[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24879]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 7, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision (ROD) To Approve the Miramar Landfill General
Development Plan (GDP) and Phase I Projects Including the Fiesta Island
Replacement Project/Northern Sludge Processing Facility (FIRP/NSPF) and
West Miramar Landfill Overburden Disposal (WMLOD), at Naval Air
Station, Miramar, San Diego, CA
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations
(40 CFR part 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy announces its
decision to approve the Miramar Landfill General Development Plan (GDP)
proposed to be implemented within the boundaries of Naval Air Station
(NAS) Miramar; and, more specifically, approve a land lease agreement
with the City of San Diego. The GDP provides a comprehensive framework
for several related waste management projects which are proposed to be
implemented in three phases over the course of several years.
Consistent with the intent of 40 CFR 1500.4(i), the environmental
impact statement (EIS) analysis for the GDP used a tiered approach to
provide: (1) Programmatic consideration of the overall framework of the
GDP; and, (2) detailed, project-specific analysis of the GDP-Phase I
elements which are proposed for near-term implementation.
This ROD addresses the Department of the Navy approval of the
Preferred Alternative identified in Parts I and II of the Draft and
Final EIS, with some refinements related to the phased implementation
of specific elements. Alternatives to the overall GDP and alternatives
to the Phase I project-specific elements were described in the EIS and
are summarized below.
GDP Alternatives
The proposed GDP encompasses a variety of projects including the
relocation or modification of several existing facilities at the
Miramar Landfill and the development of several new facilities.
Relocated/modified facilities include: Recycling center, greens/woods
recycling operation, landfill entrance fee booth, vehicle maintenance
facility, fuel pipeline, and the landfill access road. New facilities
include a sludge processing facility and related pipelines/utilities, a
materials recovery facility, an access road to new facilities, an
environmental complex, a cogeneration plant, a paper processing plant,
a household hazardous waste processing station, a public tipping deck,
landfill siltation basins, and a landscaping/revegetation nursery. The
GDP also includes projects related to the mounding of grading
overburden at three locations within the study area. The three mounding
areas are proposed on the closed South Miramar Landfill and are
referred to by their relative location on the landfill: North, West,
and East Mounding Areas. Approximately six million cubic yards of
overburden from excavation of the West Miramar Landfill is proposed to
be placed at the three mounding areas. In addition, approximately
540,000 cubic yards of overburden from the grading of the proposed
sludge processing facility will be mounded at the West Mounding Area.
Use of the North Mounding Area will occur as described in the EIS. Use
of the North Mounding Area will occur as described in the EIS. Use of
the East and West Mounding Areas will occur according to project
phasing modifications described below.
The Proposed GDP includes elements which are integral parts of a
comprehensive program for the management of solid and liquid waste by
the City of San Diego (City). The various elements of the GDP serve to
meet specific waste management needs of the City and to comply with
state and federal requirements for wastewater treatment standards,
landfill operation standards, recycling, and hazardous waste
collection. A key benefit and emphasis of the GDP relates to
centralized collocation of the GDP elements. Examples of the
efficiencies and benefits of the collocation aspect of the GDP were
provided in Part I of the EIS.
The No Action Alternative was considered within the EIS. This
alternative was rejected because, without implementation of the GDP,
the objective of an integrated waste management program for the City
would not be met. This would result in inefficiencies and inabilities
in dealing with the ongoing waste management needs of the City and
would continue legal, environmental, and regulatory conflicts.
Alternative sites were considered but rejected in favor of the
Proposed Project because they failed to meet the basic siting criteria.
Such criteria include the site's ability to support all of the GDP
elements so that the collocation benefits are realized, the site's
location being within the solid wasteshed it would serve, the site's
location relative to the ability to pipe/transfer sludge, and the
City's current uses on the GDP site.
Alternative technologies for certain elements of the GDP were also
considered. In general, they were found to be complimentary to, rather
than alternatives to, the technologies which are proposed within the
GDP.
Mitigation measures for the proposed GDP are identified in the EIS.
For Phase I elements of the GDP which are proposed for near-term
implementation, and where sufficient design specifications support a
detailed examination of impacts, specific mitigation requirements are
identified within the project-specific analysis. For GDP elements which
are still in a conceptual stage, more generalized mitigation criteria
are identified. In conjunction with the completion of future Phase II
project specific environmental documentation, a determination will be
made whether further mitigation requirements are warranted.
The Proposed GDP Project is considered to be the environmentally
preferred alternative. It is the only alternative which meets the basic
purpose, need, and objectives of the project. The mitigation framework
of the Proposed GDP also serves to substantially lessen potential
environmental impacts by identifying specific requirements for the
near-term elements, establishing general mitigation criteria for the
conceptual elements, and anticipating the development of more detailed
mitigation measures for future levels of planning.
