The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/22/2010 Council Presentation - Marana Regional Landfillpecific Plan (Proposed) PCZ -09057 •Marana Regional Landfill ExhIbft 11. &2. b -. E x 1 sti n La nd U ses w ithin 1.25 rn lies = 1.25 Milc Radius Parcels Apprcweo Devoopmeni Plan Jurlsd ivioa Boun-der-i Sio1r, Tfu M Land ApprGwEd &bdiyision Plot 1 11 ism 7, � Ft l tv. %.,: I -,_ u I -wdd* mclu &kL mvd 9a7q &L. ! , Ira C Cdxdy DOT G 21310 Site Bcunder� Q -of Tue$orl Own eJ Flartel w ftairTnmi Lmid lirzKmrd PERIMETEFt mt R LIDOD OP RH &IMILW TnW Laud V f. STOMMATER N, PERIMETER RJaW VNI-SITE OFtA7404GE CHANNEL UFAIT OF WASTE 2W EI n. ) F FI 4 ANCILLARY AREA BOW PFRIMETE R gRAJ NAQC RH ckty 0? TL n . Vwml RH vacmd RK 510M T ru B L Ls rd V41CM-H 470'BU'FFER 6 M OL:.AWAFIEA FJAINTDLW�f RESCUF�C—c di RlE1!QVr RETAIL MD F .a w RECYCLE AREA *CALL'S 4 -- — — — — — — — — — — — - TIP =fPNt�rRA zXISTING zily &OPER A I DrAF1.510H ANDILLARVARE-A I I aTmtmwA,T9A BERM BASIN flu'PAj AC-GESS ENTRAF40E FU3kkO AM Val" q wu uw PA*md PameW PLE NAM b"I Dow Raw !LISA I ALH DWi �L%'d U I J :l IN k 7) k �ly + + �i •`� 1 f � t ■ l � r� f Om a� EA .T F I w 6 ` I , SCQUD4%C EE I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — � — — �, I — : rr- rte a•�o ° -�:� � 1 11 11 11 I ,-�• '• �- - I II VII II III I ' �� • CELL 1 + LELL 2 °+ I _ { ELL ,� � I I 1 � I I I � -��j! ..r I �. � I l � I :;� `- � • � _ PI ,37- = ' I R-. , I 1 II I i I I 1 .. J QM-Y4AGE �� I L4 I J I I I I I - UK Fry EdS Tk%C DI DP 8ERy :i= fl.C: Iti FECT I _ isle, r,■ — — —_— _„ ._ � .•� k ST]ML YhZ'�i � � • 3 — d � i tli`i1H — !�CTOi yti, I s 0 ° -ELL 7 I CELL 6 jd I I I r I EL 1 :- 4LL'�hv - EL Is Y J� L i .. - e • - — v . tea , 'I _ � �• 1� _ E F� � . - ... R 1 h �� 0.a ,_, F ' � I 1- ■1 LL r , x' ET. k� EFI E -7 J • ,` ii - -`, ti : � E r ■ r f r � * � G � r _ DEL TIFF O.R D , ® h r _ 9. ..,I - s s _- , ^ , .. 11•. � :. ._ _ • Y . h51 R'I Iwl E ,'F� _ 1 ry • • E °• , S W4 , �., " .', ^' a. °" { � r : � r : I`1 - - _ •r _ _ ° .4 —� _ ° .1 ii , ' ; 'PLm'Fk 13 -• me • : ° • : WAL " •• r 1 � � ., -�' �- �� 4_ i — YL ELF E :^ - - 1 L � r Y r ! • " _a I • ` 1 r � • : } 9 Y • u : I J _ r � .� r ." � � ,." .. �. Y. .. .�._ ,. - __ ,. ref, _ • , - • � I - �`•.e ° ' _ 1 + R IO � I r . �- • � .. a ,.,� _ � E r° .°•• °- Y. .. � � R 1 1 •• 1 ' ow 7r' ILI lir b r • FF W 1 " ht ID cop r gR wri of W 13x13 , AZ 200 7 ki 1- 4r ZLJN F . x Z � NORTH IL 'T ll�S r y T 12 S r 1 T1 �Ili f Ll I'A Fill =700' J166 SCALE 1 CURRENT FEMA FLOODPLAIN O Area% D40073 II Lu 20NE, Comparison of Base Flood discharges in Southern AZ Watercourses Similar to Brawley Wash Table 1: C r t aris on of Bas e Flood D is .r ae s in So uthem Ariz na W ate re ours Sir it .r to r wl Wa USGS Regional F r Maximum Recorded F ul for or Dr E . '1 Flood Effe FIB I00 - yr Unit Unit 100 -err Unit �l�lt r o u r /C o n nt rat i o n Pint Location A rea q D ihr D f f S /sq mi f/ i f f/ mi B ravel ey Wash Upstream f Los 1165 30 26.1 NIA N/A 35 30.0 Robles confluence N ea r Three Po ints, Ariz 776 26 34.3 19 4. 1/A 1/A East Branch Brawley Brawl Wash 1/A 1/A NIA 1/A 1/A 21 1/A Los Robles Wash D/S of Brawler Wash 1175 30 25.9 32 27.2 35 29. c o nfluen c e Below confluence with 1340 31 23.6 1/A N/A 37 27.6 Blanco Wash Fillito Creel Upstream o Santa Cruz 935 28 30.5 39,000 41.7 32,000 34.2 Fiver confluence San P River At State Hig hway 92 741 26 35.9 N/A N/A 22 ) 300 30.1 Santa Cruz Fiver At Co ntin e nt a l Roa 1 662 3, 582 20.2 4, 000 27.1 4, 0 00 27.1 Averages . 