TAFT RECYCLING & SANITARY LANDFILL PROJECT · TAFT RECYCLING & SANITARY LANDFILL PROJECT General...

RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

SCH #2009031008

TAFT RECYCLING & SANITARY LANDFILL PROJECT

General Plan Amendment No. 2, Map 138

Modification Conditional Use Permit No. 1, Map 138 Solid Waste Facility Permit Revision

Waste Discharge Requirements

VOLUME 1

DOUGLAS E. LANDON, DIRECTOR Waste Management Department

2700 “M” Street, Suite 500 Bakersfield, CA 93301

March 2011

Printed on Recycled Paper

ENDANGERED SPECIES OFFICE US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE 2800 COTTAGE WAY W2605 SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1888

CIVIL WORKS - US ARMY ENGINEER DIST US ARMY CORPS OF ENG 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 5000 CALIFORNIA AVE STE 100 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

BAK DIST & CALIENTE RES AREA US DEPT OF INTERIOR/BLM 3801 PEGASUS DRIVE BAKERSFIELD CA 93308-6837

OFFICE OF PLANNING/RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 1400 - 10TH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95812

JULIE CLARK ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSERVANCY 6130 FREEPORT BLVD STE H SACRAMENTO CA 95822

JESSE DHALIWAL CA DEPT OF HEALTH SRVCS - DRINKING WATER 1200 DISCOVER DR STE 100 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

RAYMOND SEAMANS: MAIL STOP 10A-15 CALRECYCLE PO BOX 4025 SACRAMENTO CA 95812-4025

CENTRAL REGION OFFICE/CEQA DEPT SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY APCD 1990 E GETTYSBURG AVE FRESNO CA 93726

RON HOLCOMB RWQCB 1685 E STREET FRESNO CA 93706-2007

MAIL STOP 09-06/JAMES POMPY OFFICE OF MINE RECLAMATION 801 K STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814

SOUTHERN SJV ARCHAEOLOGICAL INFORMATION CENTER - CSUB 9001 STOCKDALE HWY BAKERSFIELD CA 93311

LIBRARY CSU BAKERSFIELD 9001 STOCKDALE HWY BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

JULIE VANCE DEPT OF FISH AND GAME 1416 - 9TH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814

DEPT OF OIL GAS GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES 4800 STOCKDALE HWY STE 417 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

ISACC A GEORGE CITY OF ARVIN PO BOX 548 ARVIN CA 93203

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1715 CHESTER AVENUE BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY 21000 HACIENDA BLVD CALIFORNIA CITY CA 93505

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF DELANO PO BOX 3010 DELANO CA 93216

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF MARICOPA PO BOX 548 MARICOPA CA 93252

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF RIDGECREST 100 WEST CALIFORNIA AVE RIDGECREST CA 93555

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF SHAFTER 336 PACIFIC AVENUE SHAFTER CA 93263

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF TAFT 209 EAST KERN STREET TAFT CA 93268

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF TEHACHAPI 115 SOUTH ROBINSON ST TEHACHAPI CA 93561

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF WASCO 746 - 8TH STREET WASCO CA 93280

KERN CO WATER AGENCY PO BOX 58 BAKERSFIELD CA 93302

KERN MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT 4705 ALLEN ROAD BAKERSFIELD CA 93312

SEMITROPIC WATER DISTRICT 1101 CENTRAL AVE WASCO CA 93280

J.D. BRAMLET WEST KERN WATER DISTRICT 800 KERN STREET TAFT CA 93268

WEST SIDE MOSQUITO VECTOR CONTROL PO BOX 205 TAFT CA 93268

KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 5801 SUNDALE AVENUE BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

MARY BAKER SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 1300 - 17TH STREET BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

TECHNICAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR THE GAS COMPANY 404 N. TIPTON VISALIA CA 93292

SO CAL GAS 1510 NORTH CHESTER AVE BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

LOUISE BROWN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 404 NORTH TIPTON STREET VISALIA CA 93292

PLANNING DEPARTMENT SO CAL EDISON PO BOX 800 ROSEMEAD CA 91770

DOUG SNYDER - LAND DEPT PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1918 H STREET BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

LAND PROJECTS/SHAW OFFICE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 650 O STREET 1ST FLOOR FRESNO CA 93760-0001

TAFT CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 820 N. SIXTH STREET TAFT CA 93268

TAFT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 701 SEVENTH STREET TAFT CA 93268

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COUNCIL OF KERN COUNTY 2619 DRILLER AVENUE BAKERSFIELD CA 93306-2505

MATTHEW VESPA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 351 CALIFORNIA ST. STE. 600 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104

FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 1601 EXPOSITION BLVD FB3 SACRAMENTO CA 95815-5195

BAKERSFIELD SMART GROWTH COALITION 302 S MOJAVE STREET TEHACHAPI CA 93561-1826

TEHACHAPI VALLEYS SMART GROWTH COALITION PO BOX 1894 TEHACHAPI CA 93581-1894

ROBERT ROBINSON KERN VALLEY INDIAN COUNCIL PO BOX 401 WELDON CA 93283

KATHY MORGAN CHAIRPERSON TEJON INDIAN TRIBE 2234 4TH STREET WASCO CA 93280

CHARLIE COOKE TEHACHAPI INDIAN TRIBE 32835 SANTIAGO ROAD ACTON CA 93510

ROBERT L GOMEZ 2619 DRILLER AVENUE BAKERSFIELD CA 93306

RON WERMUTH PO BOX 168 KERNVILLE CA 93238

KENNETH WOODROW 1179 ROCK HAVEN CT SALINAS CA 93906

RYAN GARFIELD TULE RIVER INDIAN TRIBE PO BOX 589 PORTERVILLE CA 93258

DELIA DOMINGUEZ KITANEMUK & YOWLUMNE TEJON INDIANS 981 NORTH VIRGINIA COVINA CA 91722

CLARENCE ATWELL SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA PO BOX 8 LEMORE CA 93245

DONNA BEGAY TRIBAL TUBATULABALS OF KERN COUNTY PO BOX 226 LAKE ISABELLA CA 93240

LUKE COLE CENTER ON RACE POVERTY & THE ENV 47 KEARNY STREET STE 804 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108-5528

CAROLINE FARRELL CENTER ON RACE POVERTY & THE ENV 1302 JEFFERSON STREET STE 2 DELANO CA 93215

EUGENE S WILSON CA COUNCIL ON ENERGY CONSERVATION 1224 NORTH ONTARE ROAD SANTA BARBARA CA 93150

RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION 2210 "K" STREET SUITE 201 SACRAMENTO CA 95816

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE PO BOX 953 JOSHUA TREE CA 92252

KERN AUDUBON SOCIETY PO BOX 3581 BAKERSFIELD CA 93385-3581

BRIAN HOCKETT NORTH WEST KERN RESOURCE CONSER DIST 5000 CALIFORNIA AVE STE 100 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309-0711

CHUMASH COUNCIL OF BAKERSFIELD P.O. BOX 902 BAKERSFIELD CA 93302

DAVID LAUGHINGHORSE ROBINSON KAWAIISU TRIBE OF TEJON RESERVATION PO BOX 1547 KERNVILLE CA 93238

CHRIS BABCOCK PLANNING COMMISSIONER

BRANDON MARTIN PLANNING COMMISSIONER

PETER BELLUOMINI PLANNING COMMISSIONER

RON SPRAGUE PLANNING COMMISSIONER

LETICIA PEREZ PLANNING COMMISSIONER

ED GRIMES CITY OF TEHACHAPI 115 S ROBINSON STREET TEHACHAPI CA 93561

COUNCILMAN KEN WEIR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1600 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

LARRY MOXLEY KERN REFUSE DISPOSAL 6208 TIMBERCREEK DRIVE BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

PAUL BENZ BENZ SANITATION PO BOX 1750 TEHACHAPI CA 93561-1750

DENNIS LYNCH GRANITE CONSTRUCTION PO BOX 5127 BAKERSFIELD CA 93388-5127

JOHN DUFFY 6409 SIERRA HILLS CT BAKERSFIELD CA 93308-6507

MICHAEL GEYER PO BOX 60147 BAKERSFIELD CA 93386-0147

SUPERVISOR JON MCQUISTON DISTRICT 1

SUPERVISOR ZACK SCRIVNER DISTRICT 2

SUPERVISOR MIKE MAGGARD DISTRICT 3

SUPERVISOR RAYMOND WATSON DISTRICT 4

SUPERVISOR KAREN GOH DISTRICT 5

AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT

LORELEI OVIATT DIRECTOR COUNTY OF KERN - PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT

COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

COUNTY CLERK

KIRK PERKINS COUNTY COUNSEL

FLOODPLAIN/DRAINAGE ENGINEERING SURVEY & PERMIT SERVICES

COUNTY SURVEYOR ENGINEERING SURVEY & PERMIT SERVICES

BILL O'RULLIAN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPT

BRIAN MARSHALL FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE SAFETY

DIANE DUQUETTE, DIRECTOR LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION

TAFT BRANCH KERN COUNTY LIBRARY 27 EMMONS PARK DRIVE TAFT CA 93268

PARKS & RECREATION DEPT

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

ROADS DEPT - WARREN MAXWELL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGENCY

SOUTH AREA SUB-STA./LT DAVID BARKER COUNTY OF KERN SHERIFFS DEPT 311 NORTH LINCOLN ST TAFT CA 93268

KERN KEAWEAH CHAPTER SIERRA CLUB

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF MCFARLAND 401 WEST KERN AVENUE MCFARLAND CA 93250

WESTSIDE RECREATION AND PARK DIST 500 CASCADE PLACE TAFT CA 93268

CA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY 418 BROOKHAVEN DRIVE BAKERSFIELD CA 93304

AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT

COUNTY OF KERN LIBRARY

RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

This is to advise that the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, as lead agency, is circulating a Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), prepared by the Kern County Waste Management Department, for the project identified below. As mandated by State law, the minimum public review period for this document is 45 days. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(2) provides that when the EIR is revised only in part and the lead agency is recirculating only the revised chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency may request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised chapters or portions of the EIR. The recirculation of only “portions” of the DEIR does not permit commenters to comment anew on topics or text not subject to partial recirculation. Therefore, agencies, organizations, and individuals who wish to comment on this document should limit the scope of their comments to the newly circulated information contained in the document related to energy resources, specifically information related to the expenditures of electricity, fuel, and other energy resources required for the project, and the updated portions of the alternatives analysis. The Kern County Waste Management Department will therefore respond in the Final Recirculated DEIR only to new comments received during this comment period. The document and documents referenced in the Recirculated DEIR are available for review at the Kern County Waste Management Department, 2700 “M” Street, Suite 500, Bakersfield, CA 93301. Additional copies for review are filed with the following Kern County Libraries: the Taft Public Library at 27 Emmons Park Drive in Taft; and the Bakersfield Beale Library at 701 Truxtun Avenue in Bakersfield. A public hearing has been scheduled with the Kern County Planning Commission to receive comments on the document on June 9, 2011 at 7:00 PM, or soon thereafter, in the Chambers of the Board of Supervisors, First Floor, Kern County Administrative Center, 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. The comment period for this document closes on May 11, 2011. Comments should be addressed to the Kern County Waste Management Department. Testimony at future public hearings may be limited to those issues raised during the public review period either orally or submitted in writing by 5:00 PM the day the comment period closes. Project Title: Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Permit Revision Project (State Clearing House No. 2009031008). Project Location: 13351 Elk Hills Road; approximately three miles north of the City of Taft. Project Description: The proposed Project is to revise the solid waste facility permit (SWFP) for the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill (SWFP #15-AA-0061) to increase the disposal capacity and lifespan by the installation of a landfill liner over the current permitted unlined disposal area; then vertically expanding beyond the current permitted elevation. Additionally, the proposed Project will amend the Kern County General Plan and map to have a compatible and consistent general plan designation and zone district for the site. Specific components of the project include: (A) Amend the Kern County General Plan (GPA 2, Map 138) to; (i) Change designation from Map Code 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum – min. 5-acre parcel size) to Map Code

3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer) for 61.7 acres for landfill buffer property; (ii) Amend the Circulation Element to eliminate road reservations for the east/west and north/south midsection lines, and the easterly section line of Section 25 Township 31 South, Range 23 East, Zone Map 138; and (iii) Amend Appendix “E” Map, “Taft Sanitary Landfill”, to show the revised Taft SLF permitted facility boundary with the added buffer property areas. (B) Modify Conditional Use Permit (CUP 1, Map 138) to: (i) Limit the permitted facility boundary to 161.68 acres to include the landfill and landfill buffer properties (Map Code 3.4.1); (ii) Include uses ancillary to landfill operations; (iii) Include the installation of a landfill liner, totaling 37 acres, within the permitted unlined area; (iv) Limit the final height of the permitted disposal area to 868 feet above mean sea level (MSL); (v) Limit the permitted maximum depth of the permitted disposal area to 520 feet MSL (125 feet below ground surface); (vi) Limit the total designed air space, including final closure cover, to 11,000,000 cubic yards within the permitted disposal area; (vii) Limit the permitted daily tonnage to 800 tons per day; and (viii) Limit the permitted daily traffic to 350 vehicles per day; (C) Revise the existing Solid Waste Facility Permit (No. 15-AA-0061) to: (i) Increase the permitted facility boundary from 100 acres to 161.68 acres to include the landfill buffer area – an increase of 61.7 acres; (ii) Increase the waste footprint from 35 acres to 71 acres, with the installation of landfill liner within the permitted unlined area – an increase of 36 acres; (iii) Increase the permitted elevation of the landfill from 775 feet MSL to 868 feet MSL – an increase of 93 feet; (iv) Increase the permitted depth of excavation from 625 feet MSL to 520 feet MSL (125 feet below ground surface) – an increase in depth of 105 feet; (v) Increase the total designed air space, including final closure cover, from 8,787,547 cubic yards to 11,000,000 cubic yards – an increase of 2,212,453 cubic yards; (vi) Extend the permitted lifespan from 2052 to 2074 – an increase of 22 years; (vii) Increase the permitted daily tonnage from 419 tons per day to 800 tons per day – an increase of 381 tons per day; and (viii) Increase the permitted daily traffic from 338 vehicles per day to 350 vehicles per day – an increase of 12 vehicles per day; (D) Revise the Preliminary Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan; prepare a Final Closure/Post Closure Maintenance Plan at the appropriate time, and conduct final closure construction, as required by Title 27 CCR over the disposal area at the end of site life; (E) Revise and update the Joint Technical Document describing the facilities design and operation; and (F) Issue revised Waste Water Discharge Requirements by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Anticipated Significant Impacts on Environment: Project level: Air Quality; Cumulative: Air Quality. Hazardous Waste Site Status: The landfill and buffer lands are not on the State list of hazardous sites. For further information, please contact Donn Fergerson at (661) 862-8765.

Douglas E. Landon, Director Waste Management Department To be published once only, on next available date and as soon as possible. The Bakersfield Californian, The Midway Driller

LAND USE SERVICES DEPT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 385 N ARROWHEAD AVE SAN BERNARDINO CA 92415

PLANNING DEPARTMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 976 OSOS STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93408

PLANNING DEPARTMENT SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 123 EAST ANAPAMU STREET SANTA BARBARA CA 93101

PLANNING DEPARTMENT TULARE COUNTY 5961 SOUTH MOONEY BLVD VISALIA CA 93277

PLANNING DEPARTMENT VENTURA COUNTY 800 SOUTH VICTORIA AVE VENTURA CA 93009

FAY VAN HORN NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COUNCIL OF KC P.O. BOX 1507 BAKERSFIELD CA 93302

JOYCE LOBASSO P.O. BOX 6003 BAKERSFIELD CA 93386

JAN DE LEEUW CUDDY VALLEY STATISTICAL 11667 STEINHOFF ROAD FRAZIER PARK CA 93222

METROSTUDY 5001 CALIFORNIA AVENUE SUITE 210 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

DAVID CLARK THOMAS ROADS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1600 TRUXTUN AVENUE SUITE 300 BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

LEGAL DIRECTOR COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT 1904 FRANKLIN STREET SUITE 500 OAKLAND CA 94612

KERN COUNTY MUSEUM 3801 CHESTER AVENUE BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

LAFCO 5300 LENNOX AVENUE SUITE 303 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

KERN COG 1401 - 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

MICHAEL D GOODING VINTAGE PRODUCTION CALIFORNIA LLC 9600 MING AVENEUE SUITE 300 BAKERSFIELD CA 93311

PATTY KUSEK CRIMSON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 410 - 17TH STREET DENVER CO 80202

GILLIAM & SONS INC 9831 ROSEDALE HWY BAKERSFIELD CA 93312

MIDWAY DRILLER 800 CENTER STREET- PO BOX 958 TAFT CA 93268

BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN 1707 EYE STREET BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

PLANNING DEPARTMENT INYO COUNTY PO BOX L INDEPENDENCE CA 93526

PLANNING DEPARTMENT KINGS COUNTY 1400 W LACEY BLVD HANFORD CA 93230

PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELES COUNTY 320 WEST TEMPLE ST LOS ANGELES CA 90012

Project Description Continued: (B) Modify Conditional Use Permit (CUP 1, Map 138) to: (i) Limit the permitted facility boundary to 161.68 acres to include the landfill and landfill buffer properties (Map Code 3.4.1); (ii) Include uses ancillary to landfill operations; (iii) Include the installation of a landfill liner, totaling 37 acres, within the permitted unlined area; (iv) Limit the final height of the permitted disposal area to 868 feet above mean sea level (MSL); (v) Limit the permitted maximum depth of the permitted disposal area to 520 feet MSL (125 feet below ground surface); (vi) Limit the total designed air space, including final closure cover, to 11,000,000 cubic yards within the permitted disposal area; (vii) Limit the permitted daily tonnage to 800 tons per day; and (viii) Limit the permitted daily traffic to 350 vehicles per day; (C) Revise the existing Solid Waste Facility Permit (No. 15-AA-0061) to: (i) Increase the permitted facility boundary from 100 acres to 161.68 acres to include the landfill buffer area – an increase of 61.7 acres; (ii) Increase the waste footprint from 35 acres to 71 acres, with the installation of landfill liner within the permitted unlined area – an increase of 36 acres; (iii) Increase the permitted elevation of the landfill from 775 feet MSL to 868 feet MSL – an increase of 93 feet; (iv) Increase the permitted depth of excavation from 625 feet MSL to 520 feet MSL (125 feet below ground surface) – an increase in depth of 105 feet; (v) Increase the total designed air space, including final closure cover, from 8,787,547 cubic yards to 11,000,000 cubic yards – an increase of 2,212,453 cubic yards; (vi) Extend the permitted lifespan from 2052 to 2074 – an increase of 22 years; (vii) Increase the permitted daily tonnage from 419 tons per day to 800 tons per day – an increase of 381 tons per day; and (viii) Increase the permitted daily traffic from 338 vehicles per day to 350 vehicles per day – an increase of 12 vehicles per day. (D) Revise the Preliminary Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan; prepare a Final Closure/Post Closure Maintenance Plan at the appropriate time, and conduct final closure construction, as required by Title 27 CCR over the disposal area at the end of site life; (E) Revise and update the Joint Technical Document describing the facilities design and operation; and (F) Issue revised Waste Water Discharge Requirements by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................1-5 1.3 PURPOSE AND USE OF THE DRAFT EIR ......................................................................................1-15 1.4 PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................1-16 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.........................................................................................................1-29 1.6 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT..............................................................................1-38 1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY .........................................................................................................1-49 1.8 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ..........................................................................................................1-52 1.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION...........................................................1-52

CHAPTER 2 - INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 INTENT OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.................................................................2-1 2.2 PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT....................................................................2-1 2.3 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED.............................................................................................................2-4 2.4 TERMINOLOGY ............................................................................................................................2-4 2.5 DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.......................................................................................................2-6 2.6 AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .........................................................2-11 2.7 FORMAT AND CONTENT .............................................................................................................2-12 2.8 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES .....................................................................................2-15 2.9 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ...............................................................................................2-18 2.10 SOURCES .................................................................................................................................2-22

CHAPTER 3 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................3-1

3.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING ...............................................................................................3-5 3.3 EXISTING PLANNING AND ZONING REGULATIONS ........................................................................3-10 3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES...............................................................................................................3-12 3.5 TAFT SANITARY LANDFILL PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONS .....................................................3-13 3.6 ENERGY CONSERVATION...........................................................................................................3-42 3.7 ENTITLEMENTS REQUIRED.........................................................................................................3-44 3.8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OVERVIEW .............................................................................................3-45

CHAPTER 5 - CONSEQUENCES OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................5-1

5.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT...............................................5-1 5.3 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ......................................................................................5-2 5.4 GROWTH INDUCEMENT ................................................................................................................5-4 5.5 ENERGY REOURCES....................................................................................................................5-6 5.6 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...........................................................................................5-23

CHAPTER 6 - ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................6-6 6.3 PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................6-7 6.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THIS RECIRCULATED DEIR.............................................................6-10 6.5 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION .....................................................6-62 6.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE..............................................................................6-70

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page ii

CHAPTER 7B - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS.........................................................................................7-1

CHAPTER 8 - ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ..........................................................8-1

CHAPTER 9 - PREPARERS .....................................................................................................................9-1

CHAPTER 10 - REFERENCES...............................................................................................................10-1

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 TAFT RSLF ENERGY CONSERVATION STUDY

APPENDIX 2 TAFT RSLF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEBRUARY 2010)

APPENDIX 3 COUNTY OF KERN RECYCLING & SOLID WASTE PLANNING PROGRESS REPORT

http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/Taft_Landfill/taft_landfill_intro.pdf

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-1 PROJECT LOCATION 1-9

1-2 CURRENT AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS 1-10

1-3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CIRCULATION MAP 1-11

1-4 PROPOSED APPENDIX "E" MAP 1-12

1-5 CURRENT SITE PLAN 1-13

1-6 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1-14

1-7 ZONING (1-MILE RADIUS) 1-17

1-8 LAND DIVISION APN MAP 1-18

1-9 FLOOD HAZARD MAP 1-19

1-10 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP 1-21

1-11 LAND USE (1-MILE RADIUS) MAP 1-25

CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1 PROJECT LOCATION 3-49

3-2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS 3-50

3-3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CIRCULATION MAP 3-51

3-4 APPENDIX "E" MAP 3-52

3-5 CURRENT SITE PLAN 3-53

3-6 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 3-52

3-7 LAND USE (1-MILE RADIUS) MAP 3-55

3-8 LAND DIVISION APN MAP 3-57

3-9 SEISMIC HAZARD MAP 3-58

3-10 EXCAVATION SEQUENCING PLAN 3-59

3-11 1972 PRE-EXCAVATION SITE 3-60

3-12 CONCEPTUAL FINAL CLOSURE PLAN WITH VERTICAL EXPANSION 3-61

3-13 2009 LANDFILL TOPOGRAPHY 3-63

3-14 ZONING (1-MILE RADIUS) 3-64

3-15 ENGINEERED ALTERNATIVE FINAL COVER DESIGN 3-65

CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES

6-1 NORTH-SOUTH CROSS SECTION 6-4

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page iv

LIST OF TABLES PAGE(S) CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-1 SURROUNDING LAND USES 1-23

1-2 FUEL REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSFER OF WASTE TO ALTERNATE LANDFILL FROM TAFT

RSLF 1-36

1-3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE TAFT SLF

PERMIT REVISION PROJECT 1-53 TO

1-69

CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION

2-1 REQUIRED EIR CONTENTS 2-13

2-2 REGULATORY REPORTS AND PERMITS 2-1

CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1 SURROUNDING LAND USES 3-6

3-2 SITE LOCATION – PROJECT ACREAGE 3-8

3-3 5-YEAR INBOUND WASTE FLOW PROJECTION 3-15

3-4 MINIMUM LANDFILL EQUIPMENT 3-33

3-5 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST 3-48

CHAPTER 5.0: CONSEQUENCE OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

5-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5-3

5-2 TAFT RSLF BASELINE TRANSPORTATION ENERGY USE 5-8

5-3 ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN KERN COUNTY 5-9

5-4 2008 ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN CALIFORNIA 5-9

5-5 DIVERSION RATES FOR KERN COUNTY JURISDICTIONS (2006) 5-10

5-6 TAFT RSLF TOTAL BASELINE ENERGY USE (103 TPD) 5-13

5-7 TAFT RSLF PROJECT TRANSPORTATION ENERGY USE AT PROPOSED MAXIMUM PERMIT

LEVELS 5-19

5-8 TAFT RSLF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION ENERGY USE 5-20

5-9 HAUL TRUCK DISTANCE TO OTHER KERN COUNTY LANDFILLS FROM TAFT RSLF 5-21

5-10 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSFER OF WASTE TO ALTERNATE LANDFILL FROM

TAFT RSLF 5-22

CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES

6-1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6-3

6-2 ALTERNATIVE B CLOSURE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 6-18

6-3 ALTERNATIVE B SHORT-TERM UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS 6-18

6-4 ALTERNATIVE B SHORT-TERM MITIGATED EMISSIONS 6-19

6-5 ALTERNATIVE B CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM UNMITIGATED ON-SITE MOBILE

EMISSIONS 6-20

6-6 ALTERNATIVE B CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM MITIGATED ON-SITE MOBILE

EMISSIONS 6-21

6-7 ALTERNATIVE B CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM UNMITIGATED OFF-SITE MOBILE

EMISSIONS 6-22

6-8 ALTERNATIVE B CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM MITIGATED OFF-SITE MOBILE

EMISSIONS 6-23

6-9 ALTERNATIVE B CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM UNMITIGATED FUGITIVE DUST

EMISSIONS 6-24

6-10 ALTERNATIVE B CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM MITIGATED FUGITIVE DUST

EMISSIONS 6-25

6-11 ALTERNATIVE B CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILL GAS EMISSIONS 6-26

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page v

6-12 ALTERNATIVE B SUMMARY OF UNMITIGATED AND MITIGATED OPERATION EMISSIONS 6-27

6-13 ALTERNATIVE B SUMMARY OF TOTAL INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN OPERATIONAL AND

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS 6-29

6-14 ALTERNATIVE B POTENTIAL MAXIMUM IMPACTS PREDICTED BY HARP 6-30

6-15 ALTERNATIVE C CLOSURE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 6-37

6-16 ALTERNATIVE C SHORT-TERM UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS 6-38

6-17 ALTERNATIVE C SHORT-TERM MITIGATED EMISSIONS 6-38

6-18 TRANSFER STATION CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 6-47

6-19 ALTERNATIVE D SHORT-TERM UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS 6-47

6-20 ALTERNATIVE D SHORT-TERM MITIGATED EMISSIONS 6-48

6-21 ALTERNATIVE D CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM UNMITIGATED ON-SITE MOBILE

EMISSIONS 6-49

6-22 ALTERNATIVE B CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM MITIGATED ON-SITE MOBILE

EMISSIONS 6-50

6-23 ALTERNATIVE D CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM UNMITIGATED OFF-SITE

MOBILE EMISSIONS 6-51

6-24 ALTERNATIVE B CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM MITIGATED OFF-SITE MOBILE

EMISSIONS 6-52

6-25 ALTERNATIVE D CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS 6-53

6-26 ALTERNATIVE D SUMMARY OF UNMITIGATED AND MITIGATED OPERATION EMISSIONS 6-54

6-27 ALTERNATIVE D SUMMARY OF TOTAL INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN OPERATIONAL AND

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS 6-56

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page vi

List of Acronyms 3Girls Three Girls and a Shovel AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AB Assembly Bill AB32 Assembly Bill 32, “The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” ACOE Army Corps of Engineers ADC Alternative Daily Cover AERMAP AERMOD Terrain Pre-Processor AERMET AERMOD Metrological Pre-Processor AERMOD Air Dispersion Model AMS American Meteorological Society APCD Air Pollution Control District APN Assessor Parcel Number AQAP Air Quality Attainment Plans AQIA Air Quality Impact Assessment AQMD Air Quality Management Districts ATC Authority to Construct AWMA Air and Waste Management Association BACT Best Available Control Technology bgs Below Ground Surface Btu British Thermal Unit BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice CAA Clean Air Act CAAA 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CADD Computer Aided Design and Drafting CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy CALEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CALOSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CAP Criteria Air Pollutant CARB California Air Resources Board CAT Climate Action Team CCAA California Clean Air Act CCAR California Climate Action Registry CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDI Construction, Demolition Debris and Inert Material CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology CE California Endangered CEC California Energy Commission CESA California Endangered Species Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page vii

CGS California Geological Survey CH4 Methane CHRIS California Historic Resources Information Center

CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CLEP Coles Levee Ecosystem Preserve CNG Compressed Natural Gas CNPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide COHb Carboxyhemoglobin CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRPAQS California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study CRT Cathode Ray Tube CSC California Species of Concern CT California Threatened CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency CUP Conditional Use Permit CWA Clean Water Act cy Cubic Yard DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DMG Division of Mines and Geology DOGGR California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources DOT California Department of Transportation DTSC California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control EG Emissions Guidelines EIR Environmental Impact Report EMFAC Emissions Factor Model EMP Environmental Monitoring Program EMS Environmental Monitoring System EO Executive Order ESA 1973 United States Endangered Species Act ESSD Engineering and Survey Services Department F Fahrenheit FCAA Federal Clean Air Act FC/PCMP Final Closure/Post Closure Maintenance Plan Fe Iron FE Federal Endangered FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FSC Federal Species of Concern FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Plan FTP Federal Transportation Plan GAMAQI Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GCCS Gas Control and Collection System GHG Greenhouse Gas

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page viii

GIS Geographic Information Systems GPA General Plan Amendment GPS Global Positioning System GWP Global Warming Potential H2S Hydrogen Sulfide HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant HARP Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HFC Hydrofluorocarbons HF&H Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson HHWE Household Hazardous Waste Element HI Hazard Index HWEP Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IS Initial Study ISR Indirect Source Review JTD Joint Technical Document KernCOG Kern Council of Governments KCAPCD Kern County Air Pollution Control Department KCEHSD Kern County Environmental Health Services Department KCGP Kern County General Plan KCIWMP Kern County Integrated Waste Management Plan KCPCDD Kern County Planning and Community Development Department KCWMD Kern County Waste Management Department KernCOG Kern Council of Governments kWh Kilowatt Hour LandGEM Landfill Gas Generation and Emissions Model LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard LCRS Leachate Collection and Removal System LEA Local Enforcement Agency LEL Lower Explosive Limit LFG Landfill Gas LLA Lot Line Adjustment LOS Level of Service LTF Local Task Force OADP Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OPR Office of Planning and Research MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technologies MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MDAB Mojave Desert Air Basin MDB&M Mount Diablo Base and Meridian Mg Magnesium mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter MMBtu Million British Thermal Units MMMP Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page ix

MOLO Manager of Landfill Operations MPE Maximum Probable Earthquake mpg Miles per gallon mph Miles per hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MRZ Mineral Resources Zone MSW Municipal Solid Waste MSL Mean Sea Level MTCO2E Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalent MW Megawatt NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAD-27 North American Datum of 1927 NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NDFE Non-disposal Facility Element NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NMOC Non-Methane Organic Compounds NOA Notice of Availability NOC Notice of Completion N2O Nitrous Oxide NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOx Oxides of Nitrogen NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NPDES National Pollution Disposal Elimination System NSPS New Source Performance Standards NSR New Source Review URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model O2 Oxygen O3 Ozone OPR Office of Planning and Research OS Open Space ORV Off-Road Vehicle Pb Lead PCE Tetrachloroethene PC/PCMP Preliminary Closure/Post-closure Maintenance Plan PDF Project Design Features PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report PFC Perfluorocarbons PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric PM2.5 Particulate Matter – Less than 2.5 Microns PM10 Particulate Matter – Less than 10 Microns PMI Point of Maximum Impact ppm Parts per million PRC Public Resources Code

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page x

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PTC Public Utilities Code PTO Permit to Operate PVC Polyvinyl Chloride RCRA Resource Conservation Act RDSI Report of Disposal Site Information REL Reference Exposure Levels RES Renewable Electricity Standard ROG Reactive Organic Gases ROWD Report of Waste Discharge RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard RSLF Recycling and Sanitary Landfill RTECS Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances RTC Response to Comments RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAR Second Assessment Report SB Senate Bill scfm Standard Cubic Feet Per Minute SCH State Clearinghouse SE State-listed Endangered SEM Surface Emissions Monitoring SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride SIDS Sudden Infant Death Syndrome SIP State Implementation Plan SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Stations Network SLF Sanitary Landfill SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SMGB State Mining and Geology Board SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SO3 Sulfur Trioxide SO4

-2 Sulfate SOx Sulfur Oxide SOL Special Occurrence Log SR State Route SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan SWANA Solid Waste Association of North America SWAT Solid Waste Air Quality Assessment Test SWICS Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions SWIP Solid Waste Infrastructure Plan SWFP Solid Waste Facilities Permit SWMAC Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page xi

TAC Toxic Air Contaminants TAZ Traffic Analysis Zones TCM Transportation Control Measure TDS Total Dissolved Solids tpd Tons per Day tpy Tons per Year UL Underwriters Laboratory URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VC Vinyl Chloride VFHCP Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan VOC Volatile Organic Compound vpd Vehicles Per Day WARM Waste Reduction Model WDID Waste Discharge Identification Number WDR Waste Discharge Requirements µg/L Micrograms per Liter

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page xii

Glossary The following definitions are of terms used in the Draft EIR. Aquifer: a geological formation, group of formations, or portion of a formation capable of yielding significant quantities of ground water to wells or springs. Alternative Daily Cover (ADC): ADC is any non-soil material used for covering waste deposited in a landfill at the end of each working day that meets regulatory requirements (Title 27 CCR Section 20690) and the approval of the LEA. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): California law requiring the disclosure of environmental effects of proposed projects before discretionary approval can be issued. Cell: that portion of compacted solid wastes in a landfill that is enclosed by natural soil or cover material during a designated period. Class III Landfill: sanitary landfill typically permitted to accept only municipal solid waste. Clay Liner: a continuous layer of clay installed beneath or on the sides of a waste management unit, which acts as a barrier to vertical or lateral movement of fluid, including waste and leachate. Composite Liner: liner system that is constructed of a single clay liner, over which a synthetic liner (such as a liner made of high density polyethylene plastic) is placed in direct contact. Composting: the process by which discarded organic materials -- including (for example) tree trimmings, grass clippings, yard waste, agricultural wastes, leaf debris and sewage sludge -- are converted to usable products through controlled biological decomposition. County Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP): plan submitted by each county to the California Integrated Waste Management Board consisting of the following:

• All city and regional agency Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs) and Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWEs);

• SRRE and HHWE prepared for the unincorporated areas of the county;

• The Countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan; and

• The Nondisposal Facility Element.

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page xiii

Countywide Siting Element (Countywide Solid Waste Facility Siting Element): under AB 939, each county must prepare a Countywide Siting Element which includes a description of the area to be used for development of adequate transformation or disposal capacity consistent with the development and implementation of the county and city Source Reduction and Recycling Elements. Cover Material: material (usually soil) used at a landfill to cover compacted waste at specific, designated intervals. Its purpose is to serve as a barrier to: the emergence or attraction of vectors, the progress of fires within the landfill, the escape of odor, and excess infiltration of surface water runoff. Daily Cover: cover material spread and compacted on the entire surface of the active face of the sanitary landfill at least at the end of each operating day in order to control vectors, fire, water infiltration, erosion, and to prevent unsightliness and scavenging. Fill: compacted solid waste and cover material. Final Cover: the cover material that represents the permanently exposed final surface of a fill. Flexible Membrane Liner (FML): a thin liner commonly 60 thousandths of an inch thick (60 mil) made of plastic material, often high-density polyethylene (HDPE). FML is used in landfills as part of the base liner both as a barrier to protect groundwater from landfill-generated leachate and as a flow surface for leachate. It is currently required by federal law for all new MSW landfills and lateral extensions of existing landfills. Flood Plain: the land area which is subject to flooding in any year from any source. Generator: the source of materials discharged into the wastestream: the household, commercial establishment, or factory. Geosynthetic: flexible material in planar form manufactured to meet specific engineering purposes. The term includes, but is not limited to: “geomembrane,” an essentially impermeable membrane used as a barrier to waste solids and fluids, and synonymous with “synthetic liner” and “flexible membrane liner (FML)”; “geocomposite liner (GCL),” a manufactured material using geotextiles, geogrids, geonets, and/or geomembranes in laminated or composite form; “geotextile” (including “geonet”), any permeable textile used with foundation, soil, rock, earth, or any other geotechnical engineering-related material as an integral part of a constructed project, structure, or system. Groundwater: water below the land surface. Hazardous Wastes: As defined in California Code of Regulations Title 22, wastes that pose a hazard to human health or the environment due to their flammability, corrosiveness, reactivity, or toxicity to living things.

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page xiv

Intermediate Cover: cover material that is applied on areas where additional cells are not to be constructed for extended periods of time, and therefore, must resist erosion for a longer period of time than daily cover. Leachate: liquid that has come in contact with or percolated through waste materials and that has extracted or dissolved constituents from the waste materials. Lift: In a sanitary landfill, a series of daily cells, placed contiguous to each other, typically along a uniform elevation or height. Once a lift has been completed, the operation moves up on top of the previous lift and begins a new series of daily cells. Local Enforcement Agency (LEA): county or city agency (other than the government department or agency that is the operating unit for a solid waste facility) given authority to oversee implementation of CIWMB regulations. The LEA may be certified under four categories:

1. permitting, inspection, and enforcement at solid waste landfills 2. incineration 3. transfer and processing stations 4. inspection and enforcement of litter, odor, and nuisance regulations at

landfills. Maximum Probable Earthquake: the maximum earthquake that is likely to occur during a 100-year interval. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW): solid waste from residential, commercial, and institutional sources that is generally disposed of in Class III landfills. NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System): federal requirement under the Clean Water Act (CWA) that any discharge of a non-point source of pollution into waters of the United States be in conformance with any established water quality management plan developed under the Clean Water Act. Operator: the person responsible for the overall operation of a landfill facility or part of a landfill facility. Owner: the person who owns a landfill facility or part of a landfill facility. Permeability: the measurement of a material’s ability to allow the passage of moisture. For landfill applications, it is usually expressed in centimeters per second. Recycling: the process of collecting, sorting, cleansing, treating, and reconstituting materials that would otherwise become solid waste, and returning them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new products. Does not include the conversion of waste into energy.

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page xv

Report of Disposal Site Information (RDSI): Previously functioned as part of a permit application to obtain the Solid Waste Facilities Permit from the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) with concurrence of the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD): functions as part of a landfill’s permit application to the Regional Water Quality Control Board to receive Waste Discharge Requirements. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): federal law that specifies (among other things) how municipal solid waste, designated waste, and hazardous waste are to be properly landfilled. Run-off: any rainwater, leachate, or other liquid that drains over land from any part of a facility. Run-on: any rainwater, leachate, or other liquid that drains over land onto any part of a facility. Sanitary Landfill: a disposal site employing an engineered method of disposing of solid wastes in a manner that minimizes environmental hazards by spreading, compacting to the smallest practical volume and applying cover material over all exposed wastes at the end of each operating day. Sludge: any solid, semi-solid, or liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility exclusive of the treated effluent from a wastewater treatment plant. CCR Title 27 specifies that for co-disposal of sludge in landfills, the sludge must contain at least 20 percent solids if primary sludge, or at least 15 percent solids if the sludge is secondary sludge, mixtures of primary and secondary sludge, or water treatment sludge. Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs): In accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, SRREs are plans for cities and counties to divert 25 percent of solid wastes from landfill disposal by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. Special Waste: Special waste is waste which is a hazardous waste only because it contains an inorganic substance or substances which cause it to pose a chronic toxicity hazard to human health or the environment and which meets all of the criteria and requirements of Title 22 CCR Section 66261.122 and has been classified a special waste pursuant to Title 22 CCR Section 66261.124. SWFP (Solid Waste Facilities Permit): permit issued by the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) authorizing a landfill to operate. Vadose Zone: sub-surface zone between the ground surface and the groundwater level (water table) within the unsaturated zone. Soil voids in this zone contain air and water.

Table of Contents

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page xvi

Waste Cell: at a landfill, compacted solid wastes covered with a thin, continuous layer of soil. Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs): the permit issued by Regional Water Quality Control Board for the discharge of waste to land (i.e., a landfill). Waste Management Unit: area of land, or a portion of a waste management facility, at which waste is discharged. The term includes containment features and ancillary facilities for precipitation and drainage control and monitoring, and can be applied to landfills or surface impoundments. Waste stream (or wastestream): the body of material, composed of discards, by-products, and obsolete objects that is generated by industry, government, and the private commercial and residential sectors. The “wastestream” does not always end up disposed per se in landfills or incinerators: some of it will be recycled, composted, salvaged for re-use, or sent to waste-to-energy facilities. Wetland: those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include, but are not limited to, swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas [as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. EPA]. Working Face: the area where daily disposal operations are conducted at a landfill: it is usually on a slope, where waste is deposited and compacted with landfill equipment.

Chapter 1 – Executive Summary

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-1

Chapter 1 - Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction This document is the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Kern County Waste Management Department (KCWMD), Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill (Taft RSLF) Permit Revision Project (proposed Project) (General Plan Amendment 2, Map 138, modification of Conditional Use Permit #1, Map 138, and revision of Solid Waste Facilities Permit (SWFP) 15-AA-0061). This Recirculated DEIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The proposed Project is to revise the SWFP for the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill (Taft RSLF) (Permit No. 15-AA-0061) to increase the disposal capacity and lifespan, through the installation of a liner under the new proposed waste cells, as well as vertically expanding beyond the current permitted elevation. Additionally, the proposed Project would amend the 2004 Kern County General Plan and map to have compatible and consistent general plan designation and zone district for the site, amend the General Plan’s Circulation Element to eliminate the road reservations of the north/south and east/west midsection lines, and, modify Conditional Use Permit 1, Map 138. The Taft RSLF Permit Revision Project has been proposed by the applicant, the Kern County Waste Management Department. The proposed solid waste facility permit revision would allow for a vertical expansion over the approved 85-acre permitted disposal area, which is located within the current 100-acre permitted landfill facility. Existing waste is contained within one unlined waste module totaling 35 acres1. Future lined waste modules will be constructed within the remainder of the 85-acre permitted disposal area. The proposed Project will expand the 100-acre permitted facility up to 161.68 acres to include additional buffer area, but will not expand the 85-acre permitted disposal area. Purpose of this Recirculated DEIR This document is the Recirculated DEIR for the Taft RSLF Permit Revision Project. This document, as a Recirculated DEIR, provides additional information related to energy resources to supplement the Taft RSLF Permit Revision Project DEIR (SCH 2009031008) [Kern County Waste Management Department, 2010a]. This introduction provides the manner in which changes were made to the previous DEIR, background information concerning this document, and the procedure for commenting on this Recirculated DEIR.

1 In 1993, the refuse limits established in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40,

Part 258, were determined to be 32.6 acres, using visual observations and anecdotal information from various site contractors. This area was designated the 1993 refuse limit. In 2008, the site’s refuse limits were investigated by trenching at various locations around the perimeter of the waste management unit. The results of the 2008 trenching investigations shows that the actual limits of refuse vary significantly from those established in 1993. The 2008 revised refuse limit constitutes the 35-acre area with waste currently in place.



The Taft RSLF DEIR was originally circulated for public comment from February 2 to March 19, 2010 by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The County has received and considered written comments that were received during the public comment period. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was certified by the Board of Supervisors on June 29, 2010 and used in their consideration and approval of land use applications necessary for the implementation of the proposed Taft RSLF Permit Revision Project. These land use applications included:

• General Plan Amendment No. 2, Map 138; and • Modification of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 1, Map 138.

The County’s certification of the FEIR and project approval was subsequently challenged in an action in Kern County Superior Court (the Court), entitled California Clean Energy Committee v. County of Kern (2010). The petitioner and the County entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. The Court reviewed the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and has ordered that the project approvals be invalidated and set aside as a result of an inadequate energy analysis in the EIR. In addition, the certification of the EIR, the adoption of the Title 14 CCR section 15091 Findings, Section 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program for the Project, which were approved by the Kern County Board of Supervisors on June 29, 2010, are also invalidated and set aside solely as a result of the inadequate energy analysis contained in the EIR (Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Kern, 2010). This Recirculated DEIR, in accordance with the Court’s direction, provides new information on energy resources per Appendix F – Energy Conservation, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Association of Environmental Professionals, 2010). The Kern County Waste Management Department has also revised the Project alternatives based on the new information of energy impacts. The Guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for CEQA provide that a lead agency is required to recirculate an environmental document when significant new information is added to an EIR after public review of the Draft EIR has begun. New information can include changes in the project description, changes in the environmental setting, as well as other additional data or information. This information may relate to new environmental impacts, severity of such impacts, alternatives or mitigation. Recirculation of an EIR is covered by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (CEQA, 2005a). The environmental impact report may be recirculated in whole or in part. In this case, the Kern County Waste Management Department has elected to provide additional information which addresses the energy resources of the Project and its alternatives. The recirculated sections include:

• Chapter 1 – Executive Summary; • Chapter 2 – Introduction; • Chapter 3 – Project Description;



• Chapter 5 – Consequences of the Project Implementation; • Chapter 6 – Alternatives; • Chapter 8 – Organizations and Persons Consulted; • Chapter 9 – Preparers; and • Chapter 10 – References.

Identification of Documents For ease of reference, the following terms will be used to refer to the documents previously circulated for public comment, and the documents that are being recirculated: 2010 Draft EIR (DEIR): The DEIR as circulated for public review from February 2, 2010 through March 19, 2010, and dated February 2010. Recirculated DEIR: This document, which discusses the energy resources related to the proposed Project. This Recirculated DEIR is dated March 2011. Revisions made to the previous Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) The comments received during the initial circulation period have previously been responded to. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(g) provides that when circulating a revised EIR, either in whole or in part, the lead agency shall, in the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, summarize the revisions made to the previously circulated draft EIR (CEQA, 2005a). The comments and revisions made to the previous DEIR are included as Chapter 7 of that document (Included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR). Public Review of this Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report and Submittal of Written Comments Information concerning the public review process is included in the Notice of Availability (NOA) of this Recirculated DEIR. The Notice of Availability is included at the beginning of this document. This Recirculated DEIR will be available for public review for a 45-day period that begins March 28, 2011 and ends May 11, 2011. Written comments regarding the Recirculated DIER should be submitted to the following address:

County of Kern Kern County Waste Management Department 2007 “M” Street, Suite 500 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Attention: Donn Fergerson, Waste Management Supervisor

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(2) provides that when the EIR is revised only in part and the lead agency is recirculating only the revised chapters or portions of the



EIR, the lead agency may request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised chapters or portions of the EIR (CEQA, 2005a). The recirculation of only “portions” of a DEIR does not permit commenters to comment anew on topics or text not subject to a partial recirculation. Therefore, agencies, organizations, and individuals who wish to comment on this document should limit the scope of their comments to the newly circulated information contained in this document related to energy resources and more specifically information related to the expenditures of electricity, fuel, and other energy resources required for the project, and the updated portions of the alternatives analysis. The lead agency is not obligated to respond to any new comments that are directed to the portions of the DEIR that were not revised and are not being recirculated in this document. The Final EIR for the Project will contain detailed responses to all comments made on the original Draft EIR and this Recirculated DEIR that are properly limited to the energy analysis as well as the updated portions of the alternatives analysis. Background The Kern County Waste Management Department owns and operates its disposal and transfer facilities according to standards of safety and environmental compliance that go above and beyond regulatory requirements. For example, in 2006, 62% of the 1990 municipal solid waste stream being disposed of in Kern County landfills was diverted, resulting in over 560,000 tons of recycled or reused materials. The emissions reduction from this diversion is the equivalent of removing 161,359 cars from the road each year. Not only does this reduction in disposal extend the life of Kern County’s active landfills, but the increased diversion rate results in a number of environmental benefits including: beneficial reuse of recycled materials, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a reduction in the need to site new landfills, and the exclusion of many hazardous waste types. Educational outreach efforts to the local communities also play a significant role in encouraging the public to take an active part in reducing Kern County’s waste stream. Recycling drop off locations, phone book and Christmas tree recycling programs, and a used motor oil campaign are a few of the ways the public can help to reduce waste disposal and protect the environment. In addition to the County’s diversion programs, several other programs and engineering practices have been implemented throughout the Kern County Waste Management Department’s system:

○ Groundwater Monitoring and Leachate Collection and Recovery: Systems have been implemented at both active and inactive facilities to maintain certainty that the landfill operations have not impacted the environment.

○ Landfill Gas Collection and Control: Systems are currently installed at eight County landfill facilities. These systems collect approximately 97% of the greenhouse gases that would have otherwise been emitted into the atmosphere.

○ Surface Emissions Monitoring: Programs have been implemented to ensure that surface gas emissions at the landfill facilities are minimized.

○ Burn Dump Remediation: The Kern County Waste Management Department is responsible for the oversight and remediation of over 50 burn



dumps throughout the County. This includes cover of a minimum of two feet of clean soil, re-vegetation efforts, fencing and periodic inspections.

○ Special Waste Facilities: Three special waste collection facilities allow the residents of Kern County to bring in household hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed of in municipal landfills or sewer systems, free of charge.

○ Preservation of Cultural Resources: Prior to any new ground disturbances or excavations pre-activity surveys are completed to assure no cultural or paleontological artifacts are present at potential Project sites.

○ Preservation of Biological Resources: The Kern County Waste Management Department has prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Through this HCP, a number of activities and programs have been implemented to assure the least amount of negative impact to biological resources at all Kern County Waste Management Department Facilities. As an example of this vigilance in maintaining native biota, the Department’s Bena Sanitary Landfill is one of few locations in the region that has a healthy growing population of endangered San Joaquin kit foxes.

1.2 Project Summary The Project is the installation of a landfill liner within a portion of the current permitted unlined disposal area, then a vertical expansion of the entire waste disposal area of the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill (Taft RSLF), which is a public landfill owned by the County of Kern and operated by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The Taft RSLF is located in the unincorporated area of southwestern Kern County, at 13351 Elk Hills Road, Taft, CA 93268 in Section 25 of Township 31 South, Range 23 East, MDB&M (see Figure 1-1). Since the circulation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), there have been changes to the project description. These changes are:

• The addition of an amendment of the Circulation Element to remove designated road reservations;

• The addition of a revision and update of the Joint Technical Document describing the facilities design and operation;

• The addition of issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board;

• The addition of an amendment of the Unincorporated Kern County Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE) to provide for the inclusion of the recycling programs being conducted at the facility; and

• The merger of the multi-parcel site into one parcel occurred prior to the proposed Project’s CEQA approval, and has been removed from the Project Description.



The major components of the proposed Project are listed below:

• Amend the Kern County General Plan (GPA 2, Map 138) to: o Change designation from Map Code 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum – min.

5-acre parcel size) to Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer) for 61.7 acres for landfill buffer property (see Figure 1-2);

o Amend the Circulation Element to eliminate road reservations for the east/west and north/south midsection lines, and the easterly section line of Section 25 Township 31 South, Range 23 East, Zone Map 138 (see Figure 1-3); and

o Amend Appendix “E” Map, “Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill”, to show the revised Taft RSLF permitted facility boundary with the added buffer property areas (see Figure 1-4);

• Modify Conditional Use Permit (CUP 1, Map 138) to: o Limit the permitted facility boundary to 161.68 acres to include the

landfill and landfill buffer properties (Map Code 3.4.1) (see Figure 1-5 and 1-6);

o Include uses ancillary to landfill operations; o Include the installation of a landfill liner, totaling 37 acres, within the

permitted unlined area (see Figure 1-6); o Limit the final height of the permitted disposal area to 868 feet2 above

mean sea level (MSL); o Limit the permitted maximum depth of the permitted disposal area to

520 feet MSL (125 feet below ground surface); o Limit the total designed air space, including final closure cover, to

11,000,000 cubic yards within the permitted disposal area; o Limit the permitted daily tonnage to 800 tons per day3; and o Limit the permitted daily traffic to 350 vehicles4 per day;

• Revise the existing Solid Waste Facility Permit (No. 15-AA-0061) to: o Increase the permitted facility boundary from 100 acres to 161.68

acres to include the landfill buffer area – an increase of 61.7 acres;

2 The final elevation includes the final closure cover, as indicated on Figure 3-8, Conceptual Final

Closure Plan. 3 The disposal rate estimate is based on analysis by the Waste Management Department. The

Department used the linear regression increment from 1995-2008 to project waste disposal growth from 2011 and beyond. Note that the maximum average daily disposal rate for the life of proposed Project would be 282 tons per day. The Project’s proposed maximum daily tonnage of 800 tons per day is a peak daily tonnage that accounts for days of large quantity disposal such as from demolition projects.

4 See analysis in Chapter 4.11-6 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR) for an explanation of increase in tonnage versus increase in traffic.



o Increase the waste footprint from 35 acres to 71 acres, with the installation of landfill liner within the permitted unlined area – an increase of 36 acres5;

o Increase the permitted elevation of the landfill from 775 feet MSL to 868 feet MSL – an increase of 93 feet;

o Increase the permitted depth of excavation from 625 feet MSL to 520 feet MSL (125 feet below ground surface) – an increase in depth of 105 feet;

o Increase the total designed air space, including final closure cover, from 8,787,547 cubic yards to 11,000,000 cubic yards – an increase of 2,212,453 cubic yards;

o Extend the permitted lifespan from 2052 to 20746 – an increase of 22 years;

o Increase the permitted daily tonnage from 419 tons per day to 800 tons per day7 – an increase of 381 tons per day; and

o Increase the permitted daily traffic from 338 vehicles per day to 350 vehicles per day – an increase of 12 vehicles per day.

• Revise the Preliminary Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan; prepare a Final Closure/Post Closure Maintenance Plan at the appropriate time, and conduct final closure construction as required by Title 27 CCR over the disposal area at the end of site life;

• Revise and update the Joint Technical Document describing the facilities design and operation; and

• Issue revised Waste Discharge Requirements by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Since the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, there has been another change to the Project Description. It should be noted that the project description of the 2010 DEIR included an amendment to the Unincorporated Kern County Non-disposal Facility Element (NDFE) of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan (Kern County Waste Management Department, 1994) to provide for

5 One acre of waste from 35-acre existing refuse limit (see Section 3.2.3 for a discussion of this area)

that extends north will be excavated and relocated within the existing refuse area. The excavated area will be lined as a part of the proposed 37-acre landfill liner; for a net increase of 36 acres.

6 The capacity study in Appendix F of the February 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this recirculated DEIR) includes a refinement of design. Early assumptions used to estimate technical study calculations are a conservative estimation, as they overestimate the capacity and closure year.

7 The disposal rate estimate is based on analysis by the Waste Management Department. The Department used the linear regression increment from 1995-2008 to project waste disposal growth from 2011 and beyond. Note that the maximum average daily disposal rate for the life of proposed Project would be 282 tons per day. The Project’s proposed maximum daily tonnage of 800 tons per day is a peak daily tonnage that accounts for days of large quantity disposal such as from demolition projects.



the inclusion of the recycling programs being conducted at the facility. This component of the 2010 project description has been removed. Amendment of the NDFE is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 41735(a), but does require review and approval of the Board of Supervisors. On June 29, 2010, the Kern County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing concerning this amendment and adopted a Resolution to revise the information in the NDFE for the Taft RSLF. Subsequently, CalRecycle approved the request to amend the NDFE. Therefore, the amendment to the NDFE to include the Taft RSLF has been removed from the project Description for this Recirculated DEIR. Once certified, the Recirculated Draft EIR would be used to satisfy CEQA requirements for the following discretionary and ministerial approvals:

• Amendment to the Kern County General Plan: Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Element;

• Amendment to the Kern County General Plan: Circulation Element;

• Amendment to the Kern County General Plan: Appendix “E” Map “Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill;”

• Modification to CUP 1, Map 138;

• Revision to SWFP 15-AA-0061;

• Issuance Waste Discharge Requirements; and

• Revision and update to the Joint Technical Document. The Kern County Waste Management Department calculates that under the current (2000) final fill design plan, the permitted disposal area will reach permitted capacity in 2064. Without construction of the landfill liner system, the current 35-acre refuse limit is expected to reach capacity in 2013. The Kern County Waste Management Department determined these dates by performing projection studies which have been documented in the Taft Sanitary Landfill Capacity Study, 2009 (Kern County Waste Management Department, 2009). This document can be referenced at the Kern County Waste Management Department offices. The volumetric basis for the assessment of future disposal capacity and site life assumes that each ton of waste disposed of results in 1.70 cubic yards of volume used. This fill rate factor has been derived from Global Positioning System (GPS) surveys and tonnage records of the landfill. Further refinements in the fill rate are expected over time. With approval of this project, the closure date for the facility is expected to be in 2074. The closure date is an estimate subject to annual review based upon such factors as fill rate, waste settlement, and regional growth rates.









]







1.3 Purpose and Use of the Recirculated Draft EIR This Recirculated Draft EIR was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. This report also identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed Project that may reduce or eliminate impacts. The Kern County Waste Management Department has prepared this document in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.), which requires state and local agencies to consider and disclose the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. The Kern County Planning and Community Development Department is the Lead Agency under CEQA because the Project would require an amendment to the 2004 Kern County General Plan (Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, 2004). Consistent with CEQA requirements, the purpose of this document is to:

• identify potential direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the Project;

• identify potential contributions of the Project to cumulative regional impacts in the Project area;

• evaluate the potential for growth inducement as a result of the Project;

• describe mitigation measures that would avoid significant Project impacts or reduce them to a less-than-significant level; and

• discuss potential Project alternatives that would avoid, or reduce, one or more of the identified significant Project impacts.

The 2010 DEIR evaluates the potential impacts of the Project in relation to the following categories:

• Aesthetics • Air Quality • Global Climate Change • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils

• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Traffic and Transportation

This document is intended to supply the information necessary to support the application for the land use, solid waste facility and waste discharge permits that will be required to implement the Project once the environmental review process is completed (see Appendix D of the 2010 DEIR – included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR).



1.4 Project Overview 1.4.1 Local and Regional Setting The proposed Project is in the southern San Joaquin Valley in Kern County, California. Kern County is California’s third largest county in land area encompassing 8,202 square miles. The geography of the county is diverse, containing mountainous areas, agricultural lands, and desert areas. The dominant land uses within the county are related to agriculture and resource extraction, although over the last few decades urban development has occurred in and around the county’s 11 incorporated cities. Bakersfield is the county’s largest city, with an estimated 2008 population of 321,078 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).

The current permitted facility boundary of the Taft RSLF is designated Map Code 3.4 and Zoned A (Exclusive Agriculture). The proposed buffer areas are currently designated 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum – Min. 5-Acre Size) and Zoned A (Exclusive Agriculture). Figures 1-2 and 1-7 show the existing general plan designations and Zone districts for the area surrounding the project site.

The Taft RSLF is a Class III sanitary landfill currently encompassing 99.98 gross acres of landfill and 61.7 gross acres of buffer area, located in the unincorporated area of southwestern Kern County, approximately three miles north of the City of Taft at 13351 Elk Hills Road, Taft, CA 93268 in Section 25 of Township 31 South, Range 23 East, MDB&M. Primary access to the site is via Elk Hills Road, one mile north of Highway 119, on a paved, private access road (see Figure 1-1). Access to the site is via means of a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Right of Way, from Elk Hills Road to the easterly property boundary. This allows for ingress and egress rights from the landfill across the U.S. government property to Elk Hills Road. The project area consists of three separate parcels of land; APN 298-050-13, 298-050-29, and 298-050-23, totaling 161.68 acres (See Figure 1-8).

The Taft RSLF is surrounded by the Buena Vista Oil Field, remote from urban development. The site is outside the planning sphere of influence of the City of Taft. The visual setting of the region is oilfields.

The landfill is adjacent to a strip of federal government land that lies on the west side of Elk Hills Road, a two-lane paved road within a 60-foot right-of-way, which is classified as an arterial with an ultimate 110-foot right-of-way. Survey section and mid-section lines border the landfill’s other three sides and coincide with future road reservations of 90- to 110-foot wide ultimate right-of-ways.

The existing landfill is not within a 100-year floodplain and the surrounding area is not subject to flooding. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the site is designated as Flood Hazard “D”. The “D” zone is an area with possible but undetermined flood hazards (see Figure 1-9). The Project site generally slopes toward the northeast and contains a series of gentle drainages that carry run-off when significant precipitation occurs. Depth to groundwater is about 400 to 500 feet (see Figure 1-10). There are no natural or designated wetlands within one mile of the site.









[This Space Intentionally Left Blank]








1.4.2 Surrounding Land Uses Oilfield and natural resource recovery are the dominant land uses surrounding the site (see Figure 1-11 and Table 1-1). As noted, the site is surrounded by the Buena Vista Oil Field, and in close proximity to several oil wells along the northern boundary of the landfill. Other land uses within a one-mile radius include seasonal grazing and mineral resources mining. Future land use in the area is projected to remain similar to existing land use. The landfill is considered compatible with the existing adjacent natural resource recovery/development and vice-versa. Adjacent parcels are owned by oil production or mining companies, or are federal government lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management for petroleum product development (see Figure 1-8).

