Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for: Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Layon, Inarajan Guam 96915 (671) 727-6846

SWPPP Contact(s):

Guam Solid Waste Authority 542 North Marine Corps Drive Tumon, Guam 96913 Tel No.: (671) 646-3111 Fax No.: (671) 649-3777

Prepared By: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 1001 Army Drive, Suite 103 Barrigada, Guam 96913-1402

SWPPP Preparation Date: September 2nd 2015

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Contents SECTION 1: FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND CONTACT INFORMATION ...... 1 1.1 Facility Information ...... 1 1.2 Contact Information/Responsible Parties ...... 3 1.3 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Team ...... 3 1.4 Site Description ...... 4 1.5 General Location Map ...... 5 1.6 Site Map ...... 5 SECTION 2: POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCES ...... 7 2.1 Potential Pollutants Associated with Industrial Activity ...... 7 2.1.1 Cell Areas ...... 10 2.1.2 Maintenance Facilities ...... 10 2.1.3 Perimeter and Operations Roads ...... 11 2.1.4 Soil Stockpiles ...... 11 2.1.5 Entrance Area Facility – Run-on ...... 11 2.2 Spills and Leaks ...... 11 2.3 Unauthorized Non-Stormwater Discharges Documentation ...... 13 2.4 Salt Storage...... 14 2.5 Sampling Data Summary ...... 14 SECTION 3: STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES ...... 18 3.1 Non-numeric Technology-based Effluent Limits ...... 18 3.1.1 Minimize Exposure ...... 18 3.1.2 Good Housekeeping ...... 19 3.1.3 Maintenance ...... 20 3.1.4 Spill Prevention and Response ...... 21 3.1.5 Erosion and Sediment Controls ...... 23 3.1.6 Management of Runoff ...... 24 3.1.7 Salt Storage Piles or Piles Containing Salt ...... 24 3.1.8 Dust Generation and Vehicle Tracking of Industrial Materials ...... 24 3.2 Sector-Specific Non-Numeric Effluent Limits ...... 25 3.3 Numeric Effluent Limitations Based on Effluent Limitations Guidelines ...... 25 3.4 Water Quality-based Effluent Limitations and Water Quality Standards ...... 26 SECTION 4: SCHEDULES AND PROCEDURES ...... 28 4.1 Good Housekeeping ...... 28 4.2 Maintenance ...... 28 4.3 Spill Prevention and Response Procedures ...... 28 4.4 Erosion and Sediment Control ...... 28 4.5 Employee Training ...... 28 4.6 Inspections and Assessments ...... 29 4.6.1 Routine Facility Inspections ...... 29 4.6.2 Quarterly Visual Assessment of Stormwater Discharges ...... 30 4.6.3 Additional Visual Inspection Requirements ...... 32 4.7 Monitoring ...... 32 4.7.1 Quarterly Benchmark Monitoring ...... 32 4.7.2 Effluent Limit Guideline Compliance Monitoring ...... 34

i Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

SECTION 5: DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS UNDER OTHER FEDERAL LAWS ...... 37 5.1 Documentation Regarding Endangered Species ...... 37 5.2 Documentation Regarding Historic Properties ...... 37 SECTION 6: CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ...... 39 6.1 Conditions Requiring SWPPP Review and Revision to Ensure Effluent Limits are Met ...... 39 6.2 Conditions Requiring SWPPP Review to Determine if Modifications Are Necessary ...... 39 6.3 Corrective Actions and Deadlines ...... 40 6.3.1 Immediate Actions ...... 40 6.3.2 Subsequent Actions ...... 40 6.4 Corrective Action Documentation ...... 40 SECTION 7: SWPPP CERTIFICATION ...... 43 SECTION 8: SWPPP MODIFICATIONS ...... 45 SWPPP ATTACHMENTS ...... 45

TABLES Table 1 Operator’s Staff Members and Responsibilities Table 2 Potential Pollutants Associated with Industrial Activity Table 3 Potential Pollutants Sources of TSS and BMPs for Erosion Control Table 4 Potential Pollutants Sources (Other Than TSS) and BMPs Table 5 Areas of Site Where Potential Spills/Leaks Could Occur Table 6 Description of Past Spills/Leaks Table 7 Numeric Effluent Limitations Applicable to LMSL Facility (MSGP Table 8.L-2)

ii Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

ACRONYMS BMP Best Management Practice BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CFR Code of Federal Regulations GEPA Guam Environmental Protection Agency GPS Global Positioning System LMSL Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill mg/L milligrams per liter MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit MSWLF Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures TDS Total Dissolved Solids TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSS Total Suspended Solids USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey

iii Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

This page intentionally left blank

iv Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

SECTION 1: FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND CONTACT INFORMATION

1.1 Facility Information

This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was developed in compliance with the requirements of the 2015 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP). The MSGP authorizes stormwater discharges from industrial facilities where discharges enter surface waters of the United States, or a municipal separated storm sewer system (MS4) leading to surface waters of the United States. Subpart L of the MSGP covers stormwater discharges associated with activity from Landfills, Land Application Sites, and Open Dumps, as identified in Appendix D of the MSGP (Attachment A).

This SWPPP is presented in a reader-friendly, plain language format following the outline of the MSGP. This SWPPP uses the term “OPERATOR” to identify those who have operational control of a “Facility or Activity,” as defined in Appendix A of the MSGP (Attachment A), and who must comply with the conditions of the MSGP. This SWPPP format should allow any qualifying OPERATOR to easily locate and understand applicable requirements.

The Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill (LMSL) has been in operation since August 2011. The LMSL operates under Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility (MSWLF) Permit No. 15-001, as issued by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) on January 28th, 2015 (Attachment B). The Government of Guam, Department of Public Works has entered into a contract for facility operations with Green Group Holdings Guam, LLC, a qualified OPERATOR. It is required that the OPERATOR amend, update, and maintain this SWPPP, as needed, to reflect the OPERATOR’S activities at the facility in compliance with the MSGP and any other permits, as may be required.

Facility Information Name of Facility: Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Street: Landfill Access Road City: Layon, Inarajan State: Guam ZIP Code: 96915 County or Similar Subdivision: None NPDES ID (i.e., permit tracking number): GUR05A394 Primary Industrial Activity SIC code, and Sector and Subsector (2015 MSGP, Appendix D and Part 8): L1, LF – All Landfill, Land Application Sites and Open Dumps Co-located Industrial Activity(s) SIC code(s), Sector(s) and Subsector(s) (2015 MSGP, Appendix D): None______Latitude/Longitude Latitude: Longitude: 13.3039º N (decimal degrees) 144.7278º W (decimal degrees)

Method for determining latitude/longitude (check one): ☐USGS topographic map (specify scale: n/a ) ☒GPS ☐Other (please specify): n/a

1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Horizontal Reference Datum (check one): ☐NAD 27 ☒NAD 83 ☐WGS 84 Is the facility located in Indian country? ☐Yes ☒No If yes, name of Reservation, or if not part of a Reservation, indicate "not applicable." Not applicable (n/a)

Are you considered a “federal operator” of the facility? ☐Yes ☒No Estimated area of industrial activity at site exposed to stormwater: 28 Acres Discharge Information Does this facility discharge stormwater into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)? ☐Yes ☒No If yes, name of MS4 operator: n/a Name(s) of surface water(s) that receive stormwater from your facility: Tinaga River, Fensol River, & Fintasa River Does this facility discharge industrial stormwater directly into any segment of an “impaired water” (see definition in 2015 MSGP, Appendix A)? ☐Yes ☒No If Yes, identify name of the impaired water(s) (and segment(s), if applicable): n/a Identify the pollutant(s) causing the impairment(s): n/a Which of the identified pollutants may be present in industrial stormwater discharges from this facility? n/a Has a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) been completed for any of the identified pollutants? If yes, please list the TMDL pollutants: n/a Does this facility discharge industrial stormwater into a receiving water designated as a Tier 2, Tier 2.5 or Tier 3 water (see definitions in 2015 MSGP, Appendix A)? ☐Yes ☒No Are any of your stormwater discharges subject to effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) (2015 MSGP Table 1-1)? ☒Yes ☐No If Yes, which guidelines apply? 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 445 Subpart B

2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

1.2 Contact Information/Responsible Parties

Facility Operator (s): Name: Green Group Holdings Guam, LLC. Address: PO Box 170291 City, State, Zip Code: Inarajan, Guam 96917 Contact: Ron White Telephone Number: (671) 727-6846 Email address: [email protected]

Facility Owner (s): Name: Guam Solid Waste Authority Address: 542 North Marine Corps Drive City, State, Zip Code: Tumon, Guam 96913 Contact: Chris Lund. P.E. Telephone Number: (703) 853-7806 Email address: [email protected] Fax number: (703)-698-1306

SWPPP Contact(s): SWPPP Contact (Primary): Name: Chris Lund Telephone Number: (703) 853-7806 Email address: [email protected] Fax number: (703)-698-1306

SWPPP Contact (Backup): Name: Ron White Telephone number: (671) 727-6846 Email address: [email protected] Fax number: (671) 828-5266

1.3 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Team

The staff members that comprise the facility’s stormwater pollution prevention team are presented in Table 1. Each member of the stormwater pollution prevention team will have ready access to either an electronic or paper copy of applicable portions of the MSGP, the most updated copy of the SWPPP, and other relevant documents or information that must be kept with the SWPPP.

3 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

TABLE 1 – Operator’s Staff Members and Responsibilities Staff Title Individual Responsibilities Landfill Operations Manager Oversight of all activities for Compliance, Inspections and Monitoring in accordance with MSGP and this SWPPP. Oversight of maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with MSGP and this SWPPP. Assist with coordinating plan implementation and maintain SWPPP requirements, coordinate employee training, perform inspections, keep records, and submit reports. Landfill Assistant Manager Coordinate landfill operations in accordance with MSGP and this SWPPP. Laborers Keep work areas clean, trash pickup, janitorial work, maintenance of site. Heavy Equipment Operators Daily operations including pushing, crushing, and covering garbage, cleaning out ditches. Outside Consultants Regular inspection and monitoring on-site.

1.4 Site Description

LMSL is a disposal site for non-hazardous municipal solid waste which is received from residential, commercial and industrial sources. The total disposal area for the LMSL is approximately 127 acres and the current landfill operation is comprised of Cells 1 and 2, with an approximate area of 22 acres. The LMSL receives certain non-hazardous wastes managed under special operating procedures. These special wastes include wastewater treatment sludge, treated medical waste, and industrial process wastes such as sandblasting grit. The LMSL receives waste from throughout Guam, primarily by transfer trucks delivering waste from transfer stations located at various locations around the island of Guam. The landfill site receives wastes from commercial collection vehicles. All incoming waste passes through a weigh station enroute to Cells 1 and 2. Waste is deposited in the cells, compacted and covered daily with soil and/or Alternative Daily Cover. At the Entrance Area Facilities, daily operations include storage and fueling of vehicles and equipment. Also included is parking of staff vehicles, operation and maintenance of the Administration and Maintenance buildings, and operation and maintenance of the water storage tank, generator building and sewer/leachate lift station. A requirement of the GEPA MSWLF Permit is to keep records of the types of wastes disposed of in each cell or trench of a landfill or open dump. For land application sites, types and quantities of wastes applied in specific areas must also be tracked. Part 8.L.8.1 of the MSGP also requires that those records, or a copy thereof, also be kept with this SWPPP. This SWPPP contains site maps showing the entire site (Attachment C) which depict the following operational areas:

4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Disposal Site The total landfill disposal area for the landfill is approximately 127 acres and the current landfill operation is comprised of Cells 1 and 2 with an area of approximately 22 acres. It includes a bermed leachate tank and pump station to serve Cells 1 and 2. Horizontal gas collectors placed above the protective liner at the bottom of the cells are presently inactive. Perimeter Road Approximately 2,800 linear feet of the permanent perimeter road and drainage ditches/channels on the southwest and southeast sides of Cells 1 and 2 was constructed as part of the construction of the initial cells. Drainage ditches/channels along the sides of the perimeter road were constructed to direct storm runoff from the roadway and the future runoff from the landfill cells that are not in contact with landfill trash. Crushed stone riprap and concrete lining are used to prevent erosion of the ditches where appropriate. Operations Road The Operations Road is the primary access for the operation of Cells 1 and 2. It is approximately 3,160 linear feet in length. Access into the cells is via temporary access ramps from the Operations Road to the cells. Landfill Entrance Area Facilities The landfill Entrance Area Facilities occupy approximately 12 acres of land and consists of the administration and scale house building, maintenance shop and fueling facility, water storage tank, generator and pump building, paved roads, security fencing, two truck scales, and an unused truck/equipment wash rack station.

1.5 General Location Map

The LMSL Site is located on Lot B-3REM-2, which contains approximately 317 acres, and is located outside the periphery of the village of Inarajan, near the former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) tracking station. It is approximately 3.5 miles to the nearest village residential area (Malojloj) in the higher badlands areas on the west side of the Dandan Parcel, southwest of the former NASA tracking station. See Attachment C, Location Map for this facility.

1.6 Site Map

Attachment C of this SWPPP contains site maps identifying:

• The boundaries of the property and the size of the property in acres • The location and extent of significant structures and impervious surfaces • Directions of stormwater flow (arrows) • Locations of all existing structural control measures • Locations of all receiving waters, including wetlands, in the immediate vicinity of the facility

5 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

• Locations of all stormwater conveyances including ditches, pipes, and swales • Locations where potential pollutant sources have been identified • Locations where significant spills or leaks have been identified • Locations of all stormwater monitoring points • Locations of stormwater inlets and outfalls, with a unique identification code for each outfall (e.g., Outfall No. 1, No. 2, etc), and an approximate outline of the areas draining to each outfall • Locations of the following activities where such activities are exposed to precipitation: o Fueling stations o Vehicle and equipment maintenance and/or cleaning areas o Locations used for the treatment, storage, or disposal of wastes o Liquid storage tanks • Locations and sources of run-on to the site from adjacent property that contains significant quantities of pollutants • Locations where any of the following may be exposed to precipitation or surface runoff: o Active and closed landfill cells or trenches o Leachate collection and handling systems • Locations of non-stormwater discharges, including o Groundwater Subdrain Tank.

The following are elements required to be shown on the site maps by the MSGP, but are omitted for the reasons indicated: • Locations of impaired receiving waters in the immediate vicinity of the facility, and, whether the waters have TMDLs established for them or are identified as Tier 2, Tier 2.5, or Tier 3 waters. No impaired receiving water in vicinity. • Municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4’s), where stormwater discharges to them. No MS4’s in vicinity. • Areas of designated critical habitat for endangered or threatened species. None in vicinity.

6 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

SECTION 2: POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCES

2.1 Potential Pollutants Associated with Industrial Activity

Table 2 describes areas at the facility where industrial materials or activities are exposed to stormwater.

TABLE 2 – Potential Pollutants Associated with Industrial Activity Industrial Activity Associated Pollutants Outdoor chemical storage Various chemicals stored Maintenance of Oil/Water Separator (not presently Oil and grease in use) Waste transportation Total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), turbidity, floatable debris, windborne debris, spilled trash/waste Leachate collection, transport Iron, TSS, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia, alpha terpineol, benzoic acid, p-Cresol, phenol, zinc, pH Landfill operations BOD, TSS, TDS, turbidity Exposed soil from excavating cells/trenches TSS, TDS, turbidity Exposed stock piles of cover materials TSS, TDS, turbidity Daily or intermediate cover placed on cells or TSS, TDS, turbidity trenches Haul roads used by vehicles (including vehicle TSS, TDS, turbidity tracking of sediments) Vehicle/equipment maintenance: fueling activities Diesel fuel, gasoline, oil Vehicle/equipment maintenance: parts cleaning Solvents, oil, heavy metals, acid/alkaline liquids Vehicle/equipment maintenance: waste disposal Oil, heavy metals, solvents, acid of oily rags, oil and gas filters, batteries, coolants, degreasers

7 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

The Potential Pollutant Sources and BMPs are shown in Tables 3 and 4.

TABLE 3 – Potential Pollutants Sources of TSS and BMPs for Erosion Control Potential Pollutant Best Management Practices (BMPs) Location(s) Sources Erosion from: • Natural vegetative stabilization of • Cell Areas stockpiles. • Unpaved Roads • Exposed Soil from • Leave vegetative filler strips along streams. • excavating Soil Stockpile. • cells/trenches Implement structural controls such as dikes, swales, silt fences, filter berms, • Exposed stockpiles sedimentation traps and ponds, outlet of cover materials protections, pipe slope drains, check dams • Daily or and terraces to convey runoff, as needed. intermediate cover • Divert storm runoff around or away from placed on cells or erosion susceptible areas to prevent trenches sedimentation from entering water bodies, • Erosion from haul as needed. roads (including • Frequently inspect all stabilized and vehicle tracking of structural erosion control areas and sediments) perform all necessary maintenance and • Run-on containing repairs. eroded material. • Stabilize all haul roads and entrances to landfill with gravel or stone, as needed. • Construct vegetated swales along roads, as needed. • Clean wheels and body of trucks or other equipment as necessary to minimize sediment tracking.

8 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

TABLE 4 – Potential Pollutants Sources (Other Than TSS) and BMPs Potential Pollutant Sources Best Management Practices Location(s) (BMPs) Exposure of chemical material • Provide barriers such as • Maintenance storage areas to precipitation dikes, berms, or curbs to • Facilities Area contain spills, as needed. • Provide cover for outside storage areas, as needed. • Have materials such as absorbent pads easily accessible to clean up spills, as needed. Exposure at open face • Minimize the area of exposed • Cells Area open face as much as practicable. • Divert flows around open face using structural measures such as dikes, berms, swales, and pipe slope drains, as needed. • Frequently inspect erosion and sedimentation controls Waste tracking onsite and haul • Clean wheels and exterior of • Cells Area roads, solids transport on wheels trucks or other equipment as • Operations & Access and exterior trucks or other necessary to minimize waste Roads equipment tracking

Uncontrolled leachate flows and • Frequently inspect leachate • Cells Area, failure or leaks from leachate collection system and landfill • Operations & Access collection and transport systems for leachate leaks Roads • Maintain landfill cover and • Maintenance Facility vegetation, as needed Area • Maintain leachate collection system, as needed Spilled Trash/Waste, Windborne • All spilled trash/waste, • Maintenance Debris, and Floatable Debris windborne debris and • Facilities Area, floatable debris will be • Parking Area, collected on a daily basis and • Operations and Access dispose into metal Roads, dumpsters. Dumpster will • Drainages, Ponds, and have a secure watertight lid Buffer Zone around and shall be placed away Landfill Site. from stormwater conveyances and drains. • Dumpsters will be inspected

9 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

weekly and immediately after storm events. The dumpster will be emptied daily. • No waste materials will be buried in the facility except in the landfill cells. • All personnel will be instructed during training sessions, regarding the correct disposal of trash and debris. Notices that state these practices shall be posted in the facility and the Maintenance Supervisor shall ensure these practices are being followed.

The following subsections provide descriptions of locations of Potential Sources of Stormwater Contamination:

2.1.1 Cell Areas Current landfill operations consist of Cells 1 and 2 which includes the subdrain system, cell liner system, leachate collection system and the gas management system (currently inactive). Refuse and daily cover soil has been placed in Cells 1 and 2 to an elevation to approximately 5 to 20 feet above the perimeter road. Runoff from the south and west slopes of Cells 1 and 2 sheet flows to the perimeter road ditch/channel and is directed to Pond 3A. Groundwater subdrainage from beneath Cells 1 and 2 is collected and transported to a holding tank. MSWLF Permit No. 15-001 requires that subdrain water be sampled and tested only if leachate is found to be present in the secondary leachate collection and recovery system or if the tank reaches capacity. Prior to discharge from the holding tank, the subdrain water must be sampled and visually inspected for contaminants in accordance with Section 4.6.2.

2.1.2 Maintenance Facilities There are four main maintenance facilities at the Landfill Entrance Area and these are as follows:

2.1.2.1 Maintenance Shop The shop contains two double-ended roofed bays for maintenance and repairs of landfill operating equipment, plus parts storage areas, lubricant storage, and dispensing equipment. Any spillage from the equipment and lubricant storage area can be a potential pollution source to the stormwater runoff. A spill kit is located in the maintenance shop.

10 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

2.1.2.2 Equipment Wash Rack Area Because the Operator’s equipment is serviced off-site by a contractor, this facility is not used.

2.1.2.3 Oil/Water Separator Because the Operator’s equipment is serviced off-site by a contractor, this facility is not used.

2.1.2.4 Fueling Area The fueling area includes a diesel fuel storage tank and dispenser. Any spillage from the tank or during the fuel filling operation could contribute to the stormwater pollution. A spill kit is maintained adjacent to the fueling area. Mobile fueling operations also takes place within the Cell 1 and 2 disposal area. A spill kit is kept with the mobile fuel tank.

2.1.3 Perimeter and Operations Roads A temporary road is used for hauling stockpiled material for the landfill solid waste daily cover. Hauling will track dirt or mud and/or sediment and debris from the stockpile site and could become a potential pollution source to the stormwater runoff discharge.

2.1.4 Soil Stockpiles Excess excavated material from the construction of Cells 1 and 2, the Operations Road, and Ponds 2 and 3A has been stockpiled in a designated area and is used as daily or intermediate soil cover at the active cells. There is a possibility that stockpiled materials will erode and discharged to the surrounding area.

2.1.5 Entrance Area Facility – Run-on Topographic contours at the northwest corner of the Entrance Area Facility cause sheet-flow drainage from off-site to enter the perimeter drainage swale. This run-on can potentially contain suspended solids due to erosion from adjacent native soils. The run-on will mix with surface drainage from the Entrance Area and be discharged via swale to the south of the Entrance Area Facility.

2.2 Spills and Leaks

In the event of a spill or leak of petroleum products or hazardous materials, immediate and specific actions will be implemented in accordance with the LMSL Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC), provided as Attachment D. A copy of the SPCC shall be kept with this SWPPP. Table 5 provides a list of areas of site where potential spills and leaks could occur that could contribute pollutants to stormwater discharges, and the corresponding outfall(s) that would be affected by such spills and leaks.

11 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

TABLE 5 - Areas of Site Where Potential Spills/Leaks Could Occur Location Discharge Points (Attachment C) Active Cells 1 & 2 Outfall #1 (via Pond 3A) Leachate Collection and Storage Systems Outfall #1 (via Pond 3A) Paved & Unpaved Roads in Cell Area Outfall #1 & #2 (via Ponds 3A & 2) Cover Soil Stockpiles Outfall #2 (via Pond 2) Maintenance Shop Outfall #3 (via Bio-swale) Maintenance Shop Parking Areas Outfall #3 (via Bio-swale) Fueling Area Outfall #3 (via Bio-swale) Admin Building Parking Areas & Scales Outfall #4 (via Bio-swale) Equipment Wash Rack Area (not currently in use) Outfall #4 (via Oil/Water Separator/Bio- swale) Water Tank/Gen Building/Driveway Outfall #5

Table 6 documents all significant spills and leaks of oil or toxic or hazardous substances that actually occurred at exposed areas, or that drained to a stormwater conveyance, in the three years prior to the date this SWPPP was prepared.

TABLE 6 - Description of Past Spills/Leaks Date Description Discharge Points June 1, 2015 A release from the leachate tank occurred from a Leachate did not pass cracked rubber hose that was discovered by the landfill discharge point at operator on the morning of June 1, 2015. An unknown Pond 3A (Outfall #1) quantity of leachate was released from the cracked hose and flowed down-gradient into Pond 3A. A grab sample was collected at Pond 3A about 20-30 feet from Outfall #1.

October 18, 2013 Release of leachate from under the Rain Cap Cell 1 to Outfall #1 Pond 3A. No leachate was recovered. The release was into Pond 3A. The depth of water in the pond was 1.5 feet with a total volume of approx. 662,000 gallons at the time of release. January 9, 2012 Spill of wastewater from Pump Station No. 2, Direction of Outfall #4 spill toward Outfall #4 at Entrance Facility. No wastewater recovered. Estimated quantity of uncovered wastewater from Pump Station No. 2 and manhole on operations road - approximately 600 gallons total.

12 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

2.3 Unauthorized Non-Stormwater Discharges Documentation

The following non-stormwater discharges are not authorized by this permit: leachate, gas collection condensate, drained free liquids, contaminated ground water, laboratory wastewater, and contact washwater from washing vehicles and equipment within Cells that have come in direct contact with waste at the landfill facility. Discharges from open dumps as defined under RCRA are also not authorized under this permit. Such non-stormwater discharges must be prevented or eliminated.

An elaborate leachate collection, storage, transmission and discharge system is installed at the LMSL. The leachate system prevents the migration of leachate off-site, except for disposal to the sanitary sewer system. The system, in conjunction with implementation of daily, temporary, and final cover, minimizes the amount of contaminated stormwater, landfill wastewater, and leachate production. The leachate system prevents the occurrence of non-stormwater discharges of leachate from the LMSL.

All vehicles and equipment which have come in direct contact with waste at the landfill shall be cleaned within the active cell(s) prior to exiting the cell(s). Failure to do so allows precipitation or washwater to become contaminated outside the area protected by the leachate collection system and eventually flow offsite.

The following are the non-stormwater discharges authorized under this permit:

• Discharges from emergency/unplanned firefighting activities. • Fire hydrant flushing. • Potable water, including water line flushing. • Uncontaminated condensate from air conditioners, coolers, and other compressors and from the outside storage of refrigerated gases or liquids. • Irrigation drainage. • Landscape watering provided all pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer have been applied in accordance with the approved labeling. • Pavement wash waters where no detergents or hazardous cleaning products are used and the wash waters do not come into contact with oil and grease deposits, sources of pollutants associated with industrial activities, or any other toxic or hazardous materials, unless residues are first cleaned up using dry clean-up methods and appropriate control measures have been implemented to minimize discharges of mobilized solids and other pollutants. • Routine external building wash down that does not use detergents or hazardous cleaning products. • Uncontaminated ground water or spring water. • Foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with process materials. • Incidental windblown mist from cooling towers that collects on rooftops or adjacent portions of this facility, but not intentional discharges from the cooling tower units (e.g. “piped” cooling system blowdown or drains).

13 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

The following describes the OPERATOR’s evaluation for the presence of unauthorized non-stormwater discharges at the LMSL facility. • Date of evaluation: August 18, 2015 • Description of the evaluation criteria used: The Landfill Assistant Manager walked the site along with an environmental consultant and evaluated each outfall to identify any locations with flowing or stagnant water or discharging liquid and any indicators of past or intermittent non-stormwater discharges. • List of the drainage points that were directly observed during the evaluation: Outfalls #1-5, shown on Attachment C. • Action(s) taken: The only unauthorized non-stormwater discharge present at the site is discharged from the groundwater subdrain. Groundwater from beneath the liners of active cells is collected and conveyed to the Subdrain Tank. Prior to any discharge of the groundwater from the tank, it is to be visually inspected per Section 4.6.2. The OPERATOR shall record the volume of water in the tank prior to each discharge and shall report the volume of each release in the Annual Report. Groundwater that exhibits any of the characteristics under Section 4.6.2 is no longer an allowed non-stormwater discharge under this MSGP SWPPP and shall be properly managed pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit, MSWLF Permit No. 15-001 issued by GEPA. Under the RCRA permit Section IV.D Subdrain Monitoring, subdrain liquid may be collected and discharged into the leachate collection system for treatment and disposal. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) shall be notified of any such occurrence.

2.4 Salt Storage

There are no salt storage piles at this facility.

2.5 Sampling Data Summary

This section summarizes instances where pollutants exceeded benchmark values in samples collected during the last permit period. Data from March 2013 Technical Memorandum: Annual effluent sampling conducted on September 18, 2012 resulted in exceedances in TSS and pH. pH results obtained from three outfall locations were outside of the acceptable pH range of 6.0 to 9.0 standard pH units: • Outfall 3 - pH = 4.6 • Outfall 4 - pH = 5.7 • Outfall 5 - pH = 5.2

Potential control measures applicable to controlling pH include housekeeping (sweeping and cleaning areas where materials that affect pH could be exposed to stormwater); overhead coverage and disposal of waste materials in covered receptacles.

14 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Total suspended solids (TSS) marginally exceeded the effluent limit of 88 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in one duplicate sample: • Outfall #0 (duplicate of Outfall #1) - TSS = 97 mg/L

TSS result from parent sample: • Outfall #1 - TSS = 71 mg/L Average TSS result from these duplicate samples (84 mg/L) is below the effluent limit. Data from 2013 Annual Report: Annual effluent sampling conducted on September 19, 2013 resulted in exceedances in TSS, iron, and pH. pH results obtained from outfall locations Outfall #3 and Outfall #4 near the operational office buildings were outside of the acceptable pH range of 6.0 to 9.0 standard pH units: • Outfall #3 – pH = 5.9 • Outfall #4 – pH = 5.6

Potential control measures applicable to controlling pH include housekeeping (sweeping and cleaning areas where materials that affect pH could be exposed to stormwater); overhead coverage and disposal of waste materials in covered receptacles.

TSS exceeded the effluent limit of 88 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in sample collected from Outfall #2 (Pond 2): • Outfall 2 – TSS = 369 mg/L Potential control measures for TSS include paving, installing berms around piles of loose material, placing operations under cover, or placing grassy swales or basins in the discharge flow path to trap sediment.

Iron exceeded the accepted background concentration of 3.0 mg/L at Outfall #1 (Pond 3): • Outfall #1 – Iron= 4.5 mg/L Follow-up monitoring was planned and control measures were inspected for efficiency and functionality.

Data from 2014 Annual Report: In response to the September 19, 2013 exceedences, resampling was completed on January 22 2014 and iron exceeded the accepted background concentration of 3.0 mg/L at Outfall 1 (Pond 3): • Outfall #1 – Iron= 7.74 mg/L

Data from November 2014 Technical Memorandum: Effluent sampling conducted on July 31 2014 resulted in no exceedances.

15 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Data from February 2015 Technical Memorandum: Effluent sampling conducted on January 13, 2015 resulted in no exceedances.

16 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

This page intentionally left blank

17 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

SECTION 3: STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES

Control measures are the BMPs or other structural or non-structural practices that are used to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater. Structural control measures focus on installation of hard structures to control discharges. Non-structural control measures are intended to prevent or reduce the generation of pollutants in stormwater and/or the volume of stormwater runoff using practices that focus on facility operations and procedures.

3.1 Non-numeric Technology-based Effluent Limits

This section describes how the OPERATOR will comply with the following non-numeric effluent limits.

3.1.1 Minimize Exposure Through implementing daily cover; locating activities under cover, or indoors; and performing heavy equipment maintenance within the Maintenance building, the OPERATOR will significantly reduce the exposure of stormwater to industrial activities at the Landfill. The OPERATOR shall minimize the exposure of landfill materials, processing, and material storage areas (including loading and unloading, storage, disposal, cleaning, maintenance, and fueling operations) to rain, and runoff by either locating these industrial materials and activities inside, or protecting them with storm-resistant coverings. The Landfill Cells area is designed so that stormwater runoff from industrial activity flows into a series of ditches that direct runoff to detention/sedimentation ponds. In the Landfill Entrance Area, stormwater runoff is directed to ditches or culverts that convey water to bio-swales prior to discharge to surrounding areas.

In minimizing exposure, the OPERATOR shall also:

• Use grading, berms or curbing to prevent runoff of contaminated flows and divert run-on away from these areas • Locate materials, equipment, and activities so that potential leaks and spills are contained or able to be contained or diverted before discharge • Clean up spills and leaks promptly using dry methods (e.g., absorbents) to prevent the discharge of pollutants • Store leaky vehicles and equipment indoors or, if stored outdoors, use drip pans and absorbents • Use spill/overflow protection equipment • Perform all vehicle and/or equipment cleaning operations indoors, under cover, or in bermed areas that prevent runoff and run-on and also that capture any overspray • Drain fluids from equipment and vehicles that will be decommissioned, and, for any equipment and vehicles that will remain unused for extended periods of time, inspect at least monthly for leaks.

In addition to the above, specific structural controls and practices are described below:

18 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Ponds 2 and 3A were constructed as the primary structural drainage control measures for the operations of Cells 1 and 2. The overflows from Ponds 2 and 3A are discharged to Fintasa River basin. The following is a list of general practices for detention/sedimentation pond maintenance and operation: • Examine pond banks for seepage and structural soundness. Stabilize and repair, when necessary. • Check inlet and outlet pipes, channels, structures and spillways for any damage or obstructions. Repair damage and remove obstructions, as needed. • Check inlet and outlet areas for erosion and stabilize, if required. • Remove sediment whenever feasible during the dry season. Sediment shall not be allowed above the lowest row of inlet holes of the overflow structure. • Inspect ponds before and after each rainfall event. During extended rainfall events, inspect at least daily. • Remove floatable debris frequently, at least weekly. Floatable debris can block outlet orifices. Excessive accumulation can pose a risk to overflow structure screens during periods of high water.

Per the Annual Surface Water Management Plan, the Stormwater Ponds are inspected annually to observe any vegetation and/or sediment accumulation. If significant sediment has accumulated in the ponds it is removed in order to maintain the design storage capacity. Vegetation is removed in conjunction with sediment removal during the dry season. Sediment accumulation is removed at a minimum of once every 5 years. Drainage Channels and Roadside Ditches Drainage channels are concrete lined and roadside ditches are either lined with loose riprap or grouted riprap. Clean channels and ditches when debris or sedimentation affects performance.

3.1.2 Good Housekeeping Good housekeeping involves maintaining a clean and orderly work environment. Extra attention paid to surfaces draining to storm drains or ditches can significantly reduce pollutant wash off. An orderly work environment will also reduce the chance for inadvertent spills, allow for the early detection of problems, and to ensure unimpeded access to the landfill site. The following practices are good housekeeping measures that the OPERATOR will regularly undertake to maintain all exposed areas that are potential sources of pollutants: • Sweep or vacuum at regular intervals or, alternatively, wash down the area and collect and/or treat, and properly dispose of the washdown water • Store materials in appropriate containers • Keep all dumpster lids closed when not in use. For dumpsters and roll off boxes that do not have lids and could leak, ensure that discharges have a control (e.g., secondary containment, treatment)

19 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

• Minimize the potential for waste, garbage and floatable debris to be discharged by keeping exposed areas free of such materials, or by intercepting them before they are discharged.

3.1.3 Maintenance The LMSL facility maintenance program includes regular inspections and the preventive maintenance and repair of industrial equipment (stationary and mobile) and industrial systems. This includes performing inspections and preventive maintenance of stormwater drainage, source controls, treatment systems, and equipment and systems that could fail and result in contamination of stormwater and diligently maintaining non-structural control measures (e.g., keep spill response supplies available, personnel appropriately trained).

If required site inspections identify BMPs that are not operating effectively, repairs/replacement will be completed as soon as feasible but must be no later 14 days or, if that is infeasible, within 45 days. If the completion of stormwater control repairs/replacement will exceed the 45 day timeframe, the OPERATOR may take the minimum additional time necessary to complete the maintenance, provided that the OPERATOR notify the USEPA Regional Office of their intention to exceed 45 days, and document in their SWPPP the rationale for a modified maintenance timeframe. This is discussed further in Section 6.2.

As part of the preventative maintenance program the OPERATOR shall maintain all elements of the leachate collection and transport system to prevent commingling of leachate with stormwater, and the integrity and effectiveness of any intermediate or final cover (including repairing the cover as necessary) to minimize the effects of settling, sinking, and erosion. Stormwater management maintenance activities include the following Preventive Maintenance BMPs: • Clearing of debris from stormwater drainage system • Maintenance and inspection of secondary containment structures and associated drain valves and perform repair immediately, as needed • Where feasible, store potential stormwater pollutant materials inside the maintenance building or under a covered containment • Major maintenance and repair of equipment will be performed regularly at off-site maintenance facilities approved for such activities • On-site equipment maintenance will be limited to re-fueling and minor servicing activities except when further repairs are required due to vehicle breakdown • Equipment will be inspected for leaks regularly • Minimize use of toxic cleaning solvents, such as chlorinated solvents and other toxic chemicals • Empty drip pans immediately after a spill or leak are collected in an uncovered area • Regular inspection and maintenance of rainfall protection coverings for waste storage bins and receptacles • An overall inspection of the site will be performed to identify new problem areas and to repair any existing drainage features.

20 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Preventive maintenance is also required to ensure the erosion and sediment controls are functioning properly. It includes inspection and maintenance of the surface water conveyance systems and erosion control facilities. It is also important to inspect all disturbed areas for evidence of erosion. If any maintenance or sediment removal is needed, the observer shall note the location and how much sediment removal is needed. Collected sediments will be removed and placed in appropriate disposal areas. Any areas that become damaged shall be regraded, as necessary, during the permit term. Any ditches that fill with sediment will be cleaned and regraded. Nonstructural control measures must also be diligently maintained (e.g., spill response supplies available, personnel appropriately trained, etc.). Maintenance staff will ensure that all waste, garbage and floatable debris are not discharged to receiving waters by keeping exposed areas free of such materials or by intercepting them before they are discharged. Removal of such materials on exposed areas including the access road, operations road, the parking lot, and all exposed areas in the Entrance Area Facility, will be frequent to avoid accumulation. The vast majority of litter collected will be bagged and disposed at the landfill working face. Waste generated in the Administration and Maintenance Buildings, and litter collected at that end of the facility, will be disposed in the dumpster beside the Maintenance Building. • Dumpsters will have a secure watertight lid and will be placed away from stormwater conveyances and drains. Only trash will be deposited in the dumpsters. • The dumpster will be inspected weekly and immediately after storm events. The dumpster will be emptied weekly or more frequently as necessary. • All maintenance staff will be instructed during training sessions on how to dispose trash correctly. Notices on the correct disposal procedures will be posted in the Maintenance Facility area. • The Maintenance Supervisor shall ensure that all above procedures are being implemented properly. A perimeter fence catches the windblown waste or debris that exits the active cell(s). Such windblown debris is collected and disposed of frequently.

3.1.4 Spill Prevention and Response The LMSL has an SPCC plan which dictates appropriate measures and actions to be taken to prevent and respond to spills. In concert with that plan, the OPERATOR shall implement spill prevention measures which, at a minimum, are as follows:

• Routinely label all containers that could be susceptible to spillage or leakage to encourage proper handling and facilitate rapid response if spills or leaks occur. • Install barriers between material storage and traffic areas, as needed. • Provide secondary containment for containers of potentially polluting materials, as needed. • Adopt procedures for the orderly storage and handling of potentially polluting materials. • Keep spill kits on-site, located near areas where spills may occur or where a rapid response can be made.

21 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

• Adopt and practice procedures for expeditiously stopping, containing, and cleaning up leaks, spill, and other releases. • Prepare a list of contact persons, including facility personnel, emergency responders, GEPA, other regulatory agencies, etc. to notify immediately in case of a leak or spill warranting such action.

In the event of a spill or release of petroleum products or hazardous materials, the following guidelines shall be followed:

1. Identification: The person observing the spill or release must immediately notify their supervisor, who in turn must notify the Landfill Site Manager or his duly authorized representative.

2. Immediate Response: The following steps are to be taken when an employee discovers a large or uncontrolled release within the facility: Move away from the area of the release; Stop all operations; Remove any injured persons from the immediate area of danger and render first aid treatment; and Notify the Landfill Site Manager or his duly authorized representative and all government agencies concerned, including GEPA. Do not expose personnel to the risk of injury or loss of life. If the Landfill Site Manager’s decision is to remediate, the following actions must be strictly followed: Don the appropriate personal protective equipment; Eliminate all possible sources of ignition/detonation; Remove or isolate ignitable and incompatible materials from the area of release or spill; and, Locate and stop the source of the spill or release. 3. Clean-Up Operations and Equipment: Appropriate personal protective equipment such as boots, gloves, coveralls, respirators, etc., shall be maintained on-site and utilized during containment and clean-up activities. Absorbent materials such as blanketing, pads, or booms shall be maintained on site and may be used to form dikes around releases within the facility. The Landfill Manager is responsible for making sure all spill kits are complete and ready for use. Spill kits are located on the mobile fueling trailer and adjacent to the entrance area facility fuel tank. Additional spill kit components are stored in the Maintenance Shop. Absorbent materials used for diking must be replaced as they become saturated or reinforced with fresh materials if immediate removal is not possible. For large releases, a portable pump and/or recovery vacuum truck may be used to remove standing product form within diked areas. Oil recovery and clean-up operations should be implemented as soon as possible once the source of the release has been secured and containment activities are completed. Recovery operations must not be postponed unless authorized by the Landfill Site Manager or his duly authorized representative. 4. Secondary Containment: The Fuel Storage Tank has a concrete containment berm. The Equipment Wash Rack is itself a concrete berm that contains all wash water and directs it to the Oil/Water Separator. The Oil/Water Separator is a separate unit and requires periodic inspections and removal of oily water to prevent spills. The Equipment Wash Rack and Oil/Water Separator are currently not in use. The OPERATOR shall modify the SWPPP as required within 7 calendar days of knowledge of a release in order to: provide a description of the release, the circumstances leading to the release, and the date of the

22 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

release. The modification shall identify measures to prevent the reoccurrence of such releases and to respond to such releases. Training for employees regarding spill prevention, control and countermeasures is included in the annual training discussed in Section 4.5.

3.1.5 Erosion and Sediment Controls Structural erosion and sediment controls are inherent in the design and construction of the facility. For example, earthen channels are paved or lined with grass or rip-rap. Road surfaces are paved or graveled. Detention/sediment ponds are provided to contain sediment. Pond outlets are controlled to prevent erosion from scouring by incorporating orifices and weirs. All of the foregoing provide flow velocity dissipation, aiding in retaining sediment within the facility. Erosion and sediment control BMPs are intended to limit soil erosion in areas that have a high potential for significant erosion. Such areas include stockpiles in which daily cover is to be removed, as well as sloped areas. Stockpiling Guidelines • The initial stockpile material for the daily soil cover came from the excavation from the mass grading of Cells 1 and 2 and Ponds 2 and 3A. The ground surfaces prior to stockpiling were graded in the direction that allows runoff to drain in the direction of existing site drainage. The stockpile slopes are 3H:1V or flatter except where equipment is actively removing soil. • During wet weather, soil removal from the stockpile shall not be performed. • Stockpiling of new soil cover shall conform to the abovementioned stockpiling guidelines.

Areas at the perimeter of the facility shall be managed to prevent erosion in accordance with the Slope Area BMP Guidelines provided below. Slope Area BMP Guidelines The following slope area BMP guidelines shall be implemented, including for all future construction of additional landfill cells. • Diversion Measures – Earth dike, swale, sandbag barriers, etc. can be used to collect stormwater runoff and convey it to a suitable discharge location, i.e. sheet flowing off-site or, if sediment laden, to sedimentation ponds. Diversion measures shall be applied above unprotected slopes. • Slope Stabilization Measures – Hydroseeding, geotextiles, swales, slope drains, soil binders, etc. may be used to stabilize slopes. • Vegetative Buffer Strips – Preserve existing vegetation at the base of a slope if possible. Alternatively, silt fence may be constructed at the toe of slope to retain sediment runoff.

The stockpiles are stabilized through the establishment of heavy vegetation. Other temporary stabilization (e.g., temporary seeding, mulching, and placing geotextiles on inactive portions of stockpiles) may be used as appropriate.

23 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

3.1.6 Management of Runoff Guam receives over 100 inches of precipitation each year, and often incurs very heavy rain. Management of stormwater runoff is essential to prevent pollution from exiting the facility. Inherent in the design and operation of the facility are several stormwater controls. The surface water management system at the Layon Landfill is designed to prevent run-on of stormwater during the peak flow of a 25-year storm and manage the runoff from the 24-hour, 25-year storm. Surface water conveyances are designed to handle the 25-year storm and stormwater ponds are designed to control sediment and discharge runoff from the site at a rate no greater than occurs during the design storm under pre-development conditions. These calculations were performed for and provided with the original permit application for the Layon Landfill. They are further described in a Surface Water Management Plan, updated annually.

Landfill Cell Areas The active disposal working face is contained to as small of an area as possible, especially during times of rain. Any portion of rainfall that comes in contact with the exposed waste at the working face is contained within the immediate area and allowed to infiltrate into the waste mass and be treated as leachate. This is accomplished by proper grading of the working face area as well as properly constructed berms to contain water that contacts the working face. Additionally, the landfill area is graded to prevent surface water from running onto the working face.

As the area of the working face moves throughout the landfill area, diversion berms are relocated and reconstructed to ensure minimal amounts of stormwater come into contact with exposed waste. The more stormwater that can be diverted from exposed waste, the less that is required to be treated as leachate.

Lined ditches and channels collect and divert runoff. Detention/Sedimentation ponds attenuate storm flows, infiltrate water, and remove sediment; daily cover diverts runoff from contacting sanitary waste. Impoundment within cells collect and store runoff to be later disposed of properly.

Two detention/sedimentation ponds, Pond 2 and Pond 3A, were designed as a component of the SWPPP for the operations of Cells 1 and 2. Stormwater from Cells 1 and 2 drains directly into the perimeter ditches and is conveyed into the ponds. Landfill Entrance Area Stormwater runoff flows from the southwest to the northeast side of the entrance area. The entrance area sheet flows on paved, graveled, and grassed areas into dry swales (also referred to as “bio-swales”) along the north and eastern perimeter of the entrance area and discharge off-site following the natural drainage flow of the area.

3.1.7 Salt Storage Piles or Piles Containing Salt There are no salt storage piles or piles containing salt at this facility.

3.1.8 Dust Generation and Vehicle Tracking of Industrial Materials Generation of dust and off-site tracking of raw, final, or waste materials must be minimized. The following procedures are the general guidelines for the control of dirt and dust at the facility:

24 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Dirt • Vehicles or equipment with heavy dirt or mud on tires will be cleaned before entering roads or highways. • Dirt or mud tracks on landfill roads will be washed by water truck. • Maintenance Staff will ensure on-site roadways are clear of excessive dirt or mud before the end of each workday. Dust • Equipment transporting material that will cause dust shall have the material covered. • Roads that will generate dust when traveled on shall be watered down with a water truck to control any tracked or dropped sediments. • All equipment that generate dust shall be monitored to insure that if it exceeds acceptable amounts of dust, proper corrective measures will be taken to reduce the generation of dust (replace equipment, watering, filters, etc.). • All equipment shall have guard and dust control attachments in working order. • Daily site observations by Maintenance Staff will be conducted to insure all dust control measures are implemented. • Dust mask or respirator shall be provided to employees when dust generated poses a hazard.

Vehicles and equipment operated in contact with landfill waste shall be cleaned of contaminants in the active cell(s) prior to exiting the cell(s), including moving to the Entrance Area Facilities for maintenance.

3.2 Sector-Specific Non-Numeric Effluent Limits

Sector-specific non-numeric effluent limits for preventive maintenance are covered in Section 3.1.3 (covering MSGP Section 8.L.5.1). Erosion and sediment controls are covered in Section 3.1.5 (covering MSGP Section 8.L.5.2).

3.3 Numeric Effluent Limitations Based on Effluent Limitations Guidelines

Per MGSP Part 8.L.10, the facility is subject to numerical effluent limitations presented in Table 7. The controls described in Section 3.1 are intended to meet these effluent limit guidelines.

25 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

TABLE 7 –Numeric Effluent Limitations Applicable to LMSL Facility (MSGP Table 8.L-2) Industrial Activity Parameter Effluent Limitation Discharges From BOD5 140 mg/L, daily maximum Non-Hazardous 37 mg/L, monthly average maximum Waste Landfills Subject to Effluent TSS 88 mg/L, daily maximum Limitations in 40 27 mg/L, monthly average maximum CFR Part 445 Ammonia 10 mg/L, daily maximum Subpart B 4.9 mg/L, monthly average maximum Alpha Terpineol 0.033 mg/L, daily maximum 0.016 mg/L monthly average maximum Benzoic Acid 0.12 mg/L, daily maximum 0.071 mg/L, monthly average maximum p-Cresol 0.025 mg/L, daily maximum 0.014 mg/L, monthly average maximum Phenol 0.026 mg/L, daily maximum 0.015 mg/L, monthly average maximum Total Zinc 0.20 mg/L, daily maximum 0.11 mg/L, monthly average maximum pH Within the range of 6-9 standard pH units

3.4 Water Quality-based Effluent Limitations and Water Quality Standards

Per the MSGP, USEPA expects that compliance with the conditions in this permit will control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. The controls described in Section 3.1 are intended to meet these permit conditions. If at any time the OPERATOR becomes aware, or USEPA determines, that facility discharge does not meet applicable water quality standards, the OPERATOR must take corrective action(s). This facility does not discharge to water-quality impaired waters.

26 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

This page intentionally left blank

27 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

SECTION 4: SCHEDULES AND PROCEDURES

4.1 Good Housekeeping

On-site litter is picked up as needed throughout each working day. Litter is disposed of in landfill cells or dumpsters at the maintenance building. Routine inspections for leaks and conditions of drums, tanks and containers occurs weekly for the generator tank and daily for the diesel tank. These inspections are detailed in the SPCC included as Attachment D.

4.2 Maintenance

Preventative maintenance procedures include regular inspections, testing, maintenance and repair of all control measures to avoid situations that may result in leaks, spills, and other releases, and any back-up practices in place should a runoff event occur while a control measure is off-line. The stormwater controls presented in Section 3.1 are inspected frequently and maintained, as needed. Facility inspections are presented in Section 4.6.

4.3 Spill Prevention and Response Procedures

Spill prevention and response procedures are presented in Section 3.1.4 and the SPCC, included as Attachment D.

4.4 Erosion and Sediment Control

No polymers or chemical are used for erosion and sediment control.

4.5 Employee Training

All employees who work in areas where industrial materials or activities are exposed to stormwater, or who are responsible for implementing activities necessary to meet the conditions of the MSGP shall be trained to properly perform their duties in a safe and effective manner. This includes, but is not limited to, all employees identified in Table 1. All such employees shall be trained prior to their first day of work at the LMSL and training shall be refreshed at least annually. All such employees will be required to understand and implement the requirements and goals of the SWPPP. Employee training will include the following:

• An overview of what is in the SWPPP • Spill response procedures, good housekeeping, maintenance requirements, and material management practices • The location of all controls on the site required by this permit, and how they are to be maintained • The proper procedures to follow with respect to the permit’s pollution prevention requirements • When and how to conduct inspections, record applicable findings, and take corrective actions.

28 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Training materials are presented as Attachment E. They will be presented to employees by the Landfill Operations Manager, Landfill Assistant Manager, or qualified designee. Training is tracked using the MSGP Documentation Template presented as Attachment F.

4.6 Inspections and Assessments

This section describes procedures for performing, as appropriate, the types of inspections specified by the MSGP permit, including routine facility inspections and quarterly visual assessments.

4.6.1 Routine Facility Inspections 1. Person(s) or positions of person(s) responsible for inspection. Landfill Operations Manager, Landfill Assistant Manager, Outside Consultant, or qualified designee. 2. Schedules for conducting inspections. The routine facility inspections are conducted on the active portion of the facility at least once every 7 days. At least once each calendar year, the routine inspection will be conducted during a period when a stormwater discharge is occurring. 3. List areas where industrial materials or activities are exposed to stormwater. • Cell Areas • Maintenance Facilities • Perimeter and Operations Roads • Soil Stockpiles • Entrance Area Facility. 4. List areas identified in the SWPPP and any others that are potential pollutant sources. • Cell Areas • Maintenance Facilities • Perimeter and Operations Roads • Soil Stockpiles • Entrance Area Facility. 5. Areas where spills and leaks have occurred in the past 3 years. Past spills and leaks are presented in Table 6. 6. Inspection information for discharge points. Outfalls #1-5 are shown on Attachment C. All outfalls will be observed during the weekly inspection. 7. List the control measures used to comply with the effluent limits contained in this permit. Control measures are presented in Section 3 of this SWPPP. 8. Other site-specific inspection objectives. Attachment G presents the weekly SWPPP inspection form which describes the objectives of the inspection. The findings of the weekly facility inspections will be maintained with this SWPPP. They will not be submitted to USEPA, unless specifically requested to do so. Findings will be summarized in the annual report.

29 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

4.6.2 Quarterly Visual Assessment of Stormwater Discharges 1. Person(s) or positions of person(s) responsible for assessments. Landfill Operations Manager, Landfill Assistant Manager, Outside Consultant, or qualified designee. 2. Schedules for conducting assessments. Once per quarter for the entire permit term 3. Specific assessment activities. A stormwater sample from each Outfall shall be collected and a visual assessment of each of these samples shall be conducted by a qualified Landfill Inspector. The samples shall be collected in such a manner that the samples are representative of the stormwater discharge. • For all surface grab samples surveyor’s flagging will be used to mark a tree or stake at the area where sampling occurs. This will be necessary should the use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) for locating be required at a later time. • Photographs will be taken of the grab sampling area to record general site conditions, location of any survey flagging at the and for the visual assessments. • Surface grab sampling will be performed deliberately to minimize disturbance of bottom sediments at each Outfall and yet as quickly as possible to ensure a representative sample.

The visual assessment must be made: • Of a sample in a clean, clear glass, or plastic container and examined in a well-lit area; • On samples collected within the first 30 minutes of an actual discharge from a storm event. If it is not possible to collect the sample within the first 30 minutes of discharge, the sample shall be collected as soon as practicable after the first 30 minutes and document why it was not possible to take samples within the first 30 minutes; and • For storm events, on discharges that occur at least 72 hours (3 days) from the previous discharge. The 72-hour (3-day) storm interval does not apply if you document that less than a 72-hour (3-day) interval is representative for local storm events during the sampling period.

The sample shall be visually inspected for the following water quality characteristics: • Color • Odor • Clarity • Floating solids • Settled solids • Suspended solids • Foam • Oil sheen • Other obvious indicators of stormwater pollution.

Should the inspector observe objectionable characteristics, they will backtrack upstream from the sample collection location to identify potential sources of the pollutants.

30 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

4. Number and Location of Outfalls Scheduled for Visual Assessments. Outfalls #1-5 are shown on Attachment C. All outfalls will be observed during the quarterly inspection.

5. Safety Considerations, Requirements, and Equipment. Inspections personnel arriving to the Landfill during rain storm conditions will check in with the OPERATOR to ensure that the Landfill Operations staff knows personnel are on site; should there be any specific site hazards the sampler or sampling team need to be made aware upon arrival. For storm events where there is only one inspector, it will be necessary for this person to coordinate with the OPERATOR to ensure they have a means of communication with each other and test those means prior to start work for emergencies. If possible, one of the Landfill Operations staff will be available to accompany the inspector for the Stormwater assessment and/or sampling timeframe where the inspector is out of visual contact with the designated Landfill Operator. • Personal protective equipment such as nitrile gloves should be used for dermal protection. • Laboratory prepared, pre-preserved sampling jars or poly bottles will be used for stormwater sample collections. • Upgrades to personal protection equipment such as the use personal flotations devices when sampling near deep water may be necessary as per the Landfill operations staff.

6. Reporting Procedures The visual assessment documentation (Attachment H) includes the following: • Sample location(s) • Sample collection date and time, and visual assessment date and time • Personnel collecting the sample and performing visual assessment, and their signatures • Nature of the discharge (i.e., runoff, etc.) • Results of observations of the stormwater discharge • Possible sources of any observed stormwater contamination • If applicable, why it was possible to take samples within the first 30 minutes.

Adverse Weather Conditions: When adverse weather conditions prevent the collection of samples during the quarter, substitute samples shall be taken during the next qualifying storm event. Documentation of the rationale for no visual assessment for the quarter must be included in the SWPPP records. Adverse conditions are those that are dangerous or create inaccessibility for personnel, such as flooding, high winds, electrical storms, or situations that otherwise make sampling impractical.

Whenever the visual assessment shows evidence of stormwater pollution, the OPERATOR must initiate corrective action procedures. Quarterly visual inspection reports shall be kept with the SWPPP, but are not required to be submitted to USEPA unless specifically requested by USEPA.

31 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

4.6.3 Additional Visual Inspection Requirements Prior to any discharge from the subdrain holding tank, subdrain water shall be sampled and visually inspected in accordance with this section. Subdrain water shall not be discharged if the inspection indicates contamination. If contamination is present, as indicated by any of the water quality characteristics indicated in Section 4.6.2, or is determined to be contaminated by leachate pursuant to MSWLF Permit No. 15-001, the OPERATOR will provide notification to GEPA and USEPA and properly dispose of contaminated subdrain water in compliance with MSWLF Permit No. 15-001.

4.7 Monitoring

Measurable Storm Event: All required monitoring must be performed on a storm event that results in an actual discharge from the site (“measurable storm event”) that follows the preceding measurable storm event by at least 72 hours (three days). For each monitoring event, the OPERATOR must identify the date and duration (in hours) of the rainfall event, rainfall total (in inches) for that rainfall event, and time (in days) since the previous measurable storm event.

Samples must be collected within the first 30 minutes of a discharge associated with a measurable storm event. If it is not possible to collect the sample within the first 30 minutes of a measurable storm event, the sample must be collected as soon as practicable after the first 30 minutes and documentation must be kept with the SWPPP explaining why it was not possible to take samples within the first 30 minutes.

Adverse Weather Conditions: When adverse weather conditions prevent the collection of samples according to the relevant monitoring schedule, the OPERATOR must take a substitute sample during the next qualifying storm event. Adverse conditions are those that are dangerous or create inaccessibility for personnel, such as flooding, high winds, electrical storms, or situations that otherwise make sampling impractical. Adverse weather does not exempt the OPERATOR from having to file a benchmark monitoring report in accordance with the sampling schedule. The OPERATOR must use NetDMR to report any failure to monitor using a “no data” or “NODI” code during the regular reporting period.

4.7.1 Quarterly Benchmark Monitoring Stormwater samples are collected from the site’s outfalls for laboratory analysis and the results are compared with benchmark pollutant concentrations as an indicator of the performance of stormwater control measures. A benchmark pollutant concentration is a level above which a stormwater discharge could adversely affect receiving water quality (and control measures must be evaluated) and, if below, the facility is not expected to have an impact on receiving water quality. This type of monitoring differs from compliance monitoring (Section 4.7.2) in that exceedances of the indicator or benchmark levels are not considered violations, but rather “red flags” that could point to a problem at the site with exposed pollutant sources or control measures that are not working correctly. Where the average of samples taken over four consecutive quarters exceeds the applicable benchmark concentration of a particular pollutant, the OPERATOR is required to investigate whether the higher pollutant levels can be attributed to some pollutant source or faulty control measure(s), and to address such problems through corrective action and possibly further monitoring.

Previous sampling performed at the site to determine natural background concentrations for total iron in surface waters. Background concentration for dissolved iron in surface waters has been as high as 3.0 mg/L. Therefore, benchmark monitoring shall consider 3.0 mg/L as the natural background concentration

32 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015 in evaluating the effectiveness of the BMP’s related to total iron. This background evaluation is consistent with Table IV of Guam Water Quality Standards (2000) that identifies the maximum numerical limit for fresh water as 3.0 mg/L. 1. Sample location(s). Samples will be collected at Outfalls #1-5, shown in Attachment C. 2. Pollutants to be sampled. TSS (benchmark: 100 mg/L) and total iron (benchmark: 3.0 mg/L) will be sampled quarterly, per MSGP Section 8.L.9 and Table 8.L-1. 3. Monitoring Schedules. Monitoring requirements in this permit begin in the first full quarter following either September 2, 2015 or the date of discharge authorization, whichever date comes later. Benchmark monitoring will be conducted quarterly for the first four full quarters of permit coverage. Monitoring will occur at least once in each of the following 3-month intervals: • January 1 – March 31 • April 1 – June 30 • July 1 – September 30 • October 1 – December 31. 4. Numeric Limitations. Not applicable. Benchmark concentrations are not effluent limitations; a benchmark exceedance, therefore, is not a permit violation. However, if corrective action is required as a result of a benchmark exceedance, failure to conduct required corrective action is a permit violation. 5. Procedures. • All samples are grab samples. A member of the stormwater pollution prevention team collects these samples. • A standard handheld pH/Temperature meter is dipped into the outfall water at each location and results are recorded in a field book. Two separate poly bottles are then collected for TSS and Iron at the end of the each outfall location where stormwater is flowing. These samples are then sent to a certified lab for analysis. • Benchmark monitoring data will be used primarily to determine the overall effectiveness of the control measures and to assist in determining if additional corrective actions may be necessary to comply with the effluent limitations. • Samples must be analyzed consistent with 40 CFR Part 136 analytical methods and using test procedures with quantitation limits at or below benchmark values for all benchmark parameters for which the OPERATOR is required to sample. 6. Reporting and Compliance • After collections of four quarterly samples and if the average of the four monitoring values for any parameter does not exceed the benchmark, then the monitoring requirements for that parameter for the permit term has been fulfilled. • However, if the average of the four monitoring values for any parameter exceeds the benchmark, then the selection, design, installation and implementation of the control measures shall be reviewed to determine if modifications are necessary to meet the effluent limits of the permit.

33 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

• The OPERATOR will then 1) Make the necessary modifications and continue quarterly monitoring until the OPERATOR has completed four additional quarters of monitoring for which the average does not exceed the benchmark; or 2) Make a determination that no further pollutant reductions are technologically available and economically practicable. In the latter case, the OPERATOR must continue monitoring once per year and document their rationale for concluding that no further pollutant reductions are achievable, and retain all records related to this documentation with the SWPPP. • The OPERATOR must review their control measures and perform any required corrective action immediately (or document why no corrective action is required) without waiting for the full four quarters of monitoring data, when an exceedance of the four quarter average is mathematically certain (e.g. the sum of the concentration of the samples exceeds four times the benchmark concentration). If after modifying the control measures and conducting four additional quarters of monitoring, the average still exceeds the benchmark (or if an exceedance of the benchmark by the four quarter average is mathematically certain prior to conducting the full four additional quarters of monitoring), the OPERATOR must again review the control measures and take one of the two actions above. • Monitoring data will be reported using USEPA’s electronic NetDMR tool. If conditions prevent the OPERATOR from obtaining four samples in four consecutive quarters, monitoring must continue until the four samples required for calculating the benchmark monitoring average have been collected. NetDMR must be used to report using a “no data” or “NODI” code for any 3-month interval that sampling did not occur.

4.7.2 Effluent Limit Guideline Compliance Monitoring Per MSGP Part 8.L.10, the LMSL facility is required to monitor for effluent limits based on effluent limitations guidelines. An exceedance of the effluent limitation is a permit violation. 1. Sample location(s). Samples will be collected at Outfalls #1-5, shown in Attachment C. 2. Pollutants to be sampled. See Table 7. 3. Monitoring Schedules. Beginning in the first full quarter following September 2, 2015 or the OPERATOR’s date of discharge authorization, whichever date comes later, monitoring will occur once per year at each outfall. 4. Numeric Limitations. See Table 7 5. Procedures. All samples are grab samples. A member of the stormwater pollution prevention team collects these samples. A standard handheld pH/Temperature meter is dipped into the outfall water at each location and results are recorded in a field book. Separate poly bottles are then collected at the end of the each outfall location where stormwater is flowing. These samples are then sent to a certified lab for analysis. 6. Reporting and Compliance • If any monitoring value exceeds a numeric effluent limitation presented in Table 7, the OPERATOR will indicate the exceedance on a “Change Notice of Intent (NOI)” form in the NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT), and conduct follow-up monitoring within 30 calendar days (or during the next qualifying runoff event, should none occur within 30 days) of

34 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

implementing corrective action(s) taken. • If the follow-up monitoring exceeds the applicable effluent limitation, the operator must: 1. Submit an Exceedance Report no later than 30 days after receipt of laboratory results 2. Continue to monitor, at least quarterly, until facility discharge is in compliance with the effluent limit or until USEPA waives the requirement for additional monitoring. Once the discharge is back in compliance with the effluent limitation the OPERATOR must indicate this on a “Change NOI” form.

35 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

This page intentionally left blank

36 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

SECTION 5: DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS UNDER OTHER FEDERAL LAWS

5.1 Documentation Regarding Endangered Species

Based on the Final Selection Report (which includes the Final Environmental Impact Statement) by Duenas and Associates, dated March 14, 2005, there are no species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened within the project boundaries, nor are there designated critical habitat areas. Supporting documentation is provided in Attachment I.

5.2 Documentation Regarding Historic Properties

Based on the Final Selection Report (which includes the Final Environmental Impact Statement) by Duenas and Associates, dated March 14, 2005, no formal archaeological sites were identified during government sponsored surveys of the site. Therefore, the stormwater discharges and allowable non-stormwater discharges do not have the potential effect on historic properties. The OPERATOR is not constructing or installing any new stormwater control measures, and therefore is determined to have met eligibility Criterion A of the MSGP regarding historic properties preservation (Appendix F of the MSGP). Supporting documentation is provided in Attachment K.

37 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

This page intentionally left blank

38 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

SECTION 6: CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

6.1 Conditions Requiring SWPPP Review and Revision to Ensure Effluent Limits are Met

When any of the following conditions occur or are detected during an inspection, monitoring or other means, the SWPPP will be reviewed and revised (e.g., sources of pollution; spill and leak procedures; non-stormwater discharges; the selection, design, installation and implementation of control measures) so that the MSGP’s effluent limits are met and pollutant discharges are minimized: • An unauthorized release or discharge (e.g., spill, leak, or discharge of non-stormwater not authorized by the MSGP to a water of the U.S.) occurs. • A discharge violates a numeric effluent limit listed in Table 7. • Control measures are not stringent enough for the discharge to meet applicable water quality standards or the non-numeric effluent limits. • A required control measure was never installed, was installed incorrectly, or is not being properly operated or maintained. • Whenever a visual assessment shows evidence of stormwater pollution (e.g., color, odor, floating solids, settled solids, suspended solids, foam).

6.2 Conditions Requiring SWPPP Review to Determine if Modifications Are Necessary

If any of the following conditions occur, the SWPPP will be reviewed (e.g., sources of pollution, spill and leak procedures, non-stormwater discharges, selection, design, installation and implementation of control measures) to determine if modifications are necessary to meet the effluent limits in the MSGP: • Construction or a change in design, operation, or maintenance that significantly changes the nature of pollutants discharged in stormwater, or significantly increases the quantity of pollutants discharged. • The average of four quarterly sampling results exceeds an applicable benchmark. If less than four benchmark samples have been taken, but the results are such that an exceedance of the four quarter average is mathematically certain (i.e., if the sum of quarterly sample results to date is more than four times the benchmark level) this is considered a benchmark exceedance, triggering this review. A benchmark exceedance does not trigger a corrective action if it is determined that the exceedance is solely attributable to natural background sources, or if a finding is made that no further pollutant reductions are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best industry practice. If run-on to the facility causes a benchmark exceedance, in addition to reviewing and revising, as appropriate, the SWPPP, other operators contributing run-on to facility discharges will be notified to abate their pollutant contribution.

39 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

6.3 Corrective Actions and Deadlines

6.3.1 Immediate Actions If corrective action is needed, the OPERATOR will immediately take all reasonable steps necessary to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until a permanent solution is installed and made operational, including cleaning up any contaminated surfaces so that the material will not discharge in subsequent storm events. In this context, the term “immediately” requires the OPERATOR to, on the same day a condition requiring corrective action is found, take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until a permanent solution is installed and made operational. However, if a problem is identified at a time in the work day when it is too late to initiate corrective action, the initiation of corrective action must begin no later than the following work day. “All reasonable steps” means that the OPERATOR has undertaken initial actions to assess and address the condition causing the corrective action, including, for example, cleaning up any exposed materials that may be discharged in a storm event (e.g., through sweeping, vacuuming) or making arrangements (i.e., scheduling) for a new BMP to be installed at a later date. “All reasonable steps” could include documenting why a corrective action is unnecessary.

6.3.2 Subsequent Actions If it is determined that additional actions are necessary beyond those implemented, corrective actions will be completed (e.g., install a new or modified control and make it operational, complete the repair) before the next storm event if possible, and within 14 calendar days from the time of discovery of the corrective action condition. If it is infeasible to complete the corrective action within 14 calendar days, it will be documented why it is infeasible. A schedule for completing the work will be identified, which must be done as soon as practicable after the 14-day timeframe but no longer than 45 days after discovery. If the completion of corrective action will exceed the 45 day timeframe, the OPERATOR may take the minimum additional time necessary to complete the corrective action, provided that the OPERATOR notify the USEPA Regional Office of their intention to exceed 45 days, their rationale for an extension, and a completion date, which the OPERATOR must also include in the corrective action documentation. Where the OPERATOR’s corrective actions result in changes to any of the controls or procedures documented in the SWPPP, it must be modified accordingly within 14 calendar days of completing corrective action work.

6.4 Corrective Action Documentation

The OPERATOR must document the existence of any of the conditions listed in Parts 6.1 or 6.2 within 24 hours of becoming aware of such condition. The OPERATOR is not required to submit their corrective action documentation to USEPA, unless specifically requested to do so. However, the OPERATOR must summarize their findings in the annual report and include the following information in the documentation:

• Description of the condition triggering the need for corrective action review. For any spills or leaks, include the following information: a description of the incident including material, date/time, amount, location, and reason for spill, and any leaks, spills or other releases that resulted in discharges of pollutants to waters of U.S., through stormwater or otherwise. • Date the condition was identified.

40 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

• Description of immediate actions taken to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants. For any spills or leaks, include response actions, the date/time clean-up completed, notifications made, and staff involved. Also include any measures taken to prevent the reoccurrence of such releases. • A statement, signed and certified in accordance with MSGP Appendix B, Subsection 11.

The OPERATOR will document the corrective actions taken or to be taken as a result of the conditions listed in Part 6.1 or 6.2 (or, for triggering events in Part 6.2 where the OPERATOR determines that corrective action is not necessary, the basis for this determination) within 14 days from the time of discovery of any of those conditions. The dates when each corrective action was initiated and completed (or is expected to be completed) will be included. If applicable, the OPERATOR will document why it is infeasible to complete the necessary installations or repairs within the 14-day timeframe and document the schedule for installing the controls and making them operational as soon as practicable after the 14-day timeframe. If USEPA is notified regarding an extension of the 45-day timeframe, the OPERATOR must document their rationale for an extension.

41 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

This page intentionally left blank

42 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

SECTION 7: SWPPP CERTIFICATION

I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Name: Chris Lund, P.E. Title:

Signature: Date:

43 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

This page intentionally left blank

44 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

SECTION 8: SWPPP MODIFICATIONS This SWPPP is a “living” document and is required to be modified and updated, as necessary, in response to corrective actions. If the OPERATOR needs to modify the SWPPP in response to a corrective action required by Part 4.1 or 4.2 of the 2015 MSGP, then the certification statement in Section 7 of this SWPPP template must be re-signed in accordance with 2015 MSGP Appendix B, Subsection 11.A. For any other SWPPP modification, the OPERATOR will keep a log with a description of the modification, the name of the person making it, and the date and signature of that person. This log is presented in Attachment J. SWPPP ATTACHMENTS

The following documents are attached to the SWPPP:

Attachment A – USEPA 2015 MSGP

Attachment B – GEPA MSWLF Permit No. 15-001

Attachment C – General Location and Site Maps Attachment D – SPCC Plan Attachment E – Training Materials Attachment F – Training Log Attachment G – Weekly SWPPP Inspection Form Attachment H – Quarterly Visual Assessment Form Attachment I – Endangered Species Documentation Attachment J – SWPPP Amendment Log Attachment K - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

45 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

This page intentionally left blank

46 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Attachment A - USEPA 2015 MSGP

Incorporated by reference and available in electronic format at: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/upload/msgp2015_finalpermit.pdf In addition, a printed copy shall be produced and kept with this SWPPP.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Attachment B - GEPA MSWLF Permit No. 15-001

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Attachment C – General Location and Site Maps

Figure 1 – Location Map Figure 2 – Vicinity Map Figure 3 – Entrance Area Facility Map Figure 4 – Landfill Cell Area Map

RITIDIAN POINT ROTA CHINA CHANNEL AREA ENLARGED

URUNO TARAGUE POINT BEACH Pacific Ocean PATI POINT

HAPUTO BEACH ¬«9

YIGO

Copyright: ©2013 Esri, DEDEDO DeLorme, NAVTEQ ANAO ¬«3 POINT ¬«1 TWO LOVERS POINT

¬«1 P H I L I P P I N E TUMON S E A OKA BAY POINT ¬«15 v® TAMUNING

HAGATNA GUAM PAGAT INTERNATIONAL POINT BAY AIRPORT MONGMONG v® ¬«8 BARRIGADA TOTO MAITE

TAGUAN ¬«6 HAGATNA POINT OROTE ASAN APRA MANGILAO POINT ¬«4 HARBOR ¬«1 15 CHALAN ¬« PAGO ¬«10 PITI ORDOT

PAGO BAY

2A AGAT ¬« SANTA YONA BAY RITA YLIG BAY ¬«12 ¬«17 ¬«4 P A C I F I C

FENA AGAT ¬«4A O C E A N RESERVOIR d FACPI x m .

POINT TALOFOFO p ¬«2 TALOFOFO a

µ M

BAY n o i

0 2,950 5,900 t a

Meters c MT. LAMLAM o L

CETTI

ELEV. 1,332 1 BAY UMATAC e

FEET 0 10,000 20,000 r u g UMATEC LANDFILL LOCATION Feet i F \

BAY INARAJAN ¬«4 B B G \ c i f i

4 c

¬« e p S

Minor Roads - MERIZO INARAJAN t c e BAY j o

Major Roads r P \

COCOS m a

LAGOON Coral Reef Limit u G \ S MALILOG Stream I G l

COCOS POINT a n ISLAND r e Data Source: USGS, DOD t x E \ u l u Figure 1. l o n o h

Location Map - Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill. \ \ Landfill Access Road

Figure 4. Landfill Cell Area. O p e ra t io n s R o a d

F in ta sa R iv er Soil Stockpile Area

B Lift #2 io e s al w w t s a r io le ve B ul C

P Disposal Site o rt n ve d ul 2 C Cell #2

Cell #1 d x m . a e r A

P l l

e e

r C

i l l

m i f

e d n

t a

e L

r 4

A

Outfall #2 R A e c r 0 215 430 c o 3 u g e a d i F Feet s d n \ s o B P B

R G \ c

o i f

Surface Drainage Flow i

a c

d e p S

Outfall - t c e j o

Drainage Area r P \ m

Subdrain Tank a

Property Boundary u G Leachate Tank, \ S Significant Structure I Outfall #1 G l

Pump Station & Bermµ a n r e

Receiving Waters / Wetlands t x E \

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, u l

Impervious Surface u l

AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community o n o h \ \ Landfill Access Road

Figure 3. Entrance Area Facility.

