Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05042004 - D.1 DA TFIF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Bate. May 4,2004 Matter of Record Public Comment- The fallowing persons presented testimony: Sunnee Archie, 1111 Ferry Street, Apartment 54, Martinez regarding Long Term unresolved Issue Housing Authority; Debbie Stofer, 1753 Landana Drive, Concord,regarding redevelopment of CCR; Gary Stofer, 1753 Landana Drive, Concord, (Friends of Buchanan), regarding redevelopment of CCR.; Wes Daniels, 2137 Trinity Court,Martinez,regarding Concord Airport relocation; Bob Johnson, 344 Clarkin Court, Walnut Creek,regarding Concord Airport; John Scott, 1533 Criquet Court, Concord, regarding Concord Airport; Dianne Cole, 2420 Tomar Court, Pinole, )Friends of Concord Airport) regarding Concord Airport; David A. Long, 1259 Larch Avenue, Moraga,regarding Request for Proposal; Marc Santa.croce,4395 St. Charles Place, Concord,regarding Concord Airport; Susan Clark, 600 Suntree Lame,#612,Pleasant Hill,regarding Concord Airport closure; Russel Roe, 2121 Walnut Street,Martinez, regarding Concord Airport issues; REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (TBREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Fame: �J//2 422 Li zZEe Phone Z, ,,3 >r CO$ - - Address: City Z t �� Y '�i:�" Zip Code: �1 I am speaking for myself '" or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item#_ --Late: My Comments will be general for gain ' " c C`fY,9 t I wish to speak on the subject of �I do not wish to speak on the subject but leave these comments for the board to consider: N�`W 91?" to REQUEST TO SPEAK FORK (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this fora and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing. the Board. Name:• �i�--� � 1� ��1� Phone: Cl Z � Address:- 1 `--0Y,\ ty s G V1 c [A . I am speaking for myself X or organization: owe of orianization) CHECK ONZ t I wish to speak on Agenda Item V&re: My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: 4 1 C . r { a WtXi `� 0�V-S C j `rie of Comem '.... A Coalition of Runless, Pileft and C G< 6i 5: 5 r G: P.D. Box 30942 Walnut Creek,Ca 94598 Phone (Cell)514.417.5121 Fax 510.758.6335 E-mail diannesummers@mindspring.com Website www.Bu� portcom Friends of Concord Airport Association A Coalition of Business, Picots and Concerned Citizens P.O. Box 30942 Walnut Creek,Ca 94598 Phone 510.417.5121 Fax 510.758.6335 E-mail diannesummers@mindspring.com Website www.BuchananAirport.com The Honorable Mark DeSaulnier Member Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 11.0 Concord, CA 94520 Re: Concord Airport Dear Supervisor DeSaulnier: I write on behalf of Central Contra Costa County's business and aviation community to reiterate our request that you focus the County's attention on improving Concord Airport instead of selling it to the highest bidding developer. The Friends of Concord Airport have followed with interest your efforts to encourage the sale to the highest bidder of our Concord Airport. We have noted that the Federal Aviation Administration has made it clear that the County cannot dispose of Concord Field to a developer group unless the closure of Concord Airport results in a "net benefit"to aviation. The developers who are trying to take control of our community airport have seized upon the notion that they can build a new airport on the old Acme Landfill. The developers have proposed that they will build a bigger and better airport on Acme Landfill and that they should get to build their houses and commercial projects on Concord Airport based on their promise to develop a new airfield on the Acme Landfill. You have stated publicly that a condition to the closure of the Concord Airport will be its replacement with an equal or better facility in Central Contra Costa County. I enclose a study of the feasibility of developing an airfield on the Acme Landfill. The study,performed by Brown,Vence & Associates, engineers who were the site engineers for the Acme Landfill for many years, points out that the cost of preparing the ground at the Acme Landfill site for the development of an airport --exclusive of the cost of building the airport— will exceed $1,250,000,000 (UNE POINT TWO FIVE BILLION DOLLARS) and may be as much as$1,845,000,000. Friends of Concord Airport continue to believe that the FAA will never allow the closure of Buchanan Field and that the County's dalliance with a group of developers will serve only to detract from the growth of Concord Airport. You have agreed repeatedly that there is only the slimmest of chances that the FAA would sanction the closure of Buchanan Field. You must understand that the County's participation in this pointless endeavor of planning for the closure of an airport that will never be closed serves only to discourage growth in Concord and on the airfield as investors are deterred Page 2 Friends of Concord Airport Association A Coalition of Business, Pilots and Concerned Citizens from development while they await the outcome of the high stakes game being played by the developers and the County. The Friends of Concord Airport recognizes that there are not sufficient resources available in our community to spend over$1,250,000,000 on site preparation for a new airport. The truth appears to be that the alternative of a new airport on the Acme Landfill proposed by the developers who want to buy their way onto Concord Airport is just smoke and mirrors. There is no viable plan to develop an airport to replace Concord Airport. Rather,there appears to be a plan to placate the FAA and the City of Concord with a promise that is not possible to perform in order to grab up Buchanan Field for private interests. The Friends of Concord Airport invites you to have the County's experts review the enclosed Brown, 'Vence&Associates Report. We are confident that when thoughtful science is applied to the issue—instead of hollow and disingenuous sales pitches—you and your colleagues on the Board will recognize that the alternative of an airfield on the site of the Acme Landfill is not possible for our community because it is too expensive. Without the false promise of an alternative airport,the developers who would carve up Buchanan Field for their own profit have no hope of providing the necessary"net benefit"to aviation in Central Contra Costa County that is a prerequisite to the closure of Concord Airport. Therefore,the Friends of Concord Airport requests that the County delay consideration of the developers' RFP until the County's engineering staff can review and comment upon the Brown, Vence&Associates Report. We are confident that a fair review of the Report will confirm the basic fact that it is not economically feasible to build a new airport on the Acme Landfill. Please note that we do not argue that it is impossible. It is just more costly than our community would ever be able to afford. When the County's engineers have confirmed that the Acme Landfill is not a realistic site for a neve airport,we ask that you lay to rest for good the RFP and turn your attention to matters that will benefit the County like resolving the$65,000,000 budget crisis and turn the County away from interfering with the growth and development of the City of Concord and Buchanan Field. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Very truly yours, WAr A-A�� �0� Dianne Cole Executive Director Friends of Concord Airport cc: Board of Directors,Friends of Concord Airport Members, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors ,F f/�., ix`i'•.'l 'moi, �� �ifi3v.fir Po Mf:�4,YX%B�X�'45ei pin 1 0 r f /yr} l if 's s « Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................... 1 Section1 k Introduction ............................................................................................... 3 SiteDescription...............................................................................................4 Section 2 1 Technical Aspects of Constructing an Airport at the Acme Site................ 7 SubsurfaceReview ......................................................................................... 7 Shear Strengths of Soils..................................................................................8 Potential Settlement Considerations of the Waste.......................................... 8 Potential Settlement Considerations of the Underlying Soils......................... 10 Combined Waste and Underlying Soils Total Settlement.............................. 10 Differential Settlement Considerations of Waste........................................... 10 Total and Differential Settlement Conclusion................................................ 10 Alternatives to Resolve Settlement of the Acme Landfill............................... 10 Import Bridging Materials ....................................................................... 11 Dynamic Compaction............................................................................. 12 Pile Supported Structure........................................................................ 12 Removalof Waste.................................................................................. 13 Partial Waste Removal and Development of New Landfill Cells............ 13 Conclusion of Technical Viability for Acme Site..................................... 14 Section 31 Technical Aspects of Material Removal and Relocation......................... 15 Estimate of Material Amounts ....................................................................... 15 Cost Estimate for Materials Removal and Relocation................................... 16 MaterialRemoval ................................................................................... 16 Material Relocation......... ......................... .................--....................... 16 Hauling and Disposal Costs .............................................................. 16 Summary of Materials Removal and Relocation Costs.......................... 18 Technical Aspects of Materials Backfill and Compaction.............................. 18 Summary of Total Costs................................................................................ 19 Estimate of Truck Traffic for Relocation of Waste and Backfill Operations... 19 i Table of Contents Section 4 Other Potential Related Issues ................................................ .............. 21 Landfillissues................................................................................................ 21 SiteIssues..................................................................................................... 21 Land Use Compatibilities........................................................................ 21 Future Growth Projections.................................................................21 Proximity to Oil Refineries................................................................. 22 RequiredWind Studies.................................................................................. 22 RunwayRequirements.................................................................................. 22 PowerLines.................................................................................. ................ 22 Environmental Considerations ...................................................................... 23 PotentialFlooding .................................................................................. 23 Significant Ecological Areas................................................................... 23 Hazardous Wildlife Attractants to Airports.............................................. 23 MitigatingMeasures...................................................................................... 24 Cost to Build New Airport.. ......... ...... ....... ........... .... 24 Conclusion,........ ............ ...... ...... ............. ................... 24 References Appendices ii Acne Landfill - Engineering Review of Airport Feasibility Executive Summary Contra Costa County is considering developing an airport on the now closed Acme Landfill in Martinez, California to replace Buchanan Field. Due to a variety of landfill, planning, community and environmental factors, as discussed below, Acme Landfill is not a viable site for the construction and operation of an airport. The construction of an airport or any large structure such as a runway necessitates a firm and unyielding subsurface soil structure on which to construct. The Acme Landfill has three main characteristics that make the placement of runways and structures problematic. • First, it is unlikely that the Department of Toxic Substances Control will allow the construction of structures above the landfill's known hazardous waste since the pressure of the airport structures will likely disturb the integrity of either the containment or the monitoring system. In addition, the end land-use needs to be consistent with the approved final closure and post-closure plans. As an airport will likely not meet these requirements, keeping the landfill materials in place is not viable. • Second, unless all of the landfill materials are removed, waste settlement will occur gradually over a period of up to thirty years at uneven rates which will make the ground levels uneven and constantly changing. As such, all waste and soil from the landfill will need to be removed (approximately 19,200,000 cubic yards), and construction grade soil backfilled to levelize the landfill footprint. ■ Third, keeping landfill materials in place enables the continuation of waste decomposition and therefore generates methane gas. Placing structures on the landfill allows the gas to accumulate under enclosed structures such as buildings, subsurface utility boxes, etc. creating an explosion risk. For these three reasons, all landfill materials must be excavated to provide initial consideration of the site's viability to support an airport. Such an excavation, disposal and backfill effort including engineering, construction quality assurance, permitting, CEQA and contingencies is estimated to cost approximately $1,261,000,000 to $1,845,000,000. This includes the excavation of the old, partially decomposed garbage mixed with soil, hauling these materials to a suitable landfill, paying for disposal of the waste, and backfilling the excavated areas to a level condition with engineered fill materials suitable to support runways and other airport facilities and structures. Since the largest area of the landfill (the North Parcel) is contaminated with hazardous waste mixed in with the municipal solid waste, disposal of this material is limited to a hazardous waste site and is much more expensive than disposing the other two parcel's contents. In addition to cost, this excavation and soil replacement would require ..rrrr. 11RvexcMJ06FlLE8ISVA2004 jobs\J040074.00 Richard Norris(Acme LF)\Final ReporbACME Final Report.doc f approximately 2,800,000 truck trips to remove the waste and backfill the site; this would be a significant traffic impact on area roadways. Trucking and construction activities could also create air quality and noise impacts. In addition to the cost and logistics of making the landfill site suitable for the construction and operation of an airport, the surrounding environment and an airport's impacts also make the site unviable. Land use immediately surrounding the site is not consistent with Contra Costa County's airport commercial General Plan designations. The presence of power lines bordering the landfill will make airport operations infeasible without moving them. Residences in the Vine Hill community are only separated by a narrow buffer from the landfill site and two schools lie within a two mile radius. Potential impacts to neighborhoods are distinguished from other airport communities, such as those surrounding Buchanan Field, since those residences were established around an existing airport. The placement of an airport at the former Acme Landfill will therefore create noise, dust, and visual pollution issues and likely impact the operations of the industrial community immediately in the area. As far as environmental impacts, the landfill borders ecologically sensitive areas including the Pacheco Slough and the PachecoMalnut Creek. The site is also near the Carquinez Strait, and Suisan Bay. The Federal Aviation Administration identifies wildlife species which are hazardous to airport operations. Since waterways are prominent around the site, the placement of an airport at the former landfill is likely to result in wildlife-aircraft collisions. Due to potential impacts to the surrounding environment alone, the Acme landfill site is not a viable alternative to Buchanan Field. For all of the elements mentioned above, and further described in the following report, the former Acme Landfill site is not a location that will be able to support the operations of an airport without requiring substantial and costly renovation of the site and having significant impacts to the immediately surrounding community and environment. 