SU0011836 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-26 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 D.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.13 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.14 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 15 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 13 Association of Environmental Professionals(AEP),Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents,2007. 14 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. 15 California Air Resources Board,Climate Change Scoping Plan Appendices,Volume I. Supporting Documents and Measure Detail,Appendix E List of Recommended Actions by Tons.December,2008.