SACRAMENTO COUNTY LEA CASE STUDIES - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

sacramento county lea case studies n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
SACRAMENTO COUNTY LEA CASE STUDIES PowerPoint Presentation
SACRAMENTO COUNTY LEA CASE STUDIES

play fullscreen
1 / 16
Download Presentation
herschel-edwin
Views
Download Presentation

SACRAMENTO COUNTY LEA CASE STUDIES

Presentation Transcript

  1. SACRAMENTO COUNTY LEA CASE STUDIES WARING’S DUMP OBIE’S DUMP

  2. WARING’S DUMP • Closed, Illegal, Abandoned (CIA) Site East of Highway 99 • Densely populated residential community • 5 parcels owned by 3 property owners • Morrison Creek runs alongside the site

  3. WARING’S DUMP FRUITRIDGE ROAD HIGHWAY 99

  4. HISTORY • 1930s: Soils borrow pit created • 1940s: Population growth, Morrison Creek begins to overflow • 1950s: County allows fill • 1960s: Waring’s Dump ordered to cease • Mid 60s: Morrison Creek “drainage channel” County’s flood control project.

  5. DEVELOPMENT INQUIRY • Sep 2002: LEA contacted • Jan 2003: LEA meeting with owners • Dec 2003: New property owner requests LEA approval to build residence and church on landfill property. Development plans trigger Title 27 Requirements

  6. SITE INVESTIGATION • Mar 2004: CIWMB CIA Program Site Characterization • Jul 2004: LEA meets CIWMB, RWQCB, and DTSC, pursuant to Burn Dump Protocols. • Jan 2005: LEA issues enforcement order to cap and grade landfill.

  7. OBIE’S DUMP • Closed, Abandoned, Illegal (CIA) Site • 2 acres within a 9 acre parcel, one owner • 30 ft deep soil borrow pit • Property surrounded by recent developments • Developers interested in developing this property

  8. OBIE’S DUMP

  9. OBIE’S DUMP CALVINE ROAD HIGHWAY 99 SHELDON ROAD

  10. HISTORY • Created during soil burrow operations • 1990: Current owners purchased property. • 199:1 County allows fill • 1992-97: LEA routine inspections • 1996: County grading permit revoked • 1997: LEA Notice and Order • 2001: County PW issues NOV

  11. DEVELOPMENT INQUIRY • Dec 2001: LEA contacted • Dec 2002: LEA meeting with owner and prospective buyer/developer • Feb 2003: Site Investigation • Oct 2003: LEA meets with CIWMB, RWQCB, and DTSC, pursuant to Burn Dump Protocols.. • Dec 2003: LEA meeting with owner, prospective developer, CIWMB, DTSC, RWQCB.

  12. ENFORCEMENT? • Dec 2003: DTSC VCA program. • Mar 2004: LEA requests closure plan • Jul 2004: LEA 2nd request • Aug 2004: Owner signs DTSC VCA contract • Feb 2005: DTSC “officially” takes lead.

  13. CIA Site, Burn ash Hazardous levels of lead and zinc Surrounded by residential use 3 Property owners Development proposed Development plan withdrawn Lower economic area Little $$ Remediation not economically feasible, left to LEA enforcement 2136 Cleanup CIA Site, Burn ash Hazardous levels of lead Surrounded by residential use 1 Property owner Development proposed Development plan continue Higher economic area $$$$ Available Motivated remediation, seek out DTSC Approval, Pay for VCA. WARING’SOBIE’S

  14. BURN DUMP PROTOCOLS • Burn Dump Protocols require LEAs to consult with CIWMB, RWQCB and DTSC. • RWQCB- groundwater threat • DTSC- sensitive use proposed, change in use, high degree of threat to pub health or environ. • LEA- everything else • Only RWQCB or DTSC can provide certification for unrestricted use of the site (clean closure)

  15. CHALLENGES • Coordination with other agencies • Property owner frustration • Who takes enforcement action if owner doesn’t proceed with remediation? • Sites with motivated owners and $$ may seek out DTSC approval • Sites without $$ and low threat stay with the LEA and may take longer to remediate.

  16. Tammy Derby (916) 875-8573 Sr. Environmental SpecialistDerbyT@SacCounty.netSacramento County Environmental Management Department8475 Jackson RoadSacramento, CA 95826