0 27.8 27. 1/A = Data not available. CL TIRO RR 11 1 1 EE rwy� h I " i k - t a BRANCH . ' r 1 ' y BOUNDARY 2 -3 FT SHADED SHADED t ZONE X �. ZONE X -70 h DEPTH 1 l l.3 FT 1 1 0 cfs 1 850 c fs �_... ". x � y SHAHS ZONE'" .SHAD ZONE } A VRA VALLE RD r v F � � F V CRTH 4, SCALES 1 "=700' y + �r i . l y plolF •4 A K EXISTING CONDITIONS FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARIES AND FLOW DISTRIBUTION BASED ON CMG FLO -2D MODEL 41 t6l� fd Elim NORTH 4 SCALE V1=500 *,` PROJECT �` CONDITIONS FLOODPLAI N r f ■ P2 r r a v pi V. w m m Vi2\\ PROPERTY ENCROACHMENT u BOUNDARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FEASIBILITY *� RESULTS Am� 0 LANDFILL LIMIT 2001 pi 300'-500' 200 ■ Vpq-w� 7L L im w a tAwim re ■ a w1mom a A S Ap 00 Cafe 1850 cfs r 3 L Q -4- :41 OAF GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO PROPOSED REGIONAL LANDFILL NEAR MARANA MONTGOMER-Y- & ASSOCIATE Overview Background information on the proposed landfill and regional aquifer Past, current, and future groundwater conditions, and controlling factors Potential for landfill to affect groundwater uses •.� MONTGOMERY & A55OCIATES Background on Proposed Landfill Located adjacent to Brawley Wash About 2 miles southwest of Santa Cruz River About 4 to 5 miles west of CAP recharge projects Depth of 70 feet below land surface at deepest location Liner and leachate collection systems Regulatory approval process Monitoring and contingency plans Closure plan '�� MONTGOMERY & A55OCIATES Background on Regiona Aquifer Basin -fill deposits of sand, gravel, silt, and clay In vicinity of landfill: Depth to groundwater level between 170 and 200 feet Groundwater moving to west - northwest Groundwater level influenced by: Natural, incidental, and artificial recharge Groundwater withdrawals •.� MONTGOMERY & A55OCIATES Regional Features K. 1 u L. K. 11 L. K, V L_ k Qf Bc 1 as [W R.+020Ak] I 5oad[AF -ODIA] Qf U . 7 15ddd aAF45 A O %% 0� D C ENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT AQUEDU � U\ , 2 2ddd 1 [AF-0 D2A HIGH PLAINS RECh4RGE PROJECT � AV FAA VALLE 7cd[AF40A]� D Of Qa } 33b I SC-101 %w N RILLITO 3 ��dd :r bc 1 _-- - ERINE LANDFILL NAI�F��1� t D r i 3bd a [L8 C - bb[TA� N G - `I ] -1] '6 02oad[TA)-44] PROPOSED � � � 03cbb[AVMW- j - 02a [TANG -2 ?� dd� [TA- ] A S S ] ��. �� f REGIONAL LANDFILL i I r � � - 2dcd Ak�4 ] (16dca AV RA VALLEY ��L *� TURN BASIN y Qf RECHARGE PROJECT -�,� i U LOWER SANTA CRUZ r REPLENISHMENT PRCkJIE T :EB�c i 16bb N x l 9dcc[AF -Q18A] I Qf D I Tos 21adb`[1� +t] 20dda [AF Q4BA]' �� U ` e 2�`c d [1�+4fF� I�23E] MALE �� G� A 0 - rpA 0 '0'k"v` MONTGOMERY '� & A55OCIATES Cross�Section Along Santa Cruz River A A LOWER SANTA CRUZ SOMWAST REPLIEMSAVEWPROJECT 2,300 LAANYPALL 2,314 T R1NF LANDFU Zwo hVGH PL WS 2,299 st 2,110 2,10D LL ffL 9Z v r 1 � 1 r V ZAM + +• }. + of i 1 ,`944 r _ 1 TPu TD wi iJ9GD Tsu 1 w TD 4+90 Tyr„ TE) SM D TI) 517 9p fe�ua i-0 mnd 1 ,500 TO 63� 1,400 TD 51v Be E� Tor? , Tau T*- f OS 1.14D } 0d+ 43rW 7p 9" TD t,,29 MONTGOMERY r Nej ASSOCIATES Historic Wa.,,..ter Levels North 0 0 of Landfill Site 2 ' ' 129 WRI 11,,,anaC4 m hs F, whOfP,r o�dLirdM qrl z A vera g e land surface We vation 1,9 m LU 1, .. E TI,. 