21 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES Section 1 Introduction Contra Costa County is considering closing Buchanan Field, an existing airport, located near Concord, California. One of the replacement options being considered is constructing an airport approximately the size of the Buchanan Field at the location currently occupied by the Acme Landfill in Martinez, California. Brown, Vence &Associates, Inc. (BVA) was retained to assess the engineering and cost related impacts of possibly utilizing the Acme Landfill site. BVA has provided solid waste and landfill consulting services for 25 years in California and internationally. We are very familiar with the Acme Landfill site having served as site engineers for several years, operating the leachate treatment plant and constructing a transfer station at the site. Founded in 1979, BVA has worked on a variety of landfill projects which lend expertise to analyzing Acme Landfill's ability to support an airport or other large structures. BVA has solid waste facilities planners with experience in siting, permitting, and regulatory compliance and environmental documentation for landfills throughout California. In addition, BVA's civil and environmental engineers have extensive experience in all design and engineering aspects of landfill development, construction, and operation. BVA's expertise, and the focus of this analysis, was directed toward the technical engineering and cost aspects of making Acme Landfill a viable airport site. Specifically analyzed were the requirements associated with the removal and relocation of buried material, backfill as required, and construction of a large structure on the Landfill. BVA did not evaluate the unique needs of airport design such as air space requirements, neighboring topographic terrain, predominate wind directions throughout the year, and other issues which will affect the site's viability as a replacement for Buchanan Field. BVA's scope included the following: ■ Assessing the technical aspects of constructing an airport on the existing landfill site, including the review of subsurface issues and the potential instability of the underlying bay mud and its impact on construction • Estimating the amount of material (solid waste and soil cover) that would need to be removed to accommodate a new airport • Estimating the cost of removal and relocation of the material • Estimating the amount of soil needed and cost to backfill the site to grade • Estimating the amount of truck traffic that would be required for material removal and backfill operations ■ Identifying other potential landfill related issues such as groundwater contamination, including showing the limits of the North Parcel on a map, which contains hazardous wastes rrrrrrwrr 3 * Describing other related site issues such as the proximity of refineries, required wind studies, runway requirements, power lines, environmental considerations and mitigating measures; and cost to build a new airport Site Description The Acme Landfill site is located immediately southwest of the congruence of Waterfront Road and the Walnut Creek Flood Control Channel, about one mile east of the Intersection of Interstate 680 and Waterfront Road. The address of the site is 950 Waterbird Way, Martinez, California, 94553. The Acme Landfill consists of three parcels containing large mounds of municipal solid waste. These three areas are designated as the, North, East, and South Parcels. The parcels, which have waste within them, are approximately 125 acres, 97 acres, and 22 acres, and contain approximately 11,000,000, 1,650,000 and 6,500,000 cubic yards of materials, respectively. The site is bounded on the west by Waterbird Way, on the north by Southern Pacific Railroad, and on the east by the Walnut Creek Flood Channel. The Vine Hill Class 1 Landfill waste disposal site owned by International Technology Corporation and the Martinez Gun Club are to the south of the North Parcel and separate the North and South Parcels. Pacheco Creek bounds Acme Landfill to the south. Land within one mile of the Acme Landfill is primarily zoned as Heavy Industrial (H-1) and Controlled Heavy Industrial (W-3). The Vine Hill residential area is zoned Single Family (R- 6) and is located adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the Landfill. A description of the North, East and South Parcels as extracted from their respective closure plans and revisions (CH2M Hill 1990b; 1991 a; 1991 b) are presented below. A map of the Acme site, showing the three parcels is attached as Figure 1. Additional information about the parcels is presented in Appendix A. North The North Parcel is approximately 125 acres and has been filled to the height of about 85 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The base of the fill varies from several feet above sea level near the perimeter of the parcel to about 15 feet below MSL at the center of the parcel. It is estimated that the parcel contains around 11,000,000 cubic yards of refuse and is mixed with cover soil from the operation years of 1950-1989. The depth of waste ranges from 2 to 80 feet. Figure 2 shows the cross-section of the landfill. Unlike the other two parcels, the North Parcel contains both municipal solid waste (MSW) and hazardous waste. Acme Landfill stopped accepting Federally designated hazardous wastes in 1984. The State of California designated hazardous wastes in 1987, and California designated 'special' wastes in 1989. Prior to 1983 the hazardous wastes and MSW were combined during the landfilling operations. Between 1983 and 1989 the system of trench landfilling was used whereby the hazardous waste would be placed into an excavated trench within the MSW. Soil cover was then applied over the trench. Based on the North Parcel Closure Plan, it is estimated that designated 'special' and hazardous wastes may account for 5 to 6 percent by weight of the total wastes landfilled in the parcel. 41 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES _..X....................................... - ............................................................................................................................. Acme Landfill—Engineering Review In accordance with the department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) requirements, fill operations ceased in the parcel in 1989. East The East Parcel is approximately 97 acres, has six refuse cells and is filled with MSW. There is not a liner system on the parcel since studies conducted between 1975 and 1985 by Harding Lawson Associates indicated that the Younger Say mud underlying the parcel had a permeability of 1 x10-6 cm/sec or less. The refuse cells were each surrounded by compacted clay barriers that were made of the Younger Bay mud that was accumulated during excavation of the parcel to construct the cells. Figure 3 shows the cross-section of the landfill. The depth of the MSW cells ranges from 2 to 52 feet. Disposal operations at the East Parcel were from 1984 through 2003 resulting in the parcel containing approximately 6,504,000 cubic yards of MSW mixed with soil. The East Parcel is shaped as a trapezoid with an average length of approximately 2,400 feet and a width of approximately 1,600 feet. The parcel has a southwest to northeast trending ridge with a peak elevation of about 65 feet MSL with slopes extending to three sides. The sideslopes are irregular and range from 5:1 to 15:1. The base of the landfill parcel ranges from about 5 to 0 feet MSL. Groundwater levels within the landfill are approximately 8 feet MSL. South The South Parcel is approximately 22 acres and is filled with MSW. The parcel has approximately 1,650,000 cubic yards of waste and soil cover. Waste placement was conducted between 1982 and 1983. The parcel is made up of two northwest-to southwest- trending mounded ridges with the depth of waste ranging from 10 to 35 feet. The eastern portion is approximately 1,100 feet long and approximately 400 feet wide. The ridge elevation ranges from 60 to 40 feet MSL at the southern end. The two side slopes are uniform with slopes of approximately 5:1 (horizontal to vertical). The base of the landfill is at approximately 10 feet MSL except on the western side where it intersects with the western portion which is at approximately 24 feet MSL. The western portion has an elevation of approximately 70 feet MSL with a 5:1 slope towards the east and very irregular slopes to the west. The base elevation of this portion ranges from 24 to 50 feet MSL. Groundwater levels follow the bedrock contours in the western portion and are between 5 and 15 feet MSL in the eastern portion. Figure 4 shows the cross-section of the landfill. 5 This page left blank. 61 BROWN, VENCE&ASSOCIATES w� y t n �ih O t �,jJ •� t � � t�M1�t E VIA, 0 fox rs'tt$mi! F�o i7 ' � � r �: �' Sit :J ��:r� '� '•' r+f �i "� ,�.ly q�f , I ry B t a a t �K,w.. ✓ `"�..,� '� � t t t is ssr t t V3 r t t 1,J�f M4 .0Y�:.f ':.f�I��•'.""��(. `�r �.. }{�y(y� 1 � ,i' � �,`c�i'�C...� �a6,i. `."r ... ��` 1",�� .' � t)Ct��;,,�. a ucaf`T� + 11 1 Alf 10, oil � ow ,jrA !• { tVA+ Li i� 1 ¢(} L w ' O✓"' S 1 e, � ._.j f"'" `'�`,, „-. 4"._7 vm oil C s� 0 s t `ti',11 o wa d e m 8 C? a o ci z ro h « « Eall t � Y lI ,m y# i I S s � 1 / m } ffi � N ttseii u433snil� � Q} 6D t j C.4 w � � U) tai LU V T 811'µWil } rt �t wAIRr � 11"'$3 '4 a u 40. • W it` r ` 4rikl � [[ CIA Mko LUQ R IL a z YU. > ol _. . u5 V VS of yYit Y u+ Y w v r u Q Z Z g z �M y a y Yi + f9 Vi U' Vi �n T c t{?t'E3'll E fV D ©iVC�dlt �' otvod tr `" j� /1 2 ftMt].d tt r" s 1O r a ca I! } W ❑AfOd 11 c�� � f1� /� ti te Y Z %+ A9380 003HOVd t Q rst-83 J w U4a� / LL qt—ad46 Nt C0 r /f $ U l �st 0 c iTL.- C. s U4 OSW_A)NOUVA313 0 LL Section 2 Technical Aspects of constructing an Airport at the Acme Site The construction of an airport or any large structure such as a runway necessitates a firm and unyielding subsurface sail structure on which to construct. The following sections describe the subsurface elements which make landfills a complicated and problematic structure to build upon. Subsurface Review A cross-section drawing of the landfill prepared by CH2M Hill (Hill) illustrates each parcel's subsurface geologic conditions (see Figures 2, 3, and 4). This information illustrates both the variation and the complexity of the subsurface conditions. The following is a discussion about each cross-section. ■ The North Parcel cross-section shows that the site is located adjacent to a naturally occurring bedrock formation (Panache Formation) consisting of siltstone, sandstone and shale. The bedrock hili rises above the surrounding terrain to the left side of the cross-section. This bedrock formation declines toward to the east beneath the North Parcel as illustrated on the attached Generalized Subsurface Cross-section prepared by Hill. In addition to the dipping bedrock, the North Parcel is underlain with varying thicknesses of Younger Bay mud and Older Bay mud and Alluvium. The Younger Bay mud varies in depth from 22 to 25 feet deep beneath the site, while the Older Bay mud varies in depth from 10 to 400 feet beneath the site. a The East Parcel is underlain by a lens of variable depth soft clay (Fat Clay with Peat) which is also underlain by slightly stiffer clays (Silty Fat Clay) of varying depth. The western (left side of the cross-section) is underlain by a second layer of Fat Clay with Peat. A Fat Stiff Clay layer exists beneath these layers. The soft clay varies in depth from 55 to 65 feet deep beneath the site, while the stiffer clays vary in depth from 100 to more than 300 feet beneath the site. The South Parcel cross-section is adjacent to a naturally occurring bedrock formation. The shallow soft clays (Fat Clay with Peat) increase in depth as the bedrock dips to the east (left side of the cross-section). The stiff silty clay layer appears to begin about mid way beneath the easterly hill of the South Parcel and increases in depth as the bedrock dips to the east. The soft clay varies in depth from 8 to 36 feet deep beneath the site, while the stiffer clays vary in depth from 3 to 130 feet beneath the site. The critical element of these cross-sections is the high variability of the subsurface conditions. Specifically, the depth of the compressible soft clays varies widely between and within sites. This is an important factor when considering the placement of a large rigid 7 structure such as an airport. Because an airport would require a level surface, the removal of some or all of the waste and backfilling with soil is necessary. Regardless of the method utilized to create a level surface, the imposition of weight onto the subsurface geotechnical features will yield a dramatically variable settlement condition. Specifically, those subsurface portions of shallow soft clays (such as the Younger Bay mud and Fat Clay with Peat) will tend to settle differently depending upon the depth of the layer, depth of the underlying layer, depth to bedrock, and amount of weight placed on the layers. Historically, each of the layers have been somewhat compressed by the placement of the waste. The process of leveling the site will introduce new weights onto the subsurface layers thereby imposing new compression stresses onto the subsurface soils. The new compression stresses will result in highly variable settlement rates. Those portions of the site adjacent to the bedrock with little to no underlying soft soils will likely not settle. In contrast, those portions of the site with deep lens of soft Gays will likely settle the most. This type of highly variable settlement parameters is not conducive to the development of an expansive structure such as an airport runway. Shear Strength of Soils Shear strength data reported by Hill indicates that Younger Bay mud has relatively low strength and high compressibility which makes it a difficult material to support runway and building construction. Older Bay mud is not as problematic for stability and settlement considerations, because it is significantly stronger, stiffer, and less compressible. For this reason, only Younger Bay mud will be further discussed in this section. The behavior of Younger Bay mud is primarily controlled by the presence of organic material, Shear strength data indicates that peat is highly compressible and reaches peak strength at higher levels of strain. The trends of undrained shear strength with depth follow generally accepted trends for normally consolidated clay in which strength increases approximately linearly with depth. The undrained shear strength results of studies conducted by Hill around 1990 concluded that the upper 10 to 20 feet of Younger Bay mud has a relatively constant shear strength of about 200 pounds per square foot (psf). For the North and East Parcels, Hill reported a constant undrained shear strength of 200 psf to a depth of about 15 feet below sea level, followed by a linear increase according to the equation s,=155[psf]-8[psflft] x elevation. Their analysis reported the shear strength profile as an approximate average of all the undrained shear strength profiles. Furthermore, the undrained shear strength at the South Parcel appears to be greater. Potential Settlement Considerations of the Waste Municipal solid waste containing organic matter decomposes and settles over time. The overall settlement of solid waste has been studied and quantified by a variety of experts. Of the experts, Yen and Scanlon, 1975 found that the rate of settlement decreases logarithmically with time. Other studies concluded an average overall settlement of 81 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES _... Acme Landfill—Engineering Review approximately 10 percent with variation as much as 30 percent. Settlement analysis undertaken by Oweis & Khera, 1986 and Oweis, 1983 concluded that compressibility could be estimated using multiple parameters developed from measurements taken at a variety of sites (CH2M Hill 1991 a; 1991 b). As organic matter decomposes, a variety of settlement activities occur. Settlement is generally classified as initial or long-term. Settlement analyses were performed for both the South and East parcel by Hill, 1991. The following is a summary of Hill's findings. Initial consolidation or mechanical settlement occurs when additional loads are placed on top of an organic material layer causing the crushing of soft materials, densification of materials with voids, and release of water due to increased weight placed on the material. Initial settlement occurs relatively quickly (reportedly within 1 to 2 months' following placement for a typical waste layer of 15 feet). Hill concluded initial settlement has already occurred for bath the South and East Parcels. Lona-term settlement occurs despite no additional wastes being placed on the organic layer and lasts an extended period of time depending upon a variety of issues. The characteristics of long-term settlement were reported by McBean, Rovers and Farquhar, 1995 and are as follows (CH2M Hill 1991 a; 1991 b): • Reduction in void spaces and compression of loose materials due to self-weight and the weight of overlying materials • Reduction in volume caused by biological decomposition of organic matter and chemical reactions • Reduction in volume due to dissolving of soluble substances • Movement of particles into large voids, and • Settlement of underlying soil materials beneath the landfill The settlement analysis at Acme Landfill by Hill concluded the following regarding long-term settlement activity: • Long-term settlement at the South parcel could vary between 0.5 feet and 2.5 feet between 1994 and 2024 depending on the depth of waste. Furthermore, additional settlement between 0 to 1 feet is estimated to occur between 2024 and 2087. • Long-term settlement at the East Marcel could vary between 0.5 feet and 3 feet between 1994 and 2024 depending on the depth of waste. Furthermore, additional settlement between 0.5 to 2 feet is estimated to occur between 2024 and 2087. Ch2MHlll 1991 9 Potential Settlement Considerations of the Underlying Soils In addition to overall settlement of waste materials, settlement of the underlying soils beneath landfills typically occurs. The Hill report included such a settlement analysis and the conclusions were as follows: ■ Long-term settlement of the foundation soil beneath the South Parcel could vary between 0.5 to 1.5 feet between 1994 and 2024 depending on the depth of waste. Furthermore, additional settlement of between 0 and 1 feet is estimated to occur between 2024 and 2087. ■ Long-term settlement of the foundation soil beneath the East Parcel could vary between 6 and 9 feet between 1994 and 2024 depending on the depth of waste. Furthermore, additional settlement of between 0.5 feet and 9.5 feet is estimated to occur between 2024 and 2087. Combined Waste and Underlying Soils Total Settlement The Hill report also evaluated the total estimated settlement (waste and the subsurface soils beneath the site) and concluded that settlement after closure (after 1994) would be between 6.5 and 11 feet. Differential Settlement Considerations of the Waste In addition to overall settlement, differential settlement may occur in localized areas. Differential settlement differs from overall settlement in that there is a localized presence of organic matter or elevated concentrations of liquids. Unlike overall settlement, differential settlement cannot be predicted and it can also be accelerated by the intrusion of water. When water is introduced to organic materials, a rapid increase in the level of bacteria activity and subsequent decomposition will occur. The resulting decomposition will yield a localized area of differential settlement. Consequently, the governing agencies that regulate landfills require annual inspections and maintenance of the closure cap. A primary objective of this protocol is to maintain the closure cap's integrity thereby minimizing infiltration of surface water into the landfill. Total and Differential Settlement Conclusion Based on the aforementioned settlement information provided by the studies documented, BVA concludes that the anticipated magnitude of both overall and differential settlement at the three landfill parcels is not conducive to supporting an expansive structure such as an airport. Alternatives to Resolve Settlement of the Acme Landfill BVA considered a variety of alternatives to resolve the settlement challenges discussed above. The goal of each alternative is to develop a site wherein the settlement of the site is 10 1 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES _._..... Acme Landfill—Engineering Review reduced to an acceptable level for an expansive structure such as an airport. The following is a list of potential solutions to resolve the settlement issues at the Acme landfill site. • Import and place bridging materials (rock and soil) on the waste and non-waste areas thereby raising the site to a level plateau approximately equal to the highest elevation of the site Use of dynamic compaction to accelerate settlement ■ Use of piles penetrating the landfill to support the proposed structure * Removal of the landfill materials These potential solutions are further discussed below. Import Bridging Materials The,placement of additional bridging materials pre-consolidates the waste and theoretically would reduce the affects of differential settlement. Depending upon the depth of the bridging materials, this alternative would likely result in an acceleration of settlement due to the additional stresses imposed on the waste and underlying weak soil layers. The result of the additional weight would likely result in localized compression and movement of the closure layer rendering it compromised. In order to prevent surface water from infiltrating the wastes, and thereby accelerating decomposition, a new cover layer would need to be constructed above the bridging materials. The introduction of additional weight and the subsequent settlement could continue for a long period of time. In addition, the placement of bridging materials will likely result in highly differential settlement patterns throughout the site depending upon the depth of the overburdened bridging materials, depth of waste, type of waste, and depth of underlying soft soils. Furthermore, placement of bridging materials could destabilize weak subsurface soils if not placed properly. As discussed in an earlier