Partnership 2000

Old Sites and Sensitive Habitats--Anne Jensen, San Mateo County, Presenter

Case Study--South Miramar Landfill, San Diego County

33-acre landfill cell located near Miramar Naval Air Station. This site is located near wetlands, but in addition, the surface cover of the landfill had experienced uneven subsidence, leading to the creation of vernal pools, becoming listed as sensitive habitat and involving identified sensitive species.

• Vernal pools at South Miramar LF was the environmental sensitivity that was addressed in the group discussion. A vernal pool is a seasonal pool that can form in any depression and under the right conditions a sensitive species can grow. Some of these species are listed as endangered or threatened species. When these pools dry up the species go dormant. This is one reason maintenance of a landfill is very important. If the landfill gets these depressions and listed species are discovered then disturbing this area must be avoided.

Problem at Miramar

• Two cracked vernal pools creating a channel for water infiltration into the waste and gas exfiltration from the waste.

Group recommendation: Installation of an injected subsurface water impermeable barrier located as close to the vernal pools as possible. Benefit: A decrease in water into the waste and a decrease in gas from the waste.

• One vernal pool located in the direct path of where the operator wants to locate a new set of scales to accommodate increased traffic.

Group recommendation: Avoid vernal pool completely. Move the road around the vernal pool or provide for relocation of the scales.

Vernal Pools--pros & cons to the solutions provided by Group 3 (Lisa Woods):

Approach to the problem was creative and appropriate with regard to the time element involved.

• Another approach could have been to deal with the fish and wildlife agency and the Corps of Engineers to provide mitigation measures; however, this process would have been too lengthy.

• Drawbacks to group 3 approach:

1) Solution creates little isolated areas instead of large connected habitat reserves.

2) Doesn't address the bigger issue of who has the authority to handle these problems.

Old Sites and Sensitive Habitats--Scott Walker, CIWMB, Presenter

The sensitive habitat is a wetland area at the Crescent City LF.

Problem--The landfill is running out of capacity and is scheduled to close in 2001. What can the county do to avoid the wetlands and still provide for the safe handling/disposal of the county's trash?

What the county would like to do:

Operate a transfer station/processing facility on the site of the landfill.

Feasibility Questions

• Is the site a potential candidate for the transfer station/processing facility?
• If not, then what can be done with the county's trash?
• What are the impacts to the adjoining wetlands other than what the landfill had?

Initial speculation:

• Site appears to be adequate in size to be a feasible location for a transfer station/processing facility.

Step to establish avoidance:

• Siting elements and NDFE.
• Develop a comprehensive wetlands study.
• Take survey of the endangered species.
• Feasibility study on the facility.

Timeframes:

• Initial study needs to be implemented immediately to meet the 2001 closure date of the landfill.
• LEA needs to be proactive with the Solid Waste Authority to develop a sound basis for the solid waste facility permit.
• The Solid Waste Management Authority needs to play a proactive role in addressing potential impacts.
• Study alternatives, i.e., pod systems, haul trash to other states, and new technology.

Other things to consider:

• Changes to drainage and erosion.
• Wastewater--not appropriate for septic systems.
• Mitigation monitoring for postclosure and for the protection of wetlands and endangered species.

Old Sites and Sensitive Habitats--Bill Prinz, Riverside County, Presenter

This group was given the task to identify the concerns with the development of a golf course at Coyote Canyon Landfill.

Concerns:

• Protection of the coastal sagebrush.
• Protection of the California gnat catcher.
• Cost upwards to $60,000 a year to maintain the habitat.
• Landfill gas fires.
• Clubhouse is currently designed to be perched on top of a knoll in an unstable fill area.
• High density housing of very expensive homes.
• Possible lateral migration of groundwater.
• Settlement can cause damage to gas system.

Solving the problems:

• Install high fencing or netting area surrounding the habitat.
• Golf course will provide a revenue to support the maintenance of the habitat.

This is page 18 that was left out of the packet Lisa Wood handed out at Granlibakken for the Old Sites and Sensitive Habitat workshop. Also included is an enclosure containing 14 proposed Special Regional Conditions from the Corps of Engineers, L.A. District.

5. Develop an independent position on possible actions and advise your client accordingly. The regulatory agencies may see only one or two possible scenarios. Broaden up the horizon and think outside the box.