B Fuel Tank and io sw Fueling Area a Dumpster le Wash Rack Outfall #3 Maintenance Oil-Water Shop Separator

Water Tank Outfall #4 Generator Building

B io sw a Parking le e al w os i d B x m .

Area of Potential Run-On y t i l i c a F

a e r A

e c n a r t n E

3 Sewage/Leachate e 0 65 130 r u g Feet Pump Station #2 i F \ B B G \

Surface Drainage Flow c i f i c

Administration and Scale e Spill Kit p

> S - t

House Building c e Outfall #5 j

Outfall o r P \ m

Drainage Area a u G \ S

Significant Structure I G l a n

µ r Receiving Waters / Wetlands e t x E Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, \ Impervious Surface u l u AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community l o n o h \ \ Landfill Access Road

NASA Tracking Station

Tinago River

¬«4

Fintasa River Fensol River

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill 317 acres

Coral Reef Limit Stream

0 1,300 2,600 Feet

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,Figure GeoEye, i-cubed,2. Earthstar Geographics, µ CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, Vicinityswisstopo, Map and - theLayon GIS User Municipal Community Sanitary Landfill. \\honolulu\ExternalGIS\Guam\Project-Specific\GBB\Figure 2Map.mxd Vicinity \\honolulu\ExternalGIS\Guam\Project-Specific\GBB\Figure Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Attachment D – SPCC Plan

Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill

Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan for Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Operations Layon, Inarajan Guam 96915

Prepared for: Government of Guam Department of Public Works 542 North Marine Corps Drive Upper Tumon, Guam 96913 Tel No.: (671) 646-3131/3232 Fax No.: (671) 649-6178

Prepared by:

TG ENGINEERS, PC 125 Tun Jesus Crisostomo Street Sunny Plaza, Suite 206 Tamuning, Guam 96913-3551

SPCC PLAN Preparation Date: June 17, 2011

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004(003)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………...1

1.0 Plan Administration...... 3 1.1 Management Approval and Designated Person (40 CFR 112.7)...... 3 1.2 Certification (40 CFR 112.3 (d)) ...... 3 1.3 Location of SPCC Plan (40 CFR 112.3 (e)(1))...... 4 2.0 Plan Evaluation & Compliance Schedule ...... 4 2.1 SPCC Plan Review, Evaluation and Amendment (40 CFR 112.5 (a) & (b)) ...... 4 2.2 Compliance Schedule (40 CFR 112.7 (a)(1) ...... 4 3.0 Facility Description & Spill Response (40CFR 112.7(a)(3) ...... 6 3.1 Facility Infromation ...... 6 3.2 Contact Information 6 3.3 Deviations to requirements (40 CFR 112.7(a)(2) ...... 6 3.4 Physical Layout (112.7(a)(3) ……………………………………………………………...... 6 3.4.1 Bulk Fuel Storage Tank ...... 6 3.4.2 Equipment Wash Rack & Oil Water Separator ...... 7 3.4.3 New/Used Lubricant Storage...... 7 3.4.4 Emergency Generator Day Tank ...... 7 3.4.5 Transformer ...... 8 3.5 Oil Types and Container Capacity (40 CFR 112.7 (a)(3)(i))...... 8 3.6 Discharge Prevention Measures and Procedures (40 CFR 112.7 (a)(3)(ii) ...... 9 3.7 Discharge & Drainage Controls (40 CFR 112.7 (a)(3)(iii)) ...... 9 3.8 Discharge Response and Cleanup (40 CFR 112.7 (a)(3)(iv))...... 9 3.8.1 Identification 9 3.8.2 Immediate Response 10 3.8.3 Cleanup Operations and Equipment 12 3.9 Disposal of Recovered Materials (40 CFR 112.7 (a)(3)(v)) 12 3.10 Notification Phone List (40 CFR 112.7 (a)(3)(vi)) 12 3.11 Discharge Notification Form (40 CFR 112.7 (a)(4))...... 14 3.12 Discharge Prediction (40 CFR 112.7 (b))...... 16 3.13 Secondary Containment (112.7(c))...... 16 3.14 Impracticability (112.7 (d)) ...... 17 4.0 Inspections, Tests, and Records (40 CFR 112.7 (e))...... 17 5.0 Personnel, Training, and Prevention (40 CFR 112.7 (f))) ...... 18 5.1 Initial Training...... 17 5.2 Follow-Up training ...... 19 6.0 Security (40 CFR 112.7 (g))...... 20 7.0 Tank Car/Truck Loading/Unloading Rack (40 CFR 112.7 (h))……………………………...20 8.0 Brittle Fracture Evaluation for Field Constructed Aboveground Containers (40 CFR 112.7(i))...... 20 9.0 Conformance with Applicable Requirements (40 CFR 112.7 (j))...... 20 10.0 Facility Drainage (40 CFR 112.8 (b)) ...... 21 10.1 Diked Area Drainage (40 CFR 112.8 (b)(1))...... 21 10.2 Dike Drainage Valves (40 CFR 112.8 (b)(2)) ...... 21 10.3 Undiked Area Drainage (40 CFR 112.8 (b)(3))...... 21 10.4 Discharge Diversion System (40 CFR 112.8 (b)(4))...... 21

- i - 10.5 Backup Lift Station Pump (40 CFR 112.8 (b)(5))...... 21 11.0 Bulk Storage Containers (40 CFR 112.8(c)) ...... 22 11.1 Containers Compatibility (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(1)) ...... 22 11.2 Secondary Containment (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(2)) ...... 22 11.3 Rainwater Drainage Procedures (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(3)) ...... 23 11.4 Buried or Partially Buried tanks (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(4)& (5)) ...... 23 11.5 Aboveground Containers (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(6) & (7))...... 23 11.6 Engineered to Avoid Discharges (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(8)(1-v))...... 23 11.7 Monitor Effluent treatment (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(9))...... 24 11.8 Correct Oil Leaks (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(10)) ...... 24 11.9 Mobile Oil Storage Containers (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(11))...... 24 12.0 Transfer Operation, Pumping, & Facilities Process (40 CFR 112.8(d)) ...... 24 12.1 Buried Piping (40 CFR 112.8 (d)(1)) ...... 24 12.2 Terminal Connections (40 CFR 112.8 (d)(2)) ...... 24 12.3 Pipe Support Design (40 CFR 112.8 (d)(3))...... 24 12.4 Regular Piping & Appurtenances Inspections (40 CFR 112.8 (d)(4)) ...... 25 12.5 Vehicular Warnings (40 CFR 112.8 (d)(5)) ...... 25

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Facility Inspection Checklist and Schedules Appendix B: Fuel Unloading Standard Operating Procedures Appendix C: Emergency Response Materials & Equipment Appendix D: Secondary Containment Drainage Procedures Appendix E: Substantial Harm Criteria Checklist and Certification Appendix F: Record Annual Discharge Prevention Briefings and Training Appendix G: Emergency Contacts Appendix H: STI- SP001-03 Standards for Inspection of Aboveground Tanks for Combustible and Flammable Liquids Appendix I: OWS Operation and Maintenance Manual and Inspection Checklist Exhibits: Exhibits 1, 2, 3 & 4

- ii - Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE PLAN (SPCC) FOR LAYON MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The purpose of this Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan is to describe measures to be implemented by the Landfill Operator to prevent oil discharges from occurring, and to prepare the Landfill Operator to respond in a safe, effective and timely manner to mitigate the impacts of a discharge.

This Plan has been prepared to meet the requirements of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 112 (40 CFR part 112).

In addition to fulfilling requirements of 40 CFR part 112, this SPCC Plan is used as a reference for oil storage information and testing records, as a tool to communicate practices on preventing and responding to discharges with employees, as a guide to facility inspections, and as a resource during emergency response.

The Landfill Operator management has determined that this facility will not pose a risk of substantial harm under 40 CFR part 112, as recorded in the “Substantial Harm Determination” included in Appendix E of this Plan.

This Plan provides guidance on key actions that the Landfill Operator must perform to comply with this SPCC rule:

• Complete monthly and annual site inspections as outlined in the Inspection, Tests, and Records section of this Plan (Section 4.0) using the inspection checklists included in Appendix A.

• Perform preventative maintenance of equipment, secondary containment systems, and discharge prevention systems described in this Plan as needed to keep them in proper operating conditions.

• Conduct annual employee training as outlined in the Personnel, Training, and Spill prevention procedures section of this Plan and document them on the log in Appendix H.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

1 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

• If either of the following occurs, submit the SPCC Plan to the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA): o The facility discharges more than 1,000 gallons of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the US or adjoining shorelines in a single spill event; or o The facility discharges oil in quantity greater than 42 gallons in each of two spill events within any 12-month period.

• Review the SPCC Plan at least once every five (5) years and amend it to include more effective prevention and control technology, if such technology will significantly reduce the likelihood of a spill event and has been proven effective in the field at the time of the review. Plan amendments, other than administrative changes discussed above, must be recertified by a Professional Engineer on the certification page in Section 1.2 of this Plan.

• Amend the SPCC Plan within 6 months whenever there is a change in facility design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the facility’s spill potential. The revised Plan must be recertified by a Professional Engineer (PE).

• Review the Plan on an annual basis. Update the plan to reflect any “administrative changes” that are applicable such as personnel changes or revisions to contact information, such as phone numbers. Administrative changes must be documented in the Plan review log of Section 2.1 of this Plan, but do not have to be certified by a PE.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

2 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

1.0 PLAN ADMINISTRATION

1.1 Management Approval and Designated Person (40 CFR 112.7)

The Landfill Operator is committed to preventing discharges of oil to navigable waters and environment, and to maintaining the highest standards for spill prevention control and countermeasures through the implementation and regular review and amendment to the Plan. This SPCC Plan has the full approval of the Landfill Operator, and has committed the necessary resources to implement the measures described in this Plan.

The Facility General Manager is the Designated Person Accountable for Oil Spill Prevention at the Facility and has the authority to commit the necessary resources to implement this Plan.

Authorized Facility Representative: ______Norm Kivett______(Name) Signature: ______

Title: _ General Manager, Herzog Environmental, Inc.______

Date: ______

1.2 Professional Engineer Certification (40 CFR 112.3 (d))

I hereby certify that I have examined this facility and being familiar with the requirements of part 112 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, attest that this SPCC Plan has been prepared in accordance with sound engineering principles and practices, including consideration of applicable industry standards and is adequate for this facility. Furthermore, procedures for required inspections and testing have been established according to appropriate industry standards.

This certification in no way relieves the owner or operator of the facility of its duty to prepare and fully implement this SPCC Plan in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 112. This plan is valid only to the extent that the facility operator and owner maintains, tests, and inspects equipment, containment, and other devices as described in this Plan.

Professional Engineer: Tor Gudmundsen, P.E.

Registration No. 1002, Guam

Signature: ______

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

3 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

1.3 Location of SPCC Plan ( 40 CFR 112.3(e)(1))

A complete copy of this SPCC Plan will be maintained at the facility in the Administration Building in accordance with 40 CFR 112.3 (e).

2.0 PLAN EVALUATION & COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE

2.1 SPCC Plan Review, Evaluation, and Amendment (40 CFR 112.5 (a) (b))

In accordance with 40 CFR 112.5 (b), a review and evaluation of this SPCC Plan will be conducted at least once every five years. As a result of this review and evaluation, the Landfill Operator will amend the SPCC Plan within six months of the review to include more effective prevention and control technology if (1) such technology will significantly reduce the likelihood of a spill event from the facility and (2) if such technology has been field-proven at the time of review. Additionally, any technical amendment to the SPCC Plan shall be certified by a Professional Engineer no later than six months after a change in the facility design, construction, operation, or maintenance occurs which materially affects the facility’s potential for the discharge of oil into or upon navigable waters of Guam or adjoining shorelines.

Table 1: SPCC Plan Review Log PE Reviewed By Date Activity Certification Comments Required Prepare Plan – Start Yes Initial SPCC Plan of Operations Scheduled Review No No Change Changes in Inspection Plan Ammendment Yes Procedures, addition of new tank Scheduled Review No No Change Scheduled Review No No Change Periodic Review Installation of new due to physical Yes equipment change

2.2 Compliance Schedule (40 CFR 112.7 (a) (1))

The Compliance Schedule, which must be completed as a consequence of the initial inspection of the facility, is listed in Table 2. Any future change in the facility design, construction, operation, or maintenance, which materially affects the facility’s potential for the discharge of oil to the waters of Guam, must also meet SPCC regulations. An

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

4 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______additional Compliance Schedule may be necessary at that time to bring the facility into environmental compliance.

Table 2: Compliance Schedule for Action Items Completion Certification Action Item Scheduled Completion (sign-off when done) Bulk Fuel Storage Tank Initiate an industry standard inspection program for the tank according to the steel Tank Institute, document all inspections, and retain records of inspections. Institute SPCC Inspection program and document all inspections. Equipment Wash Rack & OWS Institute SPCC Inspection program and document all inspections. New & Used Lubricant Storage Create and install a spill response kit in the Maintenance Building for the fuel storage tank and the lubes storage room. Continue SPCC Inspection program and document all inspections. Generator Day Tank Create and install a spill response kit in the Generator Building. Initiate an industry standard inspection program for all tanks according to the Steel Tank Institute, document all inspections, and retain records of inspections. Continue SPCC inspection program and document all inspections. *Transformer Create and install a spill response kit in the Maintenance Building. Continue SPCC inspection program and document all inspections *Transformer is GPA owned. GPA owned transformers are waived from the requirement to provide secondary containment.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

5 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

3.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND SPILL RESPONSE (40 CFR 112.7 (a)(3))

3.1 Facility Information Name: Layon Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

Address: Dandan, Inarajan, Guam

Type: Landfill Date of Initial Operations: September 15, 2010

Owner / Operator: Herzog Environmental, Inc.

Primary Contact: Norm Kivett Cell (24 Hours): (671) 727 6846

3.2 Contact Information

The designated person accountable for overall oil spill prevention and response at the facility also referred to as the facility’s “Response Coordinator” (RC) is the General Manager. The RC will have 24-hour contact information.

3.3 Deviations to Requirements (40 CFR 112.7 (a) (2))

There are no deviations in the facility’s compliance with the regulations outlined in 40 CFR 112.

3.4 Physical Layout (40 CFR 112.7 (a) (3))

The landfill facility is located in Layon, Inarajan, Guam, at the site of the Layon Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (See Exhibit 1). The landfill operator will operate the landfill on behalf of the Guam Department of Public Works (DPW). Operations at the site will include the land filling of refuse, emergency power generation and gas management from waste decomposition. Petroleum-handling activities at the site may include the storage of new and used lubricants in drums, storage of diesel in a bulk storage tank and a day tank, and an equipment wash rack with associated oil water separator.

3.4.1 Bulk Fuel Storage Tank

A new 12,000-gallon steel, double-walled, aboveground storage tank is located south of the Maintenance Building. The tank is a ConVault steel tank, UL listed 2085, with secondary containment consisting of ¼ inch thick Styrofoam insulation and impervious barrier of 30-mil high density polyethylene membrane. The 30-mil membrane provides Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

6 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

containment for the remote possibility of a fuel leak. The steel tank and secondary containment is encased with 6” thick reinforced concrete vault to withstand the performance tests for two hour fire rating without explosion, ballistic impact and vehicle impact resistance tests, and corrosion protection. The tank is equipped with an overfill alarm (audible) and a spill protection bucket. It is also fitted with primary and secondary emergency vents in addition to primary and secondary normal vents.

The tank supplies diesel to the emergency generator via underground, double-walled UPP (semi-flexible) piping with a sump sensor at the down gradient end to detect any leaks. A release from the lines would be contained by the secondary fuel piping, which would convey the fuel to the concrete sump and sensor at the generator building.

3.4.2 Equipment Wash Rack & Oil Water Separator

The Wash Rack Facility is located as shown on Exhibit 4 and consists of a concrete slab which vehicles and equipment are washed. The wash slab drains to an adjacent concrete drainage sump which acts as a settling basin. The drainage sump is connected to the nearby oil/water separator for processing of any oily emulsions.

The oil water separator (OWS) is connected to the Equipment Wash Rack via an underground PVC pipe, which gravity flows to the OWS. The PVC discharge pipe is fitted with a turned-down elbow which prevents floating materials from exiting the drainage sump. The OWS is an underground 1000-gallon fiberglass double-wall tank, rustproof, continuous monitoring, and factory installed precision testing capability. The OWS is equipped with enhanced coalescer oil/water separator system to remove the type of oil that would typically be on the equipment, such as lubricants and diesel fuel oil and achieve a 10 ppm effluent quality. The petroleum hydrocarbons captured by the OWS are stored within the 150-gallon oil recovery tank of the unit.

3.4.3 New/Used Lubricant storage

The new/used lubricant storage area is a concrete room on the south side of the Maintenance Building. Fifty five gallon drums of new and used lubricants maybe stored within the room. The drums are in good condition and stored on secondary containment pallets of sufficient size to contain any release from these drums.

3.4.4 Emergency Generator Day Tank

There is one double-walled steel, UL-listed day tank within the Generator Building located across the parking lot from the Maintenance Building. The tank has a capacity of 875 gallons and is utilized to store diesel. There are product transfer pipes that connect the day tank to the nearby aboveground storage tank and to the generator. All product transfer piping within the Generator Room is situated above ground. Secondary containment consists of a second containment tank, which is adequate for the containment of spills from the primary tank. In addition a 3-inch high containment dike Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

7 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______encloses the entire floor of the generator room. This containment dike has a capacity of 561 gallons will serve as an additional storage in case of a spill. The tank is fitted with primary and secondary normal and emergency vents.

3.4.5 Transformer

The 750KVA pad-mount transformer which holds approximately 200 gallons of mineral oil is located south of the generator building. The transformer is a separate facility owned by the Guam Power Authority (GPA) and GPA transformers are waived from the requirement for a secondary containment. However, as a control measure, a spill response kit will be stored nearby in the maintenance building and is readily available for use in the event of a spill. In addition, the transformer will be included in the daily visual observations for spills and GPA will be notified immediately in the event of an oil leak from the transformer.

3.5 Oil Types & Container Capacity (40 CFR 112.7 (a) (3) (i))

The landfill operator has five locations within the facility where the potential exists for a petroleum release. Table 3 lists these sites and their associated sources. Further details of the site and these regulated units are given in the subsequent sections within this Plan.

Table 3. Source Descriptions for the Landfill Operator Facility

Source Type Contents Capacity Flow Rate & Containment (gallons) Direction (gallons) 1. Bulk Fuel Diesel 12,000 12,000 gph → 12,000* Storage Tank secondary tank 2. Wash Rack Oily Water 100** 100 gph → 5610 & Oil Water concrete berm Separator 200*** 200 gph → 1000 Secondary Tank 3. New & Used Lubes 55 55 gph → 66 Lubricant concrete room (Secondary Storage Containment Pallets) 4. Emergency Diesel 875 875 gph → 875* Generator Day secondary tank Tank 5. Transformer, Mineral Oil 200 200 gph **** Power supply * No additional precipitation volume is needed, since the AST is double-walled ** Estimated maximum volume from one day’s washing of heavy equipment *** Capacity of Oil Water Separator recovery tank. Total capacity of tank is 1000 gallons **** Transformer is a power company (GPA) facility. GPA transformers are waived from the requirement of a secondary containment. Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

8 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

3.6 Discharge Prevention Measures/Procedures (40 CFR 112.7 (a) (3) (ii))

The bulk fuel storage tank will be fueled via supplier’s tanker truck according to transfer operations outlined in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in Appendix B. There is an overfill gauge and a spill bucket on the storage tank, which prevents overfills and spills, respectively.

The fuel tanker will be refueled at the fuel gantry of the landfill operator’s fuel supplier and is subject to the refueling spill prevention requirements at its fuel supplier’s facility. The fuel supplier has an approved SPCC Plan in place at the supplier’s facility.

All other fuel transfer discharges at the facility are controlled by ensuring that the pipelines are aboveground or underground with secondary containment, they will be inspected on a regular basis, and that the lines are either within a concrete bund or they drain to a catchment area in the event of a release.

3.7 Discharge & Drainage Controls (40 CFR 112.7 (a) (3) (iii))

The transfer of fuel, the storage of lubricants, and the processing of oily water at the site will be made safe by regular inspections, maintenance of pipes and tanks, and proper training of site personnel on fuel transfer and spill response procedures. In addition, controls such as secondary containment structures, and pre-positioning of spill prevention and control equipment (spill kits) also mitigate any potential releases from primary containment structures.

3.8 Discharge Response and Clean-up (40 CFR 112.7 (a) (3) (iv))

In the event of a spill or release of petroleum product from any of the areas described in this SPCC Plan, the following general guidelines will direct what action is to be taken. This section is intended to provide guidelines in the determination if a spill is of harmful quantities and notification of appropriate Guam EPA personnel.

3.8.1 Identification

The employee who observed the spill or release must immediately notify his/her supervisor who, in turn must notify the General Manager or his designee. The General Manager or his designee will evaluate the situation and determine if harmful quantities of oil or petroleum have been released. For the purposes of this SPCC Plan harmful quantities will be defined as:

1.) A discharge causing a sheen or film on the surface of the waters of the Guam or its adjoining shorelines;

2.) A discharge of more that 1,000 gallons on land or water;

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

9 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

3.) A discharge of more than 42 gallons of oil in each of two discharges occurring within any twelve month period.

4.) A discharge causing a sludge or emission to be deposited beneath the surface of the waters of navigable waters of Guam or its adjoining shorelines;

5.) A discharge which violates the Guam Water Quality Standards (GWQS Section III, Subpart E);

6.) A discharge that poses an immediate threat to the health and welfare of human beings or the environment; or

7.) A discharge that the General Manager considers harmful.

Any spill not meeting any of the above criteria will be considered a non-harmful quantity. Small spills of petroleum product within the facility will be cleaned up using absorbent material without disrupting normal operations. Daily inspections of the facility and specific procedures will identify any small spills that will be addressed immediately.

3.8.2 Immediate Response

The following steps are to be taken when an employee discovers a large or uncontrolled release from the facility or when a release enters or threatens to enter the navigable waters of Guam.

• Move away from the area of the release.

• Alert others of the release by: 1.) Radio – “Release at (location)” or 2.) Voice – “Release at (location)

• Stop all operations.

• Remove all injured persons from the immediate area of danger and render first aid if injuries are severe, call 911 for emergency medical assistance. • Notify the General Manager or alternate coordinator if primary coordinator is not present, and inform him of the current status of the release.

• The General Manager is to assess the situation and decide whether to “fight” or “Flight” by obtaining the following information to the best extent possible:

1.) Type of product released; 5.) Direction of the Release; 2.) Location of the release; 6.) Potential fire and/or explosion. 3.) Estimated quantity of the release; 4.) Rate of the release; Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

10 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

DO NOT EXPOSE PERSONNEL TO THE RISK OF INJURY OR LOSS OF LIFE.

If the decision is to “fight”:

• Don the appropriate personal protective equipment.

• Eliminate all possible sources if ignition/detonation.

• Remove or isolate ignitable and incompatible materials from the area of the release (as practical).

• Locate and stop the source of the release by:

1.) Checking and repairing valves; 2.) Over-packing a leaking container or placing it into a drip pan; 3.) Transferring the product into another containment vessel; 4.) Sealing the source.

• Contain the release to prevent further migration within and from the facility by: 1.) Constructing a dike with sandbags or absorbent materials around the release if the ground surface is concrete, asphalt or a comparable substrata; and 2.) Isolating drains/catch basins, exposed soils, and any surface imperfections such as cracks and potholes in concrete or asphalt from the release using sorbent materials. 3.) Pumping the product into a waste oil tank or drums as soon as practical using a discharge pump or a vacuum truck.

If the decision is to “flight”:

• The Facility Response Coordinator is to immediately evacuate all personnel and account for everyone. Alert facility personnel of the order to evacuate by: • Radio – “Evacuate”; or • Voice – “Get out of here.”

• Personnel are to proceed along the nearest evacuation route to the designated assembly area outside the facility, which is at the garden side on Gun Beach.

• The Facility Response Coordinator is to call for emergency assistance.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

11 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

3.8.3 Clean-up Operations and Equipment

Appropriate personal protective equipment such as boots, gloves, coveralls, respirators, etc. will be utilized during containment and clean-up activities.

Sorbent materials such as blanketing, pads, or booms may be used to form dikes around releases within the facility. Sorbent materials used for diking must be replaced as they become saturated, or reinforced with fresh sorbents if immediate removal is not possible. For large releases, a portable pump and/or recovery vacuum truck will be used to remove standing product from within diked areas. Otherwise, smaller releases of standing product will be removed with sorbent material.

Oil recovery and clean-up operations should be implemented as soon as possible once the source of the release has been secured and containment activities are completed. Recovery operations must not be postponed unless authorized by the On-Scene Coordinator. If recovery operations are postponed until the following day because of darkness, personnel must be available to maintain close surveillance of the containment booms to ensure accumulations of oil are adequately contained. Materials such as clothes, absorbents, soil, concrete or asphalt that cannot be effectively decontaminated should be removed to an appropriate disposal facility after the waste has been properly identified.

These solid materials will be placed into 55 gallon open head drums for disposal. The waste will be labeled, managed, stored and disposed of in accordance with applicable environmental regulations.

The spill response materials and equipment maintained at the facility should be used only for their respective intended purposes. A list of materials and equipment available for emergency response to releases is given in Appendix C.

3.9 Disposal of Recovered Materials (40 CFR 112.7 (a) (3) (v))

Any impacted materials will be properly disposed according to Guam and US regulations, as applicable. Impacted sorbents, booms, granular sorbent materials, and soil will be taken to a facility licensed to process non-hazardous materials such as petroleum- impacted response items and soil.

3.10 Notification Phone List (40 CFR 112.7 (a) (3) (vi))

In the unlikely event that an uncontrolled spill reaches a regulated waterway, the Facility Response Coordinator shall contact the following agencies as quickly as possible.

1. U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office, Guam (671) 339-2001 2. Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) at ((671) 475-1658/9 Cellular or ask the 911 operator to call the on-duty GEPA response personnel (night) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

12 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

3. National Response Center (800) 424-8802

The landfill operator personnel must notify the GEPA of a spill to regulated waters within 24 hours. The procedures for contacting other response personnel are the same for uncontained spills to regulated waters as for responding to other discharges, as discussed below.

In the case of a tank spill during refueling, personnel shall immediately notify the Facility Response Coordinator. The Facility Response Coordinator will then notify the other emergency response individuals of the incident. The Facility Response Coordinator shall call one of the emergency response contractors listed in Appendix H if the spill cannot be reasonably handled by onsite staff.

If the spill poses a danger to human health or the environment, is in excess of ten (10) gallons on land, or causes any sheen on water, the responsible party must call GEPA within 24-hours to report the spill. The Facility Response Coordinator is responsible to write all spill incident reports and submit them to the GEPA within five (5) days. The Landfill Operator shall maintain copies of the spill incident reports for at least three (3) years from the date of the incident. The Facility Response Coordinator shall decide when normal activities may resume at the site.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

13 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

3.11 Discharge Notification Form (40 CFR 112.7 (a) (4))

Part A: Discharge Information General Information when reporting a spill to outside authorities: Name: Herzog Environmental, Inc. Address: Layon, Inarajan, Guam

Telephone: (671) 727 6846 Owner/Operator: Herzog Environmental, Inc.

Primary Contact: Norm, Kivett, Facility General Manager Work: (671) 727 6846 Cell (24 hrs): (671) 727 6846

Type of Oil: Discharge Date and Time: Quantity released: Discovery Date and Time: Quality released to a waterbody: Discharge Duration: Location/Source:

Actions taken to stop, remove and mitigate impacts of the discharge:

Affected media: Air Storm water Water Dike/berm/oil-water separator Soil Other: Notification person: Telephone Contact: Business: (671) 727 6846

24-hr: (671) 727 6846 Nature of discharges, environmental/health effects, and damages:

Injuries, fatalities or evacuation required?

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

14 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

Part B: Notification Checklist Name of person receiving Date and Time call Discharge in any amount Facility General Manager and Response Coordinator Norm Kivett Tel No. (671) 727 6846

Discharge in amount exceeding 10 gallons and not affecting a waterbody or groundwater Guam Fire Department Acting Fire Chief: John C. Salas (671) 472-3423 Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) (671) 475-1658 Discharge in any amount and affecting (or threatening to affect) a waterbody Guam Fire Department Acting Fire Chief: John C. Salas (671) 472-3423 Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) (671) 475-1658 National Response Center (800) 424-8802 Inarajan Mayor’s Office (671) 475-2509 Unitek Environmental Guam (671) 565-3151 PCR Environmental, Inc. (671) 473-3560

Whenever a discharge occurs, a Discharge Notification Form will be filled out and submitted to the Guam EPA and USEPA, as appropriate.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

15 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

3.12 Discharge Prediction (40 CFR 112.7(b))

As shown in Exhibits 1 and 2, the landfill facility is located within the Layon, Dandan, Inarajan area. Once the Action Items are completed, it is highly unlikely that any petroleum release would breach the concrete secondary containment areas and enter the environment.

In the event of a fuel release from the secondary containment structures, the most probable discharge would be into the concrete rooms where the tanks and drums are stored or onto the concrete or asphalt parking areas around the facility. See Exhibit 3 and 4. If the product goes off the concrete or asphalt and into the gravel road or surrounding soil, the flow would be somewhat vertical; however, due to the low hydraulic conductivity of the soils at the site, vertical penetration would be minimized.

3.13 Secondary Containment [40 CFR 112.7 (c)]

The Bulk Fuel Storage Tank is a 12000-gallon double wall tank. The tank is a ConVault steel tank, UL listed 2085, with secondary containment consisting of ¼ inch thick Styrofoam insulation and impervious barrier of 30-mil high density polyethylene membrane. The 30-mil membrane provides containment for the remote possibility of a fuel leak. The steel tank and secondary containment is encased with 6” thick reinforced concrete vault to withstand the performance tests for two hour fire rating without explosion, ballistic impact and vehicle impact resistance tests, and corrosion protection. The tank is equipped with an overfill alarm (audible) and a spill protection bucket. It is also fitted with primary and secondary emergency vents in addition to primary and secondary normal vents. The piping systems outside of the tank consist of double wall pipe with fuel monitor alarm system.

Fuel discharges from delivery trucks to the Bulk Fuel Storage Tank shall be accomplished in accordance with Appendix B, Fuel Discharge Standard Operating Procedure. The tank is not equipped with an on-site pump for fuel transfer therefore fuel discharge will be accomplished by gravity or pump discharge using truck pump. The spill precautionary measures outlined in Appendix B must in place prior to any transfer of fuel.

The Equipment Wash Rack drains to an adjacent settling basin, which is itself a concrete berm that contains all wash water and directs it to the Oil Water Separator (OWS).

The OWS is an underground 1000-gallon fiberglass double-wall tank, rustproof, continuous monitoring, and precision testing capability, with factory installed Hydrostatic monitor. The tank is equipped with enhanced coalescer oil/water separator system to remove the type of oil that would typically be on the equipment, such as lubricants and diesel fuel oil and achieve a 10 ppm effluent quality. The petroleum hydrocarbons captured by the OWS are stored within the 150-gallon oil recovery tank of the unit.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

16 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

The OWS is warranted by the manufacturer not to leak for 30 years, the operations and maintenance (O&M) of the OWS is attached as Appendix I. The O&M includes the manufacturer’s recommended inspection of the tank.

The New and Used Lubricant Storage area is within a concrete room that has secondary containment pallets to contain the 55-gallon drums stored. No precipitation can get within the room.

The 875-gallon Generator Day Tank for the generator is a double wall steel tank, a primary tank and a secondary containment tank. There is a 3-inch high containment dike that encloses the entire floor of the generator room. This containment dike with a capacity of 561 gallons will serve as an additional storage in case of a spill. All piping is aboveground and within the concrete building.

The pad-mount GPA owned transformer (750 KVA) contains approximately 200 gallons of mineral oil. GPA transformer is a separate facility and waived from the requirement of a secondary containment. However, the transformer will be included in the regular inspection of tanks. GPA will be notified immediately in the event of a spill.

The double wall tanks, bulk fuel and generator day tank are equipped with leak detection system and will be subject to STI SP0001, Standard for Inspection of In-Service Shop Fabricated Aboveground Tanks for Storage of Combustible and Flammable Liquids. STI SP0001 is included as Appendix H.

3.14 Impracticability

It is completely practicable to install, operate, and maintain all secondary containment structures as noted in sections 40 CFR 112.7 (c), 112.7 (h) (1), 112.8 (c) (2), 112.8 (c) (11) to prevent a discharge to the navigable waters of Guam.

4.0 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND RECORDS (40 CFR 112.7(e))

The Facility Response Coordinator or a designated alternative shall conduct regular inspections of the Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs), day tanks, associated lines, storage drums, and any other regulated unit at the facility to identify and report fuel leaks and to prevent fuel spills. The records shall be kept on-site for a minimum of three (3) years. The details of the on-going site inspections are given within the various facility checklists in Appendix A.

It is the responsibility of the facility operators to ensure that the tanks and the piping are regularly inspected. In addition to the regular visual inspections, integrity testing such as hydrostatic testing, ultrasonic testing, radiographic testing, acoustic emissions testing, or another system of non-destructive shell testing shall be conducted. The Steel Tank Institute (STI) Standard SP001 has been developed in conjunction with USEPA for the Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

17 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

inspection and testing of shop-manufactured tanks. The tanks must be inspected at least every ten years and depending on the thickness of the tank shell at the initial testing, the subsequent testing can occur in another 10, 5 or less years from the initial testing. Only an STI-Certified AST inspector can conduct the prescribed STI Inspections.

5.0 PERSONNEL, TRAINING, AND PREVENTION (40 CFR 112.7 (f)

All employees whose job involves the storage or handling of oil or hazardous substances must have appropriate spill control training as required by 40 CFR 112.7 (f). This training will be the responsibility of the Facility Response Coordinator or his designee. The training will include initial training for new employees and newly assigned employees, and follow-up discharge prevention briefings at least once a year to assure adequate understanding of the SPCC Plan (see sample Training Record in Table 4).

5.1 Initial Training

All new employees whose job involves the storage or handling of oil or petroleum substances shall receive training from his or her supervisor or other designated person. The training will include as a minimum:

• A requirement to read and understand the pertinent sections of this SPCC Plan;

• Operation and familiarization with all oil-using and oil storage areas. Employees should understand their responsibilities in the event of a spill or a release. Also discuss the hydraulic capacities of all spill containment structures;

• Discharge procedure protocols, i.e., the steps necessary to properly drain a bunded area;

• Operation, maintenance, and safety procedures to be used with all equipment in the event of a spill. Employees should understand which measures must be taken to prevent ignition of the spilled or leaked product;

• A review and discussion of past spills that relate to potential causes of spills in the new employee’s job;

• Location and use of personal protective equipment;

• Location of fire lanes and procedures to be implemented to allow the fire department and other assistance teams access to the facility;

• A review of current U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Guam EPA regulations pertaining to oil spill prevention and pollution.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

18 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

• A discussion of spill reporting and emergency response procedures; and

• An acknowledgement by the employee that failure to comply with the federal regulations concerning oil and petroleum substances spill prevention and control may result in adverse action against the employee, including disciplinary action, suspension, or termination, depending on the circumstances.

Table 4: Landfill Operator SPCC Training Record

TYPE OF TRAINING REQUIRED Employee SPCC CPR Hazmat Fire Training Vehicle First Special Name Aid

5.2 Follow-up Training

All employees whose job involves the storage or handling of oil or petroleum substances shall receive follow-up training from their supervisor or a designated representative. This training may be accomplished individually or in groups, in brief segments, or complete reviews. The follow-up training will be completed at least once a year, and includes:

• A review of the SPCC Plan sections that are related to the employee’s job responsibilities;

• A discussion of spills since last review to illustrate the need for proper procedures;

• A review of spill reporting and emergency response procedures;

• An opportunity for employee feedback on conditions in their specific work area, including discussions of the result of any inspections relative to spill prevention; and

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

19 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

• A written reaffirmation by the employee of his/her understanding of the SPCC program and the possible ramifications of non-compliance with spill prevention procedures.

6 SECURITY (40 CFR 112.7 (g))

Security measures to prevent accidental or purposeful releases must be in place in all petroleum hydrocarbon storage areas. A chain link fence surrounds the bulk storage tank and the remaining units are within either a locked or security patrolled area within the facility. Additionally, the areas around the fuel-related sites are illuminated to aid in the discovery of a discharge and to discourage discharges caused by vandalism. The entire area of the facility is well lit at night.

Appropriate security measures for the facility include the following:

• All fuel storage areas are secured by locked fences or other locked barriers. • All primary fuel valves and secondary containment valves are in the closed and locked position when not in operation. • Exterior wall-mounted or pole lighting is provided at the oil storage areas of the facility and is of a sufficient illumination to assist in the discovery of discharges during hours of darkness and to aid in the prevention of discharges through vandalism.

7 TANK CAR/TRUCK LOADING/UNLOADING RACK (40 CFR 112.7 (h))

This section of the SPCC regulations is not applicable to the facility since there is no facility loading or unloading racks.

8 BRITTLE FRACTURE EVALUATION FOR FIELD CONSTRUCTED ABOVEGROUND CONTAINERS (40 CFR 112.7 (i))

This section of the SPCC regulations is not applicable to the facility since no aboveground containers are field constructed.

9 CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS (40 CFR 112.7 (j))

The Landfill Operator follows the minimal prevention standards listed within 40 CFR 112:

• Subpart A – General Requirements for All Facilities and All Types of Oil.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

20 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

• Subpart B – Requirements for Petroleum Oils and Non-Petroleum Oils, Except Animal Fats and Oils and Greases, and Fish and Marine Mammal Oils; and Vegetable Oils (including Oils from Seeds, Nuts, Fruits, and Kernels).

Additionally, the facility follows all applicable industry standards and local Guam EPA standards. These standards include: • Guam Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Standards, Section 5104(H) August 10, 2001. • Steel Tank Institute, Standard SP001: Standard for the Inspection of Aboveground Storage Tanks, revised July 2005. • American Petroleum Institute, Standard API 570: Piping Inspection Code (Inspection, Repair, Alteration and Rerating of In-Service Piping Systems, revised 1998. • National Fire Prevention Association Standard NPPA 30: Flammable and Combustible Liquids, revised 2000.

10.0 FACILITY DRAINAGE (40 CFR 112.8 (b))

10.1 Diked Area Drainage (40 CFR 112.8 (b) (1))

There are no diked area drainage subject to 40 CFR 112.8 (b).

10.2 Dike Drainage Valves (40 CFR 112.8 (b)(2))

There are no dike drainage valves subject to 40 CFR 112.8 (b)(2).

10.3 Undiked Area Drainage (40 CFR 112.8 (b)(3))

There are no petroleum hydrocarbon storage areas within the facility that are not bonded with secondary containment except for the power supply transformer which is exempt from secondary containment. The transformer will be visually inspected on a regular basis and a spill kit in the nearest building.

10.4 Discharge Diversion System (40 CFR 112.8 (b)(4))

The discharge diversion system is not required since the facility has secondary containment system.

10.5 Backup Lift Station Pump (40 CFR 112.8 (b)(5))

This section of the SPCC regulation is not applicable to the facility since there is no facility drainage water treatment unit that would require a backup lift station pump.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

21 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

11.0 BULK STORAGE CONTAINERS (40 CFR 112.8(c))

11.1 Container Compatibility (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(1))

The bulk fuel storage tank and the generator day tank are constructed of steel, which is compatible with the storage of diesel fuel. All tanks meet the Steel Tank Institute (STI) standards for shop fabricated aboveground storage tanks and are UL listed. The STI standard for inspection for aboveground tanks SP001 is incorporated herein as Appendix H. The appendix inspection checklist shall be complied with and include an annual integrity testing of the tank annular space between the primary and secondary tank.

The oil recovery tank within the OWS and the 55 gallon lube drums are compatible with the storage of lubricating oil and are manufactured to a US Department of Transportation (DOT) standard of construction.

The double wall OWS manufacturer’s Operation and Maintenance Manual is incorporated as Appendix I. In addition an inspection checklist was added and requires an annual integrity testing of the annular space between the primary and secondary tank.

11.2 Secondary Containment (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(2))

All petroleum hydrocarbon storage areas have a minimum standard of secondary containment and some storage areas have an additional tertiary containment berm. All bermed areas are constructed of reinforced concrete and are inspected regularly to ensure integrity. See Table 5 for secondary containment calculations.

Table 5: Secondary Containment Calculations Source Type Largest Single Container Secondary Containment Capacity (gallons) Calculation (gallons) Bulk Fuel Storage Tank 12,000 12,000 (double-walled tank) Equipment Wash Rack & 100* 25’ x 60’ x .5’x7.48 gal/ft 3 =5610 Oil Water Separator 200 1000 gals (double walled tank) New & Used Lubricant 55 Containment Pallets = 66 Storage Emergency Generator Day 875 875 (double-walled tank) Tank Transformer, Power Supply 200 ** * Estimated maximum volume from one day’s washing of heavy equipment ** Transformer is a separate facility owned by the power company (GPA). GPA transformers are waived from the requirement of a secondary containment.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

22 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

11.3 Rainwater Drainage Procedure (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(3))

There is a turned-down elbow in the wash rack settling basin outlet pipe which prevent floating oil from discharging. Inspection for signs of floating oil during and after each wash should be conducted.

The new and used lubricant storage containers will be stored in a concrete room on the south side of the Maintenance Building. No such storage will be stored outside.

11.4 Buried or Partially Buried Tanks (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(4)&(5))

The Oil Water Separator is a 1000 gallon fiberglass double wall warranted not to leak for 30 years. The tank is not subject to corrosion protections as required under 40 CFR 112.8(c)(4)&(5). The Landfill Operator or His designee shall conduct regular inspection of the tank in Appendix I.

11.5 Aboveground Containers (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(6)&(7))

The aboveground storage tank is tested for integrity on a regular schedule and after material repairs. The frequency and type of testing is determined by the industry standard for Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) testing, SP001, created by the Steel Tank Institute (STI).

The Landfill Operator or his designee conducts visual inspections of the tanks and containers on a regular basis. In addition, another technique such as hydrostatic testing, radiographic testing, ultrasonic testing, acoustic emissions testing, or another system of non-destructive shell testing is used by third-party inspectors trained in the chosen testing system.

There are no heated tank coils within tanks at the facility; therefore 40 CFR 112.8 (c)(7) is not applicable to the facility.

11.6 Engineered to Avoid Discharges (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(8)(i-v))

The bulk fuel storage tank at the facility is equipped with overfill and spill protection to avoid discharges from the tank. In addition, there is a secondary tank around the primary tank.

The emergency generator fuel day tank has an automatic shutoff sensor to prevent overflows. Secondary containment berms are in place to ensure that even if the shutoff sensors fail, there will be no loss of containment.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

23 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

Although there is no requirement for overfill or spill protection for the new and used lubricant storage area, secondary containment is sufficient to avoid any discharges from the storage room.

11.7 Monitor Effluent Treatment (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(9))

This portion of the SPCC regulations is not applicable since the facility does not have an effluent treatment system on site.

11.8 Correct Oil Leaks (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(10))

Through the scheduled inspection of the facility at regular intervals, any leaks from tank seams, bolts gaskets, piping, pumps, valves, or secondary containment areas are promptly reported and cleaned up. This applies to both inside and outside any containment bunds.

11.9 Mobile Oil Storage Containers (40 CFR 112.8 (c)(11))

Mobile fueling may occur in cells 1 & 2. Position or locate mobile or portable oil storage containers properly to prevent discharge or spill. Mobile fueling equipment shall be equipped with emergency spill response kit. Any fuel spill not contained with the spill kit shall be contained within the cells.

12.0 TRANSER OPERATIONS, PUMPING, & FACILITY PROCESS (40 CFR 112.8 (d))

12.1 Buried Piping (40 CFR 112.8 (d)(1))

There are underground lines from the fuel storage tank to the emergency generator day tank that are regulated under 40 CFR 280 and therefore are not part of this SPCC Plan.

12.2 Terminal Connections (40 CFR 112.8 (d)(2))

The facility does not have any pipelines with a terminal connection onto which a discharge hose is fastened; therefore the section is not applicable.

12.3 Pipe Support Design (40 CFR 112.8 (d)(3))

This is a new facility and all aboveground piping is held in place by supports that minimize abrasion and corrosion. The pipes and pipe supports are new and good condition at the time the facility is commissioned to operate.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

24 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill ______

12.4 Regular Piping & Appurtenances Inspections (40 CFR 112.8(d)(4))

All aboveground pipelines are regularly inspected as noted in the Appendix A Inspection Checklists and Schedules. The inspection checklist for piping includes an assessment of flange joints, expansion joints, valves, catch pans, pipeline supports, valve locks, and general condition of the piping surface and paint.

12.5 Vehicular Warnings (40 CFR 112.8 (d)(5))

All piping is either fastened to the concrete containment bunds, adjacent concrete buildings, or along concrete walls, away from vehicular traffic. There are no pipelines or oil transfer operations that would be affected by vehicular traffic in the area of petroleum storage.

Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Project No. DPW-SW-2004 (003)

25

APPENDIX A

Facility Inspection Checklists and Schedules

INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR LANDFILL OPERATIONS FACILITY STORAGE TANK & SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AREA WEEKLY

Tank No. ______Note: Write in date for each week

Week No. Item Checked Y N N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A 1 Tank Interstice Detection System: a. Is tank leaking? b. Is secondary containment free of water? 2 Are aboveground pipelines leaking? 3 Are valves leaking or damaged?

4 Is the containment area free of any spilled product? 5 Are there any breaches in the containment area?

(Record any actions taken in the Remarks section below)

REMARKS: INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR LANDFILL OPERATIONS FACILITY WASH DOWN AREA AND OIL/WATER SEPARATOR WEEKLY

Note: Write in date for each week

Week No. Item Checked Y N N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A

1 Is the wash down area berm intact with no releases?

2 Is the wash down area drainage sump cleaned out? Are the contents of the oil tank in the oil/water 3 separator removed? Does the separator need service according to 4 manufacturer's recommendation? 5 Tank Interstice Detection System: a. Is tank leaking? b. Is secondary containment free of water?

(Record any actions taken in the Remarks section below)

REMARKS: INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR LANDFILL OPERATIONS FACILITY SAFETY AND EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT WEEKLY

Note: Write in date for each week

Week No. Item Checked Y N N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A Y N N/A 1 Emergency eye wash: fully operational? 2 First aid kits: in proper locations and fully stocked? Fire extinguishers: in proper locations, fully 3 charged? Communication: radios working, test emergency 4 bell? 5 Sorvent pads, booms, etc.: sufficient inventory? 6 Generators: fluid levels, belts, leaks, battery

(Record any actions taken in the Remarks section below)

REMARKS:

APPENDIX B

FUEL DISCHARGE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPs)

FUEL DISCHARGE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPs)

1.1 General Precautions

Before beginning the discharge procedures, ensure there is no hazardous work being done on the customer site. You need to be aware of customer behavior in the vicinity of the discharge (e.g.: smoking, welding using mobile phones, etc.).

While hoses are connected, you must not leave the vehicle unattended at any time. You must be in a position where you have full control over all hoses, valves and fittings.

Always be aware of the need to minimize the risk of back injuries or strains in manual handling tasks such as lifting and draining hoses or lifting other equipment. Use the proper manual handling techniques set out in training programs like “Bodywise,” keeping your back as straight as possible using the strength of your legs and lifting smoothly without jerking.

Transfer of fuel from delivery tank trucks to the 12,000-gallon above ground storage tank (AST) shall be accomplished with the delivery truck park at the concrete pad beside the AST, see Exhibit 4. The concrete pad, 30’ X 10’, is adjacent to a paved area and sloped towards a compacted gravel area with flat slopes. The drainage from the paved and gravel areas sheet flows into a drainage bio-swale, a distance of 140’. Prior to transfer of fuel from the truck to the AST spill boom(s) shall be positioned around the concrete pad. Spill kit shall also be at a ready access for use in the event of a spill during fuel transfer operations. The industry discharge SOP’s as described below must be strictly adhered to.

If you have concerns or doubts about the delivery or delivery instructions, do not proceed until you have contacted your supervisor.

1.1.1 Gravity discharge (most common discharge)

a. Place warning signs, traffic cones and other such equipment around the discharge area as appropriate. b. Check that hoses, when connected, cannot be run over by other vehicles. c. Check the location of the fire extinguishers and that they are easily accessible. d. Dip the receiving tank to make sure there is sufficient ullage for the amount of product being delivered and to confirm the product grade in the tank. Record the tank number and dips on the delivery media. If you have any concerns about the delivery details, contact your supervisor before discharge begins. Replace the dip cap on the receiving tank and make sure it is tightly secured. e. Raise the locking bar over the vehicle tank outlet connections (where fitted to the vehicle). f. Connect the static bonding cable where one is provided at the customer tank fill point. If you are in doubt as to the need to connect a static bonding cable, always connect it. g. Connect the product hose to the correct vehicle outlet then touch the free end of the hose to the receiving tank inlet. This will ensure that the vehicle and the customer’s pipeline are at the same electrical potential. The fill markers should verify the product in the receiving tank. Do not proceed with the discharge if the fill point is not marked – seek assistance from the facility supervisor or your supervisor. You must do this before removing the receiving tank’s inlet cap. Connect the hose to the tank inlet connection. h. Check that any valves in the pipelines to the receiving tank are set correctly. Note that at some facilities, a single fill point may be connected to more than one tank on the same product. Confirm the valves to tanks other than the one to receive the product are securely closed. i. Confirm that you have made the correct connections between the discharge compartment and receiving tank inlet connection(s). Check all hose connections are secure. j. If the receiving tank has two fill points and you are using only one, make sure the unused fill point cap is secured properly and the isolating valve (where fitted) is securely closed. k. Check that all vehicle valves, caps and hatches are closed except the outer valves from which the delivery will take place and, if splitting a compartment, the vehicle compartment dip cap. l. Open the vehicle internal valve, ensure the product color is correct in the sight glass, then open the external valve. i. check that product is flowing by observing the sight glasses in the stand pipe and the vehicle outlet. ii. When there is more than one storage tank on the site, carry out a check dip to ensure that product is going to the correct tank. Product flow must be stopped prior to check dip. m. Make sure there are no leaks from any of the connections. n. Keep a close watch on all the hoses, valves, receiving tank dip point and vent throughout the discharge. o. As the discharge of each compartment is completed, close the tank outlet valve, disconnect the hose at the truck end and drain it into the receiving tank, taking care to avoid spillage. p. Repeat the steps set out above for all products and compartments to complete the delivery, as necessary. q. Complete the post discharge procedures as set out in Section 7.3 of the Driver Handbook.

References: Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations Part 10, Division 2; ADG Code Chapter 10, Division 10.1, Division 10.2, Division 10.3, Division 10.4, Division 10.5, Division 10.7

1.1.2 Pumped Discharge using a Site Pump (not typically used at commercial sites)

a. Place warning signs, traffic cones and other such equipment around the discharge area, as appropriate. b. Check that hoses, when connected, cannot be run over by other vehicles. c. Check the location of the fire extinguisher, emergency stop buttons and that they are easily accessible. d. Dip the receiving tank to make sure there is sufficient ullage for the amount of product being delivered and to confirm the product grade in the tank. Record the tank number and dips on the delivery media. If you have any concerns about the delivery details, contact your supervisor before discharge begins. Replace the dip cap on the receiving tank and make sure it is tightly secured. e. Raise the locking bar over the vehicle tank outlet connections (where fitted to the vehicle). f. Connect the static bonding cable where one is provided at the customer tank fill point. If you are in doubt as to the need to connect a static bonding cable, always connect it. g. Connect the product hose to the correct vehicle outlet, then touch the free end of the hose to the receiving tank inlet. This will ensure that the vehicle and the customer’s pipeline are at the same electrical potential. The fill markers should verify the product in the receiving tank. Do not proceed with the discharge if the fill point is not marked – seek assistance from the facility supervisor or your supervisor. You must do this before removing the receiving tank’s inlet cap. Connect the hose to the tank inlet connection. h. Check that any valves in the pipelines to the receiving tank are set correctly. Note that at some facilities a single fill point may be connected to more than one tank on the same product. Confirm the valves to tanks other than the one to receive the product are securely closed. i. Confirm that you have made the correct connections between the discharge compartment and the receiving tank inlet connection(s). Check that all hose connections are secure. j. If the receiving tank has two fill points and you are using only one, make sure the unused fill point cap is secured properly and the isolating valve (where fitted) is securely closed. k. Check that all vehicle valves, caps and hatches are closed except the outer valves from which the delivery will take place and, if splitting a compartment, the vehicle compartment dip cap. l. Open the vehicle internal valve, ensure the product color is correct in the sight glass, then open the external valve. m. Open the isolating valve on the fill point and check the sight glasses on the vehicle and the fill point show product has filled the pump suction line. n. Where a bleed valve is fitted to the top of the discharge pump casing open the bleed valve slowly to allow any air trapped in the pump to escape. Where possible, bleed the air into a bucket with a static bonding cable connected to the pump. Close the bleed valve when product flows in a continuous stream. o. Start the discharge pump. i. Check that product is flowing by observing the sight glasses in the standpipe and the vehicle outlet. ii. When there is more that one storage tank on the site, carry out a check dip to ensure that product is going to the correct tank. Product flow must be stopped prior to check dip. p. Make sure there are no leaks from any of the connections. q. Keep a close watch on all the hoses, valves, receiving tank dip point and vent throughout the discharge. r. Close the tank outlet valve as each compartment is emptied. s. Close the isolating valve on the fill point as each product discharge is completed. t. Repeat the steps set out above for all products and compartments to complete the delivery as necessary. u. Complete the post discharge procedure as set out in Section 7.3 of the Driver Handbook.

References: Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations Part 10, Division 2; ADG Code Chapter 10, Division 10.1, Division 10.2, Division 10.3, Division 10.4, Division 10.5, Division 10.7

1.1.3 Pumped Discharge using Truck Pump (Not Long Hose – 20’ long 3” dia.)

Note: 1. Do not engage the PTO without using the clutch. 2. It may be necessary to flush the pump and meter to prevent product contamination. Refer to Section 10 of the Driver Handbook for details of the flushing procedure. 3. Hose Camlock levers must be wired closed during pumping to eliminate the possibility of hoses becoming disconnected. 4. Pumping rates should be adjusted to reduce splashing and frothing. 5. After closing vehicle valves allow air to be pumped for a sufficient time to clear the hose. The exception to this in the case of long hose-reel metered deliveries, when the hose must remain full.

Discharge Procedures

a. Place warning signs, traffic cones and other such equipment around the discharge area as appropriate b. Check that hoses, when connected, cannot be run over by other vehicles. c. Check the location of the fire extinguishers and that they are easily accessible. d. Dip the receiving tank to make sure there is sufficient ullage for the amount of product being delivered and to confirm the product grade in the tank. Record the tank number and dips on the delivery media. If you have any concerns about the delivery details, contact your supervisor before discharge begins. Replace the dip cap on the receiving tank and make sure it is tightly secured. e. Raise the locking bar over the vehicle tank outlet connections (where fitted to the vehicle). f. Connect the static bonding cable to the receiving tank of pipeline. Do not connect to the tank stand as there may not be electrical continuity to the tank and pipeline. g. Connect the pump suction hose to the correct tank outlet and to the pump suction connection for that product. h. Where a meter bypass line is installed, set the valves to use either the bypass or the meter as required by the delivery. i. Connect the product hose to the correct vehicle outlet, then touch the free end of the hose to the receiving tank inlet. This will ensure that the vehicle and the customer’s pipeline are at the same electrical potential. The fill markers should verify the product in the receiving tank. Do not proceed with discharge if the fill point is not marked – seek assistance from the facility supervisor or your supervisor. You must do this before removing the receiving tank’s inlet cap. Connect the hose to the tank inlet connection. j. Check that any valves in the pipelines to the receiving tank are set correctly. Note that at some facilities, a single fill point may be connected to more than one tank on the same product. Confirm the valves to tanks other than the one to receive the product are securely closed. k. Confirm that you have made the correct connections between the discharge compartment and receiving tank inlet connection(s). Check all hose connections are secure. l. If the receiving tank has two fill points and you are using only one, make sure the unused fill point cap is secured properly and the isolating valve (where fitted) is securely closed. m. Check that all vehicle valves, caps and hatches are closed except the outer valves from which the delivery will take place and, if splitting a compartment, the vehicle compartment dip cap. n. Open the vehicle internal valve, ensure the product color is correct in the sight glass, then open the external valve. o. Start the vehicle pump. p. Open the isolating valve on the fill point. i. check that product is flowing by observing the sight glasses in the stand pipe and the vehicle outlet. ii. When there is more than one storage tank on the site, carry out a check dip to ensure that product is going to the correct tank. Product flow must be stopped prior to check dip. q. Make sure there are no leaks from any of the connections. r. Keep a close watch on all the hoses, valves, receiving tank dip point and vent throughout the discharge. s. Close the tank outlet valve as each compartment is emptied and change over the pump suction hose. t. Close the isolating valve on the fill point as each product discharge is completed. u. Repeat the steps set out above for all products and compartments to complete the delivery, as necessary. v. Complete the post discharge procedures as set out in Section 7.3 of the Driver Handbook.

References: Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations Part 10, Division 2; ADG Code Chapter 10, Division 10.1, Division 10.2, Division 10.3, Division 10.4, Division 10.5, Division 10.7

1.1.4 Pumped Discharge Long Hose (1.5” dia. On hose reel)

Note: 1. Do not engage the PTO without using the clutch. 2. It may be necessary to flush the pump and meter to prevent product contamination. Refer to Section 10 of the Driver Handbook for details of the flushing procedure. 3. Hose Camlock levers must be wired closed during pumping to eliminate the possibility of hoses becoming disconnected. 4. The hose must be fitted with a spring loaded quick action nozzle, which is held open while fitting is in progress. Under no circumstances may this valve be fastened in an open position. 5. Pumping rates should be adjusted to reduce splashing and frothing. 6. After closing vehicle valves, do not allow air to be pumped into the meter and hose reel.

Discharge Procedure

a. Place warning signs, traffic cones and other such equipment around the discharge area as appropriate b. Check that hoses, when connected, cannot be run over by other vehicles. c. Check the location of the fire extinguishers and that they are easily accessible. d. Dip the receiving tank to make sure there is sufficient ullage for the amount of product being delivered and to confirm the product grade in the tank. Record the tank number and dips on the delivery media. If you have any concerns about the delivery details, contact your supervisor before discharge begins. Replace the dip cap on the receiving tank and make sure it is tightly secured. e. Raise the locking bar over the vehicle tank outlet connections (where fitted to the vehicle). f. Connect the static bonding cable to the receiving tank of pipeline. Do not connect to the tank stand as there may not be electrical continuity to the tank and pipeline. g. Connect the pump suction hose to the correct tank outlet and to the pump suction connection for that product. h. Where a meter bypass line is installed, set the valves to use the meter and hose reel. i. Connect the product hose to the correct vehicle outlet, then touch the free end of the hose to the receiving tank inlet. This will ensure that the vehicle and the customer’s pipeline are at the same electrical potential. The fill markers should verify the product in the receiving tank. Do not proceed with the discharge if the fill point is not marked – seek assistance from the facility supervisor or your supervisor. You must do this before removing the receiving tank’s inlet cap. Connect the hose to the tank inlet connection. j. Confirm that you have made the correct connections between the discharge compartment and the pump. Check all hose connections are secure. k. Check that all vehicle valves, caps, and hatches are closed, except the out valves from which the delivery will take place and, if splitting a compartment, the vehicle compartment dip cap. l. Open the internal valve, ensure the product color is correct in the sight glass, then open the external valve. m. Start the vehicle pump. n. Unreel hose, climb the tank and touch the hose nozzle to the fill point, remove the fill cap, connect the nozzle static bonding cable and place the nozzle spout in the fill point or fit the appropriate adapter and camlock the nozzle to the adapter. Note that where an adapter is used and the nozzle is camlocked to it, the nozzle static bonding cable is not required. o. Open the nozzle and make sure there are no leaks from any of the connections. p. Keep a close watch on all the hoses, valves, receiving tank dip point and vent throughout the discharge. q. Repeat the steps set out above for all products and compartments to complete the delivery, as necessary. r. Complete the post discharge procedures as set out in Section 7.3 of the Driver Handbook.

References: Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations Part 10, Division 2; ADG Code Chapter 10, Division 10.1, Division 10.2, Division 10.3, Division 10.4, Division 10.5, Division 10.7

APPENDIX C Emergency Response Materials & Equipment

EMERGENCY RESPONSE MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT LAYON MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL

Description Location Capability Communication System Telephones Office land lines plus Emergency notification; cellular phones with request off-site or on-site personnel assistance

Safety Emergency Eye Shower - Generator room Treatment of Hose bib Maintenance Building chemical/physical exposure First-aid kits In all departments Treatment of exposure/injury

Spill Control/Clean-up Sorbents, booms, pads, Spill clean-up kits inside or Absorb releases granular material, recovery adjacent to all units drums, shovels PPE – glasses, gloves Spill clean-up kits inside or Protect personnel during adjacent to all units clean-up Vacuum truck Can be called in emergency Recovery of releases

Fire Control Portable fire extinguishers Throughout the facility Fire fighting

Additional equipment Emergency Generator On-site within facility Emergency power generation

APPENDIX D

INSPECTION PROCEDURES FOR STORM WATER RELEASE LAYON MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL

INSPECTION PROCEDURES FOR STORM WATER RELEASE LAYON MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL

The secondary containment systems shall be inspected weekly and after storm events (i.e. more frequently during the rainy season). Storm water shall be drained from the secondary containment after each significant rain event and as conditions warrant. The following procedures shall be followed when draining storm water from containment areas:

1. The Landfill Operator’s Operations Manager or his designate shall be responsible for draining storm water from the secondary containment areas. A record of drainage operations shall be kept at the facility as noted on the attached Storm Water Release Log. 2. The secondary containment drain valves shall be closed and locked at all times except when under supervised draining of the containment. Prior to opening drain valves, containment areas shall be inspected to determine if there are fuel accumulations or potential leak sources in the containment area. Visible sheens shall be cleaned prior to release of storm water from the secondary containment areas, i.e., before the drain valves are opened. 3. If inspection of the contained water indicates that release of the water will not cause harmful discharge or a violation of water quality standards, then the bypass valve may be opened to release the water. Such storm water releases shall be closely monitored to avoid any release of fuel or release of water that has a sheen on it. After the storm water from the containment area is drained, all valves shall be closed and relocked. Releases of storm water shall be recorded on the form provided in this appendix, as required by 40 CFR 112.8 (c)(3)(iv). If it is necessary to remove an accumulation of fuel from the containment area, the fuel should be pumped into 55 gallon drums or into a vacuum truck. Fuel floating on the surface of storm water in the secondary containment area shall be removed using absorbent pads, which shall be properly disposed. .

STORM WATER RELEASE LOG FROM SECONDARY CONTAINMENTS LAYON MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL

Containment Date and Time Any Sheen or Drainage to Supervisor Name Oil? If so adjacent Name and remove prior ground or Signature. to discharge drum?

APPENDIX E

Certification of the Applicability of the Substantial Harm Criteria Checklist & Certification

Certification of the Applicability of the Substantial Harm Criteria Checklist

Facility Name: Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill Facility Address: Layon, Inarajan, Guam

1. Does the facility transfer oil over water to or from vessels and does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons? If the answer is yes, the facility must submit a Facility Response Plan to EPA.

Yes No

2. Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 1 million gallons and does the facility lack secondary containment that is sufficiently large to contain the capacity of the largest aboveground oil storage tank plus sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation within any aboveground oil storage tank area?

Yes No

3. Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 1 million gallons and is the facility located at a distance (as calculated using the appropriate formula in Attachment C- III to this appendix or a comparable formula 1) such that a discharge from the facility could cause injury to fish and wildlife and sensitive environments? For further description of fish and wildlife and sensitive environments, see Appendices I, II and III to DOC/NOAA’s “Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments” (See Appendix D to this part, Section 10 for availability) and the applicable Area Contingency Plan.

Yes No

4. Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 1 million gallons and is the facility located at a distance such that a discharge from the facility would shut down a public drinking water intake, which is analogous to a public water system as described at 40 CFR 143.2(c)?

Yes No

5. Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 1 million gallons and has the facility experienced a reportable oil spill in an amount of water greater than or equal to 10,000 gallons within the last 5 years?

Yes No

CERTIFICATION

I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals responsible for obtaining this information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete.

Signature: ______

Name: _Norm Kivett______

Title: _General Manager, Herzog Environmental, Inc. ______

Date: ______

APPENDIX F

Record of Annual Discharge Prevention Briefings and Training

APPENDIX F Record of Annual Discharge Prevention Briefings and Training

Briefings will be scheduled and conducted by the facility owner or operator for operating personnel at regular intervals to ensure adequate understanding of this SPCC Plan. The briefings will also highlight and describe known discharge events or failures, malfunctioning components, and recently implemented precautionary measures and best practices. Personnel will also be instructed in operation and maintenance of equipment to prevent the discharge of oil, and in applicable pollution law, rules, and regulations. Facility operators and other personnel will have an opportunity during the briefings to share recommendations concerning health, safety, and environmental issues encountered during facility operations.

Date Subjects Covered Employees in Attendance Instructors

APPENDIX G

Emergency Contacts

APPENDIX G Emergency Contacts

Designated Person Responsible for Spill Prevention: Facility General Manager Tel. No.: (671) ______

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS:

Facility

Facility General Manager Norm Kivett

Local Emergency Response

Guam Fire Department 911or (671) 475-9082

Guam Memorial Hospital 671- 647-2281

Response/Cleanup Contractors

Unitek Environmental Guam 671- 565-3151

PCR Environmental, Inc. 671-473-3560

Energy Recovery Corporation (ERC) 671-472-2845

Pacific Environmental Resources, Inc (PERI) 671-565-7473

South Pacific Environmental (SPE) 671-646-7609

Notification

Guam Environmental Protection Agency 671-475-1658

National Response Center 800-424-8802

United States Coast Guard 671-339-2001

APPENDIX I Discharge Notification Form

Part A: Discharge Information General Information when reporting a spill to outside authorities: Name: Unified Oil Company Address: 123 A Street Stonefield, MA 02000 Telephone: (781)-555-5556 Owner/Operator: Blake and Daughters, Inc. 20 Fairview Road Stonefield, MA 02000 Primary Contact: Susan Blake, Facility Manager Work: (781)555-5550 Cell (24 hrs): (781)555-5559

Type of Oil: Discharge Date and Time: Quantity released: Discovery Date and Time: Quality released to a waterbody: Discharge Duration: Location/Source:

Actions taken to stop, remove and mitigate impacts of the discharge:

Affected media: Air Storm water Water Dike/berm/oil-water separator Soil Other: Notification person: Telephone Contact: Business: 24-hr: Nature of discharges, environmental/health effects, and damages:

Injuries, fatalities or evacuation required?

Part B: Notification Checklist Name of person receiving Date and Time call Discharge in any amount Susan Blake, Facility Manager and Response Coordinator (781) 555-5550 / (781) 555- 5559 Discharge in amount exceeding 10 gallons and not affecting a waterbody or groundwater Local Fire Department Fire Chief: D. Evans (781) 555-1258 or 911 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (888) 304-1133 or (517) 553-1133 Discharge in any amount and affecting (or threatening to affect) a waterbody Local Fire Department Fire Chief: D. Evans (781) 555-1258 or 911 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (888) 304-1133 or (517) 553-1133 National Response Center (800) 424-8802 Town of Stonefield POTW Plant Operator: K. Bromberg (781) 555-5453 Town of Stonefield Drinking Water Plant Plant Operator: D. Lopez (781) 555-5450 EZ Clean (617) 555-5554 * The POTW should be notified of a discharge only if oil has reached or threatened sewer drains that connect to the POTW collection system.

APPENDIX H

STI – SP001-03

APPENDIX I

OWS Operation and Maintenance Manual and Inspection Checklist

EXHIBITS

1. Exhibit 1-Location Map 2. Exhibit 2-Vicinity Map 3. Exhibit 3- Landfill & Surrounding Area Site Plan 4. Exhibit 4-Entrance Area Facility Contour & Drainage Map

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Attachment E – Training Materials

STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) TRAINING SWPPP PURPOSE

• This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was created to help obtain coverage under the 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP), which authorizes stormwater discharges from industrial facilities where discharges enter surface waters of the United States, or a Municipal Separated Storm Sewer System (MS4) leading to surface waters of the United States subject to the conditions set forth in the MSGP.

• Required at Layon Landfill due to the potential discharge of stormwater reaching groundwater, rivers, and coastline. WHAT IS STORMWATER RUNOFF?

• Stormwater runoff is generated when precipitation from rain or snowmelt flows over land or impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, sidewalks, streets, and building roof tops, and does not percolate into the ground. • As the runoff flows over impervious surfaces, it accumulates debris, chemicals, sediment, or other pollutants that may adversely affect water quality if the runoff is discharged untreated. • Stormwater runoff is typically NOT treated at a treatment facility, instead it flows through a storm sewer system and discharges directly into the nearest coastline, lake, river, creek, or stream. COMMON STORMWATER POLLUTANTS

• Common stormwater pollutants and sources include: • Dust, soil and sediment from eroding stream banks, construction sites, and agricultural lands. • Oil, grease, and other petroleum derivatives from urban runoff and energy production. • Industrial chemicals from industrial sites. • Solid waste and litter from improperly secured loads. • Bacteria and nutrients from pet wastes and livestock operations. • Road salt from winter road application. EFFECTS OF STORMWATER POLLUTION

• Common effects of stormwater pollution include: • Creates areas that are unsafe for recreation, such as fishing, swimming, and boating. • Causes detriment to aquatic organisms (e.g., algae blooms and fish kills). • Causes damage to local economies (e.g., negatively impacts tourism, creates higher unemployment, and food costs may rise). • Increases costs for drinking water treatment, resulting in higher utility costs. • Increases healthcare costs as people seek medical treatment for stormwater pollution related ailments. STORMWATER STATISTICS

• Stormwater discharges are often the primary source of ocean, bay, lake, and river pollution in the Untied States • Estimates indicate stormwater contributing as much as 80% of the total water pollution in the United States. • One quart of oil can contaminate 250,000 gallons of water. • It has been estimated that about 40% of all United States waters are not fishable or swimmable. INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER PROGRAM

• The primary goal of the Industrial Storm Water Program is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the costal waters through management and treatment of stormwater runoff from industrial sites. • What do the does this mean in plain English? • Discharged stormwater should only contain rain water! • Stormwater must contain: • No Oils or Chemicals • No Construction Waste • No Litter • No Sediment • No Toxins STORMWATER PERMITTING

• The Layon Landfill is required to obtain a Multi- Sector General Permit (MSGP) from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). • The Layon Landfill obtained its MSGP on May 26, 2011, and is authorized to discharge stormwater associated with the industrial activity. LAYON LANDFILL – MULTI-SECTOR GENERAL PERMIT

• The Layon Landfill is authorized to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activity. • To minimize the stormwater exposure, the landfill staff continually evaluate site practices to determine how exposed materials and activities can be reduced or eliminated. • The Layon Landfill developed a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to assist staff in understanding and properly managing stormwater runoff. • Inspections are performed by Guam/Federal government agencies. • Landfill employees receive annual stormwater training. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)

• To prevent or reduce stormwater pollution, Layon Landfill facility staff implements practices and operating procedures known as Best Management Practices(BMPs). • BMPs implemented at Layon Landfill facility are one of two varieties: • Preventative Measures – design, operation, or management measures that minimize or prevent the generation of storm water pollution. • Control Measures – structural devices that are installed with the purpose to capture stormwater flows and provide pollutant removal. MINIMIZE EXPOSURE

• Control Measures: • Use grading, berming, or curbing to prevent runoff of contaminated flows and to divert run-on away from theses areas • Locate materials, equipment, and activities so that leaks are contained in existing containment and diversion systems (confine the storage of leaky or leak-prone vehicles and equipment awaiting maintenance to protected areas) • Clean up spills and leaks promptly using dry methods (e.g., absorbents) to prevent the discharge of pollutants. • Use drain pans and absorbents under or around leaky vehicles and equipment, or store indoors where feasible • Use spill/overflow protection equipment • Drain fluids from equipment and vehicles prior to disposal • Perform all cleaning operation indoors, under cover, or in bermed areas that prevent runoff and run-on and capture any overspray • Ensure that all washwater drains to a proper collection/treatment system. MINIMIZE EXPOSURE

• Continued • Detention/Sedimentation Ponds • Were constructed as the primary structural drainage control measures • Examine pond banks for seepage and structural soundness. Stabilize and repair, when necessary. • Check the pond embankments for signs of burrowing rodents. Eliminate such rodents immediately and repair any damage. • Check inlet and outlet pipes, channels, structures and spillways for any damage, erosion, floating debris or obstructions. Repair damage and remove obstruction, as needed. • Implement control of vectors (mosquitoes) if the ponds retain standing water more than fourteen (14) days. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING

• Good housekeeping involves maintaining a clean and orderly work environment. Extra attention paid to surfaces draining to storm drains or ditches can significantly reduce pollutant wash off. An orderly work environment will also reduce the chance for inadvertent spills, allow to the early detection of problems, and to ensure unimpeded access to the landfill site. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING

• Good practices for good housekeeping measures: • All material that is a potential pollutant shall be kept in a covered, contained area. Containers shall be well sealed, and labeled with substance name, date and hazards. • All empty cleaner, oil, or chemical containers shall be promptly and properly disposed. • Drip pans or pad shall be used when working on equipment or with equipment fluid and cleaners. • A designated individual shall keep a running inventory of all chemical substances and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) in a fixed location onsite. • Any trash or debris that is present shall be picked up immediately and properly disposed. • Containers, tanks or equipment shall be monitored weekly for leaks and overflow; observed leaks shall be repaired and cleaned up immediately. MAINTENANCE

• Inspections of Layon Landfill are done on a daily basis to ensure that the stormwater devices, erosion, sediment and equipment are in working order and to help prevent conditions that could cause breakdowns or failures resulting in discharges of pollutants. PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE BMPs

• Cleaning of accumulated debris from sump pump areas conveyance structures and outfalls. • Clearing of debris from stormwater drainage system. • Maintenance and inspection of secondary containment structures and associated drain valves and perform repair immediately, as needed. • Where feasible, store potential stormwater pollutant materials inside the maintenance building or under a cover containment. • Major maintenance and repair of equipment will be performed regularly at offsite maintenance facilities approved for such activities. • On-site equipment maintenance will be limited to re-fueling and minor servicing activities except when further repairs are required due to vehicle breakdown. • Equipment will be inspected for leaks regularly. • Minimize use of toxic cleaning solvents, such as chlorinated solvents and other toxic chemicals. • Empty drip pans immediately after a spill or leak are collected in an uncovered area. • Regular inspection and maintenance of rainfall protection coverings for waste storage bins and receptacles. • An overall inspection of the site will be performed to identify new problem areas and to repair any existing drainage features. SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE

• Routine Inspections - Monthly inspections of SPCC devices - Maintenance and repairs - Reporting all leaks - Maintenance and repairs on erosion and sediment damage • Personnel Training - All personnel handling oil must be trained upon hire - Retraining must occur if there are changes to the Plan - Follow-up training must be done once a year • Alarms/Shutoff Valves - Monitor leak detection and overfill protection systems - Respond immediately to all alarms - Do not leave monitoring system unsupervised - Perform regular tests on monitoring systems ROLLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Environmental Safety Layon Landfill Facility Managers Contractors/Vendors Compliance Officers Ensure resource Update inventory for Be familiar with SPCC Develop SPCC Plan allocation accuracy requirements Provides SPCC Training Ensure personnel are Provide spill response Training for Staff and Guidance trained equipment Monitor SPCC regulatory Conduct and document Ensure spill equipment is Notify the Operations changes inspections stocked Center of any spills Coordinate with GGH Ensure personnel are Support spill incident Guam on SPCC familiar with locations of Cleanup spills report and follow-up Requirements spill equipment Assess human health Assign and monitor and environmental Maintain training records monthly inspections hazards and impacts Maintain facility-specific Ensure contractors are Determine need for oil storage/use aware of SPCC regulatory reporting information and provide Reporting requirements updates to GGH Guam Maintain signed copy of Conduct follow-up Fuel Delivery notice MANAGEMENT OF RUNOFF

• Landfill Cells Area: • Lined ditches and channels collet and divert runoff • Detention/Sedimentation ponds attenuate storm flows, infiltrate water, and remove sediment • Rain caps or daily cover diverts runoff from contacting sanitary waste • Impoundment within cells collect and store runoff to be later disposed properly • Cover Material Stockpile Area: • Grading/compacting appropriately reduces erosion • Silt fences contain eroded materials • Diversion ditches control runoff from active areas • Hydro seeding/mulching reduces runoff MANAGEMENT OF RUNOFF

• Continued • Entrance Area Facilities: • Lined ditches collect and divert runoff • Grassed/landscaped areas reduce runoff • Bio-swales infiltrate water and retain sediments • Flat grading reduces erosion • Gravel areas promote infiltration • Hydro seeding/mulching reduces runoff NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES

• The following non-stormwater discharges are not authorized by this (MSGP) permit and non- stormwater discharges must be prevented or eliminated. • Leachate • Gas collection condensate • Drained free liquids • Contaminated ground water • Laboratory wastewater • Contact washwater from washing vehicles that have come in direct contact with waste in the cell area NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES

• The following are the non-stormwater discharges authorized under this (MSGP) permit: • Discharges from fire fighting activities • Fire hydrant flushing • Potable water, including water line flushing • Uncontaminated condensate from air conditioners, cooler, and other compressors and from the outside storage of refrigerated gases or liquids • Irrigation drainage • Landscape watering provided all pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer have been applied in accordance with the approved labeling • Pavement run-off where no detergents are used and no spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have occurred • Routine external building wash down that does not use detergents • Uncontaminated ground water or spring water • Foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with process materials • Incidental windblown mist from air conditioning units that collects on rooftops or adjacent portions of this facility, but not intentional discharges from the air conditioning units • Washwater fro cleaning of vehicles and equipment at the wash rack provided they have not come in direct contact with waste, or have been cleaned of such waste prior to using the wash rack, and that no detergents or toxic cleaners are used. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Attachment F – Training Log

SWPPP Training Sign In

SWPPP TRAINING DOCUMENTATION EMPLOYEE /CONTRACTOR TRAINING SIGN-UP SHEET

This form is to be utilized to document the training of groups of employees.