section, the shear strengths of the existing shallow, (up to 15 feet) soft soils are low. If the placement of bridging materials were to exceed these undrained conditions, shear failure in the shallow soft soils could result. Consequently, the placement of additional weights on these soils could cause the bridging materials to collapse. Furthermore, the placement schedule of the new fill would require careful consideration. The placement schedule would have to be limited to allow the gradual compression of the shallow soils from the existing un-drained weak condition, to a drained, condensed and stronger condition. Thus, it could take many years to make the site ready for airport construction if this method was used. Further analysis of this condition would be necessary in the event the placement of bridging materials were to be considered in conjunction with a thorough settlement analysis to evaluate the settlement based on the desired filling level. However, based on the regression analysis provided by Hill discussed earlier, the settlement process extended over approximately three to four decades. These conditions are unacceptable to the development of an expansive structure such as an airport. __ 11 An additional consideration in evaluating this method is that leaving any waste in place would allow continued production of gas from the decomposition of the MSW. This gas contains approximately 50 percent methane and is therefore explosive in concentrations greater than 5 percent. Accordingly, all MSW would need to be removed underneath and around all buildings and other structures which could cause the gas to accumulate. Expensive landfill gas barrier and monitoring systems would have to be installed and operated. Based on the unreliability of this method to address settlement shear strength elements, the time required to safely place the bridging materials, and explosion risk, this option is not viable to support construction and operation of an airport. Dynamic Compaction Dynamic compaction consists of repeatedly dropping a heavy weight onto the surface. The goal of this procedure is to over consolidate the upper surface of the site, thereby avoiding settlement in the future. This practice has been used at some landfills where development is anticipated (BSK, 1999 Calcot Landfill Development). The limitation of this practice is that it cannot affect materials beyond approximately ten feet of depth. The depth of waste in all the parcels significantly exceeds ten feet. The waste beneath this depth will not be affected by this procedure, but the closure cap will be damaged beyond repair rendering it useless. A new closure cap would be necessary to be installed on the surface after the dynamic compaction efforts are completed. Due to the likelihood of this procedure not affecting wastes beyond ten feet deep, the alternative of Dynamic Compaction is not viable for the Acme landfill. As with the other methods dealing with leaving MSW in place, the landfill gas problems discussed above would be present. Due to the likelihood of this procedure not affecting wastes beyond ten feet deep and the explosion risk, the alternative of Dynamic Compaction is not viable for supporting the construction and operation of an airport. Pile Supported Structure The use of piles to support a structure on a landfill has been employed in California. Piles are typically friction-bearing piles providing support in stiff subsurface soils. Piles are typically installed at relatively close proximity depending upon the supportive conditions of the soil and weight of the proposed structure. The use of grade beams connecting the piles together typically provides a grid of interactive lateral support for dynamically imposed loads. In addition to supporting the weight of the proposed structure, the piles are also typically designed to accommodate the drawdown of waste on the pile as the waste decomposes and settles over time. This practice is generally limited to landfills with shallow depth and relatively light structures. As with the other methods leaving MSW in place, the landfill gas problems discussed above would be present. 121 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES Acme Landfill— Engineering Review Due to the relatively great depth of waste, the heavy weight of runways, and airport buildings, combined with the likelihood of relatively poor supportive subsurface soils and explosion risk, the use of piles at the Acme landfill to support an expansive structure such as an airport is not viable. Removal of Waste The excavation of landfill materials would eliminate settlement issues related to the waste. However, as previously described, unacceptable levels of settlement of the underlying weak soil Mayers would remain a possibility. Removal of the waste would also remove the necessity of installing a new cover cap over the waste areas as described in both the Bridging Materials and Dynamic Compaction alternatives discussed above. In order to remove the wastes, a thorough evaluation of the impacts and alternatives would be necessary. An economic evaluation of the possible disposal alternative, truck routes, and potentially affected receptors would be necessary. The cross-.sections provided by Hill illustrate the presence of groundwater, or more likely elevated leachate levels in a large portion of the waste. This is particularly true for the North Parcel which has the largest quantity of waste. Consequently, the removal of wastes would include the excavation and transport of saturated waste materials. The removal of the landfill materials would involve a variety of key factors including but not limited to the following: ■ Numerous excavators to exhume the waste and soil materials ■ An extensive odor control and mitigation protocol • A fleet of water tight trucks to transport the waste to an acceptable landfill disposal site ■ A fleet of landfill equipment to receive, spread, compact and cover the mixed waste ■ A landfill capable of obtaining a revised waste permit to accept the increased waste rate of arriving waste To provide a basis of consideration for the development of the Acme Landfill, BVA prepared an estimate of the cost to relocate the landfill contents and backfill the site with construction grade soil. The cost estimate is described in the next section. Partial Waste Removal and Development of New Landfill Cells Another alternative, lessening the amount of waste to be removed, transported, and disposed in a landfill (as this is the largest portion of the cost) would be to develop the airport, as best possible, around the waste. This concept would include removing those portions of the waste materials beneath the airport structure down to soil and disposing them at a landfill. It would also require reducing the height of the waste adjacent to the airport structures by moving or spreading waste materials from one area to another at the Acme site. The moving or spreading of this material would trigger regulatory requirements to line and cover each of the new landfill cells. This process will require the development of w� 13 appropriate regulatory applications and issuance of a new landfill permit. In addition, the areas excavated would need the import and compaction of engineered clean fill to bring the elevations in-line with the existing waste. The cost for this alternative would not be significantly different than the removal of waste alternative discussed above. In addition, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to re-open the Acme hazardous waste landfill for these operations. In summary, implementation of this concept would be very costly and may not be allowed by the regulatory agencies. Conclusion of Technical Viability for Acme Site BVA concludes the Acme Landfill site poses significant challenges to the development of an expansive structure such as an airport. This conclusion is based on the following observations. ■ Best scientific methodology predicts that overall and differential settlement of the site will exceed an acceptable level that could safely support an expansive structure such as airport runways, hangars, etc. which make up an airport. ■ Alternatives such as the import of Bridging Materials and Dynamic Compaction would likely not reduce total or differential settlement to an acceptable level for an expansive structure such as an airport. ■ Alternatives such as the import of Bridging Materials could destabilize the existing un-drained soft soils. Consideration of this condition and mitigation measures would need to be included in the design of such alternatives. ■ Alternatives such as the import of Bridging materials and Dynamic Compaction will destroy the existing cap necessitating the installation of a new protective cover cap. ■ The alternative of supporting proposed structures on piles is unlikely due to a variety of factors such as the excessive depth of waste that would need to be penetrated, the weak soils underlying the site, and the necessity for an expansive structure such as airport runways. ■ Any method which leaves MSW in place, allows continued production of landfill gas, which would require extensive control measures to ensure the safety of airport users. ■ DISC regulates what types of buildings can be placed on a landfill due to the risks associated with landfill gas. Developing enclosed buildings as part of an airport (hangars, towers, etc.) will present structural difficulties and risks with respect to landfill gas. ■ The only alternative that will likely resolve excessive settlement is the complete removal of the waste materials. An economic analysis of the alternative to remove the waste from the site is presented in the following section. 141 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES ........ .........................................................._....... - _.._...._..__ Section 3 Technical Aspects of Materiel Removal and Relocation Estimate of Material Amounts An initial step in analyzing the waste removal and relocation process is estimating the amount of waste to be handled. BVA used Closure Plans, final grading plans and cross- sections to estimate the total cubic yards of materials (waste and cover materials) required for removal and relocation. The Closure Plans detail the amount of waste landfilled (the North Parcel Plan details the total waste and cover landfilled). The East and South Parcel Closure Plans did not include a figure for cover materials, but included final grading plans and cross-sections. Engineering take-offs were prepared to estimate the total landfilled figure, including both waste and cover for the East and South Parcels. The take-off methodology was checked by comparing the North Parcel Closure Plan figure to take-offs from the final grading plan and cross-section for the North Parcel. The figures compared favorably. The total amount of materials landfilled in all three parcels was estimated to be approximately 19,200,000 cubic yards. Materials from the North Parcel are contaminated with hazardous wastes (as per the Department of Toxic Substances Control), and thus need to be relocated to a Class I or 11 landfill, such as the Buttonwillow site in Kern County or the Kettleman Hills Facility in Central California. Thus, the amount of materials for the North Parcel was separated from the total for cost estimating purposes. The North Parcel was estimated to contain approximately 11,000,000 cubic yards, while the South and East Parcels contain approximately 8,200,000 cubic yards of materials. For cost estimation purposes, the parcel's cubic yard amounts were converted into tonnage figures for using a density conversion factor of approximately 1,800 lbs per cubic yard. This density factor is reasonable considering in-place compacted waste is usually 1,400 lbs per cubic yard and cover material 2,700 lbs per cubic yard for this type of landfill. In addition, BVA cross-checked these figures to an earlier study of landfill material removal and relocation. In this study, testing of the materials by weight and volume measurements showed an average conversion factor of 1,763 lbs per cubic yard. Using the conversion factor, the North Parcel contains approximately 9,900,000 tons of materials, while the South and East Parcels contain approximately 7,300,000 tons of materials. Table 1 shows these figures below. W- 0 75 Table 1 j Estimated Material Amounts Paan Xxiue U-06.00-Y WI tty» North } 11,000,000 9,900,000 South & East 8,150,000 7,340,000 i 3 Tota( 19,150,000 17,240,000 Figures have been rounded. Cost Estimate for Materials Removal and Relocation The cost estimate for this process can be divided into two components; material removal and relocation. Material Removal (Excavation) Material removal includes excavating the waste and cover materials and loading them onto an 18 cubic yard end-dump vehicle for relocation and transport to a nearby landfill. To evaluate costs, BVA used CSI Division 02, Bulk Excavation, from the Building News (BNi) General Construction 2004 Costbook and assumed medium material excavation. The cost for excavation; assuming the Oakland area (closest to Martinez) index adjuster equates to $0.66 per cubic yard. An additional $0.32 cents per cubic yard was added to cover costs of dust control and health and safety concerns related to handling MSW. Assuming excavation of 11,000,000 cubic yards in the North Parcel, the cost of excavation for this parcel would be approximately $10;780,000, whereas, the cost to excavate the South and East Parcels would be approximately $7,990,000. The total for all three parcels of approximately $18,770,000. Material Relocation Hauling and Disposal Costs The cost for material relocation needs to include both a haul cost and a landfill disposal component. To calculate the haul cost the amount of material to be hauled needed to be adjusted to compensate for the loss in compaction or density in the landfilled materials. Materials excavated from a compacted "in-place" setting will be uncompacted to a certain degree upon excavation. BVA estimated that this would be on the order of approximately 15 percent. As such, after excavation, the North Parcel is estimated to have approximately 12,650,000 cubic yards and the South and East Parcels have approximately 9,380,000 cubic yards for haul, for a total of approximately 22,030,000 cubic yards. Next, the location and fees at potential landfills for disposal of these materials needed to be considered. The North Parcel and the South/East Parcel figures were divided, as the North 161 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES Acme Landfill—Engineering Review Parcel materials containing hazardous waste would need to be taken to a more restricted site such as a Class I or 11 landfill. In the best case, the North Parcel waste could potentially be moved to a Class ll landfill such as Kettleman Hills. If not, the material would require disposal in a much more costly Class 1 site. While there are significantly more Class 11 or partial Class 11 landfills in California, most do not have the capacity to take 12,650,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils. Even if the capacity is existing, it is most likely not available. Waste stream commitment agreements have become prevalent between public agencies and landfill operators to ensure that communities neighboring existing landfills are guaranteed capacity to minimize the closure of landfills. Public agencies are less willing to sell capacity to private or public entities that service the landfills in their jurisdictions. Alternatively, the waste could be hauled out of state to such facilities as Lockwood Landfill in Nevada or ECDC Landfill in Utah. Further research determined that the two states have an agreement maintaining that California hazardous waste cannot be disposed of in Nevada. Two sites we considered for this analysis of the North Parcel materials were Kettleman Hills Landfill and the Clean Harbors Buttonwillow Landfill as discussed above. The Kettleman site only has 3,300,000 yards of capacity remaining, so it could not take all of the North Parcel materials. The Buttonwillow site has 14,300,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity. The cost to haul the materials to Kettleman Hills was estimated to be approximately $28 per cubic yard. The cost to haul the materials to Buttonwillow was estimated to be approximately $35 per cubic yard. The cost to haul the materials is approximately $355,100,000 to $443,900,000. The cost to dispose of the North Parcel materials at the Kettleman Hills Class 11 would depend on the final classification of materials. If the materials were classified as California designated hazardous materials, the cost would be approximately $53 per ton. If they were classified as Federally designated hazardous materials, the cost would be approximately $85 to $90 per ton. Further testing would need to be conducted to define the exact classification. However, since such a large amount would be contracted for disposal, we have assumed that a 20 percent reduction in these rates could be negotiated. For the approximate 9,900,000 tons, the cost for disposal at Kettleman would range from $419,800,000 to $712,800,000. We were unable to confirm the disposal rate at Buttonwillow, so we assumed a comparable rate to that of Kettleman for the disposal portion of the cost. Thus, the cost to dispose of this material at Buttonwillow would be $419,800,000 to $712,800,000. The 9,380,000 cubic yards of South and East Parcel materials can be taken to a Class III landfill such as Keller Canyon, Forward, or Altamont Pass landfills. The remaining capacities at Keller Canyon Landfill, Forward Landfill, and Altamont Pass Landfill are approximately 68,200,000 cubic yards, 40,000,000 cubic yards, and 15,800,000 cubic yards, respectively. The estimated costs to haul to Keller Canyon Landfill, Forward Landfill, and Altamont Pass Landfill are approximately $4 per cubic yard, $11 per cubic yard, and $14 per cubic yard, respectively. The haul costs for this material range from $38,400,000 to $130,200,000. 17 The cost to dispose of the South and East Parcel materials at Keller Canyon Landfill, Forward Landfill, and Altamont Pass Landfill are approximately $30.00 per ton. $23.00 per ton, and $39 per ton, respectively. These fees assume a lower negotiated rate for disposal. The cost to dispose of these materials would be approximately $168,800,000 to $284,800,0W Summary of Materials Removal and Relocation Costs The cost to excavate, haul and dispose of the three parcels would be $1,052,000 to $1,567;200,000, as shown in Table 2. Table 2 1 Materials Removal and Relocation Costs North l�arsIl Total' . bels .< Excavate $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $18,000,000 E Haul and Dispose Kettleman Hills $775,000,000 to $775,000,000 to $1,067,900,000 N/A $1,067,900,000 Buttonwillow $864,000,000 to $864,000,000 to $1,156,700,000 NIA $1,156,700,000 Keller Canyon N/A $259,000,000 $258,600,000 Forward N/A $299,000,000 $299,000,000 Altamont Pass N/A i $392,000,000 $392,000,000 ` Total 3 $786,0001000 to $267,000,000 to $1,167,500,000 $400,000,000 $1,052,000 to$1,567,200,000 Figures have been rounded. Technical Aspects of Materials Backfill and Compaction An estimate of the volume of materials required to backfill and compact the site to grade was conducted from review of the excavated footprints, estimated grades and certain engineering assumptions. It was estimated that approximately 3,610,000 cubic yards of imported soil would be required for back fill and compaction. Using the Building News (BNi) General Construction 2004 Costbook, a cost for acquiring local soil, placing fill and compacting was obtained. BVA used CSI Division 02, assuming less than a 1 in 4 slope. The cost for acquiring, placing fill and compacting, assuming the Oakland area (closest to Martinez) index adjuster, equates to $16.69 per cubic yard. A total cost for these operations would be approximately $60,300,000. This figure assumes that suitable fill materials could be found for trucking near the site; if not this cost would increase substantially. 