revised final closure plan - Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority

REVISED FINAL CLOSURE PLAN 

(2010) 

CRAZY HORSE SANITARY LANDFILL 

MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 

Prepared for 

Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority 

128 Sun Street, Suite 101 

Salinas, CA 93901 

Prepared by 

Golder Associates, Inc. 

1000 Enterprise Way, Ste 190 

Roseville, California 95678 

July 2010 103-97133

Revised Final Closure Plan 

Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill 

Monterey County, California 

The material and data in this report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the 

undersigned. The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted 

professional consulting principles and practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. 

These services were performed consistent with our agreement with the Salinas Valley Solid Waste 

Authority (SVSWA). This report is solely for the use and information of SVSWA unless otherwise 

noted. Any reliance on this report by a third party is at such party's sole risk. 

Opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when services 

were performed and are intended only for the client, purposes, locations, time frames, and project 

parameters indicated. We are not responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental 

standards, practices, or regulations subsequent to performance of services. We do not warrant the 

accuracy of information supplied by others, nor the use of segregated portions of this report. 

I certify under penalty of perjury I have personally examined and am familiar with the information 

submitted in this document and all attachments and, based on my inquiry of those individuals 

immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the information is true, accurate, and 

complete. I am aware there are significant penalties for knowingly submitting false information, 

including the possibility of fines and imprisonment. 

Golder Associates, Inc. 

12/31/11 

Christopher M. Richgels, P.E. 

RCE 47767 

July 14, 2010 

Date 

Golder Associates

Revised Final Closure Plan July 2010 

Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill -iii- 103-97133 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 1 

1.2 Report Submittal .......................................................................................................... 2 

2.0 CLOSURE PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 4 

2.1 Site Location ................................................................................................................ 4 

2.2 Landfill Topography..................................................................................................... 4 

2.3 Maximum Closure Area ............................................................................................... 4 

2.4 Monitoring and Control Systems ................................................................................. 5 

2.5 Closure Date ................................................................................................................. 6 

2.6 Description of Closure.................................................................................................. 6 

2.7 Removal of Landfill Structures .................................................................................... 8 

2.8 Decommissioning of Environmental Control Systems ................................................ 8 

2.9 Security at Closed Sites ................................................................................................ 9 

2.10 Final Cover ................................................................................................................. 10 

2.11 Construction Documents and CQA ............................................................................ 13 

2.12 Final Grading .............................................................................................................. 13 

2.13 Final Site Face ............................................................................................................ 14 

2.13.1 Slope Stability ............................................................................................... 14 

2.13.1.1 Previous Stability Analyses ....................................................... 14 

2.13.1.2 Existing Steep Slopes ................................................................ 15 

2.14 Final Drainage ............................................................................................................ 19 

2.15 Slope Protection and Erosion Control ........................................................................ 22 

2.16 Leachate Management System ................................................................................... 23 

2.17 Groundwater Monitoring System ............................................................................... 26 

2.18 Groundwater Corrective Action Program .................................................................. 27 

2.19 Storm Water Discharge Monitoring System .............................................................. 28 

2.20 Gas Monitoring System .............................................................................................. 28 

2.21 Landfill Gas Control System ...................................................................................... 29 

3.0 CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................................. 30 

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 30 

3.2 Closure Cost Estimate ................................................................................................ 30 

3.3 Financial Responsibility for Closure .......................................................................... 30 

3.4 Disbursement of Funds During Closure ..................................................................... 30 

3.5 Financial Assurance for Corrective Action ................................................................ 31 

4.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 32 

Golder Associates


Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill -iv- 103-97133 

TABLES 

Table 1 

Table 2 

Table 3 

Table 4 

Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan Index CIWMB Requirements 

Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan Index SWRCB Requirements 

Closure Cost Estimate 

Closure Cost Disbursement Summary 

FIGURES 

1 Site Location Map 

2 Site Facilities Plan 

3 Estimated Landfill Base Grades 

4 Final Grading Plan 

5 Estimated Closure Construction Schedule 

6 Leachate Control System 

7 Environmental Control Facilities Plan 

8 Groundwater Detection Monitoring Wells 

9 Groundwater Corrective Action Monitoring Wells 

10 Groundwater Remediation System 

11 Landfill Gas Control and Monitoring Plan 

12 Landfill Cross Sections 

13 Closure System Details 

14 Drainage System Details 

15 Landfill Gas System Details 

16 Drainage System Details – Main Drainage Channel 

17 Stormwater Detention Improvements 

18 Module 1 Final Cover Extension Details 

Golder Associates


Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill -v- 103-97133 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A 

Appendix B 

Appendix C 

Appendix D 

Appendix E 

Appendix F 

Appendix G 

Appendix H 

Appendix I 

Appendix J 

Appendix K 

Appendix L 

Appendix M 

Appendix N 

Appendix O 

Permits and Approvals 

Settlement Evaluation 

Slope Stability Analysis 

Leachate Generation, Leachate Volume Reduction, and Recirculation (Revised) 

Drainage Calculations (Revised) 

Landfill Gas Generation 

Final Cover Construction Quality Assurance Plan (Revised) 

Emergency Response Plan 

Soil Loss Equation 

Closure Cost Estimate (Revised) 

Labor Transition Plan 

2009 LFG System Improvements Plan 

2009 Landfill Gas Monitoring Work Plan 

2010 Final Cover Test Pad Report 

Closure Turf Test Results (New) 

Golder Associates


Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill -vi- 103-97133 

Table 1 

CIWMB FINAL CLOSURE PLAN INDEX 

CIWMB - Closure/Post- Closure 

Maintenance Plan Requirements 

CIWMB Section No. SWRCB Section No. FCP Page(s) 

Chapter 3. Criteria for All Waste Management Units, Facilities and Disposal 

Sites 

Subchapter 4 Development of Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plans 

21790. Preliminary Closure Plan Contents Included in Final Closure Plan. 

Citation 

Closure Cost Estimate 21790(b)(1) 21820 21769(c)(1)(B) 29 

Location Maps 21790(b)(2 & 4) 4 

Post-Closure Land Uses 21790(b)(5) 2 

Estimate of Required Closure Area 21790(b)(6) 4 

Closure Date 21790(b)(7) 6 

Closure Activities 21790(b)(8) 21090(d) 6 

Site Security and Structure Removal 

Final Cover and Grading 

21790(b)(8)(A) 

21135 

21790(b)(8)(B) 

21090(a)-(a)(2), (a)(6), 

(b)-(b)(3), 21750 (f)(5) 

Construction Quality Assurance 21790(b)(8)(C) 13 

8 – 9 

10 - 18 

Drainage and Erosion Control 21790(b)(8)(D) 21090(a)(3)- (a)(3)(B) 18 - 21 

Gas Monitoring 

21790(b)(8)(E) 

20925 

20425(d)(3) 27 

Leachate Monitoring 21790(b)(8)(F) 21090(c)(2) 22 - 24 

CIWMB –FINAL Closure Plan Contents CIWMB Section No. SWRCB Section No. FCP Section(s) 

Items Under 21790 

21800(c) 

20425(d)(3), 20950(f), 

20909(a)-(a)(3) 

(A)(3), 21090 

Sequence of Closure Stages With Dates 21800(c) 21090(a)-(a)(2), (d) 6 - 8 

Schedule for Disbursement 21800(d) 29 

3 - 28 

Golder Associates


Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill -vii- 103-97133 

Table 2 

SWRCB FINAL CLOSURE PLAN INDEX 

SWRCB Requirement 

SWRCB Requirement SWRCB Citation Related CIWMB 

Citation 

FCP Section 

Chapter 3. Criteria for All Waste Management Units, Facilities and Disposal 

Sites 

Subchapter 5 Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance 

Article 2. 

Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Standards for Disposal Sites and Landfills 

21090. Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Requirements for Solid Waste Landfills.ion 

Final cover requirements (general) 

21090(a)- (a)(2) 

Erosion control layer 21090(a)(3) - 

(a)(3)(A)3. 

Discharges of liquids to covers (other 

liquids) 

21140, 21790(b)(8)(B) , 

21800(c) 

21140, 21150, 

21790(b)(8)(D), 21800(c) 

10 - 15 

21090(a)(5) (B) 20800, 21600(b)(8)(D) 24 

Stability analysis 21090(a)(6) 21145, 21790(b)(8)(B) 16 - 19 

Grading requirements (performance 

standards) 

Landfill closure deadline & extension 

21090(b)- (b)(3) 

21090(d) 

20650, 21142(a), 21150, 

21600(b)(4)(D), 

21790(b)(8)(B) 

21110, 21790(b)(8), 

21800(c) 

Final cover survey(s) 21090(e)- (e)(4) 21142(b) 15 

Optional clean closure 21090(f)- (f)(2) 21810 NA 

12 

14, 15 

Chapter 6. Financial Assurances at Solid Waste Facilities and at Waste 

Management Units for Solid Waste 

Subchapter 2. Financial Assurance Requirements 

Article 1. 

Financial Assurance for Closure 

22207. SWRCB - Closure Funding 

Requirements. 

Article 2. 

Financial Assurance for Postclosure Maintenance 

22212. SWRCB - Post-Closure Funding 

Requirements. 

Article 4. 

22207(a) 29 

22212(a) 

Financial Assurance Requirements for Corrective Action 

22222. SWRCB - Corrective Action 

Funding Requirements 

6 

RPCMP 

22222 30 

Golder Associates


Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill -1- 103-97133 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

The Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill (CHLF) is a 160-acre site, located in northern Monterey County, 

approximately five miles directly northeast of Salinas, and approximately two miles east of 

Prunedale. Site access is from Crazy Horse Canyon Road off State Highway 101, as shown in Figure 

1, Site Location Map. 

The CHLF is a Class III landfill and began operation in 1934. Salinas Valley Solid Waste SVSWA 

(SVSWA) is the owner of the landfill and is responsible for the landfill operation. The current 

General Manager is Patrick Mathews [(831) 775-3000]. When the landfill was active, the SVSWA 

contracted landfill operations to Norcal Waste Systems. Information concerning the landfill 

regulatory and operating history can be found in Section 1.1.3 of the Report of Waste Discharge/ 

Report of Disposal Site Information submitted as Volume 1 of the Joint Technical Document, Crazy 

Horse Sanitary Landfill, Monterey County, California, EMCON/OWT, July 2004 (JTD (Vol. 1)). 

The CHLF can generally be separated into two areas, the closed Module 1 area and the once active 

area. The closed Module 1 area consists of a 6-acre unlined area, located in the southeastern portion 

of the property, as shown on Figure 2. The once active fill area is approximately 66 acres and 

consists of the top deck, the south slope, and the equipment parking area as referenced on Figure 2. 

The once active fill area includes both lined and unlined disposal areas. Landfill disposal areas 

developed after October 9, 1993 were constructed with a composite liner system in accordance with 

Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). 

A small closure area, referred to as the Plescia property, was located southeast of the closed Module 

1. This site contained a septic tank that registered in the environmental health risk accounting 

associated with the National Priorities Listing of the Module 1 area. Recent discussions with the 

Federal Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(RWQCB) have removed this site from association with closure of the Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill 

hence is not discussed within this report. Details on field investigations and those findings for the 

Plescia property were reported to the RWQCB on June 17, 2008. The report was attached as 

Appendix J in the 2008 Second Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report. 

The landfill operates in accordance with Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) 27-AA-0007, issued on 

March 25, 2005, by the County of Monterey Environmental Health Division, the local enforcement 

agency (LEA) for the landfill. The landfill also operates in accordance with Waste Discharge 

Requirements (WDRs) contained in Order No. R3-2007-0003, which was adopted on February 9, 

2007. Copies of the revised SWFP and WDRs are included in Appendix A of the JTD (Vol. 1). 

In the JTD (Vol. 1), the SVSWA proposed a vertical expansion, increasing the maximum landfill 

elevation from 605 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 635 feet amsl. A Final Closure and 

Postclosure Maintenance Plan (FCPCMP, 2004) was prepared in 2004 (Emcon/OWT, 2004b) in 

conjunction with the JTD (Vol. 1) reflective of that vertical expansion. 

In 2009, the SVSWA prepared the Revised Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan 

(FCPCMP) which revised the 2004 FCPCMP. The 2009 FCPCMP was subsequently approved by 

Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the RWQCB, and the LEA. The 

2009 RFCPCMP prepared the CHLF for closure in its final condition as non-irrigated open space. 

Golder Associates



The primary changes between the 2009 FCPCMP and the 2004 FCPCMP are noted below: 

• Additional static and seismic analysis. This was necessary since there are some steep slopes 

that were not addressed in the 2004 FCP 

• Additional drainage analysis. This was necessary due to using a different weather station that 

is more representative of the conditions experienced at the Crazy Horse Landfill. 

• Replacement of LFG extraction wells. This was necessary due to the disrepair of existing 

LFG wells 

• Modification of fill space on the east side of the site bordering the site entrance facilities 

(Figure 8 of the FCPCMP). The C&D processing area is replaced with emergency equipment 

parking area and a recycling center 1 . 

• Closure schedule. The construction schedule for site closure will exceed the prescriptive 

standard of 180 days as discussed in Section 2.6. 

The Final Closure Plan (FCP 2009) and Final Post Closure Maintenance Plan (FPCP 2009) have been 

approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies. 

The SVSWA is revising the project description to accommodate installation of a solar power 

generation station at the site. Also, the 2-foot vegetative soil layer is being replaced with a 

geosynthetic product serving as a mechanically erosion resistant system to reduce construction 

environmental impacts that would have been associated with soil import to the site. Since the 

regulatory agencies have approved the 2009 closure documents, revisions to those documents are now 

entitled Revised Final Closure Plan - 2010 (RFCP-2010) and the Revised Final Post Closure 

Maintenance Plan – 2010 (RFPCMP 2010). 

The primary changes between the 2009 FCP and this document are noted below: 

• Incorporate photovoltaic (PV) technology to the landfill cover system. 

• Replace the vegetative cover with a geosynthetic vegetative cover. 

• Add a leachate treatment and recirculation system over the lined cell. 

• Additional drainage analysis. 

