HomeMy WebLinkAboutD1712508 TAC Mtng 2 Materials_06122018South Y Feasibility Study of Remedial Alternatives (D1712508) 1
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Roster
17W006
X:\Projects\General\17W006_So Y FS\TAC\D1712508 TAC Roster_final _06112018.docx
6/11/2018
AGENCY Member, Title Roles/Responsibilities Email Phone # SAG
Member
SWRCB-
DOFA
Tricia Carter,
Water Resource
Control
Engineer, Grant
Manager
Responsible for
management and
performance of the
Agreement.
Tricia.Carter@Water
boards.ca.gov
(916) 319-
8259
STPUD Ivo Bergsohn,
PG, CHG, Project
Director
Responsible for the
overall management of
the administrative and
technical elements of the
Agreement.
ibergsohn@stpud.dst
.ca.us
(530) 543-
6204
X
SWRCB-
DDW
Salvador
Turrubiartes, PE,
Associate
Sanitary
Engineer
Responsible for review of
Technical Work Plans and
Technical Reports. Assist
in resolving technical
issues associated with
project implementation in
accordance with the
MOU.
Salvador.Turrubiartes
@waterboards.ca.go
v
(916) 552-
9998
LRWQCB Brian Grey, PG
Engineering
Geologist
Responsible for review of
Technical Work Plans and
Technical Reports. Assist
in resolving technical
issues associated with
project implementation in
accordance with the
MOU.
brian.grey@waterbo
ards.ca.gov
(530) 542-
5421
CSLT Jason Burke,
Stormwater
Program
Coordinator
Responsible for review of
Technical Work Plans and
Technical Reports. Assist
in resolving technical
issues associated with
project implementation.
jburke@cityofslt.us
(530) 542-
6038
X
South Y Feasibility Study of Remedial Alternatives (D1712508) 2
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Roster
17W006
X:\Projects\General\17W006_So Y FS\TAC\D1712508 TAC Roster_final _06112018.docx
6/11/2018
AGENCY Member, Title Roles/Responsibilities Email Phone # SAG
Member
LBWC Jennifer Lukins,
Assistant
General
Manager
Responsible for review of
Technical Work Plans and
Technical Reports. Assist
in resolving technical
issues associated with
project implementation.
Jennifer@lukinswate
r.com
(530) 541-
2606
X
TKWC Rick Robillard,
PE, Water
Company
Manager
Responsible for review of
Technical Work Plans and
Technical Reports. Assist
in resolving technical
issues associated with
project implementation.
rrobillard@tahoekey
spoa.org
(530) 542-
6451
X
SWRCB -
DOFA
Robert Reeves,
Program
Manager for
Grant Program
(TAC Alternate)
Assist the Grant Manager
and serve as an Alternate
for T. Carter on the TAC.
Robert.Reeves@wat
erboards.ca.gov
(916) 319-
8254
SWRCB-
DDW
Ali Rezvani,
Sacramento
District Engineer
(TAC Alternate)
Assist the SWRCB-DDW
Sanitary Engineer and
serve as an Alternate for
S. Turrubiartes on the
TAC.
Ali.Rezvani@waterbo
ards.ca.gov
(916) 445-
5285
TKPOA Kirk Wooldridge,
General
Manager (TAC
Alternate)
Assist the TKPOA Water
Company Manager and
serve as an Alternate for
R. Robillard on the TAC.
kwooldridge@tahoek
eyspoa.org
(530) 542-
6444 x224
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) YELLOWISH BROWNOVERALL, TR. SCATTERED SUBROUNDED COARSE
GRAINED SAND, ~50% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND,~50% FINE GRAINED SAND, LOOSE, WET
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) VERY DARK GRAYISHBROWN OVERALL, TR. COARSE GRAINED SAND,
~80-90% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~10% SILT, WET
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) DARK YELLOWISHBROWN OVERALL, TR. FINE GRAVEL, ~10-15%
COARSE GRAINED SAND, ~50% MEDIUM GRAINEDSAND, ~40% FINE GRAINED SAND
WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SW) DARKYELLOWISH BROWN OVERALL, TR. FINE GRAVEL,TR. COARSE GRAINED SAND, ~40% MEDIUM
GRAINED SAND, ~40% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~10-15%SILT, VERY DENSE
WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW) GRAYISHBROWN OVERALL, TR. COBBLES, ~10%SUBROUNDED GRAVEL TO 1-INCH, ~10% COARSE
GRAINED SAND, ~60% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~10%SILT, VERY DENSE AND COHESIVE
19 FT. COLOR INCLUDES PALE BROWN
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) PALE BROWN TOLIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN, ~100% FINE GRAINED
SAND, VERY DENSE
20.5 - 21 FT. SOME COARSE GRAINED SAND AND
MEDIUM GRAINED SAND
SANDY SILT (ML) LBG AND YELLOWISH BROWN,
~25-50% FINE GRAINED SAND INCLUDING MICA,~50% SILT, VERY STIFF, NO PLASTICITY
25 FT. UP TO ~50% FINE GRAINED SAND
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) YELLOWISH BROWNOVERALL, BASED UPON GRADATION TESTS AT 33-35
FT. AND 35-37 FT.: 1.4 - 9.6% FINE GRAVEL, 10.5 -17.1% COARSE GRAINED SAND, 62.0 - 43.3% MEDIUMGRAINED SAND, 20.5-22.9% FINE GRAINED SAND,
5.6-7.1% SILT, DENSE, WET, APPEARANCE OFHIGHLY WEATHERED GRANITIC CLASTS TO COBBLE
SIZE, POSS. WEATHERED IN PLACE
EW-124-24.5
EW-125/25.5
EW-133-35
10YR5/4
10YR3/2
10YR4/6
10YR5/2
10YR6/3
10YR6/3
10YR6/4
10YR 6/2
10YR 5/8
10YR5/4
221721192713485391217133650
PID = 0.9 PPM
Bentonite-CementGrout
PID = 0.5 PPM
PID = 0 PPM
24.5-25.5 ft.K=1.14E-04
33-35 ft.
K=1.38E-03
Zone Test 1PCE: 30.7 ug/lToluene 0.9 ug/l
SP
SP
SW
SW
SW
SP
ML
SW
HAND AUGER
3
8
0.8
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
6
BORING LOCATION
DRILLING COMPANY
DRILLING METHOD(S)
ISOLATION CASING
BLANK CASING
SLOTTED CASING
SIZE AND TYPE OF FILTER PACK
SEAL
GROUT
WELL COMPLETION
T. Hatch
7" core with 8" Casing
n/a
ELEVATION AND DATUM
DATE STARTED
Cascade Drilling
Sonic - TS 150
8-in. Sonic Drive Casing (Temp.)
4-in. SCH 40 PVC (Temp.)
4-in. SS CWW 0.050 in. slot (Temp.)
n/a
n/a
3-5% Bentonite Cement
Boring Name EW-1 DRAFT
n/a
M. McLeod
Sonic core; Standard
Pen. Test
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
LOGGED BY
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
130
STATIC WATER ELEVATION
150.0 ft. bgs
SAMPLING METHODS
Project Number 1770027.00
953 Eloise St., South Lake Tahoe
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
DRILLER
DRILL BIT(S) SIZE
STAND PIPE FT.
Project Name South Tahoe PUD
TOTAL DEPTH
DATE COMPLETED
SURFACE HOUSING
4/30/18 5/5/18
Boring & Well Construction Log
F-40.1
(6-87) (3-88) (8-90)
Penetr.Resist.Blows/6"
DrillDepth(Feet)
USCSLog Lithology Color SAMPLE DESCRIPTION and DRILLING REMARKSRecovery
(Feet)
1 4OFSHEET
Type& No.
SAMPLES BACKFILL DETAILS
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
BO
R
I
N
G
&
W
E
L
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1
7
7
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
.
G
P
J
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
J
E
N
K
S
.
G
D
T
6
/
1
/
1
8
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Handout 3a1
WELL GRADED SAND CONT'D
SANDY SILT (ML) YELLOWISH BROWN OVERALL,MIXED LAYERS OF SAND WITH SILT, AND SMALLAMOUNT OF CLAY; SAND IS MAINLY FINE WITH
STREAKS OF 10YR 5/8 OXIDATION, SOFT, NOPLASTICITY
GRADES TO ALTERNATING LAYERS OF SILTYSAND AND POORLY GRADED SAND (SM) SAND ISMAINLY ~90% FINE GRAINED SAND, WITH ~10% SILT,
LOOSE, WET
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) LIGHT YELLOWISHBROWN OVERALL, ~70-80% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND,
~20-30% FINE GRAINED SAND, DENSE, WET
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) YELLOWISH BROWN
OVERALL, ~10% SUBROUNDED COARSE GRAINEDSAND, ~30% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, ~60% MEDIUMGRAINED SAND, DENSE, WET
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) YELLOWISH BROWNOVERALL, BASED UPON GRADATION TESTS AT 44-46
FT. AND 46-48 FT.: 0.2-0.1% FINE GRAVEL, 3.7-3.6%COARSE GRAINED SAND, 37% MEDIUM GRAINEDSAND, 50.9-24.0% FINE GRAINED SAND, 8.1-10.3%
SILT, VERY DENSE, WET
50 FT. COLOR CHANGES SLIGHTLY, MATERIAL
BECOMES DENSER
54 FT. THIN SUBHORIZONTAL LAYER OF
FINE-GRAINED SILTY SAND
55.5 FT. SOME MEDIUM GRAINED FELDSPAR GRAINS
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) LIGHT YELLOWISH
BROWN OVERALL, TR. SUBROUNDED COARSEGRAINED SAND, ~10-20% MEDIUM GRAINED SANDQUARTZ AND FELDSPAR, ~70-80% FINE GRAINED
SAND INCLUDING MICA, DENSE, WET
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) YELLOWISH BROWN
OVERALL, BASED UPON GRADATION TESTS AT 64-66FT.: 1.2% COARSE GRAINED SAND, 30.7% MEDIUMGRAINED SAND, 61.8% FINE GRAINED SAND, 6.3%
SILT, MASSIVE, DENSE, WET
EW-135-37
EW-138.5-39EW-139-39.5
EW-144-46
EW-146-48
EW-164-66
10YR5/4
10YR 6/4
10YR5/4
10YR4/4
10YR6/4
10YR5/4
1189496121718171721
2948502018311250
35-37 ft.:K=4.12E-04
38.5-39 ft.K=3.5E-08
39-39.5 ft.K=8.33E-05
PID = 0.5 PPMPID = 0.7 PPM
44-46 ft.K=1.82E-06
PID = 0.6 PPM
46-48 ft.
K=1.06E-05
Zone Test 2
Benzene 112 ug/l
Ethyl Benzene:4.2 ug/lStyrene 0.6 ug/l
PCE 66 ug/lTCE 2.8 ug/l Toluene 18 ug/l
Xylenes (Tot.) 0.9 ug/lPID = 0.6 PPM
PID = 1.2 PPM
Zone Test 3
PCE: 1.5 ug/lZone Test 3
PCE: 1.5 ug/l64-66 ft.K=5.78E-05
PID = 2.0 PPM
PID = 0.9 PPM
Bentonite-CementGrout
PID = 0.3 PPM
SW
ML
SM
SP
SW
SP
SW
SP
1.5
0.8
0.5
1
7.1
2
1.5
1.5
0
11.5
9.4
Project Name South Tahoe PUD Project Number 1770027.00 Boring Name EW-1 DRAFT
Boring & Well Construction Log
F-40.1
(6-87) (3-88) (8-90)
Penetr.Resist.Blows/6"
DrillDepth(Feet)
USCSLog Lithology Color SAMPLE DESCRIPTION and DRILLING REMARKSRecovery
(Feet)
2 4OFSHEET
Type& No.
SAMPLES BACKFILL DETAILS
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
BO
R
I
N
G
&
W
E
L
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1
7
7
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
.
G
P
J
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
J
E
N
K
S
.
G
D
T
6
/
1
/
1
8
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
SILTY SAND (SM) PALE BROWN WITHSUBHORIZONTAL YELLOWISH BROWN BANDING,
~60-80% FINE GRAINED SAND INCLUDING MICAS,~20-40% SILT, DENSE, NO PLASTICITY, WET
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) PALE BROWN
OVERALL, <10% SUBROUNDED COARSE GRAINEDSAND, ~30-40% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, ~50% FINE
GRAINED SAND INCLUDING MICA, MASSIVE, DENSE,WET
SANDY SILT (ML) PALE BROWN WITH
SUBHORIZONTAL AND CURVED YELLOWISH BROWNBANDING, FINE GRAINED SAND VARIES FROM
~20-50%, SILT VARIES ~80-50%, VERY STIFF, NO TOLOW PLASTICITY, WET
SILTY SAND (SM) BROWN TO YELLOWISH BROWN
WITH BANDS OF STRONG BROWN AND STREAKS OFVERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN, ~90% FINE GRAINEDSAND, ~10-20% SILT, DENSE, WET
SILT TO SANDY SILT (ML) BROWN OVERALL WITHTHIN SUBHORIZONTAL STREAKS OF YELLOWISH
BROWN, UP TO ~50% FINE GRAINED SANDINCLUDING MICA, WITH SAND DECREASING FROM94 TO 96 FT., SOME THIN SUBHORIZONTAL SANDY
LAYERS PRESENT
CLAY TO SILTY CLAY (CL) DARK GRAYISH BROWN
OVERALL, VERY STIFF, LOW PLASTICITY, HIGHTOUGHNESS, LOW TO SLOW DILANTANCY
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) 10YR 5/8 YELLOWISH
BROWN TO 2.5Y N4/0 DARK GRAY
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) DARK GRAY, GRAY,
GRADING TO LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN, ~5% FINEGRAVEL, INCLUDING SUBROUNDED CLASTS ANDGRANITIC CLASTS WEATHERING IN PLACE, ~5%
COARSE GRAINED SAND, ~30-40% MEDIUM GRAINEDSAND, ~30% FINE GRAINED SAND
WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW) DARKGRAYISH BROWN OVERALL, ~10% GRAVEL TO
1-INCH, UP TO ~20% COARSE GRAINED SAND,~20-30% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, ~30% FINEGRAINED SAND, VERY DENSE, WET
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) DARK GRAY OVERALL,BASED UPON GRADATION TESTS AT 122-127 FT.:
3.6% FINE GRAVEL, 25.1% COARSE GRAINED SAND,37.0% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, 24.0% FINE GRAINEDSAND, 7.6% SILT, DENSE, MASSIVE, WET
EW-196-98
EW-1122-124
10YR 6/3
10YR 5/8
10YR 6/310YR 5/47.5YR 4/6
10YR 4/310YR 5/8
10YR4/2
**
2.5YN4/0
10YR8/1
10YR6/4
10YR4/2
2.5YN4/0
293639
253550/0.4Corefrom90-100 ft.
