SU0011836 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-25 • Forward Inc. Landfill 2018 Revised Project • The odor and dust surveys identified minimal off-site impacts from odors or visible dust. . Odors that were moderate to strong near the working face were reduced to mild,very faint, or • non-detectable at locations surveyed on Austin Road. On the days surveyed [assumed to be typical operations] the water trucks were seen controlling onsite dust generation by periodically • watering the on-site landfill roads and areas used by trucks near the working face. Track-out of • dirt onto Austin Road near the entrances to the Forward Recovery Center (Location 2) and • Forward Landfill (Location 3) are the source of re-entrained road dust on Austin Road observed during the surveys. Mitigation Measure D.1. would reduce the level of re-entrained dust to a • less-than-significant level. • Potentially significant odor impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation Measure D.3,below. • Mitigation Measure D.3. (Same as 2013 EIR Mitigation Measure D.4.): To reduce the potential • for any off-site odor impacts, the Odor Control Management Plan for Forward Landfill shall be • modified to include daily management odor inspections when cannery wastes are being processed. • • Impact D.4. Project operations would generate emissions of GHG that could conflict with the • implementation of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) (Revises • 2013 EIR Impact 13.5.). • As with other individual projects, the specific emissions from this project would not be expected • to individually have an impact on Global Climate Change, but they are analyzed for the • potential for a significant contribution to the cumulative impact on GHG emissions.12 Recent • guidance indicates that GHG-related impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective.13 • Three types of analyses are used to determine whether the project could be in conflict with the • State goals for reducing GHG emissions. The analyses are as follows: • • A) Identification of any potential conflicts with the CARB's GHG 39 recommended • actions in the adopted Initial Climate Change Scoping Plan 14 and recommended actions • in the 2013 Scoping Plan (First Update) and 2017 Scoping Plan (Second Update). • B) Evaluation of the relative size of the project. The project's GHG emissions will be • compared to the size of major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions • • • • 12 Association of Environmental Professionals(AEP),Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents,2007. • 13 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association(CAPCOA),CEQA and Climate Change:Evaluating • and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act,2008. • 14 California Air Resources Board,Climate Change Scoping Plan Appendices,Volume 1:Supporting Documents and Measure Detail,Appendix E List of Recommended Actions by Tons.December,2008. • • • •