18 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES .......................................................................................................... Acme Landfill-- Engineering Review Summary of Total Casts The total costs would include excavation, hauling, and disposal of the materials currently located in the three parcels. The cost would also include back fill and compaction of new suitable engineered soils and soft costs such as preparing an Environmental Impact Study, design and engineering, permitting, and construction quality assurance. In addition, a 10 percent contingency should be included. These costs total approximately $1,261,000,000 to $1,845,000,000 as shown in Table 3. It should be noted that to complete the cost estimate, the cost of constructing airport facilities, including the control tower, hangars, runways; and other buildings and improvements must be considered. See Appendix B for additional cost breakdown. Table 3 I Total Costs ...................................... ..................... _....... Excavation $18,770,000 Haul & Disposal $1,033,400,000 to $1,548,400,000 ' Back Fill & Compact $60,300,000 Soft Costs (Engineering, $34,304,000 to $49,800,000 Permitting, etc.) Contingency (10%) $114,700,000 to $167,700,000 , Total $1,261,000,000 to $1,845,000,000 Figures have been rounded. Estimate of True Traffic for Relocation of Waste and Backfill Operations To relocate approximately 22,000,000 cubic yards of materials using 18 cubic yard end- dumps, including the requirement to import soil to backfill and compact an additional approximate 3,600,000 cubic yards, in excess of approximately 1,400,000 vehicle trips into the site and 1,400,000 vehicle trips out of the site would be required. This totals to approximately 2,800,000 vehicle trips into and out of the site, an enormous impact for traffic and air pollution impacts. 00, 1 19 This page/oft blank. 201 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES .............................................................. Section 4 Other Potential Delated Issue Landfill Issues Due to the acceptance and method of disposing hazardous waste at farmer Acme Landfill, at a minimum, all of the North Parcel's 125 acres will have to be removed. Based on information from the DTSC, the hazardous waste area is approximately 131 acres. However, as stated by the DTSC, in an April 1999 Notice of Deed, a quadrant of former landfill is prohibited from being moved. The coordinates and map of the area is included in Appendix C. The DTSC states that, "Future use of the land described in Exhibit A (Appendix C) is restricted under the terms of Title 22, CRR, Article 7 of Chapter 14 of Division 4.5: the post- closure use of the property must never be allowed to disturb the integrity of either the contaminant system or the monitoring system, unless DTSC determines that the proposed use (1)will not increase the potential threat to human health or the environment, and is necessary to the proposed property use, or(2) is necessary to reduce the threat to human health or the environment. The end land use(s) will be consistent with the approved final closure and post-closure plans" (Department of Toxic Substances Control 1999). With such restriction of the land use, placing an airport on the site without removal of all the contaminated waste and soils is not possible. The DTSC will have to be consulted and grant permission to allow the modification of the site as the procedures for handling excavation and the potential land use will likely require extensive review. Site Issues Land Use Compatibilities Future Growth Projections Acme Landfill is currently zoned primarily Heavy Industrial (H-1) and Controlled Heavy Industrial (W-3). According to the Contra Costa County (County) General Plan zoning areas, are not consistent with the airport commercial General Plan designations, as illustrated in Appendix D (Contra Costa County 1996). Additionally, the Vine Hill residential area is located adjacent to the southwestern boundary and two schools are located within a two mile radius of the site (Contra Costa County 1995). The County has also developed a Smart Growth Strategy/regional Livability Footprint Project that illustrates the growth of this residential zoning area. The proposed areas are illustrated in Appendix D. Noise, dust, and visual pollution are all issues to be taken under consideration with neighboring residential zoning and especially with heavy industry. Impacts to neighborhoods are distinguished from those in which residences are established around an existing airport. With all these factors considered, the construction and operation of an airport is incompatible with the strategic planning of the County. MMMMMMM 21 Proximity to Oil Refineries The County contains nine chemical plants or oil refineries within its boundaries. Between October 2001 and December 2002, the County reported 12 major releases from these refineries2. Compared to other areas which also house large amounts of chemical plants or oil refineries, this number is small; however the impact to its nearby residents is still significant. The former Acme Landfill neighbors Shelf Oil Refinery to the northwest. A future flight path would also cross over Tesoro Refinery. The proximity of a future airport next to an oil refinery will likely enhance the potential for hazardous releases, and likely increase the chances of an explosion should an airplane accident occur. Due to the increased risks to the residents in the vicinity, the addition of an airport so close to oil refineries is not a compatible use. Required Wind Studies The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires an extensive wind analysis in the development of the new airport. The wind analysis criteria are located in Appendix E. The required wind studies will be an additional cost to the County and if the appropriate data is not available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service, then the FAA estimates a minimum of one year to observe the on-site winds. The proximity of the landfill to the Benicia Bridge, the Carquinez Strait, and Suisun Bay will most likely create strong winds that would influence the size of airplanes using the site and required runway space needed to accommodate such airplanes. Runway Requirements The FAA has a multitude of factors that need to be considered when calculating runway lengths. Buchanan Field has four runways ranging in length from 2,800 to 5000 feet. It is BVA's understanding that the replacement airport will need to provide at least an equivalent level of service. Site and design evaluations are necessary to determine the viability of the Acme Landfill site accommodating this level of airport service. Power Lines As illustrated in the land use setting, utilities and easements map located in Appendix F. power lines run from Waterfront Road to the Walnut/Pacheco Creeks, which border most of the North Parcel of the former Acme Landfill {Torrey & Torrey 1988}. The existence of these power lines serve as an impediment to airport design and operation and would most likely need to be moved. Relocation of these utilities would constitute unnecessary negative impacts to the surrounding land uses and would be costly. 2 Mercury News, Posted March 2, 2003 http:iiwww.mercurynews.com,'mld/mercurynews/5301078.htm?template=contentModules/printstoa.is 2&11c 221 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES Acme Landfill—Engineering review Environmental Considerations Potential Flooding The 516 acre farmer landfill is bordered by Walnut and Pacheco creeks on the east. According to the County General Plan, the Acme Landfill is located in a riparian and wetlands area surrounded by floodplains including the Pacheco Slough; map included in Appendix G. A levee was developed along Pacheco Creek to confine backwater from Walnut Creek, but was not designed to protect against 100-year flood. In fact, according to a 1989 CH2M Hill Study, during a simultaneous 100-year flood and high tide, lowlands areas around the north and east parcels of the site would flood 3.4 and 4.8 feet respectively. Significant Ecological Areas The,identified parcels are also located adjacent to a significant ecological area due to the proximity to the Carquinez Strait and Suisun Bay. Section 8 of the Conservation Element of the County General Plan contains an overall policy of preserving wildlife, plant life and wetland areas. If any development is to be conducted near these significant ecological areas, it is to be a low-intensity land use, Therefore, an airport at the landfill site could have significant unmitigatable impacts on these ecological areas. Hazardous Wildlife Attractants to Airports The FAA identifies the following wildlife groups that are potentially hazardous to airport operations: a Gulls ■ Waterfowl ■ Raptors ■ doves ■ Vultures i Blackbirds—Starling ■ Corvids r Wading birds ■ Geer * Canids The identified wildlife is attracted to a variety of moist or wet areas, including wetlands which surround Acme Landfill, The FAA includes siting criteria for the development of aircraft movement areas, loading ramps, and aircraft parking areas based on aircraft type as shown in Appendix H. These siting criteria most likely will greatly limit the development potential on 23 the three parcels. In addition, the location of an airport near the wetlands will increase the potential for wildlife-aircraft collisions. As such, the landfill site is not viable to support airport operations. Mitigating Measures Although wetlands are not considered a compatible land use for airport development, it is possible to build on or near them provided that there is adequate mitigation. The FAA outlines the wetland mitigation measures that can be implemented in order to complete construction. While often a viable project option during an Environmental Impact Deport, the method of mitigation is not usually the preferred alternative due to the destruction of the natural environment. If the mitigating measure project option is selected, the mitigation implementation will again impose additional costs to the project. Cost to Budd New Airport This cost analysis of this report to this point has only addressed the front end costs of the construction of an airport at the former Acme Landfill including removing and relocating waste and back filling the site to grade. These costs are just the initial investment in construction of a new airport. For information about the more than fifty criteria that must be reviewed and adhered to when developing a new airport, visit the FAA website http://www.faa.gov/ARP/engineering/design.cfm?ARPnav=engineer. Embedded in these criteria are additional costs such as wind analysis, environmental mitigation; permitting, etc. just to determine the feasibility of siting an airport. The potential benefit of relocating the Buchanan Field airport may not outweigh the economic, social, and environmental impacts to the County. Conclusion Based on all the landfill structural and regulatory issues, the need to remove the landfilled materials, and the economic, community and environmental factors, BVA concludes that the Acme Landfill site is not a viable site to support the construction and operation of an airport, 241 BROWN, VENCE&ASSOCIATES _. . _. References BN1 Building News. 2003. General Construction 2004 Costbook. Fourteenth Edition. CH2M Hill. 1989. Hydrogeological Assessment, Acme Landfill, Martinez, California. CH2M Hill. 1990a. East Parcel Preliminary Closure Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan, Acme Landfill, Martinez, California. CH2M Hill. 1990b. Geotechnical Materials Report, Acme Landfill, Martinez, California. CH2M Hill. 1999 a. East Parcel Settlement Analysis, Acme Landfill, Martinez, California. Technical Memorandum. CH2M Hill. 1991 b. South Parcel Settlement Analysis, Acme Landfill, Martinez, California. Technical Memorandum. Contra Costa County, 1995. Zoning Map. Contra Costa County, 1996. General Plan 1955-2010. Department of Toxic Substances Control. 1933. Certification of Deed. Federal Aviation Administration. 1990, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design. Harding Lawson Associates. Undated. Acme Landfill SWAT, Martinez, California. Mercury News. March 2, 2003. News Article Excerpt. NJF Engineering. 2000. Response to Comments for the Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan. Acme Landfill East and South Parcels. NJF Engineering. 2002. Final Closure Plan. Acme Landfill East and South Parcels. Contra Costa County, California. Torrey & Torrey, Inc. 1983. Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1. Acme Landfill Expansion. - 25 This page left blank. 261 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES �' � * � w x ' �, #> ': x BROWN, VENCE & ASSOCIATES Appendix A Appendix A Parcel Description Detailed descriptions of the Acme Landfill Parcels are below. The cross-sections for each are at the end of Section 1 of the report. Information in this Appendix is from Closure Plans. North The geologic environment of the North Parcel consists of mudflats and marsh deposits bordering the Suisun Bay. The parcel is underlain by a sequence of unconsolidated alluvial settlements that unconformably underlie the Panoche Formation bedrock. The parcel has Younger and Older Bay mud. The Younger Bay mud includes, soft clay, silt, and peat and ranges from 22-55 feet in thickness. The Older Bay mud which underlies the Younger Bay mud is primarily an upper stiff silty clay that grades downward into interbedded sand and gravel layers. The thickness for Older Bay mud ranges from 10-400 feet and overlies bedrock. The Panoche Formation bedrock is a combination of marine sandstone, siltstone, and shale that is locally folded and faulted. Bedrock is exposed on the hillsides west of the site and dips steeply to the east beneath the landfill. Because the Younger Bay mud does not contain significant layers of loose, saturated sands that could liquefy in a strong earthquake, liquefaction is not a threat. However, a contingency plan has been developed in accordance with ©TSG requirements. As with all the parcels of Acme landfill, the pressure of the landfill on the earth has changed the water gradients and permeability. Since the North Parcel is located in mudflats adjacent to Walnut Creek, groundwater occurs at or near the ground surface. The weight of the North Parcel has consolidated (decreased pore space) in the Younger Bay mud causing the pores to close and water to shift outward, upward, and downward. This has resulted in the development of a strong upward gradient between the Younger Bay mud and the waste materials which influence the groundwater flow patterns. The gradient drives groundwater upward into the refuse and creates leachate, Since the groundwater within the Younger Bay mud is saline, the leachate within the parcel forming from the change in groundwater inflow is also saline. Site hydrogeologic data, numerical modeling, and water balance calculations indicate that the order of 15 to 18 gallons per minute (gpm) of groundwater is entering the North Parcel from below. Based on HELP modeling, about 13 gpm to 36 gpm of the precipitation infiltrated to the North Parcel through the interim cover from above, prior to a final cover being placed, and formed leachate. Consequently, the leachate levels within the parcel have been rising over time and have formed a leachate mound within the parcel. The consolidation rate of the Younger Bay mud is greatest near the center of the parcel where the waste materials are the thickest. Therefore, groundwater upflow is the greatest at the center of the parcel and decreases radially outward. Near the perimeter of the parcel, waste thicknesses are less (and the degree of consolidation is also less) and the hydraulic G:iJC BFILES\SW\2004 jobsiJ040074.00 Richard Norris(Acme LF)\draft ReportAppendiceMAppendix A NEW.doc Appendix A- 1 Appendix A gradient is slightly downward. Site data and water balance calculations suggest that about 15 gpm to 38 gpm of leachate may be leaving the North Parcel. Because of the contrast in hydraulic conductivity between the waste materials and the Younger Bay mud, leachate exists the parcel as seepage on the lower slopes of the landfill or as subsurface flow within the upper few feet of the mud. Three studies in 1990 by CH2M Hill demonstrated that approximately 99 percent of the leachate leaves the site as seepage and evaporates. Despite the leachate seeping into the subsurface of the North Parcel, groundwater -- monitoring as of 1990 indicated that no significant levels of elements were found in the samples to indicate groundwater contamination. Using an average value from 83 sets of data from different landfills across the country, CH2M Hill evaluated the difference between - the leachate from the North Parcel and typical leachate from MSW landfills. The findings were that there were high sodium and chloride concentrations in the leachate which reflected the saline groundwater from the upwelling into the parcel Trace elements (metals) were detected in the groundwater samples, but did not appear to be anomalously high levels of metals in any of the hydrostratigraphic units that could be indicative of contamination from any of the parcels. Only iron and manganese metals were detected fairly consistently at concentrations greater that 1 mg/L. Because hydrous oxides of iron and manganese are nearly ubiquitous in clay and soil sediment, sources for these metals exist in the Bay muds that constitute the landfill subsurface. Additionally, conditions are not conducive for leachate of metals from the waste materials because of the sorpotive effects of the Bay mud sediments. Therefore, metal concentrations are not excessively high in groundwater at the landfill and do not indicate leachate migration. Organic compounds were also detected in several shallow wells in the Younger Bay mud beneath or near the toe of the North Parcel. These compounds were detected at very low levels that were typically at or near the laboratory analytical detection limit. At the time of the studies there was no mappable plume of contaminants that could be contoured from the chemical data base, but data from several wells suggested that shallow groundwater near the margin of the waste materials may not have been affected by the leachate. Most of the potentially effected wells are located in areas where surface seepage on the landfill face was noted in the past. The final cover for the North Parcel includes from bottom to top the following. ■ A 2-foot-thick foundation layer(compacted soil fill), ■ A 1-1/2-foot-thick compacted clay layer; • A textured 60-mil HDPE liner; ■ A synthetic drainage layer; and • A 2-foot-thick layer of vegetative soil. Appendix A-21 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES Appendix A Placement of the foundation layer had in-place moisture and density of the existing interim cover soil measured on 100-foot centers prior to placement of additional fill. The compacted clay component has a permeability of 1x10-8 cm/sec or less. East The East Parcel is located over a marsh area containing deep deposits of San Francisco Bay mud and peat. The thickness of the marsh deposits beneath the parcel range from 50- 60 feet. The entire landfill is underlain by peat deposits