3850
PID = 1.1 PPM
PID = 1.0 PPM
96-98 ft.
K=2.86E-07
Bentonite-CementGrout
PID = 0.3 PPM
PID = 0.3 PPM
Zone Test 5
PCE: <0.5 ug/lTCE: 0.6 ug/l
122-124 ft. K=7.42E-05
SM
SW
ML
SM
ML
CL
SP
SW
SW
SW
1
1.5
0.4
8
0.4
4.2
9
Project Name South Tahoe PUD Project Number 1770027.00 Boring Name EW-1 DRAFT
Boring & Well Construction Log
F-40.1
(6-87) (3-88) (8-90)
Penetr.Resist.Blows/6"
DrillDepth(Feet)
USCSLog Lithology Color SAMPLE DESCRIPTION and DRILLING REMARKSRecovery
(Feet)
3 4OFSHEET
Type& No.
SAMPLES BACKFILL DETAILS
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
BO
R
I
N
G
&
W
E
L
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1
7
7
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
.
G
P
J
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
J
E
N
K
S
.
G
D
T
6
/
1
/
1
8
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
WELL GRADED SAND CONT'D
COMPLEX ZONE OF MIXED AND DEFORMED
LAYERS OF SILT AND WELL GRADED SAND (ML)SILTY LAYERS COLOR INCUDES YELLOWISHBROWN (10YR 5/8), GRAY (2.5Y N5), OLIVE GRAY
(2.5Y N4-5Y 5/1); WELL GRADED SAND LAYERSTYPICALLY 2.5Y N8, SILTY LAYERS ARE TYPICALLYUP TO ~50% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~50% SILT, VERY
STIFF, NO PLASTICITY, WET, ALTERNATING LAYERSARE ~1-2 INCHES THICK AND CURVED ANDDEFORMED; DARK GRAY CLASTS ARE POSSIBLE
ORGANIC MATTER
SILTY SAND TO POORLY GRADED SAND (SM-SP)
PINK FROM 130 - 131 FT, DARK GRAY BELOW, ~50%MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, ~50% FINE GRAINED SANDTO 134 FT., GRADING TO ~80% FINE GRAINED SAND
~10-20% SILT
SILTY SAND (SM) PINK AND GRAY, ~60-80% FINE
GRAINED SAND INCLUDING MICAS, ~20-40% SILT,VERY DENSE AND COHESIVE, NO PLASTICITY
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) GRAY OVERALL, TR.COARSE GRAINED SAND, ~100% FINE GRAINEDSAND, ~10%? SILT, FAINT SUBHORIZONTAL
LAYERING
SILTY SAND TO SANDY SILT (SM-ML) PINK AND
GRAY, ~40-60% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~40-60% SILT,VERY STIFF, NO PLASTICITYNOTES
1. ALL CONTACTS APPROXIMATE
2. BGS: BELOW GROUND SURFACE
3. COLOR DESIGNATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MUNSELL SOIL COLOR CHARTS(KOLLMORGEN INSTRUMENTS CORPORATION, 1990)
4. PID = PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR HEADSPACE READING
5. PPM = PARTS PER MILLION
6. SOIL CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, ASTM
D-2488-93
7. ZONE TEST 1: SCREEN 31-36 FT. BGS; CASING TO 27 FT. BGS
8. ZONE TEST 2: SCREEN 41 FT. - 51 FT. BGS; CASING TO 38 FT. BGS
9. ZONE TEST 3: SCREEN 59.5 FT. - 69.5 FT. BGS; CASING TO 58 FT. BGS
10. ZONE TEST 5: SCREEN 120 FT. - 125 FT. BGS; CASING TO 117 FT. BGS
11. ZONE TEST COMPONENTS INCLUDE 4-INCH SCH40 PVC BLANK CASING AND 4-INCHSTAINLESS STEEL CONTINUOUS WIRE WOUND WELL SCREEN WITH 0.050-INCH OPENINGS.FILTER SAND WAS CEMEX #4/12 SAND.
12. K = PERMEABILITY IN CENTIMETERS/SECOND
EW-1150
2.5YN4/0
**
5Y5/1
5YR 7/3
10YR6/1
5YR 7/310YR 6/1
Bentonite-Cement
Grout
Slough
150 ft.
K=3.64E-06
SW
ML
SM-SP
SM
SP
SM-ML
8
18.4
Project Name South Tahoe PUD Project Number 1770027.00 Boring Name EW-1 DRAFT
Boring & Well Construction Log
F-40.1
(6-87) (3-88) (8-90)
Penetr.Resist.Blows/6"
DrillDepth(Feet)
USCSLog Lithology Color SAMPLE DESCRIPTION and DRILLING REMARKSRecovery
(Feet)
4 4OFSHEET
Type& No.
SAMPLES BACKFILL DETAILS
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
BO
R
I
N
G
&
W
E
L
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1
7
7
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
.
G
P
J
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
J
E
N
K
S
.
G
D
T
6
/
1
/
1
8
130
135
140
145
150
@A@A@A @A@A
&(
@A@A
&(
@A@A
!>MW-4A15-25 FTPCE: 1.5TCE: <0.5
MW-4B35-50 FTPCE: 64TCE: 2.3
MW-7C70-80 FTPCE: 3.4TCE: <0.5
MW-7D120-140 FTPCE: 14TCE: <0.5
MW-10B35-50 FTPCE: <0.5TCE: <0.5
MW-10C65-80 FTPCE: <0.5TCE: <0.5
EW-4D120-140 FTPCE: <0.5TCE: <0.5
MW-4C59-79 FTPCE: 2.7TCE: <0.5
Boring (May 2018)30-35 FT PCE: 30.7 TCE: 0.841-51 FT PCE: 66 TCE: 2.860-70 FT PCE: 1.5 TCE: <0.5119-124 FT PCE: <0.5 TCE: 0.6
Tahoe Keys Well #2
Tahoe Keys Well #1
Lukins Brothers Well No.5
Lukins Brothers Well No.4
Lukins Brothers Well No.2
Tata #3Tata #2 Tata #1
Clement Well
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community05001,000 1,500250Feet $Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
C
:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
A
l
i
c
e
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
A
r
c
G
I
S
\
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
s
\
F
i
g
1
-
4
_
P
D
I
G
e
o
l
o
g
y
_
f
i
n
a
l
_
8
F
F
0
B
2
7
E
-
4
D
D
3
-
4
3
7
C
-
9
0
9
B
-
8
7
B
B
9
1
3
D
B
0
9
3
\
v
1
0
5
\
F
i
g
1
-
4
_
P
D
I
W
o
r
k
P
l
a
n
_
F
I
N
A
L
.
m
x
d
Legend
Public WaterSystem Well
$1 Active
$1 Standby
$1 Inactive
PDI Well
&(Private Well
!>Soil Boring (May 2018)
@A Monitoring Well (SampledMay 2018)
South "Y" Plume (2016Extent, approximate)
All TCE/PCE results in micrograms per liter.
Handout 3a2
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1$1$1
$1
Tahoe Keys Well #3
Tahoe Keys Well #2
Tahoe Keys Well #1
Lukins Brothers Well No.5
Lukins Brothers Well No.4
Lukins Brothers Well No.2
Lukins Brothers Well No.1
J6
J6J6
J6J6
5E5E
5E5E
J5
J5
J5
J5 J4
J4
J4J4
J3
J3
J2 J1
J1J1
J1
TENTENTENTENROG
ROGROG
KM2KM2
KM2KM2KM1
DUN2
DUN1
LTB4
LTB4LTB4
LTB4
TATATATA
TATATATA
CL-1CL-1
MW-9BMW-9AMW-9C
HMW-4HMW-3
LBWC#5
LBWC#1
LBWC #4
LW-MW-5SLW-MW-1S
TKWC #1/45
TKWC #1/45
LBWC #2/126
TKWC #2/250
TKWC #3/125
TKWC #3/125
TKWC #2/250
LBWC #4 / 70-75
Rockwater / 65-70Rockwater / 65-70
TV School/110-115
LBWC #4 / 125-130
LBWC #2 / 145-150
Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy.
Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC,
USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.
0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet
$
3/2018
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
X
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
G
e
n
e
r
al
\
1
7
W
0
0
6
_
S
o
Y
F
S
\
P
D
I
\
W
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
\
P
D
I
G
I
S
F
i
l
e
s
\
P
D
I
GI
S
F
i
l
e
s
_
F
I
N
A
L
\
F
i
g
1
-
9
_
PD
I
2
0
1
7
P
C
E
_
f
i
n
a
l
_
0
3
1
61
8
.
m
x
d
Legend
South "Y" Plume (2016 Extent, approximate)
Water System
South Tahoe PUD
Lukins Brothers WC
Tahoe Keys WC
Public Water System Well
$1 Active
$1 Standby
$1 Inactive
$1 Destroyed
2017 PCE (ug/L)
<0.5 ug/L
>0.5 - 5 ug/L
>5 - 50 ug/L
>50 - 100 ug/L
> 100 ug/L
EKI, 2017 GW Inv. PCE (ug/L)
<0.5 ug/L
0.5 - 5.0 ug/L
>5 - 50 ug/L
>50 - 100 ug/L
>100 - 500 ug/L
>500 ug/L
Project Site (potential)
895 Eloise (AKA 903 Eloise)
953 Eloise
Handout 3a3
South Y PCE Grant 2016-2017
Water Quality Data
Page 1
X:\Projects\General\17W006_So Y FS\PDI\Field Investigation\Sampling & Analysis\STPUD Lab\VOCs\Results - PCE Study 2018.xls 6/8/2018
Depth Temp EC D.O.Turb PCE cis-1,2-DCE TCE MTBE TPH-DRO TDS Chloride NO3-N SO4SourceDateID#ft C pH uS/cm mg/L NTU ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Phase I 30-35'05/01/2018 AG61161 26.2 11.0 5.08 522 3.23 26 30.7 <0.5 0.8 <0.2 <0.5 328 123 1.08 6.90
Phase I 41-51'05/02/2018 AG61175 37.9 11.9 5.03 558 2.38 26 66 <0.5 2.8 <0.2 <0.5 430 149 1.36 6.43
Phase I 60-70'05/03/2018 AG61192 63.2 12.6 5.17 381 8.38 54 1.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.2 <0.5 278 87.8 0.456 3.91
Phase I 119-124'05/05/2018 AG61207 25.3 16.0 7.42 228 2.04 299 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.2 <0.5 154 25.1 0.109 8.45
MW-4A 05/02/2018 AG61178 1.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.2
MW-4B 05/02/2018 AG61179 64 0.8 2.3 <0.2
MW-4C 05/02/2018 AG61180 2.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.2
MW-7C 05/02/2018 AG61181 3.4 0.6 <0.5 <0.2
MW-7D 05/02/2018 AG61182 14 <0.5 <0.5 <0.2
MW-10B 05/02/2018 AG61183 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.2
MW-10C 05/02/2018 AG61184 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.2
EW-4D 05/02/2018 AG61185 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.2
Handout 3a4
South Y PCE Grant 2016-2017
Water Quality Data
Page 2
X:\Projects\General\17W006_So Y FS\PDI\Field Investigation\Sampling & Analysis\STPUD Lab\VOCs\Results - PCE Study 2018.xls 6/8/2018
Source Date
Phase I 30-35'05/01/2018
Phase I 41-51'05/02/2018
Phase I 60-70'05/03/2018
Phase I 119-124'05/05/2018
MW-4A 05/02/2018
MW-4B 05/02/2018
MW-4C 05/02/2018
MW-7C 05/02/2018
MW-7D 05/02/2018
MW-10B 05/02/2018
MW-10C 05/02/2018
EW-4D 05/02/2018
<------------Alkalinity--------------->
HCO3 CO3 OH Total Al As Cd Cr Cu Mn Se U Zn Boron Ca Fe Mg K Na
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L pCi/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
46.1 0 0 46.1 <20 <1 <0.5 <1 2.21 134 <5 111 <0.05 38.6 0.05 8.83 1.80 36.8
54.9 0 0 54.9 3000 1.34 <0.5 2.98 7.54 104 <5 71.6 <0.05 52.7 2.81 13.4 2.16 34.8
46.4 0 0 46.4 <20 <1 <0.5 <1 <2 35.1 <5 32.1 <0.05 31.6 0.08 7.15 1.44 25.2
69.1 1.98 0 71.1 90 3.28 <0.5 <1 <2 121 <5 <20 <0.05 12.0 0.11 4.83 2.14 25.5
Handout 3a5
X:\Projects\General\17W006_So Y FS\PDI\GW Levels\So Y GWLevels.xlsx 6/8/2018
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
SOUTH Y FEASIBILITY STUDY
VERTICAL GRADIENT ESTIMATES
MW-4A MP 6255.85
MW-4A Screen bottom- 25 6230.85
MW-4B MP 6256.02
MW-4B Screen bottom-50 6206.02
MW-4C MP 6256.32
MW-4C Screen bottom-79 6177.32
24.83
28.70
53.53
B - A C - B C - A
WL_Date DTW WL_ELEV DTW WL_ELEV DTW WL_ELEV Ivert Ivert Ivert
01/17/18 6.39 6249.46 11.08 6244.94 13.86 6242.46 -0.18 -0.09 -0.13
04/30/18 4.88 6250.97 9.33 6246.69 12.13 6244.19 -0.17 -0.09 -0.13
05/02/18 5.00 6250.85 9.44 6246.58 12.27 6244.05 -0.17 -0.09 -0.13
MW-4A MW-4CMW-4B
MW-4A - MW-4B: Vertical
Separation (dl)
MW-4B - MW-4C: Vertical
Separation (dl)
MW-4A - MW-4C: Vertical
Separation (dl)
Handout 3a6
X:\Projects\General\17W006_So Y FS\PDI\GW Levels\So Y GWLevels.xlsx 6/8/2018
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
SOUTH Y FEASIBILITY STUDY
VERTICAL GRADIENT ESTIMATES
MW-10A MP 6261.41
MW-10A Screen bottom- 25 6236.41
MW-10B MP 6261.22
MW-10B Screen bottom-50 6211.22
MW-10C MP 6261.31
MW-10C Screen bottom-80 6181.31
25.19
29.91
55.10
B - A C - B C - A
WL_Date DTW WL_ELEV DTW WL_ELEV DTW WL_ELEV Ivert Ivert Ivert
10/23/17 15.57 6240.28 18.65 6237.37 23.90 6232.42 -0.12 -0.17 -0.14
05/02/18 12.77 6243.08 16.54 6239.48 21.71 6234.61 -0.14 -0.16 -0.15
MW-10A - MW-10B:
Vertical Separation (dl)
MW-10B - MW-10C:
Vertical Separation (dl)
MW-10A - MW-10C:
Vertical Separation (dl)
MW-10A MW-10B MW-10C
X:\Projects\General\17W006_So Y FS\PDI\GW Levels\So Y GWLevels.xlsx 6/8/2018
SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
SOUTH Y FEASIBILITY STUDY
VERTICAL GRADIENT ESTIMATES
MW-7C MP 6251.12
MW-7C Screen bottom- 80 6171.12
MW-7D MP 6251.25
MW-7D Screen bottom-140 6111.25
59.87
D - C
WL_Date DTW WL_ELEV DTW WL_ELEV DTW WL_ELEV Ivert
05/02/18 15.57 6240.28 18.65 6237.37 -0.05
MW7C - MW7D: Vertical
Separation (dl)
MW-7C MW-7D
Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
Laboratory Testing
South Tahoe Public Utility District
CME Project No. 2199
Moisture Density Results
ASTM D7263
GLA Project No. AS18.1024
Sample Dry Density, pcf Moisture Content, %
EW1 24’‐24.5’ 119.1 11.7
EW1 38.5’‐39’ 109.2 18.9
EW1 39.0’‐39.5’ 110.2 16.3
EW1 96’‐98’ 79.9 27.9
EW1 150’ 115.0 16.3
EW1 33’‐35’ 87.4 10.4
EW1 35’‐37’ 78.2 8.4
EW1 44’‐46’ 92.9 20.4
EW1 46’‐48’ 83.1 17.3
EW1 64’‐66’79.0 17.4
EW1 122’‐124’ 104.4 15.5
Handout 4a1
Client:Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
Project:STPUD Lab Testing, Proj.No.2199
Project No.:AS18.1024.00
Sample No:EW1 33'-35'
USCS Classification:N/A
Moisture
Condition Settlement, % Dry Density, pcf
% of Standard
Proctor
Hydraulic
Gradient
Hydraulic Conductivity,
cm/sec
Initial -------- 87.4 N/A -------- --------
Loaded 3.7%89.1 N/A 0.16 1.38E-03
Dry Dens.,
pcf
Moist.