Date:

Name of Trainer:

Signature of Trainer:

Subject(s) Covered: USEPA-mandated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) training

Training Aids Used: SWPP Training PowerPoint (printed)

Work Location/Job Safety Class(es) Included: Conference Room, Layon Landfill Main Office

Attendees (Please print and sign your name legibly. Use additional sheets as necessary. Your signature below indicates that you have received and understood the training listed above and will comply with the indicated procedures.

Employee Number/ Print Name Last 4 SSN Department Signature

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Attachment G – Weekly SWPPP Inspection Form

GGH Guam LLC - Weekly-SWPPP Inactive and Stabilized Report for Layon Landfill Date:______Time:______Weather:______Stormwater Discharge Occurring: Y / N (if Yes, describe below) NO. Item Checked Y N N/A Dumpsters 1 Is dumpster free of water? 2 Was dumpster emptied? 3 Is dumpster in need of repair/replacement? 4 Was dumpster inspected after storm events?

Ponds 1 Was all floatable debris removed? 2 Were ponds inspected before & after each rainfall?

Facility 1 Any industrial materials, residue or trash that may have or could come into contact with stormwater? 2 Any Leaks or spills from industrial equipment, drums, tanks and other containers? 3 Inspect areas of the landfill that have not been finally stabilized. 4 Inspect areas used for storage of material and wastes that are exposed to precipitation. 5 Inspect the stabilization and structural control measures. 6 Inspect the leachate collection and transport systems. 7 Inspect the landfill facility entrances and exits. Offsite tracking of industrial or waste materials, or sediment where vehicles enter or exit the site? 8 Inspect all areas exposed to precipitation for evidence of, or potential for, pollutants entering the storm drain system. 9 Inspect all structural (berms & dikes) and non-structural BMPs for erosion and sediment control. 10 Any discharges occurring at the time of inspection? 11 Any previously unidentified discharges of pollutants from the site? 12 Any control measures needing replacement, maintenance or repairs? 13 Any evidence of, or the potential for, pollutants entering the drainage system? 14 Are the outfalls and any associated flow dissipation devices in good physical condition? 15 Any incident of noncompliance observed? 16 Any additional control measures needed to comply with the permit requirements? Remarks & Observations

I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information contained therein. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information contained is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Name:______Title:______Signature:______Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Attachment H – Quarterly Visual Assessment Form

GGH Guam L.L.C. - Quarterly-SWPPP Visual Assessment Name of Facility: Layon Landfill Person(s)/Title(s) collecting & examining sample:

Date & Time Sample was Collected and Examined:

Nature of Discharge: Rainfall Amount: inches Previous Storm Ended > 72 hours Yes No Before Start of This Storm

Sample collected within 30 min of actual discharge: Yes No If no: document rationale:

Field Observations at Layon Landfill Stormwater Outfall location Outfall Locations Field Observations Outfall 1 Outfall 2 Outfall 3 Outfall 4 Outfall 5

TIME COLLECTED

Color

Odor

Clarity

Floating Solids

Settled Solids

Suspended Solids

Foam

Oil Sheen

Other Obvious Indicators of Stormwater Pollution

NOTES (including probable source of any observed stormwater contamination):______I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information contained therein. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information contained is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Name: ______Title:______

Signature:______Date:______Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Attachment I – Endangered Species Documentation

I

) J Website: www.dnaguarn.Ocm · E-maf; dnaOdna!JUlm.oom

' '

March 29, 2005

Ms. Gina Schultz Aeling Field Supervisor U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service Pacific Isl ands Office 300Ala Moana Bivd. P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850-0001

Dear Ms. Schultz:

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE SiTING OF A MUNICIPAL SOUD WASTE t.ANDFill FACILITY. INARAJAN, GUAM

The Government of Guam, through the Department of Public Works and Guam Er1Wronmental Protection Agency, is proposing to develop a new municipal solid waste landfill on Guam. Three sites, located at Lonfit in Asan, Dandan in lnarajan. and Sabanan Ba.tea in Yona (Figures 1 and 2), were investigated by a multidisciplinary team led by Duenas & Associates. Inc. The results of these investigations were summarized in a Preliminary Site Selectron Report. The Government of Guam used this report, with other Information, to select Oandan (also known as Layon) as the preferred site for the landfill. The Government of Guam. through a contract with Duenas & Associates, Inc., is in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact statement for the development of a new landfill at this site.

Wetlands surveyed wlthin the proposed landfill footprint and buffer area at the Dandan (Layon) site were verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Guam EPA, and Guam Department of Agriculture in March 2005 (Figure 3). Wetland Investigations extended to the 300-foot buffer west of tne footprint, and to the 400-foot buffer east of the footprint. The proposed road and utility corridor was also investrgated, and no wetlands occur within this corridor. Approximately 7.86 acres of wetlands occur within the proposed landfill footprint and buffer area. These wetlands are associated with the Fintasa and Fensol Rivers, and may potentialry serve as habitat for the endangered Mariana common moor hen (Gallinula chloropus guami). The Mariana common moorhen was not detected in the landfill footprint and buffer area during our fleld investigations; however, Takano (2003} observed a single moorhen irr the Tlnago River and in the Assupian pond to the northeast of the landfill footprint during her surveys in 2001.

Figures 4 to 6 present the three preliminary layouts of the landfill facilities that have been developed at the Dandan (Layon) site. Optron 1 would impact approximately 1. 89 acres of wetlands associated with the Fintasa River. Option 2 and Optlon 3 would have no direct impact on wetland areas; however, Option 3 would provide the greatest separation between the landfill faciUty and wetlands. Ms. Diane Vice (Acting WHdlife Supervisor) and Ms. Suzanne Medina (Wildlife Biologist) of the Guam Department of

ENGINEERING (Cl'llt,. STP:UCIUi:tAt, MECHANICAL, cNVIRONMENTA.l) • CONSTP:UCTION MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING E"':v11c:.•:1i/~~T.'!.'!_ ~~o·._1 .. ::;..·s '"~ "L~ti.!~~ 1 t.Ji"? -~ o=-'.''=711'· -··-~· ...... ,.~1;;;T_:-.-~..-.q - • .- • ... ,. ·~ ···-,,. -.· · • - -.- • I I -2- MMcL 29, 2005

\ '

Agriculture's Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources visited the site in March 2005 and have been consulted regarding the potential impacts lo moorhen habitat.

We are interested in any comments the Service may have regarding the proposed deveJopment and operation of a MSWLF at the Dandan (Layon) site. Preliminary fieJcJ investigations are summarized in the Final Site Selection Report (FSSR). An electronic oopy of the FSSR is enclosed for your reference. A oopy of the Draft EJS will be provided to the Service once it ls available. More information is availabte on the project

Web site at http://www.guamlandfill.org 1 or you can call our office at 646-7991.

Sincerely,

~~ Claudine Camacho Environmental ServJces Division Duenas & Associates, Inc . . Enclosures (Figures 1 to 6. FSSR on CD) cc: Ms. Diane Vice, Guam Department of Agriculture Ms. Cynthia U. Jackson, Guam Department of Public Works

Reference:

Takano, L 2003. Seasonal movement. home range, and abundance of the Mariana Common Moorhen (Gallimila r:hforopus guam1) on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Unpubrished Masters of Science Thesis, Oregon State University. 96 pp, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Attachment J - SWPPP Amendment Log

Amend. Description of the Amendment Date of Amendment Prepared No. Amendment by [Name(s) and Title] 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Layon Municipal Sanitary Landfill - September 2015

Attachment K - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement For the Siting of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility, Guam

Prepared for Guam Department of Public Works Government of Guam 542 N. Marine Corps Drive Tamuning, Guam 96913

http://www.guamlandfill.org

In Accordance with Civil Case No. 02-00022 Consent Decree Filed February 11, 2004 in U.S. District Court, Territory of Guam

July 15, 2005 CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi

LIST OF TABLES ...... vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... xi

1.0 BACKGROUND ...... 1-1

1.1 Location ...... 1-5 1.2 Purpose and Need ...... 1-6 1.3 Scope of the SEIS ...... 1-6 1.4 Organization of the EIS ...... 1-6 1.5 Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ...... 1-7 1.5.1 Guam Regulatory Design Requirements for Solid Waste Landfills ...... 1.7 1.5.2 Relevant Federal Statutes ...... 1-8

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE FOOTPRINT ALTERNATIVES FOR LAYON ...... 2-1

2.1 Description of Alternatives ...... 2-1 2.1.1 Layout Alternative 1 ...... 2-2 2.1.2 Layout Alternative 2 ...... 2-2 2.1.3 Layout Alternative 3 ...... 2-3 2.1.4 The No Action Alternative ...... 2-4 2.2 Design Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ...... 2-4 2.2.1 Landfill Design and Operation Features ...... 2-5 2.2.2 Landfill Volume Projections ...... 2-10 2.2.3 Landfill Components ...... 2-10 2.2.4 Landfill Costing ...... 2-13 2.2.4.1 Status of Solid Waste Operating Fund ...... 2-13 2.2.4.2 Program Costs for the Construction of a New MSWLF ...... 2-13 2.2.4.3 Construction Management Services for New MSWLF ...... 2-14 2.2.4.4 Training of Engineering Staff ...... 2-14 2.2.4.5 Land Acquisition for New MSWLF ...... 2-14 2.2.4.6 Off-Site Infrastructure for New MSWLF ...... 2-14 2.2.4.7 Summary of Costs ...... 2-15

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 3-1

3.1 Chapter Overview ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Screening of Resources Affected ...... 3-1 CONTENTS (continued)

3.2 Natural Environment...... 3-4 3.2.1 Physical Features ...... 3-4 3.2.1.1 Geology ...... 3-4 3.2.1.2 Hydrogeology and Groundwater...... 3-6 3.2.1.3 Soils and Topography ...... 3-9 3.2.1.4 Air Quality and Wind Direction ...... 3-10 3.2.1.5 Noise ...... 3-12 3.2.2 Surface Water ...... 3-12 3.2.2.1 Hydrology ...... 3-12 3.2.2.2 Water Quality ...... 3-13 3.2.2.3 Wetlands ...... 3-17 3.2.2.4 Coastal Zone Management ...... 3-18 3.2.3 Terrestrial Ecology ...... 3-19 3.2.3.1Vegetation ...... 3-19 3.2.3.2 Wildlife ...... 3-20 3.2.4 Aquatic Ecology ...... 3-22 3.3 Human Environment ...... 3-22 3.3.1 Socioeconomic Conditions ...... 3-22 3.3.1.1 Land Use ...... 3-23 3.3.1.2 Zoning ...... 3-24 3.3.1.3 Demographics ...... 3-24 3.3.1.4 Economics ...... 3-24 3.3.1.5 Recreation ...... 3-25 3.3.1.6 Sensitive Receptors ...... 3-26 3.3.2 Infrastructure ...... 3-26 3.3.2.1 Utilities ...... 3-26 3.3.2.2 Road Network ...... 3-28 3.3.2.3 Energy Use and Conservation Measures ...... 3-28 3.3.3 Public Health and Safety ...... 3-29 3.3.3.1 Household Hazardous Waste ...... 3-29 3.3.4 Aesthetics ...... 3-29 3.3.5 Archaeological/Historical Resources ...... 3-29 3.3.5.1Background ...... 3-29 3.3.5.2 National Historic Preservation Act ...... 3-30 3.3.5.3 Archaeological and Historical Resources ...... 3-31

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 4-1

4.1 Chapter Overview ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects ...... 4-1 4.1.1.1 Impact Categories ...... 4-2 4.1.1.2 Impact Definitions ...... 4-2 4.1.2 Required Permits for Construction of a MSWLF ...... 4-3 4.2 Natural Environment...... 4-4

11 CONTENTS (continued)

4.2.1 Physical Features ...... 4-4 4.2.1.1Geology ...... 4-4 4.2.1.2 Hydrogeology and Groundwater...... 4-4 4.2.1.3 Soils and Topography ...... 4-5 4.2.1.4 Air Quality ...... 4-7 4.2.1.5 Noise ...... 4-9 4.2.1.6 Effects of the No Action Alternative on Physical Features ...... 4-10 4.2.2 Surface Water...... 4-11 4.2.2.1 Hydrology ...... 4-11 4.2.2.2 Water Quality ...... 4-12 4.2.2.3 Wetlands ...... 4-14 4.2.2.4 Coastal Zone Management ...... 4-15 4.2.2.5 Effects of the No Action Alternative on Surface Water ...... 4-15 4.2.3 Terrestrial Ecology ...... 4-15 4.2.3 .1 Vegetation/Habitat ...... 4-15 4.2.3.2 Wildlife ...... 4-17 4.2.3.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative on Terrestrial Ecology .... 4-18 4.2.4 Aquatic Ecology ...... 4-18 4.3 Human Environment ...... 4-19 4.3.1 Socioeconomic Conditions ...... 4-19 4.3.1.1 Land Use ...... 4-20 4.3.1.2 Zoning ...... 4-20 4.3.1.3 Demographics ...... 4-21 4.3.1.4 Economics ...... 4-21 4.3.1.5 Recreation ...... 4-23 4.3.1.6 Sensitive Receptors ...... 4-23 4.3.2 Infrastructure ...... 4-24 4.3.2.1Utilities ...... 4-24 4.3.2.2 Road Network ...... 4-25 4.3.2.3 Energy Use and Conservation Measures ...... 4-27 4.3.3 Public Health and Safety ...... 4-28 4.3.4 Aesthetics ...... 4-29 4.3.5 Archaeological/Historical Resources ...... 4-29 4 .4 Summary of Layout Alternatives ...... 4-31

5.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING ...... 5-1

5.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures for Potential Impacts Associated with Alternative 3 ...... 5-2 5.1.1 Seismic Zones ...... 5-2 5.1.2 Water Quality ...... 5-3 5.1.3 Wetlands ...... 5-3 5.1.4 Vegetation ...... 5-4 5.1.5 Community Concerns ...... 5-4

111 CONTENTS (continued)

5.1.6 Transportation ...... 5-5 5.1.7 Archaeological/Historic Resources ...... 5-5 5.1.8 Operations ...... 5-5 5.1.8.l Groundwater Monitoring ...... 5-6 5.1.8.2 Surface Water Monitoring ...... 5-6 5.1.8.3 Landfill Gas ...... 5-6 5.1.8.4 Corrective Action Plan ...... 5-6 5.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 5-6 5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 5-7 5.4 Cumulative Impacts ...... 5-8 5.5 Compliance with Regulations/Statutes ...... 5-9 5.5.1 Federal Regulations ...... 5-9 5.5.2 Guam Regulations/Laws ...... 5-10

6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 6-1

6.1 Public Participation ...... 6-1 6.1.1 Public Scoping ...... 6-1 6.1.2 Final Public Scoping Report ...... 6-2 6.1.3 PSSR Public Meetings ...... 6-2 6.1.4 Draft SEIS ...... 6-3 6.2 Agency Coordination ...... 6-3

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 7-1

8.0 REFERENCES ...... 8-1

9.0 APPENDICES ...... 9-1

Appendix A Ordot Consent Decree AppendixB Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (Guam) Site Evaluation Report and USEP A Approval Letter Appendix C Draft Supplemental EIS Comment Summary AppendixD Agency Consultation Letters

IV LIST OF FIGURES

1-1 Location of the Dandan Parcel

2-1 Location of the Proposed Lay on Footprint 2-2 Landfill Closure Profile 2-3 Conceptual Layout of Alternative 1 2-4 Conceptual Layout of Alternative 2 2-5 Conceptual Layout of Alternative 3 2-6 New Landfill Liner Typical Cross-Section 2-7 Leachate Collection System Typical Section 2-8 Typical LFG Passive Vent and Perforated Pipe Detail 2-9 Typical Monitoring Well Section

3-1 Drainage Basins 3-2 Hydrogeology 3-3 Wetlands and Surficial Cover 3-4 Vegetation Communities and Bird Count Stations 3-5 Land Use, Zoning, and Parcels 3-6 Roads and Existing Utilities 3-7 Archaeological Resources

v LIST OF TABLES

1-1 Schedule of Critical Consent Decree-Related Requirements 1-2 Regulations that Govern the Planning and Design of New MSWLFs 1-3 Relevant Executive Orders

2-1 Summary of Conceptual Landfill Layout Alternative Characteristics 2-2 Draft Operation Plan Outline 2-3 Landfill Component List 2-4 Conceptual Engineering Cost Estimates for Off-Site Infrastructure Improvements 2-5 Program Costs Associated with the New MSWLF

3-1 Water Table Depths and Elevations at Layon 3-2 Air Pollutants from Landfills and Their Characteristics 3-3 Surface Water Quality Standards 3-4 Results from GEPA 1997 Sampling Events at Laolao and Pauliluc Rivers 3-5 Terrestrial and Avian Fauna Observed Within Layon 3-6 Adjacent Parcels to Layon Footprint 3-7 Summary oflsolated Occurrences

4-1 Total Non-Methane Organic Compounds, Methane, and Carbon Dioxide Air Emissions 4-2 Comparison of Layout Alternatives

5-1 Proposed Mitigation Measures for Potential Impacts Associated with the Preferred Alternative

Vl LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APCA Air Pollution Control Act ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BDT Best Demonstrated Technology BG Block Group BLS Below Land Surface BMP Best Management Practice

CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFU Colony Forming Units CH4 Methane cm Centimeter( s) cm/sec Centimeter(s) Per Second CMP Coastal Management Plan CNMI Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands C02 Carbon Dioxide CPD Coastal Programs Division CWA Clean Water Act CY Cubic Yard(s) CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

D&A Duenas & Associates, Inc. DAWR Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources dBA Decibels DO Dissolved Oxygen DOI Department of the Interior

ECP Erosion Control Plan EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act

FAA Federal Aviation Administration Fe Iron FML Flexible Membrane Liner ft Foot or Feet ft/day Feet Per Day ft/min Feet Per Minute ft2/day Square Feet Per Day

GCA Guam Code Annotated GCMP Guam Coastal Management Program

vu GDA Guam Department of Agriculture GDP Gross Domestic Product GDPW Guam Department of Public Works GEPA Guam Environmental Protection Agency GHURA Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority GIA Guam International Airport GLUZR Guam Land Use Zoning Regulations GPA Guam Power Authority gpm Gallon(s) Per Minute gpm/ft Gallon( s) Per Minute Per Foot GWA Guam Waterworks Authority GTA Guam Telephone Authority GWQS Guam Water Quality Standards

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

m. Inch( es) in./yr Inch( es) Per Year

Kilometer( s) Square Kilometer(s)

LF Linear Foot or Linear Feet LOS Level of Service LPR Leo Palace Resort LS Lump Sum LSET Landfill Site Evaluation Team

m Meter(s) mg Milligram( s) Mg Megagram( s) mg/L Milligram(s) Per Liter Mg/yr Megagram( s) Per Year mgd Million Gallon(s) Per Day fill Mile(s) mi2 Square Mile( s) ml Milliliter( s) mph Mile(s) Per Hour MSL Mean Sea Level MSW Municipal Solid Waste MSWLF Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration ND North District NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

Vlll NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMOC Non-Methane Organic Compound N03-N Nitrate-Nitrogen NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPC Noise Pollution Clearinghouse NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSPS New Source Performance Standards NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units

OCRM Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management p Phosphorus P-tot Phosphorus Level PAB Private Activity Bond PAL Preliminary Area List PDD Planned Development District PEMlC Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonal PEMlF Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Semipermanent PF03C Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leafed Evergreen, Seasonal PM2.s Particulate Matter Greater Than 2.5 Microns PM10 Particulate Matter Greater Than 10 Microns POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works POWF Palustrine Open-Water Semipermanent Wetlands PSSR Preliminary Site Selection Report PWC Public Works Center

RCRA Resource Conservation Recovery Act ROD Record of Decision RTE Rare, Threatened, and Endangered

SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome SF Square Foot or Square Feet SIP State Implementation Plan SPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan STP Sewage Treatment Plant

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

USA CE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture US DOI United States Department of the Interior USDOJ United States Department of Justice USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

IX USGS United States Geological Survey

WQC Water Quality Certification WERI Water and Environmental Research Institute of the Western Pacific WHPP Well Head Protection Program WTF Wastewater Treatment Facility

x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Government of Guam (GovGuam), through the Guam Department of Public Works and Guam Environmental Protection Agency, is proposing to construct a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility (MSWLF) in Inarajan, Guam to manage Guam's solid waste generated by the island community. The landfill site selected by GovGuam is located in the Layon area of Dandan, Inarajan. Within the landfill parcel, the proposed landfill footprint has been identified and is approximately 126 acres in area. In this Supplemental EIS (SEIS) Dandan refers to the parcel and the name Layon is used to refer to the smaller landfill footprint within the Dandan parcel. This SEIS evaluates three conceptual alternatives for the site layout and development of a MSWLF at Layon, as well as the no action alternative. The document also prescribes mitigation for potentially significant impacts from the preferred conceptual alternative.

GovGuam is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on potential new landfill sites, and initiate and complete the construction of a fully compliant Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D MSWLF and to close Ordot Dump. These tasks are among the terms of the Ordot Consent Decree (U.S. District Court, Territory of Guam, Civil Case No. 02-00022), an agreement that was entered into on February 11, 2004 between U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Justice and GovGuam to resolve issues related to the unauthorized discharge of pollutants from the Ordot Dump to the Lonfit River.

GovGuam conducted a preliminary site suitability screening study, and summarized its findings in the Preliminary Landfill Site Suitability Report (PLSSR) published in March 2004. Applying the MSWLF Location Restrictions specified in the Guam Solid Waste Disposal Rules and Regulations (GCA Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 23), and using other screening criteria, GovGuam identified three candidate landfill locations: Dandan, Sabanan Batea, and Lonfit. A Preliminary Site Selection Report (PSSR) was prepared to further characterize these three potential landfill sites (alternatives). GovGuam selected a site (Dandan) based on the PSSR and formally announced its selection on January 31, 2005. This final site selection process is documented in the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (Guam) Site Evaluation Report dated January 28, 2005. USEPA accepted the selection of Dandan as the preferred site in a letter dated February 14, 2005. The PSSR became final and was published on March 14, 2005 as the Final Site Selection Report/EIS.

Layon is located in the higher badland areas on the west side of the Dandan parcel, southwest of the former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) tracking station. The Dandan parcel (Lot B-3-REM) in which the Layon footprint is located is approximately 2,800 acres of undeveloped, privately-owned land. The existing land use on the 126-acre Layon footprint is a mixture of agricultural and recreational. The Layon footprint contains four vegetation communities - savanna grassland, ravine forest, disturbed vegetation/badlands, and wetlands. Approximately 2.4 acres of wetlands are present within the footprint. A total of two mammals, eight birds, one reptile, four amphibians, and two mollusks were found at Layon during the pedestrian and bird count surveys. No threatened or endangered species were observed during the surveys, although wetlands at the site may provide suitable habitat for the endangered Mariana common moorhen. An archaeological inventory survey within the proposed Layon footprint identified ten isolated occurrences. The finds represent Prehistoric and Historic Period activities but the find locations lack the complexity and integrity normally associated with

Xl formal archaeological site designations. No such formal archaeological sites were identified during the survey.

Design and landfill operating features for the landfill alternatives would be in compliance with RCRA and the Rules and Regulations for GEPA Solid Waste Disposal Title 22, Division 4 Chapter 23, Guam Code. An additional 30 acres for site access control, office facilities, stormwater runoff control, etc. and 4.6 acres for an access road and utilities would be needed beyond the conceptual landfill footprint regardless of the alternative. During development and operation of the landfill, approximately 10 acres would conceptually be developed at any time. Within this ten-acre area, only a 0.5-acre area would actively receive waste. The landfill is envisioned as a mounded landfill. The top elevation of the landfill would be approximately elevation 435 ft above mean sea level (MSL). The landfill cells would be excavated approximately 15 ft below existing grade or deeper to provide cover soils; this depth would be adjusted based on local variability of surface contours and depth to groundwater. These cells would be progressively opened and closed from the north to the south. This would reduce active landfill areas and spread capital costs over the lifetime of the facility.

Access to the site would be from Route No. 4 via Dandan Road. Support facilities, including an entrance control structure, scale and scale house, administration facility, leachate storage and treatment facility, and equipment and maintenance storage facilities, would be located within the footprint or buffer area of the landfill. The stormwater detention pond is sized for a 25-year, 24- hour storm event for the area of two cells, one cell undergoing closure and one new operating cell. The detention pond would conceptually be located to the east of the landfill site in the surrounding buffer area. The treated stormwater from the pond would be discharged to the wetlands to the east of the landfill. The drainage facility layout is conceptual; the final design will address drainage to appropriately distribute stormwater runoff so as to maintain hydrology to the wetlands.

The three layout alternatives provide various conceptual configurations of the landfill cells and support facilities. Alternative 1 would be divided into 12 cells, each approximately 10.5 acres in size. An area of about 9.6 acres would be required for the detention pond. This alternative would fill approximately 2.41 acres of wetlands in the footprint, and 1.14 acres of wetlands within the buffer area to accommodate waste cells and support facilities. Layout Alternative 2 is configured to avoid wetland areas that fall within the Layon footprint and buffer area. Alternative 2 would be divided into nine cells, each approximately 14 acres in size. The landfill footprint would be extended approximately 400 ft south, which would increase the overall landfill land requirement by approximately 15 acres. An area of about 13 acres would be required for the detention pond.

Layout Alternative 3 is a revised version of Layout Alternative 2. Alternative 3 was designed to allow more distance between the wetlands and the support facilities. Alternative 3 would be divided into nine cells, each approximately 14 acres in size. As with Alternative 2, the landfill footprint of Alternative 3 would be extended approximately 400 ft south of Alternative 1 to avoid wetland impacts. This would increase the overall landfill land requirement by approximately 15 acres. The configuration of Cell 1 to avoid wetlands remains as in Alternative 2. The support facilities would be relocated directly outside of the buffer area to the northeast of

Xll the footprint. As in Alternative 2, the support facilities for Alternative 3 are still adjacent to, but not within the wetland areas. Alternative 3 will require an additional 7 acres of land for the relocated support facilities. The detention pond is estimated to be 13 acres in size, lying to the east of the landfill site in the surrounding buffer area. As with Alternative 2, layout Alternative 3 avoids wetlands identified within the main footprint. Additionally, the wetlands within the buffer area would not be disturbed by the landfill construction and operation. The support facilities are positioned to minimize any potential impacts to wetlands by creating a larger distance/buffer between the wetlands and proposed development.

Under the No Action alternative, no new landfill site would be selected, and Guam would continue to use the existing Ordot Dump for disposal of solid wastes, which means that the dump would continue to impact the Lonfit and Pago Rivers in violation of the Clean Water Act. Leachate streams emanate from the Ordot Dump and discharge into the Lonfit River. This alternative is not considered viable since it would result in significant adverse impacts to the resources in the vicinity of the Ordot Dump as well as a major adverse financial responsibility in the form of penalties from USEP A.

Alternative 3 has emerged as the preferred layout alternative based on an evaluation of environmental effects. The main determining factors in choosing a site layout are impacts to hydrological features within the footprint (streams and wetlands), and aquatic ecology. All three alternatives would impact the headwaters of the Fensol River; however, Alternative 1 would also impact approximately 705 linear feet of the Fintasa River, and 3.55 acres of wetlands. Impacts to wetlands and streams would require federal permits and mitigation. Alternative 2 would be beneficial to wetlands, hydrology, and aquatic ecology; however, Alternative 3 appears to be slightly more beneficial to these resources by offering a larger buffer between hydrological features present in the northwest comer of the landfill footprint and the proposed location of the support facility structures. While some impact to the environment cannot be avoided, GovGuam has determined that Alternative 3 poses the least potential impact among the conceptual alternatives considered.

Proposed mitigation measures for potential impacts associated with the preferred footprint alternative at Layon are identified for seismic activity, water quality, wetlands, vegetation, community concerns, transportation, archaeological/historical resources, and landfill operations. The final detailed landfill design would have secondary containment for leachate storage and flexible piping connections for the leachate tank to avoid impacts from seismic activity to the leachate collection system. The conceptual stormwater detention pond is designed for temporary storage of runoff and controls peak discharge rates into receiving waters. A wet extended detention pond is recommended to be used as an alternative, which is designed to increase settling of pollutants with features such as a sediment forebay and a permanent wet pool with wetland vegetation that would increase benefits to water quality. Impacts related to transportation would be addressed by the use of regional transfer stations as the destination for solid waste collection vehicles. The proposed new strategy of using transfer stations would allow consolidation of waste into larger hauling trucks to transport to the landfill. Landfill-bound traffic would be primarily restricted to large capacity trash/waste haulers with capacities ranging from 75 to 100 CY of compacted waste.

Xlll The preferred layout alternative would likely require a Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The USA CE and USEP A also require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts to waters of the US. If mitigation is required, a mitigation plan would be prepared that specifies how functions and values of the resource would be replaced. Even though the headwaters of the Fensol River would have to be filled for Alternative 3, wetlands would be entirely avoided, which protects this important resource. In addition to avoiding wetlands, Alternative 3 provides additional protection to the wetlands by minimizing the distance to wetlands by providing a larger buffer between hydrological features and support facility structures within the landfill footprint. The preferred alternative would rectify the impacts to vegetation by restoring the vegetation removed from the landfill site. At the closure of each cell, the exposed soils would be revegetated with grasses. BMPs (Environmental Protection Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) would be used to prevent erosion and soil removal. Through revegetation, those areas that were barren and eroded would be enhanced to savanna grasslands to the maximum extent possible.

Any impacts to communities within the vicinity of Layon would be offset with mitigation measures that would focus on the host community. Possible mitigation measures to provide benefits to the host community may include, but not be limited to, providing the host community with a revenue stream as a percentage of the tipping fee, discounted waste disposal, preferential hiring in the waste management industry, special contingency funds, regular water tests and property value protection. Actions such as using landscaping for screening to preserve the viewshed of neighboring properties, performing construction and operational activities during times that would minimize noise disturbance and restricting waste transport to non-peak traffic hours would also mitigate against negative impacts associated with a landfill.

Impacts to archaeological and historic resources are negligible for the shared footprint area in the site layouts of all three alternatives. There is low potential for discovery of further historic properties that would be significant under National Register Criterion D. The preferred layout alternative would require additional archaeological survey within the 400-foot extension to the south of the present footprint. The findings within this area are expected to be similar to those within the present footprint; however, if historic properties are discovered and found to be significant according to National Register criteria, then a determination of No Adverse Effect would require mitigation in coordination with the Guam (State) Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) under the National Historic Preservation Act.

The landfill would be operated in compliance with criteria in the Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations, GCA Title 22, Chapter 23, as overseen and regulated by Guam Environmental Protection Agency. The landfill would also require compliance with other applicable local and federal laws and regulations.

XIV

1.0 BACKGROUND

The Government of Guam (GovGuam), through the Guam Department of Public Works and Guam Environmental Protection Agency, is proposing to construct a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility (MSWLF) to manage Guam's solid waste generated by the island community.

The Ordot Dump has been a dumping ground for the Island of Guam since the 1940s, serving as Guam's primary receptacle for industrial and municipal waste. Proper landfill operation procedures, including the placement of daily cover material and proper waste compaction, have not been followed at the site. Guam Department of Public Works owns and operates the Ordot Dump and is primarily responsible for the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal System for Guam. The Ordot Dump is approximately 500 feet (ft) from the Lonfit River, and leachate streams emanate from the site to the river. The Governor of Guam designated Ordot Dump as Guam's highest priority site for Superfund cleanup. The site is being addressed through federal and territorial actions. In September 1988, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that deferred cleanup of the site from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to USEPA's Water Program.

The historical and continuing discharge of pollutants to the Lonfit River is a violation of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (GEPA 2004a). On March 26, 1986, USEPA issued an Administrative Order under the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code (USC) Section 1251 et seq., that requires the Guam Department of Public Works (GDPW) to cease discharge of leachate from the site to the Lonfit River (USEP A 2002). Due to the failure of the GDPW to comply with the Administrative Order, the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ), acting on behalf of USEPA, filed a lawsuit on August 7, 2002, to force the closure of Ordot Dump (USEPA 2002). A settlement agreement (The Ordot Consent Decree - U.S. District Court, Territory of Guam, Civil Case No. 02- 00022) was entered into on February 11, 2004, between USEPA with USDOJ and GovGuam to resolve issues related to the unauthorized discharge of pollutants from the Ordot Dump to the Lonfit River.

In order to resolve the violation, the parties have agreed to specific terms under the Consent Decree for GovGuam to initiate and complete the construction of a fully compliant Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D MSWLF and to close Ordot Dump. Section IV.9. of the Consent Decree outlines a process of identifying, assessing, and finally selecting a suitable landfill site. A copy of the Consent Decree can be found in Appendix A. As part of the Ordot Consent Decree, GDPW has been directed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on potential new landfill sites.

Requirements and Schedule

The Consent Decree outlines a timeline that GovGuam agreed to follow in completing specific tasks to correct the violation (Table 1-1 ). These tasks include the siting, design, and construction of a new MSWLF that is fully compliant with Subtitle D of the Federal

Final SEIS 1-1 GMSWLF RCRA. The opening of the new landfill would coincide with the mandated regulated closure of Ordot Dump. GovGuam completed the first phase of the siting process by screening land parcels throughout the island based on various scientific criteria and placing the six most suitable landfill sites on a Preliminary Area List (PAL). From this list, the three highest-ranking potential landfill sites (Dandan, Sabanan Batea, and Lonfit) were selected by GovGuam for further analyses. This selection process for the three highest-ranking potential landfill sites and the ranking results are summarized in the Preliminary Landfill Site Suitability Report (GEPA 2004b) prepared in March 2004 by Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) in association with GDPW. As stated in Table 1-1 below, the Consent Decree requires that GDPW identify a minimum of three sites for the Site Selection EIS by March 12, 2004. This deadline was met by releasing the Preliminary Landfill Site Suitability Report in March 2004.

Table 1-1. Schedule of Critical Consent Decree-Related Requirements

Requirement Elapsed Time Date

• Identify a minimum of 3 sites for Site Selection EIS 30 days 3/12/04 • Develop a Financial Plan 120 days 6/10/04 • Final Site Selection EIS 300 days 12/7/04 • Draft Ordot Dump Closure Plan 300 days 12/7/04 • Draft New Landfill Design 540 days 08/4/05 • Final Ordot Dump Closure Plan 570 days 0913105 • Final New Landfill Design 845 days 0615106 • New Landfill Operation 1,320 days 9/23/07 • $1Million Hazardous Waste Diversion Project 4 years 2111108

The Preliminary Landfill Site Suitability Report can be found on the GEPA Web site (www.guamepa.govguam.net).

The Consent Decree also requires that GDPW complete a site selection EIS within 300 days of the entry date. This deadline (12/7 /04) was not met due to a conflict with the right of entry for the Lonfit site. Without the right of entry consent by the owners, the field investigations could not be accomplished, which delayed the project and the identification of a site for the island's new MSWLF. USEPA fined GDPW $7,250 for missing the required deadline. Right of entry to the Lonfit site was eventually resolved, which allowed access to the site and the field investigations were completed. The Final Site Selection Report: Environmental Impact Statement for the Siting of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility, Guam (GDPW 2005) documents the site selection process and evaluates the impacts associated with three potential landfill sites. GovGuam was then able to select a landfill site based on information in the EIS. USEP A recognized the selection of a site as meeting the obligation of Paragraph 9.a. under of the Consent Decree (USEPA letter to GDWP February 14, 2005). GDPW is no longer being fined by USEP A since they met the Consent Decree obligations. A detailed description of the site selection process leading to the selection of the Dandan site is provided below.

Final SEIS 1-2 GMSWLF Site Selection Process

GovGuam has undertaken a comprehensive and multi-faceted site selection process to satisfy two primary objectives as follows:

1. Identify potential alternative landfill sites and recommend a selection criteria system and process. These steps allowed GovGuam to select a preferred site; and

2. Identify environmental impacts and prescribe appropriate mitigation of those impacts at the selected site to accommodate the construction and operation of anMSWLF.

The site selection process has included the following stages:

• Preliminary Landfill Site Suitability Report March2004 • Scoping July 2004 • Preliminary Site Selection Report (PSSR)/EIS January 11, 2005 • Scoping January 2005 • Final Site Selection by GovGuam January 31, 2005 • USEP A Accepts Final Site Selection February 14, 2005 • Final Site Selection Report (FSSR)/EIS March 14, 2005

The remaining steps in the process are: • Draft Supplemental EIS (SEIS) May 18, 2005 • Public Comment Period May 18, 2005 - June 16, 2005 • Public Meeting May 24, 2005 • Final Supplemental EIS July 16, 2005

Preliminary Landfill Site Suitability Report

GovGuam conducted a preliminary site suitability screening study. Applying the MSWLF Location Restrictions specified in the Guam Solid Waste Disposal Rules and Regulations (GCA Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 23), and using other screening criteria including engineering, hydrogeology, environmental and land use factors, GovGuam identified three candidate landfill locations. The screening study report entitled Preliminary Landfill Site Suitability Report was published in March 2004. The three candidate sites identified by the screening study were Dandan, Sabanan Batea, and Lonfit.

Scoping

The scoping process relies on input from stakeholders, government and non-government entities, and the general public to help identify issues and define the appropriate scope of analyses in the site selection process. Public involvement was most heavily concentrated in the scoping stage, when input was solicited on what criteria and considerations should

Final SEIS 1-3 GMSWLF be examined during the process. An opportunity for public input was available after the release of the Preliminary Landfill Site Suitability Report in July 2004 and then again after the release of the Preliminary Site Selection Report in January 2005. The public participation process is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

Preliminary Site Selection Report and Environmental Impact Statement (PSSRIEIS)

The PSSR was prepared to further characterize the three potential landfill sites (alternatives) identified in the Preliminary Landfill Site Suitability Report. Information was collected on topics such as hydrology, geology, soils, flora, fauna, wetlands, land use, infrastructure, air quality, noise and cultural resources through background research and reconnaissance surveys of each candidate site. Input from the public and from local and federal government reviewers was also used to characterize the sites. The public had the opportunity to comment on the PSSR at public meetings held in January 2005.

Final Site Selection Report and Environmental Impact Statement (FSSRIEIS)

GovGuam selected a site (Dandan) based on the PSSR and formally announced its selection on January 31, 2005. This final site selection process is documented in the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (Guam) Site Evaluation Report dated January 28, 2005 (Appendix B). The Landfill Site Evaluation Team (LSET) reviewed the PSSR and related information to evaluate the three candidate sites. LSET is a panel of seven members from GDPW and GEPA making up the Consent Decree project team. The LSET determined that the Dandan candidate site located in the Municipality of Inarajan is best suited for the development of a MSWLF. USEP A accepted the selection of Dandan as the preferred site in a letter dated February 14, 2005 (Appendix B). The PSSR became final and was published on March 14, 2005 as the FSSR/EIS.

Island-Wide Solid Waste Management Strategy

The current solid waste management systems on Guam are the Ordot Dump, three transfer stations, and a hardfill (a facility that accepts inert material, such as rocks, soil, concrete chunks, asphalt pavement chunks, etc.) in the Municipality of Inarajan. The hardfill site also acts as a transfer station for municipal waste, as well as a disposal area for clean construction/demolition debris, clean metallic waste, and other material that is not subject to Subtitle D restrictions. These facilities and other permitted private hardfills service the entire civilian community of Guam. Trash collection is provided by GDPW as well as by a number of private trash haulers (GDPW 1998).

The Navy Public Works Center (PWC) operates a landfill on the Naval Station (PWC Landfill). The United States Air Force operates a landfill on Andersen Air Force Base. Both the Navy and the Air Force operate their own collection systems (GDPW 1998).

The island-wide solid waste management strategy proposed for implementation by GovGuam targets a thorough restructuring of Guam's solid waste collection, diversion,

Final SEIS 1-4 GMSWLF recycling, storage, transportation, and disposal practices and processes, and consists of the following elements/components:

• Mandatory separation and collection of recyclables at the source to include both commercial and residential generators;

• Development and operation of multi-purpose regional substations to which solid waste collection traffic will be directed for deposition of solid waste loads for further separation and processing;

• Processing of solid waste at the regional substations for additional capture of recyclables and compostables and for separation of hazardous/toxic waste materials that enter the waste stream;

• Development and operation of composting facilities at designated regional substations to effect the reduction of compostable wastes;

• Operation and maintenance of a well-designed, Subtitle D-approved limited­ access sanitary landfill in a manner that is completely compliant with local and federal solid waste disposal regulations; and

• Transport of separated and sorted solid waste to the sanitary landfill in bulk, purpose-built trash haulers at times of day that will minimize impacts on highway traffic flow and safety.

The strategy will dictate the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a limited-access sanitary landfill, which will minimize landfill-bound traffic flow.

Closure of Ordot Dump

Concurrent with the siting, design, and construction of the new landfill, GDPW must initiate significant and progressive improvements to the operation of the Ordot Dump and develop regulatory closure plans that coincide with the opening of the new landfill facility (GEPA 2004a).

1.1 LOCATION

The landfill site selected by GovGuam is located in Dandan, Inarajan (GEPA 2005). The selection of this site was based on exclusionary criteria derived from several guidelines, including the RCRA Subtitle D location restrictions and other requirements of the Guam Solid Waste Disposal Rules and Regulations (GCA Title 22, Div. 4, Chapter 23).

Figure 1-1 depicts the location of the Dandan landfill parcel. Within the landfill parcel, the proposed landfill footprint has been identified and is approximately 126 acres in area. The landfill footprint is referred to as Layon. Previous documents concerning GDPW's new MSWLF have referred to both the parcel and the footprint as Dandan. In this SEIS

Final SEIS 1-5 GMSWLF Dandan refers to the parcel and the name Layon is used to refer to the smaller footprint within the Dandan parcel.

This Supplemental EIS (SEIS) evaluates three alternatives for the site layout and development of a municipal solid waste landfill facility at Layon, as well as the no action alternative.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of this project is to provide a site for a fully compliant RCRA Subtitle D MSWLF on the Island of Guam. The purpose of this SEIS is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and prescribe appropriate mitigation of those impacts. This project is needed because the current Ordot Dump is in violation of the Clean Water Act and the Ordot Consent Decree requires the GDPW to cease discharge of leachate from the Ordot Dump to the Lonfit River. This SEIS is needed because a detailed analysis of the impacts of alternatives for the Layon footprint was not included in the FSSR/EIS for Site Selection.

1.3 SCOPE OF THE SEIS

The Ordot Consent Decree mandates the preparation of an EIS for the siting of the new MSWLF. The completion of the EIS process precedes the issuance of a permit to GDPW by GEPA with concurrence from USEP A for the siting, construction, and operation of a new MSWLF on Guam. The EIS for the siting of a new MSWLF was completed in March 2005 (GDPW 2005).

This SEIS evaluates impacts of alternative site layouts at Layon, located within the selected Dandan parcel. This SEIS examines the consequences of a proposed action on the environment. The SEIS analyzes the temporary, long-term, permanent and cumulative effects of the proposed action, along with reasonable alternatives to the proposed action including the alternative of "no action." The SEIS assists decision­ makers by comparing the proposed action with the alternatives and identifying mitigation measures that would minimize adverse effects.

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE SEIS

This Draft SEIS is composed of nine chapters. The format for the SEIS was based on guidance from:

• GEP A Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, September 1997 (Amended) November 1999; and

• Ordot Consent Decree.

Chapter 1 discusses the location of the project, purpose and need of the project, the scope of the SEIS, the site selection process (these topics were previously discussed in Sections

Final SEIS 1-6 GMSWLF 1.1 through 1.4), organization of the SEIS (current section being discussed), and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements (Section 1.5). Chapter 2 discusses the alternatives for site development at Layon, including the proposed action. Chapter 3 describes the affected environment. This chapter discusses existing conditions of natural, physical, socio-economic, and cultural resources in relation to the alternatives. Chapter 4 presents the environmental consequences for the alternatives to natural, physical, socio­ economic, and cultural resources, and compares the impacts among the three alternatives to select a preferred alternative. Chapter 5 discusses mitigation and monitoring needed for the preferred alternative, cumulative impacts, and compliance with regulations. Chapter 6 documents agency consultation and coordination and public participation in the EIS process. The remaining chapters (7 through 9) include a list of preparers, references, and appendices (respectively).

1.5 APPLICABLE STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

1.5.1 Guam Regulatory Design Requirements for Solid Waste Landfills

GovGuam has been delegated the authority for the planning and design of a new MSWLF conforming to the requirements of Subtitle D of the Federal RCRA by USEPA. GovGuam regulations to implement Subtitle D are set forth in Rules and Regulations for the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) Solid Waste Disposal (GCA Title 22, Div. 4, Chapter 23). These regulations are no less stringent than the USEPA MSWLF standards. These requirements are common to all sites:

> Access Control > Office and Maintenance Facilities > Base Liner System > Leachate Collection > Stormwater Control > Landfill Operation > Landfill Closure/Post-Closure > Landfill Gas Collection and Monitoring

These requirements, which govern the planning and design of a new MSWLF, are discussed in detail in Section 2.2. Table 1-2 lists the regulations that govern the planning and design of new MSWLFs set forth in Title 22, Div. 4, Chapter 23.

Table 1-2 Regulations that Govern the Planning and Design of New MSWLF

Resource or Topic Section Description 23401 All MSWLF units must meet the minimum design criteria. !Design Criteria 23403 All MSWLF units must be below the legal maximum containment level for all chemicals. Ground Water 23502 k<\ll MSWLF must have a ground-water monitoring system installed that consists of a sufficient number of wells to yield ground-water samples.

Final SEIS 1-7 GMSWLF Resource or Topic Section Description have a ground-water monitoring program which includes consistent 23504 k\ll MSWLF units must sampling and analysis procedures.

23505 All MSWLF must have a detection monitoring program at all ground-water monitoring wells.

All MSWLF must have an assessment monitoring program if an increase has been detected for 23506 one or more of the constituents listed in Appendix I in the Rules and Regulations for the GEPA Solid Waste Disposal. All MSWLF units must cover disposed solid waste with six inches of earthen material at the end Soil 23304 at each operating day. 23306 All MSWLF must monitor the concentration of methane emitted. Air Quality not violate any applicable requirements developed under a State 23307 All MSWLF units shall Implementation Plan approved by the USEP A. 23309 All MSWLF units shall have a run-on and run-off control system. units shall not cause a discharge of pollutants into streams, rivers, wetlands, etc., Surface Water 23310 k\ll MSWLF that violates any requirements of the Clean Water Act. 23203 New MSWLF units shall not be located in wetlands. All MSWLF units must control public access and prevent unauthorized vehicular traffic and Site Access 23308 illegal dumping. Record Keeping 23312 All MSWLF units must record and retain near the facility an operating record. All MSWLF units must install a final cover system that is designed to minimize infiltration anc Closure 23601 erosion. Post-Closure 23602 All MSWLF units must have post-closure care conducted for thirty years.

1.5.2 Relevant Federal Statutes

In evaluating environmental impacts of proposed actions, relevant laws, policies and regulations should be considered. In this section we describe the laws and Presidential executive orders that are applicable to this project. Table 1-3 lists the relevant Executive Orders.

Table 1-3. Relevant Executive Orders

Resource or Executive Topic Order Description All agencies shall reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on [Floodplains human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficia 11988 values served bv floodplains. for ensuring that all necessary actions are taken for the Pollution 12088 All agencies are responsible Control prevention, control, and abatement of environmental protection. All agencies shall take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of 11990 Wetlands wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetland. Cultural All agencies are responsible in preserving, restoring and maintaining the historic and Resources 11593 cultural environment of the Nation.

Final SEIS 1-8 GMSWLF Resource or Executive Topic Order Description Protection of All agencies shall make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health Children 13045 risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. Environmental All agencies are responsible in protecting and enhancing the quality of the Nation's Quality 11514 environment to sustain and enrich human life.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

RCRA established a system for managing non-hazardous and hazardous solid wastes in an environmentally sound manner. Specifically, it provides for the management of hazardous wastes from the point of origin to the point of final disposal (i.e., "cradle to grave"). RCRA also promotes resource recovery and waste minimization. The Act defines solid and hazardous waste, authorizes USEP A to set standards for facilities that generate or manage hazardous waste, and establishes a permit program for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. In the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 the federal government attempted to prevent future cleanup problems by prohibiting land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes, setting liner and leachate collection requirements for land disposal facilities, setting deadlines for closure of facilities not meeting standards, and establishing a corrective action program.

RCRA Subtitle D - Subtitle D ofRCRA is titled State or Regional Solid Waste Plans and is implemented at 40 CFR 257 and 258: • 40 CFR 257 focuses on state and local governments as the primary planning, regulating, and implementing entities for the management of non-hazardous solid waste (e.g., household and non-hazardous industrial wastes). • 40 CFR 258 establishes minimum national criteria for all municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) units. It also addresses location restrictions (Subpart B), Operating Criteria (Subpart C), Design Criteria (Subpart D), Ground-Water Monitoring and Corrective Action (Subpart E), and Closure and Post-Closure Care (Subpart F) for municipal solid waste landfills.

USEPA regulations implementing RCRA (40 CFR) establish criteria for liners, leachate collection, groundwater monitoring, and corrective action at municipal landfills.

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972

CZMA establishes an extensive federal grant program within the Department of Commerce to encourage coastal states to develop and implement coastal zone management programs. Activities that affect coastal zones must be consistent with approved state programs. The Act also establishes a national estuarine reserve system.

Final SEIS 1-9 GMSWLF The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966

NHPA (16 USC 470), as amended, established a nationwide historic preservation program. The NHP A requires federal agencies to integrate historic preservation into their programs. Section 106 ofNHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on properties that are listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 110 of NHP A directs federal agencies to inventory and evaluate their properties and to provide stewardship over significant historic properties.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973

ESA provides a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) of the Department of the Interior (DOI) maintains the list of 632 endangered species (326 are plants) and 190 threatened species (78 are plants).

The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970

CAA is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. This law authorizes the USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and the environment. The setting of maximum pollutant standards was coupled with directing the states/territories to develop state implementation plans (SIPs) applicable to appropriate air emission sources in the state. The Act was amended in 1977 primarily to set new goals (dates) for achieving attainment ofNAAQS. The 1990 amendments to the CAA in large part were intended to meet unaddressed or insufficiently addressed problems such as acid rain, ground-level ozone, stratospheric ozone depletion, and air toxics. The SIP for Guam has adopted ambient air quality standards that closely follow national ambient air quality standards.

The Air Pollution Control Act (APCA)

The APCA was enacted in its present form in 1997 by Public Law 24-40:2. It establishes the Air Pollution Control Permit Program and outlines other air pollution control efforts. The purpose of this act is to achieve and maintain the levels of air quality that would protect human health and safety and prevent injury to plant and animal life and property.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972

CWA, as amended, establishes the national goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's surface waters so that they support "the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water." The statute employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to control pollutant discharges from municipal and industrial facilities, manage polluted stormwater runoff, and finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Among those tools is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, under

Final SEIS 1-10 GMSWLF which USEP A and delegated states and territories issue permits to control discharges to the nation's surface waters.

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 was passed to protect public drinking water supplies from harmful contaminants. It is administered through regulatory programs that establish standards and treatment requirements for drinking water, control underground injection of wastes that may contaminate water supplies, and protect groundwater.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

TSCA was enacted to provide information about all chemicals and to control the production of new chemicals that might present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. TSCA authorizes USEP A to require testing of old and new chemical substances. TSCA also provides authority to regulate the manufacturing, processing, import, and use of chemicals. Because TSCA gives USEP A broad powers, the law covers virtually all manufactured and natural chemicals.

Final SEIS 1-11 GMSWLF FIGURE 1-1. LOCATION OF THE DANDAN PARCEL.

. i

~:

-. I -· . GUAM .-.!: ::T"'

. I

.L I

.I - I

. I

. ~ .. ·'·-.

j7

1: '··· . l. • ..... ,.- .

.:..

I -·

L DANDAN PARCEL .I •.

r

·....;..:: J

- l .J ,.f·'" :i. ~i. -· . . :... I

Legend Miles 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 --- MUNICIPAi. BOUNDARY c:J LANDAU. FOOTPRINT 1 inch equals 2.5 miles c:J DANOAN PARCEl -- ROADS --BASEMAP: 2002 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE FOOTPRINT ALTERNATIVES FOR LAYON

Chapter 2.0 describes the three conceptual footprint layout alternatives for Layon, Dandan. The layout alternatives were developed to further reduce the environmental impacts of the landfill project at Layon. Design requirements for a MSWLF including operations, volume projections, components, and costing are also described in this chapter. The potential impacts of the preferred footprint alternative could change based on final design considerations. If design changes cause measurable changes to impacts, additional impact assessment may be required.

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

This section provides a description of the three proposed conceptual footprint layout alternatives developed for Layon. A description of the No Action Alternative is also included in this section. Layon is located in the higher badland areas on the west side of the Dandan parcel, southwest of the former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) tracking station (Figure 2-1). An additional 30 acres for site access control, office facilities, stormwater runoff control, etc. and 4.6 acres for an access road and utilities would be needed beyond the landfill footprint regardless of the alternative. During development and operation of the landfill, approximately 10 acres would be developed at any time. Within this ten-acre area, only a 0.5-acre area would actively receive waste.

The landfill is envisioned as a mounded landfill. The top elevation of the landfill would be approximately elevation 435 ft above mean sea level (MSL) (see Figure 2-2 for conceptual closure profile). The landfill would be excavated approximately 15 ft or deeper below existing grade to provide cover soils. Access to the site would be from Route 4 via Dandan Road.

The landfill footprint and shape would be more clearly defined during the design process in order to further reduce the amount of impact to the site based on refined geotechnical and hydro-geological surveys and analysis that is specific to the design.

A summary of the conceptual landfill alternatives is provided in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Summary of Conceptual Landfill Layout Alternative Characteristics

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Characteristic (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Cells 12 cells 9 cells 9 cells (10.5 acres each) ( 14 acres each) (14 acres each) Sub-total 126 126 126 Extend 400 ft -- 15 15 Total of Cells 126 141 141 Buffer 30 30 30 Footprint Total 156 171 171

Final SEIS 2-1 GMSWLF Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Characteristic (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Pond (within buffer) 9.6 13 13 Support Facilities (within 5 5 12* buffer) Access Road and Utilities 4.6 4.6 4.6 *Includes 7 acres of land that would be needed for support facilities outside the buffer.

2.1.1 Layout Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would be divided into 12 cells, each approximately 10.5 acres in size (Figure 2-3). These cells would be progressively opened generally from the north to the south. This would reduce active landfill areas and spread capital costs over the lifetime of the facility. Each cell would be excavated to a depth of approximately 15 ft below grade or deeper, which would be adjusted based on local variability of surface contours and depth to groundwater.

Support facilities, including an entrance control structure, scale and scale house, administration facility, leachate storage and treatment facility, and equipment and maintenance storage facilities, would be located adjacent to the access road in the buffer area in the northeast comer of the site. An area of 5 acres would be reserved for these facilities within the buffer area of the landfill.

The stormwater detention pond is sized for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event for the area of two cells, one cell undergoing closure and one new operating cell. The detention pond is estimated to be 9.6 acres in size, lying to the east of the landfill site in the surrounding buffer area. The treated stormwater from the pond would be discharged to the wetlands to the east of the landfill. The drainage facility layout is conceptual; the final design will address drainage to appropriately distribute stormwater runoff so as to maintain existing hydrology.

2.1.2 Layout Alternative 2

Layout Alternative 2 is a revised version of Layout Alternative 1. Alternative 2 was redesigned to avoid wetlands located within the cells and buffer area of the landfill. Alternative 2 would be divided into nine cells, each approximately 14 acres in size (Figure 2-4). These cells would be progressively opened and closed from the north to the south. This would reduce active landfill areas and spread capital costs over the lifetime of the facility. Each cell would be excavated to a depth of approximately 15 ft below grade or deeper, which would be adjusted based on local variability of surface contours and depth to groundwater.

The landfill footprint of Alternative 2 would be extended approximately 400 ft south of the footprint for Alternative 1 to avoid wetland impacts. This extension would provide equivalent landfill space without significantly increasing the height of the landfill to minimize visual impact. This would increase the overall landfill land requirement by

Final SEIS 2-2 GMSWLF approximately 15 acres. Additionally, Cell 1 has been configured to avoid wetlands in the northeastern portion of the landfill.

The support facilities, including an entrance control structure, scale and scale house, administration facility, leachate storage and treatment facility, and equipment and maintenance storage facilities, would be relocated from the buffer area to the northwestern comer of the site (Cell 1 of Alternative 1). The support facilities are now adjacent to, but not within the wetland areas. This reduces the land acquisition requirements to the north (that were within the buffer area for Alternative 1).

The stormwater detention pond would be sized for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event for the area of two cells, one cell undergoing closure and one new operating cell. The detention pond is estimated to be 13 acres in size, lying to the east of the landfill site in the surrounding buffer area. The treated stormwater from the pond would be discharged to the wetlands to the east of the landfill. The drainage facility layout is conceptual; the final design will address drainage to appropriately distribute stormwater runoff so as to maintain existing hydrology.

Layout Alternative 2 avoids wetlands identified within the main footprint. Additionally, the wetlands within the buffer area would not be disturbed by the landfill construction and operation.

2.1.3 Layout Alternative 3

Layout Alternative 3 is a revised version of Layout Alternative 2. Alternative 3 was redesigned to allow more distance between the wetlands and the support facilities. Alternative 3 would be divided into nine cells, each approximately 14 acres in size (Figure 2-5). These cells would be progressively opened and closed from the north to the south. This would reduce active landfill areas and spread capital costs over the lifetime of the facility. Each cell would be excavated to a depth of approximately 15 ft below grade or deeper, which would be adjusted based on local variability of surface contours and depth to groundwater.

As with Alternative 2, the landfill footprint of Alternative 3 would be extended approximately 400 ft south of Alternative 1 to avoid wetland impacts. This would increase the overall landfill land requirement by approximately 15 acres. The configuration of Cell 1 to avoid wetlands remains as in Alternative 2.

The support facilities, including an entrance control structure, scale and scale house, administration facility, leachate storage and treatment facility, and equipment and maintenance storage facilities, would be relocated directly outside of the buffer area to the northeast of the footprint. As in Alternative 2, the support facilities for Alternative 3 are still adjacent to, but not within the wetland areas. Alternative 3 will require an additional 7 acres of land for the relocated support facilities.

Final SEIS 2-3 GMSWLF The stormwater detention pond would be sized for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event for the area of two cells, one cell undergoing closure and one new operating cell. The detention pond is estimated to be 13 acres in size, lying to the east of the landfill site in the surrounding buffer area. The treated stormwater from the pond would be discharged to the wetlands to the east of the landfill. The drainage facility layout is conceptual; the final design will address drainage to appropriately distribute stormwater runoff so as to maintain existing hydrology.

As with Alternative 2, Layout Alternative 3 avoids wetlands identified within the main footprint. Additionally, the wetlands within the buffer area would not be disturbed by the landfill construction and operation. The support facilities were relocated in Alternative 3 to minimize any potential impacts to wetlands by creating a larger distance/buffer between the wetlands and proposed development.

2.1.4 The No Action Alternative

The No Action alternative is required to review and compare all feasible alternatives to existing baseline conditions. Under the No Action alternative, no new landfill site would be selected, and Guam would continue to use the existing Ordot Dump for disposal of solid wastes, which means that the dump would continue to impact the Lonfit and Pago rivers. Leachate streams emanate from the Ordot Dump and discharge into the Lonfit River. This alternative is not considered viable. It would be a continued violation of the Federal Clean Water Act and the settlement agreement (The Ordot Consent Decree) to resolve issues related to the unauthorized discharge of pollutants from the Ordot Dump to the Lonfit River. GovGuam has agreed to specific terms under the Consent Decree to initiate and complete the construction of a fully compliant RCRA Subtitle D MSWLF within a specific schedule. If this schedule is not met, USEP A would begin fining GovGuam for missing the required deadline. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would result in significant adverse impacts to the resources in the vicinity of the Ordot Dump as well as a major adverse financial responsibility.

2.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS

The following landfill design and operating features are common to all alternatives. Figures 2-6 through 2-9 provide generalized cross-sections of the landfill common to all alternatives. The cross-sections are in accordance with RCRA and the Rules and Regulations for GEPA Solid Waste Disposal Title 22, Division 4 Chapter 23, Guam Code. These cross-sections are applicable to all alternatives. The cross-sections are based on the following requirements.

Final SEIS 2-4 GMSWLF 2.2.1 Landfill Design and Operating Features

Landfill Access

The access corridor includes the access road and utility rights-of-way. The access to the facility would be controlled to prevent unauthorized disposal of restricted material, dumping, and scavenging in accordance with §23308. These facilities would include:

• Entrance control structure • Perimeter fencing and access gates • Scale and scale house • Interior access roads

Office and Maintenance Facilities

The MSWLF would include office and maintenance facilities to provide the supporting infrastructure and recordkeeping (rule §23312). For operation of the landfill this would include:

• Office facility for landfill operations, recordkeeping, conference room, training areas, employee lockers and changing facilities and sanitary facilities. • Employee and visitor parking. • Equipment maintenance and storage facilities.

Stormwater Run-Off Control

The MSWLF would include run-on and run-off control systems in accordance with §23309. These facilities would include:

• A run-on control system to prevent flow into the active portion of the landfill during peak discharge from a 25-year storm. • A run-off control system to prevent flow from the active portion of the landfill, and to collect and control at least the volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm. • Runoff from the active portions of the landfill unit must be handled in accordance with rule §233010 to meet the requirements ofNPDES.

The conceptual stormwater detention pond is sized for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event for the area of two cells, one cell undergoing closure and a new operating cell. The systems would be adjusted based on operating procedures during final design to appropriately distribute stormwater runoff so as to maintain existing hydrology.

Liner Requirements

The minimum liner system design (Figure 2-6) specified in rule §23401 is a composite liner consisting of the following:

Final SEIS 2-5 GMSWLF • A minimum 30-mil (0.03-inch) thick flexible membrane liner (FML), unless the FML is high density polyethylene (HDPE) where the FML shall be a minimum 60 mil (0.06 inch) in thickness installed in direct and uniform contact with a minimum 2-ft layer of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than lxl0-7 centimeters per second (cm/sec). • Alternative liner systems are permitted by the rules if the design ensures that the concentration values listed in §23403 are not exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of compliance.

The conceptual liner system for this landfill EIS is proposed to be in conformance with the first bulleted item.

Leachate Collection

The conceptual leachate collection system design (Figure 2-7) specified in rule §23401 shall be designed to maintain less than a 30-centimeter (cm), 12-inch (in.) depth of leachate over the liner. This system normally consists of a sloped drainage layer immediately above the liner system that drains to a series of perforated collection pipes and sumps. The leachate is pumped to storage tanks for onsite treatment or transport to an offsite treatment facility.

Closure System

The minimum closure system design to minimize infiltration and erosion specified in rule §23601 consists of the following:

An infiltration prevention system consisting of 18 inches of earthen material with a permeability equal to or less than the permeability of the bottom liner system, or permeability no greater than 1x10-5 cm/sec. Based on the use of a composite base liner system, a composite liner system would be assumed for the closure of all alternatives. An erosion layer consistency of a minimum of 6 in. of earthen material that is capable of sustaining native plant growth. This may be increased during design, but would be assumed similar for all alternatives.

Groundwater Monitoring Plan

A groundwater monitoring plan would include wells to monitor the uppermost aquifer below the landfill.

Leachate Transport and Treatment

Leachate would be collected from below the placed wastes and conveyed to a sump conceptually located in the comer of each cell. Leachate will be pumped to onsite storage facilities for onsite treatment and disposal, or transported offsite to a local Wastewater Treatment Facility.

Final SEIS 2-6 GMSWLF Landfill Operation

The landfill operations would be performed in accordance with rule §23304 to include daily cover of all wastes. The daily cover is assumed to be 6 in. of soil placed at a ratio of 4: 1 waste-to-soil cover for all conceptual alternatives. Cover soils for waste placement would be provided from initial and subsequent cell excavations. Soil would be stockpiled to meet daily needs near the active landfill areas or placed directly from excavations based on the final operating plan for the facility. A Draft Operation Plan outline is provided below in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2. Draft Operation Plan Outline

Draft Operation Plan Outline Introduction 2.0 Staffing 3.0 Prevention of Receipt of Hazardous Wastes 3.1 Inspections 3.2 Handling Procedures 3.3 Contractual Agreements (for hauling offsite, if received) 4.0 Recyclables Acceptance, Storage, and Transfer 5.0 Disposal Method 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Filling Method and Procedure 5.2.l Type of Facility 5.2.2 Typical Cell Construction 5.2.3 Excavation of Subgrade 5.2.4 Waste Spreading 5.2.5 Waste Compaction 5.2.6 Waste Cover 5.3 Special Provisions 5.3.1 Setback 5.3.2 Traffic Management 5.3.3 Final Grade Provision 6.0 Miscellaneous Operational Activities 6.1 Litter Control 6.2 Dust Control 6.3 Vector Control 6.4 Odor Control 6.5 Fire Control 6.6 Noise Control 6.7 Bird and Wildlife Control 6.8 Access Control 6.9 Drainage and Erosion Control 6.10 Leachate Collection and Handling 6.11 Equipment

Final SEIS 2-7 GMSWLF Draft Operation Plan Outline 6.12 Site Signs 7.0 Recordkeeping 8.0 Waste Characterization 8.1 Service Area 8.2 Wastes Accepted/Not Accepted 8.3 Waste Properties 8.4 Facilities Accepting Refused Wastes 8.5 Special Handling Procedures 9.0 Restricted Activities 9.1 Salvaging 9.2 Open Burning 9.3 Setbacks 10.0 Contingency Plan 10.l Landfill Gas Mi.gration 10.2 Traffic-Unusual Conditions 10.3 Fire 10.4 Personnel Safety 10.5 Facility Shutdown 10.6 Equipment Failure 10.7 Release of Hazardous or Toxic Wastes 10.8 Leachate Collection System 10.9 Leachate Treatment System 10.10 Emergency Coordination 10.11 Evacuation Plan 10.12 Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan 11.0 Closure Plan 11.1 Closure System Design 11.2 Phase Cell Closure System Description 11.3 Notification Requirements 12.0 Post-Closure Plan 12.1 Groundwater Monitoring Requirements 12.2 Landfill Gas Monitoring Requirements 12.3 Maintenance and Inspection Requirements 13.0 Groundwater Monitoring Plan 13.l Monitoring Well Locations 13.2 Field Sampling Requirements 13.3 Laboratory Testing Requirements 13.4 Recordkeeping 13.5 Statistical Analysis Requirements

Landfill Closure

Final conceptual closure contours were assumed based on side slopes of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical to an approximate height of 55 ft above grade. The top of the landfill would be

Final SEIS 2-8 GMSWLF sloped at approximately 5 percent to maintain drainage on the top of the landfill. The final landfill closure contours would depend on the proposed final land use plans for the area after closure of the landfill. Landfill post-closure care, in accordance with rule §23602, would be considered similar for all alternatives.

Gas Collection

The gas collection and monitoring requirements are specified in rule §23306. Conceptual gas collection would be by vertical wells (Figure 2-8). The gas would be passively dispersed or collected and flared or put to beneficial use. The flare, if necessary, would be located in the support facilities area. There is a potential for generation of electric power from methane generated during operation and closure of an MSWLF. The development of generation capacity would be evaluated during detailed design.

Water Quality Monitoring

Water quality monitoring would be performed at the landfill facility to detect any discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the United States in violation of the Clean Water Act requirements, as prohibited in rule §23306. A monitoring plan approved by Guam EPA would specify monitoring stations and sampling parameters.

A groundwater monitoring system would be installed in compliance with rule §23502 to §23506 to detect statistically significant levels of constituents that exceed groundwater standards. A typical monitoring well section is provided on Figure 2-9. The number of wells, locations and depths for groundwater sampling, and sampling and analytical methods would be specified in a monitoring plan.

Corrective Action

As specified in rule §23507 to §23509, implementation of a corrective action groundwater program is required when groundwater standards have been exceeded for one or more constituents. The assessment of corrective measures involves several considerations, including community concerns and long-term reliability of engineering and institutional controls. The assessment and implementation of an approved remedy must be performed in a timely manner.

Financial Assurance

Article 7 of the Guam Solid Waste Management Regulations (Title 23, GCA) provides extensive financial criteria that must be satisfied by the owner and operator of the new landfill facility. Financial assurance requirements cover closure and post-closure activities of the landfill as well as actions to correct defects in the performance of in­ place landfill systems and to comply with the regulations. Financial assurance may be provided through a variety of optional mechanisms as defined by the regulations and subject to the approval of the GEPA Administrator.

Final SEIS 2-9 GMSWLF 2.2.2 Landfill Volume Projections

Development of the new landfill must be preceded by a reasonable estimation of the volume of municipal solid waste that is intended for disposal at the landfill facility over a minimum period of 30 years. The following waste generation and waste stream processing scenario shows the range of possible and reasonable target 30-year cumulative volumes for use in sizing the proposed MSWLF: • Nominal source reduction at 2 percent. • Generation rate based on 20 percent over the national average, or 5 .28 pcd. • 30-year cumulative volume= 14,019,081 cubic yards.

The solid waste landfill volume calculations are based on industry-accepted solid waste management waste conversion factors, a reasonable range of generation rates, and current population projections. The population forecast report can be found in Appendix E of the Final Site Selection Report (GDPW 2005).

This scenario provides the most conservative order of magnitude solid waste volume generation estimate. Thus, the volume of 14 million cubic yards would be used to size the proposed landfill for the 30-year design period. If the proposed diversion and recycling components of new solid waste management strategy are effective, the estimated life of the landfill will exceed the 30-year design capacity.

2.2.3 Landfill Components

The landfill would require the following general components. The quantities would vary based on the final site-specific design of the facility based on the final waste stream. Items 1 through 8 are support facilities that would be developed initially and would support the entire landfill development. The remaining items would be performed as each cell is developed.

