DOCSLIB.ORG

Five Year Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Five Year Review UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 September 30, 2010 Guy Romine Army Environmental Command 19932 S.E. Foster Road Damascus, OR 97089 Re: U.S. EPA Review of MOTCO Draft Five-Year Review for Site 1 Landfill Dear Mr. Romine: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) appreciates the opportunity to receive and review the Department of the Army's (Army) document entitled, “Draft First Five- Year Review for Site 1 Tidal Area Landfill” (Five-Year Review) for Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), dated September 22, 2010. The Five-Year Review was submitted pursuant to the November 20, 2009, Amended Federal Facilities Agreement for the Army portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station Superfund Site. Based on our review of the Five-Year Review, U.S. EPA concurs with the Army on the Protectiveness determination for the Site 1 remedy. The Protectiveness Statement indicates the following: “Although the remedy is incomplete, there have been substantial improvements in protection to human health and the environment since the start of construction. The potential for direct exposure to landfill waste has been substantially reduced by the thick layer of fill which covers nearly the entire landfill. In addition, infiltration of rainwater has been reduced substantially over preconstruction conditions because the site is now sloped to drain and because it is now covered with compacted fill. The remedy at the Site 1 Landfill is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.” Additional information and recommendations are provided to improve the overall quality of the Five-Year Review and to address some long-term protectiveness issues (see Enclosure). u.s. EPA looks forward to continued coordination with the Army on cleanup activities at MOTCO. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Phillip Ramsey of my staff at (415) 972-3006. Michael Montgomery Assistant Director Federal Facilities and Site Cleanup Branch Enclosure cc: Ms Cynthia Burris, USACE Mr. Jim Pinasco, DTSC Mr. Alan Friedman, RWQCB 2 ENCLOSURE September 30, 2010 U.S. EPA Review of MOTCO Draft Five-Year Review for Site 1 Landfill Based upon the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) review of the Department of the Army’s (Army) “Draft First Five-Year Review for Site 1 Tidal Area Landfill” (Five-Year Review) for Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), dated September 22, 2010, the following comments apply: General Comment: 1. Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-Up Actions: The Five-Year review details issues, recommendations, and follow-up actions related to long-term protectiveness. Issues cited include: need for redesign of the Site 1 cap; development of an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) to document the design change; and, completion of the landfill remedy. From the three issues, the report identifies two recommendations and follow-up actions: complete the ESD; and complete the cap. While U.S. EPA does not have concerns with the specific issues, recommendations, and follow-up actions described, U.S. EPA requests that the Army expand the issues to include other aspects of the overall remedy for the Site 1 Landfill, including Groundwater and Land Use Controls (LUCs). Groundwater: U.S. EPA requests that the Army acknowledge in the Five-Year Review that groundwater is an issue that potentially impacts the long-term protectiveness of the existing remedy for Site 1. The Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions should include that the Ar m y will conduct and complete the Groundwater Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Site 1, as well as develop documents associated with remedy selection (i.e., Proposed Plan and Record of Decision or ROD) and implementation (Remedial Design/ Remedial Action). The schedule for these primary deliverables that is established in the Final July 2010 Site Management Plan, should also be included in the Five-Year Review. LUCs: Similar to U.S. EPA’s concern with Site 1 Groundwater, U.S. EPA requests that the Army detail in the Five-Year Review the specific LUC requirements that exist pursuant to the 2004 ROD. The 2004 Site 1 ROD, Section 2.1, the Selected Remedy, indicates that, “[t]he Navy has selected Alternative 2 (soil cap, surface controls, institutional controls, landfill gas monitoring, and maintenance) as the preferred alternative…”. On page 52, the ROD provides the detailed description of this component of the remedy: “Institutional controls to safeguard the integrity of the soil cap and associated monitoring systems. Institutional controls would prohibit construction of any habitable structures, or other land-disturbing activity into or onto the surface of the landfill or adjacent to the landfill, planting of vegetation