%
Initial Moisture Content, %10.4
Final Moisture Content, %14.9
Sandcone Density Test
N/A N/A
FIXED WALL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
c
m
/
s
e
c
Time, Hours
Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Time
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
USBR 5600‐89
Construction Materials
Engineers, Inc.
STPUD Lab Testing
CME Proj. No. 2199
Note: Sample was loaded to 2,800 psf
Client:Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
Project:STPUD Lab Testing, Proj.No.2199
Project No.:AS18.1024.00
Sample No:EW1 35'-37'
USCS Classification:N/A
Moisture
Condition Settlement, % Dry Density, pcf
% of Standard
Proctor
Hydraulic
Gradient
Hydraulic Conductivity,
cm/sec
Initial -------- 78.2 N/A -------- --------
Loaded 6.9%84.0 N/A 0.16 4.12E-04
Dry Dens.,
pcf
Moist.
%
Initial Moisture Content, %8.4
Final Moisture Content, %20.7
Sandcone Density Test
N/A N/A
FIXED WALL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
c
m
/
s
e
c
Time, Hours
Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Time
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
USBR 5600‐89
Construction Materials
Engineers, Inc.
STPUD Lab Testing
CME Proj. No. 2199
Note: Sample was loaded to 2,800 psf
Client:Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
Project:STPUD Lab Testing, Proj.No.2199
Project No.:AS18.1024.00
Sample No:EW-1 44' - 46'
USCS Classification:N/A
Moisture
Condition Settlement, % Dry Density, pcf
% of Standard
Proctor
Hydraulic
Gradient
Hydraulic Conductivity,
cm/sec
Initial -------- 92.9 N/A -------- --------
Loaded 5.6%98.4 N/A 1.48 1.82E-06
Dry Dens.,
pcf
Moist.
%
Initial Moisture Content, %20.4
Final Moisture Content, %28.4
Sandcone Density Test
N/A N/A
FIXED WALL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
c
m
/
s
e
c
Time, Hours
Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Time
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
USBR 5600‐89
Construction Materials
Engineers, Inc.
STPUD Lab Testing
CME Proj. No. 2199
Note: Sample was loaded to 3,400 psf
Client:Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
Project:STPUD Lab Testing, Proj.No.2199
Project No.:AS18.1024.00
Sample No:EW1 46'-48'
USCS Classification:N/A
Moisture
Condition Settlement, % Dry Density, pcf
% of Standard
Proctor
Hydraulic
Gradient
Hydraulic Conductivity,
cm/sec
Initial -------- 83.1 N/A -------- --------
Loaded 6.3%88.7 N/A 0.16 1.06E-05
Dry Dens.,
pcf
Moist.
%
Initial Moisture Content, %17.3
Final Moisture Content, %18.4
Sandcone Density Test
N/A N/A
FIXED WALL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
c
m
/
s
e
c
Time, Hours
Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Time
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
USBR 5600‐89
Construction Materials
Engineers, Inc.
STPUD Lab Testing
CME Proj. No. 2199
Note: Sample was loaded to 3,400 psf
Client:Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
Project:STPUD Lab Testing, Proj.No.2199
Project No.:AS18.1024.00
Sample No:EW-1, 46'-48' (2nd trial)
USCS Classification:N/A
Moisture
Condition Settlement, % Dry Density, pcf
% of Standard
Proctor
Hydraulic
Gradient
Hydraulic Conductivity,
cm/sec
Initial -------- 83.1 N/A -------- --------
Loaded 8.1%90.5 N/A 2.61 4.59E-06
Dry Dens.,
pcf
Moist.
%
Initial Moisture Content, %17.3
Final Moisture Content, %16.0
Sandcone Density Test
N/A N/A
FIXED WALL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
c
m
/
s
e
c
Time, Hours
Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Time
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
USBR 5600‐89
Construction Materials
Engineers, Inc.
STPUD Lab Testing
CME Proj. No. 2199
Note: Sample was loaded to 3,400 psf
Client:Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
Project:STPUD Lab Testing, Proj.No.2199
Project No.:AS18.1024.00
Sample No:EW-1 64' - 66'
USCS Classification:N/A
Moisture
Condition Settlement, % Dry Density, pcf
% of Standard
Proctor
Hydraulic
Gradient
Hydraulic Conductivity,
cm/sec
Initial -------- 79.0 N/A -------- --------
Loaded 5.0%83.2 N/A 1.26 5.78E-05
Dry Dens.,
pcf
Moist.
%
Initial Moisture Content, %17.4
Final Moisture Content, %20.7
Sandcone Density Test
N/A N/A
FIXED WALL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
c
m
/
s
e
c
Time, Hours
Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Time
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
USBR 5600‐89
Construction Materials
Engineers, Inc.
STPUD Lab Testing
CME Proj. No. 2199
Note: Sample was loaded to 4,500 psf
Client:Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
Project:STPUD Lab Testing, Proj.No.2199
Project No.:AS18.1024.00
Sample No:EW-1, 122'-124'
USCS Classification:N/A
Moisture
Condition Settlement, % Dry Density, pcf
% of Standard
Proctor
Hydraulic
Gradient
Hydraulic Conductivity,
cm/sec
Initial -------- 104.4 N/A -------- --------
Loaded 9.4%115.2 N/A 2.32 7.42E-05
Dry Dens.,
pcf
Moist.
%
Initial Moisture Content, %15.5
Final Moisture Content, %19.3
Sandcone Density Test
N/A N/A
FIXED WALL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
c
m
/
s
e
c
Time, Hours
Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Time
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
USBR 5600‐89
Construction Materials
Engineers, Inc.
STPUD Lab Testing
CME Proj. No. 2199
Note: Sample was loaded to 9,900 psf
Client:
Project:
Project No.:
Sample No:
Date:
Initial Final
water Specific Gravity1 6.35 6.35
68 2.65 7.112 7.193
0.76712 1 - Assumed 12.30 16.78
0.031416 119.26 114.66
12 84 101
Initial Hydraulic Gradient 15.03
Final Hydraulic Gradient 6.79
Hydraulic Conductivity, cm/sec
South Tahoe Public Utility District Lab Testing
FLEX WALL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS - ASTM D 5084
Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
SPECIMEN DATA
RESULTS
Effective Consolidation Stress, psi
AS18.1024
EW-1 24.'-24.5', 25'-25.5' combined
2 - Final saturation value is
considered approximate.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
1.14E-04
Saturation2
Area of Headwater Tube, cm2
Area of Tailwater Tube, cm2
Back-pressure, psi
Permeant
5/17/2018
Dry Density, pcf
Moisture, %
Diameter,cm
Length, cm
1.000E-07
1.000E-06
1.000E-05
1.000E-04
1.000E-03
1.000E-02
0246810
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
c
m
/
s
e
c
)
Time (sec)
Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Time
FLEX WALL HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY
ASTM D 5084
Construction Materials
Engineers, Inc.
STPUD Laboratory Testing
CME Proj.No. 2199
Note: ASTM D5084 is valid for hydraulic conductivities
of 1.0 E‐05 cm/s and slower. Multiple trials were
conducted to estimate the result presented.
Client:
Project:
Project No.:
Sample No:
Date:
Initial Final
water Specific Gravity1 6.35 6.347
59 2.65 7.112 7.112
0.76712 1 - Assumed 18.90 17.60
0.031416 108.61 110.15
21 96 93
Initial Hydraulic Gradient 17.3
Final Hydraulic Gradient 10.71
Hydraulic Conductivity, cm/sec
South Tahoe Public Utility District Lab Testing
FLEX WALL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS - ASTM D 5084
Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
SPECIMEN DATA
RESULTS
Effective Consolidation Stress, psi
AS18.1024
EW-1 38.5' - 39.0'
2 - Final saturation value is
considered approximate.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
3.50E-08
Saturation2
Area of Headwater Tube, cm2
Area of Tailwater Tube, cm2
Back-pressure, psi
Permeant
5/17/2018
Dry Density, pcf
Moisture, %
Diameter,cm
Length, cm
1.000E-09
1.000E-08
1.000E-07
1.000E-06
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
c
m
/
s
e
c
)
Time (sec)
Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Time
FLEX WALL HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY
ASTM D 5084
Construction Materials
Engineers, Inc.
STPUD Laboratory Testing
CME Proj.No. 2199
Client:
Project:
Project No.:
Sample No:
Date:
Initial Final
water Specific Gravity1 6.35 6.343
59 2.65 7.112 7.112
0.76712 1 - Assumed 15.80 23.50
0.031416 109.94 107.98
21 83 117
Initial Hydraulic Gradient 17.3
Final Hydraulic Gradient 1.65
Hydraulic Conductivity, cm/sec
South Tahoe Public Utility District Lab Testing
FLEX WALL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS - ASTM D 5084
Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
SPECIMEN DATA
RESULTS
Effective Consolidation Stress, psi
AS18.1024
EW-1 39.0'-39.5'
2 - Final saturation value is
considered approximate.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
8.33E-05
Saturation2
Area of Headwater Tube, cm2
Area of Tailwater Tube, cm2
Back-pressure, psi
Permeant
5/17/2018
Dry Density, pcf
Moisture, %
Diameter,cm
Length, cm
1.000E-07
1.000E-06
1.000E-05
1.000E-04
1.000E-03
1.000E-02
024681012
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
c
m
/
s
e
c
)
Time (sec)
Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Time
FLEX WALL HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY
ASTM D 5084
Construction Materials
Engineers, Inc.
STPUD Laboratory Testing
CME Proj.No. 2199
Note: ASTM D5084 is valid for hydraulic conductivities
of 1.0 E‐05 cm/s and slower. Multiple trials were
conducted to estimate the result presented.