Table 2-3. Landfill Component List

Component Item Units Quantitv Comments 1. Access Road Site Clearing Acre Site Specific Asphalt Paved Two Lane Excavation CY Site Specific Fill CY Site Specific Paving LF Site Specific Culverts Each Site Specific 2. Access Control Access Control Building Each 1 Perimeter of each cell, Maintenance office area Fencing LF Site Specific and runoff pond Vehicle Gates Each Site Specific Around each cell, two lane graveVlimerock Interior Roads LF Site Specific surfacing 3. Fire Protection Storage Tank Each Site Specific

Final SEIS 2-10 GMSWLF Component Item Units Quantity Comments Piping LF Site Specific Pumps Each Site Specific Hydrants Each Site Specific 4. Utilities Water sunoly piping LF Site Specific Power distribution line and transformer LF Site Specific Telephone LF Site Specific Sewage piping LF Site Specific Septic tank and leaching field Each I Maintenance/ 5. Office Area Site Clearing Office personnel, records storage, locker rooms, Office Building Each I showers, bathrooms Typhoon protection for mobile equipment, vehicle maintenance, Equipment Maintenance Building Each I equipment spares storage Lighting LS Site Specific Pavement/Parking Area Acre 2 A!!!!regate surfacing Mobile 6. Equipment Water Truck 2,000 gallons Each I Compactor 826 Each l DozerD8 Each l Loader 980G Each I Maintenance Truck Each I 7. Scale Truck Scale Each l Computer Control System Each I Scale House Each I Not needed iflocal Leachate Wastewater Treatment 8. Treatment Treatment Plant LS Site Specific Facility available 50,000 Leachate tank LS gallons Pipeline to POTW LF Site Specific Stormwater Stormwater Collection Pond 9. Collection 24-hour storm Site clearing Acre Site Specific Area Pond Excavation CY Site Specific Area Pond Liner System SF Site Specific Area pond Geotextile SF Site Specific Area pond Collection Ditches LF Site Specific 10. Landfill Cells Per Cell Site Preparation Site Clearing Acre Site Specific Area of cells Site excavation CY Site Specific Site Fill CY Site Specific Around perimeter of each Containment Berms LF Site Specific cell, 4 ft high

Final SEIS 2-11 GMSWLF Component Item Units Quantitv Comments Liner System Composite Liner 60-mil HDPE SF Site Soecific Area base of landfill 24-in. compacted clay SF Site Soecific Area base of landfill Leachate Collection Twice Area base of System Geotextile SF Site Specific landfill 100 ft on center across Leachate Collection Pining LF Site Specific cell 12-in. Granular Collection Material SF Site Specific Area base of landfill Leachate Sumps Each Site Soecific one oer cell Leachate pumos Each Site Specific one per cell Leachate Collection Pipe Cleanouts Each Site Specific One per run of pipe 25%of Cover Soils CY Waste Protective Soil Cover Soil Cover 12-24 in. SF Site Specific Area base of landfill Monitoring 11. Wells Each Site Specific Two oer cell 12. Closure Composite Liner 60-milHDPE SF Site Soecific Area top of landfill 18-in. compacted clav SF Site Specific Area too of landfill Infiltration Drainage System Geotextile SF Site Specific Area too of landfill Drainage Laver SF Site Soecific Area too of landfill Protective Soil Cover 12-18 in. SF Site Specific Area top of landfill Topsoil 6 in. SF Site Specific Area too of landfill Gas Collection Well each Site Soecific 2/acre at 50 ft deep Gas collection piping LF Site Specific Flare Each 1 Per landfill Run-On Divert surrounding area 13. Diversion Ditch Excavation CY Site Soecific run-off around landfill Culverts Each Site Soecific Erosion Control Rip rap CY Site Soecific Concrete pavement SF Site Specific Wetland 14. Mitie:ation Create new wetlands Acre Site specific 15. Landscapine: Trees LS Site soecific Shrubs LS Site specific 16. Si2na2e LS Site Soecific Land Footprint, pond, maintenance and 17. Acquisition buffer areas Acres 18. En!!ineerine: Landfill Design LS Operations Manual LS Closure design LS Post-Closure Plan LS Groundwater Monitoring LS Gas Monitoring LS

Final SEIS 2-12 GMSWLF Component Item Units Quantity Comments Financial Assurance LS Construction Quality Assurance Plan LS

Notes: CY - Cubic Yard(s) LP-Linear Foot or Linear Feet LS-LumpSum SF- Square Foot or Square Feet

2.2.4 Landfill Costing

The following information on landfill costing included in this section was taken from the Landfill Financial Plan prepared by Duenas & Associates, Inc. and Ernst & Young, LLP for GDPW (GDPW 2004c). Currently, DPW funds the operations of the Division of Solid Waste Management through a special or "proprietary" fund derived from the collection of tipping and user fees as authorized by Public Laws 24-139 and 24-272. The intent of the Solid Waste Management Fund (SWMF or the "fund") was to provide for the complete cost of solid waste operations. Data for the SWMF is maintained by the Bureau of Budget and Management Resources (BBMR). Information from both DPW and BBMR was used in the development of this cost analysis. Where necessary for the purposes of projecting revenues and expenses that are based on solid waste generation rates, DPW has relied on generation data developed for the preparation of the Guam Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (GEPA 2000).

2.2.4.1 Status of Solid Waste Operating Fund

Currently funding is provided by the following fee structure for tipping fees per cubic yard (cy): 1. $4/cy un-compacted 2. $16/cy compacted (based on a 4:1 compaction ratio) 3. $21 pickup (for self drops) 4. $4/cy for self drops in excess of 3 cy

2.2.4.2 Program Costs for the Construction of a New MSWLF

Capital costs to construct the new MSWLF are estimated at $25.7 per ton which is based on initial startup costs for landfill development, equipment, and two landfill cells. Each cell has a capacity of 500,000 tons and a life of 3 years. Operating and maintenance costs are estimated at $20 per ton. Using projected waste generated annually from the ISWMP and assuming that 98% of the waste is landfilled, the total volume of waste landfilled during the first 6 years of operation is approximately 900,000 tons, with an average per year of 150,000 tons.

Final SEIS 2-13 GMSWLF Total Development Program Cost for the first 2 cells is estimated at: $25.7 million [$25.7 per ton x 2 cells x 500,000 tons] for capital costs and $3,000,000 [$20 per ton x 150,000 tons per year] for annual O&M costs.

2.2.4.3 Construction Management Services for New MSWLF

Capital costs for construction management services are estimated at $50,000 per month for the life of the construction contract for the new MSWLF. The Consent Decree requires that the new landfill be completed 12 months after award of the contract.

Total Programming Cost is estimated at $600,000 [$50,000/month x 12 months].

2.2.4.4 Training of Engineering Staff

This program element consists of training the Solid Waste Division staff to allow for the effective management and monitoring of the landfill operations, landfill closure and post­ closure requirements. The costs associated with the program element include annual salary and benefits, as well as annual training. Total Programming Cost is estimated at $283,000 per year.

2.2.4.5 Land Acquisition for New MSWLF

Capital cost for the acquisition of raw land in the southern half of Guam is estimated at $40,000 per acre. It is estimated that approximately 150 acres of land would need to be acquired for the new MSWLF, not including off-site improvements.

Total Program Cost is estimated at $6 million [$40,000 per acre x 150 acres].

2.2.4.6 Off-Site Infrastructure for New MSWLF

The aerial map of the Dandan area was reviewed to determine the necessity for off-site infrastructure improvements. Based on the likely location of the landfill within the Dandan parcel, distance to the nearest access road was estimated. It is assumed that existing access roads would be improved as necessary under the Federal Highways Fund and infrastructure improvements such as power and water were available along the nearest access road with residential and commercial land use.

The following table describes the conceptual engineering cost estimates for land acquisition, and road and infrastructure improvements.

Final SEIS 2-14 GMSWLF Table 2-4. Conceptual Engineering Cost Estimates for Off-Site Infrastructure Improvements

Location & Description Unit Qty Unit Cost Total Capital Item Cost Land Acquisition of land for 40-foot right-of-way AC 4.6 $ 40,000 $ 184,000.00 Road 36ft Wide, 2-1/2" paved road system with LF 5000 $ 284 $ 1,420,000.00 shoulder & drainage Power 45ft Concrete Poles with Guy Wires and EA 28 $ 3,500 $ 98,000.00 Primary Lines every l 80ft Water 1O" Diameter Ductile Iron, Mechanical LF 5000 $ 42 $ 210,000.00 Joints TOTAL $ 1,912,000.00

2.2.4. 7 Summary of Costs

As summarized in the table below (Table 2-5), costs associated with the construction of the new MSWLF are projected to be approximately $58 million. Currently, GovGuam has identified a total of $2,430,000 in available funding. Accordingly, it would be expected that $57 million in private activity bonds (PABs) would be used for funding of this project.

Table 2-5. Program Costs Associated with the New MSWLF

Preferred Capital O&M Total Funding Description Funding Costs Costs Costs Status Alternative ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) EIS and Site Selection Allocated SWMF $1,100 --- $1,100 Final Design Plans and 90% Partially SWMF, $2,818 $2,818 Wetland Mitigation Plan Funded DBOT --- Advertise, Award & Construct Unfunded DBOT $25,700 $18,000 $43,700 Grants, Construction Management Partially Loans, $600 $600 Services Funded --- Bonds Grants, Partially Training of Engineering Staff Loans, --- $1,698 $1,698 Funded Bonds DBOT, Land Acquisition Unfunded Gov't $6,000 --- $6,000 Exchange Off-site Land Acquisition Unfunded DBOT and Infrastructure $1,912 --- $1,912 Grants, Wetland Mitigation Unfunded Construction Loans, $750 --- $750 Bonds

Final SEIS 2-15 GMSWLF Preferred Capital O&M Total Funding Description Funding Costs Costs Costs Status Alternative ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) Total Estimated Funding ------$58,578 Required Available Funding ------$2,430

Funding of approximately $37.8 million would be required by 2007 for costs associated with the opening of the first cell of the new facility. An additional $20.8 million would be required by 2010 for opening of the second cell at the sanitary landfill. As the Internal Revenue Code requires, the funds from the issuance of a P AB must be used within 2 years of the bond issuance. It was assumed in the financial plan that a P AB of approximately $37 million would be issued in 2005 and an additional bond of approximately $20 million would be issued in 2008. Interest rates for the 2005 bond issue are based on the October 27, 2003 rates plus 75 basis points. For this analysis the interest rates for the 2008 bond issue are assumed to increase another 100 basis points.

It has been estimated that the operating and management costs for the new sanitary landfill would be $20 per ton in 2007 adjusted annually by an average inflation factor of 3.5%. Assuming the Design, Build, Operate and Transfer (DBOT) option is pursued, a profit margin should be included for the private contractor. While this would be subject to negotiation between GovGuam and the private contractor, for purposes of this financial plan a 10% profit margin is assumed. Accordingly, the operating and management costs, inclusive of a 10% margin would be expected to equal $22 per ton in 2007.

Final SEIS 2-16 GMSWLF -

Inc.

I

l 1

;

--~

.

PROPOSED

.

THE

FOOTPRINT

OF

RGURE2~

YON

ouEnAsa ASSOCIATES

LA

LOCATION

~

s

N

•

W E

'1,<.,.