Table 1-1

Surrounding Land Uses

Direction From Project

Site

Existing Land Use

Existing General Plan Designation

Existing Zone Classification

North Oil fields Mineral and Petroleum A (Exclusive Agriculture)

East Surface Mine Mineral and Petroleum A-1 (Limited Agriculture) &

NR (10) (Natural Resource-10 acres)

West Oil Fields Mineral and Petroleum A (Exclusive Agriculture)

South Oil fields Mineral and Petroleum A (Exclusive Agriculture)

The nearest sensitive receptors are 21 residential dwellings northeast of the project site, the nearest of which is approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the landfill, located on Valley West Road (see Figure 1-11).











1.4.3 Project Objectives The specific objectives developed for the proposed Project are as follows:

• Continue to meet AB 939 requirements for a countywide minimum of 15 years of combined permitted disposal capacity, through existing or planned solid waste disposal, as described by the Siting Element of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan;

• Comply with the goals and policies of the Kern County General Plan;

• Increase buffer areas around the Taft RSLF as encouraged by the policies and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan;

• Maintain and expand disposal and recycling opportunities for local communities;

• Allow the inclusion of uses ancillary to landfill operations;

• Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through recycling opportunities, waste diversion, and the implementation of State recommended landfill gas Best Management Practices;

• Utilize existing disposal facilities to minimize land use conflicts and impacts to the environment;

• Provide up to 2,212,453 cubic yards of additional waste disposal capacity at the Taft RSLF;

• Provide a cost-effective solid waste disposal service to the residents of the County while providing quality service and complying with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations;

• Minimize haul distances for waste collection vehicles to reduce traffic, air quality, and climate change impacts and costs to the residents; and

• Provide additional emergency disposal capacity for disaster preparedness. 1.4.4 Proposed Discretionary Actions and Required Approvals This Recirculated Draft EIR, once certified, will be used to satisfy the CEQA requirements for the following discretionary and ministerial approvals: Kern County:

• Consider and Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report with appropriate findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program, by the Kern County Board of Supervisors;

• Amend the Kern County General Plan Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element from Map Code 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum) to Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer) for approximately 61.7 acres for landfill buffer (see Figure 1-2);



• Amend the Kern County General Plan Circulation Element to eliminate road reservations for the east/west and north/south midsection lines, and the easterly section line of Section 25 Township 31 South, Range 23 East, zone map 138 (see Figure 1-3);

• Amend the Kern County General Plan Appendix “E” Map to show the revised Taft RSLF permitted facility boundary with the buffer areas (see Figure 1-4); and

• Modify the existing Conditional Use Permit for the Taft RSLF to: identify permitted facility boundary, include the addition of land uses ancillary to landfill operations, allow for the installation of a landfill liner within the permitted unlined area, limit the vertical expansion of the permitted disposal area, limit the increase of permitted maximum depth, limit the increase the permitted disposal capacity, and limit the increase in the permitted daily tonnage and vehicles per day.

California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle) and/or Designated Local Enforcement Agency

• Revise the existing Solid Waste Facility Permit to increase the permitted facility acreage to 161.68 acres, increase the permitted elevation of the landfill to 868 feet MSL, install a liner over the permitted unlined area, increase the permitted depth of excavation to 520 feet MSL (125 feet below ground surface), increase the total designed air space, including final closure cover, to 11,000,000 cubic yards, extend the permitted lifespan of the landfill by approximately 22 years, to reach capacity in 2074, increase the permitted daily tonnage to 800 tons per day8, and increase the permitted daily traffic to 350 vehicles per day; and

• Approval of the Joint Technical Document describing the facilities design and operation to reflect the proposed Project.

California Department of Fish and Game

• Issue 1602 Streambed Alteration approval (if required). Note that during the circulation of the 2010 DEIR, the California Department of Fish and Game informed the Kern County Waste Management Department that the Taft RSLF Project is not subject to the notification of lake or streambed alteration requirement in Fish and Game Code Section 1602.

8 The disposal rate estimate is based on analysis by the Waste Management Department. The




Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Valley Region • Issue Waste Discharge Requirements.

United States Army Corps of Engineers

• Issue Section 404 Permit (if required). 1.5 Environmental Impacts Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible new significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR (CEQA, 2007). The County has engaged the public, and sought community participation in the scoping process for the environmental document. Comments received during scoping have been considered in the process of identifying issue areas that should receive attention in the EIR. The contents of this Draft EIR were established based on the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, as well as public and agency input received during the scoping process. 1.5.1 Impacts not Further Considered Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various, possible effects of a project were determined not to be significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR (CEQA, 2007). The Kern County Waste Management Department engaged the public to participate in the scoping of the environmental document. Comments received during the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) (Appendix A of the 2010 DEIR – included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR) prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, as well as public and agency input that were received during the scoping process have been considered in the determination of issue areas that should be analyzed in the 2010 DEIR. The specific issues that were found to have no impact during preparation of the IS/NOP do not require further analysis in the 2010 DEIR. Based on the findings of the IS/NOP and the results of the public scoping and comment process, these environmental issue areas identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines were not carried forward for analysis in the 2010 DEIR (agriculture resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems). 1.5.2 Impacts of the Proposed Project Chapters 4.1 through 4.11 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR) provide a detailed discussion of the environmental setting, impacts associated with the proposed Project, as well as mitigation measures/Project design features to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, where feasible. The impacts, mitigation measures/Project design features, and residual impacts for the proposed



Project are summarized in Table 1-3 at the end of this Executive Summary, and are discussed further below. Less Than Significant Impacts without Implementation of Mitigation Measures The proposed Project will potentially cause adverse impacts, but will not require the implementation of mitigation measures because the impact levels would be less-than significant for the following environmental considerations:

• Aesthetics • Global Climate Change

• Geology and Soils

• Land Use and Planning

• Transportation and Traffic

Less Than Significant Impacts with Implementation of Mitigation Measures The proposed Project will potentially cause less than significant levels of adverse impacts on the following environmental consideration with the implementation of mitigation measures:

• Biological Resources

• Cultural Resources

• Hazards and Hazardous Material

• Hydrology and Water Quality

• Mineral Resources

Significant Impacts The proposed Project will have a significant and unavoidable impact to air quality in the years 2011 and 20469. Construction at the Taft RSLF will result in temporary emissions that will occur during the landfill liner construction, and the landfill closure construction phases of the Project. Mitigated construction emissions will exceed Kern County thresholds for NOX during the construction of the Module 2 landfill liner, in the year 2011, and for PM10 during the construction of the Module 4 landfill liner, in the year 2046. Furthermore, in year 2011, landfill operations and Module 2 liner construction occur simultaneously, causing emissions to not only exceed the significance level for NOx, but for PM10 as well. While these exceedances occur only in the years 2011 and 2046, and all other years remain below a level of significance, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Significant Cumulative Impacts According to section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, the term cumulative impacts “…refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA, 2005b). Individual effects that may contribute to a cumulative impact may be from a

9 These dates will be delayed by one to two years based upon the need to recirculate and re-approve

the Draft EIR.



single project or a number of separate projects. Individually, the impacts of a project may be relatively minor, but when considered along with impacts of other closely related or nearby projects, including newly proposed projects, the effects could be cumulatively considerable. The cumulative impact analysis contained in the 2010 DEIR discusses the impacts that the Project would have both locally and regionally. Based on a record search performed by Kern County, no other reasonably foreseeable landfill projects are proposed in Kern County outside of those proposed by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The Kern County Waste Management Department’s projects include the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, Mojave-Rosamond SLF, and Ridgecrest RSLF re-permit projects, and the closure of the Arvin SLF, Bakersfield Metropolitan SLF (Bena) Phase I, Buttonwillow SLF, China Grade SLF, and Lost Hill SLF. Additionally, there are many other non-landfill (i.e., residential and commercial) projects that are reasonably foreseeable. The combined impact of this Project and the reasonably foreseeable, non-landfill projects in the area was analyzed for each issue area described in Chapter 4.0 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), Impacts of the proposed Project, with the exception of air quality. The geographic scope of the cumulative air quality impact analysis is the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), where air quality conditions are regulated by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The cumulative air quality impact analysis for the Project considers all landfills located in counties within the SJVAB. The emissions would be cumulatively significant if, with mitigation, there remains any increase in a pollutant for which the SJVAB is classified as a nonattainment area. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is currently in serious nonattainment for the eight-hour federal standard for ozone, and nonattainment for the federal standard for PM2.5. Impacts for the following have been found to be cumulatively considerable: Air Quality The geographic scope of the cumulative air quality analysis is the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), where air quality conditions are regulated by SJVAPCD. The SJVAB is in serious nonattainment for the eight-hour federal standard for ozone, and nonattainment for the federal standard for PM2.5. Air quality emissions from landfills located within the SJVAB are cumulatively significant before emissions from the proposed Project are considered. Therefore, any increase in a pollutant for which the SJVAB is classified as a nonattainment area is considered cumulatively significant. As such, the overall Project’s prolonged air quality impacts beyond the current permitted life of the landfill will continue to contribute to the SJVAB’s cumulative air quality until the landfill closes. The SJVAB’s cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.



Growth Inducing Impacts In accordance with section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must “discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” In addition, when discussing growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project, “it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment” (section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines) (CEQA, 2007). Two issues must be considered when assessing the growth-inducing impacts of a project:

• Elimination of Obstacles to Population Growth: The extent to which additional infrastructure capacity or a change in regulatory structure will allow additional development in the County and region.

• Promotion of Economic Growth: The extent to which the proposed Project can cause increased activity in the local or regional economy. Economic impacts can include direct effects, such as the direction and strategies implemented within the Project area and indirect or secondary impacts, such as increased commercial activity needed to serve the Kern Council of Government’s population growth forecasts for the Project area.

The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to population growth is considered to be a growth-inducing impact. A physical obstacle to population growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services is expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change in a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, can result in new population growth. With Project approval, the on-going operation activity associated with the landfill would not be expected to generate construction employment. Over the life of the Project, employment opportunities would be extended from ongoing operations at the landfill. This extension of employment would represent only a minor increase in employment within the County and it would have little effect on population growth. The minor increase in regional employment associated with the Project would not result in an increase in the demand for additional housing in the region. Public infrastructure is not being extended to accommodate the proposed Project. Electricity, water and telephone service are already provided to the Project site. No new roadways would be extended or developed into undeveloped areas. Further development and unplanned growth will not be facilitated as a result of implementation of the proposed Project, or its alternatives. The proposed Project is not considered growth-inducing in and of itself due to the nature of the proposal. The objectives of the proposed Project are in response to growth, to provide additional capacity for disposal of waste in a manner and location which protects public health and safety through compliance with applicable federal,



state, and local laws and regulations. The Project objectives would be attained through an amendment of the land use permit, an increase in the waste disposal boundary and the vertical height of the landfill, resulting in an additional 22 years of landfill lifespan. The proposed solid waste facilities permit revision and land use permit amendment would not induce growth in the local area. Landfills do not generally provide a catalyst for additional development and new development tends to be restricted from near landfills. Also, the site is located within an already developed area with existing services. It is reasonable to assume that an alternative waste disposal option would be identified by the Kern County Waste Management Department to accommodate the increased waste disposal demand if the proposed Project was not approved. The Kern County Integrated Waste Management Plan (KCIWMP) has been prepared in conformance with California Code of Regulations section 18755(d) including a description of the mandated countywide minimum 15 years of combined permitted disposal capacity through existing or planned solid waste disposal (Kern County Waste Management Department, 1996). This plan identifies the Taft RSLF as an integral part of meeting the mandated 15 years of waste disposal capacity. However, the plan also identifies the Bena Sanitary Landfill has having more than 60 years capacity should CalRecycle grant additional permits to develop the remainder of that site. Because it is reasonable to assume that the Kern County Waste Management Department could identify an alternative waste disposal option if the proposed Project was not approved, approval of the proposed Project would not represent the removal of a development constraint. Because adequate waste disposal capacity would be available in the future, either with or without Project approval, the proposed Project would not be considered growth inducing or accommodating. Irreversible Impacts Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed Project. Specifically, section 15126.2(c) states:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the Project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified (CEQA, 2007).

Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:

• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses.



• The Project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources.

• The Project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the Project.

• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the Project involves the wasteful use of energy).

Approval and implementation of actions related to the proposed Project would result in an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources, such as energy supplies. The energy resource demands would be used for the operation during the extended lifespan of the landfill. This may be offset by future landfill gas to energy projects. Nonrenewable resources would be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels, and would include diesel fuel, oil, and gasoline used by equipment associated with the operations of the landfill. Without implementation of the proposed Project, these resources would still be expended to handle the waste disposal, whether at this site or another permitted facility. An irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources would occur as a result of the revision of the SWFP and the expansion of the Taft RSLF. However, provided that these commitments occur in accordance with the adopted goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan, as a matter of public policy, those commitments have been determined to be acceptable. An increase in population in Kern County, and specifically the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, has resulted in an increase of waste disposal for existing landfills. The Taft RSLF expansion would allow for additional capacity that would not have to be constructed elsewhere to manage the increased disposal, thus reducing environmental effects. Energy Resources Impacts Transportation Fuel Use The proposed Project would expand the disposal capacity at the Taft RSLF, allowing it to continue to serve the existing and projected demand for waste disposal in Kern County, and specifically the West Region of the waste management system. By allowing for expanded capacity and extending the lifespan of the existing Taft RSLF, the proposed Project would not change the production of solid waste, the demand for waste disposal services, the efforts for expanding material recovery and recycling in Kern County, or the demand for energy resources. However, the continued operation of the facility would result in the continued use of energy resources to operate the facility over the life of the project. The Kern County Waste Management Department is not currently planning to implement any energy recovery strategies at this time because of environmental, regulatory, and technological factors that make these options infeasible10. However, 10 These issues are addressed in more detail in Chapter 6 – Alternatives.



these strategies may be proposed in the future if these factors change. The proposed Project would not create incentives or disincentives for existing and future diversion, recycling, composting, and energy recovery programs. However, an expanded Taft RSLF would play an important role in maintaining centralized, economically feasible programs for these services within the integrated waste management system. The energy required to dispose of solid waste or divert waste would be approximately the same with or without the implementation of the proposed Project. Energy used under baseline conditions today for solid waste disposal services or diversion would continue to be used. The disposal rate estimate is based on analysis using a liner regression increment from 1995 to 2008 to project waste disposal growth from 2011 and beyond. Note that the maximum average daily disposal rate for the life of the proposed Project is 282 tpd. The Project’s proposed maximum daily tonnage of 800 tpd is a peak tonnage that accounts for days of large quantity disposal such as from demolition projects. However, at the Project’s maximum proposed daily tonnage (800 tpd), the operational equipment, disposal and employee vehicles are projected to consume 118,120 gallons of fuel, or 16,360 MMbtu, per year for operation. Construction activities for the new landfill liner and site final closure would rely on widely-available existing energy resources (namely transportation fuels). The use of the equipment that would be used for construction of the landfill liner and closure construction, and it’s associated energy resources, would be needed to efficiently complete construction. The construction of additional areas of landfill liner would be required in order to expand the disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF. The energy requirements for the phases of construction for Modules 2, 3, and 4, as well as final closure, result in 609,760 gallons of fuel, or 84,570 MMbtu. The proposed Project would not change how transportation fuels or other energy resources are used or recovered for solid waste disposal or diversion. However, by extending the life of the Taft RSLF, the proposed Project would reduce the use of transportation fuel in the future. The Waste Management Department estimates that the proposed Project would save up to 4,423,371 gallons of fuel by preventing the need to transport waste to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, the nearest alternative Waste Management Department facility. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed Project would not cause inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy and it may reduce the demand for transportation energy resources if compared to a future scenario with closure of the Taft RSLF. Electricity Consumption The proposed Project would not change the demand for electricity consumed at the site. However, the continued operation of the facility would result in the continued use of energy resources for electricity of the life of the project. Electricity consumption at the gatehouse is not expected to increase and is expected to remain at the baseline level of 9,714 kilowatt-hours (kWh), or 33 MMBtu, annually.



Transportation Fuel Use with No Project The proposed Project would increase the disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF, allowing it to postpone closure. It would otherwise be expected to reach capacity in 2013. The Kern County Waste Management Department expects disposal demand in the West Region of the County waste management system to grow slightly by 2020, and disposal demand in the region of the Taft RSLF would not be more than 5 to 10 percent of the County total demand (HF&H Consultants, 2009). By extending the useful life of the Taft RSLF, the proposed Project would provide a local destination for disposal in the western portion of the county. This would save transportation fuel use that would otherwise be required to export waste from the West Region to a landfill farther from southwest Kern County. The nearest permitted facility to which waste could be sent after the Taft RSLF reaches capacity is the Shafter-Wasco RSLF.

Table 1-2 calculates the energy requirements to transfer waste from the Taft RSLF to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF and incorporates the following assumptions:

• The amount of fuel required for equipment at the disposal site would be the same at either the Taft RSLF or the Shafter-Wasco RSLF because similar equipment would be used at either location.

• Round trip travel distance between the Taft RSLF to Shafter-Wasco RSLF is 50 miles and transfer vehicles have an average fuel economy of 7 miles per gallon. Each transfer vehicle can carry 20 tons of waste.

• Maximum average daily disposal rate for life of proposed Project would be 282 tons per day11, 360 days per year. The total lifespan of the Taft RSLF with the proposed Project would be extended to 2074 at the forecasted disposal demand rate.

Table 1-2 Fuel Requirements for Transfer of Waste to

Alternate Landfill from Taft RSLF Proposed Project No Project Taft RSLF Operational Until 2074 2013 Years Remaining 63 2 Years of Waste Transfer Required 0 61 Transfer Fuel Use per Year (gallons at 282 tons per day) 0 72,514 Annual Energy Use per Year (MMBtu at 282 tons per day)1 0 10,058 Total Transfer Fuel Use Over Life of Project (gallons) 0 4,423,371 Total Annual Energy Over Life of Project (MMBtu)1 613,522 1: MMBtu is millions of British thermal units (Btu). There are 138,700 Btu per gallon of diesel fuel and 124,240 per gallon of gasoline. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that transfer vehicles use diesel fuel. Conversion factors for gallons of fuel to Btu from ARB GHG Mandatory Reporting Regulation, December 2008.





As displayed in Table 1-2, at the maximum average disposal rate (282 tpd), there could be a substantial increase in transportation energy use in the absence of the proposed Project. This increase would be even greater at the proposed maximum permitted tonnage (800 tpd). The Taft RSLF is expected to reach capacity in 2013. If the facility is not expanded, the Taft RSLF would close in the near future, and waste would have to be transported to another permitted facility. The nearest permitted facility is the Shafter-Wasco RSLF. Kern County Waste Management estimates that transporting waste to this facility could require 72,514 gallons of diesel fuel per year at project rates of disposal demand (282 tons per day). Over 61 years this could represent over four million gallons of fuel. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed Project would have a beneficial impact on transportation energy use when compared to a future scenario in which the Taft RSLF reaches capacity in 2013 and is closed. Expanding disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF would not affect the day-to-day operations of on-site equipment. The day-to-day level of on-site equipment use fluctuates with varying demand for disposal services, and the level of demand would not be affected by the proposed Project (although it may change in response to independent forces, such as increased population growth in the West Region of the Kern County waste management system). The rate and nature of fuel use for on-site equipment would not be substantially affected by the proposed Project except for during the construction phases. While construction activities at the site would require approximately 609,760 gallons of fuel, or 84,570 MMBtu of energy, the total amount would be much smaller than the amount of fuel that would be required to transport waste to a more distant facility. By extending the life of the Taft RSLF, the proposed Project would not notably change the transportation energy currently used for bringing waste to the facility. The proposed Project would allow Taft RSLF to continue to respond to the demand for disposal services, which would have the effect of maintaining vehicle travel distances as they are under baseline conditions. In general, fuel use for on-site equipment and waste transportation may be reduced as a result of expanded availability of alternative fuels and technologies. Gasoline and diesel are the primary fuels in use at Taft RSLF due to the lack of infrastructure for alternative fuels. At the current time, the use of alternative fuels or electric vehicles is not feasible for on-site equipment. The Waste Management Department does not have the ability to dictate the types of vehicles used by the franchise garbage haulers and individual customers who deliver waste to the facility. In addition, the nearest compressed natural gas fuel station is 50 miles away from the Taft RSLF, located in Bakersfield. The implementation of the proposed Project would not cause inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation fuel. The proposed Project would not substantially affect on-site fuel use for waste disposal and diversion, and it would not adversely affect how transportation fuels are used. The expansion of the Taft RSLF



may reduce transportation fuel use if compared to a future scenario with closure of the Taft RSLF and subsequent transportation of waste to a more distant facility. 1.6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project CEQA states that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which are ostensibly feasible and could attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Please refer to Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” for a more detailed analysis and discussion. 1.6.1 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for the selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are ostensibly feasible and therefore merit in-depth consideration, and which are infeasible. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126[f][2]) [CEQA, 2007]. Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the Project’s objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid or substantially reduce any significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[c]) [CEQA, 2007]. In an attempt to alleviate impacts associated with the proposed Project, several alternatives were considered. The following alternatives were initially considered, but failed to meet the Project’s objectives or were deemed infeasible, thereby eliminating them from further consideration in this EIR. Vertical Expansion to a Lesser Elevation A common alternative considered in environmental documents is a smaller project. The Kern County Waste Management Department considered a vertical expansion of the Taft RSLF to lesser elevations, but determined that the 93-foot elevation increase would have greater positive benefits. The greater elevation would increase the lifespan of the Taft RSLF by 22 years and ultimately delay the closure of the facility, as well as the compounding impacts and costs of designing and constructing a new transfer station. A greater elevation also increases the capacity of waste that can be accepted at the facility. This, in turn, 1) has the potential to increase the amount of landfill gas to a volume that may be used for a landfill gas to energy project, and 2) extends the lifespan of the facility which reduces or delays the need to transfer large amounts of waste a greater distance to another permitted disposal facility. Overall, a vertical expansion of the proposed 93 feet, rather than a lesser amount, is a more efficient use of the taxpayers’ resources and best fulfills the objectives of the Proposed Project, to provide additional capacity at the Taft RSLF for disposal of waste in a manner and location which protects public health and safety through compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.



Development of New Disposal Facilities in Kern County Siting new waste disposal facilities is costly and time consuming, and cannot occur without environmental impacts. Furthermore, unless a suitable previously disturbed site could be found, development of a disposal facility at any alternative site could disturb approximately 100 to 300 acres of biological habitat. These totals do not include biological habitat disturbance necessary for ancillary facilities or access roads. Visual resources, air quality, and traffic impacts would also be expected for an alternative site.

This alternative would not succeed in keeping down costs for the citizens of Kern County as the landfill would not be using an existing facility within the existing infrastructure to its maximum potential. A new landfill would be costly to build, as it would need to implement all current regulatory requirements of landfill liners, leachate control facilities, groundwater monitoring, and public access to the new site, etc. The mission of the Kern County Waste Management Department is to serve the citizens and garner their trust and support, which would include spending tax payers’ dollars in the most efficient way and keeping costs down while protecting the health and safety of the public. Siting and constructing a new facility would take many years, as a new facility would need to be sited per the siting criteria of the Kern County General Plan as well as the Integrated Waste Management Plan. This would require a General Plan Amendment and a new conditional use permit, both of which are discretionary actions that may be denied by the Board of Supervisors if controversy and incompatibility cannot be mitigated. There is no guarantee that a new landfill could be sited nearby the existing facility to serve this area. All wastes would then be trucked or driven by the public to another existing landfill, most likely the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, approximately 50 miles – one way. The increased transportation costs, increase mobile air pollution and increased traffic on State and local roads would all create new impacts. This transport distance would result in increased air quality, energy resource and traffic impacts from the increased mileage of vehicle travel. Additionally, greater greenhouse gas emissions from additional mobile emissions would be emitted into the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas emitted from the generation of landfill gas would occur wherever the waste is disposed. The air quality, energy resource, greenhouse gas and traffic impacts associated with the additional vehicle miles traveled due to this alternative would be eliminated by continuing to accept waste at the Taft RSLF. Development of a new disposal facility would result in similar or greater environmental impacts and would not meet the main proposed Project objective, to provide additional capacity at the Taft RSLF for disposal of waste in a manner and location which protects public health and safety through compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The County concluded, in its 2005 Solid Waste Infrastructure Plan, that it is in the best interest of the County to further reduce and contain the long-term liability and risk of waste disposal by proposing to site no new sanitary landfills, but rather expand existing disposal facilities only.



Landfill Gas Recovery This alternative would involve collecting and burning landfill gas in order to reduce methane emissions and produce energy. Under anaerobic conditions, stored solid waste generates methane that can be recovered for combustion and energy production. The amount of methane gas that is generated depends on the composition of waste, environmental conditions such as temperature and moisture, and the amount of time since waste disposal (Young and Davies, 1992). Landfill gas can be extracted using a series of wells and a blower/flare (or vacuum) system. Once collected, gas is directed to a central point where it can be processed and treated to generate electricity or replace fossil fuels (US EPA, 2011a). Public comments on the 2010 DEIR describe landfill gas recovery at several landfills in the Los Angeles area (e.g., the Puente Hills Landfill, the Palos Verdes Landfill and the Spadra Gas-to-Energy Facility in Pomona). These landfills have much larger quantities of waste in place and/or receive greater quantities of waste daily. For example, the Puente Hills Landfill receives over 10,000 tons of waste per day (Merrill, 2008), while the Taft RSLF currently receives only 103 tons of waste per day. Supplemental firing with a fossil fuel, like natural gas, is usually needed to create stable combustion at landfills; such as the Taft RSLF, where the gas generation rates are low and the methane is diluted during its collection. Recent studies indicate that a landfill gas recovery system is not feasible at the Taft RSLF because there is an insufficient amount of methane available (Kern County Waste Management Department, 2010b). Low methane generation at the Taft RSLF site is due to the quantity and composition of the waste in place, the nature of the cover soil, and the area’s arid climate (resulting in the low moisture content of the waste). The smallest commercial systems for landfill gas recovery use microturbines; these systems require at least 100 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) to operate. The estimated landfill gas production at the Taft RSLF is not expected to reach this level. Based on modeling by the Kern County Waste Management Department in 2010, landfill gas production at Taft RSLF would never be substantial enough to reach the energy threshold for methane control established by the California Air Resources Board in California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Article 4, Subarticle 6, Sections 95460 to 95476 (effective on June 17, 2010). The US EPA does not consider the Taft RSLF a candidate site for landfill gas recovery (US EPA, 2011a). In Kern County, only the largest public landfill, the Bena Landfill (Bakersfield Metropolitan), which receives approximately 1,400 tons of waste per day, has been able to produce quantities of methane that would be suitable for energy production (GC Environmental, 2005). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District has not yet issued permits to allow landfill gas recovery at that facility. Recovering landfill gas for power generation or alternative fuel production is technically feasible technology that has been used at dozens of large landfills across the state. However, studies conducted by the Waste Management Department have found that the gas generation rate for the Taft RSLF is insufficient to support productive energy



recovery (GC Environmental, 2005; Kern County Waste Management Department February 2010 Taft RSLF Draft EIR, Chapter 4.3 [Global Climate Change Impact Analysis]). The need to provide a supply of supplemental fuel would add costs and reduce the feasibility of recovering the methane for economical energy production. This alternative would provide an opportunity for reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased energy recovery from gas generated by the waste stored at the landfill. However, there would be some environmental disadvantages due to construction and installation of a landfill gas recovery system at the site. In addition, the products of landfill gas combustion and supplemental fuel firing would create some additional emissions. Since this alternative would not expand the disposal capacity, the Taft RSLF would likely be forced to stop accepting waste in 2013. The closure of the Taft RSLF in the near term could lead to increased haul distances in response to solid waste disposal demand in the West Region of the system.12 This alternative would meet project objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by controlling methane that would otherwise be emitted by decomposing solid waste at the Taft RSLF. However, it would fail to meet most of the basic project objectives for ensuring sufficient permitted disposal capacity in the County. The use of landfill gas recovery would neither expand the disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF or any other landfill in the Kern County waste management system, nor would it provide an alternate means of expanding the combined permitted disposal capacity of the County. This alternative would not minimize haul distances for waste collection in the West Region of the system because Taft RSLF would be likely to close in the near term due to permit constraints, and the nearest public disposal facility is the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, which is over 50 miles away. This alternative would fail to achieve most basic project objectives. However, as it does today, the Waste Management Department will continue to periodically assess the viability of implementing this alternative at all of its landfills. Incineration This alternative would utilize waste incineration facilities to reduce waste volume and recover energy. Incineration uses high temperatures to convert waste into ash, flue gas, and heat. In addition to reducing waste volume, properly equipped incinerators can convert water into steam-to-fuel heating systems or generate electricity (US EPA, 2011b). Modern incinerators include scrubbers and filters that clean flue gas and reduce pollution emissions; however, incineration still produces some heavy metal and dioxin emissions and toxic fly ash that must be disposed of properly (North American Waste to Energy Conference [NAWTEC], 2010). Public comments on the 2010 DEIR note that the Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility in Modesto processes an average of 800 tons of municipal solid waste per day 12 The separate Energy Conservation Study includes additional details on the transportation fuel use

related to the Taft RSLF (Aspen Environmental Group, 2011).



and produces enough electricity to supply 18,000 homes with power. However, the Stanislaus facility is one of only three incineration facilities currently operating in the State of California (NAWTEC, 2010). It was permitted in 1989 at a cost of more than 100 million dollars, including 20 million dollars of pollution control equipment. Operating costs for the Stanislaus incineration facility are 11 million dollars per year (SRRF, 2011; Stanislaus County, 2010). There are major permitting constraints that make incineration of municipal solid waste infeasible. California’s Public Resources Code Section 44150(a) requires incineration facilities to have defined and guaranteed source of waste for disposal and requires these facilities to use front-end recycling to remove all recyclable materials prior to incineration. There are no exclusive contracts for waste delivery to the Taft RSLF; therefore, customers may take their waste to other facilities, and the facility does not have a guaranteed waste stream. Because there are no existing material recovery facilities for front-end recycling in the vicinity of the Taft RSLF, implementing incineration would involve siting, permitting, constructing and operating a new material recovery facility in addition to incineration facilities. In addition, incineration and material recovery facilities would still generate un-recyclable residues (including toxic fly ash) that would require additional end use disposal capacity. This alternative could potentially help meet project objectives related to ensuring sufficient permitted disposal capacity in the County by reducing the volume of waste disposed of at the Taft RSLF. However, there are permitting constraints that make the implementation of an incineration-based alternative infeasible. In addition, this alternative would not entirely eliminate the demand for disposal capacity since some waste would remain even after combustion. Incineration could reduce waste volume and facilitate the recovery of energy from municipal solid waste. However, incineration produces heavy metal and dioxin emissions and toxic fly ash. In addition, this alternative would require construction of incineration facilities and material recovery facilities for front-end recycling. These facilities would have additional impacts related to construction equipment, construction materials, and facility footprints. The implementation of an incineration alternative would not address disposal capacity goals as effectively as would implementation of the proposed expansion of the Taft RSLF; therefore, the Taft RSLF would have a shorter lifespan. After the Taft RSLF reaches capacity, closure of the facility could lead to increased haul distances in response to solid waste disposal demand in the West Region of the system.13 This alternative is infeasible because of permitting constraints and because of extensive cost-effectiveness and site-selection studies that would need to be completed prior to construction of new incineration and material recovery facilities. 13 The separate Energy Conservation Study includes additional details on the transportation fuel use

related to the Taft RSLF.



Conversion Technologies There are a variety of technologies for converting municipal solid waste into liquid fuel, natural gas, or other forms of energy using heat, pressure, bacteria, or chemical processes. These technologies have been the subject of long term study by the Waste Management Department, beginning with the adoption of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan in 1995. Additional studies in 2005 and 2009 determined that permitting constraints make conversion technologies infeasible in the near term. Conversion technologies include anaerobic digestion, thermal processing (gasification and pyrolysis), and hydrolysis. Anaerobic digestion facilities use microorganisms to convert organic waste materials to biogas and generate compostable digestate as a by-product (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2008). Gasification and pyrolysis facilities use chemical processes at high temperatures to convert organic materials into fuel or energy and inorganic materials into products such as aggregate and metals. Hydrolysis uses a chemical reaction to convert organic waste into sugars and then into highly concentrated fuel-grade ethanol (HF&H Consultants, 2009). Public comments on the 2010 DEIR note that there is a great deal of energy potential represented by organic waste that is landfilled at Taft RSLF and elsewhere in California. However, there are no commercial-scale anaerobic digester, thermal processing, or hydrolysis facilities currently operating in California (CalRecycle, 2010; HF&H Consultants, 2009). The California Department of Recycling and Resource Recovery (CalRecycle) issued a Draft Programmatic Statewide EIR in February 2011 assessing impacts of anaerobic digestion and post-processing the gas, liquid, and/or solid digestate and residuals (CalRecycle, 2011). Proposals for a municipal solid waste conversion facility are currently being evaluated by Santa Barbara County (County of Santa Barbara, 2010). Until the State completes the environmental review process and adopts specific regulations for permitting anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste, there is no defined process for permitting such facilities. High capital investment requirements, uncertainty in permitting, and existing regulatory constraints reduce the feasibility of conversion technologies for Kern County at the current time (HF&H Consultants, 2009). A 2006 study indicates that while anaerobic digestion of organic municipal solid waste has been implemented across Europe, operating anaerobic digesting facilities has been more costly than expected (European Commission, 2006). Implementation of conversion technologies would require the siting and construction of a front-end material recovery facility for separating organic and inorganic waste. Use of conversion technologies would also require an end use disposal facility for residual and bypass waste material. This alternative could potentially help meet project objectives related to ensuring sufficient permitted disposal capacity in the County by reducing the volume of organic waste. However, there are permitting and technological constraints that make the implementation of an anaerobic digestion-based alternative infeasible at this time. In



addition, this alternative would not eliminate the demand for disposal capacity since anaerobic digestion could only be used to convert organic waste into energy. Waste conversion including anaerobic digestion could reduce waste volume and facilitate the recovery of energy from municipal solid waste. However, this alternative would require construction of waste conversion facilities and material recovery facilities for separating organic and inorganic waste. These facilities would have additional impacts related to construction equipment, construction materials, and facility footprints. The implementation of an anaerobic digestion alternative would not meet disposal capacity objectives as effectively as increasing the disposal capacity of the existing Taft RSLF; therefore, the Taft RSLF would have a shorter lifespan. After the Taft RSLF reaches capacity, closure of the facility could lead to increased haul distances in response to solid waste disposal demand in the West Region of the system.14

This alternative is infeasible because of permitting and technological constraints and because of extensive cost-effectiveness and site-selection studies that would need to be completed prior to construction of new waste conversion and material recovery facilities. Expanded Recycling This alternative would expand various programs and/or facilities designed to increase recycling and material recovery in order to reduce or offset the loss of energy represented by municipal solid waste disposal. Public comments on the 2010 DEIR suggest that the Kern County Waste Management Department should adopt material recovery programs similar to those in the “mitigated alternative” project approved in 2009 for the Redwood Landfill in Marin County. The Redwood Landfill is a privately-owned landfill that receives most of its waste from outside Marin County. Unlike the publicly-owned Kern County system, as a privately owned landfill, the Redwood Landfill has no obligation to meet all State and local policies regarding recycling and disposal of municipal solid waste. State and local recycling policies include AB 939 (1989), which sets recycling targets and the Kern County Integrated Waste Management Plan (1995). In addition, the County of Kern has adopted zoning ordinances requiring that all new commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family developments provide space for recycling material collection and pickup. The State has also adopted new California Green Building Standards (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), which require recycling a minimum of 50 percent of all construction and demolition waste (California Building Standards Commission, 2010). These public policies ensure that the Kern County waste management system of facilities provides appropriate, feasible recycling and material recovery programs. The Waste Management Department’s 2009 Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Progress Report, prepared by HF&H Consultants (based on planning by the 14 The separate Energy Conservation Study includes additional details on the transportation fuel use

related to the Taft RSLF.



Department and regional working groups), is included as Appendix 3 of this Recirculated DEIR and recommends:

Establishing a Countywide goal of achieving 75 percent diversion by 2020; Adding one or more material recovery facilities to the County’s recycling

processing infrastructure; Providing residential curbside recycling within all existing universal service

areas; Offering single-stream and source-separated recycling to all businesses in the

County; Implementing pricing structures at County landfills that encourage recycling; Include expanded recycling areas at County landfills (similar to the

McFarland/Delano or Lebec Transfer Stations). The feasibility of implementing additional recycling programs in the County’s waste management system was thoroughly assessed in the 2009 Progress Report. That analysis concluded that utilizing the County’s existing recycling and diversion programs, and the implementation of specific new programs over time, would be the most efficient and cost effective means of meeting the County’s recycling goals. The County’s continued progress in implementing these programs ensures that the lifespan of the County’s landfills will be extended and maximized. This alternative would partially meet a project objective to expand recycling opportunities. However, it would not meet disposal capacity objectives as effectively as increasing the disposal capacity of the existing Taft RSLF.15 Recycling and material recovery are known and feasible technologies for reducing the demand for disposal capacity; however, this alternative would not entirely eliminate the demand for disposal capacity. This alternative would provide an opportunity for increased material recovery, which could avoid energy expended in manufacturing goods. This alternative could expand the effective disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF by diverting a larger percentage of total waste to offsite private facilities for recycling and reuse. However, there would be some environmental disadvantages if new material recovery facilities are required. The exact quantity of materials that could be efficiently and cost-effectively diverted from the waste stream is speculative; therefore, this alternative would not necessarily help ensure sufficient permitted disposal capacity in the County. Since this alternative would not meet disposal capacity goals as effectively as expanding the Taft RSLF, the Taft RSLF would have a shorter lifespan. After the Taft RSLF reaches capacity, closure of the facility could lead to increased haul distances in response to solid waste disposal demand in the West Region of the system. 15 The separate Energy Conservation Study includes additional details regarding recycling and material

recovery programs currently being used by the Taft RSLF.



This alternative would fail to achieve most basic project objectives. However, as it does today, the Waste Management Department will continue to review and expand its recycling programs in compliance with applicable mandates for waste diversion, recycling, and material recovery. 1.6.2 Alternatives Analyzed in this Recirculated Environmental Impact Report In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” describes a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the proposed Project and evaluates the comparative merits of each Alternative. The analysis focuses on Alternatives capable of eliminating significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to less than significant levels, even if these Alternatives would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the Project’s objectives. Potential environmental impacts are compared to impacts from the proposed Project. The following is a description of each of the Alternatives evaluated in Chapter 6. Alternative A: No Project Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA, 2007) requires the analysis of a “No Project Alternative.” In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis of Alternative A, the No Project Alternative, includes a discussion of not expanding the permitted landfill capacity and height or relocating the borrow soils stockpile to the buffer area, or what would occur if the Project was not approved and the site remained in status quo. Under Alternative A, this alternative proposes to continue operations under the existing SWFP and current (2002) final fill plan until capacity is reached, at which time the site will become inactive. No capacity increase, closure projects, or amendment to the Kern County General Plan would be proposed under this alternative. Alternative B: Operate under Current Permitted Conditions, Installation of a

Landfill Liner per Proposed Final Fill Plan, No Vertical Expansion – followed by Final Landfill Closure Construction

The major components of Alternative B are as follows:

• Amend the Kern County General Plan and Appendix “E” Map from Map Code 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum – minimum five-acre parcel size) designation to Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer) designation for approximately 61.7 acres of the solid waste buffer area (See Figure 1-4);

• Amend the Kern County General Plan Circulation Element to eliminate the road reservations for the east/west and north/south midsection lines, and the easterly section line of Section 25 Township 31 South, Range 23 East, zone map 138 (see Figure 1-3);

• Modify Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 1, Map 138 to include the total project area (161.68 acres -- this includes the 100-acre landfill property as well as 61.7 acres of buffer), and to allow the installation of landfill liner within



the permitted unlined area resulting in an increase of the permitted disposal capacity;

• Revise the SWFP for the Taft RSLF to: ○ Increase the lifespan and permitted capacity of the landfill; ○ Increase the permitted daily tonnage by 381 tons per day

(from 419 tons per day to 800 tons per day); and ○ Increase the permitted daily traffic by 12 vehicles per day

(from 338 vehicles per day to 350 vehicles per day).

• Include a revised preliminary closure and post-closure maintenance plan then complete closure construction over the entire disposal area.

Alternative B proposes to continue operations by installing a landfill liner over a portion of the permitted unlined area, totaling 37 acres. The landfill liner will be an engineered alternative landfill liner system consistent with State and Federal Regulations. No increase in elevation or operating days and hours would be proposed. Alternative B includes the land use actions and Solid Waste Facility Permit revisions (excepting the revision to increase permitted elevation) proposed by the Project.

Alternative C: Operation of Landfill Until Unlined Cell Reaches Capacity, followed by Final Landfill Closure Construction

The major components of Alternative C are as follows:

• Amend the Kern County General Plan and Appendix “E” Map from Map Code 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum – min. five-acre parcel size) designation to Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer) designation for approximately 61.7 acres of the solid waste buffer area (See Figure 1-4).

• Amend the Kern County General Plan Circulation Element to delete existing section and midsection road reservations within the property boundary;

• Modify the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 1, Map 138 for the total project area (161.68 acres); this includes the 100-acre landfill property as well as 61.7 acres of buffer;

• Continue operations under the existing SWFP and current (2002) Final Fill Plan until current 35-acre refuse limit (existing landfill disposal footprint)16

reaches capacity; and

• Once the current 35-acre refuse limit5 reaches capacity, appropriate closure activities will commence.

16 See Section 3.2.3 for a discussion of this area.



Alternative C would not propose to increase daily permitted tonnage, traffic, elevation or the current waste footprint. No increase in operating days and hours would be proposed under this alternative. Alternative D: Operation of Landfill Until the Unlined Cell Reaches

Capacity, Final Landfill Closure Construction, Construction and Operation of a Transfer Station

The major components of Alternative D are as follows:

• Amend the Kern County General Plan and Appendix “E” Map from Map Code 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum – min. five-acre parcel size) to Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer) designation for approximately 61.7 acres of the solid waste buffer area (See Figure 1-4).

• Amend the Kern County General Plan Circulation Element to delete existing section and midsection road reservations within the property boundary;

• Modify the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 1, Map 138 for the total project area (161.68 acres); this includes the 100-acre landfill property as well as 61.7 acres of buffer;

• Continue operations under the existing SWFP and current (2002) Final Fill Plan until current 35-acre refuse limit (existing landfill footprint)5 reaches capacity;

• Construct a transfer station within the permitted facility boundary; and

• Once the current 35-acre refuse limit5 reaches capacity, appropriate closure activities will commence.

Alternative D proposes to continue operations under the current (2000) final fill plan. This alternative also proposes to construct a transfer station prior to the facility reaching capacity, and begin the operation of said transfer station once capacity is reached. Alternative D would not propose to increase daily permitted tonnage, traffic, elevation or the current waste footprint. No increase in operating days and hours would be proposed under this alternative. 1.6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative Under CEQA, an EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Project. Alternative A, No-Project Alternative, would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project on the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts to aesthetics and biological, cultural, and mineral resources. However, Alternative A potentially increases the impacts to air quality, global climate change, land use and planning, and transportation and traffic. In addition, CEQA Section 15126.6(e)(2) indicates that, if the “No Project” alternative is the “Environmentally Superior” Alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an



Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives. In this case, Alternative A, the “No Project” alternative, is the environmentally superior alternative, as it would not result in significant direct environmental impacts associated with air quality. However, Alternative A, the “No Project” Alternative, would create significant direct impacts in other environmental areas and would not satisfy the Project’s objectives. Alternative B, Operate under Current Permitted Conditions, Installation of a Landfill Liner per Proposed Final Fill Plan, No Vertical Expansion – followed by Final Landfill Closure Construction, is the environmentally superior alternative. As described in section 6.4.2 of this Recirculated DEIR, Alternative B would have similar, but lessened environmental impacts for the same environmental areas as the proposed Project. Air Quality is the only environmental area significant and unavoidable for the proposed Project; and while Alternative B is also significant and unavoidable, Alternative B will result in a decreased life span of operations at the Taft RSLF and will therefore result in a decreased duration of onsite air quality impacts. Therefore, Alternative B will reduce the long term significant impact to air quality caused by the Taft RSLF proposed Project. 1.7 Areas of Controversy Written agency and public comments received during the public review period for the IS/NOP are provided in Appendix A of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR). Also see Appendix A of the 2010 DEIR for further details on areas of controversy. In summary, the following key issues were identified during scoping as being controversial due to their potentially significant impacts or the need for mitigation to avoid significant impact and, where appropriate, are addressed in the applicable sections of the 2010 DEIR:

• Recommendation that impacts to traffic capacity and level of service should

be upgraded to “less than significant” due to the proposed permitted increase of 12 vehicles per day. Comment addressed in Chapter 4.11 of the 2010 DEIR, “Transportation and Traffic.”

• An explanation of the analysis procedure of State Route 119 and Elk Hills road and the determination of acceptable Levels of Service is requested. Comment addressed in Chapter 4.11 of the 2010 DEIR, “Transportation and Traffic.”

• Recommendation that the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center (CHRIS) be contacted. Comment addressed in Chapter 4.5 of the 2010 DEIR, “Cultural Resources.”

• Recommendation that in the case that an archaeological inventory survey is required, a preparation of a professional report be presented to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. Comment addressed in Chapter 4.5 of the 2010 DEIR, “Cultural Resources.”

• Recommendation that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) be contacted for input on the effect of potential Project impact. Names from



“Native American Contacts – Kern County, November 1, 2007” have been included on the circulation list. The Kern County Planning and Community Development Department NAHC SB18 Tribal Consultation Request is included at the end of Appendix C of the 2010 DEIR.

• Inclusion of mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources and for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. Comment addressed in Chapter 4.5 of the 2010 DEIR, “Cultural Resources.”

• Inclusion of provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries. Comment addressed in Chapter 4.6 of the 2010 DEIR, “Cultural Resources.”

• Recommendation that the construction or excavation process be halted in the event of accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the determination whether the remains are those of a Native American can be made. Comment addressed in Chapter 4.5 of the 2010 DEIR, “Cultural Resources.”

• Recommendation that avoidance measures be in place if significant cultural resources are discovered during the course of the project planning and implementation. Comment addressed in Chapter 4.5 of the 2010 DEIR, “Cultural Resources.”

• Recommendation that no structure be built over or in proximity to an abandoned well located within the Project site. Comment addressed in Chapter 4.10 of the 2010 DEIR, “Mineral Resources”.

• Provision of remedial plugging operations if abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered during the project. Comment addressed in Chapter 4.10 of the 2010 DEIR, “Mineral Resources”.

• Recommendation that the Solid Waste Facility Permit and Preliminary Closure/Post Closure Maintenance Plan be revised to accommodate the vertical expansion and the installation of a liner over the current permitted disposal area, daily tonnage and vehicle increases. Comment addressed in Chapter 3 of the 2010 DEIR, “Project Description.”

• Recommendation that the EIR evaluate extreme weather conditions to address issues such as litter blow-off on traffic routes, fugitive dust impacts in residential areas, and related health and safety hazards at the landfill and also evaluate the relationship of this site in development of Disaster Debris Management Plans for these communities. Comment addressed in Chapter 4.7 of the 2010 DEIR, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials.”

• Recommendation that the EIR identify potentially significant impacts of the project both locally and regionally. Comment addressed in Chapter 3 of the 2010 DEIR, “Project Description.”

• Recommendation that agencies designated to enforce mitigation measures in the EIR have reviewed the Mitigation Reporting or Monitoring Program and



agree they have the authority and means to accomplish the designated enforcement responsibilities. Comment addressed in Chapter 3 of the 2010 DEIR, “Project Description.”

• Recommendation that the proposed 2010 DEIR be circulated through the State Clearinghouse. Comment noted and document circulated through State Clearinghouse (SCH #2009031008).

• Recommendation that the California Integrated Waste Management Board be noticed of the date, time, and location of any public hearings regarding the project proposal at least ten days in advance. Comment noted and California Integrated Waste Management Board noticed.

• Recommendation from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District that the Draft and Final EIR should be prepared and the following considered regarding the project’s potential impact on air quality:

• Describe the regulatory environment and existing air quality conditions impaction the area;

• Describe the project, including a discussion of existing and post-project emissions;

• Discuss the potential health impact of toxic Air Contaminants, in any, to near-by receptors.

• Discuss whether the project would create nuisance odors;

• Discuss the methodology, model assumptions, inputs, and results used in characterizing the project’s impacts on air quality;

• Discuss all existing District regulations that apply to the project; and

• Discuss all feasible measures that will reduce air quality impacts. Comments addressed in Chapter 4.2 of the 2010 DEIR, “Air Quality.”

• Recommendation that the Kern County Waste Management Department recognize the proposed project is not subject to District rule 9510 and if District permits are required, an application for an Authority to Construct should be submitted to the District prior to construction. Comments addressed in Chapter 4.2 of the 2010 DEIR, “Air Quality.”

Written agency and public comments received during the public review period for the 2010 DEIR are provided in Chapter 7of that document (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR). In summary, the 2010 DEIR was challenged as a result of an inadequate energy analysis. Therefore, this Recirculated DEIR provides new information on energy resources per Appendix F – Energy Conservation, of the CEQA Guidelines.



1.8 Issues to Be Resolved Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved, which includes the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts (CEQA, 2007). The following major issues to be resolved regarding the proposed Project include decisions by the lead agency as to whether or not:

• the DEIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed Project;

• the recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or modified; or

• additional mitigation measures need to be applied. 1.9 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation The following is a summary of the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, mitigation measures, and unavoidable significant impacts identified and analyzed in Chapter 4.0 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR). Refer to the appropriate EIR section for additional information.




Table 1-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the

Taft RSLF Permit Revision Project

Impact Level of

Significance Before

Mitigation Mitigation Measure

Level of Significance After

Mitigation

Aesthetics (4.1) 4.1-1: The Project would substantially alter the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings

Less than significant

No mitigation is required. Less than significant

4.1-2: Cumulative impacts to aesthetics






Impact Level of

Significance Before Mitigation

Mitigation Measure Level of

Significance After Mitigation

Air Quality (4.2) 4.2-1: Construction-Related Activities Would Result in an Increase of CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and ROG Emissions

Potentially significant

Mitigation Measure 4.2-1. (A) Kern County Waste Management Department owned off-road diesel equipment shall be Tier II or in compliance with CARB's off-road diesel vehicle regulation, whichever is higher, at the time of CEQA approval. (B) The Kern County Waste Management Department shall require new contract off-road diesel equipment to be Tier II or in compliance with CARB's off-road diesel vehicle regulation, whichever is higher. (C) The Kern County Waste Management Department shall amend existing contract to require off-road equipment be Tier II or in compliance with CARB's off-road diesel vehicle regulation, whichever is higher, within 6 months of the receipt of a revised permit. Mitigation Measure 4.2-2. Equipment idling time will comply with CARB's 5-minute limit. This will be written into the facility’s Report of Disposal Site Information. In addition, equipment will be maintained in good tune to reduce emissions during necessary idling. Mitigation Measure 4.2-3. When available, ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppm) shall be utilized. Mitigation Measure 4.2-4. The Project will comply with Regulation VIII of the SJVAPCD rules, including wetting of unpaved roads an average of 3 times per day, and limiting the speed limit to less than 15 miles per hour on site.

Significant and unavoidable (for NOx in year 2011, and PM10 in year 2046). Note dates will be delayed by one to two years based upon the need to recirculated and re-approve the Draft EIR.

4.2-2: Operations-Related Activities Would Result in an Increase of CO, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, SOX, and ROG


Implement MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-4; and Mitigation Measure 4.2-5. The Kern County Waste Management Department will pave 0.25 miles of the southern haul road to the Taft RSLF in order to mitigate PM10 emissions.

Less than significant after

mitigation



4.2-3: Operations-Related Activities and Construction Occurring in the Same Year Would Result in an Increase of CO, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, SOX, and ROG


Implement MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-5. Significant and unavoidable (for NOx and PM10 in year 2011, and PM10 in year 2046).

4.2-4: Increase in Local Ambient Concentrations of CO, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and SOX


Implement MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-5. Less than significant after

mitigation

4.2-5: Short-term and Long-Term Increases in Local Ambient Concentrations of CO from Construction and Operations, respectively



4.2-6: Project would result in a direct and/or indirect increase of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)



4.2-7: Exposure of Nearby Sensitive Receptors to Odors



4.2-8: Potential Impacts to Visibility in Class I Wilderness Areas



4.2-9: Cumulative Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants


Implement MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-5. Significant and unavoidable



4.2-10: Inclusion of Criteria Pollutant Emissions from the Project in the SJVAPCD air quality plans



4.2-11: Consistency with the Kern Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis.






Impact Level of




Global Climate Change (4.3) 4.3-1: The proposed Project may hinder the attainment of the State’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 as stated in AB 32


No mitigation is required


4.3-2: The proposed Project may not be in compliance with State and Federal Regulations on landfill greenhouse gas emissions


No mitigation is required Less than significant

4.3-3: Cumulative Impact to Global Climate Change


No mitigation is required Less than significant




Impact Level of




Biological (4.4) 4.4-1: The Project may have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


Mitigation Measure 4.4-1. Prior to, and during, new ground disturbance the Kern County Waste Management Department will implement Kern County Waste Facilities Habitat Conservation Plan Minimization and Avoidance measures. Mitigation Measure 4.4-2. The Kern County Waste Management Department shall amend the Kern County Waste Facilities Habitat Conservation Plan to include additional buffer lands; or The Kern County Waste Management Department shall obtain incidental take coverage for this Project through the Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan when approved; or The Kern County Waste Management Department shall develop with state and federal wildlife agencies an approved project specific Habitat Conservation Plan; or The Kern County Waste Management Department shall consult with state and federal wildlife agencies and follow their instructions concerning potential take avoidance. Mitigation Measure 4.4-3. The Kern County Waste Management Department shall conduct a pre-construction survey of any proposed new disturbance during the burrowing owl breeding season (from approximately February 1 through August 31), consistent with California Department of Fish and Game guidelines, the same calendar year that the disturbance is planned to begin. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any burrowing owls are nesting on or directly adjacent to any proposed disturbance. If the pre-construction breeding season survey does not identify any nesting owl on the proposed site, then no further mitigation would be required. However, should any burrowing owl be found nesting on the site, then Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4 shall be implemented.


mitigation



Impact Level of




Mitigation Measure 4.4-4. During the burrowing owl breeding season, the Kern County Waste Management Department, consistent with California Department of Fish and Game guidelines, shall not disturb an occupied owl burrow while there is an active nest and/or juvenile owls are present. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around the nest site consistent with California Department of Fish and Game guidelines. The buffer zone shall be delineated by highly visible temporary construction fencing or tape. The occupied nest site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to determine when the juvenile owl is fledged and independent. Disturbance of an occupied burrow shall only occur outside of the breeding season and when there is no nest or juvenile owl based on monitoring by a biologist approved by the California Department of Fish and Game.

4.4-2: The Project may have an indirect impact to vegetative communities


Implement MM 4.4-1 and MM 4.4-2 Less than significant after

mitigation

4.4-3: The Project may have indirect impacts to wildlife communities


Implement MM 4.4-1 through 4.4-4 Less than significant after

mitigation



Impact Level of




4.4-4: The Project may have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Implement MM 4.4-1 through 4.4-4 Less than significant after

mitigation

4.4-5: The Project may have an substantial adverse affect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.


Mitigation Measure 4.4-5. Prior to start of Project construction, Kern County Waste Management Department shall seek Jurisdictional Determinations, permits, waivers or other requirements issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Game, necessary for project implementation and provide written verification to the Planning and Community Development Department Director.


mitigation

4.4-6: The Project may interfere directly with the movement of native wildlife species


Implement MM 4.4-1 and MM 4.4-2 Less than significant after

mitigation

4.4-7: The Project may conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting





Impact Level of




biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance 4.4-8: The Project may conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan


Implement MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-4 Less than significant after

mitigation

4.4-9: Cumulative impact to biological resources


Implement MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-5 Less than significant after mitigation




Impact Level of




Cultural (4.5) 4.5-1: The Project may damage, disturb or destroy a significant cultural resource (historical, archaeological, paleontological)


Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. In the event human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, nor shall there be any disposition of such human remains other than in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2. If Native American burial sites are discovered, the Project shall comply with the Public Resources Code section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e). Mitigation Measure 4.5-3. In the event any as yet undetected (i.e., buried) cultural or paleontological resources are encountered on the Project site at a future time, a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find (in conformance with section 15064.5 of CEQA) and, if necessary mitigate the resource prior to resumption of operations. Mitigation Measure 4.5-4. Prior to new ground disturbance, an experienced field paleontologist shall survey the area for indications that fossils may be present (e.g. fossils actually visible at the surface or the presence of relatively fine grained sediments).

Less than significant after mitigation

4.5-2: Cumulative impacts to Cultural Resources


Implement MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-4. Less than significant after mitigation




Impact Level of




Geology and Soils (4.6) 4.6-1: The Project may expose people or structures to potential adverse effects resulting from seismic shaking



4.6-2: The Project may result in substantial soil erosion



4.6-3: The Project may be located on soil that is unstable



4.6-4: The Project may be located on an expansive soil



4.6-5: Cumulative impacts to geology and soils






Impact Level of




Hazards and Hazardous Material (4.7) 4.7-1: The Project may create a hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials

Less than Significant


4.7-2: The Project may create a hazard through accident conditions


Mitigation Measure 4.7-1. All hazardous wastes shall be stored and properly managed in accordance with the approved Kern County Waste Management Department Hazardous Waste Exclusion Plan, until transported for proper disposal. Training shall be provided to all Taft RSLF landfill personnel involved in the handling of hazardous material/waste.


4.7-3 The Project may create a hazard during extreme weather conditions impacting operations and may pose a risk for health and safety of staff and customers





4.7-4: The Project may generate vectors


Mitigation Measure 4.7-2. Should inspections by the Local Enforcement Agency indicate that vectors/birds are a problem, additional control measures will be implemented such as:

• Employment of the vector eradication services of a local pest

control firm;

• Implementation of an integrated bird control strategy in consultation with the appropriate wildlife agencies; or

• Review of alternative daily cover to determine if a different method of daily cover, or the use of soil, would improve the control of vectors.


4.7-5: Cumulative impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials


Implement MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2. Less than significant after mitigation




Impact Level of




Hydrology and Water Quality (4.8) 4.8-1: The Project may violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements


Mitigation Measure 4.8-1. The Kern County Waste Management Department will comply with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board to mitigate the existing groundwater impact and any additional future groundwater impact. Groundwater monitoring and perimeter landfill gas monitoring are continuing. Following approval of an appropriate Corrective Action Program for the site, Kern County Waste Management Department will implement a Corrective Action Program to mitigate impacts to groundwater.


4.8-2: The Project may deplete groundwater supplies



4.8-3 The Project will not alter existing drainage patterns through the course of a stream or river


Implement MM 4.4-5


4.8-4: The Project may create runoff water



4.8-5: The Project may degrade water quality



4.8-6: Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality.






Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance

After Mitigation Land Use and Planning (4.9)

4.9-1: The Project may conflict with land use compatibility/surrounding land uses Less than significant No mitigation is required. Less than significant

4.9-2: The Project may conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect

Less than significant No mitigation is required. Less than significant

4.9-3: Cumulative impacts to Land Use and Planning Less than significant No mitigation is required. Less than significant




Impact Level of




Mineral Resources (4.10) 4.10-1: A portion of the project site is located within the administrative boundaries of the Buena Vista Oil Field, and therefore may encounter unrecorded/or recorded oil or gas wells

Potentially Significant

Mitigation Measure 4.10-1. If an unrecorded oil or gas well is discovered on the Project site, the Kern County Waste Management Department will notify the California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. Mitigation Measure 4.10-2. If a structure is to be built within 10 feet of a newly discovered well, the well will be exposed for inspection and leakage testing prior to construction. While exposed, the location will be ascertained and recorded by a licensed surveyor in NAD 27 Continental US coordinates. If a well is discovered in the area slated for a cell for waste disposal, DOGGR will be contacted and adequate mitigation will be included to prevent groundwater contamination.


mitigation

4.10-2: The Project could result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan

Potentially Significant

Mitigation Measure 4.10-3. Prior to excavation of the waste cells, the Kern County Waste Management Department shall submit to the Planning and Community Development Department Director, a plan for the stockpiled soils for future use at the Taft RSLF or for other beneficial uses at other sites, subject to mineral resource restrictions.


mitigation

4.10-3: Cumulative Impacts to Mineral Resources


No mitigation will be required. Less than significant




Impact Level of Significance

Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance

After Mitigation Transportation and Traffic (4.11)

4.11-1: The Project may exceed a Level of Service standard established by the county congestion management agency or adopted County threshold for designated roads or highways


4.11-2: Cumulative Impacts on Transportation and Traffic






Chapter 2 – Introduction



2.1 Intent of California Environmental Quality Act The Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, as lead agency, has determined that a Project Level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the proposed Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill (Taft RSLF) permit revision Project. The proposed Project allows for the landfill liner construction and vertical expansion of the Taft RSLF. This Recirculated Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the following:

• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.);

• CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.); and

• Kern County CEQA Implementation Document.

The overall purposes of the CEQA process are to:

• ensure that the environment and public health and safety are protected in the face of discretionary projects initiated by public agencies or private concerns;

• provide for full disclosure of the project’s environmental effects to the public, the agency decision-makers who will approve or deny the project, and responsible and trustee agencies charged with managing resources (e.g., wildlife, air quality) that may be affected by the project; and

• provide a forum for public participation in the decision-making process with respect to environmental effects.