0 �5 C) LLJ J ll"��II �[�x1 y -� ��Id'k�1 �1,� fit, m�l� e > 0 1,85 .� �II{�II �� - 1 - 1�D�cldf� �1,� ft, rr��l� 1 ED LIJ 0 J E [3 W ell , 953 L 1,800 1 0 ::E CL < 3: 4-0 —1 m � 1,750 0 Q Cr 1, 7 00 200 13 jr4 ri 250 0 < m C15b 1,650 13 13 1,60 350 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1 975 7 980 1 985 1990 1995 2000 2005 201 Y E A R HISTORI ROUND ATER LEVELS WITHIN 1 MILE NORTH OF PROPOSED LANDFILL MONTGOMERY ASSOCIATES �� - 1 - �� 1 � fit r D , low Historic Wa.,,,,..ter Levels South of L ndfill Site 0 0 U 1 339 WRI Mar OtpUaR�a .�44s'ai�it +F �fr� +G�1hCl srrdfitrzI �y — U 2 , ODO A vera l an d sur ce e 1 , 993 f ee 0 119 m EXPLANATION 0 > > 9 J 4 1, 100 m We I I (D - 1 ccd 2 (1.996 ft, m s 1) LLJ C - cb > 0 1,850 0 1 LIJ J _ k— LU 1,G1 200 to > � m 4-0 1,75 250 0 Q < 1,70 300 r- 1, 350 1,600 - 1940 1945 1950 1955 1 960 1965 1970 1 975 7 980 1 985 1990 1995 2000 2005 201 Y E A R HI GROUNDWATER DWATER LEVE WITHIN 1 MILE SOUTH F PROPOSED LANDFILL M 0 N TG 0 M E RY ASSOCIATES 0 V�eI I ( L� -1 b (1, � �# m�l'� �I I � � -1 1 ?� 1 � 1 ,� f#� rr7�l� a J Depth to Groundwa.M..ter Level 2005 R I -,F R 11 0 0.5 2 w n 00 -fr2 0 u I I 0 s ue,,,, C5 G fi. (> - T I P �,� 1J, { 0 6 HP FOP 0 ELF' 31. 12 . 1 ,+7d lit 'p� As of 0 uj 0 0 000 l l � a. AV RP T11 O rR Vu oil Tangerine o ' • �, I � � e� � i �� r� III � I �. lb 12 - S. 0 I`. "' MONTGOMERY ASSOCIATES Depth to Groundwa.,,,..ter Level 2005 R i r F R 11 F �i 0 o, 1 0 2 21 0 41 0 M i l e s a 150-2,00 f# cl O a 0 x� HPRP Eli 0 T 1 2 12 S_ S, 0 R.10 E. R. 11 E. MONTGOMERY ASSOCIATES Direction of Groundwater Movement nd Re 9 istered Wells • R 11 F P I1 F 0 00.5 1 _ [ 0 r M 12a x 00 Miles A 0. ' , N . 27 �} T. e � 5� �� *� _- r 0 0 36 3C ._ IF J F HPRP ' 0* oo rd Land- 0 ' 00 T. Lul . 13 �° 1�• x 2.1 1 0 0 ?I 0 R. 10 E. R. 11 E. tj MONTGOMERY & A55OCIATES Artificial Recharge CAP water Treated effluent Constructed basins vs. in channel In- channel "managed" vs. "constructed" MONTGOMERY A & A55OCIATES Current Recharge Projects Avra Valley Recharge Project (AVRP) Lower Santa Cruz Replenishment Project (LSCRP) High Plains Recharge Project (HPRP) Lower Santa Cruz River Managed Recharge Project Infiltration of treated effluent along Santa Cruz River Storage credits for reach ending at Trico Road No credits for recharge downstream from Trico Road AP11. MONTGOMERY ej r & A55OCIATES RECOVERY RE-CHARGE FACILITY WELL L� V 00HOU LTAWIM IN KYDFW0K0L aY C) TUCSON, AREZONA 25 CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF RECHARGE AND RECOVERY Total Effluent Discharge 60 50 x 1--- 4 C- LU LU LL z LLj 30 2 LU 0 LIL LU m 0 CALENDAR YEAR iri 4 1 PO'b"k—o' MONTGOMERY 1w &ASSOCIATES FIGURE 4. EFFLUENT DISCHARGE INTO SANTA CRUZ RIVER CHANNEL 1980 1985 1990 19915 2000 Streamflow at Cortaro 120 1 1 1 4 1 1 p p p p p p - p p - p p - I p I I I I I I I T T - T - 171105- FineiR rvF urea � ria ro S treamilow20 6 d Mar07 F r F 1 1 if 4 1 4 4 1 1 1 T TT TTTTT T 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 P F F L TTTTTTT T F I I I I I I I I I 1 4 p p p I I I I I I TTTTT i 13:5 cTfs . •_ I is 5;� 228 #s 1 a of "26 5 Lrs 1 .d $ 273 — 1' 1 9 0 z 0 W 70 w U . z 0 � G' I V r M 20 49 49. U r, .. I I I 1990 11991 1993 1994 1995 1885 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Y EAR FIGURE 5. H YDRO GRAPH