ JOC I . �',w" YWe " d1��i1��U�1r1�.�rr��l�u�ro�✓Ir�,�l +A 411 FI /O co 2 Footprint.- Traditional vs. ClosureTurfTM* ' r . �r Protection CompositeDrainage Veget borr lopsoll .., 1 ors n rr Sol aw, r s (288,000) n �� (19,000) Soil Foundation o U V ��� louououuuuioioioioioioioiou wwimioioioioioioioi00000ioioioioioi000i wwwww wa�w wwiooi o rn o1 r'all GCL o * �uo�m�o�rouw (13,000) ���lllllllllll�u�y�lllua (16,000) Layer Waste F°oo pir,.6rrnt (7 ) (2 (652, .._...� � � _._._. ���COa) IMIIItiIItiIItiIItiIIl0110111011111111111010101010101010101fllfllfllMNW .. S riith fic Soil Prooll' orrrrta'�imbrr rrn otextH Four, -morn Rolling of (W, ( l I ( ,000) ll�l��r i"urr1 gy�r� �,� �.v� r �1111111111111'jjo, waste , y ) (7 , (�) O llll IIIR" OX I 11A AT I�ll�� ll rotCO, I urrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn F-b o t P ri nt rrrrrrrm (132,200 IIII�IIIIL )+ I�IrJprl IInII W ) IInII rrrlr,Iµrlr�rirrrrrrrrrrrr )+ CO./ha) W!W�i,UU uuNe'kYl�Ujy��+'mI aA�f I uNi UIIwjllll. IU 'kY��//f�/�III ""�'enul�ll W�'������//� WN%;'WWW!q1lttl'dMM�1PoM�Utlebe!MOI�Ifir1k�M�1i0119',W'�M,'31MYMPoPoIMNY91'oYoYoAl�ieiM'u�/�bY1dWb'�%� 13ou.uu c e, oe na"u,I�a.p""Tr aa�u�.uon all vs.IF.up�ased�Aeorna"Irnlbi Bane IlL aaua�fHII f�oveirs Cost and Su.ust auua�all.�Il ty IPerspec:�.oaaes,"�Aa"�aak}poaH.��a dc,Magazine, Ya°ry�j ��I N�l>7 ClosureTur, T" Brought to you by Agr'tj Arnei,ico To learn more about ClosureTurf or to find a representative near you,visit our website at closureturf.corn. Watersihied Brought to you lbyy rru s?sw oruli!:as am"wfactuiw'ed hl° paIlrtmmelrsOP�Op with k3WO 3, '' 7 d'or �w; r turfxclm Il'' 0Jtr0 Q' d'yao'n to°a mNunalrllaalr tll'umll'wlruull'wrlra awt atausllwmfil,m sfiatllu thrs',II. ,aaa'ndmduusllalmNfilllcellurrfitoAgnuvfinwllsa AIIII Jlasuulnrt oat"�II'wlraaadauc4 .511'astalrut,0tuu.3,���„t��aonfi�,t�fi�a d3tu Qalrua�llalru d'"auaont Otuu.�„tatw','dRt7td„'ao'nfi uutllwumu d"atu.o'ntr�d' Iru�llun. ulu�auuuaao��oauanrnliunuunn^uu�aomuuuu.x�uu�s�ap�p�nMiluuuu,xaalVwlVwnMaouonp�Ilu vie��aullwa�urhaueaaaMdullwuuaes hmild data aMNea�awa�ual laaMj uuwwwa wsllnVuuuuath analculldnmaaMuuas oil uPlied ulla tau all'ufi sll'werillfic all'wlllw4Vcatillaau'u aailtllwcauut i!Inanawu'u and arll'afidcatua m'n of lts acm arfi„su italbillt'fi aand aall'wlllAi casbil lty Since the aactuuM use by otaasus,ils beyond ow ward,na guuma i n ar oil wasu'aalq a ao'ny Iluilu'nd,, exIlsessedaii iniphed,11sinade by WateiisPoii�d6posyiinillnM��ir,,1111(as to the effirds of sudh use oil the lesultsw be obtained,,nw does Wateiished GeosyNhetirsILIL(asvjuuu'n'araao'nyIIIIabbOlit'yIlu'nraru'nu'un^tallownIhon^u'mwaillo,AnysWn^H'u'nent,u'u'nade PuarrNu'ulm'na u'uawt'Vraausalluaall cuuliu'n'what'asllu'ncaaddIlt'liau'ualll"m'nfau'amat'Vawo'nlin�aa be n sruau' aada+,VII'auV�raadwco'n'waatllarullau'�aau'��wtllonallcwmndIltllao'n�r�su'�ciliculmntao'nceslash9'awu'Vrrraauus�rstirwwIlll�rabll�rllaow�sawu'� mraruonliunru'nt'u'ar uullaotusu'usV t'llnVu'u � � II � � II II II II � � ap wumu'eiiii 6 to be sslroaruurfi as II'wci nllssVuua awu'as a wamcoi nlm'numN'uadatlIo n to Piu'ufirlinga alrofi Il'wat'umu'nt v.5,14 Page 1836 of 4165 Geosyntec 1255 Roberts Boulevard,Suite 200 144 Kennesaw,Georgia 30144 PH 678.202.9500 } FAX678.202.9501 consultantswww.geosyntee.com 15 May 2015 Jose Urrutia, P.E. Vice President of Engineering Watershed Geosynthetics 11400 Atlantis Place, Suite 200 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Subject: Literature Review and Assessment of ClosureTurf UV Longevity Dear Mr. Urrutia: Watershed Geosynthetics, Inc. (Watershed) has patented an alternative landfill closure system termed, ClosureTurf.. ClosureTurf consists of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) grass blades tufted through a polypropylene (PP) geotextile backing which overlies Super Gripnet®, an HDPE or linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane manufactured by AGRU America Inc. The addition of a layer of sand ballast during installation completes the system. The sand ballast provides cover for the lower portion of the HDPE grass blades, the PP geotextile backing, and the Super Gripnet® (Figure 1). The ClosureTurfsystem, therefore, is a "hybrid" closure system in the sense that it is neither a traditional soil cover or an exposed geomembrane. ClosureTurfhas been used to close a number of landfills throughout the United States. A select list of sites where it has been used is shown in Table 1. Applications extend to other facilities as well, such as capping of coal ash ponds. Watershed has requested that Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) provide an assessment of the longevity of the ClosureTurfsystem with regard to UV degradation. Since ClosureTurfhas elements (i.e., the HDPE grass blades)that are permanently exposed to UV radiation, this assessment will be particularly focused on the exposed portion of the system. However, the UV longevity of the PP geotextile backing and HDPE geomembrane will also be addressed by reference. Geosyntec's approach to this assessment has been to conduct a literature review of pertinent documents available (journal papers, white papers, presentations, etc.), distill the results of the review, and perform limited analysis. This report concludes with a summary of the review and analysis along with brief discussion for recommendations. GR5769/C1osureTurf UV Longevity Assessment rLdocx Page 1837 of 4165 Mr. Jose Urrutia 15 May 2015 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The UV longevity assessment of the ClosureTurf system (Figure 1) began with a literature review. In general, relatively little published information was discovered regarding exposed HDPE grass blade degradation. The information that is available consists of retained tensile strength test results of HDPE grass blades after exposure (1, 5, 7 and 10 years) at a field test facility in New River, Arizona (Watershed, 2014). Extrapolation of this data by Watershed (2014) resulted in a prediction of 65% retained tensile strength after 100 years of service. In addition, Richgels et al(2015) published half-life (i.e., 50% retained tensile strength) predictions of exposed HDPE grass blades using a laboratory data release from the Geosynthetics Institute (GSI) on HDPE geomembrane strips exposed to UV lamp irradiation. Richgels et al (2015) obtains an upper bound and lower bound half-life predictions of 247 years and 176 years, respectively. Extrapolation of the field data from New River, Arizona yielded a half-life of 216 years. Geosyntec checked the calculations shown in Richgels et al (2015) and obtained 277 years and 214 years for the upper and lower bound estimates of HDPE grass blade half-life. Differences in the results between Geosyntec and Richgels et al (2015) are attributed to rounding. Geosyntec attempted to repeat these calculations for actual performance requirements (i.e., 12.5% of original tensile strength) of the HDPE grass blades rather than a randomly assigned half-life, however the predictions resulted in service lives that were too lengthy to be reasonable. The most likely explanation is that the laboratory data has not degraded enough to allow for service life predictions using 12.5% retained tensile strength. Future data releases from GSI will aid in providing more accurate predictions below the half-life. Based on Richgels et al(2015)predictions, as well as the prediction given in Watershed (2014)it appears that the half-life of the HDPE grass blades exposed to Arizona-like conditions is on the order of 100 years. These results are promising; however additional field test data is needed to improve the half-life predictions, particularly since half-life predictions for exposed HDPE geomembrane are also approximately 100 years (Koerner et al, 2015). Understanding the differences in weathering between HDPE grass blades in a synthetic turf and an HDPE geomembrane will provide additional insight into the similar half-life predictions of the two geosynthetics. Finally, the service life of the HDPE grass blades in the ClosureTurf system should ideally be based on its performance requirements rather than a half-life which will result in a longer service life prediction. GR5769/ClosureTurf UV Longevity Assessment rLdocx en��r'i11e III�� '�1"'71.^ I ,�e m llsbw I II4'iIin oW.or's Page 1838 of 4165 Mr. Jose Urrutia 15 May 2015 Page 3 In addition to the HDPE grass blades, there are two unexposed elements of the ClosureTurf system: (i) the PP geotextile backing for turf component; and (ii) the Super Gripnet® which consist of a HDPE geomembrane (see Figure 1). Watershed has incorporated UV degradation inhibitors into the PP geotextile backing which, according to Watershed has lead to an improvement in UV resistance by a factor of 14 over the original prediction of 65% retained tensile strength after 100 years (Watershed, 2014). Koerner (2011) has estimated that covered HDPE geomembrane will have a half-life of 446 years at 20 degrees Celsius and 265 years at 25 degrees Celsius. Therefore, the most critical component of the ClosureTurf appears to be the exposed HDPE grass blades when it comes to UV degradation. However, degradation of the HDPE grass blades to unserviceable levels can be remediated by replacement of the turf component of the ClosureTurfsystem. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY In total, Geosyntec has reviewed approximately 40 technical documents to date. The database is a combination of documents provided to Geosyntec by Watershed as well as documents collected by Geosyntec. A complete reference list of the documents in the database can be made available upon request. In general, relatively little information was found on the topic of exposed HDPE grass blades with respect to degradation due to UV radiation. The documents that were obtained and reviewed are listed below. 1. Field test data provided by Watershed from the New River, Arizona testing facility on the HDPE grass blades (Watershed, 2014). 2. Testing results (Atlas-MTS) discussing the UV longevity of polyethylene and polypropylene grass used for outdoor European athletic facilities. 3. Technical paper by Richgels, et al. (2015a) published in the conference proceedings for Geosynthetics 2015 in Portland, Oregon. 4. Presentation by Richgels., C. at the Geosynthetics Conference for 2015 in Portland, Oregon (Richgels, 2015b). GR5769/ClosureTurf UV Longevity Assessment rLdocx en��r'i11e III�� '�1"'71.^ I ,�e m llsbw I II4'iIin oW.or's Page 1839 of 4165 Mr. Josh Urrutia 15 May 2015 Page 4 5. Presentation by Diguilio, D. at the Northern New England SWANA Conference on 25 September 2013 (Diguilio, 2013). The following documents on the topic of HDPE Geomembrane degradation due to UV exposure were reviewed and found to contain useful information regarding this assessment. 1. Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI) White Paper 96 (Koerner et al., 2011). This white paper contained degradation data (% retained strength and elongation) on laboratory aged samples of 1.5 min HDPE geomembrane. Aging was completed using a UV Fluorescent device per ASTM D7238 at 70 degrees Celsius (°C). 2. Geosynthetic Institute (GSI) webinar presentation by Koerner et al., (2015). This presentation contained a slide that compared predicted (laboratory vs. field) half-life of geomembranes of various resins, including HDPE, as well as a suggestion for estimating lower bound half-life. 3. Journal paper authored by Rowe et al. (2010) published in the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. DISCUSSION OF DOCUMENTS AND DATA The data from the New River, AZ testing facility on the artificial grass component of ClosureTurf (Watershed, 2014) appears to be the only data set of its kind in our compiled database. The data consists of tensile property testing from field samples exposed to the Arizona environment at approximate exposure periods of 1, 5, 7 and 10 years. At each of the four exposure periods, 20 samples were tested for a total of 80 tests. The average values for tensile strength retained at each corresponding time period is 97%, 90%, 84% and 83%, respectively (Figure 2). One additional data point was found in the Atlas-MTS document. That data point indicated that approximately 90% of tensile strength of polyethylene grass would be available after 20 years of field exposure assuming average European climatic conditions (temperature, irradiance, etc.). However, the average European irradiance is approximately one-half to one-third that of Arizona (Figure 3) notwithstanding temperature effects. Therefore, the Atlas-MTS data point will be consistent with the data from the New River, AZ facility in the 7 to 10 year time frame once adjusted for the relative levels of exposure and temperature between Europe and Arizona. As such, this data point will not extend the exposure duration covered by the New River, AZ data. The paper and corresponding presentation by Richgels (2015a, 2015b) utilized the laboratory data released from the GSI on UV degradation of HDPE samples to make upper and lower bound estimates of the field half-life of the HDPE grass blades. The upper bound method utilizes Arrhenius GR5769/ClosureTurf UV Longevity Assessment rLdocx en��r'i11e III�� '�1"'71.^ I ,�e m llsbw I II4'iIin oafl.or's Page 1840 of 4165 Mr. Jose Urrutia 15 May 2015 Page 5 modeling of lab data to project exposure times at half-life to site temperatures combined with ratios of UV irradiance between the laboratory lamp and monthly average irradiance at New River, AZ to develop half-life loss per month. A similar procedure using a linear extrapolation (rather than Arrhenius) was demonstrated for a lower bound estimate. The Watershed (2014) field data set was plotted in between the upper and lower bound estimates. This method is further discussed in the section below titled, "HDPE Grass Blade Service Life Calculations". Koerner et al. (2011) discusses the UV longevity of both exposed and unexposed geomembranes made from various resins, including HDPE based on GSI's laboratory testing program. This document is particularly useful in regard to the ClosureTurf elements that are considered non- exposed (i.e., the PP geotextile backing for the turf component and the underlying HDPE geomembrane). The presentation by Koerner et al. (2015) includes estimates of half-life of exposed HDPE geomembranes as well as a recommendation for linear data extrapolation as a lower bound limit that was implemented by Richgels (2015b). PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS The definition of service life of an HDPE (or other resin) geosynthetic (grass blades and geotextiles/geomembranes) typically invokes the half-life criteria. However, the half-life criteria is arbitrary and while useful as a general indicator for comparison it does not directly relate to any aspect of field performance for ClosureTue or any other geosynthetic. Therefore it is more appropriate to define the service life in terms of field requirements placed on the material. HDPE Grass Blades For the case of the HDPE grass blades on the ClosureTurfsystem, tensile strength requirements fall in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 lbs, based on applied loads of pullout forces from equipment operation and water runoff forces (Diguilo, 2013). The ClosureTurfHDPE grass blades are manufactured with 20 lbs. of tensile strength immediately following the process (Diguilo, 2013). Therefore, without considering a factor of safety, the required tensile strength of the HDPE grass blade is equal to approximately 12.5%to 17.5%of original strength capacity. GR5769/ClosureTurf UV Longevity Assessment rLdocx en��r'i11e III�� '�1"'71.^ I ,�e m llsbw I II4'iIin oafl.or's Page 1841 of 4165 Mr. Jose Urrutia 15 May 2015 Page 6 PP Geotextile Backing and HDPE Geomembrane Performance requirements for the PP geotextile backing and HDPE geomembrane depend on more site-specific parameters (e.g., steepness of slopes, seismicity, etc.) than the HDPE grass blades. Therefore until a parametric study is completed which will define the performance requirements over a range of expected conditions, the half-life will have to be used as a benchmark for degradation of the PP geotextile and HDPE geomembrane. HDPE GRASS BLADE SERVICE LIFE CALCULATIONS In order to develop a prediction for the longevity of the HDPE grass blades with respect to UV degradation, Geosyntec implemented the method found in Richgels (2015a, 2015b) for two levels of retained tensile strength. The first level is the 50% of tensile strength, or half-life, criterion that is commonly used as a benchmark for geosynthetic service life. Geosyntec performed this calculation to compare our results with the results presented by Richgels (2015a, 2015b). Once the half-life estimates were calculated, Geosyntec attempted to repeat the calculations using a retained tensile strength of 12.5%of an HPDE grass blade. Half-Life Estimation (50% of Retained Strength) The assessment utilized by Richgels (2015a, 2015b) begins with a laboratory data release from GSI (Figure 4). The data includes retained tensile strength of HDPE samples that have been incubated under a UV lamp at elevated temperatures, which accelerates the UV weathering process in accordance with ASTM D7238. As mentioned, the GSI data includes samples tested at three elevated temperatures: (1) 80 degrees Celsius (°C); (11) 70°C; and (111) 60°C. The testing program appears to have originally included only the 70°C data, with the 80°C and 60°C testing added at a later date (therefore, weathering is not as advanced). The 70°C data set has reached approximately 66%, while the 80°C and 60°C data sets have reached approximately 78% and 86%, respectively. Nonetheless, logarithmic extrapolations to 50% retained strength were performed for each data set. The amount of exposure time (on a log scale) corresponding to the 50% retained strength plotted vs. the inverse of the corresponding temperature (80°C, 70°C and 60°C) is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 allows for extrapolation to find the laboratory exposure time required to achieve 50% retained strength at temperatures lower than the test temperatures (i.e., actual field temperatures). Once the curve is defined relating any temperature to a level of laboratory lamp exposure, the remaining task is to develop a relationship between laboratory exposure and field exposure for a GR5769/ClosureTurf UV Longevity Assessment rLdocx en��r'i11e III�� '�1"'71.^ I ,�e m llsbw I II4'iIin oW.or's Page 1842 of 4165 Mr. Josh Urrutia 15 May 2015 Page 7 particular site. In this case, the testing site in New River, AZ where Watershed has performed tests on HDPE grass blades, was selected. Richgels (2015a, 2015b) presents monthly averages at the site for: (1) peak turf temperature; and (11) irradiance as a fraction of the laboratory lamp irradiance. Using these two values for a given month combined with the Arrhenius model, an estimate of half-life loss per month is obtained. Summation of the half-life lost per month over a year yields the annual half-life loss. The inverse of the annual half-life loss is the predicted half-life in years. Using this method, Richgels obtains a half-life of approximately 247 years, while Geosyntec obtained a half-life of 277 years using the same data (Table 2). The difference is attributable to rounding errors in the logarithmic projections. Following the suggestion of Koerner et al. (2015), Richgels (2015b) treated the results of the half-life mentioned above as an upper bound estimate. For the lower bound estimate, Koerner et al. (2015) suggests performing a linear extrapolation of the laboratory data to lower field temperatures, rather than using the Arrhenius model. With the linear extrapolation, the ratio of monthly irradiance to laboratory lamp irradiance is scaled linearly to calculate the number of months required to reach half-life at 80C, 70C and 60C. Linear extrapolations per month are made from the elevated temperatures to the corresponding peak turf temperature in that month. The resulting half-life loss per month is summed to obtained half-life loss per year. The inverse of that result is the half-life in years. Richgels (2015b) calculates a half-life of 176 years using this linear model. Geosyntec's calculation using the same data resulted in a half-life of 214 years (Table 3 and Figure 6). The difference in the calculations is approximately the same as with the calculation using the Arrhenius (logarithmic) model. Figure 7 shows the calculated upper (Arrhenius - logarithmic) and lower (linear) bound curves calculated by Richgels (2015b) along with the field data on the HDPE grass blades provided by Watershed (2014). As shown in Figure 7, the trend line fit to the field data falls in between the upper and lower bound curves produced by Richgels (2015b). Note that the first point from the field data at approximately 1 year is omitted from the trend line. This is because the first data point is assumed to be within the anti-oxidant phase of degradation rather than the polymer oxidation stage as suggested by Rowe et al. (2010). Additional discussion regarding the stages of degradation for polyolefin materials can be found in CUR 243 (2012). Service Life Estimation Based on Performance Requirements (12.5% of Retained Strength) Geosyntec repeated the calculations discussed above for the estimation of half-life, but extrapolated the GSI laboratory data down to 12.5% rather than 50% at 80C, 70C and 60C. Upper bound GR5769/ClosureTurf UV Longevity Assessment rLdocx en��r'i11e III�� '�1"'71.^ I ,�e m llsbw I II4'iIin oafl.or's Page 1843 of 4165 Mr. Josh Urrutia 15 May 2015 Page 8 (Arrhenius — logarithmic) and lower bound (linear) estimates were 2,500 years and 2,043 years, respectively. These estimates of service life are simply too large to be reasonable. A likely explanation is that the samples tested at 80C, 70C and 60C have not degraded enough to produce accurate predictions at 12.5% retained strength. As previously mentioned, the data for 80C has reached 78% retained strength; the data for 70C has reached 66% retained strength; and the data for 60C has reached 86% retained strength. Therefore, the extrapolation for each of these data sets to 50% retained strength will be much more accurate than extrapolations to 12.5%. In addition, small uncertainties in log- based extrapolations will greatly influence results. For these reasons, it is not practical or useful at this time to quantitatively assess service life in terms of actual performance requirements when those requirements are substantially below the half-life. There is some value, however in a qualitative use of performance requirements in comparisons with half-life estimates (i.e., to establish the factor of safety remaining at 50% degradation). SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Geosyntec's literature review of approximately 40 documents yielded few sources of UV degradation data for exposed HDPE grass blades. Relevant data that was found included the field test data from the New River, AZ testing facility provided by Watershed (2014) and one data point from Atlas- MTS. The Atlas-MTS data point indicated that HDPE grass blades in average European climatic conditions would retain approximately 90% of its original strength after 20 years of field exposure. Taking into account the differences in temperature and UV irradiance between New River, AZ and European averages, the data point is consistent with the New River, AZ test data in the 7 to 10 year range. Following the method presented in Richgels (2015a, 2015b) for HDPE grass blades, Geosyntec calculated an upper bound half-life of 277 years compared with Richgels 247 years using the Arrhenius (semi-log) extrapolations to site temperatures and ratio of laboratory lamp to field irradiance. Geosyntec calculated a lower bound half-life based on linear temperature extrapolations, as suggested by Koerner et al. (2015), of 214 years compared with 176 years obtained by Richgels (2015b). The differences between Geosyntec and Richgels calculations were attributed to rounding. As shown in Figure 7, the field data from New River, AZ suggests a half-life of 216 years when considering only the last three data points (i.e.,polymer oxidation stage). GR5769/ClosureTurf UV Longevity Assessment rLdocx en��r'i11e III�� '�1"'71.^ I ,�e m llsbw I II4'un oa.'�.or's Page 1844 of 4165 Mr. Josh Urrutia 15 May 2015 Page 9 Another prediction of HDPE grass blade degradation is included in Watershed (2014) using the same (New River, AZ) field data. That prediction of retained tensile strength at 100 years of service life is 65%. Therefore, it appears that the half-life of the HDPE grass blades will be on the order of 100 years based on the existing field data set and extrapolation methods found in the literature and presented herein. The results are promising; however additional field test data is needed to improve the half-life prediction, particularly since the half-life predictions for exposed HDPE geomembranes are also approximately 100 years (Koerner, 2015). Half-life predictions presented herein will also need to be revisited when additional labratory data is released from the GSI testing program. Geosyntec attempted to calculate the service life of the HDPE grass blades using 12.5% of retained strength, rather than an arbitrarily assigned half-life. However, the calculation resulted in unreasonably long service life. This result is likely due to uncertainties in extrapolating the laboratory data released from GSI down to the 12.5% retained strength level. The data release has degraded to 78%, 66% and 86% for the 80 °C, 70 °C, and 60 °C test temperatures. Therefore, extrapolations to 50% may be warranted while extrapolations to 12.5% may not be until additional lab data is available. That being said, it should be recognized that half-life, or 50% of retained strength, has a factor of safety of 2.8 to 4.0 when considering the tensile capacity performance requirements of HDPE grass blades. With regard to the unexposed elements of the ClosureTurfsystem, Watershed (2014) indicates that the retained tensile strength of the PP geotextile backing prior to the addition of UV inhibitors is 65% after 100 years. This estimate is based on exhumed samples of the geotextile from the LaSalle-Grant Landfill in Louisiana. According to Watershed (2014), the addition of proprietary UV inhibitors to the PP geotextile backing has led to an improvement in UV resistance by a factor of 14. The final geosynthetic in the ClosureTurfsystem is the covered HDPE geomembrane. Koerner (2011) estimates that the half-life of a covered HDPE geomembrane is 446 years at 20C, and 265 years at 25C. Furthermore, the degradation of the unexposed elements of the ClosureTurfsystem invoke the half-life criteria. As discussed with regard the exposed HPDE grass blades, actual performance requirements should ideally be used to determine system longevity. However, the existing testing programs need to be allowed to degrade further before projections to lower values are made. It is worth reiterating that applications of ClosureTurfin areas of the United States where the UV irradiance and the temperatures are lower will result in longer half-life predictions than discussed above. In some cases (e.g., the Northeastern States), the differences will likely be quite large when compared with Arizona. GR5769/ClosureTurf UV Longevity Assessment rLdocx en��r'i11e III�� '�1"'71.^ I ,�e m llsbw I II4'iIin oafl.or's Page 1845 of 4165 Mr. Josh Urrutia 15 May 2015 Page 10 Finally, once UV degradation of the most susceptible component of ClosureTurf(i.e., the exposed HDPE grass blades) does result in a tensile break, replacement of the HDPE grass and PP geotextile backing can be performed. CLOSING Geosyntec appreciates the opportunity to assist Watershed in the development of its ClosureTurf products. Questions and comments may be directed to either of the undersigned at 678-202-9500. Sincerely, Will Tanner, P.E. Ming Zhu, Ph.D., P.E. Project Engineer Senior Engineer Attachments: References Tables Figures Copies to: Bill Gaffigan (Geosyntec) Mike Ayers (Watershed) GR5769/ClosureTurf UV Longevity Assessment rLdocx en��r'i11e III�� '�1"'71.^ I ,�e m llsbw I II4'iIin oa.'Mr's Page 1846 of 4165 REFERENCES Atlas Materials Testing Solutions, (Atlas-MTS). "Artificial Grass Yarns—Improving Sports Performance". CUR 243, (2012) "Durability of Geosynthetics". Stichting CURVET, Gouda, The Netherlands. Diguilo, D. (2013), "ClosureTurfrm—The Next Generation Closure System". Northern New England SWANA Conference, Lebanon, New Hampshire, September 25, 2013. Koerner, R., Hsuan, Y., Koerner, G., (2011) "GSI White Paper 6 - Geomembrane Lifetime Prediction: Unexposed and Exposed Conditions". Geosynthetics Institute,Folsom, Pa.,February 8, 2011. Koerner, R., Koerner, G., and Hsuan, Y. (2015) "Lifetime Predictions of Covered and Exposed Geomembranes". Webinar GSI-WI4, January 14, 2015. Richgels, C., Ayers, M., and Urrutia, J., (2015a) "Estimation of Geographic Ultraviolet Radiation Levels and Impact on Geosynthetic Cover Systems". Proceedings of Geosynthetics 2015, Portland Oregon, February 15-18, 2015. Richgels, C. (2015b)"Estimation of Geographic Ultraviolet Radiation Levels and Impact on Geosynthetic Cover Systems". Geosynthetics 2015, Portland, Oregon,February 15-18, 2015. Rowe, K.,Islam, M., Hsuan, Y., (2010) "Effects of Thickness of the Aging of HDPE Geomembranes". Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 136(2), p.299-309. Watershed Geosynthetics, (2014) "Technical Submittal for ClosureTurfrm—Alternative Final Cover, Closure of Municipal Soild Waste Landfill Units", December 2, 2014. Page 1847 of 4165 TABLES Page 1848 of 4165 $ \ % $ _c \ � - - r © 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 f ® ) ƒ to ) \ % % 2 \ n _% % U � .� \ \ W ¥ 5 = u ƒ = 5 7 ¥ + Cj _ § r r r © c G_ G 2 _ 2 q e w q� � « \ 2 Q = rA o m © ■ G � rA ƒ t u ® ° _ ƒ ± 4 ) k .ƒ \ § ƒ (D � 2 _ \ \ - § Q Q § k k � 4 ) a) / R (D to f U f \ � Q LO 0 0 LO � � � a, a, 0 00 y O O O N a1 t M 0 0 irk i i i 44 i i _ O a CL rS"".+ OW1 O "0 rn 00 N l� OW1 O (�6 4. a1 N O"00� l� v O a1 O O CD CD CD CD CD M l� O N O O O O O O N d1 O N �y d1 N 0 0 00 0 0 l� N O N ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D b .4.� al� O N — M 0 0 m � x v ice. NCD cq 00 00 O T CC a1 M N c W cl � U cw CIA V') (D M \p M N 00 O .. •• M \O O 01 M N_ dl 00 W') cn N N M M 00 m M O O Qn Qn .V. ;" 00 00 d, 00 O l� O N cl 00 cw N (D 00 00 t� E O c cn e�C n U 0 cl �. x O m l� l� � O � cn � O � � � dl � U p •� •� U L" U w AO -- N N M N 01 00 00 01 '� CC — — — — � cl cw cl cw cn cn to cl N 0 0 O O U cn cn •�..C on ; �, �. = - F" o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn cw +' cn A� on cn ' onQn p •cn 'O + v cl it 4. dl M \p l� l� cn 00 01 M M ^� �" U O " 0 cl by bt)A y M M M M M M M M M M M N U N U U C O O to cl N �N cicw _U o CL�-• d, AO N N O M O cd U +� +� •., a1 a1 a', cn N cn ZO 'C cr U cn cl cn cn f v� cl +' 0 O 4--i U O •S"�. �.. N cn 00 �,D 01 O N N N c M d1 O 01 00 cn 0 cl cl 0 cl C Cj Cd Cd O s• cd N y0 o z LO 0 LO 00 m M O, --� l� S. M ' 00 7t N 01 N l� N l� S•. O 00 N r- O N \O l— O, oc O CL M O 7t � M O O\ r- v'� l— v'� \O 7t 7t \O � U O O O O O O O O O O O O O -!t O O O O O O O O O O O O O U + U � sue•. Cj U � U cl � � � `n oo `O a\ M oo O l� -� \O O --� �n eC rn � �• O m O t -- -!t N l— N 7t O S. a', CJ o 0 7t o c z N N M v) \O \O \O -!t M N I .. � O �.n U 7t oo O �n all 7t v 00 all +� M O, l� V') M �Q O O N to aOrcl "cw O\ M v'� \O \O O, N \O M ^ O CC U d DD DD DD DD DD DD � V N ci Qn to c to Qn W 00 o M o +� on N N vN-, oNo cl tosn cw 'C cd cn OA cn C by �. CL O M �n O oo AO O = M �4 O 0, -� 0, N M O, O O, \O CC -- *4 O ° cn 'C cd +0 a U r cd V � to U � w MCA z FIGURES Page 1852 of 4165 LO v O i r LO00 i.i v E m N � � _ > n C o E 41 M O N V v i V 4 f v r i v y� � O v l� r V � Qj f v Qj r � r riii r Qj CA N r cd O cd u i . pJ 0 O CA C�j " i5 C�j CA i A . C,J -0 r C N N LO 0 Z5 LO 00 Qj E %j fV 0 U. < cn> LO IA 'A < 41 L� r4 114 (lj 0 Qj > Qj GJ 'o Qj c c Qj 0 00 cl o M 00 00 4) LL ON 0 7 00 bo Lr) C) cu), 41 0 bA + cn 0 0 0 0 0 c"I C� 8 2 0 0') co rl- co LO > 416ugils poulejam cl 0 Cj U +C� 712 cli Lo co v o Lo 00 LL M c: a) ucr E m i 066 d O �Mlffl egg" iii i'///��� f / - ,; v C 4 t `' M f7 f O tP„t N r //! o v QJ Cj a) bIJ U ,,ills; / f///,// cd O Y � � �u p 111�IIVuuuuuuum i Y � I u d i ` i' / ' �// i 07� a M 77 N� 00 CA C: 02 OL / M0, 09 NO 09 iN i /// clq OF OF ,— 16 _ u -Stage -E go Lp m. 8k- 8 � y g 6 47 56 ......, ----------- 300 3,000 30,0010 a),80'C Temperature, Data et. ....... .. . .......... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ....................... ........... �.�. Stage -8 1" 10 1 Stage t: gi tp 8 6 70 '«itu �f 258,E A 8 F cc 8 3,000 30" UtTaviolet Radiation I m 70"C TempeTattire I ataaet . . 8tae A-8 26 1 Go . � Stage C 7 ,- - 6581 ( + 211,13 5 300 3"0 301000 Ultraviolet Radiation J ..�. 6 "C Tenipoerature Dataset GSI Data Release-Three Stage Oxidation of HDPE for Different Temperatures Watershed Geosynthetics—ClosureTurf"UV Assessment eosita 1�1 t 1 Figure a( n1� 4 Kennesaw,GA 23-April-2015 Page 1856 of 4165 Arrhenius Plot of GSI Lab data -11 800 C 700 C -12 600 C -13 u, y = -8775.4x * 13.471 z R2 = 0.9982 -14 u CO _ -15 u lug -16 ° `"ui• -17 Peak Turf Temp Range (High 65C =July, Low 25C = December) -1 8 I I I I 0.0028 0.0029 0.003 0.0031 0.0032 0.0033 0.0034 0.0035 0.0036 1/Temperalture (1/°K) Note: Richgels (2015b) mentions that the use of peak turf temperature is conservative since it only occurs for approximately one hour per day. Arrhenius Plot of Lab Data Watershed Geosynthetics—ClosureTurf UV Assessment eosint 1 Figure C'O Kennesaw,GA 23-April-2015 Page 1857 of 4165 LO 0 Z5 LO00 21 00 LL — (3) 2: M (J 0 LL r4 z rF CD r r 4 rl,j (N (N (a Qj + + + r,.,, 'I'll rN ol X) UJ r(lA I'll III ry� ,� "I C- 0 0 -1 1-1 0 (Iij C° 0 r 0 c� p c", P C: GJ C: 17, 17, C', r? Qj 0 0 (4Z� CEi. 0 C4, 7. > 0 > CJ CIA a) a) CG M warm 41 7= 'n En —Cj CD C) 7- 7:) � CG cn 0 C�j CA C�j a) cn o 'n O > LO _ v o .QZ5 ^ LO Cu L21 N °0 " o - fV 4J v CN R R N " u1 E } fV W ? N 0 N 'a N41 O 45 v m V `v 4-1 co i M T GG d H :✓ _ C = O .� q� d Off ; Cl) aj v a Q. Y 3 °� Q co � � � Q. � v a •— � � m D Y a) I �� N d LL - CL j= I CL CIIJ o _ CJ CIJ _ h l� JCj U N a CIJ ' bJJ CIJ rn Cj CIJ N N � � C.) a) w a �11- P— atr W LO ads 41 CJ row- C O U C CA N N CIJ Z C,j C Page 1860 of 4165 )�UII Fiji pf 1 mmmm lama aq 4, 20 1.3 SUBJECK The arafnit.r°oaa n equikaknme aartl laa ure f'aad 9.a.a the Th m l"w! caaur pimsaymike «amalcfu;ard can be estlaaaaatea.l by s"W m.etlaaaa v One taaaatY-rod %aas described y .;H"'. Glra. ud etaL a for kassa,rraaw.d chrular deln.us in U."eu1Ra'ra: abraaram E~utlmmu5 of K nitamtrrml f ( a s") can be f"aaaa d from the follaavvlaar, ealmattlaam rr 0.fit 6 y�° I f. 1 ar r�r�o p t`G Y e t "4 err; to taaackne,',~w aaf'the inti h:ration hayer l�'r'aa;l tl Taauaaa.ra r aal age fict (rat.) Q ra - per icaf:allltrwfurrinl ratlaaar layer (aaa/sec) The contact aoenla,aasrat ( u, IS eiffr r 0.21 or 1 .15 to account Ayr good or l'aara;r contact t;t:amlltions b l» yen the geonwrntmaneand the lralnitaaation lug r° avail, With t�l°aical ("Q l)a()CCdILI ''S a,aaaat�rarllanu, lrrsttalki the w~on wra.t ataelfrcknt waaWd be 021. .l.laas eclta;.adon 0; truly, vaallal for f.aafflta'arraw.aaa soH hsalaamalallAys Ins than [he so-caa➢lanrl t"llraaaitf q��,aa�rt�.�akalllt�� Q l lrfhe1 lreena.ueakkWy values reawWt in Banoatalll type mince now through the d lr_a..ts. ,1...h upper pen ne alrrlaty luu°raft: is fl,aund laaarat: 0. ax9la' �:,. ' r f ~� RI ---..- J, ar;:a1 ) j ThC lralnitra,atiaara 11101C a 51 Of the C lOraaar.0 l`ua l" fnuaaaN Cover s sCt.m is a:,a�arnpaar-ed to thc, lmtas frmsa lfltiva. smtadaataf ausrrag Eaalti 1. Ile (natal cover profiles analyzed are as fi,rl9ar= J evie(1,t hqaaral ALligriihon WrW h J ra om hi A (rr varrwr;rrbr-tnw PWe'aq On A Sr°rxar`.A°bMM&A Thhmm 11'. (iiii V.ta King,, T.R. "^taarig1a.a•4ar, T. HaaaaUdihiaaaw;au and NIA`. Khkc (.Jeo,°y'iarhw¢tcs tamaw°aiaadona,:at '1997, W, .. __ ...... 5a13 r tYrid &.xa.a:rr�ardve rbf6rce 0 CArrl,�Y;n tqo aw.a, �xeorge ruvri, C 292��a1 0 - 800 21,1379 N pax 843 546.0516 Page 1861 of 4165 1 was�"1,nA Covor El.rcS n b ma c "tanh t rfp l 4 loa albmr nG,t l p uIL (wpwa t.n... t tma I lot of p � °' sand (mank,�sm tuatlnnntmannt mlauc lanlea;s (.Jeor ncnrml:aran C : arlAcuaal 11 DPE tin°<ass tour f°tanl°mccl unremc pmaa yproppylcnc m.fcmubl.c laayc�red woven cote the 5001 N..IIfRE Supc.rgnrvllmrmct (SGII),, eoiate mbna�aa.mc I Antch ltmtlulttodAmrm Apr 12" rtnraatntnnam in f=cltraatlt'.aua (lc WO-WO-5 cmmi./se ) 'The wcults orlhe GAmmmr anal is am s4reamwn on We f behv�, Two scenarios f6r the soil Naycn bcmacamtll the m.'lamsurc l niri—System were crecrernipaarca.l tagpainnst the pmc,,<,,, tptive smamnmcfaarrdf aa. �ln ,anrmcl , amll m ntln pc;re nmic QaNmnitl lmia lm n tlmancm tN1e, pra" m-lplly M to n(fimrem4 f6r as lsm6hrantka ln3vo anmid h. A A, clayey sand m;idi pernmmcaa if vy m tlmc prescribed Namcl of the prescriptk e staannalamn;f. It sha,anlaa be nnnmwd the rccNaarerctf pen°nrneasbdky wamWe of t:x�H a.n� stnc �, in the KWmm,�N Namcf. is cpatitca achievable w1h typKaal soils Lower fmctraacamlrllnj soils rccluic aWlnmundH aanmm elate; content lt:;ypicanlle pm.caatcnm than 5056 pamsinmg the ta200 da~veh llmus N•area;nneaal,llity Syckkarmttatm k taaamvcamlfe c`creamaMna,mm SOL As can be area,°n on Fantfle I, the est-i m��ma:utetf 1nm5hraat:� la�� wn aref'Me ' a:aanrc° Turr ISM carevc:nr se stc.nmm. k Avil 1mNo w° the cm,lmnaa ed amrNOraatna,mnn rates Ar the pmscaripmuarc manndaM Wl t3 wer S,SIC;ntn 1`r)r lmamth aZISS nnTmecf subgnade W ca::msmaflmiaann, flean am"umned pennmbil4ies or the Su.nh.gpradc° ;amnls arc bckoNk thc, a;nlmper llm At as ca lctulmatcd bam EA]Laaationt 2, so rinse of"pµclm:uanmlrmam 1 in pe a Arn.alnng thew cralccuhtfa.mm s is m`aah? 1 tcse mcs cnks are primarily due to tlnac_ mm.nc, i laa"er l ydraaWlc^ head capaacky of the (Quire 1 cVr"f syNtcumm ,xntl"a onmt , aa. 47 tcmpMi H 1i6yu in are "iamt�uraamk,"d baaW sand, `&he q'wmou"M smMud My cAs faw 6 iao-c.ta s. htn that is 4so OHM to pvc Show Mugog the kric:r A Winne e rrkMO(ly(Rmo mpsk) is aim)mgi,.uaNd I+n mMaY%.y .... ............--_...... ..... _ Ex: c dive m fihia esr 500 ��rru on Ro m��, tea carg a la an n,S 2944 143 5 -t 600 a�00 3211379 Fax 843 546-0516 Page 1862 of 4165 Landfill I inal Cover Infiltration 'i Calculation Sod Iy e Sidty sarnrfy„nail Prescriptive iptive Craver C10SUre E rnr f 'l opsod (h) 1 in. a 0,3048 rrm 0 "b inn 6.)01 27 Irn'n irnfi6tra1.6on i.<nyr �'t'���..,r��r� 18 in 0.4572 m .t 3 i in y 04572 n.r°t Ea'o,nrrrrntor of EtrnVrn I'r;i rr°nn a C.�t. 1 n'l 1. Cm E/.E7t. u'n'n Area of't-trnle 039 cmtl 7 85E-05 m M9 rrn°or a 7 85E,0.15 ffo lrrfultratlon Layer k, E'UNA t..00E`:-05 cr1n/sec 1.,00E.07 m,/sec 1 OOE-04 r:rn"n/~zb"c 1' 1.00E-06 rrn/"sec 9,.,li per Pecans" illty Um�t, krn 5.46E- 5 m/sec a 1 -04 rn/a r F9fl:» r 9 E:- 7 M,/"Sec pm 84EE-0 annx,�.nrnr. Estimated l nfiilltrabo n,, Q :1 as/eta' ; a,,J a oil"Gypet Sky-sandy s6 some c.lay Prescriptive Cover _��Cllosr.are Turf . _ .... _..... . ....... _��. riwrio ...W_ .........� Topsoil (tn) 12 in A 0,3048 rrmr 0,5 in tb. f.77 rnn BE'nfrltra'tio n layeii�, 1.3 'in a 0,4572 m 78 in a Et 577 m Efiarn"n tev of Earle (rf) 1 rrn B E,01. n- 1 crn Y .CE1 m r ir° ro n of E oV ,, 0.7 rra r 7,'3'�Em 0 rrr'' 0.79 rrrnan N E� t`m...tt rr'n"r 0,21 0,21 irnfuVtrratiorn Layer k, kUM :t..00E.-05 cm/sec ec 0 1. OOE-07 n°r/sec 1 OOE-05 cm/sec w 1.0f"nE-07 rn/pan:: t..➢raper° Perrncrznt•rliHtV E..iirniir Ik;;, W 5 4.6E- S rrrn,/sec a 31.E-04 rn'a nrr. E'Ira N t..En3E•tt7 V,� �da t ttE-.t1 rnr"�"��c; . _. ._ 6.ESE EstWu oat.r�d h,rifdt�r�at:ion, E7 4.5:f a 4 a ayt lf`he Closure Turf F i nal Cover S�' ternn provides a quivKn9e nt or better �r"hkrt;nflonn protectnM than the prescriptive maundarrl drrn-Co nstr-ur.6rrtu Of na ulfill luntrd closure systr°rn°n , E xec,m.h e Offices 0 Ciarmson Road,Georgetown,,......... --. ti � `3C 29440 - 843 546 ft6tyr 8f„90 321,1379 E�r:x 843 54 -U`tnt Page 1863 of 4165 8�'^�OU have anu quemlons regarding dis macr. pkwwc wml I the underigned at (9 16) 2 8- 83A Vc,r, 'Tnilv Ycmrs AGRU-An'�e6ca- Inc, Christophier \1 Richgek 11F, \Vestern Region Highicer CC: Michad lyers. Closure "Furk Ill' JOSL' [ 1'110iA. CAOS'UrQ Turi'LLC Jcw Vecelli, TS1- 11rogressiVe W,�iSh.r' S(flU6(MIS JcK PAN I I IS[ PRigressive Waste SolulAs ke NAM H""Sl llrogrcs'."'ive �N!`astc S(fluholw Joey MON. 113SI Pnigressive VAnte Solulkins Newat Tinum %VemTr Boos AnnWanis Antic, Sm,-ic�,, Agftl-Affh.JiC'A. ll')C E.xecunve cw cesi 500 Gurison Road, Geoqemwn SC 29440 843 546-0600 800 321 1379 Fax 843 541-0516 Page 1864 of 4165 rt x*v k,k w k k A k I I k&d RAa INDRULDRIC EVALUATILL OF LNNUIILL PSRFCRMANC;,�, HYLP MODEL VERSION 3.A7 (I NUVEMBER 19= DEVELOVED PY ENVFPONMENThL LAISTRATOPY DvAE WATERWANS EXPERIMENT STATION POR WSRPA RISK REDUCTION ENGININER!Mn J,AROWATOPY I k k k ........ k k k PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: I`, 40MLV3WQAhLAS.H,1 TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: 0\zhELP%\DALLAS.D',1 90LAR RADFAILUN DATA FIL0 C, \zhELV!w\DAhLAS.-D1 � EVAPOTRANSPTRAIJON DATA: C?QHFI,P!wO)ALLAS.D1] SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: ZhFLP3W\DLS-SQ!L.DK,, OUTPL" DATA FILE: 0AzheLPAw\DLS-S0i! ,QUT TIME: 11 .21 DATE: R/ 0/201 -3 .**k k.I..w I.I I k*k Mkt I k I k W..*W. I..** h. .*I N.x Ii ..A N I.I. 4 1 4.�� . ^ TITLE: Subtitle D with Soil Cap Dallas, Texas NOTE: INI'PiAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND NOW WATER WEEF fo no COMPUTVD AS NEARKY STEAPT-ATAIt, VALUES BY THE PROGRAM, LATER "I 1APR i - VERTICAL PERrOhATTON LAYER lvlj,'TERIAL TH I CKMENS' m 4.00 1NTHE-11 POPOSTTY 0.4530 4OL/V0, FLE50 CAPAUIC'1 0.1900 VOL/VoL 9.;T on PM Nil I.0850 VOL/VoL TNITIAL SUrL WATER CONIENT 0-AR65 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. U.72000IJ01100200! CM/S&' NnT0 SATURATEK HYDRAULIC VONDOCTIVITY Cu MULTIPLFED BY 5.00 -OW ROOT O7f9ANNEL,3 :IN 1()P XPLF IF !AYEF TYPE 2 - LATERAL URAINAGE KAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER �diCKN 0.20 11 V H R)POSITY 04100 VOL/VOI, FIELD CAPACTTY 0,010D vfc/vOL W111:'ING POINT mmso von/vm INITEAK SOIL WATER OUNTENT vasow VOL/m, EFFECTIVE SAT HYD, COND. m i. 09999996DOOE 12 MSEC SIDPF 7,00 PRRCEN",,' DRAINAGE LENGTH FER,.' Nubj irle D wirh Sotj rap PMF- I Page 1865 of 4165 TYPE 4 - FLEXISLE MEMBRANE LINK' MATERIAL TEXTURE NUM410 K, THICKNEOO 004 INCHE'' ....... POROS I TY 0-0 (lei VOWVQ PIELD tAPAKIT"�' 0'nsuo VOL/Th, WiLTtNG PCONT (),U f 'A"�'!VOL LNITEAh SOIL WATER CONTENT 5-Y000 VOLIVOL EFFECTIVE SAT HYD 1ND. m. , E99999996000012 MST' FMK PINHULE DENSITY 2.10 FOLEVACRE FML INSTALLATION DEFEVIT 1 .0& HOLESWRF, FMK PLACEMENT UUALFTY 3 nOOD LAYER 4 TYPE I , BARRIER SOIL LINH! MATEPIAL TEXTURE NUMIPP 15 T H!CY NEW S 18-00 1 N CH ES POkOSITY 0.4790 VIVIVUL FIELD CAPACITY 0,1780 voh/wn WILTIN" PUINT 0.2S50 VOL/VO Y, FNTTIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.47RU VOL"'OL, EFFECTIVE SAT. NYC. Q)ND 1,17onooD93000E n4 CM/Sb- LA Y R, Y TYPE I VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYEl'. MPITRRIAL TEXTU I THICKNEH; GuZou 1=03 PURDY FT',k' U.6710 VOL/10�, I ELD CAPAQIT';' 0.2920 VO) 57,, WILTING POIN'k' 0.0770 VOL/V01, TNfTTAK N011 WATER CONTENT c-0920 VQQV0, TFIFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. 02 U11100'' LAYEs TYPR I - HARNIEW SOIL LINER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER T I K'N 12 OD INCHES POROSITY 0.4510 V 0 n/V FIELD CAPACITY O.U830 VOQV0j' WEKTLNG PUIN'T 0 0310 VOWOL TNITTAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.4570 VOUVOL EFFECTEVE SAT. HYD, COND WSE',!' LAYER TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER MATEREAL TEXTURE NUMBER 0 THICKNESS 0-00 INWHES PQ ROS IT„" 0-A500 VOL/V% FIELD CAPACTTY Oman vrm/voy' SnQK10 D WALh Soil Cap Pago, 2 Page 1866 of 4165 WTOTENG POINT 0-0m vo;zvjl, INETEAK SOIL WAFER CONTENT 0,0103 VOL/V01 EFFECTLVE SAT. HID. COND. Koucoou0000w 0MUSU, &n p 204 PERCENT UPAINAGE LINGT11 1000 FEET LAYER H TYPE I FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINEP MATEPIAL TEXTURE NLNBER 35 TTIT C?A F 0.00 INUH01S PORGSTTY 0,0000 VOL/VQI', FFELD CA CTT' 0.000P VULKOT WILTING POIN'T 0.0000 VOL/Vol, 1=1AL SOLL WATER CONTENT 0.0000 vw/yuj''� EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. 0 12 CM00'' FML PINHULE DENSITY 1 .00 AOIES/ACRI.; FAIL INSTALLATION DEFECTS 1 .00 HOISS/ ,CRP FML PLACOMMMT QUALITY I KDA) LAYER TYPE I HARKER SOIL LINER MATERTAL TEXTURE NUMBER T1FCKMF0' 24.00 INCHES, POROCITY 0.4210 'VOI /VuL FIELD PAPAQT� 0.41SO VOL001, WIT 7TNK PO TNT 0,3670 VOI&K, INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.4270 VOL/V7, IPPECTIVE SAT, HVIJ. COND. 0, 100000001000E-06 cm/sb' A24D E%SuYuFA'7LVE [.'-"""',rA l"[0 T F'; PUNuPL (URVIL" CCO FUNUPP CURVE NOMBER, FRACTrON OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF 100.0 PERCEN�' AREA PROJECTEU ON HCRIZONTAK PLANE 1,000 ACRES EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH j0.0 !NCHE`� INITIAh WATER IN RVAPORATIVE &)NE 10.12 TNCHES UPPER LIMFT OF EVAPORATIVE STORASE 1 ,530 ANCHhh,", In= KTMTT UP EVAPUPATIVE STORAGE m G.SSO IN TIES INKTAK sNnw WATEP 0.000 TN HES INITTIAL WATER LN 204.378 1 K CH 02 TOTAL INITIAL WATEI.3 204.378 INCRE5 !UTAK RUBFURFAVIS 101FLOW 0.00 INCHESMAR EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA, NOTE: EVAPOrTANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTALNED FROM D ALL ek,; TEXAS ETATION LATITUD�,?� 12.85 D E G P E MAXFMUM LEAF AREA 1NDEX 4.50 STAPT OF GEOWING NEASON =111AN DATE) 01 END UF UNALM! S'E�'O�ON W(JIdAN U'A'I'E) �'2'�� EVAPORATTVE ZONE DEPTF,' 10-� I NCH JT,�, AVERAGE ANNUAL WFND SPEED 10.130 MPH SUK 1 Lie D w 1 th swi L Cap, Paqe Page 1867 of 4165 AVERAGE IAT QUARTRR PEhATIVE HUMIDITI 66,01 %, AVERAGE 2NU QUARTER PE1 N71VE HIMIDITY a6.00 AVERAGE 3RE Q HAPTER RETATIVE HUMIDITY 51.0D AVERAIE 4TH OUARTER RELATIVE HOWIDITY 66,nO NOTE: PREC10TAT70N DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING CUKIFICIENTS FOR DAUIAS THXA' :, NO1.KA1, MEAN MOUTHLY PRECIPITATION ;7NOMES) IAN/jUh FEB/= MAR/SEP APR/OOT MAY/NOV jUNPMU 1,93 2 A2 1,63 407 2.K 2.00 L-AG 3,31 2.47 A 76 IZ� NOTHo TEMPRkATURF DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED UOINO CUEFFlUfENTS FOR DALLk-,, TEXJW., TITKAJ, MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE 0EAREES FAHRFNHEIT� aAM/JUL FER/AUK MARKEP APP/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DM-", 44.0D 48,50 54. 10 60.90 73-70 82 ,7� 86, 10 8S-30 76.60 61 -90 55,6C 47.0�� ?, i",1.7 RAJD ATIQN DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLT GENERATED 151N(,� 1,OIFFICIENT5 FOR DALLA; TEXAS AND STATION LATITUDE , 32 As DEIREE11,11, .......... MONTRIN TUTALS (iN 1NCHE7) FOR YEAR --- -- --- - - - - - --- ---- - - OANNIM FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUNAIT�` PRECEPETATION 0.66 of 0.71 D, 16 1 .86 0 66 0,41 3,84 2-04 D.96 I -A 4 2,6.i TMOFF" Uuou 0,nuo O'DOD 0 0 u G 0 1 0 u 0 0 owc� 1", 000 ("11 00 1 0,000 0 u u u 0 (Juo 0-A 0 C EVAPOTRANSPIRATInN 0,500 &666 1 ,221 0.4G4 1 ,901 1 07B D.4 11 3,519 2 A 18 0,566 1-A20 1 469 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.2421 0, 1579 0,1261 5.0615 U.067L 3 U16'', FROM LA(k 1 wom vnu4 vn908 0.0669 0.0408 0 11111 PERCOLATtONARAKAOE THROUOP 0.0049 0,0033 O,OD2a 0.0021 C.0017 U UU11,7 TAYER �, 5,0011 D.UC16 0.0021 5.0017 C.GQ3 0,06Z', PERCOLATIONSEAKAGE THROnCH 0,U04S 0,0033 0.0028 0.0021 0551f 0.0013 LAYER 6 G-AU11 0 5016 0.0021 0,0017 00013 0,000-.'� LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.5n48 D.DD33 U.A02u 0,0021 0.0017 0-000, FROM LAYER 7 0,0011 0 0016 U.0021 0.0017 U'0013 000213 PERCOLATIONNEANAUE THBOUGH vom voono cmoc 0.000D O.Q000 0,0000 sublklm D with Soil cap Pagn. 4 Page 1868 of 4165 LAYEN <; U,Unoo ymuc t I r,:,r:Ti1 is DQQO c,.0006 1 ,, r,.1 AVERAGE R E DAILY% E D ON ' r,y d) �? L!°s 1. '�.�,, 1 .217 0,961 0.744 STD DEVIATION OF DAILY h,,.«rr'(! Klow U111. it 45 ; ,i;l'; {7. . 53 9-I1,A r ON TOP OF LrMu!;'R 3 0.039 mI ;45 i 1O4 U,011 0.062 1.317 AVERAGE DALLY {1F`+J{D ON 0,00b 0.000 0,000 cc 0.000 G, 1.i..1 AVERAGE DAILY HEAD UN 1).{. 0 „ 000 OAOD r0Q !].Ono 0.000 ,rtTU DEW..r , , .N OF DAILY f°.1.00 0 ioc O n,n 0,000 U—N ..„ U.,r'j 0 k I k k A l br•Pna n ue�•�w.k•k k. �G,k kor x t*�A Fey{A I k•.•..w k Pr�rvk k M.kh Pork dr&&htrme�xn�kmkn=,��x a u v,�r k k n�k�hrm e n•k'ur d� p>E fo n n t A 9:M A �,X n k•k b�a v d ik M iM*W W.y.d.k k b d•A✓;�^Hx m 6 rn m.m m r�.w v m a'�4.A^n.0 n w�%�.n u u w�r�N i4 k h ry h Ji 4^k...b m.a.�.se d a X�x.w ANNUAL TOTA.LS FOR YEAR INCHES CU, FEET PENCENT 1:,k h C I. d TA, I UN EVAPOTPANSPIl'1{+tii I )N 1r .F':'+1. 56212 602 92.76 AVP. IIGCAl ON TnF 1,7R LAYER .r "0159 PER ./I:..,:EA nG}i! THRUUGH I.aai;e?`P 13 Q Ir26 5 4:,".,1 Pi , .IG 0.:26 AVG. HEAD ON TUP OF T P ,'ER a %> DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LO,''r,E 11, i n .�'.?4;;x 0 95.572 0—A.(' AVG HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 8 D'OU01'', 5011L WF'N."11 . AT SIART OF f.r'a:R 204,378 141891.000 r wL KATEH AT P 1 D OF YEAP 204 410 74202 1 �1fp;:, H N W WATEP ..•..n. START OF 01..,1kR 0.'i)J 0,000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 Q—AQO 0,00 S'aC`dl'lllAL 'WATER Y:.tllu,atT RALANC9 0 f f;iQQ 0,00 (7 Or; subtitle 1 D with Bull cap p i`Ic Page 1869 of 4165 I� I rc k i4 k I k h ,k.,,k k u u k k d k a,.x I v e. MoNTHLY TQTRLS (TN iNCHEM FOR YE AP 2 JANNUL FRAKHM MAP/SHP APR/OCT HAIINOV JUNQM;� —---- - ----- PKEMPITATWN W43 2- mm K A4 3. ii 3.03 2,24 D 42 4, AA 1.14 1 ,61 2,74 1,0 F I MUPP 0 00 0'Dow 0,111 c 009 0-�77 0,coil 0-000 D-A 5& n 402 c DOO 0,000 0.001", EVAPUTRANSPIPATION 0-806 1 .144 1.837 2.210 1, 19, I -A95 1 727 1 -613 2,OA7 1 271 K26 '� 1ATERAL DRAINAW MILECTED 0.2465 0.147 0.5405 0,691V 0.604 O.K50 FROM LAYER 2 0.1880 0,2852 0.4W 0 38% 0.2696 UAW,� PER C&TATION/LEAKAOF THF ,II GH O-AC49 0,0032 0,0097 0.0120 O.Aluy O -QU93 LAYER 1 0 0072 0 0055 0 006 / 0.0071 0.0052 0.004E7 PERCOLATIONWAKAOIT THRYWR 0-0049 G U Q 3 3; 0,000A 0.0120 0.0109 OXC94 [Anp 0.0072 0.4050 0,0 0 8? 0,OCTI 0,0Q50 0 C040 LAISPAh DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.0049 ZOOM 0,0024 0,0120 D.A109 010,011 PROM LAYER 7 o=72 KODW 0 =87 0,0072 0 0052 U.0040 PER MLATrUNWAVWK O.G00c 0.uu0j 0,0000 1,0000 K000D c-A Q 0() :AMR 9 WOW 0,0000 0.0020 0,0000 0,0000 0-c1 oc ---- -- --- -- - - ---- ---- MUNTHLY GUMMARLES FOR DAILY HEADS !INCHES; AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 3 ,020 2.A69 6,400 8 ius 7,204 6051-,> TOP OF LAYER it 4,602 1.436 906 4 ,514 3,16D 2.44P STU.�EVIATION OF DAMY 00so 0-550 Z022 0 638 0,604 0 5W� MAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 D.442 0,522 0.796 uAss 0. 303 0. 321 AVEMAGE DAILY HEAE� 2,11N E7.(100 Z000 0 AQQ c'00n 0-000 0.0 00 9VP UV LAYER 6 0,000 0,000 OXOG 0.000 D uuu u,nnf� STD DEVIATION OP DAILY 01W 0-000 0.000 0000 0 000 yum� HEAD ON TOP OF LATER 6 0coc 0,000 9,005 KIM 0,000 D-A00 AVERAW DAILY HEAD ON D-000 voon 0.000 o,00n 0,000 00cc, TOP OF LAYER 8 O.Duo 0,060 0.000 0.00c 0 000 0 OK SM IerFVIATION UP DAILY 0.000 SMUG 0,000 &COO O'Gou 0 000 HEAD uN WP OR LAYER 8 T. 0.00G 0.000 0-000 0,100 WAW.t iV k k i A I A k ik I I I I I I I ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 2 -- -- - -- -- --- - - INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRE21PLTA1.1ON 20A9 110579.701 100 00 RUNOFF 0 960 1497,404 3.1 F,'VAPOTPAIN ;P J 3,?.A'r I 2GAH9 88byi,891 80. 12 DRAW% COLLECTED FRUM LAYER 2 K7q1ss 11419 802 10.74 Subvinle U with Soil Pap pag— 6 Page 1870 of 4165 PRRr /PRAKAnE THRCUGH LAYER 4 0,087669 31B.218 0.0f AVG. HKW� ON TOP OF LAYER 3 4,1150 PKHC /LEAKAGE THRDUKH LAYER 6 0.087692 3LE 'Abs u.2," AV"-"HAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 0_A0QI DRAINAGE (nITECTEN PH OM hAYER 7 0,0377 328,345 ).04 PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 0 moolmos 0.009 AVn.�EAD ON TOP UF LAYER 8 0,0001 CHAMOE IN WATER STORAUR U-AS 1 540.241 0 50 001b WATER AT START UP YEAR 254.411 74202!.A62 SOLK WATER AT END OF YEAP 204 .566 742576,24,',, SNOW WATER AT START OV YEA,-, c,G0�, 05 0-0(i SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0,000 0,450 0,03 ANNUAL WATER BUDUET EALANCE 0 ,0000 n,00s O.00 A k k kdr.k k MONITIN TOTALS 11N ENCRES) FOP YEAR - ---- -- -- - - - I -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - JANNUL FEB/AUG MARMEP APR/OCT MAYMOV JUN/00.' PRECLPTTATION 007 0.45 0 us 2.18 2,01 7 w4 2, 18 7,75 265 035 C.S5 U,47 RIMOFF 0.000 0,0 0 0 0 06 &007 0,000 V.IZ� 0.049 0.001 0.082 0-000 EVAPOTRANSPIRATEON 3 .48G 0.221 2.166 2 uso 2191 1 .45.} 0, 160 2,879 2. 302 0, 153 0001 0.262 LATERAL N.RAiNACE W15LE7 "ED C.1956 0. 12HI 0 0788 0 ,7482 0.5609 0.395,,� VROM LAYER 2 0 6416 0.4579 0,1742 0, 1130 0.2161 PERCOLATPOWLEAEAGE THRUM3H 0,0039 0.0028 0,0101 0 0131 CQU99 0 A 0 1 1 LAYER 4 0.0112 0.0081 &0069 U_Aub9 O.GG41 O,GC314 PERCOLATIONWAKAGE TH,"(AIGH 1U 0039 0.0028 O.U19D Q.0117 0.0100 0.0072 LAYER 6 0.0113 0.0083 U,0069 C NOGO 0-0341 0.00 A I LATERAL DRAINAGE UOLLECTED 0.0039 0.0028 U.U1198 b0i3L 0.0 100 0.007-� FROM KAYRR 7 0.0113 0.0083 0,0069 0,0060 0,0043 0.00114 PERCULATIUMEAKAGE THROUGH C.7 00 OQUDO 0,00cc 0,0000 0.0000 U,0000 LAYER 9 0,0000 D'U030 0.00co 0.0000 000oo U,nCoo ---- - - -- - -- - - - FOR DAILY LEAD$ 0NVHES7 AVERAGE DAILY HEAD 01,f 2„3h, L.H09 b0bb 9 Ubb b 09 1 .847 TEP OF LAYER 3 7,479 5, 195 4-OH6 1,791 2 ,116 2-All subtitle U with Soil VaT,-,, pa, I Page 1871 of 4165 9TU. DEVIATION OF AAlIY 0 141 0-A46 4,m63 0,157 0.636 0 79r, HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 0 bas 0.020 0. 179 0.356 G.24A AVERAGE DAILY HEAD CV U003 0�00 0,000 G.000 0,00D 0,000 TOP OF LAYER �, 0,000 0,000 0000 0-000 0-200 O'CUO OTD. DEVIATECIN 010 DAILY 0 nuc H,nno 0.000 0"031? G-coo 0,000 IMAD ON T&V OF LAYER h U UQv U.U00 0.000 Own Q O&K 0 _000 1"VEil"J",1-;I11: D/,�I L'i RE CO 0,000 vouc 0 cqu 0 ( 0c 0'003 0.co"') TOP OF LAYER 8 nowo vo% v000 0,000 c Ono 0 =� STU. DEVLA01ICJ MR DAIIA 0 000 0 -moo 0,000 0,00D 0.0c 0,00) HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER a 0 U00 &OUD 0-A00 0000 0,00D 0 000 ........... *.•k hRa a&a ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR iNCHES CU, FEFT PEFTEN ' PRECIPITATION 23 64 85811.191 100 -00 PUN00, Q,506 1817.062 2.14 EVAPOTHAVISP 1 RA C LUI 19 69u6h484 8 D.4 5 DRAINAGE CXUIECTED FROM LAYER 2 4 ,7747 17332 n4A 20.20 PER &EAKAGE THROUGU LAYER 4 0,087010 315.920 0 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER I V820 PERC-abRAEAGE THROUTH LAYER 6 U,087039 ;0.901 0,5,; AVQ. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 001 DRAINAGE COLLECTEU FROM LAYER 7 0-AR70 315,990 U.31 PSIRC&LITAKAGR THROUGH VAYEW 9 c,QUUQU3 0,009 G.lhj AVU IiEAN ON TOP OF I s Y& 8 0 Guol CHNNUE IN WATER STORAQ,,� 0.746 2109. 174 -3.16 SU[I, WATER AT START OP YEAR 204.566 742476.250 SUEL WATER AT ENU OF YEAR, 20i,d= V39866,875 SNOW WAFT N AT STAPT OF YEAJR, 0-AOO 0.0 0 n 0.0 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0-0 D""1 0,000 0.01� ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0-A000 MONTHLV TOTALS QN INCHES1 FOR YEAR ''I - - ------ --- - - - - jAN/JUL FWAUG MARKEP APR/OCT MAY/NUV JUN/DEC PRECEPITATIUN Z60 A 00 1 0 9. 19 0-A A 1 ,01 Hub! i I In D wil h Sol I Cap Page 1872 of 4165 0,7B 1 ,25 5,U7 KIL 1 .42 k67 Fum 0 0-0 50 U.000 0 Duo K843 0.285 0.ul) 0 POO 0.000 K21L 0.000 Kuuu 0.022 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1-016 2.02? 1 ,879 K216 3.865 2.250 0,780 1 -050 2.749 1' 358 1.196 i,A 8(111 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED q,2079 0. 41ll a 1111 0371R kuyol 00201 PROM LAYER 2 0 6R%A n 4874 D 1470 O.A706 0,1168 0,287J PEWMIATIONAEAKAGH THROU37•p 0.0042 0 OC97 0 00HO 0 A A A 0-�1 H4 U.n t 9V LAYER 4 00119 c—MOH; 0 noon 0.00ag 0.0061 0.0055 PERCOIATIVANSEAKAIS THWOMW 0,0042 0=57 n 0080 0.0131 0 R164 0 0157 LAYER 6 WOW 0.00HH D U064 wonso o,nn6s LATERAL DRATNAGH COLLECTED 0.0041 0 0047 0 0090 0 A129 0,004 OXIV8 PROM KAYEP 7 0.0120 0.008i 0 0064 0.0095 D.UDGA 0 DOE''' THPOUnH 0-0000 0,00QO n noon 0,0000 0.0000 UWOO IAYER 9 G-0000 0,00DO C,C&DO 0,0000 oynoo 0,000��j WCil"i 11 S5MMAPTES FOR DAILY HEADS 11N=0 ---- - ----- - - - - AVERAnE DAW HRAD CM 2.551 3,879 5-A 59 1.216 12,590 11 0611`� TDP OV LAYER -? 1.981 0,730 4 ,268 0,539 4.08 3.459 STD, DEVIATLON OF DAfK7 0,931 U.721 0.460 1.516 1,113 I .QX', HEAD ON TOP OR LAYER 1 0,7/8 0-554 0.654 0.468 C,291 QW`2 AVERAGE DAIKY HEAD ON 0.000 0.00c 0-ODD 0,000 0 000 WOK TOP OR LAYER 6,, 0'000 0.000 0-400 5,000 0 000 0,OW� STD. DEVIATION OF DALLY 0.00c 0-000 u,uuu U.Quu 0.000 KOK, FEAD UN TOP OF LAVEP 6 &UGG 0,000 0-000 K000 0=0 0-0W) AVERAGE DAILY READ ON C,Guy voyo O'cuo 0,000 0.00G C,noQ TOP UF LAYER 8 0000 0 0on 0,00D 0,000 G-Acc Q=0 STU."EVIATION OR DATLY OWDO 0 000 0000 KOGO KGOD Wow, HEAD ON TOP OF IAMR 8 0-005 0,000 0-ADU 0.000 0-000 O.U00 k k k k A A k 0 A.k..k...e....... I k k&k.k.I.I k I.J ..k�u I k v...I ki4 k A ry A a 4 k 4 I ........ ANNIML TOTALS FOR YEAR WHISS CV, FEET PERCENT PREVIPITATIO1,1 12-82 119136=9 Wo,W." RUWFF 2,470 8965,638 .5", EVAPOTRANSKRATTON 23 -A92 RS277.623 DRATNAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 0,3524 Z3060.910 PERK./bRAKAGE THRIANH LAYER 4 0,112507 4Q8.726 Kill'' AVG HEAD ON TUP OF LAYER 6-300-1 PERC./WAKAOS TWO= LAYER 6 0. 112576 408.GS2 0.01 AVG, HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 D.000.1 DRAINAGE COLLECTED FRUM LA R 7 P-AI24 lub-bil n14 subTirlp n with OKI cup Page 1873 of 4165 PERC.dKFAKAGE THROUGH LAVER 9 0-A0000? 0 009 0 00 AVO. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 8 c nucl CHAN% 1N WATER STORAGE 0,192 1421 89S 1 -0 5 SOIL, WATER AT START OV YEAR 23i-s)n 7198G6,R75 ROIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 204.212 141290 H12 SNOW WATKP AT HTAPT OF YEA[-, 0,0010 i t-1 J (M SNOW WATEk AT END UF YEAP 0,000 0-000 0 m ANPMAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE n 0000 n 1103 k4 A p A 0 k I k b k N MONTHLY TOTALS ;IN INCHES, FOR YEAP OANNUK FEB/= MAR/SVP APR/OCT MA7/NOV OJNMEC, PRECIPITATIQ'I 1 -48 A 16 1 '65 A.41 4.48 3 1 6 1 51 1 .72 1 .94 1.11 0-�m Q'R1 TONOFF D USE A 000 0-400 0-A Q Q 0 059 0.10' n Acc 0-001 01UG5 0 m I A 0 OU0 0.000 3VAVUTPANSP1WATrDN 0421 1 ,825 3 .911 A -Ili 4 -313 2,957 1 .92D 0,891 217b9 2,021 0,119 0.652 LATERAL DRAINAUE COLLECTED 0.239b 0.1261 0. 1248 0.0165 D.G687 0,059G PROM LAYEk 2 0 OB33 0.0591 1.0407 0.2171 0,2396 0,1768 PERCO VAT IONSEAKAOE THROUCH 0.0047 0.0032 0.0028 Q.AQ21 0.0010 U.0016 LAYER 4 0-4020 0.0016 0.0012 0.0041 O.OD47 0 0037 [ ER COLATI:ON/11EAKAGE THROUGH 0.0047 0.0032 0.0028 0,0021 0.0015 0,000, LAYER 6 0.0120 nom omm 0.0041 0.0047 0,0017 JATFRAK DRAINAGE COLLECTED O,OC47 0,0011 0.0028 0.0021 0.00IR 0.0015 PROM LAYER '7 5,0G20 0 0016 0=12 0.0040 C A04 7 0,050' PERrOLATION/LEAKAOE TYPOUGO 0-050D Q.00QG O&OUD 0.00DO D 000D 0,0000 LAYER 0-000C 0,00so Zoono c 300D 0 00ou 0,0000 --- --- -- - --- - - - - - - -- -- - ---- -- - - -- - - - MONTH"Y SUMMARIES POR LaELY HEADS QNCHES) AVERAGE DArLY HEAD ON 2 03S 2 ,261 1,616 1 ,214 0,9so 0.899 TIN UF LAYER � 1 , 149 D070 0.677 0-515 3 009 A 205 ETD. DEVIATTON OP DAILY 0,273 0, 178 0. 14w U-100 0 069 D'279 HEAD nN TOP OF LAYER i C,095 o,6H 0.04V I ,SV7 0,2/3 6+.25." AVERAUE DAILY HEAD ON (:'000 0000 0.000 C.000 G,000 D.OX� TOP OF LAYER 6 0-000 0,000 O.CGQ 0,000 G-AOO 0.000 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY D'050 0.000 O'cou 0-A00 0&00 0,000 HEAD UN TOP OF LAYER 0 0 000 0.000 G.000 D.000 0-000 0.000 AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0-A00 O'ODD 0-000 0 000 0 000 00011'', TOP OF LAYER 6 DDoo 0,000 &OUD 0 QUO 0 ODU OXOD Subtitle D wirh SQ3 'q,, Page- TO - Page 1874 of 4165 STD. DXVIATION OF DAJLY D'10D 0 Ono 0=0 0,000 Z00cr 0-ou0 HEAD ON TOY OF LAYER 8 0 U05 n nno 3-A NO 0 000 Q&K U.0 0 0 ANNUAL TOTALO FOP YEAR - - -- - - - - -- - - ­ ­.. ... .. ---- -- - 01—FEET PERCEN'T PRECIPITATION 25.39 92165.7C3 150= RUNUFF 0. 194 755,B30 0,7,-' RVAPOTRANSPIRATIOIN 23.152 06945. 167 14 3,1 DPAI NA,GE COLLE17ED FROM LAYEP 2 1 42C Tq9v RIG 6-A'7 PERMUEAKAGS: mk=M LAYER 4 0,053507 00.104 C,V3 AW7. HKA1 ON 75"F TAYRR 1 =i PLIPC /LSAKAnE THPO= [AYPP 6 U011120 120.971 AT!."HAD ON TnP OF LAYER 6 n A 000 DRATMAIE CGLLECTED FROM LAYER 7 Qxi"4 121,DC2 0,Q PPR0./k2AXAnP TnRDJU0n LAYER 9 000004i 0.009 KOO AVG. HEAD ON TOP OR bAYER R Kounv CHANGE IN WATER STORAUE -0.132 -1203.831 110 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 2U4120 741290.812 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAIR 203.881 040OB6,937 SNOW WATER AT START OF YZAP 0-3 0 0 0 A00 0,00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEK' 0,00�,, vono n4l) ANNUAK WATER BUITIFT BALANCI,,: 0,0000 -0.062 0 00 k k i k MONTHLY TOTAIS QN INCHES) FOR YEAP � - - - - ----- - - - --- -- - - - - - - - - JANQUh FEB/AU3 KkR/SEP APR/UCT MAY/NUV JUN/VE(,,' -- - -- - - - - - - - - - iTECIPITATION 0, 17 3. 76 1.22 6.02 3.K2 2 4�1 2 -As I -AD 2.97 508 3-00 0 A4 kumopi:�, 0 ODD 0.020 0-18 3 0-377 U 206 0 0 7',,, 0.000 0.002 0-011 0,75U 019w 0 GO(I EVA PCY'P RAN P I PAT (OK 0.413 1.610 2,969 3 494 2e916 2 321 2 -142 1 AH6 1 .92U 2 641 1 -02, 1 .6 4 f_, LATERAL DRAfNAUE PULLEUTEU U.124b U.1468 n.64H9 003AD K0919 0_78w PROM IAYRR '2 O,qq24 0.4218 0 .2929 1 ,0431 0,9148 0 ARK4 subr740 D with Soil CaF paqe 11 Page 1875 of 4165 PERWATIONSEArAW THROWH n.0025 n,onT2 0 Dill 0-01 no 0-M 184 UAW, LAYER q, 0 0105 0-001v TAW 0 0175 0,016n GXIW� PEPCOLATIONWAKAGE THROUGH 0,0026 OWD33 U,0131 0.0106 0,G184 WAIWI LAYER 6 0 0100 0,0077 0.0050 0.0174 0.060 0.0167 IATERAK DRAINAW COKLE"TED A A02 R 0 A0 10 A-A IIA c,0 in& 0,01R.3 0.n I An FROM LAYER ''' D-At0q D-007H 0,0056 C 0171 0 0161 0 OAR PEPCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROWH c 0000 0AW 0,0000 P_' Knc uAnnn 0_mon�� LAYEk 1,1 G,OM,W �iuw' �).uouv 0 GNUQ 0.u u 0 0 0.00ou - -- - - ---- - - -- MUNTALY SHNINARIEN FOR UATLY HEADS 1INW11ES) AVERAGE DAILY READ ON 1 .624 2 -17D 7.562 7 ,257 12.611 9.41o' TOP OF LAYER ::1 6,921 4 ,985 3.614 12 034 11.27G STD. 1AVIATION OF DAILY 0-141 1-906 II k064 1.261 D,W HEAD ON TC)F, OF LAYER 3 0-662 0-A 71 0-A 2 4 1 824 1 .018 1 DZ.3 AVERAGE DATLY HEAD ON u 000 0 0 0 0 c-0 D 0 Q-0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0,000 TOP Or LAYIAR 6 u,000 OADO 5,000 0-A 0 Q 0 Ann 0-A 00 STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY n,onn 0-500 D-000 C'Quu c OQU 0.00: HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 0 000 D noo 0-000 0 VC0 MAUD G 00('1 AV V'Y;r, ),,VILY HraurrG ON ; ODD 0 000 0.000 0-05c 0-A 0 0 n o 0{a TOP OF 1AYER 8 0-n 0 0 0 000 D Ono 0,000 0 Ann c vm�� STN DEVIATION OF LAILY 0 ADO D 0 0 0 0.000 0-000 0-A 0 0 G.Ov': HEAD UN 10P OF LAYER H 0 000 0,000 0,000 0 000 CAGO C co(:; ANNUAL TUTALS WE YEAR A -- - -- - ---- --- - - -- INCHES Cu—�EET PERU h NT PRECIPITATION WAY 129465.605 ICOAI'� RUNOFF 1,816 6991,679 5-A "I, EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 23A04 Rlln45_531 66AR DRAINACE COLLECTED FEW LAYER 2 V.6117 2792h 173 21 .74 PERWLEAKA(AE 1H1 OU011 LAYER 4 0,231678 481.252 OA8 AVG, HEAD ON TOP OF WYEP 3 715024 PERO.AEAKAGIS TWOUnH LAYER 6 u 11135sw 4TIA25 0,01 Avn, HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER ( i.100. DRATNAAR COLLECTED FROM LAYER 7 0.1135 4B4.431 OAR FEP&/LEAKA0E THROUOP LAYEM 9 0.000003 0,000 c W'', AVG HEAD ON TOP OF hAYFR i:� 0 OQWI� CHANUE IN WATEP STURAQ: 2.041 7415.866 1'7Y SOIL WATEP AT START OF YEAR WAA13 740086.917 sibrAle D with soil pap Pay, Q Page 1876 of 4165 SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 2n5.924 14750n,10'� SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0 00'', 0,000 0,0� NNOW WATEP AT END OF YEAP 0 0 0 � n 1),L)() ANNIAL WATIOR BUDGET BALANCE 0,0000 .............w..x k a u k 0 k A k A. A A i m k A I. I I I I I.I I.a a I I ... . MONTHLY TOTALS W TNUHRS) FOR YEAP - --- - - - - -- - jAN/JUL PWAVn MARKEP App/nCT MAV/MUV JU11/00' PRECIPITATTON 1 ,97 2,08 k13 0,81 1 91 4.8(7 2.60 3,36 2 HA 4 so 2,21 RTMOFF O'noo 0,019 0.005 0.000 0.000 0,302 0-000 0 062 0001 0, 101 0000 EVAPOURANSPI RATION 2.026 1-910 3,8 01. 