1.2 Report Submittal 

This RFCP was developed to prepare the Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill for final closure in its current 

condition. This document describes: 

1. How the SVSWA will close and maintain the landfill consistent with 27 CCR 

regulations. 

1 operating under Section 17402.5(d), Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 

Golder Associates



2. Allows the SVSWA to prepare an estimate of closure and postclosure maintenance 

costs for the landfill. 

3. Enables the LEA, CIWMB and RWQCB to assess the reasonableness of the cost 

estimate. 

Section 2 of this report presents the final closure plan for the landfill, which identifies and describes 

tasks involved in closing the landfill in a manner consistent with applicable regulations and 

acceptable standards to protect public health and safety, and the environment. The contents of this 

final closure plan are consistent with the requirements of 27 CCR 21769 and 21800, and other 

applicable sections of Title 27. 

Site monitoring and maintenance information and descriptions of tasks for implementing the 

postclosure maintenance activities are provided separately in the Revised Final Post-Closure 

Maintenance Plan (RFPCMP). The closure cost estimates consistent with the requirements of 27 CCR 

21820 are presented in Section 3. 

Golder Associates



2.0 CLOSURE PLAN 

2.1 Site Location 

27 CCR 21790(b)(2) 

The Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill (CHLF) is located in northern Monterey County, approximately 

nine miles north of the City of Salinas at 350 Crazy Horse Canyon Road (ref. Figure 1). Access to 

the site is from Crazy Horse Canyon Road, a paved two-lane road which runs southeasterly from U.S. 

Highway 101 to the road intersection at San Juan Grade Road. The landfill is approximately one mile 

south of U.S. Highway 101. 

The CHLF is located in Sections 14 and 15, Township 13 South, Range 3 East, Mount Diablo 

Baseline and Meridian. The entire CHLF (existing landfill areas and associated facilities) is located 

within these quadrangles. The longitude and latitude of the landfill is latitude 36.81 o N, longitude 

121.62 o W. The current Assessor Parcel Numbers for the site are 125-271-063, 125-491-012, and 

125-571-058. 

2.2 Landfill Topography 

27 CCR 21790(2) and 21142 

Current Topography. The current site topography of the CHLF is presented on Figure 2. This 

topography is based in part on a survey that was performed in August 2009. WDR Order No. R3- 

2007-0003 specified the site would cease landfill operations by April 30, 2009. The RWQCB 

subsequently granted a one year extension to this closure date, or April 2010. However, Condition 

17f of the Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) allows site operation only until December 31, 2009, 

which therefore served as the controlling date for final cessation of site operation. On March 4, 2010, 

CalRecycle approved the 2009 FCPCMP and the project is currently in ‘closing’ status until the 

closure construction is complete. 

Final Grading Topography. The final grades for the CHLF are presented on Figure 4. Cross 

sections of this topography are presented on Figure 12. Sideslopes for the closed CHLF will typically 

be no steeper than 3H:1V (horizontal to vertical) as shown on Figure 3. However, there are two 

general areas where final cover slopes are approaching 2H:1V. 

Refuse fill placement on the southeastern slope above the entrance area and Landfill Gas to Energy 

Plant (LFGTE Plant) was built as steep as 2.2H:1V as shown on Figure 4 to conserve fill space in the 

final lifts at the site. Beginning in 2008, fill along this slope was placed at 3H:1V to finish grade. 

The southern slope down to the toe of the landfill has three general areas steeper than 3H:1V. Slope 

No. 5 as shown on Figure 4 was constructed to slopes of 2.3H:1V during final operations at the site. 

There are two areas on Slope No. 2 that are steep as 2.5H:1V. 

2.3 Maximum Closure Area 

27 CCR 21790(b)(6) 

Approximately 72 acres of the Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill is permitted for waste disposal. To 

date, only Module 1, an approximately 6-acre area, has been closed, which occurred in 1989. 

Therefore, the maximum closure area is the remainder of the landfill footprint. At this stage, the total 

Golder Associates



area requiring closure is approximately 66 acres. A schedule for CHLF closure activities based on 

closure construction material quantities and deployment rates is discussed in Section 2.6. 

The remaining landfill areas to be closed are identified below. The closure will take place in four 

general phases. These phases in sequence are: 

I. Southern slopes to the canyon floor. 

II. Western topdeck and sideslopes 

III. Eastern topdeck and sideslopes. 

IV. Equipment parking and a recycling center area. 

The first phase, the southern slopes, must be closed first to provide the necessary drainage 

conveyance structures required to control stormwater discharge from improved surfaces in the other 

phases as the site is closed. The second and third phases are depicted on Figure 4 as the west and east 

sections of the currently active landfilling area. It is necessary to separate the topdeck area of the 

CHLF into separate closure phases to maintain LFG control in the primary waste mass during closure 

as discussed in Section 2.21. Active LFG control is a component of the groundwater Corrective 

Action Program (CAP) so this function must be maintained during closure construction. 

The fourth phase is the area currently used for recycling and maintenance activities, located to the 

east of the active landfill and north of Module 1. This area was determined to be within the “Subtitle 

D landfill footprint” as reported in 1993 and included within the limits of waste as shown on Figure 4. 

Final Cover Extension. The SVSWA investigated the potential for waste outside the limits of the 

Module 1 final cover system with a series of test pits in 2007. An extension to the Module 1 final 

cover system is required due to the presence of waste discovered beyond the perimeter road (ref. 

Figure 4). The extent of final cover begins near the flare station to past the visually obvious locations 

of perimeter road subsidence, encompassing approximately 0.34 acres. This work will include 

rebuilding the perimeter road to re-establish positive drainage to the catch basin at the end of the 

perimeter road. 

2.4 Monitoring and Control Systems 

27 CCR 21790(b)(4) and 20180 

The current monitoring and control systems at the Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill consist of leachate 

monitoring and control system (ref. Figures 6 and 7), a groundwater monitoring system (ref. Figures 

8, 9, and 10), a groundwater extraction and treatment system, a stormwater discharge monitoring 

system, and an LFG monitoring and control system (ref. Figure 11). The current monitoring and 

control systems were described in the following sections of the JTD (Vol. 1): 

• Section 5.6 - Leachate Monitoring and Control System 

• Section 6.3.1 - Groundwater Monitoring System 

• Section 3.5.8 - Groundwater Extraction System 

• Section 6.3.3 - Stormwater Discharge Monitoring System 

• Section 6.3.4 - Landfill Gas Management System 

Golder Associates



Detailed discussions on closure activities required for these environmental systems are discussed in 

the RFPCMP 2010. These systems will not be decommissioned until required regulatory approvals 

are received per 27 CCR 21900 as discussed in Section 2.8 of this RFCP 2010 as well as the 

RFPCMP 2010. 

2.5 Closure Date 

27 CCR 21790(b)(7) and 21769 

General Specification No. 19 of WDRs Order No. R3-2007-0003 states that the landfill must 

discontinue receiving waste by April 30, 2009. The RWQCB subsequently granted a one year 

extension to this closure date, or April 2010. On March 4, 2010, CalRecycle approved the 2009 

FCPCMP and the project is currently in ‘closing’ status until closure construction is complete. 

2.6 Description of Closure 

27 CCR 21790(b)(8) 

Closure Sequence. The sequence of closure activities is based on the approval of this final closure 

and postclosure maintenance plan (FCPMP) by the CIWMB, RWQCB, and LEA. To complete 

closure of the CHLF, the following activities will be performed under the supervision of a civil 

engineer registered in the State of California: 

• Place final cover consistent with an approved FCPMP. 

• Establish internal access roads. 

• Install final drainage structures (overside drains, diversion berms, swales and 

ditches, outlet energy dispersion aprons, etc.). 

• Install the alternative vegetative cover (except for Module 1). 

• Extend the final cover system of Module 1 and establish the vegetative cover. 

• Prepare the as-built topographic map for the Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill by 

field survey or aerial topographic survey, or both. 

• Remove unnecessary structures. 

• Establish additional site security, as needed. 

• Perform postclosure maintenance and monitoring. 

• Obtain regulatory approval to discontinue postclosure monitoring. 

• Decommission environmental control systems. 

Performance of these closure activities shall incorporate the mitigation measures in the Crazy Horse 

Sanitary Landfill Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2009011062) for the closure 

project. 

Closure Schedule. The Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill will be closed to the final grades consistent 

with the final grading plan (Figure 4). A conceptual plan for installation of a solar power generation 

station on the completed final cover is shown on Figure 4A. The closure activities will include the 

Golder Associates



placement of final cover and alternative vegetative cover, vegetation of Module 1, construction of 

permanent drainage features, and removal of landfill structures (if necessary). 

Implementation of the Final Closure Plan for the landfill has begun with the placement of site security 

features, the installation of final landfill gas extraction wells, and the importation of foundation fill. 

A phased construction plan is provided below. The actual sequence or duration of events may change 

with the closure construction contractor’s proposal. The contract specifications will require the 

contractor to maintain active landfill gas extraction system operation throughout the closure project, 

storm water drainage path during winter seasons, and adherence to mitigation measures outlined in 

the SVSWA’s environmental document for the project. 

Figure 5 presents the estimated construction schedule for closure of the CHLF. The schedule is based 

on material quantities and typical deployment rates for geosynthetics as experienced in the industry. 

As shown on Figure 5, the entire project schedule is estimated at 439 days from project approval by 

the SVSWA board to construction contract close-out and submittal of the closure construction quality 

assurance report to the regulatory agencies. The contract procurement process that the SVSWA, as a 

public agency must complete is estimated in Figure 5 as a 97-day process. This process will start in 

winter 2010. Using typical deployment rates, closure construction is estimated at 249 working days 

from March 2011 to February 2012 at completion of sedimentation basin improvements. The Project 

Close-out process (punchlist items, final inspection and payments, closure certification CQA report, 

regulatory review of the closure report, etc.) is estimated as an 80-working day process from February 

2012 to June 2012. The primary cause for this schedule is equipment access conditions and 

geosynthetic deployment rates for closure of the 66-acre area at the CHLF. 

Except for Module 1, the final cover construction will include clearing, grubbing, and regrading the 

foundation layer, placement of geosynthetic liner material and subdrains, placement of the 

geosynthetic vegetative cover, drainage structures, and management of the LFG extraction system. 

Some foundation layer material will be placed as intermediate soil cover during final landfill 

operations. Additional foundation layer material may be stockpiled prior to closure activities. Fine 

grading, construction of the access roads, below grade drainage and landfill gas pipe installment, and 

verifying the foundation layer thickness will be required prior to placement of the geomembrane liner. 

The geosynthetic vegetative soil cover may also be placed concurrently with the geomembrane to 

avoid prolonged exposure of the geomembrane liner to possible adverse weather conditions (wind, 

sunlight, rain, etc.). 

The schedule for placement of the final cover will depend on the overlapping of construction times 

for the geomembrane low-permeability layer, and the geosynthetic vegetative layer. Construction 

times are contingent on the performance of the equipment and weather and site conditions. The CHLF 

will be closed in four phases as discussed previously. Earthwork has been significantly reduced by 

replacing the vegetative soil layer with geosynthetics. Some earthwork is required to provide a 2-foot 

foundation layer beneath traveled areas as preferred by the RWQCB. Soil has already been imported 

to the site for this use. Earthwork activities will be especially time consuming relative to quantities in 

Phase I – the southern slopes. This is due to limited equipment access across the existing benches 

from the site entrance. 

For the Module 1 2-foot thick vegetative cover earthwork, 1,440 cubic yards per day (cy/d) would be 

spread over a work area of approximately 20,000 square feet per day (sf/d). 

Golder Associates



The following sections present a general description of the closure activities. 

presentation is consistent with 27 CCR 21790. 

The order of 

2.7 Removal of Landfill Structures 

27 CCR 21790(b)(8)(A) and 21137 

Numerous structures on the site, including an office/scalehouse and equipment maintenance 

building/fueling facility supported the landfill operation. Other structures, such as the hazardous 

waste storage area, the antifreeze, batteries, oil and paint (ABOP) drop-off facility, and the LFG-toenergy 

facility, support resource recovery activities. 

The office/scalehouse, at the landfill entrance, is equipped with a truck scale. This facility was used 

not only to collect tipping fees, but also to process each vehicle, to collect data on the type and 

number of vehicles, to weigh the volume of refuse per vehicle, and for other miscellaneous functions. 

The office/scalehouse contains the site manager's office and limited space for the administrative 

support activities. It will remain part of landfill closure to provide office space for field personnel. 

Monterey County emergency service equipment and SVSWA vehicles and equipment may be stored 

on site south of the landfill maintenance building. To the east of the maintenance building is the flare 

station and main leachate storage tank pad. These structures will remain through the postclosure 

period servicing the LFG and leachate environmental control systems. To the west of the 

maintenance building are a series of storage tanks for collection of groundwater treatment system 

effluent and backup (wintertime) leachate storage. This support infrastructure will be temporarily 

relocated during closure construction and remain through postclosure until the respective 

environmental control systems can be decommissioned. Currently, the SVSWA reuses treated 

groundwater from the pump and treat system as dust control water. This water is delivered to the 

storage tanks shown on Figure 7 via two 2-inch diameter HDPE force mains. This water delivery 

system will be temporarily halted during closure activities in the parking area. Operation of the water 

delivery system is not necessary for site closure but will be relocated and reinstalled after closure 

activities are completed to provide backup water supply for Monterey County emergency equipment. 

Relocation and reinstallation of this system will not interfere with the function of the closure system. 

The on-site structures to remain through site closure are shown on Figure 7. One of the weigh scales 

will be removed and either disposed off site, sold, or used at another SVSWA facility. 

2.8 Decommissioning of Environmental Control Systems 

27 CCR 21137 

The environmental control systems (ECS) utilized at the landfill currently consists of groundwater 

monitoring wells, groundwater extraction system, leachate collection systems, and LFG monitoring 

and control system. The locations of each existing system are shown in Figures 6 through 11. 

All ECS existing at closure are proposed to remain in place upon closure and during the postclosure 

maintenance period, a minimum of 30 years, or until landfill by-products, such as leachate and LFG, 

are demonstrated to no longer pose a threat to the environment and when proper regulatory agency 

approval for decommissioning has been obtained (27 CCR 21900). The accessible portions of the 

ECS will then be decommissioned, if necessary. 