ranging from 20-50 feet in total thickness and contains some Bay mud. The original elevation of the marsh is unknown, but is suspected to be about 5 feet above sea level. The water table at the time of development was probably at or near ground surface. It is estimated that approximately 6 feet of native surface materials were removed prior to waste placement. The general geologic placement of the East Parcel is of Younger Bay mud, Older Bay mud, and Bedrock of the Panoche Formation. These geologic characteristics as present under the East Parcel are described below. ■ Younger Bay mud. The Younger Bay mud is roughly 55-65 feet thick in the vicinity of the East Parcel and consists of soft, dark gray, organic, silty clay, with local peat layers up to 30 feet thick. The clay and peat are very soft and compressible. Occasional lenses of fine-grained, soft, silty sand have been encountered in some borings. The Younger Bay mud is typically saturated into the ground surface. Mean vertical hydraulic conductivity is 8x10'8 cm/sec. ■ Older Bay mud. The Older Bay mud deposits consist of alternating clay, silt, sandy silt, and silty sand layers, with occasional layers of sand and gravel. The thickness of the Older Bay mud varies from about 160 to more than 300 feet. The Older Bay mud rests on erosional unconformity with considerable topographic relief, causing wide variation in thickness. Mean vertical hydraulic conductivity is 5x10'' cm/sec. • Bedrock. The Bedrock of the Cretaceous age Panoche Formation has contact with the East Parcel at depths from 160 feet (near the west side of the parcel) to more than 400 feet (near the east side of the parcel). The Panoche Formation in this area contains mudstone, siltstone, and sandstone. Mean vertical hydraulic conductivity is 1x10.7 cm/sec. Final cover for the East Parcel is a relatively impermeable geosynthetic membrane that exceeds the Federal Subtitle D prescriptive standard that requires the final cover to have a permeability equal to or less than the permeability of the bottom liner of the landfill (for landfills that were constructed with a bottom liner). The final cover consists of the following components. • A 2-foot thick foundation layer; • A cushion geotextile (8 oz./sq. yd., minimum); ■rMrrr�wrr Appendix A- 3 Appendix A ■ A 40-milimeter VLDPE geomembrane infiltration layer; and • A 2-foot-thick vegetated layer. Because of the pressure of the landfill, the soil has been compacted causing groundwater levels to increase and creating lateral and vertical hydraulic gradients at the site. The lateral gradients at the East Parcel slope away from the landfill to the east, north and south. To the west, the water levels are influenced by the North Parcel. The average linear velocity of groundwater for Younger Bay mud in the area would be approximately 8 feet per year. For Older Bay mud, which occurs 60 feet below the surface, the groundwater velocity could be as high as 1,200 feet per year. As for bedrock, assuming low porosity, the water table could increase 0.5 to 1 foot per year. The increased head in the shallow Younger Bay mud under the parcel creates vertical gradients beneath and around the East Parcel. As such, groundwater appears to flow vertically to the refuse in response to these gradients and is about 2 feet in the center of the parcel (1994). The very low hydraulic conductivity of the upper silty clay at the top of the Older Bay mud appears to restrict downward vertical flow from the Younger to the Older Bay mud. South The western portion of the landfill was constructed directly on top of bedrock. The eastern portion of the South Parcel is located over marsh area containing deposits of San Francisco Bay mud and some peat. The thickness of marsh deposits beneath the eastern portion of the South Parcel ranges from 40 feet at the southeastern area to about 20 to 30 feet under the remainder of this portion of the landfill. The southeastern portions of the landfill are underlain by some peat deposits. These peat deposits decrease in thickness to the north and west where they become imbedded with Bay mud. The original elevation of the marsh is unknown, but is believed to have been in the range of sea level to about 5 feet above sea level. The water table at the time of site development was probably at or near ground surface level in this area. It is estimated that a few feet of native surface materials were removed before waste placement. In general, the geologic conditions of the site are categorized as Younger Bay mud, Older Bay mud, and bedrock of the Panoche Formation. The characteristics of each are described below. • Younger Bay mud. The Younger Bay mud consists of soft, dark gray organic silty clay, with local peat layers. The clay and peat are very soft and compressible. Occasional lenses of fine-grained soft silty sand have been encountered in some borings. The Younger Bay mud is typically saturated into the ground surface. Mean permeability is 8x10-'3 cm/sec. • Older Bay mud. The Older Bay mud deposits consist of alternating clay, silt, sandy silt, and silty sand layers, with occasional layers of sand and gravel. The Older Bay Appendix A-41 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES _.. ......... ......... .......... Appendix A mud rests on an erosional unconformity with considerable topographic relief, causing the wide variation in thickness. Mean permeability is 5x10-7 cm/sec. • Bedrock. Bedrock of the Cretaceous age Panoche Formation underlies the Older Bay mud at depth. The contact between Older Bay mud and bedrock is an erosional unconformity with substantial topographic relief, resulting from both tectonic movement and erosion prior to deposition of the Older Bay mud. The Panoche Formation bedrock in this parcel area contains mudstone, siltstone, and sandstone. Mean permeability is 1x10`7 cm/sec. Of these materials, the lower portion of the parcel is not lined, but is underlain by low vertical permeability Bay mud. For the upland portion, a compacted clay liner with a permeability of 1x10"6 cm/sec is present since the land in that area consists of fractured bedrock of the Panache Formation. The Younger Bay mud has the shallowest groundwater in the vicinity of the South Parcel. The Older Bay mud extends partially through the parcel. Because of the pressure of the landfill on the soils under the parcel, groundwater levels have been increasing at the site. For the Younger Bay mud, the natural gradients in this parcel have been influenced by the construction of the landfill and other structures in the area since the added pressure of these structures caused consolidation of the mud and increased pore water pressure. The mud consolidation results in increased water level elevations beneath the landfill parcel and creates lateral and vertical hydraulic gradients. Based the closure report prepared in 1984, the average hydraulic conductivity of 8x10"5 cm/sec and assuming a porosity of 20 percent, the Younger Bay mud would have a linear velocity of approximately 4-8 feet per year. For the bedrock, an assumed 1 percent porosity would result in an average linear velocity of approximately 50-100 feet per year. The increase in velocity between the two geologic environments results from the lower effective porosity in bedrock which account for the potential fractured flow effects. Final cover for the South parcel is a relatively impermeable geosynthetic membrane that exceeds the Federal Subtitle D prescriptive standard that requires the final cover to have a permeability equal to or less than the permeability of the bottom liner of the landfill (for landfills that were constructed with a bottom liner). The final cover consists of the following components. • A 2-foot thick foundation layer; • A 40-milimeter geomembrane infiltration layer; • A cushion geotextile (8 oz./sq. yd., minimum); and A 2-foot-thick vegetated layer. Appendix A-5 Appendix A This page left blank, Appendix A-61 BROWN, VENCE &ASSOCIATES .............................................................. BROWN, VENCE & ASSOCIATES Appendix B Appendix B Acme Landfill Relocation Regrade Cast Estimation ... . North Parcel Excavate Waste i 11,000,000 CY $0.98 $ 10,780,000 Import SoiVFill Excavation 1,980,000 CY $11.88 $ 23,522,400 Place & Compact to Grade 1,980,000 CY $4.81 $ 9,523,800 Subtotal { $ 43,826,200 Kettleman Hills (CA Haz) i Haul Waste 12,650,000 CY $28.07 $ 355,087,719 Tipping Fee 9,900,000 Tons $42.40 $ 419,760,000 Subtotal $ 774,847,719 Kettleman Hills MBA Haz) Haul Waste 12,650,000 CY $28.07 $ 355,087,719 Tipping Fee 9,900,000 Tons $72.00 $ 712,800,000 Subtotal $1,067,887,719 Buttonwillow ICA Haz) Haub Waste 12,650,000 CY $35.09 $ 443,859,649 Tipping Fee 9,900,000 Tons $42.40 $ 419,760,000 Subtotal $ 863,619,649 Buttonwillow(RCRA Haz) Haul Waste i 12,650,000 CY $35.09 $ 443,859,649 Tipping Fee I 9,900,000 Tons $72.00 $ 712,800,000 Subtotal $1,156,659,649 Subtotal North Parcel $ 818,673,919 to $1,200,485,849 South and East Parcels Excavate Waste 8,154,545 CY $0.98 $ 7,991,455 Import Soil/Fill Excavation 1,630,909 CY $11.88 $ 19,375,200 Place &Compact to Grade 1,630,909 CY $4.81 $ 7,844,673 Subtotal $ 35,211,327 Keller Canyon G.1JOBFILES\Sw12004 iobs\J040074.00 Richard Norris(Acme LF)\Draft Report\Appendices\Appendix B\Appendix B-rev.docAppendix B- 1 Appendix B ..... .eft .:.... ........::.:.::.: :.......... Haul Waste 9,377,727 CY i $4.09 $ 38,388,357 Tipping Fee 7,339,091 Tons i $30.00 $ 220,172.727 Subtotal $ 258,561,085 Forward Haul Waste 9,377,727 CY $13.89 $ 130,246,212 Tipping Fee i 7,339,091 Tons $23.00 $ 168.799,091 Subtotal $ 299,045,303 i Altamont Pass Haul Waste 9,377,727 CY $11.40 $ 106,938,995 Tipping Fee 7,339,091 Tons $38.80 $ 284.756,727 Subtotal i $ 391,695,722 Subtotal South& East Parcels $ 293,772,412 to $ 426,907,050 Subtotal Construction all Parcels $1,112,446,331 E to $1,627,392,899 All Parcels- Soft Costs Environmental Impact Report $ 750,000 Regulatory Agency Permitting $ 200,000 e Design 2% $ 22,248,927 to $ 32,547,858 Construction Quality Assurance 1% $ 11,124,463 to $ 16,273,929 E Subtotal $1,146,769,721 E to $1,677,164,686 Contingency 10% ' $ 114,676,972 to _$167.716,469 Total $1,261,446,693 j to $1,844,881,154 Appendix B-2 ( BROWN, VENCE & ASSOCIATES ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ BROWN, VENCE & ASSOCIATES Appendix C V CEIZT;<FICATTIt' N OF DEED NOTIC Acme Fill Corporation, owner and operator of the hazardous waste disposal facility located at 950 Waterbird Way, Martinez, California, 94553, certifies that a notice in deed to the Facility has been recorded, as required by Title 22, CCR, Section 66264.119(b), or 66265.119(b), at the 3' county recorder of deeds, located at 739 Las Juntas Street, Martinez, Contra Costa County, California, 94553, on April 13, 1999. A copy of the document in which the recorded notice has i been placed is attached. l.- Signed: Date: - / � , 1999 . Boy&k Olney, Jr., Pr ident Acme Fill Corporation State of California ) ss. County of Contra Costa ) Can April _L5, 1999, before me, �l r C� , Notary .Public, personally appeared BOYD M. OLNEY, JR.,personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s)or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. KAREN K. BURRO1 COMM. 1114499 NOTARY PUBLIC=GAL3FC?RNtA 't} �3L g. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - EXPIF86 001.as,2ca Notary Public 1 s RECORDING REQUESTER BY: CONTRA COSTA Co Recorder office j STEPHEN L. WEIR, Clerk-Recorder ACME FILL CORPORATION DOC -- 9!;)_0j_o0003-00 Check Number Tuesday, APR 13, 1999 14:35:35 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: MIC $1.00;MoD $5.00!REC $9.00 JAMES A. PEZZAGLIA, ESQ. TCF $4.00, i GORDON DeFRAGA, WATROUS & Ttl Pd $19.00 Nbr-0000502151 PEZZkLIA Irc/R9/1-5 P. O. Brix 630 Martinez, CA 94553 A portion of APM 380-020-013 SPACE ABOVE THIS LfNEFOR RECOSDEWSUSE NOTICE ZIP DEED TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Acme Fill Corporation, the undersigned, of 737 Arnold Drive, Suite A-2, Martinez, _ California, 94553, Contra Costa County, hereby gives the following notice as required by Title 22, CCR, Section 66264.119 or 66265.119: 1. ,Acme Fill Corporation is, and since Tune 24, 1957, has been in possession of the ,.lands described in Exhibits A and B attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. Since June 24, 1957, Acme HI Corporation has disposed of waste, later characterized as hazardous waste under the terms of regulations promulgated by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 3. The future use of the land described in Exhibit A is restricted ander the terms of Title 22, CCR, Article 7 of Chapter 14 of Division 4.5: the post-closure use of the property must never be allowed to disturb the integrity of either the containment system or the monitoring system, unless DISC determines that the proposed use(1) will not increase the potential threat to human health or the environment and is necessary to the proposed property use, or (2) is necessary to reduce the threat to human health or the environment, The end land use(s) will be consistent with the approved final closure and post-closure plans. -FaiZe I of?- Acme fill Corpot'(76017: hlotice it7 Deed 4. Any and all future purchasers of this land should inform themselves of the closure and post-closure requirements of the regulations and ascertain the amount and nature of wastes disposed oforVin the property described,in Exhibits A and B. 5. Acme Fill Corporation has filed a survey plat with the Department of Toxic Substances Control at 700 Heinz Avenue, Berkeley, California, showing the location and diniensions of hazardous waste disposal areas and a record of the type, location and quantity of hazardous waste disposal within each area of the facility. TSyd �,2s�idt bate: r1L 1999 Acme Fill.Corporation State of California ) )SS County of Contra Costa } Subscribed and sworn to before me on aa/6'Z 41 11999. SEAL: XAREN K. BUR�O �A�a-�Z IL COA-14 i. 1114499 to x NO'tAt"tY f OLCC A CALIFORNIA CONTRA COSTA COUNTY My Comm.Expires dct.2 20000 • ILL 1 . -Page 2 of 2- .4r-mp Fill t r7r nnr»tin» tjnti n rr'ry flnnrf CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT Mate of CALIFORNIA County of CONTRA COSTA On April 2 , 1999before me, KAREN K . BIJRRtJR, Notary Public , k Date Nante and 11tta of Ofter(a.g.,"Jane Doe,Notary Public-) personally appeared BOYD M. OLNEY JR, Name(s)of Signor{s} 29 personally known to me—OR—❑proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons) whose name(s)is/are.subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by his/her/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s), KAREN K, R 1 or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, comm. #114499 executed the instrument. a . m " ' rfoTARY PUBLIC-CALIFOR41A � t CONTRA COSTA COUNTY y ��_2sy comm. ><�};�s Oct.25,2000 WITH SS my hand nd official seal. sfgnatura of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law,i . � t EXHIBIT A Legal Description All that real property situate in the unincorporated area ofthe County of Centra Costa, Mate of California, described as follows: All that real property identifiers in the landfill closure report prepared by Nliy Engineering entitled FINAL CLOSURE CONSTRUCTION REPORT, NORTH PARCEL CLOSURE SYSTEM; .4 CME LANDFILL, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA dated March 1999 and on file with State ref California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Berkeley, California, further described as follows: Beginning at a point with coordinate values of North 557,840 and East 1,543,645; thence from said point of beginning and along the perimeter of said NORTH PARCEL the following forty three courses: North 54'48'12" East 363.93 feet,North 57°43'50" East 487.16 feet,North 56°58'59" East 430.32 feet, North 52°16'36" East 124.52 Feet,North 39°01'18" East 130.88 feet,North 60°30'34" East 48.49 feet,North 05°14'31" West 95.89 feet,-North 02°33'05" East 320.23 Feet, North 31'41'39" West 655.34 feet,North 50°05'17" West 68.22 feet,North 33°31'47" West 92.55 feet,North 18°42'11" gest 69.64 feet,North 57'48'12" West 435.15 feet,North 871723" West 164.07 feet,North 46°18'22" 'Nest 492.59 feet,North 53°36'48" West 234.22 feet, North 7910625" gest 30.88 feet,North 87°30'06" West 97.71 feet, South 72°03'56" 'West 253.16 feet, South 65°06'50" West 136.42 feet, South 73°49'13" West 80.18 feet, South 65°59'1.7" West 63.66 feet, South 71°40'48" West 608.94 feet, South 70°23'37" West 186.33 feet, South 72°49'55" West 274.59 feet, South 5556'21" West 188.60 feet, South 46°03'24" West 173.40 feet, South 36°55'16" West 178.89 feet, South 08°5725" East 141.94 feet, South 36045'38" East 104.97 feet, South 80°28 30" East 404.43 feet, South 64°4435" East 147.48 feet, South 43°01'17" East 229.30 feet, South 32.°30'08" East 83.00 feet, South 17°39'51" East 50.98 feet, South 07°07'52" East 80.11 feet, South 00°40'29" West 93.84 feet, South 44°20'52" East 212.3.5 feet, South 53037'12" East 753.18 feet, South 55°17'56" East 133.22 feet, South.58°50'18" East 193.44 feet, South 51°15'45" East 394.10 feet, South 54'1 T11" East 124.02 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area of 131 acres, more or less. Coordinates and bearings are based on the California Coordinate System, Zone III (CCS 27). Distances given are grid distances. F:%WP800MN0F1TNF"CL.WP0 No, 593 v ` F 1 ! Cs Q Ln yl# U CO �j 10tn W C; L LIJ d 'O~ rn ca �- r- 0)cv w wwww i.awJ"-A 00 b a1 v mr so iicv�tarvioitluN7 tiS $�a �Mutcv4v r+ M c7iri nriF", Nn s +n rn u 7 rn u-7 4K7.t - 01 0�•r.r� ,.e t2 � LL � to v°7 cr7•o-r.t 4s cs+��'M C7 w r-r M.- .�- �- W'd Ln vii tail th 0S LA till VA LA 00 cin y✓)V112 uW c S <My�T '1Y'✓\ m « �� nary mus rc:i�ia3 �vr:rn ~ici�xiai In. W. Ln 6r. ` «zinymr�r.vr���r mu��rni'+tn�.cncm LLJ cxi.ew..'7�n:wr. x CJ M «iu+ccr asm ?cv qu +or oyp vey i- C:) C4 fV N t4 ii s:Hw�yy pwpyy �t t+ t,yyiwi". az ytyyyy�C;}} p Cri CO VI i ;. f C7!+1 t47.- sp M tt7.-.tV i$ri.af7 7A td C�M tb 01 471 {,(�} .-Q�Mb}w M.y 43 M •t •W M7 C!+P5 1:f CS .Y tR u'1 ito 27 M CCyy z t0 M ct7� x �2 �r-•i r+ci w ca ai ui ci ui c�r1 v�+r5-r cwt �ems ui ci�-i fiJ � „y!ry i~+ us a7 r-y cwt M.t rn r,t u5 4II e71 uq M ct3 ar r.j ra u�+7 40 cYi # n� �M c .r Mso w- v4N rv� Pi z� x z -<r LJ CL�� �"cv*'s v u't u}r*ca-J42�-Cwr Mev L2 ca rte-e43 _, BROWN, VENCE & ASSOCIATES Appendix D I j,p� �,� 'F:..",:7m7:. - ., . - ,. *-.,, --- i - W 1 1 .11 , I IOU. I-- . : - ll..- . .11 I - 1. 1. j6-1;lf I 1. ww X: I I'� .....; , 11 f,� lwF"-.�`.-*�::::m ���f f11 .11 , 11 ...� ` 11 �{ 11 11 I u �l� I � ; : I 11 � : � ' r ,,, qio X 11 .�" �� f .11 "..,..............:....I�l.............�............ ... .......... � - � ... -.-... ........... ... f 6 I .... ' : t x' 1. ...f...f ll 111"tt I.-I 11 � : U, 't f ; -, tl I 4. I � i I 4 f . ... Lh Y4 w11 11 + n $'` I : ., .1 :;---il�i - ... .... m S. 9 -.. q� c:, .11 :;, ` '` . . X ' - .,r A� k a :'{w* 'fit, .. 2,a q .&,F t k3 �F ✓ $s:f'd`S'vt' �.p n :/ x 4..Al., 5 "' t $ 4 ..:. x:?:y ung {"t; 'f i $ _ i; W A 1. �'o. * n °+t` :2 rL b _ ,,w W a£ {:. £ '� .. f { rX'KRS ;f'„s{t Y -. ..} Y ', ...{ 3TC`°"{ W:' rte, ��..' of h.v,., :t y - k} k t >'� a 'fa.. . xi n :. ..: .` ,4 _ Y�, .,yt .{' f4... }, ,s t t y. •,y,;, µ.6. : .t ''-.IVY, Sl h a: '}•:Y {, + { 1. p ..:. yk :a hS ;,x^3' i:- :. :. ii. } +•s. 4 fib' ��y f.�' 32 +y, .: n �c`•w. 3 f ,w �+�,s 4 p AR .: '-:: a y $: f,�� x 4 e„yFAk83 1, y. 4 y 3W w <.:%�x t q R�t :. 2 }{n n y 1,A. ., Y f ;x S '�° w q.. , r 3 {t'w _. X .}}}4 .x :'W2�+ 88 { 1. x w, Wim* kn. k { z« X�� �q {",a .. 1 .s tt i. nb� b i+.. t ;: r bu n: � . ,, 0. � . .. W} {3s a b t } �q'$,. Y @ } .N ,,.h�,�7S,Yn. W r R - - . 11 %t ''++oY°i 'Y '£' t4S'J3 -qxX „ `yf' { a�`'� y #'b :, ;::yam, ,ex'xy W ' ' { -s. > m 444 k az. ,z `c nw 3ea'3 3, r § 3 3°° ' k-00°� £ s q % •t3pt { 4` {}'hr £h0. i f tLf y ..,�},,'�+ { yy 6 .: : `s : aha,-''b �.''