that could threaten the integrity of the landfill cap, removal of or tampering with posted signs, irrigation of the surface of the landfill, and extraction of groundwater from beneath the landfill. The Navy will develop a LUC-RD as part of the post-closure maintenance and monitoring plan to ensure that institutional controls are maintained in the long-term.” 3 Based upon a review of the ROD and the LUC requirements, the Army is requested to review the N a v y ’ s Site 1 LUC-RD for specific LUC requirements and to determine if the existing L U C requirements are consistent with the 2003 DoD-EPA Guidance, “Principles and Procedures for Specifying, Monitoring, and Enforcing Land Use Controls…”. If the LUC requirements are not complete or inconsistent with guidance, the Army should identify it as an “Issue” and propose recommendations and follow-up actions. Specific Comments: 1. Executive Summary, page ES-1: In the third paragraph, third sentence add, “fundamentally” to the statement “…that are considered significant but that do not fundamentally change the selected remedy.” 2. Section 1.0, Introduction: Text in the second paragraph indicates that “[i]mplementation of the remedy at the Site 1 Landfill has not been completed but is scheduled for completion in 2011.” This statement appears in conflict with the 2004 ROD remedy, which is, per the 2004 Site 1 ROD, a “soil cap, surface controls, institutional controls, landfill gas monitoring, and maintenance”. U.S. EPA recommends that the Army revise this statement to clarify what components of the remedy have not been implemented. While U.S. EPA understands that the landfill cap has not been completed, other aspects including leachate and landfill gas monitoring should now be implemented. 3. Section 1.0: Text in the third paragraph indicates, “[d]ata collected to date do not suggest that groundwater contamination is present that necessitates remedial action, although the assessment is ongoing.” As indicated in the General Comment above, U.S. EPA believes that groundwater is an ” issue” for the Site 1 Landfill that needs to be documented, along with Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions. Rather than providing generalizations regarding an ongoing RI, the Five-Year Review should document that groundwater is an issue and it will be addressed through the development of the RI/FS, Proposed Plan/ROD and RD/RA, which have been planned and scheduled in the Final 2010 SMP. This comment also applies to text in Section 3.4, History of Contamination, where the Army provides an unnecessary groundwater summary. 4. Section 4.1.2, Selected Remedy: The description of the landfill cap provided at the top of page 9 is not consistent with the 2004 Final Site 1 ROD. However, it is recommended that a detailed description of the current landfill cap (as modified by the 2008 ESD) be provided instead. The current cap design, is best presented (as a cross-section) in ESD, Drawing C-102. 5. Section 4.3, Design Changes to Reduce the Weight of the Cap: U.S. EPA found the first paragraph at the top of page 11 to be difficult to follow. Given that this proposed design change description is not an essential component of the Five-Year Review, U.S. EPA requests that that paragraph be deleted. * * * 4 Draft First Five-Year Review for Site 1 Tidal Area Landfill Military Ocean Terminal Concord Concord, California September 30, 2010 Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District Sacramento, California Prepared by: Tetra Tech EM Inc. 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 500 Oakland, California 94612 Prepared under: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Tetra Tech NUS Contract Number N62467-04-D-0055 Contract Task Order 310 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY ........................................................................................................2 3.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2 3.1 INSTALLATION HISTORY ...........................................................................................3 3.2 SITE 1 HISTORY ........................................................................................................3 3.3 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................3
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Suisun Marsh Protection Plan Map (PDF)