VII. HYPOTHETICAL

Ok, suppose, hypothetically, the two big black dots (vp55 and vp56) were mismapped, and the landfill boundary is actually on the other side of the pools. In other words, those pools are on fill. And suppose there is a traffic problem, which our LEA can assure is not the case at Miramar, but just suppose that the fee booth and entry road need to be adjusted and work needs to be done in the area of the dot along the road (vp61), which has been mapped with Pogogyne abramsii--a federally listed species. So to prevent leachate and methane you, as the LEA, think that vp55 and vp56 should be filled, and to alleviate traffic problems vp61 needs to be filled.

No one knows for sure if there are San Diego fairy shrimp in these pools. Pools 55 and 56 were the subject of a wet season survey and no shrimp were found. The consulting biologist (a student getting his Ph.D., specializing in fairy shrimp) said the hydrology didn't look right to him. The survey protocols developed by the Service require two years of regular sampling/during the wet season (from the time the pools net wet till the time they dry up). The protocols themselves say that a dry season soil search for cysts can be substituted for one of the years of sampling, but the Service representative has been very negative on this approach. Dry season surveys are even more expensive than wet season because of all of the lab time staring at a microscope.

N\\P 26 expires in December, but in the July 1 Federal Register, the Corps, in denying my petition for a NWP for landfill surface maintenance said:

Since routine maintenance of landfill surfaces does not require a Section 404 permit, we will not be developing a NWP for this activity.

So it might seem that the Corps headquarters agrees with our original contention that these pools are not jurisdictional. However, environmental groups unhappy with NWP 26 had expressed concerns about loss of biological resources. The Corps headquarters in response encouraged local Corps Districts to issue Special Regional Conditions protecting those local resources. For the Los Angeles District (which includes San Diego, Los Angeles, Imperial, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, Inyo, and parts of Mono, Kern, and San Luis Obispo counties--Kevin can correct me if I left any out) Bruce Henderson developed Regional Condition #1--Vernal Pool Notification. It was issued November 25. 1977 and this is not hypothetical. This regional condition:

ENCLOSURE 1

Proposed region conditions, modifications and revocations for existing and proposed Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits

The following proposed regional conditions would be effective throughout Los Angeles District unless stated otherwise. Los Angeles District is comprised of the coastal drainages in Monterey County to the community of Gorda, the coastal drainages of San Luis Obispo County, the southern drainages of Kern County, the eastern drainages of Mono County to the Conway Summit, the eastern drainages of Inyo County, all of San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties in California, and all of the State of Arizona.

1. For coastal watersheds from the southern reach of the Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles County to the community of Gorda in Monterey County, all road crossings must ensure that passage and/or spawning of steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss) is not hindered in any way. The proposed crossing must either span the stream or river, use a bottomless arch culvert simulating the natural streambed (i.e., substrate and streamflow conditions in the culvert are similar to natural streambed conditions), use an embedded round metal or concrete box culvert design simulating the natural streambed, use a non-embedded culvert with a slop not exceeding 0.5 percent, use a baffled culvert design if the slope exceeds 0.5 percent, or use a structure with a fishway, unless it can be demonstrated that the stream or river does not support resources conducive to the recovery of steelhead, including migration of adults and smolts. This proposal also excludes approach embankments into the main channel

2. For all work that discharges dredged or fill material in areas subject to Corps' jurisdiction that supports or may support populations of any species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NWFS) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, biological monitors approved by the USFWS or NMFS may be required to be present onsite during phases of construction that required work or other access in all areas subject to the Corps' jurisdiction unless otherwise indicated by either of the Services with responsibilities pertinent to the species project

3. For all projects authorized by nationwide or regional general permits where prior notification to the District Engineer is required, all permittees project foremen, contractors, and equipment operators must provide written certification to the Corps that they have read and understand the permit, and will comply with all special conditions placed on the particular project, as well as all pertinent nationwide permit general and 404-only conditions, and all pertinent regional general conditions; prior to initiation of project construction. Permittees shall provide such documentation to the Corps at least two weeks prior to initiation of construction.

4. For all projects proposed for authorized by nationwide or regional general permits where prior notification to the District Engineers is required applicants shall provide to the Corps color photographs or photocopies of the project area taken before, during and after project completion from representative points documented on a site map unless waived by the Regulatory Branch project manager. Pre-project photographs and the site map should be provided with the permit application. Photographs should represent conditions typical or indicative of the resources prior to impacts, as well as representative photos of construction methods, runoff and turbidity control measures, and post-project conditions and/or mitigation.

5. For the State of Arizona, LAD is proposing that no nationwide permit, except Nationwide Permits No. 27, Wetland and Riparian Restoration and Creation Activities, and No. 30, Moist Soil Management for Wildlife, can be used to authorize the discharge of dredged or fill material into a jurisdictional wetland. It is the position of LAD Regulatory Branch that Arizona wetlands are sufficiently rare the loss of any wetland should require site specific review under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and public interest review factors to fairly evaluate the impacts of the proposed activity on aquatic functions and values.