2.2 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report This document is the Recirculated DEIR for the Taft RSLF Permit Revision Project. This document, as a Recirculated DEIR, provides additional information related to energy resources to supplement the Taft RSLF Permit Revision Project DEIR (SCH 2009031008) [Kern County Waste Management Department, 2010]. This introduction provides the manner in which changes were made to the previous DEIR, background information concerning this document, and the procedure for commenting on this Recirculated DEIR. An EIR is a public informational document used in the planning and decision making process. This Project Level EIR will analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The Kern County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will consider the information in the EIR, including the public comments and staff responses to those comments, during the public hearing process. As a legislative action, the final decision



is made at the Board of Supervisors where the proposed Project may be approved, conditionally approved, or denied. The purpose of an EIR is to identify:

• the significant potential impacts of the proposed Project on the environment and indicate the manner in which those significant impacts can be avoided or mitigated;

• any unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated; and

• reasonable and feasible alternatives to the proposed Project that would eliminate any significant adverse environmental impacts or reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

An EIR also discloses growth inducing impacts, impacts found not to be significant and significant cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects.

CEQA requires that an EIR reflect the independent judgment of the lead agency regarding the impacts, level of significance of the impacts (both before and after mitigation) and mitigation measures proposed to reduce the impacts. A DEIR is circulated to responsible agencies, trustee agencies with resources affected by the project, and interested agencies and individuals. The purposes of public and agency review of a DEIR include sharing expertise, disclosing agency analyses, checking for accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering public concerns, and soliciting counter proposals.

Reviewers of a DEIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the proposed Project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental effects. The Taft RSLF DEIR was originally circulated for public comment from February 2 to March 19, 2010 by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The County has received and considered written comments that were received during the public comment period. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was certified by the Board of Supervisors on June 29, 2010 and used in their consideration and approval of land use applications necessary for the implementation of the proposed Taft RSLF Permit Revision Project. These land use applications included:


The County’s certification of the FEIR and project approval was subsequently challenged in an action in Kern County Superior Court (the Court), entitled California Clean Energy Committee v. County of Kern (2010). The petitioner and the County entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. The Court reviewed the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and has ordered that the project approvals be invalidated and set



aside as a result of an inadequate energy analysis in the EIR. In addition, the certification of the EIR, the adoption of the Title 14 CCR section 15091 Findings, section 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program for the Project, which were approved by the Kern County Board of Supervisors on June 29, 2010, are also invalidated and set aside solely as a result of the inadequate energy analysis contained in the EIR (Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Kern, 2010). This Recirculated DEIR, in accordance with the Court’s direction, provides new information on energy resources per Appendix F – Energy Conservation, of the CEQA Guidelines (Association of Environmental Professionals, 2010). The Kern County Waste Management Department has also revised the Project alternatives based on the new information of energy impacts. The Guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for CEQA provide that a lead agency is required to recirculate an environmental document when significant new information is added to an EIR after public review of the Draft EIR has begun. New information can include changes in the project description, changes in the environmental setting, as well as other additional data or information. This information may relate to new environmental impacts, severity of such impacts, alternatives or mitigation. Recirculation of an EIR is covered by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (CEQA, 2005a). The environmental impact report may be recirculated in whole or in part. In this case, the Kern County Waste Management Department has elected to provide additional information which addresses the energy resources of the Project and its alternatives. The recirculated sections include:

• Chapter 1 – Executive Summary; • Chapter 2 – Introduction; • Chapter 3 – Project Description; • Chapter 5 – Consequences of the Project Implementation; • Chapter 6 – Alternatives; • Chapter 8 – Organizations and Persons Consulted; • Chapter 9 – Preparers; and • Chapter 10 – References.

Public Review of this Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report and Submittal of Written Comments Information concerning the public review process is included in the Notice of Availability (NOA) of this Recirculated DEIR. The Notice of Availability is included at the beginning of this document. This Recirculated DEIR will be available for public review for a 45-day period that begins March 28, 2011 and ends May 11, 2011. Written comments regarding the Recirculated DIER should be submitted to the following address:



County of Kern Kern County Waste Management Department

2700 “M” Street, Suite 500 Bakersfield, CA 93301

Attention: Donn Fergerson, Waste Management Supervisor CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(2) provides that when the EIR is revised only in part and the lead agency is recirculating only the revised chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency may request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised chapters or portions of the EIR (CEQA, 2005a). The recirculation of only “portions” of a DEIR does not permit commenters to comment anew on topics or text not subject to a partial recirculation. Therefore, agencies, organizations, and individuals who wish to comment on this document should limit the scope of their comments to the newly circulated information contained in this document related to energy resources and more specifically information related to the expenditures of electricity, fuel, and other energy resources required for the project, and the updated portions of the alternatives analysis. The lead agency is not obligated to respond to any new comments that are directed to the portions of the DEIR that were not revised and are not being recirculated in this document. The Final EIR for the Project will contain detailed responses to all comments made on the original Draft EIR and this Recirculated DEIR that are properly limited to the energy analysis as well as the updated portions of the alternatives analysis. 2.3 Issues to be Resolved Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved, which includes the choices among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts (CEQA, 2007). The major issues to be resolved regarding the proposed Project include decisions by the lead agency as to whether or not:

• the DEIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed Project;

• the recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or modified; or

• additional mitigation measures need to be applied. 2.4 Terminology To assist readers in understanding this EIR, terms used are defined in the following manner:

• Cumulative impacts are two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The following statements also apply when considering cumulative impacts:



o The individual impacts may be changes resulting from a single project or separate projects.

o The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the proposed Project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, projects taking place over time.

• Draft EIR (DEIR) is the Draft EIR as circulated for public review from February 2, 2010 through March 19, 2010, and dated February 2010.

• Environment means the physical conditions that exist in the area that would be affected by a proposed Project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. The area included in this definition is the area in which significant direct or indirect impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Project. The environment includes both natural and artificial conditions.

• Impacts analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change. Impacts are:

o direct or primary impacts that are caused by the proposed Project and occur at the same time and place; or

o indirect or secondary impacts that are caused by the proposed Project and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect or secondary impacts may include growth-inducing impacts and other effects related to inducing changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air, water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.

• Mitigation consists of measures to avoid or substantially reduce the proposed Project’s significant environmental impacts by:

o avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;

o minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;

o rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment;

o reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or

o compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.



• Project means the whole of an action that has the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly.

• Recirculated DEIR is this document, which discusses the energy resources related to the proposed Project. This Recirculated DEIR is dated March 2011.

• Significant impact on the environment means a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions in the area affected by the proposed Project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself is not considered a significant impact on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

This EIR uses a variety of terms to describe the level of significance of adverse impacts. These terms are defined as follows:

• Less than significant: An impact that is adverse but that does not exceed the defined thresholds of significance. Less than significant impacts do not require mitigation.

• Significant: An impact that exceeds the defined thresholds of significance and would or could cause a substantial adverse change in the environment. Mitigation measures are recommended to eliminate the impact or reduce it to a less than significant level.

• Significant and unavoidable: An impact that exceeds the defined thresholds of significance and cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures.

2.5 Decision-Making Process CEQA was enacted in 1970 by the State of California legislature to involve the public in the planning process, disclose to the general public and the public agency decision-makers the potentially significant adverse effects of the proposed activities on the environment, and identify ways to avoid or reduce those adverse effects by requiring the implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. All projects within the State of California are required to undergo an environmental review process in accordance with CEQA to determine whether the project has the potential to cause any adverse environmental impacts.

A “project” is defined as an action that, as a whole, has the potential to result in an adverse physical change to the environment. This change can result directly or indirectly from the subject activity. A project is required to undergo an environmental review process if it incorporated an action undertaken by a public agency, is an activity that is supported in whole or in part through public agency forums (e.g., contracts and grants), or is an activity requiring a public agency to issue a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement, as in the case of the proposed Project.



CEQA requires lead agencies to solicit and consider input from other interested agencies, citizen groups, and individual members of the public. CEQA also requires the project to be monitored after it has been permitted to ensure that mitigation measures are carried out. CEQA requires the lead agency to provide the public with a full disclosure of the expected environmental consequences of the proposed project and with an opportunity to provide comments. In accordance with CEQA, the following is the process for public participation in the decision-making process:

• Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP). Kern County will prepare and circulate an Initial Study/NOP to responsible, trustee, and local agencies for review and comment. In conjunction with this public notice, a scoping meeting will be held by Kern County.

• DEIR Preparation/Notice of Completion (NOC). A DEIR will be circulated for review and comment to appropriate agencies, and additional individuals and interest groups who have requested to be notified of EIR projects. Per section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines, Kern County will provide for a 45-day public review period on the DEIR. Kern County will provide a response to each agency or person who provided written comments on the EIR two weeks before the scheduled Planning Commission hearing.

• Preparation and Certification of the Final EIR. The Kern County Planning Commission will consider the Final EIR and the project, acting in an advisory capacity to the Kern County Board of Supervisors. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the Board of Supervisors will also consider the Final EIR, all public comments and the project, and take final action of the project. At least one public hearing will be held by both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to consider the Final EIR, take public testimony, and either approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project. Prior to taking action on the Project, the Board of Supervisors must certify the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 and must also make appropriate findings and take other actions as required by Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 (CEQA, 2005a).

2.5.1 Notice of Preparation for the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project In accordance with section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an IS/NOP was prepared and distributed to responsible and affected agencies and other interested parties for a 30-day public review. The public review period for the IS/NOP began on March 4, 2009, and ended on April 3, 2009. The IS/NOP was also posted in the Kern County Clerk’s office for 30 days and sent to the State Clearinghouse at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to solicit statewide agency participation in determining the scope of the EIR. The purpose of the IS/NOP was to formally convey that the County, as the lead agency, solicited input regarding the scope and proposed content of the EIR. The IS/NOP and all comment letters are provided in Appendix A of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR).



2.5.2 Scoping Meeting for the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project The lead agency is required to conduct at least one scoping meeting for all projects of statewide, regional or area-wide significance, as defined in section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA, 2005b). The scoping meeting is for jurisdictional agencies and interested persons or groups to provide comments regarding, but not limited to, the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and environmental effects to be analyzed. A public scoping meeting was held at 1:30 p.m. on March 20, 2009 at the Public Services Building located at 2700 “M” Street in Bakersfield, CA. The Summary of Proceedings from the Scoping Meeting is in Appendix A of the DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR). 2.5.3 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Results A public scoping meeting was held at 1:30 p.m. on March 20, 2009 at the Public Services Building located at 2700 “M” Street in Bakersfield, CA. No comments were received at the scoping meeting. The following specific environmental concerns were raised in comments provided to staff during circulation of the IS/NOP. The IS/NOP and all comments are included in Appendix A of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), along with the Summary of Proceedings from the Scoping Meeting. The following list summarizes the concerns and comments received in response to the IS/NOP. The comment letters are included in Appendix A of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR). These concerns are included as part of the EIR analysis.

Commenter Summary of Comment

County of Kern Roads Department (Office Memorandum dated March 9, 2009)

The impacts to traffic capacity and level of service should be upgraded to “Less Than Significant Impact” due to the proposed permitted increase of vehicles to 12 per day.

Additionally, an explanation of the analysis procedure of State Route 119 and Elk Hills Road and the determination of acceptable Levels of Service is requested.

Native American Heritage Commission (Letter dated March 12, 2009)

An EIR should be prepared and the following considered:

• The appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center be contacted for possible recorded sites in locations.

• If an archeological inventory survey is required, a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations be submitted to the Planning Department and the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center.

• The Native American Heritage Commission be contacted for input on potential impacts of the project on cultural resources.

• Provisions for the identification and evaluation of



Commenter Summary of Comment accidentally discovered archeological resources and for the disposition of recovered artifacts in consultation with the culturally affiliate Native American tribes.

• Provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries.

• The construction or excavation process be halted in the event of accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the determination whether the remains are those of a Native American can be made.

Avoidance should be considered if significant cultural resources are discovered during the course of the project planning and implementation.

Department of Conservation: Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Letter dated March 16, 2009)

The project site is located in the Buena Vista Oil Field. Two plugged and abandoned wells are on site. Identify well locations and a 10-foot, no build radius on all Project maps.

If abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered during the project, remedial plugging operations must take place.

Kern County Engineering and Survey Services, Drainage/Flood Division (Email Dated March 16, 2009)

No specific drainage or flood planning comments.

Tejon Indian Tribe (Letter dated March 29, 2009)

No specific comments.

Kern County Environmental Heath Services Department, Local Enforcement Agency (Letter dated April 2, 2009)

The Solid Waste Facility Permit and Preliminary Closure/ Post-Closure Maintenance Plan should be revised to accommodate the vertical expansion and installation of a liner over the current permitted disposal area, daily tonnage and vehicle increases.

An EIR should evaluate extreme weather conditions to address issues such as litter blow-off on traffic routes, fugitive dust impacts in residential areas, and related health and safety hazards at the landfill and also evaluate the relationship of this site in development of Disaster Debris Management Plans for these communities.

California Integrated Waste Management Board (Letter dated April 2, 2009) [Now known as the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)].

The EIR must identify potentially significant impacts of the project, both locally and regionally.

Furthermore, CalRecycle recommends the following:

• The agencies designated to enforce mitigation measures in the EIR have reviewed the Mitigation Reporting or Monitoring Program and agree they have the authority and means to accomplish the designated enforcement responsibilities.



Commenter Summary of Comment • The proposed DEIR be circulated through the

State Clearinghouse.

The Board noticed of the date, time and location of any public hearings regarding the project proposal at least ten days in advance

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Letter dated April 6, 2009)

The preliminary and final EIR should be prepared and the following considered regarding the project’s potential impact on air quality:

• A description of the regulatory environment and existing air quality conditions impaction the area.

• A description of the project, including a discussion of existing and post-project emissions.

• A discussion of the potential health impact of toxic Air Contaminants, if any, to near-by receptors.

• A discussion of whether the project would create nuisance odors.

• A discussion of the methodology, model assumptions, inputs and results used in characterizing the project’s impact on air quality.

• A discussion of all existing District regulations that apply to the project.

• A discussion of all feasible measures that will reduce air quality impacts.

Additionally, the Kern County Waste Management Department should recognize the proposed project is not subject to District Rule 9510 and if District permits are required, an application for an Authority to Construct should be submitted to the District prior to construction.

2.5.4 Draft EIR for the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project Results The Kern County Waste Management Department circulated the Draft EIR, dated February 2010, for public review from February 2, 2010 through March 19, 2010. Written comments were received from the following agencies and organizations: State Agencies 0. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research: State Clearinghouse, March 24,

2010 1A. California Department of Conservation: Office of Mine Reclamation, February 3,

2010 1B. California Department of Conservation: Office of Mine Reclamation, March 11,

2010 2. California Department of Resource, Recycling, and Recovery, February 17, 2010



Local Agencies 3. Kern County Environmental Health Services Department, February 10, 2010 4. Kern County Sheriffs Department, February 5, 2010 5. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, March 19, 2010 6. County of Kern Roads Department, March 3, 2010 7. County of Kern Engineering & Survey Services, March 18, 2010 Interested Parties 8A. California Council on Energy Conservation, March 18, 2010 8B. California Council on Energy Conservation, March 19, 2010 8C. California Clean Energy Committee, April 26, 2010 9. Southern California Gas Company, February 10, 2010 Written comments received in response to the 2010 DEIR have previously been responded to. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(g) provides that when circulating a revised EIR, either in whole or in part, the lead agency shall, in the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, summarize the revisions made to the previously circulated draft EIR (CEQA, 2005a). A copy of each written comment and response is included as Chapter 7 of the 2010 Draft EIR (Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR). 2.6 Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report This Recirculated DEIR is being distributed directly to agencies, organizations and interested groups and persons for comment during a 45-day formal review period, in accordance with section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA, 2005a). This Recirculated DEIR and the full administrative record for the proposed Project, including all studies, are available for review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, at the Kern County Waste Management Department, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. located at:

Kern County Waste Management Department Donn Fergerson, Waste Management Supervisor

2700 “M” Street, Suite 500 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 862-8900 Fax: (661) 862-8901

The Recirculated DEIR is also available for review at the following locations:

Beale Memorial Library 701 Truxtun Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 93301



Taft Public Library 27 Emmons Park Taft, CA 93268

2.7 Format and Content This Recirculated DEIR, together with the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project and was prepared following input from the public, responsible, and affected agencies, through the EIR scoping process, as discussed previously. The contents of this EIR were established based on the findings in the IS/NOP, and public and agency input. Based on the findings of the IS/NOP, a determination was made that an EIR was required to address potentially significant environmental effects on the following resources:

• Aesthetics • Air Quality • Global Climate Change • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils

• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Traffic and Transportation

2.7.1 Required Environmental Impact Report Content and Organization This Recirculated DEIR, together with the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), includes all of the sections required by CEQA. Table 2-1 contains a list of sections required under CEQA (CEQA, 2007), along with a reference to the chapter in which they can be found in this document.




Table 2-1

Required EIR Contents

Requirement/CEQA Section Location in EIR Table of Contents (Section 15122) Table of Contents Summary (Section 15123) Chapter 1 Project Description (Section 15124) Chapter 3 Significant Environmental Impacts (Section 15126.2)

Chapter 1; Chapter 5

Environmental Setting (Section 15125) Chapters 4.1 – 4.11* Mitigation Measures (Section 15126.4) Chapter 1; Chapters 4.1 – 4.11* Cumulative Impacts (Section 15130) Chapter 1; Chapters 4.1 – 4.11*; Chapter 5Alternatives to Proposed Project (Section 15126.6)

Chapter 6

Growth Inducing Impacts (Section 15126.2) Chapter 1; Chapter 5 Effects Found not to be Significant (Section 15128)


Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts (Section 15126.2)


List of Preparers (Section 15129) Chapter 9 * Chapters 4.1 – 4.11 can be found in the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR).

2.7.2 EIR Organization The content and organization of this Recirculated DEIR are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA Statutes and the CEQA Guidelines. This Recirculated DEIR is organized into the following sections:

• Chapter 1, “Executive Summary,” provides a project description and a summary of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

• Chapter 2, “Introduction,” provides CEQA compliance information, overview of the decision-making process, organization of the EIR and a responsible and trustee agency list.

• Chapter 3, “Project Description,” provides a description of the location, characteristics, objectives and the relationship of the project to other plans and policies.

• Chapter 4*, “Impacts of the Proposed Project,” presents a detailed environmental analysis of the existing conditions, project impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts. Resource sections include:

o Section 4.1, “Aesthetics,” o Section 4.2, “Air Quality,” o Section 4.3, “Global Climate Change,” o Section 4.4, “Biological Resources,”



o Section 4.5, “Cultural Resources,” o Section 4.6, “Geology and Soils,” o Section 4.7, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials o Section 4.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” o Section 4.9, “Land Use o Section 4.10, “Mineral Resources,” and o Section 4.11, “Transportation and Traffic.” * Chapter 4 can be found in the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of

this Recirculated DEIR). • Chapter 5, “Consequences of Project Implementation (Mandatory CEQA

Sections),” presents an analysis of the project’s cumulative and growth-inducing impacts and other CEQA requirements, including significant and unavoidable impacts and irreversible commitment of resources.

• Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could reduce the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided.

• Chapter 7A, “Responses to Comments,” includes responses to comments on the DEIR circulated from February 2, to March 19, 2010.

• Chapter 7B, “Responses to Comments,” is reserved for responses to comments in this Recirculated DEIR dated March 2011.

• Chapter 8, “Organizations and Persons Consulted,” lists the organizations

and persons contacted during preparation of this Recirculated and 2010 DEIR, (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR).

• Chapter 9, “Preparers,” identifies persons involved in the preparation of the DEIR.

• Chapter 10, “References,” identifies reference sources for this Recirculated and 2010 DEIR, (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR).

At the end of the public review period, written responses to all comments on this Recirculated DEIR will be added as Chapter 7B and distributed to all commenting agencies and persons 10 days before the public hearing. All documents will be compiled into a Final EIR prior to the decision making process, which will be comprised of the following documents:

• Volume 1 – Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report: Chapters 1 through 11 (February 2010)

• Volume 2 – Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report: Appendices A through H (February 2010)

• Volume 3 (A-D) – Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report: Appendix I (February 2010)



• Volume 4 - Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report: Response to Comments (RTC) and Attachment A (May 2010)

• Volume 5 - Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report: Response to Comments Attachment B and part of C to RTC (May 2010)

• Volume 6 - Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report: Remainder of Attachment C to RTC (May 2010)

• Volume 7 – Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (March 2011)

• Volume 8 - Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report: Response to Comments (RTC)

2.8 Responsible and Trustee Agencies Projects undertaken by the lead agency, in this case the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, may require subsequent oversight, approvals or permits from other public agencies in order to be implemented. Other such agencies are referred to as “responsible agencies” and “trustee agencies.” Responsible agencies include various state and local agencies that have discretionary approval for certain aspects of the proposed Project (CEQA section 15382 [CEQA, 2005c]). Trustee agencies are state agencies having jurisdiction by law over natural resources which are held in trust for the people of the State, and which may be potentially affected by the proposed Project (CEQA section 15386 [CEQA, 2005c]). The proposed Project may require permits or approvals from various agencies for the facility and activities that constituted the proposed Project, including, but not limited to the following: Kern County

• Kern County Environmental Health Services Department (Local Enforcement Agency for the California Integrated Waste Management Board)

• Kern County Planning and Community Development Department Local Agencies

• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

State or Regional Agencies • California Integrated Waste Management Board

• California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Valley Region

• California Department of Toxic Substance Control

• California Department of Fish and Game

• California Department of Conservation – Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources



• Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

• California Air Resources Board

• California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) District 6 Federal Agencies

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The reports and permits that must be submitted for the permit revision of the Taft RSLF are summarized in Table 2-2.




Table 2-2 Regulatory Reports and Permits

Report/Permit Acronym Focus of Document Lead or

Responsible/ Trustee Agency

Conditional Use Permit CUP Land Use

Kern County Planning and Community

Development Department

Report of Disposal Site Information RDSI Facility Operations, Public

Health and Safety

California Department of

Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle),

KCEHSD

Permit to Operate PTO Air Quality Assurance San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD)

Report of Waste Discharge/Waste Discharge Requirements

WDRs Water Quality Assurance RWQCB

Environmental Impact Report EIR Potential Environmental

Impacts

Kern County Board of Supervisors,

CalRecycle, KCEHSD

Solid Waste Facility Permit SWFP Disposal Operations CalRecycle, KCEHSD

Preliminary Closure/ Post Closure Maintenance Plan PC/ PCMP

Final Capacity/ Estimated Closure Date / Financial

Assurances / Closure Cost Estimates/Water

Quality Assurance

KCEHSD, CalRecycle, RWQCB

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPDES Surface Water Quality Assurance RWQCB

Section 404 Permit --- Water Quality US Army Corps of Engineers

Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Approval* --- Water Quality

California Department of Fish

and Game *Note that during the circulation of the 2010 DEIR, the California Department of Fish and Game informed the Kern County Waste Management Department that the Taft RSLF Project is not subject to the notification of lake or streambed alteration requirement in Fish and Game Code section 1602.



2.9 Incorporation by Reference In accordance with section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA, 2005d), to reduce the size of the report, the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this Recirculated and 2010 DEIR, (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), and are available for public review at the Kern County Waste Management Department. A brief synopsis of the scope and content of these documents is provided below. Kern County General Plan (2004) The 2004 Kern County General Plan (KCGP) is a policy document with planned land use maps and related information that are designed to give long-range guidance to those County officials making decisions affecting the growth and resources of the unincorporated Kern County jurisdiction, excluding the metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. This document, adopted on June 15, 2004, helps to ensure that day-to-day decisions conform to the long-range program designed to protect and further the public interest as related to Kern County’s growth and development and mitigate environmental impacts. The General Plan also serves as a guide to the private sector of the economy in relating its development initiatives to the public plans, objectives, and policies of the County (County of Kern Planning and Community Development Department, 2004b). Kern County Zoning Ordinance March (2009) According to Chapter 19.02.020, Purposes, Title 19 (the “Zoning Ordinance”) was adopted to promote and protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare through the orderly regulation of land uses throughout the unincorporated area of Kern County. Further, the purposes of this title are to:

• Provide economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources;

• Encourage and guide development consistent with the Kern County General Plan;

• Divide Kern County into zoning districts of a number, size, and location deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of the Kern County General Plan and this title;

• Regulate the size and use of lots, yards, and other open spaces; • Regulate the use, location, height, bulk, and size of buildings and structures; • Regulate the intensity of land use; • Regulate the density of population in residential areas; • Establish requirements for off-street parking; • Regulate signs and billboards; and



• Provide for enforcement of the regulations of Chapter 19.02 (Kern County 2009).

Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2008)

The Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was originally adopted in 1996 and has since been amended to comply with Californian Aeronautics Law, California Public Utilities Code (CPUC) (Chapter 4, Article 3.5) regarding public airports and surrounding land use planning. As required by that law, proposals for public or private land use developments that occur within defined airport influence areas are subject to compatibility review. The principal airport land use compatibility concerns addressed by the plan are (1) exposure to aircraft noise; (2) land use safety with respect to both people and property on the ground and the occupants of the aircraft; (3) protection of airport air space; and (4) general concerns related to aircraft overflights.

The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan identifies polices and compatibility criteria for influence zones or planning area boundaries. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan maps and labels these zones as A, B1, B2, C, and D ranging from the most restrictive (A – airport property-runway protection zone) to the least restrictive (D – disclosure to property owners only). As required by law, the following affected cities have adopted the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for their respective airports: City of Bakersfield, City of California City, City of Delano, City of Shafter, City of Taft, City of Tehachapi and City of Wasco.

Kern County Integrated Waste Management Plan (1996, Revised 2004)

The Kern County Integrated Waste Management Plan was established in response to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). AB 939 required cities and counties to reduce solid waste disposal 25 percent by January 1, 1995 and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. The law also established a hierarchy that the local jurisdictions must comply with to address waste management issues.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act requires each local jurisdiction to prepare and carry out the following solid waste elements:

• Source Reduction and Recycling Element;

• Household Hazardous Waste Element;

• Non-disposal Facility Element;

• Countywide Siting Element; and

• Countywide Integrated Waste Management Summary Plan.

Together these elements make up the County Integrated Waste Management Plan.



Kern County Solid Waste Infrastructure Plan (2005)

The Kern County Solid Waste Infrastructure Plan (SWIP) projects the future solid waste facility needs of Kern County. The Kern County Waste Management Department must accomplish this while responsibly addressing environmental, social, and political issues associated with siting and developing future facilities. Specific objectives which the SWIP addresses are the following:

• Provide disposal capacity for the next 15 years for municipal solid waste;

• Respond to growth and waste generation spatial distribution; • Develop a facility implementation schedule; • Assess facility options to achieve mandated source reduction and recycling

goals; • Assess changes in service associated with facility modification;

• Assess facility options to maintain mandated source reduction and recycling goal, and;

• Balance level of service with economic and environmental constraints. Kern County Waste Facilities Habitat Conservation Plan (1997)

On October 14, 1997, the Kern County Board of Supervisors adopted, by Resolution 97-309, the Kern County Waste Facilities Habitat Conservation Plan (1997 HCP). The 1997 HCP addressed the potential for operations at 14 landfills to result in take of seven species (1997 covered species) protected as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act and/or the California Endangered Species Act, specifically:

• San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica): FE, CT • Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitraoides): FE, CE • Giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens): FE, CE • San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni): CT • Desert tortoise (Gopherus agasszii): FT • Blunt-Nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus): FE, CE • Hoover’s eriastrum (Eriastrum hooverii): FT

The 1997 HCP determined that the on-going operation of six of the 14 solid waste facilities (including the Taft RSLF) could result in take of one or more of these 1997 covered species due to disturbance of previously undisturbed areas within the existing landfill boundaries. The 1997 HCP permitted the incidental take of these species associated with the operation of the landfills.

Following approval of the 1997 HCP, Kern County Waste Management Department implemented a suite of measures to monitor, minimize, and mitigate for the impacts of its operations, including:



• Designation of a staff HCP compliance officer; • Maintenance of adequate landfill cover to preclude use of landfill areas by

1997 covered species; • Implementation of a take reporting and agency notification system; • Provision for United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) inspection of all sites; • Development and implementation of a training program for employees to

minimize impacts of operations in accordance with the measures provided in the 1997 HCP;

• Implementation of pre-activity surveys for 1997 covered species prior to disturbance, with provision for notification of the USFWS and CDFG and for the USFWS and CDFG to recommend appropriate relocation actions for species found on areas to be disturbed;

• Implementation of a protocol for pre-activity identification and monitoring of San Joaquin kit fox dens and actions to ensure that foxes would not be taken as a result of den destruction by permitted activities;

• Measures to prevent trapping of 1997 covered species in areas excavated as a part of landfill construction and operations;

• Measures to control domestic dogs and cats within the project area; • Traffic control at waste facilities where 1997 covered species have been

found; • Prohibition of off-road vehicle use at permitted sites; • Disposal of food containers and related waste from construction and

operations sites; • Possession of firearms is restricted to designated security and law enforcement

personnel only;

• Provisions to limit the use of rodenticides and herbicides to only those substances and methods approved by USFWS and CDFG;

• Provisions for USFWS, CDFG, and others to capture, remove, and relocate 1997 covered species on the Kern County Waste Management Department’s facilities prior to disturbance; and

• Mitigation of temporary and permanent impacts to habitats of 1997 covered species through the acquisition and permanent conservation of 775.1 acres of lands, through the acquisition of credits at the Arco Coles Levee Ecosystem Preserve.

These measures were fully implemented, all mitigation credits were acquired, and incidental take permits/authorizations were issued by USFWS and CDFG.



Taft Sanitary Landfill EIR (1993) An Environmental Impact Report for the Taft Sanitary Landfill (SCH No. 91082008) was certified by the Board of Supervisors in March 1993 with a project description including:

• Continued landfill operations for long term Class III refuse disposal for the communities of Taft, Ford City, Fellows, Maricopa, Tupman, McKittrick, Dustin Acres, and Derby Acres;

• Provide and maintain the ability to accept a larger volume of solid waste; and • Recovery and processing of recyclable materials from the refuse received at

Taft SLF for reduced landfill volumes as per Assembly Bill (AB) 939 (1989). The current SWFP (No. 15-AA-0061) associated with the March 1993 EIR is dated February 23, 2004. 2.10 Sources This Recirculated and 2010 DEIR, (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), is dependent upon information from many sources. Some sources are, for example, studies or reports that have been prepared specifically for this document. Others are studies or reports that may provide background information related to one or more issue areas that have been discussed in this document. The sources and references used in the preparation of this Recirculated and 2010 DEIR, (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR) are listed in Chapter 10, “References”, and are available for review during normal business hours at the Kern County Waste Management Department, 2700 “M” Street, Suite 500, Bakersfield, California, 93301.


Chapter 3 – Project Description

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 3-1

Chapter 3 - Project Description

3.1 Project Overview The Project is the installation of a landfill liner within a portion of the current permitted unlined disposal area, then a vertical expansion of the entire waste disposal area of the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill (Taft RSLF), which is a public landfill owned by the County of Kern and operated by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The Taft RSLF is located in the unincorporated area of southwestern Kern County, at 13351 Elk Hills Road, Taft, CA 93268 in Section 25 of Township 31 South, Range 23 East, MDB&M (see Figure 3-1). Note that for ease of locating figures within this chapter, all figures have been placed at the end of Chapter 3. Since the circulation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), there have been changes to the project description. These changes are:

• The addition of an amendment of the Circulation Element to remove designated road reservations;

• The addition of a revision and update of the Joint Technical Document describing the facilities design and operation;

• The addition of issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board;

• The addition of an amendment of the Unincorporated Kern County Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE) to provide for the inclusion of the recycling programs being conducted at the facility; and

• The merger of the multi-parcel site into one parcel occurred prior to the proposed Project’s CEQA approval, and has been removed from the Project Description.

Since the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, there has been another change to the project description. Note that the project description of the 2010 DEIR included an amendment to the Unincorporated Kern County Non-disposal Facility Element (NDFE) of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan to provide for the inclusion of the recycling programs being conducted at the facility. This component of the project description has been removed. Amendment of the NDFE is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 41735(a), but does require review and approval of the Board of Supervisors. On June 29, 2010, the Kern County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing concerning this amendment and adopted a Resolution approving the amendment to revise the information in the NDFE for the Taft RSLF. Subsequently, CalRecycle approved the request to amend the NDFE. Therefore, the amendment to the NDFE to include the Taft RSLF has been removed from the project Description for this Recirculated DEIR.



The major components of the proposed Project are listed below:

• Amend the Kern County General Plan (GPA 2, Map 138) to: o Change designation from Map Code 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum – min.

5-acre parcel size) to Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer) for 61.7 acres for landfill buffer property (see Figure 3-2);

o Amend the Circulation Element to eliminate road reservations for the east/west and north/south midsection lines, and the easterly section line of Section 25 Township 31 South, Range 23 East, Zone Map 138 (see Figure 3-3); and

o Amend Appendix “E” Map, “Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill”, to show the revised Taft RSLF permitted facility boundary with the added buffer property areas (see Figure 3-4);

• Modify Conditional Use Permit (CUP 1, Map 138) to: o Limit the permitted facility boundary to 161.68 acres to include the

landfill and landfill buffer properties (Map Code 3.4.1) (see Figure 3-5 and 3-6);

o Include uses ancillary to landfill operations; o Include the installation of a landfill liner, totaling 37 acres, within the

permitted unlined area (see Figure 3-6); o Limit the final height of the permitted disposal area to 868 feet1 above

mean sea level (MSL); o Limit the permitted maximum depth of the permitted disposal area to

520 feet MSL (125 feet below ground surface); o Limit the total designed air space, including final closure cover, to

11,000,000 cubic yards within the permitted disposal area; o Limit the permitted daily tonnage to 800 tons per day2; and o Limit the permitted daily traffic to 350 vehicles3 per day;

• Revise the existing Solid Waste Facility Permit (No. 15-AA-0061) to: o Increase the permitted facility boundary from 100 acres to 161.68

acres to include the landfill buffer area – an increase of 61.7 acres;



Department used the linear regression increment from 1995-2008 to project waste disposal growth from 2011 and beyond. Note that the maximum average daily disposal rate for the life of the proposed Project would be 282 tons per day. The Project’s proposed maximum daily tonnage of 800 tons per day is a peak daily tonnage that accounts for days of large quantity disposal such as from demolition projects.

3 See analysis in Chapter 4.11 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR) for an explanation of increase in tonnage versus increase in traffic.



o Increase the waste footprint from 35 acres4 to 71 acres, with the installation of landfill liner within the permitted unlined area – an increase of 36 acres5;

o Increase the permitted elevation of the landfill from 775 feet MSL to 868 feet MSL – an increase of 93 feet;




o Increase the permitted daily tonnage from 419 tons per day to 800 tons per day7 – an increase of 381 tons per day; and


• Revise the Preliminary Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan; prepare a Final Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan at the appropriate time, and conduct final closure construction, as required by Title 27 CCR over the disposal area at the end of site life;

• Revise and update the Joint Technical Document describing the facilities design and operation; and

• Issue revised Waste Water Discharge Requirements by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

4 In 1993, the refuse limits established in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part

258, were determined to be 32.6 acres, using visual observations and anecdotal information from various site contractors. This area was designated the 1993 refuse limit. In 2008, the site’s refuse limits were investigated by trenching at various locations around the perimeter of waste management unit. The results of the 2008 trenching investigation shows that the actual limits of refuse vary significantly from those established in 1993. The 2008 revised refuse limit constitutes the 35-acre area with waste currently in place (See Figure 3-5). Note that the entire 35-acre refuse limit was in place as of 1993, however it was misidentified.

5 One acre of waste from 35 acre existing refuse limit (see Section 3.2.3 for a discussion of this area) that extends north will be excavated and relocated within the existing refuse area. The excavated area will be lined as a part of the proposed 37-acre landfill liner; for a net increase of 36 acres.

6 The capacity study in Appendix F of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this recirculated DEIR) includes a refinement of design. Early assumptions used to estimate technical study calculations are a conservative estimation, as they overestimate the capacity and closure year.

7 The disposal rate estimate is based on analysis by the Waste Management Department. The Department used the linear regression increment from 1995-2008 to project waste disposal growth from 2011 and beyond. Note that the maximum average daily disposal rate for the life of proposed Project would be 282 tons per day. The Project’s proposed maximum daily tonnage of 800 tons per day is a peak daily tonnage that accounts for days of large quantity disposal such as from demolition projects.



3.1.1 Previous Environmental Documents 1993 Environmental Impact Report An EIR for the Taft Sanitary Landfill (SCH No. 91082008) was certified by the Board of Supervisors in March 1993 with a project description including:

• Continuing landfill operations for long term Class III refuse disposal for the communities of Taft, Ford City, Fellows, Maricopa, Tupman, McKittrick, Valley Acers, Dustin Acres, and Derby Acres;

• Providing and maintaining the ability to accept a larger volume of solid waste; and

• Recovering and processing of recyclable materials from the refuse received at Taft SLF for reduced landfill volumes as per AB939 (1989).

A Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted for unavoidable impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Groundwater. The continuation of ongoing operations was expected to:

1) Impact air quality as a result of excavation, movement of surface dirt, and the use of gasoline burning heavy equipment. Impacts to local air quality were expected to contribute CO, NOx and PM levels in a nonattainment air basin, which means additional emissions would contribute further to levels that already exceed the allowable levels.

2) Result in the “take” of species of plants and animals listed as either Threatened or Endangered by the California Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

3) Continue to provide a conduit for migration of contaminant in the soils subtending the facility to groundwater resources via means of gravel stringers. Preliminary investigations indicated no continuity, but the data was inconclusive.

In summary, the benefits of continued landfill operations at the Taft RSLF outweighed the risks of adverse impacts to air quality, biological resources or groundwater and the Draft EIR was certified. The current SWFP (No. 15-AA-0061) associated with the March 1993 EIR is dated February 23, 2004. 2009 Notice of Preparation Notice of Preparation - The Kern County Waste Management Department circulated an Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) dated February 2009 stating the Kern County Waste Management Department’s intention to prepare a new EIR for the permit revision of the Taft RSLF. The State Clearinghouse issued SCH No. 2009031008 for the project.



2010 Draft Environmental Impact Report This draft environmental impact report includes information necessary for the environmental evaluation of the revision of the solid waste facility permit and the land use permits for the Taft RSLF. The Taft RSLF DEIR was originally circulated for public comment from February 2 to March 19, 2010, by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The County has received and considered written comments that were received during the public comment period. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was certified by the Board of Supervisors and used in their consideration and approval of land use applications necessary for the implementation of the proposed Taft RSLF Permit Revision Project. These land use applications included:


The County’s certification of the FEIR and project approval was subsequently challenged in an action in Kern County Superior Court (the Court), entitled California Clean Energy Committee v. County of Kern (2010). The petitioner and the County entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. The Court reviewed the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and has ordered that the project approvals be invalidated and set aside as a result of an inadequate energy analysis in the EIR. In addition, the certification of the EIR, the adoption of the Title 14 CCR section 15091 Findings and section 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the adoption of the Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program for the Project, which were approved by the Kern County Board of Supervisors on June 29, 2010, are also invalidated and set aside solely as a result of the inadequate energy analysis contained in the EIR (Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Kern, 2010). 3.2 Project Location and Setting 3.2.1 Regional Setting The Taft RSLF property (project or project site) is approximately three miles north of the City of Taft in Kern County at 13351 Elk Hills Road (see Figure 3-1). The project area consists of three separate parcels of land totaling 161.68 acres. The dominant land uses in the region surrounding the landfill include petroleum production, natural resource mining, and State or Federal Lands (See Figure 3-7). 3.2.2 Local Setting and Surrounding Land Use The Taft RSLF is in a rural area; there is no established community in the vicinity of the landfill. The nearest community is Valley Acres, located approximately two miles from the project site. Existing planning does not allow for the establishment of residential land use activities within the vicinity of the Taft RSLF. Surrounding properties within an approximate two-mile radius are currently used for agricultural cultivation and petroleum production. The site is located outside the planning spheres of influence for the City of Taft. The nearest receptors are 21 residential dwellings northeast of the project site, the



nearest of which is approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the landfill, located on Valley West Road (see Figure 3-7). Petroleum production is the dominant land use surrounding the site (see Figure 3-7) and the landfill is surrounded by the Buena Vista Oil Field. Other land uses within a one-mile radius include surface mining operations and seasonal grazing. Future land use in the area is projected to remain similar to existing land use. The landfill is considered compatible with the existing natural resource recovery land and petroleum production activities and vice-versa. Adjacent parcels are owned by oil production or mining companies, or are federal government lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management for petroleum product development (see Figure 3-8).

Table 3-1 Surrounding Land Uses

Direction From Project

Site

Existing Land Use

Existing General Plan Designation

Existing Zone Classification

North Oil Fields Mineral and Petroleum A (Exclusive Agriculture)

East Surface Mine Mineral and Petroleum A-1 (Limited Agriculture) &

NR (10) (Natural Resource-10 acres)

West Oil Fields Mineral and Petroleum A (Exclusive Agriculture)

South Oil Fields Mineral and Petroleum A (Exclusive Agriculture) Topography in the immediate area slopes gently downward toward the northeast (3.8 percent grade), with natural surface elevations ranging from 600 to 700 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Soil types surrounding the site consist of bedded sands and gravelly sands, intermixed with fine- to medium-grained gravel. The San Joaquin Valley is a seismically active area. The principal geological structures responsible for shaping the geology of the San Joaquin Valley consist of several major and minor faults, including the McKittrick Thrust and the San Andreas Fault, 12 miles northwest and 12 miles west, respectively, of the Taft RSLF. More locally, the Buena Vista thrust fault emerges approximately three miles south of the Taft RSLF and has a mapped length of approximately 2.5 miles, trending east-west (Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., 2002) (see Figure 3-9). The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The landfill is underlain by a thick sequence of Plio-Pleistocene alluvial sediments, in which first groundwater is encountered at approximately 400 feet below ground surface (bgs). Current Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Taft RSLF indicate that beneficial uses of groundwater below the landfill include municipal and domestic supply, industrial service supply, and agricultural supply. No water supply wells are present within one mile of the



site. The water table, which occurs in the upper Tulare, was approximately 410 to 480 feet bgs in mid-2009. The most significant influences on groundwater levels in the landfill area appear to be from wastewater injection and percolation operations in nearby oil fields and structural geometries of impermeable strata. 3.2.3 Current Land Use The Taft RSLF is an unlined, active public Class III landfill owned by the County of Kern and operated by the Kern County Waste Management Department. Taft RSLF operations began in September of 1972, as approved by CUP No. 1, Map 138 on January 20, 1972, in accordance with standard engineering practices employed at that time. The Taft RSLF was in operation prior to enactment of the Z’berg-Kapiloff Solid Waste Control Act of 1976 and Federal Subtitle “D” regulations in 1993, and was therefore constructed without an impermeable landfill liner, or a leachate collection system. In 2008 (the time of the circulation of the NOP), the Taft RSLF was open 361 days, and received an average of 103 tons of waste per day, from an average of 61 vehicles per day. The waste in place was 1,596,635 cubic yards. The Taft RSLF serves a population of about 14,900 (Unities States Census Bureau, 2000) for the cities of Maricopa and Taft, and the unincorporated communities of Derby Acres, Dustin Acres, Fellows, Ford City, McKittrick, Taft Heights, Tupman, and Valley Acres, including commercial and agricultural interests in the surrounding unincorporated areas of the County of Kern. County of Kern waste facilities are prohibited from accepting refuse from outside the County by Kern County Ordinance G-7501 which states:

“In order to preserve the limited landfill capacity in the County which has been reserved for in-County uses, solid waste originating outside the County shall not be accepted at County waste facilities and no person shall transport refuse from outside the County to County waste facilities, except by the express order of the Board of Supervisors. However, the Board of Supervisors may agree to accept solid waste originating outside the County at County waste facilities on such terms and conditions as it may approve.”

The overall project area encompasses 161.68 acres, of which 99.98 acres comprise the permitted facility. The 99.98-acre permitted facility includes 85 acres currently permitted for disposal (See Table 3-2 and Figure 3-5). The Project is located in Section 25 of Township 31 South, Range 23 East, MDB&M.



Table 3-2: Site Location – Project Acreage

No. APN Acres Land Use General

Plan Map Code

Proposed General

Plan Map Code

Zoning

1 298-050-13 99.98 Landfill 3.4 - A (Exclusive Agriculture)

2 298-050-29 58.37 South Buffer 8.4 3.4.1 A (Exclusive Agriculture)

3 298-050-23 3.33 South Buffer 8.4 3.4.1 A (Exclusive Agriculture)

TOTAL 161.68 Specifically, the Project area consists of the following parcels: APN 298-050-13. The Taft RSLF facility is located on this 99.98-acre parcel. Within the parcel, 85 acres make up the current permitted disposal area. Of the 85-acre permitted disposal area, 35 acres currently have waste in place. In 1993, the refuse limits established in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 258, were determined to be 32.6 acres, using visual observations and anecdotal information from various site contractors. This area was designated the 1993 refuse limit. In 2008, the site’s refuse limits were investigated by trenching at various locations around the perimeter of waste management unit. The results of the 2008 trenching investigation shows that the actual limits of refuse vary significantly from those established in 1993. The 2008 revised refuse limit constitutes the 35-acre area with waste currently in place (see Figure 3-5). Note that the entire 35-acre refuse limit was in place as of 1993, however it was misidentified. Although the Taft RSLF has an 85-acre permitted disposal area, there is currently no CEQA approval for landfill liner construction of the remaining permitted disposal area. The current 35-acre refuse limit is expected to reach capacity in 2013, at which time the Taft RSLF will cease acceptance of waste without approval of the proposed Project. The Project site includes a 200-foot setback of the proposed lined disposal area from the property boundary to provide additional interior buffer. The proposed lined area is 14 acres less than the current permitted disposal area, or 71 acres. Access to the site is via means of a BLM Right of Way, from Elk Hills Road to the easterly property boundary. This allows for ingress and egress rights from the landfill across the U.S. government property to Elk Hills Road. The Taft RSLF consists of multiple waste modules, and will be constructed sequentially in phases, as shown on Excavation Sequencing Plan, Figure 3-10. This fill sequence plan was developed to minimize waste module preparation, double-handling of soils, and operating costs. The disposal activities may move at any time between existing waste modules so as to take optimal advantage of disposal air space efficiencies and to



maximize operational flexibility. Waste module 1 is unlined, and is currently accepting waste. Waste modules 2, 3 and 4 will be lined before the acceptance of waste. This entire parcel is designated as General Plan Map Code 3.4 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility) and zoned A (Exclusive Agriculture). APN 298-050-29. This 58.37-acre parcel includes the south landfill buffer area. Currently, this parcel is identified as General Plan Map Code 8.4 (Mineral Resources – min. 5 Acre Parcel Size) and zoned A (Exclusive Agriculture). APN 298-050-23. This 3.33-acre parcel includes the south landfill buffer area. Currently, this parcel is identified as General Plan Map Code 8.4 (Mineral Resources – min. 5 Acre Parcel Size) and zoned A (Exclusive Agriculture). The current Solid Waste Facilities Permit for the Taft RSLF allows for the site to accept up to 419 tons of waste per day, brought in by a maximum of 338 vehicles per day. The landfill is approved to receive non-hazardous municipal solid waste, agricultural waste, green waste, construction and demolition waste, and dead animals. Liquid waste, sludge, waste requiring special handling, hazardous waste, burn waste, and auto shredder waste are not permitted for disposal. Many items may be collected for recycling and waste diversion include, but are not limited to, green and wood waste, white goods (i.e. large appliances), tires, inerts (i.e. concrete, asphalt, asphalt roofing, aggregate, brick, rubble, and soil) scrap metal, and cathode ray tubes (CRTs). Permanent structures at the Taft RSLF include a 10’ x 20’ metal gatehouse at the site entrance, a 70’ commercial scale, and a 60’ x 100’ concrete loading pad located northeast of waste module 1. A fence surrounds the entire site with a locking gate at the entrance (see Figure 3-5). Portable facilities may be located on-site so as to be convenient to ongoing operations. Such facilities may include but are not limited to:

• Hazardous Waste Storage Locker; • Oil and oil filter recycling containers; • Landfill operator’s and/or construction contractor’s field office; • From time to time, temporary oil and diesel hydraulic fluid tanks may be

located on-site for servicing equipment; and • Cargo containers.

The West Kern Water District supplies the Taft RSLF’s water needs, which is sourced from groundwater wells in the Tupman area approximately 8 miles to the northeast, as well as water from State Water Project deliveries. The landfill gatehouse utilizes an on-site septic system, and portable toilets are provided for other site workers. The Taft RSLF is not served by sewer infrastructure facilities. On-site electricity is provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a subsidiary of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Inc.



Groundwater quality for the site is regulated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) – Central Valley Region, under Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order Number 5-01-160, adopted in July 2001. The Taft RSLF maintains a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (WDID No. 5F15I013399) for the facility. The Kern County Waste Management Department prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with a Monitoring Plan and Reporting Requirement for the landfill. The Kern County Waste Management Department calculates that under the current (2000) final fill design plan, the permitted disposal area will reach permitted capacity in 2064. Without construction of the landfill liner system, the current 35-acre refuse limit is expected to reach capacity in 2013. The Kern County Waste Management Department determined these dates by performing projection studies which have been documented in the Taft Sanitary Landfill Capacity Study, 2009 (Kern County Waste Management Department, 2009b). This document can be referenced at the Kern County Waste Management Department offices. The volumetric basis for the assessment of future disposal capacity and site life assumes that each ton of waste disposal results in 1.70 cubic yards of volume used. This fill rate factor has been derived from Global Positioning System (GPS) surveys and tonnage records of the landfill. Further refinements in the fill rate are expected over time. With approval of this project, the closure date for the facility is expected to be in 2074. The closure date is an estimate subject to annual review based upon such factors as fill rate, waste settlement, and regional growth rates. 3.3 Existing Planning and Zoning Regulations The proposed Project is under the jurisdiction of the County of Kern for land use and planning decisions. Land use is governed by the Kern County General Plan and the Kern County Zoning Ordinance. Applicable land use planning documents, which regulate the proposed Project, are discussed below. 3.3.1 Kern County General Plan (KCGP) The Kern County General Plan is a policy document with planned land use maps and related information that are designed to give long-range guidance to those County officials making decisions affecting the growth and resources of the unincorporated Kern County jurisdictions, excluding the metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. The document helps to ensure that day-to-day decisions conform to the long-range program designed to protect and further the public interest as related to Kern County’s growth and development, and to mitigate environmental impacts (Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, 2004).



3.3.2 Kern County Zoning Ordinance The Kern County Zoning Ordinance established the basic regulations under which land is developed. The latest Zoning Ordinance was adopted in March, 2009 to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare through the orderly regulation of land uses throughout the unincorporated area of Kern County, and to encourage and guide development consistent with the Kern County General Plan. This includes the size and use of lots, yards and other open spaces, population density in residential areas, permitted uses, building setback requirements, and development standards, etc. This zoning code applies to all property in unincorporated Kern County, except land owned by the Unites States or any of its agencies (Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, 2009). 3.3.3 The Kern County Waste Facilities Habitat Conservation Plan The Kern County Waste Management Department, in 1997, prepared the Kern County Waste Facilities HCP and obtained a Section 10(a) permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) which allows for the incidental take of certain threatened or endangered species on the project site. At that time, 53 acres had been substantially disturbed by disposal activities. An additional 12 acres in the northeastern portion of the landfill had been previously graded and furrowed, but had substantially re-vegetated with common saltbush and annual plants. The remaining 35 acres in the northern portion of the landfill were less disturbed and contained substantial native vegetation. These 47 acres containing vegetation constituted potential habitat within the landfill’s permitted area. In 1997, the Kern County Waste Management Department acquired habitat compensation credits, for the disturbance of 47 acres of potential habitat, within the 99.98-acre permitted facility boundary. The existing standard of 3:1 compensation ratio for habitat impacts in the southern San Joaquin Valley (established in other projects) was used to compute the total habitat mitigation requirement. Thus, the Kern County Waste Management Department provided a total of 141 acres of compensation for impacts to state and federally listed species as a result of Kern County landfill operations at the Taft RSLF. These habitat compensation commitments were fulfilled through the purchase of all the required mitigation credits at the ARCO Coles Levee Ecosystem Preserve. In 2005, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) issued the Kern County Waste Management Department a Consistency Determination Agreement (2080.1) permitting the incidental take of threatened or endangered species at the site, as defined by the 1997 HCP. In 2008, CDFG issued a 2081 permit specifically for the incidental take of San Joaquin antelope squirrel at this site. An amendment to the 1997 HCP is in development, and includes the buffer property surrounding the Taft RSLF. A copy of the HCP, the Joint Implementation Agreement, the USFWS-issued Section 10(a) permit and the CDFG’s Consistency Determination Agreement (2080.1) are available for review at the Kern County Waste Management Department’s offices. The



National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment prepared for the 1997 HCP is available from USFWS. The Kern County Waste Facilities HCP includes measures to avoid and minimize incidental take of endangered and threatened species. The proposed expansion of the waste footprint will occur within the HCP covered footprint of the permitted facility, and as such is required to meet all Avoidance and Minimization protocols, including a pre-activity survey within 30 days of ground disturbance. 3.3.4 The Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan The project site is also within the jurisdictional boundaries of the proposed Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (VFHCP) area, for which a Section 2081 permit has been requested through the California Department of Fish and Game and a Section 10(a) permit has been requested through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The site is identified as being in the “red” zone that represents the best contiguous blocks of undisturbed or lightly disturbed habitat for Covered Species (Garcia and Associates, 2006). Although the VFHCP is not currently adopted, if the plan is adopted prior to implementation of the proposed project, the applicant may be subject to the payment of fees and mitigation program required under that Habitat Conservation Plan.

3.4 Project Objectives The Taft RSLF is a public landfill owned by the County of Kern and managed by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The main objective of the Kern County Waste Management Department, as stated in the October 14, 1993 Mission Statement is “to protect the health and safety of the public, and enhance the quality of life by providing environmentally safe management of liquid and solid waste.” As such, the proposed action of the Project is to amend the SWFP and land use permits to allow for increased capacity at the Taft RSLF in response to the growth experienced in the County of Kern. Specific objectives developed for the proposed Project are as follows:



• Increase buffer areas around the Taft RSLF as encouraged by the policies and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan;

• Maintain and expand disposal and recycling opportunities for local communities;









• Provide additional emergency disposal capacity for disaster preparedness.

3.5 Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Proposed Project

Operations The current Report of Disposal Site Information (RDSI) of the Joint Technical Document (JTD) for the Taft RSLF is being revised to describe the proposed Project. Such revisions include an increase in permitted facility boundary, height, capacity and lifespan of the Taft RSLF. The following excerpts from the revised RDSI reflect the Taft RSLF operations under the proposed Project. 3.5.1 Facility Operations Overview The Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill (Taft RSLF) is operated under permits issued to the Kern County Waste Management Department. Actual day-to-day operation of the site is conducted by a private contractor under agreement with the Kern County Waste Management Department. The facility is located on land owned by the County of Kern. The facility is a Class III Landfill as defined in Title 27 CCR section 20260(a) [CalRecycle, 2011]. Upon arrival, customers are required to stop at the facility gatehouse to complete a transaction that includes queries for load composition and waste origin. The Gatehouse Attendant completes the transaction by administering fees, if applicable, and directing the customer to proper unloading areas. If applicable, customer vehicles are weighed to determine appropriate application of fees, and to record weights for surveys. If customer loads are not weighed, a “volume to weight” method is used to determine the estimated weight, or a state approved standard load weight is administered.



Signs, cones, and other devices are used to direct traffic throughout the site. Under direction of site staff, customers deposit diverted recyclable materials into stockpiles, and proceed to the disposal area, described as the working face. Once vehicles have deposited their loads at the working face, the site contractor utilizes equipment to push, spread and compact the waste. Severe weather events are unusual at the Taft RSLF. However, the Kern County Waste Management Department has adopted an Extreme Weather Plan, which describes the operational measures implemented during severe weather events. At the end of the operating day, the Operations Contractor compacts and smoothes the working face and applies daily cover In accordance with State Regulations. Site Plan

1) Vicinity Map ....................................................................................Figure 3-1 2) Pre-disposal topography...............................................................Figure 3-11 3) Facility boundary ............................................................................Figure 3-6 4) Current permitted acreage (99.98 acres) .......................................Figure 3-5 5) Proposed permitted acreage (161.68 acres) .................................Figure 3-6 6) Disposal area acreage (71 acres) 8 ................................................Figure 3-6 7) Proposed buffer area (61.7 acres)..................................................Figure 3-2 8) Vertical limits of site:

a) Minimum: 520 feet above Mean Sea Level ..........................Figure 3-12 b) Maximum: 868 feet above Mean Sea Level .........................Figure 3-12

9) Current Topography .....................................................................Figure 3-13 10) Drainage.......................................................................................Figure 3-12

Fill sequencing will be performed in a series of lifts that will vary in size depending on the area to be filled. Typically each lift will have a thickness of 10 to 25 feet. More than one lift may be constructed at one time to facilitate proper drainage. Hours The Taft RSLF is open to receive waste and operates seven days per week, from no earlier than 7:00 a.m. to no later than 5:00 p.m., except for the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Easter, Fourth of July, Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day. Current days and hours of receipt of waste and operation for the Taft RSLF are Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Sunday from noon to 4:00 p.m. Additional hours are provided from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., on Tuesday and Thursday for franchise haulers and municipalities. The site accepts waste and performs most site maintenance during operating hours. Days and hours of operation are subject to change by the Kern County Waste Management Department, with local enforcement agency approval. “Hours of operation” is defined as the period of time the facility is generally open to receipt of public and commercial waste. Other landfill activities that are generally performed during hours of operation are cover placement, compaction, and facility maintenance. 8 The current permitted disposal area is 85 acres. At the time of the preparation of this document the

Department only plans on filling 71 of the 85 acres currently permitted for disposal.



These activities may also occur at any time. The acceptance of waste is conducted during daylight hours. If non-disposal operations occur outside the listed hours, adequate personnel shall be staffed to prevent nuisance or health and safety problems. 3.5.2 Waste Types/Volumes Volumes The 2008 daily average inbound waste stream at the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill was 103 tons. The net disposal waste stream was 34,846 tons for the year 2008. Permitted peak daily tonnage, including diverted materials, is 800 tons per day9. Table 3-3 presents inbound waste flow projections, including diverted materials, for the facility through the year 2013, based upon the Kern County Waste Management Department’s January 1, 2009 Landfill Capacity Study.

Table 3-3 5-Year Inbound Waste Flow Projection

(Based on assumptions within the January 1, 2009 Landfill Capacity Study,

Kern County Waste Management Department, 2009b)

Average Daily

Tonnage Year

Projected Waste Flow

(tons) 2009 99 35,636 2010 99 35,636 2011 102 36,763 2012 105 37,890 2013 108 39,017 2014 112 40,145

Waste Types The Taft RSLF receives non-hazardous solid wastes, including residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and demolition debris and dead animals for disposal. High Liquid Content Wastes High liquid content wastes are not accepted for disposal. Designated Wastes Designated wastes are not accepted for disposal. 9 The disposal rate estimate is based on analysis by the Waste Management Department. The




Special Wastes Special wastes (as defined by Title 22 CCR sections 66261.120 and 66261.122) are not accepted. Hazardous Wastes Hazardous wastes are not accepted for disposal. Other Wastes Requiring Special Handling The following materials have special handling requirements and are diverted from the waste stream and collected in designated areas:

• White goods (e.g., Washers, Dryers, Refrigerators)

• Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT) devices

• Electronic Wastes (e.g., Computers, Microwaves, etc)

• Tires

• Used motor oil and oil filters are collected in approved storage containers. The used motor oil tank is emptied as needed by a licensed oil hauler.

• Grasses, leaves, and other similar materials which are suitable for acceptance at local composting facilities

• Clean loads of construction and demolition debris, and inert material (CDI) are diverted from the waste stream.

• Other Waste Streams that have state approved alternative management standards, including but not limited to treated wood waste, may be accepted for recycling or disposal at an alternative location, as approved by the Local Enforcement Agency.

• Dead animals brought to the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill are placed at the toe of the working face and covered as soon as possible to prevent excessive vectors, odors, and nuisances.

Future programs requiring special handling may include travel trailer/mobile home recycling, and a greenwaste program which may be subject to future local enforcement agency approval. 3.5.3 Waste Management Unit Classification and Siting Airport Safety Title 27 CCR section 21600(b)(3)(A) requires the applicant provide documentation that the Federal Aviation Administration and appropriate airport officials were notified, if a new municipal solid waste landfill unit or lateral expansion will be sited within a five-mile radius of any airport runway end used by turbojet or piston-type aircraft (CalRecycle, 2011). This section does not apply, as the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill is not a new facility and is not laterally expanding the waste disposal area beyond the currently permitted limits.



Volumetric Capacity The Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Volume Statistics:

• Maximum Design Capacity (total air space, including final closure cover): approximately 11,000,000 cubic yards.