FIRMP/NSPF and WMLOD Alternatives
Part II of the EIS provided detailed consideration of two projects
of the GDP comprising Phase I elements: (1) the Fiesta Island
Replacement Project/Northern Sludge Processing Facility (FIRP/NSPF);
and (2) West Miramar Landfill Overburden Disposal (WMLOD).
FIRP/NSPF
The key components of FIRP/NSPF include: (1) The FIRP/NSPF Site, a
30+ acre site, located northwest of the Convoy/SR-52 interchange, which
will be developed with the storage tanks, centrifuges, sludge drying
equipment, and associated facilities for the treatment of sludge and
biosolids from the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant and from the
North City Water Reclamation Plant (NCWRP); (2) FIRP/NSPF Overburden
Disposal/Mounding--The excavation of approximately 540,000 cubic yards
of earth from the FIRP/NSPF site and mounding of the overburden at the
nearby west mound site; (3) Access Road--Construction of a main access
road from Convoy Street to the FIRP/NSPF site; and (4) FIRP/NSPF
Pipeline Corridor--A 4-mile pipeline route from Miramar Road to the
FIRP/NSPF site for the installation of a parallel pipeline system
(e.g., one pipeline for sludge and one pipeline for reclaimed water)
connecting to the NCWRP. Alternatives for FIRP/NSPF include the No
Action Alternative and several alternatives which are particular to the
individual elements of FIRP/NSPF.
The No Action Alternative was rejected in favor of the Proposed
Project based on its failure to meet the basic purpose, need and
objectives of the project. It was also rejected because continued
reliance on the existing Fiesta Island sludge processing facility would
result in a number of legal, technical, environmental, and land use
conflicts.
Alternative sites for the FIRP/NSPF were considered in comparison
to the Proposed Project. They were found to be either more
environmentally constrained, less efficient, or not as responsive to
the basic project objectives.
Alternatives for dealing with the site grading overburden were
considered. They included mounding the overburden on NAS Miramar and
trucking overburden off the station. The onsite mounding alternative is
the preferred alternative based on fewer air quality and traffic
impacts and reduced costs as compared to the offsite haul option.
Three alternatives for the site access road were analyzed: Northern
Access Route; Central Access Route; and Southern Access Route. The
Southern Access Route with a temporary Central Construction Road is the
alignment selected.
Alternative alignments of the FIRP/NSPF Pipeline Corridor were
considered. The Proposed Pipeline Project achieves the best balance of
feasibility and environmental sensitivity, especially relative to
avoiding coastal sage scrub and vernal pools.
Overall, the Proposed FIRP/NSPF Project was found to be the only
alternative which substantially minimize environmental degradation and
met the basic purpose, need, and objectives of the project. Therefore,
it is considered to be the environmentally preferred alternative.
WMLOD
The Proposed WMLOD Project involves the disposal of approximately 6
million cubic yards of overburden associated with approved, ongoing
excavation at the West Miramar Landfill. The Proposed Project
identifies mounding overburden on three areas (the North, West, and
East Mounding Areas) and transporting the overburden from the
excavation area to the mounding areas via an enclosed electric conveyor
belt system mounted on steel trusses.
A No Action Alternative was considered and rejected due to
potential impacts associated with substantially reducing or eliminating
capacity of the West Miramar Landfill. An alternative of trucking the
overburden offsite was considered and rejected in favor of the Proposed
Project based on comparatively greater air quality impacts, traffic
impacts, and costs.
Alternatives for transporting the overburden onsite via scrapers on
off-road routes or haul trucks on paved roads were considered. They
were rejected in favor of the Proposed Project based on greater impacts
to biological resources and greater air quality impacts.
Except as discussed below, the proposed WMLOD project is considered
to be the environmentally preferred alternative.
FIRP/NSPF and WMLOD Phasing Modification
Since the release of the Final EIS, a modification to the proposed
phasing of the FIRP/NSPF and WMLOD projects has occurred. The
modification is a result of consultations between the City, the
Department of the Navy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Department of Fish and
Game relative to potential direct and indirect impacts to biological
resources.
The City, the Department of the Navy, and the resources agencies
recognize vernal pools as being a significant biological resource and
agree that impacts to such resources should be avoided when practicable
and mitigated/compensated when impacts are unavoidable. The Final EIS
and the USFWS Biological Opinion for the project dated 29 September
1994 establish mitigation measures which address both direct and
indirect impacts to vernal pools. Such requirements include acquiring
offsite vernal pools to compensate for the loss of onsite vernal pools
and set forth mitigation ratios based on the specific nature of the
impacted vernal pool (i.e., mitigation ratio of 2:1 for impacts to
vernal pools on native soil, a 2:1 ratio for impacts to vernal pools
containing San Diego fairy shrimp, a 1:1 ratio for impacts to vernal
pools located on landfill material and having two or more vernal pool
indicator species, and a ratio of 0:1 for vernal pools on landfill
material having less than two indicator species). The removal of onsite
vernal pools can only occur to the extent that the necessary offsite
mitigation has been secured. The phasing modification enhances the
feasibility and timeliness of implementing these mitigation
requirements for specific Phase 1 projects.
