Report On The Status Of The Remediation Of The Sonoma County Waste Tire Sites Board Meeting Agenda Item 4 February 18, 2004

Discussion Item on Status of Remediating Sonoma Waste Tire Sites Board provided direction on the Sonoma sites at its July 15, 2003 Board Meeting Sites split into three groups: –Group 1 - Silacci,Universal Portfolio, Flochinni, Infineon Raceway and Beebe Family Ranch Waste Tire Sites (these are the the sites which were subject to the Board’s Resolution); –Group 2 – Ahlgrim Waste Tire Site; and –Group 3 – Wilson Beebe and Briggs Waste Tire Site This item updates the Board on the implementation of its direction regarding the Group 1 sites, and relates the status of remediation efforts at the Group 2 and 3 sites

Item Presented in Two Stages (1) Representatives of the Landowners will provide an update on the status of the remediation projects; and (2) Staff will provide an update on status of determining lead agency for CEQA for the projects.

Update On Status Of Remediation Projects Two presentations: The first is by Leandra Swent of the So. Sonoma RCD, who has been acting on behalf of four of the five landowners in Group 1 (i.e., Silacci, Universal Portfolio, Flochinni, and Infineon Raceway) –The So. Sonoma RCD has also been facilitating the remediation of the Group 2 site (Ahlgrim) and working with the Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District on the remediation of the Group 3 sites (Wilson Beebe and Briggs) The second presentation will be by Karen Gerbosi, the landowner for the fifth Group 1 site, Beebe Family Ranch.

TIMELINE FOR CIWMB-RCD TIRE REMOVAL AND RESTORATION PROJECT TasksProducts Timing- Best Timing- Worst CEQA INITIAL STUDY BACKGROUND SCOPING Preliminary and focused studies, reports, and recommendations for avoidance or mitigation for significant effects (i.e. biological and cultural resources, traffic, water quality, wetland delineation, geotechnical report, soils report, hydrologic and hydraulic calculations); determination of potentially significant effects; Notice of Preparation. Fall 2004 Summer 2007 PREPARE & PUBLISH CEQA DOCUMENT Project Description, Initial Study Checklist, Mitigation & Monitoring Measures, Findings of Significance, Public Meetings, Draft and Final Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report, Notice of Determination Spring 2005 Summer 2007 DEVELOP TIRE REMOVAL PLAN Engineered designs for permitting and constructionSpring 2005 Summer 2007 DESIGN RESTORATION MEASURES Engineered designs for permitting and constructionSpring 2005 Summer 2007 PERMITS SUBMITTALS JARPA (Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application), Biological Assessment & ESA Section 7 Consultation w/USFWS, Biological Opinion from USFWS, Army Corps of Engineers CWA 404 Concurrence, RWQCB CWA 401 Certification, CDFG 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement, Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit, Sonoma County grading permits, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Mitigation Measures, and Maintenance & Monitoring Plan. Spring 2005 Summer 2007 The timing will largely be determined by regulators who will provide input and conditions as part of their permits that will be incorporated into the Project Description, the tire removal plan, and the design of restoration measures.

CEQA Lead Agency Issue This project is presently at the juncture where a review of the various responsible agencies is made to determine which agency will serve as the “lead agency.” The lead agency determines (among other matters): –Whether a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate, or whether an environmental impact report will be required; and –Prepares and certifies the required CEQA documents

RCD Is Willing To Serve As Lead Agency For Many of the “Group 1 & 2” Sites The RCD has indicated its willingness to serve as lead agency for many of the sites. Two of the responsible agencies - the RWQCB and the Dept. of F& G – have indicated that they concur with RCD acting as lead agency for CEQA. RCD’s attorney has also submitted a legal opinion letter asserting that the RCD is qualified to serve as lead agency for CEQA. Based on the above, RCD is an acceptable choice for lead agency under CEQA.

RCD Serving As Lead Agency (Cont’d) RCD’s willingness to serve as lead agency for many of the sites is beneficial to the Board, as it would likely be charged with serving as lead agency on all of the sites if RCD did not step into this role. If it were not for RCD, the lead agency would need to be selected from one of the other responsible agencies involved here – the RWQCB, the Dept. of F&G, or the Board. The RWQCB and the Dept. of F&G have both indicated that they have no interest in serving as lead. Additionally, RCD has stated that it strongly believes that its assumption of lead agency status is vital to assuring that the landowners’ CEQA review costs are best contained.

As RCD Is Not an Appropriate Lead Agency For One Of The Group 1 Sites, the Board Is Being Called Upon to Assume that Role The basis for RCD’s qualification for serving as lead agency for CEQA rests in large part on RCD’s position that it is in part “carrying out” the projects by performing certain services, which are addressed in the Staff Report. One of the Group 1 sites – the Beebe Family Ranch – has not been a beneficiary of the services performed by RCD, as they have been carrying out preparations for the CEQA process for a year longer than the other sites without the assistance of the RCD. Thus RCD cannot be deemed to be qualified to act as lead based upon their “carrying out” these services on behalf of the Beebe Ranch. In light of the above, both the Beebe Family Ranch and the RCD have determined that the RCD would not be an appropriate lead agency for this site.

Board Assumption of Lead for Beebe Family Ranch (Cont’d) This leaves the assumption of lead agency status for the Beebe Family Ranch to one of the remaining responsible agencies. It appears that neither the RWQCB nor the Dept. of F&G (the other responsible agencies for the project at this site) are inclined to assume this role. In light of the above, Staff is prepared to perform the functions of lead agency on behalf of the Board, and envisions retaining a contractor to conduct the necessary environmental investigations and to prepare the necessary CEQA documents (Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report) to assist in the performance of that role.

Conclusion As the matter of lead agency designation has only recently arisen and has not been previously addressed with the Board, this item prepared to assure that the Board is fully informed on these issues. Board Staff and the Legal Office believe that the Board’s assumption of lead agency status for the Beebe Ranch site is a necessary step in accomplishing our goal of remediating this site.

END OF PRESENTATION