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

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