OF SANTA CRUZ RIVER MONTHLY AVERAGE STREAMFLOW AT CO RTARO G AGE MONTGOMERY ASSOCIATES Streamflow at Trico Road hL III ■ ■iri ��I ■I ■t 1■ I ■ ■■ 1■ III 101 ON I IE EE Im mmilimm I E10 1 1 10 If I M I n I 1 IN �� 1�I�i�l IIIII�� III IN I ITV I� � � �I� �■1. Ili 1��'uV■Uilil�ri�l � I�� f � I 11�uiuuu�� . �JII� 1 111 I i��liili�i!,;IIR��iilillf i��il � � � `� ' ��iiii�ii��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�lllll � Illu�� 19W 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 l"7 1998 low 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 YEAR FIGURE6. HYDROGRAPH OF SANTA CRUZ RIVER MONTHLY AVERAGE STREAMFLOWATTRICO ROAD GAG OMERY & ASSOCIATES 5 Future Groundwater Levels Near Recharge Sites Depth to groundwater level will be smallest directly beneath recharge sites and increase away from sites Rates of groundwater level rise will decrease with time unless recharge increases With sustained recharge, groundwater level beneath a recharge site may eventually approach land surface Recharge rate would then begin decreasing, further reducing rate of groundwater level rise in the aquifer o _. e t2 MONTGOMERY •. & ASSOCIATES Future Groundwater Levels at Proposed Landfill Site Rate of rise expected to decrease with time unless recharge increases Groundwater levels could begin declining due to increasing groundwater withdrawals and recovery of stored CAP water and effluent Groundwater modeling with updated information would be required to project future depth to groundwater beneath proposed landfill A - Prkr W AG MONTGOMERY . & A55OCIATES or Factors Controlling Potential for Effects on Groundwater Uses Landfill design and construction (depth, liner, leachate collection system) Nature of waste Precipitation Hydrogeologic conditions &depth to groundwater Direction and rate of groundwater movement Locations and depths of water supply wells ri i t2 MONTGOMERY & A55OCIATES How Could A Groundwater Use Be Affected? Leachate would need to be generated, a leak in landfill liner would need to occur, and leachate would need to move through leak Leachate would need to travel through unsaturated zone and reach groundwater Volume of leachate would need to be large enough to cause a discernable effect on groundwater Affected groundwater would need to reach a point of groundwater use before implementation of corrective actions 0 -- K�rr MONTGOMERY •. & ASSOCIATES Preventative Measures to Avoid Effects on Groundwater Landfill design —liner and leachate collection system Regulatory permitting requirements Monitoring and contingency plans Post - closure requirements A -, ? 1 rNkr W MONTGOMERY )d •. & ASSOCIATES Summary of Potential Effects on Groundwater Landfill effects on groundwater uses can be avoided by: Proper design and construction of landfill Proper design and implementation of groundwater monitoring, contingency, and closure plans In the event groundwater quality is affected by the landfill, corrective actions would be implemented Due to the small rate of groundwater movement, water quality effects would remain localized while corrective were being i actions mplemented W." ' MONTGOMERY 10L & assocIarEs RJO r n Regional Landfill Review of Traffic Impact Study Tan Landfill AURA VALL TWIN PEAKS F ry z June 22, 2010%4%1 FINAL CO IMAGO RICO MARANA ROACH V) i PROJECT LOCATI MARANA 