Soil for daily and intermediate cover is estimated to occupy up to 20 percent of landfill capacity. However, alternate daily cover and operational practices can greatly reduce the demand for soil to conserve landfill capacity. Volumetric capacity calculations are derived through the use of AutoCAD Land Design and Development computer software. This software program combines the data from the projected disposal area and base and final closure configurations to calculate the total volume. Volume capacity calculations can be found in the January 1, 2009 Capacity Study (Appendix F of the 2010 DEIR, included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR). The referenced characteristics are found on the following Figures:

1) Delineation of the site property boundary Figure 3-6 2) Disposal area Figure 3-6 3) Current topography Figure 3-13 4) Boundary and disposal area used for volumetric survey Figure 3-6 5) Final grading plan Figure 3-12 6) Pre-disposal topography Figure 3-11

Site Life Estimate The Kern County Waste Management Department projects that at the current fill rate the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill will reach final capacity in 2074. The Kern County Waste Management Department determined this date by performing projection studies which have been documented in the Revised January 1, 2009 Landfill Capacity Study. This document can be referenced at the Kern County Waste Management Department offices and is included in Appendix F of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR). The volumetric basis for the assessment of future disposal capacity and site life assumes that each ton of waste disposal results in 1.70 cubic yards of volume used. This fill rate factor has been derived from GPS surveys and tonnage records at the landfill. Further refinements in the fill rate are expected over time. Site Location The facility is in western Kern County, about 3 miles north of the City of Taft. The street address is 13351 Elk Hills Road, Taft, California 93268. The Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill facility boundary is on a 161.68-acre parcel. The active portion of the landfill comprises approximately 100 acres and is in Section 25, T31S, R23E, MDB&M in Kern County, California. Primary access to the site is via Elk Hills Road, one mile north of Taft Highway (CA 119). Incoming traffic travels along a private access easement from Elk Hills Road to the landfill property line, and enters the site using a paved road to the gatehouse (see Figure 3-1).



Land Use The Taft RSLF is located in a rural area; there is no established community in the vicinity of the landfill. The nearest community is Valley Acres, located approximately two miles from the project site. Existing planning does not allow for the establishment of a residential land use activities. Surrounding properties within an approximate two-mile radius are primarily used for agricultural cultivation and petroleum production. The site is located outside the planning sphere of influence for the City of Taft. The nearest sensitive receptors are 21 residential dwellings northeast of the project site, the nearest of which is approximately 1.2 miles away, located on Valley West Road. Petroleum production is the dominant land use surrounding the site (see Figure 3-7) and the landfill is surrounded by the Buena Vista Oil Field. Other land uses within a one-mile radius include surface mining operations and seasonal grazing. Future land use in the area is projected to remain similar to existing land use. The landfill is considered compatible with the existing natural resource recovery land and petroleum production activities, and vice-versa. Adjacent parcels are owned by oil production or mining companies, or are federal government lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management for petroleum product development (see Table 3-1). The General Plan Designations and Land Use Zoning are illustrated on Figures 3-2 and 3-14. The facility boundary encompasses 161.68 acres. The approved 85-acre permitted disposal area includes the existing 35-acre waste footprint and the additional 37 acres of future lined area. One acre of the existing fill area will be excavated and relocated to accommodate future liner construction, resulting in a future total fill area of 71 acres. Setbacks from existing property lines around the 85-acre permitted disposal area, but still within the original 100-acre site, are used for drainage, monitoring, and other activities ancillary to a sanitary landfill. In addition to the landfill setbacks, 61.7 acres south of the original 100-acre site will be included in the permitted facility boundary as buffer acres. Like the setback area, the buffer may be used for activities ancillary to a sanitary landfill which may include, but are not limited to: diversion areas, drainage sumps, and soil stockpiles. Ancillary Facilities Permanent structures at the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill include a gatehouse, concrete loading pad, and scale. The gatehouse is a 10’ by 20’ metal structure at the entrance to the site with one 70’ commercial scale. A 60’ x 100’ concrete loading pad is located northeast of the current disposal cell, Module 1. A fence surrounds the entire site with a locking gate at the entrance (see Figure 3-6). Portable facilities may be located on-site so as to be convenient to ongoing operations. Such facilities may include but are not limited to:

• Hazardous Waste Storage Locker; • Oil and oil filter recycling containers; • Landfill operator’s and/or construction contractor’s field office;



• From time to time, temporary oil and diesel hydraulic fluid tanks may be located on-site for servicing equipment; and

• Cargo containers. 3.5.4 Design and Construction Standards for all Sites General Design Parameters The Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill is designed to serve the solid waste disposal needs for Kern County. It is a Class III facility which receives non-hazardous solid waste. The location of the facility is such that precipitation is minimal and surrounding land use is compatible with landfilling operations. The Project site is located within a rural agricultural area, outside the projected pattern of urban development, yet is a convenient location for residents, businesses, and government facilities. The Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill is designed to operate as a sanitary waste disposal facility in accordance with Title 27, CCR (CalRecycle, 2011). In general, operations maintain a small, compacted working face that is covered on a daily basis. Cell construction is designed to promote drainage and minimize uncontrolled run-off. Traffic is controlled to provide safe and convenient service to customers. This Report of Disposal Site Information (RDSI) describes the design and operation of the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill, which is operated under permits issued to the Kern County Waste Management Department. As per Title 27 CCR section 21600(4) (A), the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill site activities including, but not limited to, design, construction, operations, and environmental monitoring are conducted under the general supervision of eight registered professionals:

• Douglas E. Landon. P.E. No. C38383

• Nancy Murray Ewert, P.E. No. C 46597

• Eric John Greenwood, P.G. No. 4522 P.E. No C67886

• Ramzi I. Mansour, P.E. No. C55854;

• Ron Walker, P.L.S No. 4761 • Bryon Smith, P.E. No. C61252 • Brian Klatt, P.E. No. C55749 • Timothy C. Reed, P.G. No. 5999

Actual day-to-day operation of the site is performed by a contractor. Design Responsibility Title 27 CCR section 21600(b)(4)(B) requires the design of a new disposal site shall be under the direction of a registered civil engineer (CalRecycle 2011). The designer shall utilize expert advice as appropriate from persons competent in soils, hydrology, geology, landscape design, chemistry and other disciplines. This section does not apply, as the Taft RSLF is not a new facility.



Construction Sequencing Plans The Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill will be constructed sequentially in modules, as shown on Figure 3-10. This sequence plan was developed to minimize module preparation, double-handling of soils, and operating costs. The contractor may move disposal activities at any time between existing Modules so as to take optimal advantage of disposal air space efficiencies, and to maximize operational flexibility. The above-mentioned characteristics can be found on the following maps:

1) Facility Location Figure 3-1 2) Existing Topographic Contour Figure 3-13 3) Facility Boundary Figure 3-6 5) Zoning and Land Use Figure 3-14 and 3-7 6) Pre-disposal topography Figure 3-11

Grading Plan The minimum elevation of the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill is 520 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) (125 feet below ground surface). The maximum elevation of the Taft RSLF would be 868 feet above MSL. The above-mentioned requirements can be found on the following maps:

1) Final elevations of completed disposal site Figure 3-12 2) Excavation depth Figure 3-12 3) Existing and proposed borrow area Figure 3-10

Gas Management Plan Title 27 CCR Section 20919 requires explosive gas monitoring and control (CalRecycle, 2011). The section requires that landfills shall be monitored for landfill gas presence and movement, as required by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), formerly know as the CIWMB. The Kern County Waste Management Department will perform gas monitoring quarterly and the gas data results will be submitted to the appropriate agencies (Local Enforcement Agency, CalRecycle, and RWQCB). If methane gas levels exceed 25 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL) (1.25 percent by volume in air) in facility structures, or exceed the LEL (5 percent by volume in air) at the permitted facility boundary, the Kern County Waste Management Department will take the following steps:

• Immediately take all necessary actions to ensure the protection of human health and notify the local enforcement agency;

• Within seven days of detection, place in the operating record the methane gas levels detected and a description of the steps taken to protect human health, and;



• Within 60 days of detection, implement a remediation plan for the methane gas releases, place a copy of the plan in the operating record, and notify the local enforcement agency that the plan has been implemented.

The Kern County Waste Management Department is required to protect groundwater that underlies the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill from impacts caused by landfill gas. Monitoring System The purpose of a gas monitoring system is to detect the subsurface migration of landfill gas from the landfill. Perimeter gas monitoring has historically been conducted at the site using a combination of Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) probes and temporary shallow probes at 1,000-foot intervals along the landfill boundary in compliance with requirements for active sites. In 1987, the Kern County Waste Management Department performed an Air Quality SWAT at the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill in response to Assembly Bill (AB) 3374 (Calderon), which defines the ambient air monitoring and testing requirements for disposal sites in California. This test included installing one temporary landfill gas probe through the refuse and four temporary landfill gas probes outside the waste footprint, approximately six feet into the ground. Following the Air SWAT, the site operator covered the internal gas probe with refuse. Three of these temporary probes remain. In 2008, in accordance with new Title 27 CCR section 20925 requirements for perimeter monitoring of landfill gas at active sites (CalRecycle, 2011), and the Waste Discharge Requirements, the Kern County Waste Management Department has constructed permanent landfill gas monitoring wells to replace the SWAT probes and temporary probes. Each permanent well contains multi-level probes. The depth of the deepest probe is equal to the depth of adjacent waste. Monitoring Method and Frequency The Kern County Waste Management Department currently conducts quarterly structure and perimeter gas monitoring at the Taft RSLF. The Kern County Waste Management Department performs the subsurface gas readings with a LandtecTM GEM-2000 infrared gas analyzer, or equivalent. The Kern County Waste Management Department staff calibrates the instrument each operating day with CH4, CO2, and O2 gases. Staff logs the readings on a field sheet along with the monitoring point location, time, climatic conditions, gas pressure, and instrument used for monitoring. Gatehouses and on-site structures are monitored quarterly with the GEM-2000 or equivalent. It is capable of detecting toxic gases [CO and H2S (in ppm)] in addition to O2 (percent by volume), CO2 (percent by volume), and CH4 (percent by volume). The Kern County Waste Management Department submits the readings to the local enforcement agency, CalRecycle, and RWQCB quarterly.



Landfill Gas Collection and Control System The Taft RSLF does not currently have a gas collection and control system. Section 111 of the federal Clean Air Act authorized the U.S. EPA to develop technology-based standards that apply to specific categories of stationary sources. These New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are found in Title 40 CFR Part 60, and require Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills having a design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters to calculate the non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) emission rate annually. The Taft RSLF has a design capacity of 5,868,823 megagrams. If the NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater than 50 megagrams per year, a landfill gas collection and control system must be installed. In 2008, SCS Engineers (SCS) was retained by the Kern County Waste Management Department to conduct landfill gas sampling, analysis, and non-methane organic compound (NMOC) emissions estimation for the Taft Landfill. The purpose of this investigation was to obtain site-specific NMOC values used in emissions modeling required under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) regulations. The investigation demonstrated that full NSPS requirements for installation of a landfill gas collection and control system are not triggered for the five-year period from 2008-2012 because the NMOC emission rate is well below 50 megagrams per year. In the new California Air Resources Board’s greenhouse gas regulations (Title 17 CCR), the landfill gas heat input capacity and surface emissions are criteria for installing a landfill gas collection and control system. Landfills (such as Taft) with calculated landfill gas heat input capacity of less than 3 million British thermal units per hour, and instantaneous surface emission measurements of less than 200 part per million do not generate or emit landfill gas at a rate to significantly affect the environment. In addition, using inputs corresponding to the expected disposal rates and the dry, arid climate associated with Taft, landfill gas modeling (LandGEM) further suggests the site will not produce sufficient landfill gas to support a landfill gas collection and control system during the life of the Project. Gas Condensate Collection System The Taft RSLF does not have a gas collection system at this time. If a system is installed, a gas condensate collection system will be implemented. Reporting In accordance with Title 27 CCR, the Department submits a quarterly landfill gas monitoring report to the local enforcement agency, CalRecycle, and RWQCB. The reports include a compliance summary, actions taken during the quarter, maps, and copies of the field data sheets. 3.5.5 Operating Criteria Disposal Site Records: All records are available for inspection at the offices of the Kern County Waste Management Department (2700 “M” Street, Suite 500, Bakersfield, CA 93301) during



normal business hours. Most records are kept in the Site Operating Record which is located on the fifth floor. These include:

20510(a) Records of Weights or Volumes: The gate attendant uses a computerized, calibrated scale to collect data which may include, but is not limited to, amount of materials and type of vehicles. To avoid traffic delays small vehicles are not weighed. A standard weight or a volume to weight conversion factor is used for these vehicles. These weights and conversion factors are updated quarterly, based on sample surveys. The gate attendant enters this information as vehicles enter the site.

20510(b) Records of Excavations: All grading and excavation is done in

accordance with design plans taking into account drainage, soil type, safety, and efficiency. All grading and excavation plans are kept on file at the offices of the Kern County Waste Management Department.

20510(c) Daily Log Book (Special Occurrence Log (SOL)): Special

occurrences are recorded in the Special Occurrence Log (SOL) and kept at the site. The gatehouse attendant normally maintains the SOL; however, other Kern County Waste Management Department staff may make entries as required. The gatehouse attendant is directed by the Operations Engineer to maintain a daily log book or file (SOL) of the following information: fires, landslides, earthquake damage, unusual and sudden settlement, injury and property damage accidents, explosions, receipt or rejections of unpermitted wastes, flooding, and other unusual occurrences. The logs are maintained in books covering one month. When the books are completed, they are transferred to the Kern County Waste Management Department office in Bakersfield, and filed with other operating records.

20510(d) Training Record: Training Records are maintained in the

Operating Record. 20510(e) Responsible Party Notification: Notification of Responsible Parties

is maintained in the Operating Record.

The Taft RSLF Unit Records: An index of the following document requirements and their location is located in the Operating Record.

20515(a) (1) Any location restriction i.e. Airport Clearance Determination. Not Applicable

20515(a) (2) Waste Exclusion Program Records as required by section 20870.



20515(a) (3) Gas monitoring reports, plan, and records as required by Section 20919.

20515(a) (4) Closure and post-closure maintenance plans as required by

Section 21780, notice of intent to close the unit as described in Section 21135, notice of certification of closure as required by Section 21880, deed notation as required by Section 21170, demonstration of release from post-closure maintenance required by Section 21180, and any gas monitoring, testing, or analytical data as required by 40 CFR Section 258.61

20515(a) (5)- Financial Assurance Mechanisms as required: Corrective Action

Cost Estimates as required by Sections 22221 and 22226. Closure Cost Estimates as required by Section 21820. Post-Closure Maintenance Cost Estimates 21840.

20515(a) (6)- Small Community Exemption as required by 40 CFR

Section 258.1(f) (2). Not Applicable. Security The active portion of the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill where landfill activities are in progress is surrounded by a fence equipped with locking gates at the site entrance near the northeast corner of the facility. When open to the general public, the site entrance is supervised by Kern County Waste Management Department staff and/or by the Operations Contractor who control access in and out of the site. Access to the landfill is controlled by the site contractor when the gate attendant is not available. A surveillance system records all vehicles entering and exiting the facility via a closed circuit camera. Sanitary Facilities The Kern County Waste Management Department provides a flush toilet, potable water, hand washing facilities and an eyewash station at the gatehouse for County employees. A portable toilet, potable water, hand washing facilities, and an eye wash station may also be located at the Diversion Area for county employees. Operations Contractor employees have use of the eyewash station. The operational agreement requires that the contractor provide sanitary facilities, potable water, hand-washing facilities, and an eyewash station for its employees. Communications Systems Site staff have several communication options. The main communications device site staff utilize is a radio network. This system links the gate attendant, Kern County diversion area staff, the Operations Contractor staff, and visiting Kern County Waste Management Department field staff. This system is also a link for emergency communications with the Kern County Waste Management Department’s main office, Kern County’s Communication Center, or 911. A land line telephone is installed at the



gatehouse. Additionally, designated Kern County Waste Management Department and contractor staff are equipped with cell phones. Lighting The acceptance of waste from public self haulers is conducted during the daylight hours. There are certain times of the year when the acceptance of waste from commercial haulers, and the operations of the landfill, may occur outside of daylight hours. In these cases, precautions are taken to insure safety in the workplace. These precautions may include, but are not limited to:

• Contractor provides training; proper reflective attire is worn, and additional illumination may be provided if deemed necessary;

• The public is not allowed on the landfill until daylight hours; only professional commercial drivers, county employees and/or the Operations Contractor’s employees are allowed on the landfill during times of diminished illumination:

• If heavy equipment is operating on the working face, additional illumination may be utilized.

• Portable lighting standards at the active disposal area will be provided by the contractor.

• Lights at the gatehouse will be turned on during operating hours.

• Additional precautions are taken if there appears to be any additional lighting safety issues during operations.

Safety Equipment Safety equipment used by operating and maintenance personnel may include but is not limited to: high visibility outer clothing, boots, fire extinguishers, gloves, eye/hand wash stations, first aid kits, hard hats, eye protection, and emergency communications. Personnel Requirements The Operations Contractor is responsible for providing sufficient staff for daily operations. Due to the nature of the daily operation, some portions of the day will only require one employee, at a minimum to provide coverage. However, for the most part, a minimum of three employees is required to staff the landfill. The Operations Contractor will provide additional staff as needed to fulfill its contractual obligations. The Operations Contractor employs staff to run the equipment, and laborers to direct traffic, control litter and salvage. Contractor, or Kern County Waste Management Department staff, will supervise waste diversion areas. A gatehouse attendant is on site at all times the facility is open to the public. Additionally, other Kern County Waste Management Department employees may be onsite during operating hours. Their duties may include collecting data from monitoring stations around the site, load checking, the operation of the diversion area, and other



tasks deemed necessary for the safe operation of a sanitary landfill. The site engineer is responsible for the day to day operations, and is charged with oversight of the Operations Contractor and adherence to pertinent regulations. 3.5.6 Personnel Training Contractor Personnel The Operations Contractor is required to provide training in operation safety, hazardous materials, and polychlorinated biphenyls recognition. Upon completion of training, certificates or other documentation for designated personnel training are submitted to the Kern County Waste Management Department. Records of contractor safety meetings are also submitted to the Kern County Waste Management Department. At least one on-site employee must possess a current 24-hour OSHA certificate in Hazardous Materials Awareness and Safety, training course (Title 29 CFR, Sec. 1910.120) as approved by Kern County Waste Management Department. All employees have regular monthly training regarding landfill operations. The Contractor is required to provide all necessary training in accordance with Title 27 CCR, section 20610 for his employees. Designated Site Supervisor The contractor’s designated site supervisor must possess a Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) certification as a Manager of Landfill Operations (MOLO) or Technical Associate of Landfill Operations or equivalent, within six months of on-site employment. County Personnel The County provides training for county employees in accordance with Title 27 CCR section 20610. County employees performing site maintenance receive training in the proper use of hand tools, motorized equipment operation, and hazard awareness recognition. Landfill inspector, site staff, and monitoring personnel are all required to have hazardous materials and polychlorinated biphenyls recognition training. Staff training and “tailgate” safety meetings are held on a regular basis. All Kern County Waste Management Department employees are required to attend regular Kern County Waste Management Department safety meetings. All training and safety meetings are documented, and are on file at the Department’s offices. Position specific training is as follows:

Operations Engineers and Inspectors A minimum of 24-hour OSHA Hazardous Materials Awareness and Safety

Waste Management Aides, Technicians and Field Supervisors A minimum of 24-

hour OSHA Hazardous Materials Awareness and Safety



Waste Management Specialist………………40-hour OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response

In addition, the Kern County Waste Management Department periodically provides the following refresher courses: Hazardous Materials Awareness, First Aid CPR, Asbestos Awareness, Biohazard Awareness, Cathode Ray Tube (CRT), treated wood waste, and other handling procedures. 3.5.7 Supervisory Structure Supervision The Kern County Waste Management Department is the operator of record for the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill. The day to day operation is conducted by an Operations Contractor. The Operations Contractor’s responsibilities include: pushing and compacting of the incoming waste stream; maintenance of the landfill and access roads; traffic control; and supervision of contract staff and customers. The Kern County Waste Management Department gate attendant is responsible for accepting gate fees, weight determination, screening of incoming loads for unacceptable materials, and conducting jurisdictional origin surveys. The gate attendant is supervised by the Kern County Waste Management Department Gate Attendant Supervisor, who oversees all gate attendants at Kern County landfills and transfer stations. The Department’s inspector visits the site on a regular basis, observing and documenting the operating condition of the landfill. The Department’s Inspector reports directly to the Site Engineer. Waste Management Aides/Technicians or Field Supervisors may also visit the site regularly; randomly inspecting incoming loads for hazardous waste. In addition if the County chooses to operate the diversion area, a Waste Aide/Technician(s) will be on site at all times the facility is open to the public to direct customers to the various diversion stockpiles. Waste Management Aides/Technicians report directly to a Waste Management Specialist or Field Supervisor. Additional Department staff periodically visits the site to monitor and maintain the Leachate Collection, and Ground Water conditions. The Department Site Engineer is responsible for administering and enforcing the operational agreement with the contractor, coordinates the day to day operation, and adherence to pertinent regulations. The Site Engineer is supervised by the Department’s Operations Supervising Engineer. Contractor Supervisory Structure The Operations Contractor is responsible for landfill operations, maintenance, and supervision of his staff and the customers at the site. Due to the potential for frequent changes in personnel, the name of the contractor’s designated site supervisor is not listed in this document. However, a personnel list is located in the Operating Record.



County Supervisory Structure Due to the potential for frequent changes in personnel, the Kern County Waste Management Department’s organizational chart, delineating supervisory structure (as described above) and designated staff, is located in the Operating Record, rather than in this document. 3.5.8 Spreading and Compaction The Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill uses the area fill method. A minimum-sized working face is maintained to allow optimum control of placing, spreading, and covering of waste and maintaining efficient traffic patterns. Refuse is unloaded at the base, or top of the working face as dictated by efficient and effective landfill operations. During landfilling operations, incoming refuse is generally placed in lifts 10 to 25 feet in height with maximum perimeter slopes of 3:1. Once unloaded, a dozer, compactor or other suitable equipment pushes and spreads waste. A steel wheel refuse compactor, a dozer or other suitable equipment is then used for compaction by traversing the entire length of the working face, making a minimum of two to five passes over each two-foot layer to ensure adequate compaction. Bulky items are generally placed low in the lift for optimum compaction. Loose refuse is generally placed at the toe of the slope and spread in 2-foot layers and compacted with heavy equipment on a slope of 3:1 to 5:1. The face is then graded smooth in preparation for daily cover application. Waste discharged to the initial three feet of a liner shall consist only of “packer waste,” excluding waste that would pose a danger of physical damage to the liner system. After the initial three feet of packer waste is established in any new lined waste management unit, the area fill method will be employed. 3.5.9 Cover Daily cover material for the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill is not imported and is currently obtained from the future Module 2 area. The excavation of future Modules provides an estimated 2.2 million cubic yards of cover material, and is expected to provide enough soil for operations throughout the site life and for closure of the facility. Additional borrow sources may be located within the facility boundary as part of future drainage control projects. All disposal activities take place on top of the existing unlined refuse footprint or within lined modules. The Taft Master Plan, available for viewing at the Department’s office, estimates the daily cover soil requirements for the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill at approximately 12,000 cubic yards/year, increasing proportionately with the future waste stream (Geosyntec Consultants, 2009). Alternative Daily Cover The Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill uses geosynthetic tarps as an approved Alternative Daily Cover. All of the refuse will be covered daily whether alternative daily cover or soil is used. Local enforcement agency approved alternative daily cover includes the use of tarps and processed green material. Alternative daily cover tarps



may be left in place up to 30 days. The tarps may remain in place an additional 15 days (45 days total), with written approval of the local enforcement agency. The use of this daily cover meets the minimum state standards to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter and scavenging. Beneficial Reuse Chipped wood is beneficially reused on the surface of the cover materials for slope stabilization, erosion control, dust control, and aesthetic value. The chipped wood is the result of the on-site wood/green material recycling program. The wood chips are predominantly hauled off site for cogeneration plant feed stock. However, upon completion of a fill area that will not receive another layer of waste for an extended period, the Department may decide to spread wood chips on the surface. The amount and size of material used on site can vary depending on the supply of the material and the amount of slope requiring erosion protection, but shall not exceed 10,000 cubic yards per year. The volume of wood chips utilized for the on site beneficial reuse is calculated based on the volumetric (area applied times depth) calculation. A factor of 435 lbs/cy is applied to convert the volume to weight. The factor is periodically resurveyed and adjusted. Crushed inerts (e.g. concrete, steel) are beneficially reused on site, and may be used on the surface of the cover materials for slope stabilization, erosion control, dust control, and all-weather road and pad construction. Depending on the use the crushed inerts are spread over the surface with a depth not to exceed six inches. Crushed inerts may also be used for the development of on-site road materials. Size and tonnage specification vary by use and on-site demand, but shall not exceed 10,000 tons per year. The factor of 1,800 lbs/cy is utilized to convert weight to volume. A factor is periodically resurveyed and adjusted. Clean soil, or soil containing small amounts of organic material, may be accepted at the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill for beneficial reuse. This soil may be used in conjunction with other approved cover material. The Board of Equalization does not include clean dirt in their list of materials acceptable as reportable for beneficial reuse, and therefore is not further described in this section. Standard Practices for tracking Beneficially Reused Materials Customers arrive at the facility and stop at the gatehouse where they are questioned as to the content of their load. Loads identified by the gate attendant as containing reusable material would be directed to the diversion area to off-load that material. Material to be beneficially reused is weighed upon receipt, before application, and/or measured utilizing the appropriate conversion factors. Records of materials beneficially reused onsite are documented in the Quarterly Disposal Reporting System Reports. Cover Frequency All refuse at the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill is covered at the end of each working day with soil or an approved Alternative Daily Cover. The use of either soil or alternative daily cover would be used interchangeably for daily cover at the discretion of



the Department, and in accordance with State Regulations. Local enforcement agency approved alternative daily cover includes the use of tarps and certain processed green wastes. Alternative daily cover tarps may be left in place up to 30 days. Alternative daily cover tarps may remain in place an additional 15 days (45 days total) with written approval of the local enforcement agency. Intermediate Cover When refuse will not be placed over a surface within 180 days, the surface will receive intermediate cover to provide a minimum 12-inch thick soil cover. This soil is placed with a scraper, spread with suitable equipment, and compacted. 3.5.10 Handling Public Health Design Parameters In general, operations maintain a small, compacted working face that is covered on a daily basis. Cell construction is designed to promote drainage and minimize uncontrolled run-off. This type of design and operation minimizes the propagation or harborage of flies, rodents or other vectors and the creation of nuisances. These practices help maintain air and water quality, noise control, odor control, public safety and other pertinent matters related to the protection of public health. Salvaging Activities The Contractor is allowed to salvage from the waste stream that enters the facility. This activity is separate and distinct from the diversion programs at the site. The County maintains the authority to terminate all salvaging at any time. The following conditions are stipulated in the Taft RSLF Operational Agreement:

• Salvaged materials may not include any drugs, cosmetics, foods, beverages, hazardous wastes, poisons, medical wastes, syringes, needles, pesticides or other similar materials capable of impairing public health;

• Salvaged materials may include recyclables other than source separated items within the County diversion programs;

• Salvaged material will be stored in designated on-site storage area;

• Salvaged materials that may contain fluids, such as lawnmowers, will be stored in a manner that will not allow fuel or lubricant spillage;

• Salvaging operations will not interfere with landfill operations or public dumping;

• Salvaged materials will be removed from the site in accordance with regulatory requirements to prevent fire or health problems or as directed by the Department;

• Salvaged materials will be weighed at the gatehouse and receive an outbound ticket from the Gate Attendant prior to removal; and

• Salvaging/Scavenging by the general public is expressly prohibited.



Diversion/Recycling Programs Materials designated for diversion are usually source separated by the public into various stockpiles or containers. The diversion area may be moved from time to time to improve the safety and efficiency of the diversion program and site operations. Loads of commingled material coming into the facility made up of divertible materials may be identified and targeted for separation. These loads of commingled materials will be directed to the diversion area and examined to ensure that the material is suitable for inclusion into the program. Suitable loads will be those loads of material which predominantly contain materials which can be added to existing diversion programs. Loads containing divertible materials will be unloaded in the diversion area and sorted by diversion area staff into the appropriate stockpiles. It is the intent of the program to only accept loads which are made up entirely of divertible materials. If, however, loads are identified as having only a small amount of easily separable inappropriate material, those loads may be accepted into the program. Any inappropriate material found in the load will be separated out and placed in a container for transport to the active face of the landfilling operation. Disposal of the inappropriate material will occur before the end of the working day. The County maintains the authority to terminate any diversion program at any time. New diversion programs may be proposed by the Department that may require new modes or methods of diversion. These programs, as needed, may be considered pilot programs requiring LEA approval. Materials designated for diversion may include but are not limited to the following:

• Tires are collected and stockpiled in a designated area at the site. Tires are removed when a sufficient quantity has been accumulated for economic recycling. A tire cutter is periodically used to reduce tires into a more manageable size. A contract hauler transports the tires to be recycled. Transport trailers, roll-offs, or other containers may be used to transport tires.

• White goods are collected and stockpiled in a designated area until a sufficient quantity has been accumulated for economic recycling or 90 days, whichever is less. Roll-offs or other containers may be used to store and transport white goods. All refrigeration units are handled in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding the purging and management of Freon.

• Scrap metal is collected and stockpiled in a designated area until a sufficient quantity has been accumulated for economic recycling or 90 days, whichever is less. Roll-offs or other containers may be used to store and transport scrap metal.

• Clean loads of Construction, Demolition, and Inert material may be stored on sight pursuant to the LEA approved storage plan or the site conditional use permit.



• Grass, leaves, and other similar material which are suitable for acceptance at local composting facilities are accepted for diversion and stored on site for no more than 30 days. The proposed revision of the current SWFP may include provisions for implementing Title 14, Sections 17852 et al. Compostable Material Handling Requirements. It is not the intention of the Department to produce finished compost, but materials may inadvertently exceed 122 degrees Fahrenheit. In addition to a Report of Composting Site Information, additional documentation for the facility would also include an Odor Impact Minimization Plan.

• Wood (branches and lumber) may be collected and stockpiled in a designated area until such time as it can economically be processed and/or removed or six months whichever is less. Processed wood may be used on site for alternative daily cover or Beneficial Uses such as slope stability and/or erosion control.

• Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) are diverted from disposal and collected in designated areas. The collection points are located in areas equipped with ground barriers such as concrete/asphalt slabs, tarps and/or bins. Appropriate labeling or signs are utilized when distinction of CRTs within diversion areas is not obvious. A container for the collection of broken CRT glass, by Kern County Waste Management Department or Contractor personnel, shall be located near collection areas. When sufficient quantities are obtained or when respective CRT storage times approach one year, County contracted personnel shall load the CRTs into containers for transport to off-site facilities. County personnel may also load and transport CRTs to and from collection sites and/or to appropriate off-site facilities. Employees shall be trained in CRT hazard awareness, storage, safety, and clean up procedures.

• Electronic waste materials are diverted from disposal and collected in designated areas. The collection points are located in areas equipped with ground barriers such as concrete/asphalt slabs, tarps, and/or bins. Signs and labeling are utilized to distinguish the electronic waste collection area. When a sufficient quantity has been accumulated for economic recycling for one year, whichever is less, the electronic waste is removed from the site by County contracted personnel and transported to facilities for recycling.

• Used motor oil is collected for recycling in an Underwriters Laboratory (UL) approved, aboveground tank with secondary containment, and a spill pan containing absorbent. The tank is emptied as needed by a licensed oil hauler.

• Used oil filters are collected in a designated container in accordance with state regulations.

• Other waste streams that have state approved alternative management standards including, but not limited to, treated wood waste, may be accepted for recycling as approved by the Local Enforcement Agency.



• Storage activities for salvage and diversion material are conducted in a planned and controlled manner so they do not interfere with other aspects of site operations. New diversion programs may be proposed by the Kern County Waste Management Department which may require new modes or methods of diversion. These programs, as needed, may be considered pilot programs requiring local enforcement agency approval.

Volume Reduction Activities No volume reduction activities are performed on the waste stream prior to disposal. Equipment The Contractor provides and maintains equipment that operates with a minimum of down time. Should a piece of equipment become non-operational for a period of more that four (4) hours, or is unavailable to perform necessary work at the end of the working day, the Contractor is required to promptly notify the Kern County Waste Management Department (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4

Minimum Landfill Equipment Description Min # Specification

Steel Wheel Refuse Compactor 1

Operating weight–52,763 lbs. Flywheel Horsepower-240 HP. Landfill blade, chopper wheels and hour meter on wheels (example Caterpillar Model 826C or equivalent).

Wheel Tractor Scraper 1 Flywheel Horsepower – 265 HP self-loading, 12.8 cubic yards

minimum (example: Caterpillar Model 615C or equivalent).

Track-Type Dozer 1 Landfill blade-240 HP; 61,500 lbs. (example: Caterpillar Model D7R or equivalent).

Wheel Loader 1 129 HP (example: Caterpillar 924G or equivalent)

Water Truck or Pull 1 2,000 gallon capacity, capable of front and back spray with adjustable water flow.

The Contractor is responsible for securing equivalent back-up equipment in case of breakdown or emergencies. Such backup equipment will be subject to the approval of the County. Most of the Contractor’s equipment is cross-functional and can be used to perform multiple tasks. The Department retains the ability to supply back-up equipment. Back-up equipment will be made available to ensure timely compliance with all regulatory requirements or to supplement diversion operations and can be obtained from several local equipment suppliers.



3.5.11 Waste Handling Unloading Area The unloading area is maintained as small as possible and as close as possible to the working face. During peak traffic flow and higher than usual waste receipt, the unloading area may be increased or split into multiple unloading areas. Space constraints may cause the Operations Contractor to stage the unloading area at the top and/or the toe of the work face. The Operations Contractor will consider safety, public convenience, and operating efficiency when determining the size or location of the unloading area. Unloading Practices Unloading practices start with site personnel directing the public to back-up to the unloading area. Customers are responsible to unload the waste from their own vehicles. The Operations Contractor monitors the unloading and frequently clears the area by pushing the deposited waste to the work face. The Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill does not accept high-liquid content wastes, special waste, or hazardous waste. 3.5.12 Controls Nuisance “Nuisance” is defined in Title 27, CCR as anything which is injurious to human health or is indecent or offensive to the senses and interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, and affects, at the same time, an entire community, neighborhood, household or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of annoyance or damage inflicted upon an individual may be unequal, and which occurs as a result of the storage, removal, transport, processing or disposal of solid waste. Procedures to prevent and control the following public nuisances are referenced and discussed as follows: To date the Kern County Waste Management Department has not received any nuisance complaints regarding the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill. Fire The Department does not accept ash or burning waste or allow burning at the landfill. Fire breaks are constructed inside and around the landfill, as directed by the Fire Marshal. The contract operator periodically removes dust and debris from the undercarriages and engine compartments of landfill equipment to reduce associated fire hazards. If a small, containable fire occurs during working hours, the Operations Contractor is required to use available safe means to control the fire and notify the Waste



Management Department staff. The landfill is equipped with a fire extinguisher to control small fires. The Operations Contractor may extinguish larger fires with soil and/or water (water truck) depending on the safety of the situations, the nature of the fire, and the availability of equipment and manpower. In the event of a fire that the contractor can not contain, the contractor will contact 9-1-1, and contact the Department staff as soon as practical. Burning material in the fill area will be isolated from other fill material. Water will be applied to the isolated burning material until no smoldering is evident and the fire is extinguished. The burned material will then be buried, covered and compacted. The Kern County Fire Department, Taft Fire Station No.21, is located at 303 - 10th Street, about 5.3 miles from the landfill. The station can respond to any emergency, including uncontrolled fires, in approximately ten to fifteen minutes. The Kern County Fire Department, Fellows Fire Station No. 23, is located at 100 Broadway in Fellows, California, about seven miles from the landfill. The station can also respond to any emergency, in approximately fifteen to eighteen minutes. Leachate Title 27 CCR, Section 20790, states “the operator shall ensure that leachate is controlled to prevent contact with the public.” Two primary mechanisms are used to limit public contact: installation of a leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) and utilization of design and operational features to control leachate migration. The intent of an LCRS is to remove leachate from the landfill. An LCRS system will be constructed as part of the liner construction project proposed for the expansion area. The LCRS will be constructed to efficiently collect moisture from the line area and move it to the leachate collection sump. An automated pumping system will transfer the collected leachate to tanks where the leachate will be temporarily stored and recirculated to the unit from which it was collected or disposed of at an appropriately permitted off-site disposal facility. The reinjection of leachate will be carried out by injection into permeable material beneath the landfill surface. Public access to the leachate holding tank areas will be restricted. Design and operational features to control leachate migration include proper facility operation, placement of final cover at proper grades, and maintenance of a good vegetative cover. If a leachate seep should occur in an area that the public has access to, the area will be cordoned off and, if necessary, the public rerouted until the leachate seep is suitably controlled. Dust Control The following control measures are used to manage dust and visibility safety hazards:

• The main access road into the site is paved and properly maintained.

• Inert materials are applied to dirt haul roads as available.

• Water is applied to dirt haul roads and soil work areas as needed.



• Daily, intermediate, and final cover is placed over the refuse.

• The site may be temporarily closed under extreme wind conditions which severely obscure visibility.

• Vegetative cover is established and maintained upon site closure.

• Wood chips may be applied on finished slopes.

Vectors The following control measures are used to manage vector and/or bird problems:

• The use of daily and intermediate cover as required.

• Inert building material, concrete, and other waste material that might furnish a habitat for rats will not be used for final cover.

• Site personnel frequently inspect the site for any signs of vector activity. If such activity is observed, a vector eradication program will be implemented, using a professional pest controller if necessary.

Any need to actively reduce bird populations must first be approved by and coordinated with the California State Fish and Game Department and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Drainage and Erosion A conceptual design of the site drainage system is presented on Figure 3-12, Conceptual Final Closure Plan. The existing drainage control system provides grades necessary to convey run-on and run-off away from the landfill. Landfill construction is conducted according to engineered lift development plans that establish grades and slopes to maintain positive drainage. As construction progresses, run-off will be directed to drainage points to further minimize erosion. Berms, ditches, and sumps will be constructed, as necessary, to further control drainage. Daily and intermediate cover will be periodically inspected for adequacy and effectiveness and repairs will be made and/or additional soil will be added to correct erosion due to wind and rain. Litter The following control measures are used to manage litter problems:

• Litter is manually removed by contractor personnel around the entire site;

• The operational agreement states that the contractor will clean up all litter and illegal dumping within ¼ mile of the site, along the access road, and in and around the site daily;

• The contractor’s employees canvas the landfill for removal of fugitive debris near perimeter fences, vegetation, and around equipment;



• An effective temporary litter fence may be deployed downwind from the working face by the contractor;

• Litter along public roads leading to the site is minimized by an existing Kern County ordinance that requires all loads to be covered and;

• The Kern County Waste Management Department works with Code Compliance, a division of Engineering and Survey Services Department (ESSD) to respond to citizen reports of illegal dumping.

Noise The following control measures are used to manage noise from site operations:

• Mufflers are properly maintained for on-site equipment and;

• Equipment is not operated continuously. No complaints have been filed regarding noise at this facility. Traffic The following control measures are used to manage traffic safety problems:

• All vehicles enter the site at the entrance located in the southeast corner of the site.

• Access is from Elk Hills Road, a two-lane, paved road.

• When vehicles enter the site, they are routed via signs, cones, employees, or other methods, to unloading areas.

• The contractor assists disabled vehicles and, if necessary, removes them from hindering traffic or operations.

• Traffic exits the site through the same gate used for entrance. 3.5.13 Hazardous Waste The Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill does not accept hazardous waste for disposal. A detailed summary of the hazardous waste screening program can be found in the Kern County Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program (HWEP) which is available for review at the Kern County Waste Management Department office. There are many components associated with the HWEP. Below is a description of the hazardous waste screening process performed on loads that are received at the facility. Load Screenings All Department on-site employees contribute to the HWEP by performing load screenings. These screenings are either by visual inspection of the waste material or, in the case for Gate Attendants, by verbal confirmations of waste load components with the customer. If hazardous waste is found, the Gate Attendant or Landfill Inspector will



call a Waste Management Specialist for instructions on how to handle the situation. If a load appears to contain hazardous waste after being discharged, the contract operator will cordon off the material, if applicable, and then will notify the Kern County Waste Management Department personnel for investigative or corrective purposes. Random Inspections (Load Checking) Load checking procedures are performed in accordance with the approved HWEP. Appropriately trained Kern County Waste Management Department staff is positioned at the active face or diversion area where materials being deposited can be inspected. Each load check is recorded onto a load check form. If hazardous waste is found, the waste is rejected or cordoned off and the generator is responsible for properly disposing the waste. Trained County Employees also have the option of transporting household hazardous waste directly to the Special Waste Facility. Removal and Transportation of Hazardous Waste Hazardous and household hazardous waste collected in the on-site locker must be either transported to the Special Waste Facility or removed by personnel conducting mobile collection before the storage limits are exceeded. Excluding mobile collection events, the transportation weight limits are 220 pounds of hazardous waste per trip per vehicle. Corrective Action When hazardous waste is found abandoned on the site, the Kern County Waste Management Department personnel are responsible for remedying the situation. If the waste generator cannot be discerned, the Kern County Waste Management Department assumes responsibility as the generator of the waste; thus proper hazardous waste handling and disposal procedures will be conducted accordingly. However if the generator is identified, Kern County Waste Management Department requires the generator to properly collect, handle and dispose of unacceptable wastes on their own accord, unless the generator requests the Kern County Waste Management Department take responsibility for disposal procedures. The generator will be billed for all costs incurred by the Kern County Waste Management Department in handling hazardous waste disposal. Reporting Hazardous Waste Incidents If hazardous waste is found, waste aides/technicians enter pertinent information on the load check form. Trained County personnel review these forms and notify appropriate agencies whenever significant amounts of hazardous waste are found. Reporting Results of load check inspections are compiled into quarterly and annual reports. These reports are submitted to the appropriate agencies for review.



Training The training program is structured to ensure that the curricula address the specific needs of each employee and respective job description. Program participant training requirements are addressed in the Kern County HWEP document. Public Awareness In order to be proactive, the Kern County Waste Management Department has developed educational material educate our customers on what materials are not accepted into the landfill. Notification of facility waste acceptance criteria is displayed for customers on facility signs. Other mechanisms used to educate our customers include, but are not limited to, newspaper advertisements, informational flyers and public announcements publicizing alternative disposal options such as the Special Waste Facility and Household Hazardous Waste drop-off events, a web site, and verbal communication with Kern County Waste Management Department personnel. Incoming loads are subject to cursory screenings and possible thorough scrutiny by trained personnel. The initial load screen conducted by the gate attendant informs landfill customers that staff are cognizant of facility rules and also publicizes staff intentions to properly characterize each load. Customer loads are subject to random load checks which are in-depth load inspections designed to deter customers from improperly disposing hazardous waste. The purpose of checking loads prior to landfill disposal acceptance is not just to find and divert hazardous waste, but to publicize the HWEP and reinforce the resolve and commitment to prevent improper disposal of hazardous waste. 3.5.14 Landfill Closure Descriptions In accordance with Title 27 CCR, Subchapter 5, Article 1, section 21950, the Kern County Waste Management Department is responsible for closing the site in accordance with an approved Final Closure/Post-closure Maintenance Plan (FC/PCMP). The FC/PCMP provides for continued compliance with the applicable standards for waste containment, precipitation and drainage controls in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Subchapter 2 of this subdivision (section 20310 et seq.), and the monitoring program requirements in Article 5, Chapter 3, Subchapter 2, section 20380 et seq., for the closure construction period and throughout the post-closure maintenance period. Closure construction activities will include removing existing landfill structures, applying a final cover, performing final grading, constructing final drainage controls, re-vegetating graded areas disturbed by closure construction, and upgrading the environmental monitoring system (EMS) as needed. These EMS upgrades include the existing landfill gas monitoring systems, groundwater monitoring, and groundwater corrective action. The existing on-site surface water drainage channels, drainage sump, and soils borrow pit will be improved as part of closure construction. Construction of a drainage sump within the permitted facility boundary, if needed, and remediation of unneeded basins is proposed.



The Final cover system at the Taft RSLF will consist of one of the following final cover types (See Figure 3-15):

• prescriptive cover,

• a barrier such as geosynthetic or flexible membrane, or

• evapotranspiration. These covers are in addition to the minimum 3-foot cover over the 161.68-acre waste area from the on-site borrow pit. Thus it assumes that each variation has a three-foot prepared sub-grade atop the placed waste.

The first cover type considered was the prescriptive cover. The prescriptive final cover system design per Title 27 CCR consists of an earthen system comprised of an erosion layer underlain by a low-permeability barrier layer and supported by a foundation layer. The foundation layer must be a minimum 2-feet thick layer of soil, contaminated soil, incinerator ash, or other waste materials, provided that such materials have appropriate engineering properties to be used for a foundation layer. A lesser thickness may be allowed for Units if the Regional Water Quality Control Board finds that differential settlement of waste, and ultimate land use will not affect the structural integrity of the final cover. The barrier layer must be at least 12 inches thick and consist of earthen material that has a hydraulic conductivity less than or equal to the hydraulic conductivity of any bottom liner system or natural sub-soils. Units with poor or non-existent bottom liners must have a barrier layer which has a hydraulic conductivity less than or equal to the 1 x 10-6 cm/sec. The erosion layer must consist of 1-foot of earthen material that is capable of sustaining native plant growth with little or no maintenance. Other components that may be used in the final cover system include a drainage layer, a gas vent layer, and a biotic barrier. The downside to the prescriptive cover is that the engineered soil compaction layer frequently fails. It allows permeability of liquids into the placed waste and escape of gases when landfills settle, shear, and slump. Although the placement costs do not include having to buy large amounts of manufactured materials, the ongoing maintenance of the site would be very costly. In addition, moving and compacting the large amount of soils for the layers above the prepared sub-grade would be expensive in man- and equipment-hours.

The second cover type considered was a barrier cover, using a geosynthetic or flexible membrane. The Geosynthetic or flexible membranes replace the problematic and expensive clay compaction layer from a typical barrier cover with a manufactured sheet. Bentonite, or similar clays, are attached to the sheets, and swell and seal the landfill cover when they absorb the moisture from the soil. These membranes are fast and easy to install, and are cost effective when clay is not available on site. The component layers of the barrier system include laying the manufactured sheet atop the prepared sub-grade, around 1 foot of sand or similar drainage layer, adding a geotextile filter fabric, and then 3 feet of un-compacted vegetation soil layer.



The downside of the alternative barriers is that the initial cost for the manufactured materials is quite high. It is estimated that these liners would cost an additional $1.40 per foot, in addition to the manual labor for placing the sheets and to place the minimal 3 feet of vegetative layers atop the membrane. This could include increased man and equipment hours, in addition to having to buy and bring in clay from offsite. The ongoing maintenance, though, is cheaper than that of a prescriptive cover as the membranes are flexible to the shifts/shears/slumps/settling of landfills. The last alternative cover considered is evapotranspirative. Evapotranspiration comes from a combination of soil evaporation and plant transpiration, and is the most commonly used alternative to a prescriptive landfill cover. This “green cover” is natural, self-renewing, less prone to fail, has a long life, is easily repaired, and has a low cost (50% that of conventional covers). It consists of a single vegetative soil layer at optimum mix of soil texture, thickness, and vegetative cover. The cover is around 3 feet thick, with the bottom 2 feet of native soil compacted and the top 1 foot loosely placed. The soil allows for water storage, and the plants draw in water from the soil for evapotranspiration. The compacted and topsoil soils could be brought from the on-site borrow pit and moved and placed with current manpower and equipment, but the seeds and seeding equipment would need to be brought on site. The downsides to evapotranspiration are minimal. Though similar in design to the prescriptive cover, the additional depth and vegetation performs better than the shallow compacted clay layers. Settling on the landfill could actually be seen as a positive in the case of evapotranspiration, because the movement during shifting would allow increased root growth. Maintenance is minimal, requiring only filling of major depressions with soil, re-grading, and replanting. There are high initial man- and equipment-hours for placing the soil atop the waste, but the decreased emissions and low upkeep costs make it a feasible alternative. The most expensive initial cost would be for the geosynthetic/flexible membrane cover, then the prescriptive cover, and then the evapotranspiration cover. The most expensive over time, however, would be the prescriptive cover, followed by the geosynthetic/flexible membrane, leaving evapotranspiration cover still as an effective, approved, cost reducing alternative that is appropriate for areas with a long growing seasons and arid conditions. The post-closure use of the landfill and adjoining buffer lands will generally be non-irrigated open space. In accordance with of Title 27 CCR Section 21090(a)(3)(A)1, a recommended planting mixture of drought-tolerant vegetative species will be established to promote long-term erosion control and protect the final cover. The Kern County Waste Management Department will landscape those portions of the site disturbed by closure construction with drought-tolerant vegetation and keep it as designated for resource uses, such as open space, throughout the post-closure maintenance period, rendering it compatible with existing uses in the area.



In addition, the buffer lands may be used for a variety of landfill related activities. There is insufficient space available within the current permitted boundaries of the landfill to conduct these required non-disposal activities. These landfill ancillary uses result from State and Federal regulations requiring the Department to conduct environmental monitoring and protection activities. The following list outlines potential land uses in the buffer area.

• Drainage improvements and erosion controls; • Groundwater monitoring installations; • Landfill gas monitoring and extraction installations; • Areas required for landfill closure construction; • Leachate storage and extraction facilities; • Closure equipment staging facilities; • Habitat Conservation Plan offsets; • Buffer to prevent incompatible adjacent land uses; and • Other Compatible Land Uses which may be subject to further CEQA analysis

and may require additional land use permit approvals as provided for by the Kern County Zoning Ordinance and General Plan.

3.6 Energy Conservation The proposed project is the expansion and continuation of the Taft RSLF. While the project also increases the permitted daily tonnage and traffic, the Kern County Waste Management does not predict that the proposed maximum permitted amounts will be achieved on a daily basis. The disposal rate estimate is based on analysis using a liner regression increment from 1995 to 2008 to project waste disposal growth from 2011 and beyond. Note that the maximum average daily disposal rate for the life of the proposed Project is 282 tons per day (tpd). The Project’s proposed maximum daily tonnage of 800 tpd is a peak tonnage that accounts for days of large quantity disposal such as from demolition projects. In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the California Environmental Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy (see Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3)). According to Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, the goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy including: (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption; (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil; and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources” (Association of Environmental Professionals, 2010). Potentially significant energy implications of a project shall be considered in an EIR to the extent relevant and applicable to the project. To assist preparers with this discussion, Appendix F suggests the Project Description of an EIR may include the following items where applicable or relevant to the project:



1. Energy consuming equipment and processes which will be used during construction, operation and/or removal of the project. The project’s energy consuming equipment and processes include: (a) off-site traffic (employee and disposal vehicles traveling to the site); (b) on-site operational equipment to handle and process waste that is received; (c) the equipment that would be needed to complete the landfill liner installation and closure construction; and (d) the existing on-site gatehouse. A detailed discussion of the off-site traffic and on-site operational and construction equipment can be found in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the 2010 DEIR.

2. Total energy requirements of the project by fuel type and end use.

At the maximum proposed maximum daily tonnage of 800 tpd, the annual energy requirements of the project include 118,120 gallons of transportation fuel and 9,714 kilowatt-hours of electricity for a total of 16,393 MMBtu. In addition to the annual energy consumption for the operation of the facility, Project construction energy use is estimated to be 609,760 gallons of transportation fuel, or 84,570 MMBtu. See section 5.5 of this Recirculated DEIR for a more detailed discussion of the total energy requirements of the project.

3. Energy conservation equipment and design features. Several project design features, or best management practices, and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that will increase energy conservation. In addition to limiting waste acceptance to daylight hours, which reduces the need to use electricity for nighttime lighting of the facility, mitigation measures have been incorporated to ensure energy efficient off-road diesel equipment is employed and that all equipment will be limited to specific idling times. Refer to section 5.5 of this Recirculated DEIR for greater detail regarding these project design features and mitigation measures.

4. Identification of energy supplies that would serve the project.

Energy supplies used to serve the project include transportation fuel in the forms of diesel fuel and gasoline, as well as on-site electricity provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

5. Total estimated daily vehicle trips to be generated by the project and the additional energy consumed per trip by mode. The project proposes to increase the permitted daily traffic from 338 vehicles per day (vpd) to 350 vpd. Operations for the Taft RSLF in 2008 (baseline) averaged 61 vpd. Growth in the Taft area is estimated to increase these values by 2 to 4% per year after 2010. Actual vehicles per day, on average, will be much less than the proposed maximum 350 vpd. The rationale for the higher proposed traffic number is that Solid Waste Facility Permits require that the maximum vehicles per day numbers be stated. The higher vehicle number allows some buffer above the



expected average to account for days of unusually high traffic such as after holidays or on days that community cleanups or “free dump days” are sponsored. Rather than estimate the consumption of energy for the proposed permitted 350 vehicles per day, the energy consumption of off-site traffic (employee and disposal vehicles) was estimated at the Project’s proposed maximum permitted disposal rate (800 tpd). This level of waste receipt would result in the consumption of 1,720 gallons of gasoline (210 MMBtu) and 68,540 gallons of diesel fuel (9,510 MMBtu) annually, for a total of 70,260 gallons of transportation fuel (9,720 MMBtu) annually. See section 5.5 of this Recirculated DEIR for a more detailed discussion of the total proposed Project’s energy consumption for daily vehicles trips.

3.7 Entitlements Required This Draft EIR, once certified, will be used to satisfy the CEQA requirements for the following discretionary and ministerial approvals: Kern County:

• Consider and Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report with appropriate findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program, by the Kern County Board of Supervisors;

• Amend the Kern County General Plan Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element from Map Code 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum) to Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer) for approximately 61.7 acres for landfill buffer (see Figure 3-2);

• Amend the Kern County General Plan Circulation Element to eliminate road reservations for the east/west and north/south midsection lines, and the easterly section line of Section 25 Township 31 South, Range 23 East, zone map 138 (see Figure 3-3);

• Amend the Kern County General Plan Appendix “E” Map to show the revised Taft RSLF permitted facility boundary with the buffer areas (see Figure 3-4); and

• Modify the existing Conditional Use Permit for the Taft RSLF to: identify permitted facility boundary, include the addition of land uses ancillary to landfill operations, allow for the installation of a landfill liner within the permitted unlined area, limit the vertical expansion of the permitted disposal area, limit the increase of the permitted maximum depth, limit the increase of the permitted disposal capacity, and limit the increase of the permitted daily tonnage and the maximum number of vehicles per day.



California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle) and/or Designated Local Enforcement Agency

• Revise the existing Solid Waste Facility Permit to increase the permitted facility acreage to 161.68 acres, increase the permitted elevation of the landfill to 868 feet MSL, install a liner over the permitted unlined area, increase the permitted depth of excavation to 520 feet MSL (125 feet below ground surface), increase the total designed air space, including final closure cover, to 11,000,000 cubic yards, extend the permitted lifespan of the landfill by approximately 22 years, to reach capacity in 2074, increase the permitted daily tonnage to 800 tons per day10, and increase the permitted daily traffic to 350 vehicles per day; and

• Approval of the Joint Technical Document describing the facilities design and operation to reflect the proposed Project.

California Department of Fish and Game

• Issue 1602 Streambed Alteration approval (if required).

Note that during the circulation of the 2010 DEIR, the California Department of Fish and Game informed the Kern County Waste Management Department that the Taft RSLF Project is not subject to the notification of lake or streambed alteration requirement in Fish and Game Code section 1602.

Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Valley Region

• Issue Waste Discharge Requirements.

United States Army Corps of Engineers • Issue Section 404 Permit (if required).

3.8 Cumulative Effects Overview Per section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts must be analyzed in an EIR. Cumulative impacts refer to the combined effect of project impacts with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. As set forth in CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts, as well as the likelihood of their occurrence; however, the discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of environmental impacts attributable to the project 10 The disposal rate estimate is based on analysis by the Waste Management Department. The




alone. As stated in CEQA, Title 14 CCR section 21083(b), “a project may have a significant effect on the environment if the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.” According to the State CEQA Guidelines: “Cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.

(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.

(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. (California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, section 15355)

In addition, as stated in CEQA Guidelines, it should be noted that:

“The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.” (Title 14 CCR, Division 6, Chapter 3, section 15064[I][5]).

Cumulative impact discussions for each issue area are provided in the technical analyses contained within Chapter 4 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.” 3.8.1 List of Relevant Projects As previously stated, and as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, related projects consist of, “closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects that would likely result in similar impacts and are located in the same geographic area.” (Title 14 CCR, Division 6, Chapter 3, section 15355 [CEQA, 2005]). The cumulative impact analysis contained in the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR) discusses the impacts that the project would have both locally and regionally. Based on a record search performed by Kern County, no other reasonably foreseeable landfill projects are proposed in Kern County outside of those proposed by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The Department’s projects include the Mojave-Rosamond SLF, Ridgecrest RSLF and Shafter-Wasco RSLF Re-Permit projects, and the closure of the Arvin SLF, Bakersfield Metropolitan SLF (Bena) Phase I, Buttonwillow SLF, China Grade SLF, and Lost Hills SLF.



However, there are other non-landfill (i.e., residential and commercial) projects that are reasonably foreseeable. These related projects are listed and described in Table 3-5 with a brief discussion of each. All listed projects for cumulative analysis are located in Kern County and were selected either (1) because of their geographic proximity to the project site (defined as within 6 miles) in combination with a potential contribution to a “significant effect” as defined by CEQA, or (2) for a development outside the proximity of the project, because it is large enough in scale to warrant consideration. The combined impact of the proposed Project and the reasonably foreseeable, non-landfill projects in the area was analyzed for each issue area described in Chapter 4.0, Impacts of the proposed Project, with the exception of air quality. The geographic scope of the cumulative air quality impact analysis is the San Joaquin Air Basin (SJVAB), where air quality conditions are regulated by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The cumulative air quality impact analysis for the Project considers all landfills located in counties within the SJVAB.




Table 3-5

Cumulative Projects List

Case Number

Project Name Project Location Project Type Comments

10212 DYJSTRA DAIRIES/DAVID ALBERS SWC DAIRY RD & ADOHR RD CUP 12408 KERN COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT W/O ELK HILLS RD, 1 MI N/O HWY 119 CUP 10511 SELINGER, STEVE SEC 13-BUENA VISTA HILLS GPA 12825 FOWLER, TOM 24878 HWY. 33, FELLOWS PD SEE CASE ID 12826 12964 SHAW, FRED AND CHERI 419 HARRISON PD SEE CASE ID 12963 12826 FOWLER, TOM 24878 HWY. 33, FELLOWS ZCC SEE CASE ID 12825 12963 SHAW, FRANK AND CHERI 419 HARRISON ZCC 12566 SCHULTZ, DENNIS 205 ROSE ST ZV

NA HYDROGEN ENERGY CALIFORNIA POWER PLANT STOCKDALE HWY, WEST OF I-5

NA CITY OF TAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE\EIR CITY OF TAFT









































Chapter 5 – Consequences of Project Implementation

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill March 2011 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-1

Chapter 5 - Consequences of Project Implementation (Mandatory CEQA Sections)

5.1 Introduction Section 15126 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that all aspects of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment, including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. As part of this analysis, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) must also identify: 1) significant environmental effects of the proposed Project; 2) significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed Project is implemented; 3) significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the proposed Project; 4) growth-inducing impacts of the proposed Project; 5) mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects; and 6) alternatives to the proposed Project. 5.2 Environmental Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various, possible, and new significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Environmental Impact Report (CEQA, 2007). The Kern County Waste Management Department engaged the public to participate in the scoping of the environmental document. Comments received during the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) (Appendix A of the 2010 DEIR – Included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR) prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, as well as public and agency input that were received during the scoping process, have been considered in the determination of issue areas that should be analyzed in the 2010 and this Recirculated DEIR. The specific issues that were found to have no impact during preparation of the IS/NOP do not require further analysis in this DEIR. Based on the findings of the IS/NOP, and the results of the public scoping and comment process, these environmental issue areas identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines were not carried forward for analysis in the 2010 and this Recirculated DEIR:

• Agriculture Resources • Noise • Population and Housing

• Public Services • Recreation and Parks • Utilities and Service Systems

Based on the analysis presented in the 2010 and this Recirculated DEIR, the following environmental resources were determined to be less-than-significant, or could be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures.



5.2.1 Less Than Significant Impacts without Implementation of Mitigation Measures

The proposed Project will potentially cause adverse impacts, but will not require the implementation of mitigation measures because the impact levels would be less-than significant for the following environmental considerations:

• Aesthetics • Global Climate Change • Geology and Soils

• Land Use and Planning • Transportation and Traffic

5.2.2 Less Than Significant Impacts with Implementation of Mitigation

Measures The proposed Project will potentially cause less than significant levels of adverse impacts on the following environmental consideration with the implementation of mitigation measures:

• Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Material

• Hydrology and Water Quality • Mineral Resources

5.3 Significant Environmental Effects Table 1-3 (Summary of Environmental Impacts), which is contained in Chapter 1.0, Executive Summary of this Recirculated DEIR provides a comprehensive identification of the environmental effects of the proposed Project, including level of significance both before and after mitigation. 5.3.1 Significant Environmental Effects that cannot be Avoided Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA, 2007) requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less-than-significant levels. The 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DIER) addresses all potentially significant environmental impacts. The environmental impacts that were determined to be significant and unavoidable are listed in Table 5-1.