4¥\

---

-_zi

-

-~--

feet

5SN

meters

SCAbE

500

1.641

l>a~

ZONE

Auup1~n

~~~

equals

equals

GRAPHIC

inch

QUADRANGLE

inch

1

1

MERCATOR

1.000 TOPOGRAPHIC

:::::i

TRANSVERSE

USGS

WGS84

500 2002

Meters

UNIVERSAL

0

SPHERIOD:

BASEMAP:

DATUM:

FOOTPRINT

BUFFER

LANDFILL

200-FOOT

ROUTE

PARCEL UTILITY PROSPECTIVE PROPOSED

c::::J CJ

Cl

.. Meters GRAPHIC SCALE for inset map 1 inch equals 6.563 feet N FIGURE 2-2 RIVERS 0 2.000 4,000 1 Inch equals 2.000 meters LANDFILL CLOSURE PROFILE c:J DANDAN PARCEL -- w E ouEnAs c.:.J LAVON LANDFILL FOOTPRINT DATUM: UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE 55N • a SPHERIOD: WGS84 ASSOCIATES .. PROPOSED UTILITY ROUTE BASEMAP: GUAM DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL s ~ 2-3

1'

f'

t­

/

1'

FIGURE

BUFFER

BUFFER

FOOTPRINT

FOOTPRINT

400-FOOT

FROM

300-FOOT

FROM

o

1

G

EIS

LAYOUT

MSWL

ALTERNATIVE

GUAM

OF

CONCEPTUAL

~

STORAGE

/

c.~"""

TREATMENT

x

/

AND

LEACHATE

c.~v'O

AND

~

/

VEATCH

q,

PRC>..£CT

c.~"'v"'

~ 41316

c.~v &

FACILITIES

'I

y

ACRES)

<,_,V

CJ/

~

SUPPORT

ADMINISTRATION

(5

BLACK /

>.(

C

/

WETLAND

5

Inc.

G

//

(/

I

WETLAND

I

I

B

ouEnAsa ASSOCIATE

WETLAND

A

WITH

UTILITY

BY

SECURITY

CORRIDOR

AND

NO.I

WETLAND

(MOVED

DEVELOPMENT)

ACCESS

ROAD

ft.

PERIMETER FENCE CELL

E R

1.200'

600

-"

'

=

~

in.

ISSUE

I

1

OR

600'

SCALE

REVISION

IV

~

CELINE

I

0

I"

FEN

WETLAND

RIVER/TRIBUTARY BOUNDARY SEASONAL

DRAINAGE

__...... __,ASA

GRAPHIC

w----

300'

~

SCALE:

600'

~

KEY

DATE

-____/ // /// I LEACHATE SUMP PERIMETERSECURITY I (ONE PER CELL) I FENCE (MOVED WITH CELL DEVELOPMENT) WETLANDG

1' / /,- WETLANDF <' 1'

_,,. E R

I' ~ ' -\! Y'~,

~ '-~"" KEY / ~ / WETLAND 'I ~ BOUNDARY " "~v v~"" FEN x CELINE WETLANDB / --___/' RIVER/TRIBUTARY ~ /

'-~"""'~ SEASONAL DRAINAGEw / GRAPHIC SCALE WETLANDC 600'___...... _. 300' 0 600' 1,200' SCALE: 1 in. = 600 ft.

BLACK & VEATCH GUAMMSWL EIS FIGURE 2-4 PROJECT CONCEPTUALLAYOUT ~~sInc. 41316 OF ALTERNATIVE 2 DATE REVISION OR ISSUE NO.I BY ~ 2-5

1'

('

"

/

1'

FIGURE

-p

<"

L

3

EIS

LAYOUT

r,NAGo

WITH

MSWL

F

SECURITY

ALTERNATIVE

(MOVED

DEVELOPMENT)

GUAM

OF

WETLAND

CONCEPTUAL

PERIMETER FENCE

CELL

'I /

d;y

STORAGE

~

,,.------+-

/

'\

TREATMENT

c,<,.,"v'-

/

AND

LEACHATE

><

VEATCH

c,'<,'-""'

PRD..ECT

41316

'\

&

/

~

y~-

~

c,'<,'-'-

~

BLACK

/

C

":>

c,<,.,""

WETLAND

Inc.

!///~

I

I

I

DU£ftASa

ASSOCIATES

BY

B

NO.I

WETLAND

ft.

1,200'

600

=

in. ISSUE

A

1

OR

600'

SCALE

S

A

1'

REVISION

1\1

~

0

,.

FENCELINE

WETLAND

RIVER/TRIBUTARY BOUNDARY SEASONAL

DRAINAGE

GRAPHIC

300'

----·

SCALE:

600'

~

KEY

DATE

._____/ w 0::: ->>W I- 0 ~u l- o _J 0::: 6 a.. (/)

.....J .....J •'. G: . .. . ·•. .. .. :..... : ... ··. .. .· .. . .. ~ .:.: ...... :' . .. .·.. ·· :' . ·.." . ·...... : w , ...... ·. ·... :·":: ·..... · .. N C> :. ,• . :'•• . ;.. ; . ·:...... ~ .' .. " ...... \ ..- <( .... :- .... z ·.· ·...... ·: .··.. :...... ' . .. ·. ·· ...· .· :: .. •. ::." ...... ·. .. <( 0::: 0

. ·/'/. ·/'/. ·/'/. ·/'/. ·/· GEOTEXTILE (AS REQUIRED) "/. ·/"/. ·/'/. ·/"/. ·/'/. ·/. /·/ .. ·/·/. '/. "/. "/. "/. "/. '/ .. · GEOMEMBRANE . "/ . '/ . "/ . "/ . "/ / /. "/. "/. "/. "/. "/. "/. '/. "/. "/. . "/ . "/ . '/ . '/ . '/ /. ·/'/. ·/"/. ·/"/. ·/'/. ·/'· . / . . / . / . . / . / . . / . / . . / . / . . / . ·/"/. ·/'/. ·/"/. ·/"/. ·/"/. ~. ·/"/. ·/'/. ·/'/. ·/"/. ·/' /_ · · /: /_ · · / : /_ · · /: /_ · · / : /_ · · / :~24" COMPACTED CLAY LINER /_/_· "/_/_· "/_/_· "/_/_· '/_/_· ·.

EXISTING GRADE

* A GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) MAY BE USED INSTEAD OF THE COMPACTED CLAY LINER.

NEW LANDFILL LINER TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION SCALE: NTS

BLACK & VEATCH GUAM MSWL EIS DATE PROJECT NEW LANDFILL LINER 41316 TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION FIGURE 2-6 2-7

FIGURE

SYSTEM

ION

EIS

SECT

MSWL

COLLECTION

TYPICAL

GUAM

LEACHATE

SECTION

SYSTEM

ON

VEATCH

PRO.IECT

41316

& LINER TYPICAL

LAYER

BASE

N1S

~

DRAINAGE

BLACK

SYSTEM

LANDFILL

12"

SCALE:

COLLECTION

LEACHATE

BY

NO.I

HIGHGWT~

ISSUE

OR

RE\llSION

DATE 2" UPFLOWSCREENED VENTCAP !;J[J

EXTERIORLFG VENTPIPE 1-1/2" C/C (TYP.) __ ...... (11 ROWSMIN.) INTERIOR VENTPIPE 4" l.D. VENTPIPE

CAP

TOPSOIL~

COVERSOIL

TYPICAL PERFORATED PIPE DETAIL SCALE:NTS

DEPlHAS REOO~ED~1]2.~~ TYPICAL LFG PASSIVE VENT DETAIL SCALE:NTS

GUAMMSWL EIS BLACK & VEATCH DATE

PROJECT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY FIGURE 2-8 ~ 41316 CLOSURE AND TYPICAL LFG PASSIVE VENT NOTCH PVC DETERMINE PROTECTIVE STEEL HINGED COVER ELEVATION AT BOTTOM 250 MM l.D. WllH LOCKING CAf' OF NOTCH ----- AND PADLOCK VENTED PVC CM' PROTECTIVE STEEL CASING (SHOP PAINTED, INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR)

ENLARGE HOLE TO GRADE TO DRAIN AWAY FROM WELL AT 2 300 MM NOMiNAL DIAM. PERCENT SLOPE TO A RADIUS OF 3 TO ACCOMMODATE METERS FROM CENTER Of WELL lHEN PROTECTIVE CASING GRADE TO MEET EXISTING GRADE AT MAXIMUM SLOPE Of 3: 1 (HORIZ. TO VERT.)

PVC CENTRALIZERS ~ ~ CEMENT-BENTONITE GROUT ~ fl:i 0 ~300 MM SECONDARY FILTER PACK SAND ::I !l;l (!) =1----- ANNULAR SEAL. 600 MM DRY z !§ BENTONITE PELLETS (HYDRA TE ~ WllH FRESH WATER) !S 2 2 STATIC GROUNDWATER -\-...+-----WELL SCREEN ~ ~ LEVEL i:2 ~ PVC CENTRALIZERS

2 PRIMARY FILTER ,.., PACK SAND SEDIMENT TRAP (lHREADED, FLUSH NOTE: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MIWMETERS (MM) JOINTS) UNLESS OlHERWISE NOTED. "M" INDICATES METERS. 2 lHREADED BOTTOM PLUG

TYPICAL MONITORING WELL SECTION SCALE: NTS

BLACK & VEATCH GUAM MSWL EIS DATE PROJECT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY 41316 TYP GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL FIGURE 2-9 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Chapter 3.0 describes the existing environmental resources of the areas that would be affected if the proposed footprint alternatives were implemented. The descriptions, data, and analyses focus on the specific conditions or consequences that may result from implementing the alternatives. This chapter should not be considered a comprehensive description of all aspects of the environment within or surrounding the site.

A description of existing environmental conditions follows for a better understanding of planning issues and to establish a benchmark by which the magnitude of environmental effects of the footprint alternatives can be compared. Most of the information used to describe the existing environmental resources in this chapter was taken from the Final Site Selection Report (GDPW 2005) unless otherwise stated. The information in Chapter 3.0 is organized by the same environmental topics used to organize the impact analysis in Chapter 4.0. Section 3.1.l briefly explains why certain topics have been retained for detailed discussions in Chapters 3.0 and 4.0, and why some topics have been eliminated from this point forward in the document.

The proposed alternatives include the landfill footprint, buffer area, access roads, and utilities, all of which comprise the limit of disturbance. The zone of influence is defined as the landfill site, and any adjacent areas, regions, and even Island-wide if reasonably affected by the alternatives. Because resources vary in function and relation to environmental factors, the zone of influence was defined independently for each environmental resource (see environmental topic sections under Sections 3.2 and 3.3).

3.1.1 Screening of Resources Affected

Resource Topics Evaluated in Detail

The following resources have the potential to be affected by or affect the proposed action and are evaluated in detail in this SEIS:

Geology Geologic features are a factor in siting a landfill, including the presence of fault areas, seismic impact zones and unstable areas.

Seismic Impact Zones The entire island of Guam is within a Seismic Impact Zone.

Hydrogeology The potential for groundwater/aquifer impacts exist at the site.

Soils & Topography The excavation of soils and the use of soils as waste cover at the proposed landfill, as well as re-grading and altering the elevation of the site would alter these resources.

Final SEIS 3-1 GMSWLF Air Quality During the short-term construction phases of the project, the operation of construction equipment would generate some criteria pollutant emissions, including carbon monoxide and particulate matter. There is a potential for impacts to air quality due to a projected increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site.

Noise The construction phase of this project is expected to create minor and temporary noise impacts at the site. A potential increase in noise is expected due to increases in truck traffic to Layon.

Surface Water Hydrological features, including wetlands and rivers, are located within the vicinity of Layon, as well as the potential for impacts to the overall drainage and water quality within the river basins. Layon is also located within the coastal zone.

Terrestrial Ecology Terrestrial vegetation, wildlife, and habitat occur at Layon.

Aquatic Ecology The aquatic ecosystems occurring in nearby streams and wetlands would have the potential to be impacted due to stormwater runoff.

Socioeconomic Conditions There is potential for impacts to occur to land use, zoning, demographics, economics, and sensitive receptors in the region surrounding Layon.

Infrastructure The infrastructure on Guam, including utilities and roadways, would need to be upgraded or expanded to accommodate a new landfill. Energy use would increase for an updated solid waste management system, which includes transfer stations, the main landfill, and haul routes to be used. Airport safety is also evaluated due to landfill hazards that can affect aviation activities in the vicinity.

Public Health and Safety Public health and safety issues are a major concern in the planning and design of a landfill. Factors that relate to public health and safety include considering proximity to drinking water sources and sensitive receptors, highway safety and containment of wastes, and air and water quality. Employee health and safety is also a concern during construction and operation of a landfill.

Aesthetics Aesthetic concerns of surrounding property owners and recreational users of the land are a factor when siting a landfill.

Cultural Resources Archaeological and historic resources exist within the vicinity of Lay on.

Final SEIS 3-2 GMSWLF Topics Dismissed From Further Analysis

The following topics would not result in impacts and are not relevant factors to the selection of the footprint alternatives considered in this SEIS; therefore, these topics have been eliminated from the detailed analysis presented in Chapter 4:

Fault Areas Modem day faulting is not evident at Layon.

Unstable Areas Karst terrain is not present in the volcanic geology underlying Layon, and the observed soils are not collapsible.

Climate With the exception of wind patterns on the island of Guam, climate would not be. affected by the proposed action. Prevailing wind patterns are addressed under the Air Quality and Aesthetics sections.

Floodplains Layon is not contained within mapped floodplains; therefore, no impacts are expected for placement of a landfill at Layon.

Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species No RTE species were observed during wildlife surveys conducted at Layon, including the federally-listed endangered Mariana common moorhen.

Prime and Unique Farmlands None of the soil map units at Layon meet the soil requirements to qualify as prime farmland; therefore, there would be no impacts to prime and unique farmlands (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1975).

Designated Natural Areas The only designated natural areas on Guam are the Guam National Wildlife Refuge and the War in the Pacific National Historic Park. These natural areas are not located in the vicinity of Layon, so there would be no impacts to designated natural areas.

Housing There would be no displacement of residences, farms, or businesses; therefore, there would be no impacts to housing in the region surrounding Layon. New employment opportunities created at the landfill would not create a large demand for housing in the area. Vacant housing units available in the area would accommodate any additional housing needs.

Final SEIS 3-3 GMSWLF 3.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

The topics are organized by the natural and human environment. The natural environment includes physical features: soil, topography, surface water, groundwater, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, and rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species. The human environment includes socioeconomics, existing infrastructure, public health and safety, aesthetics, and archaeological/historical resources.

3.2.1 Physical Features

This section discusses the physical environment at Layon, including geology, hydrogeology, soils/topography, air quality, and noise.

3.2.1.1 Geology

Guam is the largest and southern-most island within the Mariana Islands archipelago - an active volcanic region formed approximately 70 million years ago as a result of the subduction and underthrusting of the Pacific tectonic plate beneath the Phillippine tectonic plate along the Mariana Trench.

The island of Guam can be roughly divided into two geologic regions (north and south) by a northwest/southeast trending fault (the Adelup-Pago fault) that runs from Asan on the west coast easterly to Pago Bay on the east coast. The northern part of Guam is an uplifted limestone plateau comprised of molluscan, detrital, reef, and foraminiferal facies, rising from 150 to 600 ft above sea level, with steep coastal cliffs and narrow coastal plains, consisting primarily of thick limestone deposits covered with thin soil. Fissures, cracks, and sinkholes characterize the limestone plateau, and there are no permanent rivers or streams because of the high permeability of the limestone. The southern portion of the island is a mountainous volcanic region with a number of peaks that are over 1,000 ft in elevation. Layon is located within the southern portion of Guam, and is underlain by volcanic deposits.

Volcanic and volcanically derived sedimentary rocks (e.g. tuffs, breccias, pyroclastics, and siltstones, sandstones and conglomerates) form the foundation of the entire island of Guam, and volcanics are exposed at the surface over approximately 35 percent of the island's surface (Gingerich 2003), predominantly in southern Guam. The oldest exposed rocks on Guam are volcanic rocks of Eocene/Oligocene age (58 to 22.5 million years old). Approximately 60 percent of the exposed rocks on Guam are Neogene age (22.5 to 2 million years old) limestones, which are predominately exposed in northern Guam. The remaining 5 percent of the surface cover of Guam consists of Holocene (11,000 years ago to present) riverine alluvial deposits and coastal beach and reef deposits. Faults transect the entire island; however, modem day faulting is not evident at Layon.

Bedrock

The rocks underlying Layon consist of the Bolanos pyroclastic member of the Miocene Umatac Formation (Stark 1963; Tracey et al. 1964). The basal portion of the Bolanos

Final SEIS 3-4 GMSWLF pyroclastic member is reworked tuff breccia and volcanic conglomerate (Tracey et al., 1964). Clasts within the tuff breccia are composed of basalt and andesite, with recrystallized fragments of the Maemong limestone member of the Umatac Formation. Remnants of the Layon lava flow member are found in scattered patches and individual large boulders and range in composition from island arc theolitic basalt to andesite (Stark, 1963). The Layon flow member is separated from the underlying Bolanos pyroclastic member by a flow breccia (Tracey et al., 1964).

Virtually all of the moderately sloping area in the Tinago basin is underlain by fine grain tuff that weathers easily and is readily eroded by wind and overland flow from rainfall. This results in the "badland" topography of barren hills and depressions on which most vegetation has difficulty in taking root. Only the toughest plants, like swordgrass, can thrive in weathered tuff soils. The contrasting verdure of the ravines and wetlands indicates the proximity of the groundwater table beneath the ground surface in these areas.

Within the landfill parcel, the best outcrops are in the badland hills that form the northwestern boundary and in the Asmulato Hill area in the south. Fine grain thinly layered weathered red tuffaceous siltstones outcrop in the lower portion of the hill, while the upper part of the hill is capped by approximately 6 ft. of highly weathered red tuff breccia. The clasts within this breccia layer are relatively uniform in size and generally less than an inch across. The matrix material between the clasts is composed of fine weathered ash that appears lateritic. These units dip gently to the east. The sequence at this location is saprolitic in nature.

The submarine volcanism that deposited the lithologic sequence underlying Layon results in a tightly packed rock with very low permeability. Additionally, diagenetic alteration of primary minerals to montmorillonite and kaolinite clays has further reduced permeability. Clay mineral identification was performed using x-ray diffraction techniques by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on samples collected from on-site boreholes by Guam EPA personnel. Therefore, the geological formations at Layon are not likely to support aquifers from which groundwater can be easily extracted.

The layered tuffaceous siltstones, which underlie the tuff breccia, could be used for the landfill covering material. Fine-grained and thinly layered alluvial sediments are present east of the badland hills. These well-sorted alluvial soils could also be used for landfill cover material.

Just north of the small wetland depression shown on the quadrangle map (See Figure 2-1) is an outcrop of an explosive pyroclastic lithic tuff deposit containing numerous large angular blocks of slightly weathered basalt (up to 0.5 ft. across) and broken accidental inclusions of recrystallized limestone. Tracey et al. (1964) concluded that the presence of recrystallized limestone found in the tuff breccias and volcanic conglomerate of the Bolanos pyroclastic member originated from the Maemong limestone, which may sporadically underlie the Bolanos pyroclastics. Outcrops of the Maemong limestone are not mapped in the Layon area (Tracey et al., 1964), therefore the presence of

Final SEIS 3-5 GMSWLF recrystallized limestone so far inland could indicate that there are limestone deposits at depth.

Seismic Impact Zone

The entire island of Guam is within a Seismic Impact Zone, and Guam is considered an active seismic area where small earthquakes are common. Guam has an extensive history of earthquakes, although destructive earthquakes are infrequent. The most recent destructive earthquake in Guam (magnitude 8.1) occurred on August 8, 1993.

3.2.1.2 Hydrogeology and Groundwater

Groundwater supplies 80 percent of the drinking water on Guam, and groundwater flow is generally from the interior regions to the coast.

Northern Guam contains a fresh groundwater lens system that is the sole source aquifer, providing approximately 70 percent of Guam's potable water supply. In northern Guam, the highly permeable Barrigada limestone constitutes the majority of the aquifer. The high permeability of the surface limestone allows almost all of the rainfall to infiltrate. The freshwater lens floats on salt water and is separated from the salt water by a transition zone of brackish water. The freshwater lens system is recharged by direct infiltration of rainfall and by inflow from perched groundwater. Discharge from the freshwater lens system in northern Guam is by diffuse seepage near the coast and to subaerial and submarine coastal springs. Nearly 180 wells withdraw about 35 million gallons per day (mgd) of water from the aquifer, with chloride concentrations ranging from 6 to 585 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (Gingerich 2003). In 1978, GEPA declared most of the northern half of the island where the freshwater lens is located a "Principal Source Aquifer." A "Groundwater Protection Zone" has been developed as a land use management overlay, which includes much of the land surface above Guam's Principal Source Aquifer, as well as drinking water production wells and their respective wellhead protection zones (GEPA 2001).

In southern Guam, the low permeability volcanic rocks allow much less rainfall infiltration and slower groundwater flow. On Guam, the major rivers and streams are located in the southern portion of the island. Here, low permeability volcanic deposits allow only slow infiltration of rainfall, and streams are recharged mainly by surface runoff with secondary discharge from groundwater.

Groundwater within Guam falls into one of two classifications: G-1 (Resource Zone) and G-2 (Recharge Zone). The G-1 category includes all groundwater extending 20 ft above the water table to depth and must be protected to drinking water quality standards (GEPA 2001). Groundwater beneath Layon falls within the G-1 classification.

Final SEIS 3-6 GMSWLF Aquifers

The geological formation at Layon does not support aquifers from which groundwater can be easily extracted. The volcanic tuffs and basalts are tightly packed, low permeable rocks. The weathered Bolanos pyroclastic member tuffaceous siltstone, tuffbreccias, and associated reworked alluvial material, including the well-sorted soils, create a low permeability substrate. Although faults and fissures within the volcanic substrates may harbor a potentially exploitable aquifer, the yield from deep wells is likely too small to justify development. A single test well was drilled into the volcanics at Layon (United States Geological Survey [USGS] Well 1845-50) in 1971. The well was bailed dry without pumping, an indication of its very low permeability.

Groundwater recovery tests were performed in the test pits in the surficial water table encountered below the landfill site. The measured permeability ranged from 3x10-4 to 5x10-3 cm/sec (5.9x10-4 to 9.8x10-3 ft per minute [ft/min]), with an average of l.7x10-3 cm/sec (3.3x10-3 ft/min). These relatively high permeabilities are restricted to the relatively thin surficial unconsolidated alluvial and residual soil deposits. The more consolidated volcanics of the underlying bedrock have much lower permeabilities. The shallow depth of these soils and the lower permeability in the underlying bedrock do not provide favorable conditions for the development of a groundwater source.

Groundwater

A total of 16 test pits and 3 deep borings were placed at Layon. The test pits were excavated to a depth of 10 ft or greater (Table 3-1). Borings were drilled to depths of 58 to 72 ft. Water levels were measured in all test pits. No borings were drilled in the higher elevation badlands to confirm water table elevations.

Table 3-1. Water Table Depths and Elevations at Layon

Depth to Groundwater Test Groundwater Surface Elevation Surface Elevation Pit/Boring Below Land MSL MSL Number Surface (BLS) (ft) (ft) (ft) TP-1 7.2 252.04 244.84 TP-2 9.5 280.73 271.23 TP-3 5.0 287.08 282.08 TP-4 5.5 356.94 351.44 TP-5 5.4 392.38 386.98 TP-6 15.5 349.96 334.46 TP-7 5.1 332.21 327.11 TP-8 12.5 328.53 316.03 TP-9 18.0 371.81 353.81 TP-10* >18.0 323.6 <305.58 TP-11 6.0 347.60 341.60

Final SEIS 3-7 GMSWLF Depth to Groundwater Test Groundwater Surface Elevation Surface Elevation Pit/Boring Below Land MSL MSL Number Surface (BLS) (ft) (ft) (ft) TP-12 5.8 349.63 343.83 TP-13 3.0 302.74 299.74 TP-14 11.5 295.82 284.32 TP-15* >17.5 293.21 <275.71 TP-16 8.0 307.54 299.54 B-1 26.2 356.52 330.32 B-2 2.5 307.66 305.16 B-3 22.0 327.31 305.31 *Groundwater was not encountered, but it can be surmised that it occurs at a depth greater than the completion depth of the associated boring or test uit.

Figure 3-2 is a contour map of the groundwater. Field observations during the site geotechnical investigations noted the infiltration of groundwater into the Tinago River channel. Elevations of the river channel bottoms adjacent to the landfill site were recorded because this would be a control level for the groundwater levels at the site.

The water table below Layon is unconfined. The groundwater surface generally mirrors the topography and is located in the surficial alluvial or residual soils overlying the bedrock below the site. The surficial alluvial and residual soils at Layon are classified as low plastic to plastic silts (ML-MH), and the upper, highly weathered tuffaceous rock is generally fine grained. These deposits both have a generally low permeability. Site investigations indicated that the depth of the groundwater surface is variable - from at the ground surface in the low lying stream beds to more than 20 ft in the higher elevations of the badlands and ridge dividing the Tinago, Fintasa, Fensol, and Ugum river drainage basins (Figure 3-1 ). The general flow of groundwater is from the highlands to the three rivers surrounding the landfill site - the Tinago, Fintasa, and Fensol rivers (Figure 3-1). The landfill site is located in the higher elevations of the site to avoid areas where the groundwater surface is shallow.

Proximity to Drinking Water

There are no drinking water wells located adjacent to, downstream, or down gradient of Layon. The landfill site is located approximately 2, 700 ft from the U gum River, which is a source of drinking water. The Ugum River drainage area is depicted in Figure 3-1. Layon is not located within this drainage area. Based on the groundwater levels recorded at the site, a groundwater hydraulic divide exists between the U gum River and Lay on that isolates groundwater flows beneath the site from the U gum River. Groundwater below the site flows into rivers proximal to the proposed footprint.

The 1994 "Surface Water Development Study" identified the Inarajan River as a potential site for a surface water dam and reservoir (Barrett Consulting Group 1994). The

Final SEIS 3-8 GMSWLF proposed footprint is located adjacent to the Fintasa River and is within the drainage basin for this potential reservoir site. At one time, water for potable and agricultural uses was obtained from the Laolao and Fintasa Rivers. Laolao is the confluence of the Fintasa and Fensol Rivers and a tributary of the Inarajan River. The confluence is about two thirds of a mile downstream of the Layon footprint. The diversions no longer are active nor are they likely to be re-activated because the U gum diversion now supplies the region. Therefore, based on stream flow, no plans are currently in place to develop groundwater or surface water supplies in the Layon area.

Several wells were drilled at Malojloj in the 1960-1970 period, and until the Ugum diversion was completed one of the wells served the Inarajan region. That well is now idle but can be restored if additional water supply is needed. At least one other Malojloj well was successful, but it has been abandoned. The Malojloj wells, which are about 1.5 miles from the footprint, obtain water from a buried limestone aquifer of limited extent rather than from the volcanic formations, and therefore its groundwater is not continuous with the volcanic groundwater in the vicinity of the proposed landfill. Because of this discontinuity, drainage from the landfill will not affect these wells.

The yields of wells drilled in the Umatac Formation are very low, and such wells are not likely to play a significant role in water supply. An unusually successful volcanic well may produce 50 gpm, but most attempts to extract water have been failures because of the low permeability of the volcanic lithology. To achieve a rate of even a few gallons per minute, a well must be several hundred feet deep in order to accommodate steep draw downs.

3.2.1.3 Soils and Topography

Soils

There are two broad categories of soils on Guam: those derived from limestone and those of volcanic origin. Limestone soils are generally thin though well suited to some types of agriculture. Volcanic soils found over much of southern Guam consist of highly erodible fine clays.

The surficial alluvial and residual soils at Layon were generally classified as low plastic to plastic silts (ML-MH) materials, and the highly weathered tuffaceous rock is generally fine grained. The upper highly weathered tuffaceous rock was easily excavated. This highly weathered rock strata is fine grained and would restrict rainfall infiltration and promote runoff from active work areas. The soils at Layon are suitable for daily landfill cover.

Topography

The southern half of Guam, where Layon is located, consists of rolling terrain of extrusive and pyroclastic rocks. This, combined with high rainfalls, is the cause for presence of almost all of the rivers in southern Guam. Wetlands are common due to the

Final SEIS 3-9 GMSWLF poorly drained clay soils. Layon is located in an area of volcanic uplands comprised of steeply dissected slopes and gently sloping foothills cut by major streams (GDPW 1998). A large area of rolling lowlands and karst form the interior basin of Guam along the Talofofo River.

The Dandan parcel has predominantly gently sloping terrain and is topographically suitable for landfill development. However, because a substantial portion of the area selected for the landfill site is located within the upland portion of the site where "badlands" conditions prevail, there is little vegetative cover that would provide natural visual screening (See Figure 2-1 ). On the other hand, the selected area is situated well within the Dandan parcel such that visual screening from adjacent properties can be effectively provided during landfill development and subsequent operation.

3.2.1.4 Air Quality and Wind Direction

Air Quality

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) criteria pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter greater than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter greater than 2.5 microns (PM2.s), nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. An air quality nonattainment area is one that does not meet applicable NAAQS or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby region that does not meet the NAAQS. Two areas in Guam are designated as nonattainment. These include the portion of Guam that is within a 3-Yi kilometer (km) radius of the Pi ti Power Plant (located in Agana) and that portion of Guam that is within a 3-Yi km radius of the Tanguisson Power Plant (located in Barrigada). Layon does not lie within either of these zones. The remainder of Guam is in attainment for all other NAAQS pollutants.

Landfill gas emissions are a result of bacterial activity that causes the waste in landfills to decompose over time. As these wastes decompose, gas is produced. The amount of gas created varies and depends on factors such as the following: the amount and type of waste, moisture content of the landfill, amount of oxygen present, landfill size and characteristics, and temperature. Also, certain chemical reactions and the evaporation of some chemicals produce landfill gas. Landfill gas is composed of methane (CHi), carbon dioxide (C02), small amounts of non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs), PM10 and PM2.5• A summary of the pollutants is provided in Table 3-2. The ambient air quality standards for Guam do not address the primary landfill emissions: methane and carbon dioxide.

Table 3-2. Air Pollutants From Landfills and Their Characteristics

Pollutant Characteristics • An odorless greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere Methane for approximately 9-15 years. • Generated in landfills and open dumps as waste decomposes under anaerobic (without oxygen) conditions.

Final SEIS 3-10 GMSWLF Pollutant Characteristics • Contributes to local smog . • Highly explosive at certain concentrations in air (between 5% and 15% of the total air volume). • An odorless greenhouse gas • An excess amount in the air has the potential to create an Carbon Dioxide oxygen-deficient environment. • Asphyxiation occurs if there is not enough oxygen in the air to breath. Symptoms include headache, increased breathing and heart rate, and dizziness. • May occur naturally or be formed by chemical processes . • Include chemicals such as trichloroethylene, benzene, and vinyl chloride. • The amount ofNMOCs emitted depends on whether the landfill receives wastes containing these chemicals and Non-Methane whether chemical reactions are occurring that create or Organic remove them. Compounds • Often have recognizable odors . • Certain NMOCs are known carcinogens (e.g., vinyl chloride, benzene, and chloroform). • Some NMOCs may have adverse effects on organ systems such as the kidney, liver, pulmonary, reproductive, and central nervous systems. • Mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets . • Fine particles (less than 10 and 2.5 micrometers) produced by landfills and diesel buses and trucks. Particulate Matter • Can aggravate asthma; produce acute respiratory symptoms, including aggravated coughing and difficult or painful breathing, and chronic bronchitis. • Impairs visibility . Source: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 2005.

Wind Direction

Based on observations between 1945 and 1982 obtained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Weather Service Meteorological Observatory in Tiyan, Guam, the easterly tradewinds are dominant from April to December, while the prevailing wind from January to March is from an east-northeasterly direction. The higher average wind speed (i.e., 7.4 to 9.4 miles per hour [mph]) occurs during the dry season, December to June. A preferred sanitary landfill would be downwind of any sensitive receptors.

Final SEIS 3-11 GMSWLF 3.2.1.5 Noise

Some of the typical noise that is associated with daily activities benefits human health, safety, and welfare. These include sirens, garbage collection operations, and construction and maintenance equipment. Other noises, including vehicle and air traffic, are associated with the movement of people and goods. Existing noise levels on the island of Guam are typical of those normally associated with nearby land uses and the overall level of development on the island. Currently there are no noise control laws on Guam.

Currently there are no constant sources of noise at Layon. The existing land use in and around Layon is a mixture of agricultural and recreational land use. Recreational land uses include mountain biking, hiking, fishing, hunting, and the use of 4x4 off-road vehicles. There would be an occasional noise distraction from the hunters and the 4x4 off-road vehicles. The former NASA Tracking Station is also located within the Dandan parcel. There is no noise associated with the tracking station.

3.2.2 Surface Water

3.2.2.1 Hydrology

The source of all fresh water on Guam is rainfall, which averages about 85 to 115 inches per year (in./yr). Guam has distinct wet and dry seasons. The wet season occurs from July through December when approximately 70 percent of the total annual rainfall is recorded. The driest months are from January through June (Gingerich 2003).

Dandan is a large land parcel consisting of relatively flat grasslands lying on the drainage divide between the Tinago, Fensol, and Fintasa rivers (Figure 2-1). The majority of the site is located within the Inarajan River basin (see Figure 3-1). Within the lnarajan River basin, the Fintasa River and the Fensol River combine to form the Laolao River. The Laolao River then enters the Inarajan River approximately 0.9 mile south of the Layon site, and the Inarajan River drains into Inarajan Bay.

As discussed in Section 3.2.1.2, the Inarajan River is an unlikely site for a surface water dam and reservoir. The Inarajan River was identified in the 1994 "Surface Water Development Study" as a potential site for a surface water dam and reservoir. Layon is located adjacent to the Fintasa River and is within the drainage basin for this potential reservoir site; however, no plans are currently in place to develop surface water supplies in the Layon area.

The Fensol River has a perennial channel length of 1.1 miles (Best and Davidson, 1981). The headwaters of the Fensol River begin in the southeast comer of the Layon footprint and extend for 498 ft within the footprint. A tributary to the Fintasa River begins in wetlands within the northwest comer of the Layon footprint and traverses the footprint for 705 ft. The Fintasa River has a perennial channel length of 2.9 miles (Best and Davidson, 1981 ).

Final SEIS 3-12 GMSWLF The northern comer of the site lies in the Tinago/Pauliluc River watershed (Figure 3-1 ). This area drains to a tributary of the Tinago River, which originates in the rolling upland hills between the landfill site and the NASA Tracking Station. The Tinago River enters the Pauliluc River approximately 1.5 miles east of the Layon site near Route 4 (Barrett Consulting Group, 1994), and the Pauliluc River flows into Pauliluc Bay.

The proposed Layon footprint is located approximately 2,700 ft from the Ugum River, which is a source of drinking water (Figure 3-1 ). However, the Layon footprint is not located within the Ugum River drainage area, and based on the groundwater levels recorded at the site, a groundwater hydraulic divide exists between the Ugum River and the footprint that isolates groundwater flows beneath the proposed landfill site from the Ugum River.

3.2.2.2 Water Quality

The Guam Water Quality Standards (GWQS) (GEPA 2001) divide Guam's surface waters into three categories:

Category S-1 High. Surfaces within this zone are used for drinking water resources, conservation of wilderness areas, and propagation and preservation of aquatic life, and aesthetic enjoyment. It is the objective that these waters shall be kept free of substances or conditions attributable to domestic, commercial, and industrial discharges, or agricultural, construction, or other land-use practices that impair their uses. No pollutant discharges would be permitted into S-1 waters via discharge or as a result of land uses adjacent to S-1 waters. Mixing zones would not be allowed within the boundaries of Category S-1.

Category S-2 Medium. Surface waters within this zone are used for recreational purposes including water contact recreation, for use as potable water supply after adequate treatment is provided, and for propagation and preservation of aquatic wildlife and aesthetic enjoyment.

Category S-3 Low. Surface waters within this zone are primarily used for commercial, agricultural, and industrial water supply. Aesthetic enjoyment and compatible recreation are acceptable in this zone, as well as maintenance of aquatic life. Compatible recreation may include limited body contact activities. All discharge permits under existing regulations may be required by GEPA to obtain such permits under these regulations.

The surface water quality standards are listed in Table 3-3 below for the island of Guam.

Final SEIS 3-13 GMSWLF Table 3-3. Surface Water Quality Standards

Surface Water Classification Parameter S-1 S-2 S-3 126 Colony Forming Units (CFU)/100 126 CFU/100 ml geometric mean (five 126 CFU/100 ml geometric mean (five milliliters (ml) geometric mean (five E. coli sequential samples taken over a 30-day sequential samples taken over a 30-day sequential samples taken over a 30-day period). 235 CFU/100 ml maximum. period). 406 CFU/100 ml maximum. period). 235 CFU/100 ml maximum.

33 CFU/100 ml geometric mean (five 33 CFU/100 ml geometric mean (five 33 CFU/100 ml geometric mean (five Enterococci sequential samples taken over a 30-day sequential samples taken over a 30-day sequential samples taken over a 30-day period). 61 CFU/100 ml maximum. period). 61 CFU/100 ml maximum. period). 108 CFU/100 ml maximum. pH 6.5 to 9.0 6.5 to 9.0 6.5 to 9.0 Phosphorus 0.025 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.10 mg/L

Nitrogen 0.10 mg/L 0.20 mg/L 0.50 mg/L Concentration shall not be decreased to Concentration shall not be decreased to Concentration shall not be decreased to <75% saturation at any time, as <75% saturation at any time, as influenced <75% saturation at any time, as influenced by salinity or naturally by salinity or naturally occurring influenced by salinity or naturally Dissolved occurring temperature variations. Where temperature variations. Where natural occurring temperature variations. Where Oxygen (DO) natural conditions cause lower DO levels, conditions cause lower DO levels, natural conditions cause lower DO levels, controllable water quality factors shall not controllable water quality factors shall not controllable water quality factors shall cause further reductions. (5.6 mg/L = cause further reductions. not cause further reductions. 75% saturated) Chlorides and 250 mg/L 250 mg/L 250mg/L Sulfates Total Dissolved 500 mg/Lor 133% of the ambient 500 mg/Lor 133% of the ambient 500 mg/Lor 133% of the ambient Solids condition. condition. condition.

Final SEIS 3-14 GMSWLF to

any

at

at

not

due

and

meeting

from

as

should

20%

saline

more

changed

conditions,

and

not

of

matter

shall

be

when

coral

than

conditions.

on

not

conditions

point

sources

increased

ambient

more

Centigrade

considered

except

Effluent

natural

S-3

any

shall

be

be

concentration

suspended effect

be

discharges

to

at

over

of

ambient

not

by

not

mg/L,

degree

total

resources.

shall

due

40

freshwater

NTU

1.0

adverse

from

shall

values

the

shall

conditions.

of

1.0

conditions.

an

when

ambient

temperature

and

aquatic

than

25%

point

standard

exceed

Salinity

wetlands

above

Concentrations any water.

than time, Turbidity natural

not exceed except this having Water more

other ambient

any

time,

at

having

not

to

not

than

meeting

from

as

any

20%

saline

changed

conditions,

due

and

other

not

of

matter

shall

be

more

than

conditions.

should

and

GMSWLF

not

when

point

sources

Classification

ambient

more

Centigrade

considered

Effluent

coral

S-2

natural

any

conditions at

shall

be

suspended

be discharges

increased

on

except

to

at over

of

by

not

be

Water

degree

shall

due

concentration

freshwater

NTU

not effect

1.0 ambient

mg/L,

values

3-15

shall

of conditions.

total

resources.

1.0

conditions.

20

when

ambient

temperature

Surface

shall

than

from

the

standard

adverse

10% Salinity

wetlands Concentrations

above

water. and point

Turbidity natural exceed an aquatic ambient exceed except this Water more

any

shall

at

by

mg/L,

and

meeting ambient

from

as

5

20%

saline

natural

changed

total

and

not (NTU), of

matter

to

be

from

coral

the

conditions. than

Standards.

ambient

measured

exceed

on

due

not

units

and

as

sources

more

Centigrade

considered

not

Effluent over

natural

S-1

shall

be

when

effect

suspended discharges

be

Quality

increased

time,

to

point,

of

by

NTU

not

be

turbidity

degree

should

resources.

any

shall

due

any

except

Water 0.5

freshwater

not

1.0

adverse

at

shall

of conditions.

an

when

ambient

temperature

shall

aquatic

than

Guam

standard

exceed

Salinity

wetlands

above

Concentrations water.

except

conditions at concentration point

Turbidity

conditions. Water nephelometric not other ambient conditions, having more

this

2001.

GEPA

SEIS

Parameter Salinity

Solids

Total Suspended

Turbidity Temperature

Source:

Final Surface water is designated as S-2 (medium) within Layon (GEPA 2001). This category is used for recreational purposes; potable water use is only acceptable after adequate treatment is provided. GEP A performed a series of sampling events in 1997 at two sampling locations, which are referred to as INRAP along the Pauliluc River and INRL along the Laolao River (Figure 3-1). These samples were taken once a month from May to August during 1997, for a total of four samples. Both rivers may be influenced from the Layon site. Table 3-4 lists the results from the 1997 sampling event.

Table 3-4. Results From GEPA 1997 Sampling Events at Laolao and Pauliluc Rivers

Laolao River (GEPA Data location INRL) Minimum Maximum Avera2e GWQS(S-2) pH 7.0 8.8 7.6 6.5-9.0 Turbidity (NTU) 2.6 127.0 40.6 1.0 N03-N (mg/L) 0.0 0.052 0.0 0.200 P-tot (mg/L) 0.0 0.062 0.026 0.050 Temp (C) 25.0 28.4 26.7 NA Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 7.5 8.9 8.1 NA Total Suspended Solids /mg/L) 100.0 100.0 100.0 20 Salinity (mg/L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 250

Pauliluc River (GEPA Data location INRAP) Minimum Maximum Avera2e GWQS (S-2) pH 7.1 7.4 7.3 6.5-9.0 Turbidity (NTU) 4.4 174.0 58.6 1.0 N03-N (mg/L) 0.0 0.016 0.009 0.200 P-tot (mg/L) 0.034 0.138 0.077 0.050 Temp (C) 26.0 26.0 26.6 NA Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 7.06 8.9 7.803 NA Total Suspended Solids /mg/L) 129.0 120.0 120.0 20 Salinity (mg/L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 250 Notes: NA-Not Applicable; GWQS -Guam Water Quality Standards (2001).

Salinity, nitrate-nitrogen (N03-N), and pH sampled during the 1997 GEPA sampling event all fall below the GWQS. Turbidity levels range from 2.6 to 127 NTU at the Laolao River and 4.4 to 174 NTU at the Pauliluc River. This wide range may be the result of heavy runoff and or heavy rains. The phosphorus level at the Laolao River falls below the GWQS. The phosphorus level (P-tot) for the Pauliluc River frequently exceeds the GWQS and is most likely the result of agricultural activity in the Layon area.

Final SEIS 3-16 GMSWLF Layon is located in an agricultural zone. Non-point source pollution from the agricultural activities in Layon most likely contributes to the degradation of water quality in Layon and its receiving water bodies.

An additional study of the Inarajan River was conducted by the Water and Environmental Research Institute of the Western Pacific (WERI) in 2000 (Taborosi and Khosrowpanah 2000). WERI analyzed metals and nutrients from samples taken from the Laolao and Fintasa rivers in 1993. Most of the metals and nutrients fell below federal and territorial standards, with the exception of iron and nitrate-nitrogen which are probably from agricultural waste and mobilization of metal precipitates [Iron (Fe), Magnesium (Mg)] in volcanic rocks by groundwater. The study suggests that the iron and magnesium levels reported were "some of the highest on Guam." The Fintasa, Fensol, and Laolao rivers form a sub-basin of the Inarajan River, which could potentially be developed as a water source.

Stormwater Management

The Layon footprint has been located in the higher elevations of the site. The general storm water runoff flow direction is away from the landfill footprint. Currently, there are no stormwater management structures within the project area.

3.2.2.3 Wetlands

Wetland areas are defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. In most cases, three wetland parameters must be present in order for an area to be considered a wetland. These include hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology. Wetlands act as natural filters and provide various functions including water quality improvements (pollution, nutrient, and sediment control), flood control, production of detritus, waterfowl and wildlife habitat, and erosion control.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, states, "avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative."

None of Guam's wetlands is specifically designated as a protected area. The government of Guam owns parcels of land in several wetland areas and has begun to acquire property from private landowners with the goal being to protect the wetlands.

A wetland survey was completed at the Dandan parcel in southern Guam using remote sensing data. Wetland types were identified and the general location of the wetlands were mapped by using ground verification data from Duenas & Associates, Inc. (D&A), USGS geologic maps, USDA soils maps, and the geologic and hydrologic observations provided by Mink and Yuen. These data sources assisted in classifying high-resolution

Final SEIS 3-17 GMSWLF IKON OS satellite imagery into classes of wetlands, vegetation, soil types, badland areas, agricultural lands, and building/structures and roads. Limited field surveys were conducted to ground truth the data. The four major wetland types identified include palustrine emergent, persistent, semipermanent (PEMlF); palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonal (PEMlC); palustrine, forested, broad-leafed evergreen, seasonal (PF03C); and palustrine open-water semipermanent wetlands (POWF). The predominant wetland type was found to be PF03C (BAE Systems 2004).

Approximately 9.9 acres of wetlands within the Layon footprint have been delineated by D&A (see Figure 2-3). These wetlands consist ofreed marshes dominated by Eleocharis dulcis and E. ochrostachys, and karriso (Phragmites karka), with an assortment of fems (Thelypteris interrupta), grasses (Paspalum orbiculare and Sacciolepis indica), and sedges. The wetlands are associated with the Tinago, Fensol, and Fintasa rivers. The wetlands at Layon have also been identified as habitat capable of supporting the endangered Mariana common moorhen, although none were found during pedestrian surveys conducted by D&A, Inc. in 2004.

3.2.2.4 Coastal Zone Management

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is a federal law that was established to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone. This protection of natural resources includes wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, and fish and wildlife and their habitats, within the coastal zone. Participation in the CZMA is a voluntary partnership between the federal government and the U.S. coastal states and territories. Under the CZMA, the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program was established and is administered at the federal level by the Coastal Programs Division (CPD) within the NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). The CZM Program is a federal-state partnership for protecting, restoring, and responsibly developing the nation's diverse coastal communities and resources and requires federal agencies to conduct their planning, management, development, and regulatory activities in a manner consistent with the State or Territorial CZM Program.

Under the CZMA, a federal consistency determination is required. CZMA requires that a federal agency determine that any activity that has effects on any land, water, or natural resource of the coastal zone is consistent to the maximum extent possible with the enforceable policies (i.e., policies that are legally binding) of an approved Coastal Management Plan (CMP). Federal consistency determinations help ensure the balanced use and protection of coastal resources through CMP policies. The Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans is the lead agency responsible for the federal consistency review (OCRM 2004b). The Guam Coastal Management Program (GCMP) is responsible for conducting federal consistency review of federal activities (activities requiring a federal license or permit), federal assistance to local governments (review process is conducted as specified in 15 CFR Part 930 and in the Government of Guam Executive Order 78-37), and any federal wetland permit that would require that the GCMP make a determination of consistency.

Final SEIS 3-18 GMSWLF The GCMP relies on a number of interagency partnerships to ensure that a balanced approach to coastal management is achieved. The most prominent issues that the GCMP focuses on include coral reef and water quality degradation, coastal hazards (including typhoons and flooding), public access, urban growth, wetlands, and cultural and historic resource preservation. In addition, the GCMP has a public education and outreach program that focuses on coral reef education (NOAA 2003).

The "Coastal Zone" for Guam includes all non-federal property within Guam, including offshore islands and submerged lands and waters extending seaward for a distance of 3 nautical miles. Layon is located within the coastal zone and must comply to the maximum extent possible with the enforceable policies set forth in the GCMP.

3.2.3 Terrestrial Ecology

Guam is an oceanic island that has never been connected to a continental land mass. Because of its isolation and great distance from Indonesia, the Philippines, and mainland Asia, the land plants and animals that inhabit Guam have been transported from elsewhere by man or nature and in a few cases evolved into distinct, endemic, species. Guam supports many introduced species of plants and animals. The U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits the taking of any listed species. For Guam, the USFWS lists thirteen species. These include two mammals, seven birds, three reptiles, and one plant (USFWS Pacific Islands Ecological Services, 2005). Twenty-three species, including two mammals, nine birds, six reptiles, three mollusks, and three plants, are listed as endangered or threatened by the Guam Department of Agriculture (GDA).

3.2.3.1 Vegetation

Guam shares a large number of plant and animal species with the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which administers the other 14 islands in the archipelago. The native biota of Guam has strong Australasian affinities. Most of Guam is covered by secondary growth forest. Scattered patches of potentially original forest still exist on the northern plateau and in less accessible areas (World Wildlife website, accessed July 27, 2004).

The terrestrial flora at Layon was recorded during pedestrian surveys conducted in July and November 2004 by D&A, Inc.

The Layon footprint contains four vegetation communities - savanna grassland, ravine forest, disturbed vegetation/badlands, and wetlands (Figure 3-4). The savanna grasslands are extensive occupying most of the northwestern portion of the landfill site. The major species include swordgrass (Miscanthus jloridulus), foxtail (Pennisetum polystachion), Sorghum halepense, Dicanthium bladhii, and wildcane (Saccharum spontaneum). Small herbs intermingled among the grasses include Elephantopus mollis, Lycopodium cernuum, Stylosanthes guianensis, Stachytarphetajamaicensis, and Rhynchospera rubra. The vegetation transitions into a shrubby profile on slopes, with Wikstroemia elliptica, Geniostoma micranthum, Decaspermum fruticosum, Glochidion marianum, Phyllanthus

Final SEIS 3-19 GMSWLF saffordii, and Diane/la saffordi. Small trees, such as Pouteria obovata and Cycas circinalis, also occur among the mixed shrubbery.

The central and southern portions of Layon are composed of badlands with exposed soils and sparse vegetation, such as Gleichenia linearis, Lycopodium cernuum, Dimeria chloridiformis, Hyptis capitata, Chrysopogon aciculatus, Pennisetum polystachion, and Melastoma malabathricum. The disturbed vegetation community at the site is associated with past clearing activities for roads, trails, or agricultural fields. Fires have also cleared the original plant community and produced disturbed areas with species such as carpetgrass (Axonopus compressus), sleeping grass (Mimosa pudica), dodder (Cassytha filiformis), and Eragrostis atrovirens.

Only small pockets of ravine forest remain among the badland and savanna vegetation, hinting at what may have been a more extensive community prior to fires and other disturbances. Forested areas are found in the southwestern sector of the site along a tributary into the Fintasa River. The community contains kafu (Pandanus tectorius), fading (Cycas circinalis), da'ok (Calophyllum inophyllum), and lada (Marinda citrifolia), with an understory of bejuco halom tano (Flagellaria indica), Scleria polycarpa, Chromolaena odorata, and Lantana camera, and epiphytes such as pugua machena (Davallia solida) and Pyrrosia lanceoloata. Da'ok trees also form small stands in the western and central sectors, with a similar species composition.

The landowner of the Dandan parcel, the Calvo family, authorized the Guam Department of Agriculture to enter the property for its Forest Stewardship Program. According to the Chief of the Forestry Division, the division has planted approximately 50 acres of Acacia auriculiformis, Casuarina equisetifolia, and Calophyllum inophyllum seedlings in scattered badlands throughout the Layon area under the Forest Stewardship Program. An estimated $200,000 has been invested since plantings began about two to three years ago (Personal communication with Mr. David Limtiaco, Chief of Forestry Division, 7 April 2005).

3.2.3.2 Wildlife

Due to its isolation and distance from continental landmasses, Guam's land animals are few. The Mariana fruit bat, the only endemic mammal on Guam, exists in small numbers with a population of approximately 100-300 individuals, most of which are found on Andersen Air Force Base.

The introduction of the brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis), has been determined to be the primary cause of the near extermination and extinction of some of Guam's native birds. The only native species that is relatively common is the yellow bittern (Jxobrychus sinensis). Loss of bats and other small mammals has also been speculated to be due to the presence of the brown tree snake, an effective predator on juvenile bats.

Pedestrian surveys conducted by D&A, Inc. in July and November 2004 were the primary means of detecting fauna at Layon. Eight-minute bird counts using the

Final SEIS 3-20 GMSWLF methodology of Reynolds et al. (1980) to quantify avian fauna were conducted at seven stations located along the access road, and northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast of the site (Figure 3-4). A total of two mammals, eight birds, one reptile, four amphibians, and two mollusks were found at Layon during the pedestrian and bird count surveys (Table 3-5). No threatened or endangered species were found during the surveys. The wetlands at Layon have been identified as habitat capable of supporting the endangered Mariana common moorhen, The endangered Mariana common moorhen has been known historically to utilize wetlands at Dandan east of the footprint.

Table 3-5. Terrestrial and Avian Fauna Observed Within Layon

Common Name Scientific Name Status* !Mollusks k<\frican Snail IAchatina fulica I land Snail IBradybaeana pellucida I li\.mphibians Marine Toad IBufo marinus I !Arrowhead Frog A1icrohvlavulchra I Polypedates !Brown tree frog megacephalus I !Black-spotted pond frog !Rana nigromaculata I n.eptiles Curious skink Carlia fusca I Birds !Rock dove Columba livia I !Blue-breasted quail Coturnix chinensis I Black drongo 'Dicrurus macrocercus I Black francolin Francolinus francolinus I Yellow bittern IJxobrychus sinensis N Eurasian tree sparrow Passer montanus I Pacific lesser golden-plover Pluvialis dominica M Philippine turtle-dove Streptopelia bitorquata I Mammals Feral dog Canis familiaris I Feral pig Sus scrofa I TOTAL SPECIES = 17 Notes: *Status: I= Introduced, M =Migratory, N=Native

Final SEIS 3-21 GMSWLF 3.2.4 Aquatic Ecology

D&A, Inc. conducted biological surveys at Layon in July and November 2004. The surveys were the primary means of detecting terrestrial and aquatic fauna at Layon. No macrofauna were detected in the sectors of the Fensol and Fintasa rivers in the vicinity of Layon during the biological surveys.

The Fensol River was investigated by Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DA WR) and D&A, Inc. personnel on November 9, 2004. The only macrofauna observed were water striders, which are common insects in Guam's rivers. The freshwater eel, Anguilla marmorata, and the Tahitian prawn have been observed in the lower Fintasa River in the vicinity of Fintasa Falls by DAWR. Fintasa Falls is located approximately 0.25 miles from Layon.

The northeastern corner of Layon encompasses a short section of a tributary to the Tinago River mostly choked with wetland vegetation (Eleocharis sp.) (Figure 3-3). The flagtail (Kuhlia rupestris ), tilapia ( Oreochromis sp. ), and green-spotted pond frogs (Rana nigromaculata) were noted in a survey of the northern branch of the Tinago River. Both freshwater and marine fish have been observed in the lower reaches of the Tinago River within 150 meters (m) upstream and 200 m downstream of the Tinago River Bridge (DAWR, Guam Department of Agriculture, unpublished data). These include Anguilla marmorata, Awaous guamensis, Kuhlia rupestris, Lutjanus argentimaculatus, Moolgarda engeli, Sicyopterus macrostetholepis, Stenogobius sp., Stiphodon sp., and Zenarchopterus dispar. Invertebrates, such as Tahitian prawn (Macrobrachium lar), thiarid snails, and possibly the grapsid crab Varuna litterata, were also reported by DAWR. Local residents of Malojloj report that freshwater eels and shrimp are harvested from the river systems surrounding the landfill site.

3.3 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

The zone of influence, or geographic scope, for this section varies depending on the topic being discussed. The areas used for describing existing conditions vary from the entire island of Guam to the district or block group (BG), which are both U.S. Census-defined geographic areas, surrounding the site. A BG is a subdivision of a census tract.

3.3.1 Socioeconomic Conditions

When siting an MSWLF, adjacent land uses such as residential, commercial, recreational/tourism areas, wells, water courses, historic sites, and roads should be taken into consideration within 0.25 mile (1,320 ft) of the site (§23401 of the Rules and Regulations for the GEPA Solid Waste Disposal). For the purposes of this discussion on socioeconomics, a more conservative radius of 0.5 mile (2,640 ft) is used to determine effects of the proposed landfill relating to land use, demographics, recreation, and sensitive receptors.

Final SEIS 3-22 GMSWLF 3.3.1.1 Land Use

2 2 Guam covers an area of 549 square kilometers (km ) (212 square miles [mi ]) and is composed of 11 percent arable land, 11 percent agricultural, 15 percent meadows and pastures, 18 percent forest and woodland, and 45 percent other land uses (GovGuam 2004). Approximately 30 percent of the island is federally owned. GovGuam owns approximately 25 percent and the remaining 45 percent is privately owned (United States Department of the Interior [USDOI] 2004a).

The existing land use on the 126-acre Layon footprint is a mixture of agricultural and recreational (Figure 3-5). Agricultural uses occur within 0.5-mile of Layon. Cultivated fields of watermelon and other crops and a fenced enclosure for cattle are located to the north of the footprint, while a small garden plot is present to the southeast of the footprint. The western central sector shows evidence of previous planting activities.

Recreational land uses include mountain biking, hiking, fishing, hunting, and the use of 4x4 off-road vehicles. Tracks from off-road vehicles, as well as empty rifle shells from hunters, were observed during pedestrian surveys. No permanent manmade structures are present within Layon. All activities in the Dandan parcel must be coordinated through the Calvo family's caretaker, Mr. Frank Manglona; otherwise, they are unauthorized. Use of off-road vehicles and burning to attract feral deer for hunting are not authorized activities.

Adjacent Properties

The Dandan parcel (Lot B-3-REM) in which the Layon footprint is located is approximately 2,800 acres of undeveloped land (Figure 3-5). The Dandan parcel is privately owned by joint tenancy involving First Island Industry, Inc. (a subsidiary of Oxford Properties and Facilities, Ltd.) and Calvo's Insurance Underwriters. The undeveloped parcel provides greenspace on all sides between the footprint and the nearest property boundaries. Adjacent properties surrounding the parcel in which Dandan is located are listed below in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6. Adjacent Parcels to the Layon Footprint

Shortest Distance from Parcel Number Owner/Land Use Footprint to Parcel Boundary Lot 380-R2 GovGuam (Undeveloped) 557 ft to south Lot 354-3 GovGuam (Undeveloped) 3,379 ft (0.64 mi) to southeast Lot 354-1 GovGuam 4,091 ft (0.77 mi) to southeast Lot 354-4 GovGuam (Inarajan Middle School) 4,435 ft (0.84 mi) to southeast Parcel 1 Former NASA Tracking Station 1,312 ft (0.25 mi) to northeast (Currently inactive) Unsurveyed GovGuam (Undeveloped) 1.09 mi to east Gov't. Land Lot 275 Matsuzato Sogyo Co. Ltd. (Undeveloped) 3,083 ft (0.58 mi) to west

Final SEIS 3-23 GMSWLF Shortest Distance from Parcel Number Owner/Land Use Footprint to Parcel Boundary Lot 59-6 Rodney B. & Leonora F. Bordallo 3,323 ft (0.63 mi) to northwest (Undeveloped) Lot B-3 Calvo's Insurance Underwriters, Inc./ 2,290 ft (1.42 mi) to northwest First Island Industry, Inc. (Undeveloped, agricultural)

3.3.1.2 Zoning

Layon is located in "A" or Agricultural zones (Figure 3-5). The following uses are permitted in an "A" zone:

• one-family dwellings and duplexes;

• farming and fisheries, including all types of activities customarily carried on in the field of agriculture and fisheries, including the raising of crops and fruits, poultry and livestock, grazing and dairying, and tree and other vegetative production, whether for commercial or personal uses;

• uses customarily accessory to any of the above uses, including home occupations and private automobile parking areas as well as accessory buildings and structures such as private garages, warehouses, barns, corrals, or other similar structures.

3.3.1.3 Demographics

For this section, general demographic and economic data are presented for the island of Guam, as well as some information for the three districts (or county subdivisions as referred to in the 2000 U.S. Census). Layon is located in the southern portion of the island in the Inarajan district.

The 2000 U.S. Census results for the island of Guam estimated the population to be 154,805. This represents an increase from the 1990 U.S. Census of 16 percent. The majority of Guam's population lives in urban areas (93.l percent), while only 6.9 percent live in rural areas. The median age on Guam is 27.4 years.

The ethnic composition of the 2000 population was 47 percent Chamorro, 25 percent Filipino, 10 percent white, and 18 percent Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and others (USDOI 2004a). The 2000 population estimates for Inarajan is 3,052 a 24 percent change from 1990 of2,469.

3.3.1.4 Economics

The economy of Guam depends mainly on U.S. federal and military spending and on revenues from tourism. As of March 2003, there were a total of 54,790 people employed

Final SEIS 3-24 GMSWLF in Guam. Approximately 74 percent of the labor force is employed by the private sector, and the federal or Guam government employs the rest (GovGuam 2004). The unemployment rate in Guam was 11.4 percent in 2002 (USDOI 2004b ). The current Ordot Dump is employing 13 personnel, including equipment operators and solid waste technicians.

Tourism is Guam's number one industry, accounting for up to 60 percent of the government's annual revenues and providing more than 20,000 direct and indirect jobs (GEDA 2000). The Japanese normally account for 80 to 90 percent of tourists traveling to Guam, and the remaining travel from Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and neighboring islands such as the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The tourism industry grew rapidly during the 1990s, but decreased in 2002 and 2003 due to air traffic concerns, the weak Japanese economy, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic, and several severe typhoons (USDOI OIA 2004).

Agriculture, which makes up 7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is found throughout Guam. The 2002 Census of Agriculture recorded that there were 153 farms on the island, producing a total market value of approximately $4.2 million for the agricultural products sold. Within the district of Inarajan, there were 21 farms in 2002 (compared to 19 farms in 1998) that sold $863,550 of agricultural products. Within the district of Asan, there were no farms in 2002 (compared to two farms in 1998), and within the district of Chalan Pago-Ordot there were two farms (compared to 5 farms in 1998) with total sales undisclosed in 2002 (USDA 2002).

Currently, Layon has minimal economic use; however, the area has the potential to be used for residential or agricultural applications. Within the vicinity of Layon, there are farmers who sell produce to local supermarkets. There is an agreement between the local farmers and the Dandan parcel landowner wherein the farmers can use the land for free if they allow Payless Supermarkets the first opportunity to purchase their produce, which is a Calvo-owned enterprise.

3.3.1.5 Recreation

Within the vicinity of the Layon footprint, there are several tourist and recreation areas. The Talofofo Falls Park is a tourist-oriented facility located more than 1.27 miles northeast of the footprint. Three waterfalls, the Fintasa, Laolao, and Inarajan Falls, are located along rivers to the south of the footprint. These waterfalls are attractions for hikers and outdoor enthusiasts. The rivers and streams are used for fishing and the lands are used for hunting by local people. The caretaker of the Dandan parcel assigns the shrimp trappers and fishermen their sections of the river. He also notifies users, such as farmers, when authorized hunters are present on the land during hunting season. Hiking, mountain biking, and off-road vehicles are other recreational uses for the area. All activities within the Dandan parcel must be coordinated through the Calvo family's caretaker, Mr. Frank Manglona.

Final SEIS 3-25 GMSWLF Dandan was the original release site for the introduced black francolin (Francolinus francolinus) by GDA, which permits licensed hunting of this game bird on private and Government of Guam lands. The vicinity around Layon is currently used for hunting activities.

3.3.1.6 Sensitive Receptors

Sensitive receptors to landfills include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, clinics, old age homes, recreational areas and facilities, and other public facilities that may be located within a 0.5-mile radius of a landfill site. These facilities can be sensitive to issues such as air quality, water quality, noise, odor, and other aesthetic issues, which are discussed in the corresponding sections.

The proposed sanitary landfill would be operated in accordance with §23304, which requires operators of an MSWLF to cover solid waste daily with earthen material to "control disease vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter and scavenging." The proper management of the facility, along with a facility buffer area to allow sufficient distance or separation from abutting properties and sensitive receptors, would promote the facility as a good neighbor in the community. A good neighbor facility can have a neutral or positive effect in the area of the facility. Conversely, a facility that does not meet the requirements of §23304 or is not arranged to provide natural or constructed visual screening can have a negative impact.

The Layon footprint is not immediately adjacent to sensitive receptors, such as residences or schools. Potential residential sensitive receptors are more than 1 mile (5,280 ft) to the east in Malojloj village, and Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority's (GHURA's) Southern Rental Housing and private residences to the southeast. The Inarajan Mayor's Office and other facilities in the area are about 1. 7 miles east of the Layon footprint. Inarajan Middle School is located 0.84 mile southeast of the footprint. There are private homes located along an approximately 2,500-ft section of Dandan Road that could be potential receptors of noise from vehicle traffic hauling waste to the site.

3.3.2 Infrastructure

3.3.2.1 Utilities

The locations of local utilities are shown in Figure 3-6.

Power

Guam Power Authority (GPA) generates and distributes all the power demands on Guam to more than 40,000 metered customers. Guam's electricity supply is derived 100 percent from fossil fuels. In 2001, the total electricity consumption on Guam was 771.9 million kWh (CIA 2005).

Final SEIS 3-26 GMSWLF The Layon footprint is located approximately 8,300 linear ft from GPA's existing power distribution system near Route 4.

Potable Water Supply

The Guam Waterworks Authority (formerly the Public Utilities Agency of Guam) is responsible for developing, treating, and distributing approximately 74 percent of potable water demands. The remainder is handled by the US Air Force and Navy installations on Guam. The Northern Guam Lens Aquifer is the principal source of potable water for the island, which does not require extensive treatment (GDPW 1998). Approximately 40 mgd are currently pumped from this aquifer into the distribution system by more than 100 wells. Of this total, approximately 30 mgd is supplied to GWA customers (GWA 2004).

Surface drinking water sources used by GWA include an impoundment on the Ugum River, which produces approximately 2 mgd, and water purchased from the U.S. Navy Water System (Fena Lake), which produces approximately 9 mgd (GWA purchases 3 mgd from the U.S. Navy to service its customers). Spring water from Asan and Santa Rita supplements the potable water supply to Asan, Piti, Anigua, and Santa Rita villages (GWA2004).

The Layon footprint does not have existing water transm1ss1on lines on site. It is approximately 2 miles from the nearest public water transmission system, located along Route 4 (Figure 3-6).

Wastewater/Sewer

The Guam Waterworks Authority is also responsible for the wastewater system. Improvements were made to the operation of the wastewater utility during 1998. The North District (ND) and the Agana sewage treatment plants (STPs) were about to be released from Administrative Orders issued by USEP A for not complying with NPDES discharge standards. The transfer of Tumon Bay sewage to the ND plant and the completion of the ND STP rehabilitation have facilitated this change. GW A has also reached agreement with the U.S. Navy in regard to the relocation of the Agat STP and the joint outfall has been designed. The plant would provide 20 mgd of secondary treatment capacity. The new Agat STP would phase out the Agat STP, and the Port treatment facility would be phased out and the effluent pumped to the Agana STP (USDOI 1999).

The closest public sewer system to the Layon footprint is approximately 2 miles away in Malojloj Village near Route 4.

Telecommunications

Guam Telephone Authority (GTA), a privately-owned utility, provides fixed line and wireless telecommunications services to the people of Guam. The Layon footprint is approximately 8,600 ft away from the closest GTA communications infrastructure along

Final SEIS 3-27 GMSWLF Route 4. Cable TV infrastructure, owned and operated by Marianas Cable Vision, is more than 3 miles away from the site.

3.3.2.2 Road Network

Site Access and Haul Routes

Access to the Malojloj area is via Route 4, the primary access road to southern Guam, which is currently in need of improvements. The primary access to the Layon footprint is Dandan Road, which extends from Route 4 at Malojloj to the former NASA Tracking Station as depicted in Figure 3-6. Currently, there is no access road leading directly to the footprint from Dandan Road.

Haul routes to Layon would be via Guam's major highway routes to Route 4, then through Dandan Road, which extends from Route 4 at Malojloj to the former NASA Tracking Station, as depicted in Figure 3-6.

Traffic

Existing vehicular traffic flow to and from the Ordot Dump includes all varieties of vehicles, including, but not limited to solid waste packer trucks, dump trucks, pickups and trash trailers. These waste haulers have capacities ranging from 1 to 20 cubic yards. Current data recorded at the Ordot Dump show that more than 200 vehicle loads totaling greater than 400 tons of waste can be experienced on certain days.

According to the 2020 Guam Highway Master Plan, total vehicle trips in southern Guam in 2003 were estimated at 12,066. Total island-wide vehicle-trips in the same year were 446,022. These vehicle trips include all solid waste collection and disposal traffic movement.

Highway Safety

The highway safety issues that are relevant to traffic flow to and from the site are mostly along Route 4. Substandard geometrics and narrow travel lanes for certain segments of Route 4 exist, as well as a lack of climbing lanes for the segment of Route 4 from Ylig Bridge to Inarajan. There are no paved shoulders and the paved surface of Route 4 is in need of repair along certain segments.

3.3.2.3 Energy Use and Conservation Measures

Currently, there is no infrastructure or development at the site. Therefore, there are no energy requirements at Layon.

Final SEIS 3-28 GMSWLF 3.3.3 Public Health and Safety

This section provides existing conditions relating to public health issues associated with a landfill. Issues normally considered important to human health and safety include disease vectors (i.e., birds, insects, and rodents), inadvertent disposal of household hazardous waste, illegal roadside dumping and wind-blown litter near landfill, air pollution from dust-emitting operations (truck traffic), landfill gas migration, toxic air pollutants and odors associated with landfill operations, and groundwater and surface water contamination from leachate migration (Lee 1994). Air emissions from the landfill are discussed in Section 3 .2.1.4, groundwater issues are discussed in Section 3 .2.1.2, and surface water quality issues are discussed in Section 3.2.2.

Issues with the current landfill at Ordot Dump include containing wind-blown litter, reducing the presence of birds and other disease-carrying organisms, and managing odors that affect properties downwind. However, recent management has changed and conditions are improving.

3.3.3.1 Household Hazardous Waste

Currently, no hazardous waste is allowed into the Ordot Dump. The current Operating Plan for the Ordot Dump classifies the following as hazardous waste: paint, adhesives, solvents, cleaners, pesticides, herbicides, vehicle and non-vehicle batteries, used oil, gasoline, diesel, or any flammable liquid.

3.3.4 Aesthetics

Guam's aesthetic environment is unique based on its geology, vegetation, and climate. The northern half of the island is a limestone plateau with cliffs and limestone forests that support unique vegetation and wildlife. The southern half of Guam consists of hilly volcanic terrain with elevations up to 1,330 ft above MSL. Due to the soils and geology, all of the permanent rivers are found in the southern portion of the island. The central and southern parts of the island are mountainous and can be viewed from coastal areas (GDPW 1998).

The Dandan parcel is a relatively open expanse of land stretching between the U gum watershed on the north and the Inarajan watershed to the south. The view corridor from the Layon footprint encompasses Inarajan Middle School and GHURA housing to the south, private residences to the east, and the Talofofo Falls Park to the north.

3.3.5 Archaeological/Historical Resources

3.3.5.1 Background

Archaeologists recognize two broad prehistoric (or pre-European contact) cultural periods in the Marianas, the Pre-Latte and the Latte, while they conventionally divide the historic record using the same units as the Historic Period (Spanish, First American,

Final SEIS 3-29 GMSWLF Japanese/World War II, and Second American). Sites are considered historic as opposed to modem if they are at least 50 years old and are considered historically significant if they qualify for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (MARS, 2005).

Micronesian Archaeological Research Services (MARS, 2005) prepared a cultural resources assessment including a literature review and reconnaissance-level archaeological survey in the Dandan parcel. PHRI conducted an inventory survey within Layon in 2004.

3.3.5.2 National Historic Preservation Act

The archaeological work at Layon is mandated by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 60, 36 CFR Part 800, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation). Other federal legislation pertaining to the protection of historic properties (e.g., the Antiquities Act of 1906, the National Trust for Historic Preservation Act of 1949, the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960) and local historic preservation laws of Guam potentially apply as well.

Guam laws include Executive Orders 89-9, 89-24, Public Law 12-126, Public Law 20- 104, Public Law 20-151, and Public Law 25-72. Also applicable to archaeological projects are the Dept. of Parks and Recreation's General Guidelines for Archaeological Burials. The Guidelines are pertinent when human skeletal remains are found at an archaeological site, requiring that such remains be avoided if at all feasible.

The National Register of Historic Places was established to recognize properties (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) that are "significant in American history, architecture, archaeology and culture ... " (36 CFR Part 60.1). Properties are significant if they satisfy each of two categories comprising the National Register criteria for evaluation (36 CFR Part 60.4): (1) they must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; and (2) they must be characterized by at least one of the following attributes:

(a) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

(b) associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

(c) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

(d) have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Final SEIS 3-30 GMSWLF Section 106 of the NHP A and its implementing regulations define an undertaking as "a project, activity, or program that can result in the character or use of historic properties, if any such historic properties are located in the area of potential effects" (36 CFR Part 800.2(0). Carried out during planning, the Section 106 process involves defining an area of potential effect: in this case, the alternative footprint selected for the landfill and adjacent areas that are likely to be affected by the construction and use of the landfill (roads, staging areas, etc.). Once this area (or areas) of potential effect has been established, the Section 106 process proceeds in steps.

The process begins with the identification of historic properties. A determination is made as to whether the undertaking will have an effect on those historic properties. If no historic properties are present within the area of potential effect, then a No Property finding is made and the undertaking may proceed. If historic properties are present within the area of potential effect, an assessment of effect is made and the properties are evaluated for their significance using National Register criteria a-d. A determination of No Effect results when the undertaking will not affect the historic properties. A determination of Adverse Effect results when the undertaking will harm one or more historic properties. A determination of Adverse Effect may be considered No Adverse Effect if an historic property is of value for its potential contribution to archaeological, historical, or architectural research, and when such value can be substantially preserved through the conduct of appropriate research, and such research is conducted in accordance with applicable professional standards and guidelines.

The Guam HRD must be consulted for their concurrence with the determination of effect and to establish any terms and conditions under which the undertaking will be carried out, especially for findings of No Adverse Effect. The undertaking may then proceed in accordance with the stipulations of an executed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or under the conditions for a No Adverse Effect determination. No further action is required for No Property or No Effect determinations.

3.3.5.3 Archaeological and Historical Resources

Archival Research

Archival research found that historic land use at Dandan included Spanish Period ranching and family subsistence farms. Evidence of prehistoric land use is indicated by several archaeological surveys in and near the parcel. Figure 3-7 shows archaeological site locations from the Guam Historic Resources Division (HRD) data base and locations of sites found during the present project.

Within the parcel, five sites had been located but none of them within the landfill footprint. Previously known sites in the western portion of the parcel are 66-09-0529, an artifact scatter with subsurface deposits; 66-09-0532, an artifact scatter with subsurface deposits and latte stones (Highness et al. 1991) and 66-09-0098 (South Ugum Ridge), an artifact scatter (Reinman 1965-66); in the northeast comer of the parcel is Site T-1, a

Final SEIS 3-31 GMSWLF pottery scatter (Haun and Donham 1989); and in the eastern part of the parcel by Assupian Lake is 66-09-0099 (Assupian), a latte site (Reinman 1965-66).

The presence of wetlands in the Dandan parcel undoubtedly was a significant factor affecting prehistoric as well as historic land use patterns. In fact, Latte Phase sites tend to occur near wetlands in the interior of the island. Prehistorically, wetlands could have been used for rice cultivation as well as seasonal planting of taro. Wet soils are also conducive to cultivation of betel nut, coconut, and bananas. During Spanish and early American Periods, wetlands were important water sources for cattle raising and these wet soils were useful for subsistence farming as in prehistoric times.

Inventory Survey

During August and September 2004, PHRI conducted an inventory survey within the proposed Layon footprint and identified ten isolated occurrences (Table 3-7). The finds represent Prehistoric and Historic Period activities but the find locations lack the complexity and integrity normally associated with formal archaeological site designations. No such formal archaeological sites were identified during the survey.

Eight of the isolated occurrences are prehistoric; six consist of one or two slingstones and two are modified boulders, which were probably used in tool making. Near one of the boulders was a Latte Period pot sherd. A possible groundstone tool fragment and a chert core were also recovered. Two of the isolated occurrences are historic and relate to ranching: a single large wrought iron nail and a bail of barbwire.

A large quantity of bullet casings and spent bullets was noted throughout the Layon footprint. These bullets included .30, .45, and .50 caliber rounds commonly associated with WWII Era US military forces.

Table 3-7. Summary of Isolated Occurrences

Site No. Description Site Type Site Environment 1 Wrou1l;ht iron nail Historic Badland area 2 Barb wire Historic Badland area 3 Slingstone Prehistoric Partially vegetated Badland Area 4 Two slingstones Prehistoric Partially vegetated Badland Area 5 Groundstone fragment Prehistoric Badland area 6 Basalt boulder, sherd Prehistoric Badland area 7 Two slingstones Prehistoric Badland area 8 Chert core Prehistoric Badland area 9 Two slingstones Prehistoric Partially vegetated Badland Area 10 Basalt boulder Prehistoric Badland area

Final SEIS 3-32 GMSWLF Reconnaissance Survey and Monitoring

In July 2004, MARS conducted a reconnaissance survey and provided archaeological monitoring of soil tests and borings within the Dandan parcel located immediately northwest of Layon that was surveyed by PHRI in August and September. MARS' survey and monitoring located four sites: Dan S-1, Dan S-2, Dan S-3, Dan S-4 and three isolated occurrences: Dan I0-1, Dan I0-2, Dan I0-3. All of these localities are outside of Layon (Figure 3-7).

Dan S-1 is a scatter of five slingstones (collected) at the base of a low ridge. Dan S-2 is an artifact scatter consisting of two slingstones (collected), basalt flakes, World War II military issue beer bottles, other bottles, shrapnel, other metal machine parts, cartridges dated 1942, 1943, plastic, and wire located on an actively eroding slope. Dan S-3 is an historic fence remnant associated with economic tree plantings located on gently sloping terrain, probably part of the old Martinez ranch. Dan S-4 is a linear outcrop of weathered basalt with imprints from a tracked vehicle, possibly WWII military or a track hoe; it was located on a low ridge. The three isolated occurrences consist of single slingstones (collected); two were located in rolling terrain and one on a ridge.

Final SEIS 3-33 GMSWLF ;r,;"•

..._ .. ~r

KEY 10 FEATURES GRAPHIC SCALE Meters N FIGURE 3-1 -- Ri'ifli;:S • ADPR'J,):IUA'"'E SAMPllNG LOCATIO 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 1 inch equals 3,282 feet PARCEL 6. PROPOSEOOl•JERSIC!l.I 1 inch equals 1 ,000 meters - DRAINAGE BASINS PJ:tOSPECTJVE l"NOJ"lll FOO"':'~Ri"'":'• AAoP-Oseo RESERVOIR INA.IU.JAN Ol:t41N4GE SA.SIN W E DATUM: UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR- ZONE 55N T\t..IAGO DRAINAGE BA.SI,,_. ./" SPHERIOD: WGS84

1 ouEnAs VQUM 0~AiNAGE SA.SN a ~ BASEMAP: GUAM RELIEF; USGS QUADRANGLES; DRAINAGE DIGITIZED FROM U ..S .. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WATERSHED MAPS s ASSOCIATES • 1..... (ft.)

341.6

271.23

244.84. 351.44 316.03 386.98 282.08 334.46 327.11

353.81.

299.54 34383 299.74 284.32

305.31 330.32 305.16

<305.58, <275.71,

VILJ.AGE

MSL

MALOJL1

above

Inc.

table

8c

.

,.

3-2

....

...

Water

.. -~~

:· ...

..

~.

I fi

...

1• ..

ji''.·

;(AS

.

..

(ft.)

;·

.

"__,...,,

•

&1ATES

252.04 356.94 280.73 287.08

328.53 392.38 349.96 332.21 347.60 371.81 323.58

349.63 307.54 302.74 295.82 356.52

327.31

293.21 307.66

·.·

FIGURE

·~·-~·~

,_~,,,-· .

MSL .

.

.

.

... .

00

AS

.

.

.

HYDROGEOLOGY

above

!·.~·-:'.;';'.~~;,

Elevation

E

tp-1 10 tp-4

tp-6

tp-5

tp-7 tp-8 tp-12

:~~o tp-14 tp-15 tp-16 tp-13 b-1

itp-2 'tp-3

1 1b-3 •b-2

:::::;tp-11

S

N

•

DAfjANRo.

w

'1>

~

:

feet

meters

55N

984

300

T

•

-

SCALE

ZONE

equals

equals

.

1•

inch

inch

MODEL

GRAPHIC

1

1

MERCATOR

TRACKING

STATION

ELEVATION

NASA

OLD

600

:::J

TRANSVERSE

DIGITAL

WGS84

GUAM

300

UNIVERSAL

Meters

DATUM: SPHERIOD:

BASEMAP:

0

RIVER

TO

CONTOURS

DRAINAGE

TABLE

·~

~"

RIVERS

SEASONAL

WATER

.

FEATURES

-··

--

TO

KEY

BORINGS

&

FOOTPRINT

PITS

PARCEL

TEST LANDFILL

e

Cl C.J oandan Propoaed Landltl Footprint· Ralattve Eettmated Percentage• or Surflclal Cover from Remocety-Senaed Data

•~t-10... " ...... 1,.;.,

.111'.i'l', 11'-r'!f'';'ll,.1~<':' !UIYJ!oo>

a~•.l!>"i-'4rr.h.)' 5.1'..l•ori.ill

.,.~•l:!'J~'.Jl!•_,,,_,,. • o~ ... .. 1 -'•"."'.t' •

• l'l.J-Mo ). Orci<'r !s1!1f'"·l'l''!''l.a-·'l '• Cl J<;$_%,.,.h •·rr;"- •"'·~ii"'" .,// ,.,

=·~

A~pn)A,.·:1•.-•, 7 S ..,,~,,,.<1;' hf"' 1111,,, '" '$''" •!~<•~I,l'<:""·I ... ,•t ., p

KEY TO FEATURES Meters GRAPHIC SCALE N FIGURE 3-3 c::J PARCEL 0 150 300 450 1 inch equals 492 feet 1 inch equals 150 meters WETLANDS AND SURFICIAL COVER l::J LANDFILL FOOTPRINT -- t w E RIVERS DA TUM: UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE 55N DUErlAS8c SPHERIOO: WGS84 BASEMAP: BAE SYSTEMS SPECTRAL SOLUTIONS LLC. REMOTE SENSING DATA ASSOCIATES • • • NWI WETLAND BOUNDARIES •s Inc. RIVERINE FOREST SAVANNA GRASSLAND

LIMESTONE SCRUB FOREST

URBAN CULTIVATED

CLOUDS/ SHADOWS

KEY TO FEATURES Meters GRAPHIC SCALE N FIGURE 3-4 RIVERS -- 0 300 600 900 1 inch equals 985 feet VEGETATION COMMUNITIES DPARCEL 1 inch equals 300 meters AND BIRD COUNT STATIONS r_-:JLANDFILL FOOTPRINT W E n DA TUM: UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE SSN caBIRD COUNT STATIONS SPHERIOD: WGS84 • DUE ~S& • • NWI Wetland Boundary BASEMAP: USDA REMOTE SENSING DATA ASSOCIATES s Inc. ~.-:.~~·... ' '.·.·~...._,.... ·.---!-- i A.'\ -~ ~~\.~·I'.·,/./~ \">Jo;\\ B...\ .."bi;{>/.·., '.)l \1, ,-~:~!!'.zI-~r \\'( y ! ..-~.~\~ l/;J "~;;;# ~~DRDS(

/~

MILITARY ' --...... ,...... ''--, RECREATIONAL 7- RESIDENTIAL KEY TO ZONING NOMENCLATURE RESORT/ HOTEL A - AGRICULTURAL

KEY TO FEATURES Meters GRAPHIC SCALE N FlGURE3~ --- RIVERS 1 inch equals 1,311 feet 0 400 800 1,200 1 I J LANDFILL FOOTPRINT 1 inch equals 400 meters ".t.. LAND USE, ZONING r-..:::!QUARTER-MILE BUFFER W~ . E AND PARCELS DATUM:-- UNIVERSAL- TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE 55N c::::J HALF-MILE BUFFER SPHERIOD: WGS84 -\.~· , ouEnAsa c:::J PARCEL BASEMAP: INCLUDES IMAGERY @ SPACE IMAGING LLC, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BASEMAP: GUAM DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL ASSOCIATES c=J LANO PARCELS s...... ~

UTILITIES

a

EXISTING

FlGURE3~

&

ouEnAs

ASSOCIATES

ROADS

E

s

N

,

•

w

feet

55N

meters

1,642

500

ZONE

SCALE

equals

equals

MODEL

inch

inch

GRAPHIC

1

1

MERCATOR

1,500

ELEVATION

TRANSVERSE

DIGITAL

1,000

WGS84

GUAM

UNIVERSAL

Meters

500

BASEMAP:

SPHERIOO: DATUM:

0

ROU~

'Mll.cS

STl\TJO'il

;,/''IL.t""Y

,,,..TER

~RC.El.

PUt.tP

VVATEir::l:MAfN

1:-"~T~MAIN

MUNICIPAi.. SEV\ER

OANOAN POTENTtAL..

s·

?Ji

-

--

--

-

FEATURES

TO

FOOTPRINT

KEY

lANOFIL.L

S"TA,T10~

P\,IP.~P

~CADS PR:OSl>ECTNE l=l'£S£R\.'OIR PARCEL

CUVERS ~TC~

-

•

--

--

8 2 3 4 dan-s 1 artifact scatter 5 dan-s2 artifact scatter 6 dan-s3 fence remnant 7 dan-s4 vehicle tracks 8 dan-io1 slingstone 9 dan-io2 slingstone 10 dan-io3 slingstone *All data collected by Micronesian Archaeological Research Services

KEY TO FEATURES Meters GRAPHIC SCALE "' --· R1VERS N FIGURE 3-7 --ROADS 0 300 600 900 1 inch equals 983 feet PARCEL 1 inch equals 300 meters ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- I PROSPECT•VE lANDftLL FOOTPRINT W ,.'"'/· .. E B DATUM: UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE 55N ., J' e ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINO$ !MARS! SPHERIOD: WGS84 •. .... ' DUEnAs& e ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS iPHRI 1 BASEMAP: INCLUDES IMAGERY @ SPACE IMAGING LLC, ALL RIGHTS ASSOCIATES • HPO H

4.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Chapter 4.0 describes and evaluates the nature and extent of impacts associated with the three footprint Alternatives and the No Action Alternative at Layon, Inarajan in order to identify the extent of mitigation needed to offset impact for the development and operation of a MSWLF. A description of the three conceptual footprint Alternatives and the No Action Alternative at Layon was presented in Chapter 2.0. Chapter 4.0 only addresses the topics that were not dismissed from further consideration as described in Section 3.1.1. Chapter 4.0 also describes the methodology used to analyze impacts and potential environmental consequences of each alternative.

Impact Analyses

Impacts are analyzed for resources of the natural and human environment. Natural environmental impacts include effects from landfill construction and operation on physical features including geology, hydrogeology, soils, air quality, and noise. Potential surface water impacts include effects of the landfill on hydrology, water quality, wetlands, and the coastal zone. Impacts to groundwater; terrestrial (vegetation and wildlife) and aquatic ecology; and rare, threatened, and endangered species will also be evaluated. Human environmental impacts from landfill construction and operation include socioeconomic, infrastructure, public health and safety, and aesthetics. Impacts of the alternatives on cultural resources involve how landfill construction and operational activities would affect archaeological and historic resources. Most of the information used to analyze the impacts for the natural and human environment in this chapter was taken from the Final Site Selection Report (GDPW 2005) unless otherwise stated.

As stated in Section 3.1, the proposed alternatives include the footprint, buffer area, access roads, and utilities, all of which comprise the limit of disturbance. The zone of influence is defined as the landfill footprint, and any adjacent areas, regions, and even island-wide if reasonably affected by the alternatives. Because resources vary in function and relation to environmental factors, the zone of influence was defined independently for the existing environmental resources (see environmental topic sections under Sections 4.2 and 4.3).

4.1.1 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The method of analysis of potential effects is based on direct and indirect consequences of long­ and short-term impacts both adjacent to the site, regionally (i.e., village), and island-wide. The intensity of the impacts must also be defined. Where quantitative data were not available, best professional judgment was used to determine impacts. In general, the thresholds used are derived from existing literature, consultation with subject experts, and appropriate agencies.

To analyze impacts, methods were selected to predict the potential change in resources that would occur with the implementation of each alternative. Evaluation factors were established for each impact topic to assess the changes in resource conditions of the alternative.

Final SEIS 4-1 GMSWLF 4.1.1.1 Impact Categories

Two impact categories are used in this analysis and are defined below.

Direct Effects - Those impacts occurring from the alternative at the same time and in the same place as the action.

Indirect Effects - Those actions caused by the alternative that cause impacts to a resource or condition that occur later in time or farther in distance.

4.1.1.2 Impact Definitions

Each potential impact is described in terms of its context (site-specific, local, regional, or island­ wide), phases (construction, operations, or completion), duration (short-term, long-term, and permanent), and intensity (negligible, minor, moderate, or major). For the purposes of analysis, the following definitions are used for all impact topics:

Phases

Construction: The construction phase of the landfill includes activities to prepare the site for receiving waste. Initial site construction includes the access road, utilities, site operation buildings, perimeter fencing, stormwater management controls, and the development of the first cell. Thereafter, construction activities include preparation of new cells as they are needed. Construction also includes the final capping and closure of each cell as they are filled to final elevation.

Operations: The operation phase includes the activities necessary to run the landfill on a daily basis, e.g., receiving and weighing trash trucks, depositing waste in the active cell, and covering the cell every day.

Completion: The completion phase represents the closed landfill. It is assumed that the site would remain controlled (i.e., fenced and gated) until future uses are determined.

Duration

Short-term: Temporary impacts associated with a short-term activity (i.e., 2-6 months); impacts cease when activity ends.

Long-term: Temporary impacts associated with a long-term activity (e.g., site operations); impacts cease when activity ceases.

Permanent impacts: Permanent impacts may occur during any phase of the project, but they would continue indefinitely into the future even after the landfill is closed (e.g., loss of wetlands, loss of native vegetation).

Final SEIS 4-2 GMSWLF Intensity

Negligible: Impacts would have no measurable or perceptible changes to the resource.

Adverse: Impacts would be measurable or perceptible but would be localized within a relatively small area. The overall viability of the resource would not be affected and, if left alone, would recover.

Beneficial: Resource improvement would be perceptible, but barely, and localized within a small area of the site.

Moderate

Adverse: Impacts would cause a change in the resource; however, the impact would remain localized.

Beneficial: Resource improvements would be measurable, enhancing the viability of the resource within the site.

Adverse: Impacts to the resource would be substantial and highly noticeable.

Beneficial: Resource improvements would be substantial, enhancing the viability of the resource within the site, the surrounding community, and beyond.

4.1.2 Required Permits for Construction of a MSWLF

The following environmental permits or approvals may be required m association with constructing an MSWLF.

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit • Stormwater Permit • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Environmental Protection Plan • Erosion Control Permit • Guam Coastal Management Program Consistency Review • Wetland Permit and Mitigation Plan • Clearing and Grading Permit • Excavation (well drilling) Permit • Water Quality Certification • Water Quality Monitoring Plan • Zone Change

Final SEIS 4-3 GMSWLF • Building Permit 4.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

4.2.1 Physical Features

4.2.1.1 Geology

Preferred geology for a landfill would consist of deep, consistent, competent bedrock with no fracturing, discontinuities or contact zones. The geologic units and bedrock underlying Layon are stable and would not result in impacts by placing a landfill at any of the three footprint alternatives. The foundation conditions at Layon are adequate to support the structural components of a MSWLF unit.

Seismic Impact Zones

Since the entire island of Guam is within a Seismic Impact Zone (§23205 of the Rules and Regulations for the GEPA Solid Waste Disposal), the potential for seismic activity exists regardless of the alternative; therefore, the landfill design would need to make accommodations for the potential occurrence of seismic events during the 30-year period of landfill operations. Requirements for mitigating seismic impacts are described in Section 5 .1.1

4.2.1.2 Hydrogeology and Groundwater

The recognition in the early 1980s that degradation of groundwater quality is the most significant potential impact of landfill projects on the environment led to the implementation of laws requiring low-permeability liners and leachate collection and recovery systems on all new landfills. Solid waste deposited in landfills decomposes by a combination of chemical, physical, and biological processes resulting in toxic and hazardous products. The leachate formed can change over time. Young leachates have very high chemical and biological oxygen demands, high total organic compounds, and low pH (5.5 to 6.5). Older leachates have moderate chemical and biological oxygen demands, moderate total organic compounds, and high pH (7 to 8). Another source of contaminants in leachate is from the landfill gas production. With the continued production and accumulation of landfill gas, gas pressure would increase causing the gas to migrate beyond the confines of the refuse into the atmosphere and into the surrounding area. When the gas migrates out from the landfill, it cools and condenses to form a liquid. Several best management practices have been designed to minimize impacts to the groundwater.

Hydrogeology and groundwater impacts would not differ among the three alternatives; therefore, this would not be a determining factor in selecting an alternative.

During the construction, operational, and completion phase of the landfill project at all footprint alternatives, there would be negligible impacts from untreated leachate to the groundwater or hydrogeology. The facility would be constructed to meet MSWLF design criteria (Rules and Regulations for the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) Solid Waste Disposal (GCA Title 22, Div. 4, Chapter 23). One of its main functions is to prevent the escape of untreated leachate. This would be achieved through careful design and construction of a bottom liner and leachate collection system, proper landfill operation, capping of completed cells, and Final SEIS 4-4 GMSWLF implementation of best management drainage practices. Additionally, the design includes the installation and operation of downgradient monitoring wells that would detect the escape of leachate should containment systems fail. A minimum 30-mil-thick flexible membrane liner would be installed in direct and uniform contact with a minimum 2-ft layer of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than lx10-7cm/sec. A leachate collection system would be designed to maintain less than 12-in. depth of leachate over the liner. This system consists of a sloped drainage layer immediately above the liner system that drains to a series of perforated collection pipes and sumps. The leachate would be collected from below the placed wastes and conveyed to a sump located in the comer of each cell. Collected leachate would be pumped to a storage and treatment facility located adjacent to the support facilities. The leachate would be transported to a local Wastewater Treatment Facility (WTF) or treated onsite and discharged.

Since all three footprint alternatives would be located above G-1 classified groundwater areas, all groundwater quality standards stated in the Guam Water Quality Standards (GEPA 2001) for the G-1 classification would need to be met, as well as the groundwater monitoring requirements of Article 5 of Rules and Regulations for the GEPA Solid Waste Disposal. Groundwater monitoring requirements and mitigation efforts are further described in Chapter 5.0.

The preferred hydrogeologic conditions of a deep water table and thick, low permeability deposits with a confining layer over any water-bearing zone are not found at any of the three footprint alternatives. There is no minimum distance requirement (GEPA or USEPA Solid Waste Disposal Rules and Regulations) between the groundwater and the base of the landfill. The depths to groundwater at the Layon footprint vary from at the ground surface in the low­ lying streambeds to more than 20 ft in the higher elevations. The landfill base elevation for purposes of this site selection has been located an average of 15 ft below grade. The base of the landfill would be above the surface of the groundwater levels measured at the site and would not require any additional design features to reduce the natural groundwater levels below the base of the landfill. During the detailed design phase, the landfill base would be adjusted to maintain the separation between the base of the landfill and the groundwater table as each cell is developed.

4.2.1.3 Soils and Topography

In accordance with §23304, the daily cover of waste is estimated to be 6 in. of soil placed at a ratio of 4 to 1 waste to soil cover (i.e., approximately 20 percent of the landfill would be composed of soil). The conservative projection for total solid waste volume over a 30-year period is approximately 14.lx106 cubic yards (CY), of which 20 percent would be soils. Approximately 2.8x106 CY of soil would be required to provide soil cover at a 4 to 1 waste to soil ratio.

During operations at the landfill, cover soils for waste placement would be provided from initial and subsequent excavations. Soil would be stockpiled onsite to meet daily needs near the active cells or placed directly from excavations, depending on the final operating plan for the facility. However, only a small area would be disturbed/unstabilized at any given time. During development and operation of the landfill, approximately 10 acres would be developed at any time; within this 10-acre area, only 0.5 acre would actively receive waste. Stockpiled soils Final SEIS 4-5 GMSWLF would also be used as closure material during the completion phase. Additional storage of excavated soils, if necessary, would be located in the areas planned for future cell development.

The closure system design would minimize infiltration and erosion, as specified in §23601. The closure system would include a geomembrane as well as an 18 in. of earthen material with permeability equal to or less than the permeability of the bottom liner system, or permeability no greater than lxl0-5 cm/sec. The erosion layer must be a minimum of 6 in. of earthen material that is capable of sustaining native plant growth. This may be increased during the design phase, but would be assumed similar for all of the footprint alternatives. Minor adverse impacts from sediment and erosion may occur during construction but would be controlled using best management practices. This is further discussed in Section 4.2.2.2,Water Quality.

The construction and operational phases of the landfill project are expected to create moderate permanent impacts on soils. Ground-disturbing activities would impact approximately 145 acres of soil for Alternative 1, 164 acres for Alternative 2, and 171 acres for Alternative 3.

The size of the footprint alternatives ranges from 126 to 141 acres in area. The conceptual layouts of the alternative excavation would provide sufficient material for cover soils within the boundaries of Layon. Excavation of the landfill is estimated to be an average of 15 ft below surface level. Approximately 3.0x106 CY of soil would be excavated and stockpiled onsite for use throughout the active life of the landfill. This amount of soil would be adequate to meet the amount of cover material required; therefore, soils would not need to be transported from offsite.

Topography

Regardless of which footprint is chosen, regrading of the site contours during construction would be necessary. The site has some steep erosion gullies in the footprint that would require regrading. There would be major permanent impacts to topography at all three footprint alternatives.

Layon is envisioned to be a mounded landfill (see Figure 2-2). The topographic changes to the site during construction, operations, and completion would be similar for all three alternatives, with the final elevation being 103 ft above the existing grade, 435 ft MSL in all layout cases. However, Alternatives 2 and 3 would also require the landfill to be approximately 1.4 ft higher or approximately 40 ft longer to the south/southeast to avoid impacts to natural resources. These details would be decided during the design phase.

Regardless of the alternative, the final closure contours would be based on side slopes of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical to an approximate average height of 55 ft above grade. The top of the landfill would be sloped at approximately 5 percent to maintain drainage on the top of the landfill. The exact landfill contours after completion of the landfill would be based on future land use plans for the area after closure.

Final SEIS 4-6 GMSWLF 4.2.1.4 Air Quality

Air quality impacts would not differ among the three alternatives; therefore, this would not be a determining factor in selecting an alternative.

The construction phase of the landfill project is expected to create minor long-term impacts to the air quality regardless of the alternative. Construction activities include the initial site preparation, ongoing cell development, and cell closure. Emissions associated with construction include particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and vehicle exhaust constituents. Particulate matter would be emitted from the dust from earthmoving activities and truck traffic on the paved and unpaved roads. The access road would be an asphalt paved two-lane road, and interior roads include two-lane, gravel/limestone surfaced roads surrounding each individual cell. Also, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen would be emitted due to the increase of trucks and construction equipment. A total of 12 cells for Alternative 1, or 9 cells for Alternatives 2 and 3, would be excavated to a depth of 15 ft or deeper below grade level.

The operational phase of the landfill project is expected to create minor long-term impacts to the air quality. Particulate matter and carbon monoxide would be emitted into the atmosphere through vehicle exhaust emissions from garbage trucks, employee, and public travel to and from the landfill. Fugitive dust would be generated from operations at the active face of the landfill and from vehicle travel on the unpaved roads.

During operations and for many years after operations, the landfill would generate landfill gas. Solid waste begins to decompose immediately upon being placed in a landfill, releasing gaseous emissions into the atmosphere. Gas containing carbon dioxide, methane, non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs), and particulate matter would migrate from the landfill on a path through the refuse and surrounding soils that offer the least resistance. The rate of gas movement would be strongly affected by weather conditions. During low barometric pressure, gas flows more rapidly than high barometric pressure. Also, wet surface soil conditions may prevent the gas from escaping into the atmosphere at the edge of the landfill. The landfill would be operated in accordance with rule §23304 to include daily cover of all wastes. Daily cover is assumed to be 6 in. of soil placed at a ratio of 4 to 1 waste to soil cover. This operation would decrease the amount of air emissions.

The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines for air emissions for new and existing landfills were published in the Federal Register on March 1, 1996. The NSPS/Emission Guidelines affect landfills with a design capacity of 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) or more. It is estimated that the Guam landfill would be greater than the 2.5 million Mg design capacity. The regulation requires that Best Demonstrated Technology (BDT) be used to reduce landfill emissions from affected new and existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills emitting greater than or equal to 50 Megagrams/year (Mg/yr) (55 tons/yr) of NMOCs. Control systems require: (1) a well-designed and well-operated gas collection system, and (2) a control device capable of reducing NMOCs in the collected gas by 98 percent. Table 4-1 shows an estimate of the amount of methane, carbon dioxide, and NMOCs emitted from the Guam landfill every 5 years. Since the landfill would exceed this design capacity over the 30-year period, methane and NMOC emissions would be collected and flared in accordance with §23306 and §23307. Minor long-term impacts to air quality would be minimized during the operational Final SEIS 4-7 GMSWLF phase by gas collection, flaring, monitoring, and the covering of the landfill on a daily basis. Gas collection would be by vertical wells. The flare would be located in the support facilities area. It is estimated that 80 percent of the methane and NMOCs emitted would be collected; 98 percent of these gases would be destroyed by flaring. With these controls, the landfill would not exceed the NMOC emission standard over the 30 years of operation.

Table 4-1. Total Non-Methane Organic Compounds, Methane, and Carbon Dioxide Air Emissions

Air Emissions M2/yr Year NMOCs Methane C02 2007-2011 28 4,349 11,931 2012-2016 68 10,620 29,137 2017-2021 101 15,753 43,223 2022-2026 128 19,957 54,760 2027-2031 150 23,398 64,200 2032-2036 168 26,217 71,930 2037-2041 160 25,000 68,600 2042-2046 131 20,500 56,200 2047-2051 107 16,800 46,000 2052-2056 88 13,700 37,600 2057-2061 72 11,200 30,800 2062-2066 59 9,200 25,200 Net Air Emissions 1,258 196,694 539,581

The completion phase of the landfill project is expected to create minor temporary impacts to air quality. At the time of site closure all routine landfill operations and periodic construction activities would cease. The buried waste would continue to generate methane, carbon dioxide, and other trace gases following closure. The flaring of gas that would occur during the 30-year operation phase, would continue after closure. The production of the landfill gas would eventually diminish.

Since, the same amount of waste is proposed for all footprint alternatives, air emissions would be the same for each alternative. A preferred sanitary landfill site would be downwind of any receptors sensitive to odors or air emissions.

The integrated solid waste management strategy which features the use of regional transfer stations as the destination for solid waste collection vehicles would effectively limit landfill­ bound solid waste-related vehicular traffic to large waste haulers. Current solid waste collection and transport practice features round trips by solid waste packer trucks and other waste haulers of all types (with capacities ranging from 1 to 20 cubic yards) from service areas to and from the Ordot Dump. Current data recorded at the Ordot Dump show that over 200 vehicle loads totaling over 400 tons of waste can be experienced on certain days. Large waste haulers have a range in nominal capacity of 55 to 145 cubic yards of compacted wastes. Preliminary calculations show that when compared to existing practice, the proposed new solid waste Final SEIS 4-8 GMSWLF management strategy of limited access to the landfill to large waste haulers would significantly reduce the volume of landfill-bound traffic to a range of 15 to 27 vehicle loads. This volume is expected to double by the end of the projected 30-year design life of the new landfill, but, because the magnitude is insignificant, the overall increase in vehicle trips in central Guam would be negligible. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the frequency and hours of operation of bulk waste hauling from transfer stations to the new landfill would be regulated as required to minimize impacts to the traveling public.

The potential receptors within a 0.50-mile (2,640-ft) radius surrounding Layon include farmlands along the Tinago River to the east of the site, and a portion of the NASA Tracking Station located to the northeast of the site. Residential uses are located more than a mile away from the footprint, and are situated mostly to the east in Malojloj Village, and to the southeast in the GHURA Southern Rental Housing areas. The Inarajan Middle School is located 0.84 miles to the southeast of the site. There would be no impacts on these receptors due to the wind patterns on the island of Guam.

The easterly tradewinds are dominant from April to December, while the prevailing wind from January to March is from the east northeasterly direction. Those receptors located south, west, and southwest of Layon would be exposed to minor adverse impacts. This includes the villages of Umatac and Merizo, which are located approximately 3 and 4 miles west and southwest, respectively, of Layon. Also, most of the recreational land uses, including mountain biking, hiking, fishing, and hunting are located downwind of the landfill site. Impacts to occur offsite include odor and dust migration, and the migration of methane underground. The migration of methane can cause potential explosive situations at adjacent buildings. A landfill gas collection system would be installed to prevent the uncontrolled gas migration from the landfill. It also enables the methane to be burned by flaring.

Regional transfer station locations are unknown. It is estimated that the number of vehicle trips would be 30 to 50 trips per day. Impacts to air quality during the operational phase would result from hauler traffic. The average hauler miles per year is estimated to be 73,000 miles. Emissions from the hauler traffic are estimated to be 0.0283 ton/yr of volatile organic compounds, 0.1139 ton/yr of carbon monoxide, and 0.44 ton/yr of NOx.

4.2.1.5 Noise

Noise impacts would not differ among the three alternatives; therefore, this would not be a determining factor in selecting an alternative.

The construction phase of the landfill project would create minor temporary impacts to the noise levels, regardless of the alternative chosen. Excavation activities would have the greatest potential for generating offsite noise impacts in areas adjacent to Layon. Trucks used to import the liner material and employees of the landfill would generate additional traffic on the roadways serving the landfill, and could increase noise levels along the roadways.

The operational phase of the landfill project would create minor temporary impacts to the noise levels at Layon. Trash trucks, employee vehicles, and public travel to and from the landfill site would generate additional traffic on the roadways serving the landfill and could increase noise Final SEIS 4-9 GMSWLF levels along the roadways. Excavation and closure of cells would generate noise from construction equipment.

The completion phase of the landfill would create negligible impacts at Layon. Closure of the landfill would involve the installation of a cover, which would use minimal construction equipment. Trash trucks, employee vehicles, and public travel to and from the landfill would cease and noise levels would return to normal.

According to USEP A, the maximum daily noise dose should be no more than the equivalent of 70 decibels (dBA) for 8 hours a day. Permanent hearing damage is likely to occur if this daily dose is exceeded repeatedly. For a typical suburban area, background noise levels are approximately 50 dBA and 70 dBA near sidewalks adjacent to traffic routes. Heavy machinery operation is typically 90 dBA and garbage trucks are 100 dBA. No more than 15 minutes of unprotected exposure is recommended for noise at 90 dBA and above (Noise Pollution Clearinghouse [NPC] 2004).

A preferred sanitary landfill site would have no receptors close enough to the site where typical construction equipment noise would not be compatible or would have adequate screening capability to diffuse or adequately reduce the noise. As distance increases from the landfill facility, noise levels decrease. Doubling of a distance (i.e., 0.25 mile to 0.50 mile) from a facility results in a reduction of 6 dBA in the noise level. Sounds from a roadway are emitted along the entire length and acts like a line source. Noise levels decrease at a slower rate than from a facility. Doubling of a distance from a roadway results in a reduction of 3 dBA in the noise level. Buildings, barriers, and hills attenuate sound in the environment. As sound waves "bend" around obstructions, they lose a great deal of energy. The soil which would be excavated from each cell would be stockpiled, and a fence would be placed around the perimeter of the active portion of the landfill site. These would help to diffuse the levels of noise that would reach the potential receptors.

Layon is located more than 1 mile from potential receptors in the residential areas of Malojloj to the east, and GHURA' s Southern Rental Housing and private residences to the southeast. However, the Inarajan Middle School is situated 0.84 miles southeast of the footprint. Private homes along an approximately 2,500 linear foot (LF) sector of Dandan Road would be receptors of noise from vehicle traffic hauling waste to the site (see Table 3-6 in Chapter 3).

4.2.1.6 Effects of the No Action Alternative on Physical Features

Under the No Action Alternative no disturbance to the physical features (geology, hydrogeology, soils, topography, air quality, or noise) at Layon would occur if the landfill were not constructed. Physical features at those locations would remain as is but could be subjected to other land uses in the future.

Under the No Action Alternative, however, solid waste disposal would have to continue somewhere else if Ordot Dump were to reach capacity. There would be impacts to physical features (soil, topography, air quality, and noise) associated with whatever site is used, but these impacts cannot be determined at this time. If disposal were to continue at Ordot Dump, it would

Final SEIS 4-10 GMSWLF continue to have negative impacts to surrounding resources, and it would also violate the Consent Decree.

4.2.2 Surface Water

Landfill development and operational activities would result in impacts on surface waters. These impacts include the filling and relocating of wetlands and streams during the site and cell construction, sedimentation of receiving waters from eroded soils during the construction and operation phase, increased stormwater runoff, and discharge from the leachate treatment plant.

4.2.2.1 Hydrology

Impacts to the hydrology (watersheds) are anticipated for all three conceptual alternatives at Layon during the construction and operational phases of the project. Minor long-term impacts would occur to the Fensol River due to increased stormwater runoff to this watershed. The Tinago River would experience a decrease in stormwater since the runoff would be diverted to the Fensol River resulting in minor long-term impacts. The Fintasa River would also experience a decrease in stormwater due to the diverted stormwater to the Fensol River, however these impacts would be relatively less (negligible) since the upstream watershed is larger. The final stormwater control system design will address drainage to appropriately distribute stormwater runoff so as to maintain hydrology.

The completion phase of the project includes revegetating the site, which would allow stormwater flow to return to the site resulting in negligible impacts to the hydrology (watersheds) due to stormwater.

Alternative 1

Due to the filling of wetlands and the filling of seasonal drainage to the Tinago River, the tributary to the Fintasa River, and the headwaters of the Fensol River minor permanent impacts would occur to the Inarajan River watersheds during the construction, operational, and completion phases of Alternative 1. Filling of waters of the US (i.e., wetlands, streams) would likely require a 404 permit, 401 certification and mitigation. Requirements for a 404 permit, 401 certification and associated wetland mitigation are discussed in Sections 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3. Approximately 2.41 acres of wetlands within the footprint of Cells 1, 2, and 3 and 1.14 acres in the northeastern portion of the buffer area (Administration and Support Facilities) would be filled if Alternative 1 were selected (see Figure 2-3). Approximately 705 linear ft of the Fintasa River located in the wetlands of Cell 1 and 3 would be filled for construction of Alternative 1. Seasonal drainage from wetlands that flows into a tributary to the Tinago River in the northeastern portion of Alternative 1 would be filled when Cell 2 and the Administration and Support Facilities in the buffer area are constructed. Finally, approximately 498 linear ft of the headwaters of the Fensol River in Cell 10 in southeast comer of the landfill would be filled.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 avoids the filling of wetlands located within the footprint and buffer area of the landfill at Layon. However, approximately 700 linear ft of the headwaters of the Fensol Final SEIS 4-11 GMSWLF River located in Cell 7 and in the corner of the stormwater detention pond in southeast comer of the landfill would be filled for Alternatives 2 and 3. Therefore, minor permanent impacts would occur to the watershed during the construction, operational, and completion phases of Alternatives 2 and 3.

Filling of waters of the US (i.e., wetlands, streams) would likely require a 404 permit and mitigation. Requirements for a 404 permit and associated wetland mitigation are discussed in Section 4.2.2.3.

4.2.2.2 Water Quality

If uncontrolled, construction activities would impact water quality. When the land is cleared, there would be erosion and sedimentation. The landfill project would result in new, impervious surface area (i.e., roads, buildings, parking lots). Contractors would be required to provide an Environmental Protection Plan (10 Guam Code Annotated, Chapter 47), which specifies erosion and sediment control measures that would need to be implemented. Impacts to water quality associated with construction would be minimized, but not eliminated by employing Best Management Practices (BMPs):

• The project would comply with Guam's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations 10 Guam Code Annotated, Chapter 47 (Water Pollution Control Act); An Erosion Control Permit would need to be issued by GEP A.

• To protect water quality of the closest body of water (fresh or marine), contractors would be required to prepare an Erosion Control Plan (ECP) to accompany a Clearing and Grading Permit.

• Contractors would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) for the project.

• A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) permit will be required. It is a federal permit for all stormwater and point source pollution discharges. GEPA reviews and certifies (401 WQC) the permit for compliance with all local regulations and policies and in accordance with the Guam Water Quality Standards. USEP A coordinates, drafts, and issues the permit for facilities that require wastewater discharges.

The construction phase of the landfill project would create minor long-term adverse impacts (primarily sedimentation from erosion) to the water quality at all three footprint alternatives. These impacts would be long-term in nature, lasting for the duration of construction activities, which would occur throughout the life of the landfill from initial site development through closure. However, only a small area of soil would be disturbed/unstabilized at any given time. During development and operation of the landfill, approximately 10 acres would be developed at any time; within this 10-acre area, only 0.5 acre would actively receive waste. An ECP and SPPP would be prepared to minimize these impacts. An NPDES permit would be required for this project. Detailed plans for drainage and erosion control would be addressed in the Operation Plan that will be prepared for the MSWLF. Final SEIS 4-12 GMSWLF ~------

Beneficial impacts to the water quality would also occur at Layon. Sediment that currently erodes from the badlands from within the footprint of Layon creating impacts on the downstream watersheds would be decreased due to improved erosion control practices carried out in the construction, operation, and completion phases of the landfill.

During the operation and closure phases of the landfill project, minor long-term impacts to water quality would occur, regardless of which alternative is selected, if treated leachate is discharged onsite. The conceptual leachate collection system design specified in rule §23401 would consist of a sloped drainage layer immediately above the liner system that drains to a series of perforated collection pipes and sumps. The leachate would then be pumped to storage tanks for onsite treatment and then discharged, or transported to a local WTF. Leachate pumping and monitoring would continue through closure and post-closure care until it is verified that leachate production has ceased.

Additionally, minor long-term adverse impacts to water quality would occur downstream of each alternative during the operation phase due to the discharge of stormwater. Stormwater as well as discharged treated leachate has the potential to impact water quality in the Fensol River. The proposed footprints are located in the higher elevations of the site. The general stormwater runoff flow direction would be away from the landfill. The overall site stormwater run-on/run­ off requirements (§23309) would minimize impacts to receiving surface waters from stormwater and would not be expected to generate major changes in the existing stormwater drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site.

The proposed access road would require drainage culverts to allow the existing stormwater flow from the Ugum River drainage divide to the Tinago and Fintasa rivers to continue. An increase in runoff from the access road due to an increase in impervious surface would create minor long­ term adverse impacts to the water quality in the nearby watersheds during the construction, operation, and completion phases of the landfill.

The completion phase of the project would allow stormwater flow to return to the site resulting in negligible impacts to the water quality due to stormwater; however, discharged treated leachate would still have the potential to impact water quality.

Choosing any of the action alternatives would result in the closure of the Ordot Dump. Gradually, the water quality below the Ordot Dump would be improved. The No Action Alternative would result in the continued degradation of water quality.

Stormwater Management

A run-on control system would be designed and installed onsite to prevent flow into the active portion of the landfill during peak discharge from a 25-year storm. Since the landfill activities would create impervious surface, there would also be a stormwater detention pond that would collect and control run-off from the active portion of the landfill, which would conceptually include one cell undergoing closure and one new operating cell. The pond would be sized to control at least the volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm event for the area of two cells. These stormwater systems would be designed in accordance with §23309 of the Rules and Final SEIS 4-13 GMSWLF Regulations for the GEPA Solid Waste Disposal. Runoff from the active portions of the landfill unit must be handled in accordance with rule §23310 to meet the requirements of the NPDES. These requirements are further defined in Section 2.3.1.

In the case of a storm event greater than a 25-year storm occurs, which would be expected once within the 30-year operation phase of the landfill, there would be temporary minor adverse impacts to receiving waters from a sudden increase in stormwater run-off. Recommendations to minimize water quality and quantity impacts to surface water from stormwater run-off are discussed in Section 5.1.2.

4.2.2.3 Wetlands

Wetlands would be affected at Lay on if they are permanently filled or by altering the site hydrology by extensive site excavation and regrading. In accordance with restriction §23203, final design plans for the landfill at any site should avoid or minimize the acreage of wetlands permanently altered during construction and operation of the landfill. Mitigation for the loss of wetlands would be necessary to offset any loss or alteration. The Honolulu District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USA CE) and the USEP A require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts to waters of the US and special aquatic sites, including wetlands. Filling of wetlands would likely require a Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit from the USA CE (Honolulu District) and Section 401 certification from GEPA. Mitigation for permanent loss of wetlands requires the preparation of a mitigation plan that specifies how functions and values of the resource would be replaced. The USACE specifies a minimum compensatory mitigation ratio of one replacement acre for every one acre of waters of the U.S. lost; however, a higher ratio may be required depending on the functions and values of the resource (USA CE 2005).

Alternative 1

Due to the filling of wetlands and the headwaters of the Fensol River for Alternative 1 moderate to major permanent impacts would occur during the construction and operational phases. Based on wetlands delineated by D&A at Layon, approximately 2.41 acres of wetlands within the footprint of Cells 1, 2, and 3 and 1.14 acres in the northeastern portion of the buffer area for Administration and Support Facilities would be filled if Alternative 1 were selected (see Figure 2-3). Approximately 498 linear ft of the headwaters of the Fensol River in Cell 10 in southeast comer of the landfill would also be filled. Filling of waters of the US (i.e., wetlands, streams) would likely require a 404 permit, 401 certification and mitigation. It is likely that unavoidable permanent impacts to wetlands within Alternative 1 would require mitigation to offset the impacts of loss and/or alteration of the Layon wetlands. The impact on ecological function and value of the wetlands would need to be assessed before determining precise mitigation requirements for this alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 avoids the filling of wetlands located within the footprint and buffer area of the landfill at Layon. However, approximately 700 linear ft of the headwaters of the Fensol River located in Cell 7 and in the comer of the stormwater detention pond in southeast comer of the landfill would be filled for Alternatives 2 and 3. Therefore, minor permanent impacts would Final SEIS 4-14 GMSWLF occur to the headwaters of Fensol River during the construction and operational phases of Alternatives 2 and 3. Filling of waters of the US (i.e., wetlands, streams) would likely require a 404 permit, 401 certification and mitigation.