. •30{"� y. .-Tyr n� .�,: t N 4 t p v.... S .11 . q 3 fix; q_ll.. _ .v,''K4 ,� 1.... 03{�,,.� Yf�' YY. .. n \'_f 1:+C "�9{.s 3 �w . 4 f' t7?t 1 111. 11 zlz, :. Q sh• .. a h 'f' 1.hq :..X. w :rnb sf R. .tib 9YR'9: kay 'ky _.f . I .. , . . , ,k:�i:.: p -Tx .t 3 f[_ y } tC Y 2� Cv �y w -_t > S s�, 2?Y , 't etn Y 2•:} {.»n "{,' '�{} R .x v'+I J'� di. L�IL "8. }}} -nkh { 1.ay t0 _ T v *4 3n $. W£. 11 _ kn ;p �`0 y f. 4 % y.Y } ��y x t 'it "\.Y�✓'s p { (Y,S f� ,(b,lnt a .0, a _ L y,;4 ! ,�,. •aw• ~< :?rq,,x Y, ry :i : t YR 9 .to-'te: �E 4 oh'y.. 3E.'L d ws:. : .n t3' s 'fc T { -, '� k �` T { , . t..J1. h . {4 ,C qtr. S - ., $ 4M �,r q nk �„ �^6 h � 4 a q 2 1. ...:,r. 10�.''' g 3 W -:y$� W v x � Rc:2111 . I icv,, S t 4 Y. 4 x % 5 x -.. 'i :. :, v W. x . 3 . b 4� 23703 E .:Y..- 4 V - K .. h .1 i , v 3v . :.:... .n k •.. Y N L::C:.....,. f f :/{. :u:: .: - :: : . .. ..� . :: 2* LL .... j .:.:::.:::.:::...: :S{:....:: Ix .::.:. ::: .:z... ,..,..,. }:::.. , X. .. ......................... 9 :2 e-;: +' w. :. :.I ::.;.::: B' :. ::.::..::.:::::::: S' z _ .. .. ..:::.:. :::::::. ....::.:..:.::::.::: Th. f �' ,, aa' ._. I w F „.... '#.3 } -. . { h }' 1. { ... {:, . A .: .. .. t .:.,; . { I 2 { 6, .. '&„'. { - <: ", I. ,, f C' _ 'I I H ti f . t i Y is f z C � mss; } ., f E: i i ............. t y s f . ` K >wt > lAt ......., S S j 4 € a� f .r S t : a ' +... 1.. 4 a t +v ti t a .. w•.t: a '� :Y i a m 4 l 'w 2 BROWN, VENCE & ASSOCIATES Appendix E 6/5/91 AC 150}5300-13 CHG 1 Appendix 1 Appendix 1. WIND ANALYSIS 1. QBJECTIYE. This appendix provides guidance predominantly seasonal, regard should be given to the on the assembly and analysis of wind data to wind data for the predominant-use period. At determine runway orientation. It also provides locations where provision of a crosswind runway is guidance on analyzing the operational impact of winds impractical due to severe terrain constraints, on existing runways. i consideration may be given to increasing operational ( tolerance to crosswinds by upgrading the airport layout a. A factor influencing runway orientation to the next higher airport reference code. and number of runways is wind. Ideally a runway should be aligned with the prevailing wind Wind 4. ASSEBB14N fG RRND DATA. The latest and conditions affect all airplanes in varying degrees. best wind information should always be used to curry Generally, the smaller the airplane, the more it is out a wind analysis. A record which covers the last affected by wind, particularly crosswind components 10 consecutive years of wind observations is preferred (see figure Al-1). Crosswinds are often a contributing Records of lesser duration may be acceptable on a factor in small airplane accidents. case-by-case basis. In some instances, it may be highly desirable to obtain and assemble wind information for b. Airport planners and designers should periods of particular significance; e.g., seasonal make an accurate analysis of wind to determine the variations, instrument weather conditions, daytime orientation and number of runways. In some cases, versus nighttime, and regularly occurring gusts. construction of two runways may be necessary to give the desired wind coverage (95 percent coverage). The a. Data Source. The best sources of wind proper application of the results of this analysis will information is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric add substantially to the safety and usefulness of the Administration, Environmental Data Service (EDS). airport. The EDS's National Climatic Center, located in the Federal Building, Asheville, North Carolina 28801, is 2. CRCISS_I __S. The crosswind component of the repository of wind information from recording wind direction and velocity is the resultant vector stations throughout the Nation. The Center should be which acts at a right angle to the runway. It is equal contacted directly to determine the availability of data to the wind velocity multiplied by the trigonometric j for a particular site. Refer to appendix 11 for details sine of the angle between the wind direction and the ( on the availability and purchase of wind data on disk runway direction. Normally, these wind vector j in the standard FAA wind analysis format for use with triangles are solved graphically. An example is shown the Airport Design Computer Program. in figure A1-1. From this diagram, one can also ascertain the headwind and tailwind component for b. Data Costs. The EDS provides wind combinations of wind velocities and directions. Refer information at cost. The cost will vary, depending to paragraph 203 for allowable crosswind components. upon the complexity of the information desired, how the data are being stored, and whether the data have & COMM GE —AND ORIENTATION UE been assembled (summarized) previously. The wind HIRMAYS: The most desirable runway orientation summary for the airport site should be formatted with based on wind is the one which has the largest wind the standard.36 wind quadrants(the EDS standard for coverage and minimum crosswind components. Wind noting wind directions since January 1,1964)and usual coverage is that percent of time crosswind components speed groupings (see figure AI-3). An existing wind are below an acceptable velocity. The desirable wind summary of recent vintage is acceptable for analysis coverage for an airport is 95 percent, based on the purposes if these standard wind direction and speed total numbers of weather observations. This value of groupings are used. Figure Al-2 is an example of a 95 percent takes into account various factors typical EDS wind summary. influencing operations and the economics of providing the coverage. The data collection should be with an c. Data Not -Available. In those instances understanding of the objective;i.e.,to attain 95-percent when EDS data are not available for the site, it is usability. At many airports, airplane operations are permissible to develop composite wind data using wind almost nil after dant, and it may be desirable to information obtained from two or more nearby analyze the wind data on less than a 24-hour recording stations. Composite data are usually observation period. At airports where operations are acceptable if the terrain between the stations and the 97 AC 150/5300.13 CHO 1 6/5191. Appendix 1 site is level or only slightly rolling, If the terrain is segment percentages appearing between the outer hilly or mountainous, composite data may only have "crosswind limit" lines is numlmized. It is accepted marginal validity. In extreme cases it may be necessary practice to total the percentages of the segments to obtain a minimum of 1 year of onsite wind appearing outside the limit lines and to subtract this observations. These meager records should be number from 100. For analyses purposes, winds are augmented with personal observations(wind-bent trees, assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout each interviews with the local populace, etc.) to ascertain if of the individual segments. Figures Al-5 and A1-6 a discernible wind pattern can be established Airport illustrate the analysis procedure as it would be used in development should not proceed until adequate wind determining the wind coverage for a runway, oriented data are acquired. 105-285, intended to serve all types of airplanes. The wind information is from figure Al-2. Several trial S. ANALYZING BATA. One wind analysis orientations may be needed before the orientation procedure uses a scaled graphical presentation of wind which maximizes wind overage is found. information known as a windrose. 6:. CONCLUSIONS. The example wind analysis a. Drawing the Wi9d�rose. The standard shows that the optimum wind coverage possible with windrose (figure Ai-3) is a series of concentric circles a single runway and a 13-knot crosswind is cut by radial lines. The perimeter of each concentric 97.28 percent. If the analysis had shown that it was circle represents the division between successive wind not possible to obtain at least 95-percent wind speed groupings. Radial lines are drawn so that the coverage with a single runway, then consideration area between each successive pair is centered on the should be given to provide an additional (crosswind) direction of the reported wind. runway oriented to bring the combined wind coverage of the two runways to at least 95 percent. b. Plotting WinQ_Data. Each segment of the windrose represents a wind direction and speed 7. PRFSUh"lONS. The analysis procedures grouping corresponding to the wind direction and presume that winds are uniformly distributed over the speed grouping on the EDS summary. The recorded area represented by each segment of the windrose. directions and speeds of the wind summary are The larger the area, the less accurate is this converted to a percentage of the total recorded presumption. Therefore, calculations made using observations. Computations are rounded to the nonstandard windrose directions or speeds result in a nearest one-tenth of 1 percent and entered in the derivation of wind coverage (and its associated appropriate segment of the windrose. Figure A14 justification for a crosswind runway) which is illustrates a completed windrose based on data from questionable. figure Al-2. Plus (+) symbols are used to indicate direction and speed combinations which occur less 8. CdMPUTER WIND Al\TALYSIS. Another wind than one-tenth of 1 percent of the time, analysis procedure uses a computer program. Figures A1-7, Al-8, and Al-9 are computer printouts c. Crosswind Teniplate. A transparent based on the data from figure A1-2. The computed crosswind template is a useful aid in carrying out the generated coverage in this example is 96.75 percent. windrose analysis. The template is essentially a series Figures Al-10 and Al-11 are Lotus 1-2-3 cell- of three parallel lines drawn to the same scale as the equations used to generate figures Al-7, A1-8, and windrose circles. The allowable crosswind for the Al-9 on an IBM PC compatible computer. runway width establishes the physical distance between Appendix 11 gives details on availability of another the outer parallel lines and the centerline. When wind analysis computer program. analyzing the wind coverage for a runway orientation, the design crosswind limit lines can be drawn directly on the windrose. NOTE. EDS wind directions are recorded on the basis of true north. d. Analysis Procedure. The purpose of the analysis is to determine the runway orientation which provides the greatest wind coverage within the allowable crosswind limits. This can be readily estimated by rotating the crosswind template about the windrose center point until the sum of the individual 88 90/89 AC 15015300.13 Appendk 1 F-40 a 0 °c� HEADWIND COMPONENT -KNOTS .30- -20 0 20 Oo 10 goo e 900 CROSSWIND 0 10 201 30 40 50 COMPONENT -KNOTS 100o 10 1100 EXAMPLE 20 'S� r?pa Wind speed 20 knots. Angle between p t,, runway and direction {�0 of wind-60°. Crosswind 30 component - 17 knots. TAILWIND typo Headwind component - COMPONENT 10 knots. -KNOTS d q o ., 50 � , U Figure Al-1. Wind vector diagram 89 AC 150/5300.13 912918 Appendix 1 WUM DIRECTION VERSUS WUM SPEED STATION: &&here.USA OSx 24 Obseryotlons/DeY PERIOD OF X1$CORD:_1964-1973 ROUiRLX OBSERVATIONS OF HIND SPEED AVERAGE SPEED X)w$ 41 0-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 22-27 28-33 34-40 OVER DI1lECT1021 T07AL 13; 'tS R+i� MPU 47 0-3 4-7 $-12 13-10 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 OVER 01 469 $42 568 212 2091 6.2 7.1 02 $68 1263 $20 169 2820 6.0 6.9 03 294 775 $19 73 9 1670 5.7 6.6 04 317 $72 509 62 11 1771 5.7 6.6 05 268 $61 437 106 1612 5.6 6.4 06 357 $34 1.51 4$. 8 1092 4.9 5.6 07 369 403 273 84 36 30 1175 6.6 7.6 08 158 261 138 69 73 52 Al 22 $14 7.6 $.8 09 167 352 116 128 6$ 59 21 971 7.5 8.6 10 119 303 127 180 98 41 9 877 9.3 10.7 1 11 323 S86 268 312 111 23 28 1651 7.9 9.1 $ 12 618 1397 624 779 271 69 21 3779 8.3 9.6 R 13 472 1375 674 531 453 67 3571 8.4 9.7 14 647 1371 576 3R1 129 300A 6.2 7.1 R 15 338 1073 348 135 27 1941 3.6 6.4 16 360 1399 $23 121 19 2622 5.5 6.3 17 587 803 469 129 12 2079 5.4 6.2 1$ 1046 1984 1068 297 83 1$ 4496 5.8 6.7 19 499 793 586 241 92 2211 6.2 7.1 20 371 946 615 243 64 2239 6.6 7.6 21 340 732 $28 323 147 $ 2078 7.6 8.8 22 479 768 603 231 115 38 19 2253 7:7 8.9 23 187 1008 91.5 413 192 2715 7.9 9.1 24 458 943 800 453 96 11 18 2779 7.2 8.2 25 351 899 752 297 102 21 9 2431 7.2 8.2 26 368 731 379 206 $3 1739 6.3 7.2 27 411 748 469 232 118 19 1997 6.7 7.7 28 191 554 276 287 118 1426 7.3 8.4 29 271 642 548 479 143 17 2100 8.0 4.3 I 30 379 973 526 343 203 34 2563 8.0 9.3 31 299 643 5971 618 222 19 2398 8.5 9.8 32 397 $52 5211 $59 ISS 23 2510 7.9 9.1 s 33 236 721 324 238 48 1567 6.7 7.7 34 2$0 916 $45 307 24 2372 6.9 7.9 35 252 931 118 487 23 2611 6.9 7.9 i 9:�1216761 501 1568 1381 569 27 4046 7.0 $.0 772+? 7720 0.0 0.0 31828 19849: 10437 3357 529! 166i 22 $7664 6.9 1 7.9 Figure Al-2. Typical environmental data service wind summary 90 9129/89 AC 154/5300-13 Apps 1 tF try;, +V�� a 2� 27 22 21 t7 r N iF lux N ♦ s t a atfxas �>� RADIUS 0E-- WIND SPEED DIVISIONS CIRCLE KNOTS M.P.H. (KNOTS) 0 - 3.5 0 - 3.5 * 3.5 Tn-its 3.5 6.5 3.57.5 5.5 - 10.5 7.5_12.5 - 10.5_.__ _ *May not be needed for 10.5 • 16.5 12.5 - 18.5 16.5 -_ 't�. most windrose analyses. 16.5 - 21.5 18.5 - 24.5 21.5 - 21.5 - 27.5 24.5 .. 31.5 27.5 - tF 27.5 - 33.5 31.5 - 38.5 *33.5 - 'F 33.5 - 40.5 38.5 - 45.5 *44.5 - _ 44.5 - over 46.5 - over Figure A1.3. Windrose Mundt showing direction and divisions 91 AC 1: 3OD-13 9/29/$99 Appendix 1 2i �2t + + , .3 3x .6 2 . ► •6 �u►cnas ► .► + + 7 $ 6 + + . w 5 � ► 1► + 1 .3 1 1 + ► .2 84.1% .2 N .3 4 ► + + .1 .5 ., 9 + .1 .3 + + 'p 3 .4 •3 .31.3 .► •1 •} 3 •5 .2 + d ti Figure AI-4. Completed windrose using figure AI-2 data 92 90183 AC 1:0300.13 Appen4k 1 It t s 2s t + .3 3 4 • N .) + .2 7.6 tok'�►s "- 2 6 } ,+ ,5 1 3 .9 xt 3 t 6 + '• J " � r + t� r PLASTIC TEMPLATE A runway oriented 1.05°-285° {true} would have 2.72% of the winds exceeding the design crosswind/crosswind component of 13 knots. Figure Al.& Wlndrose analysis 93 AC 15015300.13 9129189 Appendix 1 ESTIMATED AREA NOT INCLUDED DIRECTION 1126 1 17-21 22-27 28+ 10 .12 20 .12 30 .05 + 40 .04 + 50 .01 60 + 70 80 .01 + 90 100 110 120 130 .01 1.78 140 .01 .92 150 + .02 160 .01 + 2.72 170 .04 + 180 .14 .10 + 190 .16 .10 100.00 200 .16 .10 2.72 210 .20 .20 + 97.28 220 .11 .10 + + 230 .03 .19 240 .05 + + 250 .01 + + 260 100.00 - SUM Coverage 270 280 200.00 - 2.72 -97.287 290 Coverage 300 310 3j+20 .0y1 + 330 .05 340 .04 + 350 .25 + 360 .30 + SLIM 2.78 .92 .02 + Figure Ai-5. Windrose analysis--estimating area not included 94 912.9189 AC 15015300.13 Appeaft 1 September 29, 1989 WIND OBSERVATIONS STATION: ANMERE, USA RUNWAY ORIENTATION: 105 DEGREE CROSSWIND COMPONENT: 13 KNOTS WIND COVERAGE: 96.746 % DIRECTION WIND SPEED (KNOTS) 0 4 7 11 17 22 28 34 41 3 6 10 16 21 27 33 40 99 1 212 2 169 3 73 9 4 62 11 5 106 6 42 8 7 84 36 •10 8 69 73 52 41 22 9 128 68 59 21 10 180 98 41 9 11 312 111 23 28 12 779 271 69 21 13 531 452 67 14 281 129 15 135 27 16 121 19 17 128 12 18 297 83 18 19 241 92 20 243 64 21 323 147 8 22 231 115 38 19 23 413 192 24 453 96 11 18 25 297 102 21 9 26 248 53 27 232 118 19 28 287 118 29 479 143 17 30 543 208 34 31 618 222 19 32 559 158 23 33 238 48 34 307 24 35 487 23 36 569 27 0 21676 31828 19849 TOTAL: 21676 31828 19849 10437 3357 529 166 22 0 87864 Figure Al-7. Computer printout gage 1 95 AC 150133M13 9129/89 Appendix 1 AREA NOT INCLUDED STATION: ANYWHERE, USA RUNWAY ORIENTATION: 105 DEGREE CROSSWIND COMPONENT: 13 KNOTS DIRECTION WIND SPEED (KNOTS) 0 3.5 6.5 10.5 16.5 21.5 27.5 33.5 40.5 3.5 6.5 10.5 16.5 21.5 27.5 33.5 40.5 99.5 1 0.6212 1 1 1 1 1 13.200 13 2 0.6212 1 1 1 1 1 13.200 13 3 0.5532 1 1 1 1 1 13.834 13.200 4 0.3986 1 1 1 1 1 15.011 13.834 5 0.1185 0.9910 1 1 1 1 16.970 15.011 6 0.6265 1 1 1 1 20.224 16.970 7 0.0385 0.7588 1 1 1 26 20.224 8 0.0242 0.4669 0.9150 1 38.009 26 9 0.0243 0.8525 74.864 38.009 10 0 1E+51 74.864 11 0 1E+51 74.864 12 0.0243 0.8525 74.864 38.009 13 0.0242 0.4669 0.9150 1 38.009 26 14 0.0385 0.7588 1 1 1 26 20.224 15 0.6265 1 1 1 1 20.224 16.970 16 0.1185 0.9910 1 1 1 1 16.970 15.011 17 0.3986 1 1 1 1 1 15.011 13.834 18 0.5532 1 1 1 1 1 13.834 13.200 19 0.6212 1 1 1 1 1 13.200 13 20 0.6212 1 1 1 1 1 13.200 13 21 0.5532 1 1 1 1 1 13.834 13.200 22 0.3986 1 1 1 1 1 15.011 13.834 23 0.1185 0.9910 1 1 1 1 16.970 15.011 24 0.6265 1 1 1 1 20.224 16.970 25 0.0385 0.7588 1 1 1 26 20.224 26 0.0242 0.4669 0.9150 1 38.009 26 27 0.0243 0.8525 74.864 38.009 28 0 1E+51 74.864 29 0 1E+51 74.864 30 0.0243 0.8525 74.864 38.009 31 0.0242 0.4669 0.9150 1 38.009 26 32 0.0385 0.7588 1 1 1 26 20.224 33 0.6265 1 1 1 1 20.224 16.970 34 0.1185 0.9910 1 1 1 1 16.970 15.011 35 0.3986 1 1 1 1 1 15.011 13.834 36 0.5532 1 1 1 1 1 13.834 13.200 Figure A2-8. Computer printout page 2 96 9/29/89 AC 15015300.13 Appendix 1 _ WIND NOT COVERED STATION: ANYWHERE, USA RUNWAY" ORIENTATION: 105 DEGREE CROSSWIND COMPONENT: 13 KNOTS DIRECTION MIND SPEER (KNOTS) TOTAL: 0 3.5 6.5 10.5 16.5 21.5 27.5 33.5 40.5 3.5 6.5 10.5 16.5 21.5 27.5 33.5 40.5 99.5 1 0.1498 0 0 0 0 0 0.1498 2 0.1194 0 0 0 0 0 0.1194 3 0.0459 0.0102 0 0 0 0 0.0562 4 0.0281 0.0125 0 0 0 0 0.0406 5 0.0142 0 0 0 0 0 0.0142 6 0.0057 0 0 0 0 0.0057 7 0.0015 0.0086 0 0 0 0.0102 8 0.001.4 0.0217 0.0229 0 0.0461 9 0 0 0 10 0 11 0 12 0 0 0 13 0.0018 0 0 0 0.0018 14 0.0056 0 0 0 0 0.0056 1S 0.0192 0 0 0 0 0.0192 16 0.0163 0,0214 0 0 0 0 0.0377 17 0.0580 0.0136 0 0 0 0 0.0717 18 0.1870 0.0944 0.0204 0 0 0 0.3019 19 0.1704 0.1047 0 0 0 0 0.2751 20 0.1718 0.0728 0 0 0 0 0.2446 21 0.2033 0.1673 0.0091 0 0 0 0.3797 22 0.1048 0.1308 0.0432 0.0216 0 0 4.3005 23 0.0557 0.2165 0 0 0 0 0.2722 24 0.0684 0.0125 0.0204 0 0 0.1014 25 0.0044 0.0181 0.0102 0 0 0.0328 26 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 28 0 29 0 30 0 0 0 31 0.0005 0 0 0 0.0005 32 0.0069 0.0198 0 0 0 0.0267 33 0.0342 0 0 0 0 0.0342 34 0.0414 0.0270 0 0 0 0 0.0684 35 0.2209 0.0261 0 0 0 0 0.2471 36 0.3582 0.0307 0 0 0 0 0.3890 TOTAL: 0 0 0 1.9459 1.0748 0.1357 0.0741 0.0229 0 3.2537 Figure Al-9. Computer printout page 3 97 9/l9W AC 150/5300-13 Appendix 1 E51: 'AREA NOT INCLUDED A52: +A2 COPY CELL A52 TO RANGE(A52. .A54) D52: +D2 COPY CELL D52 TO RANGE(D53. .E54) A57: +A7 857: +E7 B59: (A9+B8}/2 COPY CELL B58 TO RANGE(B58. .J58) B59: (B9+C8)/2 COPY CELL B59 TO RANCE(B59. .J59) A61: +All COPY CELT. A61 TO RANGE(A61. .A96) B61: @IF($K6l<-B$58,1,@IF($L61>B$59,$A$9,(B$59"2-$K61*$L61+ @IF($K61<B$59,0,$L61*($K61-B$59)"2/($K61-$L61))_ @IF($L61>B$58,0,$K6l*(B$58-$L61)"2/($K61-$L61)))/(B$59"2-B$58-2))) COPY CELL B61 TO RANGE(B61. .J96) K61: @MAX($D$4/(@MAX(@ABS(@SIN(($D$3-A61*10+5)*@PI/180)),1.0000000E-50)), $D$4/(@MAX,(@ABS(@SIN(($D$3-A61*10-5)*@PI/180)),1.000OOOOE•50))) COPY CELL K61 TO RANCE(K61. .K96) L61: @MIN($D$4/(@MAX(@ABS(@SIN'(($D$3-A61*10+5)*@PI/180)) ,1.0000000E-50)), $D$4/(@MAX(@ABS(@SIN(($D$3-A61*10-5)*@PI/180)) ,1.000OOOOE-50))) COPY CELL L61 TO RANGE(L61. .1,96) A100: 1 • . 8101: 18 WIND NOT COVERED A102: +A2 COPY CELL A102 TO RANGE(Al02. .Al04) D102: +D2 COPY CELL D102 TO RANGE(Dl03. .ElO4) A107: +A7 E107: +E7 L107: 'TOTAL: B108: +B58 COPY CELL B108 TO RANGE(B108. .J109) A111: +A61 COPY CELL AM TO RANGE(A111. .A146) B111: @IF(B61-0,$A$9,100*(B61*Bll)/$K$48) COPY CELL B111 TO RANGE(Blll. .J146) L111: @SUM(B111. .J111) COPY CELL L111 TO RANGE(L111. .L146) A148: 'TOTAL: B148: @SUM(B111. .B146) COPY CELL B148 TO RANGE(B148. .J148) L148: @SUM(L111. .L146) A150: ( : . Figure Al-11. Lotus cell-formulas page 2 99 (and 100) BROWN, VENCE & ASSOCIATES Appendix F a CNCCx A. Mao wr o i VOP two is uJA only, inn-, oil fl �i p 4 a thy, O !y �a T 1 " 1 , l ._✓a"'-""� ter'"` -�' �\.,�M1````�`l'�� 4 �. 