Client:
Project:
Project No.:
Sample No:
Date:
Initial Final
water Specific Gravity1 7.62 7.46
40 2.65 7.112 7.28
0.76712 1 - Assumed 27.90 33.21
0.031416 79.85 79.34
40 69 81
Initial Hydraulic Gradient 12.53
Final Hydraulic Gradient 1.72
Hydraulic Conductivity, cm/sec
South Tahoe Public Utility District Lab Testing
FLEX WALL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS - ASTM D 5084
Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
SPECIMEN DATA
RESULTS
Effective Consolidation Stress, psi
AS18.1024
EW1 96'-98'
2 - Final saturation value is
considered approximate.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
2.86E-07
Saturation2
Area of Headwater Tube, cm2
Area of Tailwater Tube, cm2
Back-pressure, psi
Permeant
5/14/2018
Dry Density, pcf
Moisture, %
Diameter,cm
Length, cm
1.000E-08
1.000E-07
1.000E-06
1.000E-05
1.000E-04
0 1000 2000 3000
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
c
m
/
s
e
c
)
Time (sec)
Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Time
FLEX WALL HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY
ASTM D 5084
Construction Materials
Engineers, Inc.
STPUD Laboratory Testing
CME Proj.No. 2199
Client:
Project:
Project No.:
Sample No:
Date:
Initial Final
water Specific Gravity1 7.62 7.488
30 2.65 7.112 7.409
0.76712 1 - Assumed 16.30 17.53
0.031416 115.37 109.68
50 100 91
Initial Hydraulic Gradient 13.38
Final Hydraulic Gradient 1.37
Hydraulic Conductivity, cm/sec
Area of Tailwater Tube, cm2
Back-pressure, psi
Permeant
5/14/2018
Dry Density, pcf
Moisture, %
Diameter,cm
Length, cm
AS18.1024
EW1 150'
2 - Final saturation value is
considered approximate.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
3.64E-06
Saturation2
Area of Headwater Tube, cm2
South Tahoe Public Utility District Lab Testing
FLEX WALL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS - ASTM D 5084
Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.
SPECIMEN DATA
RESULTS
Effective Consolidation Stress, psi
1.000E-07
1.000E-06
1.000E-05
1.000E-04
1.000E-03
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
c
m
/
s
e
c
)
Time (sec)
Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Time
FLEX WALL HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY
ASTM D 5084
Construction Materials
Engineers, Inc.
STPUD Laboratory Testing
CME Proj.No. 2199
Handout 4a2
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) YELLOWISH BROWNOVERALL, TR. SCATTERED SUBROUNDED COARSE
GRAINED SAND, ~50% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND,~50% FINE GRAINED SAND, LOOSE, WET
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) VERY DARK GRAYISHBROWN OVERALL, TR. COARSE GRAINED SAND,
~80-90% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~10% SILT, WET
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) DARK YELLOWISHBROWN OVERALL, TR. FINE GRAVEL, ~10-15%
COARSE GRAINED SAND, ~50% MEDIUM GRAINEDSAND, ~40% FINE GRAINED SAND
WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SW) DARKYELLOWISH BROWN OVERALL, TR. FINE GRAVEL,TR. COARSE GRAINED SAND, ~40% MEDIUM
GRAINED SAND, ~40% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~10-15%SILT, VERY DENSE
WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW) GRAYISHBROWN OVERALL, TR. COBBLES, ~10%SUBROUNDED GRAVEL TO 1-INCH, ~10% COARSE
GRAINED SAND, ~60% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~10%SILT, VERY DENSE AND COHESIVE
19 FT. COLOR INCLUDES PALE BROWN
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) PALE BROWN TOLIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN, ~100% FINE GRAINED
SAND, VERY DENSE
20.5 - 21 FT. SOME COARSE GRAINED SAND AND
MEDIUM GRAINED SAND
SANDY SILT (ML) LBG AND YELLOWISH BROWN,
~25-50% FINE GRAINED SAND INCLUDING MICA,~50% SILT, VERY STIFF, NO PLASTICITY
25 FT. UP TO ~50% FINE GRAINED SAND
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) YELLOWISH BROWNOVERALL, BASED UPON GRADATION TESTS AT 33-35
FT. AND 35-37 FT.: 1.4 - 9.6% FINE GRAVEL, 10.5 -17.1% COARSE GRAINED SAND, 62.0 - 43.3% MEDIUMGRAINED SAND, 20.5-22.9% FINE GRAINED SAND,
5.6-7.1% SILT, DENSE, WET, APPEARANCE OFHIGHLY WEATHERED GRANITIC CLASTS TO COBBLE
SIZE, POSS. WEATHERED IN PLACE
10YR5/4
10YR3/2
10YR4/6
10YR5/2
10YR6/3
10YR6/3
10YR6/4
10YR 6/2
10YR 5/8
10YR5/4
Grout Seal
Bentonite Seal
Gravel Pack
28 ft.
Zone Test 1PCE: 30.7 ug/lToluene 0.9 ug/l
Louvered Screen
SP
SP
SW
SW
SW
SP
ML
SW
BORING LOCATION
DRILLING COMPANY
DRILLING METHOD(S)
ISOLATION CASING
BLANK CASING
SLOTTED CASING
SIZE AND TYPE OF FILTER PACK
SEAL
GROUT
WELL COMPLETION
n/a
ELEVATION AND DATUM
DATE STARTED
Cascade Drilling
Sonic - TS 150
Sonic Drive Casing (Temp.)
6-in. SCH 80 PVC
6-in. Stainless Steel 0.050-inch Louvered
SRI #6
3/8-in. Bentonite Chips
Neat Cement Grout
Well Name EW-1 Option 1 - One Well
3
n/a
+2
See
26
23
3
LOGGED BY
n/a
See Notes
Notes
64
26
23
STATIC WATER ELEVATION
150.0 ft. bgs
SAMPLING METHODS
Project Number 1770027.00
953 Eloise St., South Lake Tahoe
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
DRILLER
DRILL BIT(S) SIZE
STAND PIPE FT.
Project Name South Tahoe PUD
TOTAL DEPTH
DATE COMPLETED
SURFACE HOUSING
X
Well cap
Stand pipe
Boring & Well Construction Log
F-40.1
(6-87) (3-88) (8-90)
Penetr.Resist.Blows/6"
DrillDepth(Feet)
USCSLog Lithology Color SAMPLE DESCRIPTION and DRILLING REMARKSRecovery
(Feet)
1 4OFSHEET
Type& No.
SAMPLES WELL CONSTRUCTION
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
BO
R
I
N
G
&
W
E
L
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1
7
7
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
.
G
P
J
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
J
E
N
K
S
.
G
D
T
6
/
5
/
1
8
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Handout 4a3
WELL GRADED SAND CONT'D
SANDY SILT (ML) YELLOWISH BROWN OVERALL,MIXED LAYERS OF SAND WITH SILT, AND SMALLAMOUNT OF CLAY; SAND IS MAINLY FINE WITH
STREAKS OF 10YR 5/8 OXIDATION, SOFT, NOPLASTICITY
GRADES TO ALTERNATING LAYERS OF SILTYSAND AND POORLY GRADED SAND (SM) SAND ISMAINLY ~90% FINE GRAINED SAND, WITH ~10% SILT,
LOOSE, WET
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) LIGHT YELLOWISHBROWN OVERALL, ~70-80% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND,
~20-30% FINE GRAINED SAND, DENSE, WET
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) YELLOWISH BROWN
OVERALL, ~10% SUBROUNDED COARSE GRAINEDSAND, ~30% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, ~60% MEDIUMGRAINED SAND, DENSE, WET
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) YELLOWISH BROWNOVERALL, BASED UPON GRADATION TESTS AT 44-46
FT. AND 46-48 FT.: 0.2-0.1% FINE GRAVEL, 3.7-3.6%COARSE GRAINED SAND, 37% MEDIUM GRAINEDSAND, 50.9-24.0% FINE GRAINED SAND, 8.1-10.3%
SILT, VERY DENSE, WET
50 FT. COLOR CHANGES SLIGHTLY, MATERIAL
BECOMES DENSER
54 FT. THIN SUBHORIZONTAL LAYER OF
FINE-GRAINED SILTY SAND
55.5 FT. SOME MEDIUM GRAINED FELDSPAR GRAINS
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) LIGHT YELLOWISH
BROWN OVERALL, TR. SUBROUNDED COARSEGRAINED SAND, ~10-20% MEDIUM GRAINED SANDQUARTZ AND FELDSPAR, ~70-80% FINE GRAINED
SAND INCLUDING MICA, DENSE, WET
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) YELLOWISH BROWN
OVERALL, BASED UPON GRADATION TESTS AT 64-66FT.: 1.2% COARSE GRAINED SAND, 30.7% MEDIUMGRAINED SAND, 61.8% FINE GRAINED SAND, 6.3%
SILT, MASSIVE, DENSE, WET
10YR5/4
10YR 6/4
10YR5/4
10YR4/4
10YR6/4
10YR5/4
38 ft.
44 ft.
Zone Test 2Benzene
112 ug/lEthyl Benzene:
4.2 ug/lStyrene 0.6 ug/lPCE 66 ug/l
TCE 2.8 ug/l Toluene 18 ug/l Xylenes (Tot.)
0.9 ug/l
Gravel Pack
59 ft.
Sump
Zone Test 3PCE: 1.5 ug/l
Not Drilled
SW
ML
SM
SP
SW
SP
SW
SP
Project Name South Tahoe PUD Project Number 1770027.00 Well NameEW-1 Option 1 - One Well
Boring & Well Construction Log
F-40.1
(6-87) (3-88) (8-90)
Penetr.Resist.Blows/6"
DrillDepth(Feet)
USCSLog Lithology Color SAMPLE DESCRIPTION and DRILLING REMARKSRecovery
(Feet)
2 4OFSHEET
Type& No.
SAMPLES WELL CONSTRUCTION
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
BO
R
I
N
G
&
W
E
L
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1
7
7
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
.
G
P
J
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
J
E
N
K
S
.
G
D
T
6
/
5
/
1
8
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
SILTY SAND (SM) PALE BROWN WITHSUBHORIZONTAL YELLOWISH BROWN BANDING,
~60-80% FINE GRAINED SAND INCLUDING MICAS,~20-40% SILT, DENSE, NO PLASTICITY, WET
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) PALE BROWN
OVERALL, <10% SUBROUNDED COARSE GRAINEDSAND, ~30-40% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, ~50% FINE
GRAINED SAND INCLUDING MICA, MASSIVE, DENSE,WET
SANDY SILT (ML) PALE BROWN WITH
SUBHORIZONTAL AND CURVED YELLOWISH BROWNBANDING, FINE GRAINED SAND VARIES FROM
~20-50%, SILT VARIES ~80-50%, VERY STIFF, NO TOLOW PLASTICITY, WET
SILTY SAND (SM) BROWN TO YELLOWISH BROWN
WITH BANDS OF STRONG BROWN AND STREAKS OFVERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN, ~90% FINE GRAINEDSAND, ~10-20% SILT, DENSE, WET
SILT TO SANDY SILT (ML) BROWN OVERALL WITHTHIN SUBHORIZONTAL STREAKS OF YELLOWISH
BROWN, UP TO ~50% FINE GRAINED SANDINCLUDING MICA, WITH SAND DECREASING FROM94 TO 96 FT., SOME THIN SUBHORIZONTAL SANDY
LAYERS PRESENT
CLAY TO SILTY CLAY (CL) DARK GRAYISH BROWN
OVERALL, VERY STIFF, LOW PLASTICITY, HIGHTOUGHNESS, LOW TO SLOW DILANTANCY
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) 10YR 5/8 YELLOWISH
BROWN TO 2.5Y N4/0 DARK GRAY
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) DARK GRAY, GRAY,
GRADING TO LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN, ~5% FINEGRAVEL, INCLUDING SUBROUNDED CLASTS ANDGRANITIC CLASTS WEATHERING IN PLACE, ~5%
COARSE GRAINED SAND, ~30-40% MEDIUM GRAINEDSAND, ~30% FINE GRAINED SAND
WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW) DARKGRAYISH BROWN OVERALL, ~10% GRAVEL TO
1-INCH, UP TO ~20% COARSE GRAINED SAND,~20-30% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, ~30% FINEGRAINED SAND, VERY DENSE, WET
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) DARK GRAY OVERALL,BASED UPON GRADATION TESTS AT 122-127 FT.:
3.6% FINE GRAVEL, 25.1% COARSE GRAINED SAND,37.0% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, 24.0% FINE GRAINEDSAND, 7.6% SILT, DENSE, MASSIVE, WET
10YR 6/3
10YR 5/8
10YR 6/310YR 5/47.5YR 4/6
10YR 4/310YR 5/8
10YR4/2
**
2.5YN4/0
10YR8/1
10YR6/4
10YR4/2
2.5YN4/0
Not Drilled
Zone Test 5PCE: <0.5 ug/l
TCE: 0.6 ug/l
SM
SW
ML
SM
ML
CL
SP
SW
SW
SW
Project Name South Tahoe PUD Project Number 1770027.00 Well NameEW-1 Option 1 - One Well
Boring & Well Construction Log
F-40.1
(6-87) (3-88) (8-90)
Penetr.Resist.Blows/6"
DrillDepth(Feet)
USCSLog Lithology Color SAMPLE DESCRIPTION and DRILLING REMARKSRecovery
(Feet)
3 4OFSHEET
Type& No.
SAMPLES WELL CONSTRUCTION
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
BO
R
I
N
G
&
W
E
L
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1
7
7
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
.
G
P
J
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
J
E
N
K
S
.
