[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