Golder Associates



ECS to be decommissioned during the postclosure maintenance period will either be abandoned in 

place or be dismantled and disposed of at another authorized solid waste disposal site. Well 

abandonment techniques for decommissioning the groundwater monitoring system will be consistent 

with the procedures prescribed in California Well Standards, Bulletin 74-90, and supplement to 

Bulletin 74-81 (DWR, January 1990) or equivalent document applicable at the time of 

decommissioning as required by the Monterey County Department of Health. Underground pipe 

components of the leachate control system and the LFG monitoring system will be cut off at the 

surface, capped, and buried to minimize the disturbance of the landfill final cover. Aboveground 

components will be dismantled, decontaminated, and salvaged for reuse or discarded in a permitted, 

active waste disposal site. Transportation and disposal will be consistent with federal, state, and local 

laws and accomplished in a manner that prevents the introduction of leachate or waste constituents 

into the environment. Materials intended for reuse may be cleaned by: 

• Washing with water, detergent, or chemical solvents 

• Steam-cleaning 

• Scrubbing with abrasives 

• Sand blasting 

The residues produced as a result of cleaning reusable components will be disposed of consistent with 

applicable federal, state, and local laws. 

The decommissioning of each ECS is discussed further in the RFPCMP. 

2.9 Security at Closed Sites 

27 CCR 21790(b)(8)(A) and 21135 

Entry onto the landfill during business hours is controlled by site personnel at the entrance facility, 

which is the single point of public access to the site. Unauthorized access to the site will be 

controlled by perimeter fencing and lockable entrance gates at the point of public access (Crazy Horse 

Canyon Road). The fencing also surrounds specific on-site facilities. In 2006, groundwater 

extraction wells were vandalized south of Module 1. In 2009, approximately 1,600 feet of security 

fencing has been installed along the southern boundary to increase security for the groundwater 

remediation system. In those areas where no fencing has been installed, topographical constraints 

limit access to the site. 

Security at the site is provided by the SVSWA and includes signs, written in English and Spanish, 

which will be posted at all entry points 60 days before the start of final closure activities. These signs 

will present (1) the intended closure date for waste disposal, and (2) the location of alternative waste 

disposal sites. These signs will remain in place for at least 180 days after final waste placement. All 

entry points to the site from public roads will be controlled with lockable gates. No additional 

security installations are proposed for closure. 

Golder Associates



2.10 Final Cover 

27 CCR 21790(b)(8)(B), 21140, 21090(a), and 21769(b)(2) 

Background and Present Conditions – To date, only the 6-acre Module 1 area has been closed. 

Module 1 was closed in 1989 in accordance with a RWQCB-approved closure plan. The Module 1 

final cover consists of, from bottom to top: 

• A minimum of 2 feet of compacted foundation soil; 

• A geomembrane low-permeability layer; and 

• A minimum 1-foot thick vegetative layer. 

An intermediate cover consisting of at least 12 inches of soil will be placed over the inactive waste 

fill areas. Currently active landfill areas will receive daily and intermediate cover, as appropriate, to 

provide a 1-foot thick foundation layer. 

Regulatory Requirements – According to 27 CCR 21140, final cover shall have a minimum 

thickness and quality of cover material consistent with the 27 CCR 21090(a) minimum final cover 

requirements, which consist of the following layers, from bottom to top: 

• A minimum of 2 feet of compacted foundation soil; 

• A minimum of 1 foot of compacted low permeability soil (k ≤ 1 x 

10 -6 centimeters per second [cm/sec]) or equal to the hydraulic conductivity of 

any bottom liner system or underlying natural geologic materials, whichever is 

less permeable; and 

• A minimum of 1 foot of vegetative cover soil. 

Proposed Final Cover Phases – As stated earlier, there are four phases at the CHLF to be closed. 

The first phase is the southern slopes of the landfill down to the canyon floor. This phase will collect 

and convey stormwater drainage from portions of the topdeck area requiring specific attention to 

drainage infrastructure. The second and third phases are on the currently active topdeck. The fourth 

phase will be the equipment parking area that is east of the active landfill area and north of Module 1. 

This area was declared to be within the landfill footprint in the FCPCMP (2004) and previous 

investigations have determined there is waste in the area. It is proposed to continue to use this area 

for Monterey County emergency (fire, earthquake response, etc.) equipment staging, parking for 

SVSWA vehicles and equipment, and a recycling center. 

Active Landfill Area – For cost estimating purposes, the final cover design for the active landfill 

area consists of the following (from top to bottom) discussed in more detail below: 

• A geosynthetic erosion protective layer; 

• A structured geomembrane low-permeability layer; 

• A minimum 1-foot-thick foundation layer beneath the geomembrane; and 

• A minimum 2-foot thick foundation layer beneath the geomembrane in traveled areas. 

Golder Associates



The final cover above is an engineered alternative final cover consistent with 27 CCR 20080. In May 

2010, the SVSWA constructed a test pad of the proposed cover system. The Construction Report 

documenting the results of the test pad is provided in Appendix N. 

The final cover for the current recycling and maintenance area will be asphaltic concrete (AC) 

paving. The AC paving will provide a functional final cover while providing usable space for 

SVSWA and county use. 

Foundation Layer - Title 27 CCR §21090 stipulates that not less than two feet of a soil foundation 

layer shall be constructed for the final cover, unless it is shown that differential settlement and 

ultimate land use do not adversely affect the integrity of the final cover. Postclosure use for the site 

will be as a solar power generation facility on the topdeck (Figure 4A). The remaining areas will be 

non-irrigated open-space. The ultimate land use does not involve structures or other uses of the 

covered areas that could be affected by differential settlement. 

To support vehicle travel on the closed facility during construction activities and the postclosure 

period, the foundation layer beneath traveled roadways will be a minimum of two feet thick. The 

SVSWA recently conducted a survey of existing foundation soil thickness. It was determined that 

onsite soils are available for foundation layer construction, however, it is anticipated that some soil 

will require import. Other surfaces of the landfill will be constructed with a minimum 1-foot thick 

foundation layer in the final cover system as discussed below. 

Low-Permeability Layer - The proposed low-permeability hydraulic barrier layer is provided by 

geosynthetic materials (structured LLDPE geomembrane). These geosynthetic materials can tolerate 

substantially higher strains up to 10 to 20 percent or greater before yielding, and thus are a superior 

cover construction material. Because these materials can tolerate strains 10 times larger than soil 

components without adverse impacts, the two-foot foundation layer thickness supportive for 

construction of a clay liner is not required for geosynthetic materials. Furthermore, modern 

landfilling techniques focus on achieving a high degree of compaction to optimize airspace, and large 

containers are typically diverted from the landfill that could otherwise collapse and cause large 

differential settlements. As a result, differential settlements at the top of the refuse are expected to be 

relatively small at approximately 2 percent or less (Appendix B). Therefore, the foundation layer for 

the proposed EAD cover design need only be thick enough to provide a clean, firm surface for the 

geosynthetic materials. 

Due to the SVSWA’s efforts and practices to divert large appliances/containers from the landfill, the 

development of large differential settlements resulting from large voids is considered unlikely. In 

addition, the SVSWA is considering utilizing dynamic compaction techniques on the finished topdeck 

surface to reduce settlement impacts on the constructed final cover. However, a very conservative 

analysis was completed that considered the potential development of a void in the underlying wastes 

(Appendix B). This analysis indicates that the resulting strain (2%) are well within the limits that can 

be tolerated by the proposed cover materials in the unlikely event that significant voids develop 

beneath the cover system. For the CHLF, a foundation layer of one foot is more than sufficient to 

achieve this objective and will also reduce the traffic and environmental impact of transporting 

additional foundation layer material to the site. 

For unlined and lined areas, the low-permeability layer will be a geomembrane placed on the 

foundation layer. The geomembrane exceeds the permeability requirement in 27 CCR as discussed in 

Appendix D. 

Golder Associates



For the sideslopes of the CHLF, a combined structured geomembrane/drainage geocomposite has 

been selected for stability concerns (discussed in Section 2.13). This material has significantly higher 

shear strength properties than typical geomembrane/geocomposite combinations and thus is specified 

for use on the sideslopes of the CHLF. The hydraulic performance of geomembrane was evaluated in 

Appendix D. 

Drainage Layer – The drainage layer will be within the stub side of the structured geomembrane. As 

shown on the closure system details on Figures 13 and 14, the structured geomembrane will be 

overlain with an artificial turf product as discussed below. 

Geosynthetic Mechanically Erosion-Resistant Layer – An engineered alternative to the 

prescriptive vegetative erosion protection design discussed above is proposed to be a geosynthetic 

vegetative cover placed over the geomembrane. The geosynthetic vegetative layer is a permeable 

geosynthetic grass that consists of a woven geotextile and UV resistant blades of artificial grass 

ballasted with interlocking sand infill. 

The quantity of final cover soils and geosynthetic material required for the landfill closure is 

presented on Table 3. Appendix J presents the Closure Cost Estimate back-up calculations based on 

these quantities. Final cover construction will begin early 2011 as shown of Figure 5. A construction 

quality assurance (CQA) program, including geomembrane installation, is presented in Appendix G. 

Final cover construction will be conducted under the supervision of a registered civil engineer. 

Recycling Center and Equipment Parking Area – Prior to opening a recycling center, appropriate 

permits required under Title 14 will be secured. The final cover for the recycling center and 

equipment parking and staging area will be AC paving. AC paving has previously been used as final 

cover at other landfills in road areas and end-use development areas. For cost estimating purposes, 

the final cover for the recycling center and equipment parking and staging area consists of, from 

bottom to top: 

• Minimum 6-inch thick aggregate base layer; 

• Geotextile fabric; and 

• Minimum 6-inch thick low-permeability AC layer. 

Aggregate Base Layer - A minimum 6-inch thick aggregate base will be placed on the prepared 

subgrade. The aggregate base will support the AC layer and provide a dampening effect for any 

differential settlement. 

Geotextile Fabric – A geotextile fabric will be placed on the aggregate base layer before the AC 

paving. The geotextile will act as a reinforcing layer and further isolate the AC paving from the 

underlying waste. 

AC Paving – Low-permeability AC paving typically incorporates additional binder to seal void space 

within the pavement section that greatly decreases the permeability. Permeabilities as low as 1 x 10 -8 

cm/sec have been measured for low-permeability AC paving samples. Also, this area will not have a 

(saturated) vegetative cover over it providing a driving hydraulic head through the pavement section. 

Proper grading of the paved area to prevent ponding will provide more protection against infiltration 

then asphalt permeability. As shown on Figure 4 minimum slope on the pavement will be 2%. 

Golder Associates



2.11 Construction Documents and CQA 

Construction plans and specifications previously had been prepared based on the RFCP (2009). 

These plans will be revised and submitted for regulatory review in late July 2010. The construction 

documents will include final construction drawings, specifications, and a construction quality 

assurance plan, which will be prepared under the supervision of a Registered Civil Engineer or 

Certified Engineering Geologist in the State of California. Appendix G includes a CQA Plan that 

addresses placement of the geosynthetic material closure design as described in this document. 

CQA will be implemented during closure to verify that the construction complies with approved 

construction drawings, specifications, and the CQA Plan. The CQA activities will be completed 

under the supervision of a Registered Civil Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist in the State 

of California as required by Title 27 CCR. 

2.12 Final Grading 

27 CCR 21090(b), 21790(b)(8)(B), 21142, and 21769(b)(2) 

Background and Existing Conditions. The final landfill grades were configured to maximize refuse 

fill while addressing existing topographic restrictions, drainage requirements, and aesthetics. The 

existing sideslopes of the landfill have been constructed with a nominal slope of approximately 

3H:1V. However, as discussed previously and presented on Figure 3, there are five basic areas where 

final slopes at the CHLF will exceed 3H:1V. These slopes are specifically discussed in Section 2.13 

for overall drainage, static and seismic stability. 

Regulatory Requirements. According to 27 CCR 21090(b), the final elevations of the landfill must 

be designed to prevent ponding, accommodate anticipated future settlement, and reduce runoff 

velocities in order to protect the final cover from soil erosion. Additionally, 27 CCR 21142 requires 

that final grades be designed and maintained to reduce impacts to health and safety and take into 

consideration any postclosure land use. 

Final Grades. The final grades are consistent with 27 CCR requirements. The final grades on the 

topdeck will be constructed with slopes no flatter than 5 percent to provide sufficient slope for 

continued stormwater runoff after refuse consolidation and settlement, and to prevent the potential for 

ponding in the event of differential settlement. Sideslopes will be nominally 3H:1V, or flatter. 

However, some sideslope areas are steeper approaching 2H:1V under current conditions. The highest 

peak elevation of the closed facility will be on the topdeck area at about 635 feet amsl. The proposed 

final grades for the Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill are shown in Figure 4. 

The final grades are controlled by surrounding topography, existing waste fill, anticipated refuse 

settlement, and minimum gradients for adequate drainage of the completed fill. Final landfill grades 

are designed to prevent ponding, to accommodate anticipated future settlement, and to reduce runoff 

velocities to minimize erosive conditions. The final landfill grades, shown in Figure 4, represent presettlement 

grades. Refuse settlement after closure is estimated to be up to approximately 25 feet on 

the southern slope (settlement calculations are presented in Appendix B). This estimate is based on 

the method of landfill operation, effects of surcharging over the deepest parts of the fill, estimated 

settlement during the active life of the landfill, refuse decomposition and landfill settlement 

experienced at other sites with similar characteristics. 

Final Cover Surveys. To monitor settlement of the site during the postclosure maintenance period, 

measuring techniques, such as aerial photographic surveys, will be used. The entire landfill will be 

Golder Associates



aerially photographed and topographic maps of the site prepared to evaluate landfill settlement. The 

landfill will be aerially photographed at the end of closure activities, and every 5 years throughout the 

postclosure maintenance period. An iso-settlement map will also be produced every 5 years showing 

changes in elevation from the map produced upon closure and the most recent topographic map. Isosettlement 

maps will be produced consistent with 27 CCR 21090(e). As shown on Figure 2, there are 

6 existing survey control benchmarks available to prepare these postclosure surveys and locate 

containment structures and monitoring facilities throughout the post-closure period which is required 

by 27 CCR 20950(d). 