Table 5-1 Summary of Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project

Resource Project Impacts Air Quality Construction at the Taft RSLF will result in temporary emissions that will

occur during the landfill liner construction, and the landfill closure construction phases of the Project. Mitigated construction emissions will exceed Kern County thresholds for NOX during the construction of the Module 2 landfill liner, in the year 2011, and for PM10 during the construction of the Module 4 landfill liner, in the year 2046. Furthermore, in year 2011, landfill operations and Module 2 liner construction occur simultaneously, causing emissions to not only exceed the significance level for NOx, but for PM10 as well. While these exceedances occur only in the years 2011 and 2046, and all other years remain below a level of significance, the impact remains significant and unavoidable1.

5.3.2 Significant Irreversible Impacts Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed Project. Specifically, section 15126.2(c) states:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the Project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified (CEQA, 2007).

Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:

• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses.

• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources.

• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project.

• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would result in an irretrievable commitment of non-renewable resources such as energy supplies. The energy resource demands would be used for expanded lifespan of the landfill.

1 These dates will be delayed by one to two years based upon the need to recirculate and certify the

Draft EIR.



Nonrenewable resources would be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels and would include fuel, oil, and gasoline used by equipment associated with the operations of the landfill. Without implementation of the Project, these resources would still be expended to handle the waste disposal, whether at this site or another permitted facility.

An irretrievable commitment of non-renewable resources would occur as a result of the revision of the solid waste facilities permit and the expansion of the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill (RSLF). However, provided that these commitments occur in accordance with the adopted goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan, as a matter of public policy, those commitments have been determined to be acceptable.

An increase in population in the Kern County, and specifically the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, has resulted in an increase of waste disposal for existing landfills. The Taft RSLF expansion would allow for additional capacity that would not have to be constructed elsewhere to manage the increased disposal, thus reducing environmental effects.

5.4 Growth Inducement In accordance with section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must “discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” In addition, when discussing growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project, “it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment” (section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines) (CEQA, 2007). Two issues must be considered when assessing the growth-inducing impacts of a project:

• Elimination of Obstacles to Population Growth: The extent to which additional infrastructure capacity or a change in regulatory structure will allow additional development in the County and region.

• Promotion of Economic Growth: The extent to which the proposed Project can cause increased activity in the local or regional economy. Economic impacts can include direct effects, such as the direction and strategies implemented within the Project area and indirect or secondary impacts, such as increased commercial activity needed to serve the Kern Council of Government’s population growth forecasts for the Project area.

The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to population growth is considered to be a growth-inducing impact. A physical obstacle to population growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lined, into areas that are not currently provided with these services is expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination of change in a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, can result in new population growth.



With Project approval, the on-going operation activity associated with the landfill would not be expected to generate construction employment. Over the life of the Project, employment opportunities would be extended from ongoing operations at the landfill. This extension of employment would represent only a minor increase in employment within the County and it would have little effect on population growth. The minor increase in regional employment associated with the Project would not result in an increase in the demand for additional housing in the region.

Public infrastructure is not being extended to accommodate the proposed Project. Electricity, water and telephone service are already provided to the Project site. No new roadways would be extended or developed into undeveloped areas. Further development and unplanned growth will not be facilitated as a result of implementation of the proposed Project or its alternatives.

The proposed Project is not considered growth-inducing in and of itself due to the nature of the proposal. The objectives of the proposed Project are in response to growth, to provide additional capacity for disposal of waste in a manner and location which protects public health and safety through compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Project objectives would be attained through an amendment of the land use permit, an increase in the waste disposal boundary and the vertical height of the landfill, resulting in an additional 22 years of landfill lifespan. The proposed solid waste facility permit revision and land use permit amendment would not induce growth in the local area. Landfills do not generally provide a catalyst for additional development and new development tends to be located away from landfills. Also, the site is located within an already developed area with existing services.

It is reasonable to assume that an alternative waste disposal option would be identified by the Waste Management Department to accommodate the increased waste disposal demand if the proposed Project was not approved. The Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan (KCIWMP) [Kern County Waste Management Department, 2004] has been prepared in conformance with California Code of Regulations Section 18755(d) [CalRecycle, 2011] including a description of the countywide minimum 15 years of combined permitted disposal capacity through existing or planned solid waste disposal. This plan identifies the Taft RSLF as an integral part of meeting the mandated 15 years of waste disposal capacity. However, the plan also identifies the Bena Sanitary Landfill has having more than 60 years capacity should the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), formerly known as the CIWMB, grant additional permits to develop the remainder of that site. Because it is reasonable to assume that the Waste Management Department could identify an alternative waste disposal option if the proposed Project was not approved, approval of the proposed Project would not represent the removal of a development constraint. Because adequate waste disposal capacity would be available in the future, either with or without Project approval, the proposed Project would not be considered growth inducing or accommodating.



5.5 Energy Resources In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the California Environmental Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy (see Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3)). According to Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, the goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy including: (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption; (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil; and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources” (Association of Environmental Professionals, 2010). Potentially significant energy implications of a project shall be considered in an EIR to the extent relevant and applicable to the project. In summary the guidelines focus on the expenditures of electricity, fuel and other energy resources required for the project and how to reduce this consumption. This discussion is based on information provided in the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project Energy Conservation Study (2010) [Aspen Environmental], included as Appendix 1 of this Recirculated DEIR, and is in the form of energy consuming equipment and processes, energy requirements of the project by fuel type and end use, energy conservation equipment and design features, identification of initial and life-cycle energy costs or supplies that would serve the project, and total estimated daily vehicle trips to be generated by the project and the additional energy consumed per trip by mode. 5.5.1 Environmental Setting and Taft RSLF Baseline Energy Consumption Energy use is typically quantified using the British thermal unit (Btu) or kilowatt hours (kWh). One Btu represents the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. The approximate amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is 124,000 Btu. In a cubic foot of natural gas there is 1,000 Btu. One kWh of electricity represents 3,400 Btu. Total energy consumption in California was 8,381 trillion Btu in 2008 (United States Energy Information Administration [USEIA], 2011). Of this energy consumption, 19 percent (1,569 trillion Btu) went to residential uses, 20 percent (1,640 trillion Btu) for commercial uses, 23 percent (1,955 trillion Btu) for industrial uses, and 38 percent (3,218 trillion Btu) for transportation. Landfills and the energy used and generated by the operation of landfills are included in the industrial sector. All energy used by vehicles in solid waste collection for disposal and vehicles used for material recovery activity are included in the transportation sector. Transportation Fuel Use Gasoline and diesel are the dominant transportation fuels. Both gasoline and diesel fuel are produced through refining crude oil. Approximately 38 percent of the crude oil used in California is produced in-state. The rest comes from Alaska (13.4 percent) and foreign sources (48.5 percent, primarily from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Ecuador, Brazil, and



Colombia). In 2008, California’s crude oil refineries processed more than 1.8 million barrels per day. Many of the crude oil fields in Kern County have been producing oil for more than 100 years (California Energy Commission [CEC], 2010). In 2007, over 16 billion gallons of gasoline were purchased in California (California Board of Equalization [CBE], 2008). That year, demand for diesel fuel in California was over 10 million gallons per day and demand for gasoline was over 40 million gallons per day (CEC, 2009). For all of Kern County, baseline fuel consumption rates (2008) were around 985,000 gallons per day of diesel and 1.04 million gallons per day of gasoline; and fuel consumption is forecasted to grow in Kern County by 2020 to about 1.36 million gallons per day of diesel and 1.40 million gallons per day of gasoline (California Air Resources Board [CARB], 2006). In the future, policies mandating increased use of renewable fuels may play a significant role in reducing the use of gasoline and diesel fuel. Between 2007 and 2030, the California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates that total annual gasoline consumption in California will fall between 8.5 and 13.3 percent from 2007 levels as a result of high fuel prices, efficiency gains, and competing fuel technologies (CEC, 2009). Alternative fuels and technologies that may lead to decreased gasoline and diesel consumption include ethanol, biodiesel, and compressed natural gas fuels and electric vehicles. Currently, the nearest compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel stations to the Taft RSLF are in Bakersfield, approximately 50 miles away (United States Department of Energy [US DOE], 2011). The Taft RSLF uses transportation fuel on-site for operational equipment, such as compactors and earth movers, and disposal vehicles while they are at the landfill. Transportation fuel is also used by off-site traffic, including disposal vehicles transporting waste and employees commuting to the facility. Currently, the operational equipment, disposal and employee vehicles consume approximately 26,700 gallons of fuel, or 3,680 millions of Btu (MMBtu), per year for operation at the baseline average daily tonnage (103 tons per day). Table 5-2 provides a breakdown of the Taft RSLF baseline transportation energy use.




Table 5-2

Taft RSLF Baseline Transportation Energy Use

2008 Baseline Tonnage

(103 tons per day)

Transportation

Fuels (gallons) Energy Use

(MMBtu)1

Operations Equipment 11,500 1,600 On-Site Disposal Vehicles 2,140 300

Employee Vehicles 1,720 210 Off-Site (On-Road) Disposal Vehicles 11,340 1,570

Operations Equipment + Employee Vehicles 13,220 1,810 Subtotals Disposal Vehicles 13,480 1,870

TOTAL 26,700 3,680 1: MMBtu is millions of British thermal units (Btu). There are 138,700 Btu per gallon of diesel fuel and 124,240 per gallon of

gasoline. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that employee vehicles use gasoline, but all other vehicles andequipment use diesel fuel. Conversion factors for gallons of fuel to Btu from ARB GHG Mandatory Reporting Regulation, December 2008.

Source: February 2010 Draft EIR, Appendix I, Attachment E (URBEMIS v. 9.2.4). Electricity Consumption Electricity used in Kern County is generated by a mix of fossil, nuclear, and renewable sources. Users of electricity in Kern County can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels through improving energy efficiency or in some cases through generating their own electricity from renewable sources (e.g., installing solar panels). There are also utility-scale sources of renewable energy in use and in development in the County. California has adopted a Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requiring that 33 percent of California’s power come from renewable sources by 2020. In Kern County, power plants provide about 805 megawatts (MW) of online generating capacity of wind power, 112 MW of hydroelectric power, and 4,981 MW of fossil fuel generating capacity, and there is one 58 MW biomass waste-to-energy facility (Delano Energy Company) (California Energy Commission [CEC], 2011a). Table 5-3 shows estimated electricity consumption in Kern County. Table 5-4 shows the sources of the electricity that was used in California in 2008 (the most recent year for which these data are available).




Table 5-3 Electricity Consumption in Kern County

(Millions of kWh) Sector 2006 2007 2008 2009

Non-Residential 14,252 14,896 12,995 12,127

Residential 2,042 2,095 2,180 2,182

Total 16,294 16,991 15,175 14,309 Source: CEC, 2011b

Table 5-4

2008 Electricity Consumption in California (Gigawatt-hours)

Fuel Type In-State Imported from Northwest

Imported from Southwest

Total Energy System

Coal 3,977 8,581 43,271 55,829

Large Hydroelectric 21,040 9,334 3,359 33,733

Natural Gas 122,216 2,939 15,060 140,215

Nuclear 32,482 747 11,039 44,268

Renewables 28,804 2,344 1,364 35,532

Biomass 5,720 654 3 6,377

Geothermal 12,907 0 755 13,662

Small Hydroelectric 3,729 674 13 4,415

Solar 724 0 22 746

Wind 5,724 1,016 591 7,331 Source: Energy Information Agency, Energy Commission Quarterly Fuels and Energy Report Database (CEC, 2009).

On-site gas and electricity is provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), a subsidiary of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Inc. The electrical power available at the Project site is used for lighting, heating and cooling the gatehouse. In 2007, the most recent year which information was readily available, the Taft RSLF gatehouse used 9,714 kilowatt-hours (kWh), or 33 MMBtu, of electricity; electricity usage was highest during the summer months. As stated under Significant and Irreversible Impacts, nonrenewable resources would be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels and would include fuel, oil, and gasoline used by equipment associated with the operations of the landfill. Without implementation of the Project, these resources would still be expended to handle the waste disposal, whether at this site or another permitted facility.



Recycling All six of the Kern County landfills have designated areas for diversion of recyclable materials. In 2006 (the most recent year for which diversion data are available), the Unincorporated Kern County diversion rate was 62 percent and the diversion rate for the City of Taft was 71 percent. The 2006 diversion rates for all Kern County jurisdictions are listed in Table 5-5. It should be noted that these rates are not based on the diversion of total 2006 incoming waste levels. Rather these diversion rates are based on the amount of material diverted from the 1990 adjusted waste levels.

Table 5-5

Diversion Rates for Kern County Jurisdictions 2006

Jurisdiction Diversion Rate %

Arvin No Rate

Bakersfield 57

California City 37

Delano 59

Kern-Unincorporated 62

Maricopa 68

McFarland 53

Ridgecrest No Rate

Shafter 86

Taft 71

Tehachapi 68

Wasco 64 Source: CalRecycle, 2006.

As of 2007, California no longer measures diversion rates based on the AB 939 formula, but rather reports per capita disposal rates in compliance with SB 1016, the Per Capita Disposal Measurement System. At the Taft RSLF, and the other Kern County landfills, available diversion programs may change over time depending on Waste Management Department policies, changes in the existing waste stream, and demand for materials that can be reused or recycled. These programs may include diversion of tires, white goods, scrap metal, construction and demolition materials, yard waste, wood, cathode ray tubes, electronic waste materials, used motor oil, and used oil filters.



The Taft RSLF currently provides the following recycling programs. The transportation of program materials is accounted for within the baseline transportation energy use shown in Table 5-2.

• Construction, Demolition and Inert (CDI) Material. The Taft RSLF operates recycling programs that handle wood, concrete and other inert materials, metals, and cardboard. The facility offers a 50 percent discounted disposal price to contractors who separate their materials into the listed components. Any pure loads of concrete or asphalt pavement is accepted at the nominal fee of $5/ton and is used for onsite all weather road and dumping pads. Concrete and asphalt pavement debris is directly applied rather than processed first by a concrete grinder. Other CDI materials are diverted from disposal and sent to various end uses. The County has approved an increase in the landfill disposal fee for non-separated CDI material to encourage the public to increase their use of established CDI recyclers.

• Tires. Nearly 100 percent of tires received at the Taft RSLF are recycled or reused. Twenty-four percent of diverted tires at Taft RSLF are used for tire-derived fuel. Tire-derived fuel is sent from Golden By-Products, Inc./Scrap Tire Company in Ballico, CA (Merced County) to Air Products in Stockton, CA (San Joaquin County) for the production of steam and electricity. Golden By-Products, Inc./Scrap Tire Company also produces crumb rubber of varying sizes for use as loose fill playground or landscape cover, rubberized athletic turf, rubberized asphalt concrete applications, and molded rubber products. Tires are also used on-site to secure tarps, which are used for alternative daily cover. Only a small amount of tires that are commingled in packer or roll-off loads and too difficult to extract are landfilled, as allowed by state regulations.

• Used Oil/Oil Filters. Used oil is sent to DeMenno/Kerdoon in Compton, CA (Los Angeles County) where it is recycled into lube oil or used as bunker fuel. Used oil filters are sent to AJS Filter Processing, Inc., located in Hacienda Heights, CA, (Los Angeles County) where they are recycled into rebar.

• Biomass. Approximately 50 percent of biomass material collected at the Taft RSLF is used onsite in the form of wood chips applied as slope stabilization and erosion control. The other 50 percent is sent to Porterville, CA (Tulare County) where it is processed in a biomass conversion plant for the generation of electricity. Countywide, 88 percent of collected biomass is marketed for co-generation of electricity.

• Resource Recovery Park. The Waste Management Department has implemented this program at the Taft RSLF to increase the level of self haul waste recovery. As part of this program, a full time staff member educates self haulers and encourages them to participate in the facility’s recycling programs. The Waste Management Department expects to increase the diversion rate of self hauler’s waste stream from 11 percent to 20 percent



within two years. The Waste Management Department is currently evaluating the feasibility of placing recycling bins in an accessible location so that self haul customers could drop off recyclable materials before they are required to pay for disposal of their remaining waste at the scale house.

• Scrap Metal and Appliances. Scrap metal and appliances are collected and transported to Golden State Metals in Bakersfield. Most scrap material is eventually shipped to Los Angeles or Long Beach.

According to the Kern County Waste Management Department 2009 Landfill Tonnage Report, in the year 2009, the landfill accepted 32,198 tons of waste; 30,500 of these tons were disposed of and the remaining 1,698 tons were diverted resulting in an on-site diversion rate of 5.27% (Kern County Waste Management Department, 2010b). In 2009, Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson (HF&H) Consultants, prepared the County of Kern Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Progress Report for the Kern County Waste Management Department (Appendix 3). The Department, working with the Kern County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee/Local Task Force (SWMAC/LTF), the incorporated cities in Kern County, and other system stakeholders, is involved in a multi-year process of developing a new Recycling and Solid Waste System Plan (System Plan) that will guide the Kern County Waste Management Department’s efforts until 2020. The County of Kern has adopted zoning ordinances requiring all new commercial, industrial, institutional and multi-family developments to provide space for recycling material collection, storage and pickup. The State has recently adopted Title 24 CCR – California Green Building Standards, which require a minimum of 50% recycling of all construction and demolition waste from new construction. The new building standard took effect January 1, 2011 and are expected to substantially reduce construction and demolition disposal (California Building Standards Commission, 2010). While some methods of waste management are not feasible at this time, whether from the standpoint of capital cost, market economics, or regulatory uncertainty, the Kern County Waste Management Department continues to research, evaluate and consider the potential for improving the reduction, recycling and re-use of materials prior to disposal. If materials are to be disposed of in County owned and operated landfills, the Department adheres to regulatory standards for the protection of the environment, and continuously evaluates the waste material resources and associated lands for their highest and best use, within the economics available. Total Baseline Energy Use The total baseline energy use is split roughly evenly between that consumed by disposal vehicles and that consumed by on-site operational equipment. The electricity used at the Taft RSLF is a very small percentage of the facility’s total energy



requirements. Table 5-6 shows an estimate total amount of energy currently consumed at the Taft RSLF (2008 baseline) in comparable terms of millions of Btu per year.

Table 5-6 Taft RSLF Total Baseline Energy Use (103 tpd)

Transportation Fuels (gallons)

Electricity (kWh)1

Annual Energy Use (MMBtu)2

Percentage of Total

Transportation Fuel used: Operations Equipment + Employee Vehicles 13,220 NA 1,810 48.7%

Transportation Fuel used: Disposal Vehicles 13,480 NA 1,870 50.4%

Total Transportation Fuels 26,700 3,680 99.1% Electricity for Gatehouse NA 9,714 33 0.9% Total Energy Use 26,700 9,714 3,713 100% 1: One kWh is equal to 3,412 Btu. 2: MMBtu is millions of British thermal units (Btu). There are 138,700 Btu per gallon of diesel fuel and 124,240 per gallon

of gasoline. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that employee vehicles use gasoline, but all other vehiclesand equipment use diesel fuel. Conversion factors for gallons of fuel to Btu from ARB GHG Mandatory ReportingRegulation, December 2008.

Source: February 2010 Draft EIR, Appendix I, Attachment E (URBEMIS v. 9.2.4) and Draft EIR, Appendix G. 5.5.2 Regulations and Policies Applicable to Energy Resources Various regulations and policies have been adopted and implemented on the Federal, State, and local level with regard to energy resources. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable regulations and policies outlined below. Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act The Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 sought to ensure that all vehicles sold in the U.S. would meet certain fuel economy goals. Through this Act, Congress established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the U.S. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, which is part of the United States Department of Transportation, is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 miles per gallon. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 miles per gallon. Heavy-duty vehicles (vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model; rather, compliance is determined by each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which is administered by the EPA, was created to determine vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with the fuel economy



standards. The EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer, based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. On the basis of the information generated under the CAFE program, the United States Department of Transportation is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance. In the course of it’s over 30-year history, this regulatory program has resulted in vastly improved fuel economy throughout the nation’s vehicle fleet. Federal and California Clean Air Act The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and its amendments of 1977. The US EPA and California Air Resources Board (CARB) are jointly responsible for the control of vehicle emission sources. The State regulates diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles (CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449). This regulation provides target emission rates for equipment fleets, which are reduced over time (CARB, 2007). Federal and State Fuel Standards California’s AB 1007 (Pavley, Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005), AB 118 (Nunez, Chapter 750, Statutes of 2007), AB 1493 (Pavley, Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002), California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and the federal Energy Independence and Security Act’s revisions to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) set policies and standards intended to change vehicle and fuel technologies and accelerate demand for low carbon fuels. RFS2 requires refiners, importers, and blenders to achieve minimum levels of renewable fuel use through blending or purchasing of Renewable Identification Number credits from other market participants. In addition, the California Alternatives Fuel Plan outlines targets for the use of alternative and renewable fuels in California, and the California Bioenergy Action Plan sets targets for accelerating in-state production of biofuels. State CEQA Guidelines On December 31, 2009, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted certain amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines to change how public agencies review the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and energy use. These amendments, which were approved by the Office of Administrative Law on February 16, 2010, became effective on March 18, 2010, and became mandatory for most public agencies approximately 120 days later (see CEQA Guidelines, section 15007, subdivision (d)(2)). The topic of GHG is addressed in Section 4.3 (Global Climate Change) of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this recirculated DEIR). California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Energy Efficiency Standards New buildings in California are required to conform to energy conservation standards specified in Title 24 of the CCR. The standards establish “energy budgets” for different types of residential and non-residential buildings, with which all new buildings must comply. The State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the CCR regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and



lighting. Local building permits and approval processes require all new buildings to meet Title 24 standards. Title 24’s Green Building Standards require a minimum of 50 percent recycling of all construction and demolition waste from new construction. California Renewable Energy Programs In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) through Senate Bill 1038 (Sher, 2002), with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy procured by investor-owned utilities in the State's electricity mix to 20 percent by 2017. In November 2008, the Governor signed Executive Order S-14-08 requiring that California utilities reach the 33 percent renewable electricity goal by 2020. The AB32 Scoping Plan of 2008 includes the 33 percent RPS requirement, and the CARB adopted Resolution 10-23 on September 23, 2010 for the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) as required by Executive Order S-21-09 (17 CCR Sections 97000 to 97012). California Bioenergy Action Plan The first Bioenergy Action Plan for California was published by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in July 2006 (CEC, 2011b). The Bioenergy Action Plan: Progress to Plan was published in 2009, and the CEC is currently completing the 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan. The 2011 Plan is intended to: (1) Address siting, permitting, and regulatory barriers to increased bioenergy and biofuels production; (2) Facilitate the ability of project developers to obtain project financing and identify funding opportunities; (3) Continue research and development of low-emission bioenergy technologies and develop policy mechanisms that accurately account for GHG benefits associated with each technology; (4) Increase the availability of affordable biomass products collected through sustainable practices; and (5) Develop new and revised policies necessary for meeting bioenergy and biofuel goals. The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan will identify actions that state agencies will take to implement Executive Order S-06-06. This Executive Order commits California to generating 20 percent of the state’s renewable energy from biopower (biomass to electricity) by 2010 and 2020, and producing 20 percent of its biofuels (biomass-based transportation fuels) within the state by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050. Senate Bill 97 Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 97, a CEQA and greenhouse gas emission bill, into law on August 24, 2007. SB 97 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. OPR was required to prepare these guidelines and transmit them to the Resources Agency. The Resources Agency adopted these guidelines on December 31, 2009 and they became effective on March 18, 2010. OPR and the Resources Agency are required to periodically review the guidelines to incorporate new information or criteria adopted by CARB pursuant to AB 32, scheduled for 2012.



California Energy Commissions The California Energy Commissions (CEC) regulates the provision of natural gas and electricity within the state. The CEC is the state’s primary energy policy and planning agency. Created in 1974, the CEC has five major responsibilities: forecasting future energy needs and keeping historical energy data, licensing thermal power plants which are 50 megawatts or larger, promoting energy efficiency through appliance and building standards, developing energy technologies and supporting renewable energy, and planning for a directing the state response to energy emergencies (California Natural Resources Agency, 2009). California Department of Resource, Recycling and Recovery On January 1, 2010 California's recycling and waste diversion efforts were reorganized into the new Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). CalRecycle manages programs created through two landmark initiatives, the Integrated Waste Management Act and the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, which were formerly part of the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the Department of Conservation. Now housed in the Natural Resources Agency, CalRecycle merges the duties of the board with those of Department of Conservation’s Division of Recycling to best protect public health and the environment by effectively and efficiently managing California’s waste disposal and recycling efforts (CalRecycle, 2010). CalRecycle is currently comprised of two program divisions: Waste Management and Recycling. The Division of Waste Management continues to promote the goals of Zero Waste California in partnership with local government, industry and the public. The division manages the approximate 93 million tons of waste generated each year by reducing waste whenever possible, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting the management of all materials to their highest and best use, and regulating the handling, processing and disposal of solid waste. California now diverts more than half of its waste away from landfills (CalRecycle, 2010). California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939, 1989) AB 939 required California cities and counties to divert 25 percent of their solid waste streams by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000 (Public Resources Code Section 41780). AB 939 requires each jurisdiction to develop an Integrated Waste Management Plan. Since 1989, Kern County has worked with public and private organizations to implement a variety of programs addressing waste concerns including: drop-off recycling, voluntary curbside recycling, and commercial waste recycling; household hazardous waste recycling; electronic waste recycling; green waste recycling; construction and demolition recycling programs. E-Waste Recycling Act (SB 20, 2003) SB 20 was signed in September of 2003 and it establishes a system to recycle computers, TVs, and other video display devices (known as Electronic Waste) when



they reach their end-of-life. Fees are collected from consumers at point of purchase to fund recycling programs. California Universal Waste Law (2006) This legislation went into effect in February 2006. Universal wastes are hazardous wastes generated by a wide variety of sources. Examples of these wastes are batteries, fluorescent tubes, and some electronic devices, that contain mercury, lead, cadmium, copper and other substances hazardous to humans and the environment. Universal waste cannot be disposed of in solid waste landfills. Recycling requirements are less stringent than those of other hazardous wastes to encourage recycling and recovery of valuable metals. Kern County General Plan The Energy Element of the Kern County General Plan focuses on maintaining and expanding the County’s role in energy production and on balancing energy production with the other priorities such as conservation of biological resources (Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, 2004). The Energy Element also states that the County “should encourage the development of renewable energy industries to diversify the energy economy in Kern County.” Note that the Kern County General Plan policy to encourage methane fermentation projects addresses diary lagoons, not solid waste facilities. Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan State regulation administered by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board, requires all counties to develop comprehensive solid waste management plans (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 2). The County of Kern adopted this plan in compliance with AB 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act. The plan includes a summary of the County’s waste management problems and an overview of the steps that local agencies will take to meet the purposes of the law. The plan includes Source Reduction and Recycling Elements and Household Hazardous Waste Elements for each jurisdiction. 5.5.3 Best Management Practices The proposed Project would expand the existing Taft RSLF and allow the facility to continue accepting waste and recyclable materials. The Taft RSLF currently utilizes a number of practices to increase diversion of solid waste and manage solid waste disposal efficiently. Currently, the project employs the following best management practices and mitigation measures to reduce consumption of electricity and fuel. No additional mitigation measures are required for the conservation of energy.

• Best Management Practice: Waste is accepted during daylight hours, which reduces the need to use electricity for nighttime lighting of the facility. Electricity is only used for lighting, heating, and cooling the Taft RSLF Gatehouse.



• Project Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1: All of the off-road diesel equipment used at the Taft RSLF is in compliance with the federal Tier II standards or the California Air Resources Board’s off-road diesel vehicle regulations. Equipment meets whichever standard is higher. Specific mitigation measure information can be in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the 2010 DEIR.

• Project Mitigation Measure 4.2-2: Equipment idling time is limited to five minutes. After five minutes of non-use, equipment is turned off. Specific mitigation measure information can be in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the 2010 DEIR.

5.5.4 Project Energy Consumption Transportation Fuel Use The proposed Project would expand the disposal capacity at the Taft RSLF, allowing it to continue to serve the existing and projected demand for waste disposal in Kern County, and specifically the West Region of the waste management system. By allowing for expanded capacity and extending the lifespan of the existing Taft RSLF, the proposed Project would not change the production of solid waste, the demand for waste disposal services, the efforts for expanding material recovery and recycling in Kern County, or the demand for energy resources by disposal vehicles. However, the continued operation of the facility would result in the continued use of energy resources to operate the facility over the life of the project. The Kern County Waste Management Department is not currently planning to implement any energy recovery strategies at this time because of environmental, regulatory, and technological factors that make these options infeasible2. However, these strategies may be proposed in the future if these factors change. The proposed Project would not create incentives or disincentives for existing and future diversion, recycling, composting, and energy recovery programs. However, an expanded Taft RSLF would play an important role in maintaining centralized, economically feasible programs for these services within the integrated waste management system. The energy required by on-site operational equipment to dispose of solid waste or divert waste would be approximately the same with or without the implementation of the proposed Project. Energy used under baseline conditions today for solid waste disposal services or diversion are expected to continue at the Taft RSLF or an alternative landfill after the Taft RSLF reaches capacity. The disposal rate estimate is based on analysis using a liner regression increment from 1995 to 2008 to project waste disposal growth from 2011 and beyond. Note that the maximum average daily disposal rate for the life of the proposed Project is 282 tpd. The Project’s proposed maximum daily tonnage of 800 tpd is a peak tonnage that accounts for days of large quantity disposal such as from demolition projects. However, at the Project’s maximum proposed daily tonnage (800 tpd), the operational equipment, disposal and employee vehicles are projected to consume 118,120 gallons of fuel, or 16,360 MMbtu, per year for operation. Table 5-7 2 These issues are addressed in more detail in Chapter 6 – Alternatives.



provides a breakdown of the Taft RSLF transportation energy use at the proposed maximum permitted disposal level.

Table 5-7 Taft RSLF Project Transportation Energy Use

at Proposed Maximum Permit Levels

Maximum Annual Tonnage

(800 tons per day)

Transportation

Fuels (gallons) Energy Use

(MMBtu)1

Operations Equipment 34,860 3,840 On-Site Disposal Vehicles 13,000 1,800

Employee Vehicles 1,720 210 Off-Site (On-Road) Disposal Vehicles 68,540 9,510

Operations Equipment + Employee Vehicles 36,580 5,050 Subtotals Disposal Vehicles 81,540 11,310

TOTAL 118,120 16,360 1: MMBtu is millions of British thermal units (Btu). There are 138,700 Btu per gallon of diesel fuel and 124,240 per gallon of

gasoline. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that employee vehicles use gasoline, but all other vehicles andequipment use diesel fuel. Conversion factors for gallons of fuel to Btu from ARB GHG Mandatory Reporting Regulation,December 2008.

Source: February 2010 Draft EIR, Appendix I, Attachment E (URBEMIS v. 9.2.4). Construction activities for the new landfill liner and site final closure would rely on widely-available existing energy resources (namely transportation fuels). The equipment that would be used for construction of the landfill liner and closure construction is outlined in Chapter 4.2 (Air Quality) of the 2010 DEIR, and use of this equipment and the associated energy resources would be needed to efficiently complete construction. The construction of additional areas of landfill liner would be required in order to expand the disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF. The project is divided into waste disposal modules. One unlined area, Module 1, is currently accepting waste. Modules 2, 3, and 4 would need to be lined before accepting waste. Excavation and construction for the expansion of the landfill liner would be completed in phases designed to minimize preparation and operational requirements, including double handling of soils. The energy requirements for the phases of construction for Modules 2, 3, and 4, as well as final closure, are listed in Table 5-8.




Table 5-8 Taft RSLF Estimated Construction Energy Use


Energy Use (MMBtu)1

Module 2 131,600 18,250 Module 3, Phase 1 61,980 8,600 Module 3, Phase 2 61,980 8,600 Module 3, Phase 3 61,980 8,600 Module 4 146,700 20,350 Site Closure 145,520 20,180

TOTAL 609,760 84,570 Source: February 2010 Draft EIR, Appendix I, Attachment E (URBEMIS v. 9.2.4).

Electricity Consumption The proposed Project would not change the demand for electricity consumed at the site. However, the continued operation of the facility would result in the continued use of energy resources for electricity of the life of the project. Electricity consumption at the gatehouse is not expected to increase and is expected to remain at the baseline level of 9,714 kilowatt-hours (kWh), or 33 MMBtu, annually. Transportation Fuel Use with No Project The proposed project is the expansion and continuation of the Taft RSLF. The proposed Project would not change how transportation fuels or other energy resources are currently used or recovered for solid waste disposal or diversion. However, by extending the life of the Taft RSLF, the proposed Project would reduce the use of transportation fuel in the future. The proposed Project would increase the disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF, allowing it to postpone closure. It would otherwise be expected to reach capacity in 2013. The Kern County Waste Management Department expects disposal demand in the West Region of the County waste management system to grow slightly by 2020, and disposal demand in the region of the Taft RSLF would not be more than 5 to 10 percent of the County total demand (HF&H Consultants, 2009). By extending the useful life of the Taft RSLF, the proposed Project would provide a local destination for disposal in the western portion of the county. This would save transportation fuel use that would otherwise be required to export waste from the West Region to a landfill farther from southwest Kern County. There are six operating landfills in the Kern County Waste Management Department system in addition to the Taft RSLF: Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Sanitary Landfill (SLF), Boron SLF, Mojave-Rosamond SLF, Ridgecrest RSLF, Shafter-Wasco RSLF, and Tehachapi SLF. Other solid waste management facilities in Kern County are privately-owned (e.g., the H.M Holloway Landfill and the McKittrick Waste Treatment Site). Table 5-9 shows the distance from Taft RSLF to the other public landfills in Kern County.



Table 5-9 Haul Truck Distance to Other Kern County Landfills from Taft RSLF

Landfill Haul Truck

Distance from Taft RSLF (Miles)

Bena 50 Boron 118

Mojave-Rosamond 93 Ridgecrest 143

Shafter-Wasco 50 Tehachapi 74

Source: Google Maps, 2010. In absence of the project, the waste that would normally have gone to the Taft RSLF would have to be transported to another facility. The most accessible public landfill to the Taft RSLF is the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, which is a one-way haul truck trip distance of 50 miles from the Taft RSLF, based on a route emphasizing major highways. The Bena SLF is also 50 miles from the Taft RSLF, but this route requires haul trucks crossing through metropolitan Bakersfield. Table 5-10 calculates the energy requirements to transfer waste from the Taft RSLF to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF and incorporates the following assumptions:

The amount of fuel required for equipment at the disposal site would be the same at either the Taft RSLF or the Shafter-Wasco RSLF because similar equipment would be used at either location.

One-way haul truck trip travel distance between the Taft RSLF to Shafter-Wasco RSLF is approximately 50 miles and transfer vehicles have an average fuel economy of 7 miles per gallon. Each transfer vehicle can carry 20 tons of waste.

Maximum average daily disposal rate for life of proposed Project would be 282 tons per day3, 360 days per year. The total lifespan of the Taft RSLF with the proposed Project would be extended to 2074 at the forecasted disposal demand rate.





Table 5-10 Energy Requirements for Transfer of Waste to

Alternate Landfill from Taft RSLF

Proposed Project No Project Taft RSLF Operational Until 2074 2013 Years Remaining 63 2 Years of Waste Transfer Required 0 61

Transfer Fuel Use per Year (gallons at 282 tons per day) 0 72,514

Annual Energy Use per Year (MMBtu at 282 tons per day)1 0 10,058

Total Transfer Fuel Use Over Life of Project (gallons) 0 4,423,371

Total Annual Energy Over Life of Project (MMBtu)1 613,522 1: MMBtu is millions of British thermal units (Btu). There are 138,700 Btu per gallon of diesel fuel and 124,240 per gallon of gasoline. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that transfer vehicles use diesel fuel. Conversion factors for gallons of fuel to Btu from ARB GHG Mandatory Reporting Regulation, December 2008.

As displayed in Table 5-10, at the maximum average disposal rate (282 tpd), there could be a substantial increase in transportation energy use in the absence of the proposed Project. This increase would be even greater if the proposed maximum permitted tonnage (800 tpd) is reached. The Taft RSLF is expected to reach capacity in 2013. If the facility is not expanded, the Taft RSLF would close in the near future, and waste would have to be transported to another permitted facility. The nearest permitted facility is the Shafter-Wasco RSLF. Kern County Waste Management estimates that transporting waste to this facility could require 72,514 gallons of diesel fuel per year at project rates of disposal demand (282 tons per day). Over 61 years this could represent over four million gallons of fuel. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed Project would have a beneficial impact on transportation energy use when compared to a future scenario in which the Taft RSLF reaches capacity in 2013 and is closed. Expanding disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF would not affect the day-to-day operations of on-site equipment. The day-to-day level of on-site equipment use fluctuates with varying demand for disposal services, and the level of demand would not be affected by the proposed Project (although it may change in response to independent forces, such as increased population growth in the West Region of the Kern County waste management system). The rate and nature of fuel use for on-site equipment would not be substantially affected by the proposed Project except for during the construction phases. While construction activities at the site would require approximately 609,760 gallons of fuel, or 84,570 MMBtu of energy, the total amount would be much smaller than the amount of fuel that would be required to transport waste to a more distant facility.



By extending the life of the Taft RSLF, the proposed Project would not notably change the transportation energy currently used for bringing waste to the facility. The proposed Project would allow Taft RSLF to continue to respond to the demand for disposal services, which would have the effect of maintaining vehicle travel distances as they are under baseline conditions. In general, fuel use for on-site equipment and waste transportation may be reduced as a result of expanded availability of alternative fuels and technologies. Gasoline and diesel are the primary fuels in use at Taft RSLF due to the lack of infrastructure for alternative fuels. At the current time, the use of alternative fuels or electric vehicles is not feasible for on-site equipment. The Waste Management Department does not have the ability to dictate the types of vehicles used by the franchise garbage haulers and individual customers who deliver waste to the facility. In addition, the nearest compressed natural gas fuel station is 50 miles away from the Taft RSLF, located in Bakersfield. The implementation of the proposed Project would not cause inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation fuel. The proposed Project would not substantially affect on-site fuel use for waste disposal and diversion, and it would not adversely affect how transportation fuels are used. The expansion of the Taft RSLF may reduce transportation fuel use if compared to a future scenario with closure of the Taft RSLF and subsequent transportation of waste to a more distant facility. 5.6 Significant Cumulative Impacts According to section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, the term cumulative impacts “…refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA, 2005). Individual effects that may contribute to a cumulative impact may be from a single project or a number of separate projects. Individually, the impacts of a project may be relatively minor, but when considered along with impacts of other closely related or nearby projects, including newly proposed projects, the effects could be cumulatively considerable.

The cumulative impact analysis contained in the 2010 DEIR discusses the impacts that the Project would have both locally and regionally. Based on a record search performed by Kern County, no reasonably foreseeable landfill projects are proposed in Kern County, except those proposed by the Department. The Kern County Waste Management Department’s projects include the Mojave-Rosamond SLF, Shafter-Wasco RSLF, and Ridgecrest RSLF permit revision projects, and the closure of the Arvin SLF and the Buttonwillow SLF.

Additionally, there are many other non-landfill (i.e., residential and commercial) projects that are reasonably foreseeable. The combined impact of this Project and the reasonably foreseeable, non-landfill projects in the area was analyzed for each issue



area described in Chapter 4.0 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), Impacts of the Proposed Project, with the exception of air quality.

The geographic scope of the cumulative air quality impact analysis is the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), where air quality conditions are regulated by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The cumulative air quality impact analysis for the Project considers all landfills located in counties within the SJVAB. The emissions would be cumulatively significant if, with mitigation, there remains any increase in a pollutant for which the SJVAB is classified as a non-attainment area. The SJVAB is in non-attainment for ozone and PM2.5.

This EIR has considered the potential cumulative effects of the proposed Project. Impacts for the following have been found to be cumulatively considerable:

Air Quality The geographic scope of the cumulative air quality analysis is the San Joaquin Air Basin (SJVAB), where air quality conditions are regulated by SJVAPCD. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is currently in serious nonattainment for the eight-hour federal standard for ozone, and nonattainment for the federal standard for PM2.5. Air quality emissions from landfills located within the SJVAB are cumulatively significant before emissions from the proposed Project are considered. Therefore, any increase in a pollutant for which the SJVAB is classified as a nonattainment area is considered cumulatively significant. As such, the overall Project’s prolonged air quality impacts beyond the current permitted life of the landfill will continue to contribute to the SJVAB’s cumulative air quality until the landfill closes. The SJVAB’s cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Chapter 6 - Alternatives



6.1 Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would “avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 [CEQA, 2007]). This chapter identifies potential alternatives to the proposed Project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (section 15126.6[a] through [f]) are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR (CEQA, 2007).

• “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly” (15126.6[b]).

• “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact” (15126.6[e]). “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (15126.6[e][2]).

• “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that require the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” (15126.6[f]).

• “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (15126.6[f][1]).

• For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (15126.6[f][2][A]).

• “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative” (15126.6[f][3]).



Per the CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6[d], additional significant effects of the alternatives are discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the Project as proposed. Table 6-1 identifies the level of impact of each alternative, as defined by CEQA (potentially significant, potentially significant, but feasibly mitigated to less than significant, less than significant, and no impact). For each alternative, the analysis that follows: 1) Describes the alternative; 2) Analyzes the impact of the alternative as compared to the proposed Project; 3) Identifies the impacts of the Project which would be avoided or lessened by the alternative; 4) Assesses whether the alternative would meet most of the basic Project objectives; and 5) Evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the Project. If an alternative is approved over the proposed Project, the final design of the alternative will be completed before construction activities commence, and will be in compliance with applicable regulations.




Table 6-1 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project

Impact Class for Proposed Project Versus Alternatives (See Figure 6-1)

Aes

thet

ics

Agr

icul

ture

Air

Qua

lity

Glo

bal C

limat

e C

hang

e

Bio

logi

cal R

esou

rces

Cul

tura

l Res

ourc

es

Geo

logy

and

Soi

ls

Haz

ards

and

Haz

ardo

us

Mat

eria

ls

Hyd

rolo

gy a

nd W

ater

Q

ualit

y

Land

Use

and

Pla

nnin

g

Min

eral

Res

ourc

es

Noi

se

Popu

latio

n an

d H

ousi

ng

Publ

ic S

ervi

ces

Rec

reat

ion

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d Tr

affic

Util

ities

and

Ser

vice

Sy

stem

s

Proposed Project1 III NI I III II II III II II III II NI NI NI NI III NI

Alternative A – No Project2 - = = + - - = = = + - = = = = + =

Alternative B – Operate under current permitted conditions - Installation of a Landfill Liner Per Proposed Final Fill Plan, No Vertical Expansion- followed by Final Landfill Closure Construction2

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Alternative C – Operation of landfill until unlined cell reaches capacity, followed by Final Landfill Closure Construction 2

= = = + = = = = = = = = = = = + =

Alternative D – Operation of Landfill Until the Unlined Cell Reaches Capacity, Final Landfill Closure Construction, Construction and Operation of a Transfer Station 2

= = = + = = = = = = = = = = = + =

1 Highest Impact Class identified in impact analyses presented in Chapters 4.1 – 4.11 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), Impacts of the Proposed Project, where I = potentially significant; II = potentially significant, but feasibly mitigated to less than significant; III = less than significant; and NI = no impact. 2 Relative impact findings, by issue area, for alternative, where “+” equals greater impact; “-“ equals lesser impact; and “=” equals essentially the same than the proposed Project.



Chapter 6 – Alternatives


6.1.1 Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan The Kern County Waste Management Department recognizes the importance of the protection of the environment and ensuring that the CEQA documentation for projects provides clear and detailed information on potential project impacts and alternatives. The Department is committed to the concept of integrated waste management and conducts regular meetings, open to the public, under the auspices of the County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (SWMAC). Working closely with CalRecycle, SWMAC, local jurisdictions, stakeholders, and interested parties, the Department implements the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) for the benefit of the residents of the County of Kern (Kern County Waste Management Department, 2004). The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires counties to prepare and maintain a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. This plan consists of the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs) of each jurisdiction (Kern County Waste Management Department, 1994), the Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWEs) of each jurisdiction (Kern County Waste Management Department, 1992), the Countywide Siting Element (Kern County Waste Management Department, 1996a), and the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Summary Plan (Kern County Waste Management Department, 1996b). The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan was adopted in 1995 and as required by law, included:

“... a summary of significant waste management problems facing the County, or cities and County. The plan will provide an overview of the specific steps that local agencies will take, acting independently and in concert, to achieve the purposes of this division (of the law). The plan will contain a statement of the goals and objectives set forth by the Countywide task force ..." (California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 41751).

The regulations detailing the preparation of the Summary Plan, (Title 14, Chapter 9, Article 6.6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR)), require the Local Task Force (LTF) for the County to establish Countywide goals and objectives for integrated waste management planning (CalRecycle, 2011a). The regulations also require the LTF to establish an administrative structure for preparing and maintaining the Summary Plan. In Kern County, the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee has been designated as the Local Task Force. Regulations also require the County to describe the current system of solid waste management in the County and to summarize the programs and facilities selected in the planning documents of the individual jurisdictions. The County must also consider which programs should be of Countywide scope and how they will structure these programs. Each jurisdiction files an Annual Report with the state, and the County files a 5-Year Review of the entire Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The last 5-Year Review was filed in 2008 and covered the period up to and including 2006. No changes



to the original Plan were required, and the State approved the 5-Year Review on January 21, 2009. In 2009, Hilton Farnkopf and Hobson (HF&H) Consultants prepared for the Kern County Waste Management Department the Solid Waste and Recycling Progress Report (Appendix 3 of this Recirculated DEIR). The Department, working with the Kern County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee/Local Task Force (SWMAC/LTF), the incorporated cities in Kern County, other system stakeholders, and with assistance from HF&H Consultants (HF&H), is involved in a multi-year process of developing a new Recycling and Solid Waste System Plan (System Plan) that will guide the Department’s efforts until 2020. The County of Kern has adopted zoning ordinances requiring all new commercial, industrial, institutional and multi-family developments to provide space for recycling material collection, storage and pickup. AB 32 requires implementation of local single-stream and source-separated recycling programs be offered by 2012 to all businesses within the County, subject to the requirements of the AB 32 Scoping Plan regulations for “Mandatory Commercial Recycling”. The State has recently adopted Title 24 CCR – California Green Building Standards, which require a minimum of 50% recycling of all construction and demolition waste from new construction (California Building Standards Commission, 2010). The new building standard took effect January 1, 2011 and is expected to substantially reduce construction and demolition disposal throughout the County. While some methods of waste management are not feasible at this time, whether from the standpoint of capital cost, market economics, or regulatory uncertainty, the Kern County Waste Management Department continues to research, evaluate and consider the potential for improving the reduction, recycling and re-use of materials prior to disposal. If materials are to be disposed of in County-owned and operated landfills, the Department adheres to regulatory standards for the protection of the environment, and continuously evaluates the waste material resources, for their highest and best use, within the economics available. 6.2 Project Objectives The Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill (RSLF) is a public landfill owned by Kern County and managed by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The main objective of the Kern County Waste Management Department, as stated in their October 14, 1993 Mission Statement is “to protect the health and safety of the public, and enhance the quality of life by providing environmentally safe management of liquid and solid waste.” As such, the proposed action of the Project is to amend the existing Solid Waste Facilities Permit (SWFP) and land use permits to allow for the increased capacity of the Taft RSLF in response to the growth experienced in the County of Kern.



Specific objectives developed for the proposed Project are as follows:



• Increase buffer around the Taft RSLF as encouraged by the policies and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan;

• Maintain and expand disposal and recycling opportunities for the local communities;







• Provide additional emergency disposal capacity for disaster preparedness.

6.3 Proposed Project Summary The Taft RSLF is a public Class III landfill owned by the County of Kern and operated by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The Kern County Waste Management Department, as operator of the facility, is proposing to revise the current land use permits and solid waste facility permits. This Draft EIR is a Project EIR which identifies and evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project and the Project alternatives. 6.3.1 Components of the Proposed Project The Kern County Waste Management Department proposed the Taft RSLF Permit Revision Project (proposed Project) in response to growth experienced in Kern County. The Kern County Waste Management Department will request the Kern County Board



of Supervisors, the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Valley Region to approve the following applications: Amend the Kern County General Plan (GPA 2, Map 138) The proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Kern County General Plan. The Project includes the following amendments to the General Plan:

• Amend the Kern County General Plan (GPA 2, Map 138) from Map Code 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum – min. 5 acre parcel size) to Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer) for 61.7 acres for landfill buffer property (see Figure 3-2);

• Amend the Circulation Element to eliminate road reservations for the east/west and north/south midsection lines, and the eastern section line of Section 25 Township 31 South, Range 23 East, Zone Map 138 (see Figure 3-3); and

• Amend Appendix “E” Map, “Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill”, to show the revised Taft RSLF permitted facility boundary with the added buffer property areas (see Figure 3-4).

Modify Conditional Use Permit (CUP 1, Map 138) The Project proposes the following modifications to the existing Conditional Use Permit for the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill:

• Limit the permitted facility boundary to 161.68 acres to include the landfill and landfill buffer properties (Map Code 3.4.1)

• Include uses ancillary to landfill operations;

• Include the installation of a landfill liner, totaling 37 acres, within the permitted unlined area (see Figure 3-6);

• Limit the final height of the permitted disposal area to 868 feet1 above mean sea level (MSL);

• Limit the permitted maximum depth of the permitted disposal area to 520 feet MSL (125 feet below ground surface);

• Limit the total designed air space, including final closure cover, to 11,000,000 cubic yards within the permitted disposal area;

• Limit the permitted daily tonnage to 800 tons2 per day; and






• Limit the permitted daily traffic to 350 vehicles3 per day. Revise Solid Waste Facility Permit (No. 15-AA-0061) The proposed Project will revise the existing Solid Waste Facility Permit to:

o Increase the permitted facility boundary from 100 acres to 161.68 acres to include the landfill buffer area – an increase of 61.7 acres;

o Increase the waste footprint from 35 acres to 71 acres, with the installation of landfill liner (within the permitted unlined area) – an increase of 36 acres4;

o Increase the permitted elevation of the landfill from 775’ MSL to 868’ MSL – an increase of 93 feet;




o Increase the permitted daily tonnage from 419 tons per day to 800 tons per day5 – an increase of 381 tons per day, and;


Closure

• Revise the Preliminary Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan; prepare a Final Closure/Post Closure Maintenance Plan at the appropriate time, and conduct final closure construction as required by Title 27 CCR over the disposal area at the end of site life;

3 See analysis in Chapter 4.11 of the 2010 DEIR (provided as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR)

for an explanation of increase in tonnage versus increase in traffic. 4 Proposed 37 acres of landfill liner includes 1 acre of relocated waste from 35 acre existing refuse

limit. See Section 3.2.3 for discussion of this area. 5 The disposal rate estimate is based on analysis by the Waste Management Department. The




Issue Waste Discharge Requirements • Issue of revised Waste Discharge Requirements by the Central Valley Regional

Water Quality Control Board. 6.4 Alternatives Analyzed in this Recirculated DEIR

• Alternative A – No Project

• Alternative B – Operate under Current Permitted Conditions, Installation of a Landfill Liner per Proposed Final Fill Plan, No Vertical Expansion – followed by Final Landfill Closure Construction

• Alternative C – Operation of Landfill Until Unlined Cell Reaches Capacity,

followed by Final Landfill Closure Construction

• Alternative D – Operation of Landfill Until the Unlined Cell Reaches Capacity, Final Landfill Closure Construction, Construction and Operation of a Transfer Station

6.4.1 Alternative A – No Project Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analysis of a “No Project Alternative.” In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis of Alternative A, the No Project Alternative, includes a discussion of not allowing the excavation and lining of the remaining unlined permitted disposal area, nor the increases proposed by the project; which would not occur if the project was not approved and the site remained in status quo. Under Alternative A, the Taft RSLF would continue operations under its current conditions in the existing Solid Waste Facilities Permit (SWFP) and close per the current Final Fill Plan. The site would cease to accept waste in the year 2013, the expected time at which the capacity of the unlined cell and permitted height would be reached. Under Alternative A, when the Taft RSLF reaches existing capacity and ceases to accept waste in the year 2013, the wastes that would have been accepted at the site would then be transported a further distance to be disposed at a permitted facility, resulting in increased air quality and traffic impacts. Additionally, greater greenhouse gas emissions from additional mobile emissions would be released into the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas emitted from the generation of landfill gas would occur wherever the waste is disposed. The air quality, traffic, and greenhouse gas impacts associated with the additional vehicle miles traveled due to this alternative would be eliminated by continuing to accept waste at the Taft RSLF. Acceptance of Alternative A would not allow for the land use changes required to bring the facility into compliance with the goals and policies of the 2004 Kern County General Plan. The Kern County General Plan recommends that existing sanitary landfills strive to include designated buffer zones to be protected from encroachment of incompatible



land uses and intensive urban development. While the Kern County Waste Management Department has purchased additional buffer lands (61.7 acres) to help protect the landfill from encroachment and incompatible uses, the No Project Alternative fails to designate these lands as provided for within the Kern County General Plan. In summary, the No Project Alternative would reduce or avoid many impacts that would be incurred by the proposed Project. These impacts include Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Mineral Resources. However, this alternative would result in the possibility of greater impacts to Air Quality, Global Climate Change, Transportation and Traffic, and compliance with Land Use Policies and, and at the same time, not achieve any of the Project objectives. 6.4.1.1 Impacts of Alternative A: No Project Aesthetics The existing site, at 775 feet MSL in some areas, is visibly distinct from the natural landscape due to the disturbed nature of the landfill’s surface areas. The landfill is an existing facility; it has become an established and accepted part of the landscape. Alternative A would continue operations until the disposal area reaches the height of 775 feet MSL. This is expected to take place in the year 2013. Final closure construction of the facility would not occur after capacity is reached. Under this alternative, the buffer properties would not be brought into the facility boundaries, and would not be used for compatible facilities such as soil stockpile, drainage, and recycling/waste diversion areas. Alternative A would not involve substantial changes to the visual character of the project site, and would not expand the impact vertically beyond the existing permitted height. The impacts to aesthetics from Alternative A would be less than those of the proposed Project, and have no impact. Air Quality Alternative A does not involve the lining of any additional acres or closure construction. This alternative does not propose any increase in daily tonnage or vehicles beyond that already permitted. The life expectancy of the landfill would not be increased. The annual air quality impacts from the operation of the landfill would cease in the year 2013, when the capacity of the current waste cell is reached. However, when the Taft RSLF ceases to accept waste, the waste would then be hauled to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, approximately 50 miles -one-way. A qualitative analysis indicates that Alternative A would result in emissions similar to the baseline until 2013. Post-2013 emissions would result in additional vehicle miles from the transportation of the waste to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, resulting in additional mobile air emissions.



The impacts to air quality from Alternative A are also significant and unavoidable, but could even be greater than those of the proposed Project due to increased mobile emissions in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Global Climate Change Because no waste would be placed beyond 2013, all associated emissions, including electricity imports, waste hauling, mobile equipment, light duty vehicles, and waste diversion credits would cease at that time. Landfill gas emissions from waste already in place at the Taft RSLF would continue. When the Taft RSLF ceases to accept waste, the waste would then be transported to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF – approximately 50 miles – one way. Greenhouse gas generated from the waste are assumed to be equivalent for both cases, because the generation would take place at any facility where the waste was disposed. The Shafter-Wasco RSLF does have a landfill gas collection control system, which would capture approximately 95 percent of the landfill gas generated from the transported waste. This collection of greenhouse gas could result in an overall decrease in total emissions compared to the Project; however a qualitative analysis indicates that the additional vehicle miles from the transport of the waste to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF would result in additional greenhouse gas mobile emissions. Also, additional indirect impacts would occur from waste that normally would have gone to the Taft RSLF, using up available capacity at the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, and resulting in the early closure of that site. This closure would create cascading direct, and indirect, impacts in that it would result in the waste from both the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, as well as from the Taft RSLF, being redirected to the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) SLF earlier than would otherwise occur if the proposed Project was approved. The transport of the waste from the Taft RSLF to either the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or the Bena SLF, both approximately 50 miles away, one way from the Taft RSLF, would create greater greenhouse gas mobile emissions. The impacts to global climate change from Alternative A would be greater than those of the proposed Project, and are potentially significant. Biological Resources The impacts related to biological resources would be less for Alternative A compared to the proposed Project. This analysis assumes that the landfill and buffer areas affected by the proposed Project, and the species found in those areas, would be less impacted with Alternative A. There is potential for sensitive species to be found at the project site, but the buffer lands which are mostly native/naturalized lands would not serve as an area for the expansion of the landfill, relocation of the soil stockpile, or other compatible facilities, and would remain as habitat.

As discussed in Chapter 4.4, Section 4.4.3.3 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), the Kern County Waste Management Department developed a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in 1997, which included measures to avoid and



minimize incidental take of endangered and threatened species. While the HCP applies to the 100-acre landfill, an amendment is being prepared to include the landfill buffer lands not currently covered in the 1997 version. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative A would require the utilization of protocols within the existing HCP to minimize and/or avoid impacts. The impacts to biological resources from Alternative A would be less than those of the proposed Project, and have no impact. Cultural Resources The impacts related to cultural resources would likely be less for Alternative A compared to the proposed Project. This analysis assumes that the landfill and buffer areas affected by the project and the potential for cultural resources found in those areas would be the same for Alternative A. There is potential for cultural resources to be found at the project site. The buffer lands, which would not serve as an area for the expansion and relocation of the soil stockpile area, would not be disturbed. This analysis assumes that the number of acres affected by closure construction, which would not take place with Alternative A, would be less than the proposed Project. No cultural sites were located during surveys of the project site (see Chapter 4.5, section 4.5.2 of the 2010 DEIR – included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), and these results apply equally to Alternative A. As with the proposed Project, there is a risk that the soils excavated for continuing operations would disturb buried cultural resources. If this were to occur, Alternative A would comply with the California Heath and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that construction must halt in the area of the discovery, the area is protected, and consultation and treatment shall occur as prescribed by law.

The impacts to cultural resources from Alternative A would be less than those of the proposed Project, and have no impact. Geology and Soils The impacts related to geology and soil resources would likely be less for Alternative A compared to the proposed Project, even though both are less than significant. The landfill area in Alternative A would not be expanded with an additional 37 acres of lined disposal cells. The buffer lands in Alternative A would not serve as the area for the expansion and relocation of the soil stockpile area and would not be disturbed. This analysis assumes that the number of acres affected by the continued operations for Alternative A would be less than those for the proposed Project.

The intermediate cover and the slopes of the waste unit would be constructed to withstand the maximum probable earthquake per Section 20164(a) of Title 27 California Code of Regulations (CalRecycle, 2010a). Geologic considerations of the intermediate covers are usually evaluated in a Final Closure Plan. Seismic stability calculations contained in the Taft RSLF Final Closure Plan show that landfill slopes of 3:1 are stable and safe.



The impacts to geology and soils from Alternative A would be less than those of the proposed Project; however both are less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials for Alternative A would be substantially the same as for the proposed Project, but for a significantly shorter period of time. Under Alternative A, Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 requiring hazardous material collected during load checking activities be set aside in a hazardous waste storage locker for until transported for proper disposal, would be implemented. The potential for Alternative A to generate and harbor vectors would be due to the same activities as those of the proposed Project. To mitigate this impact, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 would be implemented.

The impacts to hazards and hazardous materials from Alternative A would be the same as those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant after mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality Alternative A would continue operations as currently permitted, and cease operations when the current disposal area reaches the permitted capacity; expected to take place in the year 2013. Alternative A does not involve final closure construction over the current waste disposal area. Under Alternative A, an intermediate cover would be placed over the waste disposal area when permitted capacity is reached; but no vertical expansion, soil stockpile, or expansion of disposal area by constructing lined disposal cells will take place. The most significant influences on groundwater levels beneath the landfill appear to be from wastewater injection and infiltration operations in nearby oil fields. The groundwater beneath the landfill is of very poor quality and appears to be hydraulically connected to saturated zones used for the disposal of oil field brines. For this reason, the groundwater has limited beneficial uses. Inorganic groundwater quality of the aquifer is poor due to naturally-occurring conditions and impacts from sources other than the landfill. The secondary maximum contaminant level (State and Federal drinking water standard) for total dissolved solids (TDS) is 500 mg/L. In recent years groundwater monitoring at the site has shown TDS concentrations ranging between 3,600 mg/L and 4,700 mg/L. The California State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 88-63 states that water with TDS concentrations exceeding 3,000 mg/l is not considered suitable or potentially suitable for municipal or domestic supply. There has been an impact to groundwater from the landfill which does violate the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The WDRs state that the landfill shall not cause the release of pollutants or waste constituents to groundwater. Under the “No Project” alternative, the Kern County Waste Management Department would still comply with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to mitigate the



existing groundwater impact and any additional future groundwater impact. Following approval of an appropriate Corrective Action Program for the site, the Kern County Waste Management Department would conduct the Corrective Action Program to mitigate impacts to groundwater. The impacts to hydrology and water quality from Alternative A would be less than those of the proposed Project; however both are less than significant after mitigation. Land Use and Planning The land use and planning impacts of Alternative A would be the greater than those for the proposed Project. Alternative A could have a significant impact because the Taft RSLF must be protected from the encroachment of incompatible land uses, such as residential housing. The establishment of the additional 61.7 acres of landfill buffer zones around the landfill in the Project provides transitional land use that is consistent with the Kern County General Plan (KCGP), and is a safeguard from encroachment by sensitive or incompatible uses. Alternative A does not propose to amend the Kern County General Plan to identify the buffer areas as Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer). Impacts to land use and planning from Alternative A would be greater than those of the proposed Project, and are potentially significant for consistency with the Kern County General Plan. Mineral Resources The mineral resources impacts of Alternative A would be less than those for the proposed Project. Alternative A would continue operations as currently permitted and cease operations when the current disposal area reaches the permitted capacity; expected to take place in the year 2013. Alternative A does not propose the excavation of soils for additional disposal modules, which would not allow for the potential for the extraction and use of aggregates from the landfill site. Impacts to mineral resources from Alternative A would be less than those of the proposed Project, and have no impact. Transportation and Traffic Alternative A does not propose an increase to permitted traffic. However, when the Taft RSLF ceases to accept waste, the waste would then be transported to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, approximately 50 miles - one way. This would result in additional traffic traveling on State highways and County roads, resulting in a potentially significant impact. The impacts to transportation and traffic from Alternative A would be greater than those of the proposed Project, and are potentially significant.