G
D
T
6
/
5
/
1
8
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
WELL GRADED SAND CONT'D
COMPLEX ZONE OF MIXED AND DEFORMED
LAYERS OF SILT AND WELL GRADED SAND (ML)SILTY LAYERS COLOR INCUDES YELLOWISHBROWN (10YR 5/8), GRAY (2.5Y N5), OLIVE GRAY
(2.5Y N4-5Y 5/1); WELL GRADED SAND LAYERSTYPICALLY 2.5Y N8, SILTY LAYERS ARE TYPICALLYUP TO ~50% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~50% SILT, VERY
STIFF, NO PLASTICITY, WET, ALTERNATING LAYERSARE ~1-2 INCHES THICK AND CURVED ANDDEFORMED; DARK GRAY CLASTS ARE POSSIBLE
ORGANIC MATTER
SILTY SAND TO POORLY GRADED SAND (SM-SP)
PINK FROM 130 - 131 FT, DARK GRAY BELOW, ~50%MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, ~50% FINE GRAINED SANDTO 134 FT., GRADING TO ~80% FINE GRAINED SAND
~10-20% SILT
SILTY SAND (SM) PINK AND GRAY, ~60-80% FINE
GRAINED SAND INCLUDING MICAS, ~20-40% SILT,VERY DENSE AND COHESIVE, NO PLASTICITY
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) GRAY OVERALL, TR.COARSE GRAINED SAND, ~100% FINE GRAINEDSAND, ~10%? SILT, FAINT SUBHORIZONTAL
LAYERING
SILTY SAND TO SANDY SILT (SM-ML) PINK AND
GRAY, ~40-60% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~40-60% SILT,VERY STIFF, NO PLASTICITY
2.5YN4/0
**
5Y5/1
5YR 7/3
10YR6/1
5YR 7/310YR 6/1
Not Drilled
SW
ML
SM-SP
SM
SP
SM-ML
Project Name South Tahoe PUD Project Number 1770027.00 Well NameEW-1 Option 1 - One Well
Boring & Well Construction Log
F-40.1
(6-87) (3-88) (8-90)
Penetr.Resist.Blows/6"
DrillDepth(Feet)
USCSLog Lithology Color SAMPLE DESCRIPTION and DRILLING REMARKSRecovery
(Feet)
4 4OFSHEET
Type& No.
SAMPLES WELL CONSTRUCTION
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
BO
R
I
N
G
&
W
E
L
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1
7
7
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
.
G
P
J
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
J
E
N
K
S
.
G
D
T
6
/
5
/
1
8
130
135
140
145
150
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) YELLOWISH BROWNOVERALL, TR. SCATTERED SUBROUNDED COARSE
GRAINED SAND, ~50% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND,~50% FINE GRAINED SAND, LOOSE, WET
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) VERY DARK GRAYISHBROWN OVERALL, TR. COARSE GRAINED SAND,
~80-90% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~10% SILT, WET
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) DARK YELLOWISHBROWN OVERALL, TR. FINE GRAVEL, ~10-15%
COARSE GRAINED SAND, ~50% MEDIUM GRAINEDSAND, ~40% FINE GRAINED SAND
WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SW) DARKYELLOWISH BROWN OVERALL, TR. FINE GRAVEL,TR. COARSE GRAINED SAND, ~40% MEDIUM
GRAINED SAND, ~40% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~10-15%SILT, VERY DENSE
WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW) GRAYISHBROWN OVERALL, TR. COBBLES, ~10%SUBROUNDED GRAVEL TO 1-INCH, ~10% COARSE
GRAINED SAND, ~60% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~10%SILT, VERY DENSE AND COHESIVE
19 FT. COLOR INCLUDES PALE BROWN
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) PALE BROWN TOLIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN, ~100% FINE GRAINED
SAND, VERY DENSE
20.5 - 21 FT. SOME COARSE GRAINED SAND AND
MEDIUM GRAINED SAND
SANDY SILT (ML) LBG AND YELLOWISH BROWN,
~25-50% FINE GRAINED SAND INCLUDING MICA,~50% SILT, VERY STIFF, NO PLASTICITY
25 FT. UP TO ~50% FINE GRAINED SAND
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) YELLOWISH BROWNOVERALL, BASED UPON GRADATION TESTS AT 33-35
FT. AND 35-37 FT.: 1.4 - 9.6% FINE GRAVEL, 10.5 -17.1% COARSE GRAINED SAND, 62.0 - 43.3% MEDIUMGRAINED SAND, 20.5-22.9% FINE GRAINED SAND,
5.6-7.1% SILT, DENSE, WET, APPEARANCE OFHIGHLY WEATHERED GRANITIC CLASTS TO COBBLE
SIZE, POSS. WEATHERED IN PLACE
10YR5/4
10YR3/2
10YR4/6
10YR5/2
10YR6/3
10YR6/3
10YR6/4
10YR 6/2
10YR 5/8
10YR5/4
Shallow wellborehole shown
on left. Deep well
borehole shownon right.
Cement Grout
Seal
23 ft.
Bentonite Seal
25.5 ft.
Filter Pack
27.5 ft.
Zone Test 131-36 ft.PCE: 30.7 ug/l
Toluene 0.9 ug/l
SP
SP
SW
SW
SW
SP
ML
SW
BORING LOCATION
DRILLING COMPANY
DRILLING METHOD(S)
ISOLATION CASING
BLANK CASING
SLOTTED CASING
SIZE AND TYPE OF FILTER PACK
SEAL
GROUT
WELL COMPLETION
n/a
ELEVATION AND DATUM
DATE STARTED
Cascade Drilling
Sonic - TS 150
Sonic Drive Casing (Temp.)
6-in. SCH 80 PVC - Two boreholes
6-in. Stainless Steel 0.050-inch Louvered
SRI #6
3/8-in. Bentonite Chips
Neat Cement Grout
Boring Name EW-1 Two Wells-Two Boreholes
n/a
n/a
+2-27.5
27.5-35
25.5-38
23-25.5
0-23
LOGGED BY
n/a
+2-44
44-59
41-64
38.5-41
0-38.5
STATIC WATER ELEVATION
150.0 ft. bgs
SAMPLING METHODS
Project Number 1770027.00
953 Eloise St., South Lake Tahoe
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
TO
TO
TO
TO
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
DRILLER
DRILL BIT(S) SIZE
STAND PIPE FT.
Project Name South Tahoe PUD
TOTAL DEPTH
DATE COMPLETED
SURFACE HOUSING
Boring & Well Construction Log
F-40.1
(6-87) (3-88) (8-90)
Penetr.Resist.Blows/6"
DrillDepth(Feet)
USCSLog Lithology Color SAMPLE DESCRIPTION and DRILLING REMARKSRecovery
(Feet)
1 4OFSHEET
Type& No.
SAMPLES BACKFILL DETAILS
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
BO
R
I
N
G
&
W
E
L
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1
7
7
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
.
G
P
J
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
J
E
N
K
S
.
G
D
T
6
/
5
/
1
8
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Handout 4a4
WELL GRADED SAND CONT'D
SANDY SILT (ML) YELLOWISH BROWN OVERALL,MIXED LAYERS OF SAND WITH SILT, AND SMALLAMOUNT OF CLAY; SAND IS MAINLY FINE WITH
STREAKS OF 10YR 5/8 OXIDATION, SOFT, NOPLASTICITY
GRADES TO ALTERNATING LAYERS OF SILTYSAND AND POORLY GRADED SAND (SM) SAND ISMAINLY ~90% FINE GRAINED SAND, WITH ~10% SILT,
LOOSE, WET
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) LIGHT YELLOWISHBROWN OVERALL, ~70-80% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND,
~20-30% FINE GRAINED SAND, DENSE, WET
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) YELLOWISH BROWN
OVERALL, ~10% SUBROUNDED COARSE GRAINEDSAND, ~30% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, ~60% MEDIUMGRAINED SAND, DENSE, WET
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) YELLOWISH BROWNOVERALL, BASED UPON GRADATION TESTS AT 44-46
FT. AND 46-48 FT.: 0.2-0.1% FINE GRAVEL, 3.7-3.6%COARSE GRAINED SAND, 37% MEDIUM GRAINEDSAND, 50.9-24.0% FINE GRAINED SAND, 8.1-10.3%
SILT, VERY DENSE, WET
50 FT. COLOR CHANGES SLIGHTLY, MATERIAL
BECOMES DENSER
54 FT. THIN SUBHORIZONTAL LAYER OF
FINE-GRAINED SILTY SAND
55.5 FT. SOME MEDIUM GRAINED FELDSPAR GRAINS
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) LIGHT YELLOWISH
BROWN OVERALL, TR. SUBROUNDED COARSEGRAINED SAND, ~10-20% MEDIUM GRAINED SANDQUARTZ AND FELDSPAR, ~70-80% FINE GRAINED
SAND INCLUDING MICA, DENSE, WET
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) YELLOWISH BROWN
OVERALL, BASED UPON GRADATION TESTS AT 64-66FT.: 1.2% COARSE GRAINED SAND, 30.7% MEDIUMGRAINED SAND, 61.8% FINE GRAINED SAND, 6.3%
SILT, MASSIVE, DENSE, WET
10YR5/4
10YR 6/4
10YR5/4
10YR4/4
10YR6/4
10YR5/4
35 ft.
38 ft.38.5 ft.
Bentonite Seal
41.0 ft.
Filter Pack
44 ft.
Zone Test 240-50 ft.
Benzene 112 ug/l
Ethyl Benzene:4.2 ug/lStyrene 0.6 ug/l
PCE 66 ug/lTCE 2.8 ug/l Toluene 18 ug/l
Xylenes (Tot.) 0.9 ug/l
Filter Pack
59 ft.
64 ft.
Zone Test 3PCE: 1.5 ug/l
Not Drilled
SW
ML
SM
SP
SW
SP
SW
SP
Project Name South Tahoe PUD Project Number 1770027.00 Boring NameEW-1 Two Wells-Two Boreholes
Boring & Well Construction Log
F-40.1
(6-87) (3-88) (8-90)
Penetr.Resist.Blows/6"
DrillDepth(Feet)
USCSLog Lithology Color SAMPLE DESCRIPTION and DRILLING REMARKSRecovery
(Feet)
2 4OFSHEET
Type& No.
SAMPLES BACKFILL DETAILS
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
BO
R
I
N
G
&
W
E
L
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1
7
7
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
.
G
P
J
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
J
E
N
K
S
.
G
D
T
6
/
5
/
1
8
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
SILTY SAND (SM) PALE BROWN WITHSUBHORIZONTAL YELLOWISH BROWN BANDING,
~60-80% FINE GRAINED SAND INCLUDING MICAS,~20-40% SILT, DENSE, NO PLASTICITY, WET
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) PALE BROWN
OVERALL, <10% SUBROUNDED COARSE GRAINEDSAND, ~30-40% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, ~50% FINE
GRAINED SAND INCLUDING MICA, MASSIVE, DENSE,WET
SANDY SILT (ML) PALE BROWN WITH
SUBHORIZONTAL AND CURVED YELLOWISH BROWNBANDING, FINE GRAINED SAND VARIES FROM
~20-50%, SILT VARIES ~80-50%, VERY STIFF, NO TOLOW PLASTICITY, WET
SILTY SAND (SM) BROWN TO YELLOWISH BROWN
WITH BANDS OF STRONG BROWN AND STREAKS OFVERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN, ~90% FINE GRAINEDSAND, ~10-20% SILT, DENSE, WET
SILT TO SANDY SILT (ML) BROWN OVERALL WITHTHIN SUBHORIZONTAL STREAKS OF YELLOWISH
BROWN, UP TO ~50% FINE GRAINED SANDINCLUDING MICA, WITH SAND DECREASING FROM94 TO 96 FT., SOME THIN SUBHORIZONTAL SANDY
LAYERS PRESENT
CLAY TO SILTY CLAY (CL) DARK GRAYISH BROWN
OVERALL, VERY STIFF, LOW PLASTICITY, HIGHTOUGHNESS, LOW TO SLOW DILANTANCY
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) 10YR 5/8 YELLOWISH
BROWN TO 2.5Y N4/0 DARK GRAY
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) DARK GRAY, GRAY,
GRADING TO LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN, ~5% FINEGRAVEL, INCLUDING SUBROUNDED CLASTS ANDGRANITIC CLASTS WEATHERING IN PLACE, ~5%
COARSE GRAINED SAND, ~30-40% MEDIUM GRAINEDSAND, ~30% FINE GRAINED SAND
WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SW) DARKGRAYISH BROWN OVERALL, ~10% GRAVEL TO
1-INCH, UP TO ~20% COARSE GRAINED SAND,~20-30% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, ~30% FINEGRAINED SAND, VERY DENSE, WET
WELL GRADED SAND (SW) DARK GRAY OVERALL,BASED UPON GRADATION TESTS AT 122-127 FT.:
3.6% FINE GRAVEL, 25.1% COARSE GRAINED SAND,37.0% MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, 24.0% FINE GRAINEDSAND, 7.6% SILT, DENSE, MASSIVE, WET
10YR 6/3
10YR 5/8
10YR 6/310YR 5/47.5YR 4/6
10YR 4/310YR 5/8
10YR4/2
**
2.5YN4/0
10YR8/1
10YR6/4
10YR4/2
2.5YN4/0
Not Drilled
Zone Test 5119-124 ft.
PCE: <0.5 ug/lTCE: 0.6 ug/l
SM
SW
ML
SM
ML
CL
SP
SW
SW
SW
Project Name South Tahoe PUD Project Number 1770027.00 Boring NameEW-1 Two Wells-Two Boreholes
Boring & Well Construction Log
F-40.1
(6-87) (3-88) (8-90)
Penetr.Resist.Blows/6"
DrillDepth(Feet)
USCSLog Lithology Color SAMPLE DESCRIPTION and DRILLING REMARKSRecovery
(Feet)
3 4OFSHEET
Type& No.
SAMPLES BACKFILL DETAILS
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
BO
R
I
N
G
&
W
E
L
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1
7
7
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
.
G
P
J
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
J
E
N
K
S
.