6. For that portion of the Los Angeles District within the State of California, LAD is proposing that no nationwide permit can be used to authorize the discharge of dredged or fill material into any vernal pool. It is the position of LAD Regulator Branch that vernal pools are sufficiently rare the loss of any venal pool should require site specific review under Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and public interest review factors to fairly evaluate the impacts of the proposed activity on aquatic functions and values. On November 25, 1997, LAD established a regional general condition that required individual permits for projects impacting greater than 0.5 acres of vernal pool basin, and required notification to the Corps for all projects impacting any vernal pool. The criteria contained within that regional general condition would continue to apply to this proposal.

7. LAD is proposing requiring notification to the Corps for all projects that would impact in excess of a particular linear distance of watercourse on a project site, regardless of whether the watercourse is perennial, intermittent or ephemeral. The distance would be determined after due consideration of comments received. Initially, LAD Regulatory Branch is considering setting a limit at 500 feet, beyond which a notification to the Corps would be required. This would be consistent with other existing and proposed NWPs that already have thresholds set at 500 feet. This threshold may be set higher or lower, and may result in a determination to require an individual permit at some higher threshold to be determined. LAD Regulatory Branch is requesting comments on these considerations.

Los Angeles District is proposing the following modifications to the proposed replacement nationwide permits.

8. For Proposed Nationwide Permit A, Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Activities, LAD is proposing lowering the upper acreage threshold from three acres to two acres. This is, for parcels 15 acres or larger, the maximum acreage of impacts to waters of the United States authorized would be two acres. Paragraphs (A)(a) and (h) would be modified to reflect this lowered threshold.

9. For Proposed Nationwide Permit B. Master Planned Development Activities, LAD is proposing lowering the upper acreage threshold from ten acres to three acres. This is, for parcels 100 acres or larger, the maximum acreage of impacts to waters of the United

States authorized would be three acres. Paragraphs (B)(a) and (i) would be modified to reflect this lowered threshold.

10. For Proposed Nationwide Permit C, Stormwater Management Facilities, LAD is proposing lowering the upper acreage threshold for discharges of dredged or fill material in non-tidal wetlands from two acres to 0.5 acres for construction of new facilities.

11. For Proposed Nationwide Permit D, Passive Recreational Facilities, LAD is proposing to exclude golf courses, ski areas and other facilities the purpose of which is active recreation such as ball sports, from consideration of authorization under this NWP.

12. For Proposed Nationwide Permit E, Mining Activities, LAD is proposing to exclude all mining activities in all special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and in all watercourses that support native or non-native riparian plant communities.

Los Angeles District is proposing the following modifications or regional conditions to the proposed modifications to the existing Nationwide Permits.

13. For Nationwide Permit 3, Maintenance, for purposes of land reclamation as discussed in paragraph (iii) of the Federal Register notice, LAD is proposing to disallow the use of material excavated mom any waters of the United States unless the material was excavated from a site previously and specifically permitted for such purpose. LAD is also proposing requiring bioremediation techniques be utilized for such reclamation projects to stabilize the restored slope.

14. For Nationwide Permit 12, Utility Activities, LAD is proposing requiring that trenches dug for placement or removal of utility lines shall be backfilled with native material from the trench only. In addition, for all waters other than wetlands, the upper two feet of material must be stored separately from other material removed from the trench. For wetlands, the upper 12 inches must be stored separately from other natural removed from the trench. This excavated material shall be reserved for replacement in the work area to the depth it was excavated. Excess material remaining from the trench shall be removed to an approved upland site (i.e., discharged in areas that are not subject to Corps' jurisdiction and would not otherwise be reasonably expected to be washed into a waters of the U.S.).

For all projects the would result in any impact to any special aquatic site, LAD is proposing that the permittee must notify the District Engineer in accordance with the "Notification" general condition.

Further, LAD is proposing limiting construction, maintenance or expansion of electric or pumping substations to a one-time use of this NWP.

15. For Nationwide Permit 14, Linear Transportation Crossings, LAD is proposing limiting discharges for public linear transportation crossings in non-tidal waters of the United States, excluding non-tidal wetlands contiguous to tidal waters, to one acre of non-tidal waters of the United States unless HQUSACE establishes a lower limit which wood adopted by LAD without further notice (paragraph 14(a) of the Federal Register notice).

16. For Nationwide Permit 40, Agricultural Activities, LAD is proposing excluding all activities that impinge into the active floodway of any stream or river. This proposal does not include areas adjacent to the active floodway that would be inundated only by irregular, extraordinary flooding events.