6.4.2 Alternative B – Operate under Current Permitted Conditions, Installation of a Landfill Liner per Proposed Final Fill Plan, No Vertical Expansion – followed by Final Landfill Closure Construction

This evaluation considers the potential impacts of the alternative project that includes the excavation and lining of 37 acres6 on the landfill parcel APN 298-050-13 (see Figure 3-6) while continuing operations under the current Final Fill Plan. Alternative B includes the land use actions, including bringing the buffer properties into the facility boundary, and Solid Waste Facility Permit revisions, excepting the proposed vertical expansion over the lined cells, and substitutes a smaller capacity and a shorter lifespan increase, than is proposed by the Project. This alternative would result in the Taft RSLF ceasing to accept waste in the year 2062, the expected time at which the site’s permitted capacity and height would be reached. Closure construction would commence over the entire landfill, causing wastes to then be transported a further distance to be disposed of at another permitted facility, the two closest being the Shafter-Wasco RSLF and the Bena SLF, both approximately 50 miles – one way. This transport distance would result in increased air quality and traffic impacts from the increased mileage of vehicle travel. Additionally, greater greenhouse gas emissions from additional mobile emissions would be emitted into the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas emitted from the generation of landfill gas would occur wherever the waste is disposed. The air quality, greenhouse gas and traffic impacts associated with the additional vehicle miles traveled due to this alternative would be eliminated by continuing to accept waste at the Taft RSLF. Alternative B would not achieve the following project objective:

• Provide up to 2,212,456 cubic yards of additional waste disposal capacity at the Taft RSLF.

Alternative B would meet the following project objectives, except for a lesser period of time than would the proposed Project:


• Provide a cost-effective solid waste disposal service to the residents of the

County while providing quality service and complying with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations; and

• Minimize haul distances for waste collection vehicles to reduce traffic, air

quality, and climate change impacts and costs to the residents. 6 One acre of waste from 35 acre existing refuse limit (see Section 3.2.3 for a discussion of this area) that extends north will be excavated and relocated within the existing refuse area. The excavated area will be lined as a part of the proposed 37-acre landfill liner; for a net increase of 36 acres.



Other impacts associated with Alternative B are discussed below. 6.4.2.1 Impacts of Alternative B: Operate under Current Permitted Conditions,

Installation of a Landfill Liner per Proposed Final Fill Plan, No Vertical Expansion – followed by Final Landfill Closure Construction

Aesthetics The existing site, at 775 feet MSL in some areas, is visibly distinct from the natural landscape due to the disturbed nature of the landfill’s surface areas. The landfill is an existing facility; it has become an established and accepted part of the landscape. Alternative B would continue operations as permitted with the installation of lined disposal cells and cease operations when the entire permitted refuse area reaches the current permitted capacity of 8,787,547 cubic yards and height of 775 feet MSL. This is expected to take place in the year 2062.

Under this alternative, the buffer properties would be brought into the facility boundaries.

Alternative B would involve substantial changes to the visual character of the project site by lining 37 acres directly north of the current disposal area, but would not expand the impact vertically beyond the existing permitted height. The impacts to aesthetics resulting from Alternative B would be less than those of the proposed Project; however both are less than significant. Air Quality Alternative B involves the lining of an additional 37 acres of the current permitted disposal area. The proposed modifications for this alternative are similar to those of the proposed Project, with the exception that there would not be a vertical expansion. This alternative does propose an increase in daily tonnage and vehicles, which would cause an annual incremental increase in emissions over the baseline. The annual air quality impacts from the operation of the landfill would cease in the year 2062. The analysis of Alternative B utilizes the same applicable methodology and assumptions, as described in Chapter 4.2 (Air Quality) of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR) and the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix I of the 2010 DEIR). The proposed modifications would result in the following emissions: Construction-Related Activities Short-term emissions for Alternative B would occur during the paving of the haul road, installation of the landfill liner, and construction of the closure cap. The Kern County Waste Management Department has estimated construction schedules and equipment lists for the construction phases of the landfill. Tables 4.2-9 through 4.2-12 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), and Table 6-2 detail the construction schedules.



Table 6-2 Alternative B

Closure Construction Schedulea

Equipment No. Model HP Hours per Day

No. of Days

Scraper 2 657G 600 8 132 Scraper 2 637G 500 8 120 Scraper 2 627G 365 8 140 Motor Grader 2 140H 185 8 120 Excavator 1 385C 523 4 60 Loader 1 980H 350 4 120 Backhoe 1 430E 100 4 70 Bull Dozer 1 D9R 410 8 145 Soil Screener 1 8 120 Sheepfoot Compactor 1 D825H 354 8 100 Water Truck 2 320 8 145 Water Truck 1 320 8 95 a Construction is expected to last 145 days and 587,520 cubic yards of soil is presumed to be used. For the purposes of the air quality impact study, Alternative B would result in construction activities which would generate air pollutant emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, SOX, and ROG. Table 6-3 shows the unmitigated emissions associated with construction equipment mobile emissions and earth moving activities. These emissions estimates are based on the construction schedules shown in Tables 4.2-9 through 4.2-12 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), and Table 6-2.

Table 6-3

Alternative B Short-Term Unmitigated Emissions

Pollutant (tons/year) Emissions Source ROG NOx COa SOx

a PM10 PM2.5Paved Haul Road – Year 2010 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Module 2 Liner Construction – Year 2011 1.54 14.34 6.23 0.00 40.45 8.86 Module 3 Phase 1 Liner Construction – Year 2021 0.44 2.99 1.74 0.00 16.48 3.52

Module 3 Phase 2 Liner Construction – Year 2031 0.44 2.98 1.72 0.00 16.48 3.52


Module 4 Liner Construction – Year 2046 1.05 7.40 4.12 0.00 54.39 11.56 Closure Construction – Year 2065 1.03 7.03 4.05 0.00 34.95 7.48 KC & SJVAPCD Annual Threshold 10 10 a a 15 a Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation?

No Yes Yes

a The KC & SJVAPCD have not established significance thresholds for CO, SOx, or PM2.5.



Construction of the landfill liner would result in temporary emissions that would occur during five phases lasting 100 days, 70 days, 70 days, 70 days, and 120 days, respectively, followed by landfill closure construction. Unmitigated construction emissions would exceed Kern County and SJVAPCD thresholds for NOx in years 2011 and PM10, as shown in Table 6-3, above. In order to reduce emissions from fugitive dust, the Kern County Waste Management Department is proposing to implement SJVAPCD Regulation VIII to suppress fugitive dust. Use of Tier II engines would also reduce equipment exhaust emissions (CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and ROG). However, quantifying the reductions achieved through implementation of these measures is difficult due to a lack of guidance and published data. Standard operational mitigation (Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-4) would be applied to the Project.


Short-Term Mitigated Emissions Pollutant (tons/year) Emissions

Source ROG NOx COa SOxa PM10 PM2.5

Paved Haul Road – Year 2010 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Module 2 Liner Construction – Year 2011 1.54 14.34 6.23 0.00 14.69 3.48




Module 4 Liner Construction – Year 2046 1.05 7.40 4.12 0.00 19.44 4.27

Closure Construction – Year 2065 1.03 7.03 4.05 0.00 12.54 2.80 KC & SJVAPCD Annual Threshold 10 10 a a 15 a Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation?

No Yes Yes

a The KC & SJVAPCD have not established significance thresholds for CO, SOx, or PM2.5. Mitigated short-term construction emissions will exceed Kern County thresholds for NOX during the construction of the Module 2 landfill liner, in the year 2011, and for PM10 during the construction of the Module 4 landfill liner, in the year 2046. The impacts to air quality from the construction phases of Alternative B would be the same as those of the project; and would remain significant and unavoidable during those two years.



Operational-Related Activities On-Site Mobile Emissions Like the proposed Project, Alternative B on-site mobile emissions would be generated from the operation of operational equipment on site, such as compactors and earth movers. Alternative B does not increase or decrease operational equipment however; similar to the proposed Project, an increase in daily tonnage, thereby resulting in an increase in operational equipment daily hours needed to handle the incoming waste stream. This would result in emissions approximately the same as the proposed Project, on an annual basis, until the year 2062, when the site would reach capacity (see Table 6-5).


Criteria Pollutant Emissions From Unmitigated On-Site Mobile Emissions

Annual Emissions (tons/year)a Scenario (Year) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Baseline Emissions (2008) 0.15 1.50 0.57 0.00 0.06 0.05 Unmitigated Emissions Proposed Project Emissions(2008) 0.50 4.84 2.00 0.00 0.19 0.18

Alternative B Emissions(2008) 0.50 4.84 2.00 0.00 0.19 0.18 Incremental Increase Over Baseline Proposed Project Emissions (2008) b 0.35 3.34 1.43 0.00 0.13 0.13

Alternative B Emissions (2008) b 0.35 3.34 1.43 0.00 0.13 0.13 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 10 10 c c 15 c

Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation?

No No No

a Values that are zero may be 0.00 or < 0.01. b Numbers may not add due to rounding by the URBEMIS for Windows 9.2.4 Model and hand calculations. c No limits have been established for CO, SOx, or PM2.5 by either the SJVAPCD or Kern County.

The URBEMIS and EMFAC2007 models take into account the cleaner vehicle fleets and fuel that will be achieved with compliance with mitigation measures 4.2-1 and 4.2-3, by modeling the different project scenarios in the years in which they will occur. Mitigation Measure 4.2-2, which limits idling on-site is already in effect, and was taken into account in the unmitigated emissions for on-site mobile emissions. The mitigated emissions resulting from the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-3 are shown in Table 6-6.




Criteria Pollutant Emissions From Mitigated On-Site Mobile Emissions

Annual Emissions (tons/year)a Scenario (Year) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Baseline Emissions (2008) 0.15 1.50 0.57 0.00 0.06 0.05 Mitigated Emissions Proposed Project Emissions (2013) 0.37 3.45 1.41 0.00 0.13 0.12

Alternative B Emissions (2013) 0.37 3.45 1.41 0.00 0.13 0.12 Incremental Increase Over Baseline Proposed Project Emissions (2013)b 0.22 1.95 0.85 0.00 0.07 0.07

Alternative B Emissions (2013) b 0.22 1.95 0.85 0.00 0.07 0.07 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 10 10 c c 15 c

Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation?

No No No


Off-Site Mobile Emissions Like the proposed Project, off-site mobile emissions for Alternative B would be generated from the additional disposal vehicles needed to dispose of the additional daily waste stream. The proposed increase of vehicles per day is not proportional to the proposed increase of tonnage per day because the proposed tonnage increase is to accommodate the additional wastes that will be coming into the Taft RSLF over the extended life of the landfill. This increase is expected to occur over time, and a majority of the potential increase in tonnage will be received in large transfer style equipment; thus the traffic is not expected to increase significantly. The project does not increase the number of worker vehicles or off-site travel distances. This would result in emissions approximately the same as the proposed Project, on an annual basis, until the year 2062, when the site would reach capacity (see Table 6-7).




Criteria Pollutant Emissions From Unmitigated Off-Site Mobile Emissions

Annual Emissions (tons/year)a Scenario (Year) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Baseline Emissions (2008) 0.01 0.36 0.31 0.00 0.01 0.01 Unmitigated Emissions Proposed Project Emissions (2008) 0.08 2.07 1.60 0.01 0.08 0.07

Alternative B Emissions (2008) 0.08 2.07 1.60 0.01 0.08 0.07 Incremental Increase Over Baseline Proposed Project Emissions (2008) 0.07 1.71 1.29 0.01 0.07 0.06

Alternative B Emissions (2008) 0.07 1.71 1.29 0.01 0.07 0.06 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 10 10 b b 15 b


No No No

a Values that are zero may be 0.00 or < 0.01. b No limits have been established for CO, SOx, or PM2.5 by either the SJVAPCD or Kern County.

The URBEMIS and EMFAC2007 models take into account the cleaner vehicle fleets and fuel that would be achieved with Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 and 4.2-3 by modeling the different scenarios in the years in which they will occur. The mitigated emissions resulting from the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 and 4.2-3 are shown in Table 6-8.





Criteria Pollutant Emissions From Mitigated Off-Site Mobile Emissions


Alternative B Emissions (2013) 0.04 0.77 0.78 0.01 0.04 0.04 Incremental Increase Over Baseline Proposed Project Emissions (2013) b 0.03 0.41 0.47 0.01 0.03 0.03

Alternative B Emissions (2013)b 0.03 0.41 0.47 0.01 0.03 0.03 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 10 10 c c 15 c


No No No


Fugitive Dust from Operations Like the proposed Project, fugitive dust emissions would be generated from material handling such as scraping and placement of cover soils, travel on unpaved roads within the project site, and wind erosion of the side slopes and cover materials. The baseline is based on the existing operations, with approximately 61 vehicles per day, all of which are driving on unpaved areas with a 15 miles per hour speed limit, and watered for dust suppression. The project mitigation includes paving the travel way from the entrance gatehouse to the bottom of the working face area. This is approximately ¼ mile in length and will greatly reduce fugitive dust. The driving area will be 30-foot wide and will carry vehicles in both directions. The working face will remain unpaved, but the project operations include watering and reduced speed. Alternative B would contribute the same fugitive dust emissions as the proposed Project, on an annual basis, until the year 2062, when the site would reach capacity (see Table 6-9).





Criteria Pollutant Emissions From Unmitigated Fugitive Dust Emissions

Annual Emissions (tons/year)a

Scenario (Year) PM10 PM2.5 Baseline Emissions (2008) 2.43 0.24 Unmitigated Emissions Project Emissions (2008) 63.97 6.41 Alternative B Emissions (2008) 63.97 6.41 Incremental Increase Over Baseline Project Emissions (2008) 61.54 6.17 Alternative B Emissions (2008) 61.54 6.17 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 15 b

Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? Yes a Values that are zero may be 0.00 or < 0.01. b No limits have been established for PM2.5 by either the SJVAPCD or Kern County.

Fugitive dust emissions are significant for PM10. In order to mitigate emissions from fugitive dust, Alternative B would implement Mitigation Measures 4.2-4 and 4.2-5 (see Section 4.2.4.2). Mitigation for control of dust includes wetting of unpaved roads on site three times per day, and limiting the speed limit to less than 15 mph on site. Table 6-10 provides emissions after implementation of mitigation. Wet suppression of fugitive dust on unpaved roads, paving of part of the southern haul road, and compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII will greatly reduce fugitive PM emissions.





Criteria Pollutant Emissions From Mitigated Fugitive Dust Emissions


Scenario (Year) PM10 PM2.5 Baseline Emissions (2008) 2.43 0.24 Mitigated Emissions Project Emissions (2013) 5.12 0.52 Alternative B Emissions (2013) 5.12 0.52 Incremental Increase Over Baseline Project Emissions (2013) 2.69 0.28 Alternative B Emissions (2013) 2.69 0.28 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 15 b

Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No a Values that are zero may be 0.00 or < 0.01. b No limits have been established for PM2.5 by either the SJVAPCD or Kern County.

Landfill Gas Like the proposed Project, landfill gas emissions would be generated from the decomposition of on-site waste, creating landfill gas. Tier 2 testing and analysis was conducted in 2003. Based on the results, the site did not have the potential to emit Non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) at a rate of greater than 50 Mg/year and therefore was not subject to the monitoring and control requirements of the federal New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) regulations. NMOC emissions greater than 50 Mg/year require the installation of a landfill gas collection and control system. Tier 2 testing was performed again in 2008. The 2008 waste in place was 1,596,635 cubic yards. The results of the testing again indicated that the 50 Mg/year threshold had not been reached. Based on modeling for the site, it is expected that the Taft RSLF will not reach the NSPS threshold during the life of the landfill. Alternative B proposes to increase the capacity and lifespan of the landfill, just not to the extent of the proposed Project. Alternative B would contribute less landfill gas emissions when compared to the proposed Project, both annually and overall, due to less waste in place when the facility closes (see Table 6-11). The worst case year (2062) was used in the calculation for Alternative B.




Criteria Pollutant Emissions From Landfill Gas Emissions

Annual Emissions (tons/year)a Scenario (Year) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Baseline Emissions (2008) 2.95 - 0.36 - - - Unmitigated Emissions Proposed Project Emissions (2072) 8.16 - 0.99 - - -

Alternative B Emissions (2062) 7.22 - 0.87 - - - Incremental Increase Over Baseline Proposed Project Emissions (2072)b 5.21 - 0.63 - - -

Alternative B Emissions (2062)b 4.27 - 0.51 - - - SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 10 10 b b 15 b

Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? No No a Values that are zero may be 0.00 or < 0.01. b No limits have been established for CO, SOx, or PM2.5 by either the SJVAPCD or Kern County. Based on the incremental increase in landfill emissions expected from Alternative B, no mitigation would be necessary. This is because all increases are below a level of significance, when compared to the 10 tpy thresholds of ROG for landfill gas emissions. Operational Emissions Summary The incremental increase in air emissions expected from Alternative B’s various scenarios are compared to increased emissions from the proposed Project, and to emission thresholds defined in Chapter 4.2, Section 4.2.4.2 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), Thresholds of Significance, to determine the level of significance. The total unmitigated and mitigated emissions, including on-site mobile emissions, off-site mobile emissions, landfill gas and fugitive dust that would result from the proposed Project and Alternative B are summarized in Table 6-12 below.





Summary of Unmitigated and Mitigated Operational Emissions Annual Emissions (tons/year)a Scenario ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Alt B Operational Unmitigated Emissions On-Site Mobile Emissions 0.50 4.84 2.00 0.00 0.19 0.18 Off-Site Mobile Emissions 0.08 2.07 1.60 0.01 0.08 0.07 Fugitive Dust - - - - 63.97 6.41 Landfill Gas 7.22 - 0.87 - - - Alt B Total Operational Unmitigated Emissions 7.80 6.91 4.47 0.01 64.24 6.66 Project Total Operational Unmitigated Emissions 8.74 6.91 4.59 0.01 64.24 6.66 Baseline Emissions 3.11 1.86 1.24 0.01 2.50 0.30 Alt B Incremental Increase of Unmitigated Emissions 4.69 5.05 3.23 0.00 61.74 6.36 Project Incremental Increase of Unmitigated Emissions 5.63 5.05 3.35 0.00 61.74 6.36 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold, tons/year 10 10 b b 15 b

Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? No No No No Yes No Alt B Operational Mitigated Emissions On-Site Mobile Emissions 0.37 3.45 1.41 0.00 0.13 0.12 Off-Site Mobile Emissions 0.04 0.77 0.78 0.01 0.04 0.04 Fugitive Dust - - - - 5.12 0.52 Landfill Gas 7.22 - 0.87 - - - Alt B Total Operational Mitigated Emissions 7.63 4.22 3.06 0.01 5.29 0.68 Project Total Operational Mitigated Emissions 8.57 4.22 3.18 0.01 5.29 0.68 Baseline Emissions 3.11 1.86 1.24 0.01 2.50 0.30

Alt B Incremental Increase of Mitigated Emissions 4.52 2.36 1.82 0.00 2.79 0.38 Project Incremental Increase of Mitigated Emissions 5.46 2.36 1.94 0.00 2.79 0.38

SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold, tons/year 10 10 b b 15 b

Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No No No No No No

a Values that are zero may be 0.00 or < 0.01. b No limits have been established for CO, SOX, or PM2.5 by either the SJVAPCD or Kern County.



Project design for all stationary sources of air pollution, such as the landfill, in full compliance with applicable rules and regulations, regarding emissions rates and pollution control technologies, will be required to be demonstrated to the administering air regulatory agencies. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-5, will mitigate all criteria emissions (CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and ROG) to the fullest extent feasible. The impacts to air quality resulting from the operational on- and off-site mobile emissions, as well as fugitive dust emissions, of Alternative B would be the same as those of the proposed Project, on an annual basis until 2062 when Alternative B ceases operations. The impacts to air quality resulting from landfill gas emissions would be slightly less than those of the proposed Project due to less waste in place. While the impacts to air quality from the operational emissions of Alternative B would be slightly less than those of the proposed Project and would occur for a less amount of time, both are less than significant after mitigation. Operational and Construction Emissions Summary Annual project emissions in some years of landfill operation increase due to construction that will occur in the same year in which operational activities are also occurring. Operational and construction activities at the facility will generate CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, ROG, and SOx emissions from on-site mobile emissions of both construction and operational equipment, off-site mobile emissions from haul vehicles, employees and construction workers, and fugitive dust from dirt handling and vehicles traveling on unpaved roadways. The incremental increase in emissions expected from Alternative B is compared to emission thresholds defined in Chapter 4.2, Section 4.2.4.2 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), Thresholds of Significance, to determine the level of significance. The total unmitigated and mitigated emissions, including on-site mobile emissions, off-site mobile emissions, landfill gas, fugitive dust, and construction emissions that would result from Alternative B are summarized in Table 6-13 below.





Summary of Total Incremental Increase in Operational and Construction Emissions

Annual Emissions (tons/year)a Scenario (Year) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Incremental Increase of Unmitigated Emissions Alternative B Emissions (2011) 6.23 19.39 9.46 0.00 102.19 15.22 Alternative B Emissions (2021) 5.13 8.04 4.97 0.00 78.22 9.88 Alternative B Emissions (2031) 5.13 8.03 4.95 0.00 78.22 9.88 Alternative B Emissions (2039) 5.13 8.03 4.95 0.00 78.22 9.88 Alternative B Emissions (2046) 5.74 12.45 7.35 0.00 116.13 17.92 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 10 10 b b 15 b


No Yes Yes

Incremental Increase of Mitigated Emissions Alternative B Emissions (2011) 6.06 16.7 8.05 0.00 17.48 3.86 Alternative B Emissions (2021) 4.96 5.35 3.56 0.00 8.69 1.69 Alternative B Emissions (2031) 4.96 5.34 3.54 0.00 8.69 1.69 Alternative B Emissions (2039) 4.96 5.34 3.54 0.00 8.69 1.69 Alternative B Emissions (2046) 5.57 9.76 5.94 0.00 22.23 4.65 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold, tons/year 10 10 b b 15 b


No Yes Yes


Project design for all stationary sources of air pollution, such as the landfill, in full compliance with applicable rules and regulations, regarding emissions rates and pollution control technologies, will be required to be demonstrated to the administering air regulatory agencies. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-5, will mitigate all criteria emissions (CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and ROG) to the fullest extent feasible. In year 2011, landfill operations and Module 2 liner construction occur simultaneously, causing mitigated emissions to exceed the significance level for NOx and PM10. In the year 2046, landfill operations and Module 4 liner construction occur simultaneously, causing mitigated emissions to exceed the significance level for PM10. While these exceedances occur only in the years 2011 and 2046, and all other years remain below a level of significance, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.



The impacts to air quality from operations-related activities and construction occurring in the same year from Alternative B would be less than those of the proposed project; however both are significant and unavoidable in year 2011 for NOx and PM10, and year 2046 for PM10. Direct and Indirect Increase of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) For Alternative B, the maximum predicted cancer risk is 1.09E-06. The maximum chronic and acute non-cancer hazard index is 8.15E-04 and 2.01E-02, respectively (see Table 6-14). Since the potential maximum impacts remained below the significance threshold for cancer, chronic, and acute risk, this alternative is not anticipated to have an adverse effect to any of the surrounding area, including the City of Taft and the communities of Valley Acres, Ford City, Dustin Acres, Derby Acres and Fellows. Cancer risk and chronic non-cancer risk are attributable to emissions of diesel engine exhaust particulate matter from on-site travel and idling of disposal vehicles, and landfill gas. Acute non-cancer risk is attributable to emissions of landfill gas.


Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted By HARP

Value UTM East UTM North Pathway

Excess Cancer Risk a 1.09E-06 276537 3893623 Inhalation

Acute Hazard Index a 2.01E-02 278813 3898702 Central Nervous System

Chronic Hazard Index a 8.15E-04 276537 3893623 Respiratory System

a Based on continuous, 70-year residential exposure for the most sensitive receptor.

In accordance with the Guide for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), the potential health risk attributable to Alternative B is determined to be less than significant based on the following conclusions:

1) Potential chronic carcinogenic risk from the proposed project is below the significance level of ten in a million at each of the modeled receptors;

2) The hazard index for the potential chronic non-cancer risk from the proposed project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors; and

3) The hazard index for the potential acute non-cancer risk from the proposed project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors.

The impacts to a direct and/or indirect increase of TACs from Alternative B would be less than those of the proposed project; and both are less than significant.



Alternative B: Air Quality Impacts Summary With the incorporation of feasible mitigation, Alternative B would have the following levels of significance:

• Alternative B would result in short-term air quality impacts due to the paving of a haul road for mitigation, liner construction, and closure construction. These impacts would be reduced to the extent feasible; however mitigated construction emissions will exceed Kern County thresholds for NOX during the construction of the Module 2 landfill liner, (in the year 2011) and for PM10 during the construction of the Module 4 landfill liner (in the year 2046). Therefore, emissions from construction during these two years are considered significant and unavoidable.

• Alternative B would result in long-term air quality impacts due to the incremental increase in operational and related mobile source emissions. These impacts would be reduced to the extent feasible and would remain below a level of significance after mitigation.

• Alternative B, in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects would result in cumulative long-term impacts to air quality. The SJVAB’s cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The impacts to air quality from Alternative B would be slightly less than those of the proposed Project; until the year 2062, when the air quality impacts from Alternative B will significantly decrease, however both are significant and unavoidable. Global Climate Change The emissions for this alternative scenario assume waste placement occurs as in the Project scenario until 2062. It differs from the Project scenario in that no waste is placed after 2062, whereas the Project scenario assumes waste is placed until 2074. Waste placement related emissions including electricity imports, waste hauling, mobile equipment, light duty vehicles, and waste diversion credits are ongoing during 2020 and occur for part of the Project period of 2052 through 2074. Alternative B would result in an increase of greenhouse gas emissions. However the Taft RSLF, in combination with other Kern County Waste Management Department system landfills, has decreased greenhouse gas emissions to well below the 1990 target baseline emissions, thereby complying with the Kern County Waste Management Department Greenhouse Gas Emissions Action Plan, and helping the State attain its goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 as stated in AB 32. The impacts to global climate change from Alternative B would be slightly less than those of the proposed Project; however both are less than significant.



Biological Resources The impacts related to biological resources would likely be the same for Alternative B, compared to the proposed Project. This analysis assumes that the landfill and buffer areas affected by the proposed Project, and the species found in those areas, would be impacted in the same way for Alternative B. There is potential for sensitive species to be found at the project site and the buffer lands. These buffer lands (which would serve as the area for the diversion area expansion and for relocation of the soil stockpile area) are native/naturalized areas.

As discussed in Chapter 4.4, section 4.4.3.3 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), the Kern County Waste Management Department developed a HCP in 1997, which includes measures to avoid and minimize incidental take of endangered and threatened species. While the HCP applies to the 100-acre landfill, an amendment is being prepared to include the landfill buffer lands not covered in the 1997 version. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative B would require the utilization of protocols within an approved HCP to minimize and/or avoid impacts. Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 through 4.4-5 would be implemented for Alternative B in the same manner as for the proposed Project. The impacts to biological resources from Alternative B would be the same as those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant after mitigation. Cultural Resources The impacts related to cultural resources would likely be the same for Alternative B, compared to the proposed Project. This analysis assumes that the landfill and buffer areas affected by the project and the potential for cultural resources found in those areas would be the same for Alternative B. There is potential for cultural resources to be found at the project site and the buffer lands, which would serve as the area for the expansion and relocation of the soil stockpile area. This analysis assumes that the number of acres affected by construction and landfill ancillary activities to take place on the landfill buffer areas would be the same for Alternative B as those for the proposed Project. No cultural sites were located during surveys of the project site (see Chapter 4.5 Section 4.5.2 of the 2010 DEIR – included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), and these results apply equally to Alternative B. As with the proposed Project, there is a risk that lining 37 acres and establishing a soil stockpile would disturb buried cultural resources. To mitigate this impact, Alternative B would include Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-4, just as for the proposed Project. The impacts to cultural resources from Alternative B would be the same as those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant after mitigation. Geology and Soils With the exception of the impacts from the proposed vertical expansion, the impacts related to geology and soils for Alternative B would be similar as those for the proposed Project. Under Alternative B, the same soils underlying the landfill would be impacted. To ensure that the impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant,



Alternative B would ensure that all on-site buildings and future construction would conform to Chapter 17.08, of the Kern County Code of Building Regulations, including the seismic provisions associated with Seismic Zone 4. The impacts to geology and soils from Alternative B would be the same as for the proposed Project; both are less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials for Alternative B would be essentially the same as for the proposed Project. Under Alternative B, Mitigation Measure 4.7-1, requiring hazardous material collected during load checking activities to be set aside in a hazardous waste storage locker until transported for proper disposal, would be implemented. The potential for Alternative B to generate and harbor vectors would be due to the same activities as those of the proposed Project. To mitigate this impact, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 would be implemented.

The impacts to hazards and hazardous materials from Alternative B would be the same as those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant after mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality Because the proposed Project includes the expansion of the disposal area by constructing lined disposal cells, the impacts related to hydrology and water quality for Alternative B would be substantially the same as for the proposed Project. Under Alternative B, the new lined disposal cells would be located in the same area as the proposed Project. The most significant influences on groundwater levels beneath the landfill appear to be from wastewater injection and infiltration operations in nearby oil fields (Geomatrix, 2002). The groundwater beneath the landfill is of very poor quality and appears to be hydraulically connected to saturated zones used for the disposal of oil field brines. For this reason, the groundwater has limited beneficial uses. Inorganic groundwater quality of the aquifer is poor due to naturally-occurring conditions and impacts from sources other than the landfill. The secondary maximum contaminant level (State and Federal drinking water standard) for total dissolved solids (TDS) is 500 mg/L. In recent years groundwater monitoring at the site has shown TDS concentrations ranging between 3,600 mg/L and 4,700 mg/L. The California State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 88-63 states that water with TDS concentrations exceeding 3,000 mg/l is not considered suitable or potentially suitable for municipal or domestic supply. There has been an impact to groundwater from the landfill which does violate the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The WDRs state that the landfill shall not cause the release of pollutants or



waste constituents to groundwater. The Kern County Waste Management Department would comply with the requirements of the RWQCB to mitigate the existing groundwater impact and any additional future groundwater impact. Following approval of an appropriate Corrective Action Program for the site, the Department would conduct the Corrective Action Program to mitigate impacts to groundwater. To ensure that the impacts to hydrology and water quality resources would be less than significant, Alternative B would incorporate Mitigation Measures 4.4-5 and 4.8-1, the same as for the proposed Project. The impacts to hydrology and water quality from Alternative B would be equivalent to those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant after mitigation. Land Use and Planning The land use and planning impacts of Alternative B would be the same as those described for the proposed Project in Chapter 4.9 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), Land Use and Planning. Under this alternative, the same land use actions would take place as what would occur in the proposed Project. The impacts to land use and planning from Alternative B would be equivalent to those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant. Mineral Resources The mineral resources impacts of Alternative B would be the same as those described for the proposed Project in Chapter 4.10 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), Mineral Resources. To ensure that the mineral resources impacts would be less than significant, Alternative B would incorporate Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 through 4.10-3, the same as for the proposed Project. Impacts to mineral resources from Alternative B would be equivalent to those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant after mitigation. Transportation and Traffic The transportation and traffic impacts of Alternative B would be similar to those described for the proposed Project in Chapter 4.11 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), Transportation and Traffic, but for a shorter time period than the proposed Project. This alternative also proposes to amend the Circulation Element to delete existing section and midsection line alignments. The impacts to transportation and traffic from Alternative B would be equivalent to those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant.



6.4.3 Alternative C – Operation of Landfill Until Unlined Cell Reaches Capacity, followed by Final Landfill Closure Construction

This evaluation considers the potential impacts of the alternative project that includes closure under current permitted conditions. While Alternative C includes the land use actions, including bringing the buffer properties into the facility boundary as proposed by the Project, it does not propose revisions to the Solid Waste Facility Permit except for the revision to increase the permitted facility boundary. The Taft RSLF is located on a 99.98-acre parcel; of which 85 acres makes up the current permitted disposal area. Of the 85-acre permitted disposal area, 35 acres currently have waste in place Alternative C proposes to continue operations under the current Final Fill Plan for the 35-acre refuse limit. This area is expected to reach capacity in 2013, at which time the Taft RSLF would cease the acceptance of waste and formal landfill closure would commence. This alternative would not succeed in keeping down costs for the citizens of Kern County as the landfill would not be using an existing facility within the existing infrastructure to its maximum potential. A new landfill would be costly to build, as it would need to implement all current regulatory requirements of landfill liners, leachate control facilities, groundwater monitoring, and public access to the new site, etc. The mission of the Kern County Waste Management Department is to serve the citizens and garner their trust and support, which would include spending tax payers’ dollars in the most efficient way and keeping costs down while protecting the health and safety of the public. Siting and constructing a new facility would take many years, as a new facility would need to be sited per the siting criteria of the Kern County General Plan as well as the Integrated Waste Management Plan. This would require a General Plan Amendment and a new conditional use permit, both of which are discretionary actions that may be denied by the Board of Supervisors if controversy and incompatibility cannot be mitigated. There is no guarantee that a new landfill could be sited nearby the existing facility to serve this area. All wastes would then be trucked or driven by the public to another existing landfill, most likely the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or Bena SLF, both of which are located a distance of 50 miles – one way. The increased transportation costs, increase mobile air pollution and increased traffic on State and local roads would all create new impacts. Additionally, greater greenhouse gas emissions from additional mobile emissions would be emitted into the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas emitted from the generation of landfill gas would occur wherever the waste is disposed. The air quality, traffic, and greenhouse gas impacts associated with mobile emissions and the additional vehicle miles traveled generated from this alternative would be eliminated by continuing to accept waste at the Taft RSLF. Alternative C would not achieve the following project objectives:



• Continue to meet AB 939 requirements for a countywide minimum of 15 years of combined permitted disposal capacity through existing or planned solid waste disposal as described by the Siting Element of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan;


• Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through recycling opportunities, waste diversion, and the implementation of State recommended Best Management Practices;





• Provide additional emergency capacity for disaster preparedness. Other impacts associated with Alternative C are discussed below. 6.4.3.1 Impacts of Alternative C: Operation of Landfill Until Unlined Cell

Reaches Capacity, followed by Final Landfill Closure Construction Aesthetics The existing site, at 775 feet MSL in some areas, is visibly distinct from the natural landscape due to the disturbed nature of the landfill’s surface areas. The landfill is an existing facility; it has become an established and accepted part of the landscape. Alternative C would continue operations as currently permitted and cease operations when the current disposal area reaches the permitted capacity of 2,875,207 cubic yards and height of 775 feet MSL. This is expected to take place in the year 2013. Closure construction of the facility would follow once capacity is reached. After closure, the site will eventually re-vegetate with native shrubs and grasses; this will enhance its aesthetic acceptability.

Under this alternative, the buffer properties would be brought into the facility boundaries.

Alternative C would not involve substantial changes to the visual character of the project site, and would not expand the impact vertically beyond the existing permitted height.



The impacts to aesthetics from Alternative C would be less than those of the proposed Project; however both are less than significant. Air Quality Alternative C does not involve the lining of any additional acres. This alternative does not propose any increase in daily tonnage or vehicles beyond that already permitted. The life expectancy would not be greater than the baseline, and would be much shorter than the proposed Project. The annual air quality impacts from the operation of the landfill would cease in the year 2013, when the capacity of the current waste cell is reached. However, when the Taft RSLF ceases to accept waste, the waste would then be hauled to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or Bena SLF, both of which are located approximately 50 miles – one way. A qualitative analysis indicates that Alternative C would result in emissions similar to the baseline until 2013. Post-2013 emissions would result in additional vehicle miles from the transport of the waste to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or Bena SLF, resulting result in additional mobile air emissions. The addition of hauling waste from the Taft area to another landfill would create additional air impacts in an air basin currently designated “Extreme”. Closure construction would occur in the year 2016, also contributing to the air quality impacts. For this reason, the impacts from Alternative C would be greater than those of the proposed Project. The analysis of Alternative C utilizes the same applicable methodology and assumptions, as described in Chapter 4.2 (Air Quality) of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR) and the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix I of the 2010 DEIR). The proposed modifications would result in the following emissions: Construction-Related Activities Short-term emissions for Alternative C would occur during the final landfill closure construction of the Taft RSLF. The Kern County Waste Management Department has estimated a construction schedule and equipment list for the closure construction of the landfill. Table 6-15 below details the construction schedule for Alternative C.

Table 6-15 Alternative C

Closure Construction Schedulea

Equipment No. Model HP Hours per Day No. of Days

Scraper 2 637G 500 8 50 Scraper 2 627G 365 8 90 Motor Grader 2 140H 185 8 70 Excavator 1 385C 523 4 50 Loader 1 980H 350 4 85 Backhoe 1 430E 100 4 50 Bull Dozer 1 D9R 410 8 100 Soil Screener 1 8 90 Sheepfoot Compactor 1 D825H 354 8 90 Water Truck 2 320 8 100 a Construction is expected to last 100 days and 288,000 cubic yards of soil is presumed to be used.



For the purposes of the air quality impact study, Alternative C would result in construction activities which would generate air pollutant emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, SOX, and ROG. Table 6-16 shows the unmitigated emissions associated with construction equipment mobile emissions and earth moving activities. These emissions estimates are based on the construction schedule shown in Table 6-15.


Short-Term Unmitigated Emissions Pollutant (tons/year) Emissions

Source ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5Closure Construction – Year 2016 0.53 4.24 2.05 0.00 17.15 3.70 KC & SJVAPCD Annual Threshold 10 10 a a 15 a Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation?

No No Yes

a The KC & SJVAPCD have not established significance thresholds for CO, SOx, or PM2.5. Closure construction of the landfill would result in temporary emissions that would occur during the 100-day construction period. Unmitigated construction emissions would exceed Kern County and SJVAPCD thresholds for PM10 in 2016, as shown in Table 6-16, above. In order to mitigate emissions from fugitive dust, Mitigation Measure 4.2-4 would be implemented in the same way for Alternative C as it is for the proposed Project. The SJVAPCD Rule 8021 and Mitigation Measure 4.2-4 require similar control measures and should be able to achieve a similar reduction in fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. URBEMIS v9.2.4 applies a 61% control factor for water suppression activities, and a 44% control factor for reducing speed on the unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. The mitigated emissions resulting from the implementation of Mitigation Measure for Alternative C is shown in Table 6-17, below.


Short-Term Mitigated Emissions Pollutant (tons/year) Emissions

Source ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Closure Construction – Year 2016 0.53 4.24 2.05 0.00 6.18 1.40 KC & SJVAPCD Annual Threshold 10 10 a a 15 a Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? No No No a The KC & SJVAPCD have not established significance thresholds for CO, SOx, or PM2.5. For Alternative C, the short-term emissions would result in temporary emissions that would occur during the landfill closure construction. Mitigated construction emissions are estimated to be less than Kern County and SJVAPCD significance threshold levels for NOX, ROG, and PM10. Therefore, the impacts to air quality from the closure construction of Alternative C would be less than those of the proposed Project, and are less than significant after mitigation.



Operational-Related Emissions Like the proposed Project, Alternative C’s operational-related emissions would be generated from the continuation of on-site operations equipment, off-site disposal and worker vehicles, as well as fugitive dust, and landfill gas emissions until the current waste disposal cell reaches capacity. Alternative C does not propose to increase the lifespan of the landfill, operational equipment or disposal vehicles. Therefore, these emissions would be approximately the same as for the proposed Project, on an annual basis, until the year 2013, when the site would reach current capacity. Once the landfill ceases to accept waste, the wastes would then be transported to be disposed of at the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or Bena SLF, both of which are 50 miles - one-way. This is in addition to those vehicles currently bringing wastes into those sites. Hauling waste from the Taft area to another landfill creates air impacts in an air basin currently designated as “Extreme”. Therefore, Alternative C would result in air emissions greater than those of the proposed Project. Project design for all stationary sources of air pollution, such as the landfill, in full compliance with applicable rules and regulations, regarding emissions rates and pollution control technologies, will be required to be demonstrated to the administering air regulatory agencies. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-5 will mitigate all criteria emissions (CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and ROG) to the fullest extent feasible. The impacts to air quality resulting from the operational-related emissions of Alternative C would potentially be greater than those of the proposed Project; however, both are less than significant after mitigation. Direct and Indirect Increase of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) Cancer risk and chronic non-cancer risk are attributable to emissions of diesel engine exhaust particulate matter from on-site travel and idling of disposal vehicles, and landfill gas. Acute non-cancer risk is attributable to emissions of landfill gas. For Alternative C, the maximum predicted cancer risk, and the maximum chronic and acute non-cancer hazard index would be less than those for the proposed Project due to the shorter lifespan, and a lesser amount of waste in place for the Taft RSLF. Since the potential maximum impacts for the proposed Project remained below the significance threshold for cancer, chronic, and acute risk, Alternative C is also not anticipated to have an adverse effect to the City of Taft, or the communities of Valley Acres, Ford City, Dustin Acres, Derby Acres and Fellows. Alternative C: Air Quality Impacts Summary With the incorporation of feasible mitigation, Alternative C would have the following levels of significance:

• Alternative C would result in short-term air quality impacts due to closure construction. Construction impacts would be reduced to the extent feasible and are less than significant after mitigation.



• Alternative C would have the same air quality impacts as the baseline for long-term operational-related emissions because it proposes to continue operating the landfill until the current waste cell reaches capacity, in the year 2013, under the current permitted conditions. However, Alternative C would result in long-term air quality impacts once the landfill ceases to accept waste in the year 2013, for wastes would then be transported to be disposed of at the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or Bena SLF, both of which are 50 miles - one-way. This is in addition to those vehicles currently bringing wastes into those sites. Therefore, Alternative C would potentially result in air emissions greater than those of the proposed project, and be less than significant after mitigation.

• Alternative C, in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects would result in cumulative long-term impacts to air quality. This project’s incremental impact to the SJVAB would be less than significant, as it poses no change in current levels of air pollutants in the basin.

The significant and unavoidable construction and operational-related impacts to air quality from Alternative C would be less than those of the proposed Project. However, when the Taft RSLF ceases to accept waste, the waste would then be hauled to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, approximately 50 miles away (one-way). A qualitative analysis indicates that Alternative C would result in emissions similar to the baseline until 2013. Post-2013 emissions would result in additional vehicle miles from the transport of the waste to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, resulting in additional mobile air emissions. For the reason stated above, the impacts to air quality from Alternative C would potentially be greater than those of the proposed Project; and would remain significant and unavoidable. Global Climate Change The annual global climate change impacts from the operation of the landfill would cease in the year 2013, when the capacity of the current waste cell reached. However, landfill gas emissions from waste already in place at the Taft RSLF would continue. When the Taft RSLF ceases to accept waste, the waste would then be transported to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or Bena SLF, both of which are approximately 50 miles - one-way. Greenhouse gas amounts generated from the waste are assumed to be equivalent for both cases, because the generation would occur no matter where the waste was disposed. The Shafter-Wasco and Bena facilities do have a landfill gas collection control system, which would capture approximately 95 percent of the landfill gas generated from the transported waste. This collection of greenhouse gas could result in an overall decrease in total emissions compared to the proposed Project; however a qualitative analysis indicates that the additional vehicle miles from the transport of the waste to these other facilities would result in additional greenhouse gas mobile emissions and impacts to air quality and traffic.



In addition, if the waste were to be transported to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, additional indirect impacts would occur from waste that would have normally gone to the Taft RSLF, using up available capacity at the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, and resulting in the early closure of the site. This would create cascading direct, and indirect, impacts in that it would result in the waste from the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, as well as from Taft, being redirected to the Bena SLF earlier than would otherwise occur. The impacts to global climate change from Alternative C to would be greater than those of the proposed Project, and remain potentially significant. Biological Resources The impacts related to biological resources would likely be less for Alternative C compared to the proposed Project. This analysis assumes that the landfill and buffer areas affected by the proposed Project, and the species found in those areas, would be less impacted with Alternative C. There is potential for sensitive species to be found at the project site, but the buffer lands, which are mostly native/naturalized lands, would not serve as an area for the expansion of the landfill, or the relocation of the soil stockpile, and would remain as habitat. As discussed in Chapter 4.4, Section 4.4.3.3 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), the Kern County Waste Management Department developed a HCP in 1997, which includes measures to avoid and minimize incidental take of endangered and threatened species. While the HCP applies to the 100-acre landfill, an amendment is being prepared to include the landfill buffer lands not currently covered in the 1997 version. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative C would require the utilization of protocols within the existing HCP to minimize and/or avoid impacts. Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 through 4.4-5 would be implemented for Alternative C in the same manner as for the proposed Project. The impacts to biological resource impacts from Alternative C would be less than those of the proposed Project; however both are less than significant after mitigation. Cultural Resources The impacts related to cultural resources would likely be less for Alternative C compared to the proposed Project. This analysis assumes that the potential for cultural resources to be found in the landfill and buffer areas affected by the project would be less for Alternative C. There is potential for cultural resources to be found at the project site, but the buffer lands, which would serve as the area for the expansion and relocation of the soil stockpile area, would not be disturbed under Alternative C. This analysis assumes that the number of acres affected by closure construction, and landfill ancillary activities, will not include the expanded areas proposed by the Project, therefore would be less for Alternative C. No cultural sites were located during surveys of the project site (see Chapter 4.5, Section 4.5.2 of the 2010 DEIR – included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), and these results apply equally to Alternative C. As with the proposed Project, there is a risk that the soils excavated for closure would disturb buried cultural resources. If this were to occur, Alternative C would comply with



the California Heath and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that construction must halt in the area of the discovery, the area must be protected, and consultation and treatment shall occur as prescribed by law. To mitigate this impact, Alternative C would include Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-4, just as for the proposed Project. The impacts to cultural resources from Alternative C would be less than those of the proposed Project; however both are less than significant after mitigation. Geology and Soils The impacts related to geology and soil resources would likely be less for Alternative C compared to the proposed Project. The landfill area in Alternative C would not be expanded with an additional 37 acres of lined disposal cells. The buffer lands in Alternative C would not serve as the area for the expansion, and relocation of the soil stockpile area, and would not be disturbed. This analysis assumes that the number of acres affected by closure construction would take place on the existing landfill areas, and the total acres impacted for Alternative C would be less than those for the proposed Project. The final cover and slopes of the waste unit would be constructed to withstand the maximum probable earthquake per section 20164(a) of Title 27 California Code of Regulations (CalRecycle, 2010a). Geologic considerations of the intermediate and final covers are usually evaluated in a Preliminary Final Closure Plan. Seismic stability calculations contained in the Taft RSLF Preliminary Final Closure Plan show that landfill slopes of 3:1 are stable and safe. Under Alternative C, less soil underlying the landfill to be closed would be impacted. To ensure that the impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant, Alternative C would ensure that all on-site building and future construction would conform to chapter 17.08 of the Kern County Code of Building Regulations including the seismic provisions associated with Seismic Zone 4. The impacts to geology and soils from Alternative C would be the same as for the proposed Project; both are less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials for Alternative C would be substantially the same as for the proposed Project, but for a significantly shorter period of time. Under Alternative C, Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 requiring hazardous material collected during load checking activities to be set aside in a hazardous waste storage locker for until transported for proper disposal, would be implemented. The potential for Alternative C to generate and harbor vectors would be due to the same activities as those of the proposed Project. To mitigate this impact, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 would be implemented.



The impacts to hazards and hazardous materials from Alternative C would be the same as those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant after mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality Alternative C involves closure construction on the current waste disposal area only. There would be no vertical expansion, soil stockpile, or expansion of disposal area by constructing lined disposal cells. Closure construction and its impacts would be similar to the closure impacts of the Project. The most significant influences on groundwater levels beneath the landfill appear to be from wastewater injection and infiltration operations in nearby oil fields (Geomatrix, 2002). The groundwater beneath the landfill is of very poor quality and appears to be hydraulically connected to saturated zones used for the disposal of oil field brines. For this reason, the groundwater has limited beneficial uses. Inorganic groundwater quality of the aquifer is poor due to naturally-occurring conditions and impacts from sources other than the landfill. The secondary maximum contaminant level (State and Federal drinking water standard) for total dissolved solids (TDS) is 500 mg/L. In recent years groundwater monitoring at the site has shown TDS concentrations ranging between 3,600 mg/L and 4,700 mg/L. The California State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 88-63 states that water with TDS concentrations exceeding 3,000 mg/l is not considered suitable or potentially suitable for municipal or domestic supply. There has been an impact to groundwater from the landfill which does violate the WDRs. The WDRs state that the landfill shall not cause the release of pollutants or waste constituents to groundwater. The Kern County Waste Management Department would comply with the requirements of the RWQCB to mitigate the existing groundwater impact and any additional future groundwater impact. Following approval of an appropriate Corrective Action Program for the site, the Kern County Waste Management Department would conduct the Corrective Action Program to mitigate impacts to groundwater. To ensure that the impacts to hydrology and water quality resources would be less than significant, Alternative C would incorporate Mitigation Measures 4.4-5 and 4.8-1, the same as for the proposed Project. The impacts to hydrology and water quality from Alternative C would be equivalent to those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant after mitigation. Land Use and Planning The land use and planning impacts of Alternative C would be the same as those described for the proposed Project in Chapter 4.9 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), Land Use and Planning. Under this alternative, the same land use actions would take place as would with the proposed Project. The impacts to land use and planning from Alternative C would be equivalent to those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant.



Mineral Resources The mineral resources impacts of Alternative C would be less than those described for the proposed Project. Alternative C would continue operations as currently permitted, and cease operations when the current disposal area reaches the permitted capacity expected to take place in the year 2013. Closure activities would then commence thereafter. Alternative C does not propose the excavation of soils for additional disposal modules; however soils may be excavated for the construction of closure, which may allow for the potential use of aggregate from the landfill site. To ensure the impact would be less than significant, Alternative C would incorporate Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 through 4.10-3. Impacts to mineral resources from Alternative C would be less than those of the proposed Project; however both are less than significant after mitigation. Transportation and Traffic Alternative C does not propose an increase to permitted traffic. However, when the Taft RSLF ceases to accept waste, the waste would then be transported to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or Bena SLF, both of which are located approximately 50 miles - one way. This would result in additional traffic, up to 350 vehicles per day as requested by the proposed Project, traveling on State highways and County roads, resulting in a potentially significant impact. The impacts to transportation and traffic from Alternative C would be greater than those of the proposed Project, and are potentially significant. 6.4.4 Alternative D: Operation of Landfill Until the Unlined Cell Reaches

Capacity, Final Landfill Closure Construction, Construct and Operate a Transfer Station

This evaluation considers the potential impacts of the alternative project that includes closure under current permitted conditions, and the construction and operation of a transfer station. While Alternative D includes the land use actions, including bringing the buffer properties into the facility boundary as proposed by the Project, it does not propose revisions to the Solid Waste Facility Permit except for the revision to increase the permitted facility boundary. The Taft RSLF is located on a 99.98-acre parcel of which 85 acres makes up the current permitted disposal area. Of the 85-acre permitted disposal area, 35 acres currently have waste in place. Alternative D proposes to continue operations under the current Final Fill Plan for the 35-acre existing refuse limit. This area is expected to reach capacity in 2013, at which time the Taft RSLF would cease acceptance of waste and formal landfill closure construction would commence. Prior to the cessation of waste acceptance, a transfer station would be constructed, which would then be operated when the landfill ceases acceptance of waste.



When the acceptance of waste ceases in 2013, wastes would then be collected at the transfer station, and hauled in transfer trucks to be disposed of at another permitted facility, resulting in increased air quality and traffic impacts. At the current permitted maximum 419 tons per day, and with each transfer truck having the capacity to haul approximately 20 tons each, the daily number of vehicles traveling from the transfer station to another permitted facility would be approximately 20 transfer trucks per day. This is in addition to those vehicles currently bringing waste into the sites. Greater greenhouse gas emissions from these additional mobile emissions would be emitted into the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas emitted from the generation of landfill gas would occur wherever the waste is disposed. The air quality, traffic, and greenhouse gas impacts associated with mobile emissions and the additional vehicle miles traveled generated from this alternative would be eliminated by continuing to accept waste at the Taft RSLF. Alternative D would not achieve the following project objectives:

• Continue to meet AB 939 requirements for a countywide minimum of 15 years of combined permitted disposal capacity through existing or planned solid waste disposal as described by the Siting Element of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan;

• Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through recycling opportunities, waste diversion, and the implementation of State recommended Best Management Practices;



• Provide a cost-effective solid waste disposal service to the residents of the County while providing quality service and complying with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations; and

• Provide additional emergency capacity for disaster preparedness. Other impacts associated with Alternative D are discussed below. 6.4.4.1 Impacts of Alternative D: Operation under Current Permitted Conditions,

Construction and Operation of a Transfer Station, and Final Landfill Closure Construction

Aesthetics The existing site, at 775 feet MSL in some areas, is visibly distinct from the natural landscape due to the disturbed nature of the landfill’s surface areas. The landfill is an existing facility; it has become an established and accepted part of the landscape. Alternative D would continue operations as currently permitted, and cease operations



when the current disposal area reaches the permitted capacity of 2,875,207 cubic yards and height of 775 feet MSL. This is expected to take place in the year 2013. A transfer station would be constructed on the existing permitted site approximately one year before the facility reaches capacity. Closure construction of the facility would follow the cessation of waste acceptance, and occur simultaneously with the operation of the transfer station. After closure, the site will eventually re-vegetate with native shrubs and grasses; this will enhance its aesthetic acceptability. Under this Alternative, the buffer properties would be brought into the facility boundary. Alternative D would involve changes to the visual character of the project site by constructing a transfer station building, recycling and diversion areas, and loading areas. The threshold used is the impedance of the view of the Buena Vista Hills ridgeline from those viewpoints defined in Chapter 4.1 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR). The construction of a transfer station building, recycling and diversion areas, and loading areas would not exceed this threshold. The impacts to aesthetics from Alternative D would be different, but equivalent to those of the proposed Project; and are less than significant. Air Quality Alternative D involves the construction of a transfer station one year before reaching capacity and then constructing closure on the waste disposal area after the cessation of acceptance of waste. The proposed modifications for this Alternative are the less than the proposed Project, as there would be no vertical expansion or installation of a liner on the current permitted disposal area. This alternative does not propose an increase in daily tonnage and vehicles, which would cause an annual incremental increase in emissions over the baseline. A short term increase of air emissions would occur during construction of the transfer station, as well as final landfill closure construction. The life expectancy of the landfill would be the same as the baseline, but significantly shorter than the Project. The annual air quality impacts from the operation of the landfill would cease in the year 2013, after construction of the transfer station has been completed. Wastes collected at the transfer station would be compacted and loaded into special high capacity transport vehicles and hauled to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or Bena SLF, both of which are approximately 50 miles - one-way. Hauling waste from the transfer station to another landfill creates additional air impacts in an air basin currently designated “Extreme.” The analysis of Alternative D utilizes the same applicable methodology and assumptions, as described in Chapter 4.2 (Air Quality) of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR) and the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix I of the 2010 DEIR). The proposed modifications would result in the following emissions. Construction-Related Activities Short-term emissions for Alternative D would occur during construction of the transfer station, as well as final landfill closure construction. The Kern County Waste



Management Department has estimated a construction schedule and equipment list for the construction phases of the landfill. Table 6-15 and Table 6-18, below, detail the closure construction and transfer station construction schedules.

Table 6-18 – Transfer Station Construction Schedulea

Equipment No. Model HP Hours per Day No. of Days

Paver 1 BG-230D 130 4 2 Bull Dozer 1 D9R 410 8 15 Smooth Drum Compactor 1 CS56 156 8 10

Water Truck 1 320 8 15 a Construction is expected to last 60 days.

For the purposes of the air quality impact study, Alternative D would result in construction activities which would generate air pollutant emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, SOX, and ROG. Table 6-19 shows the unmitigated emissions associated with construction equipment mobile emissions and earth moving activities. These emissions estimates are based on the construction schedules shown in Tables 6-15 and 6-18.

Table 6-19 Alternative D

Short-Term Unmitigated Emissions Pollutant (tons/year) Emissions Source

ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Transfer Station Construction – Year 2012 0.03 0.24 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.01 Closure Construction – Year 2016 0.53 4.24 2.05 0.00 17.15 3.70 KC & SJVAPCD Annual Threshold 10 10 a a 15 a Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? No No Yes a The KC & SJVAPCD have not established significance thresholds for CO, SOx, or PM2.5.

Closure construction of the landfill would result in temporary emissions that would occur during the 100-day construction period. Unmitigated construction emissions would exceed Kern County and SJVAPCD thresholds for PM10 in 2016, as shown in Table 6-19, above. In order to mitigate emissions from fugitive dust, Mitigation Measure 4.2-4 would be implemented in the same way for Alternative D, as it is for the proposed Project. The SJVAPCD Rule 8021 and Mitigation Measure 4.2-4 require similar control measures and should be able to achieve a similar reduction in fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. URBEMIS v9.2.4 applies a 61% control factor for water suppression activities, and a 44% control factor for reducing speed on the unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. The mitigated emissions resulting from the implementation of Mitigation Measure for Alternative D is shown in Table 6-20, below.




Short-Term Mitigated Emissions Pollutant (tons/year) Emissions Source

ROG NOx COa SOxa PM10 PM2.5

a

Transfer Station Construction – Year 2012 0.03 0.24 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.01 Closure Construction – Year 2016 0.53 4.24 2.05 0.00 6.18 1.40 KC & SJVAPCD Annual Threshold 10 10 NA NA 15 Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? No No No NOTES: a The KC & SJVAPCD have not established significance thresholds for CO, SOx, or PM2.5.

Mitigated short-term construction emissions are estimated to be less than the Kern County and SJVAPCD significance thresholds for NOx, ROG, or PM10. Therefore, the impacts to air quality from the construction phases of Alternative D would be less than those of the proposed Project, and are less than significant after mitigation. Operational-Related Activities On-Site Mobile Emissions Like the proposed Project, Alternative D on-site mobile emissions would be generated from the operation of operational equipment on site, such as compactors and earth movers. These emissions would be approximately the same as for the proposed Project, on an annual basis, until the year 2013, when the site would reach current capacity. Once the transfer station is operational, on-site emissions from operational equipment would be greatly reduced, when compared to the proposed Project, due to fewer, and less heavy duty, operational equipment needed to successfully operate the transfer station. Alternative D would result in fewer on-site emissions, overall, when compared to the proposed Project (see Table 6-21).





Criteria Pollutant Emissions From Unmitigated On-Site Mobile Emissions

Annual Emissions (tons/year)a Scenario (Year) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Baseline Emissions (2008) 0.15 1.50 0.57 0.00 0.06 0.05 Unmitigated Emissions Proposed Project Emissions (2008) 0.50 4.84 2.00 0.00 0.19 0.18

Alternative D Emissions (2008) 0.04 0.36 0.27 0.00 0.01 0.01 Incremental Increase Over Baseline Proposed Project Emissions (2008)b 0.35 3.34 1.43 0.00 0.13 0.13

Alternative D Emissions (2008)b -0.11 -1.14 -0.30 0.00 -0.05 -0.04 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 10 10 c c 15 c


No No No


The URBEMIS and EMFAC2007 models take into account the cleaner vehicle fleets and fuel that will be achieved with compliance with mitigation measures 4.2-1 and 4.2-3, by modeling the different project scenarios in the years in which they will occur. Mitigation Measure 4.2-2, which limits idling on-site is already in effect, and was taken into account in the unmitigated emissions for on-site mobile emissions. The mitigated emissions resulting from the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-3 are shown in Table 6-22.





Criteria Pollutant Emissions From Mitigated On-Site Mobile Emissions


Alternative D Emissions (2013) 0.02 0.22 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Incremental Increase Over Baseline Proposed Project Emissions (2013)b 0.00 1.95 0.84 0.00 0.07 0.07

Alternative D Emissions (2013)b -0.13 -1.28 -0.43 0.00 -0.06 -0.05 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 10 10 c c 15 c


No No No


Off-Site Mobile Emissions Like the proposed Project, off-site mobile emissions for Alternative D would result from the operation of disposal vehicles and worker vehicles. This would result in emissions approximately the same as the proposed Project, on an annual basis, until the year 2013, when the current waste area would reach capacity. Wastes would then be collected at the transfer station, condensed, then hauled in transfer trucks to be disposed of at the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or Bena SLF, both of which are located approximately 50 miles - one way. At the current permitted maximum 419 tons per day, and with each transfer truck having the capacity to haul approximately 20 tons each, the daily number of vehicles traveling from the transfer station to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or Bena SLF would be approximately 20 transfer trucks per day. This is in addition to those vehicles currently bringing waste into the sites. Hauling waste from the transfer station to another landfill creates air impacts in an air basin currently designated as “Extreme”. Alternative D would result in emissions greater than those of the proposed Project (see Table 6-23).