G
D
T
6
/
5
/
1
8
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
WELL GRADED SAND CONT'D
COMPLEX ZONE OF MIXED AND DEFORMED
LAYERS OF SILT AND WELL GRADED SAND (ML)SILTY LAYERS COLOR INCUDES YELLOWISHBROWN (10YR 5/8), GRAY (2.5Y N5), OLIVE GRAY
(2.5Y N4-5Y 5/1); WELL GRADED SAND LAYERSTYPICALLY 2.5Y N8, SILTY LAYERS ARE TYPICALLYUP TO ~50% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~50% SILT, VERY
STIFF, NO PLASTICITY, WET, ALTERNATING LAYERSARE ~1-2 INCHES THICK AND CURVED ANDDEFORMED; DARK GRAY CLASTS ARE POSSIBLE
ORGANIC MATTER
SILTY SAND TO POORLY GRADED SAND (SM-SP)
PINK FROM 130 - 131 FT, DARK GRAY BELOW, ~50%MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, ~50% FINE GRAINED SANDTO 134 FT., GRADING TO ~80% FINE GRAINED SAND
~10-20% SILT
SILTY SAND (SM) PINK AND GRAY, ~60-80% FINE
GRAINED SAND INCLUDING MICAS, ~20-40% SILT,VERY DENSE AND COHESIVE, NO PLASTICITY
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) GRAY OVERALL, TR.COARSE GRAINED SAND, ~100% FINE GRAINEDSAND, ~10%? SILT, FAINT SUBHORIZONTAL
LAYERING
SILTY SAND TO SANDY SILT (SM-ML) PINK AND
GRAY, ~40-60% FINE GRAINED SAND, ~40-60% SILT,VERY STIFF, NO PLASTICITY
2.5YN4/0
**
5Y5/1
5YR 7/3
10YR6/1
5YR 7/310YR 6/1
Not Drilled
SW
ML
SM-SP
SM
SP
SM-ML
Project Name South Tahoe PUD Project Number 1770027.00 Boring NameEW-1 Two Wells-Two Boreholes
Boring & Well Construction Log
F-40.1
(6-87) (3-88) (8-90)
Penetr.Resist.Blows/6"
DrillDepth(Feet)
USCSLog Lithology Color SAMPLE DESCRIPTION and DRILLING REMARKSRecovery
(Feet)
4 4OFSHEET
Type& No.
SAMPLES BACKFILL DETAILS
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
BO
R
I
N
G
&
W
E
L
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1
7
7
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
.
G
P
J
K
E
N
N
E
D
Y
J
E
N
K
S
.
G
D
T
6
/
5
/
1
8
130
135
140
145
150
SOUTH Y PCE MODEL
INTERIM RESULTS
Greg Pohll, Susie Rybarski, & Rosemary CarrollApril 5, 2017
Excerpt of pdf for 6/12/18 TAC
Mtg
Outline
Modeling Objectives
Historical Context
Regional/Local Models
Modeling Approach
Results
No Action Scenario
Next Steps
Modeling Objectives
Develop a flow and PCE transport model of
the South Y Area
The model will be used to help optimize the
design of the remediation system
Once complete the model will be released to
interested stakeholders for additional analysis
Modeling Approach
Regional models
GSFLOW
MODFLOW
Local model
MODFLOW
MT3D
Regional
vs.
Local Models
Local PCE
Model
10 m
100 m
Refined at 10 m
around estimated
plume extent.
4 model layers
Layer 1 = 40 m thick
Layer 2 = 40 m thick
Layer 3 = 80 m thick
Layer 4 ~ 125 m thick
(bottom elev. 1600 m)
Production Wells vs. Model Layer
WELL
WATER
SYSTEM SO
U
R
C
E
CA
P
A
C
I
T
Y
(G
P
M
)
STATUS Perforated Interval (ft bgs)Wa
t
e
r
-
B
e
a
r
i
n
g
Zo
n
e
PC
E
MODEL LAYER
Clement Well STPUD 180 Inactive, Treated 80 -120 TKZ5 X 1
Julie Well STPUD Destroyed 65 - 100; 115-125 TKZ5, TKZ4 X 1
South Y Center Well STPUD Destroyed 40' between 190 - 260 TKZ3 X 2
Tata Well #4 STPUD Destroyed 85 - 125 TKZ5, TKZ4 X 1
Industrial Well #2 STPUD Abandoned, Observation Well 40-92; 97 -107; 110- 190 TKZ5, TKZ4, SLTZ3 X 2
Tata Well #1 STPUD Abandoned, not destroyed 36 -105; 167 - 223 TKZ5, TKZ4, SLTZ3 1-2
Tata Well #2 STPUD Abandoned, Observation Well 73 - 193 TKZ4, SLTZ3 1-2
Tata Well #3 STPUD Abandoned, Observation Well 55 - 75; 200 -220 TKZ5, SLTZ3 1-2
LBWC Well #1 LBWC 720 Active Untreated 132 - 182 TKZ4 2
LBWC Well #2 LBWC 290 Offline, Impaired 132 - 156 TKZ4 X 2
LBWC Well #3 LBWC Destroyed 70 -80 TKZ5 X 1
LBWC Well #4 LBWC Abandoned, not destroyed 43 - 63; 68 - 78; 105 -115 TKZ5, TKZ4 X 1
LBWC Well #5 LBWC 720 Offline, Impaired 141-180 TKZ4 X 2
TKWC #1 TKWC 1,000 Active Untreated 125 - 312 TKZ4 X 1-3
TKWC #2 TKWC 1,800 Active Treated (GAC capacity 550 gpm)138 - 188; 348 - 414; 426 - 480 TKZ4, TKZ2, TKZ1 X 2-3
TKWC #3 TKWC 1,750 Active Untreated 175 - 300 TKZ4, TKZ3 X 2-3
Tahoe Valley Elementary LTUSD Inactive 86 - 146 TKZ5 (?)X 1-2
Rockwater Apartments SCWS Abandoned, not destroyed 70 - 99 TKZ5 X 1
Simulated Time Periods
Transient historical
1971 –2016
Transient predictive
2017 –2066
Time Steps
MODFLOW –1 year
MT3D -adaptive
Inflows and Outflows
Inflows
Recharge
Up-Gradient flow
Outflows
Streams
Lake Tahoe
Wells
Specified Head
Boundary Conditions
Extracted from
regional
groundwater
flow model
Legend
Flow direction
Groundwater level (m)
Hydraulic Parameters
Water levels from shallow, middle,
and deep zones indicate a
downward gradient near LTLW
Plume contours show vertical
migration does not occur until
further downgradient
A’
A
From Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2016
Hydraulic Parameters
Low K clay lens
approximately
interpolated from
USA Gas cross-
sections
Simulated as zone of
low vertical
conductivity between
layers 1 and 2
Extent of simulated clay lens shown in red
PCE Sources
Simulated Source
PCE trapped in
vadose zone
pore space
Water level rises,
reaching PCE
PCE is mobilized
in groundwater
Observed vs. Simulated
PCE Concentrations
South Y Feasibility Study Handout 5b
Revised 6/11/18
\\sac2\job\2017\1770027.00_south tahoe pud‐south y feasiblity study\09‐reports\9.09‐reports\task q.1‐q.2. outreach (formerly task f)\tac\061218-
mtg\handouts\5b_table-edits_task c-modeling-from_fs_scope.docx Report Title, Project Name | Page B‐ 1
Table 1: Potential Modeling Scenarios
F&T MODEL ELEMENTS SCENARIO
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
SOURCE AREA TBD TBD TBD Single Source, No Action X X X X X TBD TBD TBD Multiple Source, No Action X TBD TBD TBD Single Source, Clean-Up (CAO R6T-2016-PROP) X X X X TBD TBD TBD Multiple Source, Clean-Up (In-situ Remediation) X TBD TBD TBD Biodegradation analysis X TBD TBD TBD
EXTRACTION WELLS TBD TBD TBD
Shallow well at 953 Eloise site – 5- 10 gpm X X TBD TBD TBD
883/903 Eloise Ave well X X TBD TBD TBD
Rockwater Apartment Well X X TBD TBD TBD
Optimal Well Configuration (TBD by Modeling Analysis) X X X X X X X X X X X
GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION (GPM) TBD TBD TBD
Clement Well (180) X X X X X X X X X X TBD TBD TBD
LBWC#1 (720) X X X X X X X X X X X X TBD TBD TBD
LBWC #4 (200) - Replacement Well X TBD TBD TBD
LBWC #4 (400)- Replacement Well X TBD TBD TBD
LBWC #4 (800)- Replacement Well X X TBD TBD TBD
LBWC #5 (750) - Treatment X X X X X TBD TBD TBD
TKWC #1 (1,000) X X X X X X X TBD TBD TBD TKWC #1 (550) X X X X X TBD TBD TBD TKWC #2 (550) X X X X X X X TBD TBD TBD
TKWC #2 (1,800) - Treatment X X X X X TBD TBD TBD
South Y Feasibility Study Handout 5b
Revised 6/11/18
\\sac2\job\2017\1770027.00_south tahoe pud‐south y feasiblity study\09‐reports\9.09‐reports\task q.1‐q.2. outreach (formerly task f)\tac\061218-
mtg\handouts\5b_table-edits_task c-modeling-from_fs_scope.docx Report Title, Project Name | Page B‐ 2
F&T MODEL ELEMENTS SCENARIO
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TKWC #3 (1,750) X X X X X X X X X X X X TBD TBD TBD
Alternate TKWC Well locations/configurations
DISCHARGE TBD TBD TBD Sewer Discharge (200 GPM Limited) X X X TBD TBD TBD Treated Water System Reuse X X X X X TBD TBD TBD Injection X X X TBD TBD TBD
Handout 7a
Table 1: DRAFT Remedial Action Objectives – SOUTH Y PCE Contamination Response
South Tahoe PUD, Feasibility Study Addressing PCE in Groundwater Page 1 of 1
\\sac2\job\2017\1770027.00_south tahoe pud-south y feasiblity study\09-reports\9.09-reports\task q.1-q.2. outreach (formerly task f)\tac\061218-mtg\handouts\7a_draftrao-table-rev_053018.doc
Line No General EPA Remedial Action Objectives South Y Specific Remedial Action Objectives Comments
Source: Per EPA Document 540/R-96/023: Objectives applicable for all sites
with contaminated groundwater include the following:
1 Prevent exposure to contaminated ground water, above acceptable
risk levels.
Allow additional groundwater production without treatment
2 Prevent or minimize further migration of the contaminant plume
(plume containment).
Design and implement remedies without increasing existing
volume of groundwater impacted by HVOCs (plume
containment)
3 Prevent or minimize further migration of contaminants from source
materials to ground water (source control).
Concentration reduction to < 50 ppb at drinking water wells,
mass removal for proposed remedial measure?
To avoid 97-005
4 Return ground waters to their expected beneficial uses wherever
practicable (aquifer restoration).
Not applicable for South Y study
Source: Per EPA Document 540/G-88/003: Remedial Action Objectives for
contaminated groundwater sites should address the following:
5 Cleanup Level Assist in overall objective of supplying water without
detectable HVOCs to customers
Comply with regulatory agency requirements and directives
regarding HVOCs in groundwater
RAO that aims to reduce contaminant mass to reduce the
cleanup burden (eg reduce well head treatment duration) for
downgradient receptors required to cleanup water to MCLs
for distribution and consumption – maybe this amounts to
some level of concentration reduction, but still greater than
MCLs.
6 Area of Attainment Address groundwater within specified area and depth
interval (needs assistance to articulate/define)
This is addressed above and likely to include the area of the
plume between the source zone and the downgradient
extent of the plume
7 Restoration Time Frame Need some sort of time criteria – are water agencies able to
continue remediation indefinitely?
RAO that acknowledges STPUD’s/Water Agency’s efforts
as interim and will be maintained until such time that source
control has been implemented by the RPs and groundwater
concentrations have declined to influent levels that are
equal to or less than the proposed cleanup level above)
Other South Y Specific Objectives
Preserve ability to recover HVOC response costs from
responsible parties and/or state grant funding in the future
Preference for beneficial use of any extracted groundwater
resource (i.e. not disposal to sanitary sewer or storm drain)
Reduce costs (capital or long-term O&M) for groundwater
remedial wellhead treatment to retail customers
Perform community outreach and information activities
regarding HVOCs in groundwater
Notes:
(a) STPUD is responsible for management of the groundwater basin. Other water supply entities are the water retailers.
(b) Other parties have been named as responding parties to a Cleanup and Abatement Order issued by the Water Board.
(c) HVOCs = halogenated volatile organic compounds including tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its degradation products.
1
WORKING DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY – [MONTH] [DAY], 2018
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
REGARDING TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WITH THE
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD,
[REGION] REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, AND
[Grantee]
I. The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the [Grantee],
State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), and the
[Region/Location] Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) is
to identify the forum and processes for discussion and resolution of issues related
to monitoring, planning, modeling, remedial investigation, feasibility studies, design,
construction, and operation of any [Grantee] projects that are currently funded or
may in the future be funded by the State Water Board under Proposition 1 (Cal.
Water Code §§79700 et seq.) for the prevention or cleanup of groundwater
contamination in the [Location] Basin (Project or Projects), and to ensure those
Projects support and do not negatively impact nearby third-party cleanup efforts.
II. The State Water Board and Regional Water Board enter into this MOU
under the authorities of California Water Code section13225, subsections
(a), (b), and (j). [Grantee] enters into this MOU under the authority of [XXX].
III. The Parties to this MOU recognize that the implementation of the Project(s)
may involve complex technical issues regarding prevention and/or cleanup
of contamination in groundwater. The implementation of this MOU will be
primarily through a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that will provide a
forum for discussion and resolution of technical issues associated with the
implementation of the Project(s). The TAC will be made up of technical staff
from the State Water Board’s Division of Financial Assistance (DFA), from
the State Water Board’s Division of Drinking Water (DDW), and from the
Regional Water Board, and representatives of [Grantee]. The TAC may also
include representatives of other State or federal regulatory agencies that are
not Parties to this MOU, such as the Department of Toxic Substances
Control and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical issues
not resolved by the TAC will be forwarded to a Steering Committee
consisting of executive level staff of the Parties for resolution. The Steering
Committee will include [title of DFA person], [title of DDW person], [title of
RB person], and [title of Grantee person] or their respective designees. The
Steering Committee will also address non-technical issues as needed.