    Proposed County Parks (Hill Slough, Fairfield Beldon’s Landing) Develop passive recreation facilities compatible with Marsh protection (e.g. fishing, picnicking, hiking, nature study.) Boat launching ramp may be constructed Suis nu at Beldon’s Landing. City Suisun Marsh 8 0 etaterstnI 80 a Protection Plan Map flHighway 12 San Francisco Bay Conservation (6) b .J ' and Development Commission I Denverton (7) I December 1976 ) I ~4 Slough Thomasson Shiloh Primary Management Area danyor, Potrero Hills ':__. .---) ... .. ... ~ . _,,. - (8) Secondary Management Area ~ ,. .,,,, Denverton ,,a !\.:r ~ Water-Related Industry Reserve Area c Beldon’s BRADMOOR ISLAND Slough (5) Landing t +{larl!✓' Road Boundary of Wildlife Areas and (9) Ecological Reserves Little I Honker (1) Grizzly Island Unit (9) Bay (2) Crescent Unit (4) Montezuma Slough (3) Island Slough Unit JOICE ISLAND (3) r (4) Joice Island Unit (5) Rush Ranch National Estuarine (10) Ecological Reserve Kirby Hill (6) Hill Slough Wildlife Area Suisun (7) Peytonia Slough Ecological Reserve (8) Grey Goose Unit GRIZZLY ISLAND (2) GRIZZLY ISLAND (9) Gold Hills Unit (10) Garibaldi Unit (11) West Family Unit (12) Goodyear Slough Unit Benicia Area Recommended for Aquisition a. Lawler Property I (11) Hills b. Bryan Property . ~-/--,~ c. Smith Property ,,-:. ...__.. ,, \ 1 Collinsville: Reserve seasonal marshes and Benicia Hills lowland grasslands for their Amended 2011 Grizzly Bay intrinsic value to marsh wildlife and Steep slopes with high landslide and soil to act as the buffer between the erosion potentials. Active fault location. Land (1) Marsh and any future water-related Collinsville Road use practices should be controlled to prevent uses to the east.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF (Adobe E-Mail: [email protected] Portable Document Format, Including Full Text and All Graphics), Or SUMMARY (Abbreviated Text) Files
    2±8±99 Vol. 64 No. 25 Monday Pages 5927±6186 February 8, 1999 Briefings on how to use the Federal Register For information on briefings in Washington, DC, see announcement on the inside cover of this issue. Now Available Online via GPO Access Free online access to the official editions of the Federal Register, the Code of Federal Regulations and other Federal Register publications is available on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html For additional information on GPO Access products, services and access methods, see page II or contact the GPO Access User Support Team via: ★ Phone: toll-free: 1-888-293-6498 ★ Email: [email protected] Attention: Federal Agencies Plain Language Tools Are Now Available The Office of the Federal Register offers Plain Language Tools on its Website to help you comply with the President's Memorandum of June 1, 1998ÐPlain Language in Government Writing (63 FR 31883, June 10, 1998). Our address is: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg For more in-depth guidance on the elements of plain language, read ``Writing User-Friendly Documents'' on the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR) Website at: http://www.plainlanguage.gov federal register 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 1999 The FEDERAL REGISTER is published daily, Monday through SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, PUBLIC Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Subscriptions: Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern San Francisco Bay Ecological Risk Assessment: Potential Crude by Rail Incident Meagan Bowis University of San Francisco, [email protected]
    The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects Spring 5-20-2016 Northern San Francisco Bay Ecological Risk Assessment: Potential Crude by Rail Incident Meagan Bowis University of San Francisco, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons, Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, and the Other Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons Recommended Citation Bowis, Meagan, "Northern San Francisco Bay Ecological Risk Assessment: Potential Crude by Rail Incident" (2016). Master's Projects and Capstones. 340. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/340 This Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This Master’s Project Northern San Francisco Bay Ecological Risk Assessment: Potential Crude by Rail Incident By Meagan Kane Bowis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
    [Show full text]
  • Species and Community Profiles to Six Clutches of Eggs, Totaling About 861 Eggs During California Vernal Pool Tadpole Her Lifetime (Ahl 1991)
    3 Invertebrates their effects on this species are currently being investi- Franciscan Brine Shrimp gated (Maiss and Harding-Smith 1992). Artemia franciscana Kellogg Reproduction, Growth, and Development Invertebrates Brita C. Larsson Artemia franciscana has two types of reproduction, ovovi- General Information viparous and oviparous. In ovoviviparous reproduction, the fertilized eggs in a female can develop into free-swim- The Franciscan brine shrimp, Artemia franciscana (for- ming nauplii, which are set free by the mother. In ovipa- merly salina) (Bowen et al. 1985, Bowen and Sterling rous reproduction, however, the eggs, when reaching the 1978, Barigozzi 1974), is a small crustacean found in gastrula stage, become surrounded by a thick shell and highly saline ponds, lakes or sloughs that belong to the are deposited as cysts, which are in diapause (Sorgeloos order Anostraca (Eng et