2.13 Final Site Face 

27 CCR 21145 and 21769(b) 

The final landfill configuration for the Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill will provide a final site face 

with most slopes no steeper than 3H:1V and with minimum 15-foot-wide benches at approximately 

50-foot elevation change intervals. Some final slopes as shown on Figure 4, will be steeper than 

3H:1V, approaching 2H:1V in the case on the upper eastern slope of the topdeck and 2.3H:1V on the 

upper southern slope. Stability issues associated with these slopes are discussed below. H:1V On 

the topdeck, minimum final surface slopes of 5 percent will be used to provide sufficient run-off slope 

after refuse settlement. Settlement analyses specific to the topdeck areas in Appendix B (based on 

Figure 12), indicates that this topdeck slope is expected to remain serviceable for consistent surface 

water drainage throughout the postclosure period of the CHLF without excessive maintenance 

requirements. 

2.13.1 Slope Stability 

Requirements: Slope stability of the CHLF must be analyzed per the requirements of Title 27. 

Section 20370 of Title 27 specifies that Class III landfills shall be designed to “withstand the 

maximum probable earthquake (MPE) without damage to the foundation or to the structures which 

control leachate, surface drainage or erosion, or gas” (LFG). This slope stability requirement is 

repeated under Section 21145 under “dynamic and static” conditions. Section 21090(a) requires any 

final cover design having slopes steeper than 3H:1V (H:V), or having a geosynthetic component must 

be supported in the “slope stability report required under §21750(f)(5).” Where critical slope factors 

of safety less than 1.5 under “dynamic conditions” are achieved, Section 21750(f)(5)(D) requires a 

“quantified estimate of the magnitude of movement” and demonstrate this seismically induced 

permanent displacement can be accommodated without “jeopardizing the integrity” of the foundation 

or the environmental control structures listed in Sections 20370 and 21145. Analyses were previously 

performed for the prescriptive vegetative soil cover. The stability properties of the artificial turf 

component were measured against this analysis and were found to be satisfactory. 

2.13.1.1 Previous Stability Analyses 

A global stability analysis through the refuse mass in the lined area on the western side of the CHLF 

was performed in 1993 by GeoLogic Associates (GLA) for development of the lined phases of the 

landfill. This analysis is attached to the RFCP in Appendix C. The analysis calculated both the 

Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE) and the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) for several 

faults in the South Bay Area including the “creeping” and “northern” segments of the San Andreas 

Fault. Based on the northern segment of the San Andreas approximately 10 miles from the site, GLA 

calculated a design MPE acceleration of 0.27g resulting from a 7.5 Magnitude event. As a 

conservative approach, GLA elected to use the calculated MCE site acceleration of 0.39g from a “7.0 

Magnitude event on the (creeping) segment of the San Andreas Fault located approximately 4 miles 

Golder Associates



from the site.” The 1993 analysis estimated seismically induced permanent displacement in the base 

liner and LCRS “on the order of less than one-half of one foot.” 

In 2004 (Emcon/OWT, Inc. 2004b) both veneer (final cover) and global (through refuse mass) slope 

stability analyses were performed to evaluate the affects of the vertical expansion of the landfill to the 

final maximum elevation of 635 feet amsl. This analysis is attached to the RFCP in Appendix C. For 

the slope stability analysis performed in the 2004 study, the design ground motion was chosen as that 

having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years 2 and calculated at 0.53 g. This design 

ground motion is more stringent than the ground motion associated with the MCE estimated in the 

1993 analysis. The 2004 slope stability analysis concluded the following regarding global and veneer 

stability for the proposed site conditions analyzed in 2004: 

• For the proposed final landfill slopes, the static factor of safety for global 

stability is equal to or greater than 1.5, the generally accepted value for static 

factor of safety. 

• For the proposed final landfill slopes, a displacement analysis concluded the 

permanent displacement was less than 1 foot for global stability supportive of the 

findings in the initial 1993 analysis. 

• For the proposed final cover on 3H:1V slopes, a veneer stability analysis for a 

soil vegetative layer determined the seismically induced permanent displacement 

would be less than 1 foot if the interface shear strengths within the final cover 

system equaled or exceeded a shear strength envelope defined by a friction angle 

of 31 degrees. This friction angle would also provide a static factor of safety 

greater than the required 1.5 value. 

However, these previous analyses did not consider the existence of localized slopes steeper than 

3H:1V at the crest of the landfill. Overall global stability of the landfill is not affected by these slope 

conditions as the previous critical surfaces were determined to be over the lined areas on the west side 

of the topdeck. Sideslopes along the lined area will all be 3H:1V or less, therefore the stability 

assumptions, conditions, and findings of those previous studies over the critical surfaces on the lined 

area remain unchanged. Both the 1993 and 2004 global stability analyses concluded the existing base 

liner and LCRS at the CHLF would experience seismically induced permanent displacement of less 

than the generally accepted limit of 12 inches. 

2.13.1.2 Existing Steep Slopes 

The CHLF will possess a few localized areas of over steepened slope during the postclosure period. 

In 2009, Golder performed additional veneer stability calculations regarding these slopes which range 

from 2.3H:1V to 2.2H:1V. Slope measurements on the final slopes are shown on Figure C-1 

(Appendix C). The upper slope above a 12-foot wide bench on the eastern face of the topdeck (facing 

the entrance facilities) currently has an average slope of 2.2H:1V in steepness over an approximate 

area of 1.0 acres, with a localized area approaching 2H:1V. The slope height of the over steepened 

section is approximately 24 feet. The SVSWA directed its site operator to stop this steep slope 

construction and return to typical 3H:1V sideslopes above the steepen area in anticipation of site 

closure. The 3H:1V slope segment will be approximately 10 feet in height at final closure. Below 

2 per the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment. 

Golder Associates



the mid-slope bench are sideslopes generally 3H:1V in steepness with some localized areas as steep 

as 2.6H:1V as shown on Figure C-1. 

The uppermost slope of the south face is approximately 2.3H:1V in steepness over approximately 1.1 

acres as shown on Figure C-1 in Appendix C. The slope height in this area is approximately 40 feet. 

Slopes to be constructed beyond the main access road and western bench road are to be constructed at 

3H:1V slopes per direction given by the SVSWA to its site operator. These slopes were relatively 

short hence a sliding block analysis was performed versus an infinite slope analysis. The 2009 slope 

stability analysis concluded the following regarding veneer stability for the proposed final cover 

system with a vegetative soil layer: 

• Upper Eastern Slope Face: To limit the estimated seismically induced permanent 

displacements to less than 12 inches, the vegetative soil required tapering from a thickness of 

2 feet at the slope crest to a thickness of 4 feet at the mid-slope bench. This vegetative layer 

configuration also resulted in an acceptable factor of safety greater than 1.5 for this slope. 

• Upper Southern Slope Face: The computed factor of safety and estimates of seismically 

induced permanent displacement were acceptable with a uniform vegetative soil layer 

thickness of 2 feet. 

• These analyses were based on interface shear strengths within the final cover system equal or 

exceeding a shear strength envelope defined by a friction angle of 32.5 degrees. This friction 

angle was based on direct shear test results of the internal shear strength of the proposed 

vegetative soil material. 

Geosynthetic Final Cover Stability. The proposed geosynthetic cover system eliminates the use of 

a thick vegetative soil layer. This also eliminates the potential for damage to the final cover system 

due to excessive seismically induced permanent displacements. With elimination of the 2-foot thick 

vegetative layer, an infinite slope is a more appropriate means of stability analysis for the proposed 

geosynthetic materials. For the required factor of safety (FS) of 1.5, the minimum shear strength 

envelope is determined by: 

tanφ => 1.5 x tanα 

Where φ is the internal friction angle of the veneer interface being considered and α is the slope 

angle. For a 2.2H:1V slope and FS = >1.5, the internal friction angle must be greater than or equal to 

34.5 degrees (rounding to the nearest half degree). 

The manufacturer of the proposed geosynthetic mechanically erosion-resistant layer, Closure Turf 

LLC, had direct shear tests performed on the material to represent both the closed condition and final 

cover construction conditions at the CHLF: These test results are presented in Appendix O. These 

results are summarized in the table below and plotted against the minimum shear strength envelope in 

the accompanying chart. The tests were conducted using a concrete sand infill in the artificial turf 

component placed against the stud side of the structured geomembrane. The tests were conducted 

under “soaked” conditions and run at a shear rate of 0.04 inches per minute. 

Golder Associates



Closure Turf Direct Shear Testing Summary 

Applied Normal Shear Stress 

Stress Peak Residual 

(psf) (psf) (psf) 

50 96 54 

100 151 114 

200 185 132 

400 302 224 

600 464 335 

2000 1376 1308 

3500 2425 2291 

5000 3400 3233 

Golder Associates



500 

450 

400 

Measure Shear Stress (psf) 

Measure Shear Stress (psf) 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

500 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Peak 

Residual 

Minimum Shear Strength Envelope (2.2H:1V) 

2.3H:1V Slope 

3H:1V Slope 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 

Applied Normal Stress (psf) 

Peak 

Residual 

Minimum Shear Strength Envelope (2.2H:1V) 

2.3H:1V Slope 

3H:1V Slope 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 

Applied Normal Stress (psf) 

The peak and residual shear strength test results indicate the proposed geosynthetic final cover system 

should remain above the minimum shear strength envelope for typical normal load conditions (< 50 

psf) during the post-closure period. However, test results at higher normal loads (400 psf to 5,000 

psf, representing equipment loading) produce shear strengths that are under the minimum shear 

strength envelope. Equipment travel across the deployed final cover system on slopes steeper than 

3H:1V should be prohibited during construction. 

Golder Associates



2.14 Final Drainage 

27 CCR 21790(b)(8)(D), 21150, 20365, and 21090 

Proposed Final Drainage Control System 

The proposed final drainage control system configuration is shown on Figure 4 and 17. A detailed 

discussion of the hydraulic performance of the geosynthetic final cover system is presented in 

Appendix E. The proposed final drainage improvements, combined with the proposed surface 

grading, will facilitate the rapid removal of surface water run-off from the waste area in accordance 

with 27 CCR regulations. The final surface or deck area of the landfill will be sloped to prevent 

ponding and promote lateral runoff of storm water which falls directly on the landfill. Downdrain 

inlets placed around the edges of the deck area, deck area drainage swales and/or berms and the slope 

on benches will direct storm water to either the downdrain or the peripheral storm drain systems. 

Hydrology 

A hydrology study for proposed conditions at the site was conducted in accordance with 27 CCR 

20365. The objective of the hydrology study was to provide sizing and location information for the 

site's storm drain facilities at closure. Historical hydrological analysis has used climatological data 

collected at the Salinas Airport. However, the SVSWA had started collecting onsite rainfall data at 

the CHLF beginning in 2003. While not considered “statistically significant” for standard 

climatological analysis, the few years of onsite data available suggested annual rainfall totals at the 

CHLF were potentially double that previously considered. Therefore, a new hydrology study for 

conditions at the site was conducted in accordance with 27 CCR 20365. The objective of the 

hydrology study was to provide sizing and location information for the site's storm drain facilities at 

closure. For this Revised FCP, climatological data was collected from weather stations located along 

the ridge on which the CHLF resides. These data reported rainfall levels confirming measured 

precipitation at the onsite weather station. The weather station along the Pajaro River (CIMIS Station 

129) was selected for this hydrological study as the most reflective of site hydrology conditions. 

Collected data from this station produces a calculated 100-year, 24-hr storm rainfall precipitation total 

of 5.65 inches. This design storm was used in the drainage analysis presented in Appendix E. 

Hydraulic Analysis Method 

Previous revisions of the FCP used the Rational Method in performance of hydraulic calculations for 

the closed CHLF. This method was appropriate for a drainage area of less than 100 acres and a 

surface condition of vegetated sandy silt soil. Detention capacity of peak discharge for the previously 

proposed final cover system was readily available from the existing sedimentation basins. 

However, the run-off and peak discharge potential of the proposed artificial turf based final cover 

system is much higher than that of a vegetated soil layer. While the Rational Method would produce 

fairly conservative estimates of peak discharge for drainage conveyance structure (ditches, overside 

drains, etc.) sizing, it cannot perform the routing analysis required to determine the required detention 

capacity from a design storm event on an entirely geosynthetic final cover. Therefore, Golder used 

the Technical Release No. 55 (TR-55) method from the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) for calculation of peak discharge from a 24-hour, 100-year storm event. Estimated peak 

discharge and routing values were calculated based on the Pajaro climatological data presented in 

Appendix E. 

Golder Associates



Drainage Sub Basins 

In general, storm water on the landfill deck will sheet flow until it is intercepted by diversion berms 

or the perimeter access road located across the topdeck as shown on Figure 4. Diversion berms will 

be used where necessary to direct runoff flows into overside drains for conveyance to the perimeter 

road. Erosion control, using aggregate, or geosynthetic materials, will be installed as needed to 

minimize erosion. 

The overside drains will be installed perpendicular to slope contours and located atop, and anchored 

into, the final landfill surface. The overside drains will empty into rip-rap energy dispersion 

structures at sideslope benches. To reduce refuse excavation, rather than use of catch basins, the 

benches will be fitted with surface swales to direct overside drain and bench ditch flows into the next 

overside drain pipe. 

There are three primary subbasins and discharge points in the proposed Final Drainage Plan of the 

CHLF: 

A. Adjacent to the southwest corner of the waste fill area for flows originating from the 

northern and western portions of the landfill. (Final Cover Construction Phase II on 

Figure 4) 

B. The southwest corner of the closed Module 1 area for flows originating from the 

eastern and southern portions of the landfill. (Final Cover Construction Phases III 

and IV) 

C. The south slope of the main fill area. (Final Cover Construction Phase I) 

These locations can be seen on Figure 4 as referenced. 