LAD is proposing the deletion of paragraph 40(a) relating to mint effects exemptions in accordance with the provisions of the Food Security Act (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.)and the National Food Security Act Manual.

LAD is proposing lowering the upper acreage threshold for impacts to non-tidal wetlands on a farm from three acres to two acres. That is, for farms 100 acres or larger, the maximum acreage of impacts to wetlands authorized would be two acres. Paragraph 40(b) would be modified to reflect this lowered threshold.

Per paragraph 6 above, this NWP would not apply if vernal pools would be impacted. Paragraph 40(c) of the Federal Register notice would be modified to reflect this change

LAD is proposing excluding construction of building pads for farm buildings if the construction is proposed for any special aquatic site, regardless of status pertaining to former or current agricultural protection, unless the hydrology of the site has been sufficiently modified to prevent the return of the sites to functions and values inherent to the site prior to modification for agricultural purposes.

Lastly, Los Angeles Dissect is proposing to revoke the following existing Nationwide Permits due to non-applicability within the District.

NWP 24--State Administration Section 404 Programs

NWP 34--Cranberry Production Activities

Return to table of contents

Second Annual LEA/CIWMB Conference--Evaluation Summary

The following results are based on 60 evaluation forms that were completed and returned on the last day of the conference.

Location:

96% of the respondents rated the facility as excellent.
4% of the respondents rated the facility as fair.

Ash--57% of the respondents gave this activity a 3+ rating.
AB 59--90% of the respondents considered gave this activity a 3+ rating.
Vermicomposting--86% of the respondents gave this activity a 3+ rating.
Health and safety at solid waste facilities--76% participants gave this activity a 3+ rating.

Tables/Booths--Day 1 & 2

The order of ranking is based on the number of response of 3 or more.

Workshops--Day 2

Organic Regulations--76% rated this activity a 3+.
Old Sites & Sensitive Habitats--91% rated this activity a 3+.
Landspreading--95% rated this activity a 3+.
AB 59 Hearing Panels--96% rated this activity 3+.

Landfill Fires--50% rated this activity a 3+.
Tiered Permits--76% rated this activity a 3+.
IWMP & solid waste facility permits--69% rated this a 3+.
Uses of Computers/Internet--59% rated this a 3+.

Mini-Talks--91% of the respondents rated this format as informative. 83% rated the speakers as knowledgeable in the subject areas. The majority of the participants indicated that the program duration was too short

Table/Booths--75% of the respondents rated this format as informative. 70% rated the speakers knowledgeable in the subject areas. The majority of the participants indicated that the program duration was too short.

Workshops--85% of the respondents rated this format as informative. 76% rated the speakers knowledgeable in the subject areas. The majority of the participants rated the program duration as being just right.

Future Conference Formats--

The following is the average responses given by participants for the percentage of time that should be spent on each program format.

Participants were asked to list two things that should be changed next year. The following is a sample of what was provided.

• No sessions after 9:00 PM
• Opportunity to attend different sessions
• More education/less policy making
• Check-in process and agenda too confusing
• More knowledgeable speakers
• Topics should include current "hot" issues
• Forced "mix" of networking
• Workshops
• Site location
• Shorten evaluation form
• Midday 3-hr. break
• Begin first-day session early
• Shorten the workshops
• Better explanation of planned events
• No evening sessions
• Bring back final night social
• Discontinue breakouts
• More content
• Provide table of contents for binder
• Add field trip
• Provide definition of terms to new LEAs
• Invite operators/consultants
• Do not include training at the conference
• Provide introduction to conference
• Tighter time controls on sessions
• 10-minute breaks between mini-talks
• Longer conference

Participants listed topics that should be included next year. Here is a sampling of their suggestions:

• Enforcement training
• New permit desk manual
• Industry/operators to have mini-talks or booths
• Tires and organics
• Updates on hearing panels and appeals
• Landfill gas
• Legislative system
• Composting
• Future thinking concept for solid waste, computer training
• Showcase best operator/facilities
• Postclosure land use
• Change from "inspector" to "consultant/collaborator"
• Transfer stations, recycling
• Permit revisions, closure plans
• Alternative cover
• Waste to energy
• CEQA

If you would like more information regarding this summary, please call Melissa Parker at (916) 341-6398.

Return to table of contents

We are more alike than you may have thought:

Below are some questions and results of the demographics survey taken Wednesday afternoon on day one of the conference. Responses are from all conference attendees.

Return to table of contents

Last updated: November 01, 2007