al. 1990, Pennak 1989). They 1980). In the Bay area, cysts production is generally are characterized by stalked compound eyes, an elongate highest during the fall and winter, when conditions for body, and no carapace. They have 11 pairs of swimming Artemia development are less favorable. The cysts may legs and the second antennae are uniramous, greatly en- persist for decades in a suspended state. Under natural larged and used as a clasping organ in males. The aver- conditions, the lifespan of Artemia is from 50 to 70 days. age length is 10 mm (Pennak 1989). Brine shrimp com- In the lab, females produced an average of 10 broods, monly swim with their ventral side upward. A. franciscana but the average under natural conditions may be closer lives in hypersaline water (70 to 200 ppt) (Maiss and to 3-4 broods, although this has not been confirmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record-House. J .Anu.Ary 4
    - 204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J .ANU.ARY 4, $55,000,000 is a threat to the interests of the country, its own history SURVEYOR-GENERAL OF NEVADA. shows that the announcement was unwarranted by its own history and Charles W. Irish, of Iowa Ci~y, Iowa, whowascom;nissioned dnring entirelv uncalled for. the recess of the Senate, to be surveyor-general of Nevada, vice Chris­ The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRIS in the chair). The Senate topher C. Downing, removed. resumes the consideration of the unfinished business, being the bill (S. llECEIVERS OF PUBLIC MONEYS. 311) to aid in the establishment and temporary support of common schools. Gould B. Blakely, of Sidney, Nebr., who was commissioned during Mr. CULLOl\f. There ought to be a brief executive session this the recess of the Senate, to be receiver of public moneys at Sidney, evening, aud I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Nebr., to fill an original vacancy. executive business. Benjamin F. Burch, of Independence, Oregon, who was commissioned Mr. BLAIR. Before that motion is put I should like to say that I during the recess of the Senate, to be receiver of public moneys at shall press the consideration of the unfinished business. Oregon City, Oregon, 'Vice John G. Pillsbury, term expired. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the motion withdrawn? Alfred B. Charde, of Oakland, Nebr., who was commissioned during Mr. CULLOM. Only to allow a statement to be made. the recess of the Senate, to be receiver of public moneys at Niobrara, Nebr., vice Sanford Parker, term expired.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 43 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 76 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 67 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 375 Beale Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, California 94105 tel 415 352 3600 fax 888 348 5190 State of California | Gavin Newsom – Governor | [email protected] | www.bcdc.ca.gov May 5, 2020 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: I am pleased to transmit this updated San Francisco Bay Plan, which was revised by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in the fall of 2019. The Commission approved two groundbreaking Bay Plan amendments – the Bay Fill Amendment to allow substantially more fill to be placed in the Bay as part of an approved multi-benefit habitat restoration and shoreline adaptation project to help address Rising Sea Levels, and the Environmental Justice and Social Equity Amendment to implement BCDC’s first- ever formal environmental justice and social equity requirements for local project sponsors.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Protected Areas of Washington, Oregon, and California Compiled
    Marine Protected Areas of Washington, Oregon, and California compiled by Al J. Didier, Jr. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 45 SE 82nd Drive, Suite 100 Gladstone, OR 97027-2522 December 1998 Conducted under Contract No. 98-08 from the Pacific Fishery Management Council LIST OF TABLES Table 1. National marine sanctuaries of California, Oregon, and Washington. .............................6 Table 2. National Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas of coastal California, Oregon, and Washington. ....................................................................................................................7 Table 3. National parks and monuments of coastal California, Oregon, and Washington. ............8 Table 4. Marine protected areas designated by state and local governments in California ..........10 Table 5. Marine protected areas designated by state and local governments in Oregon..............19 Table 6. Marine protected areas designated by state and local governments in Washington. ......21 Table 7. National Estuarine Research Reserves of coastal California, Oregon, and Washington. 27 Table 8. National Estuary Program sites of coastal California, Oregon, and Washington. ..........28 Table 9. UNESCO MAB Biosphere Reserve sites of coastal California, Oregon, and Washington.29 Table 10. Nearshore submarine cable segments off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington. ..................................................................................................................30 Table 11. Coordinates (decimal degrees)