Unmitigated Off-Site Mobile Emission Annual Emissions (tons/year)a Scenario (Year) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Baseline Emissions (2008) 0.01 0.36 0.31 0.00 0.01 0.01 Unmitigated Emissions Proposed Project Emissions (2008) 0.08 2.07 1.60 0.01 0.08 0.07

Alternative D Emissions (2008) 0.37 9.26 3.07 0.01 0.29 0.27 Incremental Increase Over Baseline Proposed Project Emissions (2008) 0.07 1.71 1.29 0.01 0.07 0.06

Alternative D Emissions (2008) 0.36 8.90 2.76 0.01 0.28 0.26 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 10 10 b b 15 b


No No No


The URBEMIS and EMFAC2007 models take into account the cleaner vehicle fleets and fuel that would be achieved with Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 and 4.2-3 by modeling the different scenarios in the years in which they will occur. The mitigated emissions resulting from the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 and 4.2-3 are shown in Table 6-24.





Criteria Pollutant Emissions From Mitigated Off-Site Mobile Emissions

Annual Emissions (tons/year)a Scenario ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Baseline Emissions (2008) 0.01 0.36 0.31 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mitigated Emissions Proposed Project Emissions (2013) 0.04 0.77 0.78 0.01 0.04 0.04

Alternative D Emissions (2013) 0.16 3.07 1.92 0.01 0.19 0.18 Incremental Increase Over Baseline Proposed Project Emissions (2013) 0.03 0.41 0.47 0.01 0.03 0.03

Alternative D Emissions (2013) 0.15 2.71 1.61 0.01 0.18 0.17 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 10 10 b b 15 b


No No No


Fugitive Dust from Operations Like the proposed Project, fugitive dust emissions would be generated from material handling such as scraping and placement of cover soils, travel on unpaved roads within the project site, and wind erosion of the side slopes and cover materials. The baseline is based on the existing operations, with approximately 61 vehicles per day, all of which are driving on unpaved areas with a 15 miles per hour speed limit, and is watered for dust suppression. Alternative D would contribute the same fugitive dust emissions as the proposed Project annually, until the current waste cell reaches capacity, in the year 2013. Alternative D would have the same fugitive dust emissions as the baseline for landfill operational-related emissions because it proposes to continue operating the landfill until the current permitted conditions; these emissions are those of current practice. Once the landfill ceases to accept waste, transfer station operations will then commence and waste unloading/loading activities will be conducted on paved areas, the same as for other larger volume transfer stations operated by the Kern County Waste Management Department, greatly reducing fugitive dust emissions. These reductions have been applied as appropriate to Alternative D’s fugitive dust emissions estimates (see Table 6-25). Due to these reductions, no mitigation will be required for fugitive dust emissions for Alternative D.




Criteria Pollutant Emissions From Fugitive Dust Emissions


Scenario PM10 PM2.5 Baseline Emissions 2.43 0.24 Unmitigated Emissions Project Emissions 63.97 6.41 Alternative D Emissions 0.00 0.00 Incremental Increase Over Baseline Project Emissions 61.54 6.17 Alternative D Emissions -2.43 -0.24 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 15 b

Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? No a Values that are zero may be 0.00 or < 0.01. b No limits have been established for PM2.5 by either the SJVAPCD or Kern County.

Landfill Gas Like the proposed Project, Alternative D landfill gas emissions would be generated from the decomposition of on-site waste; however Alternative D would contribute less landfill gas emissions when compared to the proposed Project, both annually and overall, due to less waste in place when the facility closes. Furthermore, Alternative D does not propose to increase the capacity of the Taft RSLF; therefore additional waste will not be placed beyond baseline, and there will be no increase in landfill gas emissions. Operational Emissions Summary Alternative D would contribute the same air quality operational emissions as the baseline for the landfill until the current waste cell reaches capacity, in the year 2013, because it proposes to continue operating the landfill under the current permitted conditions; these emissions are those of current practice. Once the landfill ceases to accept waste, transfer station operations will then commence. The incremental increase in emissions expected from Alternative D’s transfer station operation scenario are compared to the increase in emissions from the proposed Project, and to emission thresholds defined in Chapter 4.2 Section 4.2.4.2 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), Thresholds of Significance, to determine the level of significance. The total unmitigated and mitigated emissions, including on-site mobile emissions, off-site mobile emissions, landfill gas and fugitive



dust that would result from the proposed Project and Alternative D are summarized in Table 6-26 below.


Summary of Unmitigated and Mitigated Operational Emissions Annual Emissions (tons/year)a Scenario ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Alt D Operational Unmitigated Emissions On-Site Mobile Emissions 0.04 0.36 0.27 0.00 0.01 0.01 Off-Site Mobile Emissions 0.37 9.26 3.07 0.01 0.29 0.27 Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 0.00 Landfill Gas 2.95 - 0.36 - - - Alt D Total Operational Unmitigated Emissions 3.36 9.62 3.70 0.01 0.30 0.28 Project Total Operational Unmitigated Emissions 8.74 6.91 4.59 0.01 64.24 6.66 Baseline Emissions 3.11 1.86 1.24 0.01 2.50 0.30 Alt D Incremental Increase of Unmitigated Emissions 0.25 7.76 2.46 0.00 -2.20 -0.02 Project Incremental Increase of Unmitigated Emissions 5.63 5.05 3.35 0.00 61.74 6.36 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold, tons/year 10 10 b b 15 b

Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? No No No No No No Alt D Operational Mitigated Emissions On-Site Mobile Emissions 0.02 0.22 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Site Mobile Emissions 0.16 3.07 1.92 0.01 0.19 0.18 Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 0.00 Landfill Gas 2.95 - 0.36 - - - Alt D Total Operational Mitigated Emissions 3.13 3.29 2.42 0.02 0.19 0.18 Project Total Operational Mitigated Emissions 8.57 4.22 3.18 0.01 5.29 0.68 Baseline Emissions 3.11 1.86 1.24 0.01 2.50 0.30

Alt D Incremental Increase of Mitigated Emissions 0.02 1.43 1.18 0.00 -2.31 -0.12 Project Incremental Increase of Mitigated Emissions 5.46 2.36 1.94 0.00 2.79 0.38

SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold, tons/year 10 10 b b 15 b

Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No No No No No No




Project design for all stationary sources of air pollution, such as the landfill, in full compliance with applicable rules and regulations, regarding emissions rates and pollution control technologies, will be required to be demonstrated to the administering air regulatory agencies. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-5, will mitigate all criteria emissions (CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and ROG) to the fullest extent feasible. The impacts to air quality from the operational emissions of Alternative D would be slightly less than those of the proposed Project, and are less than significant. The impacts to air quality resulting from the operational on and off-site mobile emissions, as well as fugitive dust emissions, of Alternative D would be the same as those of the proposed Project, on an annual basis until 2013 when Alternative D ceases operations. Alternative D will then begin operating a transfer station, in which the annual operational on-site mobile emissions, as well as fugitive dust emissions, will be less than those of the proposed Project. The impacts to air quality resulting from the landfill gas emissions of Alternative D would also be less than those of the proposed Project due to less waste in place when the landfill ceases to accept waste. With the operation of a transfer station, the annual off-site mobile emissions will be slightly greater than those of the proposed Project; however total operational emissions of Alternative D are less than those of the proposed Project and are less than significant (see Table 6-26). Operational and Construction Emissions Summary Annual project emissions in some years of landfill operation increase due to construction that will occur in the same year in which operational activities are also occurring. Operational and construction activities at the facility will generate CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, ROG, and SOx emissions from on-site mobile emissions of both construction and operational equipment, off-site mobile emissions from haul vehicles, employees and construction workers, and fugitive dust from dirt handling and vehicles traveling on unpaved roadways. The incremental increase in emissions expected from Alternative D is compared with emission thresholds defined in Chapter 4.2, Section 4.2.4.2 of the 2010 DER (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), Thresholds of Significance, to determine the level of significance. The total unmitigated and mitigated emissions, including on-site mobile emissions, off-site mobile emissions, landfill gas, fugitive dust, and construction emissions that would result from Alternative D are summarized in Table 6-27 below.





Summary of Total Incremental Increase in Operational and Construction Emissions

Annual Emissions (tons/year)a Scenario (Year) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Incremental Increase of Unmitigated Emissions Alternative D Emissions (2012) c 0.28 8.00 2.64 0.00 -2.19 -0.01 Alternative D Emissions (2016)c 0.78 12.00 4.51 0.00 14.95 3.68 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold 10 10 b b 15 b


No Yes No

Incremental Increase of Mitigated Emissions Alternative D Emissions (2012) c 0.05 1.67 1.36 0.00 -2.30 -0.11 Alternative D Emissions(2016) c 0.55 5.67 3.23 0.00 3.87 1.28 SJVAPCD/Kern County Significant Emissions Threshold, tons/year 10 10 b b 15 b


No No No

a Values that are zero may be 0.00 or < 0.01. b No limits have been established for CO, SOX, or PM2.5 by either the SJVAPCD or Kern County. c Numbers may not add due to rounding by the URBEMIS for Windows 9.2.4 Model and hand calculations. In the year 2016, operation and construction occur simultaneously, thus causing emissions to exceed the significance level for NOx. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-5, detailed in Chapter 4.2, Section 4.2.4.3 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), would mitigate all criteria emissions (CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and ROG) to the fullest extent feasible. All other years would remain below a level of significance (see Table 6-26). Alternative D’s impacts to on-site air quality from the emissions of NOx and PM10 during operations-related activities and construction occurring in the same year would be less than those of the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, and less than significant after mitigation. Direct and Indirect Increase of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) Cancer risk and chronic non-cancer risk are attributable to emissions of diesel engine exhaust particulate matter from on-site travel and idling of disposal vehicles, and landfill gas. Acute non-cancer risk is attributable to emissions of landfill gas. For Alternative D, the maximum predicted cancer risk, and the maximum chronic and acute non-cancer hazard index would be less than those for the proposed Project due to the shorter lifespan, and a lesser amount of waste in place for the Taft RSLF. Since the potential maximum impacts for the proposed Project remained below the significance threshold for cancer, chronic, and acute risk, Alternative D is also not anticipated to have an



adverse effect to the City of Taft or the communities of Valley Acres, Ford City, Dustin Acres, Derby Acres and Fellows. Alternative D: Air Quality Impacts Summary With the incorporation of feasible mitigation, Alternative D would have the following levels of significance:

• Alternative D would result in short-term air quality impacts due to closure construction and construction of the transfer station. These impacts would be reduced to the extent feasible and would remain below a level of significance after mitigation.

• Alternative D would result in long-term air quality impacts due to the incremental increase in operational and related mobile source emissions for transfer station operations. These impacts would be reduced to the extent feasible and would remain below a level of significance after mitigation.

• Alternative D, in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects would result in cumulative long-term impacts to air quality. The SJVAB’s cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Alternative D short term construction and operational impacts would be less than significant after mitigation, only during the year 2016 for NOx. A qualitative analysis indicates that Alternative D would result in operational emissions similar to the baseline until the year 2013. Post 2013, when the Taft RSLF ceases to accept waste, the waste would then be hauled to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or Bena SLF, both of which are approximately 50 miles - one way. These additional vehicle miles from the transport of the waste to another facility would result in additional mobile air emissions. For this reason, the impacts to air quality from Alternative D would potentially be greater than those of the proposed Project; both are significant and unavoidable. Global Climate Change Because a transfer station would be constructed and operated, greenhouse gas related emissions from electricity imports, waste hauling, mobile equipment, and light duty vehicles, would continue for the facility. Landfill gas-derived emissions from waste already in place at the Taft RSLF would continue. When the Taft RSLF ceases to accept waste, wastes would then be collected at the transfer station, condensed, then hauled in transfer trucks to be disposed of at the Shafter-Wasco or Bena SLF, both of which are approximately 50 miles away (one-way). At the current permitted maximum 419 tons per day, and with each transfer truck having the capacity to haul approximately 20 tons each, the daily number of vehicles traveling from the transfer station to these facilities would be approximately 20 transfer trucks per day. This is in addition to those vehicles currently bringing waste into the sites.



Greenhouse gas emissions generated from the waste are assumed to be equivalent for both cases, because the generation would occur no matter where the waste was disposed. The Shafter-Wasco and Bena facilities do have a landfill gas collection control system, which would capture approximately 95 percent of the landfill gas generated from the transported waste. This collection of greenhouse gas could result in an overall decrease in total emissions compared to the Project; however a qualitative analysis indicates that the additional vehicle miles from the transport of the waste to these other facilities would result in additional greenhouse gas mobile emissions and impacts to air quality and traffic. In addition, if the waste were to be transported to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, additional indirect impacts would occur from waste that would have normally gone to the Taft RSLF, using up available capacity at the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, and resulting in the early closure of the site. This would create cascading direct, and indirect, impacts in that it would result in the waste from the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, as well as from Taft, being redirected to the Bena SLF earlier than would otherwise occur. The impacts to global climate change from Alternative D to would be greater than those of the proposed Project, and are potentially significant. Biological Resources The impacts related to biological resources would likely be less for Alternative D compared to the proposed Project. Alternative D involves the construction of a transfer station one year prior to the site reaching capacity, then constructing closure on the waste disposal area. The future location of the transfer station has not been determined, but could be constructed in the south buffer near the current gatehouse, or within the existing permitted 99.98-acre facility. This analysis assumes that the landfill and buffer areas affected by the proposed Project, and the species found in those areas, would be less impacted with Alternative D. There is potential for sensitive species to be found at the project site, but the buffer lands, which are mostly native/naturalized lands, would not serve as an area for the expansion of the landfill, or the relocation of the 30-acre soil stockpile, and would remain as habitat. As discussed in Chapter 4.4, section 4.4.3.3 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), the Kern County Waste Management Department developed a HCP in 1997, which includes measures to avoid and minimize incidental take of endangered and threatened species. While the HCP applies to the 100-acre landfill, an amendment is being prepared to include the landfill buffer lands not covered in the 1997 version. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative D would require the utilization of protocols within the existing HCP to minimize and/or avoid impacts. Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 through 4.4-5 would be implemented for Alternative D in the same manner as for the proposed Project. The impacts to biological resource impacts from Alternative D would be less than those of the proposed Project; however both are less than significant after mitigation.



Cultural Resources The impacts related to cultural resources would likely be less for Alternative D compared to the proposed Project. This analysis assumes that the potential for cultural resources to be found in the landfill and buffer areas affected by the project would be less for Alternative D. There is potential for cultural resources to be found at the project site, but the buffer lands, which would serve as the area for the expansion and relocation of the soil stockpile area, would not be disturbed under Alternative D. The future location of the transfer station has not been determined, but could be constructed in the south buffer near the current gatehouse or within the existing permitted 99.98-acre facility. This analysis assumes that the number of acres affected by closure construction, and landfill ancillary activities, will not include the expanded areas proposed by the Project, therefore would be less for Alternative D. No cultural sites were located during surveys of the project site (see Chapter 4.5, Section 4.5.2 of the 2010 DEIR – included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), and these results apply equally to Alternative D. As with the proposed Project, there is a risk that soils excavated for closure, and the construction of a transfer station, would disturb buried cultural resources. If this were to occur, Alternative C would comply with the California Heath and Safety Code section 7050.5, which states that construction must halt in the area of the discovery, the area must be protected, and consultation and treatment shall occur as prescribed by law.

To mitigate this impact, Alternative D would include Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-4, just as for the proposed Project. The impacts to cultural resource from Alternative D would be less than those of the proposed Project; however both are less than significant after mitigation. Geology and Soils The impacts related to geology and soil resources would likely be less for Alternative D compared to the proposed Project. The landfill area in Alternative D would not be expanded with an additional 37 acres of lined disposal cells. The buffer lands in Alternative D would not serve as the area for the expansion, and relocation of the soil stockpile area, and would not be disturbed. This analysis assumes that the number of acres affected by closure construction would take place on the landfill areas, and the total acres impacted for Alternative D would be less than those for the proposed Project. The final cover and slopes of the waste unit would be constructed to withstand the maximum probable earthquake per Title 27 CCR Section 20164(a) (CalRecycle, 2010a). Geologic considerations of the intermediate and final covers are usually evaluated in a Preliminary Closure Plan. Seismic stability calculations contained in the Taft Preliminary Closure Plan show that landfill slopes of 3:1 are stable and safe. Under Alternative D, less soil underlying the landfill to be closed would be impacted. To ensure that the impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant, Alternative D would ensure all on-site building and future construction would conform to



Chapter 17.08, of the Kern County Code of Building Regulations, including the seismic provisions associated with Seismic Zone 4. The impacts to geology and soils from Alternative D would be the same as for the proposed Project; both are less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials for Alternative D would be substantially the same as for the proposed Project. Under Alternative D, Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 requiring hazardous material collected during load checking activities be set aside in a hazardous waste storage locker until transported for proper disposal, would be implemented. The potential for Alternative D to generate and harbor vectors would be due to the same activities as those of the proposed Project. To mitigate this impact, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 would be implemented.

The impacts to hazards and hazardous materials from Alternative D would be the same as those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant after mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality Alternative D involves the construction of a transfer station one year prior to the current waste disposal area reaching capacity, and then constructing closure on the current waste disposal area only. There would be no vertical expansion, soil stockpile, or expansion of disposal area by constructing lined disposal cells. Closure construction and its impacts would be similar to closure impacts of the Project. The most significant influences on groundwater levels beneath the landfill appear to be from wastewater injection and infiltration operations in nearby oil fields (Geomatrix, 2002). The groundwater beneath the landfill is of very poor quality and appears to be hydraulically connected to saturated zones used for the disposal of oil field brines. For this reason, the groundwater has limited beneficial uses. Inorganic groundwater quality of the aquifer is poor due to naturally-occurring conditions and impacts from sources other than the landfill. The secondary maximum contaminant level (State and Federal drinking water standard) for total dissolved solids (TDS) is 500 mg/L. In recent years groundwater monitoring at the site has shown TDS concentrations ranging between 3,600 mg/L and 4,700 mg/L. The California State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 88-63 states that water with TDS concentrations exceeding 3,000 mg/l is not considered suitable or potentially suitable for municipal or domestic supply. There has been an impact to groundwater from the landfill which does violate the WDRs. The WDRs state that the landfill shall not cause the release of pollutants or waste constituents to groundwater. The Kern County Waste Management Department would comply with the requirements of the RWQCB to mitigate the existing groundwater



impact and any additional future groundwater impact. Following approval of an appropriate Corrective Action Program for the site, the Kern County Waste Management Department would conduct the Corrective Action Program to mitigate impacts to groundwater. To ensure that the impacts to hydrology and water quality resources would be less than significant, Alternative D would incorporate Mitigation Measures 4.4-5 and 4.8-1, the same as for the proposed Project. The impacts to hydrology and water quality from Alternative D would be equivalent to those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant after mitigation. Land Use and Planning The land use and planning impacts of Alternative D would be the same as those described for the proposed Project in Chapter 4.9 of the 2010 DEIR (included as Appendix 2 of this Recirculated DEIR), Land Use and Planning. Under this alternative, the same land use actions would take place as would with the proposed Project. The impacts to land use and planning from Alternative D would be equivalent to those of the proposed Project; both are less than significant. Mineral Resources The mineral resources impacts of Alternative D would be less than those described for the proposed Project. Alternative D would continue operations as currently permitted, and cease operations when the current disposal area reaches the permitted capacity; expected to take place in the year 2013. A transfer station would be constructed prior the cessation of waste acceptance at the site. Closure activities would then commence thereafter. Alternative D does not propose the excavation of soils for additional disposal modules; however soils may be excavated for transfer station construction and closure construction, which may allow for the potential use of aggregate from the landfill site. To ensure the impact would be less than significant, Alternative D would incorporate Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 through 4.10-3. Impacts to mineral resources from Alternative D would be less than those of the proposed Project; however both are less than significant after mitigation. Transportation and Traffic Alternative D does not propose an increase to permitted traffic. However, when the Taft RSLF ceases to accept waste, wastes would then be collected at the transfer station, condensed, then hauled in transfer trucks to be disposed of at the Shafter-Wasco RSLF or Bena SLF, both of which are located approximately 50 miles -one-way. At the current permitted maximum 419 tons per day, and with each transfer truck having the capacity to haul approximately 20 tons each, the daily number of vehicles traveling from the transfer station to the Shafter-Wasco RSLF would be approximately 20 transfer trucks per day. This would result in additional traffic traveling on State highways and County roads, resulting in a potentially significant impact.



The impacts to transportation and traffic from Alternative D would be greater than those of the proposed Project, and are potentially significant. 6.5 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration

An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for the selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are presumably feasible and therefore merit in-depth consideration, and which are infeasible. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126[f][2]). Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the Project’s objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid or substantially reduce any significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[c]). In an attempt to alleviate impacts associated with the proposed project, several alternatives were considered. The following alternatives were initially considered, but failed to meet the Project objectives or were deemed infeasible, thereby eliminating them from further consideration in this EIR. The discussion of Alternatives 6.5.3 through 6.5.6 is based on the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project Alternatives Screening Report prepared by Aspen Environmental Group (Aspen Environmental Group, 2011a). 6.5.1 Vertical Expansion to a Lesser Elevation A common alternative considered in environmental documents is a smaller project. The Kern County Waste Management Department considered a vertical expansion of the Taft RSLF to lesser elevations, but determined that the 93-foot elevation increase would have greater positive benefits. The greater elevation would increase the lifespan of the Taft RSLF by 22 years and ultimately delay the closure of the facility, as well as the compounding impacts and costs of designing and constructing a new transfer station. A greater elevation also increases the capacity of waste that can be accepted at the facility. This, in turn, 1) has the potential to increase the amount of landfill gas to a volume that may be used for a landfill gas to energy project, and 2) extends the lifespan of the facility which reduces or delays the need to transfer large amounts of waste a greater distance to another permitted disposal facility. Overall, a vertical expansion of the proposed 93 feet, rather than a lesser amount, is a more efficient use of the taxpayers’ resources and best fulfills the objectives of the Proposed Project, to provide additional capacity at the Taft RSLF for disposal of waste in a manner and location which protects public health and safety through compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 6.5.2 Development of New Disposal Facilities in Kern County Siting new waste disposal facilities is costly and time consuming, and cannot occur without environmental impacts. Furthermore, unless a suitable previously disturbed site could be found, development of a disposal facility at any alternative site could disturb approximately 100 to 300 acres of biological habitat. These totals do not include



biological habitat disturbance necessary for ancillary facilities or access roads. Visual resources, air quality, and traffic impacts would also be expected for an alternative site.

This alternative would not succeed in keeping down costs for the citizens of Kern County as the landfill would not be using an existing facility within the existing infrastructure to its maximum potential. A new landfill would be costly to build, as it would need to implement all current regulatory requirements of landfill liners, leachate control facilities, groundwater monitoring, and public access to the new site, etc. The mission of the Kern County Waste Management Department is to serve the citizens and garner their trust and support, which would include spending tax payers’ dollars in the most efficient way and keeping costs down while protecting the health and safety of the public. Siting and constructing a new facility would take many years, as a new facility would need to be sited per the siting criteria of the Kern County General Plan as well as the Integrated Waste Management Plan. This would require a General Plan Amendment and a new conditional use permit, both of which are discretionary actions that may be denied by the Board of Supervisors if controversy and incompatibility cannot be mitigated. There is no guarantee that a new landfill could be sited nearby the existing facility to serve this area. All wastes would then be trucked or driven by the public to another existing landfill, most likely the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, approximately 50 miles – one way. The increased transportation costs, increase mobile air pollution and increased traffic on State and local roads would all create new impacts. This transport distance would result in increased air quality, energy resource and traffic impacts from the increased mileage of vehicle travel. Additionally, greater greenhouse gas emissions from additional mobile emissions would be emitted into the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas emitted from the generation of landfill gas would occur wherever the waste is disposed. The air quality, energy resource, greenhouse gas and traffic impacts associated with the additional vehicle miles traveled due to this alternative would be eliminated by continuing to accept waste at the Taft RSLF. Development of a new disposal facility would result in similar or greater environmental impacts and would not meet the main proposed Project objective, to provide additional capacity at the Taft RSLF for disposal of waste in a manner and location which protects public health and safety through compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The County concluded, in its 2005 Solid Waste Infrastructure Plan, that it is in the best interest of the County to further reduce and contain the long-term liability and risk of waste disposal by proposing to site no new sanitary landfills, but rather expand existing disposal facilities only. 6.5.3 Landfill Gas Recovery This alternative would involve collecting and burning landfill gas in order to reduce methane emissions and produce energy. Under anaerobic conditions, stored solid waste generates methane that can be recovered for combustion and energy production. The amount of methane gas that is generated depends on the composition of waste, environmental conditions such as temperature and moisture, and the amount of time



since waste disposal (Young and Davies, 1992). Landfill gas can be extracted using a series of wells and a blower/flare (or vacuum) system. Once collected, gas is directed to a central point where it can be processed and treated to generate electricity or replace fossil fuels (US EPA, 2011a). Public comments on the 2010 DEIR describe landfill gas recovery at several landfills in the Los Angeles area (e.g., the Puente Hills Landfill, the Palos Verdes Landfill and the Spadra Gas-to-Energy Facility in Pomona). These landfills have much larger quantities of waste in place and/or receive greater quantities of waste daily. For example, the Puente Hills Landfill receives over 10,000 tons of waste per day (Merrill, 2008), while the Taft RSLF currently receives only 103 tons of waste per day. Supplemental firing with a fossil fuel, like natural gas, is usually needed to create stable combustion at landfills; such as the Taft RSLF, where the gas generation rates are low and the methane is diluted during its collection. Recent studies indicate that a landfill gas recovery system is not feasible at the Taft RSLF because there is an insufficient amount of methane available (Kern County Waste Management Department, 2010b). Low methane generation at the Taft RSLF site is due to the quantity and composition of the waste in place, the nature of the cover soil, and the area’s arid climate (resulting in the low moisture content of the waste). The smallest commercial systems for landfill gas recovery use microturbines; these systems require at least 100 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) to operate. The estimated landfill gas production at the Taft RSLF is not expected to reach this level. Based on modeling by the Kern County Waste Management Department in 2010, landfill gas production at Taft RSLF would never be substantial enough to reach the energy threshold for methane control established by the California Air Resources Board in California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Article 4, Subarticle 6, Sections 95460 to 95476 (effective on June 17, 2010). The US EPA does not consider the Taft RSLF a candidate site for landfill gas recovery (US EPA, 2011a). In Kern County, only the largest public landfill, the Bena Landfill (Bakersfield Metropolitan), which receives approximately 1,400 tons of waste per day, has been able to produce quantities of methane that would be suitable for energy production (GC Environmental, 2005). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District has not yet issued permits to allow landfill gas recovery at that facility. Recovering landfill gas for power generation or alternative fuel production is technically feasible technology that has been used at dozens of large landfills across the state. However, studies conducted by the Waste Management Department have found that the gas generation rate for the Taft RSLF is insufficient to support productive energy recovery (GC Environmental, 2005; Kern County Waste Management Department 2010 DEIR (Kern County Waste Management Department, 2010a), Chapter 4.3 [Global Climate Change Impact Analysis]). The need to provide a supply of supplemental fuel would add costs and reduce the feasibility of recovering the methane for economical energy production.



This alternative would provide an opportunity for reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased energy recovery from gas generated by the waste stored at the landfill. However, there would be some environmental disadvantages due to construction and installation of a landfill gas recovery system at the site. In addition, the products of landfill gas combustion and supplemental fuel firing would create some additional emissions. Since this alternative would not expand the disposal capacity, the Taft RSLF would likely be forced to stop accepting waste in 2013. The closure of the Taft RSLF in the near term could lead to increased haul distances in response to solid waste disposal demand in the West Region of the system.7 This alternative would meet project objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by controlling methane that would otherwise be emitted by decomposing solid waste at the Taft RSLF. However, it would fail to meet most of the basic project objectives for ensuring sufficient permitted disposal capacity in the County. The use of landfill gas recovery would neither expand the disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF or any other landfill in the Kern County waste management system, nor would it provide an alternate means of expanding the combined permitted disposal capacity of the County. This alternative would not minimize haul distances for waste collection in the West Region of the system because Taft RSLF would be likely to close in the near term due to permit constraints, and the nearest public disposal facility is the Shafter-Wasco RSLF, which is approximately 50 miles away. This alternative would fail to achieve most basic project objectives. However, as it does today, the Waste Management Department will continue to periodically assess the viability of implementing this alternative at all of its landfills. 6.5.4 Incineration This alternative would utilize waste incineration facilities to reduce waste volume and recover energy. Incineration uses high temperatures to convert waste into ash, flue gas, and heat. In addition to reducing waste volume, properly equipped incinerators can convert water into steam-to-fuel heating systems or generate electricity (US EPA, 2011b). Modern incinerators include scrubbers and filters that clean flue gas and reduce pollution emissions; however, incineration still produces some heavy metal and dioxin emissions and toxic fly ash that must be disposed of properly (North American Waste to Energy Conference [NAWTEC], 2010). Public comments on the 2010 DEIR note that the Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility in Modesto processes an average of 800 tons of municipal solid waste per day and produces enough electricity to supply 18,000 homes with power. However, the Stanislaus facility is one of only three incineration facilities currently operating in the State of California (NAWTEC, 2010). It was permitted in 1989 at a cost of more than 100 million dollars, including 20 million dollars of pollution control equipment. Operating

7 The separate Energy Conservation Study includes additional details on the transportation fuel use related to the Taft RSLF.



costs for the Stanislaus incineration facility are 11 million dollars per year (SRRF, 2011; Stanislaus County, 2010). There are major permitting constraints that make incineration of municipal solid waste infeasible. California’s Public Resources Code Section 44150(a) requires incineration facilities to have defined and guaranteed source of waste for disposal and requires these facilities to use front-end recycling to remove all recyclable materials prior to incineration. There are no exclusive contracts for waste delivery to the Taft RSLF; therefore, customers may take their waste to other facilities, and the facility does not have a guaranteed waste stream. Because there are no existing material recovery facilities for front-end recycling in the vicinity of the Taft RSLF, implementing incineration would involve siting, permitting, constructing and operating a new material recovery facility in addition to incineration facilities. In addition, incineration and material recovery facilities would still generate un-recyclable residues (including toxic fly ash) that would require additional end use disposal capacity. This alternative could potentially help meet project objectives related to ensuring sufficient permitted disposal capacity in the County by reducing the volume of waste disposed of at the Taft RSLF. However, there are permitting constraints that make the implementation of an incineration-based alternative infeasible. In addition, this alternative would not entirely eliminate the demand for disposal capacity since some waste would remain even after combustion. Incineration could reduce waste volume and facilitate the recovery of energy from municipal solid waste. However, incineration produces heavy metal and dioxin emissions and toxic fly ash. In addition, this alternative would require construction of incineration facilities and material recovery facilities for front-end recycling. These facilities would have additional impacts related to construction equipment, construction materials, and facility footprints. The implementation of an incineration alternative would not address disposal capacity goals as effectively as would implementation of the proposed expansion of the Taft RSLF; therefore, the Taft RSLF would have a shorter lifespan. After the Taft RSLF reaches capacity, closure of the facility could lead to increased haul distances in response to solid waste disposal demand in the West Region of the system.8 This alternative is infeasible because of permitting constraints and because of extensive cost-effectiveness and site-selection studies that would need to be completed prior to construction of new incineration and material recovery facilities. 6.5.5 Conversion Technologies There are a variety of technologies for converting municipal solid waste into liquid fuel, natural gas, or other forms of energy using heat, pressure, bacteria, or chemical processes. These technologies have been the subject of long term study by the Waste 8 The separate Energy Conservation Study includes additional details on the transportation fuel use related to the Taft RSLF.



Management Department, beginning with the adoption of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan in 1995. Additional studies in 2005 and 2009 determined that permitting constraints make conversion technologies infeasible in the near term. Conversion technologies include anaerobic digestion, thermal processing (gasification and pyrolysis), and hydrolysis. Anaerobic digestion facilities use microorganisms to convert organic waste materials to biogas and generate compostable digestate as a by-product (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2008). Gasification and pyrolysis facilities use chemical processes at high temperatures to convert organic materials into fuel or energy and inorganic materials into products such as aggregate and metals. Hydrolysis uses a chemical reaction to convert organic waste into sugars and then into highly concentrated fuel-grade ethanol (HF&H Consultants, 2009). Public comments on the 2010 DEIR note that there is a great deal of energy potential represented by organic waste that is landfilled at Taft RSLF and elsewhere in California. However, there are no commercial-scale anaerobic digester, thermal processing, or hydrolysis facilities currently operating in California (CalRecycle, 2010b; HF&H Consultants, 2009). The California Department of Recycling and Resource Recovery (CalRecycle) issued a Draft Programmatic Statewide EIR in February 2011 assessing impacts of anaerobic digestion and post-processing the gas, liquid, and/or solid digestate and residuals (CalRecycle, 2011b). Proposals for a municipal solid waste conversion facility are currently being evaluated by Santa Barbara County (County of Santa Barbara, 2010). Until the State completes the environmental review process and adopts specific regulations for permitting anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste, there is no defined process for permitting such facilities. High capital investment requirements, uncertainty in permitting, and existing regulatory constraints reduce the feasibility of conversion technologies for Kern County at the current time (HF&H Consultants, 2009). A 2006 study indicates that while anaerobic digestion of organic municipal solid waste has been implemented across Europe, operating anaerobic digesting facilities has been more costly than expected (European Commission, 2006). Implementation of conversion technologies would require the siting and construction of a front-end material recovery facility for separating organic and inorganic waste. Use of conversion technologies would also require an end use disposal facility for residual and bypass waste material. This alternative could potentially help meet project objectives related to ensuring sufficient permitted disposal capacity in the County by reducing the volume of organic waste. However, there are permitting and technological constraints that make the implementation of an anaerobic digestion-based alternative infeasible at this time. In addition, this alternative would not eliminate the demand for disposal capacity since anaerobic digestion could only be used to convert organic waste into energy. Waste conversion including anaerobic digestion could reduce waste volume and facilitate the recovery of energy from municipal solid waste. However, this alternative



would require construction of waste conversion facilities and material recovery facilities for separating organic and inorganic waste. These facilities would have additional impacts related to construction equipment, construction materials, and facility footprints. The implementation of an anaerobic digestion alternative would not meet disposal capacity objectives as effectively as increasing the disposal capacity of the existing Taft RSLF; therefore, the Taft RSLF would have a shorter lifespan. After the Taft RSLF reaches capacity, closure of the facility could lead to increased haul distances in response to solid waste disposal demand in the West Region of the system.9

This alternative is infeasible because of permitting and technological constraints and because of extensive cost-effectiveness and site-selection studies that would need to be completed prior to construction of new waste conversion and material recovery facilities. 6.5.6 Expanded Recycling This alternative would expand various programs and/or facilities designed to increase recycling and material recovery in order to reduce or offset the loss of energy represented by municipal solid waste disposal. Public comments on the 2010 DEIR suggest that the Kern County Waste Management Department should adopt material recovery programs similar to those in the “mitigated alternative” project approved in 2009 for the Redwood Landfill in Marin County. The Redwood Landfill is a privately-owned landfill that receives most of its waste from outside Marin County. Unlike the publicly-owned Kern County system, as a privately owned landfill, the Redwood Landfill has no obligation to meet all State and local policies regarding recycling and disposal of municipal solid waste. State and local recycling policies include AB 939 (1989), which sets recycling targets and the Kern County Integrated Waste Management Plan (1995). In addition, the County of Kern has adopted zoning ordinances requiring that all new commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family developments provide space for recycling material collection and pickup. The State has also adopted new California Green Building Standards (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), which require recycling a minimum of 50 percent of all construction and demolition waste (California Building Standards Commission, 2010). These public policies ensure that the Kern County waste management system of facilities provides appropriate, feasible recycling and material recovery programs. The Waste Management Department’s 2009 Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Progress Report, prepared by HF&H Consultants (based on planning by the Department and regional working groups), is included as Appendix 3 of this Recirculated DEIR and recommends:

Establishing a Countywide goal of achieving 75 percent diversion by 2020;

9 The separate Energy Conservation Study includes additional details on the transportation fuel use related to the Taft RSLF (Aspen Environmental Group, 2011b).



Adding one or more material recovery facilities to the County’s recycling processing infrastructure;

Providing residential curbside recycling within all existing universal service areas;

Offering single-stream and source-separated recycling to all businesses in the County;

Implementing pricing structures at County landfills that encourage recycling; Include expanded recycling areas at County landfills (similar to the

McFarland/Delano or Lebec Transfer Stations). The feasibility of implementing additional recycling programs in the County’s waste management system was thoroughly assessed in the 2009 Progress Report. That analysis concluded that utilizing the County’s existing recycling and diversion programs, and the implementation of specific new programs over time, would be the most efficient and cost effective means of meeting the County’s recycling goals. The County’s continued progress in implementing these programs ensures that the lifespan of the County’s landfills will be extended and maximized. This alternative would partially meet a project objective to expand recycling opportunities. However, it would not meet disposal capacity objectives as effectively as increasing the disposal capacity of the existing Taft RSLF.10 Recycling and material recovery are known and feasible technologies for reducing the demand for disposal capacity; however, this alternative would not entirely eliminate the demand for disposal capacity. This alternative would provide an opportunity for increased material recovery, which could avoid energy expended in manufacturing goods. This alternative could expand the effective disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF by diverting a larger percentage of total waste to offsite private facilities for recycling and reuse. However, there would be some environmental disadvantages if new material recovery facilities are required. The exact quantity of materials that could be efficiently and cost-effectively diverted from the waste stream is speculative; therefore, this alternative would not necessarily help ensure sufficient permitted disposal capacity in the County. Since this alternative would not meet disposal capacity goals as effectively as expanding the Taft RSLF, the Taft RSLF would have a shorter lifespan. After the Taft RSLF reaches capacity, closure of the facility could lead to increased haul distances in response to solid waste disposal demand in the West Region of the system. This alternative would fail to achieve most basic project objectives. However, as it does today, the Waste Management Department will continue to review and expand its recycling programs in compliance with applicable mandates for waste diversion, recycling, and material recovery. 10 The separate Energy Conservation Study includes additional details regarding recycling and material recovery programs currently being used by the Taft RSLF.



6.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative Under CEQA, an EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Project. Alternative A, No-Project Alternative, would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project on the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts to aesthetics and biological, cultural, and mineral resources. However, Alternative A potentially increases the impacts to air quality, global climate change, land use and planning, and transportation and traffic. In addition, CEQA Section 15126.6(e)(2) indicates that, if the “No Project” alternative is the “Environmentally Superior” Alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA, 2007). In this case, Alternative A, the “No Project” alternative, is the environmentally superior alternative, as it would not result in significant direct environmental impacts associated with air quality. However, Alternative A, the “No Project” Alternative, would create significant direct impacts in other environmental areas and would not satisfy the Project’s objectives. Alternative B, Operate under Current Permitted Conditions, Installation of a Landfill Liner per Proposed Final Fill Plan, No Vertical Expansion – followed by Final Landfill Closure Construction, is the environmentally superior alternative. As described in section 6.4.2 of this Recirculated DEIR, Alternative B would have similar, but lessened environmental impacts for the same environmental areas as the proposed Project. Air Quality is the only environmental area significant and unavoidable for the proposed Project; and while Alternative B is also significant and unavoidable, Alternative B will result in a decreased life span of operations at the Taft RSLF and will, therefore, result in a decreased duration of on-site air quality impacts. Therefore, Alternative B will reduce the long-term significant impact to air quality caused by the Taft RSLF.

Chapter 7 – Response to Comments


Chapter 7B - Response to Comments

Response to Comments This chapter has been reserved to respond to the comments received concerning this Recirculated Draft EIR. Chapter 7B – Response to Comments will be prepared and circulated at a future date as its own volume to this document.


Chapter 7 – Response to Comments


[This Space is Intentionally Left Blank]

Chapter 8 – Organizations and Persons Consulted


Chapter 8 - Organizations and Persons Consulted

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department (Lead Agency) Lorelei Oviatt, AICP .............................................................................................. Director Craig Murphy ...............................................................................................Division Chief Paul Johnson .....................................................................................Supervising Planner Matthew Hall ..................................................................................................... Planner III Kern County Environmental Health Department-Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) William O’Rullian..........................................Supervising Environmental Health Specialist Kern County Roads Department – Traffic Brian Blacklock ................................................................................................ Engineer II Insight Environmental – Air Quality Ron Hunter, R.E.A. ...................................................................................Project Director Matthew Daniel .................................................................................................. Associate SCS Engineers – Greenhouse Gas Quantification Patrick Sullivan, R.E.A., C.P.P........................................................ Senior Vice President John Henkelman.........................................................................................Staff Engineer Three Girls and a Shovel – Cultural Assessment Dorothy Fleagle............................................................................................Archaeologist Catherine Lewis Pruett.................................................................................Archaeologist Peggy B. Murphy .........................................................................................Archaeologist Geosyntec Consultants – Taft Sanitary Landfill Facility Master Plan Bertrand S. Palmer, Ph.D., P.E............................................................................Principal Jeffery Dobrowolski, P.E.................................................................................... Associate Geosyntec Consultants – Taft Sanitary Landfill 404 Jurisdictional Delineation Study Ken J. Susilo, P.E., D., WRE, CPSWQ................................................................Principal Julie Stephenson.. ............................................................................................... Scientist

Chapter 8 – Organizations and Persons Consulted


Vector Engineering, Inc. – Geotechnical Investigation Monte. A. Christie ........................................................ Registered Professional Engineer

William J. Vanherweg – Biological Resources William J. Vanherweg ...............................................................................Senior Biologist Aspen Environmental Group – Energy Resources Brewster Birdsall, P.E, QEP....................................................................Senior Associate Amy Morris, Ph.D......................................................................... Environmental Scientist

Chapter 9 – Preparers


Chapter 9 - Preparers

Lead Agency Kern County Planning and Community Development Department Lorelei Oviatt, AICP.......................................................................................Director Craig Murphy....................................................................................... Division Chief Cheryl Casdorph ....................................................................... Supervising Planner Paul Johnson ............................................................................ Supervising Planner Matt Hall ....................................................................................................Planner III Jaymie Brauer ...........................................................................................Planner III

Technical Assistance Kern County Waste Management Department Donn Fergerson ...................................................... Waste Management Supervisor Franklin Bedard..................................................... Waste Management Specialist III Katrina Slayton...................................................... Waste Management Specialist III Michael Dillenbeck .................................................. Waste Management Specialist I Ronelle Thorsen...................................................... Waste Management Specialist I Brian Klatt, P.E. – Landfill Operations ..................................... Supervising Engineer Gabriel Kidwell – Landfill Operations ......................................................Engineer III Alkan Bektur, P.E. – Hydrology/Landfill Design........................................Engineer II Eric Greenwood, P.E., P.G., C.H.G. – Geology/Hydrogeology/Groundwater Quality .......................... Supervising Engineer Bonnie Christie – Geology/Hydrogeology/Groundwater Quality ........................................... Waste Management Specialist III Timothy C. Reed, P.G. – Landfill Gas .....................................................Engineer III Herman Robbins – Landfill Closure....................... Waste Management Specialist III Robert Amaro .......................................................Engineering Technician II Christina Quiroz ................................................................ Engineering Aide III Jessica Singh ........................................................Engineering Technician I Yolanda Sanchez ...........................................................Office Services Specialist Nita Dorkin ......................................................................Office Services Technician

Chapter 9 – Preparers



Chapter 10 – References


Chapter 10 - References

10.1 Executive Summary Aspen Environmental Group. 2011. Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project Energy

Conservation Study. Prepared for Kern County Waste Management Department. March.

Association of Environmental Professionals. 2010. 2010 California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA) Statue and Guidelines. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2010_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed: March 9, 2011.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2005a. Title 14. California Code of

Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 7 EIR Process, Sections 15080 to 15097. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art7.html. Accessed: February 23, 2011. October 26.

2005b. Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 20 Definitions, Sections 15350 to 15387. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art20.html. Accessed: February 24, 2011. October 26. 2007. Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 9 Contents of Environmental Impact Reports, Sections 15120 to 15132. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art9.html. Accessed: February 23, 2011. July 24.

California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2010. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Statewide Program Environmental Report for Anaerobic Digester Facilities for the Treatment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste. April 30. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Compostables/AnaerobicDig/NOP.pdf. Accessed: February 10, 2011. 2011 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Statewide Anaerobic Digester Facilities for the Treatment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste. SCH No. 2010042100. Available: http://calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Compostables/AnaerobicDig/default.htm#EIR. Accessed: February 18, 2011.



California Public Resources Code. California Law. Available: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=prc&codebody=. Accessed: March 9, 2011.

County of Santa Barbara. 2010. Four Companies Submit Proposals to Provide Trash to Energy Conversion Technology. Available: http://www.conversiontechnologystudy.com/media/documents/CT%20Press%20Release%202010%2007%2012.pdf. Accessed: February 10, 2011.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. FEMA Issued Flood Map Item ID

06029C2650E. Available: http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/ stores/servlet/MapSearchResult?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=1&userType=G&panelIDs=06029C2650E&Type=pbp&nonprinted=&unmapped=. Accessed: October 26, 2009. September 26.

Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson Consultants. 2009. County of Kern Recycling & Solid

Waste Planning Progress Report. October 6.

GC Environmental. 2005. Landfill Gas Utilization Feasibility Report for the Bakersfield

Metropolitan (Bena) Sanitary Landfill. Geosyntec Consultants. 2009. Taft Sanitary Landfill Facility Master Plan. July, 1. Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2001. Kern County

Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program.

2004. Kern County General Plan. Adopted June 15. Bakersfield, California. Updated September 2009. Available: http//www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGP.pdf. Approved June 15.

"Kern County GIS." 2009. Available: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/

gis/mapping_disclaimer.asp. Accessed October 5, 2009. Kern County Waste Management Department. 1992. Taft Sanitary Landfill Report of

Waste Discharge. July.

1994. Non-Disposal Facility Element of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan. July 5.

1996. Siting Element and Environmental Impact Report (SCH #95102026) of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan. April 23, Revised September 2004. 1997. Kern County Waste Management Department Waste Facilities Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).



2003. Preliminary Closure/Post-closure Maintenance Plan, Taft Sanitary Landfill, Kern County, California. July 7.

2008. Report of Disposal Site Information, Taft Sanitary Landfill (SWIS # 15-AA-0061), Kern County, California. July.

2009a. Taft Sanitary Landfill Capacity Calculations as of 1-1-2009 Vertical Expansion. January.

2010a. Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Permit Revision Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009031008). Volumes 1 through 6. February. 2010b. Request for Proposal, Landfill Gas Utilization Project at Various Kern County Sanitary Landfills. January.

Merrill, L. 2008. A Closer Look at the Puente Hills MRF. MSW Management.

Available: http://www.mswmanagement.com/march-2008/puente-hills-mrf.aspx. Accessed: February 2, 2011.

North American Waste-to-Energy Conference. 2010. Energy Recovery from Municipal

Solid Waste in California: Needs and Challenges. Proceedings, May 11-13, 2010. Available: http://www.seas. columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec18/nawtec18-3568.pdf. Accessed: February 10, 2011.

Stanislaus County. 2010. A Well Planned Infrastructure System. Page 371. Available:

http://www.stancounty.com/budget/fy2010-2011/a-well-planned-infrastructure-system.pdf. Accessed: February 18, 2011.

Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility. 2011. Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility:

Waste‐to‐Energy Facility. Available: http://www.modestowte.com/index_2.html. Accessed: February 8, 2011.

Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Kern. 2010. California

Clean Energy Committee, a California nonprofit corporation (Petitioner), v. County of Kern; Kern County Board of Supervisors; and Does 1-100, inclusive (Respondents); Case No. S-1500-CV-271006 KCT; Stipulation for entry of Judgment; Judgment. October.

US Census Bureau, 2009. Population Finder. Available:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=Search&_name=bakersfield&_state=04000US06&_county=bakersfield&_cityTown=bakersfield&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph. Accessed: October 13, 2009.



US EPA. 2011a. Landfill Methane Outreach Program: Basic Information. Available: http://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-info/index.html#a02. Accessed: January 31, 2011.

2011b. Municipal Solid Waste Combustion. Available: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/combustion.htm. Accessed: January 31, 2011.

Young, A. and D. Davies. 1992. Applications of Computer Modeling to Landfill

Processes. DOE Report Number CWM 039B/92. Available: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ayoung/LF/cwm039a.pdf. Accessed: January 31, 2011.

10.2 Introduction Association of Environmental Professionals. 2010. 2010 California Environmental


California Environmental Quality Act. 2005a. Title 14. California Code of Regulations.

Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 7 EIR Process, Sections 15080 to 15097. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art7.html. Accessed: February 23, 2011. October 26.

2005b. Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 13, Review and Evaluation of EIRs and Negative Declarations, Sections 15200 to 15209. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art13.html. Accessed: March 9, 2011. October 26.

2005c. Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 20, Definitions, Sections 15350 to 15387. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art20.html. Accessed: October 26, 2009. October 26. 2005d. Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 10, Considerations in Preparing EIRs and Negative Declarations, Sections 15140 to 15154. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art10.html. Accessed: March 9, 2011. October 26.

2007. Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 9. Contents of



Environmental Impact Reports, Sections 15120 to 15132. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art9.html. Accessed: October 26, 2009. July 24.

California Public Resources Code. California Law. Available:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=prc&codebody=. Accessed: March 9, 2011.

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004a. Kern County

CEQA Implementation Document. June.

2004b. Kern County General Plan. Adopted June 15. Bakersfield, California. Updated September 2009. Available: http//www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGP.pdf. Approved June 15. 2005. Solid Waste Infrastructure Plan, A Plan for the 21st Century. January. 2008. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. September 23. http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/ALUCP092308.pdf. Accessed October 2, 2009.

2009. Kern County Zoning Ordinance, Title 19 of the Kern County Ordinance Code.

Kern County Waste Management Department. 1992. Taft Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. July. 1993. Taft Sanitary Landfill Final Environmental Impact Report, July. Approved in March.

1994. Source Reduction and Recycling Element of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan. August 30.

1996. Siting Element and Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 95102026) of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan. April 23, Revised September 2004. 1997. Kern County Waste Management Department Waste Facilities Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). 2010. Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Permit Revision Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009031008). Volumes 1 through 6. February.

Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Kern. 2010. California Clean Energy Committee, a California nonprofit corporation (Petitioner), v. County of Kern; Kern County Board of Supervisors; and Does 1-100, inclusive



(Respondents); Case No. S-1500-CV-271006 KCT; Stipulation for entry of Judgment; Judgment. October.

10.3 Project Description California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2011.

Regulations: Title 27, Environmental Protection—Division 2, Solid Waste. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/regulations/title27/default.htm. Accessed: March 10, 2011. February 8.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2005. Title 14. California Code of

Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 20 Definitions, Sections 15350 to 15387. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art20.html. Accessed: February 24, 2011. October 26.

California Public Resources Code. Section 41780-41786. Available:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=prc&group=41001-42000&file=41780-41786. Accessed: February 24, 2011.

Garcia and Associates. 2006. First Public Draft, Kern County Valley Floor Habitat

Conservation Plan; Prepared for: Kern County Planning Department. Available: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/vfhcp_dec06.pdf. Accessed: March 10, 2011. December.

Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 2002. Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model, Taft Sanitary

Landfill, Kern County, California. Geosyntec Consultants. 2009. Taft Sanitary Landfill Facility Master Plan. July, 1. Harding Lawson Associates, Engineers and Geoscientists. 1987. Monitoring Plan Solid

Waste Air Quality Assessment Test, Taft Sanitary Landfill, Kern County, CA. HLA No. 17660,020.20. July 24.

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004. Kern County General Plan. Adopted June 15. Bakersfield, California. Updated September 2009. Available: http//www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGP.pdf. Approved June 15. 2009. Kern County Zoning Ordinance, Title 19 of the Kern County Ordinance Code.

"Kern County GIS." 2009. Available: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/gis/mapping_disclaimer.asp. Accessed October 5, 2009.



Kern County Waste Management Department. 1992a. Taft Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. July.

1992b. Taft Sanitary Landfill Report of Waste Discharge. July.

1993. Taft Sanitary Landfill Final Environmental Impact Report, July. Approved in March. 1997. Kern County Waste Management Department. Waste Facilities Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). 2001. Kern County Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program. 2003. Preliminary Closure/Post-closure Maintenance Plan, Taft Sanitary Landfill, Kern County, California. July 7.

2008. Report of Disposal Site Information, Taft Sanitary Landfill (SWIS No. 15-AA-0061), Kern County, California. July.

2009a. Taft Sanitary Landfill Permit Revision Project Initial Study/Notice of Preparations. February.

2009b. Taft Sanitary Landfill Capacity Calculations as of 1-1-2009 Vertical Expansion. January.

2010. Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Permit Revision Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009031008). Volumes 1 through 6. February.

Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Kern. 2010. California Clean Energy Committee, a California nonprofit corporation (Petitioner), v. County of Kern; Kern County Board of Supervisors; and Does 1-100, inclusive (Respondents); Case No. S-1500-CV-271006 KCT; Stipulation for entry of Judgment; Judgment. October.

United State Census Bureau. Geographic Table Results. 2000.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?-geo_id=04000US06&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_GCTP15_ST7&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U. Accessed October 2, 2009.

10.4.0 Impacts of the Proposed Project EMCON Associates. 1989. Solid Waste Assessment Test Investigation Proposal, Taft

Sanitary Landfill. June.

1995. Water Quality Solid Waste Assessment Test, Taft Sanitary Landfill. June.



Geomatirx Consultants, Inc. 1998. Water Quality Protection Standard Report, Taft Sanitary Landfill, Kern County, California.

2000. Addendum to Water Quality Protection Standard Report, Taft Sanitary Landfill, Kern County, California.

2002. Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model, Taft Sanitary Landfill, Kern County, California.

2008. Evaluation Monitoring Program Work Plan, Taft Sanitary Landfill, Kern County, California.

Geosyntec Consultants 2009. Taft Sanitary Landfill Facility Master Plan. July, 1. Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004a. Kern County


2004b. Kern County General Plan. Adopted June 15. Bakersfield, California. Updated September 2009. Available: http//www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGP.pdf. Approved June 15.

Kern County Waste Management Department. 1992. Taft Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. July.

1993. Taft Sanitary Landfill Final Environmental Impact Report, July. Approved in March.

Resource Management International, Inc. (RMI). 1992. Archaeological Inventory

Survey Taft Solid Waste Landfill Site about 120 acres, North of Wasco, Kern County, California.

Three Girls and a Shovel, LLC. 2009. A Cultural Resources Assessment for 58 acres

for the Taft Sanitary Landfill Buffer, North of the City of Taft, Kern County, California.

Vanherweg, William. 2006. Taft Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project Biological

Resource Assessment.

2009a. Letter to Kern County Waste Management Department: Completion of Biological Pre-activity Survey, Northwest corner of Taft Sanitary Landfill. March 21.

2009b. Taft Sanitary Landfill Southern Buffer, 2009 Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Survey Results. September.



10.4.1 Aesthetics California Department of Transportation. 2009a. Frequently Asked Questions.

Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/faq.htm. Accessed: December 8, 2009.

2009b. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm. Accessed: October 5, 2009. Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004a. Kern County



"Kern County GIS." 2009. Available: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/gis/mapping_disclaimer.asp. Accessed October 5, 2009.

Kern County Waste Management Department. 1992. Taft Sanitary Landfill Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. July. 1993. Taft Sanitary Landfill Final Environmental Impact Report. March.

10.4.2 Air Quality Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2007. Tox FAQs for Vinyl Chloride.

Available: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts20.html. Accessed: October 5, 2009. Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA), Air Pollution Engineering Manual,

1992. California Air Resources Board (CARB) and American Lung Association of California.

2007. Recent Research Findings: Health Effects of Particular Matter and Ozone Air Pollution, November 2007.

Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/pm_ozone-fs.pdf. Accessed: October 5, 2009. California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2005a. Sulfates. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/sulf-1/sulf-1.htm. Accessed: October 6, 2009. 2005b. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/health.htm.

Accessed: October 5, 2009.



2007. Area Designations Maps/State and National. July 26. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm#state. Accessed: October 5, 2009 2008a. Air Quality Data Statistics. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ adam/cgi-bin/db2www/adamtop4b.d2w/start.

Accessed: October 5, 2009. 2008b. Summary of Adverse Impacts of Diesel Particulate Matter. Available: www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel_health_effects_summary_7-5-

05-1.pdf. Accessed: October 5, 2009.

2009. Hotspots Analysis Reporting Program. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/harp.htm. Accessed: October 5, 2009.

California Office of Environmental Heath Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the

American Lung Association. 2005. Heath Effects of Diesel Exhaust. Fierro, M. A. M.D., M. K. O’Rourke, Ph.D., and J. L. Burgess, M.D. M.P.H. 2001.

Adverse Health Effects of Exposure to Ambient Carbon Monoxide. University of Arizona, College of Public Health.

Hexter, A. and J. R. Goldsmith. 1971. Carbon Monoxide: Association of Community Air

Pollution with Mortality. Science, 172:265 – 266.

Insight Environmental Consultants. 2009. Air Quality Impact Analysis, Kern County Waste Management Department – Taft Sanitary Landfill. September.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2003. Trip Generation. 7th Edition,

Volume 2 of 3, p 268-9. Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004a. Kern County



Kinney, P. and Ozkaynak. 1991. Associations of Daily Mortality and Air Pollution in

Los Angeles County. Environmental Research, 54:99 – 120. McConnell, R., K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S. London, T. Islam, J. Gauderman, E. Avol, H.

Margolis, and J. Peters. 2002. “Asthma in Exercising Children Exposed to Ozone: A Cohort Study.” The Lanclet 359 (9304): 386-391.



Saldivia, P. H. ., Pope, C. A., Schwartz, J., Dockery, D. W., Lictenfels, A. J., Salge, J. M., Barone, I., and G. M. Bohm. 2005. Air Pollution and Mortality in Elderly People: A Time Series Study in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. 2002. Guide for Assessing

and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, Fresno, CA.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. 1993. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTEC, online database)

Available: http://www.cdc.gove/niosh/rtecs/ Accessed: October 5, 2009. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard

Assessment (USEPA/OEHHA). Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, 1991.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007a. Technology Transfer Network,

Air Toxics Website. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/. Accessed: October 5, 2009.

2007b. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/acetalde.html. Accessed: October. 5, 2009.

2007c. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/carbonte.html. Accessed: October 5, 2009.

2007d. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website. Available:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/chromium.html. Accessed: October 5, 2009.

2007e. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/dich-ben.html. Accessed: October 5, 2009.

2007f. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website. Available:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/formalde.html. Accessed: October 5, 2009. 2007g. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website. Available:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/lead.html. Accessed: October 5, 2009. 2007h. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website. Available:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/methylch.html. Accessed: October 5, 2009. 2008. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website. Available:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/benzene.html. Accessed: October 5, 2009. 2009a. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website. Available:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/butadien.html. Accessed: October 5, 2009.



2009b. Technology Transfer Network, Support Center for Regulatory

Atmospheric Modeling. Available: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_prefrec.htm#aermod. Accessed: October 5, 2009.

Valley Fever Center for Excellence. 2002. Coccidioidomycosis. Available:

http://www.vfce/arizona.edu/ Accessed: October 5, 2009. Western Regional Climate Center. 2009. Taft, California Period of Record: 7/1/1948 to

4/30/2009. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca8752. Accessed October 6, 2009.

10.4.3 Global Climate Change Banister, Amy. SWICS Perspective on Inventory Protocols: SWICS Protocol Update

and AP-42 Revisions. Available: http://www.epa.gov/landfill/conf/12th/banister.pdf. Accessed: November 6, 2009. Californian Air Resources Board. 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California: Recommended for Board Consideration.

2008. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal. Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. October 24, 2008.

California Energy Commission. 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas

Emissions and Sinks. Final Staff Report. December.

2009. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Summary [2000 – 2006]. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed October 6, 2009.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March.

2009. Indicators of Climate Change in California. Available:

http://oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/pdf/ClimateChangeIndicatorsApril2009.pdf. Accessed: November 25, 2009. April.

California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2008. Technical Advisory -

CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008.



2009. Proposed CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available: http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/ PA_CEQA_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed: November 18, 2009. October.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate Change 2001,

IPCC Third Assessment Report. Available: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/. Accessed: November 6,, 2009.

2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm. Accessed: November 6, 2009.

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004a. Kern County CEQA Implementation Document. June.


Kern County Waste Management Department. 2008. Kern County Waste Management Department Annual Report.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2009. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. November 5, 2009.

Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions. 2008. Comments on Local Government Protocol. Available: http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/progress/local-government/comments/solid_waste_industry_for_climate_solutions.pdf. Accessed: November 6, 2009.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. “Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Lifecycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks” 3rd Edition September 2006.

2009. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases

under the Clean Air Act. Available: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html. Accessed: January 14, 2010. December 18.