441,70�11 TRAFFIC STUDY METHODOLOGY 1. Performed traffic counts on Avra Valley Rd (Trico to I -10) 2. Estimated landfill traffic 3. Evaluated operations at intersections and road segments • 2013 • 2030 — Assumes widening Avra Valley Rd (per RTP) 4. Identified necessary improvements Marana Regional Landfill - Traffic Study Review LANDFILL TRAFFIC • ITE Trip generation does not include landfill data • Private traffic estimated from Tangerine landfill • Commercial traffic estimated by owner • 80% of traffic to /from East • 25% traffic increase by 2030 Marana Regional Landfill - Traffic Study Review STUDY FINDINGS /RECOMMENDATIONS is Sufficient capacity on: — Avra Valley Rd — I -10 interchange is No new traffic signals warranted is Existing Avra Valley Rd pavement is poor /failing — Geotechnical analysis recommended is East Brawley Wash bridge may require improvements — Pima County and DKL are assessing the structure • Add 4 turn lanes to Avra Valley Rd: — 2 at Landfill entrance (left, right turn lanes) — 2 at Sandario (eastbound right, northbound right) Marana Regional Landfill - Traffic Study Review REVIEW FINDINGS / CONCLUSIONS 1. More detail is needed on how landfill trips were estimated, including: - Service area - Population estimates - Use of transfer stations 2. Changes in trip generation may affect required improvements 3. The effect of this project on the pavement structure of A vra Valley Road needs to be analyzed 4. The entrance should Intersect Avra Valley Rd at a 90° angle and provide sufficient sight distance 5. Most significant traffic impact is not road capacity, but effect on pavement, Brawley wash bridge Marana Regional Landfill - Traffic Study Review MARANA REGIONAL LANDFILL SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW Airport Impacts Analysis Primary Guidance Documents: •Advisory Circular 1 Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports is Advisory Circular 1 Hazardous Wildlife Attractions On or Near Airports *Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulation, Part 258, Criteriafor Municipal Solid Waste Landfills A one A i r poo Con ullants a I IM, FA 1 1 0 1±1 0 t Warm Re Bugef zmLmLGount Lirie %orce-- Marana Re Landfill Picture Rocks 0 0,5 1 2 imm� I I % C P in On Irp rk AWAL 00YMS ' li" NEW r MMA'. COUNT A= Idol 41 -TrIco Mo. M fn El Marana Re -:3 Airport 0! Marana rr I-T A vra it hwj Valle tea AN Pitnal Count Ai rpark Buff aF Ci y UFFAS f Ane 2010, 5 Iii le F ern wa Buffe r Aefi.q; Phm os 2007 it Bokindary Ova Exhibit I e Airpark ..ffl ML --Aft�w �� ■I._ i . . P w r LZ Mo ore E l T i r o U? Marana. Re Airport w � - Mara na A yr valle e Picture flocks ,j'� C 1 1 A I urn G�iararv a ra na Regi L n df i I l L ft 1111 t Ui ti note Pa rt a 7 City Lmits A raf Phdogu 3aby es 71 1 Part lf� c } Ex hibit MARANA REGIONAL LANDFILL SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW Summary /Recommendations: *Federal Form 7460 -1 should be filed with the FAA to initiate this coordination process (Obstruction Evaluation). *Prepare a mitigation plan that demonstrates that the proposed landfill will not be a wildlife attractant hazard to Marana Regional Airport (per 40 CFR 258). A one A i r poo Con ullants r � � MARAN MARANA REGIONAL LANDFILL SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW Questions? A one A i r pool Con ullants