4.2.2.4 Coastal Zone Management

Impacts to the coastal zone would not differ among the three alternatives; therefore, this would not be a determining factor in selecting an alternative.

The "Coastal Zone" for Guam includes all non-federal property within Guam and, as defined, includes Layon; therefore, a consistency determination would be required. Consistency review by the Guam Coastal Management Program (GCMP) would determine whether the action is in compliance with the enforceable policies of GCMP for the chosen alternative. The proposed project is expected to comply with the enforceable programs of GCMP and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program.

GovGuam's Bureau of Statistics and Plans is the lead agency for the GCMP. Consistency with GCMP by the landfill project will be determined through review of this SEIS by the Bureau of Statistics and Plans.

4.2.2.5 Effects of the No Action Alternative on Surface Water

Under the No Action Alternative, no disturbance to the surface water (hydrology, water quality, and wetlands) at Layon would occur if the landfill was not constructed. The surface water features would remain as is, but could be subjected to other land uses in the future.

However, the No Action Alternative could involve the continuation of operations at the existing Ordot Dump, which could have continued major adverse impacts on surface water.

If the Ordot Dump continues collecting solid waste and reaches capacity, eventually another site would have to be selected and developed, but the effects on surface water cannot be determined because the site is not known.

4.2.3 Terrestrial Ecology

4.2.3.1 Vegetation/Habitat

Implementation of the landfill project would result in a direct loss of barren lands, savanna grasslands, and a small amount of ravine forest. As mentioned in Chapter 3.0, the savanna grasslands occupy the northern portion of Layon. Common species include swordgrass, foxtail, wildcane, Decaspermum fruticosum, and Diane/la saffordi. The barren lands occupy the southern portion of the landfill site, consisting of exposed soils and sparse vegetation. Common species include carpetgrass, sleeping grass, dodder, and Lycopodium cernuum. Ravine forests are interspersed throughout the site and include species such as kafu, fading, da'ok, and lada.

An access road would extend from Dandan Road to the northeast corner of the landfill. This road would be a two-lane road with 8-ft-wide shoulders approximately 2.75 miles long. The Final SEIS 4-15 GMSWLF access road right-of-way is occupied by majority savanna grassland and barren lands. All vegetation along this road would be cleared during construction. A portion of the 400-ft buffer surrounding the landfill would be cleared for office and maintenance facilities, stormwater detention ponds, and site access control.

If any of the footprint alternatives overlap with the Forestry Division's tree plantings that have been done within the Dandan parcel, these seedlings would be relocated outside of the footprint boundary.

The construction phase of the landfill project is expected to create moderate adverse permanent impacts on forest vegetation and moderate long-term impacts to grasslands at each of the three alternatives. Vegetation clearing would be necessary in the proposed footprints of the landfill, access roads, and portions of the buffer area of the landfill. During development and operation of the landfill, approximately 10 acres would be developed at any time. Within this 10-acre area, only a 0.5-acre area would actively receive waste.

The operational phase of the landfill project is expected to have no impacts on forest vegetation at each of the three alternatives. During the operational phase, there would be daily trash dumping and covering. No vegetation would be cleared during these activities.

The completion phase of the landfill project is expected to create minor beneficial impacts to vegetation at each of the three alternatives. At the closure of each cell, the exposed soils would be revegetated with grasses to return to its natural state. BMPs would be used to prevent erosion and soil removal. By revegetating, those areas that were barren and eroded would be enhanced to savanna grasslands to the maximum extent possible. Forested areas would be permanently cleared. A detailed closure plan is being developed and will contain full descriptions of the closure process including the return of the site to open space.

Beneficial impacts to the habitat would also occur at Layon during the operational and completion phases of the landfill. Barren land occurring at Layon would be revegetated to grassland during the closure of the cells. Additionally, the undisturbed vegetated buffer area of the landfill would help to buffer and protect offsite habitats such as wetlands, forests, and savanna grasslands from landfill operations.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would require clearing of 12 cells, each approximately 10.5 acres (126 acres total) for the landfill cells, 9.6 acres for the stormwater detention pond, 5 acres for support facilities, and 4.6 acres for access and utilities.

Alternative 2

The landfill footprint of Alternative 2 would be extended approximately 400 ft south of Alternative 1, increasing the overall land requirements for each alternative by 15 acres. Therefore, an additional 15 acres of vegetation would be cleared from this area. A total of nine cells, each approximately 14 acres (126 acres total) for the landfill, 13 acres for the stormwater detention pond, 15 acres for the site extension, 5 acres for the support facilities, and 4.6 acres for Final SEIS 4-16 GMSWLF access and utilities would be cleared. This alternative would also have to be approximately 1.4 ft higher or approximately 40 ft longer to the south/southeast than Alternative 1 to avoid wetlands located in the northeastern corner of the landfill near Cell 1. These details would be decided during the design phase.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 and would require the same amount of vegetation clearing as described under Alternative 2. In addition it would require an additional 7 acres of land to the northeast for the relocated administration and leachate storage and treatment areas. This 7-acre area is a mixture of old farmland, savanna grasslands, and badlands.

4.2.3.2 Wildlife

Disturbance of terrestrial habitats (major vegetation clearing) as each cell is opened and closed, would affect wildlife that inhabits the site regardless of the alternative. This would result in a long-term moderate adverse impact during the construction and operational phases. Impacts would primarily occur as disturbance and/or displacement of wildlife utilizing the various habitats at Layon. Wildlife would also avoid areas of major activity during construction and active open cell areas during operation, causing some animals to relocate to other areas; relocation could be permanent or temporary depending on each species needs and/or tolerance for disturbance. Active landfills are also known to attract scavenging wildlife. Operating the landfill according to a developed operation plan that includes daily coverage of the waste would reduce the numbers of wildlife attracted to the open landfill and avoid bird control issues. Security fencing would also reduce the potential for scavenging wildlife. Species common to savanna grasslands would return to each cell area after it is closed and to the entire site after final closure is completed.

Wildlife species potentially impacted at Layon consist of species native and not native to Guam, and migrant birds. The one native species observed at Layon, the yellow bittern, is a common species in grasslands on Guam, but the population is not likely to be adversely affected by the construction or operation of the landfill. None of the species identified were considered rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species although the endangered Mariana common moorhen has been observed historically in the wetlands at Dandan. The wetlands at Layon may serve as seasonal habitat for moorhen, however, no moorhens were observed during recent surveys conducted by D&A, Inc. at Layon for this SEIS.

Many of the species of wildlife found at Layon are non-native animals, including several that are tolerant of human disturbance and activity (feral pigs, feral dogs) and may be less affected by the construction and operation of the landfill than other species identified within the site. Some wildlife may be attracted to the waste in the landfill; however, daily coverage of the active landfilling areas of the active cell and security fencing as provided for in an operation plan would reduce the presence of scavenging wildlife.

The proposed design of Alternatives 2 and 3 would require the clearing and disturbance of an additional 15 acres of vegetation than for Alternative 1. Impacts to wildlife for Alternatives 2 and 3 would be similar to those in Alternative 1, but would occur over the larger acreage Final SEIS 4-17 GMSWLF proposed. The construction and operations of the landfill proposed in all the alternatives would have a minor long-term adverse impact on resident wildlife.

4.2.3.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative on Terrestrial Ecology

Under the No Action Alternative, no disturbance to the vegetative habitats identified at Layon would occur if the landfill were not constructed. The terrestrial habitats would remain as they are but could be subjected to other land uses in the future. Wildlife use would continue in the available habitats. Under the No Action Alternative, however, solid waste disposal would have to continue somewhere. There would be impacts to terrestrial ecology associated with whatever site is used, but the impacts cannot be determined at this time.

4.2.4 Aquatic Ecology

The construction and operational phases of the landfill project would create minor long-term impacts to the aquatic ecology of the Fensol River and the tributaries of the Fintasa and Tinago Rivers due to increased sedimentation of the receiving waters regardless of the alternative. However, only a small area of soil would conceptually be disturbed/unstabilized at any given time. During development and operation of the landfill, approximately 10 acres would be developed at any time; within this conceptual IO-acre area, only 0.5 acre would actively receive waste.

Landfill practices would benefit the aquatic community and habitat by removing the sedimentation impacts from the eroded areas in the badlands of the Layon footprint during construction, operation and completion.

Minor long-term impacts (discharge of stormwater) to the aquatic community would occur downstream of the three layout alternatives during the operation and completion phases. Aquatic species in the Fensol River that would potentially be impacted include shrimp, snails, fish, eels, and frogs.

Impacts to the aquatic community associated with construction and operation would be minimized by employing BMPs as discussed previously in Section 4.2.2.2. BMPs would include an Environmental Protection Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Sedimentation should be gradually eliminated after the landfill is closed and the surface is stabilized. Detailed plans for drainage and erosion control will be addressed in the Operation Plan that will be prepared for the MSWLF.

No impact is expected to the freshwater eels and shrimp that are harvested by the local residents ofMalojloj from the river systems surrounding the landfill site.

Alternative 1

Permanent minor adverse impacts are expected to the aquatic community if Alternative 1 is selected due to the loss of habitat at the site during the construction and operational phases. This habitat is located in wetlands and the seasonal drainage to the Fintasa and Tinago Rivers. These areas are planned to be graded and filled if this alternative is selected. Approximately 3.55 acres Final SEIS 4-18 GMSWLF of wetlands, 705 linear ft of a tributary to the Fintasa River, and seasonal drainage in the wetlands of a tributary to the Tinago River would be impacted for this alternative. Additionally, approximately 498 linear ft of the headwaters of the Fensol River in Cell 10 in southeast comer of the landfill would also be filled. Potential aquatic species inhabiting the site in the wet season include water striders, thiarid snails, freshwater eels, Tahitian prawns, fish, pond frogs, and possibly the grapsid crab.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Negligible impacts are expected to the aquatic community during the construction and operational phases if conceptual Alternative 2 or 3 is selected. This would be due to the loss of habitat at the site since approximately 700 linear ft of the headwaters of the Fensol River located in Cell 7 and in the comer of the stormwater detention pond in southeast comer of the landfill would be filled for these alternatives. However, impacts would be negligible to the aquatic community. No macrofauna were detected in this portion of the Fensol River during the site surveys conducted in July and November 2004.

In addition, Alternative 3 provides more protection to the aquatic community than Alternative 2. The administration and support facilities were relocated to the northeastern portion of the landfill in Alternative 3 to create more distance between the wetlands and the support facilities. This relocation could potentially buffer the aquatic community from any indirect impacts (see Figures 2-4 and 2-5).

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no disturbance to the aquatic ecology at Layon would occur if the landfill were not constructed. The aquatic ecology would remain as is, but could be subjected to other land uses in the future. The aquatic community would continue to utilize the available habitats. Under the No Action Alternative, however, solid waste disposal would have to continue somewhere. There would be impacts to aquatic ecology associated with whatever site is used, but these impacts cannot be determined at this time.

If the No Action Alternative would involve the continuation of operations at the existing Ordot Dump, this would have continued major adverse impacts on the aquatic community in the Lonfit River.

4.3 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

4.3.1 Socioeconomic Conditions

Socioeconomic conditions for all three alternatives would be the same; therefore, the selection of the layout footprint would not be based on land use, zoning, demographics, economics, recreation, or sensitive receptors.

4.3.1.1 Land Use

Final SEIS 4-19 GMSWLF Buffer areas between the landfill and adjacent land uses can assist in reducing adverse impacts of the landfill, such as odors, birds, etc., that occur with landfilling operations (Lee 1994). Buffers can include green space, access roads, stormwater structures, and utility provisions. Buffer areas may also include landscaping and vegetation to provide a visual boundary. An additional 30 to 40 acres of additional buffer areas for site access control, office facilities, stormwater run-off control, etc. would be needed at each alternative beyond the landfill footprint. There is adequate land available for additional buffer areas.

During construction and operational activities at Layon, minor changes to existing land use would occur from the construction of permanent access roads and utility lines, and minor, long­ term changes to land use at the footprint would occur from converting an unused site to an industrial activity. Surrounding land uses may indirectly change during the construction and operations phases, based on siting an industrial activity in any of the alternative locations. Residential land use is not likely to occur within the vicinity of the landfill, and would not be compatible with landfill operations. If surrounding land use during operations and completion of the landfill follows the current agricultural zoning classification, this use would be compatible with a landfill. Following the 30-year period of operations of the landfill, land use may revert back to an unused site landscaped with native plants, with potential to be used for recreational activities or similar uses that limit public access. Future land use plans at the site following the completion of the landfill are unknown at this time; however, considering that the current site is not being utilized, and that after the completion of the landfill, land use could go back to an unused or open site with slightly more limited use, it can be assumed that there would be no permanent changes in land use.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not cause changes to land use on Guam. The current Ordot Dump would remain in operation and would not require any changes in land use because it would not be allowed to expand beyond its current boundaries. Future land uses would remain unchanged with the No Action Alternative. Surrounding land uses at the Ordot Dump include residential and recreational activities. These activities are compatible with a modem solid waste landfill, but incompatible with a dump, such as Ordot Dump. The Ordot Dump does not have a capacity for 30 years, which is why it is scheduled for closure by late summer 2007. Therefore, another site would have to be chosen causing land use changes somewhere else on Guam.

4.3.1.2 Zoning

The proper zone for a landfill facility is "M-2," Heavy Industrial, which permits any uses not specifically prohibited by law, including those which are or may be objectionable, obnoxious, or offensive by reason of odor, dust, smoke, noise, gas fumes, cinders, vibrations, or water-carried waste (§61309, 21 GCA). M-2 zoned properties are extremely limited throughout the island.

Regardless of the alternative, rezoning can occur through approval by the Guam Land Use Commission, or by the Guam Legislature introducing legislation to be signed by the Governor of Guam that would allow landfill operations on the site. Both of these processes require approval by the Governor of Guam.

Final SEIS 4-20 GMSWLF The Guam Land Use Zoning Regulations (GLUZR) do not identify sanitary landfills as a permitted use or conditional use on Agricultural zone lands. The development of a sanitary landfill at Layon would require rezoning from Agriculture to Heavy Industrial via the Guam Land Use Commission or rezoning via the legislative process.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not result in changes to zoning. The current Ordot Dump would continue to function as a landfill and would not require any changes to zoning at the current dump location or at any of the three alternative sties. Existing zoning would remain the same.

4.3.1.3 Demographics

A landfill at Layon would not be expected to affect demographics of the Inarajan District, because the landfill site is surrounded by undeveloped, open fields, and all the land within 0.5 mile of the site is zoned for agricultural use. In addition, no plans are currently in place for development surrounding the landfill.

No Action Alternative

The Ordot Dump is located in the Chalan Pago-Ordot District. The effect of the landfill on the demographics of the Chalan Pago-Ordot District is unknown. In the near future, the demographics of the Inarajan district would not be affected by the No Action Alternative. In the long-term, a new landfill site would have to be developed, but the effects on demographics cannot be determined because the site is not known.

4.3.1.4 Economics

A new landfill would generate economic activity by the creation of new jobs during initial site construction, and during the 30-year operational period for daily operations and maintenance, new cell construction, and any recycling programs implemented. The number and quality of jobs created by the operation and maintenance of the new sanitary landfill would likely be greater than the number and quality of jobs lost by closure of the Ordot Dump. Any jobs created would be a minor beneficial impact to the economy of Guam and would last only for the duration of landfill construction, operations, and closure.

In addition, with a properly designed, constructed, and operated solid waste management facility, the local infrastructure is typically improved. This improvement would be in the form of upgraded and new roads, utility access and capacity, and stormwater control. As these improvements are made, local properties can generally become more valuable resulting from new industry locating in the area, which would be a beneficial permanent impact throughout all three phases of the landfill and beyond. Overall, a new landfill would be an economic and social benefit to the island by separating waste streams and implementing a recycling program, which would create a source of revenue for the recycling and solid/hazardous waste industries.

Final SEIS 4-21 GMSWLF The landfill at Layon may have minor adverse impacts on the local economy in southern Guam by decreasing the acreage currently available for agriculture, recreation, and hunting, as well as possibly impacting nearby tourist attractions along the rivers, such as Talofofo Falls Park. However, if the landfill is shielded from the viewshed of tourist attractions, and odors and other aesthetic issues are controlled, impacts to tourism near Layon would be negligible.

Property Values

Although real estate values can be affected by nearby solid waste disposal facilities, modem laws, permit restrictions, and management technologies make it possible to limit or even remove the potential adverse impacts of a nearby sanitary landfill. Sanitary landfills are designed and managed to limit their effect on the surrounding community. Examples of design and management techniques include: shielding the actual dumping area from sight, remote entrance to the facility, shielded access roads onsite, control of litter onsite, and frequent patrols for litter offsite. Modem management techniques also target operational activities to limit the propagation of disease vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. The techniques used to combat these undesirable conditions include the timely placement of daily cover, portable litter fences, and visual barriers such as soil berms or vegetation.

Modem sanitary landfills have been able to contribute to improved land values through host community fees, tax revenues, jobs, reliable waste disposal services, and infrastructure improvement. Because environmentally protective disposal facilities are needed, regardless of the level of source reduction or recycling, disposal facilities and communities should work together for the benefit of the surrounding area. A key community goal should be to ensure environmentally protective disposal of solid waste and to show how a disposal facility and the surrounding community can work together.

Costs Associated with Landfill and Funding Sources

Alternatives for funding that were considered in DPW's Landfill Financial Plan (GDPW 2004b) include the Solid Waste Management Fund, Design-Build-Operate-Transfer (DBOT) structure, appropriations from the General Fund of the Government of Guam, grants, Special Activity Bonds, General Obligation Bonds and Revenue Bonds. The proposed action would most likely be funded using a combination of these financial sources. Funding of approximately $37.8 million would be required by 2007 for costs associated with the opening of the first cell at the new facility. An additional $20.8 million would be required by 2010 for the opening of the second cell at the new landfill. These costs associated with the development of a new MSWLF at Layon, which total approximately $58 million, are broken down in Section 2.2.4.7 (GDPW 2004b).

Projected costs associated with the proposed landfill include land acquisition costs. According to the Landfill Financial Plan, approximately 150 acres of land would need to be acquired at a total cost of approximately $6 million ($40,000 per acre). Costs were also estimated for off-site infrastructure improvements (i.e. road widening and construction of new utilities), which are projected to be approximately $1.9 million for Layon (GDPW 2004b).

Final SEIS 4-22 GMSWLF No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would have moderate adverse impacts on the economy by not creating any new jobs or industrial activity. A new landfill would be an economic and social benefit to the island by separating waste streams and implementing a recycling program, which would create a source of revenue for the recycling, and solid and hazardous waste industries. These benefits would not be realized with the No Action Alternative.

GovGuam has agreed to specific terms under the Consent Decree to initiate and complete the construction of a fully compliant RCRA Subtitle D MSWLF within a specific schedule. If GovGuam fails to meet any of the deadlines outlined in the Consent Decree, they would be fined anywhere from $250 to $1,000 per day per violation for the first 30 days, and the fines would increase after 30 days of violating any of the conditions of the Consent Decree. Due to the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree, the No Action Alternative would not be an economically viable alternative.

4.3.1.5 Recreation

There are no designated recreational areas within 0.5 mile of Layon; therefore, there would be no impacts to recreational resources. However, recreational activities such as hunting and off-road activities could occur within a 0.5-mile radius of Layon, which may experience minor adverse impacts during construction and operations of the landfill from construction noise and dust, and any visible activities that would degrade the quality of the viewshed from areas used for recreation.

No Action Alternative

The Lonfit River to the south of the Ordot Dump supports recreational activities such as fishing, shrimping, and swimming. The current operations at Ordot Dump would continue to create adverse effects on recreational activities in the area, and it would not be managed and regulated in a manner equivalent to a modem MSWLF. When the current Ordot Dump reaches capacity, another site would have to be selected and developed, but the effects on nearby recreational resources cannot be determined because the site is not known.

4.3.1.6 Sensitive Receptors

There are no sensitive receptors such as residences or schools within 0.84 mile of Layon. Because of the size of the site, and distances to adjacent landowners, it appears a well designed and properly operated facility has the potential to exist in this location as a good neighbor to the community with limited, negligible impacts to nearby properties.

No Action Alternative

If the No Action Alternative involves the continuation of the Ordot Dump collecting waste, doing so would continue to create major adverse impacts to nearby residences, schools, and other places with public access. The current landfill would not be managed and regulated in a manner equivalent to a modem MSWLF. When the current Ordot Dump reaches capacity, another site Final SEIS 4-23 GMSWLF would have to be selected and developed, but the effects on adjacent sensitive receptors cannot be determined because the site is not known.

4.3.2 Infrastructure

Impacts resulting from proposed utilities, energy use, or road network changes would not differ among the three site layout alternatives. There may be slight differences in the length/distance of utility lines required based on the location of the administration and support facilities; however, this would be minor and would not be a determining factor in the selection of a site layout alternative. In addition, the stormwater detention pond size varies among alternatives; however, this would not be a determining factor in site layout selection.

4.3.2.1 Utilities

Any utility (power, water, or sewer) lines installed between the existing systems and the landfill would create additional infrastructure for future development that may occur during and after completion of the landfill, creating a permanent beneficial impact to the surrounding region.

Power

The electrical peak load requirement for operation and maintenance of the new landfill facility would be 225 KV A. At Layon, the existing power distribution system adjacent to Route 4 in Malojloj is adequate and would satisfy this power service requirement. Since the existing capacity of the power distribution system can accommodate the needs of the landfill during construction, operations, and completion, there would be no adverse impacts to the power supply on Guam.

Potable Water Supply

The landfill site would need new water supply lines constructed to connect to the nearest water line. The potable water demand of the new landfill facility would be nominal and minimal; however, the fire protection supply requirement would be 1,200 gallons per minute. This water supply requirement would be satisfied by a 6-inch diameter line connected to the GW A system located at Route 4 in Malojloj. Actual design of the system will determine whether a booster pump station would be necessary to provide adequate service pressure to the landfill site. The potable water demands of the landfill would be accommodated with minimal impact to the existing public water supply system.

Wastewater/Sewer

The wastewater disposal requirements for the new landfill may be accommodated either by connection to the existing wastewater collection system in Malojloj, or through the use of a properly designed on-site wastewater disposal system. These wastewater and leachate disposal options will be evaluated in detail during the design phase of the project and the most feasible and cost-effective alternative will be implemented.

Final SEIS 4-24 GMSWLF Telecommunications

Telecommunications lines would need to be installed to provide phone and cable services at the landfill. New lines would be connected to existing systems, which would provide adequate service.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not involve construction of additional utilities, and there would be no increases in water, power, or wastewater requirements beyond the current conditions at Ordot Dump. If the Ordot Dump continues receiving solid waste and reaches capacity, eventually another site would have to be selected and developed, but the effects on utilities cannot be determined because the site is not known.

4.3.2.2 Road Network

Site Access and Haul Routes

According to the Guam Highway Master Plan, Route 4, from Ylig Bridge to Inarajan Village, would undergo reconstruction and widening to current GDPW standards as part of the Short Range Highway Improvement Program. There is presently no schedule for the Route 4 project; however, it would be implemented in time to support the opening of the new landfill. The current Route 4 reconstruction program features full highway improvements from Y ona Village to Ylig Bridge and the upgrading of the section from Agana to Route 10 in Mangilao. The Route 4 improvements appear to support the transportation corridor requirements for development of the proposed landfill; however, these improvements would proceed regardless of which alternative is chosen in this SEIS, including the No Action Alternative. Impacts from additional roadway improvements outside the scope of the landfill will be discussed in Section 5.4, Cumulative Impacts.

The integrated solid waste management strategy features the use of regional transfer stations as the destination for solid waste collection vehicles; however, the proposed location of these stations is unknown at this time. Haul routes are estimated between the centroid of solid waste generation, the alternative landfill sites, and approximated transfer station locations.

The creation of a new two-lane asphaltic-concrete paved roadway would be needed to access Layon from Dandan Road for a distance of approximately 2.75 miles, which would be located along the proposed utility route (see Figure 3-6). Additional features needed would be 8-ft-wide paved shoulders, attendant roadside drainage improvements, and appropriate signage from Route 4 to the landfill site.

Temporary minor adverse impacts to citizens working and living near the proposed access route would occur during construction of a new road, as well as landfill operations. After completion of the landfill, the roads would still be available for regional traffic and would function at a higher level of service when truck traffic is removed from the haul routes, which would result in a permanent, beneficial moderate impact.

Final SEIS 4-25 GMSWLF Traffic

Based on 2020 Guam Highway Master Plan traffic forecasts, total vehicle-trips in southern Guam in 2015 and 2020 are estimated at 15,619 and 17,546, respectively. This compares with total island-wide vehicle-trips in the same years at 566,365 and 627,248, respectively. These vehicle-trips include all solid waste collection and disposal traffic movement. Vehicle-trips in southern Guam would increase slightly with the addition of a landfill at Layon, as the current solid waste haul routes would probably not generate a large amount of traffic in southern Guam. However, compared to the existing traffic generated by transporting waste, the new system could decrease levels of truck traffic island-wide by as much as 50 percent and completely eliminate medium and small self-haul vehicle traffic (GovGuam 2005). Layon also requires longer haul routes to the centroid of solid waste generation compared to the other two sites, and would generate more highway traffic overall (depending on where the transfer stations were to be located).

The integrated solid waste management strategy, which features the use of regional transfer stations as the destination for solid waste collection vehicles, would limit landfill-bound, solid­ waste-related vehicular traffic to large waste haulers. Compared to current solid waste packer trucks and other waste haulers that are being used, which have capacities ranging from 1 to 20 CY, large waste haulers have a range in nominal capacity of 55 to 145 CY of compacted wastes. Preliminary calculations show that when compared to existing practice, the proposed new solid waste management strategy of limited access to the landfill to large waste haulers would reduce the volume of landfill-bound traffic in the range of 15 to 27 vehicle loads. This volume is expected to double by 2020, but, because the magnitude is insignificant, the overall increase in vehicle trips in southern Guam is negligible. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the frequency and hours of operation of bulk waste hauling from transfer stations to the new landfill would be regulated as required to minimize impacts to the traveling public.

Approximately 2,500 LF of Dandan Road passes through a portion of Malojloj Village, where truck traffic would increase and cause minor adverse impacts to local residents from noise, dust, and possibly stray pieces of litter.

Highway Safety

The integrated solid waste management strategy would limit landfill-bound, solid-waste-related vehicular traffic primarily to large waste haulers, which would decrease the number of trips required; however, minor long-term adverse impacts to highway safety would occur during construction, operations, and completion of the landfill due to the addition of large vehicles to routes that may not have been used for solid waste transport previously, especially in the vicinity ofDandan.

Landfill-bound traffic would be restricted to large capacity trash/waste haulers with capacities ranging from 75 to 100 CY of compacted waste. Haul vehicles to be used to transport solid waste from the transfer stations to the landfill site would meet vehicle height and width requirements and would not exceed the maximum vehicle loading requirements established for Guam's highways.

Final SEIS 4-26 GMSWLF The upgrading of Dandan Road and the reconstruction of Route 4 would address potential highway safety issues involved with the movement of traffic to and from Layon.

The centroid of solid waste generation overlays the centroid of population and is located in the Dededo-Tamuning region. Layon is located a distance of approximately 23 miles from the centroid of solid waste generation. Impacts to highway safety would be the same for all three alternatives.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not involve any additional changes to site access, haul routes, highway safety, or traffic in the vicinity of the three alternatives. Roadway improvements outlined in the Guam Highway Master Plan would still be implemented, which would improve highway safety and traffic issues along the proposed routes.

Over time, waste being transported to the Ordot Dump, if kept in operation, would increase; therefore, vehicle trips to and from the existing landfill would also increase. If the Ordot Dump continues receiving solid waste and reaches capacity, eventually another site would have to be selected and developed, but the effects on Guam's road network cannot be determined at this time because the site is not known.

4.3.2.3 Energy Use and Conservation Measures

Energy use and conservation measures would be similar at all three alternatives, regardless of which alternative is selected. Energy use would be moderate during construction and would involve the use of non-renewable fossil fuels to operate heavy equipment for extensive mass grading and excavation. The types of equipment to be used may include, but would not be limited to, bulldozers, tractors, scrapers, water tankers to minimize dust during construction, and road building equipment. Energy use would create temporary, moderate impacts during construction.

Minor temporary energy needs during operation of the landfill would be associated with the periodic construction and excavation of individual cells. Long-term energy needs during landfill operation would result from transporting waste to and from the landfill, and the use of bulldozers, graders, and trucks to push and compact waste and haul and spread daily cover. Minor amounts of electricity may be used at the site for administration and support facilities. Connections to the closest telephone and cable utility lines would be required for administrative offices and support facilities.

Energy use during closure would create negligible temporary impacts. Unlike the opening of the landfill, closure would require minimal grading for final capping and landscaping since previously completed cells would already have been capped. Closure would involve using heavy equipment to place cover material and to landscape the site.

Potential energy conservation measures that could be implemented would be defined during the more detailed landfill design phase. There is a potential for generation of electric power from methane gas produced during operation and closure of the MSWLF. Final SEIS 4-27 GMSWLF No Action Alternative

If the Ordot Dump continues receiving solid waste and reaches capacity, eventually another site would have to be selected and developed, but the effects on energy use cannot be determined at this time because the site is not known.

4.3.3 Public Health and Safety

Public health and safety issues would not differ among the three site layout alternatives; therefore, this would not be a determining factor in the selection of site layout alternatives. Impacts to public health and safety would be reduced because hazards would be controlled during the construction, operation, and completion phases.

The design of the landfill would take into account public health and safety issues by including a leachate collection and gas collection system, and groundwater monitoring would be performed, which would meet the requirements §23501 through §23506 outlined in the Rules and Regulations for the GEPA Solid Waste Disposal. A perimeter security fence would be built around the administration and support facilities and any active cells to secure the site and prevent trespassers. Household hazardous waste would be prohibited (§23302); however, some hazardous materials may inadvertently enter the waste stream. This would be monitored through vehicle inspections. Daily cover and leachate control would prevent any hazardous materials that should get into the landfill from reaching the environment.

An Operation Plan for the Guam MSWLF is to be prepared that would outline methods to control litter, dust, vectors, odor, fire, birds, access, types of wastes accepted, release of hazardous or toxic wastes, as well as a contingency plan outlining emergency and evacuation procedures, and personnel safety. One of the operational procedures includes covering the waste material daily with 6 in. of soil, which would assist in controlling potential fire hazards, wind­ blown litter, odor, and disease vectors. With these procedures in place, public health and safety impacts would be negligible in the long-term.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not involve impacts to public health and safety at the three alternatives. If the Ordot Dump continues receiving solid waste and reaches capacity, eventually another site would have to be selected and developed for solid waste disposal, but the effects on public health and safety cannot be determined at this time because the site is not known. If the No Action Alternative involves the continuation of operations at the existing Ordot Dump, this would prolong any existing adverse impacts occurring to public health and safety within the vicinity of the Ordot Dump.

4.3.4 Aesthetics

Aesthetic impacts would not differ among the three alternatives because the average height of the profile at closure and slopes would remain similar for each site layout. The rearrangement of the site layout would not cause drastic changes to the viewshed; therefore, this would not be a Final SEIS 4-28 GMSWLF determining factor in selecting an alternative.

The landfill is envisioned as a mounded landfill. During development and operation of the landfill, approximately 10 acres would be developed at any time. Within this 10-acre area, only a 0.5-acre area would actively receive waste, which minimizes the amount of activity and noise to a small area at any given time. The final conceptual elevation of the landfill upon closure would have a maximum approximate height of 103 ft above grade, 435 ft above MSL (see Figure 2-2). The conceptual development of the landfill would leave the southernmost sectors for the final phase; thus, the landfill would not be perceived by southern receptors (such as the Inarajan Middle School) until much later in its lifespan.

During the construction phase, there would be no impacts to the viewshed of surrounding parcels; however, there would be temporary adverse impacts during operations near the end of this phase, as well as during completion, since construction would be visible from certain places such as Inarajan Middle School and the NASA Tracking Station parcel. After completion and the return of the site to a vegetated state, there would no longer be impacts to aesthetics.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not involve impacts to aesthetics at the three alternatives. If the Ordot Dump continues receiving solid waste and reaches capacity, eventually another site would have to be selected and developed for solid waste disposal, but the effects on aesthetics cannot be determined at this time because the site is not known.

The No Action Alternative would result in impacts to aesthetics within the vicinity of the Ordot Dump if current landfill operations would continue. Aesthetic impacts would continue to increase over time, as the landfill is visible from adjacent villages and the Leo Palace Resort. Fires and odors are occasionally detected at the Ordot Dump, which are both aesthetic impacts to adjacent businesses and residents.

4.3.5 Archaeological/Historical Resources

Archaeological and historical resources are present at all three alternatives and could be affected by earthmoving activities that disturb surface or subsurface resources. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) prescribes steps that are used to assess the affects of the undertaking upon historic properties. If a determination of No Adverse Effect is made, Guam HRD's concurrence should be sought along with any terms and conditions under which the undertaking would be carried out. Examples of conditions are the implementation of archaeological data recovery plans and/or monitoring plans to collect and preserve significant information that would be lost due to the undertaking. Heritage loss due to the undertaking would be mitigated by these and other measures, as deemed appropriate during the consultation. Protection or preservation covenants to be attached to a lease, transfer or sale of a historic property may also be obtained from the Guam HRD.

Impacts to archaeological and historic resources are negligible for the shared footprint area in the site layouts of all three alternatives. Artifacts were collected from two localities within the Dandan parcel (Dan S-1 and Dan S-2) and information about the sites recorded; hence, the loss Final SEIS 4-29 GMSWLF of these two sites from the archaeological record has been mitigated. There is low potential for discovery of further historic properties that would be significant under National Register Criterion D. Any removal of historic properties would be performed in compliance with the Guam HRD. However, the 400-foot extension of the footprint in Alternatives 2 and 3 would require additional archaeological survey to confirm the presence of any historic properties. There is a low potential for historic properties in this area, based on findings in the present footprint.

Archival Research Significance Recommendations

The five sites found during archival research at Layon are historically significant under National Register Criterion D. However, their present condition is unknown. Historically significant sites within the parcel, even outside the footprint, are potentially at risk from construction activities, such as equipment access roads and staging areas, and from utility line clearing and trenching. Adverse impacts to these sites can be avoided through careful project design and working with an archaeologist to verify the present condition and extent of the sites.

Oral history interviews should be conducted to complement the archival findings regarding historic land use in the area. Information regarding pre-war and post-war ranching, subsistence farming, family ties with coastal sites, recreation, and travel through the area should be sought.

Inventory Survey Significance Recommendations

All eight prehistoric isolated occurrences found during the inventory survey within the landfill footprint contain at least some information pertaining to the history of Guam, required by National Register Eligibility Criterion D (36 CFR Part 60). However, these finds lack the integrity of association and location necessary for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Lack of integrity is manifest in the isolated nature of these objects and their removal from original behavioral context due to erosional forces. Detailed documentation or removal of the isolated occurrences for study, in addition to archaeological monitoring in the landfill footprint, would be sufficient mitigation.

Reconnaissance Survey and Monitoring Significance Recommendations

Two of the four sites found during the reconnaissance survey, Dan S-1 and Dan S-2, were determined to be significant under Criterion D. Since the artifacts were collected from these two localities and information about the sites recorded, the loss of these two sites from the archaeological record has been mitigated. Dan S-3 and Dan S-4 and Dan I0-1, Dan I0-2 and Dan I0-3 do not appear to meet any National Register criteria. A finding of No Adverse Effect for all these localities is recommended.

Paleosediment coring with palynomorph (pollen, phytoliths, spores, etc.) analysis and radiocarbon dating (bulk soil and pollen) is recommended to help establish the age and possible prehistoric and historic uses of the Layon wetlands. Such information could complement that obtained through oral history interviews.

Final SEIS 4-30 GMSWLF No Action

Under the No Action Alternative no disturbance to the archaeological or historical resources would occur if the landfill were not constructed. Archaeological and historical resources at those locations would remain as is but could be subjected to other land uses in the future.

Under the No Action Alternative, however, solid waste disposal would have to continue somewhere other than the Ordot Dump. There would be impacts to archaeological and historical resources associated with whatever site is used, but these impacts cannot be determined at this time.

4.4 Summary of Layout Alternatives

To summarize the three proposed conceptual layout alternatives and their potential impacts, the main determining factors in choosing a site layout are impacts to hydrological features within the footprint (streams and wetlands), and aquatic ecology. The impacts are summarized in Table 4-2 below, but many of the resources listed are not applicable to the selection of a layout alternative. Resources that are applicable were ranked from 1 to 3, 1 being the most preferred layout, and 3 being the least preferred. If alternatives have similar impacts, their ranking has been assigned based on an average of the two rankings (i.e., alternatives ranked 1 and 2 would average to 1.5 if the impacts were equivalent).

Alternative 1 appears to disturb the least amount of land, which would result in slightly less impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat, and soil disturbance; however, the difference in amount of land disturbed among the three alternatives is insignificant. Alternative 2 would be beneficial to wetlands, hydrology, and aquatic ecology; however, Alternative 3 appears to be slightly more beneficial to these resources by offering a larger buffer between hydrological features present in the northwest comer of the landfill footprint and the proposed location of the support facility structures. Overall, Alternative 3 achieved the lowest total score based on the ranking system; therefore, this alternative appears to offer the most protection to natural resources at Layon.

Table 4-2. Comparison of Layout Alternatives

Impacts Resource Topic of the Conceptual Layout Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Seismic Impact Zones NIA NIA NIA Hydrogeology and Groundwater NIA NIA NIA Minor adverse long- Minor adverse long- Minor adverse long-term term impacts (145 term impacts ( 164 Soils and Topography impacts (171 acres disturbed) acres disturbed) acres disturbed) 2 2 2 Air Oualitv NIA NIA NIA Noise NIA NIA NIA

Final SEIS 4-31 GMSWLF Impacts of the Conceptual Lavout Alternatives Resource Topic Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Minor long-term Minor long-term Minor long-term impacts (stormwater) and impacts (stormwater); (stormwater); minor permanent (filled minor permanent permanent (filled stream) Hydrology wetlands/streams) (filled stream) impacts impacts impacts 3 1.5 1.5 Water Quality NIA NIA NIA Moderate/major No direct impacts to No impacts to wetlands (0 permanent adverse wetlands (0 acres of acres of wetlands filled); 700 Wetlands impacts (3.55 acres of wetlands filled); 700 ft ft of stream filled; more buffer wetlands filled) of stream filled for wetlands 3 2 1 Moderate adverse long- Moderate adverse long- Moderate adverse long-term term impacts (145 term impacts ( 164 impacts (171 acres disturbed) Vegetation acres disturbed) acres disturbed) 2 2 2 Moderate adverse long- Moderate adverse long- Moderate adverse long-term term impacts (145 term impacts ( 164 Wildlife/Habitat impacts ( 171 acres disturbed) acres disturbed) acres disturbed) 2 2 2 Minor permanent Minor long-term impacts adverse impacts (filled Minor long-term (stormwater); buffer provides Aquatic Ecology wetlands); long term impacts (stormwater) more protection for aquatic impacts (stormwater) life 3 2 1 Socioeconomics NIA NIA NIA Infrastructure NIA NIA NIA Public Health & Safety NIA NIA NIA Cultural Resources Minimal Impacts Minimal Imoacts Minimal Impacts 2 2 2 TOTAL SCORE 17 13.5 11.5 Note: 1 =least impact; 3 =most impact.

Final SEIS 4-32 GMSWLF 5.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING

This chapter provides a summary of the mitigation measures for the preferred layout footprint alternative, Alternative 3. This alternative appears to offer the most protection to the natural resources at Layon. Impact mitigation would be required to construct the new landfill. Factors such as stormwater control and diversion, offsite monitoring wells, transportation, community concerns (incentives and compensation), wetlands mitigation, air pollution control, archaeological/historical resource mitigation, rare or threatened species management, and other factors must be accurately identified to permit acceptable cost estimating for subsequent project elements. This chapter also addresses irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, unavoidable adverse effects, cumulative impacts, and compliance with regulations/statutes.

Categories of mitigation measures include:

• A voiding certain impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;

• Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;

• Rectifying impacts by repamng, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;

• Reducing or eliminating impacts over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and/or

• Compensating for impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

To the extent possible, potential impacts associated with the proposed action were avoided through use of an interdisciplinary process (integrating comments and concerns from resource agencies, and comments from public scoping) to select the best layout alternative and best available technology for the proposed MSWLF. While some impact to the environment cannot be avoided, GovGuam has determined that the preferred footprint layout alternative poses the least potential impact among the alternatives considered. A summary of the proposed mitigation measures are found in Table 5-1.

Final SEIS 5-1 GMSWLF Table 5-1. Proposed Mitigation Measures for Potential Impacts Associated with the Preferred Alternative

Area of Concern Desien/Operational Feature • Secondary containment for leachate storage Flexible piping connections for the leachate tank Seismic Zone • • Flattening of landfill slopes as required for stability • Groundwater monitoring system with financial Groundwater assurance for remedial action for impacts to ground water as required by MSWLF regulations • Create wet extended detention pond with sediment forebay and vegetated permanent wet pool Water Quality • Composite liner system and leachate collected, treated, and disposed • Wetlands entirely avoided in Alternatives 2 & 3 Wetlands • Increased distance between wetlands and support facility structures Vegetation • Revegetation of exposed soils from excavated cells • Proper landfill design and maintenance throughout Community Concerns the active life of the landfill • Benefits provided to host community Regional transfer stations Transportation • • Reduction in waste transport directly to landfill Archaeological/Historical • Design/Operational Feature: NIA Resources

5.1 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH ALTERNATIVE 3 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

This section discusses the proposed mitigation measures for potential impacts associated with the preferred footprint alternative at Layon. Mitigation measures are presented for seismic activity, water quality, wetlands, vegetation, community concerns, transportation, archaeological/historical resources, and landfill operations.

5.1.1 Seismic Zones

The following features are recommended to be included in the final detailed landfill design to avoid impacts from seismic activity to the leachate collection system:

• Secondary containment for leachate storage. • Flexible piping connections for the leachate tank.

Additionally, the design of the landfill to have side slopes of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical would reduce or eliminate any impacts (i.e., shifting, moving) from seismic activity to the

Final SEIS 5-2 GMSWLF material located within the landfill cells. The liner and leachate collection system would be designed to be stable under seismic loads. No impacts are expected to the liner since it is made of flexible membrane materials.

5.1.2 Water Quality (Surface and Ground Water)

Additional stormwater management techniques are recommended to mm1m1ze water quality and quantity impacts to receiving surface waters. The current proposed stormwater detention pond is designed for temporary storage of runoff and controls peak discharge rates into receiving waters. This provides benefits in controlling water quantities, but not water quality, except for some gravitational settling of sediment. A wet extended detention pond is recommended to be used as an alternative, which is designed to increase settling of pollutants with features such as a sediment forebay and a permanent wet pool with wetland vegetation that would increase benefits to water quality.

Leakage from the landfill is controlled by the design of the landfill system. This includes: • Composite liner system • Leachate collection and removal system • Storm water run-on and run-off control • Minimization of active open landfill areas • Progressive closure oflandfill to minimize rainfall infiltration into the landfill

5.1.3 Wetlands

The preferred layout alternative, Alternative 3, would require a Section 404 permit from the USACE; therefore a Section 404 permit would be prepared. The USACE and USEP A also require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts to waters of the US. A mitigation plan that specifies how functions and values of the resource would be replaced would be prepared if it is determined that mitigation is required.

Even though the headwaters of the Fensol River would have to be filled for Alternative 3, wetlands were entirely avoided, which protects this important resource. In addition to avoiding wetlands, Alternative 3 provides additional protection to the wetlands by minimizing the distance to wetlands by providing a larger buffer between hydrological features and support facility structures within the landfill footprint.

In the event that Alternative I or Alternative 2 would be selected a 404 permit would also need to be obtained which would include a detailed mitigation plan for impacted wetlands and streams. A typical wetland mitigation plan can include the provision of open water pond areas suitable for moorhen habitat.

Final SEIS 5-3 GMSWLF 5.1.4 Vegetation

The preferred alternative, layout Alternative 3 would rectify the impacts to vegetation by restoring the vegetation removed from the landfill site. At the closure of each cell, the exposed soils would be revegetated with grasses to return to its natural state. BMPs (Environmental Protection Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) would be used to prevent erosion and soil removal. By revegetating, those areas that were barren and eroded would be enhanced to savannah grasslands to the maximum extent possible.

After completion of the landfill, revegetation of the site would occur, which would also enhance the aesthetic nature of the site.

5.1.5 Community Concerns

Community concerns that were mentioned during public scoping include impacts to land used for hunting, fishing and farming, the use of historic and natural areas in Guam, long transport distances required to haul waste from waste source and road congestion, impacts on recreation, economy, tourism, low-income populations, noise, odor, air and water quality and other public health and quality of life concerns, property values, costs associated with recycling and the new landfill, and future uses of the landfill site.

Mitigation for these valid community concerns would be in the form of proper landfill design and maintenance throughout the active life of the landfill to minimize or reduce these concerns. Most of these issues, such as odor, noise and aesthetics, would be controlled through standard operational procedures and would be outlined within the operation plan for the landfill, as well as through compliance with applicable federal and local regulations as discussed throughout Chapter 4.0. Land that is currently used for farming and recreational activities would not be affected by the preferred layout alternative, and the landfill site would be restored as open space after completion of landfill operations.

Any impacts to communities within the vicinity of Layon would be offset with mitigation measures that would focus on the host community. Possible mitigation measures to provide benefits to the host community may include, but not be limited to, providing the host community with a revenue stream as a percentage of the tipping fee, discounted waste disposal, preferential hiring in the waste management industry, special contingency funds, regular water tests and property value protection. Actions such as using landscaping for screening to preserve the viewshed of neighboring properties, performing construction and operational activities during times that would minimize noise disturbance (i.e., no late night operations and limited weekend operations), and restricting waste transport to non-peak traffic hours (i.e., avoid weekday AM/PM work commute traffic, lunchtime traffic) would also mitigate against negative impacts associated with a landfill (GovGuam 2005).

Final SEIS 5-4 GMSWLF 5.1.6 Transportation

The integrated solid waste management strategy features the use of regional transfer stations as the destination for solid waste collection vehicles. The proposed new strategy of using transfer stations would allow consolidation of waste into larger hauling trucks to transport to the landfill. Although siting the landfill in southern Guam would increase traffic traveling between the population centers located in northern and central Guam to the landfill, the system of combining trips into large waste haulers could reduce the volume of landfill-bound traffic by up to 15 percent. Compared to the existing traffic generated by transporting waste, the new system could decrease levels of truck traffic by as much as 50 percent and completely eliminate medium and small self-haul vehicle traffic (GovGuam 2005). Landfill-bound traffic would be primarily restricted to large capacity trash/waste haulers with capacities ranging from 75 to 100 CY of compacted waste.

5.1. 7 Archaeological/Historical Resources

The preferred layout alternative, Alternative 3, would require additional archaeological survey within the 400-foot extension to the south of the present footprint. The findings within this area are expected to be similar to those within the present footprint; however, if historic properties are discovered and found to be significant according to National Register criteria, then a determination of No Adverse Effect would require mitigation in coordination with the Guam (State) Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) under the National Historic Preservation Act.

5.1.8 Operations

Article 3 of the Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations, GCA Title 22, Chapter 23, sets forth criteria for the operation of solid waste management facilities including landfills. The criteria address monitoring and mitigation measures for the following landfill operation and maintenance issues and activities:

• Types of solid waste accepted at the landfill and procedures for handling of such wastes • Types of solid waste excluded at the landfill and procedures for assuring their exclusion • Cover material • Disease vector control • Explosive gases control • Air quality control and compliance with air quality regulations • Access control • Run-on and run-off control systems • Surface water quality control and compliance • Liquid waste restrictions • Operations recordkeeping • Operation and maintenance safety requirements

Final SEIS 5-5 GMSWLF Compliance with these criteria 1s overseen and regulated by Guam Environmental Protection Agency.

5.1.8.1 Groundwater Monitoring

Article 5 of the Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations, GCA Title 22, Chapter 23, sets forth specific measures for groundwater monitoring and corrective action. These provisions establish very strict standards for the type, placement, operation and maintenance of groundwater monitoring systems to minimize and mitigate the potential adverse impacts of landfill operations up to and including closure and post-closure periods. Financial assurance is required by regulations (Article 5.4.8.4) for remedial action or mitigation for impacts to ground water.

5.1.8.2 Surface Water Monitoring

Per Section 23310 of the Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations, operators and owners of a MSWLF unit are required to comply with area-wide or territorial-wide water quality management plan established by GEP A under the requirements of the Clean Water Act, including, but not limited to, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and non-point source pollution control requirements. These compliance requirements must be documented and implemented under the mandatory landfill operations plan and apply to all surface waters, including wetlands.

5.1.8.3 Landfill Gas

Section 23 3 06 of the Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations set forth standards and requirements for the implementation and monitoring of explosive gas control systems.

5.1.8.4 Corrective Action Plan

Corrective action plans are required as a subset of all specific landfill systems control plans and cover the operational as well as closure and post-closure periods of the landfill as defined in the Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations. Furthermore, implementation of corrective action plans are firmly integrated with financial assurance requirements set forth in Article 7 of the Regulations.

5.2 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

This section discusses irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. A resource commitment is considered irreversible when primary or secondary impacts from its use limit future options. Irreversible commitment applies primarily to nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, and to those resources that are only renewable over long time spans, such as soil productivity. A resource commitment is

Final SEIS 5-6 GMSWLF considered irretrievable when the use or consumption of the resource is neither renewable nor recoverable for use by future generations.

Implementation of the landfill would involve the following irreversible environmental changes to the existing onsite resources:

• Commitment of energy (i.e., electricity) and water resources as a result of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the landfill facility.

• Alteration of the existing topographic character of the site.

• Consumption of soil resources.

• Use of fossil fuels to operate fixed and mobile construction equipment including bulldozers, graders, trucks, dump trucks, and generators.

• Removal of, or potential destruction of archaeological and paleontological resources on the site.

• Alteration (filling of streams) of waters of the US.

The commitment of the parcel to landfill uses was not listed since, upon closure, the landfill site would be returned to open space for future use. Future uses of the site would be limited by the underlying wastes; for example the land could not be used for buildings as the site would settle over time. Additionally, direct and indirect impacts on biological resources (native plant communities and wildlife) were not listed, since upon closure the site would be revegetated and habitat would be available again for wildlife use. The loss of vegetation to the construction and operation of the landfill would be restored.

5.3 UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Effects that cannot be avoided due to the constraints involved in landfill design and construction include:

• Construction of a landfill within a seismic impact zone;

• Construction of a landfill within a coastal zone;

• Increases in truck traffic along haul routes that were previously not used for hauling waste;

• Long-term aesthetic impacts that would be rectified at the site through revegetation;

• Minor long-term noise impacts;

Final SEIS 5-7 GMSWLF • Minor long-term air quality impacts; and

• Minor to moderate long-term impacts to terrestrial resources (vegetation and wildlife) including native species regardless of alternative chosen.

• Minor permanent impacts to waters of the US (headwater stream).

5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The additive effects or cumulative impacts of siting the landfill at Layon must be considered in conjunction with aggregate past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. These potential cumulative impacts are discussed below.

• Development Incentives. The proposed action would result in construction of a landfill at Layon and include the installation and upgrading of existing infrastructure and utilities. It is foreseeable that the vast land area of Dandan offers other areas potentially suitable for the development of a new landfill following the closure of the proposed sanitary landfill. This may potentially encourage additional landfill-compatible developments in the surrounding area, such as waste management facilities. Such developments would potentially bring economic benefits to the island, such as tax revenues to the government and employment opportunities for local residents.

• Agricultural Viability. The presence of the landfill in the Dandan area may potentially increase viability of agricultural activity because of the proximity to utilities and availability of compost material and by-products.

• Effects on Watershed. The potential increase in development activity in the Dandan area could gradually impact the watershed as growth occurs in the area. Non-point sources, such as leaching fields from residential development, pesticides and nutrients from farming activities, and sedimentation from earthmoving, may contribute to degradation of the watershed.

• Accessibility by Others. The upgraded infrastructure may lead to an increase in unauthorized activities, such as hunting-related arson, because of the ease of accessibility to the area. Security measures, such as gated entry to the landfill access road, could help deter this activity. The road would provide better access for fire suppression, forest stewardship, and other legitimate activities.

• Recreational Resources. Visual impacts to the landscape from the access road and landfill facility, especially when viewed from southern vistas and recreation areas, add to changes on the aesthetic environment. The development of Layon and growth of new developments in the area would add to the loss of outdoor recreational resources for hiking, biking, etc.; however, road development would also provide greater accessibility to other areas for recreation.

Final SEIS 5-8 GMSWLF • Community Character. The change in land use in the Dandan area would potentially add to a shift in community character initiated by the establishment of the NASA tracking station.

• Regional Transportation. Additional roadway improvements presented in the 2020 Guam Highway Master Plan are not part of this proposed action. However, the proposed Route 4 improvements would be beneficial to the proposed action because construction schedules would be coordinated with the landfill schedule in order to provide adequate infrastructure before transport of solid waste to the proposed landfill begins. These improvements support the proposed action by improving a major access and haul route to be utilized by the future landfill. All three layout alternatives would use a portion of this major highway and would benefit from other highway projects planned along future haul routes.

5.5 COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS/STATUTES

5.5.1 Federal Regulations

The primary federal regulatory authority over the siting, construction, and operation of MSWLF's is RCRA, specifically, CFR 40 part 258, "Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria." Part 258 applies to new landfill units and lateral expansion of existing units that accept waste after October 1993. Owners or operators of landfills that do not meet the criteria are considered to be engaging in the practice of open dumping in violation of RCRA. The landfill would not be permitted by the federal government, the permit would be issued by GEP A. GEP A rules for permitting must be in conformance to CFR 40 part 258, "Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria."

Section 404 processing of the CWA would be necessary since the proposed project would involve the filling of waters of the US. A Section 404 permit would be obtained from the USACE (Honolulu District). Additionally, an NPDES permit would be obtained through GovGuam to control discharges from the project site to the nation's surface waters. GEPA reviews and certifies (401 WQC) the permit for compliance with all local regulations and policies and in accordance with the Guam Water Quality Standards. USEPA coordinates, drafts, and issues the permit for facilities that require wastewater discharges.

To comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, GovGuam is in the process of consulting with USFWS. Comments are not anticipated from USFWS that would alter the proposed action's compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

The project would comply with Guam's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations 10 Guam Code Annotated, Chapter 47 (Water Pollution Control Act); an Erosion Control Permit would need to be issued by GEP A.

Archaeological and historic resources were evaluated and field investigations (monitoring and inventory survey) were conducted by professional archaeologists in coordination

Final SEIS 5-9 GMSWLF with the Guam (State) Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470). Additional field investigations in the 400-ft extension of the landfill footprint would be required. Concurrence would be sought from the SHPO for the determination of effect on historic properties.

5.5.2 Guam Regulations/Laws

GovGuam Bureau of Statistics and Plans is the lead agency for the Guam Coastal Management Program (GCMP) established under the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1465, October 27, 1972, as amended 1975, 1976, 1978, 1986, 1990, 1992 and 1996). GovGuam will review this EIS for consistency with the GCMP.

The GEPA Well Head Protection Program (WHPP) was adopted to prevent the contamination of public water supplies. The guidance establishes a groundwater management protection zone within a 1,000-ft radius of public wells within specified land use standards. The project complies with Guam's WHPP as well as the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act since the closest public well is located more than a mile from the landfill site.

The landfill will comply with Guam's Solid Waste Disposal Rules and Regulations, Rules and Regulations for the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) Solid Waste Disposal (GCA Title 22, Div. 4, Chapter 23).

Use of the Layon site for landfill development and operation would require a zoning change in accordance with the process defined by the Zoning Code (GCA Title 21, Div 2, Chapter 61).

The landfill will comply with Guam Water Quality Standards to meet the requirements for the S-2 surface water classification. The proposed industrial activities cannot degrade the surface water quality beyond its present condition, as the area's surface waters are suitable as a potable water supply.

Final SEIS 5-10 GMSWLF 6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

6.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public participation is a fundamental element of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Although this SEIS for siting a landfill at Layon is not required to follow formal NEPA guidelines with their structured public participation requirements, the Government of Guam has provided its residents opportunities for public comment and interaction throughout the process.

6.1.1 Public Scoping (July 2004)

The public scoping comment period was open from June 30 to August 3, 2004. Scoping was the first opportunity for the public to participate in the EIS process and help define the appropriate scope of analyses in the EIS document. The public was also invited to comment on preliminary siting criteria that would be used to evaluate the three candidate sites. The public was invited through published notices in the local newspaper, radio announcements, presentation to the Mayors' Council of Guam, press releases, and televised and print media coverage. Several avenues were made available to receive oral or written comments from the public on the scope of the EIS during the comment period, including the project Web site (www.guamlandfill.org), which was launched on July 7, 2004. Public meetings were held in July 7, 8, and 12, 2004 in each of the three candidate site villages. The background and other aspects of the project were presented to the public at each meeting, and a brief video was shown depicting landfill construction. At the end of the presentation, the public was given the opportunity to provide oral comments and receive feedback from the consultants and Government officials from GEPAandGDPW.

The public comments were arranged into five groups: water protection, on-site environment, land use, transportation, and other issues. The comments were further categorized into 40 siting criteria developed by the project team. Many comments focused on potential impacts to groundwater or surface waters in the event that the landfill liner system fails. Inarajan residents raised particular concerns that the candidate site in Dandan would affect the Ugum watershed-- the potable water source for Guam's southern villages--and nearby streams used for farming and recreation. Impacts to existing and future land use and potential property devaluation were common concerns among the residents at the three public scoping meetings. The public cited existing and planned tourist resorts, and on-going farming activities as some of the economically productive uses that would be affected by the landfill.

Incineration, either alone or combined with a landfill facility, was the most common waste management alternative proposed by the public. The public asked about the cost comparison between operation of an incinerator and a landfill, and about the possibility of harnessing electricity from the incineration process. Several comments were in strong support of a recycling program. Alternative landfill sites were also suggested, including

Final SEIS 6-1 GMSWLF Harmon Field in Dededo, Tiyan in Barrigada, Fadian in Mangilao, and Mt. Lamlam in Umatac.

At the close of the public comment period, all written and oral comments were compiled and summarized in a Preliminary Public Scoping Report issued in September 2004 (GDPW 2004c). The report was published on-line on the project Web site for public review, and copies were made available to the public by request.

6.1.2 Final Public Scoping Report (October 2004)

The Preliminary Public Scoping Report was finalized in October 2004 after a 30-day comment period (GDPW 2004a). No public comments were received during that time. The final report was posted on the project Web site for public review.

6.1.3 PSSR Public Meetings (January 2005)

The public comment for the Preliminary Site Selection Report (PSSR) for the siting of a new municipal solid waste landfill facility was open from January 11 through 22, 2005. The PSSR was posted on the project Web site http://www.guamlandfill.org, and hard copies of the report were deposited at the Asan-Maina, Ordot-Chalan Pago, Inarajan, and Yona Mayors' Offices, Guam Environmental Protection Agency, Guam Department of Public Works, Duenas & Associates, Inc., and the Nieves M. Flores Memorial Library in Hagatna. In addition, copies of the report were provided to U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Water and Environmental Research Institute (WERI), the Territorial Archaeologist (Department of Parks & Recreation-Historic Resources Division), Bureau 1 of Statistics and Plans, and Senators Benjamin J. Cruz and Joanne M. Brown (28 h Guam Legislature) for review. Review comments were also solicited from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Guam Regulatory Branch. Members of the public were provided electronic copies on CD-ROM on an individual basis by request. Several means of submitting comments were available to the public, i.e., through the Web site, U.S. Postal Service, hand-delivery, voice mail, or facsimile. Written comments were also accepted at the three public meetings.

The project team and the Government presented the information in the PSSR and solicited public comments at three public meetings held on January 13, 14 and 17, 2005 at the Asan-Maina Community Center, Yona Community Center, and Inarajan Mayor's Office, respectively. The Government was especially interested in comments that cited any missing or erroneous information contained in the PSSR, as well as comments directed at the site selection criteria or the weighting factors for these criteria. The project team and Government provided immediate responses to oral comments and questions during the meetings. Twenty-eight comments were submitted either in writing during the meetings, or afterwards via facsimile or telephone. In addition, two CD-ROM disks were received from an individual at the Inarajan meeting on January 17, 2005.

Comments were received for each of the major groups of siting criteria, i.e., water protection, geology, on-site environment, transportation and land use. No significant

Final SEIS 6-2 GMSWLF comments were received under the water protection and the geology categories. Other comments were received in the following categories: public education, recycling, alternative landfill locations, incompatibility with future land use, landfill post-closure land use, development and design costs, Consent Decree penalties, accountability for compliance with regulations, and not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY).

The public comment summary was incorporated into the Final Site Selection Report, along with a description of the selection process for a preferred landfill site by the Landfill Site Evaluation Team (LSET) (GDPW 2005). The report was finalized in March 2005 and posted on the project Web site for public reference.

6.1.4 Draft SEIS (May 2005)

The public was given the opportunity to comment on the Draft SEIS immediately following the release of the report during a public comment period from May 18 to June 16, 2005. A public meeting was held on May 24, 2005 at the Inarajan Mayor's Office to receive oral and written comments. Oral comments were received from 17 people at the meeting; additional written comments and one voice-mail comment were received during the comment period. A comment summary and copies of written comments are presented in Appendix C.

6.2 AGENCY COORDINATION

Coordination letters describing the project and soliciting comments or information were sent to the following local and federal government resource agencies and the U.S. Navy. Copies of these letters are included in Appendix D. Guam Department of Parks and Recreation's Historic Resources Division and Bureau of Statistics and Plans provided the only responses, which are also included in Appendix D.

Federal Government

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Office U.S. Navy Public Works Center Guam

Government of Guam

Bureau of Statistics and Plans Department of Agriculture Department of Land Management Department of Parks and Recreation

Final SEIS 6-3 GMSWLF 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

This FSEIS was prepared for GovGuam by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Inc., and Duenas & Associates, Inc. with information provided by other subconsultants. Names and relevant experience of the principal preparers follow:

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology

Suzanne Boltz, Project Manager: 18 years of experience managing and performing assessments related to development projects, including assessments completed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Pennsylvania State University; 1989, MS, Fish and Wildlife Sciences; Juniata College, 1985, BS, Environmental Biology.

Danielle Bower, Environmental Planner: 3 years of experience in the general planning field, environmental investigations and assessments, public involvement, and project management. Eckerd College, 2000, BA, Biology; Georgia Institute of Technology, 2002, MCP, City Planning.

Jeannette Dawson, Scientist: 3 years of experience m ecology, herpetology, and ecotoxicology. Towson University, 2002, BS, Biology.

Jeffrey Elseroad, Scientist: 30 years of professional experience in environmental assessments, environmental management, and facility permitting. He provides expertise primarily for water quality studies, water pollution control projects, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting. Carleton College, 1970, BA, Chemistry; The Johns Hopkins University, 1973, MSE, Environmental Engineering.

Michelle Harden, Scientist: 5 years experience in environmental geology, plant ecology, and ecotoxicology. Dickinson College, 2001, BS, Environmental Sciences.

Mary Alice Koeneke, Scientist: 29 years experience in report writing, environmental monitoring and assessment with special emphasis on avian, terrestrial and fisheries surveys. College of St. Vincent, 1973, BS, Biology; Fordham University, 1977, MS, Environmental Biology.

Terissa J. Layfield, Environmental Scientist: 20 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and evaluations. She has functioned as a environmental scientist and task manager on a variety of projects including environmental baseline surveys, environmental assessments, ecological risk assessments, site investigations, remedial investigations/feasibility studies, proposed plans, and record of decisions. Salisbury State University, 1983, BS, Biology.

Karin Olsen, Scientist: 6 years experience in marine geochemistry with a background that has focused on coastal sediment and water geochemistry. University of North

Final EIS 7-1 GMSWLF Carolina - Chapel Hill, 1997, BS, Geology; State University of New York - Stoney Brook, 2000, MS, Marine Environmental Services.

Christine Papageorgis, Ph.D., Director, Natural Resources Management: 26 years of experience in managing natural resource assessments for sound planning and operation of energy, port and harbor, wastewater and solid waste management facilities, and industrial and residential development. She has supervised execution of environmental and health risk assessments for proposed waste management facilities, as well as uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Brown University, 1970, B.A.; Biology; Princeton University; 1975 Ph.D.; Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; 1975.

Duenas & Associates

John P. Duenas, P .E., President, Principal Engineer. Over 25 years of professional Civil Engineering consulting experience involving projects on Guam, the Northern Marianas and the various Island Nations of Micronesia for island governments, Federal and Military agencies and private developers. University of Dayton, Ohio, 1968, B.S. Civil Engineering; University of Dayton, Ohio, 1971, M.S. Civil Engineering. Professional registration, 1974, Guam.

Ramon S. Oberiano, Chief of Environmental Services. 14 years experience in environmental permitting field conducting environmental investigations and preparing environmental assessments. University of Guam, 1991, B.A., Biology.

Claudine M. Camacho, Senior Environmental Specialist. 13 years of experience in environmental permitting field conducting environmental investigations and preparing environmental assessments. University of Guam, 1991, B.A., Biology.

Black & Veatch

Thomas D. Knox, P.E., Civil Engineer, Landfill Siting, Design, Permitting, and Operations. 25 years experience as an engineer on solid waste management and planning projects. His responsibilities have included the quality control and review of technical design reports and studies, in addition to providing technical consultant and project overview services to solid waste projects. He has been a design and resident engineer for solid waste facility construction and rehabilitation projects. B.S., 1978, Civil Engineering; B.S., 1982, Business Administration; M.S., 1986 , Civil/Geotechnical Engineering. Professional registration, 1983: NE.

Lawrence J. Almaleh, P.E., Civil Engineer, Geotechnical Landfill Design. 28 years experience in as a geotechnical engineer whose experience includes coordinating and participating in the technical evaluation, design, and review of deep and shallow foundation systems, earth retaining structures and cofferdams, waste storage systems, dams and embankments, shore structures, electrical transmission and distribution structure foundations, dewatering systems, ground water system evaluation, and

Final EIS 7-2 GMSWLF construction specification preparation. Bachelors degree in Civil Engineering, 1974. Masters degree in Civil Engineering, 1975. Professional registration, 1981.

Mink&Yuen

John F. Mink, Hydrogeologist. 47 years experience on water development projects for many years throughout the Pacific (Hawaii, Guam, Saipan, Korea, Japan, Pohnpei, Majuro, Truk, India, etc.), South America and other areas. He has much experience in hydrogeology and the siting, design and testing of wells. He has considerable knowledge and background in water resources, hydraulics and water development finances. Also has considerable experience in environmental evaluations. Mr. Mink's experience also includes the drilling and maintenance of wells, operation and maintenance of pumps and pumping stations, meters and other equipment. Penn State, 1949, B.S., Geology; University of Chicago, 1951, M.S., Geophysics. Professional registration, 1970: California.

Final EIS 7-3 GMSWLF 8.0 REFERENCES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2005. ATSDR Landfill Gas-Fact Sheet. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/html/appe.html# 1. Accessed on February 21, 2005.

BAE Systems Spectral Solutions LLC (BAE Systems). 2004. Wetland Delineation at Three Proposed Landfill Sites in Southern Guam Using Remote Sensing Data. Letter Report Prepared for Duenas & Associates, Inc. and Government of Guam Department of Public Works. 7 pp. plus Attachments.

Barrett Consulting Group. 1994. Surface Water Development Study, Volume 1. Prepared for Public Utility Agency of Guam, Government of Guam.

Best, B.R., and C.E. Davidson. 1981. Inventory and Atlas of the Inland Aquatic Ecosystems of the Marianas Archipelago. University of Guam Marine Laboratory. Tech. Rept. No. 75. 226 pp.

Brasher, A.M. 1991. Biological Survey of the Lonfit River and Two Perennial Tributaries at the Lonfit New Town Residential Development Project. Prepared for Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants, Inc. 42 pp.

CIA. 2005. The World Factbook. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gq.html. Accessed on March 3, 2005. Page last updated on February 10, 2005.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Dames & Moore. 1991. Preliminary Geological Engineering Reconnaissance Study, Sigua Community Master Plan, Guam. Prepared for Lucky Development Company, Ltd., Agana, Guam. 27 pp.+ 2 plates.

Duenas & Associates, Inc., 1990. Final Environmental Impact Assessment for Guam First Green Golf Course, Pulantat, Yona, Guam. Prepared for GFG Corporation. 40 pp. +Appendices A-C.

Duenas & Associates, Inc. 2005. Draft 2020 Guam Highway Master Plan. Prepared for Guam Department of Public Works, Government of Guam. In progress.

Fosberg, 1960. The Vegetation of the Micronesia I. General descriptions, The vegetation of the Mariana Islands, and a detailed consideration of the vegetation of Guam. Bull.Am. Museum ofNatural History. 119 (1): 1-75.

Gingerich, S.B. 2003. Hydrologic Resources of Guam.

Final SEIS 8-1 GMSWLF Government of Guam. 2004. "Details about Guam." http://ns.gov.gu/details.html. Accessed on July 27, 2004.

Guam Department of Agriculture. 1980. Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1979-1980. Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources.

Guam Department of Commerce. 2005. "Economic and Business Environment in Guam." http://www.admin.gov. gu/ commerce/ guam business environment.htm

Guam Department of Public Works (GDPW). 1998. Environmental Impact Statement Municipal Solid Waste Landfill for the Island of Guam. Volumes I & II. Prepared by: Tenorio & Associates, Inc., Agana, Guam. March 1998.

Guam Department of Public Works (GDPW). 2004a. Final Public Scoping Report Environmental Impact Statement for the Siting ofa Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility, Guam. Prepared by: Duenas & Associates, Inc., Tamuning, Guam. October 2004.

Guam Department of Public Works (GDPW). 2004b. Landfill Financial Plan for Ordot Dump Closure and New Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. Prepared by: Duenas & Associates, Inc. and Ernst & Young, LLP. October 2004.

Guam Department of Public Works (GDPW). 2005. Final Site Selection Report, Environmental Impact Statement for the Siting ofa Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility, Guam. Prepared by: Duenas & Associates, Inc., Tamuning, Guam. March 2005.

Guam Economic Development Authority (GEDA). 2000. http://www.investguam.com/home.htm. Accessed on August 18, 2004.

Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA). 2000. Guam Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Phase I, Phase II and Part III. Adopted by P.L. 25-175 December 2000.

Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA). 2001. Guam Water Quality Standards (Revised).

Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA). 2004a. Fact Sheet: Landfill Site Selection. March 2004. Accessed site on July 28, 2004. http://www.guamepa.govguam.net

Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA). 2004b. Preliminary Landfill Site Suitability Report. Prepared by: Guam Environmental Protection Agency in association with Department of Public Works. March 2004.

Final SEIS 8-2 GMSWLF Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA). 2004c. Fact Sheet: Landfill Site Selection. EIS and Public Involvement. July 2004. Accessed site on July 28, 2004. http://www. guamepa. govguam.net

Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA). 2004d. 303(d) List for 2003-2004. http://www. guamepa. govguam.net/programs/water/index.html

Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) and Guam Department of Public Works (GDPW) [GovGuam]. 2005. Guam's First Public Sanitary Landfill: Frequently Asked Questions. February. http://www.guamepa.govguam.net

Guam Waterworks Authority (GWA). 2004. http://www.guamwaterworks.org.

Lee, G. Fred. 1994. Impact of Municipal and Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste Landfills on Public Health and the Environment: An Overview. www.gfredlee.com

Lotz, D. and B. Lotz. 2004. The Best Tracks on Guam, A Guide to Hiking Trails. 3rd Ed. Guam: Making Tracks. 112 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003. Treasure our Guam Coasts and Estuaries. Accessed 3/3/05.

Noise Pollution Clearinghouse (NPC). 2004. Protective Noise Levels. http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels/levels.htm. Accessed 2122105.

Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). 2004a. Coastal Zone Management Program. . Accessed 314105.

Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). 2004b. Federal Consistency. Accessed 314105.

Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1989. Baseline Environmental Survey and Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Assessment for Guam First Green Golf Course, Pulantat, Guam. Prepared for Taniguchi-Ruth and AIA Associates. 43 pp. plus Appendices A-B.

Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1990a. Final Environmental Assessment for Proposed Golf Course Amendment to the Lonfit New Town Master Plan. Prepared for Columbus Development Corporation, on behalf of Duenas & Swavely, Inc. 52 pp plus Appendix.

Final SEIS 8-3 GMSWLF Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1990b. Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Assessment, Lonfit Master Plan PUD Amendment. Prepared for Media Five Limited, Inc. 93 pp. plus Appendix.

Parham, J. E. 1995. Habitat use by an assemblage of oceanic island streamfishes. M. S. Thesis. University of Guam. 54 pp.

Reagan, M.K. and A. Meijer. 1984. Geology and Geochemistry ofEarly Arc-Volcanic Rocksfrom Guam. Geological Society America. 95(6): 701-730.

Reynolds, R. T., J.M. Scott and RA. Nussbaum. 1980. A Variable Circular-Plot Method for Estimating Bird Numbers. Condor, 82: 309-313.

Ritter, M.W. and J.A. Savidge. 1999. A Predictive Model of Wetland Habitat Use on Guam by Endangered Mariana Common Moorhen. Condor, 101: 282-287.

Sablan, R.L. 2005. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (Guam) Site Evaluation Report. Dated January 28, 2005.

Stark, J.T. 1963. Petrology of the Volcanic Rocks of Guam with a Section of Trace Elements in the Volcanic Rocks of Guam (Tracey J.I. and J.T. Stark). U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 403-C: 32p.

Taborosi, D. and S. Khosrowpanah. 2000. Environmental Impact Statement: Inarajan River Dam Project. Water and Environmental Research Institute of the Western Pacific, University of Guam. Tech. Rept. No. 91.

Takano, L. 2003. Seasonal movement, home range, and abundance of the Mariana Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus guami) on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Unpublished Masters of Science Thesis, Oregon State University. 96 pp.

Takano, L. and S.M. Haig. 2004. Distribution and Abundance of the Mariana Subspecies of the Common Moorhen. Waterbirds 27 (2): 245-250.

Tracey, J., Schlanger, S., Stark, J., Doan, D., and H. May. 1964. General Geology of Guam. U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 403-A: 104 p.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1980. Ugum River Interim Report and Environmental Impact Statement.

USACE. 2005. Public Notice No. 200400448: Honolulu District Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines. February 14.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Guam Summary File. http://factfinder.census.gov

Final SEIS 8-4 GMSWLF U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. Guam 2002 Census of Agriculture. http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/ guam/guam. pdf. Accessed on March 3, 2005.

U.S. Department oflnterior (USDOI). Office oflnsular Affairs. 1999. Report on the State of the Islands. http://www.doi.gov/oia/Stateisland/report99.html. Accessed on August 18, 2004.

USDOI OIA. 2004. An Update on the Economies of Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). May 2004. http://www.doi.gov/oia/Osman/Osmanreports/econupdates.htm. Accessed August 18, 2004.

USDOI. 2004a. Guam Main Page. http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/gumpage.htm. Accessed on August 18, 2004.

USDOI. 2004b. Guam Island Statistics. http://www.doi.gov/oia/ commerce/sumislstat/ comstatpage.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Ordot Landfill Guam. EPA Region 9. Accessed site on July 28, 2004. http ://yosemite. epa. gov /r9 I sfund/ overview .nsf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. CERCLA Overview. Accessed site on July 30, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/law/cerla.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities-A Guide for Owners/Operators. March.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Critical Habitat for Six Species of Mariana Island Birds and Bats. http://pacificislands.fws.gov/CHRules/MarianaCHfactsheet2.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. National Wetlands Inventory Maps. U.S. Department of the Interior. Nine quadrangle maps of Guam.

United States Fish and Wildlife Services Pacific Islands, Ecological Services. 2005. Threatened and Endangered Animal and Plant Species Listing for Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. http://pacificislands.fws.gov/wesa/pacplantanimal.html. Acessed 28 July 2004.

United States Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center. 2005. Extinction and Loss of Species on Guam: Birds. http://www.fort.usgs.gov/resources/education/bts/impacts/birds.asp. Accessed 20 August 2004.

Final SEIS 8-5 GMSWLF Wiles, Gary J. and Michael W. Ritter. 1993. Guam inA Directory of Wetlands in Oceania (Derek A. Scott, compiler). The International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau (IWRB) and Asian Wetland Bureau (AWB).

Final SEIS 8-6 GMSWLF ------

APPENDIX A

Ordot Consent Decree .··t = _; o· :aar,..&lLM.,. -1. t;;Vv-11 ~ THOMAS L. SANSONETTI Assistant Attorney General --·=...... _--;=;~- 2 Environment & Natural Resources Division O!STRICT [ILED --~ United States Department of Justice OURTOF GUAM 3 ROBERT D. MULLANEY FEB l 1 2004 Environmental Enforcement Section MARYL M 4 Environment & Natural Resources Division r.i S:f<•. · · MORAf\J 301 Howard Street, Suite l 050 ·'-- fl.. 0 F COURT . 5 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 744-6491 6 . Fax: (415) 744-6476 LEONARDO M. RAP ADAS 7 United States Attorney MIKEL W>'SCHW AB 8 Assistant U.S. Attorney Suite 500, Sirena Plaza 9 108 Hernan Cortez Hagatna, Guam 96910 10 Telephone: (671) 472-7332 Fax: (671) 472-7215 11 12 Attorneys for the United States of America

13 .... UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TERRITORY OF GUAM 15 16 17 UNlTED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CIVIL CASE NO. 02-00022 18 Plaintiff, · ) 19 v. ) 20 GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, ) . CONSENT DECREE Defendant. ) 21 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-) 22 23

24

25 26 27 CO Pf " WHEREAS, Plaintiff United States of America, on behalf of the United States

2 Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA"), filed a civil lawsuit against the Government of 3 Guam; WHEREAS, the Government of Guam owns and operates a solid waste disposal 4 5 facility in the Village of Ordot, hereinafter referred to as the "Ordot Dump;" WHEREAS, the operation of the Ordot Dump is subject to, among other things, 6 7 the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387; WHEREAS, 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(a) makes it unlawful to discharge pollutants from 8 a point source to waters of the United States, except as authorized by a permit issued pursuant to 9 10 33 u.s.c. § 1342; WHEREAS, in the Complaint, the United States alleges that discharges from the 11 Ordot Dump into the Lonfit River constitute discharges of pollutants into a water of the United 12 13 States and that such discharges are not authorized by a permit issued pursuant to 33 U.S.C. •4 § 1342; 15 WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority in 33 U.S.C. § 1319, on July 24, 1990, 16 U.S. EPA issued an administrative order to the Government of Guam Department of Public 17 Works ("DPW") requiring the cessation of discharges in accordance with a plan and schedule to

18 be submitted to and approved by U.S. EPA; 19 WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority in 33 U.S.C. § 1318(a). on September 19,

20 1997, U.S. EPA requested DPW to obtain and submit to U.S. EPA certain data and infonnation 21 on the discharges from the Ordot Dump and the receiving water in accordance with specified

22 deadlines; WHEREAS, in the Complaint, the United States alleges that the Government of 23 24 Guam did not comply with the terms and conditions of the administrative order ;:md the request

25 for infonnation; 26 WHEREAS, Guam law, at 10 G.C.A. § 51118, provides for a financing source 27 28 2 •

from tipping and user fees for the Government of Guam costs and expenses directly related to the

2 closure of Ordot Dump and the development, design, construction, and operation of a new

3 . sanitary landfill; 4 WHEREAS, the parties agree that settlement of the civil judicial claims as

5 alleged in the Complaint is in the public interest and that entry of this Consent Decree without

6 further litigation is the most appropriate way to resolve this action and avoid protracted litigation; 7 THEREFORE, based on the pleadings, before talcing testimony or adjudicating

8 any issue of fact or law, and without any finding or admission of liability against or by the

9 Government of Guam; IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: 10 I. JURISDICTION 11 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over the 12 parties pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 1355. Venue 13 i is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1395(a) and 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b).

15 II. PARTIES BOUND This Consent Decree shall apply and be binding upon the Government of Guam 16 2. 17 and its boards, directors, agencie~ authorities, departments (including and not limited to DPW 18 and the Guam Environmental Protection Agency ("GEPA")), and 1heir successors and assigns,

19 and on the United States on behalf of U.S. EPA. 20 3. The Government of Guam shall give written notice of this Consent Decree to any

21 successor in interest prior to the transfer of any ownership interest or right to operate the Ordot

22 Dump. The Government of Guam shall send a copy of such notification to U.S. EPA prior to

23 such sale or transfer. Upon sale or transfer of the Ordot Dump, the Government of Guam shall

24 attach a copy of this Consent Decree to the agreement which effects the sale or transfer and shall

25 make perfonnance of the obligations of the Government of Guam under this Consent Decree an

26 obligation of the purchaser or transferee. Transfer of ownership of the Ordot Dump will not

".7 28 3 relieve the Govenunent of Guam from the obligations of this Consent Decree. 2 4. Within TEN (10) days from the entry of this Consent Decree and as appropriate

3 thereafter, the Government of Guam shall provide copies of this Consent Decree, accompanied

4 by a summary explanation of its terms, to all persons who are bound by this Consent Decree as

5 specified in Paragraph 2 or who are in a position to ensure or affect compliance with this Consent

6 Decree, including notice to any successors in interest to property governed by this Consent

7 Decree prior to the transfer of said property. The Government of Guam shall provide a copy of

8 this Consent Decree to any contractor or consultant retained to perform any activity required by

9 this Consent Decree. No later than TEN (10) days after any such notice, the Government of

10 Guam shall provide U.S. EPA with a copy of its summary explanation and a list of the names,

11 titles, and addresses of an recipients. 12 III. CIVIL PENALTY The Government of Guam shall pay a civil penalty of$200,000 to the United 13 5. 4 States in accordance with Paragraph 6 below. 6. Payments shall be made by wire transfers payable to the United States Department 15 16 of Justice in accordance with the FEDWIRE Electronic Funds Transfer instructions (foniis

17 attached as Appendix A) at the following times: Thirty days after the effective date in the amount of$25,000; 18 a. One (1) year after the effective date in the amount of$50,000; 19 b. Two (2) years after the effective date in the amount of$50,000; mid 20 c. Three (3) years after the effective date in the amoWlt of$75,000. 21 d. IV. COMPLIANCE 22 The Government of Guam shall correct all compliance problems that fonn the 23 7. 24 basis for the Complaint filed in this action by undertaking the actions identified below within the

25 specified times. Unless otherwise specified, the times given in days refer to calendar days from

26 the date of entry of this Consent Decree. U.S. EPA may, at its discretion, review documents

?.7 28 4 .... lsubmitted by the Government of Guam concerning operation and closure of Ordot Dump and the construction or operation of the new Municipal Solid Waste Landfill ("MSWLP'). In the event 2 that U.S. EPA provides written comments, the Government of Guam must respond in writing 3 within 30 days and incorporate such comments into the document. Representatives of the Parties 4 shall make themselves readily available during and after the comment period to infonnally 5 6 discuss questions and conunents on any documents. a. For purposes of this Consent Decree, (i) "Ordot Dump" shall refer to Ordot Dump 7 8 in its current configuration and current boundaries as depicted in Appendix B; and (ii) the new 9 Municipal Solid Waste Landfill or ..MSWLF" shall include the option of constructing and

10 operating new cells at a location adjacent to the Ordot Dwnp location. 11 8. e of Pollutants fro rdot

12 Dump into Waters of the United States. 13 a. Within 300 days (approximately 10 months), DPW shall:

i. Submit a Draft Closure Plan to U.S. EPA that shall include, but not be

15 limited to: Site investigation, survey & mapping. 16 Environmental baseline survey. 17 40% (conceptual) design of the dump cover system including methods and 18 procedures to be used to install the cover system and operational plans to 19 implement measures to cease discharge of pollutants into waters of the 20 United States. 21 40% (conceptual) design of perimeter surface water diversion system. 22 Other measures necessary to comply with Government of Guam 23 regulations regarding closure of municipal solid waste landfills (22 24 G.A.R. § 23601). 25 Submit a permit application to GEPA pursuant to Government of Guam 26 ii. "'7 5 28 .1 I regulations (22 G.A.R. § 23104) for the disposal of municipal solid waste at Ordot Dwnp until such time as the facility is closed and no longer accepts municipal 2 solid waste for disposal. DPW shall provide a copy oftbis pennit application to 3 U.S. EPA at the time of submission. 4 Within 450 days (approximately 15 months), DPW shall: 5 b. Submit to U.S. EPA a 90% Draft Final Closure Plan that shall include, but 6 l. 7 not be limited to: 100% design of the dump cover system including methods and procedures 8 to be used to install the cover system and operational plans to implement 9 measures to cease discharge of pollutants into water of the United States. 10 100% design of the perimeter surface water diversion system. 11 100% post-closure care and monitoring plan. 12 40% Draft Specifications (including a Construction Management Plan) 13 that describes the quality assurance measures necessaty to ensure that the final dump closure system meets the design specifications. 15 Other measures necessary to comply with Government of Guam 16 regulations regarding closure of municipal solid waste landfills (22 G.A.R. 17

18 § 23601). Submit to U.S. EPA and GEPA a draft final plan and a schedule to 19 ii. 20 implement post-closure requirements. Submit to U.S. EPA a supplement to its original pennit application to 21 iii. GEP A that includes complete information about closure plans, in compliance with 22 Government of Guam Regulations (22 G.A.R. § 23104). 23 Within 570 days (approximately 19 months), DPW shall: 24 c. Submit to U.S. EPA a Final Closure Plan that shall include, but not be 25 1. 26 limited to: 17 6 28 100% design of the dump cover system including methods and procedures

to be used to install the cover system and operational plans to implement 2 measures to cease discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. 3 100% design of the perimeter surface water diversion system. 4 Final Specifications (including a Construction Management Plan) that 5 describes the quality assurance measures necessary to ensure that the final 6 dump closure system meets the design specifications. 7 Other measures necessary to comply with Government of Guam 8 regulations regarding closure of municipal solid waste landfills (22 G.A.R. 9 § 23601). 10 Submit to GEPA a final plan and schedule to implement post-closure 11 ii. requirements, in accordance with Government of Guam requirements. A copy 12 shall be provided to U.S. EPA at the same time. 13 iii. Submit to GEPA, U.S. EPA, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers a 90%

Draft Wetland Mitigation Plan for closure of Ordot Dump. An approved Wetland 15 Mitigation Plan, including a viable financial plan, shall be required before the 16 issuance of any closure construction permits. 17 d. Within 570 days (approximately 19 months), GEPA shall notify DPW and U.S. 18 · EPA of the adequacy of the solid waste permit application filed pursuant to Paragraph 19 8(a)(ii) and 8(b)(iii) above in accordance with Government of Guam regulations (22 20 21 G.A.R. § 23104(c)(2)). e. Within 660 days (approximately 22 months), GEPA shall issue or deny a solid 22 waste pennit for the continued operation ofOrdot Dump for a period not to extend 23 beyond 1,350 days (approximately 45 months) after the entry of this Consent Decree and 24 for the closure of Ordot Dump and provide a copy of the pennit, including any 25 26 conditions, or the denial to U.S. EPA.

~7 7 28 f. Within 700 days (approximately 23 months), DPW shall advertise forbids to

2 construct Ordot closure plans and specifications. Within 800 days (approximately 27 months), DPW shall award a construction 3 g. 4 contract for Ordot Dump closure and provide a notice to proceed to the selected

5 contractor and submit evidence of such award and notice to U.S. EPA. Within 1,350 days (approximately 45 months), DPW shall complete closure of 6 h. Ordot Dump, begin implementation of the post-closure plan in accordance with 7 Government of Guam requirements, and submit a certification to U.S. EPA that 8 the Ordot Dump no longer receives municipal solid waste for disposal. 9 Within 1,350 days (approximately 45 months), DPW shall cease all discharges to 10 i. waters of the United States and submit a certification to U.S. EPA that discharges 11 to waters of the United States from the Ordot Dump have ceased. 12 Construction and 0 eration of New Munici a) Solid Waste Land "MSWLF". 13 9. 4 a. Within 30 days, DPW shall submit a list of at least three potential landfill sites to

15 U.S. EPA and GEPA. Within 300 days (approximately 10 months). DPW shall complete

· 16 an Environmental Impact Statement (.. EIS") that includes a detailed analysis and. 17 comparison of at least three potential landfill sites for the MSWLF and identifies DPW's

18 preferred alternative for the MSWLF. DPW shali provide U.S. EPA and GEPA with a

19 · copy of the draft and final EIS within 10 days after completion of the draft and final EIS. IfU.S. EPA does not agree with DPW's-preferred alternative, the parties shall use 20 b. 21 their best efforts to come to an agreement regarding the location of the new MSWLF

22 within 90 days after completion of the final EIS. If the parties are unable to agree on a

23 location, the Government of Guam shall file a motion within 110 days after completion of

24 the final EIS, submitting the disputed matter to the Court for resolution. The Government

25 of Guam's motion shall request oral argument and shal1 be set for hearing not less than 45

26 after service of the moving papers. The United States shall have 30 days to respond to

27 28 8 the Goverrunent of Guam's motion. The Court shall render a decision on the location of 2 the new MSWLF based on the written materials on file and any oral argument. 3 c. Within 540 days (approximately 18 months), DPW shall submit a Draft Plan for

4 the design, construction, and operation for the new MSWLF to U.S. EPA. The Draft

5 Plan shall include but not be limited to: 6 Site investigation, survey, and mapping. 7 Hydrogeologic/subsurface investigation. 8 40% design and specifications for construction and operation of the new

9 MSWLF system. 1O Other measures necessary to comply with Government of Guam 11 regulations regarding siting, design, and operational criteria for Municipal

Solid Waste Landfills (22 G.A.R. § 23601). 12 Within 725 days (approximately 24 months), DPW shall: 13 d. Submit a 90% Draft Final Plan for the design, construction, and operation 4 ), for the new MSWLF to U.S. EPA. The Draft Final Plan shalJ include but 15 16 not be limited to: 100% design for construction and operation of the new MSWLF system. 17 Draft Specifications (including a Construction Management Plan) that 18 describes the quality assurance measures necessary to ensure that the final 19 new municipal solid waste ]andfiU system meets the design specifications. 20 Other measures necessary to comply with Government of Guam 21 regulations regarding siting, design, financial and operational criteria for 22 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (22 G.A.R. § 23401). 23 Submit a permit application to GEPA in accordance with Government of 24 ii. Guam Regulations (22 G.A.R. § 23104) to site, construct, and operate a 25 new municipal solid waste disposal landfill in accordance with applicable 26 ?.7 28 9 Guam and Federal regulations. A copy of the application shall also be

submitted to U.S. EPA at the same time. 2 Submit to GEPA, U.S. EPA, and U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers a 90% 3 lll. Draft Wetland Mitigation Plan and submit a Wetland Development Permit 4 application to the Guam Land Use Commission. Approval of the 100% 5 Final Wetland Mitigation Plan, including a viable financial plan, and a 6 Wetland Development Pennit shall be required before the issuance of any 7 8 landfill construction permits. Within 845 days (approximately 28 months, which is 120 days after DPW's 9 e. 10 application is submitted), GEPA shall notifyDPW and U.S. EPA of the adequacy of the 11 permit application filed pursuant to Paragraph 9(d)(ii) above in accordance with

12 Government of Guam Regulations (22 G.A.R. § 23104(c)(2)). 13 f. Within 845 days (approximately 28 months}, DPW shall: Submit 100% Final Plan for the design, construction, and operation for the 1 i. new MSWLF to U.S. BP A. The Final Plan shall include but not be limited 15 . 16 to: 100% design for construction and operation of the new MSWLF system. 17 Other measures necessary to comply with Government of Guam regulations 18 regarding the design criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (22 G.A.R. 19

20 § 23401). Final Specifications (including a Construction Management Plan) that 21 describes the quality assurance measures necessary to ensure that the final 22 new municipal solid waste landfill system meets the design specifications. 23 Advertise for bids to construct the new MSWLF. 24 ii Within 935 days ( approximately 31 months), GEPA shall issue or deny a permit 25 g. 26 for the new MSWLF and provide a copy of the pennit, including any conditions, or the

?.7 10 28 denial to U.S. EPA. Within 975 days (approximately 32 months), DPW shall award a construction 2 h. 3 contract for the new MSWLF in accordance with applicable procurement rules and

4 policies of the Goverrunent of Guam and provide a notice to proceed to the selected

5 contractor and submit evidence of such award and notice to U.S. EPA. Within 1,320 days (approximately 44 months), DPW shall begin operations of the 6 i. 7 new MSWLF and so certify to U.S. EPA within 7 days of commencement of operation.

Financing Closure ofOrdot Dump and Construction and Operation of New 8 10. 9 Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. Within 120 days, the Government of Guam shall submit to U.S. EPA a financial 10 a. 11 plan for funding those actions identified in Paragraphs 8 and 9, over time, including the

12 funding source or sources and a schedule to secure funds for the capital and operating

13 costs necessary to fully implement those actions identified in Paragraphs 8 and 9 above.

The parties acknowledge and agree that the total amount of funding needed to complete

15 the projects required under this Consent Decree is not currently available. The parties

· 16 agree that the projects shall be funded by the Solid Waste Operations Fund, established by

17 10 G.C.A. § 51118, including the costs and expenses directly related to the closure of the

18 Ordot Dump and the development, design, construction, and operation of a new sanitary

19 landfill. The parties also agree that the Solid Waste Operations Fund shall not be regarded

20 as the exclusive source of funding for the projects; and that the Government of Guam may

21 obtain funding from other sources. The Government of Guam shall use its best efforts to

22 obtain sufficient funding to fully implement the projects required by this Consent Decree.

23 If funding from the Solid Waste Operations Fund is not sufficient to fully implement the

24 projects, the Government of Guam shall seek funding through legislative appropriation,

25 loans, grants, and rates charged for consumer services such as tipping or user fees.

Notwithstanding any of the time frames set forth in Paragraph 8 or 9 above, upon 26 b.

28 11 . .1

the opening of a properly licensed and permitted municipal solid waste landfill prior to the

times set forth in Paragraphs 8 and 9 above, no further dumping of any kind will be 2 3 permitted at the Ordot Dwnp. V. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 4 11. Beginning with the first quarter following the quarter in which this Consent Decree 5 6 is entered and continuing until termination of this Consent Decree, the Government of Guam shall 7 submit to U.S. EPA written quarterly reports ofits progress in implementing the provisions of this 8 Consent Decree. Quarterly reports shall be submitted within twenty.one (21) days after the last

9 day of each quarter. At a minimum, these Progress Reports shall include: 1O a. All tasks required under the Consent Decree and performed during the reporting

11 period; 12 b. All deadlines in this Consent Decree that the Government of Guam was required to

13 meet during the reporting period; c. A report whether the Government of Guam met these deadlines; The reasons for any failure to meet these deadlines and all steps taken to remedy 15 d . . 16 such failure; and 17 e. A projection of the tasks to be performed pursuant to this Consent Decree during

18 the next reporting period. 19 VI. STIPULATED PENALTIES

20 12. Stipulated Pena1ties. 21 a. The Government of Guam shall pay stipulated penalties for failure to meet

22 deadlines specified in Section IV (Compli-ance) as follows:

23 1. For failure to meet any of the deadlines specified in Paragraphs 8(a) - 8(t)

24 and 9(a) - 9(g): 25 $250 per day per violation for the first 30 days, $500 per day per violation

26 for the following 30 days, and $1,000 per day per violation for each day

"7 28 12 thereafter. For failure to meet any of the deadlines specified in Paragraphs 8(g), 9(h), 2 ii. 3 and 10: $500 per day per violation for the first 30 days, $1,000 per day per violation 4 for the following 30 days, and $2,000 per day per violation for each day 5 6 thereafter. For failure to meet any of the deadlines specified in Paragraphs 8(h), 8(i), 7 iii.

8 and 9(i): $1,000 per day per vio1ation for the first 30 days, $2,000 per day per 9 violation for the following 30 days, and $5,000 per day per violation for 10

11 each day thereafter. The Government of Guam shall pay stipulated penalties in the amount of $500 per 12 b. day for failure to timely pay the civil penalty required by Section ill. 13 c. The Government of Guam shall pay stipulated penalties for failure to meet any 4 other requirements of thls Consent Decree (with the exception of the failure to complete 15 · the Supplemental Envirorunental Project as set forth in Appendix C that is subject to 16

17 penalties pursuant to Paragraph 18) as follows: $250 per day per violation for the first 30 days, $500 per day per violation 18 for the following 30 days, and $1,000 per day per violation for each day 19 20 thereafter. Stipulated penalties shall begin to accrue on the day after performance is due and 21 13. 22 shall continue to accrue through the final date of completion even if no notice of the violation is

23 sent to the Government of Guam. Nothing herein shall prevent the simultaneous accrual of

24 separate penalties for separate violations of the Consent Decree. 25 14. Any stipulated penalty accruing pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be payable

26 upon demand and due not later than THIRTY (30) days after the Government of Guam's receipt

?.1 28 13 ·.1

of U.S. EPA's written demand. Stipulated penalties shall be paid by certified or cashier's check 2 · in the amount due, shall be made payable to the "U.S. Department of Justice," referencing DOJ

3 #90-5-1-1-06658 and USAO File Number l 998V00094, and shall be delivered by certified mail

4 with return receipt requested to: 5 United States Attorney, District of Guam Attention: Financial Litigation Unit 6 Suite 500, Sirena Plaza 108 Heman Cortez 7 Hagatna, Guam 96910 8 Concurrently with making the payment, Defendant shall send notice of payment to U.S. EPA and 9 DOJ, directed to the addresses provided in Section XI (Notification). The notice of payment shall 10 also identify: (i) the specific provision of this Section VI (Stipulated Penalties) related to such 11 payment, and (ii) a description of the violation(s) of this Consent Decree for which the stipulated

12 penalties or interest are being tendered. If the Government of Guam fails to pay stipulated penalties owed pursuant to this 13 15. Consent Decree within THIRTY (30) days of receipt of U.S. EPA's written demand, the 15 Government of Guam shall pay interest on the late payment for each day after the initial thirty day ' 16 due date. The rate of interest shall be the most recent interest rate detennined pursuant to 28

17 u.s.c. § 1961. Stipulated penalties are not the Plaintiff's exclusive remedy for violations of this 18 16. 19 Consent Decree. The United States expressly reserves the right to seek any other reliefit deems 20 appropriate, including, but not limited to, action for statutory penalties, contempt, or injunctive

21 relief against the defend ant.

22 VU. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT 23 17. In partial satisfaction of Plaintiffs claims, the Government of Guam shall perform 24 and complete the Supplemental Environmental Project ("SEP") set forth in Appendix C, which 25 has the objective of securing significant environmental or public health protection and 26 improvements. The Government of Guam shall complete the SEP in accordance with the

... 7

28 14 schedule and requirements set forth in Appendix C. The SEP shall be completed by March 2007.

2 The SEP shall develop and implement a comprehensive waste diversion strategy for household

3 hazardous waste on Guam. The total expenditure for the SEP shall be not less than the present value of 4 18. 5 $1,000,000. The Government of Guam shall include documentation of the expenditures made in

6 connection with the SEP as part of the SEP Completion Report described in Paragraph 21 below.

7 In the event that the Government of Guam fails to perfonn and complete the SEP as set forth in

8 Appendix C, it shall, in the same manner as set forth in Paragraph 14, pay a civil penalty to the 9 United States equal to the difference between the sum of$1,000,000 and the total SEP costs that

10 the Government of Guam has incurred and itemized according to the requirements set forth in

11 Paragraph 21. 12 19. The Government of Guam is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the SEP

13 in accordance with the requirements of this Decree. The Government of Guam may use

1 contractors and/or consultants in planning and implementing the SEP. The Government of Guam hereby certifies that, as of the date of this Consent 15 20. 16 Decree, it is not required by any federal, state or local law or regulation to perform or develop the 17 SEP; nor is the Government of Guam required by agreement, grant or as injunctive relief in this or

18 any other case to perfonn or develop the SEP. The Government of Guam further certifies that is 19 has not received, and is not presently negotiating to receive, credit in any other enforcement action

20 for the SEP; nor will the Government of Guam realize any profit attributable to or associated with

21 the SEP, or receive any reimbursement for any portion of the SEP from any other person. 22 21. SEP Completion Report. The Government of Guam shall complete the SEP by

23 March 2007. The Government of Guam shall submit a SEP Completion Report to the United

24 States within thirty(30) days after completion ofthe SEP. The SEP Completion Report shall

25 contain the following infonnation: 26 a. A detailed description of the SEP as implemented;

?.7 28 15 b. A description of any implementation problems and the solutions thereto; An itemization of all SEP costs and acceptable evidence of such costs; 2 c. Certification that the SEP has been completed pursuant to the provisions o~this 3 d.

4 Consent Decree, including Appendix C; e. A description of the environmental and public health benefits resulting from 5 implementation of the SEP (with a quantification of the benefits and pollutant redµction to 6 7 the extent feasible); and f. Copies of any training materials, brochures, databases, or software relating to the 8 9 SEP. 10 22. Periodic Reports. While the SEP is being planned and implemented, the

11 Government of Guam shall submit quarterly reports to U.S. EPA describing the progress of the

12 SEP within twenty-one (21) days after the end of each Calendar Quarter. 13 23. Following receipt of the SEP Completion Report described in Paragraph 21 above,

U.S. EPA will do one of the following in writing:

15 a. Accept the SEP Completion Report; or . 16 b. Reject the SEP Completion Report, notifying Government of Guam in writing of 17 deficiencies in the SEP Completion Report. If U.S. EPA rejects SEP Completion Report,

18 the Government of Guam shall have thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of U.S.

19 EPA's notice in which to correct any deficiencies and submit a revised SEP Completion

20 Report. IfU.S. EPA rejects a revised SEP Completion Report, it shall notify the

21 Government of Guam about the rejection. The Government of Guam shall be subject to

22 stipulated penalties in accordance with Paragraph 12(c) herein for each day after receipt of

23 U.S. EPA's notice of rejection of the revised SEP Completion Report until an acceptable

24 SEP Completion Report is submitted to U.S. EPA. 25 24. IfU.S. EPA rejects the SEP Completion Report pursuant to Paragraph 23(b), U.S.

26 EPA shall pennit the Government of Guam the opportunity to object in writing to the notification

"7 28 16 Government of such notification. U.S. EPA and the of deficiency within ten (10) days ofreceipt EPA of the notification thirty (30) days from the receipt by U.S. 2 of Guam shall have an additional agreement cannot to U.S. EPA's notice of deficiency. If 3 of objection to reach agreement relating period, U.S. EPA of deficiency within this thirty (30) day 4 be reached on any issue in the notice which of its decision to the Government of Guam, 5 shaII thereafter provide a written statement to Dispute Resolution. Any such decision shall not be subject 6 decision shall be final and binding. imposed by U.S. to comply with any SEP-related requirements 7 The Government of Guam agrees 8 EPA's written decision. in its sole SEP Completion Report, U.S. EPA determines 9 25. If upon receipt of the with this Consent has not been implemented in accordance 10 discretion that part or all of the SEP require the any statements of work, U.S. EPA may 11 Decree, including Appendix C, and set forth in any deficient tasks; or {2) if specific tasks 12 Government of Guam: (1) to repeat shall provide any such at all, to perform such tasks. U.S. EPA 13 Appendix C were not perfonned in writing. requirement to the Govenunent of Guam SEP costs from bears the burden of segregating eligible 15 26. The Government of Guam both eligible non-segregable cost evidence (i.e., containing 16 costs not eligible for SEP credit. Any entirety. "Acceptable SEP credit) shall be disalJowed in its 17 SEP costs and costs not eligible for identifies orders, or other documentation that specifically 18 evidence" includes invoices, purchase is made. Cancelled ofthe goods or services for which payment 19 and itemizes the individual costs and itemize the unless such drafts specifically identify 20 drafts are not acceptable evidence required for which payment is made. Each submi~sion 21 individual costs of the goods or services and shall bear the by an officia1 with knowledge of the SEP 22 wider this Section shall be signed Paragraph 42 below. 23 certification language set forth in the cost of the SEP, Guam hereby agrees that if, in estimating 24 27. The Government of SEP in achieved from deducting the cost of each 25 it did not subtract the estimated savings of Guam in the any funds expended by the Government 26 calculating state and federal truces,

"'7 28 17 performance of each SEP shall not be deductible for purposes of such taxes. The Government of

2 Guam, at the time of completion of the SEP, shall submit to the United States written certification

3 than any funds expended in the performance of each SEP have not been and will not be deducted

4 for pmposes of such truces. 5 28. In the event the Government of Guam does not spend the present value attributed

6 to a SEP pursuant to Paragraph 18 above, the Government of Guam shall perform additional work

7 on the SEP, as set forth in Appendix C, such that the total expenditures on the SEP equals or

8 exceeds the required present value of the SEP. If the Government of Guam performs the 9 additional work as required by this Paragraph, it shall not be subject to the civil penalty set out in

10 Paragraph 18. 11 29. Any public statement, oral or written, in print, film, or other media made by the

12 Government of Guam making reference to the SEP shall include the following language, "This

13 project was undertaken in connection with the settlement of a civil enforcement action taken by

-t the United States for violations of the Clean Water Act." VIII. RIGHT OF ENTRY 15 U.S. EPA and its contractors and consultants shall have the authority to enter Ordot 16 ·30. 17 Dump and any facility related to the SEP at all reasonable times, upon proper presentation of

18 credentials. This provision in no way limits or otherwise affects any right of entry held by U.S.

19 EPA pursuant to applicable federal or territorial laws, regulations, or permits.

20 IX. FORCE MAJEURE The Govermnent of Guam shall perfonn all requirements of this Consent Decree in 21 31. 22 accordance with the time schedules set forth except to the extent, and for the period of time, that

23 such perfonnance is prevented or delayed by events which constitute a force majeure. The

24 schedule set forth in Paragraph 9 above for the construction of a new municipal solid waste

25 landfill is not based on, or dependent upon, the existence of any contractual arrangements the

26 Government of Guam may or may not have, now or in the future, for the construction and