1 . Al + CM3 ]{11 lines oi Nocess CPt orp. and easements Y0 ` t f1virc and deSW BROWN, VENCE & ASSOCIATES Appendix G .. i E � crx BROWN, VENCE & ASSOCIATES Appendix H Advisory U.S. Department i rc u ' r of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration - Subject: HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE Date: 5/l/97 AC Na: 150/5200-33 ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS Initiated by: AAS-310 Change. and APP-600 1. PURPOSE.This advisory circular(AC)provides guidance on locating certain land uses having the potential to attract hazardous wildlife to or in the vicinity of public-use airports. It also provides guidance concerning the - placement of new airport development projects(including airport construction,expansion,and renovation) pertaining to aircraft movement in the vicinity of hazardous wildlife attractants. Appendix I provides definitions of terms used in this AC. 2. APPLICATION.The standards,practices,and suggestions contained in this AC are recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)for use by the operators and sponsors of all public-use airports. In addition, the standards,practices, and suggestions contained in this AC are recommended by the FAA as guidance for land - use planners,operators,and developers of projects, facilities,and activities on or near airports. 3. BACKGROUND.Populations of many species of wildlife have increased markedly in the last few years. Some of these species are able to adapt to human-made environments,such as exist on and around airports.The increase in wildlife populations,the use of larger turbine engines,the increased use of twin-engine aircraft,and the increase in air-traffic, all combine to increase the risk, frequency,and potential severity of wildlife-aircraft collisions. Most public-use airports have large tracts of open,unimproved land that are desirable for added margins of safety and noise mitigation.These areas can present potential hazards to aviation because they often attract hazardous wildlife. During the past century,wildlife-aircraft strikes have resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives world-wide, as well as billions of dollars worth of aircraft damage. Hazardous wildlife attractants near airports could jeopardize future airport expansion because of safety considerations. DAVID L. BENNETT Director,Office of Airport Safety and Standards 5/1/97 AC 150/5200-33 SECTION 1. HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS. 1-1. TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS.Human-made or natural areas,such as poorly-drained areas,retention ponds,roosting habitats on buildings,landscaping, putrescible-waste disposal operations,wastewater treatment plants, agricultural or aquacultural activities,surface mining,or wetlands,may be used by wildlife for escape,feeding,loafing, or reproduction. Wildlife use of areas within an airport's approach or departure airspace,aircraft movement areas,loading ramps,or aircraft parking areas may cause conditions hazardous to aircraft safety. All species of wildlife can pose a threat to aircraft safety. However, some species are more commonly involved in aircraft strikes than others. Table 1 lists the wildlife groups commonly reported as being involved in damaging strikes to U.S. aircraft from 1993 to 1995. Table 1.Wildlife Groups Involved in Damaging Strikes to Civilian Aircraft,USA, 1993-1995. Wildlife Groups Percent involvement in reported damaging strikes Gulls 28 Waterfowl 28 Raptors 11 Doves 6 Vultures 5 Blackbirds-Starlings 5 Corvids 3 Wading birds 3 Deer 11 Canids 1 1-2. LAND USE PRACTICES.Land use practices that attract or sustain hazardous wildlife populations on or near airports can significantly increase the potential for wildlife-aircraft collisions. FAA recommends against land use practices,within the siting criteria stated in 1-3,that attract or sustain populations of hazardous wildlife within the vicinity of airports or cause movement of hazardous wildlife onto,into,or across the approach or departure airspace, aircraft movement area,loading ramps,or aircraft parking area of airports. Airport operators, sponsors,planners,and land use developers should consider whether proposed land uses, including new airport development projects,would increase the wildlife hazard. Caution should be exercised to ensure that land use practices on or near airports do not enhance the attractiveness of the area to hazardous wildlife. 1-3. SITING CRITERIA.FAA recommends separations when siting any of the wildlife attractants mentioned in Section 2 or when planning new airport development projects to accommodate aircraft movement.The distance between an airport's aircraft movement areas,loading ramps,or aircraft parking areas and the wildlife attractant should be as follows: a. Airports serving piston-powered aircraft.A distance of 5,000 feet is recommended. b. Airports serving turbine-powered aircraft.A distance of 10,000 feet is recommended. c. Approach or departure airspace.A distance of 5 statute miles is recommended,if the wildlife attractant may cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. 1 511197 AC 15015200-33 SECTION Z. LAND USES THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH SAFE AIRPORT OPERATIONS. 2-1. GENERAL.The wildlife species and the size of the populations attracted to the airport environment are highly variable and may depend on several factors,including land-use practices on or near the airport.It is important to identify those land use practices in the airport area that attract hazardous wildlife.This section discusses land use practices known to threaten aviation safety. 2-2. PUTRESCIRLE-WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS. Putrescible-waste disposal operations are known to attract large numbers of wildlife that are hazardous to aircraft. Because of this,these operations,when located within the separations identified in the sitting criteria in 1-3 are considered incompatible with safe airport operations. FAA recommends against locating putrescible-waste disposal operations inside the separations identified in the siting criteria mentioned above. FAA also recommends against new airport development projects that would increase the number of aircraft operations or that would accommodate larger or faster aircraft,near putrescible- waste disposal operations located within the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3. 2-3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES.Wastewater treatment facilities and associated settling ponds often attract large numbers of wildlife that can pose a threat to aircraft safety when they are located on or near an airport. a. New wastewater treatment facilities.FAA recommends against the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or associated settling ponds within the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3. During the siting analysis for wastewater treatment facilities,the potential to attract hazardous wildlife should be considered if an airport is in the vicinity of a proposed site. Airport operators should voice their opposition to such sitings. In addition,they should consider the existence of wastewater treatment facilities when evaluating proposed sites for new airport development projects and avoid such sites when practicable. b. Existing wastewater treatment facilities.FAA recommends correcting any wildlife hazards arising from existing wastewater treatment facilities located on or near airports without delay,using appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Accordingly,measures to minimize hazardous wildlife attraction should be developed in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist.FAA recommends that wastewater treatment facility operators incorporate appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques into their operating practices.Airport operators also should encourage those operators to incorporate these mitigation techniques in their operating practices. c. Artificial marshes. Waste-water treatment facilities may create artificial marshes and use submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation as natural filters.These artificial marshes may be used by some species of flocking birds,such as blackbirds and waterfowl,for breeding or roosting activities.FAA recommends against establishing artificial marshes within the separations identified in the siting criteria stated in 1-3. d. Wastewater discharge and sludge disposal.FAA recommends against the discharge of wastewater or sludge on airport property.Regular spraying of wastewater or sludge disposal on unpaved areas may improve soil moisture and quality.The resultant turf growth requires more frequent mowing,which in turn may mutilate or flush insects or small animals and produce straw.The maimed or flushed organisms and the straw can attract hazardous wildlife and jeopardize aviation safety. In addition,the improved turf may attract grazing wildlife such as deer and geese. Problems may also occur when discharges saturate unpaved airport areas.The resultant soft,muddy conditions can severely restrict or prevent emergency vehicles from reaching accident sites in a timely manner. e. Underwater waste discharges.The underwater discharge of any food waste,e.g.,fish processing offal, that could attract scavenging wildlife is not recommended within the separations identified in the siting criteria in I- 3. 3 AC 150/5200-33 5/1!97 2-4. WETLANDS. a. Wetlands on or near Airports. (I) Existing Airports.Normally,wetlands are attractive to many wildlife species.Airport operators with wetlands located on or nearby airport property should be alert to any wildlife use or habitat changes in these areas that could affect safe aircraft operations. (2) Airport Development.When practicable,the FAA recommends siting new airports using the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3. Where alternative sites are not practicable or when expanding existing airports in or near wetlands,the wildlife hazards should be evaluated and minimized through a wildlife management plan prepared by a wildlife damage management biologist,in consultation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)and the L.S. Army Corps of Engineers(COE). NOTE. if questions exist as to whether or not an area would qualify as a wetland,contact the U.S.Army COE,the Natural Resource Conservation Service,or a wetland consultant certified to delineate wetlands. b. Wetland mitigation. Mitigation may be necessary when unavoidable wetland disturbances result from new airport development projects.Wetland mitigation should be designed so it does not create a wildlife hazard. (I) FAA recommends that wetland mitigation projects that may attract hazardous wildlife be sited outside of the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3. Wetland mitigation banks meeting these siting criteria offer an ecologically sound approach to mitigation in these situations. (2) Exceptions to locating mitigation activities outside the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3 may be considered if the affected wetlands provide unique ecological functions,such as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species or ground water recharge. Such mitigation must be compatible with safe airport operations. Enhancing such mitigation areas to attract hazardous wildlife should be avoided. On-site mitigation plans may be reviewed by the FAA to determine compatibility with safe airport operations. (3) Wetland mitigation projects that are needed to protect unique wetland functions(see 2- 4.b.(2)), and that must be located in the siting criteria in 1-3 should be identified and evaluated by a wildlife damage management biologist before implementing the mitigation. A wildlife damage management plan should be developed to reduce the wildlife hazards. NOTE: AC 150/5000-3,Address List for Regional Airports Division and Airports District/Field Offices,provides information on the location of these offices. 2-5. DREDGE SPOIL CONTAINMENT AREAS.FAA recommends against locating dredge spoil containment areas within the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3,if the spoil contains material that would attract hazardous wildlife. 4 5/1/97 AC 150/5200-33 SECTION 3. LAND USES THAT MAY BE COMPATIBLE WITH SAFE AIRPORT OPERATIONS. 3-1. GENERAL.Even though they may,under certain circumstances,attract hazardous wildlife,the land use practices discussed in this section have flexibility regarding their location or operation and may even be under the airport operator's or sponsor's control. In general,the FAA does not consider the activities discussed below as hazardous to aviation if there is no apparent attraction to hazardous wildlife,or wildlife hazard mitigation techniques are implemented to deal effectively with any wildlife hazard that may arise. 3-2. ENCLOSED WASTE FACILITIES.Enclosed trash transfer stations or enclosed waste handling facilities that receive garbage indoors;process it via compaction,incineration,or similar manner;and remove all residue by enclosed vehicles,generally would be compatible,from a wildlife perspective,with safe airport operations,provided they are not located on airport property or within the runway protection zone(RPZ).No putrescible-waste should be handled or stored outside at any time,for any reason,or in a partially enclosed structure accessible to hazardous wildlife. Partially enclosed operations that accept putrescible-waste are considered to be incompatible with safe airport operations. FAA recommends these operations occur outside the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3. 3-3. RECYCLING CENTERS. Recycling centers that accept previously sorted,non-food items such as glass, newspaper,cardboard,or aluminum are,in most cases,not attractive to hazardous wildlife. 3-4. COMPOSTING OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS. FAA recommends against locating composting operations on airports.However, when they are located on an airport,composting operations should not be located closer than the greater of the following distances: 1,200 feet from any aircraft movement area,loading ramp,or aircraft parking space;or the distance called for by airport design requirements.This spacing is intended to prevent material,personnel,or equipment from penetrating any Obstacle Free Area(OFA),Obstacle Free Zone(OFZ), Threshold Siting Surface(TSS),or Clearway(see AC 150/5300-13,Airport Design).On-airport disposal of compost by-products is not recommended for the reasons stated in 2-3.d. a. Composition of material handled.Components of the compost should never include any municipal solid waste. Non-food waste such as leaves,lawn clippings,branches, and twigs generally are not considered a wildlife attractant. Sewage sludge, wood-chips, and similar material are not municipal solid wastes and may be used as compost bulking agents. b. Monitoring on-airport composting operations. If composting operations are to be located on airport property, FAA recommends that the airport operator monitor composting operations to ensure that steam or thermal rise does not affect air traffic in any way. Discarded leaf disposal bags or other debris must not be allowed to blow onto any active airport area.Also,the airport operator should reserve the right to stop any operation that creates - unsafe,undesirable,or incompatible conditions at the airport. 3-5. ASN DISPOSAL.Fly ash from resource recovery facilities that are fired by municipal solid waste,coal,or wood,is generally considered not to be a wildlife attractant because it contains no putrescible matter.FAA generally does not consider landfills accepting only fly ash to be wildlife attractants,if those landfills: are maintained in an orderly manner; admit no putrescible-waste of any kind;and are not co-located with other disposal operations. Since varying degrees of waste consumption are associated with general incineration,FAA classifies the ash from general incinerators as a regular waste disposal by-product and,therefore,a hazardous wildlife attractant. 5 AC 150/5200-33 5/1/97 3-6. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION(C&D) DEBRIS LANDFILLS.C&D debris(Class IV) landfills have visual and operational characteristics similar to putrescible-waste disposal sites. When co-located with putrescible-waste disposal operations,the probability of hazardous wildlife attraction to C&D landfills increases because of the similarities between these disposal activities. FAA generally does not consider C&D landfills to be hazardous wildlife attractants,if those landfills: are maintained in an orderly manner;admit no putrescible-waste of any kind;and are not co-located with other disposal operations. 3-7. WATER DETENTION OR RETENTION PONDS.The movement of storm water away from runways, taxiways,and aprons is a normal function on most airports and is necessary for safe aircraft operations. Detention ponds hold stormm water for short periods,while retention ponds hold water indefinitely. Both types of ponds control runoff,protect water quality,and can attract hazardous wildlife. Retention ponds are more attractive to hazardous wildlife than detention ponds because they provide a more reliable water source. To facilitate hazardous wildlife control, FAA recommends using steep-sided,narrow,linearly-shaped,rip-rap lined, water detention basins rather than retention basins. When possible,these ponds should be placed away from aircraft movement areas to minimize aircraft-wildlife interactions. All vegetation in or around detention or retention basins that provide food or cover for hazardous wildlife should be eliminated. If soil conditions and other requirements allow, FAA encourages the use of underground storm water infiltration systems,such as French drains or buried rock fields,because they are less attractive to wildlife. 3-8. LANDSCAPING.Wildlife attraction to landscaping may vary by geographic location. FAA recommends that airport operators approach landscaping with caution and confine it to airport areas not associated with aircraft movements. All landscaping plans should be reviewed by a wildlife damage management biologist. Landscaped areas should be monitored on a continuing basis for the presence of hazardous wildlife. If hazardous wildlife is detected,corrective actions should be implemented immediately. 3-9. GOLF COURSES.Golf courses may be beneficial to airports because they provide open space that can be used for noise mitigation or by aircraft during an emergency.On-airport golf courses may also be a concurrent use that provides income to the airport. Because of operational and monetary benefits,golf courses are often deemed compatible land uses on or near airports. However,waterfowl (especially Canada geese)and some species of gulls are attracted to the large,grassy areas and open water found on most golf courses.Because waterfowl and gulls occur throughout the U.S., FAA recommends that airport operators exercise caution and consult with a wildlife damage management biologist when considering proposals for golf course construction or expansion on or near airports.Golf courses should be monitored on a continuing basis for the presence of hazardous wildlife. If hazardous wildlife is detected,corrective actions should be implemented immediately. 