10.4.4 Biological Resources Bates, C. 2006. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Draft Desert Bird Conservation

Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of desert-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/desert.htm



Brown, Alex. Wildlife Biologist, July 13, 2009. Personal communication. California Native Plant Society. 1988. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular

Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Special Publication #1. Carrier, D. C. 1997a. Letter to Kern County Waste Management Department:

Monitoring Grading Work, Drainage Channel, Taft Sanitary Landfill. October 8.

1997b. Letter to Kern County Waste Management Department: Completion of Biological Pre-activity Survey, Southeast Portion, Taft Sanitary Landfill. November 1.

Coulombe, H.N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73(2):162-176.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. The National Flood Insurance

Program. Available: http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/. Accessed: August 28, 2009.

Haug, E.A., B.A Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto Cunicularia)

In the Birds of North America, No. 149. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia PA, and American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C.

Hickman, J. C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual. University of California Press,

Berkeley, CA. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural

Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Non-game Heritage Program, Sacramento, CA.




Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (Unapproved, First Draft), 2006.

Garcia and Associates. (VFHCP). Kern County Waste Management Department. 1997. Waste Facilities Habitat

Conservation Plan (HCP). Martin, D.J. 1973. Selected aspects of Burrowing Owl ecology and behaviour in central

New Mexico. Condor 75:446-456.



Resource Management International, Inc. (RMI). 1993. Revised Biological Assessment Taft Sanitary Landfill, Kern County, California. January.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened species;

notice of reclassification of 32 candidate species. Fed. Register 60:34225

1996. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant and animal taxa that are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened species; notice of review. Fed. Reg 61:7596-7613.

1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Portland, Oregon.

2008. Endangered Species Glossary.

Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/glossary.html. Accessed: December 8, 2009. January 15.

Vanherweg, William J. 1997a. Letter to Kern County Waste Management Department: Completion of Biological Pre-activity Survey, Storm Water Diversion Channel, West-side, Taft Sanitary Landfill. March 18.

1997b. Letter to Kern County Waste Management Department: Completion of Biological Pre-activity Survey, Borrow Area #3, Taft Sanitary Landfill. Dec. 15.

1999. Letter to Kern County Waste Management Department: Completion of Sensitive Species Survey, South buffer, Taft Sanitary Landfill. April 5.

2006. Taft Sanitary Landfill Expansion Project Biological Resource Assessment.

2007. Letter to Kern County Waste Management Department: Completion of Biological Pre-activity Survey, New Borrow Area and Access Road. Taft Sanitary Landfill. September 4.

2009a. Letter to Kern County Waste Management Department: Completion of Biological Pre-activity Survey, Northwest corner of Taft Sanitary Landfill. March 21.

2009b. Taft Sanitary Landfill Southern Buffer, 2009 Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Survey Results. September.

Zarn, M. 1974. Burrowing Owl, Report No. 11. Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado..

Zeiner, D.C., W. Laudenslayer Jr., K. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California's Wildlife, Vol. 2, Birds. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento.



10.4.5 Cultural Resources BioSystems Analysis. 1987. Letter to Solid Waste Management Division, Kern County

Public Works, Preliminary Assessment of Potential Paleontological Resources (“Sensitivity”) in the Vicinity of Selected Kern County Disposal Sites.




National Register of Historic Places. National Register of Historic Places Program: About Us. Available: http://www.nps.gov/nr/about.htm. Accessed: December 9, 2009.

Resource Management International, Inc. (RMI). 1992. Archaeological Inventory

Survey Taft Solid Waste Landfill Site about 120 acres, North of Wasco, Kern County, California.

Three Girls and a Shovel, LLC. 2009. A Cultural Resources Assessment for 58 acres

for the Taft Sanitary Landfill Buffer, North of the City of Taft, Kern County, California.

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2007. Geology

Links. Available: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/bakersfield/Programs/geology.html.

Accessed: December 7, 2009. October 11. U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Service. 2005. Antiquities Act of 1906.

Available: http://www.nps.gov/history/aad/TOOLS/Laws/ AntAct.htm. Accessed: December 9, 2009. November, 02. 10.4.6 Geology and Soils California Department of Conservation. 2007. California Geological Survey-Alquist-

Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/Index.aspx.

Accessed: October 26, 2009.

1997. Office of Land Conservation. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model.

EMCON Associates. 1989. Solid Waste Assessment Test Investigation Proposal, Taft

Sanitary Landfill. June.



1995. Water Quality Solid Waste Assessment Test, Taft Sanitary Landfill. June. Geomatirx Consultants, Inc. 1998. Water Quality Protection Standard Report, Taft

Sanitary Landfill, Kern County, California.




Geosyntec Consultants 2009. Taft Sanitary Landfill Facility Master Plan. July, 1. Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004a. Kern County



"Kern County GIS." 2009. Available: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/gis/ mapping_disclaimer.asp. Accessed: October 5, 2009.

Unites State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Region 9: Waste

Programs, Solid Waste Laws and Regulations. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/solid/laws.html. Accessed January 7, 2010. August 31.

10.4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2007. Local Government

Contracts. Available: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/InformationResources/local_contacts.cfm. Accessed: October 30, 2009.

California Irrigation Management Information System, Department of Water Resources.

2009. Available: http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/info.jsp. Accessed: October 28, 2009.

California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2008. History of California Solid

Waste Law, 1985-1989. Available: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Statutes/Legislation/CalHist/1985to1989.htm. Accessed: October 5, 2009.



HF&H Consultants, LLC. 2009. Handout for the March 2009 SWMAC Meeting, Kern County Recycling and Solid Waste Planning.

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2001. Kern County

Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program.

2004a. Kern County CEQA Implementation Document. June.


"Kern County GIS." 2009. Available: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/gis/

mapping_disclaimer.asp. Accessed October 5, 2009. Kern County Public Works Department. 1991. The City of Taft’s 1991 Waste

Characterization Report. Kern County Waste Management Department. 2003. Preliminary Closure/Post-closure

Maintenance Plan, Taft Sanitary Landfill, Kern County, California. July 7.

2008. Report of Disposal Site Information, Taft Sanitary Landfill (SWIS No. 15-AA-0061), Kern County, California. July.

Tchobanoglous, George. 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.

SCS Engineering. 2008. Tier 2 Sampling, Analysis and NMOC Emissions Estimate

Report. Valley Fever Center for Excellence. 2002. Coccidioidomycosis. Available:

http://www.vfce/arizona.edu/ Accessed: October 5, 2009. 10.4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. The National Flood Insurance

Program. Available: http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/ floodplain/. Accessed: August 28, 2009. Geomatirx Consultants, Inc. 1998. Water Quality Protection Standard Report, Taft

Sanitary Landfill, Kern County, California.






Geosyntec Consultants 2009a. Taft Sanitary Landfill Facility Master Plan. July, 1. 2009b. Draft Technical Memorandum: Assessment of Potential Federal and

State Jurisdicional Streambes and Wetlands: Taft Sanitary Llandfill. November. Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004a. Kern County



Kern County Waste Management Department. 1992. Taft Sanitary Landfill Draft

Environmental Impact Report, Volume 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. July. 10.4.9 Land Use and Planning Busch, Lawrence. 2009. Email to Paul Johnson, Planner 2, Kern County Planning

Department. November 3. California Department of Conservation. California Surface Mining and Reclamation

Policies and Procedures, Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands. Available: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/ smgb/Guidelines/Documents/ ClassDesig.pdf. Accessed October 13, 2009.

Kern Council of Government. 2001. Kern County Census Tracts 2000 (Interactive

Map). Available: http://www.kerncog.org/maps/Tracts/Tract.pdf. Accessed: December 1, 2009. 2004. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). August. Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004a. Kern County


2004b. Kern County General Plan. Adopted June 15. Bakersfield, California. Updated September 2009. Available: http//www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGP.pdf. Approved June 15. 2009. Kern County Zoning Ordinance, Title 19 of the Kern County Ordinance Code.




Kern County Waste Management Department. 2004. Kern County and Incorporated

Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan Siting Element, April 1996, revised September 2004.

1997. Waste Facilities Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Simpson, Diane M. Realty Specialist with the United States Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield Field Office. February 10, 2009. Personal communication.

10.4.10 Mineral Resources Busch, Lawrence. 2009. Email to Paul Johnson, Planner 2, Kern County Planning

Department. November 3. California Department of Conservation. 2009a. California Geological Survey, Special

Report 210, Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregated Materials in the Bakersfield Production-Consumption Region, Kern County, California.

2009b. California Surface Mining and Reclamation Policies and Procedures,

Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands. Available: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/Documents/ClassDesig.pdf. Accessed October 13, 2009.

Gilliam and Sons. 1982. Approved Surface Mining and Reclamation Plan. Geosyntec Consultants 2009. Taft Sanitary Landfill Facility Master Plan. July, 1. Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004. Kern County


2009. Kern County Zoning Ordinance, Title 19 of the Kern County Ordinance Code.


10.4.11 Transportation and Traffic Blacklock, Brian. 2009. County of Kern Resource Management Agency Roads

Department, Office Memorandum: 8-5.23 b. Taft Sanitary Landfill Permit Revision Project. January 14.



California Department of Transportation. 2009. Traffic Counts: Traffic Data Branch. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/index.htm#middle_column. Accessed October 7, 2009.

Florida Department of Transportation. 2007. Generalized Annual Daily Volumes for Florida’s Urbanized Areas. Available: http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:yDAIkhATfcIJ:www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/tables-051707.pdf+GENERALIZED+ANNUAL+AVERAGE+DAILY+VOLUMES+FOR+FLORIDA%E2%80%99S&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiY56aLydFibsMyhBfM1TTIdg-S1j6_Ur8VBwcr_4HKjhfxu_zbLdxd5Qg6Htkd6xJjGaCB4Ty2gu5kHe_CjOE02kBfYB-Ug_JX7u2aU3EU8E-fDPAvTJZHedHxqQvYXYwqSLiO&sig=AFQjCNGJx1zdyX3R0_KCB3jyOh_yl4FQEQ. Accessed: October 28, 2009. May 17.

Hawley, Mills, Secor Consultants. 1998. Kern County Solid Waste Facilities: Circulation Study. January.

Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004a. Kern County CEQA Implementation Document. June.

2004b. Kern County General Plan, Chapter 2, Circulation Element. Available:

http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/ pdfs/kcgp/KCGPChp2Circulation.pdf. Accessed: October 7, 2009.

"Kern County GIS." 2009. Available: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/gis/

mapping_disclaimer.asp. Accessed: October 5, 2009. Kern County Roads Department. 2009. “Traffic Counts for 2007”. Available:

http://www.co.kern.ca.us/roads/pdf/Traffic_Counts.pdf. Accessed: October 7, 2009.

10.5 Consequences of Proposed Project Implementation Aspen Environmental Group. 2011. Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project Energy

Conservation Study. Prepared for Kern County Waste Management Department. March.

Association of Environmental Professionals. 2010. 2010 California Environmental




California Air Resources Board. 2006. Emission Factors (EMFAC) model. Fuel Usage Modeling for Kern County Grand Total. EMFAC version 2.3. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm. November.

2007. Resolution 07‐19 (July 19) regarding CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 [online]: Available: info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09‐10/bill/sen/sb_0451‐0500/sb_464_bill_20090226_introduced.html. Accessed: April 21, 2010.

California Board of Equalization. 2008. Special Taxes Department Fuel Taxes Division,

June 2008. Available: http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/transportation/summary.html#fuel. Accessed: January 20, 2011.

California Building Standards Commission. 2010 California Green Building Standards

Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. Available: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/CALGreen/2010_CA_Green_Bldg.pdf. Accessed: February 24, 2011. June.

California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2006.

Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report. Available: http://www.calrecycle. ca.gov/LGCentral/Tools/mars/jurdrsta.asp. Accessed: January 20, 2011.

2010. About CalRecycle. Available: http:www.calrecycle.ca.gov/AboutUs/. Accessed: June 16, 2010. April 21. 2011. Regulations: Title 14, Natural Resources—Division 7, CIWMB, Chapter 9. Planning Guidelines and Procedures for Preparing and Revising Countywide and Regional Agency Integrated Waste Management Plans. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/regulations/title14/ch9a63.htm#ch9ca6_5. Accessed: March 9, 2011.

California Energy Commission. 2009. California Energy Commission: 2009 Integrated

Energy Policy Report. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC‐100‐2009‐003/CEC‐100‐2009‐003‐CMF.PDF. Accessed: January 14, 2010.

2010. Transportation Energy Forecasts and Analyses for the 2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC‐600‐2010‐002/CEC‐600‐2010‐002‐SF.PDF. Accessed: January 20, 2011. 2011a. Database of California Power Plants. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/index.html. Accessed: January 17, 2011.



2011b. Bioenergy Action Plan. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC‐300‐2010‐012/CEC‐300‐2010‐012‐SD.PDF. Accessed: February 10, 2011.


Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 20 Definitions, Sections 15350 to 15387. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art20.html. Accessed: February 24, 2011. October 26.

2007. Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports, Sections 15120 to 15132. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art9.html. Accessed: October 26, 2009. July 24.

California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. California Energy Commission –

Contributing Catalogs. January. Available: http://ceic.resources.ca.gov/catalog/EnergyComm/EnergyComm.html. Accessed: June 16, 2010.

California Public Resources Code. Section 41780-41786. Available:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=prc&group=41001-42000&file=41780-41786. Accessed: February 24, 2011.

Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson Consultants. 2009. County of Kern Recycling & Solid


Google Maps. 2010. Available: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl. Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004. Kern County

General Plan. Adopted June 15. Bakersfield, California. Updated September 2009. Available: http//www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGP.pdf. Approved June 15.

Kern County Waste Management Department. 2004. Kern County Integrated Waste

Management Plan: Siting Element and Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 9510206). April 23, 1996; revised September 2004. 2010a. Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Permit Revision Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009031008). Volumes 1 through 6. February.

2010b. 2009 Landfill Tonnage Report.



United States Department of Energy. 2011. Energy Efficiently & Renewable Energy. Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center. Available: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/locator/stations/. Accessed: January 20, 2011.

United States Energy Information Administration. 2011. California: State Energy

Profile. Available: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA. Accessed: January 14, 2011.

10.6 Alternatives Aspen Environmental Group. 2011a. Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project

Alternatives Screening Report. Prepared for Kern County Waste Management Department. February. 2011b. Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project Energy Conservation Study. Prepared for Kern County Waste Management Department. February.

California Building Standards Commission. 2010 California Green Building Standards

Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. Available: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/CALGreen/2010_CA_Green_Bldg.pdf. Accessed: February 24, 2011. June.


Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports, Sections 15120 to 15132. Available: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art9.html. Accessed: October 26, 2009. July 24.

California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2010a.

Regulations: Title 27, Environmental Protections—Division 2, Solid Waste, Chapter 2. Definitions. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/regulations/Title27/ch2.htm#Article2. Accessed: March 10, 2011. July 1.

2010b. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Statewide Program Environmental Report for Anaerobic Digester Facilities for the Treatment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste. April 30. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Compostables/AnaerobicDig/NOP.pdf. Accessed: February 10, 2011.



2011a. Regulations: Title 14, Natural Resources—Division 7, CIWMB, Chapter 9. Planning Guidelines and Procedures for Preparing and Revising Countywide and Regional Agency Integrated Waste Management Plans. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/regulations/title14/ch9a63.htm#ch9ca6_5. Accessed: March 9, 2011. 2011b. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Statewide Anaerobic Digester Facilities for the Treatment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste. SCH No. 2010042100. Available: http://calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Compostables/AnaerobicDig/default.htm#EIR. Accessed: February 18, 2011.

California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2008. Current Anaerobic Digestion

Technologies Used for treatment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Organics/2008011.pdf. Accessed: February 2, 2011.

California Public Resources Code. California Law. Available:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=prc&codebody=. Accessed: March 9, 2011.

County of Santa Barbara. 2010. Four Companies Submit Proposals to Provide Trash

to Energy Conversion Technology. Available: http://www.conversiontechnologystudy.com/media/documents/CT%20Press%20Release%202010%2007%2012.pdf. Accessed: February 10, 2011.

European Commission. 2006. What is the Future for Anaerobic Digestion of Solid

Waste? Science for Environment Policy. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/39na4.pdf. Accessed: February 10, 2011.

GC Environmental. 2005. Landfill Gas Utilization Feasibility Report for the Bakersfield

Metropolitan (Bena) Sanitary Landfill. Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson Consultants. 2009. County of Kern Recycling & Solid


Kern County Planning and Community Development Department. 2004. Kern County General Plan. Adopted June 15. Bakersfield, California. Updated September 2009. Available: http//www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGP.pdf. Approved June 15.

Kern County Waste Management Department. 1992. Unincorporated Kern County

Household Hazardous Waste Element of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan. August.



1994. Source Reduction and Recycling Element of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan. August 30.

1996a. Siting Element and Environmental Impact Report (SCH #95102026) of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan. April 23, Revised September 2004. 1996b. Summary Plan of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan. April 23.

2010a. Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Permit Revision Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009031008). Volumes 1 through 6. February. 2010b. Request for Proposal, Landfill Gas Utilization Project at Various Kern County Sanitary Landfills. January.

Merrill, L. 2008. A Closer Look at the Puente Hills MRF. MSW Management. Available: http://www.mswmanagement.com/march-2008/puente-hills-mrf.aspx. Accessed: February 2, 2011.

North American Waste-to-Energy Conference. 2010. Energy Recovery from Municipal

Solid Waste in California: Needs and Challenges. Proceedings, May 11-13, 2010. Available: http://www.seas. columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec18/nawtec18-3568.pdf. Accessed: February 10, 2011.

Stanislaus County. 2010. A Well Planned Infrastructure System. Page 371. Available:

http://www.stancounty.com/budget/fy2010-2011/a-well-planned-infrastructure-system.pdf. Accessed: February 18, 2011.

Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility. 2011. Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility:

Waste‐to‐Energy Facility. Available: http://www.modestowte.com/index_2.html. Accessed: February 8, 2011.

US EPA. 2011a. Landfill Methane Outreach Program: Basic Information. Available:

http://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-info/index.html#a02. Accessed: January 31, 2011.

2011b. Municipal Solid Waste Combustion. Available: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/combustion.htm. Accessed: January 31, 2011.

Young, A. and D. Davies. 1992. Applications of Computer Modeling to Landfill

Processes. DOE Report Number CWM 039B/92. Available: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ayoung/LF/cwm039a.pdf. Accessed: January 31, 2011.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project Energy Conservation Study

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project

Energy Conservation Study

Prepared for:

Kern County Waste Management Department

Prepared by:

Aspen Environmental Group

March 2011

Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project ENERGY CONSERVATION STUDY

March 23, 2011 ECS‐1 Energy Conservation Study

Energy Conservation Study

Overview of Impacts This discussion of energy use and conservation provides additional information for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) concerning the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill. It has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and CEQA Appendix F (Energy Conservation).

In order to ensure that energy implications are considered in public agency decisions, CEQA requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy (see Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3)). According to Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, the goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy including: (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption; (2) decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil; and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

This study describes the proposed Project’s impacts related to energy use and conservation. The Envi‐ronmental Setting includes an overview of energy use by the existing landfill facility and energy use in the surrounding region. This study also covers the relevant regulatory setting for energy‐related impacts. Impacts to energy resources are analyzed in relation to the following general threshold: Would the project cause inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy? Based upon the data presented in this study, the County of Kern Recycling & Solid Waste Planning Progress Report (the 2009 Progress Report), and the June 2010 staff report for the EIR, the proposed Project would not cause inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Environmental Setting The proposed expansion of the Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill (Taft RSLF) is intended to efficiently meet projected demand for recycling and landfill services. The current 35‐acre refuse limit for the landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2013. After that time, the landfill would no longer accept waste without the approval and implementation of the proposed expansion that is the subject of the EIR. Although 85 acres of the Taft RSLF site are permitted for waste disposal, CEQA approval is required for constructing a landfill liner in the remaining permitted disposal area.

The Taft RSLF serves the cities of Maricopa and Taft, and surrounding unincorporated areas. County of Kern waste facilities are prohibited from accepting refuse from outside the County by Kern County Ordinance G‐7501. The Taft RSLF is operated by a private contractor under agreement with the Kern County Waste Management Department District. The facility is a Class III Landfill as defined in Title 27 CCR Section 20260(a). Most of the waste that is disposed at the Taft RSLF is delivered via franchise garbage haulers. Individual customers and County residents can also dispose of their own waste at the facility. A gatehouse attendant is responsible for administering required fees and directing customers to the appropriate unloading areas. The Taft RSLF is part of the Kern County Waste Management Depart‐ment system of facilities. These facilities provide the essential public service of waste management for the benefit of the County.

Baseline Energy Consumption

Energy use is typically quantified using the British thermal unit (Btu) or kilowatt‐hours (kWh). One Btu represents the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one



degree Fahrenheit. The approximate amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is 123,000 Btu. In a cubic foot of natural gas there is roughly 1,000 Btu, and one kWh represents about 3,400 Btu.

Total energy consumption in California was 8,381 trillion Btu in 2008 (USEIA, 2011). Of this energy consumption, 19 percent (1,569 trillion Btu) went to residential uses, 20 percent (1,640 trillion Btu) for commercial uses, 23 percent (1,955 trillion Btu) for industrial uses, and 38 percent (3,218 trillion Btu) for transportation. Landfills and the energy used and generated by the operation of landfills are included in the industrial sector. All energy used by vehicles in solid waste collection for disposal and vehicles used for material recovery activity are included in the transportation sector.

Transportation Fuel Use

Gasoline and diesel are the dominant transportation fuels. Both gasoline and diesel fuel are produced through refining crude oil. Approximately 38 percent of the crude oil used in California is produced in‐state. The rest comes from Alaska (13.4 percent) and foreign sources (48.5 percent, primarily from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Ecuador, Brazil, and Colombia). In 2008, California’s crude oil refineries processed more than 1.8 million barrels per day. Many of the crude oil fields in Kern County have been producing oil for more than 100 years (CEC, 2010).

In 2007, over 16 billion gallons of gasoline were purchased in California (CBE, 2008). That year, demand for diesel fuel in California was over 10 million gallons per day and demand for gasoline was over 40 million gallons per day (CEC, 2009). For all of Kern County, baseline fuel consumption rates (2008) were around 985,000 gallons per day of diesel and 1.04 million gallons per day of gasoline; and fuel consump‐tion is forecasted to grow in Kern County by 2020 to about 1.36 million gallons per day of diesel and 1.40 million gallons per day of gasoline (CARB, 2006).

In the future, policies mandating increased use of renewable fuels may play a significant role in reducing the use of gasoline and diesel fuel. Between 2007 and 2030, the California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates that total annual gasoline consumption in California will fall between 8.5 and 13.3 percent from 2007 levels as a result of high fuel prices, efficiency gains, and competing fuel technologies (CEC, 2009). Alternative fuels and technologies that may lead to decreased gasoline and diesel consumption include ethanol, biodiesel, and compressed natural gas fuels and electric vehicles. Currently, the nearest compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel stations to the Taft RSLF are in Bakersfield, approximately 50 miles away (US DOE, 2011).

The Taft RSLF uses transportation fuel for on‐site operational equipment, such as compactors and earth movers. Transportation fuel is also used by customers to transport waste to the facility (disposal vehicles, off‐site), by customers while they are at the landfill (disposal vehicles, on‐site) and by employees commuting to the facility (employee vehicles, off‐site). Currently, the customers bringing waste and the landfill operational equipment at the Taft RSLF use approximately 26,700 gallons of fuel per year for operation at the baseline average daily tonnage (103 tons per day). At the maximum pro‐posed daily tonnage (800 tons per day), the customers bringing waste and the landfill operational equip‐ment at Taft RSLF would use roughly 118,120 gallons of fuel per year. Table 1 includes a breakdown of transportation energy use.



Table 1. Baseline Transportation Fuel Use for Taft RSLF and Maximum Proposed Disposal Rate

2008 Baseline Tonnage

(103 tons per day)

Annually at Maximum Proposed Tonnage

(800 tons per day)


Energy Use (MMBtu)1


Energy Use (MMBtu)1

Operations Equipment 11,500 1,600 34,860 4,840 On-Site Customer Vehicles 2,140 300 13,000 1,800 Employee Vehicles 1,720 210 1,720 210 Off-Site (On-Road) Customer Vehicles 11,340 1,570 68,540 9,510

Operations Equipment + Employee Vehicles 13,220 1,810 36,580 5,050 Subtotals Customer Vehicles 13,480 1,870 81,540 11,310

TOTAL 26,700 3,680 118,120 16,360 1: MMBtu is millions of British thermal units (Btu). There are 138,700 Btu per gallon of diesel fuel and 124,240 Btu per gallon of gasoline. For

the purposes of this analysis, we assume that employee vehicles use gasoline, but all other vehicles and equipment use diesel fuel. Conver-sion factors for gallons of fuel to Btu from ARB GHG Mandatory Reporting Regulation, December 2008.

Source: February 2010 Draft EIR, Appendix I, Attachment E (URBEMIS v. 9.2.4).

There are six landfills in the Kern County Waste Management Department system in addition to the Taft RSLF: Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Sanitary Landfill (SLF), Boron SLF, Mojave‐Rosamond SLF, Ridgecrest SLF, Shafter‐Wasco RSLF, and Tehachapi SLF. The most‐accessible public landfill to the Taft RSLF is the Shafter‐Wasco RSLF, which is a one‐way haul truck trip distance of 50 miles from the Taft RSLF, based on a route emphasizing major highways. The Bena SLF is also 50 miles from the Taft RSLF, but the trips require crossing metropolitan Bakersfield. Other solid waste management facilities in western Kern County are privately‐owned (e.g., the H.M. Holloway Landfill and the McKittrick Waste Treatment Site). Table 2 shows the distance from Taft RSLF to the other public landfills in Kern County.

Electricity Consumption

Electricity used in Kern County is generated by a mix of fossil, nuclear, and renewable sources. Users of electricity in Kern County can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels through improving energy efficiency or in some cases through generating their own electricity from renewable sources (e.g., installing solar panels). There are also utility‐scale sources of renewable energy in use and in develop‐ment in the County. California has adopted a Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requiring that 33 percent of Cali‐fornia’s power come from renewable sources by 2020. In Kern County, power plants provide about 805 megawatts (MW) of online generating capacity of wind power, 112 MW of hydroelectric power, and 4,981 MW of fossil fuel generating capacity, and there is one 58 MW biomass waste‐to‐energy facility (Delano Energy Company) (CEC, 2011b).

Table 3 shows estimated electricity consumption in Kern County. Table 4 shows the sources of the elec‐tricity that was used in California in 2008 (the most recent year for which these data are available).

Table 2. Distance to Other Kern County Landfills from Taft RSLF

Landfill

Haul Truck Trip Distance from

Taft RSLF (miles) Bena 50 Boron 118 Mojave/Rosamond 93 Ridgecrest 143 Shafter-Wasco 50 Tehachapi 74 Source: Google Maps, 2010.



Table 3. Electricity Consumption in Kern County (millions of kWh)

Sector 2006 2007 2008 2009 Non-Residential 14,252 14,896 12,995 12,127 Residential 2,042 2,095 2,180 2,182 Total 16,294 16,991 15,175 14,309 Source: CEC, 2011a.

Table 4. Electricity Generation in California in 2008 (gigawatt‐hours)

Fuel Type In-State Imported from

Northwest Imported from

Southwest Total Energy System Coal 3,977 8,581 43,271 55,829 Large Hydroelectric 21,040 9,334 3,359 33,733 Natural Gas 122,216 2,939 15,060 140,215 Nuclear 32,482 747 11,039 44,268 Renewables 28,804 2,344 1,364 35,532

Biomass 5,720 654 3 6,377 Geothermal 12,907 0 755 13,662

Small Hydroelectric 3,729 674 13 4,415 Solar 724 0 22 746 Wind 5,724 1,016 591 7,331

Source: Energy Information Agency, Energy Commission Quarterly Fuels and Energy Report Database (CEC, 2009).

Electricity is supplied to the Taft RSLF facility by PG&E and is used for lighting, heating, and cooling the gatehouse. In 2007, the Taft RSLF gatehouse used 9,714 kilowatt‐hours (kWh) of electricity; electricity usage was highest during the summer months.

Total Baseline Energy Use

Baseline overall energy use is split roughly evenly between that consumed by customers bringing the waste to Taft RSLF and that consumed by landfill operations. The electricity used at the Taft RSLF is a very small percentage of the facility’s total energy requirements. Table 5 shows an estimate total amount of energy currently used by the customers bringing waste and the landfill operations at the Taft RSLF (2008 baseline). Transportation fuel numbers are shown in more detail in Table 1. In Table 5, transportation fuel use in gallons and electricity in kWh per year are shown in comparable terms of millions of Btu per year (MMBtu/yr).



Table 5. Baseline Energy Use at Taft RSLF and Total Annual Energy Use

Transportation Fuels

(gallons) Electricity

(kWh)1 Annual Energy Use

(MMBtu)2 Percentage

of Total Transportation Fuel used by Operations + Employee Vehicles 13,220 NA 1,810 48.7%

Transportation Fuel used by Customer Vehicles 13,480 NA 1,870 50.4%

Total Transportation Fuels 26,700 3,680 99.1% Electricity for Gatehouse NA 9,714 33 0.9% Total Energy Use 26,700 9,714 3,713 100% 1: One kWh is equal to 3,412 Btu. 2: MMBtu is millions of British thermal units (Btu). There are 138,700 Btu per gallon of diesel fuel and 124,240 Btu per gallon of gasoline. For

the purposes of this analysis, we assume that employee vehicles use gasoline, but all other vehicles and equipment use diesel fuel. Conver-sion factors for gallons of fuel to Btu from ARB GHG Mandatory Reporting Regulation, December 2008.

Source: February 2010 Draft EIR, Appendix I, Attachment E (URBEMIS v. 9.2.4) and Draft EIR, Appendix G.

Recycling

All six of the Kern County landfills have designated areas for diversion of recyclable materials. In 2006 (the most recent year for which diversion data are available), the Unincorporated Kern County diversion rate was 62 percent and the diversion rate for the City of Taft was 71 percent. The 2006 diversion rates for all Kern County jurisdictions are listed in Table 6. It should be noted that these rates are not based on the diversion of total 2006 incoming waste levels. Rather these diversion rates are based on the amount of material diverted from the 1990 adjusted waste levels (based on the requirements in AB 939; AB 939 is discussed under Applicable Regulations and Policies).

As of 2007, California no longer measures diversion rates based on the AB 939 formula, but rather reports per capita disposal rates in compliance with SB 1016, the Per Capita Disposal Mea‐surement System.

At the Taft RSLF, and the other Kern County landfills, available diversion programs may change over time depending on Waste Management Department policies, changes in the existing waste stream, and demand for materials that can be reused or recycled. These programs may include diversion of tires, white goods, scrap metal, construction and demolition materials, yard waste, wood, cathode ray tubes, electronic waste materials, used motor oil, and used oil filters.

The Taft RSLF currently provides the following recycling programs:

1. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris. The Taft RSLF operates recycling programs that handle wood, concrete and other inert materials, metals, and cardboard. The facility offers a 50 percent discounted disposal price to contractors who separate their materials into the listed components. Any pure loads of concrete or asphalt pavement are accepted at the nominal fee of $5/ton and used for onsite all‐weather road and dumping pads. Concrete and asphalt pavement debris is directly applied rather than processed first by a concrete grinder. Other C&D materials are diverted from

Table 6. Diversion Rates for Kern County Jurisdictions in 2006

Jurisdiction Diversion Rate % Arvin No Rate Bakersfield 57 California City 37 Delano 59 Kern-Unincorporated 62 Maricopa 68 McFarland 53 Ridgecrest No Rate Shafter 86 Taft 71 Tehachapi 68 Wasco 64 Source: CalRecycle, 2006.



disposal and sent to various end uses. The County has approved an increase in the landfill disposal fee for non‐separated C&D material to encourage the public to increase their use of established C&D recyclers.

2. Tires. Nearly 100 percent of tires received at the Taft RSLF are recycled or reused. Twenty‐four per‐cent of diverted tires at Taft RSLF are used for tire‐derived fuel. Tire‐derived fuel is sent from Golden By‐Products, Inc./Scrap Tire Company in Ballico, CA (Merced County) to Air Products in Stockton, CA (San Joaquin County) for the production of steam and electricity. Golden By‐Products, Inc./Scrap Tire Company also produces crumb rubber of varying sizes for use as loose fill playground or landscape cover, rubberized athletic turf, rubberized asphalt concrete applications, and molded rubber prod‐ucts. Tires are also used on‐site to secure tarps, which are used for alternative daily cover. Only a small number of tires that are commingled in packer or roll‐off loads and are too difficult to extract are landfilled, as allowed by state regulations.

3. Used Oil/Oil Filters. Used oil is sent DeMenno/Kerdoon in Compton, CA (Los Angeles County) where it is recycled into lube oil or used as bunker fuel. Used oil filters are sent to AJS Filter Processing, Inc., located in Hacienda Heights, CA, (Los Angeles County) where they are recycled into rebar.

4. Biomass. Approximately 50 percent of biomass material collected at the Taft RSLF is used onsite in the form of wood chips applied as slope stabilization and erosion control. The other 50 percent is sent to Porterville, CA (Tulare County) where it is processed in a biomass conversion plant for the generation of electricity. Countywide, 88 percent of collected biomass is marketed for co‐generation of electricity.

5. Resource Recovery Park. The Waste Management Department has implemented this program at the Taft RSLF to increase the level of self haul waste recovery. As part of this program, a full time staff member educates self haulers and encourages them to participate in the facility’s recycling programs. The Waste Management Department expects to increase the diversion rate of self haulers’ waste stream from 11 percent to 20 percent within two years. The Waste Management Department is current evaluating the feasibility of placing recycling bins in an accessible location so that self haul customers could drop off recyclable materials before they are required to pay for disposal of their remaining waste at the scale house.

6. Scrap Metal and Appliances. Scrap metal and appliances are marketed and transported to Golden State Metals in Bakersfield. Most scrap material is eventually shipped to Los Angeles or Long Beach.

Existing diversion programs are described in greater detail in Section 3.5.10 (Project Description, Waste Handling) in the EIR.

Applicable Regulations and Policies

Federal and California Clean Air Act. The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and its amendments of 1977. The US EPA and California Air Resources Board (CARB) are jointly responsible for the control of vehicle emission sources. The State regulates diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutant emissions from in‐use off‐road diesel‐fueled vehicles (CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449). This regulation pro‐vides target emission rates for equipment fleets, which are reduced over time (CARB, 2007).

Federal and State Fuel Standards. California’s AB 1007 (Pavley, Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005), AB 118 (Nunez, Chapter 750, Statutes of 2007), AB 1493 (Pavley, Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002), California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LC FS), and the federal Energy Independence and Security Act’s revisions to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) set policies and standards intended to change vehicle and fuel



technologies and accelerate demand for low carbon fuels. RFS2 requires refiners, importers, and blenders to achieve minimum levels of renewable fuel use through blending or purchasing of Renewable Identification Number credits from other market participants. In addition, the California Alternatives Fuel Plan outlines targets for the use of alternative and renewable fuels in California, and the California Bioenergy Action Plan sets targets for accelerating in‐state production of biofuels.

State CEQA Guidelines. On December 31, 2009, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted certain amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines to change how public agencies review the environ‐mental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and energy use. These amendments, which were approved by the Office of Administrative Law on February 16, 2010, became effective on March 18, 2010, and became mandatory for most public agencies approximately 120 days later (see CEQA Guide‐lines, § 15007, subd. (d)(2)). The topic of GHG is addressed in Section 4.3 (Global Climate Change) of the February 2010 Draft EIR.

California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24. New buildings in California are required to conform to energy conservation standards specified in Title 24 of the CCR. The standards establish “energy budgets” for different types of residential and non‐residential buildings, with which all new buildings must com‐ply. The State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the CCR regulate energy con‐sumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Local building permits and approval processes require all new buildings to meet Title 24 standards. Title 24’s Green Building Standards require a minimum of 50 percent recycling of all construction and demolition waste from new construction.

California Renewable Energy Programs. In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) through Senate Bill 1038 (Sher, 2002), with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy procured by investor‐owned utilities in the State's electricity mix to 20 percent by 2017. In November 2008, the Governor signed Executive Order S‐14‐08 requiring that California utilities reach the 33 percent renewable electricity goal by 2020. The AB32 Scoping Plan of 2008 includes the 33 per‐cent RPS requirement, and the CARB adopted Resolution 10‐23 on September 23, 2010 for the Renew‐able Electricity Standard (RES) as required by Executive Order S‐21‐09 (17 CCR Sections 97000 to 97012).

California Bioenergy Action Plan. The first Bioenergy Action Plan for California was published by the Cal‐ifornia Energy Commission (CEC) in July 2006. The Bioenergy Action Plan: Progress to Plan was published in 2009, and the CEC is currently completing the 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan. The 2011 Plan is intended to: (1) Address siting, permitting, and regulatory barriers to increased bioenergy and biofuels produc‐tion; (2) Facilitate the ability of project developers to obtain project financing and identify funding opportunities; (3) Continue research and development of low‐emission bioenergy technologies and develop policy mechanisms that accurately account for GHG benefits associated with each technology; (4) Increase the availability of affordable biomass products collected through sustainable practices; (5) Develop new and revised policies necessary for meeting bioenergy and biofuel goals.

The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan will identify actions that state agencies will take to implement Executive Order S‐06‐06. This Executive Order commits California to generating 20 percent of the state’s renew‐able energy from biopower (biomass to electricity) by 2010 and 2020, and producing 20 percent of its biofuels (biomass‐based transportation fuels) within the state by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 per‐cent by 2050.

California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939, 1989). AB 939 required California cities and counties to divert 25 percent of their solid waste streams by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000 (Public Resources Code Section 41780). AB 939 requires each jurisdiction to develop an Integrated Waste Man‐agement Plan. Since 1989, Kern County has worked with public and private organizations to implement



a variety of programs addressing waste concerns including: drop‐off recycling, voluntary curbside recy‐cling, and commercial waste recycling; household hazardous waste recycling; electronic waste recycling; green waste recycling; construction and demolition recycling programs.

California Bottle Bill (AB 2020, 1987). AB 2020 was enacted in 1987 as litter prevention legislation. At present, the minimum refund value established for each type of eligible beverage container is 5 cents for each container under 24 ounces and 10 cents for each container 24 ounces or greater.

Recycled Newsprint Act (AB 1305). Passed in 1989, AB 1305 requires major newsprint consumers, such as newspapers, to use 25 percent recycled newsprint, and 50 percent by the year 2000. Currently, at least 50 percent of the newsprint used by printers and publishers in California must contain a minimum of 40 percent post‐ consumer paper fiber.

E‐Waste Recycling Act (SB 20, 2003). SB 20 was signed in September of 2003 and it establishes a system to recycle computers, TVs, and other video display devices (known as Electronic Waste) when they reach their end‐of‐life. Fees are collected from consumers at point of purchase to fund recycling programs.

Cell Phone Recycling (AB 2901). AB 2901 was signed into law on September 29, 2004. It requires all cell phone retailers to take back used cell phones for recycling at no charge to the customer.

California Universal Waste Law (2006). This legislation went into effect in February 2006. Universal wastes are hazardous wastes generated by a wide variety of sources. Examples of these wastes are batteries, fluorescent tubes, and some electronic devices, that contain mercury, lead, cadmium, copper and other substances hazardous to humans and the environment. Universal waste cannot be thrown away in solid waste landfills. Recycling requirements are less stringent than those of other hazardous wastes to encourage recycling and recovery of valuable metals.

Plastic Bag Recycling (AB 2449, 2007). This law went into effect in July 2007. It requires all California grocery stores to take back and recycle plastic grocery bags. The bill also requires retailers to provide consumers with a bag reuse opportunity by providing reusable bags which can be purchased and used in lieu of disposable ones.

Kern County Integrated Waste Management Plan (1995). The County of Kern adopted this plan in com‐pliance with AB 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act. The plan includes a summary of the County’s waste management problems and an overview of the steps that local agencies will take to meet the purposes of the law. The plan includes Source Reduction and Recycling Elements and House‐hold Hazardous Waste Elements for each jurisdiction.

Kern County General Plan, Energy Element. The Energy Element of the Kern County General Plan (KCGP, 2007) focuses on maintaining and expanding the County’s role in energy production and on balancing energy production with the other priorities such as conservation of biological resources. The Energy Ele‐ment also states that the County “should encourage the development of renewable energy industries to diversify the energy economy in Kern County.” Note that the KCGP policy to encourage methane fer‐mentation projects addresses dairy lagoons, not solid waste facilities.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following section analyzes the impacts of the proposed Project on energy resources.



Best Management Practices

The proposed Project would expand the existing Taft RSLF and allow the facility to continue accepting waste and recyclable materials. The Taft RSLF currently utilizes a number of practices to increase diversion of solid waste and manage solid waste disposal efficiently. In addition, the facility employs the following best management practices to reduce consumption of electricity and fuel.

Waste is accepted during daylight hours, which reduces the need to use electricity for nighttime lighting of the facility. Electricity is only used for lighting, heating, and cooling the Taft RSLF Gatehouse.

All of the off‐road diesel equipment used at the Taft RSLF is in compliance with the federal Tier II standards or the California Air Resources Board’s off‐road diesel vehicle regulations. Equipment meets whichever standard is higher.

Energy Impacts of Transporting Waste

The proposed Project would increase the disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF, allowing it to postpone clo‐sure. It would otherwise be expected to reach capacity in 2013. The Waste Management Department expects disposal demand in the West Region of the County waste management system to grow slightly by 2020, and disposal demand in the region of the Taft RSLF would not be more than 5 to 10 percent of the County total demand (2009 Progress Report). By extending the useful life of the Taft RSLF, the pro‐posed Project would provide a local destination for disposal in the western portion of the county. This would save transportation fuel use that would otherwise be required to export waste from the West Region to a landfill farther from southwest Kern County. The nearest permitted facility to which waste could be sent after the Taft RSLF reaches capacity is the Shafter‐Wasco RSLF (see Table 2). If the Taft RSLF reaches capacity, transporting waste to the Shafter‐Wasco RSLF could require 72,514 gallons of diesel fuel per year (at projected maximum average daily disposal rate of 282 tons per day). At 72,514 gallons per year, 4,423,371 gallons of fuel would be required over the lifespan of the proposed Project (see Table 7).

The analysis in Table 7 incorporates the following assumptions:

The amount of fuel required for equipment at the disposal site would be the same at either the Taft RSLF or the Shafter‐Wasco RSLF because similar equipment would be used at either location.

One‐way haul truck trip travel distance between the Taft RSLF to Shafter‐Wasco RSLF is 50 miles and transfer vehicles have an average fuel economy of 7 miles per gallon. Each transfer vehicle can carry 20 tons of waste.

Maximum average daily disposal rate for life of proposed Project would be 282 tons per day,1 360 days per year. The total lifespan of the Taft RSLF with the proposed Project would be extended to 2074 at this forecasted disposal demand rate.

1 The disposal rate estimate is based on analysis by the Waste Management Department. The Department used

the linear regression increment from 1995‐2008 to project waste disposal growth from 2011 and beyond.



Table 7. Fuel Requirements for Transfer of Waste to Alternate Landfill from Taft RSLF

Proposed

Project Alternative

A – No Project Alternative

B – Liner Only

Alternative C – Taft RSLF Closure

Alternative D – Transfer of Waste

Taft RSLF would operate until 2074 2013 2062 2013 2013 Years remaining (at 282 tons per day)

63 2 51 2 2

Years of waste transfer to alternate landfill compared to proposed Project

0 61 12 61 61

Increase in fuel required for waste transfer to alternate landfill (gallons of fuel) Fuel for Waste Transport, per year (at 282 tons per day)

0 72,514 72,514 72,514 72,514

Fuel for Waste Transport, total over life of proposed Project

0 4,423,371 870,171 4,423,371 4,423,371

Source: Kern County Planning & Community Development Department, 2010.

Energy Generation from Municipal Waste

Energy resources may be recovered from a municipal waste stream through:2

Landfill gas recovery, which collects and uses the methane in landfill gas;

Incineration or direct burn conversion of waste;

Digestion or other conversion of waste to produce gas to burn; or

Expanded recycling, which diverts materials from landfills in order to avoid or reduce the expenditure of energy required by procuring and processing raw materials.

According to the EPA, municipal solid waste has a theoretical energy value of 0.535 megawatts per ton (US EPA, 2011a). Based on this estimate, the potential energy that could be generated from the waste stream at the Taft RSLF would be 55.1 megawatts for the current waste stream (103 tons per day) and 423 megawatts for the facility’s maximum of 800 tons per day. However, the actual amount of energy that could be produced would likely be much less. For example, the Waste‐to‐Energy plant for the Stan‐islaus Resource Recovery Facility, receives over 600 tons of waste per day, but only produces 22.5 mega‐watts of electrical power (SRRF, 2011). Because of the “dry entombment” conditions at the Taft RSLF, the energy potential of waste in place is not permanently lost. Energy may be recoverable in the future when technological and regulatory obstacles have been reduced or eliminated.

Landfill Gas Recovery. Recent studies indicate that a landfill gas recovery system is not feasible at the Taft RSLF because there is an insufficient amount of methane available. Only Kern County’s largest landfill, the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) SLF, which receives approximately 1,400 tons of waste per day has been able to produce quantities of methane that are suitable for energy production (GC Envi‐ronmental, 2005). Based on modeling by the Kern County Waste Management Department (2010) landfill gas generation at Taft RSLF would never be substantial enough to reach the minimum collection threshold for methane control (3.0 million Btu/hr recovered) established by the California Air Resources Board in California Code of Regulations Title 17, Article 4, Subarticle 6, Sections 95460 to 95476 (effective on June 17, 2010). (See also the February 2010 Taft RSLF Draft EIR, Chapter 4.3 [Global Climate

2 These technologies are described in more detail in the separate Alternatives Screening Report.



Change Impact Analysis].) Low methane generation at the Taft RSLF site is due largely to the area’s arid climate, resulting in the low moisture content of the waste. The US EPA does not consider the Taft RSLF a candidate site for landfill gas recovery (US EPA, 2011b).

Incineration of Waste. There are major permitting constraints that make incineration of municipal solid waste infeasible. Public Resources Code Section 44150(a) requires incineration facilities to have defined and guaranteed source of waste for disposal and requires these facilities to use front‐end recycling to remove all recyclable materials prior to incineration. There are no exclusive contracts for waste delivery to the Taft RSLF; therefore, customers may take their waste to other facilities. Because there are no existing material recovery facilities for front‐end recycling in the vicinity of the Taft RSLF, implementing incineration would involve siting, permitting, constructing and operating a new material recovery facility in addition to incineration facilities. Incineration would also require an end use disposal facility for residual ash and bypass waste material.

Conversion Technologies. Municipal solid waste conversion technologies have been the subject of long term study by the Waste Management Department, beginning with the adoption of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan in 1995. Additional studies in 2005 and 2009 determined that permitting uncertainties make conversion technologies infeasible in the near term. Conversion technologies include anaerobic digestion, gasification and pyrolysis, and hydrolysis. At the current time, high capital investment requirements, permitting constraints, and existing regulatory issues make these options infeasible (2009 Progress Report). Implementation of conversion technologies would require construction of a new front‐end material recovery facility in order to facilitate separation of organic and inorganic waste. Use of conversion technologies would also require an end use disposal facility for residual and bypass waste material. There are currently no commercial‐scale conversion facili‐ties for municipal solid waste in California (CalRecycle, 2010; CalRecycle, 2011; Kern County Waste Man‐agement Department, 2009).

Additional Recycling. The amount of energy used for recycling depends on the materials recycled and the processes used to recycle them.3 The Waste Management Department currently uses the US EPA Waste and Recycling Model (WARM) to calculate the upstream and downstream impacts of its recycling programs. However, this model is limited by available data. Once CalRecycle develops its comprehensive Waste and Recycling Life Cycle Analysis tool, the Waste Management Department may be able to generate better information regarding the short and long term impacts of its recycling programs. The County’s Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Progress Report (Kern County Waste Management, 2009) concluded that utilizing the County’s existing recycling and diversion programs and the implementation of specific new programs would be the most efficient and cost effective means of meeting the County’s recycling goals.

Impact Analysis

CEQA requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects (see Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3)). Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines specifically requires consideration of any potentially significant energy implications of a project in an EIR and directs lead agencies to adhere to the goal of conserving energy, through the following means: (1) Decreasing

3 The value of recyclable materials has declined as a result of the downturn in the global economy (Richtel and

Galbraith, 2008). Shipping and processing these materials (which may be done overseas) can also require sub‐stantial energy resources.



overall per capita energy consumption; (2) Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

For this analysis, impacts would be considered potentially significant if the proposed Project would cause inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

This analysis addresses the following potential energy‐related impacts outlined in CEQA Appendix F:

1. Would the project result in substantial energy requirements or significant energy use ineffi‐ciencies for any stage of construction, operation and/or maintenance?

2. Would the project cause a significant adverse effect on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity?

3. Would the project cause a significant adverse effect on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy?

4. Would the project comply with existing energy standards?

5. Would the project cause a significant adverse effect on energy resources?

6. Would the project result in significant adverse effects related to transportation energy use?

The first four of these impacts would not be affected by the proposed Project. As such, these topics are described only briefly below. The remaining two impacts, regarding the effect on energy resources and transportation energy use, relate more broadly to the potential effects of the proposed Project. These impacts are discussed in more detail in Impact ECS‐1 and Impact ECS‐2.

Substantial energy requirements or adverse efficiencies. Expansion of the Taft RSLF would not result in substantial energy requirements or adverse energy use efficiencies. A certain amount of energy use would be necessary to implement the proposed Project, and the project may influence the energy intensiveness of providing disposal services. The discussion on whether the project would adversely affect the efficiency of energy use is included as part of the discussion on energy resources required for construction, operation, and maintenance in Impact ECS‐1.

Effects on local and regional energy supplies. Expansion of the Taft RSLF would not place a notable demand that could cause adverse effects on local and regional energy supplies or trigger requirements for additional capacity of energy supplies. The energy requirements of the proposed Project are described under Impact ECS‐1 and Impact ECS‐2. Consequently, the issue of local and regional energy supplies is not discussed further.

Effects on peak and base period demand. The peak and base period demands for electricity would not be affected by the project because of its very limited requirements for electricity and other forms of energy. Impacts related to energy demand are addressed in Impact ECS‐1 and Impact ECS‐2. Conse‐quently, the issue of peak and base period demands is not discussed further.

Compliance with existing energy standards. The proposed expansion of the Taft RSLF would be required to comply with all relevant local, state, and federal energy standards. Equipment used for landfill opera‐tions, maintenance, and construction are identified and discussed in the Taft RSLF EIR (Chapter 4.2 [Air Quality]). This equipment would meet all relevant regulatory requirements. Consequently, the issue of energy standards is not discussed further.



Impact ECS‐1: Cause an adverse effect on energy resources because of inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use

The proposed Project would expand the disposal capacity at the Taft RSLF, allowing it to continue to serve the existing and projected demand for waste disposal in Kern County, and specifically the West Region of the waste management system. By allowing for expanded capacity and extending the lifespan of the existing Taft RSLF, the proposed Project would not change the production of solid waste, the demand for waste disposal services, the efforts for expanding material recovery and recycling in Kern County, or the demand for energy resources by customers transporting waste.

The Kern County Waste Management Department is not currently planning to implement any of the energy recovery strategies outlined in the Energy Recovery from Municipal Waste section of this report because of environmental, regulatory, and technological factors that currently make these options infeasible.4 However, these strategies may be available in the future if these factors change. The pro‐posed Project would not create incentives or disincentives for existing and future diversion, recycling, composting, and energy recovery programs. An expanded Taft RSLF would play an important role in main‐taining centralized, economically feasible programs for these disposal services within the integrated waste management system.

The energy required by on‐site operational equipment to dispose of solid waste or divert waste would be approximately the same with or without the implementation of the proposed Project. Energy used under baseline conditions today for solid waste disposal services or diversion would continue to be used at Taft RSLF or an alternative landfill after Taft RSLF reaches capacity.

Construction activities for the new landfill liner would rely on widely‐available existing energy resources (namely transportation fuels). The equipment that would be used for construction of the landfill liner is outlined in Chapter 4.2 (Air Quality) in the Taft RSLF EIR, and use of this equipment and the associated energy resources would be needed to efficiently complete construction. The construction of additional areas of landfill liner would be required in order to expand the disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF. The RSLF is divided into waste disposal modules. One unlined area, Module 1, is currently accept‐ing waste. Modules 2, 3, and 4 would need to be lined before accepting waste. Excavation and con‐struction for the expansion of the landfill liner would be completed in phases designed to mini‐mize preparation and operational requirements, including double handling of soils. The energy requirements for the phases of construction for Modules 2, 3, and 4 are listed in Table 8. The exca‐vation sequencing plan is represented in Figure 3‐5 in Chapter 3 (Project Description) in the Feb‐ruary 2010 Draft EIR.

The proposed Project would not change how transportation fuels or other energy resources are used or recovered for solid waste disposal or diversion. However, by extending the life of the Taft RSLF, the pro‐posed Project could reduce the use of transportation fuel in the future. The Waste Management Depart‐

4 These issues are addressed in more detail in the separate Alternatives Screening Report.

Table 8. Estimated Energy Use for Phases of Liner Construction for Proposed Taft RSLF Expansion


Energy Use (MMBtu)

Module 2 131,600 18,250 Module 3, Phase 1 61,980 8,600 Module 3, Phase 2 61,980 8,600 Module 3, Phase 3 61,980 8,600 Module 4 146,700 20,350 Site Closure 145,520 20,180 Total 609,760 84,570 Source: February 2010 Draft EIR, Appendix I, Attachment E (URBEMIS

v. 9.2.4)



ment estimates that the proposed Project could save up to 4,423,371 gallons of fuel by preventing the need to transport waste to the Shafter‐Wasco RSLF, the nearest alternative Waste Management Depart‐ment facility. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed Project would not cause inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The expansion of the Taft RSLF would have no signifi‐cant impacts on baseline use of energy resources, and it may reduce the demand for transportation energy resources compared to a future scenario involving the near‐term closure of the Taft RSLF.

While liner construction would require roughly 600,000 gallons of fuel, as shown in Table 8, the total amount would be much smaller than the amount of fuel that would be required to transport waste to a more distant facility if the Taft RSLF were closed (shown in Table 7). This use of fuel would not represent an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Impact ECS‐2: Result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary transportation energy use

The proposed Project would expand disposal capacity at the Taft RSLF and allow the Taft RSLF to con‐tinue to serve Kern County and the West Region of the waste management system, as it does today. The rate and nature of fuel use for on‐site equipment would not be substantially affected by the proposed Project except for during the construction phases (see Table 8). Expanding disposal capacity of the Taft RSLF would not affect the day‐to‐day operations of on‐site equipment. The day‐to‐day level of on‐site equipment use fluctuates with varying demand for disposal services, and the level of demand would not be affected by the proposed Project (although it may change in response to independent forces, such as increased population growth in the West Region of the Kern County waste management system).

By extending the life of the Taft RSLF, the proposed Project would not notably change the transportation energy currently used for bringing waste to the facility. The proposed Project would allow Taft RSLF to continue to respond to the demand for disposal services, which would have the effect of maintaining vehicle travel distances as they are under baseline conditions.

In general, fuel use for on‐site equipment and waste transportation may be reduced as a result of expanded availability of alternative fuels and technologies. Gasoline and diesel are the primary fuels in use at Taft RSLF due to the lack of infrastructure for alternative fuels. At the current time, the use of alternative fuels or electric vehicles is not feasible for on‐site equipment. The Waste Management Department does not have the ability to dictate the types of vehicles used by the franchise garbage haulers and individual customers who deliver waste to the facility. In addition, the nearest compressed natural gas fuel station is 50 miles away from the Taft RSLF in Bakersfield.

As described in the Energy Impacts of Transporting Waste section of this document, there could be a substantial increase in transportation energy use in the absence of the proposed Project. The Taft RSLF is expected to reach capacity in 2013. If the facility is not expanded, the Taft RSLF would close in the near future, and waste would have to be transported to another permitted facility. The nearest per‐mitted facility is the Shafter‐Wasco RSLF (see Table 2). Kern County Waste Management estimates that transporting waste to this facility could require an additional 72,514 gallons of diesel fuel per year to serve the projected maximum average daily disposal demand (282 tons per day). Over 61 years this could represent over four million gallons of additional fuel use. (See Table 7.) Therefore, the imple‐mentation of the proposed Project could have a beneficial impact on transportation energy use when compared to a future scenario in which the Taft RSLF reaches capacity in 2013 and is closed.

As noted in Impact ECS‐1, transportation fuel would be used during constructing the landfill liner for the Taft RSLF expansion. The estimated fuel required for each phase of liner construction is included in Table 8. While liner construction would require roughly 600,000 gallons of fuel, the total amount would be



much smaller than the amount of fuel that would be required to transport waste to a more distant facility if the Taft RSLF were closed. This use of fuel would not represent an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

The implementation of the proposed Project would not cause inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary con‐sumption of transportation fuel. The proposed Project would not substantially affect on‐site fuel use for waste disposal and diversion, and it would not adversely affect how transportation fuels are used. The expansion of the Taft RSLF would have no significant impacts on baseline use of transportation fuels, and it may reduce transportation fuel use if compared to a future scenario with closure of the Taft RSLF and subsequent transportation of waste to a more distant facility.

Conclusion The proposed Project would not have significant impacts on energy resources in general or on transportation energy use in particular. The proposed Project would not notably change the amount of energy required for solid waste disposal and diversion of waste. Therefore, the proposed expansion of the Taft RSLF would not cause inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, the implementation of the proposed Project could have a beneficial impact on transportation energy use in the future because if the Taft RSLF were closed, solid waste from the West Region of the waste management system would likely be transported to a more distant facility.

Mitigation Monitoring Program A mitigation monitoring, compliance, and reporting program would not be needed for Energy Conserva‐tion because no impacts would occur.

References CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2010. Notice of Preparation of

a Draft Statewide Program Environmental Report for Anaerobic Digester Facilities for the Treatment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste. April 30.

CalRecycle. 2006. Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report. http://www. calrecycle. ca.gov/LGCentral/Tools/mars/jurdrsta.asp. Accessed January 20, 2011.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2007. Resolution 07‐19 (July 19) regarding CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 [online]: info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09‐10/bill/sen/sb_0451‐0500/sb_464_bill_20090226_introduced.html. Accessed April 21, 2010.

CARB. 2006. Emission Factors (EMFAC) model. Fuel Usage Modeling for Kern County Grand Total. EMFAC version 2.3. Model available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm. November.

CBE (California Board of Equalization). 2008. Special Taxes Department Fuel Taxes Division, June 2008. http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/transportation/summary.html#fuel. Accessed January 20, 2011.

CEC (California Energy Commission). 2011a. Electricity Consumption by County (Kern). http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed February 10, 2011.



CEC. 2011b. Database of California Power Plants. http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/index.html. Accessed January 17, 2011.

CEC. 2011c. Bioenergy Action Plan. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publica‐tions/CEC‐300‐2010‐012/CEC‐300‐2010‐012‐SD.PDF. Accessed February 10, 2011.

CEC. 2010. Transportation Energy Forecasts and Analyses for the 2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC‐600‐2010‐002/CEC‐600‐2010‐002‐SF.PDF. Accessed January 20, 2011.

CEC. 2009. California Energy Commission: 2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC‐100‐2009‐003/CEC‐100‐2009‐003‐CMF.PDF. Accessed January 14, 2010.

CEC. 2006. Bioenergy Action Plan for California. http://www.energy.ca. gov/2006publica‐tions/CEC‐600‐2006‐010/CEC‐600‐2006‐010.PDF. Accessed February 10, 2011.

GC Environmental. 2005. Landfill Gas Utilization Feasibility Report for the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Sanitary Landfill.

Kern County Planning & Community Development Department. 2010. Findings of Facts in Support of Findings Relating to Significant Environmental Impacts for Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project.

Kern County Waste Management Department. 2010. Request for Proposal, Landfill Gas Utilization Proj‐ect at Various Kern County Sanitary Landfills. January.

Kern County Waste Management Department. 2009. County of Kern Recycling & Solid Waste Planning Progress Report. Prepared by: HF&H Consultants, LLC. October 6.

Richtel, M. and K. Galbraith. 2008. Back at Junk Value, Recyclables are Piling Up. New York Times. December 7. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/business/08recycle.html. Accessed January 27, 2011.

SRRF (Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility). 2011. Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility: Waste‐to‐Energy Facility. http://www.modestowte.com/index_2.html. Accessed February 8, 2011.

US DOE (United States Department of Energy). 2011. Energy Efficiently & Renewable Energy. Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/locator/stations/. Accessed January 20, 2011.

US EIA (United States Energy Information Administration). 2011. California: State Energy Profile. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA. Accessed January 14, 2011.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2011a. Electricity from Municipal Solid Waste. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy‐and‐you/affect/municipal‐sw.html. Accessed January 19, 2011.

US EPA. 2011b. Landfill Methane Outreach Program: Energy Projects and Candidate Landfills. http://www.epa.gov/lmop/projects‐candidates/index.html. Accessed January 19, 2010.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Taft Recycling and Sanitary Landfill Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix 3

APPENDIX 3

County of Kern Recycling & Solid Waste Planning Progress Report

Date post:	17-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vonga
View:	222 times
Download:	2 times