1.10 1 -3)4 1 -0 4 1 ,420 3 .447 2.444 2,7iN 1 ,948 WIOY4r fAVERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTEU 0,7078 0,4755 2.4211 0.2911 0,2155 0.4119 FROM LAVER 0.0616 0.1964 D,3131 0.5846 0,014C 0,926,-, PERCOLATIONMEAKAGE THROUCH 0,0323 0=85 OXD71 U-0005 0,0041 0,007'`� KAUT 4 04168 0 U070 j.UU60 00103 0,0121 0 A 15""t PEHUOLATIONAWAVAGS THPOUSH D.C123 0,0085 O.DO77 0,0056 0.0043 7.CO78 LAYER 6 OZ068 OQU73 0000 , P,blll O.D125 LATERAL DRAINAUE OOLLSCTED 0.0124 0,0285 0.0071 0.0056 0,0043 0.0078 FROM LAYEP 7 0-0068 0-0033 0 006 3 04202 0,0120 0&157 PERCULATIOW/LRAKAME TARCHOP 0,0000 0 0000 0 0000 0.U000 0_Nnoo D A00D LAYER 9 k0000 UOuoo 0,0000 wouoo 0,000 0.000�) ---- - --- - --- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - ------- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - M,Drl I'll,LY j,,UMl4A.R(F,wS FOR DAILT HEADS !INCHES) . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 8 250 6, 172 4 918 3,612 2,645 1 TOP OF LAYER F 4 , 120 4,691 4.10S n832 8. 14 / STD, OR VIA TION OF DATLY 0,196 0.444 0.478 C, 331 0,238 1 ,24'E HEAD ON TnP (W LAYER 3 0,413 2 ,009 0,379 1 ,855 0.261 1,20, AVERAGE DAILY HEAL) QN, 0,000 0000 Q&OU 000v 0000 U.CoU TOP OF LAYER �� vuuo 0uuo 00ou b'Quo 0uuo 9,uQu ETD. DEVIATOUN OF DALLY 0,000 Q-AQ0 O-ADS c,000 0.00D 0.000 HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER u 0'ODO (: ou 0000 0,000 0,0 0 0 0.0Q0 AVERAGE DAILY HEAU O-N (.'-000 &Guc 0000 0,000 k000 0 oull,'' TOP UF LAYER ),'� 0-000 D 000 0-uQ0 O-Quo U-0ou 0.00,1 STD. DEVIATfON OF DAILY 0.000 0.050 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.0011) HEAD ON 1UP UP LAYER 8 0 000 0 000 0 000 0,000 0.000 0,000 **k t k k k k k k N*A k kb A*A A A k I N h I A k*k k kNrb k*A k k M. k k k I YrF 1 0.k A.I a Gk kRd i k k A k bubt ir I e D w i*I S& I QNr pAge 13 Page 1877 of 4165 ANNUAL TOTALS FOY YEAR FNCRES CU, FEET PHRUEN'7 PRECIPITATION 1145DI.102 JOZO(''' RUNOFF, 0.394 1428 31U 1 2� EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 2b,129 91219.9GI 294u DFAINA&E COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 1.8441 21214 .211 18,91 PRRU,/LEAXAqE THROnAH LAYER 4 U.104593 09,672 AVU. HRAD 'M TOP OP LAYER 3 5020, PRRC,QHAKAAH THROUDH LAYER 6 G. 04514 379.640 D P 3:1S A= READ ON TOP OF LAYEF 6 a000 DRAINAGE C015ECTED FROM 1AYER 7 0 A046 179 Al2 0.33 PEPr./LEAKAGE THPOUUH :fQi O'HOUQ03 0-00? 0,00 AVG, HEAD ON TOP OF LAYEP 0=01 CHAN% IN WA TIP STORAGE 01"9w 116-115 SOIL WATEF AT START OP YEAR 204,924 74V502 H0 SOFL WATER AT END OF YEAR 206,022 !4 !S59,]B'7 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0-400 0 y cc 0 0 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAP 0000 kuoo 000 ANNIAL WATEP BUDGET RAKANCT." 0000 UK 3 0 00 MCWTHEY TOTAhS 11N I11CO20 F04 lIAP JANNUIL FEB/AUU MAI,,/,,EF APPVOCT PRECIPI1A110N 1.03 2. 16 0,17 5,81 5 26 1 ,42 1.24 O'Ri 0 -41 0 GY, RUICTiR nmo O.C 3 0 0000 U.202 0000 0.088 1-519 0.021 0001 010uu 0.010 0,000 EVAPOTRANSPLRATION 0,506 1 .790 1 ,344 4 261 1.727 2.4221 2.262 � '391 1 .063 1 106 0 A75 0,431 LATERAL DRAINAGE C014,ECTED 0.76S6 Q,51ss 0,4590 0,AhOl 0.5V32 0.4222 FROM LATER 2 0,78R9 0,619R 0.42W9 0 31 0 o 21 9 y n.36 19 VUHCULATIONNEAVAUS THROUGH D.QS2 0.0092 &AC83 0.00B2 0.1101 0,0077 LAYER 4 0.1126 0-0109 0 0078 0 0060 0.0044 0.0014 muhrIvIm A with soil Cap Page I Page 1878 of 4165 PERCULATrUNNEAXACE THROUUH D—A, 32 C 0092 0,0081 0.0082 O—AI02 0,0077 LAYER �'. U.0115 0,0109 omis 0,0060 0 0044 0 UOK LATERAL DRAINAqg rqLLECTED 0.010 0.0092 0.008A 1,0w8l 0,010 7 2 0 OU7 YRUM LAYER volls O-Alln 0,0079 0,9060 0,0044 00034 1 SRC0LATKV/LKAKAA,,' f; 0020 u 0000 0.0 0 A 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.UUM) LAYER 9 iCiC+ Awou it HOOQ 0,A000 MONTNLY HUMMARMn FOR DAILY HEAD8 WOUES; AVERACIR DAmy HEAD ON 8.586 G 492 9 .407 0,536 6,10, SAM,) ToT OF LAYER % L50 7 P32 S.239 3002 2,771 2-0 1�"' ATD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0,969 0,56S C,464 kb?9 01052 0.492 HKAD ON LOP OF LAYER 3 1,639 0.692 0.489 0061 0 050 0 184 AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON C1000 O-OOD 0,000 GUGG C-A00 &Aon 0T OF LAYER KGCO KOK 0-000 0.000 0,000 C.U00 STU. DEVIATCON OF DAILY O.Duo n'Quo n 000 0,000 0-000 (;i10) HE4'J) ('A'l T'(_;r,, ('.F aAYEP 6 000 0.0 D 0 u,000 Q,000 0-0 0(; AVERAGE DALLY HEAL) (DJ 000 0 Mac 0.0 u 0 0 000 0 Q00 TOP OF LAYEk B 0.000 0=0 0,000 0.0DA D DOC 0.00� STU, DEVIATICM w DATQN Mob, 0-A 0 0 b-OUO 0 1 000 Q 000 u-No 0 HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER H D.000 K000 KHHO novo C uou A A A A*-U A A .w.k•.,A k A*. A.I ... ...... ANNUAL TOTALO FUR YEAR rNCHES CU. PEET PERRENT PRECIP1 TATTO'.'l 14 ,45 88 7s 1�08 100 w) RUNOFF 1 ,881 6R27552 EVAPOTFANOPIRATION 18-4qH 6'812. 141 76 V-) DRAINAUR COLLECTED FYUM !ATER 2 1,721 2C791,621 21,43 PERC./nMAKAGS THROUCH LAYER 4 MaQ/47 372,97J 0 42 AVn, HEAD ON TOP UP LAYER bo%s PERC./LRAVAGE THHUUnP nAYRR 6 1.3C2848 01, 357 C4_1 AVG, HRAD ON TOE OF LAYEP KOO& DRAIN= COLLECTRD FPUM LAYER 7 0-2010 373.872 C 4 PEkC,QRAKAGE THRUUIH LAYER 9 0,001Q01 C&GI 5,00 AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 8 0-A001 CHANGE UN WATER STORAQ,' .1059 .7111.,778 4 SOTL WATER AT START OP YEAR 206.022 747859.187 SOM WATER AT END OF YEAR 204,063 140747AM' SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR n 001) 0400 0=0 SNOW WATER AT END OF YKAP 0_A00 G,oGn 0 01'', suhtttle D w0h SOM rap voye 1 m. Page 1879 of 4165 ANNUAL WATEW Still IdT 7 ALAM3 0.0000 _5=9 D-A 0 MONTHLY TOTAL2 (IN ?NKHRM FOR YEAR JANQUL VSKAW NORKEP AYR/OCT MAY/NUV JUN/UEC PRECIPLTATION 1,12 2.45 3 ch 4 91 Q14 2,02, 5,46 0-A 0 5-A I I -A 4 51IQ 2 21 wRNnq,',, c'QGG 0.016 0 000 W711 0.123 0.000 1 ,046 0,000 KA79 KOK 0.365 O'DW') EVAPUTRANIPIRATIO21 U.617 2,077 1,992 2.436 4 .455 ? .03A 2.158 u 00? 3-A48 0-A4 9 1.549 1-A 7 F" LATERAL DRAINAGE WMECTRu KAIU3 U.2924 U,2117 0,4248 0,6486 0,66L,,� FROM LAYER 1 0156 J,813: 0 7930 0 1.717 1 . 1294 K0701 PERCOGATFON/LEAKAGE IMNLUGH C.GQ2S 0,0055 0,0002 5,007V Q,0jj3 0,01y, LAYER 4 0,0175 0,0143 0,0116 W124 Q,03A9 A,nly) PERCrMAT;ON/LIAKA"E ISPONnH 00025 00094 5,GQ62 0,A076 U,0314 Q,rjy, LAYER G 0 A174 00113 K0136 0 0124 00188 G X1 A I LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.0025 0,0054 04062 Q007G 0,1114 FROM LAYER 7 U D173 U.0144 0,0136 U,0124 U, IA7 0,0jq1 PEPCOLATIUMMAKAnE nwwm v Duco Koosc Kouou 0,00jo 010000 c Gow� LAYER OW00 0.0000 0.000 OW 0,0000 K0000 MONTHIY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS QNCHEOi AVEKAKE WiLY HHAD AN 1 452 3.071 1,963 Q'iHo v.n5q 7 9W, TOP OF LAYER 3 11 -949 9653 9.496 8.274 13.441 12.367 STD. UNWATTON OF !MILT 0.284 1.27_1 G. 323 2-AS3 0.5J4 0.7U8 HEAD ON TOP OF LAYEP 3 2.626 D.945 0-Als D-808 2.82B AVERAGE DALLY WO ON KC00 C.OGG 0-000 0-000 0 0 is 0 0 OW) TOP OF 1AYER C 0,000 0.000 U-000 0 000 0.000 STU, DEVIATION OF DAILY D.000 0.000 0-000 U.000 0,000 0.0jQ HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 1-moo 0-000 Q-DIU 0.000 0 nou 0 5 W" AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.000 0.000 0,000 0,000 o,onn cX0u, TOF OF LAYER H 0,000 0,000 0 000 0,00G U000 0_000 STY, DEWATLUN OF DAILY KAOD WOOD OWQ 0 J00 KC00 0_00L HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 8 0.000 0.0co 0-000 O.Dow 0.000 0001� ANNUAL TOTAW FOR YEAR - --- - - -- - - INCHES CU. FEET PERCEWI sub0tie n with call cap Palm W Page 1880 of 4165 PRE.C:PITAT10,j 19,40 141748.016 10),0S 11MOFF son !0811 631 1,52 EvAPDTRANSpwnw� 25.504 925V9 201 64.40 nPAINAGE =LECTSU VlaM LAY14 2 8-4417 2qjn2,187 20. 11 PERC.AXAMAHE TH (rl l;l,;l lAYER 4 K. 11yiI3 500 A68 0_ 0 AVG."EAD UN TOP UF LAYER 7,930',. PERC.SEAKAOS THROVsH LAYER b 0-1 39 496 405.682 0 6 0,000.1 FKW LA"R 7 0-1 3q L 505-A 01 n PERU,&EAKA02 THR0Y,,H LAYER 9 3,0DO001 Q 000 0 =—"PAD ON TOP OF LAYER 8 Cn=� WHANCIE IN WATER STORAGE A.934 10649-812 7.41 SOIL WATER AT nTART UF YEAR 204.00 74C747.40 SOEL WATER AT EMU OP YPAW, 2D6,99h 101327.201 SNOW WATER AT START nU YEAR U000 000Q 0ZC4 SNOW WATER AT EMU OF YEA,,! 0 0.cif) 0 A0 0.00 ANNUAl WATER BUDUET SALANCL Koccu K04R D.K 4 4 A .'a............. MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INcRES, FOR YEAR JAN/Oub FEBArig; MAR/SEP APRIOCT MAYBOV 4NN/Dw PRECI P ITATP&I 0.69 3 .4i 2 1 1 .22 7,68 0 0.56 1,09 0,49 3 v 0 0 48 4 66 Rmwv�F 0 &U U 0.000 0 mvp 0000 1-511 0,000 0.091 O, 1R6 01000 O'co1.1 0,008 8VAP0TRkNS1'QA17&TY 1 ,517 0 801 1 ,890 1.831 2 193 1,404 0060 1,693 1.912 3.291 15o1 I -SA, LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED U-MIGS 0.1136 0.4281 0. 1592 0,A681 6,83b., FROM LAYER 2 0.6236 0.4432 U.6766 0.7812 AO? 0,632 , 'VHRC,U .LH 0,0140 0 Aoul 00072 5,0067 0,G 1 0 0 0-A 1 4_3 LAYRR 4 010130 O-AO81 0,0117 0,0130 0,0102 0,0p, PERCOLATEON/LEAK= T2POUOH KOL4G 0.0094 0.0078 0.0067 0,00)9 0.0143 LAYER (,' O.U110 0.0081 0.Q17 5.0124 0.0103 G,C I A) TATERAL DRAENNTE COL5EaTEn 0.0141 Z00% UXUK n OD67 G Go 9S 0.0143 FROM LAYER V 0,0110 47-0081 0,0117 O.004 0,0103 9,010-) PERCOLATION/LEAKAOE T10KOH 0 050D U0000 0,ouou c,0000 O'njou On= LAYER 0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,000q Sub; irLy n with aml CaF,,,' Page- Q Page 1881 of 4165 WUNTHLY SUMMARIES FUR DAILY PEADS !11UH30 AVERACE VAILY URA On A-9up 1 A56 4, 499 6-445 1 c AD T0,11 C,F LAYE,'IR 1 7 27b 5.228 8.132 9.062 7 0 0 8 1,3 76, STD, DRVTnTl0N OV DATIN GATB 0.607 6521 0091 1 , 141 n pse, HEAD ON TOP 01 hAYEP 3 0 VUH 0-001 lAq9 0-411 2.659 .0 11-1 AVERAOR OALLY HEAD ON 0,000 D.UUO 0 000 0-000 0000 n P;y'� TOP OY IAYRR R ONoo Z000 0'?GQ 0 ODD 0.000 KQU4) STU. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0-000 0001 010UQ 01000 0 Duo 1A00 HEAD ON TOP OP LAVER 6 0,000 O.000 0.000 GA 0,00, Q.Gou AVERAGE DAIIN HEAP M 000 0 000 0 A06 0 0 000 0 H 0 0-0 Q 15P CY LAYER 8 O -0 C.Gou 0.000 0-Nou D'oho 0 plo STO DBVIAtION OF DArKY 0,000 O'cco 0,000 DACU 0.00c GA00 HEAD UN 1UP OP LAYER M Q-000 0,000 0-0 0 c c 0 0 0 vono 0 00;� ... ....... ...... .............. .......M... I k k k k I k w.ma n 1i.k.w A,N. .*,*k k n r w.*v,,w .x�4, ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 10 114C7lES CU L;°ERT PRECIPITATION 3245 10645,500 5;)0�Ami �0 RUNOFF" 1 .929 063V.895 5-A 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATIUN 22,269 80615AG2 69,041 DRAIN ACE COLLECTED FROM hAVRR 2 7,2781 26121.648 22011 PERC.dLEAKAGE THROUGH LAYEP 4 0 Q 7 7C 2 4 AVG, HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 7.2128 PERCULEAKAGE THHDUUH LAYll 6 0. 127702 463.058 0.40 AVG.�EAD ON TOP OP LAYER 0-0 0 0 1 DRAINAUE VDIMECTED FWW TAYTR 7 GA271 461-553 Q,4 0 PERMLEAEAKE THROINH LAYER q 0-AUU001 0,009 BAD AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF !AYER H 0.000,1' CHANGE IN WATER STURAVE G. 146 j256,941 LAI-) SOIL WATER AT START OF YRAR 206.996 751197.29� 1QFK WATER AT END OF YEAR 207,141 142604. 12', ENOW WATER AT START OV 73a,R 0 =._111 YJAUD DAID SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR KAU() DADC KA'', ANNUAL WATER BUOUET BALANCF,',' 0-0000 -0.005 0,00 Subtitle D with soil ca''p paym LUa - Page 1882 of 4165 A'' 1,,At;,k? MONTHLY V+,LUE F IN WH I4 FOR YEARS I THROUGH 101 111IIQ L I:'E iist,lG MAR/SEP A?.e?.WT MAY/NOV 1IEN/ WFF PPRCIPITATION ,„ 11 19 , .71d 1 by Z111. 1 . ;41, 1 . 1.1. Yr IA1 ., .., .7.O'1 t 0,010 ,f rS°'1,1.i G> 3;:}1 C.228 'J I i:d, STD '7G_,r1,r.11;:2NS 0,519 0.014 U,080 0 :C9:::1 l 6 01068 0.094 U.228 0.237 21 u9,r OQ '' E 9'7 1 46C 2.102 r"' _,>, z — ., i 1�k, rla Lx.�a.9,' r,id4 E� ..;Wtl J. );r:1J 1.... , ,». ..a tk.rjM':; [ATFPAL 11RATWE COhnEPTED FP9M 1..,.AW E ,' r 1'0,1 9'7 (.i—A D 6!1 0.386T 0. 9 0 7,�1, 0.4677 "r.4 i°1..kit ,, RVTA. I;7NS C..2 56 {9 0 a 7, "POTALS 0.0Q67 C U0 i4 0.0075 D.Avul LYW 91 0.0014 0.0070 WOC87 0 )Ej t .( 94, , )',n;"7 0,0029 0.0041 0,000 !:).C!(,r4'a 0-0051 19 STD DEVIATIONS 2 X546 Ci i?.7 0.0026 (,i_Ai1=i7. ii 0059 0.00� , 0.0051 0 ,17 , 7;; 38 0.0047 �, .:, 9J.C9 ,. 1^"1'a 9 I + , b A f N ;;Ii O LO f G 1 VROM C..rxY R &OU91 0 u0"4 070 0.0487 0-0.81 0.00111 0,0050 0 ..0 T A 0 A00c 0 A000 ',1,lfl0U1 C;,t, 'ro ,, tY ,"yt';S 0,0000 c W& 0,0000 o,n J{') 0 0000 0 (a000 14'Ika,RAGES DO C'DOP1"TH ,1 AVERAGED DATLY HEADS ,,NC7tiESe SUbtitle [:I with Soil ,'T-,, Page 19 .. Page 1883 of 4165 DAILY AVERAGE HgAD ON TUP OP LAYER 3 AVERAqRS "463 3-n 76 V 48540 5 A06y 6 41$6 6.110,",' 4 1 21 4 7309 0,7177 5-Ash1 5.5023 STD.�EVIATIONS 112C 2,0241 J .9HK8 j,9670 4.109 A 1474, J-bi/o A 2,7120 ki4nn I 174G K4104 DAILV AVHRA(,;F READ T'D!' QV AVERAGES' 00DI 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 L 0 0062 Komi 00001 0,0DOI 0.000: 0-A00J CZ001 STn. DEVI-ATIONS 0,000u 0 ,00no 0-A000 010000 G10QQ1 0100u1 0,0001 0,0000 0,0000 50001 0-0001 D.0001 DAILY AVERAGE HEAO ON TOP OF LAYER 8 -0001 0 0,0001 D 000 1 0-MOO 1 0.000, 0 0001 KDOZ 00001 00001 c,0001 0=01 BTU. DEVIATJOHS KA501 oxcuo 0-000C 0 ccul 1 .0001 0000. "DI 0-Anol 0 1 0 0 u 1 0,0001 n-9001 0,000), AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAIN (ETD DEVIATTONS! FOR YEARS I THPOUGH 10 jNrHES CU. FEET PERCENT PHECIPITATION 25. 19 1 .6 is i 05959 PIRJ"A�1� � 301 1 1 -0208; 474.66 4.4 6 2=0TRANAPTRATION 22.175 ( K41891 80493.94 7b,96 / VTEAV,,J, 5.32022 2,312921 ;9312 , 385 18-0 FROM LAYER 2 PERCOLATEON/LEAKAGE THROUGH k09551 0,03892) 34FI690 0.3271'4 LAYER 4 AVERAGE HEAD ON VvP 5.111 2.277) OF LAYER 3 PERCOLATION/LSAKAnE TUROn% 0-09510 O,U18901 340.605 0.32716 LANER 6 AVERAGE HEAD UN T0f',1 KA00 0.000) cs LAYEk LATERAL DRATNAGR VOLhErTED 0-A954 8 1 0.01811) 346,6C4 0.32711 FROM LAYER 7 PERC0rAT10N/l,FAKA0E THRnUGH 0 1 00000 0.00000) 0 0 0 9 0.00001 LAYER AVERAGE HEAD ON TUP K000 O.QU0 UF LAYER R CHANAh FN WATER ATORAGE 0.296 1. 1628) IDY6. 11 1 -116 ....Akk.... q�n i4M ...—, SUN Me D w4h soil cop I'my, 20 Page 1884 of 4165 6 k A K& N*"4..n.A..*b�..A k k.. a n...N".THROUGH�v I I......0......k........... PEA DArLY VALUES FOR YEARS I 1 [INCHES) 01J. ETA PPErIPTTATIGN 4 , 1S RUMIFF, 1 ,519 9585,1455 IDEA FNASK rnnLECTED F10M tnYMP 2 0,04029 17n-A5150 P000LATION/LEARAGE PHXUUUY LAYER 4 0.000797 -0940Y AVER= HFAn ON TOP UF LAYEP 3 11,369 MAXIMN-M READ ON TIP UP LAYER 1 23 L11 h0VATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER (DISTANCE FROM DRAIN� 32.4 FEE',' PERI00ALATIONWAYAnE THROUCH LAYPP 6 D-Aoolqn 2,8qbl(; AVERAGE HEAD UN TOP AF LAYER 6 0.0001 DRArNAULI (MLIOUEU FROM LAYER V 0 00079 2.G S T11IROU0H nAm 9 010,000G6 0,A n 0 0! AVERAGE HEAD ON TQP OF LAYER H 0.000 1�1k,KTM[JL 'rCIP OF LAYER B 0,002 LQUATION CV MAXIMHM HEAD IN LAYEk (DrSTANOF PROM FVRAIN 0-A PEET SUN WMUR 4'00 MAAIMUM VEG, PUb WATER 000VOLl 590 MI lid EMUM VEG, SOIL WATEP =:d`VOLi Maximum Leads are nomputqu usIng MwEvroe,s 1 eknrence7 Maximum Saturaced Depth over Landi 1.1l Linw bY Brucc M. MeEnrud, Univeroity of K&nsas ASCE Journal of EnvluonmenrdL 119. No, 2, Match 3590, Bad;., 262 270, k 4 .......'.k.k.....................A............... FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END UP al AR LAYER 'INCHES) (VOL/wool 7.6BB4 0.3201 2 5,2V00 0,850(� 1 0-A on n 0 U0010 5 175.20DI 0-0920 5.484U 0-0022 00000 10.2480 0,427,.) Subtitle D with SQiI cdrs Page 21 Page 1885 of 4165 Page 1886 of 4165 hiN^,k Jr k k k i v b A I I I my HYDROLUSIC EVAOUAPIOU OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE HELP MODEL VERSIDN k07 11 NOYEMPER 1997) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMRNTAL LABORATORY' HSAE WATERWAYS EXPER&KNT STAT101 FOR 1002PA, PISK PEMUOTION ENOINEERENG KAF Pik ATOP'Y' aw na uu 0 A k aW ...... �R'kA k PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: Q\ZNEL0VDALLAS.D4 TEMPERATURE DATA PI1,0 Q\ZhShP3w\0ALLA0.D') KOLAR RADIATION DATA FTLQ Q\ZhBLP3wQAL1LAS.&13 E17APQTRANsP1R,ATLnN DATA; 00111'LPI&DALLAS.01.1 SUEL AND DEAPON DATA FILE: U,QhELP3w\C0DAL.D1(, O KIT PUT DATA FILE, C;\zhwLP3w\DLS VT.mu'71 TEME: 13:24 DATE; 8/ 6/201,3 I I A*�"x.,k. k-Y--*- .. �I k*k k .... ......... ........... TITLE: Closure Turf Equivalency Dallag Texas NOTE. TNQiAL MOIST4PR CONTENT OF THE LA7EPS AND SNOW WATER WEQ�' COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM, LAY Ep 1. TYPE I - VERTICAL PERCOLATiON LAYEk, MATERIAL TEXTNRE NUMBER 1.) TRITKNEAS 0.60 INCH&_', POROSITY 0.4170 VOLSOL, FIELD CAPACITY' 0.0450 VOL/VOL WiLTIM0 POINT 0.0180 'TO L/V01_ INITIAL SOIL WATER, COnTEMT 0.0:72 VOL/m, III EVTIVE RAT. HYD COND. 0-999999978500E 02 CM/00: LAYER TYPE 2 LATEKAL DRAENAGE LAYER MATERIAL TEXTUPE NUM80 0 THICXNE ', 0,20 INPHES POROSITY CIM500 VOL/Vol, FIFUD CAPACIT'',,' 0,0100 VOL/VOT, WILTTMO POTNT 0,00bo VOLM11 TNITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.0072 VOL/VOI, EPPECTIVE SAT. AYL. rn= 12999999UUUDE 12 CMISIN: S U Q 11-1, 7.00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH 100.0 FEET loge I Page 1887 of 4165 LATER TYPE i PLEXIOLE MEMBRANE LINEP MATERIAL, �vyT175cp "1., THICKNESs 005 INCH&'i PC T't, FIELD CAPAWITY U.0000 VQL/VWI,, WILTING POTNT 0 0000 wDUVOL 1NIFTIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT "000 VOL/vOL EFFECTrVE SAT HYD. (. .AND. 0, 09999996000E- 0 GM/SKC,'-` PML lPIICFULE DENSITY K50 HOLES/ACRE FML INATALIAT,ON DEFECTS 1,00 KLES/ACHE FML PLACEMENT QUAVITY ,OOD, LAYER 44 T7PE J - NARRIER SUIL LINSH MATERIAL TEXTURE MUMBEP In, THIrKNYSS 18.00 INCHE;:i; POROSTTY V.415C VOL/VOL, FTELD CAPACITY 0. 3780 VOU/V01, WILTING POINT 0.2600 VOL/V01 INITTAL SOIL WATER CtNTENT U.475D VOL/Vol, EFFErTIVE SAT. HID. COND, 0,11000100ANACE-04 QM/SEC',' LAYER 5 TYPE 1 - VERTECAL PERCOLATION LAVLAR MATKRLPL TEXTURE NUMBER 19 THICIONESS 600,00 lmchiki PUROSIT'x' K605 VOL/vOL, FIELD ZAPAQT� 5.2920 VOL/VOL, WILTINq POINIF 0.0710 VOL/SOL !Q=Ah SOIL WATER IJUNTENT 0,2920 VOL/VO,'., EFFECTIVE SAT. f,i r,n KIu0QQ000s0Q0E 02 cm/wQ'.: 'AYER TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYEP MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER ''I THICKNEK3 12 AG KCHE�� PUROSETY 0 4570 vow/vw FEEKE, CAPACITY 0 0830 VOL&Q, WILTINQ P07NT 0 0310 VOL/V0, INITIAL SOIL WATER CON17ENT n,0130 VOLQUL, EFFEWTiVE AT HYD, COND, CM/Shh,' LAYER 7 TYPE 2 - LATERAL UPAZA01i LAYER MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 0 THECKNED3 UQU iNCHES POROSITY 0-45UG VUL/VOL FIFID rAFACITs.' n.0100 V0L/V0,7,, TMT"k mm,-T Ric 2 Page 1888 of 4165 WILTING PO!wr 0,005C VOL/V0, TNITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0,0100 VOLA`/Q., EFFECTIVE SAT. HID, CUND, 2.00=000000 cm/501 SLOPh; Amu PERWENT DRAINAGE LENGTR Luo-A PRE'r ilywk TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER 14'UMBER 3 5 THICFNEM,", POROSITY 01000D VOL/voll PIELD CAPACITY 0.00911 VOUVOL, WILTINM YI"Y. m, 0 OUGG VOL/VOL INKTAK S= WATER CUNTENT AQ00 VOL/VUL EFFECTIVE SAT NYD. KOND. 12 CM/010',' bVi, PINHOLE DENSITY HOLESATRE': FML INSTALLATION DEFEUTS kou HOLES/ACFE FML PLACEMENT QUALTTY 1 GOOD QENERAK DES19N AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DAt,,, NOTE, SCS RUN UFT 0MVE NINnER WAG USEP,SPECIFIED, S2S RUNOFF CURVE NU17.19s0, 95.0D FRACTION OF AREA At5OWILNO RUNUVV 100.0 PFPVEN`-,' AREA PROORCTED nN HURTZONTAL PLANE 1 000 A�000-' EVAPOPATIVE ZONE DEPTH c 8 1 N 0 H. TNITfAL WATER TM EVAPURATIVE ZONE Q-Ai2 INCHES UPPER KIMIT OF EVAPORAlIV4 STOWAOI 0.420 INCH0; LOW RR LIMIT OV EVAPORATIVE STORAOE 0,012 INCHM', INITIAL SNOW WATER, D-000 INCHES INITInL WATER TN LAYER nATERIALS IS4 .760 INCHMa,1 TOTAL INITEAL WATER lsvmU INTHES TOTAL 11UHNURFACE INFLOW 0,00 !NWHES/YEAR EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA NUTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATIUN DATA WAS OBTAINED FRUM 0 A L...03 TEXA,,-,'1 STATIUN LATITUDE 32.80 DEGRE0,, MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX, 5 START OF GRUWINa SEASON (JULIAN DATE) 6,� END OF CROWINU DATE.0 �29 D-0 INCHES, AVERAGE ANNUAL WEND SPEEIj 1 0-80 MPH AVERAUE IST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY 66,00 % AVERAGE 2ND QUARTE4 R ESL ATIVP OUMICITY - 68,on R AVERAUE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY , 63,00 5, AVERAnE 4T1 t QJAPTER R91LATIVE HINIDITY - 66,00 NOTE: PRECIPTTATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY CHNERATeD USrN,,,," COERIlCiENTA POR DALLAS, T E X A S NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION I INCH E& JAN/JUL PEE&= MAR/SEP APRAOT MAY/NOV JUNID07' 1 60 1 ,93 2.42 343 1 27 Conn I w F"kAmky hge Page 1889 of 4165 2.00 1 V6 K it1 2.41 1 06 1 K NOTE. TEMPFRATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENBRATEW USTN''', COEFFICIENTS FOR DA L LA,,,,: TEXk� M�,,IYTHhY TRmPERATORE ;DEGREES FAHRENHKQ� JANQUh FEB/AUG MAP/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DE(C� 44 .U0 45.5D 56.10 65.90 73,?c 00 86 io 85-50 78.60 6n gn 5s AD 47=j NOTE! 001AR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY WENERATEU USIN,.' COSYPLCIENTS POR DALLA:�',, TEXA-,, ANU STATIOM IATITUDE 32,85 DEGRFES .....kid.........*4 k*k N h� ....s,A*..�w,.N.M1.rvv re n w.d I , .v b•..�a�.. MONTHLY TOTALS elN INrH8Kj FOR YEAR .1. JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MARISEP APR/OCT MAYMOV aUNIUEC - --- - - - -- - - PRECEPITATLAN 0-56 1 -a 1 0,77 0, 36 1186 0 H 0-A 1 0.84 2.04 nm 1.04 2.Q KNOPF 0.144 0, 331 &OHO 0.004 0. 110 0,251 l .Q97 DA16 u-4 10 0. 171 1 .432 EVAVUTHANwF&KATfQ,,1 C-649 0-023 C.206 1.760 U,71'� 0, 310 2,672 1 ,687 OALI 0406 1013 LATERAL DANINAGE (TOLECTED 0.0710 U,2673 0,050 0 ,0027 U-0911 GKITI FROM LAYEk 2 0-0= 0.5V06 0.0243 0.0512 0 0393 0.0427 PERCULATIUNNEAKAKK THROUGH ZnGGI U.1005 0.0002 E C001 0 0002 Cl unw�) 12YER 4 n 0000 0-0002 0.0001 0.0002 0,000 L U 00y, LATERAL DRAINAGE CULLECTED 0.0000 K0001 DA005 K0000 0AU00 O-Auc() FROM KAVER 7 0,0100 0,U000 000GO 00000 KOU00 0,0001 PiRCOLATION/LEAKACS THROUGH Q-0001 0.0005 0.0002 0.0001 0,UQ02 yJ0000 LAVEP ki u,0000 00001 0,0001 Ku0ml 0-0001 0.00011 WMTUT SMMASnES FOR DAILY HIqw;s (TNTHEy AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON Koss 0.428 0.128 0.0?7 0. 170 GA32 TOP OF LAYER i O.Oud uAll 0.045 0A10 0 x6s 0-A 21 ETD. DEVIATION OF DAILY U.221 GAGO 0016 0=2 0,196 0A07 HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 0007 0.204 0. 12b 0. 06 0-116 0 111 AVERAGE DAILY HEAN UN 0.000 0.00n 0-A30 0-000 Q-AuQ 0-001-,) (Inum:Tud Qunaonq, Page 1890 of 4165 TuP OF LAYEP 8 moon O-Anc 5,0c? 0.000 0 600 vokI SID. UEV TAT IUN UF UAIV 0,000 0,000 01000 VuOu 0=0 0.000 HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 9 0 000 n.000 V000 U1000 oluuo 0-.ACO ANNUAl TOTALS POP YEAR INCHES CU. VIET PEHUHN',T PREWLPITAVU 1070 6Q62J .0C4 ioc=) RUNUFF 4.217 1537e,Bao 2sn'' EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 11,511 41860,586 6 9 L F"ll PROM LAYER 2 0 q281 0268,115 b 01 PERO./LEAKAGE TIMRnH LAYER 4 0.0021"? 7-A lb 0 0 3 AVq HRAU ON TOP OF LAYER 3 0. 129� DRAENA% COVERrTED FROM LANER 7 0-Aoss 1.096 C.0) PER7./hHAKA0H THPOLMH [AYER 8 n,001807 056c 0 0l AVK, HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 0.00ou CTANAR rN WATER STURAOP: 0.00� 0-400 0 01, SOrh WATER AT START OF YEAR 194 .162 SDIK WATER AT END OR YEAH,. 194 ,162 GNOW WATER AT STAkT OF VEAP 0.Do�:" 0 0 0 00') SNnw WATER AT END OP YEAH 0,U00 0 600 Qcb ABNUAL WATER eUDqET RALANQ'� -0000 G-VC6 -A'0 MONTHLY TOTALS ITN ZNCHES, FOR YEAR 2 JAB/JTM FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OUT MAY/M)V JUN&Ei,�,' PRECIPITATION U,41 2 5184 301 3,03 2.0� 0162 4.18 1.34 10 1-04 1,5�, RUNOPP 019 1 U43 3062 1 A62 1�146 0081�1 265 1131? 2.Adl 0.462 01169 0,90 EVAVUTPANSPIPATION D-A55 1 -013 2 188 1 .121 1 .620 1 .284 0-408 3-Al 1 V846 1 .4?1 Q-AO A 0.717 Page 1891 of 4165 WATRRAL DRAINAGE COLIOCTED 0.0 0 b 2 C.ins 0 2005 0.1 Ab 0-a 721 0,a 3 3�,,, FROM �AYER 2 0.0297 G.00h7 0 3279 n, 1291 0.0615 Q.000'', PER COLATION/LEAKAUE THROUOM 1 0002 0-mo" C-0004 0,0001 0,0002 0.0m, !AYER 4 0,0001 0-0001 0 005t GAGU3 DAG02 hATPRAL DRAINAGE QUIMACTED hoNsw 0.0011 D 0001 um, 0.0000 0,00n;� FROM hAYER l 0,0000 0,000c n nono 0,D000 U,0000 O-ADOO PERCULATYUNSEAFAGE THROUGH 0.0002 O,Onn, 0 OD03 c,o002 0,konj 0,0001. LAYER d QUO 0,0011 u.&UOO 0 0102 OADOI 0,000,., MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILI HRAKS AVERAMR DAILY HEAD UN 0.275 0,201 0A08 0-351 TOP OF LAYER ,� C.041 0ASO C,041 0.18B &Ai3 0,17G STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0. 164 U.27q j 28C 0.214 Q-A 80 CA5G HEAD ON TOP OP LAYER 3 0 245 01125 C,121 U,219 0-Aso 0. 171. AVERAGE DAILY HEAD QN 0.000 0_00u 0,000 0_cQG 0,090 0_001.r TOP OF IAYER 0,000 0,000 9.0no CAHO ClAcc OAO�'ll STU. DEVTATION CF DAILY 0mc? 0-000 0,000 0.000 D.U00 0 0010 HE AID 'DN TOP AYER 8 (7.f)00 C. 000 on 0-AWD Q ADD j 00D ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR LNrATS CU. FEET PERCENT 11%lb.703 PLRQr/FF b2633.64H EVAVQ rRANS P I PAT I 0�4 14 .949 54254�81 DRAINANR COiAEPTED FROM LAYER 2 2 ,0391 3771 ,HL6 3.41 PERC.MEAKAGE TRYCRJAN LAYER 4 0,002130 8.459 0.ul AVO, HEAD LIN TOP OF LAYRF 3 0.144, DRAINAGE COLLECTED FAN 1AYER ? 0 ocul 1.154 0-A PERU.WAKASS 011IMOH LAYER S 3,002D12 "Aut 0,01 AVG. HEAD ON TO? nP LAYER 8 CHANGE IN WATEk ST=n[,-1 0000 00�10 POIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 184,762 67068S j97 SOrL WATER AT END OF YEAR 184. 162 670685. 18� SNUIN WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0-moo 0.00 SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0 40�) 0 0 0 0 0 0 cwww nd Fyhww� Pyc-6- Page 1892 of 4165 ANNUAL WATER BUDOET h ALA N0,, UQocc 0 00n 0_n .......... ...... .... MONTHLY TOTALA M JNCHM) FOR YEAR 3 JAN/dUL PER/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OqT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC PRECIPITATION 0.77 0,45 kos 2.18 2 07 2-0 2 75 2 A 5 O. Qq 0,55 0 47 RUNOFF' G-126 D,000 1,719 I .Eyd 0662 2.605 0, 758 0,421 1 -460 KC01 0.092 KOM EVAMTRANSKFATEON 0.595 0 203 1-339 0,902 1 4 74 1 _a 13 1 596 2.3M K156 nmq 0,408 0,101, LATEPAL DRAINAGE CULnECTED 00398 0.060 4�2085 0-0616 Q.Osso U.0649 FROM LAYER 0-A224 0.0162 0 134 9 0 Ncc 3 0-A4 98 D,OA 67 PERCMATIONNEAKAGN 1APAR0 0 A001 0.0002 0,0004 a .00 0 1 0 OD02 0 x 0 01 LATER 4 0-A000 K0001 0-A00I n 0000 0 OD02 0 1OP1 hAVERAL DRAINAGE (ASLECTED c 0000 0.00Q0 5.00M 0.0000 c-0000 0 0000 w*Um KAYER � 0.0000 D-MOOD 00DOU Q,00G? O-AOOO 0.0000 PEECOLATION/LEAFAM THROVAIN 0-0001 0 0002 0.000 3 0-MOO 1 0 DMI 0,M)l LAYER R 0 0100 Q 0 0 0 1 0 0001 u 0 0 10 0'0001 0 0001 MONTHM SINMAMES FOR DAILY HEADS KINCHES) AVERAnR DAILY HEAD ON 0-A80 Z165 0.188 K091 0 107 0,0515 TnP OF LAYER :.,, 0 D15 01040 G 061 0 0H 0-09 0,0719 KTU. %ViATJL,N OF DAILY 0-159 u,264 0 185 0-189 016H 0-2 0 � HFAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 0 110 0.097 0,155 0.027 DIIE8 GJ60 AVERAM AD N ' . a u u TCP OF LAYER 9 0-000 0000 0.000 0000 o ono 0.00,� STU. DEVIATFON OF DAILY Q-Aco 0,000 Z000 O'Dou 0 oon 0 uQ0, HEAD ON TOP OF !AMR 8 K000 0 000 K00D 0,0DO D,CGO kocu ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAV INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT PRECIVITATTOIll 658,13-IY5 100,00 FAMPF 39109,51C 46.2-� EVAPOTRANSPIRATION il.791 42801.902 49.818 UFAINACE COLLECTED FRUM LAYEF 2 0.bbV8 2424 ,128 2.22 PERC,/LEAXAUE THROUCH LAY SR 4 O,Q0IG04 5.824 0-01 Ch)swn,� Np 7 Page 1893 of 4165 E�, 0,0 9 6 t� :iEAJJ C;�N 0�' : , DRAINAGE CULLErTSP FROM LAYER 1 0-0002 0.7G? PERV./kHAKAGE 1HR010% LAYER 9 0.00I193 5051 0,nj AVG. HEAH ON TOP OP LAYER 0.5wj CHANCE IN WATER STORAG'N U.24H 971 ,829 1 SNIk WATMI? AT OTART OP YEAR 1M. /h1; 670605, ;B/ YOM WATER AT END OF YEQ, 189.0n2 671357.002 SNOW WATER AT STAHT OF YEM 0.00) 01000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT ENV OF YEAR Q-A c�-11 U000 0 0 ANNUAL WATER BUD YET BALANCE 0 0000 oo MONTHnY TUTAKS QM 1=02Sl pun y2n, 4 JAN/jUL FEB/AUG MAP/SEP AMU CT MAY/NOV JUNIOE�' . — . - I .. . . . ... . . . . . PkEPIPIT FT,ION 2.60 1.00 1 38 9A9 5.00 llja 0, 7„ 1 -05 507 0.31 1 .42 1-A/ R MR WF 1 ,590 0 946 0.220 6-913 2 392 c I L 61 0 080 0 104 2.252 0,000 c HL2 3 -m A�� EVAPOTPANSPJ RATION 1 '012 1 ,840 U 893 2.227 2.341 1.449 0-IOU I -A41 21327 0 499 0403 0,635 LATERAL DRAINAGE C%LEaTEA 0.15 3V & 069 0 U930 0,1628 G.G665 Qojyj FROM LAYER 2 0.0004 0.0007 W.U823 o,n2ol n [4n7 n I)001 PXRCMAT TON/LEAKAGE THRwIWH 0,0003 0 0004 kX303 0.0001 0 OD02 0,000]. lA 4 YRR MY= 00000 00002 K'0000 UMG04 U0001 IATEPAL DRATNAGE COLLECTED Q.000D 0 cuol 0 A009 0-0000 0 0000 oluojf� FROM LAMP 7 0,000m U,0000 00000 0,0005 D.0001 n.000,11 PERCOKATIUN/LEAKNIV THROUGH U-NDOA 0.0003 Q-AO02 OM003 GM00l 00001 LAYER 13 0,0000 00000 c,n002 0,0000 0,0001 0 UUy, MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR [AILY HEADS (INCHES) AVERAOR DAILY HEAD ON 0.240 0.104 0 193 0.20 c 105 V.049 Cr:;P OF LAYER 21, Q.007 0.015 0-115 0 031 U.267 01109 311) DEVIATION OF DAILY 0 238 0.277 0-01 0.261 0.17V 011.111 READ ON TnP OF MYER 3 0,028 0,047 0-001 0. 121 D.216 AVERAnE DAILY HEAD ON C&OG 000c 0-A00 0.000 0.000 MOO() TOP OR 1.,AYER R 0,000 0 000 0 000 0=0 0,000 D&Mll 8TD. URVIATLON OF DAILY 0X00 0-300 U.000 0.000 0.00D 0 OD0 HE'11-'LD Otl� TOP �YF 0,0QU 0000 n DOU 0.000 0.coo 0 -A 0 Q Ckpl,arc I iiirl Page 1894 of 4165 ANNUAh TnTAKP POP YEAR INCHES ;T, FEET PERKENT VRKrIPITATIOIL 11911G.600 too lb-bob 59987.51H so 35,52, 56150. 316 47, 3�1 DRAINAGE COhLEPTHD PPOM LAYFU 2 1 0069 5655-A6! 3.07 PERC.MAKAGR THEAGH LAYAR 4 0 OD2115 8.477 AVG,jTAD ON TOP OR LAYEP 0 14111 DRAENAUE CUULECTED FROM LAYER 7 0-moo, 1 11" PERC AFAKAOS THRUIJOH LAYER 8 0.002012 7, 302 Zu'l AVG, HEAD UN TOP UF LAYEP 8 uAcQ) rIANCE IN WATEP STORAIP,' -0 240 -871,829 -u.7,� S01h WATHY AT START OF YEAR 18n 001 SOIL WATER AT ENU UP YEAR 184062 67001 187 SNOW WATER AX STAPT OF YEAR 0.000 O-OOD 0,00 SNOW WATER AT EYD OF YEAR cluou 0,00 ANNUAL WATEP PUDGVT nALANCF,' 0,000c 0 oil 00) ..d...4...... ....... RANTHKY TOTALS AN INCHES) VnF YEAR jAN/JUL FEB/A(JU VAR E*, PRECIPLTATTON 1.48 1 ' 06 1,65 A-A 1 4 .48 6 1 -52 1 72 1 .94 I'll 0.73 0.81 RUNOFF, 0 220 0.275 D349 1 430 "55 IAQ� 0 092 0 375 0,487 1040 0 A02 0-004 EVAPOTHANS&RATION 4014 I -A31 1 10, 2.02H 2.311 2A71, F. 428 0.914 1 823 3 ,214 0,483 0&9111', LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECT20 U.0895 GAIR3 U 7 0.095um 0,03m, FROM LAYER 0 0000 0,0029 0 06 7 0187 0,1079 u 8 U,09njj 0.0811? PERCOLATIONSEAKAGE TRPQUUH 0.0002 0.09DA 0 0002 0.0032 0,0002 0,0001 LAYRP 4 0,00)0 00000 0 0001 0.0002 0,0003 0,000,1 LATERAU DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0,0 0 n 0 0,0000 G DODD 0 c c 0 0 0,(JuQ0 0 0000 FROM LAYER '� c-A000 0,0000 0.00U0 0.00 0,000D man PERCOLATIUN/LEAVAGR THROUGH O,1:1O02 0,0002 vom vom 0,0002 v0001, LAYER 1-3 0-A000 0,0000 0,0001 04002 0,0001 0.000.1, Page 1895 of 4165 - - --- MONTIMY SUMMARIES FOR QAILY HEADS )i+ir xIi . ) AVERAGE D 1 I N HEAD f Carr- OY 11 V R i3 0. ) 08 G 'd 158 `If I,r:7L.E,.I.NL"-x 'im..�ed 0.2.1.3 (i,2E0 Z190 0°204 u.„i:L 0.141 KRAD ON 7nP .tG' LIyER ? 0. 23 0029 0-14H 0 251 0.1.c Q1141, AVERAGE DAILY bHt°'AD ul' 0000 0 o /1.000 0.c0 n t —001:1 (t.004)4 TO& OF Loq EP 8 0.000 0 °0 0 OIL 17.coo 0.000 C -0 1L'. L'Ll D{,. 7.IATEON OF UAII.N 0-0(00 KI)00 1 on 0.000 0.00 0 Q-0✓0 "k.W A.A m m x a k fi x w r sw w.t�R A k a..k.w.h d N.e a x a,k. I k k k M w.b*h h k W,k�k k dr 4 4 v o x.k k;k i4&*.d d k ANNUAL TTUALS FOR YEAR INCHES CU. r 1 H'°rti' PRPCENT P1,E_LFI�T",1mC'N �01 100,00 F7.Y IT! iH'7'" 101 2 gym:;?8 b;I'Q 31l.1'3 EVAPOTRANSPEPAT101IJ 16.266 59041 10 6 f::�rAINAGE'n CuLLErTED FROM h:+LYE r 3is,4 3 x ,. I ,, S 29 PEPC./LEAKAOE THROUCy i A ,RR 4 0=2088 0.:J:G. AVG HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 8 0.000�1 CHANGE ANGE°, IN WATEP STUEAGE 0180 Iia:y', A4 3 SOIL WATER AT START U)', YEAR I m T62 t I'1A8 .1..8,. SNOW W.^iT C AT END F YYAR ( (7(IfJ 1J.1'nn ()_i.'�() ANNUAL WATER ER r'.lIn i,4' S I A Id .'; ltiwr 5,00, 5�.&k d a dA y kk M1 kwiry m•.0 A+W d#N b ofv.y.4.k dr,kfi�kb�r.k i4 i5 4 wkn pR Pod w wv a w.n rc�P,�.p pF;�4 fr,* a t.kM Wro m a vJe MONTHLY TOqALS (IN IN(TES) Ky YEAR E M.IL FEB/A I`; Mi R / EP APR/OCT MAY/NOV Jr:N/f)&, (haw Twkl'NW" .al�i�arti!y Pop )" Page 1896 of 4165 1 , 14 1' i9 2 Q7 4 qR h5l 0.94 RuNupill 0,001 1 963 1 -A R 9 3 266 2 321 0.94 1 0,216 KIC7 1359 4 116 2.049 0-118 EVAPOTRANSPIRAVLON 0 3B6 1 .642 1 .601 2,140 11019 1 .482 K932 1 .000 1 111 1 412 1.109 mv� LATERAL IWAINAKk COLLECTRD C-08 Va. C 2iAq 0.0574 0.154 3 n.950H 0&04 FP0M LAYER -, C.0025 0.0147 0 AhOh 0 1114 0.1604 O.U507 PPVCOLATION/LEAKAOn TH400lM 0.0003 Kum 0,0002 n 0003 G.0001 U.000) LAYEW 4 O.UDDD 5,0000 KIM moui o coni vow 1-7'k7'F'R'A'L ',-),0500 u cc D I o.oupo n nnon 0,0000 0 Q Do 0 FROM LAYER 7 0 =0 0,0000 0.0056 G.BWOU KODDO U,0000 4 RCnLATTON/LEAKA0E THROUGH 0,0003 0 0004 0.0002 U 5001 6=01 0.0001 TAYER C.0000 0.0000 0,4001 0 D002 &OGG-3 U, MGDHHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILI HE (INCHES) AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON V 222 U'02 KK3 0 240 0-075 0.049 TOP OF LAVEF 9 Q�00 0,029 1)'U67 O.Iqc C.245 U-12B ETD DEVIATKM OF DAILN 0, 13? 