3-10. AGRICULTURAL CROPS.As noted above, airport operators often promote revenue-generating activities to supplement an airport's financial viability. A common concurrent use is agricultural crop production. Such use may create potential hazards to aircraft by attracting wildlife. Any proposed on-airport agricultural operations should be reviewed by a wildlife damage management biologist. FAA generally does not object to agricultural crop production on airports when: wildlife hazards are not predicted;the guidelines for the airport areas specified in 3-10.a-f. are observed;and the agricultural operation is closely monitored by the airport operator or sponsor to ensure that hazardous wildlife are not attracted. NOTE: If wildlife becomes a problem due to on-airport agricultural operations,FAA recommends undertaking the remedial actions described in 3-10.f. a. Agricultural activities adjacent to runways.To ensure safe, efficient aircraft operations, FAA recommends that no agricultural activities be conducted in the Runway Safety Area(RSA),OFA,and the OFZ(see AC 150/5300-13). 6 5/1197 AC 150/5204-33 b. Agricultural activities in areas requiring minimum object clearances. Restricting agricultural operations to areas outside the RSA,OFA,OFZ,and Runway Visibility Zone(RVZ)(see AC 150/5300-13)will normally provide the minimum object clearances required by FAA's airport design standards.FAA recommends that farming operations not be permitted within areas critical to the proper operation of localizers,glide slope indicators, or other visual or electronic navigational aids.Determinations of minimal areas that must be kept free of farming operations should be made on a case-by-case basis.If navigational aids are present,farm leases for on-airport agricultural activities should be coordinated with FAA's Airway Facilities Division,in accordance with FAA Order 6750.16,Siting Criteria for Instrument Landing Systems. NOTE: Crop restriction lines conforming to the dimensions set forth in Table 2 will normally provide the minimum object clearance required by FAA airport design standards.The presence of navigational aids may require expansion of the restricted area. c. Agricultural activities within an airport's approach areas.The RSA,OFA, and OFZ all extend beyond the runway shoulder and into the approach area by varying distances.The OFA normally extends the farthest and is usually the controlling surface. However,for some runways,the TSS(see AC 150/5300-13,Appendix 2)may be more controlling than the OFA.The TSS may not be penetrated by any object.The minimum distances shown in Table 2 are intended to prevent penetration of the OFA,OFZ,or TSS by crops or farm machinery. NOTE:Threshold Siting standards should not be confused with the approach areas described in Title 14,Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77,(14 CFR 77),Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. d. Agricultural activities between intersecting runways.FAA recommends that no agricultural activities be permitted within the RVZ.If the terrain is sufficiently below the runway elevation,some types of crops and equipment may be acceptable. Specific determinations of what is permissible in this area requires topographical data.For example,if the terrain within the RVZ is level with the runway ends,farm machinery or crops may interfere with a pilot's line-of-sight in the RVZ. e. Agricultural activities in areas adjacent to taxiways and aprons.Farming activities should not be permitted within a taxiway's OFA.The outer portions of aprons are frequently used as a taxilane and farming operations should not be permitted within the OFA.Farming operations should not be permitted between runways and parallel taxiways. f. Remedial actions for problematic agricultural activities. if a problem with hazardous wildlife develops, FAA recommends that a professional wildlife damage management biologist be contacted and an on-site inspection be conducted.The biologist should be requested to determine the source of the hazardous wildlife attraction and suggest remedial action. Regardless of the source of the attraction,prompt remedial actions to protect aviation safety are recommended.The remedial actions may range from choosing another crop or farming technique to complete termination of the agricultural operation. Whenever on-airport agricultural operations are stopped due to wildlife hazards or annual harvest, FAA recommends plowing under all crop residue and harrowing the surface area smooth.This will reduce or eliminate the area's attractiveness to foraging wildlife. FAA recommends that this requirement be written into all on-airport farm use contracts and clearly understood by the lessee. 7 AC 150/5200-33 5/1/97 Table 2. ;Minimum Distances Between Certain Airport Features and Any On-Airport Agriculture Crops. Distance in j 1Distance in Distance in Distance in Feet from Distance in Distance in Aircraft Runway Feet from Feet from Feet from Design y Runway Runway End Runway End Feet from Feet from Approach I Centerline to Centerline of Edge of Category' Group Crop Centerline to to Crop to Crop Taxiway to Apron to Crop { (Visual& End {Visual & (<-3C mile ) 1 asi4 mile) (c3/4 mile)773 Crop Crop ;0/4 mile} � 'A&B' Group 1 200 W71 t A& Group 1' ��.��"250 : °4t�#1 444 600 58, B l �. A &$ Gfoul)J Ti X04 4t1f3 644 804 93 81 A& rruttp 1 V 440 444 1,444 f . 1444 14 113" C,D&E Group 1 ; 5303 5753 1,000 1,000 45 40 ...... ...._.... ....... . _ ... ...... ...;.... .., . _. ._. ... ........ C,D&E Group 11 530' 5753 1,000 f 1,004 66.......... 58 C,D&EGroup 111 530' 57531,404 1,000 93 81 ...... .., .. ... _ . . _............ ...., C,D&E Group IV 5343 575' j 1,000 1,000 130 113 ...................e...__..... .... ........ _ ... .. ....._................... ......... C,D&E Group V 5303 5753 1 000 3 1,400 160 138 ......... . ......_ ......................... ..._ .... ,. C,D&E ; Group VI 5303 5753 1,000 j1,000 193 167 ' Design Groups are based on wing span,and Category depends on approach speed ofthe aircraft: Group 1: Wing span up to 49 ft. Group 11: Wing span 49 ft. up to 78 ft. Group Ill: Wing span 79 ft. up to 117 ft. Group IV: Wing span 118 ft.up to 170 ft. Group V: Wing span 171 ft. up to 213 ft. - Group VI: Wing span 214 ft. up to 261 ft. Category A: Speed less than 91 knots Category B: Speed 91 knots up to 120 knots Category C: Speed 121 knots up to 140 knots Category D: Speed 141 knots up to 165 knots Category E: Speed 166 knots or more 2 Ifthe runway will only serve small airplanes(12,500 lb.and under)in Design Group I,this dimension may be reduced to 125 feet; however,this dimension should be increased where necessary to accommodate visual navigational aids that may be installed. For example,farming operations should not be allowed within 25 feet of a Precision Approach Path Indicator(PAPI)light box. 3 These dimensions reflect the TSS as defined in AC 150/5300-13, Appendix 2.The TSS cannot be penetrated by any object.Under these conditions,the TSS is more restrictive than the OFA,and the dimensions shown here are to prevent penetration of the TSS by crops and farm machinery. 8 5(1/97 AC 15015200-33 SECTION 4. NOTIFICATION OF FAA ABOUT HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AN AIRPORT. 4-1. GENERAL.Airport operators,land developers,and owners should notify the FAA in writing of known or reasonably foreseeable land use practices on or near airports that either attract or may attract hazardous wildlife. This section discusses those notification procedures. 4-2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE DISPOSAL SITE OPERATIONS.The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)requires any operator proposing a new or expanded waste disposal operation within 5 statute miles of a runway end to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office and the airport operator of the proposal(40 CFR 258, Criteria far Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,section 258.10, Airport Safety),The EPA also requires owners or operators of new municipal solid waste landfill(MSWLF)units,or lateral expansions of existing MSWLF units that are located within 10,000 feet of any airport runway end used by turbojet aircraft or within 5,000 feet of any airport runway end used only by piston-type aircraft,to demonstrate successfully that such units are not hazards to aircraft. a. Timing of Notification.When new or expanded MSWLFs are being proposed near airports,MSWLF operators should notify the airport operator and the FAA of this as early as possible pursuant to 40 CFR Part.258. Airport operators should encourage the MSWLF operators to provide notification as early as possible. NOTE: AC 150/5000-3 provides information on these FAA offices. h. Pntrescible-Waste Facilities. In their effort to satisfy the EPA requirement, some putrescible-waste facility proponents may offer to undertake experimental measures to demonstrate that their proposed facility will not be a hazard to aircraft.To date,the ability to sustain a reduction in the numbers of hazardous wildlife to levels that existed before a putrescible-waste landfill began operating has not been successfully demonstrated. For this reason, demonstrations of experimental wildlife control measures should not be conducted in active aircraft operations areas. c. Other Waste Facilities.To claim successfully that a waste handling facility sited within the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3 does not attract hazardous wildlife and does not threaten aviation,the developer must establish convincingly that the facility will not handle putrescible material other than that as outlined in 3-2. FAA requests that waste site developers provide a copy of an official permit request verifying that the facility will not handle putrescible material other than that as outlined in 3-2. FAA will use this information to determine if the facility will be a hazard to aviation. 4-3. NOTIFYING FAA ABOUT OTHER WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS.While U. S. EPA regulations require landfill owners to provide notification,no similar regulations require notifying FAA about changes in other land use practices that can create hazardous wildlife attractants. Although it is not required by regulation,FAA requests those proposing land use changes such as those discussed in 2-3,2-4,and 2-5 to provide similar notice to the FAA as early in the development process as possible.Airport operators that become aware of such proposed development in the vicinity of their airports should also notify the FAA.The notification process gives the FAA an opportunity to evaluate the effect of a particular land use change on aviation safety. The land use operator or project proponent may use FAA Form 7460-1,Notice of'Proposed Construction or Alteration,or other suitable documents to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office. It is helpful if the notification includes a 15-minute quadrangle map of the area identifying the location of the proposed activity.The land use operator or project proponent should also forward specific details of the proposed land use change or operational change or expansion. In the case of solid waste landfills,the information should include the type of waste to be handled,how the waste will be processed,and final disposal methods. 4-5. FAA. REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGES. a. The FAA discourages the development of facilities discussed in section 2 that will be located within the 5,000110,000-foot criteria in 1-3. 9 AC 150/5200-33 5/1/97 b. For projects which are located outside the 5,000/10,000-foot criteria,but within 5 statute miles of the airport's aircraft movement areas, loading ramps,or aircraft parking areas, FAA may review development plans, proposed land use changes,operational changes,or wetland mitigation plans to determine if such changes present potential wildlife hazards to aircraft operations.Sensitive airport areas will be identified as those that lie under or next to approach or departure airspace.This brief examination should be sufficient to determine if further investigation is warranted. c. Where further study has been conducted by a wildlife damage management biologist to evaluate a site's ' compatibility with airport operations,the FAA will use the study results to make its determination. d. FAA will discourage the development of any excepted sites(see Section 3)within the criteria specified in 1-3 if a study shows that the area supports hazardous wildlife species. 4-6. AIRPORT OPERATORS.Airport operators should be aware of proposed land use changes,or modification of existing land uses,that could create hazardous wildlife attractants within the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3. Particular attention should be given to proposed land uses involving creation or expansion of waste water treatment facilities,development of wetland mitigation sites,or development or expansion of dredge spoil containment areas. a. AIP-funded airports.FAA recommends that operators of AIP-funded airports,to the extent practicable, oppose off-airport land use changes or practices(within the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3)that may attract hazardous wildlife. Failure to do so could place the airport operator or sponsor in noncompliance with applicable grant assurances.FAA recommends against the placement of airport development projects pertaining to aircraft movement in the vicinity of hazardous wildlife attractants. Airport operators,sponsors,and planners should identify wildlife attractants and any associated wildlife hazards during any planning process for new airport development projects. b. Additional coordination. If,after the initial review by FAA,questions remain about the existence of a wildlife hazard near an airport,the airport operator or sponsor should consult a wildlife damage management biologist. Such questions may be triggered by a history of wildlife strikes at the airport or the proximity of the airport to a wildlife refuge,body of water,or similar feature known to attract wildlife. c. Specialized assistance. If the services of wildlife damage management biologist are required, FAA recommends that land use developers or the airport operator contact the appropriate state director of the United States Department of Agriculture/Animal Damage Control(USDA/ADC),or a consultant specializing in wildlife damage management.Telephone numbers for the respective USDA/ADC state offices may be obtained by contacting USDA/ADC's Operational Support Staff,4700 River Road,Unit 87, Riverdale, MD,20737-1234, Telephone(301)734-7921, Fax(301)734-5157.The ADC biologist or consultant should be requested to identify and quantify wildlife common to the area and evaluate the potential wildlife hazards. d. Notifying airmen. if an existing land use practice creates a wildlife hazard,and the land use practice or wildlife hazard cannot be immediately eliminated,the airport operator should issue a Notice to Airmen(NOTAM) and encourage the land owner or manager to take steps to control the wildlife hazard and minimize further attraction. 10 5/1/97 AC 15015200-33 Appendix 1 APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS ADVISORY CIRCULAR. 1. GENERAL.This appendix provides definitions ofterrns used throughout this AC. a. Aircraft movement area.The runways,taxiways,and other areas of an airport which are used for taxiing or hover taxiing,air taxiing,takeoff, and landing of aircraft exclusive of loading ramps and aircraft parking areas. b. Airport operator.The operator(private or public)or sponsor of a public use airport. c. Approach or departure airspace.The airspace,within 5 statute miles of an airport,through which aircraft move during landing or takeoff. d. Concurrent use.Aeronautical property used for compatible non-aviation purposes while at the same time serving the primary purpose for which it was acquired:and the use is clearly beneficial to the airport.The concurrent use should generate revenue to be used for airport purposes(see Order 5190.6A,Airport Compliance Requirements, sect. 5h). e. Fly ash.'rhe fine,sand-like residue resulting from the complete incineration of an organic fuel source. Fly ash typically results from the combustion of coal or waste used to operate a power generating plant. f. Hazardous wildlife.Wildlife species that are commonly associated with wildlife-aircraft strike problems, are capable of causing structural damage to airport facilities,or act as attractants to other wildlife that pose a wildlife-aircraft strike hazard. g. Piston-use airport.Any airport that would primarily serve FIXED-WING,piston-powered aircraft. Incidental use of the airport by turbine-powered, FIXED-WING aircraft would not affect this designation. However, such aircraft should not be based at the airport. h. Public-use airport.Any publicly owned airport or a privately-owned airport used or intended to be used for public purposes. i. Putrescible material. Rotting organic material. j. Putrescible-waste disposal operation. Landfills,garbage dumps,underwater waste discharges,or similar facilities where activities include processing,burying,storing,or otherwise disposing of putrescible material,trash, and refuse. k. Runway protection zone(RPZ).An area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground(see AC 150/5300-13).The dimensions of this zone vary with the design aircraft,type of operation,and visibility minimum. 1. Sewage sludge.The de-watered effluent resulting from secondary or tertiary treatment of municipal sewage and/or industrial wastes,including sewage sludge as referenced in U.S. EPA's Effluent Guidelines and Standards,40 C.F.R.Part 401. m. Shoulder.An area adjacent to the edge of paved runways,taxiways,or aprons providing a transition between the pavement and the adjacent surface,support for aircraft running off the pavement,enhanced drainage, and blast protection(see AC 150/5300-13). n. Turbine-powered aircraft.Aircraft powered by turbine engines including turbrtiets and turboprops but excluding turbo-sbaft rotary-wing aircraft. o. Turbine-use airport.Any airport that ROUTINELY serves FIXED-WING turbine-powered aircraft. p. Wastewater treatment facility.Any devices and/or systems used to store,treat,recycle,or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industrial wastes,including Publicly Owned Treatment Works(POTW),as defined by Section 212 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(P.L. 92-544)as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L.95-576)and the Water Quality Act of 1987(P.L. 140-4).This definition includes any pretreatment involving the reduction of the amount of pollutants,the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to or in Iieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a POTW. (See 40 C.F. R. Section 403.3(o),(p),&(q)). _ I AC 15015200-33 511!97 Appendix 1 q. Wildlife.Any wild animal,including without limitation any wild mammal,bird, reptile,fish,amphibian, mollusk,crustacean,arthropod,coelenterate,or other invertebrate,including any part,product,egg,or offspring there of(50 CFR 10.12, Taking, Possession, Transportation,Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plants).As used in this AC,WILDLIFE includes feral animals and domestic animals while out of the control of their owners(14 CFR 139.3,Certification and Operations:Land Airports Serving CAB-Certificated Scheduled Air Carriers Operating Large Aircraft(Other Than Helicopters)). r. Wildlife attractants.Any human-made structure,land use practice,or human-made or natural geographic feature,that can attract or sustain hazardous wildlife within the landing or departure airspace,aircraft movement area, loading ramps,or aircraft parking areas of an airport.These attractants can include but are not limited to architectural features,landscaping,waste disposal sites, wastewater treatment facilities,agricultural or aquacultural activities,surface mining,or wetlands. s. Wildlife hazard.A potential for a damaging aircraft collision with wildlife on or near an airport(14 CFR 139.3). 2. RESERVED. 2