For the FIRP/NSPF project, the phasing modification will result in
the deferral of vernal pool impacts associated with FIRP/NSPF
overburden disposal. The modification would limit the placement of
FIRP/NSPF overburden to only the northeast portion of the West Mounding
Area where there are no vernal pools. The modifications would also
delete the East Mound Area from use in Phase I implementation. In
conjunction with the reduce ``footprint'' of the FIRP/NSPF mound, the
segment of the Southern Access Road which follows the base of the mound
would be realigned to avoid most of the existing vernal pools. These
refinements to the grading program and the associated reduction in
vernal pool impacts enable the City to meet vernal pool mitigation
requirements for FIRP/NSPF.
Postponement of WMLOD mounding at the West Mound location will
delay the direct impacts to vernal pools and enable the City to more
fully address the vernal pool mitigation requirements currently set
forth in the USFWS Biological Opinion for the project. The ultimate
implementation of the vernal pool mitigation requirements for the WMLOD
West Mound may be affected by additional regulatory consideration
related to the removal of vernal pools as part of landfill maintenance;
however, any variation from the current Biological Opinion requirements
for the WMLOD West Mound would likely involve a new Section 7
consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
Reconsideration of mounding at the East Mound location will delay
potential direct and indirect impacts to adjacent vernal pools within
the Miramar Mounds Natural Landmark until additional environmental
documentation has been prepared. Such information could be developed
within the 3+ years of Phase I WMLOD activity. It is anticipated that
supplemental Section 7 consultation with the USFWS will be required to
implement WMLOD activity proposed to occur as Phase II/III projects.
Biological Opinion
It is the opinion of the USFWS that the Proposed GDP and FIRP/NSPF/
WMLOD Projects are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, San Diego fairy
shrimp, San Diego button-celery, or San Diego mesa mint. Mandatory
terms and conditions are included in the USFWS Biological Opinion and
will be implemented as part of the Project. The conclusions of the
Biological Opinion are made for the following reasons: (1) Direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts of this proposed action have been
minimized and will be compensated; and (2) Direct impacts to suitable
habitat for these species represents a small percentage of the suitable
habitat within San Diego County. Key measures to mitigate impacts to
biological resources, as embodied within the EIS and in the Terms and
Conditions of the USFWS Biological Opinion, include, but are not
limited to: Resource avoidance measures such as clearly delineating
proposed limits of grading, controlling dust generation and potential
erosion/sedimentation, educating construction personnel about local
biological resources and other measures to protect biological resources
from direct and indirect impacts of project development nearby;
revegetation requirements for areas of temporary disturbance such as
the FIRP/NSPF pipeline corridor and the overburden disposal mounds;
offsite resources acquisition to compensate for onsite permanent loss
of biological resources. This latter requirement particularly relates
to vernal pool impacts and provides for offsite vernal pool acquisition
and/or restoration as mitigation for onsite impacts.
Mitigation Monitoring
A comprehensive mitigation monitoring program has been developed in
conjunction with the EIS analysis of the GDP and of the FIRP/NSPF and
WMLOD projects and will be implemented through all phases of the
project. A copy of the mitigation monitoring program may be obtained at
the address set forth below.
Clean Air Act Conformity Determination
In compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulations promulgated through 40 CFR Part 93, the Department of the
Navy included within the EIS an analysis of the project's conformity
with the Clean Air Act. The analysis found that the project emissions,
both in terms of emissions for each element of the GDP and for the GDP
as a whole (cumulative emissions), would be below the de minimis levels
established by the rule. It should be noted that while the ozone
attainment status for the San Diego Air Basin is currently being
revised from ``Severe'' to ``Serious'', the de minimis finding is based
on the more restrictive standard (e.g., project total NOX emissions are
less than the 25 tons per year (TPY) standard for ``Severe''
nonattainment areas; which is well below the 50 TPY standard for
``Serious'' nonattainment areas).
Questions regarding the action may be directed to: Commanding
Officer, NAS Miramar, 45429 Miramar Way, San Diego, CA 92145-5005
(Attn: Mr. Roger Hillhouse, Staff Civil Engineer, Code 187.RH),
telephone (619) 537-1102.
Dated: September 30, 1994.
Elsie L. Munsell,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment and Safety).
Dated: October 4, 1994.
Saundra K. Melancon,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 94-24879 Filed 10-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-AE-M