0-24D 5,04 0.211 0.180 IT AD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 Q.042 0,096 DA80 0 250 1.208 KA76 AVER= DAILY HEAP ON U,000 5.000 O.Oub O-OOD 0-000 0 000 TOP OF KAYEP 8 U,000 0,000 O-AOO 1),00& 0,000 u,on( ) ETD, DEVIATION OF DAILY 0-Avi 0,000 D 000 j coo C Duo 0 00� HEAD CM "us, OF TASER 8 0 coo 0 00C 0400 0 DUO 0 000 0 000 ........... ANNUAL TCUAES FUR YEAR 61 INCHES CU. FEET VERCENT 0­695 PREVIKTATION 15 K 121 6s LD RUNOFF K 821 68118.90b %1 1 ma ON ib.466 4511hi5s 4 1.10 DRAINAKE CDLIACTEU WHOM LAYER 2 1.0752 3911 -446 3 01 ICE RWLEAKAGE T111.OU01H LAYS2 4 0.0024b3 8 903 u.0i AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYPR I 0. 1 c NRAINACE COLLRCTED PPOM LAYER 1 0.0001 1 -212 0,00 ITR&MAKIVIE THHADUOH LAVIU 8 0 0 U 2 1 15 1 6 7 v n-A I AVU�RAU ON TOO OF LAYEP B D.0000 CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE, 1,02S ?I -A2S 0"' SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 184.942 971131.050 SOIL WATHk AT END OF YEAR 164,969 671429'5Q� CNOW WATER AT SnART OF YEAF, is 000 0 QQQ 0.00 SNOW WATEP AT ENL OF YEAP 0 -MOG, 0,000 O'DO P"" t Page 1897 of 4165 ANNUAL WATER P=OT llk=CE 0 0000 -0-A 10 0 00 .......... ...... R)NTHLY TUTALS QN INCHES) FUR YEAR JAN/JUL FEBWO Pr/SEP APR/OCT MAYBOV JUN/D07 PRECIPETATTnN 2,08 1 ,93 0,60 3 36 2.R6 5,sw 2.25 2.0, RMOFF c-10 0 0,970 0.06G 0.025 0-038 2-A 36 0,695 h6cl 0.852 1,917 5.726 11 )nI ,'V A F,1)7' Al'b'D 1- 161 1,085 0.661 1 .065 0,05G A 071 lmo 1 ,765 1 ,800 1 .114 ) .411 134'1) LATERAL DRAINAKE C'OLLECTED C,2171 0 01& 0 -Al11" G.C416 0,0410 0,0880 FROM 1AYER � 0,0422 0 D551 0,0664 0,1097 C,1749 PERCQLATI(%/iXAKAQE THROUQH 0,5045 0,0001 Z06jj 0,001rl O.U00 0-mool'- LAYER 4 Q-Uuul 0 noo: n1001 vom n.000 0.0304 LATERAL DRATNAnR COLKEUTEB 0.0001 O.OUGG &.0m cQuou 009QU O-Aoon FROM LAYER 7 0,000 D-Acuu 1 .0000 0.cocu 5-A001 0.000L PNRCOLATTON/LEAKAUE THpnuQH 0-0004 n 0002 0.50DI 0.0001 0.0001 0.00m� LAYER 4S 0 0006 000DL (1,0011 0.0001 0,0Q03 0,000.,� MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS Q NCH E0 AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0110 20C 0.208 0, 104 0,062 TOP CT LAYER �, 0.059 U.081 U.70q 0.144 0,268 n 267 STU. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0041 0,221 0.202 0. 147 0. 159 0,224 HFAID r"N TOP OF LAVER 3 0 160 0.172 198 0-046 0.26 0.20, AVERAGE DAIEY HEAD ON v 000 Koon 0 000 0,00c 0-oco 0 00'') TOP OF LAYER �3 0000 0-000 0,000 K000 c,660 n DO() S7U. DEVIATEON OF DATKY 0,0cu 01U00 0-000 0uju 0100i 0,100 HEAD UN TOP OF LAYER 8 0000 010DO nbp C-ADO 0,000 CZGO hTINUAL YEA�l INCHES CU. FEET PERCEN''(' PRECIPITATION 300.0) R mo F��ll 588 49321.681 4 1.0"1 EVAPOTRANSPIPATION 45g 61546.196 DRAINAGE CULLEUTER FROM KAYER 2 1 .2291 4461 69V FOle- 12 Page 1898 of 4165 PERCULUAKAGE TH00U00 !AVVR 4 0DUAIN 9,80c 0.01. AVC"FAU ON TOP OP UAYER i Q.1 04 F, DRAIDMOE COLLECT20 VROM nA!ER 7 Kouol 1 .166 THIW(,+,,(;r,rf kAYE", a u.Eus 149 AVG. HKAU ON Top OF LAYER 8 KnHoij CHANGE YN WATEP OTORAGI,..� 0.205 141 -0,1 SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 144,967 67142950,' lOIL WATER AT END OF V9AR 184 .761 6106H5.187 sNnw WATER AT START OF YEAR KAM) 0.000 0.00 SNOW WATER AT ENn OF YEAR 0,00'') U500 0,00 ANNIML WATER BUDGET BAKANC!^^,' C 0 C,7 0 MUNTH"Y TOTALS 11N rNCHRE) FOR YEAR JAN/jUL FER/Aln MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAYMOV JUN/M0.' PR EC I P I TAT T KO? 2.16 0,77 5 81 1.59 2 91 5.2E 1142 1124 0.93 0.hi 0,59 RUNOFF' 0. 190 illin 0.10 i.17A 0.226 1 584 3.843 G302 0 1?1 0.026 0000 U080 EVAPOTRANAPIKATIQ 1 02 1021 0.498 2.003 1 ,584 1 211_1+ 1,449 0,741 OJ87 04! 0. 331 037'7 LATERAL DRAINNAT COlLECT12 0 1093 0.1918 0-0688 0.0891 0=72 C.007 FRUM LAYER 0-A240 0-026J 0.0214 0.0239 0.0152 0,I S 1 81 Pail OLATION/LEAKAUF THROUGH MA005 U-3004 u 0002 0,0003 010001 0.0000 LAYER ,. 0.000 1 0,0003 0.0000 0,00m 0 002 U,0004 LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED ON000 NOUN U.0000 O.D030 0,0000 D,vG&V PROM LAYER / 00000 0 ouuo Dwow omoo nom o,ouoo PERCCUATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0.0002 0.0003 U C002 0.0102 0.0000 0,(ino ) lAYER S 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 Q.0UU1 0.0002 0=01 MONTRIN SUMMARIES FOR DALLY HEADS 1INC PIG S) AVERAUE CATLY HEAP fN 190 0.299 0, 150 %-A80 H 035 NON TOP OF LAYER 039 0,037 0.010 0.058 0. 162 0,277 STD DEVIATION OF DAILY n.212 0.257 0-118 0, 00 0-Aus 0.316 MAD (W TOP OF LAYER 3 0. 114 0.122 0 119 0,12D 0.114 0-0 0 F,; AVERAGE DALLY HEAD ON K000 0,000 0-000 ONQU 0.000 0,0010 TOP OF LAYER 8 O'Goo KU00 0 000 Q_Aou 0.000 GQN� STD DEVIATTON OF DAKA flow( 0000 0,000 (I XCO 0 000 0 UN) HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 9 0,000 0 V00 0-ADO 0,0 v 0 0 000 0 0 Q 0")swelurl �Jm,�flcnwy logo t Page 1899 of 4165 A......... ANNUAK TOTALS FOR YEAP 1NrHEQ QU, FEET PECAN,[ PREC I I I TAT 10N 44 08 ,13 5 J 6 1 0 n 0 RUNUFF 11 ,377 4 L350 168 46.5-,' RVAP&TRANSPIRATTOrl IL.963 4 1420-5 16 4 8 Q-1, DRAINAOE COLLECTF5 rOOM LOYIU 2 0,8028 2911 235 3,28 PERU./LEAKAGE 21„40UGH LAlR4 4 0-n02593 V,997 0,D]. AVG. HEAD ON TUP OF LAYER 3 CA201 DRATMAKE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 7 0,0uu3 0,946 c 00 r'E,R ', TH PU U R I WX R 8 0.50190i 6 536 Cc AVG HEAD ON TuP uF LAYER B u-Q00C, CAMME IN WMTH 0, 301 1106-n2u 1 SOEL NATER AT STAR7 OF YEAR 1bl ,762 67OU85.14) SOIL WATER AT EKD OF YEAR Is& G66 67091 . 01e? SNOW WATER AT START OF YNAP 0,000 ()0 0 U. SNOW WATER AT IND OF YKAI4 U_UDO 0=0 0.00 ANDMAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE, Q 054 Cull) riv as,ix,..k A*h ...a.. ........ am ik5 k k.kin u*b k A, a 4 0.. ....w,*0 h..' MUNTHLY TOTALS (:N !NCHES) FOR YEAR 91 JAN/JUK PER/AUG MAR/SOO APPNOT MAY/NOV JUNM0` PRECIPITATRIJ C12 2.45 1,0s 4.91 6.34 2 G 0.46 0,00 5 so 1 .44 9 10 2.21 RMb0' 0-059 C841 1.308 1,461 2 .317 0.40,'� 4.318 0.000 3.279 0.746 1,375 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.015 1 .524 1 538 1 -A25 B 684 1.60", 3 ,088 0,000 105n 0 653 : ,427 1 .258 LATERAL CRAINAKE rONLRUTED Q.2203 C.A916 0,1141 00799 U 154! O.U4511 FROM LAYER 0 usi8 O-Anon 0.0624 0.0189 C.2194 0.1491, PHR(DEATION/LEAKAGE THROUUH &OU05 0.0012 0,X002 0.0052 0 0013 0,000'1 LAYER 41 0.0011 0=00 1,0001 0,0003 0 0000 0,00Q:j (Nww so Eomwm',� loge 14 Page 1900 of 4165 LATERAL DRAINAUE CULLECTED 0.0001 0.0 u 0 a 0.0wou u.0000 0.07ri1 0 muci FROM LAYER 7 0-moon 0,10no 0 QU00 5,0coo 0,0101 0 mr) PERCOLATION/LEAPAGE THparm 0 0004 (r,0002 U A002 0,4002 0.0m 0 A03 !AYER 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 Olum 0.H 0 0 1 U.0001 0.0004 0 ADO MONTHILY ,UJN1,TMA.-,ZII VuR UAlky HvAoq ;INWHEC) AVERAGE DAILY HHOD (M 0, 12H U. 178 5 J /4 0.162 0.207 0,018 TOP OF LAYER 9 &071 0,00D 1, 101' O-OST 0A49 0.263 STD. DEVIATION OF hAI&Y 0.210 0,211 0 ows 0,2vo 0.216 0.365 1 HIAD ON T(,P OF' L/,YEP 3 0.178 u coo 0,175 0.151 0.240 0.207 AVLRAGE DAILY HEAL) tM 0,000 0.000 Kwou D.000 D.000 UA0� TUP OF LAYER 8 U,000 O-AOO 0.001 0.000 0.00, I-Doc STD. 0EVIIATION OF DAIhV 0-000 0400 CAQ0 CA09 0,000 GAG��:l HEAD OU TOP UF 1AUR 8 0,000 K000 O-AOO 0,000 0.000 cluu0 ABNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR INCHES UU. FEET PRIOCEN'l' PRECIPITATION 39,60 14374S,026 100-00 KMORF 21 A 06 V461 3.12S 5 3. A�'ll EVAPOTRANSPIRATL014 17.331 62911-AR4 40.18 DRAINAGE COKLECTIn VXUM LAYOO 2 1 ,2689 46n6,098 J.20 PEPC./LXAKA0E THROUCH LAYER 4 0_A02h92 9,772 Q.A AVG. HEAD ON TOP UP LAYER 3 C-1641 DRAINAGE COLIACTEW FROM LAYER 7 1.409 A PERCULFAKAGO THVOUGH LAYER R 8-Asp ATT HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 8 CHANGE IN WATER STORNTE DA14 .414.590 SOIL WATER AT STAPT OF YEAR 189,066 671791.11 SO EL WATER AT END OF YBAI'; I R4 .952 QJ 376 SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 KNOW WATER AT END OF YEAP 0.000 0,000 T. ANNUAL WATER BIJUGET BALANCE 0,0000 0.014 ZOO k*k m..a a n k*I,d""•a.......... ....... k Jr ......d A A*.",x b I.k h...... MUNTHLY TCUALS !IN INCHES) FOR YEAR Page 1901 of 4165 JAN/J[% FEB/AUG MAR/SE APR/OCT MAYMOV JUN/D0,7 PRECIpirATION C,69 [ Al 2.01 1.22 h6s 00,11 0A6 3 59 0,49 3.60 0,41 4,66 HUN[m)" 0 0 0 0 DAM 0 V7w 0,150 Q04 CAM) 0 H44 1 ,682 1,357 c'sil n Hiv 2.830 EVAPOTRANOPIPATIDN u YNK Q V83 1,222 0.88w 1A21 0.025 0-505 1.48 0Y 2,560 D.712 7A211) LATERAL DRATNAGE CULLSCTSO 0 0103 0.0772 0,096, 1,0581 U,0960 0,,138 PROM LAYER 2 0 0002 0.0452 0-0911 0.1559 0.0984 0 379,,, VEXCX)l 0,90001 AEAKAGE THPOU% 0 VQ02 0.0002 0 0001 0 A001 0.0001 0 oau kAYER 4 0.QQ00 0 Any 1 0 0003 0,0003 0AD03 0 00in; LATHPAL ORAINAaE COLLECTED 0 uuQ0 0.00UQ vG603 0,0000 vum voom, PROM LAYER 7 0.0000 ompo 0 0300 0 -0000 O'cuol PERCOLATIUN/KEAKAGE THFOUGH 0,0002 1:,A002 0.0002 0.000l mum 0.nowo LAYER 0 0000 0,00U! CA002 0.0001 OAD02 O,OnO5 MONTHLY SUMMARIES POP DAILY HEADS wrHEQ AVERACE VAIL? HEAn ON 0 L12 0, 151 0. 195 0084 0 u7v D-W, TOP OF KAYEP 3 0 006 n.067 0.140 0.249 Q.2Cl 0.4%,, STU."EV:ATION OF DAILY 0 116 G 228 0, 179 U-192 VASS 0, 10) HEAD ON TOP OF LAYEP 3 OA25 0-171 0,224 0.223 0. 107 0.27,� AVERAGE DAILV HEAD ON 0 000 0,000 0.000 0.010 0,000 0.000 IMP OF LAYEK 8 0,000 0_QuQ 0-0ou DA0, 0,005 0.00(,� STD, DEVIATION UV LALLY 0 DOD 0400 RADC 0,50c 0,000 HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 8 n,000 rono 0.000 u_AQ0 0,000 wouo ANNUAL TOTALS PCH YEAR Al IMCNES 00—"EET PERCENT PRECIPITATION',[ 31AS 11561s.buc LG0,00 RUNORP 16,661 6c480 215 52 n I EVAPOTRANSPIRATWN 14.010 50928 250 44,05 DRATNAUE rOLKEPTED FROM LAYER 2 1,109 020 .40 J.M� PERWLEAKAGE THROnGM UAYER 4 DQUA50 l;:r 894 AV G HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 0.14718 DRAINAGE COLLECTED PROM LAYER ? u-000 3 1 -025 PERC-JLEAKASE THROUGH LAYEP 8 0.0020vQ 1AH9 CAI AVG. READ ON TOP UP LAYER 8 U,0000 CHANUE IN WATHR STORACE G1048 171-AL2 0. 15 SOIL WATER AT SIART OF YEAR 1n4 _90 671176, &Q (losdnv rml kpmulen,:v toga. IN Page 1902 of 4165 SOIL WATRP AT END OF YEAR 195-MOO SHOW WATER AT START CF YEAF. O'DKI uluuo 0.0,1., SNOW WATER AT END QV YEAR Q oof� Q ODD 0.00 ANNUAL WATFR RUJUET BALANCE ( 000 u 0-00 ......'A".......... AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES lN aNCHES FOR YE .,MS I THROUGH 10 . . . . . . .... jAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAP/SuP APP/00T MAYMOV JUMBEC PRECIPrTATION 1 A')M 1. 11 2.01 2,49 1.73 2.16 2 1 2.07 2,35 1-11 2.37 1.75 1 R2 GTK DEVLATIONS 0,72 2,95 1 .74 2 ?H 2.01 kj,� 2. 11 1151 1 ,?), RUNCFF TDTAP� 0,394 Q oil 1, 19h 2 13A 2 ,816 1 1014 0 762 1 581 1 -24R 0.804 0.824 STM. DEVIATION$ 6.4K 0,550 1139b 2, 131 1 138 0,93f1 1,625 0,617 1-155 1,713 1 ,091 0 872 EVA POTPANS P 1 RAT 1Q,4 TOTALS U,678 A -A !4 1,170 1 4HO i '80 1 .444 1 -019 1-511 P585 1 138 0,772 0.H4 l STD. DEVIATIONG 0, 195 K489 0 $IN 0.799 0.822 0-601 K497 01943 0-A47 Cl.628 0-4 3, U,412 LATERAL DRAENAUE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 TOTALS 0. 1012 0,1942 0.2114 G,0924 010689 0.001. 0.0179 0.0259 Q-A517 U,0764 C- 112 � 0-1401 STU DEVIATIONO K0685 K0704 0-0041 0.0520 U,0117 n 0231'', K0199 0,0241 U C263 KD553 0,0656 U. JU48 PFPC01AT10N/LEAKA0E THPOUGH LAYER 4 TOTAN-,', 0.0003 0,0003 0,0003 0.0102 K0002 0.0000 00001 0,0001 0,0002 u,un03 Kupoll J. UR'ITATFONS 0 0001 U0001 0,0001 0,0001 olumul U-Auul� G.(000 0-A000 0-0001 O.OnG3 0.0001 U,0002 LATERAL DRAINAGE U015ECTED FROM LAYER TOTAK'', omoo 0.nonn 0.00DO 0,0000 0.0000 D-ADOI) town nm NNM&W lkle ". 17 Page 1903 of 4165 0 onoo A 0000 0,0000 0.50OU ETD. DEVEATIONS 00000 0.0000 0,0000 0,00m) &0000 0 0030 0.UCGD 0-GGO 0 u-A 0 0 0 u-A 0.)Li PERCOLATION/LEAFAGE THRnH"H LAYF9 Sd TOITLE] O.nOO2 0-0001 0 0052 0.0002 U1000.1 0,0001 00000 N-0001 D.UUUL 0 OU01 O-AO02 &00n � HTD, DEVIATIONO 0 0001 0 0001 U.0un 0-A1901 O.ODOI koom� C.0000 0,0000 0.0001 AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERACED 0AILY AEADi ;TNCHEQ DAILY AVERAGE READ ON TOP OF LAYTF AVERAGES 993 0 2611 0,1904 0-A 515 k1106 0 061-�' 0,0278 U.C437 010812 0 1101 0 2004 0,2244 STD. DEVIATIONS U-0514 0.0955 0.0547 O-U,96 0-406 0.01111 010246 0 ,0344 0,0162 0,0179 G-AR54 0-110 DAEA7 AVERAnhi HEAD On TOP OV LAYEP �i AVERAGE,'.`; U.0ccu 0.0000 n_&Dno u,uuuo nouus 0 coo�� 0,0000 u'Q000 0-0200 0,0000 0'uQQc n U000 STU, DEVIATIONS 5�0000 0 0000 D-GPCQ c'9QQ0 u-Nuco 11-Auui1 0-0000 O'COGA 0.nonn O'CU00 0,0000 Z0010 AVERAGE AIMUAL TOTALS & (STD.�EVIATIONSI FOR YEARS I THROUGH A) INCHES CU. FEET PERPENT, PRECIPITATION 29 61651) 109959 �R'�qITC-4,F 31,5R6 1 5.0792; 49117 47 4 6.S44 EVAPOTPANSPIRATIUN 14 .562 1611) 52911 -Al 4q qA4 KATERAL DRAINAGE CATECTED C.99625 0,19016) 36 2 6-185 3.4120 FROM !AYER 2.11 PERCULATION/LEAKAXIE THROlIGH U,00229 0,00013) 8.296 0 0078 LAYER 4 AVERAGE HEAD ON 110 OA3a 0.020) OF [AYER :i JATERAK DRAINAUE COLLECTED 0.00011 0000co) I j ?o U-NU107 FWM JAYEP 7 [ER COLATIONAPAKAOR TMROUGn 0.00197 1 0.00028! 7, 157 0.00b75 LAYER 8 AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 0'000� OF LAYER 8 CRANGE EN WATER STORAGE 0.024 1 DASD4; 06,53 vus''! PEAK DALKY VALUES FOR YEARS I THRDVjH 10 ?EHCHES) (CU—FT Page 1904 of 4165 PREr 1 P I TAT 10i 4 .45 15151.499 KWOPP 3,802 DRAINAUE CULLRCTED PPOM LAYER 2 002169 86 01117 PERCOLATTON/LEAKAqR rHROUCH LAYER 4 K000034 0. 1235.'', AVERA"E )HAD ON TOP OF LAYER d 0-8011'.' MAXIMHM HKAD nN TOP OF LAYER 1 1.507 h Tr:ATIUN OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 2 (DISTANCE FROM ORA10 5. 1 FEE,1' DRAKNACE COLLK(qED FROM LAYER 7 0,00001 V01083 PERUOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH hAYhR a 0 000137 K23401 AVERACE HEAn ON TOP UP LAYEP 1 Q,60f') PLI-XU� Tl 'IiEj'j,"r �jr,1 T,.)P OF LAYER S -000 LOCATION OV MAXIMUM HhAD 1N LAYER 101STANCE PROM URAIN) D-1 FEE"T SNOW WATEk 3631 , 1449 MINIMUM VE1. SOIL WATER 'VO IL/V00 Maximum hvadO we =T=ed usinq Nclnzoel«i� equafinns RefOtHncei Maximam Saluraund Depth Met Landfill Linwr by BruvQ V McRnrcv, Univerolty of Kansas ASCE Juurnal Of ENVLZanmenral Engineerjnc� VV . 119, No.2, Marrh 1993, pp. 262-270 FINAL WATEP STORAGE AT END OF YEAR LAYER (INCHES! 'VOQV0Q 00718 0-A 000 05,20U0 0.20C, D,9960 n ouo SNOW WATER 0.0010 k k k h kk k k Llpqnv T&InubwWwv loge 19 Page 1905 of 4165 APPENDIX E SEISMIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT AND STABILITY ANALYSIS Page 1906 of 4165 FINAL (.,'OVER STABILITY ANALYSIS UKIAH LANDFILL (.'LOSURE WASTE MASS SLOPE STABILITY A. stability and seismic hazards analysis has been performed for the final closure of the Ukiah Landfill. and is presented in the TID Final Closure Plan (1]'.]1A, 2008). A. summary of the static stability and seismic response of the final landfill waste mass configuration presented in the YID is as follows- • A. seismic hazards analysis concluded that the design earthquake is a Maximum Credible Ewtliquake (MCE) with an estimated magnitude 7.]Mw occurring on the Maacama Fault, resulting in an average peak bedrock acceleration of 0,66g derived from multiple attenuation relatiomhips. • to stability of the entire waste mass was modeled by evaluating failure mechanisms passing through refuse and the base of the laiadfill and indicate a static factor of safety gj�eater than 1.7 for failure through the base of t1le laiadfill. • Pseudo,static analyses performed to determine the yield acceleration (Ky) aiad evaluate the stability of the waste mass under seismic conditions was also performed., The yield acceleration calculated for the entire waste mass was 0 Bg • Seismic displacement analyses using the program YSLIP PM(Matasovic, 1997) indicate that permanent seismically induced displacements will be less than 8 inches for failure through the base of the landfill. SEISMIC HAZARDS ASSESSME NT Title 27 of the Calif.omia Code of) egulations (27 CCR), Section 20370 requires that Class III waste maiaagement units be designed to withstand the Maximum Probable Eafthquake (M.Pl]") without damage to the foundation or to the structures which control leachate, surface drainage, erosion, or landfill gas. '11e MPE is defined in 27 CCR 20164 as the maximum eEalliquake that is likely to occur during a 100 year interval., Using a 701,,o chance of non-ex ceedence as the definition "likely", the recurrence interval. for the MPE is approximately 280 years. 27 CCR 217,50 outlines requirements for the preparation of a slope stability report for a Class III landfill wbich includes the use of the MPE to determine the maximum expected horizontal acceleration in rock at the site Federal, Regulations contained in 40 CFR Part 258.14 (Subtitle D) require owners aiad operators of waste management units located within seismic hazard zones to design the unit to resist the maximum horizontal acceleration in lithe material for the site. Seismic hazard zones are defined as areas having a 10 percent or greater probabil.ity that the maximum expected horizontal acceleration in lithified earth material, will exceed 0.1 Og in 2,50 years. The project site is located 1 1,project%90ICbsuge'EurfSlaHflt�,I.Ik�ahl.,angily➢I Com Slqx Slahffitydoc Page 1907 of 4165 in a seism.ic ha7ard zone, as is m.ost of the westem. Uii.,iited States. Th.erefore, Subtitle D regulatioii.,is require tl�iat the maximum. horizoii,,ital acceleratioii,,i in bedrock be deterMiii.,ied eitli.er from. seism.ic probability maps prepared by the USGS, or from. a detailed sita specific analysis A. site specific aiimlysis was perfonned for the project site. As noted previously, in C,'alifomia, site specific analyses for municipal solid waste sites are perfarm.ed using the MPE. Laii,,idfills that accept hazardous or designated wastes are required to be designed to the m.ore stiilct Maximum. C,redible Earthquake (M(.',E),., The M(.',E is defined in 27 201.64 as the m.axim.um. earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the preseii.,itly known geologic framework and is coiiisidered the upper bound earfliquake for a given seism.ic source. Th.e C,'alif guar ia Division of Mines and Geology (C,DMG) provides additional guidance for deriviii,,ig MPE and M(.',E estimates (CTMG, 1975) A. determ.iii,,iistic seism.ic hazards assessm.eii,,it was perfonned to estimate the peak bedrock acceleratioii,,i to be used in the final closure design. The site is located in a region characterized by moderate to high seismicit. , In this region, earth.quakes occur on ii.,iorfliwest--southeast treii.,idiii.,ig strike slip and oblique faults in respoii.,ise to sudden releases of dextral shear stress that, dominates t1)e North C,oast Ranges Geom.oirphic Province. Seism.ic sources located within 1.00 kin of the site were compiled by EBA,and evaluated for this repart,in order to deteliml.iii.,ie the peak bedrock acceleratioii,,i for the site, The Maacama Fault, with an estimated MC,E of 7.1. (C.,DMG, 1.996) is located 0 6 m.iles (LO 1cm.) west of the site and is expected to geii.,ierate the highest peak bedrock acceleratioii,,i. An average peak bedrock acceleratioii,,i of 0 66g was calculated for a magnitude 7.1. eartli.quake on the Maacama Fault using atteii,,ivatioii,,i relatioiiish.ips developed by A.brsJ'-1amsoii.,i& Silva(1997); C,ampbell (1997);Idriss(199 1); and Geomatrix (199 1). Far--field sources such as the San Andreas Eault located 30 m.iles (48 kni) southwest of the site, may also be capable of geii,,ieratiii,,ig moderate ground shaking m.otioii,,is at the site The combinatioii,,i of long period (low frequeii.,icy) ground motion (which may correspond to the laii.,idfill's f4ii.,idani.eii,,ital period) and loii,,iger duration grouii,,id shakiii,,ig associated with a large, flar field event suggest that, such an event, even t1i.ough characterized by a smaller peak ground acceleratioii,,i than near,,.field sources, could reps eseii,,it a significant seism.ic event for the site. Th.e target spectrum. developed for a flar-field seism.ic event (M(.',E) on the San Aadreas Fault suggests that the period of ground motion is in the range of 0�1,5 to 0 30 seconds which is lower t,haii.,i the ftuidam.eii,,ital period of the landfill (0.3 to 0 4 seconds) and not significantly higher than the period of grouii,,id motion gerierated by the Maacama Fault(0,1 5 to 0.25 seconds) Therefore, due to its close proximity,the Maacama Fault represeii,,its the m.ost sig,nificaii,,it seism.ic source. As discussed above, 27 requires that, at, a m.inim.um., C,'Iass III landfills be designed to withstand strong ground motions associated with the M.13E. However, the final closure configuration 17or the Ukiah Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Site has been designed using the higher bedrock acceleration (0.66g) associated with the larger M(.',E occurring on the Maacama Fault. The estimated recuirreii,,ice interval 17or the Maacama Fault and other potential seismic sources in the region is approximately 220 years (Table 1). This is comparable to the recurreii.,Ice inteiwal of approximately 280 years calculated 15or the MPE, Since eardi.quakes comparable in size to t!)e M(.',E are absent f."rom. the historic seismic record 1or the region, the use of the m.ore Lrandflfl Cov"Slope StaWhydor J)HUNIM"..;ENGMEEWNG Page 1908 of 4165 stfingent MCII::.7' as the desigri. earthquake provides a more realistic and conservative estimate of the maximum expected horizontal bedrock acceleration at the site. Table 1 Potential Seismic Sources (3) (4) Recurrence Fundamental Source Distance MCE Interval Period PGA (km) M """ '""-............................................................................................... -............... (y-ears) f s...ec....o...n (k.)............................. aaciynki 1 7 . 7.1 220 0,15 025 0,,66 ..........-111-1...............................................'.....I--...................................................................�.... SaAdrea ..........................................................4................................1......0........0..........................................T................................................................2..........1........0.................................... .................0.............1............................0..........3............0...............................................................................0 .... ........ ......... 8 ..... ......BaftletSp 7.1 2 OA 0.30 0............2..1.......41 H.ea!d!� &R24 !jLEE22 4 100 7.0 222 ..... .�.. ............ .................. 0.15 025 0 07 Notes: (1) MCIE=Maximum Credible 1E pidce(CDMG, 1996)its mornent magnitude. (2) CDMG, 1.996, (3) Bkised on attenuation relationships (Abrahmnson & Sflw� 1997; Geornatrix, 1991;lChiss, 1991, Qunipbefl, 1.997). (4) PGA1:::::?eidc Ground Acceleration based on attenuation relationshillps. FINAL COVER SYSTEM SLOPE STABILITY The shear strength of the various interfaces present in the proposed altemative final,cover system were evaluated and the resulting static and psuedo static slope stability andlyzed. The design characteristics of the current. proposed altemative final cover system includes the follovoing components (in descending order)- • An engineered synthetic turf cover with sand in. fill ballast. • A fin ear low-density polyethylene structured geomembrane liner • A landfill gas pressure relief layer consisting of strip drains, pressure relief values, and associated collection piping components; and • A 12 inch-thick (minfinum) f6undation layer moisture conditioned and compacted to 90 percent.relative compaction. Shear Strength Properties Geosynthetic material interfaces, whether between two geosynthetic materials or between a geosynthetic and native or compacted soil material are typically the weakest �nterrfaces in a final 3 E BA�> I.Apxrrpect%907UT=re ruffitabifiqUidah Landf!H Cows Mope Stabifity.doe Page 1909 of 4165 cover system, causing block-type or wedge failures to occur. Table I presents the shear strength properties use in the slope stability analysis ,Fable 1. Slope Stability Properties and Stability Results IN11'.'ERJ'ACE' FRIC11"ION COHESIONADHESION S11"All"IC PSEU111301 SEISMIC ANGLE,(W) (11?SF) (FS)',s S11"All"IC, IPERMANEN11'. 111311SPLACEMEN11' (FS)4,1 2/�33 1"03 Foundation 3202r).803 3 2.81 <1 Soil/I.A.D111-' .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............ ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................. 3 0 331 L21 <1 shear strength(l) Notes: (1) LIME finear low-density polyethylene gt,,omenibrane; (2) Peak shearstrength (3) Post-peak sine aT strength(laTge displacement) (4) Factor of Safety (5) For maxinium sideslope of 2:1(2U') (6) Interface of combined geosynthefic components(11..DPT..�'Aurflsand ballast) Stability.Analysis Slope stability of the proposed final cover system was modeled using the infinite slope method. This method provides a conservative approach to the evaluation of the stability of shallow failures of constant tliickness along a defi.ned interface This method asstun es the failure block is infi.nitely long and neglects resisting forces at, the to and along the sides. Analyses were performed for a L,LDPE geomembrane/artificial turf with sand infill ballast cover system using a critical slope angle of 26.5 degrees (21-1.IV) The stability analysis was performed using a spreadsheet based on the principles and equations of the infinite slope stability analysis. Results of the infi.nite slope stability ,analysis indicate a minimian static factor of safety of 2.8 for failure at the LLDPE,/subgrade interface and a minimtun static factor of safety of 3.3 for failure above the L,LDPE omembrane (see Table 1). Spreadsheet fi.les and equations used in the analysis are appended to this technical memorand.tun. A pseudo-static analysis was performed to determine the yield. acceleration (K.,y) for the cover. The yield acceleration was determined using a trial and error procedure in 'which the seismic coef'ficient was varied until a factor of safety of 1.0 'was obtained. The lowest yield. acceleration calculated. for the L,LDPE geomembrane/artificial turf over system 'was O�.70�g. Because the maximu,rn horizontal acceleration of O�.66g predicted by the site response analysis does not exceed. the calculated yield acceleration, permanent seismic displacements of tie L,LDPE geomembrane/ar disc al to cover system are highly unlikely. The stability of slopes subject to seismic loading conditions can be fuil-her evaluated. in terms of permal.leant disIplacements (deformations) that, are expected to occur. 7.17he Newmark Mettiod. (1965) is commonly used to 4 E EI�M EN21HERING L prqjec 190'Mosure RArfSW.rfit3,Ukiah Landfdl Cover Slope Stabifitydoc Page 1910 of 4165 evaluate slopes under seismic loading conditions. The method evaluates the stability of slopes in terms of permanent defonnations that result when seismically induced ground accelerations exceed the yield acceleration of the slope mass. The total amount of slope defonnation is estimated by summing only the down,slope displacements that occur during each brief period of time when the yield acceleration of the slope mass is exceeded. As stated above, a.pseudo-static analysis of the site determined that the yield acceleration is not exceeded by seismically induced strong ground motions, therefore no permanent displacements of the final cover system are predicted by the NewmarIL Method. CONCLUSIONS Results of the slope stability analysis using the infinite slope method indicate a.minimum 1"actor of safety of 2.8 for failure of the cover system utili7ing a. LLDPE geomembrane/artificial turf engineered alternative cover system constructed on maximum 21LIV slopes under static conditions These results suggest that the final landfill configuration will be stable throughout flie postclosure maintenance period following closure in accordance with the Final Closure Plan Drawings and Technical Specifications The yield acceleration calculated for failure of the cover system is greater than the PGA predicted by the site response analysis, indicating that permanent seismic displacements of the LLDPE goo membrane/artificial turf cap are highly unlikely. 5 1.Apn7jaIA907W3oqure TwiStabifityVAdab IjuadH Cova Mope Rabifily doii, Page 1911 of 4165 REFERENCES Abrahamson, N.A., and, Silva, W.J., 1997', Empirical Response Fpectral Attenuation Relations jbr Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, Seisin ological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1., January/February 1997. Calif.-'bimia Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1.996, CalfIbrnia Stronp ., Motion .Instrumentation Program (CSMIP), FTP stronp, motion seismograph recor(Is jbr Northridpe- Castaic, Northridpe Pacoima Dam, Loma Prieta Santa Cruz and Loma Prieta Corralitos Eureka Can fir on. Calif.-'bimia Division of Mines and, Geology (CDMG), 1.97'5, Recommended Guidelines jbr Dsine rmininp, the Maximum Credible and the MaximumProbable Earthquakes: CDMG use No. 43. Canipbell, Vim W., 1.997', Empirical Near Source Attenuation Relationships jbr 116rizontal and Vertical Components oj'Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocil)�, and.Pseudo Absolute Acceleration Response Fpectra, Seisinological Research 1,etters, Vol. 68, No. I, January/February 1997. EBA. Engineering, 2008, ..)6int Technical Document jbr Ciol Oj' Ukiah, Landfill Mendocino Counl)�, Calf1brniq; January 2008, EBA.Engineering, Santa Rosa, C.A. Geoinatrix Consultants, 1.991., Reftrenced in.1driss, 1991, Idriss, I.M., 199 1., Procedures for Selectinp, Earthquake Ground Motions at Rock Sites, National Institute of Standards and 'Fechnology, Septeinber 1.991., Matasovic, N., 1997, 17SLIP :1:111, A computer program for simulation oj'(tynamic behavior oj'a rip,id block on an inclined plane and calculation oj'permanent displacement oj'the block, April 1997. Nevi ark, N.M., 1965, cts oj' Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments) Fifth Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique, Vol. 1.5, No. 2, 13 160. IIIIIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII III Undfifl Com SkIn Swabilfty doc Page 1912 of 4165 City of Ukiah Landfill IIV,,'Ina l Clasurre GeasyntheticIIV,,'Ina l Covwr Systern bgiira de old Against LUIln, FIE M'l iirosp'II Static Canditions fractiori sat, M m 0.00 cos R 0.8949 tau"'Vi R 0.4,986' soil a .lit M. .,,,:: "1 1 0.0 DICE riviri stress Ir 17570 F:IS , rior'IMM stress ( :::z 3.5240 01°DSF, effective stress (YM � 3.5240 FDSF, re istiri stress S 4.8737 01::)Sf: 615 Iw'inall oover lief n lllope Glb ure .If°urf E.`.3A E`ru giir.eem°iing Page 1913 of 4165 finfirwite Slope StabilityAnalysis i ith Parallel Seepage City of Ukiah IIII airy ill FIirwal Closure Subgrade Soil Agahnst lly,,IIII,,, ; B IIIE;;;;' III Icmspik Pseu ,static Coinditioins fraction sat. im = 0.00 co ., 0.8949 tan R ., 0.4986 cohesion C 3 FIS Mction an& op ,::::z 2&0 tan o = OZ317 soisrNc 000 f. h ,, 0.66 o fodi o stress 4 FIS F::, cto r' of Safety F::, 1 m04 015 Rnab oom� iinf-ak¢rp°ae Ck)su re Tuff E1:3A Engineering Page 1914 of 4165 lInfinito SlopeStability n lI sip with Parallel Seepage City of Ukiah Ill,,,,,.andfill F:In l Closure, Geosynthetic F:Inal Cover System Static Saturated Conditions ition sod depth Z = O�04ft fracfion sat. M = 0.00 cos R ,, ,.8949 fain 0.4986 fru lxion ng�e 35�O 0 fain o ,, sei&mic coeff. OM drNing stress ::::: 1 5973 PSF normm a� stress 3 2036 PSF effective stress (Tµ 3 2036 PSF resusfing stress S 5.2432 PSF Factor Safety FS 3,28 20,15 Fund cover-jirif..,_dope C'IbSUre Turf EBA Erigiineeo,irig Page 1915 of 4165 lnfiirflii e,,, lqj,m Stal,,iihity, Analysis with Parallel lSeqpage City, of Ukiah Landfill F':'liinal Closure GeosyntheticF':'liinal Cover System LLDIPE II 'llii q"flii gaiins Turf Pseudo,-stafiic Conditions fraction sat, M _ 0.00 c ,,,,,,, 0.8949 tun R ,:::::: 0.4,986 fri tiuoin ngi(-D u ° 35.0 0 tan o U.7002 no rrna� slur(-m (1 ! 1494 PSI::` lf,,,n our of Safe,ty lf,,,° 21 6115 d,,,linal alo euW..,,uuif-slot e Cbsuire Turf 1:!.'" Page 1916 of 4165 APPENDIX F DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Page 1917 of 4165 DRAINAGE ANALYSIS CITY OF UKIAH LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE CONSTRUCTION I. INTRODUCTION The City of Ukiah Landfill is located in Mendocino County approximately 2.5 miles east of the City of Ukiah near the end of Vichy Springs Road. The site address is 3100 Vichy Springs Road, Ukiah, CA 95482. Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (27CCR), §20260(c) requires that the final closure to be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent inundation or washout due to floods with a 100-year return frequency. The potential for inundation and washout from the 100- year flood event was evaluated by examination of the 100-year floodplain shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared for the Mendocino County by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Map Number 06045C1516F, 2011. The FIRM map indicates the landfill is located within OTHER AREAS (outside the 500-year flood boundary) and outside the 100-year flood hazards area. All on-site drainage control facilities will be designed to prevent inundation of landfill or impairment of environmental control systems resulting from a 100-year storm event in accordance with 27CCR, §20320(e)that outlines construction standards for Class III landfills. II. HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS A surface water hydrology analysis was conducted in accordance with 27CCR, §21150 for determining design parameters for the final closure drainage facilities. A. CONFIGURATION Figure F-1 shows watersheds "A" through "M", used to model surface water runoff for the landfill and its facilities. Watersheds "A" and"K" will capture storm water from a portion of the landfill and drain towards the east into an existing sedimentation basin before outletting into an unnamed tributary to the Russian River. Watersheds "B" through "F" will capture storm water from their respective areas of the landfill and outlet through existing locations into the unnamed tributary. These outlets will be reconstructed in order to reduce the potential for erosion to the unnamed tributary. Watershed "G' will capture storm water and outlet into an existing sedimentation basin located on the northwestern edge of the landfill. Watersheds "I", "J", and "L" will capture storm water off the adjacent areas of the landfill and route the water around the landfill into their current drainage patterns. Watershed "M" will capture storm water from the borrow area and route the waters through an existing sedimentation pond. The existing sedimentation basins outlets will be upgraded with new outlet structures to reduce the potential erosion to the unnamed tributary. F-1 Page 1918 of 4165 B. METHODOLOGY The storm water control system is designed to accommodate peak surface water flows for 100- year, 24-hour precipitation in accordance with 27CCR, §20365, and occurring during the most critical stage of site development when runoff is anticipated to be a maximum. The surface water hydrology analysis was conducted using the rational method as outlined in the County of Mendocino Road and Development Standards. Rainfall intensity for design of the drainage facilities was calculated from the 100-year recurrence interval rainfall intensity-duration chart for Mendocino County, Ukiah-Lake Mendocino Dam (Standard D11G). A runoff coefficient of 0.90 was used for areas of the landfill receiving closure and 0.45 was used for areas outside of the landfill as average slopes at the site exceed 25% (Standard D12). A minimum value of 1.0 was used for the K-factor and an initial time of concentration of 15 minutes was used. Watershed areas, hydraulic distances, and slopes were measured from Figure F-1. Discharges were calculated at the points of concentration shown on Figure F-1. Channel velocities were calculated using the computer program Hydraflow Extensions. C. RESULTS Surface water hydrology calculations for 100-year storm flows are presented in Tables F-1 and F-2. Hydraulic results for the proposed ditches and storm drains are presented in Tables F-3 and F-4. Results show that the proposed improvements are sized adequately to handle the 100 year storm event. ATTACHMENTS Fi ures F-1: Hydrology Map F-2: FENIA Firm Map F-3: Rainfalllntensity-Duration-Frequency Chart F-4: Runoff Coefficients Tables Table F-1: ,Storm Drain Hydrology Calculations Table F-2: Ditch Hydrology Calculations Table F-3: Storm Drain Hydraulic Calculations Table F-4: Ditch Hydraulic Calculations Tables F-5.1 through F-5.11: Time of Concentration Calculations F-2 Page 1919 of 4165 0 0 VO'HVNn V aVOLI SONRidSAHOIA OOZEIIIj4NVl HVINA a LL a ddw AS0-1o)tJa),H �i i _ o t EIEI r� /��r�/Ifj���/�jI��IVUl111VIllI���or�mlVfff� i r r u 1�1�/�� iai�dlYu� »,�+�Ut�lIfllUlpUlUlll t, r/ s1 IIII ' � mf v x N� fyy I� u L e o / f / `xQ U ,J e. o °o m o r e � o " w a - _ a a » o ova . o f w o � o a o 1 w, ry w�j ra 0 LO 0 ce CN ui m 0) .1 o E w 9, -17, x g CL c 5 a) M m t D w U. uj CL P 1! ui F, olo -e 4=0 a g v 9 F U Ul z C4 ILI U. 7 CL F-UJ w to Lu :0. LL M;R sp 14 LLJ W) err :R M � 0 0 ui LL. z 0 5 E CL c V- W) ct� It < LLI V) C) 40 -a c c z 0 2 ; z 0 E ---------- -L --- ------ ------- ----------------- ma n E 0 16:01 Ke c 'E, m 8 E 2 'o U- o UJ ............................ U) 4 zLLJ 0 XX Ak ............................................................................................................................... zil ...........NA .................. ........... 2 A i Table F-1: Storm Drain Hydrology Calculations 100-Year Storm Event Point Total Intensity Sum Q of Conc. Shed Time I C Area Area K KAC Sum ACI Design (POC) Area (min)• (in./hr.) (acres) (acres) KAC (cfs) P#1 A4,A5A 1 A7,A8 18.1 1.98 0.90 5.83 5.83 1.00 5.24 5.24 10.4 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#1 P#2 B4,B5,B6, B7,B8, B9,B10,B1 12 1 18.6 1.95 0.90 13.44 13.44 1.00 12.10 12.10 23.6 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#2 P#3 C4,C5,C6, 19 C7,CS 16.2 2.10 0.90 8.20 8.20 1.00 7.38 7.38 15.5 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#3 P#4 22 D1,D2,D3 15.3 2.16 0.90 2.05 2.05 1.00 1.84 1.84 4.0 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#4 P#5 27 E4,E5 15.7 2.13 0.90 1 5.71 5.71 1.00 5.13 5.13 10.9 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#5 P#6 31 F1,F2,F3,F4 15.5 1 2.15 1 0.90 1 3.70 1 3.70 1 1.00 1 3.33 1 3.33 1 7.1 1 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#6 P#7 33 GI 15.0 2.18 0.90 1.71 1.71 1.00 1.54 1.54 3.4 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#7 P#7A 33A G1,G2 15.0 2.18 0.90 2.04 2.04 1.00 1.83 1.83 4.0 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#7 P#8 �Gl,(32,(32A� ,G3, G4,G5,G6, 38 G7A 19.5 1.91 0.79 6.00 6.00 1.00 4.74 4.74 9.0 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#8 P#9 G1,G2,G2A ,G3, G4,G5,G6, G7,G7A,G8 43 ,G9 19.8 1.89 0.66 11.69 11.69 1.00 7.72 7.72 14.6 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#9 P#10 41 G8,G9 15.0 2.18 0.45 1 2.04 1 2.04 1 1.00 1 0.92 1 0.92 1 2.0 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#10 P#11 44 H1,H2 15.0 2.18 0.90 1.37 1.37 1.00 1.23 1.23 2.7 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#1 l P#12 52 K4 15.0 1 2.18 1 0.90 0.62 0.62 1.00 0.56 0.56 1.2 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#12 P#13 53 K5,K6 15.0 1 2.18 0.90 0.87 0.87 1.00 0.79 1 0.79 1 1.7 IDesignFlow for Storm Drain P#13 P#14 K4,K5,K6, 51 K7 17.1 2.04 0.52 10.06 10.06 1.00 5.23 5.23 10.7 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#14 P#15 Kl-K$Al- 55 AS 18.3 1.97 0.49 23.92 23.92 1.00 11.72 1 11.72 1 23.1 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#15 P#16 58 1 M1,M2 1 15.0 2.18 0.45 2.09 2.09 1.00 0.94 1 0.94 1 2.1 IDesign Flow for Storm Drain P#16 P#17 59 M4 15.2 2.17 0.45 3.19 3.19 1.00 1.43 1 1.43 1 3.1 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#17 P#18 60 M4,M5,M6 15.3 2.16 0.45 4.50 4.50 1.00 2.02 1 2.02 1 4.4 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#18 P#19 M4,M5,M6 61 ,MS 15.3 2.16 0.45 6.28 6.28 1.00 2.82 2.82 6.1 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#19 P#20 63 M7 15.0 2.18 0.45 0.45 0.36 1.00 0.20 0.20 0.4 1 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#20 P#21 M4,M5,M6 65 M7,M8,M9 15.8 2.13 0.45 11.25 11.25 1.00 5.06 5.06 10.8 Design Flow for Storm Drain P#21 *See Tables F-5.1-F-5.11 for t,calculations(minimum t,-15 min.) Initial Time of Concentration of 15 minutes was used based on Mendocino County Standards I=8.8428/(T)-0.1166 where I is intensity(m./hr.)and Tc is the time of concentration(County of Mendocino Std D 11 G) Slopes are mearsured as Vertical/Horizontal. Flow depths,wloaties&top widths determined using Hydraflow Express Page 1922 of 4165 Table F-2: Ditch Hydrology Calculations 100-Year Storm Event Point Total Intensity Sum Q of Conc. Shed Time I C Area Area K KAC Sum ACI Design (POC) Area (min)* (in./hr.) (acres) (acres) KAC (cfs) D#1 Al 1 15.0 1 2.18 1 0.90 1 2.27 1 2.27 1 1.00 1 2.04 1 2.04 1 4.5 1 Design Flow for Ditch D#1 D#2 A2 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.54 0.54 1.00 0.49 0.49 1.1 Design Flow for Ditch D#2 DO A2 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.54 0.54 1.00 0.49 0.49 1.1 Design Flow for Ditch D#3 D#4 A4 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.45 0.45 1.0 Design Flow for Ditch D#4 DO A3 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.37 0.37 1.00 0.34 0.34 1 0.7 Design Flow for Ditch D#5 D#6 A2,A3,A4 1 15.9 2.12 0.90 1.42 1.42 1.00 1.27 1.27 2.7 Design Flow for Ditch D#6 D#7 A6 1 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.72 0.72 1.00 0.65 0.65 1.4 Design Flow for Ditch D#7 D#8 A5 1 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.52 0.52 1.00 0.47 0.47 1.0 Design Flow for Ditch D#8 DO A5A6 16.0 2.11 0.90 2.65 2.65 1.00 2.39 2.39 5.0 Design Flow for Ditch D#9 D#10 A7 1 15.0 1 2.18 0.90 0.64 0.64 1.00 0.58 0.58 1.3 Design Flow for Ditch D#10 D#11 A2,A3,A4, A5,A6,A7, AS 18.1 1.98 0.90 3.56 3.56 1.00 3.20 3.20 6.3 Design Flow for Ditch D#11 D#12 B1,132 1 15.0 1 2.18 0.90 1 1.56 1 1.56 1 1.00 1 1.40 1 1.40 1 3.1 IDesign Flow for Ditch D#12 D#13 Bl 1 15.0 2.18 0.90 1.26 1.26 1.00 1.14 1 1.14 1 2.5 IDesign Flow for Ditch D#13 D#14 B1,B2,B4 1 17.4 2.02 0.90 2.75 2.75 1.00 2.47 1 2.47 1 5.0 IDesign Flow for Ditch D#14 D#15 B5 15.0 2.18 0.90 1.04 1.04 1.00 0.93 1 0.93 1 2.0 IDesign Flow for Ditch D#15 D#16 B3 15.0 2.18 1 0.90 2.53 2.53 1.00 2.28 1 2.28 1 5.0 IDesign Flow for Ditch D#16 D#17 131,132,133, B4,B5 18.1 1.98 0.90 6.31 6.31 1.00 5.68 1 5.68 1 11.3 Design Flow for Ditch D#17 D#18 B7 15.0 2.18 0.90 1.18 1.18 1.00 1.06 1 1.06 1 2.3 1 Design Flow for Ditch D#18 D#19 B6 15.0 2.18 0.90 1.54 1.54 1.00 1.39 1 1.39 1 3.0 IDesign Flow for Ditch D#19 D#20 131,132,133, 134,135,136 B7 18.3 1.97 0.90 8.81 8.81 1.00 7.93 7.93 15.6 Design Flow for Ditch D#20 D#21 B9 1 15.0 2.18 0.90 1 1.02 1 1.02 1 1.00 1 0.92 1 0.92 1 2.0 Design Flow for Ditch D#21 D#22 B8 15.0 2.18 0.90 1 0.77 1 0.77 1 1.00 0.69 0.69 1 1.5 Design Flow for Ditch D#22 D#23 131,132,133, B4,B5,B6 B7,B8,B9 18.5 1.96 0.90 10.83 10.83 1.00 9.74 9.74 19.1 Design Flow for Ditch D#23 D#24 B10 15.0 2.18 0.90 1.09 1.09 1.00 0.98 0.98 2.1 Design Flow for Ditch D#24 D#25 131,132,133, B4,B5,B6 B7,B8,B9 Bl0 18.6 1.95 0.90 11.92 11.92 1.00 10.72 10.72 20.9 Design Flow for Ditch D#25 D#26 Bl l 15.0 2.18 0.90 1.52 1.52 1.00 1.37 1.37 3.0 Design Flow for Ditch D#26 D#27 Cl 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.87 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.78 1.7 Design Flow for Ditch D#27 D#28 Cl 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.87 0.87 1.00 0.78 0.78 1.7 Design Flow for Ditch D#28 D#29 - 15.3 2.16 0.90 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Design Flow for Ditch D#29 D#30 C3 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.58 0.58 1.00 0.53 0.53 1.1 Design Flow for Ditch D#30 *See Tables F-5.1-F-5.11 for t,calculations(minimum t,-15 min.) Initial Time of Concentration of 15 minutes was used based on Mendocino County Standards I=8.8428/(Tc)"0.e1ee where I is intensity(m./hr.)and Te is the time of concentration(County of Mendocino Std D 11 G) Slopes are measured as Vertical/Horizontal. Flow depths,wloaties&top widths determined using Hydraflow Express Page 1923 of 4165 Table F-2: Ditch Hydrology Calculations 100-Year Storm Event Point Total Intensity Sum Q of Conc. Shed Time I C Area Area K KAC Sum ACI Design (POC) Area (min)* (in./hr.) (acres) (acres) KAC (cfs) D#31 C3 C4 1 15.7 2.13 1 0.90 1 1.08 1 1.08 1 1.00 1 0.97 1 0.97 1 2.1 1 Design Flow for Ditch D#31 D#32 C5 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.77 0.77 1.00 0.70 0.70 1.5 Design Flow for Ditch D#32 D#33 C4,C5 16.0 2.11 0.90 2.72 2.72 1.00 2.45 2.45 5.2 Design Flow for Ditch D#33 D#34 C6 15.0 1 2.18 0.90 1.40 1.40 1.00 1.26 1.26 2.8 Design Flow for Ditch D#34 D#35 C1,C3 C4,C5,C6 16.1 2.11 0.90 4.12 4.12 1.00 3.71 3.71 7.8 Design Flow for Ditch D#35 D#36 C7 15.0 2.18 0.90 2.42 2.42 1.00 2.18 2.18 4.7 Design Flow for Ditch D#36 D#37 C4,C5,C6 C7 16.2 2.10 0.90 6.54 6.54 1.00 5.88 5.88 12.4 Design Flow for Ditch D#37 D#38 C8 15.0 2.18 0.90 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.50 1.50 3.3 Design Flow for Ditch D#38 D#39 D2 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.55 0.55 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.1 Design Flow for Ditch D#39 D#40 Dl 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.83 1.8 Design Flow for Ditch D#40 D#41 D1,D2 15.2 2.17 0.90 1.48 1.48 1.00 1.33 1.33 2.9 Design Flow for Ditch D#41 D#42 D3 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.57 0.57 1.00 0.51 0.51 1.1 Design Flow for Ditch D#42 D#43 El 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.72 0.72 1.00 0.65 0.65 1.4 Design Flow for Ditch D#43 D#44 E2 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.72 0.72 1.6 Design Flow for Ditch D#44 D#45 E3 15.0 2.18 0.90 2.24 2.24 1.00 2.02 2.02 4.4 Design Flow for Ditch D#45 D#46 E1,E2,E3 15.6 2.14 0.90 3.76 3.76 1.00 3.38 3.38 7.2 Design Flow for Ditch D#46 D#47 E4 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.68 0.68 1.00 0.61 0.61 1.3 Design Flow for Ditch D#47 D#48 E1,E2,E3,E 15.7 1 2.13 1 0.90 1 4.44 1 4.44 1 1.00 1 3.99 1 3.99 1 8.5 1 Design Flow for Ditch D#48 D#49 E5 1 15.0 1 2.18 1 0.90 1 1.27 1 1.27 1 1.00 1 1.14 1 1.14 1 2.5 1 Design Flow for Ditch D#49 D#50 Fl 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.63 0.63 1.00 0.56 0.56 1.2 Design Flow for Ditch D#50 D#51 Fl 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.63 0.63 1.00 0.56 0.56 1.2 Design Flow for Ditch D#51 D#52 F2 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.18 0.18 1.00 0.16 0.16 0.4 Design Flow for Ditch D#52 D#53 F3 15.0 2.18 0.90 1.59 1.59 1.00 1.43 1.43 3.1 Design Flow for Ditch D#53 D#54 F1,F2,F3 15.5 2.15 0.90 2.40 2.40 1.00 2.16 2.16 4.6 Design Flow for Ditch D#54 D#55 F4 15.0 2.18 0.90 1.30 1.30 1.00 1.17 1.17 2.6 Design Flow for Ditch D#55 D#56 Gl 15.0 2.18 0.90 1.71 1.71 1.00 1.54 1.54 3.4 Design Flow for Ditch D#56 D#56A G1,G2 15.0 2.18 0.90 2.04 2.04 1.00 1.83 1.83 4.0 Design Flow for Ditch D#56A D#57 G1,G2,G2A 16.1 1 2.10 1 0.90 1 2.93 1 2.93 1 1.00 1 2.64 1 2.64 1 5.5 1 Design Flow for Ditch D#57 D#58 G3 1 15.0 1 2.18 1 0.90 1 0.65 1 0.65 1 1.00 1 0.59 1 0.59 1 1.3 1 Design Flow for Ditch D#58 D#59 G1,G2,G3 1 17.8 2.00 0.90 3.59 3.59 1.00 3.23 3.23 6.4 1 Design Flow for Ditch D#59 D#60 G4 1 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.83 1.8 1 Design Flow for Ditch D#60 D#61 G1,G2,G3 Gq 18.9 1.94 0.90 4.50 4.50 1.00 4.05 4.05 7.9 Design Flow for Ditch D#61 D#62 G5 1 15.0 1 2.18 0.90 0.87 0.87 1.00 0.78 1 0.78 1 1.7 Design Flow for Ditch D#62 *See Tables F-5.1-F-5.11 for t,calculations(minimum t,-l5 min.) Initial Time of Concentration of 15 minutes was used based on Mendocino County Standards I=8.8428/(T)"0.e1ee where I is intensity(in./hr.)and Te is the time of concentration(County of Mendocino Std D 11 G) Slopes are measured as Vertical/Homontal. Flow depths,velocities&top widths determined using Hydraflow Express Page 1924 of 4165 Table F-2: Ditch Hydrology Calculations 100-Year Storm Event Point Total Intensity Sum Q of Conc. Shed Time I C Area Area K KAC Sum ACI Design (POC) Area (min)* (in./hr.) (acres) (acres) KAC (cfs) D#63 G4,G5 19.1 1.92 0.90 5.37 5.37 1.00 4.83 4.83 9.3 Design Flow for Ditch D#63 D#64 G6 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.30 0.30 0.7 Design Flow for Ditch D#64 D#65 CH G2,G3 G4,G5,G6 19.2 1.92 0.90 5.70 5.70 1.00 5.13 5.13 9.9 Design Flow for Ditch D#65 D#66 G8 15.0 2.18 0.45 0.66 0.66 1.00 0.30 0.30 0.7 Design Flow for Ditch D#66 D#67 G8,G9 15.0 2.18 0.45 4.12 4.12 1.00 1.86 1.86 4.1 Design Flow for Ditch D#67 D#68 Hl 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.74 0.74 1.00 0.67 0.67 1.5 Design Flow for Ditch D#68 D#69 H2 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.63 0.63 1.00 0.56 0.56 1.2 Design Flow for Ditch D#69 D#70 Il 15.0 2.18 0.45 3.61 3.61 1.00 1.62 1.62 3.5 Design Flow for Ditch D#70 D#71 I1,I2 15.7 1 2.13 1 0.45 1 7.15 1 7.15 1 1.00 1 3.22 1 3.22 1 6.9 1 Design Flow for Ditch D#71 D#72 Jl 15.0 2.18 0.45 1.06 1.06 1.00 0.48 0.48 1.0 Design Flow for Ditch D#72 D#73 Kl 15.0 2.18 0.45 1.98 1.98 1.00 0.89 0.89 1.9 Design Flow for Ditch D#73 D#74 K1,K2,K4 15.8 1 2.13 1 0.45 1 3.81 1 3.81 1 1.00 1 1.71 1 1.71 1 3.6 1 Design Flow for Ditch D#74 D#75 K4,K5,K6 17.1 2.04 0.50 9.70 9.70 1.00 4.85 4.85 9.9 Design Flow for Ditch D#75 D#76 K4 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.62 0.62 1.00 0.56 0.56 1.2 Design Flow for Ditch D#76 D#77 K5 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.57 0.57 1.00 0.52 0.52 1.1 Design Flow for Ditch D#77 D#78 K6 15.0 2.18 0.90 0.30 0.30 1.00 0.27 0.27 0.6 Design Flow for Ditch D#78 D#79 K7 15.0 2.18 0.45 0.36 0.36 1.00 0.16 0.16 0.4 Design Flow for Ditch D#79 D#80 Ll 15.0 2.18 0.45 1.44 1.44 1.00 0.65 0.65 1.4 Design Flow for Ditch D#80 D#81 Ml 15.0 2.18 0.45 1.42 1.42 1.00 0.64 0.64 1.4 Design Flow for Ditch D#81 D#82 M2 15.0 2.18 0.45 0.67 0.67 1.00 0.30 0.30 0.7 Design Flow for Ditch D#82 D#83 M3 15.0 2.18 0.45 0.22 0.22 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.2 Design Flow for Ditch D#83 D#84 M4 15.0 2.18 0.45 0.88 0.88 1.00 0.39 0.39 0.9 Design Flow for Ditch D#84 D#85 M5 15.0 2.18 0.45 1.06 1.06 1.00 0.48 0.48 1.0 Design Flow for Ditch D#85 D#86 M6 15.0 2.18 0.45 0.25 0.25 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.2 Design Flow for Ditch D#86 D#87 M7 15.0 2.18 0.45 0.66 0.66 1.00 0.30 0.30 0.7 Design Flow for Ditch D#87 D#88 MS 15.0 2.18 0.45 1.78 1.78 1.00 0.80 0.80 1.7 Design Flow for Ditch D#88 *See Tables F-5.1-F-5.11 for t,calculations(minimum t,-l5 min.) Initial Time of Concentration of 15 minutes was used based on Mendocino County Standards I=8.8428/(T)"0.e1ee where I is intensity(in./hr.)and Te is the time of concentration(County of Mendocino Std D 11 G) Slopes are measured as Vertical/Horizontal. Flow depths,velocities&top widths determined using Hydraflow Express Page 1925 of 4165 Table F-3: Storm Drain Hydraulic Calculations 100-Year Storm Event Point of Cone. Pipe Qioo Diameter Manning's Velocity Flow Depth (POC) (cfs) Slope (in) "n" (ft/s) (ft) 41 Storm Drain P 41 10.4 0.0402 18 0.014 11.14 0.78 412 Storm Drain P 42 23.6 0.1828 18 0.014 24.13 0.81 419 Storm Drain P 43 15.5 0.1166 18 0.014 18.38 0.72 422 Storm Drain P 44 4.0 0.1408 18 0.014 13.21 0.34 427 Storm Drain P#5 10.9 0.2176 18 0.014 20.97 0.50 431 Storm Drain P 46 7.1 0.1753 18 0.014 16.96 0.43 433 Storm Drain P 47 3.4 0.1372 18 0.014 12.16 0.32 433A Storm Drain P 47A 4.0 0.0223 18 0.014 6.95 0.54 438 Storm Drain P 48 9.0 0.0500 18 0.014 11.51 0.68 443 Storm Drain P 49 14.6 0.0200(min) 24 0.024 6.16 1.41 444 Storm Drain P 410 2.0 0.2292 18 0.014 12.26 0.22 445 Storm Drain P 411 2.7 0.0200(min) 18 0.024 4.09 0.60 452 Storm Drain P 412 1.2 0.0117 18 0.024 3.67 0.45 453 Storm Drain P 413 1.7 0.0100 18 0.024 4.60 0.57 451 Storm Drain P#14 10.7 0.0200(min) 24 0.024 7.64 0.91 455 Storm Drain P 415 23.1 0.0500(min) 2-18" 0.024 8.11 1.13 458 Storm Drain P 416 2.1 0.0500(min) 18 0.024 5.31 0.41 459 Storm Drain P 417 3.1 0.0500(min) 18 0.024 5.80 0.51 460 Storm Drain P 418 4.4 0.0500(min) 18 0.024 6.50 0.61 461 Storm Drain P#19 6.1 0.1340 18 0.024 12.34 0.88 463 Storm Drain P 420 0.4 0.0446 18 0.024 3.49 0.23 465 Storm Drain P 421 10.8 0.0500(min) 18 0.024 7.06 0.75 Initial Time of Concentration of 15 minutes was used based on Mendocino County Standards I=8.8428/(T,)-o.5166 where I is intensity(in./hr.)and Tc is the time of concentration(County of Mendocino Std D11G) Slopes are mearsured as Vertical/Horizontal. Flow depths,velocities&top widths determined using Hydraflow Express 4annings"n"value CMP- 0.024 HDPE- 0.014 Page 1926 of 4165 Table F-4: Ditch Hydraulic Calculations 100-Year Storm Event Bottom Mannin's"n" Maximum Maximum Design Maxim erosion Ditch Quo Slope Left Side Right Side Width mat 0.020 Top Width Velocity Depth Flow Depth riprap 0.035 (cfs) Slope Slope (it) liner 0.020 (it) (ft/s) (it) (it) D#1 4.5 .1494 max. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.32 5.79 1.2 0.38 D#2 1.1 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 2.88 3.47 1.2 0.31 D#3 1.1 0.3243 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.18 3.80 1.0 0.06 D#4 1.0 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.12 2.47 1.2 0.26 D#5 0.7 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 2.76 2.21 1.2 0.23 D#6 2.7 0.3571 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.27 5.19 1.0 0.09 D#7 1.4 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.48 2.77 1.2 0.29 D#S 1.0 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.12 2.47 1.2 0.26 DO 5.0 0.3846 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.30 7.40 1.0 0.13 D#10 1.3 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.36 2.76 1.2 0.28 D#11 6.3 0.0250 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 3.72 3.64 1.5 0.93 D#12 3.1 0.0900 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.08 4.47 1.2 0.34 D#13 2.5 0.0723 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.96 3.83 1.2 0.33 D#14 5.0 0.2080 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 46 0.020 46.18 2.30 1.0 0.04 D#15 2.0 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.32 3.22 1.2 0.36 D#16 5.0 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 5.76 3.91 1.2 0.48 D#17 11.3 0.1666 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 27 0.020 27.40 4.05 1.0 0.11 D#1S 2.3 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.32 3.09 1.2 0.36 D#19 3.0 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.68 3.29 1.2 0.39 D#20 15.6 0.2719 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.90 10.28 1.0 0.30 D#21 2.0 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.96 3.06 1.2 0.33 D#22 1.5 0.1486 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 2.88 4.34 1.2 0.24 D#23 19.1 0.1783 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 6.11 9.78 1.0 0.37 D#24 2.1 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.08 3.03 1.2 0.34 D#25 20.9 0.3605 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.96 12.60 1.0 0.32 D#26 3.0 0.01 min. 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 6.36 4.88 1.2 0.58 D#27 1.7 0.0250 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.20 2.31 1.2 0.35 D#2S 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.60 2.78 1.2 0.30 D#29 1.7 0.3909 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.21 4.76 1.0 0.07 D#30 1.1 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.72 2.511.91 1.2 0.31 Initial Time of Concentration of 15 minutes was used based on Mendocino County Standards I=8.8428/(T�)-0.5166 where I is intensity(in./hr.)and Tc is the time of concentration(County of Mendocino Std D 11 G) Slopes are mearsured as Vertical/Horizontal. Flow depths,velocities&top widths determined using Hydratlow Express n value-.020-liner per Manufacturer -.020-erosion mat -.035-rock nprap lump Calculator used to check httos://www.omnicalculator.com/nhvsics/hvdraulic-iumn#calculating-the-hvdraulic-iumn-nronerties Omni Calculator Page 1927 of 4165 Table F-4: Ditch Hydraulic Calculations 100-Year Storm Event Bottom Mannin's"n" Maximum Maximum Design MaAmmn erosion Ditch Quo Slope Left Side Right Side Width mat 0.020 Top Width Velocity Depth Flow Depth riprap 0.035 (cfs) Slope Slope (it) liner 0.020 (it) (ft/s) (it) (it) D#31 2.1 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.72 2.77 1.2 0.34 D#32 1.5 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.72 2.77 1.2 0.30 D#33 5.2 0.3636 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.36 9.81 1.0 0.12 D#34 2.8 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.56 3.23 1.2 0.38 D#35 7.8 0.3050 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.45 11.10 1.0 0.15 D#36 4.7 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 5.52 3.78 1.2 0.46 D#37 12.4 0.3286 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.69 10.01 1.2 0.23 D#38 3.3 0.0150 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 3.44 5.26 1.2 0.86 D#39 1.1 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.24 2.51 1.2 0.27 D#40 1.8 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.84 2.93 1.2 0.32 D#41 2.9 0.4505 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.27 6.28 1.0 0.09 D#42 1.1 0.01 min. 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 2.28 1.69 1.2 0.57 D#43A 1.4 0.0225 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.32 2.19 1.0 0.36 D#43 1.4 0.3704 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.18 5.57 1.0 0.06 D#44 1.6 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 2.20 2.64 1.2 0.55 D#45 4.4 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.20 3.44 1.2 0.80 D#46 7.2 0.5000 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.42 10.42 1.0 0.14 D#47 1.3 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.36 2.76 1.2 0.28 D#48 8.5 0.5111 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.51 9.85 1.0 0.17 D#49 2.5 0.0172 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 2.64 4.81 1.2 0.66 D#50 1.2 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.36 2.55 1.2 0.28 D#51 1.2 0.2500 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.15 4.73 1.0 0.05 D#52 0.4 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 2.16 2.06 1.2 0.18 D#53 3.1 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.68 3.40 1.2 0.39 D#54 4.6 0.3108 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.33 8.10 1.0 0.11 D#55 2.6 .0136. 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 5.76 1.88 1.2 0.53 D#56 3.4 0.0500 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 4.92 3.37 1.2 0.41 D#56A 4.0 0.0223 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.020 4.92 3.37 1.2 0.41 D#57 5.5 .0223 min 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.020 3.32 10.62* 1.0 0.83 D#58 1.3 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.48 2.77 1.2 0.29 D#59 6.4 0.1811 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.57 6.07 1.0 0.19 D#60 1.8 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.72 2.96 1.2 0.31 D#61 7.9 0.1571 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.66 6.48 1.0 0.22 Initial Time of Concentration of 15 minutes was used based on Mendocino County Standards I=8.8428/(T,)"0.51ee where I is intensity(in./hr.)and Tc is the time of concentration(County of Mendocino Std D 11 G) Slopes are mearsured as Vertical/Horizontal. Flow depths,velocities&top widths determined using Hydratlow Express *Max Slope 35% n value-.020-liner -.035-rock nprap -.020-erosion mat Page 1928 of 4165 Table F-4: Ditch Hydraulic Calculations 100-Year Storm Event Bottom Mannin's"n" Maximum Maximum Design MaAmmn erosion Ditch Q- Slope Left Side Right Side Width mat 0.020 Top Width Velocity Depth Flow Depth riprap 0.035 (cfs) Slope Slope (it) liner 0.020 (it) (ft/s) (it) (it) D#62 1.7 0.02 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.72 2.77 1.2 0.31 D#63 9.3 0.1026 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 5.63 7.71 1.0 0.21 D#64 0.7 0.0300 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 3.12 2.21 1.0 0.26 D#65 9.9 0.4237 1.5:1 max. 1.5:1 max. 5 0.020 6.20 9.39 1.2 0.30 D#66 0.7 0.0968 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 1.32 3.67 1.0 0.33 D#67 4.1 0.0684 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 2.64 4.82 1.0 0.66 D#68 1.5 0.0176 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 2.32 2.23 1.0 0.58 D#69 1.2 0.0200 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 2.08 2.22 1.0 0.52 D#70 3.5 0.1504 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 2.16 6.34 1.0 0.54 D#71 6.9 0.1065 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 2.28 2.55 1.0 0.57 D#72 1.0 0.0380 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 1.72 2.70 1.0 0.43 D#73 1.9 0.0399 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 2.20 3.31 1.0 0.55 D#74 3.6 0.0954 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 2.36 5.17 1.0 0.59 D#75 9.9 0.0140 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 3.48 5.19 1.5 1.25 D#76 1.2 0.0525 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.035 2.04 3.57 1.0 0.51 D#77 1.1 0.0543 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.020 1.60 3.44 1.0 0.40 D#78 0.6 0.0260 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 2.88 2.50 1.0 0.38 D#79 0.4 0.0699 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 2.04 2.31 1.0 0.17 D#80 1.4 0.0500 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.020 1.76 3.62 1.0 0.44 D#Sl 1.4 0.01 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.92 1.39 1.0 0.41 D#82 0.7 0.01 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 3.84 1.14 1.0 0.32 D#83 0.2 0.01 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.035 2.40 0.83 1.0 0.20 D#84 0.9 0.01 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.20 1.22 1.0 0.35 D#85 1.0 0.01 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 4.32 1.29 1.0 0.36 D#86 0.2 0.01 min. 2:1 max. 10:1 max. 0 0.020 2.40 0.83 1.0 0.20 D#S7 0.7 0.01 min. 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.020 1.84 1.42 1.0 0.46 D#SS 1.7 0.01 min. 2:1 max. 2:1 max. 0 0.020 2.68 1.89 1.0 0.67 Initial Time of Concentration of 15 minutes was used based on Mendocino County Standards I=8.8428/(T�)-0.5166 where I is intensity(in./hr.)and Tc is the time of concentration(County of Mendocino Std D 11 G) Slopes are mearsured as Vertical/Horizontal. Flow depths,velocities&top widths determined using Hydratlow Express n value-.030-lines.025-erosion mat -.035-rock nprap nprap hydraulic jump erosion mat Page 1929 of 4165 $ \ % / _c \ � f / g 9 \ \ 2 \ § § § § /pu ƒ up 6 A A A A« » o » o » o » o »e ° ) \ ) e ! Z 12 a . g b � � \ 2 4Qf § E \ § \\ » s 5 : j } J ® « ( { LO 0 M A � � 0.1 cl" 145 O O O O O O O O x O V N O W O O O O O O O R � L R O V N O O O O O O O U O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O O O O O O O 2 C N N N Q � FL •.Cy G O O O O O O � O O _ N In In V oy m 'O u � y � F o w CI B o $ \ % _/ \ � f / § \ u g S j b j 145 \ § § § § // \ / \ \ \ \ \ r \ 6 A A A A> A » o » o » o » o » e » ) e ! Z 3 # } 2 S J 2 2 ) } 2 2 Z 3 2 12 Q . g b � \ aQ « - j � \ 2 4Qf § E \ § \\ » s 5 : j } J ® « ( { � 15 \7 ( \ w - 4 2/ \ z $ \ % / _c \ � f / \ 2 \ § / / 6 A> 6 » o » e » ° ) \ j } ) � \ \ e ! Z 3 # } Z 3 u % % _ 12 \ b 71 , \ � / \ = 2 oc $ \ % _/ \ � f / \ � g 2 3 § \ § § § / /} � r � 6 A 6 A« A » o » o » o » e » ) e ! Z } 12 m . g b � � \ 2 4Qf § E \ § \\ » s 5 : j } J ® « ( { ® } w - 4 41r z $ \ % $ _c \ � f / j 2 g 2 3 \ § § \ _ \ � \ \ 6& A& 6fA » o » o » e » ) e ! Z ) } \ 2 2 12 � . g b � � \ 2 4Qf § E \ § \\ » s165 : j } J ® « ( { Qi LO 0 co M 0) A M O O O O O O O O O O P. Vl P. P. P. P. � aCa � aCa � Ca � Ca � Ca � Ca � a Yam O O O O O N W O O O O O O O O O O L l� M Vl O\ M M Vl L R O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O CC N N N Q � o W 0 0 Or�kj 71 .U.. m •rl R y �y l� � N N r. � N M O r. O � � N 0 0 Y u U C U �O CZ r C-� CS > W $ \ % \ _c \ � f / \ \ \ _ \ 62A » e » 2 \ \ \ ' ) \ ) � \ e ! Z 3 # } 2 ) } 2 u % 12 _ . g b � � \ 2 4Qf § E \ § \\ » s 5 : j } J ® « ( { m z } 0,2 w - 4 // \ z $ \ % $ _c \ � f / \ \ /{ \ 6 A » o » 2 \ \ / ' ) \ ) � \ e ! Z 3 # } 3 ) } 3 u 9 12 . g b � � \ 2 4Qf § E \ § \\ » s 5 : j } J ® « ( { a } w - 4 // \ z $ \ % $ _c \ � § / ) § \ � \ § § § /{ /( \ \ 2 \ } \ \ » o » o » * e » o » » ) In e ! Z / / u 9 G 9 9 9 \k . g / ® / ) 7 & t \ D ! 