"7 28 18 operation of a new landfill or incinerator. 2 32. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, a force majeure is defined as any event

3 arising from causes beyond the control of the Government of Guam and that cannot be overcome

4 by diligent and timely efforts of the Government of Guam, including its contractors. Economic

5 hardship, normal inclement weather, and increased costs ofperfonnance shall not be considered

6 events beyond the reasonable control of the Government of Guam for purposes of determining

7 whether an event is force majeure. The requirement that the Government of Guam exercise

8 diligent and timely efforts to fulfilJ its obligations includes using best efforts to anticipate any

9 force majeure event and best efforts to address the effects of any potential force majeure event

10 ( 1) as it is occurring and (2) following the potential force majeure events, such that delay is

11 minimized to the greatest extent possible. 12 33. In the event of a force majeure, the time of performance of the activity delayed by

13 the force majeure shall be extended by U.S. EPA for the time period of the delay attributable to

l the force majeure. An extension of one compliance date based on a particular incident does not

15 necessarily result in an extension of a subsequent compliance date or dates. The Government of 16 Guam must make an individual showing of proof regarding each delayed incremental step or other

17 requirement for which an extension is sought. The Government of Guam shall adopt all

18 reasonable measures to avoid or minimize any delay caused by a force majeure. 19 34. When an event occurs or has occurred that may delay or prevent the performance

20 of any obligation under this Consent Decree, the Government of Guam shall notify by telephone

21 the Manager, Pacific Islands Office, Region 9, (415) 972-3774, or the Guam Program Manager,

22 Pacific Islands Office, Region 9, (415) 972-3770, within 72 hours of Government of Guam's

23 knowledge of such event. Telephone notification shall be followed by written notification made

24 within SEVEN (7) days of Government of Guam's knowledge of the event. The written

25 notification shall fully describe: the event that may delay or prevent performance; reasons for the

26 delay; the reason the delay is beyond the reasonable control of the Government of Guam if Guam

'"'7 28 19 believes the event constitutes a force majeure; the anticipated duration of the delay; actions taken

2 or to be taken to prevent or minimize the delay; a schedule for implementation of any measures to

3 be taken to mitigate the effect of the delay; and the time needed to implement any dependent

4 activities. For purposes of this Section, the Government of Guam shall be deemed to have

5 knowledge of anything it or its contractors knew or should have lrnown. 6 35. Failure of the Government of Guam to comply with the force majeure notice

7 requirements provided in Paragraph 34 for any delay in performance will be deemed an automatic

8 forfeiture of its right to assert that the delay was caused by a force majeure. 9 36. After receiving written notification from the Government of Guam of a force

10 majeure, U.S. EPA shall detennine whether the Government of Guam's request for delay is

11 ·ustified and U.S. EPA shall notify the Government of Guam of its determination in writing. U.S.

12 EPA's failure to respond within THIRTY (30) days to a request for delay by the Government of

13 Guam shall be deemed a denial of that request. If the Government of Guam disagrees with U.S.

· 1 EPA' s determination, the Govenunent of Guam may initiate dispute resolution procedures

15 pursuant to Section X (Dispute Resolution) . . 16 37. The Government of Guam shall bear the burden of proving that any delay or

17 violation of any requirement of this Consent Decree was caused by circumstances beyond its

18 control, or any entity wider its control, including consultants and contractors, and that the

19 Government of Guam could not have reasonably foreseen and prevented such violation. The

20 Government of Guam shall also bear the burden of provio.g the duration and extent of any delay or

21 violation attributable to such circumstances.

22 X. DISPUTE RESOLUTION The Dispute Resolution procedures of this Section shall be the exclusive 23 38. 24 mechanism to resolve disputes arising under or with respect to the Consent Decree. However, the

25 procedures set forth in this Section shall not apply to actions by the United States to enforce

26 obligations by the Government of Guam under this Consent Decree that have not been disputed in

?.7 28 20 accordance with this Section. If the Government of Guam disputes any determination made by U.S. EPA wider 2 39. 3 this Consent Decree, the Government of Guam shall send a written notice to U.S. EPA and DOJ

4 outlining the nature of the dispute, submitting a11 supporting information and document relating to

5 the dispute, describing its proposed resolution, and requesting infonnal negotiations to resolve the

6 dispute. Such period of informa] negotiations shall not extend beyond FIFTEEN (15) days from

7 the date when notice was received by U.S. EPA and DOJ unless the parties agree otherwise in

8 writing. If the informal negotiations are unsuccessful, the disputed determination by U.S. 9 40. 10 EPA shall control, unless the Government of Guam files a motion with this Court for dispute

11 resolution. Any such motion must be filed within TWENTY (20) days after termination of

12 informal negotiations and must be concurrently sent to U.S. EPA and DOJ. The United States

13 shall then have THIRTY (30) days to respond to the Government of Guam's motion. In any such

1 dispute resolution proceeding, the Government of Guam bears the burden of proving that U.S.

1S EPA was arbitraiy and capricious. XI. NOTIFICATION 16 Except as otheiwise specifica11y stated, all notices and submissions from the 17 41. 18 Government of Guam to U.S. EPA required by this Consent Decree shall be sent via express mail

19 or similar service with a return receipt requested, or, in the alternative. by both fax and e-mail, and

20 addressed to:

21 Manager, Pacific Islands Office (CMD-6) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 22 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 23 Fax: (415) 947-3560 e-mail: [email protected] 24 All notices and submissions to U.S. EPA shall be signed and affirmed by a 25 42. 26 responsible official of the Government of Guam using the following certification

"7 28 21 statement: 2 I certify under penalty of law that I have examined and am familiar with the infonnation

3 submitted in this document and all attachments and that this document and its attachments

4 were prepared either by me personaUy or under my direction or supervision in a manner

5 designed to ensure that qualified and knowledgeable personnel properly gathered and

6 presented the information contained therein. I further certify, based on my personal

7 knowledge or on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the

8 information, that the infonnation is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are

9 significant penalties for submitting false infonnation, including the possibility of fines and

10 imprisonment for knowing and willful submission of a materially false statement. All notices and submissions to the Government of Guam required by this Consent 11 43. 12 Decree shall be sent to:

13 Attorney General of Guam Guam Judicial Center, Suite 2-200E 120 West O'Brien Drive Hagatna, Guam 96910 15 Fax: (671) 472-2493 e-mail: [email protected] ·16 Director, Department ofPublic Works 17 542 North Marine Drive Tamuning, Guam 96911 18 Fax: (671) 649-6178 e-mail: [email protected] .gu 19 Administrator, Guam Environmental Protection Agency 20 15-6101 Mariner A venue Tiyan, Guam 96913 21 Fax: (671) 477-9402 e-mail: [email protected] 22 23 44. All notices and submissions to DOJ required by this Consent Decree shall be sent 24 to: 25

26

""7 28 22 United States Attorney District of Guam 2 Sirena Plaza 108 Hernan Cortez Ave., Suite 500 3 Hagatna, Guam 96910 Fax: (671) 472-7215 4 e-mail: [email protected] 5 Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section D.J. Ref90-5-1-l-06658 (Mullaney) 6 U.S. Department of Justice 301 Howard Street, Suite 1050 7 San Francisco, CA 94105 Fax: (415) 744-6476 8 e-mail: [email protected] XII. MISCELLANEOUS 9 Entry of this Consent Decree and compliance with the requirements herein shall be 10 45. 11 in full settlement and satisfaction of the civil judicial claims of the United States against the

12 Government of Guam as alleged in the Complaint filed in this action through the date of the

13 lodging of this Consent Decree. This Consent Decree in no way relieves the Government of

• A Guam of any criminal liability. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall limit the ability of the United States to 15 46. ·. 16 enforce· any and all provisions of applicable federal laws and regulations for any violations

17 unrelated to the claims in the Comp1aint or for any future events that occur after the date of

18 lodging of this Consent Decree. The United States does not guarantee that implementing the relief described in this 19 47. 20 Consent Decree will ensure compliance with the Clean W-ater Act. This Consent Decree in no

21 way affects the Government of Guam's responsibilities to comply with all applicable federal and

22 territorial laws and regulations. Except as specifically provided herein, the United States does not waive any rights 23 48. 24 or remedies available to it for any violation by the Goverrunent of Guam offederal and tenitorial

25 laws and regulations. 26 49. Except as provided herein, each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees in

'7 28 23 this action. Should the Government of Guam subsequently be determined to have violated the

2 terms and conditions of this Consent Decree, then the Government of Guam shall be liable to the

3 United States for any costs and attorney's fees incurred by the United States in any actions against

4 it for noncompliance with this Consent Decree. 5 50. This Consent Decree contains the entire agreement between the parties and no

6 statement, promise, or inducement made by any of the parties or agent of the parties that is not

7 contained in this written Consent Decree shall be valid or binding, and this Consent Decree may

8 not be enlarged, modified, or altered except by using procedures described in this Consent Decree.

9 51. The Attorney General of the Govennnent of Guam and the Assistant Attorney

10 General for Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice each

11 certify that he is fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree, to

12 execute the document, and to legally bind the party he represents to this document. The Government of Guam shall identify. on the attached signature page, the name, 13 52. address and telephone number of an agent who is authorized to accept service ofprocess by mail

15 on behalf of that party with respect to all matters arising under or relating to this Consent Decree.

· 16 The Government of Guam hereby agrees to accept service in that manner and to waive the formal

17 service requirements set forth in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any

18 applicable local rules of this Court, including, but not limited to, service of summons. 19 XIII. RECORD RETENTION 20 53. In addition to any state or federal requirements relating to record retention, the

21 Government of Guam shall retain at least one legible copy of all records, documents, reports or

22 plans required by its permit or which relate to its perfonnance under any provision of this Consent

23 Decree and any documentation which the Government of Guam relied on in preparing such

24 records, documents, reports or plans, for a period of five (5) years from the date of such record,

25 document, report, or plan, or underlying documentation, or until two (2) years after termination of

26 this Consent Decree, whichever is later.

"'7 24 28 54. Not less than sixty (60) days prior to destruction of any reports or documents

2 created pursuant to the requirements of this Consent Decree and any docwnents used to create

3 such submittals, the Government of Guam shall notify the U.S. EPA and DOJ in writing, as

4 provided in Section XI. that destruction of documents is planned and make such records available

5 to the United States for inspection, copying or retention. This notification will identify the nature

6 of the documents and their storage location or locations. The Government of Guam shall not

7 claim that any such reports or documents are confidential or privileged. 8 55. Within fifteen (15) days of a written request from the United States, the

9 Government of Guam shall provide the United States with copies of the documentation

10 underlying any document, report or plan submitted pursuant to this Consent Decree, or any

11 documents, reports or plans retained pursuant to Paragraph 53. 12 XIV. TERMINATION This Consent Decree shall remain in effect until the later of: (1) one year after the 13 56.

1 4 Government of Guam completes all activities contained in Sections ID, N, and VII; or (2) the

15 resolution of any matters pending in this Court regarding this Consent Decree. 16 ·57. Ifthe Government of Guam believes that the requirements of Paragraph 56 have

17 been met, the Government of Guam may request that the United States make a determination that

18 this Consent Decree may be terminated. Any such request shall be in writing and include a

19 certification that the applicable requirements have been met. 20 58. If the United States agrees that the requirements of Paragraph 56 have been met,

21 the United States will notify the Government of Guam and the Court that the Consent Decree has

22 tenninated. 23 59. Until termination of this Consent Decree, the Court shall retain jurisdiction to

24 handle any disputes that arise under this Consent Decree. 25 60. The parties agree to the foregoing Consent Decree and agree that the Consent

26 Decree may be entered upon compliance with the public notice procedures set forth at 28 C.F.R.

27

.28 25 § 50.7, which states that the public shall have THIRTY (30) days to comment on this Consent

2 Decree, and upon notice to this Court from DOJ requesting entry of this Consent Decree. The

3 United States reserves its right to withdraw consent to this Consent Decree based upon comments

4 received during the public notice period. The Government of Guam consents to entry of this

5 Consent Decree without further notice to the Court.

6 XV. MODIFICATION There shall be no material modifications of this Consent Decree without the 7 61. 8 written approval of the parties to this Consent Decree and the approval of the Court. Alt non-

9 material modifications, which may include extensions of the time frames and schedules for

10 performance of the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree and certain modifications to the

11 attachments, may be made by agreement of the parties and shall be effective upon filing by the

12 United States of such modifications with the Court. XVI. FINAL JUDGMENT 13 Upon approval and entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, the Consent Decree 4 62. 15 shall constitute a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58.

16 17 ORDER • 2003. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED this //~day of &f1t.4/>lf 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~~::';;-;'~'x~-,··\(:;,'"liti1l :; RECEIVED 25 't-·L: !S~·d ~- ;·~ ;.-.~;· ~) : ~-.~ ,.-·. DEC - 3 2003 26 DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM ?.7 HAGATNA,GUAM 28 26 ' For the United States of America, Plaintiff:

2 3 Dated: J 1/7/0 3 ~.€1.~~oen Ach'nJ< Ass1s:Attomey General 4 \..)Environment & Natural Resources Division ROBERT D. MULLANEY 5 Environmental Enforcement Section Environment & Natural Resources Division 6 United States Department of Justice 7 8 9 10 11 Dated: I I 12 13 4 15 16 17 18

19

20 21

22

23

24

25 26 "7 28 27 . I 2 Dated: 1~&1• 3 4 5 6

7 8 9

IO

11 12

13

15 ·16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23

24 25 26

"1'7

28 28 {eiJ&-~i'ca~- 2 Dated: t/ JO:> / 03 wAYNE NASTRI !1v {/Regional Administrator · 3 ~U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 4 5 OF COUNSEL: 6 JULIA JACKSON Assistant Regional Counsel 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street 8 San Francisco, CA 94105

9

10

11

12

13

15 16.

17 18 19 20 21 22

23

24 25 26

28 29 For the Government of Guam, Defendant:

2 0 3 Dated: J !.J,,o {IS SB.MOYLAN Attome General of Guam 4. Guam Judicial Center, Suite 2-200E 120 West O'Brien Drive 5 Hagatna, Guam 9691 O (671) 475-3324 6

7 8 Dated: / # /;ik~ FEP.CAMACHO ~Governor of Guam 9

10 11 Dated: ttJ {-t' / d 3

12

13 Dated: ------15

' 16 t 7 Agent for service of process: 18 ouglas B. Moylan Attorney General of Guam 19 Guam Judicial Center, Suite 2-200E 120 West O'Brien Drive 20 Hagatna, Guam 96910 (671) 475-3324 21

22

23

24

25 26

7 30 28 APPENDIX B

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (Guam) Site Evaluation Report and USEPA Approval Letter Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (Guam) Site Evaluation Report January 28, 2005

Introduction

Seven members of the Consent Decree1 project team from the Department of Public Works (DPW} and Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) were empanelled as a Landfill Site Evaluation Team (LSET). The LSET reviewed the Preliminary Site Selection Report (PSSR)2 and related information to evaluate three candidate sites as required by paragraph 9.a. of the Consent Decree during the week of January 24, 2005. Initial efforts to site a new landfill began in February of 2004 with the Preliminary Landfill Site Suitability study conducted by GEPA and OPW.

This report summarizes the efforts of the LSET to identify a preferred landfill site based on the relevant available scientific and technical data from preliminary site investigations, existing studies, and stakeholder input. This site evaluation is an integral component of the Environmental Impact Statement for the siting of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility (MSWLF) in Guam.

The primary goal in siting a MSWLF is to select a location which will pose the least environmental impact to onsite resources, adjacent properties, to the host community, and regionally. Impacts to the human, biological and physical environment, including infrastructure, were assessed by applying thirty-nine environmental/landfill development siting criteria to each candidate site.

The results of this evaluation are summarized as total scores and rank order in the table below. The LSET determined that the Dandan candidate site located in the Municipality of lnarajan is best suited for the development of a MSWLF. A decision on the location of Guam's new MSWLF will be made by the Director of DPW with the concurrence of the Administrator of GEPA and approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Evaluation Process

The LSET evaluation process involved a four-step facilitated discussion format:

1civil Case No. 02-00022 Consent Decree U.S. Distrlct Court Territory of Guam 2Preliminary Site Selection Report Environmental Impact Statement For the Siting of a Municipal Solid Wast.e Landfill Facilitv, Guam January 11, 2005 Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Site Evaluation Report, January 28, 2005 Page2

1. Review the PSSR and final technical amendments - Much of the PSSR review occurred prior to the team meetings; however, expanded explanations by certain team experts were provided for the benefit of all members. There were some minor technical amendments to the PSSR involving terminology in the archaeological/historical sections of the report provided by the project consultants.

2. Review & consider public input from village meetings - The project consultants also prepared a PSSR Comment Summary3 document of the final round of village meetings and other input from the two week comment period.

3. Review recommended siting criteria & importance weighting - Two (2) criteria were combined and two (2) criteria importance weights were modified. The LSET also ciarified that "sensitive receptors"4 should include both human and wildlife considerations. The LSET revisited a number of transportation infrastructure (primary and secondary road improvements, bridge projects, secondary road requirements, etc.) as well as integrated solid waste management (i.e., transfer stations, recycling, etc.) issues critical to support each of the candidate sites.

4. Consider consensus issues & criteria - As a result of the LSET criteria and importance weighting review, it was decided that twelve (12) of the forty (40) site evaluation criteria described in the PSSR could be equalized to ensure consistency, where warranted (i.e., scored by consensus).

The LSET also further discussed a number of transportation assumptions necessary for any of the three candidate sites, including that there will be no direct self-hauling of waste, highway improvements would made using Federal Highway Administration funding and program flexibility, transfer stations would be developed, and transportation of waste could be strategically scheduled to occur during off-peak traffic hours.

These deliberations were followed by individual assessments and independent scoring of the sites. All members of the LSST participated throughout.

3 PSSR Comment Summary, Duenas & Associates, Inc. 4 see PSSR Site Evaluation Criteria No. 22. Wind Direction to abutting properties and No. 38. Proximity to Sensitive Receptors Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Site Evaluation Report, January 28, 2005 Page3

Results

The LSET completed the evaluation component of its work by requiring that each member evaluate and formally score the three candidate sites and that a the cumulative points assigned would determine the final rank. The site given the highest total points would be ranked as the best potential landfill site. The following table summarizes the evaluation results.

Table 1. Total Score and Rank of Candidate Landfill Sites

Site Dandan Sabanan Batea Lonfit Total Score 2552 2094 1898 Rank 1 2 3

Landfill Site Evaluation Team (LSET)

1/:?>i/~ C. Omar Damian, E.l.T. Project Manager, GEPA Date

i/~; t. \­ na9e;· Project Engineer, DPW I~

c A Gagarin, P.E. Chief Engineer, DPW Date

I, Acting Chief Planner, GEPA

":-. <-e_·-'.;..:....~=-~..::~~--· .. '<'0. ;/3/os D~te Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Site Evaluation Report, January 28, 2005 Page4

/-a1-05 er A. Lund, P.E. Chief Engineer, GEPA Date

Jcv.. -JI J'Uib·S Date

Prepared by:

$t.3'1, 2oo5 Randel L Sablan, LSET Facilitator Date MSWLF Site Evaluation (Master)

SITING CRITERIA

CJ 69 70 58 CL 74 75 49 OD 69 75 54 MG 78 67 54 vw 83 66 49 MJG 65 75 58 SD 79 70 49 Sub-total 517 498 371 r~ -S::'i"B"O ~~ - ·~ ~~-~~ '~· ~ry;'"" , ,- ,~<-;- "'!'- c~ • 'i'' Jf<'tf ' ~· · ., , ? ,, "l:'k• . •]<-.", ( :,1_ .~c'.C u~ 'lo:. ~ .. _.to.· l.li\-... ~ ~'-"•<~-- "~~·~ .. -~ · -~u -,.-..., ~ .~: CJ 93 75 75 CL 89 83 65 OD 93 79 79 MG 93 69 74 vw 80 84 78 MJG 93 79 65 SD 88 79 74 Sub-total 629 548 510

~- - . ~L· ~~'T}·:\:,:~ 7=;~~~ ~:·-~--~r-~~~~ ~~~~~~,.:~-~-~·,.~·:";~~.-~~ ~ ~' ~. · :.. ~= ~- .'_ --' CJ 65 47 45 CL 69 43 41 OD 61 47 55 MG 69 43 39 vw 69 45 39 MJG 57 47 43 SD 59 51 47 Sub-total 449 323 309

Transportation CJ 27 37 24 CL 34 37 29 OD 15 45 41 MG 29 29 26 vw 15 39 41 MJG 15 45 30 SD 24 30 35 Sub-total 159 262 226 DPW1 118 50 73 GEPA1 114 63 71 GEPA2 100 64 80 DPW2 118 54 81 GEPA3 118 75 65 GEPA4 112 81 57 DPW3 118 76 55 Sub-total 798 463 482

IGrand Total 1~52 I :094 I:898 Rank 02J14t05 12:38 rs EPA Iii 002 IOd3

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 9 75 Hawfhome Slruel {CMD·6) San Fr~11cisco, GA 94105

-~ Febrmny 14, 2005

Via Email and Facsimile

Jo~eph W. Duen:i.s, Director Departmen~ of PL1blic Works 542 North Marine Drive T:i.muning, GU 9691 J

Re~ U.S. EPA Acceptance of DPW'5 Prefe:rred Land till Sjte

Dear Mr. Duenas:

Ai this time the Environmental Protection Age11cy, Region 9 (EPA) is r~ognizing that the Department of Public Worlcs (DPW) has met its ab ligations under Paragraph 9.a. of the Conseot Decree_ This letter notifies yOLi that EPA m::cepts the Government of Guam's preferred landfill site, Dandan.

Under Paragraph 9.a. o£the Consent Decree, DPW shall, w1th~n 300 days: a) complete an Environmental lmpac:t Statemen~ (EIS) that i11dudes a detailed analysis and compadoon of al leas I three potential landfill Siles and b} i dcntify a r~·eforred landfill sice. As diSCUl5Se

011 January 3 l, 2005, DPW submitted, via fax, a letter alUlouncing thauhe Government of Guam has selected Dandan. in the village of lnarajan, as the prefem:d Joc:.ation. The fax also lm:ludcd a su7nmary of comments received during the public co~1uellt period, amcr.dn-.cnts to the Preliminary Site Sd::clion Report, and a site evaluation report. The material presented with the fax, in addition to tl1e ociginal Prelimi11ary Site Selection Ropm1 dated January 1 l, 2005, demonstrates that l>PW and Guam EPA were very thorough i11 their evaluation of the three sites.

EPA recently received a. draft petiticn supporting :he elimination ofDandan as a potential !aHdfill site. The draft petition raises is8u.es similar to those discussed in tr.e public comment period and 'Subsequently addressed, l1arnely: water resource concerns, existing local laws, mitigation COli~s, rnadway constraints~ tourism impacts, and effects on quali1y of lifo. While there may be t:oncems of a similar or greater magnitude for landfill sLtes anywhere on Guam (e.g., above the Nortl1cm aquifer, on active faults, on sites with poor soil clmracleristics), the5e commenrs remind us all of the heavy burden that DPW and Guam EPA face. The Goveniment of Guam Is lasked

FFR-15-2005 07:01AM FAX:4159473560 m : GL_U::IM EPl=I 0211~105 12:39 '8'"159 4 7 35 60 US EfA !il'OOJ/003

with lhe very difficult duty of ensuring Lhat lhe new landfill is properly plaruJed (including mitigation). construcled, and, ultimately, maintained. To enst.1re success, Gllam must similarJy develop and implement a comprehensive solid waste plan that integrates co!Jec:lion, transfer, processir.g, recycli1lg, compnsting, and all olher aspects of solid wasre management. Only wlth an effort of this magnitude can Guam ensure that 1) the new landfill wiU not devolve into the nexL Ordc[ Dump, 2) the residents ofinara.jan will not be overly impacled by Guam·s stt1t1g Jecision, and 3) lne new la~rlfilJ wilJ lasl for many years to cor:ie.

With 1he ahove cons[-derations in mind, EPA finds tlta1 DPW and Guam EPA have conducted a eel ailed analysis and t:omparis(ln of Lhree sites, and have 111et their con1m~tments for the first phase of the EIS. Therefore. EPA accepts DP W's deci~ion to sekGt Dandan as the site of the new mu:licipal solid waste IaridfilL Wr: expect that DP\V and Guam EPA will proceed lo ar:a1yzc mitigation options for the Dandan site ander the seco11d phas.e of the EIS, ar.d :submit a tlraft plan for design, construe lion, and operat1on of i:he new munlc'.pa.l solid waste landfill pursuant t() Paragraph 9.c onhe Consent Decree.

Pleasi; call me at (4l 5) 972~3770 if yo~ would :ikti lo discuss this matter further.

Sbcerely,

Bt:n Macho! Guam Prognm1 Manager, P.E.

:::c: Dm1glas Moylan, Attorney Genera! of Guam Prc£l Casiro, Guam ?:PA Admini.<::tralr.ir Mi:

FEB-15-200'5 07:02~M FRX:4159473560 IO: B.JRM EPr:l PAGE: 003 R=-35% APPENDIX C

Draft Supplemental EIS Comment Summary Draft Supplemental EIS for the Siting of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility Comment Summary July 15, 2005

The public comment for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the siting of a new municipal solid waste landfill facility was open from May 18 through June 16, 2005. The Draft SEIS was posted on the project Web site http://www.guamlandfill.org, and hard copies of the report were deposited at the Ordot­ Chalan Pago and Inarajan Mayors' Offices, Guam Environmental Protection Agency, Guam Department of Public Works, Duenas & Associates, Inc., and the Nieves M. Flores Memorial Library in Hagatna. Hard or electronic copies of the report were provided to the following resource agencies: U.S. EPA, the State Historic Preservation Officer (Department of Parks & Recreation-Historic Resources Division), Bureau of Statistics and Plans-Guam Coastal Management Program, Department of Land Management, Department of Agriculture (Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources), Department of Agriculture (Forestry Division), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Guam Regulatory Branch) and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. In addition, copies were also provided to Guam Waterworks Authority, Guam Power Authority, and Water and Environmental Research Institute (WERI) for review. Members of the public were provided electronic copies on CD-ROM on an individual basis by request. Several means of submitting comments were available to the public, i.e., through the Web site, U.S. Postal Service, hand-delivery, voice mail, or facsimile. Written comments were also accepted through a comment box at the public meeting. Notice for the public meeting, availability of the DSEIS and comment period was published twice in the Pacific Daily News, and announced through a press release to the local media.

The project team and the Government presented the information in the DSEIS and solicited oral and written comments at a public meeting held on May 24, 2005 at the Inarajan Mayor's Office. The project team presenters comprised Mr. John Duenas (Duenas & Associates, Inc.), Mr. Thomas Knox (Black & Veatch), and Ms. Tracy Layfield (EA Engineering). Mr. Larry Perez, Director of Public Works, moderated during the oral comment period. Responses to oral comments were provided by these individuals and Mr. Fred Castro, Administrator of Guam EPA. Thirty-eight people signed the attendance log at the public meeting; however, more attendees were present who chose not to sign in. Oral comments were received from 17 people at the public meeting (Table C-1). The project team and Government provided immediate responses to oral comments and questions during the meeting. Five written comments were received from the general public during the public comment period; one oral comment was submitted via voice mail. The Bureau of Statistics and Plans was the only resource agency to comment on the Draft SEIS (see Appendix D). The Guam Waterworks Authority submitted comments with Brown and Caldwell, the GWA consultant on the Guam Water Master Plan.

Most of the comments may be grouped in the following categories: surface/groundwater hydrology; infrastructure improvements/landfill design; alternative waste management

Appendix C C-1 Draft SEIS Comment Summary (recycling); host community benefits; alternative sites (Ordot Dump, Guatali); sensitive receptors; and feelings of the host community.

As in previous public meetings and during the public scoping period, several commentors expressed concern that the siting of the landfill in Dandan would impact the Inarajan and Ugum watersheds, and the municipal potable water supply for southern residents. Since potential impacts to the surface and groundwater hydrology have been continual concerns throughout the EIS process, the project team focused considerable efforts on generating conceptual design alternatives that minimize impacts to these resources. Geotechnical, hydrological and field investigations at the Dandan site, as referenced in the DSEIS, were used to develop groundwater contours and conclude that groundwater does not flow from the landfill footprint to the U gum River; the drainage net is from the landfill footprint to the Tinago, Fensol and Fintasa Rivers.

Infrastructure improvements, in particular, the construction of adequate roads to accommodate waste haulers, were a concern of a few commentors. Road improvements to support the landfill are being addressed by Department of Public Works through the reprogramming of funds in the State Transportation Improvement Plan. Concerns regarding the potential impacts from natural disasters to the landfill have been anticipated, and will be addressed in the landfill operations plan and detailed design of the facility.

The public commented on the urgent need for recycling to divert waste from or eliminate the need for the landfill. Recycling is an integral part of the island's Solid Waste Management Plan and will factor importantly in extending the life of the landfill.

Some members of the public commented that other alternative sites should be used in place of the Dandan parcel. One suggested that Ordot Dump could continue to operate and receive waste for an additional 50 years. This alternative was examined in the DSEIS and determined to be unfeasible because closure of the dump is mandated by the Federal Consent Decree in order to address violations of the Clean Water Act. Another suggestion was to place the landfill at Guatali. This alternative was examined and eliminated from further consideration in the Preliminary Landfill Site Suitability Report prepared by Guam EPA in March 2004. A recent court ruling has decreed that a Guam public law designating Guatali as a landfill site is invalid.

One commentor was concerned about the proximity of the landfill to the Inarajan Middle School. A similar concern was mentioned during the public scoping period. The DSEIS analyzed the surrounding land uses and determined that there are no sensitive receptors such as residences or schools within 0.84 mile of Layon. Because of the size of the site, and distances to adjacent landowners, it appears a well designed and properly operated facility has the potential to exist in this location as a good neighbor to the community with limited, negligible impacts to nearby properties.

As described in the DSEIS, any impacts to communities within the vicinity of Layon would be offset with mitigation measures that would focus on the host community.

Appendix C C-2 Draft SEJS Comment Summary Possible mitigation measures to provide benefits to the host community may include, but not be limited to, providing the host community with a revenue stream as a percentage of the tipping fee, discounted waste disposal, preferential hiring in the waste management industry, special contingency funds, regular water tests and property value protection. The details of such benefits to the host community of Inarajan would be negotiated by the residents with the appropriate Government of Guam entities.

The public also commented that the feelings of the host community were not considered in the selection of the Dandan site. In the preparation of the DSEIS, the project team reviewed the Public Scoping Report and other written or oral comments subsequently received throughout the EIS process. The site selection and EIS process represents an objective evaluation of potential environmental impacts from the siting of a municipal solid waste landfill facility.

Appendix C C-3 Draft SEJS Comment Summary Public Meeting Attendees

Roman L.G. Quinata Chip Brown Alfred S.N. Flores Frank Barranco Michael Jury Sarah Ridgway Jose Chargualaf David L.G. Shimizu L.T. Perez Helen Kennedy Tony Carbullido Juan T. Mendiola John Raymond N. Aguon A.B. Palacios Frank Taitague Eduardo Paulino Cole Herndon Katie W. Loretta C. Rollins Ric E. Mayor P. Paulino Judy Flores Daniel Chargualaf Juan Flores William W. Weare Jason T. Paulino Peggy Denney A. Diego Tor Gudmundsen Betwin Alokoa Bob Perron Rose Farrell Sizemore Barbara F. Torres Trini Torres Toraj Ghofrani Angel C. Santos Robert Shambach Amanda L.G. Santos

Lists of People who Submitted Comments During the DSEIS Public Comment Period

Oral Comments at Public Meeting

William Weare Talofofo Mayor Paulino Jose Chargualaf Former Mayor Roland L.G. Quinata Ed Paulino Alicia Diego Rose Farrell Sizemore Florencio Ramirez Trini Torres Alfred S.N. Flores Angel Santos Amanda L.G. Santos John Raymond N. Aguon Former Senator Ted Nelson Cole Herndon Inarajan Mayor Franklin Taitague Loretta C. Rollins

Written Comments at Public Meeting

Cole Herndon

Appendix C C-4 Draft SEJS Comment Summary Oral Comments Via Voice Mail

Rico Joaquin Tajalle, May 25, 2005

Other Written Comments

Don Antrobus, Chief Engineer, Guam Waterworks Authority Ramon Camacho Jose S.N. and Lolita B. Chargualaf Anthony P. Sanchez, Acting Director, Bureau of Statistics and Plans (See Appendix D) Berrie Straatman Martin G. Steinpress, Chief Hydrologist, Brown and Caldwell Paul Tobiason, Recycling Association of Guam

Appendix C C-5 Draft SEIS Comment Summary Table C-1 Summary of Oral Comments

Com mentor Comments

William Weare • EIS inadequate, does not address off-site impacts • Need road for large haul trucks . • Impacts to rivers from stormwater diversion • Property not acquired, not re-zoned . • How will hydrology to wetlands be maintained? • Life span of landfill cells not indicated . Jose Chargualaf • Not a complete EIS . • Watersheds and groundwater will be impacted. Seven rivers impacted by V4 of landfill footprint. • No money for roads . • Dandan is bad idea . Ed Paulino • Concern whether there is guarantee no contamination to water in lnarajan Rose Farrell • Zero waste, no landfill. Reduce, reuse, recycle . Sizemore • Humans produce waste, but can we produce water? • Newspaper has been biased in favor of landfill. • Not one person who attended public scoping meeting last year was in favor of Dandan site, yet no matter how many people voiced concerns, we were never heard. • Many lnarajan residents did not want landfill on lnarajan watershed because of water. • This is not an issue of NIMBY, but NOW "not on water" lnarajan and Ugum Watershed. Watersheds supply southern residents and could supply northern residents in future. Once Earth's limited supply contaminated, can science produce fresh uncontaminated drinking water? • Landfill is prime example of Corporate gain. No democratic government, this is monarchy, small group makes decisions. • Water in lnarajan area should supercede landfill . Trini Torres • Did not tell negative impact of landfill . • Did not consider host community's feelings, or island as a whole . • Did you make a comparative study? We have wet & dry season . Have you measured how much water is there when it rains heavily? • What kind of waste are we talking about? • Too many tourists. I don't want the military to build-up on Guam . Guam will bear burden of all their waste. • What benefits for the host community? Southern part of island is last to get any improvements, but you are trying to throw trash at them. • If we destroy South, will destroy culture of island. No culture in Dededo. Culture attracts tourists. • We are hiding landfill but contaminating island . • You can never reverse whatever impacted on the natural environment.

Appendix C C-6 Draft SEIS Comment Summary Angel Santos • Ordot before landfill/dump was very beautiful. Ordot good for another 50 years. John Raymond • Ugum River water is sweet. Impacts to water, contamination . How N. Aguon many will be alive in I 0 years? Cole Herndon • Other villages should pay tipping fee of host community.

Loretta C. • Why 3 alternatives? Rollins • Leachate sump near river drains to river. Pressure from rivers. • Plastic liner won't last . • Earthquakes, floods, etc. on Guam will affect landfill. T alofofo Mayor • Past statement "over my dead body" . Paulino • Can someone guarantee in writing that no impact? • Existing plan from previous administration to use Guatali. Former Mayor • Need another Ugum or Fena-type water supply. Military will build Roland L.G. up and Northern Guam will over-pump. lnarajan Dam closed 30 Quinata years ago, more volume than Ugum or Fena. • Separate trash and recycle . Alicia Diego • Feelings of people are important. • No words from GWA, Richard Craddick. Need an impact study for Ugum. Florencio • Water will be contaminated . Ramirez Alfred S.N. • Guatali is public law. Flores • In 1949, typhoon wiped out Ylig, Talofofo Bridges, etc . Cannot guarantee that Mother Nature will not impact landfill. Amanda L.G. • Immigrants to island bring problems. Every day Chamorro people Santos dying of cancer. We have to say no to Dandan before we lose more lives of Chamorro people. Former Senator • Should have had this meeting at the Legislature. No senators, vice Ted Nelson speaker present at tonight's meeting. • Public law says to put landfill at Guatali. lnarajan Mayor • In Table 5-1 list of concerns, put "impacts to community" under top Franklin left. Table summarizes entire community's sentiments. Taitague • Put community first . Rico Joaquin • lnarajan Middle School is right next to landfill site. You will never Tajalle (Voice know that this place might turn out to look like Ordot. Dandan site is mail) not good because it might burn. • We kids catch fish and swim in rivers. Waste will go in rivers . • The government says it will protect us, but they are showing a bad image. I'll bet this Dandan area will look like Ordot.

Appendix C C-7 Draft SEIS Comment Summary I

From: Guam Landfill Website [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 10:52 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Guam Landfill Contact

name: Paul Tobiason email: [email protected] live: Ordot/Chalan Pago live2: comments: In the PDN Public Notice, 18.May.2005: " ... and identifies mitigation needed to offset potentially significant impacts for the development and operation of a MSWLF."

I would like to comment that reducing the volume of waste going into the landfill "and" banning certain types of material will prove to be extremely important on the operation of the MSWLF. As there are now several recycling companies, materials such as aluminum and steel should banned. Especially important is food waste. This will putrify and create a terrible smell attracting flies and rodents. This aspect of waste disposal is what makes nearby residents strongly opposed to siting a landfill in their area. DPW and GEPA should try to create a solution to avoid this type of waste from entering the new landfill. Composting this material will all the "green, vegatative" type of material may be an option.

Sincerely, Paul Tobiason member: Recycling Assoc. of Guam tel: 477.7579 e-mail: [email protected]

1 I Duenas _Associates, Inc.

From: Guam Landfill Website [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 8:00 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Guam Landfill Contact

name: Berrie Straatman email: [email protected] live: Tamuning live2: comments: To extend the life of a new landfill it will imparative to mandate recycling and composting. Since it costs around $45/ton (?) to operate a landfill this money could be paid to a recycler to keep waste out of the landfill or ship off-island to a material recycling facility.

1 h1

.• f) ftl e,,~ v, I/4# rus-' Y' e.:s-1 J.. "lq ±..,;. 5 L. 0 ~ Id p 'i_J • eyfy-4 'io\" ±J\e:r" S-Q.'v- vlcrur fn e/J.P csif ; th~ vilt.j~ ::Ji4f dioe.cJ nnrf P'Ef • 1%1~ I W I lj b,., /f f:.. Ji ~.s ~ £&,,, fuJ;:J: ol

\

. \ May 25, 2005 200 Liang Kin Chele Ct. Inarajan, Guam To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing on behalf of my family. The all wanted me to write something to express their concerns regarding the Landfill at Dandan. Due to our busy schedules, we were unable to attend the public meetings. Please, take this letter very seriously as it expresses concerns of multiple residences oflnarajan and their families. We realize the need for a new landfill and are worried from previous type projects on the island (Ordot Dump). The first concern is the possible contamination of the water supply. Several of my uncles ranch in lnarajan and fish on the surrounding coastline. They are worried that contamination from the landfill will enter the surface water (Inarajan River and watershed, Pau!iluc River and watershed, and Ugum River and watershed). Livestock and wildlife will be effected and contaminates may be eaten. The proximity of the landfill to our drinking water supply (Ugum River) worries everyone greatly. I realize that ifthe landfill is set up and monitored properly this issue will be minimal. However, previous dumps on Guam have not followed proper procedures and regulations. How will you enforce and monitor such activities? You must put in a program to monitor the surface water daily or weekly at multiple sites and rivers around the future landfill. You should also monitor the sediments below and arow.id the landfill for contamination on a weekly to monthly basis. These results need to be published and made available to the public similar to the beach contamination closing information given out currently. Another big issue is that the roads will need to be. widened and passing lanes will need to be added in several lo.cations. Bridges need tO be tested and re-enforced as heavier loads will continuously be using them: Roads' need to be painted, marked, and signs posted, and all of this needs to maintained. Crews will need to patrol Route 4 daily to clear, bushcut, mow, remove dead animals, pick up trash, arid maintain: the roads properly. This all needs to be done in a timely fashion and on a regular basis: The final worry is who is responsible. When problems or medical issues develop, who do we sue? Someone in the government needs to be pointed out as responsible or a particular company that does the work needs to similarly be addressed as a responsible party. This would put many people at ease that they will have recourse if something happens.· ·.· · You need to strictly monitor the development and building the landfill on a daily basis. I have seen several examples of road construction where silt fences and other erosion controls are not always used. This is just an example of the failure of the Government of Guam (Guam EPA) in the past. So, the government needs to demonstrate and reassure the public that it has the situation monitored and under control. You need to notify the residents of your plans for the above concerns. Send letters out with information explaining your a~tions. Gq house-to-house, make phone calls to residents, and put materials in the media to do this.

Sincerely, Ramon Camacho Jose S.N. & Lolita B. Chargualaf POB 170152, Inarajan, Guam 96917 457 San Nicolas Rd., Malojloj Telefax: (671) 828-1217 e-Mail: malojlojr~r>msn.com rnalojlojbovr~1'msn.com

15 June 2005

Testimony Against Proposed Mounded Landfill in Dandan, Municipality of Inarajan

From the very beginning of this proposed project, I (and 435+ individuals) have and will continue to stand against Guam EPA, USEPA, and DPW in proceeding to construct a super mounded landfill in Dandan. I, and most if not, the entire residents of Inarajan believe that it is very clear that this proposed project is a threat now and will be a super manrnade disaster to our drinking water in the municipality oflnarajan. This site known as Leyon (Lalagon) in Dandan is the drainage basin for surface water, underground streams, wetlands and last-but not least-numerous rivers such as Tinaga, Fensu, Aslinget, Finatasa, and the Inarajan River with four tributaries. The Ugum watershed is in very closed proximity for any activity to be taking place such as the daily traffic in transporting tons after tons of trash on top of the Inarajan and Ugum watersheds.

The so-called Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (no preliminary EIS or EIA Studies) confirmed my position on the issue of major wetlands, streams, and the major rivers like Tinaga, Fensu, Finatasa, Lelansa (lnarajan Rivers) that are now showing within and around the designated buffer zone of the footprint of the site further southwest from the first location, on pamphlets issued during the first scoping meeting in Malojloj. To date, GEPA has not produced written or documented studies of the 12 initial potential sites. I requested GEPA to provide or furnish a written study as to where and how the 6 sites were rated, none provided to this date.

It is very clear now that the group who rated Dandan did not know and lacked sufficient and reliable geological and hydrological data to truly make an informed and accurate assessment of Dandan. Several employees of GEPA and DPW have no idea where and how close the Atate River (known as the Talofofo River) to the actual overlay of the proposed landfill.

The presentation of the Draft Supplemental EIS in Malojloj May 23rct, 2005 did not change or convinced the residents of Inarajan even by presenting three alternatives. The real fact is that this proposed super mounded landfill, 100 plus feet (435 msl) above ground is a threat and will be a disaster as leaks will occur and contaminate the Inarajan watersheds, wetlands, streams, and rivers (ALL LANDFILL LEAKS). The proximity of the roadways to be constructed to and from the landfill will contaminate our drinking water at the Ugum watershed through airborne pollutions, insects, flies, rodents and other creatures not known to have entered and left the landfill above or below ground.

Flooding in Dandan is a natural occurrence and with its present pristine ecosystem, it is a normal activity during the rainy season. The construction of a landfill should this risky proposed project proceed will definitely alter the natural drainage of the surface water and will displace and accelerate run-offs carrying more silts and soil into the bays of Inarajan.

Mitigating the sites around and the actual footprint of the landfill will not, and I repeat, will not prevent, and further more, will not protect the groundwater from impaired use. " The municipal solid waste "dry tomb" will be a threat effectively forever". "The liner cover and groundwater monit01ing systems will not prevent leachate from being ge~erated and leaving the landfill". (G. Fred Lee. PhD, PE, DEE and Anne Jones-Lee, PhD.)

In summary, I submitted several documented studies, together with GEPA, DPW, and GWA Studies, in support of my strong opposition to move forward with this risky and dangerous proposed project. This is a threat to our natural resources especially our watersheds and as a very concern citizen, I will continue to do everything possible to bring this issue to other appropriate officials for further action. Water is an absolute necessity for all of us and must be protected at all cost.

JSNC:lbc

THl5; PMOTO Of"' 0ANDAN 1$ FUR'Tt-fCR ":"OT1•0C '*OlJ"rl~CZACT ANO WIZST Of." THG NASA l"~ACKJNG STATION, 1'HI: IN;TIAL. POO"!'"PRINT" OF' THE PR0~£0 L..ANDF"IL.L. H.0-G BC£N CHAN(;t:D ""'o GITEC e~it~ TO TH& AR-£A KNOWN AG FoN.OoTA~ ... lt ... U" .... 111..f: OR L,!;CS f'~M Tl-IC !NARA.JAN MIOOl..C $.CHOCX.. ANO THI':: C.URHA CCIMl"'L.F".Jol, IN 'T°l"UC C'"OIU~:-GROUNO IS To-IC: "T"1NAGA. fil:IVClt WITll TIIC: Wi:::TL_ANDt; ON OOTll ~IOr::!l. THC 1111....L. AQOVC: 1$ C:AU..l!O MULATO HIW..... ON THli: O'TH~ $\Dli: OF' MUl,.ATO HILL 1$ Fi.::~u ANO FlNATA~ RIVl:R~- LOCATION~ OF THlo:5'~ RIVE;R$ ANCo 5'E:Vl!:RAL.. OTHl&J:f W~G, PQNg:;, ~R~M~ AND R1vt.:J:1$ ~I; GE;~RAPHIC""'-LY CHOWN ON.,,....~ ""' ...PG. PHOTO RY .JOSE Cl-IARGlJAl_AF 9/ 1 9/0A. Correction Mulato to Asmulato "C c: ~ "C Q) 2 "C c: ·5 ::J :::s ~ "C Q) l'3 Cl. ....0 Cl. Q) £ 0 -Q) :!::::: VJ $ ~

"The landfill is still forced on those potentially impacted in the region where it will be sited. The potentially impacted public is rarely involved in the decision -making process in a meaningful way to ensure that the potential adverse impacts of the landfill are controlled and that appropriate compensation is made for the non-controllable impacts. As long as landfills are forced on people there will be justifiable NIMBYs ." * This Is Our Water, Our Surival Depend on Every Drop of It. The rivers are Aslinget, Tinaga, Fensu, Finatasa Ylidegao, Lelansa and even Atate which flows from the southwest to the east toward Talofofo Bay. All of these rivers have existed for hundred of years without too much degradation to the entire ecosystem . The indeginous fish, shrimp and eels in the swamps and rivers will undoubtedly be threatened once the plastic liners and clay begin to leak and the toxic chemicals start to migrate underground. The four bays in the Inalahan locale will be contaminated as the affected rivers transport the toxic chemical toward the ocean. The people especially in lnalahan and quite possible Talofofo, Merizo, Agat and Santa Rita are the reciepients for polluted or contaminated water s in the very near future . Unless people forget, the farmers will also be adversely affected not knowing if and when their crops will be destroyed when the soils and groundwater are polluted or contaminated and not safe for human or animals. For the other people who fish in the bays from Talofofo, Inalahan, Merizo and Umatac they too will have to be very concerned of the fishes and numerious things taken from the sea for food to eat or sell to the public. Incidents of contaminated sea weeds did killed and also poisoned some people. It is a very common and quite frequent occurrances of the daily and weekly warning in Guam for people to not swim or fish in several of the bays due to pollutions or some type of contamination s in the waters. Given this everyday scenario, must GEPA , DPW and their consultants continiue with their preconcieved and capricious selection of Dandan to build a landfill in the "Inarajan Rivers in the lnarajan Watershed". To mitigate is their justification for bad choice ..

Probality of Polluting the Environment the Surface and Underground Water Resources Excerpts from Lee, G. F., and Jones-Lee, A., " Addressing Justifiable Nimby " 1994 addressses very similar concer n s of the residents in the souther n villages who are against the construction of a mounded landfill within the Inalahan Watershed. "The authors have frequently found that inadequate attention is given in the early phases of landfill site-selection to the long-term groundwateer quality issue . Neverthelsss , once the " best site" for the landfiill has been selected by a committee using this process, it becomes very very difficult, if not impossible, to acknowledge the short-comings of, and errors made in, the site-selection, and to start over. While the arbitrarily developed numeric scoring and ranking procedure that is being used today to select sites for landfills gives the appearance of technical justification. The selection of a site as the "best possible" site in such a process is often arbitrary, capricious, and certainly not well-thought-out, rational, objective, or defensible. In the absence of a discipline methodology and technical support for thorough investigations, the CAC has insufficient capacity to obtain sound technical input; evaluate the technical data and analysis; assing meaningful priorities on the issues of groundwater, public health, and environment, and the community impact; assess the design parameters of a landfill that imP,act the criticlal issues; or make meaningful management and design tradeoffs.:.:_~fll~)..,.______*G. Fred Lee PhD. PE, DEE. and Ann Jones-Lee PhD by J.SN Cha'f'~~{<(° (]) . ...c _. zuj c (]) 0 (fJ c - """")0 -~ >- _J _Q c ...... 0 '-0 ...c0 (]) a.. "'Cl : Ctl.....: (fJ (fJ Ctl (]) 0.... ~ Tlnaga Waterfall; $iput

., < I •• 1 ..

c site is the bottom southeast of the 150 acres · landfill ·toward Malojloj and Inalahan bottom site on top of the footprint for the landfill overlooking Finatasa River to lnalahan

ii<'··~· ~~ I ~ t I l' !! .1 ./ I

0 POT"(NTIAL DMRSl(}N sns

AU(RNATIV[ NULISE~

0 1 -4 ' -I •D -IJ '• FIGURE 1.7·2 POTENTIAL DIVERSION SITES

l.7-7

i Photo Slows t1·1e former cl

Landfill NIMBY and Systems Engineering: A Paradigm for Urban Planning

G. Fred Lee, Ph.D., P.E., D.E.E. and Anne Jones-Lee, Ph.D. G. Fred Lee & Associates-EnviroQual 27298 East El Macero Drive El Macero, CA Frederick Martin, MSPH, REA E2C Incorporated Sunnyvale, CA

Abstract. A solid waste management crisis participation components in it, it is highly exists in many parts of the US as a result of arbitrary and frequently capricious in its the inability to site new landfills to replace the implementation. Rarely does this process consumed capacity of existing landfills. lead to "the best available site" that would Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills can, enable the development of a particular landfill and usually do, have a significant adverse at the particular location without a significant impact on the individuals who own property adverse impact on the current owners and in, reside in, or otherwise use, areas near the users of nearby lands, future generations who landfill. This leads those who stand to be may own or use those lands, and those who adversely affected by a landfill to take a would use groundwaters hydraulically justifiable "NIMBY" (Not in My Back Yard) connected to the area at some time in the position against it. In the past and even today future. the approach that is used for siting landfills is to select one or more specifically rural areas There is need to take a significantly as candidate sites and then through a different approach to landfill siting than is contrived process, force one or more of those being used today. Systems engineering sites on those who own or use nearby provides a potential methodology for rigorous properties. If those in the potential sphere of incorporation of the various factors that need influence of the landfill, which is often to be considered in developing solid waste several miles from its location, are management capacity for a region. This sufficiently politically powerful or have paper reviews the issues of site selection for sufficient financial resources to actively MSW management, legitimate NIMBY oppose the siting of the landfill in their concerns, and how systems engineering could region, they can usually be successful in be used to more appropriately select a stopping the landfill from being sited in their site/method for MSW management for a area. region.

Some jurisdictions purport to involve the INTRODUCTION public in the site-selection process by appointing a "citizens advisory committee" The acronym "NIMBY" ("Not in My Back (CAC). The CAC is then "allowed" to select Yard") arose to evoke the image of self­ and rank the parameters of concern with centered citizens intent on preventing the respect to the landfill. Based on an arbitrarily siting of necessary and appropriate waste developed numeric scoring system, various management or other facilities in their potential candidate sites are ranked and those vicinity for little or no legitimate reason other with the highest ranking are selected as the than their personal preference. It is coming to "best available sites." While the site-selection be recognized, however, that such is often an process and the design of the landfill should unjustified characterization of citizens be coordinated and concurrent activities, they concerned about the protection of their health, are typically pursued sequentially which environment, and economic welfare. Indeed, contributes to the unreliability of the process. "NIMBYs" are becoming more educated and While this process appears superficially to informed, grass-roots, political forces have a technical aura about it, and public bringing changes in both the substance and

L process of urban planning; they have become specify as a rrummum a single-composite a prominent force in many urban projects. liner and a low-permeable cover for MSW NIMBYs are having an increasing influence landfills. In setting forth those regulations, on the management of municipal solid waste the US EPA (1991) stated that one of the (MSW) owing largely to the fact that the benefits of them was that they should interests of those who stand to be adversely facilitate the siting of new landfills. The affected by a landfill are not protected by the Preamble to the Subtitle D regulations states process of siting, evaluating, and developing under "Other Benefits," waste management facilities. In this paper a "First, EPA believes that the promulgation systems engineering (SE) paradigm is offederal municipal solid waste landfill formulated for urban planning incorporating criteria will increase public confidence the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) to that landfills are designed to protect represent the NIMBY force. The paradigm is human health and the environment. EPA illustrated with the issue of selecting a site for believes that this increased confidence will a landfill at which to dispose MSW. reduce opposition to landfills and make the siting ofnew landfills less difficult." JUSTIFIABLE NIMBY However, the conceptual functioning of a Municipal solid wastes are principally "dry tomb" landfill - to keep the wastes generated in urban areas yet are typically isolated from groundwater - cannot be disposed of in rural areas in landfills that achieved with the minimum requirements and proponents claim will not have adversely approaches being used for them. "Dry tomb" effects. If the landfills were in fact landfills will not protect the quality of innocuous, there would be no need to find groundwaters hydraulically connected to "less populated" areas for them. The reality them, for as long as the wastes in the landfill is, however, that landfills of the type being represent a threat. Further, the Subtitle D developed today are not innocuous; they are regulations adopted address groundwater known to cause a variety of aesthetic, quality protection only for a short period of environmental quality, and public health time compared to the time that the waste will problems for those in their vicinity. The represent a threat to groundwater quality; at rationale of placing landfills in rural areas - to best, the liners system specified in these reduce the number of adversely affected regulations will only postpone groundwater people - is thus lost when consideration is pollution, it will not prevent it (see Lee and given to the urban source of the waste, to the Jones-Lee, 1992; I 993a,b; Jones-Lee and Lee, rights of the rural-property-dwellers/users to 1993; and Lee and Jones, 1993 ). protection of their properties, health, and welfare, and to the type and degree of Therefore, contrary to the US EPA's claims protection afforded by the landfilling of benefits of the new regulations and the regulations. increased "public confidence" they were believed to foster, those regulations will not On October 9, 1991, the US EPA adopted in any significant way, and should not, deter Subtitle D regulations for MSW landfills that public opposition to proposed landfills that prescribe what may be referred to as "dry stand to adversely affect the use, enjoyment, tomb" landfills (US EPA, 1991), an approach and value of property, public welfare, public significantly different from the classical, health, or other issues of concern to the public unlined "sanitary" landfills used in the past. (Lee and Jones, 1991). They basically only "Dry tomb" landfills are designed in concept address postponing groundwater pollution for to try to keep moisture out of the landfill and a few tens of years and do not address many to keep the leachate ("garbage juice") of the major issues that cause the people who generated in the landfill from polluting own or otherwise use lands near a proposed groundwaters in the vicinity of the landfill. landfill to justifiably oppose the landfill. Toward that end, Subtitle D regulations

2 The "bad neighbor" reputation of landfills • decrease in property values was earned, in part, because those who • impaired view-shed/aesthetics generate the wastes placed in the landfills • destruction of wildlife habitat have not been asked, or required, to provide • destruction of archaeological sites sufficient funds (e.g., in garbage disposal fees) to properly control many of the Many of the problems associated with significant adverse impacts that are readily landfills listed above, are related to problems controllable in landfilling of MSW. As during the active life of the landfill. As discussed by Lee and Jones-Lee (1994), most discussed by Lee and Jones-Lee (1993c; of the justifiable NIMBY that occurs today 1994 ), one of the most expedient ways that associated with the siting of new or expanded such problems can, in large part, be addressed landfills can be readily addressed through in a rural setting is by providing an adequate adequate funding of appropriate solid waste landfill-owned land buffer between the management. It is well-known that the costs landfill site and adjacent property owners' for attempting to rectify problems discovered lands. The land buffer areas typically with leaking landfills and to compensate for provided at landfills, however, are very lost resources due to groundwater pollution limited, commonly a few hundred yards. The by landfill leachate far-outweigh those result is that those who own or use lands next associated with taking the steps necessary to to a landfill find that their use and enjoyment ensure groundwater quality protection for as of these lands impaired because of the long as the wastes represent a threat, i.e., in landfill. Any proposed landfill should have at perpetuity. least a mile or more of land between the active area of the landfill and adjacent ADVERSE IMPACTS OF "DRY TOMB" property owners' lands. While it may be LANDFILLS ON PROPERTY possible in some terrains to have smaller land OWNERS/USERS buffers, in most cases even a one-mile land buffer will allow adverse impacts of a landfill While the US EPA has stated that one of on adjacent property owners/users due to the benefits of the Subtitle D regulations will truck traffic, illegal dumping, etc. be reduced opposition to siting landfills, in Alternatively, substantial amounts of funds, fact, the Agency has not addressed many of effort, oversight, and public recourse would the key issues that cause public opposition to have to be provided to ensure that at the first particular landfills. As discussed by Lee and occurrence of problems off-site, the facility Jones-Lee (1993c; 1994), the wide variety of would be closed permanently and the affected justifiable reasons for opposing landfills in public appropriately compensated. the vicinity of a property, residence, or workplace include, It is the authors' view that an equitable • public health, economic and aesthetic solution could be for anyone owning property aspects of groundwater and surface water within two miles of a proposed landfill to be quality given the option of selling their property to • methane and voe migration - public the landfill company/agency should they health hazards, explosions and toxicity to choose to do so, for at least the fair-market plants value. The value of the land should be based • illegal roadside dumping and litter near on its value prior to the proposal to develop a landfill landfill in that area, and should reflect • truck traffic possible increased value that could otherwise • noise occur over the next 10 years were it not for • dust and wind-blown litter the placement of the landfill. It should be • odors recognized, however, that some may not find • vectors, insects, rodents, birds this an equitable settlement, for example • condemnation of adjacent/nearby property where loss of the land destroys a person's for future land uses livelihood.

3 One of the most significant consequences evaluated based on the criteria selected by the of the adoption of the "dry tomb" approach committee, and a "best possible" site(s) is for managing MSW is that it perpetuates the selected. garbage crisis that exists in the US, rather than address the issues contributing to the Claims are made that this process is crisis in a committed, meaningful, technically technically valid, unbiased, value-driven, well reliable way so as to provide credible thought-out, rational, objective, and assurance to the people who reside on or defensible, and that it "involves" the public in otherwise use lands near a proposed landfill the decision-making process. The authors that the landfill will not represent a significant have been involved in reviews of such site­ threat to their public health, groundwater selection processes (Lee and Jones-Lee, resources, environmental quality, or social 1993d) and have found that that type of site­ and economic welfare. The public will, with selection process is typically technically justification, continue to vigorously oppose invalid and can readily be manipulated to "dry tomb" landfills that are to be sited in select for a particular site or group of sites. their vicinity until the issues are properly First, a critical aspect is the composition of resolved, and the responsible commitment to the committee, itself. While purporting to be that resolution is evidenced. representative of the areas involved, rarely do such committees include a meaningful, UNRELIABLE APPROACHES FOR influential representation of the individuals ADDRESSING LEGITIMATE NIMBY who actually stand to be adversely affected by the landfill at the various candidate sites. Today, some responsible for developing While those on the committee may have solid waste management capacity in particular political, occupational, or other "interest" in jurisdictions are adopting public participation the site selection, no interest is as intent on processes in which the public is ostensibly protecting the interests of those in need of provided an opportunity to actively participate protection than that of the public that stands in site selection. Often this is done through a to be affected. site-selection committee representing various interests in solid waste management in the Second, the authors have found that area where the wastes are generated and in the generally the committee does not have the areas where a landfill could be located. That expertise, and is not provided with committee develops a numeric site ranking appropriate independent expertise, to evaluate procedure, under the guidance of the the technical validity or sufficiency of the department of public works or some other information provided to it. For example, such entity responsible for solid waste management committees often rank groundwater quality in the region. The committee identifies protection very high in site selection. various criteria/issues of importance and then However, at the time that the committee is arbitrarily assigns a numeric value within a selecting the "best possible site," there is range of 1 to I 0 to each of those criteria to commonly insufficient information available represent the committee's consensus on its on the hydrogeological characteristics of the importance. Examples of such criteria candidate sites to reliably evaluate and include groundwater quality protection, solid · compare the sites for their natural ability to waste transportation distance, significance of protect groundwater from leachate-pollution. aboriginal artifacts, and various There is also typically inadequate information social/political/legal factors that could to properly evaluate the ability of the influence the siting of a landfill. The public "engineered" containment system - liners, etc. works department then provides, sometimes - to prevent groundwater pollution for as long blind, information on candidate sites within as the wastes represent a threat. Absent such the region based on the information that is information and/or the ability to properly readily available on the characteristics of the evaluate it, the committee is generally led to areas. The selected potential sites are believe that the landfill that would be

4 constructed at any of the sites would be future generations' groundwater resources and protective of the groundwater resources of the the potential presence of aboriginal culture region. However, understanding of the remnant artifacts - on a scale of l to 10 or regulatory agency's minimum prescriptive some other scale - contrived to yield a standards (such as those of the US EPA numeric score that can be mechanically Subtitle D requirements) for design, plugged into the site-selection process. construction, operation, closure and post­ closure care of landfills, and the associated The authors have frequently found that funding requirements shows that the dry tomb inadequate attention is given in the early landfill will do nothing more than postpone phases of landfill site-selection to the long­ groundwater pollution. term groundwater quality issues. Nevertheless, once the "best site" for the Part of this "assurance" commonly comes landfill has been selected by a committee from landfill proponents who often claim that using this process, it becomes very difficult, the proposed landfill will meet or exceed if not impossible, to acknowledge the short­ regulatory requirements. However, what is comings of, and errors made in, the site­ not made clear to the committee is the fact selection, and to start over. While the that meeting or even exceeding inadequate arbitrarily developed numeric scoring and prescriptive regulatory requirements does not ranking procedure that is being used today to provide assurance of protection of select sites for landfills gives the appearance groundwater quality, public health, or of technical validity, objectivity, and public welfare. At this time, few state regulatory involvement, it is seriously flawed and is in agencies have requirements that in fact ensure many respects without technical justification. a high degree of groundwater quality The selection of a site as the "best possible" protection for as long as the MSW in the site in such a process is often arbitrary, landfill represents a threat to groundwater capricious, and certainly not well-thought-out, quality. Even in those states such as rational, objective, or defensible. In the California that have performance absence of a disciplined methodology and requirements that state that such protection technical support for thorough investigations, shall be provided, the implementation of those the CAC has insufficient capacity to obtain requirements often falls far-short of achieving sound technical input; evaluate the technical the performance standard. Thus, when the data and analysis; assign meaningful priorities site-selection committee ranks groundwater on the issues of groundwater, public health, quality protection as an area of great concern environment, and community impact; assess in landfill siting but has inadequate the design parameters of a landfill that impact information and background, it assigns a the critical issues; or make meaningful numerical ranking for that criterion based on management and design tradeoffs. unsubstantiated, typically unreliable assurances that groundwater will be protected. Another significant problem with landfill site-selection committees is the way in which Also of concern in the site-selection those responsible for site selection interact process is the combining of scores for the with the potentially impacted public. various criteria in making the overall site­ Previously, those responsible for developing selection recommendations. For example, the solid waste management capacity would work committee numerically ranks its perception of behind the scenes until a site had been the importance of not disturbing aboriginal selected, then force that selection on property artifacts, along with rankings of groundwater owners in the region. Today, the public quality protection based on unreliable (NIMBYs) have become sufficiently information (see Lee and Jones-Lee, 1993e). organized and effective so that they can, in As discussed by Lee and Jones-Lee (1993d), many cases, block the siting of a landfill. it is inappropriate to give equivalent or This has led to attempts to involve the comparative weight to the importance of potentially impacted public in the decision-

5 making process. With few exceptions, management and operation of landfills to however, the authors have found that the so­ protect the public health with emphasis on called public involvement means that those post-closure requirements and activities. potentially impacted are merely ·given the Thus, a major component of AB939 is the opportunity to express their views on why a incorporation in MSW management and landfill in their area is inappropriate. Rarely planning of active CAC to identify solid does such an expression result in any waste management issues; determine the significant change in the landfill location or regional need for solid waste collection design. The landfill is still forced on those systems, facilities, and market strategies for potentially impacted in the region where it recyclable materials; facilitate will be sited. The potentially impacted public multijurisdictional arrangements for is rarely involved in the decision-making marketing recyclable materials; facilitate process in a meaningful way to ensure that the resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies potential adverse impacts of the landfill are locally and in a multijurisdictional region; controlled and that appropriate compensation develop policies and procedures to guide the is made for the non-controllable impacts. As development of sites for processing and long as landfills are forced on people, there disposing of MSW, both locally and will be justifiable NIMBY s. regionally.

Lee and Jones-Lee (1994) discussed The general public is becoming more approaches that could potentially change involved, at least ostensibly, in the planning "NIMBY" to "GIVE ME" through appropriate and management of MSW. However, consideration and protection of the interests managing MSW is an SE process that of those in the zone of influence of a proposed involves a host of technical, economic, and landfill. These include technically justifiable societal issues. From a SE perspective, can a and achievable approaches with sufficient role be defined for the CAC? Does it funding guarantees for preventing represent the customer and user of the groundwater pollution at any time in the system? Would it be part of the future, adequate land buffer zones, and multidisciplinary team that assists and advises appropriate financial compensation packages the systems engineer in managing the developed from increased garbage collection program? Is it integral to the SE process with fees to compensate those in the sphere of authority on the level of the systems influence of the landfill to enable them to engineer? How js the public to be given an readily leave the area or to accept the non­ opportunity to exert an influence in the health and environmental impact-related decisions regarding MSW management, effects of the landfill, such as beyond being tolerated by decision-making altered/degraded view-shed. staff in "public hearings'"? Beyond its pentannual cycle for review and analysis, how SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PARADIGM does it retain a consistent commitment to quality management of MSW? AB939, the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (CA, 1989), THE SE AND NIMBY PARADIGM was, in large part, the result of NIMBY politics. In this regard AB939 has four major In the management of MSW, and the siting thrusts: ( l) diversion of 50% of MSW from and operation of an MSW landfill in landfills into reuse, recycling and composting, particular, the SE process has six functions (2) a local, pentannual review of MSW tailored to meet the needs of a CAC and the management by a local CAC to review the general requirements for the development and status of, and recommend revisions in, the operation of a landfill, presuming appropriate management of MSW in the community, (3) representation of those within the sphere of provision for the siting and planning of new landfill influence, on the CAC. As shown in landfills with a 15-year horizon, (4) active Figure I, these six functions, tailored so as to

6 attach the CAC to the systems engineer, are in perpetuity after closure, and that the design (1) problem definition and system definition, and site-selection of a landfill must be (2) derived functional requirements, (3) key concurrent, coordinated activities, not parameters and risks, (4) tradeoffs and sequential ones. synthesis into a pragmatic program, ( 5) Systems Analysis and control for overall Each stage of the acquisition involves the objectives (the Engineer), (6) CAC. SE process of Figure 1. The CAC participates at each stage and shapes the process and Figure 1 shows the engineering process design to try to ensure that all requirements flowing from definition to synthesis under the affecting the public interest are satisfied. The control of the systems engineer, with the CAC CAC has a major role for public approval at as an adjunct to the engineer. By its nature the milestone for the review and acceptance the CAC suggests that it represents the of the proposed project and site. The CAC, customer, the user, and the public interest as representing the public interest as defined in a whole, as well as and especially those AB939, needs to consider and evaluate a host within the sphere of influence of the landfill of factors including: landfill design and whose public health, welfare, and resources alternatives, landfill operation, public health, stand to be adversely affected by it. On air pollution, hydrogeology, use and potential behalf of the public it has the basic task of future (ad infinitum) use of groundwaters setting standards, priorities, acceptable levels hydraulically connected to the proposed of risk, and arbitrates the jurisdictional landfill area, water pollution, natural habitat conflicts and inconsistencies. and open space, community impacts, site monitoring, post-closure use, and cost. It may The process of developing a landfill for not be possible to optimally satisfy all of disposal of MSW has five stages in this these factors, but a landfill site is an paradigm (Figure 2). Although as noted ineluctable feature of our lifestyle so tradeoffs earlier, post-closure activities are frequently and adjustment to priorities with detailed ignored or, at best, vaguely acknowledged, assessments made on alternative technologies they figure prominently in the mandates of and sites, and compensation of those affected, AB939 and in the acquisition process. This will be a major effort for the engineers and importance has been recognized in Figure 2 the CAC. The methodology and practice of by the division of the design stage into SE in the aerospace industry includes a operations and post-closw-e design, with a number of tools for matching estimated feedback loop to the beginning of the process. system performance to the functional Also indicated are major milestones and requirements. While these have not been review in the acquisition process. It is critical applied in urban planning, one of the authors that acquisition not go forward until there is a has illustrated their potential for such use clear understanding of the site and its impact (Martin, 1992, 1993). on the community during operation as well as

7 Findings in these studies and other investigations in other US cities are inter-related if not very similar to the landfill to be built in Dandan on top of the watershed.

LANDFILLS IN NORTHWEST INDIANA (APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED LANDFILL IN DANDAN):

What is a Landfill?

According to Zero Waste America's website, a landfill is a carefully designed structure built into or on top of the ground in which trash is isolated from the surrounding environment. The purpose is to avoid any water related connection between the waste and the surrounding environment, particularly groundwater. This isolation is accomplished with a bottom liner and daily covering of soil. Basically, a landfill is like a bathtub in the ground; a double-lined landfill is one bathtub inside another. Unfortunately, unlike bathtubs all landfills eventually will leak, out the bottom or over the top.

What is the Composition of a Landfill?

There are four components of any secured landfill; a bottom liner, a leachate collection system, a cover and hydro geologic setting. The natural setting can be selected to minimize the possibility of wastes escaping to groundwater beneath a landfill. The other component must be engineered. Each component or element is critical for success.

Regarding the natural hydro geologic setting; you want geology to do two things that are in fact contradictory. To prevent the wastes from escaping, you want rocks as tight (waterproof) as possible. If leakage occurs and it will, you want the geology to be as simple as possible so you can easily predict where the wastes will go. This is the reason why the type of soil around the liner is vitally important. Another crucial element in any landfill is the bottom liner. The state of the art bottom liners on the market today are plastic (HDPE) liners, which are only 100 mils or 1110 of an inch thick. Liners may be clay or made of a synthetic flexible membrane. The bottom liner in effect creates a bathtub in the ground. If it fails, wastes will migrate directly into the environment. Even though these tough plastic polyethylene liners (HDPE) are recommended by EPA, a number of household chemicals will degrade HDPE, permeating it (passing through it). This will cause it to lose strength, softening it or making it become brittle and crack. In addition to common household chemicals, items such as mothballs, margarine, vinegar, ethyl alcohol (booze), shoe polish, peppermint oil will all degrade HDPE and render it dangerous to the surrounding environment. Studies show that a 10-acre landfill will have a leak rate somewhere between 0.2 and 10 gallons per day. The Leachate collection system is also an extremely important component to any effective landfill. Leachate is water that gets contaminated by contacting wastes. It seeps to the bottom of the landfill and is collected by a

Page 1 series of pipes. Pipes laid along the bottom of the landfill capture the contaminated waste and other fluid (leachate); this leachate is then pumped to a wastewater treatment plant. Ifleachate collection pipes clog up or if they are crushed by the tons of garbage, they may become weakened by chemical attack (acids, solvents, oxidizing agents or corrosion). If this occurs and leachate remains in the landfill, fluids can build up in the bathtub. The Cover is generally several sloped layers; clay or membrane line (to prevent rain from intruding and to prevent leachate formation) overlain by a very permeable layer of sandy soil, overlain by topsoil in which vegetation can root and stabilize the underlying layers of the cover. If it is not maintained, rain will enter the landfill resulting in buildup of leachate to the point where the bathtub overflow and waste enter and burrowing soil-dwelling mammals, reptiles, insects and worms, sunlight, cave-ins and rubber tires which "float" upward in a landfill all present constant threats to the integrity of the cover. (Zero Waste)

Summary of Northwest Indiana Soil

These soils have severe limitations for landfill applications because of their physical properties. Any excavation of one soil would impact other soils in the vicinity. Another common feature to these soils is their wetness. The seasonal high water tables are near the surface for almost all of the soil types, except Pinhook and Tracy. The high water tables make them highly vulnerable to contamination and require a great deal of money and materials to drain water away for excavation sites. (Very similar to the Dandan conditions specially the watershed).

These soils are very suitable for farming. Northwest Indiana is a large farming community for these reasons. The soils are perfect for growing crops such as com and beans; however, the soils are very poor for landfill use. In addition to contamination, the high water table will require significant dewatering to allow excavation. This has the potential to dramatically lower the water table and cause existing home and irrigation wells to go dry. (Camp).

Best Soil Used for Landfill Applications

The best soil to use in a landfill is blue clay. Blue clay is composed of fine particles transported by glacial melt ways and deposited in deep ocean waters between 50,000 and 37,000 years ago. The soil is best suited for landfills because it is impervious to water, chemicals and it compacts very well. When a landfill site has been excavated, the clay is saved and used as landfill cover. After each layer of garbage is placed in the landfill, a layer of clay is placed on top of the garbage and compacted. This results in a solid layer of garbage that are impervious to the elements.

Proposing a Landfill in Northwest Indiana

To proposed a landfill in Northwest Indiana, certain criteria and regulations must be adhered to. Prior to 1995, there was no criterion regarding the design of landfill until the Federal CFL

Page2 Subtitle D was passed. This federal law mandates that all landfills in the United States must comply with minimum standards. According to "How a Landfill Works" at Lycos Zone, an environmental impact study must be done on the proposed site to determine:

The area ofland necessary for the landfill; The composition ofthe underlying soil and bedrock; The flow ofsurface water over the site; The impact ofthe proposed landfill on the local government and wildlife; The historical or archaeological value ofthe proposed site. (Howstuffivorks) Excerpts very similar and perhaps applicable to the proposed landfill in Dandan.

What Type of Landfills Are There in Northwest Indiana?

Currently, there are two types oflandfills, a public landfill which we have in Munster and private landfill which is located in Laporte County. Public landfills are easier to regulate and control because they control what comes into their landfill. A private landfill is more predicated on making money and is often less concerned on what is brought in. The interstate commerce clause is often not an issue because local government have their right to restrict who can dump what the local landfill. (Lynch).

Sanitary landfill in the United States has made monumental strides in the past 20 years, moving open dumps with little or no regulation to state of the art facilities with sophisticated containment systems and environmental monitoring, improved operations, and increased regulations. At the same time, stringent regulations have caused landfill capacity to decline: between 1986 and 1996. the total number of landfills in the United States fell from 7,683 to 3,581. The trend now is ''waste to energy" system (incineration), recycling and reuse.

Northwest Indiana currently accepts waste from other locations across the United States. The total out of state waste received during 1999 was 2,147,830 tons. The table represents the states that contributed to Northwest Indiana's wastes sites. (IDEM).

Out of State Waste Received in 1999 State Totals Tons Received California 93 Illinois 1, 779, 180 Kansas 60 Kentucky 176,376 Michigan 37,021 Missouri 1,93 5 Nevada 155 Ohio 151,614 Texas 122 Wisconsin 1,274

Page 3 Do Landfills Work?

Unfortunately, starting in the l 970's and continuing throughout the l 980's and l 990's, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded research, which showed that burying household garbage in the ground poisons the groundwater. EPA has spelled out in detail the reason why all landfills leak. (Dr. Peter Montague, REHN). Even with the state of the art double liners, EPA officials still expect landfills to fail and eventually poison the groundwater. (Dr. Peter Montague, REHN). There is just inadequate known data relating to contamination due to landfills leaking; however, there were ground wells tested in the Wheeler area surrounding the Wheeler Landfill. These ground wells were found to be contaminated and the water unsafe to drink. As a result, Waste Management negotiated a settlement with the affected citizens, and paid for city water to be brought to their homes. Unfortunately, the problem of the contaminated water still remains in the ground, and the potential for groundwater contamination in Wheeler is very real. (Lynch).

Groundwater contamination may result from leakage of very small amounts of leachate. TCE is a carcinogen and one of the volatile organic compounds typically found in landfill leachate. It would take less than 4 drops of TCE mixed with the water in an average sized swimming pool (20,000 gallons) to render the water undrinkable. (Landfill Leaks).

Landfills and Your Health

There is insufficient data linking health problems with our local landfills in Northwest Indiana; however, there have been more than adequate documentation nationwide to assure a direct correlation with landfills and health problems. According to Dr. Peter Montague in Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly, the following are just a few documented studies that highlight the extent of the problem:

Significantly reduced stature (height) for a given age among children who live near Love Canal, the chemical waste dump in Niagara Falls, N. Y.

Low birth weight and defects in California born in census tracts having waste disposal sites. In Tucson Arizona, abnormal amounts ofchildren born with heart defects reveal­ ed that 35% ofthem were born to parents living in a part ofthe city where the water sup­ ply was contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) from a hazardous waste site. The rate of birth defects ofthe heart was three times higher among people drinking contami­ nated water compared to people in Tucson not drinking contaminated water.

Enlargement ofthe liver and liver functions test in reported resident exposed to solvents from a toxic waste dump in Hardemann County, Tenn.;

Dermatitis, respiratory irritation, neurologic symptoms and pancreatic cancer at 7 waste disposal sites. (Dr. Montague REHM)

Page4 Landfills Affect on the Environment

Landfills present a clear and present potential threat to human health as well as a threat rn our environment. As noted even the best landfill liners will leak... 82% of surveyed landfill cells had leaks while 41 % had a leak area of more than 1 square feet," according to Leak Location Services, Inc. (LLSI website March 15, 2000). This is an alarming statistic considering that in addition to leakage, landfills also provide problems to our health and environment through hazardous contaminated air emissions. Over ten toxic gases are released from landfills especially the toxic gas of methane gas. Methane gas is a naturally occurring gas created by the decay of organic matter inside a landfill. As it is formed, it builds up pressure and then begins to move through the soil. In a recent study of 288 landfills, off-site migration of gases, including methane was detected at 83% of these sites. (REHM).

When a new municipal landfill is proposed, advocates of the project always emphasize that "no hazardous wastes will enter these landfill." Studies have shown that even though municipal landfills may not legally receive "hazardous" wastes, the leachate they produce is as dangerous as the leachate from hazardous waste landfills.

CONCLUSION

There is no debate that all landfills eventually contaminate our environment and pose a serious threat to our health. In Indiana these landfills are monitored and regulated by EPA and IDEM. The main problem associated with contamination is the "corrective action" that needs to occur to clean up the problem. In a recent study of 163 municipal solid waste landfills, there was evidence of ground-water contamination or adverse trends in ground-water quality of 146 of them. That's a 90% contamination rate for groundwater beneath municipal beneath municipal solid wasteland fills. Once it is contaminated it is almost impossible to clean it up. The only way to guarantee clean groundwater is to never contaminate it in the first place. (Zero Waste).

Page 5 JUN-J_6-20ffi 16:04 FRCf'l:GLJAM WfiTER WORKS 6716462335 T0:67ltl?79402 P,1~6

GUAM WATERWORKS AUTHORITY 5 .. Good Woter Always,. ' Post Oftitt Box 3010, Ragatna., Guam ~3Z Phone: ('71) 647-2603 Fax: (671) 646-?335

June 15, 2005

Omar Damian Cluam Environmental 'Prot ction Agency Municipal Solid We.steL fill Project Manager

upplemental Environmental Jmpact Stateme.D! (SEIS)

Mr. Damian,

The Guam Waterworks AJ thority (GW A) bas contracted with Brown and Caldwell (B&C) to prepare a water d wastewater master plan. Based on their efforts to develop rhe master plan, B&.C is mar with existing GW A water sources and conceptual future water sourres. GWA req ted that B&c conduct a review of the S'EJS with an emphasis on potential impacts on bo h current and future drinking water sources. B&C's comments on the SEIS 1te attached this oorrespondencc.

The review raises several CelllS regarding the hydrogeological QblU"IClerization ofthe ptoposed landfill site add i potcotial impacts on both groundwater and surface water resout'C8$. &tied on the findings, GWA requests that edditionaJ 8118lysis and/or research be conducted to address e specific concerns delineated in the attachment and summarized below: ·

• Impact of high gro ndwater on the instaJlatio.n of proposed liner system and the behavior oftha ' system when subjected to high groundwater after construction. • The minimum slo on the bottom of eadi cell required to prevent leachate c.:oUection. • Potential for migra ·on of gases downward to the gtoundwatc:r. • Conclusion that lo geology does not support development of ~undW4t~ aquifers as drinlcin water sources based on insuftieient data. • The reliability of undwater oontoW'I and the conclusion that a hydraulic divide exists between the andfill site 811d the Ugurn River drainage. • Claim that GWA s no plans to develop drinkins water so"rces in the area when in fact several pot tial groundwater and s~ water sou~ arc being considered. • The ability to physi lly keep the land611 base above the groundwater rable when

JUN-16-2005 04:10PM ~AX:671646233S ID:GUAM EP~ PAGE:001 R=94~ V2'd Sl£:99b9 12..9:01 20b6L.Lbl..!...9 ~d3 w~n9:wo~4 ~~=>t ~~~~-JT.-Nnr JUN-16-2005 16:04 FR0'1:GLir:IM WATER WIJRKS 6716462335 T0;671~779402

the proposed cells 15-feet deep and groundwater was found at or near the surface.

Thank you for the opportu. ityto teview and comment on the SEIS. ff you have any questions regarding our su mitt.al, please do not hesitate to contact me at (671) 647-2607.

Sincerely> cd&n Don Antrobus Chief Engineer.

C(;: General Manager USEPA

JUN-16-2005 04:10PM FAX:6716462335 ID:GUAM EPA PAGE:002 R=94% S't£99b9 'J:L9:0l 20b6.L.Lb't.L9 ~d3 w~n~:wn~~ ~~=~1 ~~~~-JT.-Nnr JUN-lG-2005 1~:04 FRCJvl:GU~M WATER WORKS 6716462335 T0:6714779"102

:11 ~._.:· .. :.- ' '~ •• j, , ...... \> ~.. 'sR •: i,.··~.,, ' ' r' •h

·: • ~ •• •, i.. l :· ... '}

' ' !_ 1 .. ' ,.r·. ··~· '

[lR,(111,'~~ ,\l\(l ( ,\ L n ~\ :_ l. t . ' Mr. Dav· O.iddick. GeJ.']ef.:ll M11nager Gu.m \Yi teJ\\·orks Aurhurity P.O. BoxJOlO t-hgatna, ,uam 96932 127)5).120 r.ift Suppicmcnw Environment.ii Impact Sto\lC'mcnt (SHS) for the Sitin& ip.11 Solid WDStc Ltndfill f ,u:ilit)» Guam.

Bro~11 · d Oldwcll) a per i.he amendment ti) the GWA. MaJ~r JJl.in.contr..i.tt, lw revielll1Si !)m£t SEIS for the Siting of 11 l\llunicipal Solid \Vaste Landfill Facility in the La;o .u'e4 of 0.lnd.ui,. Inarajan. Guam and ~b~ pcrt.iM11t documents. nrov.n :utd :ell provides 1ltt: following .commmts whh RSpcc;t 1u poten~I imp.Le's 'o ground.w. tcr and rurlace water rnouices:

2.2.l ill Design and Ope~ting Fe11t~s

e SE lS essenrially igno~s ih.= i5sUC" of ·the )Ugh waler ubl.e aad doe!. not p· ~ .Q1{:)lpl.uia\ion01' de.s.;npUon o( how die ~AV.. tioru. ._;n be · · drydsuing in1t.1B11tioia of dw proposed linc:r S>'91tein. i\ci;c>ruing l(l t dis~.sion in 4.2-1.2 H)drogeology:and Groundwa~cr (sed bclo~, the b.lle o some cf."lls will be tt or below die Wll~r Ulblt! nther dlaD .1bcwe it a:. shown .fi{,'l11t> 2-7. Ia addi001l~ even if dcwatcriag md/or diw.on.io.n s~tem.~ c:an be is<.-d for during connrucuon of ci~h .;ell. 'CM~ should be: a ~ussion on h w th¢ lincu}'Sh!m will beh.ltte ""1tf:11 sQbmined l'> &ho g~dwo11erpn!:uurc~ a ter constn:J.tuon, not only .\l me bol.Se of ll.e ce&, but also along the sida- pcs. Jn v,enc:rJ.l. then: is il lick of cons~tion Jer.a.ils in thr SELli ••\&. .s •nimwn. lhe ~lope r~~ for the c:xcav:u.ioo {typic-.ally 2;1) iu:id. final cover s :stem (5: l) should be provided.

· pn>po&ed minimum slope of the boa.om of cal"h c1.•ll {C.5%) may be too ~ m convey 1he le.tc:bOlte gcncr.iU:d cot.he single c;olle~tion S\ID?e for t.ich <:4".'ll prll\~nt 'he ponding of le.ac:h,..~ on th!! liner. Poadmg v.'Quld likely ~ l

roundw:uu beneo1.tb new lmed .b.ndfilb becomes imp;ti:·le."d mostly by . lion of voe~ "lllithin 'l.ntdfillgu (LFG}. The V~pc;>rpenne;i.bilityof lin.cr ·teens ia grcawr that the liquicl pcnncab.ility. especiilly whtn the landfill g.u is.

f ,. I. •••

JUN-16-2005 04:10PM FAX:67164G2335 ID:GUFlM EPA PAGE:003 R=94~

2.Jv 'd Sl~99f79 i:L9:D.L 20v62...1..vi:L9 ~d3 w~n~=wo~~ 00:£i: ~li'IPl?--)1-Nnr 6716462335 TO:G714779402

Mr. David C'.addKk Juoc H. 2005 P•ge 2

not piopcrly co 11:d and a significa111 posAive pre~sure (a..e. driving fol't'c:) is produc!!d wi · the landfill. Secioil 41.1.4 of dwSIHS intlic:.u.ed tha~ only 80°'4I of the LF generated would be i;ol*ted by an active ew-action S)'ttm. Therefore. 2 of the UG gentr.a.tcd would be available for migration .md n:l•e into the enviro~at. ini:ILl!ding downward to grou:.dw:itct.

).2.1.2 li)dl'Clgcology GtQund"lll'oltrr ... Aquifers (in c:lupier .l.O Affected Emitonmeiu)

!be Or.Ut SEJ. c:bat.lcteri:r..cs a:hc voka1ui: geological formation at la)On u nor su.pponing :iquif.en from which gmundw.ater can easily be extli\Ctll!d. However, thit inion apJl'!m to be b~ on ~ slng]e U.S. GeologK:a1 Swvey ~n in 1971, «1mtruC'tion di:uils of which .ire not provided.. Fun:benno~, the SElS aclm tlat f.rui:s .and f.iss~ may haibor a potentially exploitable aq er {p. l-1), and .ipparently no gmwidw.ucr reoovei:y leSU were perform:d in dc:cp bo.riags at U}OO-

Wawrtabk and cl!!v.uiom :u U)ll:)ll .m: pro\'idcd in Table 3-1. but dates o( the uuremerus ml .not provided in the SEIS ot .in the Pinal Site ScJccti.on n (SSR)/EIS. Ua~ the cb.tes of meanan:mi:nt :ue dDff to simuhancOUI t olher W.t.i. t(;) dccumcut consiswnt water ubfe tb.uions a.re a-vaibblc, dus und.w.itcr c:cntour.> in fjgWll! 3.. 2 are unreliable.

Wiihout s~pa te n~asun::merm 1){ distiita seasonal ground~reJe.,.,.tions, $HSOD.'ll flO'\\' rthw.ud be.neath the dnimge divide into th(! 1Jgum Rivet Jraim&e cann be ~ out. Although the Pinal Site Selcc:rion Rq>on/ElS (GDPW• .200 ) star.es rbat .. based oa the groWldW2ter levels n:conled at the si~~ .a ground r h)'draulic dMde e:xis&s bctMen the {)gum River and. the lmdfill lo0tp 1.hat will isolate i;ioundwater flo"lo"S from du! landfill to tM

JUN-16-2005 04:10PM FAX:6716462335 ID:GUAM EPR PAGE:004 R=94% Sl£99b9 l.l9:01 21211:>6,!)t;.t)g H.-1=1 L..IHn"l : 1.1n;..i -I 111111 : ~ T <:vtvt;:J - J T - t-..ln r JUN-16-2005 16:04 FRLt1:GUAM WATER WJRKS 671646e335 T0:671"1779402

Mr. ll.ivid 01ddidc j une \o4 • 2C0 P.:agu 3

l1l;i Ri\·c:r". no such h)-dra.ulk grounchwrer divide is shown or ,ip~m fro rhe ~~ndwaceri;oruours sbo-q..'Tl on .Fit;u.re }·Z of the S~IS. ID fa~t. (he C'OOt ~ mJK:.m: t.iut gn)1,10dWl\lA!f f rorn bemmh the: NoM SltC' 'Q.UUJd t1()W oon east toward the: Ug111,11. River Jminilge.

1Jn\xianity io Drinking Warer

The F.1S ackoowblgeli that lbe !oara1aa Rh-er has been 1c:.L:ncifrcd~ o1 pote tial site for a ,wfa.c::e 9;.iter d.un .vid/or reservoir. SEIS Figlare 3· I ako .sho proposed ~1".loir and/ or di"' rs ion sit~ otl the Tmago Ri"er ih;tt have bee _pn: ... iousl>· srudied (Barre~ 1994) .and an: included in I.hi: prc-draft Guam Wa Budget 'Report (Mink and Y~n, lnc .• 2005). Beth uf dine: proposed sites would be downsueun of the pwwscd landfill sire. ha spite o! dw SEIS c- · that .. ao plans are wrrrntly in pi'ace ro de\-elop grouudwater or surface w.u.c supplie~ in the La)On.area" (p. 3·9), GWAconsiders both o{ the above ero d reser.-oir and/or dh~t'Sion sites a.\ po~w.11 ... vU.blc and nec:cs5.uy for {utut"e 'Wolter supply needs. ln fac:t, the pre-Jr.aft Guam W~cr Budget Rt rt (Mink and Yuen, 111e .• 2005) tee'.ommends that c005ider.ition be given ro · estig.itiog the fezihilit)' of diversions :.it otlxr riven in addition to the Ugu a.ncl that opponun.itics to utiliu the cxii.ling welk be reeXil.Ini.ned (p.4).

The EIS .i.~ts ~groundwater being a potenli.J. sousw of drinkini; wa an:" c~ll,.- WJ.Co.tMoc::·ing. No ciutions or evidence is provided th.n the ' tun!! aquifer ~ppcd bythe Malojloj \\'ells is either limirt:d m e:iient or t hac wucr wMio i• is not continuous with wt in the volc-.uiic fonmuons in )QI\ ;ip;a, In M:idition, until i grouad~-atU exploration pmgr.a.m l~allydcsigned to locare (using geologic m.ipping add geopb,.skd tooh) J.nd · tat faulq .and fr.i.ctures in di.e Unauc Fo.msa,ion. is conducted, pie ous "Well ')'iclds do not rule out dcvelopmen\ of an ccOOQinir.- gat:1undwtct res e in eilhcr ihe lin11?stonc oc voboic aquifers of Southtm G~m. i11e CO CD -D pioducod over 100 gallons per minuw (gpn•) (M"mk anJ Yui:n, lnc. 200~). which ii cvid.uxe th:at'\\1!11 vicl.

lht SEJS discowm d\e ~clopllWIL of sudac:c: 'W'ill.t:r supplies on the la~r.ijan ~ or Tamgo Rivers, and rules out groundw.attr flow ftom thr. propoSC!J Ian {ill site to die Ugum Riv~r. As detailed abo"-c:, the11c ~nlS mrc not def. nsib= ~ on dM ~ta pieseni.cd in the SE.15 And SSR/EIS and above in t.b.i! leuer.

JUN-16-2005 04:11PM FAX:6716462335 ID:GWAM EPA PAGE:005 R=94% Sl£99179 i:L9:0J. ~Plbi=J J '7V q H.-r:::i 1.1Hnt:'l : I.In~ -I DIDI : C-T Cl?lf::t:::i - J T -1-.ln r JIJN-:16-20126 16:04 FRtl1:GUAM WATER WORKS e71~335 T0:6714779402

Mr. David 0-.addic June 14j 2005 Pagc4

The S£1S ~ l'TC\.'tly s1.at1:1 1.bat 1.he Iiurdjan Riva n:ndd poiemially be developed · a W':.l;gt ~ (p. 3-17) (in contradi:tion. o( 't:1Rmenu to the contrary in vious SEIS sei::w~).

olnd Gt1;1undwacet {in Oapi:er 4.0 Environmental Consequences)

The SE.IS rreccly note$ that the! Guam EPA's pre(cind h)'d~logk cow:lirlom a deep water tabk and r.hick. low pormcability deposits with a r;o~ )'Cr over any w.ller bearing zone ate cot pment l'I: the sit:, and chat w£act gro dwatcr ;at the 1.a~n footprint i. ac ground surface Ui some loc.ations. ince the bnd6ll base is to be lo~~ on 11veragi= of 15 fttt below grade, it is ar how the laadfdl base could be mainsamcd abave che warer ti'lble. F , .since seasonal fluttmtiol1$ in growidvmer !eve.hi .ba.vc not been establishtd the basis for~ W:idfill a:1ls to maiotam sepamion between the base o the hndfdl and the w.ater table at e-.tcb c:dl is iacking, SU.i;;c groundw.1 r could il<>w non:h to the Ugum. River. this 1s.we should be of couc:em to the GWA.

ormcdy acknowtedg~ \h:;.\ minor loog-ienn adveise imparts to -nter q · wo"1d ~'ur throughout the life of die profcr:t from both erosion and ~ac disf;lwgt. 1licsc imp.acts could affect GV/J\),, abilicym develop en.her surf· watero.r gzound.vr.iter «sOUttes downgradiem: of die site.

To summarize:. SE.IS gener.dly provides m ii1'0fDP_lcte :and made~ bydrogc.-ologit.:;l.( c taeteri%ation Q{ chc propoaed landfill $itc and iu pot.WW imptc;rs on both gmund rand surfa.~e ~ter ~rces.

Thank. ')'Oil for the opportunity to review and coll)Q;)ent on die Dr:llt S'EIS. Should )''01.a have any q - pl~e comaa me a.r 925-2'J0-240S.

Very mdyyo1Jn,

JUN-16-2005 04:11PM ~~X:671646233S ID:GUAM EPA PAGE:006 R=94<: Sl£99l79 lL9:01 2121v6LLt>lL9 ~d3 w~n~=wo~~ 00:£1 s01212-L1-NnE APPENDIX D

Agency Consultation Letters I

RECEIVED Web!lil&: www.ttlBIJ.lam.com E·mrul: dna@dni!lguam.mn 'AUG ·o 9 206\ ii; Historic Kesou.rc::e.s Oivisfon Inc. [iPR

August 3, 2004

Ms. Lynda B. Aguon State Historic PreservaUon Officer Historic Resources Division Guam Department of Parks and Recreation P.O. Box 2950 Hagatna, Guam 96932

Dear Ms. Aguon:

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE SITING OF A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY

Duenas & Associates, Inc. and an interdisciplinary project team are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the siting of a new munjcipat solid waste landfill facmty {MSWLF) on Guam. The team is working on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Guam Environmental Protection Agency. Based on a sdentifically-based screening process. the Government of Guam selected three candidate sites that will be eYaluated in the EIS. The sites are located at Lonfit in Asan, Dandan in lnarajan, and Sabanan Batea in Vona (Figures 1 and 2). The sites are currently undergoing field studies to characterize the existing environment. including archaeological, geotechnicaJ, and biofog[cal features_ A Draft EIS will be available for public review in October 2004_ We are interested in any comments or concerns your agency may have regarding the proposed development and operation of a MSWLF at one of these sftes. More information is available on the project Web slte at httpJ/www.guamlandfiJl.org, or you can call our office at 646-7991.

Sincerely.

(7~~ (i<~cu Ir-­ Claudine Camacho Environmental Services Division Duenas & Associates. lnc_ Enclosures (2)

ENGINEEFllNG (CIVIL. STAUCTIJRAl, MECHANICAL, El'lVIFlONMENTAL) • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • SUFIVi=:YINU ENVIRONM.ENTAL SERVICES• PLANNING• DEVELO~MENT CONSULTATION• GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM OUAt.t P.O. e.r..t l!'OC

• 1 ... . . :J . .~.-n~ "' . ' • ol ,I • •• • • ~·. '•' ~ "•J a•: Figure 1. Site map of candidate landfiU sites at Sahanan Batea, You and Lentit. Alan, Guam, witll proposed landnD footprints. Figure ~ Site map of candidate landfdl site at Dand•~lnarajan, Gu•~ witb proposed landriU feotprint. I Department of Par~ and Recreation Dipattamenton Plaset Yan Dibuetttion Governmcot of Guam 490 Chalan Palasyo Agana Hcighi.s, Guam 96910 Director,s om~e: (671) 477-6896/ ·:'"'.;_:~ ~ . ·., Felb: P. Camai:ho Fae~i~l.le: (671) 477.. 0997 :'"''t1~foJtj:7~."··'.. Thomas A. Mor.riS(ln Ga•·ernor Parks D1v~s1on: ('71) 475-6 '·' .::'; ',-';\ Dfrectvr Guam Historic Re!j.(Jurces Division: (6 5-6194/9$172 QI:-:·:~'-\ • Kale-a S. Moylan ..,. · "l • (671) 477 · ~, ~. ~- '~_,.;r-eJ!..ory A. Mala1:1ane Lt_ Gc:Nernor "ac.szm1 e. • 1/,1¥1/~ '/._;~·\ -Veptd)' !Jfrecror ~ ~Jo...... -~~ ··.-·-i ,...._. .h.... '·':,:i"IJI....,,._ •1 . ~-·•.. ::"~ ._..... '!II.I ~f-~'f"t...... ~·-,.

IN REPLY R~fER TO; ::::. S'-~.e~ ,,. (:' ;-_: ,.~ RC2004..093F ~ . ,,~· . .' '°.r ·'... '# 9 s..tJ.)~'i-y Aug11Sl J3, 2004

Claudine Camacho Environmental Specialist Environmental Services Division Duenas & Associates P.O. Box 8900 Tamuning, Guam %CJ3 I

SUBJECT; ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT STATEMENT POR THE SITfl\G OF A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANl>PILL FACILITY

Dear Ms.~1;ho,

Our main concern is with regard to the archae1Jfogka! llS'lessment of all the proposed Mwiicipal Sohd Waste Landlills. We understand that a.rchaeofogical cons.ultmits have been hired to perform such assessments. Two orthe proposed landfills, Lonfit and Sab.anan Batea have been previously surveyed_ The information on how significant 5iles may or may not be affected by the landlill project shou!d be dearly stated in the Environmental Impact Statement (ErS). We understand that the Dandan site survey is in progress and we exp«l w sec lhc results in the EiS relative lo historic properties and cultural resources.

If you have any questions, please contact me or Vic April, Tc1Titorial Archaeologist al 4 75·6294/5/72.

Sincerely, g;-t£2r-- Guam (Stale) 1!is!oric Prcservalion Officer

Cc: Adminislrator, Guam Environmental Prolc::cLion Agency Director, Guam Department of Public Works Dircclor. Bureau of Statistics and 1-'fans Director, Dc:partment of Land Management Executive Director, Guam AJ1cestral Lands Commission ACOE, Guam Otlice Manager Director, 0epartrnent of Agriculture Chief, t\quati( and Wildlife Resources Division Department of Parb and Recreation Dipattamenton Plaset Yan Dibuetsion Government of Guam 490 Cha]an Palasyo Agana Hefghtst Guam 96910 Director's Oflke: (671) 477-6896197 Fclil: P. Camacho Facsimile: (611} 477-0997 T.homas A. Morrison GUl'enror Parla Division: (671) 475--62Bff/89 Director Guam Historic Resources DLviliion: (671) 475-6294/95n2 Kaleo S. Moy1an Facsibile: {671) 477-2821 Grei;r.ory A. Matanane lt. Gc~wn.or J)~pury Director

In re ply rerer to: RC2004-093F

January 25. 2005

Claudine Camacho Duenas and Associates, Inc_ P.O. Box 8900 Tamuning, GU 96931

Subject: Preliminary Site Selection Report, Environmental Impact Statement for the siting of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility, Guam

Dear Ms. Camacho:

We have revjewed the EIS for the siting of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Pacilily and have the following comments.

On page 39, seventh line of paragraph 6.3.3, archaeological/historical resources, it should read; a finding ofNo Adverse E/fec:r rather than No Effect

On page 40, fourth line of paragraph 6.4.4.4, it ~hould read~ in order tn have a determinalion of No Adverse Effect, mitiKalion . .. Instead of no effect.

Same goes with the seventh line of paragraph 7.3.3 on page 56 and first line of third paragraph under 7.3.3.4 on page 58_

The third line of the second paragraph under 7.3.3.2 should read; lfthe landjHI /.<;built at Lon/it many of these. sites would be adversely affected which should he mitigated.

The first liue of the third paragraph under 7.3 .3-4 should be changed from ~o Effect to No Adverse Effect.

Other than the above, the rest uf the information seems to be accura1c.

If yon have further questions, please call u!:l at 475-6294/629516272 or email us at !!g_uor}@.maiLgov.gl!. and y~i:~r.ril.;@mai):g_ov .gu. s;;~re~y, ~' v\- ~ .~ LY!I\ . B. AGU ,. Gua1 (State) Hisl ric Preservation Officer

Cc: Depa11mcnt of Public \Vorks Gu.am Environmental Protection Agency J J Website: www.dnag:uam.oom DU£0AS& E-mail: [email protected] ASSOCIATES Inc.

August 3. 2004

Mr. Paul Bassler Guam Department of Agriculture 192 Dalry Road Mangilao, Guam 96913 Attn: Mr. Brent Tibbatts/Mr. Celestino Aguon

Dear Mr. Bassler:

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE SITING OF MUNICf PAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FAC!LllY

Duenas & Associates, Jnc. and an interdisciplinary project team are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the siting of a new municipal sofid waste landfiO facility {MSWLF) on Guam. The team is working on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Guam Environmental Protection Agency. Based on a scfentifically-based screening process, the Government of Guam selected three candidate sites that will be evaluated in the EIS. The sites are located at Lonfit in Asan, Dandan in lnarajan, and Sabanan Batea in Vona (Figures 1 and 2). The sites are currently undergoing field studies to characterize the existing environment, including archaeological. geotechnical, and biological features. A Draft EIS will be avafrable for public review in October 2004. We are interested in any comments or concerns your agency may have regarding the proposed development and operation of a MSWLF at one of these sites. More information is available on the project Web site at http://www.guamlandfilJ.org, or you can call our offrae at 646-7991.

Sincerely,

(?~~- @JAH&U/rr-' Claudine Camacho Environmental Servires Division DLJenas & Associates, Inc. EncJosLJres (2)

ENGINEERJNG (CIVIL, STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, EN\/IF!;ONPdt:NTAl) a CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • SURVE'r'ING ENVIRONM.ENTAL SERVICES a PLANNING • OEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION • GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GUAM P.O. Bo~ B900, l.~rr'lt1nin9. !1u,~rn H9~1 I ~55 5T c~i.o M~<:<'<,~I P~rii.~. Su~e 200, T~. Guam 96913 I Tel: (671) 6-6-7991 IF~~: f670 Mll-631§

~ .:..i-.t-. I 0 1 •' • •• I·'•• \ .'.· '• .:, • _j_ ~".~.~11 ·. " ... ·:. ~-- I .. ~ ..... ; I: ..··-.'"" I - ~ • I ~ •• ;<~-~~ -. I I I Website: www.dnaguem..mm DUEnAs& E-mail: dnaednaguam.oom ASSOCIATES Jnc.

August3,2004

Capt. David M. Boone U.S. Navy Public Works Center Guam PSC 455 Box 195 FPO AP 96540-2937

Dear Capt. Boone:

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE SITING OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY Duenas & Associates. Inc. and an interdisciplinary project team are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the siting of a new municipal solid waste landfill facility (MSWLF} on Guam. The team is working on behalf of the Department of Publf c Works and Guam Environmental Protection Agency. Based on a scientifically-based screening process, the Government of Guam selected ttiree candidate sites that will be evaluated in the EIS. The sites are located at Lonfit in Asan, Dandan in lnarajan, and Sabanan Batea in Vona (Figures 1 and 2). The sites are currently undergoing field studies to characterize the existing environment, incfudrng archaeological, geotechnical, and biological features. A Draft EJS will be available for public review in October 2004. We are interested in any comments or concerns the Navy may have regarding the proposed development and operation of a MSWLF at one of these sites. More information is available on the project Web site at http:l/www.guamlandfill.org, or you can call our office at 646-7991.

Sincerely,

~~_1~-~-- Claudine Camacho Envrronmental SeNices Division Duenas & Associates, rnc. Enclosures (2}

ENGINEERING (CIVIL, ST~l.ICTURM., MECHAf'.llCAf., Eti\/IRONldENTALl • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • FILANNING • OE:V£l0PMENT CONSUtTATION • GE:OGAAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GUAPJI P:O 13~< B~OO. T.1'!'<1n•";. nuam ~f{l31 I :55 ET C~l,-o Mem~rial Pa~way, S••~ft no. T~n•Jning, G•Jam 91>?'3 JT~I· !~7 1 ~ f.'-~,.n~1 I~~·· !~~1' ··'~-'5"'!15

I I Website: www.druaguam.com E-maJ; [email protected]

R£CEIY£D August 3, 2004 r·::; D9 '04 Mr. Joseph M. Borja Director Department of Land Management P .0. Box 2950 Hagatna. Guam 96932

Dear Mr. Borja:

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE SITING OF A MUNICIPAL SOUD WASTE LANDFILL FACllllY

Duenas & Associates, Jnc. and an interdisciplinary project team are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the siting of a new municipal solid wasts landfill facmty (MSWLF) on Guam. The team is working on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Guam Environmental Protection Agency. Based on a scientifica.Uy-based scree11ing process, the Government of Guam selected three candidate sites that will be evaruated fn the EIS. The sites are !ocatecJ at Lonfit in Asan, Oandan in lnarajan, and Sabanan Batee- in Vona (Figures 1 and 2). The sites are currently undergoing field studies to characterize the exisling environment, includrng archaeological. geotechnical, and bfologfcal features. A Draft EIS will be available for public review in October 2004. We are interested ln any comments or concerns your agency may have regarding the proposed development and operation of a MSWLF at one of these sites. More information is available on the project Web site at http://www.guamlandfill.org, or you can call our office at 646-7991.

Sincerely,

(?~(kw.a.oA--/ Claudine Camacho Environmental Servlces Division Duenas & Associates, Inc. Enclosures (2)

ENGINEERING (C1v1L •. S'ti'lUC'tUAAL, MECHANICAL, E!NVIRONMENTA.L) • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMl::NT • SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • PLANNiNG • DEVEL.OPME:NT CONSULTATfON • GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GUAM PO. Bo~ li900, Tamuni119. Guam 969)t f 155 El' Cal'.oD M!marial Park""3't'. Suite 200, ~~~ir'IQ. G...am 009~3 I T~I; 1670 646•79111 f Fax: f671) 646-6315 ·I '· . '.:' '• .. :• , • ;:. I. ·..... "! • -, • - i:~- I • . • ·-: . -:- :· _..... -.•• ,,,...... '!- • I ...... - .·.~': •. i':,,'.".-.·· :---- . I • , • • • .... •I -... :.~~ ....

Figure l~Site map of candidate landfiD sites at S•banan Batea, Yona and Lo•fi~Alan, Guam, with propmed landfdl footprina, ·clf a. J- ; j i.. e& -sa.. ·;:.. a • ~.. I ls m f a ...,.• ·=a la ..I -.! .....• •= 0"' -a. •e ~ ~- ri t e: {ID= j!! iii; m ~ I DUEtiAS 8c ASSOCIATES Inc. '

AugustJ,2004

Mr. Manuel 0. Cruz Director P.O. Box 2950 Hagatna, Guam 96932 Attn: Ms. Evangeline D. Lujan

Dear Mr. Cruz:

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE SITING OF A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFJLL FACILITY Duenas & Associates. Inc. and an interdisciplinary project team are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the siting of a new municipal so!!d waste landfilt facility (MSWLF) on Guam. The team rs working on behalf of the Department or Public Works and Guam Environmental Protection Agency. Based on a scientifically-based screening process, the Government of Guam selected three candidate sites that will be evaluated in the EIS. The sites are !ocated at Lonfit in Asan, Dandan in lnarajan, and Sabanan Batea in Vona (Figures 1 and 2). The sites are currently undergoing field studies to characterize the existing envlronment, including archaeological, geotechnical, and biological features. A Draft EIS will be available for public review in October 2004. We are interested [n any comments or concerns your agency may have regarding the proposed development and operation of a MSWLF at one of these sites. More information is available on the project Web site at http://www.guamlandfill.org, or you can call our office at 646~7991.

Sincerely,

(?~~.~ Claudine Camacho Environmental Services Division Duenas & Associates, Inc. Enclosures (2}

ENGINEERING (CIVIL, STAIJCTURAl., MECHANICAL, ENVl~ONMENTAl} • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • PLANNING • DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATJON a GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM CilJAM P,O B~ 3900, Temunll'IQ. G~m ~693t ( 1!)!5 eT C:ill.-0 l.lerOO

I.' :: • I •-. • • l ~ : • •..,, • .' • 1. : ""l•11"il .: •• : ·.,., ~ I ": .... '",. •' I• • • • .... ." ... ' - "• :• ",' .... l ~ • • •; • • •2 . -4 .....

, Figure 2. Si1e map of candidate landfdJ site at Danda11, Inarajau, Guam, with proposed Judflll footprint. I

Webslta: www.dnaguam.mm E-mai: dnaOdnaguam.com

August3,2004

Francis M. Dayton U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch U.S. Navy Public Works Center, Guam PSC 455Box195 FPO AP 96540-2937

Dear Mr. Dayton:

SUBJECT: ENVJRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE SITING OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANOFtLL FACIUTY

Duenas & Associates, Inc. and an interdi:scipHnaJ)' project team are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the siting of a new municipal solid waste landfill facility (MSWLF) on Guam. The team ts working on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Guam Environmental Pro~ection Agency. Based on a scientiflcally·based screening process, the Government of Guam selected three candidate sites that will be evaluated in the EIS. The sites are located at Lonfit in Asan, Dandan in lnarajan, and Sabanan Batea in Vona (Figures 1 and 2). The sites are currently undergoing field studies to characterize the existing environment, including archaeological, geotechnical, and biological features. A Draft EIS will be available for public review in October 2004. We are interested in any comments or concerns the Army Corps of Engineers may have regarding the proposed development and operation of a MSWLF at one of these sites. More information is available on the project Web site at http://www.guamlandfill.org, or you can call our office at 646-7991.

Sincerely,

f~r:kw~ Claudine Camacho Environmental Services Division Duenas & Associates, Inc. Encrosures (2)

EN'CllNEE:AJNG (CIVIL •. STRUCTURAL, MECHA.NIGAL, ~NVISlONM&NTAl} • CONST~UCTION' MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SE.FIVICES • PLANNING • DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION • GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GUAM P.O. Sox 8900. T~ll"l:r''"'9· G~a111 %~1 I 1 ~s i:r Caloa Mtr.1.:>n~; P~i1cww. Suil9 200, Ta'l'uri'rig, {!-Jam ~5gu I '.'ti: (671) 6'16-79~1 r fa~·. :~71} 6'16-6315

• j I.:. ·' ~,,.. ... :-0 • ... .. • • :. 1.·. : ••• I :;:. --: ., ·~ ••••• ···, • • • ..... ·-: .··""I .- • • ...... •. . p .• •

-• J Website: www.dnagl.la('n.(:(Jl'n DUEtlAS a E·ma~: [email protected] ASSOCIATES Inc.

August3.2004

Ms. Gina Schultz Acting Field Supervisor Pacific lsfands Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122 Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850

Dear Ms. Schultz:

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE SITING OF A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY

Duenas & Associates, Inc. and an interdisciplinary project team are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement ror the siting of a new municipal solid waste landfill facility (MSWLF) on Guam. The team is working on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Guam Environmentar Protection Agency. Based on a scientifically-based screening process, the Government of Guam selected three candidate sites that will be evaluated in the EIS. The sites are located at Lonfit in Asan, Dandan in rnarajan, and Sabanan Batea in Vona (Figures 1 and 2}. The sites are currently undergoing field studies to characterfze the existing environment, including archaeological, geotechnical, and biological features. A Draft EtS wfll be provided tor your review in October 2004. We are interested in any comments or concerns the Service may have regarding the proposed development and operation of a MSWLF at one of these sites. More information is available on the project Wet> site at http://www.guamlandfill.org, or you can call our office at 671 ~646-7991.

Sincerely.

(~(_,~~- Claudine Camacho Environmental Services Division Duenas & Associates, Inc. Enclosures (2)

ENGINEERING {CIVIi., STRUCYUAAL, MECl-IANICAL, ENVIP.ONME:N'f'AL) • CONSTRUCTJON MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERV~CES • PLANNING• DEVELOPMENT CONSULTAT~ON •GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GUAM P.O. lil(lll! 8000. Tam~in~. ~u~m 96931 I 15S ET Cairo M1moriaJ Parkway, Sc~e 200. r~mu'ling. Ouam 9691~ (rel: (671) 646·1'991 I Fax; (671) 646-63l5 .,.i:- ...... _,...... ~ - ~ .. ~·

.....

Figure 2. Site map of candidate landnll site at Daudan, lnarajM, Guam; with proposed Jandrdl footprint. I

) J Website: www.dnaguarn.Ocm · E-maf; dnaOdna!JUlm.oom

' '

March 29, 2005

Ms. Gina Schultz Aeling Field Supervisor U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service Pacific Isl ands Office 300Ala Moana Bivd. P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850-0001

Dear Ms. Schultz:

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE SiTING OF A MUNICIPAL SOUD WASTE t.ANDFill FACILITY. INARAJAN, GUAM

The Government of Guam, through the Department of Public Works and Guam Er1Wronmental Protection Agency, is proposing to develop a new municipal solid waste landfill on Guam. Three sites, located at Lonfit in Asan, Dandan in lnarajan. and Sabanan Ba.tea in Yona (Figures 1 and 2), were investigated by a multidisciplinary team led by Duenas & Associates. Inc. The results of these investigations were summarized in a Preliminary Site Selectron Report. The Government of Guam used this report, with other Information, to select Oandan (also known as Layon) as the preferred site for the landfill. The Government of Guam. through a contract with Duenas & Associates, Inc., is in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact statement for the development of a new landfill at this site.

Wetlands surveyed wlthin the proposed landfill footprint and buffer area at the Dandan (Layon) site were verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Guam EPA, and Guam Department of Agriculture in March 2005 (Figure 3). Wetland Investigations extended to the 300-foot buffer west of tne footprint, and to the 400-foot buffer east of the footprint. The proposed road and utility corridor was also investrgated, and no wetlands occur within this corridor. Approximately 7.86 acres of wetlands occur within the proposed landfill footprint and buffer area. These wetlands are associated with the Fintasa and Fensol Rivers, and may potentialry serve as habitat for the endangered Mariana common moor hen (Gallinula chloropus guami). The Mariana common moorhen was not detected in the landfill footprint and buffer area during our fleld investigations; however, Takano (2003} observed a single moorhen irr the Tlnago River and in the Assupian pond to the northeast of the landfill footprint during her surveys in 2001.

Figures 4 to 6 present the three preliminary layouts of the landfill facilities that have been developed at the Dandan (Layon) site. Optron 1 would impact approximately 1. 89 acres of wetlands associated with the Fintasa River. Option 2 and Optlon 3 would have no direct impact on wetland areas; however, Option 3 would provide the greatest separation between the landfill faciUty and wetlands. Ms. Diane Vice (Acting WHdlife Supervisor) and Ms. Suzanne Medina (Wildlife Biologist) of the Guam Department of

ENGINEERING (Cl'llt,. STP:UCIUi:tAt, MECHANICAL, cNVIRONMENTA.l) • CONSTP:UCTION MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING E"':v11c:.•:1i/~~T.'!.'!_ ~~o·._1 .. ::;..·s '"~ "L~ti.!~~ 1 t.Ji"? -~ o=-'.''=711'· -··-~· ...... ,.~1;;;T_:-.-~..-.q - • .- • ... ,. ·~ ···-,,. -.· · • - -.- • I I -2- MMcL 29, 2005

\ '

Agriculture's Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources visited the site in March 2005 and have been consulted regarding the potential impacts lo moorhen habitat.

We are interested in any comments the Service may have regarding the proposed deveJopment and operation of a MSWLF at the Dandan (Layon) site. Preliminary fieJcJ investigations are summarized in the Final Site Selection Report (FSSR). An electronic oopy of the FSSR is enclosed for your reference. A oopy of the Draft EJS will be provided to the Service once it ls available. More information is availabte on the project

Web site at http://www.guamlandfill.org 1 or you can call our office at 646-7991.

Sincerely,

~~ Claudine Camacho Environmental ServJces Division Duenas & Associates, Inc . . Enclosures (Figures 1 to 6. FSSR on CD) cc: Ms. Diane Vice, Guam Department of Agriculture Ms. Cynthia U. Jackson, Guam Department of Public Works

Reference:

Takano, L 2003. Seasonal movement. home range, and abundance of the Mariana Common Moorhen (Gallimila r:hforopus guam1) on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Unpubrished Masters of Science Thesis, Oregon State University. 96 pp, )

•;...... ·......

·--~·~

·--

t\ ·~r,,_--- )\-·

.,,

·.-?- IJ;;.rqj~., .~:,cti ,. --· ~ . ·; ~, ·~ ...... -~ A·· .-.f\

·. ~·

... ..:.\ ...... _....,.___,__,, ______• ..,.... ·.:-.,. l'='~~:.. '"';.· ,.~ ... ,,.il'C~- ~-~··==-~-== ...... ~.----- :-:.:...... - ...... ; __ ___- ~----- _-:.·======~ Legend

lANOF 't.t. FOOTPRINTS PARCEL -:Fig~'r~f~. ·site ...i,.Qc•tioo .. M~(P :, ' : • •' : • •' • • ,• ' I' ' • • • '• ~·.·; ."' ~ ,,

r---· Wetland summary - -:-~1 I Total wetland area in buffers = 5.960 acres 11

'lTotal wetland area in footprfnt ::::= 1.899 acres Total combined wetland area ;;: 7.859 acres .... _.. _It . .,,, C0)-11. a.i,.,.. : &m:ioe~ Note: All wetia~dareas are approxi~ate.I1

/"l

.1#''41QI;,, *- •4. 1!111,1r.w• ·H.ot4.a2 sr • Urt22 ~till

. t.,,. ""'Mln-W.i .. tL -•.//....a•00--11." EuJ~. • 1.9'1,~.'1$1 , "'------~ • O..OIBO W• ~~ .....-:.

""'" ;., 3CO-i~.a.tr..- - 1 wi.110.io ~ '*"""'':.... ,... •J..~-.,. <

~""'----~

,~r:;:,AnL...'•,~S1...''1' l~ Figure 3. Preliminary Wetland Map of -~..!.:.... ----·-~_...-~- ··""'-~ c 1coo· the Dandan (Layon) proposed landfill ------~ 11 ..-.. site1 Inarajan, Guam. $CAL.~------·--- __ J I ...... I I I \.

~EAC,111,;'!::STORACE MIO Tll(,r..TM(:>l - - -::;::;·-;:,/'

PER:~1ET£R SE:CUA:l1Y

r~NC[ (~C\1£0,.,,-;~ CEL'_ or "yf:.OPMEN T}

lEACHAF SUMP {ON( "[Fl C<.L!

~lTLA~~9C~~DA~Y

..... ~ GRAPHIC SCALE Figure 4. Proposed landfill layout Option 1. 800' 400' 0 800' 16Q( L__ SCALE: 1 in. = 80C- ft r I I I I l

Pc:;!IM[ lE~S£Ctl.~I TY 'DICE" (MOVEI) '/o1TH C£LL OE\HCPM(Nr) ~~_/

STORMWATEI<:lEltNYl(r>.: ...... POtl:) (.t~llOUR, 25 YCAR STl:f':M)

~OM:~ISTF.f\T.Cl'>IA~O Sl ;J:>CRT~ .:.ciu ns (5 AtR~$)______,,...

W( fL;.ND S~NDA~Y-

,,

~N'~

GRAPHJC- SCALE- Figure 5. Proposed landfill layout Option 2. 800' 400' 0 800' 160C'

SCALE: 1 in_ = 800 f?._ I I .... ? ~ __/

PERIMETEil SEC~~ITY

~'£NC!:(MOVED 'M TM

C!'.LLOEVE~C ~l.E"~ T)

,,. ,,

..... w

GRAPH !C SC.:AL.~ soo· 400' o 800' 160{ Figure 6. Proposed landfUI layout Option 3. - -,. = -~ SCALE: 1 lri_ = 800 ft I Website: W..VW.dnaguam.i::om DUEnAs& . E-mail: [email protected] ASSOCIATES Inc. '

May 25, 2005

Mr. Celestino Aguon Acting Chief Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources Department of Agriculture 192 Dairy Road Mangilao, Guam 96913

Dear Mr. Aguon:

TRANSMITTAL OF ONE (1) COPY OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS FOR THE SITING OF AMUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY, GUAM Enclosed for your review is an electronic copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the siting of a municipal solid waste landfill facility (MSWLF) in the Layon area of Dandan, lnarajan, Guam. The Layon, Dandan landfill site was selected by the Government of Guam on January 31, 2005 and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on February 14, 2005. The enclosed SEIS evaluates three alternatives for the site layout and development of a MSWLF at Layon, as well as the no action alternative. The document also prescribes mitigation for significant impacts from the preferred alternative site layout.

The public comment period ends on June 16, 2005. Written comments may be submitted to Duenas & Associates, Inc. by mail at the following address: 155 E.T. Calvo Memorial Parkway, Suite 200, Tamuning, Guam 96913. Comments may also be sent by facsimile to 646-6315. Please contact me at 646-7991 if you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

~~ Claudine Camacho Environmental Services Division Enclosure (1)

ENGINEERING (CIVIL,, STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL) • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES• PLANNING• DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION• GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GUAM P.O. Box 8900, Tamuning, Guam 96931 / 155 ET Calvo Memorial Parkway, Suite 200, ll!muning, Guam 96913 /Tel: (671) 646-7991 I Fax: (671) 646-6315 ) Website: www.dnaguam.com DU£1iAS& E-mail: [email protected] ASSOCIATES Inc. ' 1:--- '.··~ ... ~ •. May 25, 2005

Ms. Lynda B. Aguon MAY 2 6 2D05 Guam (State) Historic Preservation Officer Historic Resources Division t+- Department of Parks & Recreation Government of Guam P.O. Box 2950 Hagatna, Guam 96932

Dear Ms. Aguon:

TRANSMITTAL OF ONE (1) COPY OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS FOR THE SITING OF A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY, GUAM Enclosed for your review is an electronic copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the siting of a municipal solid waste landfill facility (MSWLF) in the Layon area of Dandan, lnarajan, Guam. The Layon, Dandan landfill site was selected by the Government of Guam on January 31, 2005 and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on February 14, 2005. The enclosed SEIS evaluates three alternatives for the site layout and development of a MSWLF at Layon, as well as the no action alternative. The document also prescribes mitigation for significant impacts from the preferred alternative site layout.

The public comment period ends on June 16, 2005. Written comments may be submitted to Duenas & Associates, Inc. by mail at the following address: 155 E.T. Calvo Memorial Parkway, Suite 200, Tamuning, Guam 96913. Comments may also be sent by facsimile to 646-6315. Please contact me at 646-7991 if you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