Subbasin A is the topdeck and sideslopes northwest of the main topdeck access road shown on Figure 

4. This subbasin is approximately 29 acres in area and consists primarily of overland flow conditions 

on the topdeck area with concentrated flows directed to overside drainage structures down the 

sideslopes. Flows are discharged from the overside drains to the paved perimeter road which directs 

run-off flow into Sedimentation Basin A. The grades of the paved road generally vary from 1.5 to 14 

percent and rises from an elevation of approximately 410-ft MSL at the existing Sedimentation Basin 

A to a grade break located at the northeastern tip of the landfill at an approximate elevation of 580-ft 

MSL. 

Subbasin B is approximately 39 acres in total area. In addition to the topdeck and sideslope areas 

southeast of the main topdeck access road, the subbasin also collects run-off from the proposed 

parking lot area, and the closed Module 1. Also, this subbasin diverts rain-fall run-on from the small 

hill east of the topdeck area, the power plant pad and driveway, and the entrance facilities. Diverted 

run-on from the power plant pad and entrance facilities area will be conveyed to the Main Drainage 

Channel. Details for the main drainage channel are presented on Figure 16. The existing 

underground pipeline will be removed and replaced with an above ground artificial turf lined 

trapezoid channel. The channel will discharge to the existing catch basin at the end of the Module 1 

perimeter road as currently occurs. All flows from Subbasin B are discharged to the existing catch 

basin at the end of the Module 1 perimeter road. This catch basin discharges to an existing 36-inch 

CMP culvert pipe which discharges to the natural drainage course (discussed below). 

Subbasin C is approximately 11 acres in area and consists entirely of the southern slopes and benches 

of the CHLF. As with common hydraulic engineering practice, the south slope area, including the 

main drainage channel of Subbasin B, will receive closure improvements first to facilitate drainage 

flow from the upstream phases as they receive closure improvements. Otherwise, improved drainage 

Golder Associates



conditions in the upstream phases could potentially overwhelm the existing benches and overside 

drains on the south slope and the subsurface HDPE pipe currently in the main channel alignment 

flowing from the entrance area to the southeast discharge at the end of the Module 1 perimeter road. 

Storm Water Sedimentation Basins and Retention Capacity 

After stormwater run-off and run-on has been conveyed away from the closed landfill, it enters a 

system of proposed energy dispersion and existing retention structures. Stormwater flow from 

Sedimentation Basin A, Subbasin C, and Subbasin B will discharge to a rip-rap energy dispersion 

apron at the location shown on Figure 17. The peak discharge to this apron will be approximately 

162 cfs (Appendix E). The apron is sized with a riprap D 50 diameter of 12.5 inches. This classifies as 

a Light riprap (Caltrans) to be placed 2 feet deep over a 15-foot by 20-foot area. Flow exiting the riprap 

apron will enter an approximately 500-foot long natural drainage course as shown on Figure 17. 

This vegetated drainage will remove most sediment before flows enter Sedimentation Basin B. This 

drainage course discharges into the headwater pool of a culvert emptying into Sedimentation Basin B. 

Discharge from Sedimentation Basin B leaves the landfill property and flows into Pesante Creek. The 

peak discharge of Sedimentation Basin B was compared to estimates of pre-landfill discharge in 

accordance with Low Impact Development (LID) practices. A detention analysis of the two basins is 

detailed in Appendix E and summarized below. 

Sedimentation Basin A receives stormwater discharge from Subbasin A on the west side of the 

topdeck area. The southern low point of Sedimentation Basin A discharges into an existing 36-inch 

CSP which discharges to the rip-rap apron dicussed above. Ultimately discharge from Sedimentation 

Basin A contributes to peak flow into Sedimentation Basin B further downgradient (the lowest point 

of the site’s property). As discussed in Appendix E, Sedimentation Basin A has an adequately sized 

discharge structure (36” culvert) for the 100-year design storm. Hydraulic analysis of the culvert 

outlet flow capacity to the peak stormwater flow revealed no improvements to this basin should be 

required according to the analysis. 

To satisfy LID restrictions on peak discharge, Sedimentation Basin B will require some minor 

improvements to control peak discharge: 

1. Installation of a sluice gate on the existing outlet to restrict peak discharge. 

2. Raising the southern berm to provide required freeboard. 

3. Installation of a diversion channel to accommodate 100-year peak flow into the 

basin. 

The existing Sedimentation Basin B outlet structure consists of a concrete-lined trapezoidal weir 

approximately 8 feet wide and 2.5 feet deep with an inlet elevation of 312-ft MSL. The basin is 

surrounded by a mixture of tall vegetation and trees, thus protected from wind induced wave action. 

The sideslopes of the weir are approximately 2H:1V. Flow calculations indicate the weir can 

adequately manage peak discharge off of the proposed artificial turf final cover system from the 100- 

yr storm event. However, that peak flow would exceed the estimated peak flow from pre-landfill 

conditions. A flow restriction device is required to reduce peak discharge from the basin to that 

estimated for the pre-landfill condition. As discussed in Appendix E, a sluice gate installed to a 

height of 1.3 feet above the bottom of the existing 8-foot wide weir will adequately restrict peak flow 

as required. The sluice gate will be fastened to the existing concrete lining of the weir and supported 

if required to resist any hydrostatic forces that may develop on the upstream side. 

Golder Associates



Capacity estimates were performed in Appendix E with the sluice gate in place. The calculations 

indicate the surface water elevation in Sedimentation Basin B will rise to an elevation of 

approximately 314.5-ft MSL at the time of peak flow into the basin. This is the current elevation 

along portions of the existing berm along the southwestern side of the basin. Therefore, the 

southwestern berm of the basin will be raised to an elevation of 315.5-ft MSL to provide a nominal 1- 

foot of freeboard from the top of the estimated maximum water surface elevation in the basin to the 

top of the berm. Retention time and particle settling velocity calculations (Appendix E) indicate any 

eroded sand ballast component of the artificial turf final cover system should be entirely retained in 

the basin at peak flow conditions (100-yr, 24-hr flows) during the postclosure period. 

Figure 17 indicates a diversion channel is to be installed to accommodate peak inlet flows to 

Sedimentation Basin B. The existing 36-inch culvert inlet to the basin is inadequate to manage that 

peak flow condition. To avoid uncontrolled flooding in the area surrounding the headwater pool, 

installation of the diversion channel is necessary. The channel will be 4 feet wide at its base with 

2H:1V sideslopes. It will be graded at a slope of 3.6-percent from the headwater pool to the basin. 

Subsurface Drainage. Drainage media in the structured geomembrane will provide adequate 

subsurface drainage of the artificial turf on the steeper slopes (2.5H:1V, and those approaching 

2H:1V) present within the manufacturers recommended factor of safety. However, the length of the 

3H:1V slopes on the west side of the landfill will require mid-slope outlets of the drainage media to 

avoid saturated conditions within the sand ballast material. 

2.15 Slope Protection and Erosion Control 

27 CCR 21145, 21150, and 20365(c) 

Closure will incorporate the “Drainage and Erosion Control Program” to minimize sand ballast 

erosion. This program addresses drainage facilities, design slope length, and vegetation. The major 

program elements are summarized below: 

• A diversion berm graded to a flowline slope of 1-percent will be placed to 

intercept runoff on the topdeck and to direct this runoff to overside drain inlets. 

The purpose is to reduce the erosion associated with the high velocities of runoff 

flowing down steep gradients. Flow calculations included in Appendix E 

indicate flow velocities (100-yr storm flows) of less than 5 feet per second and 

subcritical flow conditions as recommended for vegetated soil. That design 

parameter will be used to minimize hydraulic stress on the sand ballast where 

possible. 

• The Final Drainage Plan will use corrugated HDPE pipe for overside drains on 

the sideslopes to contain and control high velocity flows. 

• Monthly inspection and following high intensity rainfall periods to identify and 

schedule repairs of eroded areas with particular attention paid to the existing 

vegetative layer in Module 1. 

• Temporary repairs, including the use of geosynthetic tarps, when the ground is 

too saturated for equipment to make repairs without causing additional damage 

(Module 1). 

• Annual maintenance of the sedimentation basins, if necessary. 

Golder Associates



2.16 Leachate Management System 

27 CCR 21790(b)(8)(F), 21160(d), and 20340 

The leachate control system for the closed CHLF is shown on Figures 6 and 7. Currently leachate 

gravity drains from the 15-ac leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) under the west side of 

the landfill. These flows are captured by a 5,000-gallon collection tank near Sedimentation Basin A. 

The collected leachate is pumped from the lower collection tank to the upper storage tanks located 

near the landfill gas flares and maintenance building in the entrance facilities (ref. Figure 7). 

Leachate flows for the past few water years since recording began are shown below: 

CHLF Leachate Generation 

Water Year 

Gallons 

2002/2003 253,426 

2003/2004 512,219 

2004/2005 680,005 

2005/2006 729,355 

2006/2007 646,645 

2007/2008 679,590 

2008/2009 750,300 

These annual flows are divided into monthly flows: 

Golder Associates



Monthly Leachate Flows (ga) 

Month Average Max Min 

January 75,739 139,643 37,289 

February 62,228 100,792 32,177 

March 80,946 111,996 32,897 

April 58,499 93,368 30,065 

May 59,435 130,795 27,570 

June 54,048 112,574 32,087 

July 41,868 59,914 25,788 

August 44,390 59,977 29,973 

September 36,755 47,100 24,843 

October 33,196 52,920 4,015 

November 42,105 68,201 22,460 

December 44,372 65,967 31,679 

Totals 633,581 1,043,247 330,843 

The leachate storage tanks in the entrance facility provide a total storage capacity of 40,000 gallons as 

shown on Figure 7. The tanks located near the flare station (L1 and L2 on Figure 7) are referred to as 

the Upper Leachate Storage Tanks in SVSWA reports regarding leachate generation and disposal. 

These tanks provide 10,000 gallons of storage each. Overflow piping in tanks L1 and L2 gravity flow 

to the backup leachate storage tanks L3 and L4 (Ref. Figure 7) located west of the maintenance 

building. The backup tanks provide an additional combined storage of 20,000 gallons. These tanks 

are typically used during the wintertime during higher leachate flow rates. Leachate was used as dust 

control in the operating areas of the landfill. That practice will no longer be available after site 

closure so offsite disposal of leachate will initially be required during winter months at a local 

wastewater treatment works. Alternatively, leachate treatment and recirculation will be added to 

address the leachate volume as discussed below. 

Leachate Volume Reduction Treatment – Beginning in 2009, the SVSWA started an experimental 

leachate volume reduction treatment project. The project consists of two main processes: oxidation to 

control odors, and evaporation by controlled forced air. The results of the experimental project are 

included in Appendix D. With satisfactory results, the SVSWA is proceeding with expanding the 

leachate volume reduction treatment project to serve about 30 to 50 percent of the site’s leachate 

volume. 

The proposed leachate volume reduction treatment unit will be located adjacent to the storage tanks 

near the flare system. The unit will process a maximum of 30,000 gallons per month and it is 

expected to reduce the leachate volume by 90 percent. The unit contains a holding tank for storage 

and overflow. The operation and monitoring of the unit will be conducted by Cal-Recovery, a waste 

management consulting firm. 

The unit will comply with all necessary regulatory requirements before proceeding assembly, testing 

and operations. 

Golder Associates



Leachate Recirculation - The proposed method for leachate and LFG condensate management at the 

closed CHLF is recirculation. The storage tanks discussed above would still be available as a backup 

management system. The location of the proposed recirculation gallery is shown on Figures 4 and 6. 

Leachate recirculation at the CHLF has been analyzed according to the regulatory and operational 

restrictions presented in Appendix D1 of this report. That analysis determined that a properly design 

and constructed recirculation system will achieve the following: 

• Operate within a Title 27 and Subtitle D compliant base liner and operating 

LCRS system. 

• The recirculation system should not generate leachate seeps thereby discharging 

contaminants to surface run-off. Trenches will be located at least 85 feet from 

the slope face. 

• The recirculation system is not expected to cause instability in the waste. 

• The recirculation system is not expected to generate landfill gas beyond the 

extraction capacity of the active landfill gas extraction system at the site. 

• Recirculation will be limited so that it does not generate leachate volumes in 

exceedance of the hydraulic capacity of the LCRS. 

Furthermore, the proposed recirculation system is compatible with the Class III liner systems at the 

CHLF and will not harm public health or the environment. 

Based on the evaluations presented in Appendix D1, the following design criteria are recommended 

for leachate and LFG condensate recirculation at the CHLF: 

• Locate recirculation trenches a minimum of 85-feet from any slope face. 

• Trenches shall be placed towards the downslope end of the topdeck to 

accommodate surface water drainage with accelerated differential settlement in 

the recirculation area. 

• The maximum application rate should be no more than 6,100 gpd or 35 gpd/ft for 

the proposed 174-foot horizontal trench. 

• The trench should have a total depth of at least 5 feet with shredded tire particles 

at least 2 feet thick and 3 feet wide. They should also be preferentially level to 

evenly distribute liquids. The tire particles shall be covered with 3 feet of 

compacted soil. 

Leachate generation should decrease during the postclosure period as the final cover system will 

significantly reduce rainfall infiltration and the waste mass stabilizes. The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) evaluated containment performance for numerous landfills throughout the United 

States (EPA, 2002) and found that following landfill closure with a low-permeability cover, leachate 

generation rates typically decrease by 90 percent within the first 2 to 4 years and then decrease to near 

zero within 10 years. The National Research Council (NRC) reported leachate generation decreases 

to 1 percent of the annual precipitation 10 years after closure with a composite final cover (NRC, 

2007). 

Golder Associates



If recirculation were unavailable, the SVSWA would be able to store the quantities collected 

(approximately 33,000 gallons from October to March of an average year) in the existing onsite 

storage tanks if leachate generation rates decrease to 10-percent of current rates. 

Consistent with 27 CCR 20340 and WDR Order No. R3-2007-0003, the LCRS will be monitored by 

periodic observation and sampling of collected leachate. Annual LCRS testing will consist of 

visually monitoring the physical condition of the aboveground components and determining that the 

system is operating properly. As with current monitoring procedures, the LCRS will be tested 

annually for biofouling using a typical testing procedure of injecting fixed volumes of water into the 

LCRS clean-outs and comparing to the corresponding LCRS discharge volume. The results will be 

submitted to the RWQCB. 