IV. The Parties to this MOU share the same goal: prevention and/or cleanup of
contamination in groundwater in the most timely and cost effective manner
feasible, in compliance with applicable state, federal, and local laws.
V. The Parties recognize the need to proceed expeditiously with the Project(s) and
without interruption or undue delay to Project schedules. TAC members commit to
2
WORKING DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY – [MONTH] [DAY], 2018
providing technical review comments to [Grantee] and the DFA grant manager
within three weeks of receipt of the deliverable subject to TAC review, unless the
funding agreement specifies otherwise or an alternative review period is mutually
agreed upon by the Parties.
VI. The State Water Board through DFA, as the funding authority, retains decision-
making authority regarding whether [Grantee] has met the deliverables and other
requirements of the Grant Agreement. The Parties recognize that the Project(s)
must be consistent with and support the State Water Board’s and Regional Water
Board’s regulatory programs and be consistent with applicable laws and
regulations, including State Water Board Resolution 92-49, State Water Board
Resolution 68-16, and applicable plans and policies of the State and Regional
Water Boards.
VII. [Grantee] recognizes that the State Water Board and Regional Water Board have
an interest in receiving information from and communicating with [Grantee]
regarding investigation, planning, design, construction, and operation of the
Project(s), as applicable, to ensure that the Project(s) will be effective and will not
adversely affect other nearby remediation projects.
VIII. For any implementation Project(s), [Grantee] will coordinate with the TAC to
evaluate cleanup progress and demonstrate whether or not the Project(s) is
successful in achieving prevention and/or cleanup of contamination in
groundwater. Such evaluation and demonstration will include development of a
monitoring plan with monitoring frequencies and locations aimed at evaluating
changes to the extent of the plume and contaminant concentrations (Monitoring
Plan). The State Water Board shall approve the Monitoring Plan.
a. Where feasible and consistent with this purpose, the Monitoring Plan may
incorporate existing monitoring locations and/or frequencies that are used
to meet other regulatory or operational requirements, including but not
limited to locations listed in the DDW 97- 005 or drinking water permit
requirements.
b. As part of the Monitoring Plan development, the TAC will consider and
identify appropriate methods for the ongoing evaluation of groundwater
quality data in comparison to assumptions used in Project design to
proactively identify trends that would affect Project operations.
IX. Proposition 1 grant agreements for implementation Projects may require
[Grantee] to submit Operational Reports after commencement of
operation. The State Water Board may provide [Grantee] Operational
Reports to the TAC and the TAC may provide technical insight and
comments in writing to the State Water Board and [Grantee] regarding the
Operational Reports. [Grantee] agrees to communicate with the TAC
regarding the technical insight and comments it may provide in response
to [Grantee] Operational Reports during the 5 years, or longer, such
reports are provided.
3
WORKING DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY – [MONTH] [DAY], 2018
X. [Grantee] will be responsible for coordinating the logistics of TAC meetings as
follows:
a. Schedule and hold quarterly TAC meetings following submittal of quarterly
progress reports. Meeting frequency may be modified as mutually agreed
by [Grantee] and the State Water Board.
b. Prepare agendas and action items and communicate them to TAC
members.
c. Arrange audio visual equipment, phone conference lines, web-based
meetings, and other meeting logistics, as needed.
d. Should additional meetings be deemed necessary by the State Water
Board, meetings will be scheduled at the earliest mutually convenient
time and place.
XI. The State Water Board recognizes that [Grantee] may be entitled to cost recovery
from various third parties. Nothing in this MOU is meant, in any way, to alter or
change those rights that may exist. Any costs recovered must be used consistent
with the requirements of Proposition 1.
XII. Reservation of Rights: Each Party to this MOU shall be solely responsible and
liable in connection with its actions associated with its responsibilities under this
MOU. For purposes of this MOU, the relationship of the Parties is that of
independent entities and not as agents of each other or as joint venturers or
partners. The Parties shall maintain sole and exclusive control over their personnel,
agents, consultants, and operations. Nothing in this MOU alters the statutory or
regulatory authority of [Grantee], the State Water Board, or Regional Water Board,
or any other provision of law, nor shall anything in this MOU limit [Grantee] or the
State and Regional Water Boards’ legal authority or responsibilities.
XIII. Third Parties: Nothing in this MOU is intended to create duties or obligations to or
rights in third parties to this MOU or affect the legal liability of the Parties to this
MOU.
XIV. AMENDMENTS AND TERMINATION
a. In entering into this MOU, it is the intention of the Parties that this MOU
shall not be construed to be an enforceable contract or agreement, but is,
rather, a statement of principles.
b. This MOU shall remain in effect until all components have been fully
implemented or until [DATE], whichever occurs sooner.
4
WORKING DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY – [MONTH] [DAY], 2018
c. This MOU may be amended with the mutual written approval of all Parties
or their successors.
d. Any Party to this MOU, or its successor agency, may withdraw from the
MOU by giving 30-days advanced written notice to the other Parties, in
which case, the MOU is no longer effective.
e. Governing Law: This MOU is governed by, interpreted under, and
construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of
California.
f. Authorized signatures: The Parties hereby represent and warrant that
their respective signatory to this MOU is duly authorized to execute and
bind the agency for which he or she signs.
g. Severability: If any provision of this MOU shall be determined by any court
to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this
MOU shall not be affected and this MOU shall be construed as if the invalid,
illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOU.
h. Execution: This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed
Agreement by one party to the other may be made by facsimile or electronic
PDF transmission.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties to this MOU have caused this MOU to be
executed on their behalf as of the date specified below, respectively, as follows:
FOR THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD:
Dated: _____________, 2018 Name of ED
Executive Director
State Water Resources Control Board
______________________________
Name of ED
FOR THE [Name of Region/Location] REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD:
Dated: _____________, 2018 [First Name] [Last Name]
Executive Officer
[Name of Region/Location] Regional Water Quality
Control Board
______________________________
[First Name] [Last Name]
5
WORKING DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY – [MONTH] [DAY], 2018
FOR THE [GRANTEE]
Dated: __________, 2018 Name
Title
Agency
_____________________
[Name of person above]
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors Resource Names
1 Proposition 1 GWGP Program 488 days Wed 6/15/16 Sun 4/29/18
2 FS Planning Grant Pre-Application 40 days Wed 6/15/16 Tue 8/9/16
3 SWRCB Invitation Letter 1 day Thu 10/6/16 Thu 10/6/16
4 FS Planning Grant Full Proposal 80 days Thu 8/4/16 Wed 11/23/16
5 Preliminary Award 1 day Thu 3/30/17 Thu 3/30/17
6 Board Meeting - Authorizing Resolution 1 day Thu 5/18/17 Thu 5/18/17
7 Negotiate Grant Agreement 201 days Fri 5/19/17 Fri 2/23/18 6
8 Final Agreement 46 days Mon 2/26/18 Sun 4/29/18 7
9 RFP/Consultant Selection 100 days Fri 3/31/17 Thu 8/17/17
10 Develop Request for Proposal (RFP)40 days Fri 3/31/17 Thu 5/25/17 5
11 RFP Solicitation 35 days Tue 5/30/17 Mon 7/17/17 10FS+2 days
12 Last Day for Consultant Questions 1 day?Wed 7/5/17 Wed 7/5/17 11FS-9 days
13 Proposal Due Date 1 day?Mon 7/17/17 Mon 7/17/17 11FS-1 day
14 Technical Proposal Review Meeting 1 day Tue 8/1/17 Tue 8/1/17 13FS+10 days
15 Technical Proposal Review Scores Due to District 1 day Mon 8/7/17 Mon 8/7/17 14FS+3 days
16 Staff Recommendation 1 day Wed 8/9/17 Wed 8/9/17 15FS+1 day
17 Board Meeting - Project Award 1 day Thu 8/17/17 Thu 8/17/17 16FS+2 days
18 (A.1) Task A - Grant Administration 257 days Mon 1/1/18 Tue 12/25/18
19 (A.1.1) Technical/Admin Services 240 days Mon 4/30/18 Fri 3/29/19 8
20 (A.1.2) GM Notifications 240 days?Mon 4/30/18 Fri 3/29/19 8
21 (A.1.3) Detailed Project Schedule 75 days Mon 2/26/18 Fri 6/8/18
22 Final Agreement Schedule (Section A-6)35 days Mon 2/26/18 Fri 4/13/18 7
23 Schedule Update 1 40 days Mon 4/16/18 Fri 6/8/18 22
24 (A.1.4) Site Visits 1 day?Tue 6/12/18 Tue 6/12/18
25 Periodic Site Visit 1 (953 Eloise Avenue)1 day Tue 6/12/18 Tue 6/12/18
26 Final Site Visit (953 Eloise Avenue)
27 (A.1.5) Photo Monitoring 195 days?Tue 10/17/17 Mon 7/16/18
28 Pre- Implementation 140 days Tue 10/17/17 Sat 4/28/18
29 During 55 days Mon 4/30/18 Fri 7/13/18 111
30 Post Implementation 1 day?Mon 7/16/18 Mon 7/16/18 29
31 A-5 Reporting 230 days Fri 3/30/18 Thu 2/14/19
32 (G.1) Grant Progress Report (GPRs)230 days Fri 3/30/18 Thu 2/14/19
33 GPR 1 - 2018 Q1 50 days Fri 3/30/18 Thu 6/7/18 8
34 GPR 2 - 2018 Q2 33 days Fri 6/29/18 Tue 8/14/18
35 GPR 3 - 2018 Q3 34 days Fri 9/28/18 Wed 11/14/18
36 GPR 4 - 2018 Q4 35 days Fri 12/28/18 Thu 2/14/19
37 2017/2018 Ann. Progress Summary 34 days Mon 10/1/18 Thu 11/15/18
38 Task B - Project Management and Coordination 300 days Wed 11/1/17 Tue 12/25/18
39 Project Invoicing (KJC internal)360 days Tue 8/15/17 Mon 12/31/18
53 Task C - Submit GPS and Monitoring Plan (MP) and Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (MRP)
109 days Wed 11/1/17 Mon 4/2/18
54 (A.2.1) Global Positioning System (GPS) Information 30 days Tue 6/26/18 Mon 8/6/18
55 (A.2.1) Complete GPS Survey 30 days Tue 6/26/18 Mon 8/6/18 127FS-2 days
56 (A.2.2) Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MRP)103 days Wed 11/1/17 Fri 3/23/18 95SS
57 (A.2.2.2) Task D - Prepare Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)103 days Wed 11/1/17 Fri 3/23/18
58 (A.2.3) Task E - Upload Data to GeoTracker/GAMA system in EDF 90 days Mon 5/21/18 Fri 9/21/18 121
59 (A.3) Task F - Permitting for Field Work 91 days?Tue 1/30/18 Tue 6/5/18
60 CEQA NOE 1 day Mon 3/5/18 Mon 3/5/18
61 EDC Well Construction Permit 2 days Wed 4/18/18 Thu 4/19/18
62 CSLT Road Closure/Obstruction in ROW Permit 7 days Tue 4/17/18 Wed 4/25/18
63 (A.3.1) Site Access Agreements 63 days?Tue 1/30/18 Thu 4/26/18
64 Negotiate Agreements 63 days?Tue 1/30/18 Thu 4/26/18
65 Liberty Utilities (930 Eloise) - Negotiate 19 days Tue 1/30/18 Fri 2/23/18
66 CSLT (953 Eloise) - Negotiate 19 days Tue 1/30/18 Fri 2/23/18
67 District Board Approval - Access Agreeements 1 day?Thu 3/1/18 Thu 3/1/18
68 Execute Site Access Agreements 41 days Thu 3/1/18 Thu 4/26/18
69 Liberty Utilities (930 Eloise) - Execute 3 days Thu 3/1/18 Mon 3/5/18