2 g \ oa f t » 3 \ ® o � \- \ f @ { Q Q3Q3 3 \ / In $ \ % ? _c \ � f / \ § § § \ c \ r \ = e \ _ \ 62 62 A2 2 A9A » e » e » e e » e » ) e ! Z 3 # } 3 J & \ ) } 3 2 2 } u 9 9 9 9 2 /� . g ) ° ® / ) ! 2 } : of t » 3 \ § \ E-1 APPENDIX G APRIL 2019 UPDATED DESIGN PLAN FOR LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION AND CONTROL SYSTEM (EBA, 2019) IL- Page 1941 of 4165 DESIGN PLAN FOR LANDFILL GAS COLLECTIONAND CONTROL SYSTEM October 2015 Revised may 201 Revised April 2019 Prepared For: City of Ukiah, I partzn ent of Pu,blic Work' 300 Seminary Avenue 11k:iah, CA 95482 Prepared By: EBA Engineering 825 Sonoma Avenue Santa Rasa, CA 95404 Senior 1°lydro e logisf E EBA r; Page 1942 of 4165 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1-1 SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION.................................................................2-1 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................................2-1 2.2 LANDFILL HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT............................................................2-2 2.3 PREVIOUS LANDFILL GAS (LFG) INVESTIGATIONS............................................2-2 2.3.1 Perimeter LFG Monitoring ................................................................................. 2-2 2.3.2 Partial Perimeter LFG Collection ........................................................................2-2 2.3.3 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)Monitoring ...................................2-3 2.3.4 Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) Emissions Monitoring................................................2-3 SECTION 3 LFG COLLECTION AND CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA .. 3-1 3.1 REFUSE COMPOSITION AND QUANTITY............................................................... 3-1 3.2 LFG GENERATION AND RECOVERY ESTIMATES ................................................ 3-2 3.3 LFG QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................... 3-4 3.4 LFG CONDENSATE GENERATION ESTIMATES..................................................... 3-5 3.5 LFG MIGRATION CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................... 3-6 SECTION 4 LFG COLLECTION AND CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN .......................4-1 4.1 LFG EXTRACTION WELLS .........................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Well Field Layout and Rationale ........................................................................ 4-1 4.1.2 Well Completion Depths .....................................................................................4-2 4.1.3 Well Construction Characteristics .......................................................................4-3 4.1.4 Wellhead Completion..........................................................................................4-3 4.2 COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPING..................................................................................4-3 4.2.1 Piping Layout and Rationale............................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Sizing of Primary Header Pipe.............................................................................4-4 4.2.3 Construction of Collection System Piping...........................................................4-4 4.3 CONDENSATE COLLECTION PROVISIONS.............................................................4-5 4.4 FLARE STATION...........................................................................................................4-5 4.4.1 Gas-Liquid Separator.......................................................................................... 4-6 4.4.2 Blowers................................................................................................................4-6 4.4.3 Totally-Enclosed Vertical Ground Flare..............................................................4-7 4.4.4 LFG Flow Control and Monitoring Mechanisms ................................................4-8 4.4.5 Automatic Safety Control Systems..................................................................... 4-8 4.4.6 Control Station Assembly....................................................................................4-8 4.5 PERMITTING .................................................................................................................4-9 City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 Page 1943 of 4165 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE SECTION 5 MONITORING AND REPORTING.............................................................. 5-1 5.1 FLARE STATION........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 WELL FIELD .................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.3 TITLE 27 PERIMETER LFG MONITORING ............................................................... 5-2 5.4 AB32 MONITORING..................................................................................................... 5-3 5.4.1 Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 5-3 5.4.2 Recordkeeping ..................................................................................................... 5-4 5.4.3 Reporting.............................................................................................................. 5-5 SECTION 6 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES...................................................................... 6-1 6.1 ALTERNATIVE WALKING PATTERN....................................................................... 6-1 6.2 WELLHEAD GAUGE PRESSURE................................................................................6-2 6.3 PROVISIONAL GAS RELIEF COMPONENT VENTING........................................... 6-2 SECTION 7 TEMPORARY MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................ 7-1 SECTION8 SCHEDULE ...................................................................................................... 8-1 SECTION 9 REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 9-1 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - Figures Appendix B - LFG Generation Modeling Results Appendix B-1 - Scenario 1 Appendix B-2 - Scenario 2 Appendix B-3 - Scenario 3 Appendix B-3 - Scenario 4 Appendix C - LFG Samples Certified Analytical Report Appendix D - LFG Condensate Generation Calculations Appendix E - Construction Drawings Appendix F - Collection System Piping Head Loss Calculations Appendix G - Alternative Walking Pattern Documentation City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 Page 1944 of 4165 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This Updated Design Plan (Updated Plan)presents background information, design criteria, and a landfill gas (LFG) collection and control system design for the City of Ukiah Landfill(Landfill),in Ukiah, California. The design and installation of a LFG collection and control system is being required to comply with the Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfill requirements associated with Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations (17CCR), Subchapter 10, Article 4, Subarticle 6, also identified as Assembly Bill 32 (AB32). Specifically, this submittal has been prepared to address the design plan requirements stipulated in 17CCR, §95464(a)(1)for the design and installation of a LFG collection and control system. Compliance with these requirements was prompted by the detection of methane emissions from the waste management unit(WNW) surface exceeding the 200 parts per million by volume(ppmv)threshold criteria as determined during a field monitoring event conducted on August 8, 2013 (EBA Engineering [EBA], 2013b). In response to aforementioned emissions findings,the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District(MCAQMD) originally requested in a letter dated August 23, 2013 that the City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works(City)prepare a Design Plan for a LFG collection and control system to comply with AB32 regulations. A Design Plan (EBA, 2013c) was subsequently prepared and submitted to the MCAQMD in October 2013 and included a target completion date for having the LFG collection and control system installed and operational by December 31,2014. The installation was to be integrated with the final closure construction proj ect for the Landfill,which was scheduled for implementation in the spring and summer of 2014. Since submittal of the original Design Plan as described above, the Landfill's final closure construction project has been delayed on multiple occasions due to changes to the final cover system design and associated negotiations with California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (RWQCB), California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), and Mendocino County Health & Human Services Agency (Local Enforcement Agency(LEA), as well as the City's decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)as a mechanism to support the project. As part of these efforts,two updated versions of the Design Plan were submitted in August 2015 (EBA, 2015) and May 2016 (EBA, 2016) at different stages of the final cover redesign in order to bring the Design Plan current. Neither of those versions included substantive changes to the original LFG system design. This version of the Design Plan has been prepared to account for modifications to the Landfill's final cover system that influenced the previous LFG system design. Overall,the revisions presented herein are primarily limited to modifications to the routing and/or locations of collection system piping and condensate drop-outs to compensate for changes in grade breaks and drainage channel configurations. Aside of these changes, the remaining LFG system design components, sizing, City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 1-1 Page 1945 of 4165 construction materials, monitoring and reporting, proposed alternatives, and temporary mitigation measures are the same as previously outlined in the prior Design Plan versions. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 1-1 Page 1946 of 4165 SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The purpose of this section is to summarize background information used in the development and design of the LFG collection and control system. The primary topics discussed in this section include general site characteristics and findings from previous LFG investigations. Each of these topics is discussed separately in the following subsections. 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Landfill is located at 3100 Vichy Springs Road, approximately three miles east of Ukiah in Mendocino County, California. A site location map showing the location of the Landfill is presented as Figure 1 (Appendix A). The Landfill's WNW occupies approximately 40 acres of permitted landfill area on a 283.5-acre parcel having a maximum width of approximately 1,000 feet in the north-south direction and a maximum length of about 3,500 feet in the east-west direction.Existing ground surface elevations for the WNW range from approximately 710 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the western footprint, to about 970 feet MSL along the southeast footprint. The WNW has been graded to form a series of flat terraces stepping down from south to north. The WMU surface is covered with seasonal grasses. A site plan illustrating the WNW topography and adjoining areas is presented as Figure 2 (Appendix A). Land adjacent to the Landfill property is zoned primarily as rangeland and is used for grazing. Dwellings within 1,000 feet of the landfill property include a group of structures owned by the Vichy Springs Investment Group that are located within 500 feet of the Landfill's south property line and a single-family residence located approximately 900 feet west of the Landfill's western property boundary. A rural residential development is located approximately 1/4-mile west of the Landfill property boundary. A housing development is also located along the south side of Vichy Springs Road and westward of the Vichy Springs Resort. The entire development is approximately 1,000 feet southward of the Landfill property boundary and is separated from the Landfill by an intervening ridge. It should be noted that the City owns an approximate 97-acre parcel that adjoins a portion of the Landfill's southern property boundary. This property, which has been previously identified as the "Gun Club Parcel", was purchased as a buffer zone to limit future development adjacent to the Landfill. The Gun Club Parcel is a separate parcel and is not considered part of the Landfill property. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 2-1 Page 1947 of 4165 2.2 LANDFILL HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT Waste disposal operations at the Landfill began in 1955 at the eastern end of the WMU footprint and progressed upslope and westward. Prior to 1971, the Landfill was operated as a burn dump, with most of the burn-dump activities reportedly occurring in areas east of the power lines. After 1971, the method of operation transitioned to a fill and cover approach in a canyon/gully terrain. During the 1970's, the unnamed ephemeral creek was realigned northward to maximize the available fill area, and a soil berm was constructed along the toe of the WMU to separate the waste from the realigned creek channel. The Landfill operated as a nonhazardous Class III solid waste disposal site servicing Ukiah and the surrounding area. The Landfill ceased operations in September 2001. 2.3 PREVIOUS LANDFILL GAS (LFG) INVESTIGATIONS 2.3.1 Perimeter LFG Monitoring The Landfill has been equipped with a perimeter LFG monitoring system since September 1994. The original system consisted of five LFG monitoring points(GAS-1 through GAS-5),followed by the installation of five additional LFG monitoring (GAS-6 through GAS-10) in September 1996. The locations of the LFG monitoring points are shown on Figure 2(Appendix A). Each of the LFG monitoring points are equipped with one to four individual monitoring probes constructed of 3/4-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing and capped with labcock valves. The monitoring probes range in depth from approximately 9 to 250 feet below ground surface (BGS). The LFG monitoring points are monitored on a quarterly basis to fulfill monitoring requirements set forth in Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations(27CCR), §20921. Historical findings from this monitoring initially identified LFG migration in the area of GAS-3 and GAS-4,which prompted the installation of a partial perimeter LFG collection system in 1997 (see following subsection). Following its installation, methane was only detected sporadically in GAS-3 and/or GAS-4,mostly during periods when the partial perimeter LFG collection system was experiencing mechanical or operational issues. However, since the spring of 2017, elevated methane has been consistently detected in GAS-4. The only other historical perimeter methane detections corresponds to GAS-6 (sporadic)and GAS-10 (consistent). However,these detections have been determined to represent gas of natural thermogenic origin and are not related to the Landfill (Lawrence & Associates [L&A], 1998). 2.3.2 Partial Perimeter LFG Collection As outlined in the previous subsection, subsurface LFG migration was identified along the southwestern edge of the WMU in the area of perimeter LFG monitoring points GAS-3 and GAS-4 following installation of the perimeter LFG monitoring system. Methane concentrations measured in these perimeter LFG monitoring points consistently exceeded the regulatory threshold for methane of 5 percent by volume (%vol). In response to these conditions, a partial perimeter LFG collection system was installed between the southwestern edge of the WMU and the property line in the summer and fall of 1997 (see Figure 2, Appendix A). In general, the system consists of 17 vertical City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 2-2 Page 1948 of 4165 extraction points installed in native geologic materials and completed at depths ranging from 35 to 133 feet BGS. The extraction points are connected to a buried 6-inch diameter, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) header pipe that leads to a vacuum blower located at the western end of the WMU. The vacuum blower creates a vacuum in the header pipe that draws the LFG from the soil through the extraction points and header pipe,whereupon the collected LFG(diluted)is vented to the atmosphere via a 4-foot tall,4-inch diameter stack. The system,which was designed by L&A,works on the premise that the extraction well field creates a barrier against migration while simultaneously mixing the collected LFG with"clean" soil pore gas that dilutes the LFG to concentrations that can be discharged directly to the atmosphere. 2.3.3 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Monitoring In July 1999, a Tier 2 sampling program was implemented at the Landfill by EBA to comply with NSPS regulations. The program entailed the advancement of 26 soil borings to depths of five feet BGS along existing benches within the WMU and the collection of LFG samples for chemical analysis. The LFG samples were composited in the laboratory at a 3:1 ratio and analyzed for non- methane organic compounds(NMOCs)using United States Environmental Protection Agency(US EPA)Method 25C. The corresponding results revealed NMOC concentrations ranging from 290 to 2,900 ppmv. Field monitoring for methane from the soil borings revealed concentrations ranging from nondetect to 59 %vol, with an average concentration of approximately 40 %vol. Hydrogen sulfide was also monitored in the field and revealed concentrations ranging from nondetect to greater than 200 ppmv, with an average concentration of approximately 12 ppmv. The overall purpose of the Tier 2 sampling program was to determine a site-specific NMOC concentration that could be used to calculate the total NMOC emission rate for the Landfill. The corresponding results revealed a total NMOC emission rate of approximately 6 megagrams per year (Mg/yr)(EBA, 1999). As this concentration was well below the regulatory action limit of 50 Mg/yr, installation of a LFG collection and control system was not required under the NSPS regulations. 2.3.4 Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) Emissions Monitoring AB32 methane emissions monitoring was performed at the Landfill by EBA on August 8, 2013 to comply with 17CCR, §95463(b)(2)(B)and to establish if methane emissions of 200 ppmv or greater are currently being emitted from the WMU surface. The field work was performed using the instantaneous surface monitoring procedures specified in 17CCR, §95471(c)(1) and §9547 1(c)(2). The corresponding results from this monitoring identified a total of nine locations in which methane was detected above the 200 ppmv threshold. The concentrations detected ranged from 277 to 89,000 ppmv (8.9 %vol) and were primarily located in the southernmost portion of the WMU. Average readings for the remainder of the WMU ranged from approximately 10 to 20 ppmv (EBA, 2013b). City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 2-3 Page 1949 of 4165 SECTION 3 LFG COLLECTION AND CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA Design of a LFG collection and control system is contingent upon a number of parameters ranging from the quantity, composition, and age of the refuse, as well as site-specific subsurface characteristics. Since a substantial portion of LFG parameters can be highly variable and difficult to quantitate, the criteria used for design purposes were based primarily on characteristics observed during previous site investigations and the use of theoretical parameters/models in which reasonable assumptions and calculations could be made based on existing data, available literature,and relative experience. Parameters used to develop design criteria included: refuse composition and quantity; LFG generation rates;LFG quality;LFG condensate generation; and LFG migration characteristics. Further details regarding these parameters are summarized in the following subsections. 3.1 REFUSE COMPOSITION AND QUANTITY The Landfill was in operation from 1955 to September 2001 and operated as a nonhazardous Class III solid waste disposal site. Composition of the waste reportedly received at the Landfill included paper products, food wastes, glass, metal, wood, plastic, cloth, rubber, synthetics and inert waste such as soil, ashes,rock, etc. No high liquid content wastes, designated wastes, or hazardous wastes were accepted for disposal. Previous estimates of the waste stream by category identified approximately 27 percent of the waste as residential, 32 percent commercial, 14 percent industrial, and 27 percent self-haul(City, 1999). As previously outlined in Subsection 2.2(Landfill History and Development)of this Updated Plan,the Landfill was operated as a burn dump prior to 1971. Thus,it is possible that the bulk of the waste in the WMU prior to 1971 is primarily inert. Several previous estimates have been reported with regard to the quantity of waste in-place at the Landfill. In a technical memorandum prepared by Pacific Waste Services,Inc. (PWS)for the City in December 2009,the in-place tonnage was estimated at 1,499,300 tons(PWS, 2009). This estimate was not based on any weigh scale records and assumed a constant 550-ton increase per year of waste placement over the period of 1955 through 2001. In June 2013,the City generated a revised estimate as part of the Landfill Heat Input Capacity Report that was prepared to comply with AB32 reporting requirements. As part of the City's revised estimate,actual tonnage data was compiled for the period 1990 through 2001. For years prior to 1990,the City reduced the annual waste placement tonnage by 550 tons per year(same incremental rate assumed by PWS)through 1955. The corresponding total in-place tonnage resulting from this revised calculation equated to 1,039,116 tons (City, 2013). City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 3-1 Page 1950 of 4165 3.2 LFG GENERATION AND RECOVERY ESTIMATES Several LFG generation models were evaluated to establish LFG generation estimates for the Landfill and to develop design parameters for the LFG collection and control system. These models included the first-order decay model from the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as required by 17CCR, §95464(a)(1)(F), as well as miscellaneous first order generation models developed by SCS Engineers (1998) for the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). Multiple models and scenarios were employed to evaluate the range of generation rates calculated by the respective models, which in turn was factored into the determination of potential turndown ratios for the flare design. This use of multiple models is considered appropriate to compensate for the number of variables that are difficult to define with any certainty(i.e.,historical disposal rates, historical waste composition, waste moisture content, etc.). As part of the aforementioned models, the two (2) variables that most strongly influence the corresponding results are the methane generation potential (Lo)and/or the methane generation rate constant (k). Lo represents the total amount of methane that a unit mass of refuse will produce if given enough time to fully decompose. The k constant,in turn,corresponds to the fraction of refuse that decays and generates methane in a given year. Based on the average rainfall in the Ukiah area (approximately 3 8 inches per year),Lo and k values of 1.6 cubic feet per pound of refuse(ft3/lb)and 0.038/year(IPCC default value for areas with average rainfall between 20 and 40 inches per year), respectively, were selected for modeling LFG generation rates for the Landfill. Using the resources and information described herein,LFG generation modeling was performed for four (4) different scenarios. These scenarios included the following: • Scenario 1: A total refuse tonnage of 1,499,300 tons placed between 1955 and 2001 as estimated by PWS. • Scenario 2: A total refuse tonnage of 1,039,116 tons placed between 1955 and 2001 as estimated by the City. • Scenario 3: An adjusted refuse tonnage of 1,125,300 tons based on PWS estimate placed between 1971 and 2001 to account for potential inert refuse resulting from former burn-dump operations. • Scenario 4: An adjusted refuse tonnage of 809,644 tons based on City estimate placed between 1971 and 2001 to account for potential inert refuse resulting from former burn-dump operations. A summary of the LFG generation modeling results is presented in Table 1. Copies of the corresponding spreadsheets and graphs for the respective model results are presented in Appendices B-1 through B-4, which coincide with Scenarios 1 through 4 described above. Please note that the LFG generation rates presented in Table 1 assume a methane composition of 50 percent by volume. In addition, since the collection and control system cannot capture all of the LFG generated in the WNW due to a variety of factors(i.e.,WNW geometry, hydraulic conductivity of the cover, degree City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 3-2 Page 1951 of 4165 of saturation of the refuse, degree to which air infiltration can be tolerated, etc.), a collection efficiency of 75 percent has been assumed for design purposes. This collection efficiency is consistent with the recovery rate stipulated in the AB32 regulations. TABLE 1 LFG GENERATION ESTIMATES AND RECOVERY YEAR 2019 Methane LFG Potential LFG Model Lo k Generation Rate Generation Rate Recovery(2) (ft3/lh) (1/year) (SCFM) (SCFM) (SCFM) Scenario 1: PWS Tonnage Estimate for Period 1955-2001 IPCC Model ---- 0.038 ---- ---- 139 Simple First Order-Median(1) 1.6 0.038 93 186 140 Modified First Order(1) 1.6 0.038 97 194 146 First Order Multi-Phase(1) 1.6 0.038 67 134 101 Scenario 2: City Tonnage Estimate for Period 1955-2001 IPCC Model ---- 0.038 ---- ---- 98 Simple First Order-Median 1.6 0.038 67 134 101 Modified First Order(3) 1.6 0.038 69 138 104 First Order Multi-Phase 1.6 0.038 48 96 72 Scenario 3: PWS Adjusted Tonnage Estimate for Period 1971-2001 IPCC Model ---- 0.038 ---- ---- 122 Simple First Order-Median(1) 1.6 0.038 82 164 123 Modified First Order(1) 1.6 0.038 86 172 129 First Order Multi-Phase(1) 1.6 0.038 63 126 95 Scenario 4: City Adjusted Tonnage Estimate for Period 1971-2001 IPCC Model ---- 0.038 ---- ---- 88 Simple First Order-Median(1) 1.6 0.038 59 118 89 Modified First Order(1) 1.6 0.038 61 122 92 First Order Multi-Phase(1) 1.6 0.038 46 92 69 Lo: Methane Generation Potential SCFM: Standard Cubic Feet per Minute k: Methane Generation Rate Constant PWS: Pacific Waste Systems,Inc. (2009) LFG: Landfill Gas IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(2006) ft3/lb: Cubic Feet per Pound(of refuse) City: City of Ukiah,Department of Public Works(2013) (1): Assumes an average methane concentration of 50 percent by volume. (2): Assumes a 75 percent collection efficiency. (3): SCS Engineers, 1998 The current LFG generation rate for the Landfill based on all the modeling scenarios ranges from 92 to 194 standard cubic feet per minute(SCFM),with potential LFG recoveries ranging from 69 to 146 SCFM As presented in Table 1,the biggest variable influencing the generation rates is the amount of in-place waste. Scenarios 1 and 3 which assume a higher in-place waste tonnage yield LFG generation rates and recoveries ranging from 126 to 194 SCFM and 95 to 146 SCFM,respectively. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 3-3 Page 1952 of 4165 In contrast,the lower in-place tonnage assumed by Scenarios 2 and 4 yield LFG generation rates and recoveries ranging from 92 to 138 SCFM and 69 to 104 SCFM, respectively. As presented in the various methane/LFG generation graphs presented in Appendix B,the Landfill is on the downward side of the generation curve and will continue along this pattern until the generation potential of the refuse is completely exhausted. 3.3 LFG QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS Table 3 provides a summary of the estimated LFG quality characteristics at the Landfill. This summary is based on field and laboratory test results on LFG samples collected by EBA on September 12 and 16,2013. The LFG sampling was performed using two(2)shallow hand-augered boreholes (GP-1 and GP-2) completed at depths of approximately six feet BGS, as well as from existing leachate wells LW-1 and LW-2. Please refer to Figure 2 (Appendix A) for the corresponding locations. Dedicated samples were collected from LW-1 and GP-1,while a two-part composite sample was collected using LW-2 and GP-2. In addition to retaining samples for chemical analysis,the respective locations were monitored in the field for methane, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide using portable meters. These results are also presented in Table 3 below. The laboratory testing was performed by K Prime,Inc. (K Prime),a California State-certified analytical laboratory located in Santa Rosa, California. A copy of the Certified Analytical Report (CAR)prepared by K Prime is enclosed in Appendix C. TABLE 3 ESTIMATED LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITION Laboratory Test Results Parameter Field Monitoring LW-1 GP-1 LW-2 and GP-2 Results (Dedicated) (Dedicated) (Com osite) Primary Gases: Methane 47.8%Vol 55.2%Vol 57.5 %Vol 37 to 67%Vol Carbon Dioxide 33.2%Vol 35.7%Vol 34.9%Vol 33 to 40%Vol Oxygen <1.00%Vol 2.48%Vol <1.00%Vol 3.4 to 6.7%Vol Nitrogen 18.3 %Vol 6.66%Vol 7.22%Vol NA Hydrogen Sulfide NA NA NA 0 to 16 ppmv VOCs: Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.572 ppmv NA <1.00 ppmv NA Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 0.103 ppmv NA <1.00 ppmv NA Vinyl Chloride 5.83 ppmv NA 1.54 ppmv NA Methylene Chloride 0.147 ppmv NA <1.00 ppmv NA cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.06 ppmv NA <1.00 ppmv NA Benzene 0.161 ppmv NA <1.00 ppmv NA Trichloroethene 0.241 ppmv NA <1.00 ppmv NA Toluene 0.390 ppmv NA 7.01 ppmv NA Tetrachloroethene 0.819 ppmv NA <1.00 ppmv NA Chlorobenzene <0.100 ppmv NA 1.95 ppmv NA (Continued) City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 3-4 Page 1953 of 4165 TABLE 3 (Continued) ESTIMATED LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITION Laboratory Test Results Parameter Field Monitoring LW-1 GP-1 LW-2 and GP-2 Results Dedicated Dedicated Com osite VOCs (continued): Ethylbenzene <0.100 ppmv NA 159 ppmv NA Xylene(M+P) 0.409 ppmv NA 123 ppmv NA Xylene(0) 0.144 ppmv NA 136 ppmv NA 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.100 ppmv NA 6.02 ppmv NA 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.100 ppmv NA 6.29 ppmv NA Total Volatile Hydrocarbons(l) 33.7 ppmv 80.6 ppmv 1,120 ppmv NA %vol: Percent by Volume ppmv: Parts per Million by Volume NA: Not Analyzed (1): Total Volatile Hydrocarbons is synonymous to Non-Methane Organic Compounds(NMOCs). It should be noted that the concentrations presented in Table 3 are considered to be conservative in nature and will likely decrease over time. Since LFG has been generating within the refuse mass for at least 40 years, a surplus of highly concentrated LFG may be currently present within the WNW. However, upon removal of this surplus by the active collection efforts, coupled with the age of the refuse and dilution effects resulting from the influx of atmospheric air,it is estimated that methane concentrations could stabilize somewhere in the 35 to 45 percent by volume range. Carbon dioxide and volatile organic hydrocarbon/NMOC concentrations will also likely exhibit similar reductions, whereas nitrogen concentrations will likely increase. Whereas the length of time it will take for such reductions to occur is unknown, prior experience at similar sites suggest that it could occur within two to six months of system start-up. 3.4 LFG CONDENSATE GENERATION ESTIMATES Condensate generation was approximated based on temperature and vapor pressure differentials of the LFG. Calculations were performed for flow rates of 53 and 210 SCFM,which correspond to the design flow range for the proposed LFG collection and control system (see Section 4 [LFG Collection and Control System Design]). In addition,final inlet LFG temperatures of 36°F and 59°F were also considered to simulate extreme and average temperature conditions indicative of the Ukiah area. Results of the condensate generation calculations are presented below in Table 4. Please refer to Appendix D for copies of individual spreadsheets that summarize the respective calculations. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 3-5 Page 1954 of 4165 TABLE 4 CONDENSATE GENERATION CACULATIONS Flow Rate Temperature ff) Vapor Pressure(psia) Average Vacuum Condensate Generation (SCFM) Initial Final Initial Final Pressure(psia) (gpd) 53 120 36 1.6927 0.0999 13.797 50 to 52 53 120 59 1.6927 0.2561 13.797 45 to 52 EO 120 36 1.6927 0.0999 13.797 199 to 207 120 59 1.6927 0.2561 13.797 179 to 207 SCFM: Standard Cubic Feet per Minute °F: Degrees Fahrenheit psia: Pounds per Square Inch(Actual) gpd: Gallons per Day As summarized in Table 4,the condensate generation rate at the site may range from approximately 45 to 210 gallons per day(GPD)based on the given temperature and flow scenarios. Please note that 36 degrees Fahrenheit(°F)corresponds to the average ambient temperature during the coldest month of the year(December), and therefore represents the period of greatest condensate generation. Since the average ambient temperature over the entire year is 59°F, the average volume of condensate generated over the course of 12 months will be less. 3.5 LFG MIGRATION CHARACTERISTICS The two primary components of LFG migration correspond to surface emissions and subsurface migration through subgrade soils and rock formations. As a general rule, LFG migration can be expected to follow a path of least resistance in response to pressure differentials. Surface emissions typically occur when vapor pressures within the WMU exceed atmospheric pressure and can vary during the course of the day due to fluctuations in atmospheric conditions. Similarly, increased vapor pressures within the WNW can induce lateral and vertical LFG migration through subsurface soils and rock formations,including preferential migration through permeable zones(i.e., sand and gravel deposits,fractures, etc.). Finally,concentration gradients between LFG within the refuse mass and surrounding soil-pore gas in the vadose zone can result in the diffusion of LFG both laterally and vertically. It should be noted that the surface of the WNW is currently comprised of interim cover soil. However, a low-permeability final cover system will be installed over the entire WNW as part of the final closure construction operations. Since the final cover system will include a geomembrane component, the new final cover system should serve to reduce potential surface emissions on its own. Conversely, the low-permeability nature of the final cover system could increase vapor pressures within the WNW,thereby increasing the potential for lateral and/or vertical LFG migration through the subsurface soils and/or rock formations, similar to what is currently being observed in City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 3-6 Page 1955 of 4165 the area of GAS-4. Thus, whereas the LFG collection and control system is being mandated to address fugitive surface emissions, it will also serve the dual purpose of mitigating the area of existing migration (GAS-4) and minimizing the potential for increased subsurface LFG migration elsewhere around the WMU. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 3-7 Page 1956 of 4165 SECTION 4 LFG COLLECTION AND CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN This section presents the various components of the LFG collection and control system design. The design has been developed to meet the requirements of 17CCR, §95464(b). Based on the current and projected LFG recovery rates presented in Subsection 3.2 (LFG Generation and Recovery Estimates), the design flow rate for the system has been established at 53 to 210 SCFM (at 50 percent methane). This range covers the highest anticipated LFG recovery rate based on the most conservative generation model. In addition, the design range can accommodate lower flows to account for future operations as the generation rate continues to decreases over time. Overall, the LFG collection and control system will consist of a series of perimeter and interior LFG extraction wells, associated above ground collection system piping, condensate collection provisions, and a flare station. Further details regarding each of these components are summarized in the following subsections. Construction drawings illustrating the LFG collection and control system design are enclosed in Appendix E. Sheets 600 through 602 provide plan views of the system layout. Sheets 700 through 706, in turn, provide details of the various system components. 4.1 LFG EXTRACTION WELLS 4.1.1 Well Field Layout and Rationale Since the WMU is comprised mostly of steep slopes,the well field layout is primarily dictated by the location of benches, which provide access by a truck- or track-mounted drilling rig. With that constraint in play,the well field for LFG extraction has been designed to create a series of perimeter and interior extraction well locations. Sheets 600 through 602(Appendix E)show the proposed well field configuration. As presented on these sheets, a total of 18 extraction wells(EW-1 through EW- 18)will be installed as part of the proposed construction. The rationale for the well field layout is as follows: • The perimeter extraction wells located near the edges of the WNW will be used for migration control in response to the anticipated increase in lateral and vertical pressures induced by the installation of the final cover system; • The interior extraction wells will be used to collect methane-rich LFG for the purpose of operating the flare and to deplete the LFG generation source; City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 4-1 Page 1957 of 4165 • The overall extraction well configuration will serve to provide coverage of the entire WNW as a means of minimizing the potential for fugitive surface emissions, including areas of exceedances identified during the August 8, 2013 emissions monitoring event; and • LFG extraction well EW-9 is intended to target the LFG migration observed in GAS-4, although other LFG extraction wells may also serve this purpose depending upon the migration pathway responsible for the conditions exhibited in GAS-4. For design purposes,it is assumed that the operating flow rates for the extraction wells will initially range from approximately 5 to 8 SCFM,which equates to a total now of 90 to 144 SCFM. This flow range encompasses the estimated maximum 2019 LFG recovery rate of 146 SCFM as presented earlier in Subsection 3.2 (LFG Generation and Recovery Rates)of this Updated Plan. It should be noted, however, that the actual flow rates will be contingent upon LFG quality at the respective locations. The aggressiveness upon which the well field is operated will be dictated by the extent of atmospheric air intrusion and the ability to attain flows that will not compromise the safety of site operations (i.e., subsurface fires). 4.1.2 Well Completion Depths The extraction wells will be completed to depths of approximate 10 to 15 feet above the base of refuse. Based on a previous seismic refraction survey performed at the Landfill in 1993 (Norcal Geophysical Consultants, Inc., 1993), it was estimated that the base of refuse ranges from approximately 700 feet MSL(north)to 880 feet MSL(south),with refuse thicknesses ranging from 40 to 65 feet. However, additional refuse was placed in the southern portion of the WNW following the seismic refraction survey,thereby increasing the refuse thickness in some areas to greater than 80 feet. Based on these characteristics, the proposed extraction well depths will range from 25 to 80 feet BGS as measured from the top of the completed final cover system surface, with an overall average depth of approximately 50 feet BGS. Ideally, a minimum perforation depth(i.e., depth to top of perforated interval) of 15 to 20 feet BGS will be maintained to minimize the potential for atmospheric air intrusion during system operations. In the event shallow auger refusal conditions are encountered that do not allow adherence to this specification, consideration will be given to either reducing the minimum perforation depth or adjusting the corresponding well location. The extraction wells will be drilled using a truck- or track-mounted drilling rig equipped with 24- inch diameter solid stem augers or bucket auger (see following subsection for further details). A qualified drilling contractor with a current C57 contractor's license will provide the drilling services, under the direct supervision of a California Registered Geologist. The field geologist will be responsible for logging the respective boreholes, making determinations in the field regarding the completion characteristics noted above, and preparing well completion logs. This individual will also perform field monitoring during drilling to evaluate individual borehole conditions and for health and safety purposes. The scope of field monitoring will include selected gases(i.e.,methane, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a portable LFG analyzer and photoionization detector(PID),respectively. Refuse spoils generated by the drilling operations will either be temporarily stockpiled on visqueen(and covered) or placed in roll-off bins,whereupon the material will be transported off-site to a permitted solid waste disposal facility. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 4-2 Page 1958 of 4165 4.1.3 Well Construction Characteristics The well casings for the extraction wells will be constructed of 4-inch diameter, Schedule 80 polyvinyl chloride(PVC)pipe. As noted in the previous subsection,the perforated interval for each well will start at 15 to 20 feet BGS and extend downward to the completion depth of the well. The annulus around the well casing will be backfilled with gravel pack material consisting of 1-to 2-inch diameter, non-calcareous washed rock and will extend 12 inches above the perforated casing. The gravel pack,in turn,will be capped with a 3-foot-thick hydrated bentonite seal,followed by soil to a depth of 1 foot below the refuse/final cover interface. A second hydrated bentonite seal (1.5 feet in thickness) will then be placed across this interface, followed by compacted soil to the base of the final cover system's geomembrane. Finally, a PVC well bore seal will be placed beneath and across the geomembrane as a protection provision against atmospheric air intrusion during system operations. Please refer to Sheet 700 (Appendix E)for a typical LFG extraction well construction detail and a tabulated summary of the proposed completion characteristics for the respective extraction wells. 4.1.4 Wellhead Completion The wellheads for the extraction wells will be completed above ground. The wellheads will be equipped with 1.5-inch diameter PVC gate valves and fittings to regulate and control LFG now. Each wellhead will also be equipped with a sample port, differential pressure ports, and an orifice plate to allow for the monitoring of LFG quality, temperature, vacuum conditions, and now. PVC flex hose will be used to connect the wellheads to the collection system piping. Please refer to Sheet 700 (Appendix E)for the wellhead completion characteristics. 4.2 COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPING 4.2.1 Piping Layout and Rationale Extracted LFG will be conveyed to the flare station via above ground collection system piping(i.e., laterals and headers). The proposed layout of the collection system piping is shown on Sheets 600 through 602 (Appendix E). As shown on these sheets, most of the collection system piping is aligned along the outside edges of the benches to allow for future operation and maintenance access. Other design features and considerations include the following: • The layout has a modified"loop" configuration that allows for a more even distribution of flow throughout the system. • The system is segmented and equipped with valve assemblies that will allow for portions of the system to be isolated for repair and maintenance while the remainder of the system remains operational. • The system has been designed for the removal of LFG condensate at various locations within the well field by promoting gravity drainage of the condensate towards low points within the City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 4-3 Page 1959 of 4165 collection system piping,whereupon the condensate is drained via dedicated drainage lines that convey the collected condensate to an existing leachate drain located along the northern toe of the WNW. 4.2.2 Sizing of Primary Header Pipe Head loss calculations were performed using the Darcy Formula to determine sizing requirements for the primary header pipe. A copy of the corresponding head loss calculations is presented in Appendix F. Based on a proposed blower vacuum rating of 35 inches of water column ("wc), a desired wellhead vacuum inducement of 10"wc at the extraction wells furthest from the flare station (EW-17 and EW-18), and a maximum flow rate of 210 SCFM,the corresponding head loss for a fl- inch diameter header pipe is approximately 2.2"wc. This translates to an available residual vacuum of 22.8"wc, which should be more than sufficient to compensate for any unforeseen performance losses related to potential surging effects or flow reversals (i.e., LFG versus condensate flow). 4.2.3 Construction of Collection System Piping The collection system piping will be constructed of Schedule 40 PVC pipe ranging in size from 4 to 8 inches in diameter. The PVC piping and fitting components will be j oined using solvent welding methods and painted to provide ultra-violet (UV) light protection. As outlined in the previous subsection, 8-inch diameter pipe is proposed for the primary header pipe to accommodate anticipated flows and promote condensate drainage. Six-inch and 4-inch diameter piping is proposed for selected header and LFG extraction well lateral segments,respectively. Other pertinent components of the collection system piping will include the following: • Isolation valves will be installed at major junctions and other strategic points within the primary header(see Sheets 600 through 602, Appendix E)to provide for greater flexibility from an operations and maintenance standpoint. This provision will allow sections of the primary header to be isolated while the remaining sections remain operational. • Flexible couplings will be installed within the header segments to accommodate thermal expansion and contraction of the pipe due to ambient temperature fluctuations. • Pipe anchors will be installed within the header segments to secure and restrict pipe movement at pertinent points within the system. The majority of the proposed pipe anchor locations will correspond to header-to-header and lateral-to-header connections and condensate drainage lines. • Pipe supports for selected above ground PVC piping segments will be installed to allow for the passage of surface water drainage beneath the pipe and to adjust pipe slopes where needed. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 4-4 Page 1960 of 4165 4.3 CONDENSATE COLLECTION PROVISIONS LFG condensate generated with the LFG collection and control system will be collected and removed at various points within the collection system piping. Condensate will also be removed at the flare station at a point just prior to the blowers. The locations and type of equipment to be used to remove the condensate can be summarized as follows: • Condensate Drop-Outs: Condensate drop-outs will be installed at various locations within the well field area(see Sheets 600 through 602,Appendix E). The condensate drop-outs are located at various low points within the collection system piping. The condensate drop-outs are designed to collect and convey condensate by gravity now via dedicated drainage lines to the existing leachate drain located along the northern toe of the WNW. The condensate drainage lines will be comprised of HDPE pipe and will include U-traps to isolate the drainage lines from the LFG stream. The removal of condensate from these areas is necessary to avoid potential problems related to LFG flow blockages and surging effects. • Gas-Liquid Separator: A gas-liquid separator will be installed at the flare station directly upflow from the blowers. The purpose of this component is to remove moisture from the LFG air stream prior to entering the blowers and flare. Removal of the moisture is achieved by centrifugal force created within the gas-liquid separator. Condensate removed by the drop-outs and discharged to the existing leachate drain will be managed in the same manner that the leachate currently is managed; i.e., the leachate drain discharges to a vault located near the west end of the WMU, whereupon the leachate is pumped to an existing leachate above ground storage tank (AST) for subsequent disposal at the City's publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) facility. Condensate collected by the gas-liquid separator will also be handled in a similar manner. This condensate will either be gravity fed to the aforementioned vault or pumped directly to the existing leachate AST. Provisions will be made to line the vault with a solids epoxy resin-based coating to provide waterproofing, sealing, and corrosion protection. 4.4 FLARE STATION The major components of the flare station are the blowers and the flare. Other pertinent equipment and features include: a gas-liquid separator for removing condensate and particulates from the LFG stream;LFG flow control and miscellaneous monitoring mechanisms to evaluate flare performance and compliance; and automatic safety control features. Further details regarding each of these components are summarized in the following subsections. It should be noted that the flare station will be comprised of a skid-mounted packaged combustion system. In general, a packaged combustion system consists of a pre-piped and pre-wired unit in which all the system components (i.e., gas-liquid separator, blowers, flare, control panel, etc.) are mounted on two separate skids. This type of system is proposed as a mechanism to reduce field installation costs. In addition,the packaged combustion system can be trouble-shooted and tested at the factory following fabrication to ensure proper operation. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 4-5 Page 1961 of 4165 4.4.1 Gas-Liquid Separator The gas-liquid separator is designed to remove moisture for the LFG stream prior to entering the blowers and flare. Removal of the moisture is achieved by centrifugal force created within the gas- liquid separator. Free liquids generated by this process are collected at the base of the unit and will be discharged to either the leachate vault or leachate AST as described in the previous subsection. This unit will be located on the packaged combustion system at a point upstream of the blower inlet. 4.4.2 Blowers The function of the blowers is to induce a vacuum in the LFG extraction wells and collection system piping and convey the LFG generated from these sources to the flare. The desired vacuum for the LFG collection and control system is set at 35"wc. This vacuum will be sufficient to induce a minimum vacuum of 10"wc in the LFG extraction wells furthest from the blower, extract LFG intercepted by the final cover system's gas relief component,and to overcome associated head losses in the collection system piping. As outlined in Subsection 4.2.2(Sizing ofPrimary Header Pipe)of this report, a residual vacuum of 22.8"wc will be available in the primary header system under the aforementioned conditions. The design flow rates for the entire LFG collection and control system are 53 to 210 SCFM. Two blowers will be installed at the flare,with the second blower intended for secondary standby requirements or to allow for alternating use of the blowers. The blowers will consist of centrifugal-type blowers equipped with 7.5 horsepower,3-phase,totally- enclosed fan cooled(TEFC)motors. Flexible connections will be installed on both inlet and outlet sides of the blowers to absorb vibrations during operation. A summary of the blower performance parameters is presented in Table 5. TABLE 5 BLOWER PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS Parameter Specification Fuel Landfill Gas Fuel Specific Gravity 0.97 pounds per cubic foot Fuel Temperature(Range) 100°F to ambient Design Flow Rate(Range) 53 to 210 standard cubic feet per minute Blower Turndown Ratio 4:1 Inlet Vacuum Pressure 35 inches of water column Discharge Positive Pressure 10 inches of water column °F: Degrees Fahrenheit City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 4-6 Page 1962 of 4165 4.4.3 Totally-Enclosed Vertical Ground Flare A totally-enclosed vertical ground flare (flare) will be utilized for the thermal destruction of LFG collected by the LFG collection and control system. In general, LFG extracted from the LFG extraction wells is diverted to the flare station where it is combusted in the presence of oxygen to carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen(NOx), and other related gases. The flare will be specified to meet all requirements of the MCAQMD and AB32 regulations, and will be equipped with a series of operational mechanisms, safety controls and monitoring devices (see following subsections). Table 6 below provides a summary of applicable performance standards for the flare. TABLE 6 FLARE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Parameter Specification Fuel Landfill Gas Fuel Composition(estimated) Methane(30 to 55 percent) Carbon Dioxide(20 to 45 percent) Nitrogen(5 to 12 percent) Oxygen(0 to 3 percent) Hydrogen(0 to 1 percent) Trace Compounds(<1 percent) Fuel Specific Gravity 0.97 pounds per cubic foot Fuel Temperature Range 100°F to ambient Design Flow Rate(range at 50 percent methane) 53 to 210 standard cubic feet per minute Pilot Fuel Propane Fuel Pressure to Flare 10 inches of water column Minimum/Maximum LFG Heating Value 269 to 492 BTU/scf Minimum/Maximum LFG Heat Release 0.9 to 6.2 MMBTU/hr Flare Turndown Ratio 4:1 Minimum LFG Retention Time 0.7 seconds Minimum Combustion Temperature 1,400°F Design Operating Temperature 1,400°F to 1,800°F Destruction Efficiency Overall=>98 percent by weight Oxides of Nitrogen(NOx)=0.06 lbs/MMBTU Carbon Monoxide(CO)=0.20 lbs/MMBTU °F: Degrees Fahrenheit BTU/scf: British Thermal Units per Standard Cubic Foot MMBTU/hr: Million British Thermal Units per Hour lbs/MMBTU: Pounds per Million British Thermal Units City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 4-7 Page 1963 of 4165 4.4.4 LFG Flow Control and Monitoring Mechanisms The flare will be equipped with automatic flow control capabilities and miscellaneous monitoring devices. The two primary components of the LFG flow equipment are the flame switch assembly and an actuated LFG inlet valve. The flame switch assembly is the source mechanism for activating the LFG inlet valve and includes such equipment as a UV flame detector and miscellaneous electronic relay components. The LFG inlet valve,in turn, shuts down flow to the flare in case of a system failure or emergency and is controlled by an electric or pneumatic actuator. The flare station will also be equipped with a variety of sensors and gauges to monitor system parameters,with the most prominent parameters being flow and temperature. Flow will be measured using a differential pressure or thermal mass flow meter. Temperature within the flare will be monitored using thermocouple transducers and temperature sensors. These devices are wired to a flame temperature controller unit that will be capable of regulating flare temperatures (through activation of an automatic damper[s]) and/or shutting down the flare station in cases of minimum/excessive temperatures. 4.4.5 Automatic Safety Control Systems In addition to the aforementioned safety control measures, the flare will be equipped with a flame arrestor and miscellaneous automatic shutdown devices. The flame arrestor is a safety mechanism designed to stop propagation of the flame. This device is equipped with an internal multi-plate bank assembly that absorbs and dissipates the heat from the LFG,which in turn lowers the temperature of the LFG below its ignition point,thereby quenching the flame. The flame arrestor will be installed in the inlet pipeline,just prior to entering the flare. The automatic shutdown devices, in turn,provide oversight of system operations and terminate operations if pre-set conditions are not satisfied. Conditions to be programmed for automatic shutdown will include,but not necessarily limited to,the following: pilot light failure; low/high temperature conditions; flame-out conditions; high condensate level in gas-liquid separator; and power outage. 4.4.6 Control Station Assembly The overall collection and control system will be operated by a programmable logic control (PLC) housed inside a self-supporting,weatherproof control panel. The PLC will be responsible for overall system operation and control. In addition to the PLC, the control panel will contain the following control/safety components and features: • Automatic start/re-start control system • Pilot gas control system • Modules for low/high temperature shut-down and automatic temperature controls integrated with the flare's damper system • Motor starter panels, including variable frequency drive (VFD)provisions • Power transformer and miscellaneous relay mechanisms • Indicating lights showing system operation and status • A continuous chart recorder for temperature and flow City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 4-8 Page 1964 of 4165 • Autodialer alarm system The control station assembly will be mounted directly onto the packaged combustor system unit. All electrical components for the control station assembly and flare station will be Underwriters Laboratory (UL) approved. 4.5 PERMITTING Permitting of the proposed LFG collection and control system will entail the acquisition of an Authority to Construct(ATC)/Permit to Operate(PTO)from the MCAQMD. The ATC/PTO process will be coordinated by EBA with the MCAQMD. Upon issuance of the ATC by the MCAQMD and subsequent installation of the LFG collection and control system, provisions will be made to coordinate a final system inspection with MCAQMD and perform any source testing that may be required to satisfy applicable PTO requirements. Other local permits that may be required as part of the installation process include a drilling permit for installation of the LFG extraction wells, as well as building and electrical permits. The acquisition of these types of permits (as applicable), and any other local permits that may be required, will be obtained by the construction contractor selected to implement the final closure construction project. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 4-9 Page 1965 of 4165 SECTION 5 MONITORING AND REPORTING The LFG collection and control system will be monitored throughout the course of operation to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of system operations. The proposed scope and frequency of monitoring activities are designed to maintain system efficiency and safety, and to comply with federal, state, and local regulatory requirements,including AB32 regulations. Details regarding the proposed monitoring and reporting provisions are summarized in the following subsections. 5.1 FLARE STATION Upon commencement of system operations, the flare station will be monitored initially on a daily basis to assure safe and efficient system operations, and to confirm compliance with applicable regulatory performance standards. Since the flare station is responsible for inducing sufficient vacuum pressures for the entire WMU and subsequent combustion of the LFG,it is imperative that the equipment components are operating at optimal efficiency at all times. Upon stabilization of system operations, the frequency of monitoring will be adjusted accordingly. In order to monitor system performance and identify potential hazards,the following parameters will be monitored and recorded: • Ambient temperature • Blower inlet vacuum pressure and differential pressure • Blower operating hours • LFG inlet temperature and pressure • LFG flow rate • LFG quality (methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen and balance [nitrogen] concentrations) • Flare temperature • Flame arrestor pressure and differential pressure The parameters outlined herein will be recorded on an entry log. All completed entry logs will be maintained on file at the City's office and will be made available to the MCAQMD,CalRecycle,and LEA upon either verbal or written request. 5.2 WELL FIELD LFG parameters will be monitored at each of the wellheads. Data compiled at these locations provide the greatest source of information regarding LFG collection and control system performance. Parameters to be included in the data collection will be as follows: City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 5-1 Page 1966 of 4165 • LFG Quality: Monitoring of the four primary LFG components (methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen) and the associated ratios of these compounds plays an important role with regard to operation of the LFG collection and control system. Methane concentrations provide an indication of the overall decomposition rate of the refuse and the overall health of the methogenic(anaerobic)organisms.Nitrogen and oxygen concentrations,in turn,provide indications of excessive flows and the influx of atmospheric air. The influx of atmospheric air into the WMU can be detrimental to anaerobic decomposition (thereby eliminating methane production), and can also increase the potential for subsurface fires. Individual extraction wells will be adjusted accordingly to maintain the highest methane content as practical, while still maintaining adequate migration and emissions control. • LFG Temperature: Excessive LFG temperatures provide an indication of potential subsurface fires. LFG temperatures typically range from ambient to approximately 130°F. Temperatures approaching the high end of this range will be used as a precautionary warning of potentially adverse operating conditions. • LFG Flow: Flow rates provide an indication of the performance of the respective LFG extraction wells. In addition,individual flow data can be useful in diagnosing problem areas in cases where decreases in overall flow rates are observed at the flare station. Finally,now data can be used to monitor whether the well field is operating within the LFG generation design parameters. • LFGPressure: Pressure data is used to evaluate whether an individual LFG extraction well is maintaining a negative pressure (vacuum). In some cases, excessive negative pressure conditions may also provide an indication that the well is clogged or damaged. Data compiled from the aforementioned monitoring will be used to evaluate conditions in proximity of each source location, and to make necessary flow adjustments at the respective wellheads. The monitoring of LFG extraction wells will be conducted initially on a weekly basis (minimum)until system operations stabilize,whereupon the monitoring frequency will be reduced to either bimonthly or monthly, as appropriate. Consistent with the recording procedures outlined above for the flare station, all data will be recorded on an entry log and maintained on file at the City's office. The corresponding entry logs will be made available to the MCAQMD, CalRecyle and LEA upon either verbal or written request. 