As required by Monitoring and Reporting Program, included in the current WDR Order, leachate 

monitoring and inspection results are submitted to the RWQCB as part of the semi-annual monitoring 

report. If no leachate has been detected or pumped during the reporting period, a statement to that 

effect will be submitted. 

2.17 Groundwater Monitoring System 

27 CCR 20385 and 20415 

Details on the function of the existing groundwater monitoring system were discussed in Section 

6.3.1 of the JTD (Vol. 1). The current monitoring system as described in MRP R3-2007-0003 

(Appendix A) will continue to be used in the post closure period. No additional monitoring wells are 

proposed for installation during closure activities. 

The objectives of the water quality monitoring system for the landfill are to: 

• Characterize background groundwater quality. 

• Detect changes in water quality that may result from changes in recharge, 

possible landfill leakage or other landfill-related factors before such changes 

affect off-site water quality. 

• Monitor groundwater elevations and gradients around the landfill. 

• Fulfill RWQCB WDRs for groundwater monitoring. 

• Monitor the effectiveness of the selected corrective action alternatives. 

Geologic and hydrogeologic investigations at the site indicate that groundwater beneath the site 

occurs within the alluvium, Aromas Sand, Purisma Formation, and the granitic bedrock that underlies 

the sedimentary units. Groundwater generally flows to the southwest. The groundwater wells that 

are part of the Detection Monitoring Plan (DMP) network are positioned to provide upgradient 

(background) and downgradient (point of compliance) water quality monitoring and to better define 

the occurrence and flow direction of groundwater within the vicinity of the facility. 

The groundwater DMP system consists of the following wells: 

• Aromas Sand Aquifer: A-1, A-10, A-14, A-29, A-30, A-31, A-53, A-54, A-55, 

A-56, A-57, A-58, A-59, and A-60. 

• Granitic Aquifer: P-4 and A-61. 

• Purisma Formation Aquifer: P-3, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10, P-15, and P-16. 

Golder Associates



• Residential water supply wells: Burton Well, Githens Well, Grider Well, 

Howard Well, Newman Well, Whitcomb Well, the well at 370 Crazy Horse 

Canyon Road, and the well at 380 Crazy Horse Canyon Road. 

The DMP wells are shown on Figure 8. In addition, an unsaturated zone monitoring well is shown on 

Figure 8. The DMP is summarized in the Final Post-Closure Maintenance Plan. DMP monitoring 

wells are sampled on a semiannual basis, though the residential water supply wells are sampled on a 

quarterly basis. 

Because a release to groundwater has been identified, SVSWA has developed a Correction Action 

Program (CAP) to mitigate the release. Three corrective action programs are currently in place at the 

site: a groundwater extraction and treatment system, a bioaugmentation system, and LFG control in 

the waste mass. Progress of the CAP is monitored by the following monitoring points as shown on 

Figure 9: 

• Aromas Sand Aquifer: A-6, A-7B, A-8, A-12, A-13, A-15, A-16, A-20, A-21, 

A-22, A-34, and A-62. Wells TH-1 and TH-2 have recently been constructed 

downgradient of the bioaugmentation system. These wells will be monitored to 

evaluate that CAP alternative though they have not been included in the WDRs 

for the site. 

• Alluvial Aquifer: A-32. 

• Purisma Formation Aquifer: P-1, P-2, P-5, P-6, P-11, P-12, P-13 and P-14. 

• As part of a further evaluation of the corrective action program, additional wells 

were added. The 2007 Evaluation Monitoring Program identified the following 

wells; alluvial monitoring well A-63, Purisuma Formation well P-17, and 

piezometers PZ-1A (Aromas Sand) and PZ-1P (Pursima Formation). 

• Sedimentation Basin “B.” 

• CAP Treatment System Influent and Effluent. 

2.18 Groundwater Corrective Action Program 

The groundwater CAP at the CHLF consists of 3 environmental control systems as described below: 

Landfill Gas System (see also Section 2.21). As part of landfill closure, SVSWA has rebuilt the site 

landfill gas extraction system. Wells that were damaged were decommissioned and replaced with the 

wellfield shown on Figure 11. The proposed layout of the gas collection laterals from the wellheads 

was designed to accommodate installation of solar panels on the topdeck of the site while providing 

drainage grade for condensate accumulation within the collection pipe. Gas extracted from the 

system will be routed to the landfill gas-to-energy facility or the flare station for destruction. 

Bioaugmentation System. SVSWA is in the process of constructing an in situ bioaugmentation 

groundwater treatment system. The first phase of this project will include eight injection wells 

location near the southern edge of the landfill. An emulsion of organic nutrients (fatty acids and 

lactic acids) and water will be injected into these wells to stimulate growth of naturally-occurring 

bacteria colonies that will metabolize the nutrients and break down chlorinated solvents in the 

groundwater. 

Golder Associates



The groundwater bioaugmentation treatment system provides nutrients to stimulate the growth of 

naturally-occurring bacteria, which, in turn, break down VOCs in groundwater. These corrective 

action alternatives also include groundwater monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of groundwater 

remedial alternatives. 

Once the first phase of the bioaugmentation system is constructed and is demonstrated to be effective 

at reducing chlorinated solvent concentrations, additional bioaugmentation injection wells may be 

constructed at strategic locations adjacent to the landfill, including up to 56 injection wells along the 

southern edge of the landfill and up to approximately 25 injection wells near the landfill entrance. 

Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System. As currently envisioned, the groundwater 

corrective action system includes two source destruction technologies – the landfill gas extraction 

system and the bioaugmentation system – and hydraulic containment provided by the groundwater 

extraction and treatment system. 

SVSWA currently extracts groundwater at very small rates and volumes from the wells noted on 

Figure 10 and located along the southern edge of the property, west of the residence at 370 Crazy 

Horse Canyon Road. Since these wells were brought “on-line” in 2008, the total average 

groundwater extraction rate is approximately 0.25 gallons per minute. Extracted groundwater may be 

piped to a series of three granular activated carbon (GAC) units that adsorb volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) or through an air stripping unit before the effluent is discharged to a 

sedimentation pond or collection tank. 

As part of the routine groundwater monitoring and reporting program for the site, extracted 

groundwater that has passed through the granular activated carbon unit and surface water in the 

sedimentation pond are sampled and analyzed for VOCs on a quarterly basis. 

Should groundwater impacts increase over time, additional groundwater extraction wells can be 

brought on-line or constructed in strategic areas to broaden containment ability of the extraction well 

array. 

2.19 Storm Water Discharge Monitoring System 

Surface water monitoring at the landfill is performed at one on-site monitoring point (SW-1). SW-1 

is shown on Figure 8. Surface water monitoring is performed on an annual basis in accordance with 

the current WDRs. The surface water monitoring parameters are discussed in the RFPCMP. Storm 

water monitoring is performed in accordance with the landfills storm water pollution prevention plan. 

Storm water samples are obtained twice per year if there is discharge from Sedimentation Basin A. 

The storm water pollution prevention plan for the landfill is on file at the SVSWA office. 

2.20 Gas Monitoring System 

27 CCR 21790(b)(8)(E) and 20921 

The landfill complies with regulatory requirements for methane migration monitoring as required 

under 27 CCR. Locations of the gas probes are shown in Figure 11. These probes are used to comply 

with the landfill gas migration monitoring requirements for active operations and will be utilized after 

closure. These monitoring probes are sampled on a quarterly basis for the parameters required in the 

current WDRs. 

Golder Associates



Results of the perimeter gas probe monitoring are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the landfill gas 

collection system. If methane levels in one or more perimeter gas probes are found to be increasing, 

more vacuum can be applied to the collection wells nearest the “hot” probes. Increasing the vacuum 

increases the quantity of landfill gas removed from the landfill mass and reduces the methane levels 

in nearby perimeter gas probes. During closure activities, the SVSWA will perform additional 

surveillance monitoring of the probes on a biweekly basis. 

The existing landfill gas monitoring probes are generally spaced at 1,000 feet or less. Based on the 

landfill’s location and scarcity of nearby structures, it is not proposed to install additional landfill gas 

monitoring probes. It is proposed to continue to utilize the existing landfill gas monitoring system. If 

changes to the current system are required for compliance with 27 CCR 20921, the revised gas 

monitoring plan work plan(s) will be attached to the RFCP under Appendix M. 

2.21 Landfill Gas Control System 

As discussed in Section 2.18, landfill gas control at the closed Crazy Horse Landfill is a primary 

element in the groundwater CAP. The existing landfill gas control system, as shown in Figure 11, has 

had a substantial replacement of its wellfield. In July 2008, 19 LFG extraction wells were installed. 

In summer 2009, an additional 48 LFG extraction wells were installed. The collection pipe network 

will be installed during closure activities. The collection pipe network will be constructed with 

HDPE pipe and placed on the closed surface. HDPE pipe has significant thermal expansion 

properties. Thus the pipe will be anchored with concrete blocks every 50 feet on center to control the 

effects of thermal contraction and expansion. The system will be operated during the closure and 

postclosure maintenance period to control landfill gas concentrations at the landfill perimeter, 

subsurface migration, and surface emissions. 

Closure Construction System Operation. During closure construction activities, the LFG control 

system operation will be maintained. Shutdown of LFG well subheaders will proceed in a phased 

manner as discussed in Section 2.3. This phased construction is intended to control subsurface and 

surface emissions of fugitive landfill gas as required under 27 CCR 21110(e). As mentioned in 

Section 2.20 above, additional surveillance monitoring of the LFG perimeter monitoring probes will 

be used to adjust the construction phasing as necessary to avoid subsurface migration as a 

contingency plan. If the probes report methane concentrations of 2.5% or greater during a 

surveillance monitoring event, the SVSWA will have offline branches of the LFG control system 

nearest the affected probes returned to full service to reduce the measured perimeter methane 

concentrations to less than 2.5%. However, this scenario is unlikely due to the following; 

• Current probe readings, particularly along Crazy Horse Canyon Road, have 

reported methane levels below this concentration after replacement LFG 

extraction well construction activities were completed in 2009, 

• The current LFG control system was found to be essentially non-functional in 

some areas due to collapsed well casings or insufficient vacuum coverage, 

• The LFG control systems improvements already or currently being installed 

before site closure will provide improved extraction vacuum coverage across the 

waste mass hence better subsurface control than the older wellfield system. 

The landfill gas control system will be operated until it is demonstrated that landfill gas does not 

present a threat to the environment and regulatory agencies approve shutting down the control system 

as required in 27 CCR 21900. 

Golder Associates



3.0 CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES 

3.1 Introduction 

This section presents the closure cost estimates, financial mechanism, and associated supporting 

documentation for the Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill. The cost estimates were prepared consistent 

with 27 CCR, Sections 21769(b)(2)(a) and 21780(a)(2). 

3.2 Closure Cost Estimate 

27 CCR 21820 and 21769(b)(2)(A) 

Golder prepared a cost estimate of the geosynthetic final cover system included in Appendix J. The 

calculation revised the previous closure cost estimate (2009 FCP) by removing the vegetative soil 

layer costs and inserting cost estimates for the geosynthetic final cover system. The closure cost 

estimate is for the maximum area to be closed, as described in Section 2.3, and were prepared based 

on the closure activities described in the Closure Plan. The estimate is based on 2010 dollars, local 

prevailing wage rates for labor cost, and hiring a third party to perform closure activities. It includes 

the cost of materials, equipment, labor, administration, and quality assurance. Table 3 summarizes 

the closure cost estimate. Backup calculations are provided in Appendix J. 

3.3 Financial Responsibility for Closure 

27 CCR 20950(f), 20380(b), and 22207(a) 

The SVSWA is the owner of the landfill and retains responsibility for closure and postclosure 

maintenance. This section documents the operator's certification for the establishment of a financial 

mechanism. 

The SVSWA has previously submitted evidence of financial assurance for closure and postclosure 

maintenance for the existing permitted landfill that has been approved by the CIWMB. The SVSWA 

established an enterprise fund as the financial assurance mechanism for closure and a pledge of 

revenue as the financial assurance mechanism for postclosure maintenance. The SVSWA has 

received approval for both of these financial assurance mechanisms from the CIWMB (Appendix A). 

3.4 Disbursement of Funds During Closure 

27 CCR 21800(d) 

A schedule for disbursement of closure construction monies from the closure enterprise fund is 

provided on Table 4. The SVSWA will retain management of the closure funds in the SVSWA’s 

possession unless the CIWMB or the RWQCB direct otherwise. As progress toward final closure of 

the site progresses, the SVSWA will disburse the appropriate quantity of constructive funding from 

the enterprise fund, subject to the approval of the authoritative regulatory approval. 

The disbursement of enterprise funds for closure construction (includes contingency from Table 3) in 

accordance with the SVSWA’s proposed schedule along with the SVSWA’s internal management 

costs has occurred or is anticipated to be as follows: 

January 2010 – December 2010 ($180,000 - from closure fund) 

Prepare Revised FCPCMP, Update IS/MND, Provide Equipment and Construct Final 

Closure Test Pad, Prepare Solar Energy Plan, Prepare Construction Document, Start Bid 

Advertisement 

Golder Associates



January 2011 – February 2012 ($8,500,000 - from closure fund) 

Complete Closure Construction, Complete CQA Oversight, Complete LFG Facility 

Improvements, Complete Leachate Treatment and Recirculation System, Implement Solar 

Plan 

February 2012 – May 2012 ($100,000 – from closure fund) 

Submittal of Report of Construction, Deed Restriction to Regulatory Agencies 

3.5 Financial Assurance for Corrective Action 

27 CCR 22222 

The CCR requires landfill owners and operators to demonstrate the availability of financial resources 

to conduct corrective action activities for all known or reasonably foreseeable releases from the 

disposal facility affecting water quality. An acceptable mechanism to demonstrate financial 

responsibility for corrective action is a pledge of revenue. 

A pledge of revenue shall consist of a resolution by the governing body of the owner/operator 

authorizing an agreement between the owner/operator or provider of financial assurance and the 

CIWMB to establish the pledge. The resolution and the agreement shall remain effective continuously 

throughout the period in which the pledge of revenue is used to satisfy the requirements of the 

California Code of Regulations. 