70 CSLT (953 Eloise) - Execute 41 days Thu 3/1/18 Thu 4/26/18
71 (A.3.1) List of Approvals, Entitlements or Permits 91 days Tue 1/30/18 Tue 6/5/18 63SS
10/6
3/30
5/18
4/29
7/5
7/17
8/17
6/7
8/14
11/14
2/14
11/15
3/1
6/5
E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B
ber NovembeDecembeJanuary FebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptembOctober NovembeDecembeJanuary FebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptembOctober NovembeDecembe January FebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptembOctober NovembeDecembeJanuary FebruaryMarch Apr
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
Deadline
Progress
South Tahoe PUD
South Y Feasibility Study Schedule
Page 1
Project: South Y Feasibility Study
Date: Tue 6/5/18
Handout 9a
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors Resource Names
72 (A.4) Task G - Establish TAC, Kickoff Meeting and up to 3 TAC Meetings 203 days Wed 11/1/17 Fri 8/10/18
73 (A.4.1) Subtask G.1: Establish TAC 62 days Wed 11/1/17 Thu 1/25/18
74 (A.4.1) TAC Member List 30 days Thu 1/25/18 Wed 3/7/18 75SS
75 (A.4.2) TAC Meeting 1: Kick-Off 1 day Thu 1/25/18 Thu 1/25/18
76 (A.4.3) Subtask G.2: TAC Meetings 88 days?Tue 6/12/18 Thu 10/11/18
77 (A.4.3) TAC Meeting 2 1 day Tue 6/12/18 Tue 6/12/18
78 (A.4.3) TAC Meeting 3 1 day?Wed 7/18/18 Wed 7/18/18
79 (A.4.3) TAC Meeting 4 1 day?Thu 10/11/18 Thu 10/11/18
80 (A.5) Subtask Q.1 -Stakeholders Advisory Group (SAG)209 days Fri 12/15/17 Wed 10/3/18
81 (A.5.1) Establish SAG 1 day Fri 12/15/17 Fri 12/15/17
82 (A.5.1) List of SAG Members 90 days Mon 12/18/17 Fri 4/20/18 81
83 (A.5.2) SAG Meetings 209 days Fri 12/15/17 Wed 10/3/18
84 (A.5.2) So Y SAG Meeting 1 1 day Fri 12/15/17 Fri 12/15/17
85 (A.5.2) So Y SAG Meeting 2 1 day Thu 1/25/18 Thu 1/25/18
86 (A.5.2) So Y SAG Meeting 3 1 day Tue 6/12/18 Tue 6/12/18
87 (A.5.2) So Y SAG Meeting 4 1 day Wed 10/3/18 Wed 10/3/18
88 (A.5.2.1) SAG Meeting Schedule 40 days Mon 4/23/18 Fri 6/15/18 82
89 (A.5.2.2) SAG Meeting Materials 150 days Mon 12/18/17 Fri 7/13/18 84
90 (A.6) Task H - MOU Preparation 149 days Tue 11/14/17 Fri 6/8/18
91 Review MOU Template 52 days Tue 11/14/17 Wed 1/24/18
92 Review Updated MOU 3 days Wed 5/23/18 Fri 5/25/18 91
93 (A.6.1) Execute MOU 10 days Mon 5/28/18 Fri 6/8/18 92
94 (B.7) Task I - Prepare Pre-Design Investigation Workplan 113 days Wed 11/1/17 Fri 4/6/18
95 Develop Workplan (incl. Sampling, Analysis and Monitoring Plan, QAPP)60 days Wed 11/1/17 Tue 1/23/18
96 (B.7.1) Deliver draft Workplan to TAC for review 1 day Wed 1/24/18 Wed 1/24/18
97 Complete Draft Final Workplan (incl. TAC Comments)42 days Thu 1/25/18 Fri 3/23/18 96
98 Complete Final Workplan 9 days Mon 3/26/18 Thu 4/5/18 97
99 (B.7.2) Upload Final Workplan to FAAST 1 day Fri 4/6/18 Fri 4/6/18 98
100 (A.8) Task J - Conduct Pre-Design Investigation and Prepare Report 107 days Fri 12/1/17 Mon 4/30/18
101 Contract with Driller and Pumper 20 days Wed 1/10/18 Tue 2/6/18
102 SubContractor Site Walk 6 days Fri 3/30/18 Fri 4/6/18
103 Cascade Drilling - Site Walk 1 day Fri 3/30/18 Fri 3/30/18
104 Carson Pump - Site Walk 1 day Fri 4/6/18 Fri 4/6/18
105 Subcontractor Quotes 124 days Tue 10/17/17 Fri 4/6/18
106 Carson Pump Quote 124 days Tue 10/17/17 Fri 4/6/18
107 Pure Effect Quote 114 days Mon 10/30/17 Thu 4/5/18
108 District Board Approval - Subcontractor Quotes 1 day?Thu 4/19/18 Thu 4/19/18
109 (A.8.1) Test Well Drilling Program - I 32 days Tue 4/17/18 Wed 5/30/18
110 Stake Test Hole Location (Underground Clearance)1 day Tue 4/17/18 Tue 4/17/18
111 Mobilization I - Cascade Drilling 1 day Sun 4/29/18 Sun 4/29/18
112 Test Hole Drilling & Formation Testing 5 days Mon 4/30/18 Fri 5/4/18 111,125
113 DeMobilization I - Cascade Drilling 1 day Sat 5/5/18 Sat 5/5/18 112
114 Soil Testing Analyses (CME)20 days Thu 5/3/18 Wed 5/30/18 112
115 (A.8.1) Water Treatment System - I 6 days?Sat 4/28/18 Mon 5/7/18
116 Carson Pump Mobilization I 1 day Mon 4/30/18 Mon 4/30/18 111
117 Filter System Delivery - (Pure Effect)1 day Sat 4/28/18 Sat 4/28/18 111
118 Carson Pump Demobilization I 1 day?Mon 5/7/18 Mon 5/7/18 113
119 (A.8.1.3) Base Line Sampling (Blaine Tech)15 days Mon 4/30/18 Fri 5/18/18
120 Groundwater Sampling 2 days Mon 4/30/18 Tue 5/1/18 111,125
121 Analytical Lab Analyses - I 10 days Mon 5/7/18 Fri 5/18/18 112
122 (A.8.1) Test Well Drilling Program - II 38 days Thu 5/10/18 Mon 7/2/18
123 Test Well Design 20 days Thu 5/10/18 Wed 6/6/18 114
124 Test Well Order & Fabrication 10 days Thu 6/7/18 Wed 6/20/18 123
125 Mobilization II - Cascade Drilling 1 day Sun 6/24/18 Sun 6/24/18
126 Carson Pump Mobilization II 1 day Mon 6/25/18 Mon 6/25/18
127 Test Well Construction & Development 4 days Mon 6/25/18 Thu 6/28/18 125
128 DeMobilization II - Cascade Drilling 1 day Mon 7/2/18 Mon 7/2/18 127FS+1 day
1/24
6/8
1/24
4/6
3/30
4/6
4/19
4/17
4/29
6/6
6/24
6/25
E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B
ber NovembeDecembeJanuary FebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptembOctober NovembeDecembeJanuary FebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptembOctober NovembeDecembe January FebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptembOctober NovembeDecembeJanuary FebruaryMarch Apr
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
Deadline
Progress
South Tahoe PUD
South Y Feasibility Study Schedule
Page 2
Project: South Y Feasibility Study
Date: Tue 6/5/18
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors Resource Names
129 (A.8.1.2) Aquifer Testing Program 15 days?Mon 7/9/18 Fri 7/27/18
130 8-Hour Step Test 1 day?Mon 7/9/18 Mon 7/9/18
131 72 - Hour Constant Rate Test 3 days Tue 7/10/18 Thu 7/12/18 130
132 LGAC Waste Characterization Sampling 1 day?Fri 7/13/18 Fri 7/13/18 131
133 Analytical Lab Analyses - II 10 days Mon 7/16/18 Fri 7/27/18 132
134 Carson Pump Demobilization II 1 day?Mon 7/16/18 Mon 7/16/18 131FS+1 day
135 Filter System Demobilization - II 1 day?Mon 7/16/18 Mon 7/16/18 132
136 Reporting 60 days Thu 5/17/18 Wed 8/8/18
137 (A.8.1.1) Well Completion Report 10 days Wed 6/27/18 Tue 7/10/18 128
138 (A.8.2) Pre-Design Investigation Report 60 days Thu 5/17/18 Wed 8/8/18
139 Data Compilation, Review and Analysis 42 days Thu 5/17/18 Fri 7/13/18 121
140 Report Writing 21 days Wed 7/11/18 Wed 8/8/18 137
141 (B.9) Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA) - NEW 63 days?Mon 4/23/18 Wed 7/18/18
142 (B.9.1) Prepare BHHRA Report 45 days?Mon 4/23/18 Fri 6/22/18 145
143 (B.9.1) TAC Review 15 days Mon 6/25/18 Fri 7/13/18 142
144 (B.9.1) Finalize BHHRA Report 3 days Mon 7/16/18 Wed 7/18/18 143
145 (B.10) Task K - Feasibility Study Workplan 83.5 days Thu 3/1/18 Tue 6/26/18 8
146 (B.10.1) Prepare FS Workplan 30 days Mon 4/30/18 Fri 6/8/18 8
147 (B.10.1) TAC Review 15 days Mon 6/11/18 Fri 6/29/18 146
148 (B.10.1) Finalize FS Workplan 3 days Mon 7/2/18 Wed 7/4/18 147
149 (B.11) Task L.1-L.3 - Groundwater/Contaminant Transport Modeling
(Formerly Task C)
406 days Thu 10/20/16 Thu 5/10/18
150 (B.11.1) Subtask L.2: Develop Fate & Transport Model (DRI)356 days Thu 10/20/16 Thu 3/1/18
151 (B.11.1) Define Remedial Alternative Scenarios 15 days Mon 6/4/18 Fri 6/22/18
152 (B.11.1) Subtask L.3.:Modeling Analysis -Pumping/PCE Containment
Scenarios (DRI)
21 days Mon 6/25/18 Mon 7/23/18 151
153 (B.11.2) Prepare draft F&T Modeling Report (by DRI)28 days Tue 7/24/18 Thu 8/30/18 152
154 (B.11.2) TAC Review 15 days Fri 8/31/18 Thu 9/20/18 153
155 (B.11.3) Finalize F&T Modeling Report (DRI)10 days Mon 9/3/18 Fri 9/14/18 154
156 Seven Springs/Fox So Y GW Investigation 62 days?Fri 5/12/17 Mon 8/7/17
162 TKPOA Phase 1 Facilities Design 416 days Wed 5/24/17 Wed 12/26/18
170 (B.12) Task M.1-M.10 - Feasibility Study (Formerly Task D)170 days Mon 4/2/18 Fri 11/23/18 152SS
171 SubTask M.1 - Data Review 10 days Fri 6/15/18 Thu 6/28/18 146FS+4 days
172 SubTask M.1 - Kick-Off Meeting 1 day Fri 6/29/18 Fri 6/29/18 171
173 Subtask M.2 - Screen Modeled Alternatives for Engineering Evaluation 20 days Thu 7/5/18 Wed 8/1/18 152SS
174 Subtask M.3: Define Infrastructure Needs (3 Alternatives)20 days Thu 8/2/18 Wed 8/29/18 173
175 Subtask M.4 - Develop Life Cycle Cost Estimates (3 Alternatives)17 days Thu 8/2/18 Fri 8/24/18 174SS
176 Subtask M.5 - Develop Environmental Analysis Checklists (3
Alternatives)
20 days Thu 8/2/18 Wed 8/29/18 174SS
177 Subtask M.6 - Select and Develop Recommended Alternative 20 days Thu 8/30/18 Wed 9/26/18 176
178 SubTask M.7 - Implementation Plan for Recommended Alternative:
Financial and Governance Plan (including drafting of report section)
20 days Thu 9/27/18 Wed 10/24/18 177
179 (B.12.2) Subtask M.8 - Prepare Draft Report 30 days Thu 10/25/18 Wed 12/5/18 178
180 (B.12.2) Subtask M.8 - TAC Review 15 days Thu 12/6/18 Wed 12/26/18 179
181 (B.12.2) Subtask M.9 - Prepare Final Report 20 days Thu 12/27/18 Wed 1/23/19 180
182 Subtask M.10 - Project Management, Monthly Conference Calls, and
QA/QC
155 days Fri 6/15/18 Thu 1/17/19 171SS
183 Task M.11 - As-Directed Services 190 days Fri 6/29/18 Thu 3/21/19 172SS
184 (B.13) Task N - Prepare Interim Remedial Action Plan (Based on FS
Implementation Plan)
29 days Mon 8/13/18 Thu 9/20/18 178
185 (B.13.1) Prepare draft I- RAP 29 days Thu 12/27/18 Tue 2/5/19 180
186 (B.13.2) I-RAP Review 20 days Wed 2/6/19 Tue 3/5/19 185
187 (B.13.3) Finalize I-RAP 10 days Wed 3/6/19 Tue 3/19/19 186
188 (B.14) Task O - Prepare Environmental Compliance for I- RAP 18 days Wed 3/6/19 Fri 3/29/19 185
189 (B.14.1.1) Prepare draft CEQA IS Checklist 10 days Wed 3/6/19 Tue 3/19/19 186
190 (B.14.1.1) Prepare draft TRPA Env. Checklist 10 days Wed 3/6/19 Tue 3/19/19 186
191 (B.14.1.1) Agency Review 5 days Wed 3/20/19 Tue 3/26/19 190
192 (B.14.1.2) Finalize IS Checklist 3 days Wed 3/27/19 Fri 3/29/19 191
7/16
7/16
7/4
7/23
9/14
6/29
8/1
1/23
E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B
ber NovembeDecembeJanuary FebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptembOctober NovembeDecembeJanuary FebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptembOctober NovembeDecembe January FebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptembOctober NovembeDecembeJanuary FebruaryMarch Apr
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
Deadline
Progress
South Tahoe PUD
South Y Feasibility Study Schedule
Page 3
Project: South Y Feasibility Study
Date: Tue 6/5/18
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors Resource Names
193 Task P - District Monitoring to Support Feasibility Study (Formerly Task E)156 days Thu 12/1/16 Thu 7/6/17
194 (B.15) Task Q - Public Outreach (Formerly Task F)272 days Wed 1/10/18 Thu 1/24/19
195 (B.15.1) Develop Outreach Materials 268 days Wed 1/10/18 Fri 1/18/19
196 (B.15.2) Subtask Q.2 - DAC Outreach (3 Workshops)252 days Wed 2/7/18 Thu 1/24/19
197 Public Workshop 1 1 day Wed 2/7/18 Wed 2/7/18
198 Public Workshop 2 1 day Tue 7/31/18 Tue 7/31/18
199 Public Workshop 3 1 day Thu 1/24/19 Thu 1/24/19 181
E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B
ber NovembeDecembeJanuary FebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptembOctober NovembeDecembeJanuary FebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptembOctober NovembeDecembe January FebruaryMarch April May June July August SeptembOctober NovembeDecembeJanuary FebruaryMarch Apr
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
Deadline
Progress
South Tahoe PUD
South Y Feasibility Study Schedule
Page 4
Project: South Y Feasibility Study
Date: Tue 6/5/18