5.3 TITLE 27 PERIMETER LFG MONITORING Monitoring of the perimeter LFG monitoring points will be conducted on a quarterly basis in accordance with 27CCR, §20921 and the Landfill's Final Postclosure Maintenance Plan. In addition to fulfilling the aforementioned regulatory requirements, the monitoring of perimeter probes will provide pertinent information regarding the overall performance of the LFG collection and control system. As previously noted in Subsection 4.1.1 (Well Field Layout and Rationale),installation of the final cover system could increase lateral and vertical pressures within the WNW, thereby potentially inducing subsurface migration of LFG. Thus, the perimeter monitoring will assist in City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 5-2 Page 1967 of 4165 determining whether the LFG collection and control system is providing adequate subsurface migration control, including whether ongoing operation of the existing partial perimeter LFG collection system is necessary if the historical LFG migration in that area can be abated by the new system. In accordance with 27CCR, §20934,the results of the monitoring will be reported within 90 days from when the monitoring was performed and submitted to the LEA, MCAQMD, and RWQCB. 5.4 AB32 MONITORING 5.4.1 Monitoring The LFG collection and control system and WMU surface will be monitored to comply with AB32 requirements in accordance with 17CCR, §95469. The scope of monitoring will include the following: • Instantaneous surface monitoring will be conducted on a quarterly basis to determine if surface emissions of 500 ppmv or greater, other than non-repeatable, momentary readings, are present at any location on the WNW surface. The monitoring will be accomplished using a portable gas detector while walking in a designated 25-foot spacing interval pattern where practical(see Section 6 [Proposed Alternatives] of this Updated Plan for noted exceptions). As required by the regulations,the WNW surface will be separated into grids approximately 50,000 square feet in size to delineate individual monitoring areas. Please refer to Appendix G for an illustration of the designated grid pattern. • Integrated surface monitoring will be conducted on a quarterly basis to determine if the average methane concentration within the individual grids exceeds 25 ppmv. The instrumentation and walking pattern will be consistent with those described above for the instantaneous surface monitoring. • Any components of the LFG control and collection system that are under positive pressure will be monitored on a quarterly basis to determine if any leaks are present at methane concentrations exceeding 500 ppmv. The only components under pressure will correspond to the conveyance piping between the blower and flare, as well as the flame arrestor and automatic block valve. There will be no components under pressure in the well field. The monitoring will be performed using a portable gas detector. • The wellhead for each extraction well will be monitored on a monthly basis to determine whether the extraction well is being operated under vacuum conditions (i.e., negative pressure). The monitoring will be performed using a Magnehelic pressure gauge. This monitoring requirement is redundant to that previously described in Subsection 5.2 (Well Field of this Updated Plan. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 5-3 Page 1968 of 4165 • The flare will be monitored for temperature and flow rate using dedicated instrumentation and the corresponding data documented using a continuous recorder. In addition, the flare will be source tested on an annual basis to verify compliance with emissions and destruction efficiency criteria. The test methods and procedures employed to perform the respective monitoring provisions outlined above will be in accordance with the applicable subsections of 17CCR, §95471. This includes portable gas meter instrumentation and calibration, emissions monitoring procedures, wind speed data collection, and precipitation documentation(i.e., no measurable precipitation 72 hours prior to emissions monitoring). In addition, in the event that an emissions and/or operating threshold is identified, corresponding corrective actions will be implemented within the time frames specified in the AB32 regulations. In accordance with 17CCR, §95469(a)(1)(C) and §95469(a)(2)(C), if no exceedances of the 500 ppmv (instantaneous) and 25 ppmv (integrated) emission thresholds are encountered for four consecutive quarters,the quarterly emissions monitoring frequency specified herein will be extended to annually. In addition, if the flare remains in compliance after three consecutive source tests,the annual source test frequency specified herein will be extended to every three years per 17CCR, §95464(b)(4)(A). 5.4.2 Recordkeeping Records will be maintained for the respective monitoring activities and will be made available for regulatory review at the City's office. The types of records to be maintained will comply with 17CCR, §95470(a) and include the following (as applicable): • All LFG collection and control system downtime exceeding five calendar days, including individual well shutdown and disconnection times, and the reason for the downtime. • All LFG collection and control system downtime in excess of one hour, the reason for the downtime, and the length of time the system was shutdown. • Expected LFG generation flow rate for the applicable calendar year. • Records of all instantaneous surface readings of 200 ppmv or greater associated with the LFG collection and control system and surface emissions monitoring, including specific details of the findings, corrective actions, and subsequent re-monitoring. • Records of any positive wellhead gauge pressure measurements, the date of the measurement, the well identification number, and the corrective action taken. • Results of flare source tests. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 5-4 Page 1969 of 4165 • Records describing the mitigation measures taken to prevent the release of methane or other emissions into the atmosphere during periods of shutdown or repair of the LFG collection and control system. • Records of any construction activities,including description of reason and associated details of the construction and mitigation measures taken to minimize methane emissions and other potential air quality impacts. • Records of the equipment operating parameters for the flare,including all 3-hour periods of operation during which the average temperature difference was more than 50°F below the average combustion temperature during the most recent source test, as well any other parameter boundaries that were exceeded. The aforementioned monitoring records will be maintained and be made available for regulatory review for a minimum of five years. In addition,the following records will be maintained for the life of the flare: vendor specifications; expected gas generation flow rate; and percent reduction of methane achieved by the flare. 5.4.3 Reporting An annual report will be prepared and submitted to the MCAQMD and/or the California Air Resources Board (CARB)by March 15 of each calendar year. The report will cover the period of January 1 through December 31 of the previous calendar year. The contents of the report will include all the information stipulated in 17CCR, §95470(b)(3), including much of the records information outlined in the previous subsection (as applicable). City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 5-5 Page 1970 of 4165 SECTION 6 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Alternative compliance options to the various requirements stipulated in the AB32 regulations are allowed for consideration under 17CCR, §95468. In this regard,the following sections outline three options as part of this Updated Plan to account for site-specific topographic features and design characteristics of the final cover system. 6.1 ALTERNATIVE WALKING PATTERN As previously discussed in Subsection 5.4 (AB32 Monitoring) of this Updated Plan, 17CCR, §95471(c)(1)(B)requires that the walking pattern for emissions monitoring be no more than a 25- foot spacing interval within each 50,000-square foot monitoring grid. Whereas the uppermost (southern)portions of the WMU surface readily allow for the implementation of this procedure,the majority of the WNW surface is comprised of steep slopes that present safety issues. A formal written request for authorization of an alternate walking pattern was submitted to the MCAQMD on July 18,2013 (EBA,2013 a). A copy of this request is enclosed in Appendix G of this Updated Plan. As presented in Appendix G, several of the concerns originally raised corresponded to logistical and safety issues associated with the vegetative cover (i.e., need for cutting of vegetation to facilitate emissions monitoring and potential safety hazards related to rattlesnake harborage). These concerns no longer apply based on the nature of the revised final cover system (i.e., synthetic closure turf in lieu of a vegetative cover). However, the safety issue of slip and fall hazards remain due to the steepness of the slopes. The majority of the landfill surface is at a slope of approximately 2.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Slopes of this magnitude covered by a synthetic surface can be slippery when trying to traverse by foot,regardless if the synthetic surface is wet or dry. This potential hazard is further heightened when considering the sampler is carrying a 30-to 40-pound instrument on his or her back/shoulder and holding the detector probe in one hand, while simultaneously trying to focus on both the monitoring device and the ground surface. As part of the previous exemption request presented in Appendix G, it was recommended that only those grids with flat or shallow slope conditions(i.e.,grids G6, G7, G10, G11,G14,G18,G19,G26, G27, G38 and G39 [see Appendix G]) be subject to the 25-foot spacing interval walking pattern, while surface emissions monitoring for the primary slope areas would target the respective benches. Under this approach, both the inside and outside edges of each bench would be monitored in accordance with the instantaneous surface emissions monitoring procedures described in the regulations. This approach was considered to offer a means of monitoring for surface emissions within the primary slope areas as a whole while promoting a safe monitoring procedure for the individuals responsible for implementing the program in the field. This overall walking pattern was verbally approved by the MCAQMD on July 31, 2013. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 6-1 Page 1971 of 4165 Once the LFG collection and control system is installed and operational,it is recommended that the same alternative walking pattern as described above and approved by the MCAQMD be implemented as part of subsequent surface emissions monitoring. While the previous request focused on instantaneous surface emissions monitoring, the same walking pattern is also proposed for the integrated surface emissions monitoring. Please note that whereas the final WNW grades will be adjusted nominally as part of the final cover system construction, the bench locations and slope angles will generally mimic the existing configurations. Thus, the number, orientation and pattern of the existing grids as presented in the previous submittal (Appendix G)will not change appreciably and is still valid. 6.2 WELLHEAD GAUGE PRESSURE 17CCR, §95464(c) requires that each wellhead must be operated under a vacuum (negative pressure), unless the final cover system is constructed with a geomembrane or synthetic cover. Under this circumstance, an acceptable pressure limit for the wellheads must be specified in the design plan. Since the final cover system for the WMU will include a geomembrane component,the Landfill qualifies for an alternative wellhead gauge pressure limit. In this regard,it is proposed that the maximum wellhead gauge pressure limit be set at +2.0 inches of water column (positive pressure). Please be advised that the wellhead gauge pressure is indicative of pressure conditions at depth,not at the near surface. Just because a positive pressure exists at a wellhead,it does not necessarily mean that surface emissions will be the result of such conditions. Ideally, the wellhead gauge pressure should be dictated by the LFG quality as inducing too much vacuum can cause in the inducement of atmospheric air into the refuse mass and increase the potential for subsurface fires. Thus, in the absence of surface emissions within proximity of an extraction well,no adjustment to the vacuum is recommended regardless of the wellhead gauge pressure conditions, provided the maximum LFG quality conditions have been attained at that particular extraction well. In fact,it would be better to disconnect and cap the extraction well as opposed to risking a subsurface fire for the sole purpose of maintaining a negative wellhead gauge pressure. Under this scenario, replacement of the disconnected extraction well is not recommended unless surface emissions exceeding the regulatory thresholds are detected, whereupon a new extraction well(s) should be installed within the time frames stipulated in 17CCR, §95469(c). 6.3 PROVISIONAL GAS RELIEF COMPONENT VENTING The gas relief component associated with the final cover system will be connected to the LFG collection and control system and maintained under vacuum to eliminate the potential build-up of LFG pressure beneath the geomembrane. This provision is important as excessive LFG pressures beneath the geomembrane could compromise the structural integrity of the geomembrane. Whereas the LFG collection and control system is designed to operate on a continuous basis, there may be unforeseen instances where the system shuts down due to equipment failure or power outages. If City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 6-2 Page 1972 of 4165 such shutdowns last for an extended period of time,temporary mitigation measures will be necessary to avoid excessive pressure build-up beneath the geomembrane. In this regard, the gas relief component will be equipped with pressure relief valves to allow for temporarily venting to the atmosphere LFG that may collect beneath the geomembrane during shutdown periods. The valves will be pressure activated if appreciable pressures buildup beneath the geomembrane. While such conditions may result in point source emissions exceeding the AB32 regulatory threshold of 500 ppmv, such emissions would only be temporary in nature and would cease upon reinstatement of LFG collection and control system operations. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 6-3 Page 1973 of 4165 SECTION 7 TEMPORARY MITIGATION MEASURES Per 17CCR, §95464(a)(1)(D), the design plan must include temporary mitigation measures to prevent the release of methane or other pollutants into the atmosphere during the installation or preparation of extraction wells,piping,or other equipment; during repairs or the temporary shutdown of LFG collection and control system components; or when solid waste is excavated and moved. The following provides a summary of the temporary mitigation measures that will be employed to meet these objectives: • New LFG extraction wells will be required to be drilled and installed in a single day. Installation must include placement of casing,gravel pack, and surface seal(including lower and upper hydrated bentonite seals). The top of the casing will be capped. Partially drilled or partially installed extraction wells will not be allowed to remain open overnight. • During the installation or repair of collection system piping,the ends of piping that could be susceptible to emitting LFG will be capped when not actively being worked on. No pipe ends will be allowed to remain open overnight. • As outlined in Subsection 4.2.1 (Piping Layout and Rationale) of this Updated Plan, the collection system piping is segmented and equipped with valve assemblies that will allow for portions of the system to be isolated for repair and maintenance while the remainder of the system remains operational. This provision will minimize the size of areas subject to potential fugitive surface emissions during repairs. • When practical, any planned shutdowns of the LFG collection and control system will be scheduled for the morning hours when barometric pressure conditions are typically high, thereby minimizing the potential for fugitive surface emissions. • Other than solid waste excavated during the drilling of LFG extraction wells, the only excavation of solid waste may take place during construction of the final cover system since the Landfill is closed. Under this scenario, any exposed in-place waste will be required to be covered with soil as soon as practical, or at the end of each work day,whichever occurs first. In regards to the solid waste that has been excavated (during final closure construction or drilling),this material will be stockpiled and covered, or placed in a truck or roll-off bin and covered, as soon as practical. No excavated waste will allowed to remain uncovered overnight and will be covered during transport off-site. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 7-1 Page 1974 of 4165 SECTION 8 SCHEDULE Installation of the LFG collection and control system will be conducted as part of the Landfill's final closure construction project that is scheduled to commence in the spring of 2020. The target completion date for having the LFG collection and control system installed and operational is December 2020. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 8-1 Page 1975 of 4165 SECTION 9 REFERENCES City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works, May 3, 1999, Report of Disposal Site Information (RDSI), Ukiah Disposal Site, Mendocino County, California;Updated Revision of May 1993 RDSI Prepared by EBA Wastechnologies. City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works, June 20, 2013, Ukiah Landfill Heat Input Capacity Report; Prepared for Mendocino County Air Quality Management District by City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works, Ukiah, California. EBA Wastechnologies (now EBA Engineering), October 6, 1999, Ukiah Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Site, NMOCEmission Testing Results, EBA Job No. 99-691 (7); Submitted to Mendocino County Air Quality Management District by EBA Wastechnologies, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering, July 18, 2013 a,Request for Alternative Compliance Walking Pattern, City of Ukiah Landfill, Mendocino County, California, EBA Job No. 13-1953 (Task 2); Submitted to Mendocino County Air Quality Management District by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering,August 16,2013b,Results oflnitialAB32Methane Emissions Monitoring, City of Ukiah Landfill, Mendocino County, California, EBA Job No. 13-1953 (Task 5); Submitted to Mendocino County Air Quality Management District by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering, October, 2013c, Design Plan for Landfill Gas Collection and Control System, City of Ukiah Landfill,Mendocino County, California, EBA Job No. 02-907(Task 8); Prepared for City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering, October 2015, Updated Design Plan for Landfill Gas Collection and Control System, City of Ukiah Landfill, Mendocino County, California, EBA Job No. 02-907 (Task 8); Prepared for City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. EBA Engineering,May 2016, Updated Design Plan for Landfill Gas Collection and Control System, City of Ukiah Landfill,Mendocino County, California, EBA Job No. 02-907(Task 8); Prepared for City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works by EBA Engineering, Santa Rosa, California. Lawrence&Associates,June 18, 1998,Preliminary Reportfor Methane Finger Printing at the City of Ukiah Sanitary Landfill, Ukiah, California, Job No. C96.06.08D; Prepared for City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works by Lawrence& Associates, Redding, California. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 9-1 Page 1976 of 4165 Norcal Geophysical Consultants,Inc., March 18, 1993, Seismic Refraction Survey, Ukiah Landfill, Job No. 92-282.02; Prepared for EBA Wastechnologies, Inc. by Norcal Geophysical Consultants, Inc., Petaluma, California. Pacific Waste Services, Inc., December 17, 2009, Technical Memorandum, U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting, Ukiah Landfill, Project 305-1.2, Prepared for C$S Waste Solutions and City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works by Pacific Waste Services, Inc., San Ramon, California. SCS Engineers,March1998,Final Report: Comparison ofModels for Predicting Landfill Methane Recovery;Prepared for The Solid Waste Association of North America(SWANA);Publication#GR- LG 0075; SCS Engineers, Reston, Virginia. City of Ukiah Landfill—Updated Design Plan April 2019 9-2 Page 1977 of 4165 APPENDIX A FIGURES Page 1978 of 4165 w e h �r ,P1 + k M z 0' I , rr s+ f Zu' `NPN1'4 r d '' .. µ.. if I .^d YGCV'J6y i ,h:' � F Z L t Fi iry o r� r F n,a III'°W III '� m IIII III r �w P A'"w c .;ral ray �u Inn y 9,+ r d�rF ji I BIdli�r I{BY4 p I W I I f,i3 ro; gJlLake lr I � ' � F t `d( , LOCATION MAP FIGURE EBA F,NGy N E IE A I N G 82`,SSONOMA AVENUE CITY OF UKIAH LANDFILL `AN IA R(',A,CA`)400 UKIAH CALIFORNIA rr_i.. rro"7 sew-0/Fm 02-907 Q:\02-907\Location Map.dwg,Fig 1,10/4/2013 8:55:49 AM Page 1979 of 4165 LUB-ZO VINNOJIIVO `HVNn IIIJONVI HVNn jO I.LIO oo 38noIj NVId 311S M M b LU 1 Z ® uoll If:''V t,4 a+�ii,ir /,,( r I ll y � 4, it � "YTNII Pfl i I 1 ,d 1 / , k I E a APPENDIX B LFG GENERATION MODELING RESULTS Page 1981 of 4165 APPENDIX B-1 S'CENA RIO I Page 1982 of 4165 ODE Page 1983 of 4165 Model Output: Lanfill Characteristics Landfill Name: Ukiah Landfill Year Opened: 1955 State: CA If Closed,Year: 2001 k Value: 0.038 City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino M Value: 6 Model Output: Landfill Gas Captured and Captured Gas Heat (graph values in MMbtu/hr) Landfill as Captured Year Captured Gas Heat 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 scf/min MMbtu/hr 1900 1900 1901 1902 1902 1903 1904 1904 1905 1906 1906 1907 1908 1908 1909 1910 1910 1911 1912 1912 1913 1914 1914 1915 1916 1916 1917 1918 1918 1919 1920 1920 1921 1922 1922 1923 1924 1924 1925 1926 1926 1927 1928 1928 1929 1930 1930 1931 1932 1932 1933 1934 1934 1935 1936 1936 1937 1938 1938 1939 1940 1940 1941 1942 1942 1943 1944 1944 1945 1946 1946 1947 1948 1948 1949 1950 1950 1951 Page 1984 of 4165 Model Output: Lanfill Characteristics Landfill Name: Ukiah Landfill Year Opened: 1955 State: CA If Closed,Year: 2001 k Value: 0.038 City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino M Value: 6 Model Output: Landfill Gas Captured and Captured Gas Heat (graph values in MMbtu/hr) Landfill as Captured Year Captured Gas Heat 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 (scf/min) (MMbtu/hr) 1952 1952 1953 1954 1954 1955 3 0.1 1956 10 0.3 1956 1957 17 0.5 1958 23 0.7 1958 1959 30 0.9 1960 37 1.1 1960 1961 43 1.3 1962 49 1.5 1962 1963 56 1.7 1964 62 1.9 1964 1965 68 2.1 1966 75 2.3 1966 1967 81 2.5 1968 87 2.6 1968 1969 93 2.8 1970 99 3.0 1970 1971 105 3.2 1972 111 3.4 1972 1973 117 3.6 1974 123 3.7 1974 1975 129 3.9 1976 135 4.1 1976 1977 141 4.3 1978 146 4.4 1978 1979 152 4.6 1980 158 4.8 1980 1981 164 5.0 1982 169 5.1 1982 1983 175 5.3 1984 180 5.5 1984 1985 187 5.7 1986 193 5.9 1986 1987 199 6.0 1988 206 6.2 1988 1989 212 6.4 1990 218 6.6 1990 1991 224 6.8 1992 231 7.0 1992 1993 237 7.2 1994 244 7.4 1994 1995 251 7.6 1996 256 7.8 1996 1997 258 7.8 1998 260 7.9 1998 1999 263 8.0 2000 266 8.1 2000 2001 268 8.1 L] 2002 264 8.0 2002 2003 255 7.7 Page 1 8 of 4165 Model Output: Lanfill Characteristics Landfill Name: Ukiah Landfill Year Opened: 1955 State: CA If Closed,Year: 2001 k Value: 0.038 City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino M Value: 6 Model Output: Landfill Gas Captured and Captured Gas Heat (graph values in MMbtu/hr) Landfill as Captured Year Captured Gas Heat 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 (scf/min) (MMbtu/hr) 2004 245 7.4 2004 2005 236 7.2 2006 227 6.9 2006 I L 2007 219 6.6 2008 211 6.4 2008 2009 203 6.2 2010 195 5.9 2010 2011 188 5.7 2012 181 5.5 2012 2013 174 5.3 2014 168 5.1 2014 2015 161 4.9 2016 155 4.7 2016 2017 150 4.5 2018 144 4.4 2018 2019 139 4.2 2020 133 4.1 2020 Page 1986 of 4165 )SIMPLE'' I S DE Page 1987 of 4165 III"I Y IICd°W.PlICIA11l1°°III IIL.. III III':; III IIIII...III... Model 2:Parameters Simple First Order Lo: 3,200 cubic feet Methane/ton refuse k: 0038/year Lag time between initial placement of refuse and start of generation is assumed to be one year. Methane Generation Methane Generation Annual (Million cubic feet/year) Refuse Lower Median Upper Year (Tons) Limit Limit 1955 ,.. 19,250 ,.. 0 0 d 0 ,.. 1956 19,800 1 2 3 1957 20,350 3 4 7 1958 20,900 4 7 10 1959 21,450 6 9 13 1960 22,000 S,h4',0 7 11 16 1961 22,550 9 13 19 1962 23,100 10 15 23 1963 23,650 11 18 26 1964 Z4,200 13 20 29 1965 Z4,'7'50 14 22 32 1966 25,300 0 16 24 35 1967 25,850 17 26 38 1968 26,400 0 18 28 41 1969 26,950 20 30 44 1970 ' 7'',500 21 32 47 1971 28,050 22 34 50 1972 28,600 24 36 53 1973 26'r➢j 50 25 38 56 1974 26'iiu,'7''d',0 26 40 59 1975 30,250 28 42 62 1976 30,800 29 44 65 1977 31,350 30 46 68 1978 m,900 31 48 70 1979 32,450 33 50 73 1980 33,000 34 52 76 1981 33,550 35 54 79 1982 34"100 36 56 82 1983 34,650 38 58 85 1984 35,200 39 60 87 1985 35,7'50 40 61 90 1986 36:,300 41 63 93 1987 36,850 43 65 96 1988 37',400 44 67 99 1989 3'7',950 45 69 101 1990 38,500 46 71 104 1991 39,050 48 73 107 1992 39,aMo 49 75 109 1993 40,150 50 76 112 1994 40,'7'00 51 78 115 1995 41,250 52 80 118 1996 41,800 54 82 120 1997 42,350 55 84 123 1998 42,900 56 86 126 1999 43,450 57 87 128 2000 44,000 58 89 131 2001 44,550 60 91 134 2002 0 61 93 136 2003 0 59 89 131 2004 0 56 86 126 2005 0 54 83 122 2006 0 52 80 117 2007 0 50 77 113 2008 0 48 74 109 2009 0 47 71 105 2010 0 45 69 101 2011 0 43 66 97 2012 0 42 64 93 2013 0 40 61 90 2014 0 39 59 86 2015 0 37 57 83 2016 0 36 55 80 2017 0 34 53 77 2018 0 33 51 74 2019 0 32 49 72 2020 0 31 47 69 2021 0 30 45 66 2022 0 28 43 64 2023 0 27 42 61 Page 1988 of 4165 LO o 00 a) cm M O N O N O N W O_ O � L N O� rl W Z �! 00 o o N W Z OW v� W C;, � Z 0 w x oc W � a W 0 a C;*� Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �o CA 00 �o N (-i,i/3ajVjV) ao►juaaaaq aaugjalV MODIFIED FIRST ORDER MODE L (SCS ENCrlNF.ERS, ,199$) Page 1990 of 4165 (�Ao l (Nl::�:: Model 3:Parameters Modified First Order s: 'tl.V90 Lo: 3,200 cubic feet Methane/ton refuse k: 0 038/year Lag time between initial placement of refuse and start of generation is assumed to be one year. Methane Generation Annual Methane Refuse Generation Year (Tons) (Million cubic feet/year) 19+55 ,.. 19,250 ,.. ,0 1956 19,800 1 1957 20,350 3 1958 20,900 6 1959 21,450 8 1960 22,000 10 1961 .2,550 12 1962 23,100 14 1963 23,650 17 1964 24,200 19 1965 24,750 21 1966 2r5,300 23 1967 2r5,850 25 1968 26,400 27 1969 26,950 29 1970 27,500 31 1971 28,050 33 1972 28,600 36 1973 29,150 38 1974 29,700 40 1975 30,250 42 1976 30,80o 44 1977 311,350 46 1978 311,90o 48 1979 32,450 50 1980 33,00o 52 1981 33,550 54 1982 33,100 56 1983 34,650 57 1984 35,200 59 1985 35,750 61 1986 36,30o 63 1987 36,850 65 1988 37,00 67 1989 37,950 69 1990 38,50o 71 1991 39,050 73 1992 39,600 75 1993 YV➢150 77 1994 W,'700 78 1995 111,250 80 1996 111,800 82 1997 12,350 84 1998 12,900 86 1999 ��13,�'15&:u 88 2000 14,000 90 2001 ��Y��Y,55&:u 92 2002 0 93 2003 0 92 2004 0 89 2005 0 86 2006 0 83 2007 0 80 2008 0 77 2009 0 74 2010 0 71 2011 0 69 2012 0 66 2013 0 63 2014 0 61 2015 0 59 2016 0 57 2017 0 55 2018 0 53 2019 0 51 2020 0 49 2021 0 47 2022 0 45 2023 0 43 Page 1991 of 4165 LO o O O N N CY) O N O N O_ O N of � � O oc O Fil W � � Fil ICI �I A Lxj O ICI W A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O\ 00 l� \O (ift/3aIVIV) ao►juaaaaq aaugjalV FIRSTORDER MULTY-1-111ASE MODEL Page 1993 of 4165 Model 4:Parameters First Order Multi-Phase k-Constant(for rapid) 0 08 Decay Rate of Rapidly Decomposables k-Constant(for slow) 0 06 Decay Rate of Slowly Decomposables Fraction rapid decomposing W11,G, Fraction of Rapidly Decomposing Waste Fraction slow decomposing 4"011,1, Fraction of Slowly Decomposing Waste Lo-Constant 3,200 cubic feet Methane/ton refuse Lag time between initial placement of refuse and start of generation is assumed to be one year. Methane Generation Annual Methane Refuse Generation Year (Tons) (Million cubic feet/year) 1956 19,800 4 1957 20,350 8 1958 20,900 11 1959 21,450 15 1960 22,000 18 1961 22,550 21 1962 23,100 25 1963 23,650 28 1964 2,4200 31 1965 24,750 33 1966 25,300 36 1967 25,850 39 1968 26,00 42 1969 26,950 44 1970 27,500 47 1971 28,050 49 1972 28,600 52 1973 2949,150 54 1974 29,'700 56 1975 30,250 59 1976 30,80o 61 1977 311,350 63 1978 311,90o 65 1979 32,450 67 1980 33,00o 70 1981 33,550 72 1982 33,100 74 1983 34,650 76 1984 35,200 78 1985 35,750 80 1986 36,30o 82 1987 36,850 84 1988 37,00 86 1989 37,950 88 1990 38,60o 90 1991 39,050 91 1992 39,600 93 1993 9V➢150 95 1994 W,'700 97 1995 111,250 99 1996 111,800 101 1997 12,350 103 1998 12,900 104 1999 ��93,�'96&:u 106 2000 14,000 108 2001 �09�09,66&:u 110 2002 0 112 2003 0 104 2004 0 97 2005 0 91 2006 0 85 2007 0 79 2008 0 74 2009 0 69 2010 0 65 2011 0 61 2012 0 57 2013 0 53 2014 0 50 2015 0 46 2016 0 43 2017 0 41 2018 0 38 2019 0 35 2020 0 33 2021 0 31 2022 0 29 2023 0 27 Page 1994 of 4165 LO 0 LO rn o rn o N (3) 0) m 0 N 0 N 0 0 N w 00 F, a\ a\ � � w � z x � 0 aw � z W � o AH xw o � � a wz z 0 0 (-ijC/3aWW) uoiluaauag auugjaW A ND I 2 SCENARIO e Page 1996 of 4165 I BC MODEL Page 1997 of 4165 Model Output: Lanfill Characteristics Landfill Name: Ukiah Landfill Year Opened: 1955 State: CA If Closed,Year: 2001 k Value: 0.038 City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino M Value: 6 Model Output: Landfill Gas Captured and Captured Gas Heat (graph values in MMbtu/hr) Landfill as Captured Year Captured Gas Heat 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 scf/min MMbtu/hr 1900 1900 1901 1902 1902 1903 1904 1904 1905 1906 1906 1907 1908 1908 1909 1910 1910 1911 1912 1912 1913 1914 1914 1915 1916 1916 1917 1918 1918 1919 1920 1920 1921 1922 1922 1923 1924 1924 1925 1926 1926 1927 1928 1928 1929 1930 1930 1931 1932 1932 1933 1934 1934 1935 1936 1936 1937 1938 1938 1939 1940 1940 1941 1942 1942 1943 1944 1944 1945 1946 1946 1947 1948 1948 1949 1950 1950 1951 Page 1998 of 4165 Model Output: Lanfill Characteristics Landfill Name: Ukiah Landfill Year Opened: 1955 State: CA If Closed,Year: 2001 k Value: 0.038 City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino M Value: 6 Model Output: Landfill Gas Captured and Captured Gas Heat (graph values in MMbtu/hr) Landfill as Captured Year Captured Gas Heat 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 (scf/min) (MMbtu/hr) 1952 1952 1953 1954 1954 1955 2 0.1 1956 5 0.2 1956 1957 9 0.3 1958 13 0.4 1958 1959 17 0.5 1 1960 20 0.6 1960 1961 24 0.7 1962 28 0.9 1962 1963 32 1.0 1964 36 1.1 1964 1965 40 1.2 1966 44 1.4 1966 1967 49 1.5 1968 53 1.6 1968 1969 57 1.7 1970 61 1.9 1970 1971 66 2.0 1972 70 2.1 1972 1973 74 2.3 1974 79 2.4 1974 1975 83 2.5 1976 87 2.7 1976 1977 92 2.8 1978 96 2.9 1978 1979 101 3.1 1980 105 3.2 1980 1981 110 3.3 1982 114 3.5 1982 1983 119 3.6 1984 123 3.7 1984 1985 128 3.9 1986 134 4.1 1986 1987 139 4.2 1988 144 4.4 1988 1989 149 4.5 1990 154 4.7 1990 1991 159 4.8 1992 163 4.9 1992 1993 166 5.0 1994 168 5.1 1994 1995 171 5.2 1996 174 5.3 1996 1997 176 5.3 1998 180 5.5 1998 1999 186 5.7 2000 192 5.8 2000 2001 192 5.8 2002 186 5.7 2002 2003 179 5.4 a e 1999 of 4165