The pledge of revenue agreement shall contain the following items: (1) The types and sources of 

pledged revenue; (2) The amount of revenue pledged from each source; (3) The period of time that 

each source of revenue is pledged to be available; (4) The solid waste landfill(s) and the current 

corrective action cost estimate(s) that are covered by the pledge; and (5) the authorization for the 

CIWMB to pay for corrective action if the CIWMB determines that the owner/operator has failed or 

is failing to perform corrective action activities covered by the mechanism. 

As discussed in Section 2.18, several investigations have been generated related to groundwater 

corrective action at the CHLF. The most recent (GeoLogic, 2008) has recommended a combined 

implementation of active landfill gas management for groundwater impacts east and west of the 

landfill. In addition, the groundwater CAP consists of bioenhancement and groundwater extraction 

and treatment to address impacts south of the landfill. The effect of these control closure 

improvements on groundwater quality will be evaluated to determine the adequacy of remedial 

efforts. 

On November 18, 2008, the CIWMB and the Authority entered into a Pledge of Revenue Agreement 

for corrective action which complies with 27 CCR 22222. This Pledge of Revenue Agreement was 

authorized by the Authority on October 16, 2008 with Resolution No. 2008-47. The Pledge of 

Revenue Agreement and supporting documentation is found in Appendix A. 

Golder Associates



4.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

California Code of Regulations, Title 27. 

California Department of Water Resources. 1976. Rainfall Analysis for Drainage Design, Short- 

Duration Precipitation Frequency Data. 

California Department of Water Resources. 1982. Evaporation from Water Surfaces in California. 

Bulletin 73-79. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Coast Region. February 2007. Waste 

Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2007-0003, and Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R3- 

2007-003, Waste Discharge Identification No. 3270304001 for the Salinas Valley Solid Waste 

Authority, Crazy Horse Class III Sanitary Landfill, Monterey County. 

Brown Vence Associates. 2002. Joint Technical Document, Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill, Salinas, 

California. 

Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, Inc. January 2000. Preliminary Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance 

Plan, Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill, Salinas, California. 

EMCON Associates. 1988. Solid Waste Assessment Test Report, Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill, 

Monterey County, California. 

EMCON/OWT, Inc. September 2004a. Joint Technical Document, Volume 1, Report of Disposal 

Site Information and Waste Discharge, Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill, Monterey County, California. 

EMCON/OWT, Inc. 2004b. Joint Technical Document, Volume 2, Final Closure and Postclosure 

Maintenance Plan, Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill, Monterey County, California. September 2004. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002, Assessment and Recommendations for Improving 

the Performance of Waste Containment Systems 

GeoLogic Associates, 1993. Crazy Horse Phase 1 Development Stability. 

GeoLogic Associates, December 2007. Evaluation Monitoring Program Report, Crazy Horse 

Sanitary Landfill, Monterey County, California. 

GeoLogic Associates, January 2008. Engineering Feasibility Study for Corrective Action, Crazy 

Horse Sanitary Landfill, Monterey County, California. 

Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. May 2000. Conceptual Hydrogeological Model and Proposed Revised 

Monitoring and Reporting Program, Crazy Horse Class III Landfill, Monterey County, California. 

Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. March 2004. Combined Second Semiannual and Annual 2003 

Detection and Corrective Action Monitoring Report, Crazy Horse Class III Sanitary Landfill, 

Monterey County, California. 

Golder Associates, Inc. June 2009. Revised Final Closure Plan, Crazy Horse Landfill. Monterey 

County, California. 

National Research Council (NRC) 2007, Assessment of the Performance of Engineered Waste 

Containment Barriers 

United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 258. 

Golder Associates



United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1973. 

Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the Western United States. 

United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1974. 

Climates of the States. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. December 1993. Solid Waste Disposal Facility 

Criteria, Technical Manual, EPA 530-R-93-017. 

Golder Associates

TABLES 

Table 1 – CalRecycles Final Closure Plan Index, and Table 2 – SWRCB Final Closure Plan Index, are located 

at the beginning of the document

Unit 

Item 1 Unit Cost Quantity Total 

1. Final Soil Cover 2 

a. Foundation Layer cy $ 8.26 46,570 $ 384,811 

b. Low Permeability Liner sf $ - 

- $ 

- 

c. Vegetative Layer cy $ 12.45 197,206 $ 2,455,211 

2. Geosynthetic Layers 

a. Structured Geomembrane (50 mil 

with Closure Turf erosion Resistant 

TABLE 3 

CLOSURE COST SUMMARY (2010) 


Layer 3 sf $ 1.75 2,883,904 $ 5,056,925 

b. Geocomposite LFG Panels 4 sf $ 1.39 29,425 $ 40,812 

c. Asphalt Concrete Surface sf $ 5.03 158,699 $ 798,254 

d. Geosynthetic testing percent 5% $ 294,800 

3. Construction Quality Assurance lump sum $ 625,000 

1 $ 625,000 

4. Revegetation acre $ 2,100 

66 $ 138,600 

5. Landfill Gas Monitoring Network lump sum $ - 

1 $ 

- 

6. Gas Control System 4 lump sum $ 445,900 

1 $ 445,900 

7. Groundwater Monitoring System 5 lump sum $ - 

1 $ 

- 

8. Drainage Structures lump sum $ 445,780 

1 $ 445,780 

9. Security Measures 6 lump sum $ 16,000 

1 $ 16,000 

10. Closure Survey, lump sum $ 201,057 

1 $ 201,057 

Access Roads 

11. Final Cover Extension lump sum $ 375,300 

1 $ 375,300 

(Module 1 GM replacement and Ext) 

Subtotal 

20% Contingency 

$ 

$ 

8,668,638 

1,733,728 

Total $ 10,402,365 

Notes 

1. Struckout items are either completed or not used in the geosynthetics final cover design 

2. Cover Profile - foundation layer (1 ft already in place), HDPE geomembrane , and Artificial Turf layer. 

3. Structured geomembrane/Artificial Turf on top deck and side-slopes. Unit costs reflect 

2009 construction season bids for geomembrane and geocomposite materials (inc. purchase, sales tax, and installation). 

4. LFG control system installation consists of collection piping network and geocomposite panels along topdeck perimeter and 

sideslopes (beneath liner) 

5. Groundwater monitoring system in-place. The existing network is sufficient to monitor site through 

post-closure per WDR R3-2007-0003 specifications 

6. New fence installation along southern boundary to increase security of groundwater wells has been completed. 

10397133 CHLF Closecosts.xlsx Golder Associates Inc.

Initial Closure 

Final Cover Phase 

Item Activities I II III IV Total 

Estimated Start Date (ref. Figure 5) 2011 Mar-2011 June 2011 Sep-2011 Oct-2011 

Estimated Finish Date Aug-2011 Nov-2011 Feb-2012 Jan-2012 

1. Final Soil Cover 

TABLE 4 

CLOSURE COST DISBURSEMENT SUMMARY 


a. Foundation Layer 1 $ 81,598 $ 99,157 $ 201,631 $ 2,425 $ 384,811 

b. Vegetative Layer $ 663,159 $ 861,738 $ 776,679 $ 153,635 

2. Geosynthetic Layers $ 1,513,105 $ 1,981,451 $ 1,799,717 $ 896,518 $ 6,190,791 

3. Construction Quality Assurance $ 156,261 $ 203,632 $ 192,260 $ 72,846 $ 625,000 

4. Revegetation 2 $ - 

5. Landfill Gas Monitoring Network $ - 

6. Gas Control System 3 $ 148,633 $ 148,633 $ 148,633 

$ 445,900 

7. Groundwater Monitoring System $ - 

8. Drainage Structures 4 $ 445,780 

9. Security Measures 2 $ - 

10. Closure Survey, 

Access Roads 2 $ 201,057 

11. Module 1 Final Cover Extension $ 375,300 $ 375,300 

Total Closure Funds $ - $ 2,562,756 $ 3,294,612 $ 3,118,920 $ 1,500,725 $ 8,668,638 

Notes: 

1. The SVSWA will import soil from the JCLF. 

2. Occurs at project end in late 2010 to early 2011 

3. Landfill gas wells have been installed. Costs reflect installation of collection piping. 

4. Drainage structures will be installed in each phase. Funds disbursed throughout 2011 

10397133 CHLF Closecosts.xlsx Golder Associates Inc.

FIGURES

This figure was originally produced in color. Reproduction 

in black and white may result in a loss of information.

APPROXIMATE 

SITE BOUNDARY 

CP2 

SITE 

ENTRANCE 

LIMIT OF 

WASTE 

LEGEND 

FROM PROPERTY LINE 

1000' OFFSET 

CP3 

LFG- 

ELECTRICITY 

FACILITY 

(On-Site) 

SCALE 

HOUSE 

(On-Site) 

MAINTENANCE 

BUILDING 

(On-Site) 

EQUIPMENT 

PARKING 

AREA 

CLOSED 

MODULE 1 

CP1 

TOP DECK 

AREA 

SOUTH 

SLOPE 

CP4 

BOWMAN 

ARCHER 

STORAGE 

(On-Site) 

SEDIMENTATION 

BASIN A 

SEDIMENTATION 

BASIN B 

CP5 


SITE FACILITIES 

CRAZY HORSE LANDFILL 

2

CRAZY HORSE CANYON ROAD 


MODULE 1 

(CLOSED) 

LEGEND 

NOTES 


FOUNDATION LAYER THICKNESS 

SURVEY 


3

4 12 

B 


4 14 

L 


A 

4 12 

B1 

4 12 

IV 

C 

4 13 

U 

4 16 

MODULE 1 

(CLOSED) 

LEGEND 

D 

4 13 

F 

4 13 

III 

1 

4 14 

I 

M 

4 14 

II 

I 

NOTES 

A 

5 

E 

4 13 

K 

4 14 


FINAL GRADING PLAN 


4

A 

- 

1 

- - 

TYPICAL ARRAY SECTION 

LEGEND 

A 

- - 

TYPICAL ARRAY SECTION 

NOTES 


CONCEPTUAL SOLAR PANEL LAYOUT 


4A

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 

1 PLANNING PHASE 267 days 12/1/2009 12/14/2010 

2 Work Plan Using PV Option 60 days 12/1/2009 2/24/2010 

9 Closure/Post-Closure Plan Technical Review 92 days 2/18/2010 6/28/2010 

10 Refine PV Concept 5 days 2/18/2010 2/24/2010 

11 Develop Revised Grading Plan 5 days 2/25/2010 3/3/2010 

12 Prepare Design Report 17 days 2/25/2010 3/19/2010 

13 Regulatory Review of Design Report 18 days 3/22/2010 4/14/2010 

14 Project Management Meeting 0 days 4/14/2010 4/14/2010 

15 Prepare Final Cover Test Plot 2 days 4/15/2010 4/16/2010 

16 Start Construct Test Plot 5 days 4/19/2010 4/23/2010 

17 Rain and Schedule Delay 20 days 4/26/2010 5/21/2010 

18 Resume and Finish Test Plot Work 5 days 5/24/2010 5/31/2010 

19 Complete Foundation Layer Pothole Work 10 days 5/10/2010 5/21/2010 

20 Run Tests on Test Pad 5 days 6/1/2010 6/7/2010 

21 Develop Final Cover Test Plot Report 10 days 6/8/2010 6/21/2010 

22 Submit Test Plot and Foundation Layer Pothole Rep 0 days 6/21/2010 6/21/2010 

23 Agree on FCP/FPCP Concept 5 days 6/22/2010 6/28/2010 

24 CEQA Process 191 days 2/25/2010 11/22/2010 

25 Formalize Concept Plan 30 days 2/25/2010 4/7/2010 

26 Initiate CEQA Compliance/Scope 20 days 4/8/2010 5/5/2010 

27 Prepare Initial Study 20 days 5/6/2010 6/3/2010 

28 Technical Studies 40 days 5/6/2010 7/1/2010 

29 Prepare Admin Draft IS/MND 10 days 7/2/2010 7/16/2010 

30 Prepare IS/MND Public Document 20 days 7/19/2010 8/13/2010 

31 Pubic Review 23 days 8/16/2010 9/15/2010 

32 Prepare Final IS/MND with Response to Comments 10 days 9/16/2010 9/29/2010 

33 Certify IS/MND & MMRP 15 days 9/30/2010 10/20/2010 

34 CEQA Review Period 23 days 10/21/2010 11/22/2010 

35 Develop Draft Closure/Post-Closure Plan 104 days 6/29/2010 11/22/2010 

36 Prepare Revised Chapters and Appendices 10 days 6/29/2010 7/13/2010 

37 Prepare 95% Plans and Specs 10 days 6/29/2010 7/13/2010 

38 Deliver Revised Closure/Post-Closure Plan 0 days 7/13/2010 7/13/2010 

39 Regulatory Review of Revised Closure Plan 15 days 7/14/2010 8/3/2010 

40 Incorporate Regulatory Comments 15 days 8/4/2010 8/24/2010 

41 Regulatory Review of Revised Closure Plan 20 days 8/25/2010 9/21/2010 

42 Regulatory Approval of Revised Closure Plan 0 days 11/22/2010 11/22/2010 

43 WDR Renewal Process, if required 110 days 7/14/2010 12/14/2010 

44 Submit Draft Closure Plan to RWQCB 10 days 7/14/2010 7/27/2010 

45 RWQCB Drafts WDR 30 days 7/28/2010 9/7/2010 

46 Staff Level Agreement on Permit 10 days 9/8/2010 9/21/2010 

47 RWQCB Board Approval 60 days 9/22/2010 12/14/2010 

48 DESIGN PHASE 40 days 7/14/2010 9/7/2010 

49 Review 95% Plans and Specs 10 days 7/14/2010 7/27/2010 

50 Submit Plans and Specs 0 days 7/27/2010 7/27/2010 

51 RWQCB Review/Approval 15 days 7/28/2010 8/17/2010 

52 SVSWA Review 5 days 8/18/2010 8/24/2010 

53 Prepare 100% Plans and Specs 10 days 8/25/2010 9/7/2010 

54 CONSTRUCTION PHASE 419 days 10/21/2010 5/29/2012 

55 Approve Project/Authorize Bids 92 days 10/21/2010 2/25/2011 

56 Staff Report and Resolution 5 days 10/21/2010 10/27/2010 

57 Board Meeting 15 days 10/28/2010 11/17/2010 

58 Bid Advertisement 22 days 10/28/2010 11/26/2010 

59 Send P&S to Printers 1 day 10/28/2010 10/28/2010 

60 Develop Electronic Copy of Bid Package 1 day 10/28/2010 10/28/2010 

61 P&S Available 1 day 10/29/2010 10/29/2010 

62 Notice of Availability 1 day 11/18/2010 11/18/2010 

63 Website Notice 1 day 11/18/2010 11/18/2010 

64 Provide Distribution List to Admin 1 day 11/18/2010 11/18/2010 

65 Distribute P&S 1 day 11/19/2010 11/19/2010 

66 Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting 5 days 11/22/2010 11/26/2010 