~~~ Claudine Camacho Environmental Services Division Enclosure (1)

ENGINEERING (CIVIL,, STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL) • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • PLANNING • DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION • GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GUAM P.O. Box 8900, Tamuning, Guam 96931/155 ET Calvo Memorial Parkway, SuHe 200, Tamuning, Guam 96913 /Tel: (671) 646·7991 /Fax: (671) 646-6315 · Website: wWw.dnaguam.com DUEnAs& E-mail: [email protected] ASSOCIATES Inc. '

May 25, 2005

Mr. Joseph M. Borja Director Department of Land Management P.O. Box 2950 Hagatna, Guam 96932

Dear Mr. Borja:

TRANSMITTAL OF ONE (1) COPY OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS FOR THE SITING OF A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY, GUAM Enclosed for your review is an electronic ·copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) forthe siting of a municipal solid waste landfill facility (MSWLF) in the Layon area of Dandan, lnarajan, Guam. The Layon, Dandan landfill site was selected by the Government of Guam on January 31, 2005 and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on February 14, 2005. The enclosed SEIS evaluates three alternatives for the site layout and development of a MSWLF at Layon, as well as the no action alternative. The document also prescribes mitigation for significant impacts from the preferred alternative site layout.

The public comment period ends on June 16, 2005. Written comments may be submitted to Duenas & Associates, Inc. by mail at the following address: 155 E.T. Calvo Memorial Parkway, Suite 200, Tamuning, Guam 96913. Comments may also be sent by facsimile to 646-6315. Please contact me at 646-7991 if you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

~~ Claudine Camacho Environmental Services Division Enclosure (1)

ENGINEERING (CIVIL,. STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL) • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • PLANNING • DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION • GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GUAM P.O. Box 8900, Tamuning, Guam 96931 / 155 ET Calvo Memorial Parkway, Sufte 200, Tamuning, Guam 96913 /Tel: (671) 646-7991 / Fax: (671) 646-6315 I Website: www.dnaguam.com DUEnAs& E-mail: [email protected] ASSOCIATES Inc. '

May26, 2005

Mr. Frank Dayton Guam Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers PSC 455, Box 188 FPO AP 96540-1088

Dear Mr. Dayton:

TRANSMITTAL OF ONE (1) COPY OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS FOR THE SITING OF A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY, GUAM Enclosed for your review is an electronic ·copy of the Draft Supplemental Envirc:>nmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the siting of a municipal solid waste landfill facility (MSWLF) in the Layon area of Dandan, lnarajan, Guam. The Layon, Dandan landfill site was selected by the Government of Guam on January 31, 2005 and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on February 14, 2005. The enclosed SEIS evaluates three alternatives for the site layout and development of a MSWLF at Layon, as well as the no action alternative. The document also prescribes mitigation for significant impacts from the preferred alternative site layout.

The public comment period ends on June 16, 2005. Written comments may be submitted to Duenas & Associates, Inc. by mail at the following address: 155 E.T. Calvo Memorial Parkway, Suite 200, Tamuning, Guam 96913. Comments may also be sent by facsimile to 646-6315. Please contact me at 646-7991 if you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

~~ Claudine Camacho Environmental Services Division Enclosure (1)

ENGINEERING (CIVIL,, STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL) • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • PLANNING • DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION • GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GUAM P.O. Box 8900, Tamunlng, Guam 96931 / 155 ET Calvo Memorial Parkway, Suite 200, Tamuning, Guam 96913 /Tel: (671) 646·7991 I Fax: (671) 646-6315

·- .,·. • '. ! .. ·- ~ " ) Website: www.dnaguam.com DUEriAS& E-mail: [email protected] ASSOCIATES Inc.

May 25, 2005

Mr. David Limtiaco Chief Forestry and Soil Resources- Division Department of Agriculture 192 Dairy Road Mangilao, Guam 96913

Dear Mr. Limtiaco:

TRANSMITTAL OF ONE (1) COPY OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS FOR THE SITING OF A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY, GUAM

Enclosed for your review is an electronic copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the siting of a municipal solid waste landfill facility (MSWLF) in the Layon area of Dandan, lnarajan, Guam. The Layon, Dandan landfill site was selected by the Government of Guam on January 31, 2005 and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on February 14, 2005. The enclosed SEIS evaluates three alternatives for the site layout and development of a MSWLF at Layon, as well as the no action alternative. The document also prescribes mitigation for significant impacts from the preferred alternative site layout.

The public comment period ends on June 16, 2005. Written comments may be submitted to Duenas & Associates, Inc. by mail at the following address: 155 E.T. Calvo Memorial Parkway, Suite 200, Tamuning, Guam 96913. Comments may also be sent by facsimile to 646-6315. Please contact me at 646-7991 if you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

~~vir Claudine Camacho RECEIVED Environmental Services Division DATI: 0!2 -2 &· 0-5 Enclosure (1) ~~ad9-

ENGINEERING (CIVIL,, STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL) • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • PLANNING • DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION • GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GUAM P.O. Box 8900, Tamuning, Guam 96931/155 ET Calvo Memorial Parkway, su~e 200. Tamuning, Guam 96913 /Thi: (671) 646·7991 /Fax: (671) 646-6315

SAIPAN Caller Box PPP, Suite 164 I Chalan Pale Arnold. Pacific Plaza Buildinn_ lJnit ~ ~f\trth ~ANll"'l!a,n ~oin.::an" o~oc;.n I Tnl· ll:,..,n\ ~"lA nn .. .., I ,..___ • ,,_,..\ ... ,...... I · Website: www.dnaguam.com DUEnAs& E-mail: dna@dna~uam.com ASSOCIATES Inc.

May 25, 2005

Mr. Anthony P. Sanchez Acting Director Bureau of Statistics and Plans - Government of Guam P. 0. Box 2950 Hagatna, Guam 96932

Dear Mr. Sanchez:

TRANSMITTAL OF ONE (1) COPY OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS FOR THE SITING OF A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY, GUAM Enclosed for your review is an electronic copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the siting of a municipal solid waste landfill facility (MSWLF) in the Layon area of Dandan, lnarajan, Guam. The Layon, Dandan landfill site was selected by the Government of Guam on January 31, 2005 and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on February 14, 2005. The enclosed SEIS evaluates three alternatives for the site layout and development of a MSWLF at Layon, as well as the no action alternative. The document also prescribes mitigation for significant impacts from the preferred alternative site layout.

The public comment period ends on June 16, 2005. Written comments may be submitted to Duenas & Associates, Inc. by mail at the following address: 155 E.T. Calvo Memorial Parkway, Suite 200, Tamuning, Guam 96913. Comments may also be sent by facsimile to 646-6315. Please contact me at 646-7991 if you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

Claudine Camacho Environmental Services Division Enclosure (1)

ENGINEERING (CIVIL,. STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL) • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING · ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • PLANNING • DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION • GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GUAM P.O. Box 8900, Tamuning, Guam 96931/155 ET Calvo Memorial Parkway, Sutte 200, Tamuning, Guam 96913 /Tel: (671) 646-7991 /Fax: (671) 646-6315 BUREAU OF STATISTICS AND PLANS (Bureau ofPlanning) Government of Guam Felix Perez Camacho Governor of Guam P.O. Box 2950 Hagatfia, Guam 96932 Kaleo Scott Moylan Tel: (671) 472-4201/3 Anthony P. Sanchez Lieutenant Governor Fax: (671) 477-1812 Acting• Director JUN 16 2cn5.

Ms. Claudine Camacho Environmental Services Division Duenas & Associates, Inc. 155 E.T. Calvo Memorial Parkway, Suite 200 Tamuning, Guam 96913

Dear Ms. Camacho:

The Bureau of Statistics and Plans has completed its review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Siting of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility for Guam.

As stated in the DSEIS, the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) is proposing to construct a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility to manage Guam's solid waste generated by the island community. This project is needed since the current Ordot Dump is in violation of the Clean Water Act and the Ordot Consent Decree requires DPW to cease discharge of leachate from the Ordot Dump to the Lonfit River. The purpose of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and recommend appropriate mitigation of those impacts.

There were three sites for the landfill that were considered (Dandan, located in Inarajan Sabanan Batea, located in Y ona and Lonfit, located in Asan). The Dandan, Layon area was selected as the site for the municipal solid waste landfill facility. Layon is located in the higher badland areas on the west side of the Dandan parcel, southwest of the former NASA tracking station. The landfill is envisioned as a mounded landfill that would be excavated approximately 15 ft. below existing grade to provide cover soils.

The DSEIS addresses three alternatives for the site layout and the No Action Alternative. Layout Alternative 1 requires twelve (12) cells, approximately 10.5 acres with 5 acres that will be reserved for the support facilities within the buffer area of the landfill. The treated storm water from the detention pond would be discharged to the wetlands located east of the landfill. Layout Alternative 2 is redesigned to avoid wetlands located within the cells and buffer area of the landfill. It requires nine (9) cells, approximately 14 acres. As in Layout Alternative 1, the treated storm water from the detention pond would be discharged to the wetlands located east of the landfill. Layout Alternative 3 is redesigned to allow more distance between the wetlands and the support facilities. It requires nine (9) cells, approximately 14 acres. As in Layout Alternative 1 and 2, the treated storm

Guam Coastal Management Program++ Land Use Planning++ Socio-Economic Planning++ Planning Information water from the detention pond would be discharged to the wetlands located east of the landfill. The No Action Alternative would continue to use the existing Ordot Dump for disposal of solid wastes.

The Bureau has no major objections on the DSEIS at this time. We will be reviewing the proposed project in more detail as it goes through the design phases and a complete review on the federal consistency determination assessment once it is submitted. Please note that an Army Corp of Engineers permit will also be needed for any filling of wetlands, present on the site.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DSEIS. Should you have any questions, please contact the Guam Coastal Management Program at 474-4201-3.

SANCHEZ

cc: DPW GEPA ) Website: w.Nw.dnaguam.com DUEnAs& E-mail: [email protected] ASSOCIATES Inc. '

May 26, 2005

Ms. Gina Schultz Acting Field Supervisor Pacific Islands Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Ala Moan a Blvd. P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850-0001

Dear Ms. Schultz:

SECTION 7 CONSULTATION FOR THE SITING OF A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY, INARAJAN, GUAM

As a follow-up to our previous correspondence to your agency on. March 29, 2005, I am enclosing an electronic copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the siting of a municipal solid waste landfill facility (MSWLF) in the Layon area of Dandan, lnarajan, Guam. The enclosed SEIS evaluates three alternatives for the site layout and development of a MSWLF at Layon, as well as the no action alternative. The document also prescribes mitigation for significant impacts from the preferred alternative site layout.

Since the previous correspondence, additional wetland areas were identified in the northeastern sector of the landfill footprint. Alternative layouts 2 and 3 were modified to completely avoid these and any other wetlands. Alternative layout 1 would impact approximately 2.41 acres of wetlands. The Draft SEIS determined that Alternative layout 3 was the preferred alternative since it provides even greater separation than Alternative layout 2 between landfill facilities and wetlands. The federally-listed endangered Mariana common moorhen ( Gallinula chloropus guam1) was not detected in the landfill footprint and buffer area during our field investigations; however, Takano (2003) observed a single moorhen in the Tinago River and in the Assupian pond to the northeast of the landfill footprint during her 2001 survey.

The public comment period ends on June 16, 2005. Written comments may be submitted to Duenas & Associates, Inc. by mail at the following address: 155 E.T. Calvo Memorial Parkway, Suite 200, Tamuning, Guam 96913. Comments may also be sent by facsimile to 646-6315. Please contact me at 646-7991 or via e-mail ([email protected]) if you have any questions or need further information.

ENGINEERING (CIVIL,. STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL) • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • PLANNING • DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION • GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GUAM P.O. Box 8900, Tamuning, Guam 96931 / 155 ET Calvo Memorial Parkway, Suite 200, Tamuning, Guam 96913 /Tel: (671) 646·7991 I Fax: (671) 646-6315 I -2- May26,2005

'

Sincerely,

~~ Claudine Camacho Environmental Services Division Enclosure (1)

Reference cited:

Takano, L. 2003. Seasonal movement, home range, and abundance of the Mariana Common Moorhen { Ga/linu/a ch/oropus guam1) on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Unpublished Masters of Science Thesis, Oregon State University. 96 pp.