    [Show full text]
  • 1.3 Warren Act Contract
    EXECUTION OF TWO WARREN ACT CONTRACTS TO WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT AND WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT DISTRIBUTION DISTRICT 1 TO FACILITATE A NON-CVP WATER TRANSFER FROM PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA MID PACIFIC REGION SOUTH-CENTRAL CALIFORNIA AREA OFFICE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #EA-08-91 U.S. Department of the Interior October 2008 Bureau of Reclamation Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Statement of Purpose and Need ..............................................................................1-2 1.2 Purpose of this Environmental Assessment............................................................1-3 1.3 Warren Act Contract...............................................................................................1-3 1.4 Project Agencies and Related Facilities..................................................................1-3 1.4.1 Placer County Water Agency ....................................................................1-3 1.4.2 Westlands Water District and Westlands Water District Distribution District No. 1 .........................................................................1-5 1.4.3 Central Valley Project................................................................................1-5 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives........................................................2-1 2.1 No Action Alternative.............................................................................................2-1
    [Show full text]
  • GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Project Zeus Mare Island, Vallejo, California
    GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Project Zeus Mare Island, Vallejo, California Prepared by: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. May 1, 2017 Project No. 6166150082 Copyright © 2015 by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. All rights reserved. May 1, 2017 Project Zeus Confidential Client Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Report Project Zeus Mare Island Site Vallejo, California Project No. 6166150082.14 Dear Project Zeus Client Team: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) is pleased to present this Geotechnical Investigation Report for the Project Zeus Mare Island site, located in Vallejo, California. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact Chris Coutu at [email protected] or (510) 663-4156, or any of the undersigned team members. Sincerely, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Chris Coutu, PE, GE Donald Wells, PG, CEG Principal Engineer Senior Associate Engineering Geologist Direct Tel.: (510) 663-4156 Direct Tel.: (510) 663-4178 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] cc/dw/aw/ldu X:\6166150082\3000 Rpt\Zeus Rpt\1 txt, cvrs\Zeus_MareIsland_Geotech_Text_050117.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Update to the Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analyses and Development of Seismic Design Ground Motions
    FINAL REPORT 2013 UPDATE TO THE SITE-SPECIFIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSES AND DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Stanford University Stanford, California 28 April 2014 Patricia Thomas, Ivan Wong, and Judith Zachariasen URS Corporation Seismic Hazards Group 1333 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, California 94612 Robert Darragh and Walt Silva Pacific Engineering & Analysis 856 Seaview Dr. El Cerrito, CA 94530 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... ES-1 Section 1 ONE Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Scope of Work .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Acknowledgments.................................................................................... 1-2 Section 2 TWO Seismic Hazard Analyses Methodologies .................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis .................................................... 2-1 2.2 Seismic Source Characterization ............................................................. 2-2 2.2.1 Source Geometry ......................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Fault Recurrence .......................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Ground Motion Characterization ............................................................
    [Show full text]