67 Q & A 11 days 11/29/2010 12/13/2010 

68 Receive Questions 5 days 11/29/2010 12/3/2010 

69 Develop Addendum No. 1 3 days 12/6/2010 12/8/2010 

70 Develop Addendum No. 2 3 days 12/9/2010 12/13/2010 

71 Accept and Award Bid 20 days 12/27/2010 1/24/2011 

72 Receive & Date Stamp 0 days 12/27/2010 12/27/2010 

73 Review Proposal 1 day 12/28/2010 12/28/2010 

74 Identify Responsible Low Bidder 1 day 12/29/2010 12/29/2010 

75 Draft Construction Contract 1 day 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 

76 Staff Report/Resolution 1 day 12/31/2010 12/31/2010 

77 Board Meeting 15 days 1/3/2011 1/21/2011 

78 Unsuccessful Bidder Notification 1 day 1/24/2011 1/24/2011 

79 Contract Execution 25 days 1/24/2011 2/25/2011 

80 Send Unsigned Contract 5 days 1/24/2011 1/28/2011 

81 Receive Signed Contract and Bonds 10 days 1/24/2011 2/4/2011 

82 Execute Contract 5 days 2/7/2011 2/11/2011 

83 Receive Items for Notice to Proceed 10 days 2/14/2011 2/25/2011 

84 Issue Notice to Proceed 0 days 2/25/2011 2/25/2011 

85 CLOSURE CAP CONSTRUCTION 249 days 2/28/2011 2/9/2012 

Crazy Horse Landfill Closure 

Task 

Progress 

April 29, 2010 

Split 

Milestone 

CRAZY HORSE SANITARY LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN 

FINAL CLOSURE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 

2010 2011 2012 

Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 

Summary 

Project Summary 

4/14 

6/21 

7/13 

External Tasks 

External Milestone 

7/27 

Deadline 

11/22 

12/27 

2/25 

Page 1 of 3


86 Pre-Construction Mtg 1 day 2/28/2011 2/28/2011 

87 Submittals 15 days 3/1/2011 3/21/2011 

88 Schedule Submittal 1 day 3/1/2011 3/1/2011 

89 Review Schedule Submittal 5 days 3/2/2011 3/8/2011 

90 Pre-Construction Topo Submittal 1 day 3/9/2011 3/9/2011 

91 Review Pre-Construction Submittal 5 days 3/10/2011 3/16/2011 

92 LFG Work Plan Submittal No. 1 2 days 3/2/2011 3/3/2011 

93 Review LFG Work Plan Submittal No. 1 5 days 3/4/2011 3/10/2011 

94 LFG Work Plan Submittal No. 2 2 days 3/11/2011 3/14/2011 

95 Review LFG Work Plan Submittal No. 2 5 days 3/15/2011 3/21/2011 

96 Odor Control Plan 1 day 3/4/2011 3/4/2011 

97 Review Odor Control Plan 5 days 3/7/2011 3/11/2011 

98 Survey Staking Submittal 1 day 3/4/2011 3/4/2011 

99 Review Staking Submittal 5 days 3/7/2011 3/11/2011 

100 Temporary Erosion Control Submittal 1 day 3/4/2011 3/4/2011 

101 Review Erosion Control Submittal 5 days 3/7/2011 3/11/2011 

102 Geomembrane Submittal 1 day 3/4/2011 3/4/2011 

103 Review Geomembrane Submittal 5 days 3/7/2011 3/11/2011 

104 Geocomposite Submittal 1 day 3/4/2011 3/4/2011 

105 Review Geocomposite Submittal 5 days 3/7/2011 3/11/2011 

106 Foundation Fill Submittal 1 day 3/4/2011 3/4/2011 

107 Review Foundation Fill Submittal 5 days 3/7/2011 3/11/2011 

108 Drainage Plan Submittal Package 1 day 3/4/2011 3/4/2011 

109 Review Drainage Plan Submittal 10 days 3/7/2011 3/18/2011 

110 Filler Sand Submittal 1 day 3/4/2011 3/4/2011 

111 Review Sand Submittal 5 days 3/7/2011 3/11/2011 

112 Veg Cover Submittal 1 day 3/4/2011 3/4/2011 

113 Review Veg Cover Submittal 5 days 3/7/2011 3/11/2011 

114 Hydroseed Submittal 1 day 3/4/2011 3/4/2011 

115 Review Hydroseed Submittal 5 days 3/7/2011 3/11/2011 

116 Prepare Relocation of Existing LFG System 15 days 3/4/2011 3/24/2011 

117 Relocate Header System 10 days 3/4/2011 3/17/2011 

118 Relocate Sump System 5 days 3/18/2011 3/24/2011 

119 Phase 1 - Southern Sideslope 112 days 3/25/2011 8/29/2011 

120 Identify LFG Wells to be placed off-line 1 day 3/25/2011 3/25/2011 

121 Remove LFG Collection Pipes in Area 1 day 3/28/2011 3/28/2011 

122 Clear, Grub, Strip Area 10 days 3/29/2011 4/11/2011 

123 Staking 2 days 4/12/2011 4/13/2011 

124 Grade for Drainage and Access Roads 10 days 4/14/2011 4/27/2011 

125 Install Subgrade Drainage 10 days 4/28/2011 5/11/2011 

126 Install Subgrade LFG Pipe 15 days 5/12/2011 6/1/2011 

127 Build Access Roads 5 days 6/2/2011 6/8/2011 

128 Foundation Layer (& Temp Erosion Control) 10 days 6/9/2011 6/22/2011 

129 Pothole Foundation Layer 1 day 6/23/2011 6/23/2011 

130 Install Geomembrane 19 days 6/23/2011 7/19/2011 

131 Conformance Testing Geomembrane 1 day 7/6/2011 7/6/2011 

132 Syn Vegatative Cover Placement 19 days 7/20/2011 8/15/2011 

133 Install Access Road 10 days 8/16/2011 8/29/2011 

134 Install Aboveground Drainage 5 days 7/20/2011 7/26/2011 

135 Install Aboveground LFG Collection System 5 days 8/16/2011 8/22/2011 

136 Reactivate LFG Wells 1 day 8/23/2011 8/23/2011 

137 Phase 2 - Western Topdeck & Sideslope 109 days 6/23/2011 11/22/2011 




141 Staking 2 days 7/6/2011 7/7/2011 














155 Phase 3 - Eastern Top Deck & Sideslope 115 days 9/2/2011 2/9/2012 




159 Staking 2 days 9/15/2011 9/16/2011 









2010 2011 2012 



April 29, 2010 

Task 

Split 

Progress 

Milestone 

Summary 




Deadline 

Page 2 of 3









173 Hydroseed Perimeter Road Area 2 days 2/8/2012 2/9/2012 

174 Phase 4 - Equipment Parking - Module 1 47 days 10/31/2011 1/3/2012 



177 Clear and Grub Area 5 days 11/1/2011 11/7/2011 

178 Staking 1 day 11/8/2011 11/8/2011 

179 Grade for Drainage and Access Roads 1 day 11/9/2011 11/9/2011 

180 Foundation Layer (includes access roads) 5 days 11/10/2011 11/16/2011 


182 Clear Module 1 Termination 2 days 11/18/2011 11/21/2011 



185 Vegatative Cover Placement 9 days 11/29/2011 12/9/2011 

186 Install Drainage 2 days 12/12/2011 12/13/2011 

187 Asphalt Concrete Paving 8 days 12/14/2011 12/23/2011 

188 Replace LFG Collection System 2 days 12/26/2011 12/27/2011 


190 Install Perimeter Access Road 2 days 12/29/2011 12/30/2011 

191 Temporary Erosion Control - Hydroseed 2 days 1/2/2012 1/3/2012 

192 Permanent Erosion Control & Other 40 days 12/14/2011 2/7/2012 

193 Install Rest of Drainage Works 10 days 12/14/2011 12/27/2011 

194 Complete Sed Basin Improvements 20 days 12/28/2011 1/24/2012 

195 Construction Complete 0 days 2/7/2012 2/7/2012 

196 Contract Close Out Process 80 days 2/8/2012 5/29/2012 

197 Punchlist 10 days 2/8/2012 2/21/2012 

198 As-Built Submittal 10 days 2/22/2012 3/6/2012 

199 As-Built Review and Approval 10 days 3/7/2012 3/20/2012 

200 Review Change Orders 5 days 3/21/2012 3/27/2012 

201 Review Progress Payments 5 days 2/22/2012 2/28/2012 

202 Recommend Final Payment 10 days 2/29/2012 3/13/2012 

203 Receive Release of Stop Payments 10 days 2/29/2012 3/13/2012 

204 SVSWA Approves Closure 20 days 3/14/2012 4/10/2012 

205 SVSWA Records Notice of Completion 30 days 4/11/2012 5/22/2012 

206 SVSWA Distributes Final Payment 5 days 5/23/2012 5/29/2012 

207 Closure Report 70 days 2/8/2012 5/15/2012 

208 SVSWA Board Approves Deed Restriction 10 days 2/8/2012 2/21/2012 

209 Final CQA Report 30 days 2/22/2012 4/3/2012 

210 Regulatory Review of Closure 30 days 4/4/2012 5/15/2012 



2010 2011 2012 


2/7 


April 29, 2010 

Task 

Split 

Progress 

Milestone 

Summary 




Deadline 

Page 3 of 3

LEGEND 

NOTES 


LEACHATE CONTROL SYSTEM 


6

LEGEND 

NOTES 


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL FACILITIES AND 

STRUCTURE REMOVAL PLAN 


7

LEGEND 

A-55 

SW-1 

NOTES 


GROUNDWATER DETECTION MONITORING 

WELLS 


8

LEGEND 

A-15 

NOTES 


GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION 

MONITORING WELLS 


9

LEGEND 

E 

A-15 

NOTES 


GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ACTION 

WELLS 


10

O 

11 15 

11 15 

N 

P 

11 15 

2 

11 15 

POWER PLANT 

WELLFIELD 

LEGEND 

FLARE STATION 

WELLFIELD 

11 15 

R 

Q 

11 15 

NOTES 


LANDFILL GAS CONTROL AND 

MONITORING SYSTEMS 


11

NE 

SW 

A 

4 12 

LANDFILL CROSS SECTION - 

NORTH/SOUTH 

NW 

SE 

W 

E 

B1 

4 12 


EAST SLOPE TEST PAD 

B 

4 12 


EAST/WEST 


LANDFILL CROSS SECTIONS 


12

C 

4 13 

TYPICAL TOP DECK HINGE 

D 

4 13 

TYPICAL BENCH 

COVER SYSTEM DETAIL 

F 

4 13 

TYPICAL COVER SYSTEM TERMINATION 

DETAIL WITHOUT LINER SYSTEM 

E 

4 13 

TYPICAL COVER SYSTEM TERMINATION 

DETAIL WITH LINER SYSTEM 

LEGEND 

A 

2 3 

NOTES 

5 

4 13 

TYPICAL RECYCLING & MAINTENANCE 

AREA COVER SYSTEM 


CLOSURE SYSTEM DETAILS 


13

LEGEND 

NOTES 

J 

14 14 

OVERSIDE DRAIN ANCHOR BLOCK 

1 

4 14 

TYPICAL BENCH SWALE 

K 

4 14 

TYPICAL DOWNDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL 

AT LANDFILL PERIMETER WITH LINER SYSTEM 

G 

14 14 

BENCH SWALE SECTION - 

FLOW PATH 

L 

4 14 

TYPICAL DOWNDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL 

AT LANDFILL PERIMETER WITHOUT LINER SYSTEM 

M 

4 14 

SIDESLOPE DRAINAGE PANEL PIPE 

H 

14 14 

BENCH SWALE SECTION - 

CROSS SECTION 


DRAINAGE SYSTEM DETAILS 


14

S 

15 15 

N 

11 15 

LFG WELLHEAD (TYP.) 

Q 

11 15 

LCRS TO PERIMETER LFG 

HEADER CONNECTION (TYP.) 

2 

4 15 

LFG COLLECTION STRIP 

CONNECTION TO LATERAL PIPE 

O 

11 15 

POWER PLANT HEADER 

CONNECTION 

T 

15 15 

R 

11 15 

SUBHEADER/ HEADER 

CONNECTION - WEST SLOPE (TYP.) 

S 

15 15 

SECTION VIEW LFG COLLECTION 

STRIP LATERAL CONNECTION 

LEGEND 

T 

15 15 

TYPICAL LFG PIPE ANCHOR 

BLOCK 

P 

11 15 

LFG SUBHEADER HEADER 

CONNECTION - EAST SLOPE (TYP.) 


LANDFILL GAS SYSTEM DETAILS 


15

1 

16 16 

2B 

16 16 

2A 

16 16 

U 

4 16 

MAIN DRAINAGE CHANNEL 

CROSS SECTION 

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 

W W W W W 

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 

1 

16 16 


W W W W W W W W 

2B 

16 16 

MAIN DRAINAGE CHANNEL HEADWALL 

APPROACH 

SECTION 

2A 

16 16 

MAIN DRAINAGE CHANNEL HEADWALL 

NOTES 


DRAINAGE SYSTEM DETAILS 



16

LEGEND 

NOTES 


STORMWATER DETENTION IMPROVEMENTS 


17

V 

18 18 

NOTES 

V 

18 18 

MODULE 1 FINAL COVER 

EXTENSION CROSS SECTION 


MODULE 1 FINAL COVER EXTENSION DETAILS 


18

revised final closure plan - Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?